PDA

View Full Version : Lifesaving Memos



jimnyc
05-04-2009, 08:12 AM
By David Limbaugh



I sincerely hope our justifiable anxiety over government spending and taxes will not obscure our vision in regard to other alarming threats to our liberties resulting from radical policy changes from the Obama administration, including those concerning our national security.

The administration's endless multi-continent America-bashing expeditions, its hostility to strategic missile defense, its look-the-other-way approach to the ongoing nuclear and ballistic missile advancements of rogue nations while flirting with dismantling our own, and its reported termination of assembly line production of F-22 fighters -- while China and Russia are engaged in the full-tilt manufacturing of fifth-generation fighter jets -- are representative of its new approach.

But in my view, the second-biggest outrage unfolded this week, with the administration's gratuitous decision to release internal CIA memos broadcasting our enhanced interrogation techniques against enemy combatant prisoners following the 9/11 attacks. The ultimate outrage is the administration's green light to Congress to prosecute Bush administration officials for these policies, which manifestly prevented terrorist attacks and saved American lives. If these efforts make it past the partisan fantasies of such congressional charlatans as Sen. Pat Leahy of Vermont, the slumbering public might finally awaken to the totalitarian thuggery of the leftists currently in charge of the government.

Here are just a few things to consider as we contemplate these outrages:
--The administration voluntarily surrendered and published these memos instead of objecting to their discovery by the American Civil Liberties Union, assuring us, quite unconvincingly, that President Obama wrestled deeply with the issue.

--The administration's subsequent statements betray his disingenuousness about agonizing over this decision, as he has made clear his belief that it is a false choice to say we have to decide between our safety and our values. If there was no real choice, there was no real agonizing.

--It might be a false choice all right, but it's false in the exact opposite way Obama suggests because releasing the memos clearly undermines our national security, whereas withholding them does not compromise our values -- nor does the use of the enhanced interrogation techniques they describe.

--Four former CIA chiefs -- Michael Hayden, Porter Goss, George Tenet and John Deutch -- and Obama's current CIA chief, Leon Panetta, all warned Obama not to release the documents because it could compromise intelligence operations. The director of national intelligence, Dennis Blair, admitted, "High value information came from interrogations in which those methods were used and provided a deeper understanding of the al Qaida organization that was attacking this country."

--Hillary's Clinton's insolent slander of Dick Cheney's integrity to evade the question regarding the proven effectiveness of the interrogation techniques notwithstanding, the techniques worked to save lives. Before 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was waterboarded, his only answer to interrogators inquiring about future attacks on the United States was, "Soon, you will know." Indeed, soon they did know because they waterboarded him and extracted information leading to the capture of key al-Qaida operatives and the closing down of an East Asian terrorist cell that was planning to attack Los Angeles -- the "second wave" plot.

--In releasing the memos, the administration proved it was playing politics instead of promoting our values or national security, because it deliberately redacted information in those memos detailing the success of the interrogations, information that would justify the administration's actions but the release of which would not compromise our national security. So the administration released information that will undermine our trust with foreign intelligence services, compromise our intelligence capacities in the future, and enable terrorists to train and prepare for us, but it blacked out portions solely because they would place Bush officials in a more favorable light.

--Administration officials and congressional Democrats want to prosecute Bush officials, including law professors who provided good-faith legal opinions on torture -- criminalizing policy and legal differences -- when we know Congress members themselves approved of the interrogation techniques in advance.

--Reasonable people can disagree as to whether waterboarding or other enhanced interrogation techniques constitute torture. Reasonable people can also disagree whether use of those techniques -- or even more severe techniques, which we might objectively call torture -- to save lives violates American values. It's easy for the ivory tower partisans to say "never," but I question the morality of those who would sit idly by in moral superiority while their own loved ones and others are massacred. What American value is promoted by sacrificing fellow Americans?

--Reasonable people must admit, however, that members of al-Qaida are not entitled to Geneva Conventions protections. Attorney General Eric Holder himself said in 2002 that they are not. One may reasonably say Americans should nonetheless still not engage in these interrogation practices, but they may not reasonably say that authors of legal opinions condoning the practice should be the subject of criminal retribution.

God help us all.


http://www.davidlimbaugh.com/mt/archives/2009/04/new_column_life.html#more

bullypulpit
05-04-2009, 08:55 AM
Still drinking the kool-aid, I see.

jimnyc
05-04-2009, 09:01 AM
Still drinking the kool-aid, I see.

Still giving witty one liner replies instead of addressing the FACTS, I see.

jimnyc
05-04-2009, 09:04 AM
Still drinking the kool-aid, I see.

Also, is Holder drinking Kool aid since he stated Al Qaeda doesn't get geneva convention protections?

What about the Dems who warned Obama not to release the memos as it would compromise intelligence - are they drinking too?

Were the Dems in congress who approved the actions drunk on the red stuff?

Ya'll wanted to criticize the Bush administration endlessly over this stuff, but when Dems are involved in either the same shit, or defending/authorizing it, you guys fall back on one liners instead of giving them the same criticism.

BUT, I expected nothing more and nothing less.

red states rule
05-04-2009, 09:08 AM
Change Change Change.

Obama changes his mind more than he changes his underpants.
It'll all make more sense, when Obama explains it on the Teleprompter - I mean on the TV

bullypulpit
05-05-2009, 08:47 AM
Still giving witty one liner replies instead of addressing the FACTS, I see.

Had Limbaugh presented any facts to begin with, I would have gladly addressed them. Right wing polemic has little to do with facts and nothing at all to do with reality.

red states rule
05-05-2009, 08:51 AM
Had Limbaugh presented any facts to begin with, I would have gladly addressed them. Right wing polemic has little to do with facts and nothing at all to do with reality.

and you are stuck on appeasement BP


http://www.strangepolitics.com/images/content/150527

jimnyc
05-05-2009, 09:25 AM
Had Limbaugh presented any facts to begin with, I would have gladly addressed them. Right wing polemic has little to do with facts and nothing at all to do with reality.

And yet I laid out the FACTS in my second reply to you, and again you ignore them. I asked specific questions, can you answer them? I'll type them again since you seem a little slow as of recently...


Also, is Holder drinking Kool aid since he stated Al Qaeda doesn't get geneva convention protections?

What about the Dems who warned Obama not to release the memos as it would compromise intelligence - are they drinking too?

Were the Dems in congress who approved the actions drunk on the red stuff?

jimnyc
05-05-2009, 09:30 AM
I'll take a stab at answering them since we'll NEVER get an honest answer from Dem supporters...


Also, is Holder drinking Kool aid since he stated Al Qaeda doesn't get geneva convention protections?

What about the Dems who warned Obama not to release the memos as it would compromise intelligence - are they drinking too?

Were the Dems in congress who approved the actions drunk on the red stuff?

1- Holder was absolutely correct when he stated in 2002 that terrorists aren't afforded geneva convention protection. Now he is elevated in his position with the Obama administration and the excuses will begin.

2- The Dems who warned Obama are absolutely correct that these actions compromise national intelligence - but the upper echelon of the party is more interested in their "party" than what is good for our Country.

3- The Dems approved the actions as they knew it was not going against any laws or treaties. Their decisions allowed the Bush administration to use techniques that saved lives.

Of course these answers make the Dems look like hypocrites, and that's precisely why you prefer to drop flames instead of simply answering my questions.

bullypulpit
05-05-2009, 10:35 AM
Also, is Holder drinking Kool aid since he stated Al Qaeda doesn't get geneva convention protections?

Quite likely. In failing to repudiate and renounce the Bush administration policies on rendition and illegal domestic surveillance and insisting that detainees at Bahgram Airbase are not entitled to the same Common Article 3 protections as the detainees at GITMO, he is complicit in those crimes.


What about the Dems who warned Obama not to release the memos as it would compromise intelligence - are they drinking too?

Seems likely that they've got blood on their hands that they are trying to hide. As for compromising intelligence gathering capabilities...? Seems unlikely. The techniques used by the professionals at the FBI produced a greater quantity of, and more reliable, intel than torture did, and will ever do.


Were the Dems in congress who approved the actions drunk on the red stuff?

Only four Democrats were briefed on the the techniques authorized by the Bush administration, and they were the Democratic co-chairs of the House and Senate intelligence committees. The fact that these briefings were classified in no way exonerates them. Using the veil of national security to cover up a crime IS a crime regardless of one's party affiliation or security clearance.


Ya'll wanted to criticize the Bush administration endlessly over this stuff, but when Dems are involved in either the same shit, or defending/authorizing it, you guys fall back on one liners instead of giving them the same criticism.

BUT, I expected nothing more and nothing less.

I've criticized both the Bush AND the Obama administrations on this issue, and I will continue to do so.

jimnyc
05-05-2009, 10:41 AM
I've criticized both the Bush AND the Obama administrations on this issue, and I will continue to do so.

Thank you for answering honestly, at least you are consistent in your views against both parties. I'm just tired of many dem supporters who come here and chastise one party and give the other a free pass.

We do disagree on the jist of your answers though. I do believe Holder was correct on his statements in '02 and that stands true today. I do believe Dems on the intelligence committee were aware of what was taking place, and part of the intelligence committee, they encouraged the treatment.

The bottom line is that this was bipartisan comments/support and encouragement - only later to be 100% blamed on the Bush administration - and that irritates me more than the arguments themselves.

bullypulpit
05-05-2009, 10:44 AM
Thank you for answering honestly, at least you are consistent in your views against both parties. I'm just tired of many dem supporters who come here and chastise one party and give the other a free pass.

We do disagree on the jist of your answers though. I do believe Holder was correct on his statements in '02 and that stands true today. I do believe Dems on the intelligence committee were aware of what was taking place, and part of the intelligence committee, they encouraged the treatment.

The bottom line is that this was bipartisan comments/support and encouragement - only later to be 100% blamed on the Bush administration - and that irritates me more than the arguments themselves.

It WAS, after all, the Bush administration that requested the memos provided by Yoo and Bybee in an attempt to provide legal cover for actions that violated both US and international law and US treaty obligations.

Missileman
05-05-2009, 05:27 PM
It WAS, after all, the Bush administration that requested the memos provided by Yoo and Bybee in an attempt to provide legal cover for actions that violated both US and international law and US treaty obligations.

You'd have a point if we were actually in a treaty with terrorists. IMO, we are under no obligations to them. Any humane treatment they receive is at our discretion.

And Oh, BTW...waterboarding, the "attention grasp", the "insult slap", panties on heads, etc, etc ARE NOT torture.

Mr. P
05-05-2009, 06:07 PM
You'd have a point if we were actually in a treaty with terrorists. IMO, we are under no obligations to them. Any humane treatment they receive is at our discretion.

And Oh, BTW...waterboarding, the "attention grasp", the "insult slap", panties on heads, etc, etc ARE NOT torture.

What he said!!!

bullypulpit
05-05-2009, 06:09 PM
You'd have a point if we were actually in a treaty with terrorists. IMO, we are under no obligations to them. Any humane treatment they receive is at our discretion.

And Oh, BTW...waterboarding, the "attention grasp", the "insult slap", panties on heads, etc, etc ARE NOT torture.

Actually, we are. The US is signatory to the UN Convention Against Torture...signed by Ronald Reagan himself, his signing statement stated,


The United States participated actively and effectively in the negotiation of the Convention . It marks a significant step in the development during this century of international measures against torture and other inhuman treatment or punishment. <b>Ratification of the Convention by the United States will clearly express United States opposition to torture, an abhorrent practice unfortunately still prevalent in the world today</b>.

The core provisions of the Convention establish a regime for international cooperation in the criminal prosecution of torturers relying on so-called "universal jurisdiction." Each State Party is required either to prosecute torturers who are found in its territory or to extradite them to other countries for prosecution.

Article 1, Para 1 of the UN Convention Against Torture states,


For the purposes of this Convention, torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity.

And then there's Title 18, Chapter 113C, Sec 2340 of the US Code defines torture thus,


<b>(1)</b> “torture” means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control;
<b>(2)</b> “severe mental pain or suffering” means the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from—
<b>(A)</b> the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering;
<b>(B)</b> the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality;
<b>(C)</b> the threat of imminent death; or
<b>(D)</b> the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality; and
<b>[(3)</b> “United States” means the several States of the United States, the District of Columbia, and the commonwealths, territories, and possessions of the United States.
<b>(A)</b> the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering;
<b>(B)</b> the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality;
<b>(C)</b>the threat of imminent death; or
<b>(D)</b> the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality; and
<b>(3)</b> “United States” means the several States of the United States, the District of Columbia, and the commonwealths, territories, and possessions of the United States.

As for whether or not water boarding is torture, neither your opinion nor that any of the other Bush administration apologists is relevant. It is settled case law...Water-boarding IS torture.

Missileman
05-05-2009, 06:15 PM
Actually, we are. The US is signatory to the UN Convention Against Torture...signed by Ronald Reagan himself, his signing statement stated,



Article 1, Para 1 of the UN Convention Against Torture states,



And then there's Title 18, Chapter 113C, Sec 2340 of the US Code defines torture thus,



As for whether or not water boarding is torture, neither your opinion nor that any of the other Bush administration apologists is relevant. It is settled case law...Water-boarding IS torture.

Are you suggesting that we're in a unilateral treaty? You must be, because I know for a fact you can't produce a single one endorsed by Al Qaida. Unilateral treaties exist and are viable only in the minds of simpletons.

jimnyc
05-05-2009, 06:29 PM
As for whether or not water boarding is torture, neither your opinion nor that any of the other Bush administration apologists is relevant. It is settled case law...Water-boarding IS torture.

Can you please link me up to case law where waterboarding was determined to be torture?

jimnyc
05-06-2009, 09:30 AM
As for whether or not water boarding is torture, neither your opinion nor that any of the other Bush administration apologists is relevant. It is settled case law...Water-boarding IS torture.


Can you please link me up to case law where waterboarding was determined to be torture?

Since bully seems incapable of providing me reference to case law where waterboarding has been determined to be torture, can anyone else post a link to the courts decision?