Obama Won't Rule Out Prosecuting Bush Officials

[glm47]

I'm not blending anything; these things are all interconnected. It is funny, though, that you're on here lecturing me about my 18-year profession. You always come on here and post as though you have firsthand knowledge of things, such as "the IDF has backed off using harsh torture-like techniques..." or "if you want accurate information that will give you actionable intelligence..."

Really? And your source within the Israeli Defense Forces is??? How about your interrogation training. I just want to know what your expertise is on these matters, since the above post looks a lot more like a lecture from a position of authority than an opinion. Or, perhaps, did you read all of this on some website before coming on here and posting?

You may have an opinion, but that's all it is. Being against "torture" (again, a subjective topic) is one thing. Personally, 'emI think we should shoot 'em where we find . But as far as the subject of waterboarding or other questionable interrogation methods is concerned, the issue is not that we're going to stop using them.

The issue is that you even heard about them to begin with. These types of methods have been in place for YEARS and have worked well. But now, because of a liberal axe to grind, everyone knows about them and now we are forbidden to use them. And please don't tell me they aren't effective. The intelligence dictates otherwise.

The issue is that this has been made headline news around the world. Now, America looks like a bunch of torturing thugs, which we have never been. The techniques we used were not torture. But, thanks to the liberal talking heads, everyone now believes that we were torturing.

The issue is that terrorists now know what methods we'll employ against them -- the Army FM on interrogation techniques is not hard to find. They already employ a certain level of counterinterrogation techniques, so this will only make it easier for them to evade our questioning.

The issue is that our allies will stop sharing information with us for fear that Obama will unilaterally duivulge it. Almost everything coming from a foreign intelligence partner comes with a caveat that the information not be shared with ANYONE. So far, your boy Barry hasn't shown that he can keep anything secret.

This is just the first step in what I've been saying all along. Obama and Panetta will take down the CIA, first through hamstringing its operational capabilities, followed by severe budget cuts that will happen over a several year period so as to not appear as drastic as they actually are.

Good post.

[Brian96]

I'm not blending anything; these things are all interconnected. It is funny, though, that you're on here lecturing me about my 18-year profession. You always come on here and post as though you have firsthand knowledge of things, such as "the IDF has backed off using harsh torture-like techniques..." or "if you want accurate information that will give you actionable intelligence..."


Really? And your source within the Israeli Defense Forces is??? How about your interrogation training. I just want to know what your expertise is on these matters, since the above post looks a lot more like a lecture from a position of authority than an opinion. Or, perhaps, did you read all of this on some website before coming on here and posting?

PM sent. Much of this info is available publicly, and the rest is, admittedly, secondhand.

You may have an opinion, but that's all it is. Being against "torture" (again, a subjective topic) is one thing. Personally, I think we should shoot 'em where we find 'em. But as far as the subject of waterboarding or other questionable interrogation methods is concerned, the issue is not that we're going to stop using them.

The issue is that you even heard about them to begin with. These types of methods have been in place for YEARS and have worked well. But now, because of a liberal axe to grind, everyone knows about them and now we are forbidden to use them. And please don't tell me they aren't effective. The intelligence dictates otherwise.

The research is pretty unequivocal regarding the merits of violent coercive techniques. These techniques are sexy, and in the heat of the moment very rewarding, but they have been demonstrated to be less effective than other techniques if the quality of the information is the key concern.


The issue is that this has been made headline news around the world. Now, America looks like a bunch of torturing thugs, which we have never been. The techniques we used were not torture. But, thanks to the liberal talking heads, everyone now believes that we were torturing.

The issue is that terrorists now know what methods we'll employ against them -- the Army FM on interrogation techniques is not hard to find. They already employ a certain level of counterinterrogation techniques, so this will only make it easier for them to evade our questioning.

The issue is that our allies will stop sharing information with us for fear that Obama will unilaterally duivulge it. Almost everything coming from a foreign intelligence partner comes with a caveat that the information not be shared with ANYONE. So far, your boy Barry hasn't shown that he can keep anything secret.
I agree 100%, and all my posts have been in synch with this.


This is just the first step in what I've been saying all along. Obama and Panetta will take down the CIA, first through hamstringing its operational capabilities, followed by severe budget cuts that will happen over a several year period so as to not appear as drastic as they actually are.

Of course. This is Carter Part Dos, so what do you expect?

.

[mildawg]

.

But now you're bringing "violent coercive techniques" into the equation. Where is this coming from? Waterboarding does not fit into the above category, neither does "walling" or any of the other enhanced techniques. The bottom line is that some people view anything beyond questions and answers as "torture." We do nothing that is "violent;" however, I wouldn't have a problem with it if we did. Again, why would you care if we were to torture these maniacs? You think that would make us maniacal, too? I don't, so we can agree to disagree on that one.

And the Carter analogy is probably dead-on, unfortunately.

[Brian96]

But now you're bringing "violent coercive techniques" into the equation. Where is this coming from? Waterboarding does not fit into the above category, neither does "walling" or any of the other enhanced techniques. The bottom line is that some people view anything beyond questions and answers as "torture." We do nothing that is "violent;" however, I wouldn't have a problem with it if we did. Again, why would you care if we were to torture these maniacs? You think that would make us maniacal, too? I don't, so we can agree to disagree on that one.

And the Carter analogy is probably dead-on, unfortunately.

The "violent coercive techniques" was an attempt to distinguish between things like waterboarding, which are violent (it simulates drowning, and is very physical), from things like sleep deprivation and memory distrust, which are coercive but not physical or violent. The other thing about waterboarding is that it obviously is in its own category if permission to use it had to go that far up the chain of command. Also, if published reports are accurate and it was only used on 3 terror suspects, that is further evidence that it is not a daily need for routine intelligence-gathering.

We'll definitely just have to agree to disagree on whether real torture should be used. Torture is about retribution, so your suggestion to shoot them where we find them would be just as effective, and also a lot less controversial (as there would be no Red Cross visit, and only one set of paperwork). I don't believe that using torture would make us "maniacal," but I do believe that if we truly have the moral high-ground in this conflict, then we need to do everything we can to maintain it. The war on terror has produced unique challenges, as we are not fighting a nation, and therefore the legal framework of the Geneva convention less clearly applies. In my opinion, we could choose to unilaterally abide by the Geneva Convention in our handling of captured terrorists, and still have plenty of leeway to prosecute the war. As you know firsthand, information from captured terrorists is just one slice of this pie.

Ultimately, I am just not comfortable with our selectively setting aside our moral standards. Moral relativism is a slippery slope.

[mildawg]

The "violent coercive techniques" was an attempt to distinguish between things like waterboarding, which are violent (it simulates drowning, and is very physical), from things like sleep deprivation and memory distrust, which are coercive but not physical or violent. The other thing about waterboarding is that it obviously is in its own category if permission to use it had to go that far up the chain of command. Also, if published reports are accurate and it was only used on 3 terror suspects, that is further evidence that it is not a daily need for routine intelligence-gathering.

We'll definitely just have to agree to disagree on whether real torture should be used. Torture is about retribution, so your suggestion to shoot them where we find them would be just as effective, and also a lot less controversial (as there would be no Red Cross visit, and only one set of paperwork). I don't believe that using torture would make us "maniacal," but I do believe that if we truly have the moral high-ground in this conflict, then we need to do everything we can to maintain it. The war on terror has produced unique challenges, as we are not fighting a nation, and therefore the legal framework of the Geneva convention less clearly applies. In my opinion, we could choose to unilaterally abide by the Geneva Convention in our handling of captured terrorists, and still have plenty of leeway to prosecute the war. As you know firsthand, information from captured terrorists is just one slice of this pie.

Ultimately, I am just not comfortable with our selectively setting aside our moral standards. Moral relativism is a slippery slope.

The beauty of all this -- you don't have to set aside any moral standards. There are people in this line of work who have no problem doing so. They've been doing it for years and they do it so that you don't have to.

And your point about shooting terrorists where we find them being just as effective and less controversial -- sounds a lot like my argument regarding the interrogations... because when you get down to it, the central theme in your statement is that it is effective and less controversial because no one knows about it.

How about that? Just as I've been saying about waterboarding and other techniques; if Barry, Harry, and Nancy hadn't made all of this stuff public, you wouldn't know about it and wouldn't have to question the morality of the country. Ignorance is bliss in this case, because there are many things done to collect intelligence that people would likely oppose if they were made public. And if Barry, Harry, and Nancy have their way, they might divulge many of them, too.

[techman05]

Several people are now saying that playing loud music, even shouting at someone is being considered a form of torture. If that is true.. many husbands will be tortured by wives all over the country in the coming days.

But on a serious note, I am very concerned that the Supreme Court has now given itself powers to change the interpretation of Article 4 of the Geneva Convention. Now I guess we need to read miranda rights to people who in the past have not been subject to the protection of the constitution....

If this is true, then rather than a complete pleasure, it will be torture to listen to the music and commentary from the new "tron". I hardly believe anyone will call that torture, but if they do, then just kick them out.

[Brian96]

The beauty of all this -- you don't have to set aside any moral standards. There are people in this line of work who have no problem doing so. They've been doing it for years and they do it so that you don't have to.

And your point about shooting terrorists where we find them being just as effective and less controversial -- sounds a lot like my argument regarding the interrogations... because when you get down to it, the central theme in your statement is that it is effective and less controversial because no one knows about it.

How about that? Just as I've been saying about waterboarding and other techniques; if Barry, Harry, and Nancy hadn't made all of this stuff public, you wouldn't know about it and wouldn't have to question the morality of the country. Ignorance is bliss in this case, because there are many things done to collect intelligence that people would likely oppose if they were made public. And if Barry, Harry, and Nancy have their way, they might divulge many of them, too.

I made kind of a blanket statement, but I meant my "setting aside moral standards" comment in the context of individuals we have in custody. I certainly don't expect a kindergarten code of conduct to apply to the entire enterprise of intelligence, defense, and counterterrorism. But, I do believe that when suspects are in the custody of the US Government and being officially questioned by Federal agents, that the rules of engagement should be largely in sync with interview/interrogation techniques approved in other Federal agencies.

What is very interesting about this situation is that the fact that some of these guys were waterboarded is not new information (anybody who was paying attention would have already heard about this). The new information is the release of the memos describing the decision-making process (and the part that you and I both agree is egregious). But the media crapstorm about this does afford an excellent opportunity to debate various aspects of this.

[mildawg]

I made kind of a blanket statement, but I meant my "setting aside moral standards" comment in the context of individuals we have in custody. I certainly don't expect a kindergarten code of conduct to apply to the entire enterprise of intelligence, defense, and counterterrorism. But, I do believe that when suspects are in the custody of the US Government and being officially questioned by Federal agents, that the rules of engagement should be largely in sync with interview/interrogation techniques approved in other Federal agencies.

What is very interesting about this situation is that the fact that some of these guys were waterboarded is not new information (anybody who was paying attention would have already heard about this). The new information is the release of the memos describing the decision-making process (and the part that you and I both agree is egregious). But the media crapstorm about this does afford an excellent opportunity to debate various aspects of this.

The release of waterboarding information (in addition to the memos) is relatively new... it first came to light only after the dems took control of Congress, even though it had been going on for quite some time. And to boot, it appears that the folks in Congress who are the most vehemently opposed to it are the ones who knew about the program all along.

It's all political posturing. None of this is about morality, because the folks in Washington have no morals.

If it were me, I'd turn these guys over to Israel or some other 2nd party that is just as invested in killing terrorists as us... then I'd let them question the terrorists in the presence of my officers. Clean and simple. You get the information you need and can wash your hands of any wrongdoing.

I still have the feeling, however, that many people think that our interrogations are something along the lines of what happened to George Clooney's character in "Syriana." THAT was torture that had nothing to do with getting information -- it was all about retribution and inflicting pain. If people visualize our interrogations involving waterboarding, etc. as something similar, they are sadly mistaken.

[Brian96]

The release of waterboarding information (in addition to the memos) is relatively new... it first came to light only after the dems took control of Congress, even though it had been going on for quite some time. And to boot, it appears that the folks in Congress who are the most vehemently opposed to it are the ones who knew about the program all along.

Right. My point was that it has been discussed for years (not weeks). But the crapstorm was kicked off when the Obama administration decided to up the ante by releasing those blasted memos.

It's all political posturing. None of this is about morality, because the folks in Washington have no morals.

Hard to argue with that.

If it were me, I'd turn these guys over to Israel or some other 2nd party that is just as invested in killing terrorists as us... then I'd let them question the terrorists in the presence of my officers. Clean and simple. You get the information you need and can wash your hands of any wrongdoing.

+1. My issue is with Federal officers doing this under official circumstances. It unnecessarily sullies our reputation, not to mention when we do it ourselves we lose plausible deniability.

I still have the feeling, however, that many people think that our interrogations are something along the lines of what happened to George Clooney's character in "Syriana." THAT was torture that had nothing to do with getting information -- it was all about retribution and inflicting pain. If people visualize our interrogations involving waterboarding, etc. as something similar, they are sadly mistaken.

I agree that there are those who are certainly attempting to paint that picture. Even labeling waterboarding as "torture" seems to be trying to paint it in that light. My goal in this discussion has not been to distort the techniques that were used, but to shed some light on where these techniques stand in terms of relative effectiveness. My central premise is why "get your hands dirty" in an official interrogation when there are less controversial techniques that have been empirically demonstrated to be at least equally effective? And we've already debated that point.

I wonder what's going to happen next. It seems that the administration has sort of painted themselves into a corner. They've got their liberal constituents all fired up and ready for a witch hunt, and they've got conservatives who definitely aren't going to play along, and who are likely taking notes for when they regain power. And in the middle you've got opinion polls showing that Americans are generally not in support of the decision to release the memos, much less to prosecute anybody over it.

So the president who said he was going to avoid partisanship has painted himself into a particularly difficult partisan corner. Of course, if he ends up pissing off everyone, then I guess that *technically* he is not being partisan.

I also wonder if there have been any changes in the dynamics of his security briefings. It was dumb enough when he went into Langley acknowledging that the agency "made mistakes" (has he never read "How to Win Friends and Influence People"?), but now he's got people waiving around memos describing internal decisionmaking processes.

Anyway, any guesses as to what happens next? Will any sort of resolution be sought, or are we just waiting around for the next crisis/controversy to distract the media's attention?

[mildawg]

I wonder what's going to happen next. It seems that the administration has sort of painted themselves into a corner. They've got their liberal constituents all fired up and ready for a witch hunt, and they've got conservatives who definitely aren't going to play along, and who are likely taking notes for when they regain power. And in the middle you've got opinion polls showing that Americans are generally not in support of the decision to release the memos, much less to prosecute anybody over it.

So the president who said he was going to avoid partisanship has painted himself into a particularly difficult partisan corner. Of course, if he ends up pissing off everyone, then I guess that *technically* he is not being partisan.

I also wonder if there have been any changes in the dynamics of his security briefings. It was dumb enough when he went into Langley acknowledging that the agency "made mistakes" (has he never read "How to Win Friends and Influence People"?), but now he's got people waiving around memos describing internal decisionmaking processes.

Anyway, any guesses as to what happens next? Will any sort of resolution be sought, or are we just waiting around for the next crisis/controversy to distract the media's attention?

Good question. I am waiting with bated breath for next January when he's promised to close Gitmo. No one seems to be willing to take the prisoners... no one except Yemen and a few other Middle Eastern countries who will release them 1-2 months after they arrive. They have been trying to "rehabilitate" many terrorist detainees in those countries. And while they have had some success stories, many have returned to their former lives.

But in a nutshell, I think you've hit the nail on the head (in my opinion). Too much of this is partisan politics. And while Obama and his administration may truly believe in what they're doing, they should probably think things out a little better before doing them. With all the radical changes he is making or has promised, if ANYTHING related to terrorism happens from this point forward Obama won't be able to blame it on Bush. It's all on him.

[TYLERTECHSAS]

In Obamaworld Americans are the criminals (note this thread) not the terrorist.

LINK
Obama Slammed for Tone on Terror

Critics say Obama is reviving Clinton-era mindset when terrorism was 'criminal offense,' rather than act of war

[mildawg]

For those who didn't see it, I would suggest catching a rerun of the O'Reilly Factor from tonight (28 April). He interviews Michael Scheuer, the former head of the CIA's bin Laden unit. Very interesting insight into the whole enhanced interrogation technique debate. Really lights into D/FBI Mueller, who today made comments about the ineffectiveness of enhanced interrogation techniques -- Scheuer called him a flat-out liar. I'd take Scheuer's word for it, since he was deeply involved in the interrogations and resulting intelligence. Just thought it was an interesting interview.

[DogtorEvil]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...042403459.html

Say It's Osama. What If He Won't Talk?
By Michael Scheuer
Sunday, April 26, 2009

Americans should be clear on what Obama has done. In a breathtaking display of self-righteousness and intellectual arrogance, the president told Americans that his personal beliefs are more important than protecting their country, their homes and their families. The interrogation techniques in question, the president asserted, are a sign that Americans have lost their "moral compass," a compliment similar to Attorney General Eric Holder's identifying them as "moral cowards." Mulling Obama's claim, one can wonder what could be more moral for a president than doing all that is needed to defend America and its citizens? Or, asked another way, is it moral for the president of the United States to abandon intelligence tools that have saved the lives and property of Americans and their allies in favor of his own ideological beliefs?

[JuBru]

The beginning?
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...be/#more-49467

[TYLERTECHSAS]

The beginning?
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...be/#more-49467

Yeap, Obama (being the lap dog of the left) opened up the filthy floodgates of the world. Good job
You had better elect yourself king for life because this is going to come back and haunt you and your ADM BIG TIME.