[speechlesstx]

Speaking of principles, Obama is apparently clueless when speaking about principles.

Obama praises Churchill, the man who had Prez's own grandfather tortured

President Barack Obama's grandfather, Hussein Onyango Obama, must be turning over in his grave.

Winston Churchill — the man who ordered his torture during the Kenyan war of independence — was being praised by his grandson for not using torture. What a laugh.

Obama cited Britain as a country that never resorted to torture during war during his prime-time press conference on Tuesday night.

“London was being bombed to smithereens [and] had 200 or so detainees. And Churchill said, 'We don't torture,'" Obama said. "Churchill understood, you start taking shortcuts, and over time, that corrodes what's best in a people."

Excuse me, Mr. President: Churchill did condone torture and he did use torture — and advocated using poison gas and concentration camps. And he was quite proud to do so, writing about it frequently as a means to an end.

I don’t know whose Kool-Aid Obama was drinking, but it must have been supplied by the British Embassy in bucketfuls.

It was an amazing gaffe, as there is clear evidence that Obama’s own grandfather, a member of the Mau Mau insurgency in Kenya, was tortured by the British after he was captured.

Recent accounts in the British press note that he was whipped mercilessly every day when he refused to cooperate.

It was good old Winnie, drawing on his experience in similar tactics during the Boer War, who as Prime Minister ordered the savage suppression of the Mau Mau rebellion in Kenya in 1952.

According to historians, “The ensuing torture caught up many uninvolved Kenyans, and just like many modern 'anti-terror' campaigns, radicalized them and their friends and family, too. One earlier victim of this approach was the President's grandfather.“

This was the same Churchill who drew an arbitrary line in the sand and created the state of Iraq, which has been the cause of all subsequent commotion — but not before writing in a 1919 memo that "I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes" to "spread a lively terror." The specific targets were the Kurds, in what was then Mesopotamia.

Then, of course, we come to Northern Ireland — here, torture was definitely used. Between 1971 and 1975, more than 2,000 people were interned without trial by the British in Northern Ireland.

Many faced what was euphemistically called “Interrogation in depth.” This was the infamous five techniques, many of which you will recognize from the Guantanamo / Abu Graib / CIA methods' allegations.

They include sensory deprivation though being hooded, often while naked, forced to stand against walls for over 20 hours, subjected to continuous noise for periods up to six or seven days, deprivation of food and water, and sleep deprivation for up to one week. Relays of interrogation teams had to be used lest the torturers grew fatigued.

The British media exploded in anger when allegations of torture were made against their government. They claimed, incredibly, that some of the wounds were "self-inflicted."

“One hard-line Provisional was given large whiskies and a box of cigarettes for punching himself in both eyes,” claimed the hilariously wrong Daily Telegraph on 10/31/77.

In 1978, the European Court of Human Rights called the techniques Britain used “intense physical and mental suffering and acute psychiatric disturbance,” and said it was cruel and inhuman punishment.

Amnesty International called it what it was: torture.

In his book “Provos, the IRA and Sinn Fein,” Peter Taylor noted then Prime Minister Brian Faulkner was told by the army and senior British officials that the techniques had often been used "many times before when Britain was faced with insurgencies in her colonies — Palestine, Malaya, Kenya, Cyprus, the British Cameroons, Guyana, Borneo, Malaysia, and the Persian Gulf.”

In other words, the spirit, and worse, the torture philosophy of "old Winnie" is alive and well in Britain today. In fact, the British are as far from "banning torture" as you can get.

After all, they practically invented modern torture.

What the hell was Obama thinking?

[tomder55]

or Truman, with the 2 atomic bomb drops, did not have principles either. :confused: Maybe the Obama administration can start prosecuting them :eek:

Obama admitted during the press conference that the methods employed worked and that useful intel was obtained . Then he went on to ask the broader question that Excon keeps bringing up .

Our answer to the broader question is to keep an advantage in technology. There is no need to carpet bomb or nuke when you have precision bombs... there is no need to send in hit squads when you have pilotless drones. We then can get on a pedestal and renounce the use of carpet bombing and hit squads because we have developed more efficient means to the same ends. That is why total war tactics are no longer employed.

We attempted the same level of sophistication in intel gathering ;replacing human assets with electronics and the results were a terrible intel gap. Turns out the old tried and true Humint is still the best means .

We can keep on our moral high horse as a society... but not without risks. Right now it is easy to whip up moral indignation after time has passed and the threat apparently diminshed. We'll see where the outrage is if another attack is not detected and instead effectively carried out.

[excon]

Then he went on to ask the broader question that Excon keeps bringing up .

Hello tom:

I'm sorry my questions are inconvenient... I have another inconvenient one, as well.

If saving lives is the only criteria, why don't we torture our domestic criminals? For SURE we could save lives if we did that. What?? THOSE lives aren't important??

Since the Constitution isn't a suicide pact, then why would you even care that it says you can't torture people? If you DID torture, you could, according to you, SAVE LIVES. Isn't that good??

excon

[ETWolverine]

Has anyone actually said they are for torture? Or is that an assumption that you make, and you know what they say about assuming.:)


Hey speaking of violation of principles in regard to torture I guess FDR, and his Japanese internment camps, or Truman, with the 2 atomic bomb drops, did not have principles either. :confused: Maybe the Obama administration can start prosecuting them :eek:








G&P

Don't laugh. John Stewart called Truman a war criminal a couple of days ago. It might just come to that.

[ETWolverine]

Hello tom:

I'm sorry my questions are inconvenient... I have another inconvenient one, as well.

If saving lives is the only criteria, why don't we torture our domestic criminals? For SURE we could save lives if we did that. What??? THOSE lives aren't important???

Since the Constitution isn't a suicide pact, then why would you even care that it says you can't torture people? If you DID torture, you could, according to you, SAVE LIVES. Isn't that good????

excon

Huh?

Interrogations of POWs are to prevent planned attacks from occurring. How does torturing a criminal who has already been captured prevent anything?

You seem to be comparing apples to sardines here. But then again, you have never gotten past the fact that terrorism isn't a criminal act, it's an act of war. It isn't fought by cops, it's fought by the military. They aren't tried and jailed as punishment, they are simply jailed, in terrogated and held until there is a cessation of hostilities. You have never gotten past the fact that crime and war are totally different and are fought differently. So I'm not surprised by the fact that you are making the comparison. What surprises me is the fact that such a comparison seems logical to you... the idea that if something is considered wrong in one venue or circumstance, it must be wrong in all venues or circumstances.

Elliot

[tomder55]

Like I said Ex , the moral high horse is risky . I'm not saying you don't ride it most times .But there are times when survival is the imperitive. Our leaders must make those calculations.

[excon]

Interrogations of POWs are to prevent planned attacks from occurring. How does torturing a criminal who has already been captured prevent anything?

What surprises me is the fact that such a comparison seems logical to you...

Hello El:

So, saving lives has nothing to do with stopping planned attacks. What?? You just want to save the buildings??

Dude!

"How does torturing a criminal prevent anything????" Dude! You live in NY, and you never heard of a crime family, who just MIGHT be planning future crimes - maybe even with guns??

excon

[speechlesstx]

Is this what you mean by principles?

ABC's Shame

ABC runs a report showing the names and faces of two CIA contractors who may have had a role in the waterboarding of KSM and Abu Zubaydah. The network apparently outsourced this report to a freelancer named Matthew Cole, whose record in Nexis includes just three bylines -- two stories for Salon (one of which about "how Bush administration aid to Pakistan helps fund insurgents who kill U.S. troops"), and one for the San Jose Mercury News just two days after 9/11 reporting "anxiety about a backlash" among Muslims, who assure the reporter that the attack "has nothing to do with Islam."

In other words, Cole is a left-wing partisan with questionable reporting chops. This is obvious from the quality of the story tonight. Cole repeats the now throughly debunked claim that Zubaydah and KSM were waterboarded 83 and 183 times respectively. He posts video of the two refusing to answer questions in what is staged as a faux perp walk with no discernible news value other than to portray them as criminals. And, most amazingly, Cole indicts the two men for not having any experience prior to their work for the CIA -- as though being "previously involved in the U.S. military program to train pilots how to survive behind enemy lines and resist brutal tactics" isn't relevant.

ABC's conduct here, exposing two men who will now become obvious targets for terrorists and left-wing extremists, is deplorable. Will the Obama administration investigate who leaked their identities? Or is it now open-season on Americans who were only doing what their government asked of them in order to protect their country from attack?

You think waterboarding opened up a can of worms? Obama and ABC have opened up a bigger one which could likely have disastrous consequences.

[ETWolverine]

Is this what you mean by principles?

ABC's Shame



You think waterboarding opened up a can of worms? Obama and ABC have opened up a bigger one which could likely have disastrous consequences.

excon,

You asked before how revealing the so-called "torture memos" could possibly weaken the USA.

Now you know.

Or maybe you don't. But that is only because you don't want to open your eyes.

[tomder55]

Waiting for the schmuckster to find the microphones and demand an investigation into who leaked the names to ABC's BRIAN ROSS, MATTHEW COLE, and JOSEPH RHEE. I want an independent prosecutor throwing these 3 slugs into jail until they reveal their sources just like what happened to Judith Miller!!

[tomder55]

Andrew McCarthy's letter to Eric Holder

Andrew C. McCarthy

May 1, 2009

By email (to the Counterterrorism Division) and by regular mail:
The Honorable Eric H. Holder, Jr.
Attorney General of the United States
United States Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C. 20530-0001
Dear Attorney General Holder:
This letter is respectfully submitted to inform you that I must decline the invitation to participate in the May 4 roundtable meeting the President's Task Force on Detention Policy is convening with current and former prosecutors involved in international terrorism cases. An invitation was extended to me by trial lawyers from the Counterterrorism Section, who are members of the Task Force, which you are leading.
The invitation email (of April 14) indicates that the meeting is part of an ongoing effort to identify lawful policies on the detention and disposition of alien enemy combatants—or what the Department now calls “individuals captured or apprehended in connection with armed conflicts and counterterrorism operations.” I admire the lawyers of the Counterterrorism Division, and I do not question their good faith. Nevertheless, it is quite clear—most recently, from your provocative remarks on Wednesday in Germany—that the Obama administration has already settled on a policy of releasing trained jihadists (including releasing some of them into the United States). Whatever the good intentions of the organizers, the meeting will obviously be used by the administration to claim that its policy was arrived at in consultation with current and former government officials experienced in terrorism cases and national security issues. I deeply disagree with this policy, which I believe is a violation of federal law and a betrayal of the president's first obligation to protect the American people. Under the circumstances, I think the better course is to register my dissent, rather than be used as a prop.
Moreover, in light of public statements by both you and the President, it is dismayingly clear that, under your leadership, the Justice Department takes the position that a lawyer who in good faith offers legal advice to government policy makers—like the government lawyers who offered good faith advice on interrogation policy—may be subject to investigation and prosecution for the content of that advice, in addition to empty but professionally damaging accusations of ethical misconduct. Given that stance, any prudent lawyer would have to hesitate before offering advice to the government.
Beyond that, as elucidated in my writing (including my proposal for a new national security court, which I understand the Task Force has perused), I believe alien enemy combatants should be detained at Guantanamo Bay (or a facility like it) until the conclusion of hostilities. This national defense measure is deeply rooted in the venerable laws of war and was reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in the 2004 Hamdi case. Yet, as recently as Wednesday, you asserted that, in your considered judgment, such notions violate America's “commitment to the rule of law.” Indeed, you elaborated, “Nothing symbolizes our [adminstration's] new course more than our decision to close the prison at Guantanamo Bay…. President Obama believes, and I strongly agree, that Guantanamo has come to represent a time and an approach that we want to put behind us: a disregard for our centuries-long respect for the rule of law[.]” (Emphasis added.)
Given your policy of conducting ruinous criminal and ethics investigations of lawyers over the advice they offer the government, and your specific position that the wartime detention I would endorse is tantamount to a violation of law, it makes little sense for me to attend the Task Force meeting. After all, my choice would be to remain silent or risk jeopardizing myself.
For what it may be worth, I will say this much. For eight years, we have had a robust debate in the United States about how to handle alien terrorists captured during a defensive war authorized by Congress after nearly 3000 of our fellow Americans were annihilated. Essentially, there have been two camps. One calls for prosecution in the civilian criminal justice system, the strategy used throughout the 1990s. The other calls for a military justice approach of combatant detention and war-crimes prosecutions by military commission. Because each theory has its downsides, many commentators, myself included, have proposed a third way: a hybrid system, designed for the realities of modern international terrorism—a new system that would address the needs to protect our classified defense secrets and to assure Americans, as well as our allies, that we are detaining the right people.
There are differences in these various proposals. But their proponents, and adherents to both the military and civilian justice approaches, have all agreed on at least one thing: Foreign terrorists trained to execute mass-murder attacks cannot simply be released while the war ensues and Americans are still being targeted. We have already released too many jihadists who, as night follows day, have resumed plotting to kill Americans. Indeed, according to recent reports, a released Guantanamo detainee is now leading Taliban combat operations in Afghanistan, where President Obama has just sent additional American forces.
The Obama campaign smeared Guantanamo Bay as a human rights blight. Consistent with that hyperbolic rhetoric, the President began his administration by promising to close the detention camp within a year. The President did this even though he and you (a) agree Gitmo is a top-flight prison facility, (b) acknowledge that our nation is still at war, and (c) concede that many Gitmo detainees are extremely dangerous terrorists who cannot be tried under civilian court rules. Patently, the commitment to close Guantanamo Bay within a year was made without a plan for what to do with these detainees who cannot be tried. Consequently, the Detention Policy Task Force is not an effort to arrive at the best policy. It is an effort to justify a bad policy that has already been adopted: to wit, the Obama administration policy to release trained terrorists outright if that's what it takes to close Gitmo by January.
Obviously, I am powerless to stop the administration from releasing top al Qaeda operatives who planned mass-murder attacks against American cities—like Binyam Mohammed (the accomplice of “Dirty Bomber” Jose Padilla) whom the administration recently transferred to Britain, where he is now at liberty and living on public assistance. I am similarly powerless to stop the administration from admitting into the United States such alien jihadists as the 17 remaining Uighur detainees. According to National Intelligence Director Dennis Blair, the Uighurs will apparently live freely, on American taxpayer assistance, despite the facts that they are affiliated with a terrorist organization and have received terrorist paramilitary training. Under federal immigration law (the 2005 REAL ID Act), those facts render them excludable from the United States. The Uighurs' impending release is thus a remarkable development given the Obama administration's propensity to deride its predecessor's purported insensitivity to the rule of law.
I am, in addition, powerless to stop the President, as he takes these reckless steps, from touting his Detention Policy Task Force as a demonstration of his national security seriousness. But I can decline to participate in the charade.
Finally, let me repeat that I respect and admire the dedication of Justice Department lawyers, whom I have tirelessly defended since I retired in 2003 as a chief assistant U.S. attorney in the Southern District of New York. It was a unique honor to serve for nearly twenty years as a federal prosecutor, under administrations of both parties. It was as proud a day as I have ever had when the trial team I led was awarded the Attorney General's Exceptional Service Award in 1996, after we secured the convictions of Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman and his underlings for waging a terrorist war against the United States. I particularly appreciated receiving the award from Attorney General Reno—as I recounted in Willful Blindness, my book about the case, without her steadfastness against opposition from short-sighted government officials who wanted to release him, the “blind sheikh” would never have been indicted, much less convicted and so deservedly sentenced to life-imprisonment. In any event, I've always believed defending our nation is a duty of citizenship, not ideology. Thus, my conservative political views aside, I've made myself available to liberal and conservative groups, to Democrats and Republicans, who've thought tapping my experience would be beneficial. It pains me to decline your invitation, but the attendant circumstances leave no other option.
Very truly yours,
/S/
Andrew C. McCarthy
Cc: Sylvia T. Kaser and John DePue
National Security Division, Counterterrorism Section

[speechlesstx]

I think the better course is to register my dissent, rather than be used as a prop.

I bet Holder sprained his sphincter when he read that. McCarthy is absolutely right. Now if we could find more like him to find their spine and stand up to this nonsense.

[excon]

"..it is dismayingly clear that, under your leadership, the Justice Department takes the position that a lawyer who in good faith offers legal advice to government policy makers—like the government lawyers who offered good faith advice on interrogation policy—may be subject to investigation and prosecution for the content of that advice,"

Hello tom:

The KEY legal question in all this, is DID the lawyers write the memos in good faith. You, and the rightwinger you quote above, believe they did. I don't.

The LAW the memos authorized ISN'T the law of the land anymore. It's been rescinded. The memos, and the legal argument creating them, have been totally repudiated by the legal community. At the very least, they were bad law. At worst, it was Bush lawyers redefining torture in order to cover vice and the dufus's a$$.

If it was the latter, that's criminal and they should go to jail. If it was the former, they're just dumb lawyers, and there's no prison for being stupid.

In order to find out, though, an investigation must be undertaken, and let the chips fall where they may.

excon

[tomder55]

The LAW the memos authorized ISN'T the law of the land anymore. It's been rescinded.

Yes that is a fact and Obama has overridden the Bush policy which is within his authority . But also the facts are that the procedures have not been used since the law was changed.

At the very least, they were bad law. At worst, it was Bush lawyers redefining torture in order to cover vice and the dufus's a$$.

Either way the opinions were based on the current laws... bad law or not. Our laws frequently are open to varying interpretations The justice Dept lawyers should not be subject to liability or jeopardy for their legal advice or opinions they gave to the President .

Criminalizing differences over policy is corrosive to democracy. Elections are the way we decide which policies are better... the voters decide,not the courts.

As I have already said ;since the cat was let out of the bag ;then it makes sense to have a full national debate . Release the memos VP Cheney mentions are necessary to have full disclosure ;create an independent 9-11 like commission to get the facts before there is any thought of criminal prosecutions.

[excon]

Hello again, Righty's:

Let me ask you some other stuff. Here's YOUR parameters, as I learned them from you:

1) You are in charge of interrogation.

2) SAVING AMERICAN LIVES is your objective in accordance with the law.

3) You KNOW (as in tom telling us he KNOWS), that the guy you are about to waterboard can SAVE AMERICAN LIVES, if you can get him to spill the beans.

4) You're waterboarding him for 60th time. He ISN'T spilling the beans and hasn't yet, because as Gal said, he can hold his breath for 40 seconds.

5) The clock is approaching 40 seconds, and he's struggling. If only you could waterboard him for 10 more seconds or maybe 20, you KNOW you could get him to spill the beans, and SAVE AMERICAN LIVES.

6) Are you going to stop when the 40 second bell rings? What's important here - AMERICAN LIVES or the law?? If you did stop, would you be a pantywaist terrorist loving jerk, or a good soldier? If you went beyond the 40 seconds, would you be an American patriot or a criminal?

7) If you got information from him after 60 seconds, does that make a difference?

Yes, my questions are inconvenient. Maybe if you had asked them FIRST, you wouldn't be torturers.

excon

[excon]

Criminalizing differences over policy is corrosive to democracy. Elections are the way we decide which policies are better.....the voters decide,not the courts.

Hello again, tom:

As we've previously established in our discussions regarding Augusto Pinnochet, policy CAN be criminal.

Therefore, if the policy that the makers made WAS criminal, then it's the policy makers themselves who criminalized their own behavior.

Those that hold them to account haven't criminalized anything. In fact, we are bound to do so because we ARE a nation of laws and not men.

excon

[startover22]

I have mixed feeling on this... I am sure we all do. But most of all, I think us (civilians) know too much. Excon, don't get me wrong, I like to know what's going on, but lately it just seems as if we know way too much about our world. When everyone knows "stuff", the "stuff" don't work as well as it did when it was hush hush. People have gone way too far here and around the world. I say in my own mind, would I try to talk it out with a guy that knew who may have my daughter in capture or would I go straight to torture... you all know the answer, you can't deny it. There are so many situations that make that "one thing" wrong, but some that make that "one thing" right. If that makes any sense.

[startover22]

Bill O'Reilly said that he believes in our principles 99% of the time. But, if they're not principles you embrace with all your being, and all your heart, you don't believe those principles in the first place. You're only giving them lip service...

You are saying a person has to be down right perfect in this statement. 100%... sheesh I can admit to going far less than 99%, how about you?

[NeedKarma]

Bill O'Reilly said

Bill O'Reilly is one of the last people I would ever quote. I'm glad to say that I would be at the opposite pole of whatever he preaches.

[startover22]

Really Need? I don't think you are as far away from him as you think... you are a good man. You take care of yer family, you work hard, and stick up for things you believe in... I could go on if you want me to. I also think Bill is a good man. All I was trying to say really is that no one is perfect.

EDIT:::
Need, that was in Ex's OP... he quoted him, I didn't post it right, sorry