Interesting food for thought here. The mission to fly Air Force One, with two fighter jets behind it, feet over Manhattan which reminded people of 9/11 and made many run for their lives was considered “Very Secret.” So let me understand this: a photo op is Very Secret but how we interrogate our enemies and those that were responsible for 9/11 is not Top Secret? Interesting set of priorties don’t you think?
After 9/11 when almost 3,000 American civilians were killed the country wanted to fight back. Traditional “doves” and Democrats knew it would be political suicide to appear weak, or appear not want to strike back at this attack on our own soil. To protect their own political ass the Dems voted to support George Bush and his desire to root and yes kill these terrorists. Now that we have all but forgotten 9/11 and how mad our country was on that day, and in the days immediately afterward, and also because we have been kept safe, the Democrats are free to fall back into their peacenick type diatribes and doveish ways. This is because they can now politically afford to do so. I wish some of them had had the political honesty to vote against the powers they granted to the President at the time, because then they might be considered worthy of respect because of intellectual consistency. They also would have been voted out of office. This political expediency, and lack of any core held beliefs, is apparently what is currently driving Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Her recent amnesia about being briefed upwards of 30 times about enhanced interrogation techniques, including waterboarding, appears to be more of the same modus operandi of politics over country. When she had to appear tough on terror she approved those techniques; now that it is politically expedient she forgets and returns to her “I am a amnesiac dove” roots. Here is a little food for thought which I wonder if Ms. Pelosi might forget voting for, or claim she didn’t know what the resolution meant:
On September 14, 2001, the House of Representatives voted 418 to 1 and the Senate voted 98-0 for resolutions authorizing the President of the United States “to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.
How quickly we forget, I hope we find a cure for amnesia sooon.
I read an interesting and sensible ARTICLE about the legality of enhanced interrogation techniques, particularly waterboarding, by none other than Alan Dershowitz. The following quote particularly caught my attention:
“This brings us to waterboarding. Michael Mukasey, whose confirmation as attorney general now seems assured, is absolutely correct, as a matter of constitutional law, that the issue of “waterboarding” cannot be decided in the abstract. Under prevailing precedents–some of which I disagree with–the court must examine the nature of the governmental interest at stake, and the degree to which the government actions at issue shock the conscience, and then decide on a case-by-case basis. In several cases involving actions at least as severe as waterboarding, courts have found no violations of due process.
The members of the judiciary committee who voted against Judge Mukasey, because of his unwillingness to support an absolute prohibition on waterboarding and all other forms of torture, should be asked the direct question: Would you authorize the use of waterboarding, or other non-lethal forms of torture, if you believed that it was the only possible way of saving the lives of hundreds of Americans in a situation of the kind faced by Israeli authorities on the eve of Yom Kippur? Would you want your president to authorize extraordinary means of interrogation in such a situation? If so, what means? If not, would you be prepared to accept responsibility for the preventable deaths of hundreds of Americans? “
Are any liberals going to question Dershowtiz’ left wing credentials? Arey the going to accuse the emminent professor of being “ignorant.?”Are they going to boil down “torture” to some easy definition in their desire to “get” the Bush Administration?
Lastly, if the Democrats were voting against Mukasey during his confirmation hearings in 2007 because he refused to prohibit waterboarding, are they still going to claim they had no idea waterboarding was going on? Why the questions of Mukasey on this issue? Hmmmm….I’ll answer that: because they are quite simply politically expedient, pathological liars.
What a sad chapter in our history, and for intellectual honesty.
There is an AP article purportedly examining the annointed one’s first 100 days in office
The article was, not suprisingly, wholly positive. That is fine, although it probably should have been written as an editorial opinion piece rather than a “news” article as the tone of the article ioozes not merely positivism, but idolatry for the messiah. However, one quote particularly caught my eye, it was the quote of “expert” James Thurber. Thurber was not cited as a biased “political hack” expert, but merely an “expert on the presidency” an apolitical and benign description of him. Thurber’s quote does not need repeating just say “Barack Obama is the second coming” and that is all you need to know about what this unbiased expert said about the first 100 days of BO.
I decided to look up who Dr. James A Thurber was and his credentials to be a card carrying member of the “we are smarter than everyone else liberal intellgentsia.” Here is what I found:
“Dr. Thurber has served in government as a Legislative Assistant to the late U.S. Senator Hubert H. Humphrey (Minnesota) [Liberal Democrat] and U.S. Representative James G. O’Hara (Michigan)[Democrat]. He has been involved in congressional reorganization efforts, serving as a Senior Staff Analyst for U.S. Representative David Obey [Liberal Democrat] and the Commission on Administrative Review of the U.S. House of Representatives and for U.S. Senator Adlai Stevenson, III [Liberal Democrat]”
What do these politicians that James Thurber worked, excuse me “served” with, all have in common? Hmmm let me think. I will leave it to the reader to find the commonality of Thurber’s associations in politics.
In their written journalistic standards AP purportedlyrequires objectivity. Was the perfect objective apolitical person to comment on the Messiah’s first 100 days James A. Thurber? AP your allegedly deep commitment to objectivity is a joke. Just consign you releases to the various editorial opinon pages across the country and stop trying to be a news organization. The game is up.
People, mostly zealots, throw around the word “torture” like there is some settled legal definition of what that term means. Actually, the definition has evolved over time and also even evolved during the two terms of the Bush Administration. If you are going to talk about prosecution for “torture” you have to actually look to a legal definition not throw it around like it is a term of common parlance. The same people who wanted to parse what the definition of “sexual relations” was or what the meaning of “is,” is, make a legal conclusion that torture was committed and the people who ordered are guilty of war crimes, without any further inquiry. I guess the ends do justify the means. In the attempt to exact revenge upon the Bush Administration, lets dispense with any due process, intellectual discussion of what “torture” means under the law, etc.,? The intellectual hypocracy, ignorance, and/or dishonesty, is staggering.
I heard Jonathan Turley on MSNLSD say that there is “insurmountable evidence” that “war crimes” were committed. Really Mr. Turley? You are a law professor? I find that hard to believe. The law relating to torture has evolved as has the question of whether non enemy combatants were even entitled to some limited modicum of Consitutional Due Process rights. Have you ever heard of “ex post facto” laws?
You know that there was no certititude to the legal definition of torture as applied to non enemy combatants, yet you make an idiotic statement like the one set forth above. Actually it is not merely a statement it is a legal conclusion without evidence, trial, due process, or inquiry into specific legal terms. You bandy these terms about as if to charge someone and impugn them you only need to use the terms “torture” or “war crimes” like you would around the kitchen table in a family debate. Grow up, or grow some intellectual honesty, and stop spewing legal conclusions you have no basis to make.
A STORY OF THE PRACTICAL RESULT OF THE APPLICATION OF U.S. CONSTITUTIONAL DUE PROCESS RIGHTS TO ENEMIES ON THE BATTLEFIELD
A DAY IN THE LIFE AND DEATH OF A U.S. COMBAT SOLDIER UNDER BARACK HUSSEIN OBAM AND ERIC FALN HOLDER
You are on a mission in Iraq with your squad, slowly walking down what appears to be an abandoned street in the dusk; your eyes are peeled for the slightest movement. Although you can’t see any “bad guys” the feeling you are being watched is palpable. You can hear your heart beating through your uniform. Then it happens. An IED explodes, a few of your buddies scream, you rush over to them. One is dead, his entrails hanging out of his torn abdomen, the other is screaming in pain as his mangled leg is just a piece of torn flesh from the knee down. As you attempt to render aid shots ring out from the building windows on one side of the street, hitting your other mate who had taken off his helmet to render aid, his brains splattering all over the Old Glory patch on your sleeve.
After the dead and injured are pulled out of the line of fire, you enter the building, up the stairs, adrenaline rushing, fear, you throw a grenade in the room where the insurgents were firing from. After the explosion and the smoke clears you, and the remaining company, rush in. Four insurgents are there, white flag in hand, arms raised; a fifth terrorist at the window gets off one last shot, striking a wounded U.S. soldier on the street, you rifle butt him in the side, he crouches in pain, and then slowly raised his hands.
After securing the prisoners you rummage through the computers and papers on the floor, your interpreter reads one of the papers entitled “Rules of Engagement for All Jihadists Engaging the Satanic American Forces” Your interpreter continues to read…”Although it was suggested in the past that you blow yourself up for Allah, this is no longer necessary. You can live to fight again for the cause, and kill more American devils, even if captured. After inflicting as much death, damage, and pain on the infidels you are now ordered to surrender. Put your hands in the air and, if available, waive a white flag at the last possible minute. However, you are to try and get off as many shots and inflict as much death and suffering as you can prior to surrendering.
Be aware that NOTHING bad or uncomfortable will happen to you if you surrender. There is no need to give up any information to the enemy and you are ordered not to reveal anything. We have been certainly advised by our cells in the U.S. which are following the U.S. Media, the U.S. President’s statements, and the U.S. Attorney General, that you will probably be put in a prison, given at least three Islamic friendly meals a day, get good sleep, not be questioned in any way which is too harsh; eventually you will be released to join the cause again. Remember too that a Koran MUST be provided to you, so don’t be concerned about honoring Allah or being able to say your prayers while in captivity. Remember also to immediately request a lawyer, preferably something Satan’s country calls an “ACLU” lawyer.
You just shake your head, shrug your shoulders and ask yourself: what is this world and our country coming to? However, a mission is at hand and you have to get your m en out of there. Upon starting to exit the building you hear footsteps, many insurgents are coming up the street towards the building en masse. You shove the prisoners away as they run out onto the street to their comrades who are now firing upon you and shooting rocket propelled grenades at the building. Explosions and debris flying everywhere, you and five remaining soldiers in your squad look with fear into each other’s eyes, knowing you are totally outnumbered and have been ambushed.
You remember what you were told: Whatever you do, DO NOT SURRENDER. Your officers advised in briefings to fight to the death because, unlike your adversaries’ treatment and ability to surrender, if YOU are captured you are going to be beheaded on Al Jazeera TV for propaganda purposes, held in captivity and tortured, or have your genitalia cut off and burned and dragged naked through the streets. These visions cross through your mind as you continue fire, gripping your rifle tightly, as thoughts of your loved ones pass through your brain as well.
Your squad mates, already hit, are moaning in pain next to you as you get struck with a grenade fragment ripping into your calf, then a shot ripping open your shoulder. You fall on your side, your vision hazy, your blood trickling on the sidewalk, your last thoughts form as you start to lose consciousness, and a card falls out of your pocket onto a sidewalk in your blood. It is titled “Miranda Warnings to be Read to All Captured Insurgents in the Iraq and Afghanistan Overseas Contingency Operations.” Your thoughts turn t your family and loved ones as a tear slides down your cheek. As your life starts to ebb away you can hear the sounds of shots and explosions getting closer.
You just hope, with your final thoughts, that you will not bring dishonor to your family when you are posthumously written up in the report of this mission for committing War Crimes: You didn’t read the terrorists their Miranda Rights after restraining them and taking them into custody, and you rifle butted one of the, breaking several ribs, when you were not in imminent fear of death. You are, after all, according to your own country a war criminal.
Then your last thought as your labored breathing ceases…”What a sick, ungrateful nation I died for.”
WAKE UP AND SMELL THE COFFEE AMERICA, THIS IS THE FUTURE!
In about 30 seconds of President O’Bama’s post summit press conference I found contradictions in his statements.
When questioned about how it may look politicially that he was “cozying” up to Marxist Venezuelan leader, Hugo Chavez, Obama stated he doesn’t care about the politics. He further reaffirmed his “there is no harm in talking to any country” mantra, even if that country is overtly hostile to the U.S.
Then he was asked about the U.S. boycotting the International Conference on Racism. The U.S. is apparently boycotting the conference because of the many Arab nations which want to define Zionism as racism.
Obama doesn’t care about politics? The reason this conference is being boycotted is because to attend such a conference will anger the Jewish American electorate, and Israel. This begs questions to Obama such as, “What happened to the “no harm in talking countries we disagree with” mantra? What happened to not caring about politics?
Why aren’t these “Obama Doctrines” being applied to our attendance or boycotting of the Conference on Racism?
These were rhetorical questions of course. The answer is that this president cares almost exclusively about politics and will do, and say, whatever is politically expedient at the time.