Democrats Fire and Fall Back in National Security Debate
And as for the Democrats, the memo controversy has consumed and embroiled them in a never-ending stream of new plot lines: What did Pelosi know? Who will win the Panetta vs. Pelosi face off? Will Pelosi get the boot? Did Rahm Emanuel give the thumbs up to the Pelosi slap down? Jay Newton-Small of Time summed up:
A lot has been written about Barack Obama’s learning curve in his first 100 days in office — understandably given his rapid ascent. But if Obama is a rookie acting like a veteran, Pelosi, a career politician, has all too often filled the role of the bumbler in 2009. In her initial press conference about what the CIA told her, she fumbled through her notes, departed the podium, returned to the podium, departed again and accused the CIA of lying to her — a charge she had clarified the next day by blaming the Bush administration. To call it a disastrous public performance would be polite.
Minority House Leader John Boehner is making the most of it, challenging Pelosi to prove her allegation that the CIA lied to her or offer up an apology. Meanwhile, conservative pundits are having a field day pulling apart her dubious story. And not surprisingly, Pelosi’s poll numbers are skidding. Is it any wonder Pelosi is now the “star” of a GOP ad mocking her never-ending stream of excuses?
The real risk for the Democrats is that they will once again live up (down?) to their reputation as unserious on national defense. When the flap over closing Guantanamo is added to the mix, voters may get the idea that Democrats are less concerned with protecting Americans than with continuing a blood feud with the Bush administration.
How did things go so awry? Well, for starters the Democrats badly misjudged the American public, which in poll after poll shows no inclination to “punish” those who labored to keep us safe or to second guess the techniques which they employed. And secondly, Democrats may have underestimated their own ability to control the narrative and limit the information the American people would get. Who imagined that Dick Cheney would pop up to remind Americans that the enhanced interrogation techniques worked? Who thought that a Democratic pol like Leon Panetta would call out the Democratic speaker of the house? Well, certainly not the Democrats who wanted to launch the just-our-version-of-the truth commission.
The American people respect and admire those who prevented a repeat of 9-11. And they seem averse to politicians who use those who protected us as props in never-ending “Get Bush” theatrics. Americans will show even less toleration for these antics should the restrictions and burdens placed on our intelligence community result in an attack on Americans.
It remains an open question whether all of this will dissuade Democrats from pursuing their political witch hunt. But if not compelled by a sense of decency, concern for the well-being of our intelligence community, or any aversion to turning the country into a banana republic (in which officials from prior “regime” are punished for their opposing views), perhaps the Democrats will heed some tried and true advice: when you are in a hole, stop digging.
These people don’t care about our country only their political self aggrandizement or in some cases making common cause with our enemies. The day is coming when we flush the toilet.
We are in the ascendancy of ideology, where the phrase “politics trumps mission, lives and truth” changes to “Ideology trumps EVERYTHING”. From AlGorian global warming, to the very idea of public “Truth Commissions” (the very phrase is scary) the ideology is (with a few exceptions) changing the ground upon which we stand. When will being “Politically reliable” become one of the hiring/retention criteria for the fastest growing part of the US economy, GUBMENT work?
Ms. Rubin:
“How did things go so awry? Well, for starters the Democrats badly misjudged the American public, which in poll after poll shows no inclination to “punish” those who labored to keep us safe or to second guess the techniques which they employed.”
But-but-but simply EVERYBODY at DailyKos, HuffPo and Democratic Underground was just OUTRAGED at the machinations of Bush’s 4th Reich!
Everybody!
Isn’t that truly the vox populi?
Oh…well,who listens to those Christofascist racist wingnuts anyway?
Most of THEM probably never attended college.
The AFL-CIO leadership knows how democracy should work where it comes to the bubbas and rednecks. Ever seen the results of a union election?
The correct candidate gets greater than 90% returns every time.
That’s the kind of democracy we Democrats like.
“The day is coming when we flush the toilet.”
I agree. Unfortunately, it’s years – and much damage inflicted on America – from now.
This administration is inane and insane.
gubment and democrats types never seem to understand the laws of unintended consequences…They wring their hands about what they “define” as torture…meanwhile, on the battle field…if I have no use (meaning, I can not get information from this battlefield punk)…guess what…a bullet to the head is my solution. So now we just kill these guys if we have no use for them. I guess then the result is more humane??
These libs simply have no crtical thinking skills.. it is all polictical at the time…
Make no mistake, they really do not want to solve the problems..they can only continue to exist in their self important worlds with these unresolvable problems…yep we need more gubment jobs…
In my mind we need to start executing some of these traitors with-in…then maybe they will get a clue as to what country they are supposed to be working for…
There was a day when even democrats defended their country. No more.
The real risk for the Democrats is that they will once again live up (down?) to their reputation as unserious on national defense.
The real risk is that the voting public will realize that the Democrats have been playing politics with national security since 2003.
When the flap over closing Guantanamo is added to the mix, voters may get the idea that Democrats are less concerned with protecting Americans than with continuing a blood feud with the Bush administration.
Only the sentient will get this.
Apparently Karma has come to bite Nancy Pelosi in the behind. The GOP is now going to call for a full investigation. SWEET! Hope the dems will finally learn that politicizing wars for personal gain is not a good idea. I always thought they were at their lowest point when they trashed the military but when they call the CIA liars? Pathetic. Not an honorable one in the bunch. Kennedy? Pelosi? Reid? Obama? Biden? Clinton? Nope. Not a one.
Democrats usually politicize National Security & the USA Military for short term political gain; this is no different. Democrats are acting like Democrats. Which is a sad state of affairs considering the Democrats should put the nation first & political gain far behind.
This is just ine exapmle of how far into the echo-chamber the leadership of the Dems have descended. They are so surrounded by synophants and group-thinkers that they can’t even examine their own position critically. The Kos Kids really aren’t a valid reference for a balanced point of veiw.
Before launching an attack you should “turn the table” and see how many different ripostes your opponent has available. I am willing to bet few of them play chess.
8. AThinkingPerson:
A good list but you missed Murtha, the biggest lying, porking, pile of sewage in the place!
Just had to mention him in the spirit of completeness.
Perry @4 “inane and insane” (re dem party)
Now that’s a frightening combination of characteristics, but well phrased.
I’m relieved that the public is reacting. I was beginning to wonder.
Apparently the public’s instincts for honor and national survival are intact. Now will that same public have the wits to VOTE for honor and national survival in 2010? Are those instincts connected to their brains? I guess we’ll find out.
1. When did it become unpatriotic to question the CIA?
2. When did it become an assumed fact that the CIA, an agency trained in deception, would not ever deceive its leashholders? If the CIA could lie to the ranking Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, Pete Hoekstra, then how could you possible jump to the conclusion that it would not lie to anyone else? From the Situation Room yesterday:
Blitzer: Last year the ranking Republican on the House Intelligence Committee Pete Hoekstra of Michigan, he said this in response to a case that he was watching very closely, an American citizen who was killed in a plane crash, the cover up he alleged involving the CIA, he said these words–“We cannot have an intelligence community that covers up what it does and then lies to Congress”. That’s what Pete Hoekstra said in 2008.
I don’t know how many times this has to be stated or before you folks get it: Torture is against the law. Ronald Reagan signed an agreement in 1988 outlawing torture.
If you believe that we ought to just disregard the law everytime we face a crisis, then what does that say about us and about our laws?
It says that you don’t care about our laws, and are willing to let our leaders break them simply because we’re in panic mode.
It says that you would prefer to live in a safe dictatorship rather than a free Democracy.
It says that for all your posturing about freedom and small government, you’re really a Statist, Big-Government advocate who believes that the central government has the authority to suspend the rule of law at its discretion in order to respond to threats to our security.
As Ben Franklin famously said, “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”
This is exactly to what he was referring.
“I don’t know how many times this has to be stated or before you folks get it: Torture is against the law.”
I don’t know how many times this has to be stated or before you get it: Waterboarding is not torture.
On the other hand, reading your endless morally preening BS based on your straw man is.
what will the democrats do when the military, spy agencies and such just stop working for them?
“Blame Bush that’s what!”
Just Passing Through: “I don’t know how many times this has to be stated or before you get it: Waterboarding is not torture.
On the other hand, reading your endless morally preening BS based on your straw man is.”
– Waterboarding was designated as illegal by U.S. generals during the Vietnam War.
– In 1983 Texas sheriff James Parker and three of his deputies were convicted for “subjecting prisoners to a suffocating water torture ordeal in order to coerce confessions. This generally included the placement of a towel over the nose and mouth of the prisoner and the pouring of water in the towel until the prisoner began to move, jerk, or otherwise indicate that he was suffocating and/or drowning”. The sheriff was sentenced to ten years in prison, and the deputies to four years.
– On September 14, 2007, ABC News reported that sometime in 2006 CIA Director Michael Hayden asked for and received permission from the Bush administration to ban the use of waterboarding in CIA interrogations.
– Bent Sorensen, Senior Medical Consultant to the International Rehabilitation Council for Torture Victims and former member of the United Nations Committee Against Torture has said:
It’s a clear-cut case: Waterboarding can without any reservation be labeled as torture. It fulfils all of the four central criteria that according to the United Nations Convention Against Torture (UNCAT) (singe din 1988 by Reagan) defines an act of torture. First, when water is forced into your lungs in this fashion, in addition to the pain you are likely to experience an immediate and extreme fear of death. You may even suffer a heart attack from the stress or damage to the lungs and brain from inhalation of water and oxygen deprivation. In other words there is no doubt that waterboarding causes severe physical and/or mental suffering – one central element in the UNCAT’s definition of torture. In addition the CIA’s waterboarding clearly fulfills the three additional definition criteria stated in the Convention for a deed to be labeled torture, since it is 1) done intentionally, 2) for a specific purpose and 3) by a representative of a state – in this case the US.
So Pastor are you going to demand the deaths of those in San Fran that were saved by the 3 count them 3 waterboardings? It would be only fair after all and in line with your insanity. A city is going to die because you and your kind can’t understand the world is at war and we are loosing. When the jehadists come for you remember your postings please.
POM you betray the fact that you are not likely a US citizen;
US Generals do not have the power to declare something “illegal”
Sheriff Parker violated the civil rights of a US citizen, not an international outlaw. He broke a law regarding the treatment of prisoners in the State of Texas.
CIA internal ops manuals have no legal standing.
Brent Sorenson’s opinion is not a legal precedent.
This entire argument is moot as these persons (to dignify them with an undeserved title, all three of them) are outlaws under all recognized forms of International Law, and are explicitly described as such under the Gevneva Conventions. An outlaw means exactly that; they are outside the law, they have no legal recourse or standing, they can be killed at any time, and in any way by their captors.
They chose to engage in military operations in a manner that is forbidden by International Law and thus earned themselves that status, they have no grounds for complaint.
#17 I agree totaly,these morons on the left allways leave out that they are not us citizens,soldiers of another country .it’s simple if you understand world history.thank you Dick Cheney for a brilliant speech today.
Sulaco: “So Pastor are you going to demand the deaths of those in San Fran that were saved by the 3 count them 3 waterboardings? It would be only fair after all and in line with your insanity. A city is going to die because you and your kind can’t understand the world is at war and we are loosing. When the jehadists come for you remember your postings please.”
Who was saved by waterboardings? Where is your evidence?
anton: “This entire argument is moot as these persons (to dignify them with an undeserved title, all three of them) are outlaws under all recognized forms of International Law, and are explicitly described as such under the Gevneva Conventions. An outlaw means exactly that; they are outside the law, they have no legal recourse or standing, they can be killed at any time, and in any way by their captors. “
You are making the assumption that all of those who were tortured were terrorists/outlaws.
That is an incorrect assumption.
Anton!
Thank you for articulating what is so often omitted or forgotten! You are exactly right. One of the reasons a soldier wears an identifying uniform on the battlefield is so that he can be clearly recognized by both sides as a legal combatant as defined under the Geneva Convention. One purpose of creating this identification in the first place was to define who must receive protection under the Geneva protocols when captured on the battlefield. Also defined were civilians and spies.
POM – Do you understand that only in recent human history has a captured soldier had any protection at all? Through most history, wounded soldiers were either executed outright, tortured for sport and then killed, or sold into slavery. You present yourself as some kind of “learned man”, so you must know that even today, anyone found armed on a battlefield and not in a recognized national uniform can be executed on the spot! Those are the rules agreed upon by all nations. You want to pick and choose which parts of the Geneva protocols to apply. Sorry Charlie, that’s not allowed. It’s all or nothing. Captured spies have traditionally been executed, and still are except in the most advanced nations.
So, we Americans have captured men who wore no uniform and carried arms against us on a battlefield. These men clearly knew the risks and by rights should have been killed on the spot. But, being the “good guys”, we did not execute them when they surrendered, but removed them from the war zone and mined them for intelligence. We fed them well, catered to their religious preferences and promised to repatriate them as soon as hostilities could be concluded. All this, we did because we thought it was “right”. No, we didn’t go completely overboard and offer them full rights of US citizenship. These are more dangerous men than anyone you have ever met! We did not place their keepers at risk by granting them unnecessary freedom of movement or association. We kept them bound all the time. Yes, we kept them hooded when appropriate so they could not scope out the environment and make plans to hurt us. We’re nice guys, but we’re not completely crazy! And for our compassion and effort to be civilized, we are criticized, lied about and abused by the likes of YOU!
Well POM, I have seen enough of your posts to be able to define you pretty well:
Pastor of Muppet: You are a broken record. Typical bleeding heart crapola from a liberal, military hating, America bashing Democrat. Thank you once again Pastor of Muppets for showing us how liberals ALWAYS blame America first no matter what the facts are.
Again I ask you to tell Daniel Pearls family about your nail-biting rundown of a terrorist having their face dunked in water. THE HORROR! Again I ask you to tell the families of AMERICANS killed on 9/11 how our hearts should be heavy with guilt for the terrorists getting dunked in water.
Save your revisionist history for when TeleBama is out of office. It’s going to come in very handy when you have to explain away all of the damage he’s currently doing.
POM- You have never served in any US military outfit. You are not a policeman, fireman, paramedic or law enforcement of any kind. You think yourself wise because you say ugly things about America and because you read books that say ugly things about America. If you are even American, you are then most certainly some kind of academic (an oxymoron in application if ever there was one). You are a leech on society, contributing nothing worthwhile and spreading hate and disinformation wherever you go. You delight in acting a gadfly on this site to encite discord, then sit back and watch the “fun”.
It’s a shame, really. From your writing, it appears you have the intellect to really contribute something positive to society. But, like those who spend their lives writing malicious software, you have dedicated your talents to destruction. So sad…
Pastor of Muppets: “You are making the assumption that all of those who were tortured were terrorists/outlaws. That is an incorrect assumption.”
All…as in the THREE who were “tortured” by waterboarding? I think it’s safe to say that ALL (three) were terrorists/outlaws…
Let us get realistic. With the present state of things, I think most terrorists would rather be interrogated by the CIA than interrogated by most city police departments around the world. Actually, “interrogate” is probably too strong of a word now for what the CIA is permitted to do, and it is also too soft of a word for what many police departments in the world actually do. I am not condoning what is going on in many places, but things do seem to be getting pretty absurd not to mention extremely partisan.
If water boarding is torture, why is it a requirement to submit to water boarding to become a Navy SEAL? Throughout training, you are allowed to inflict pain on the trainee only by using his own body. Sleep deprivation, making them hold their urine, and brutal workouts are allowed, but violence is not.
I do find it a little ironic the Democrats have overplayed their hand so soon on National Security; Nancy Pelosi created her own noose & put it on her neck. The other Democrats keep stepping in manure with the National Security issue.
The Democrats–as usual–as proving they are not serious about National Security & would rather play politics with innocent people’s lives for short term political gain.
PS:
President Obama’s speech this morning was more about him than National Security, proving Obama is a narcissist. Vice President Dick Cheney handed Obama’s butt to him on a platter.
So much for pre-empting Dick Cheney, Mr. President.
AThinkingPerson:“You are a broken record. Typical bleeding heart crapola from a liberal, military hating, America bashing Democrat. Thank you once again Pastor of Muppets for showing us how liberals ALWAYS blame America first no matter what the facts are.”
You are a coward. You would allow our elected officials to disregard our system of Law and Justice simply because you’re terrified of our enemies. You exploit what happened on 9/11 to justify a filthy and shameful chapter in the history of our country. The 9/11 tragedy had absolutely no correlation with Iraq. None of the 9/11 terrorists were from Iraq. And none of the torture prevented a single terrorist attack; if it had, we would all know this information by now.
Requiring our elected officials to adhere to American Law is not bashing America. Holding our country to the same standards that our founding fathers held it to is not bashing America. Requiring our Armed forces to act in a manner that is consistent with our values is not out of bounds.
Daniel Pearl was murdered in Pakistan, not in Iraq. Daniel Pearl was tortured. What is your argument – that we should torture because our enemies torture? Our enemies also use suicide bombs, which are very effective. Should we adopt that method as well? Of course not, because it is contrary to our values. So is torture, and I’ll bet you that the family of Danny Pearl would agree with me.
And really, are you suggesting that grieving families ought to decide US Foreign Policy?
I do not care about the terrorists. I do care about our country. And I am more afraid of the consequences of allowing our elected officials to simply discard the law when it is convenient or when they are afraid. This is exactly what has happened, and it is shameful and contrary to our founding principal that we are a land of Laws and not of men.
Wrapping yourself in the flag and exploiting people’s emotions over 9/11 does not change the fact that torture is illegal, it makes us less safe by creating more terrorists, it puts our troops in greater danger, it destroys our credibility with our allies, and it destroys our standing as the “Shining City on the Hill” that Reagen always spoke about.
In the miniscule case of a “ticking time bomb scenario”, I believe that we should anything and everything necessary to protect our country.
But there never was a ticking time bomb.
There were just a group of guys who had a huge hard-on to invade Iraq, and who subsequently tortured a whole bunch of people, from terrorists to common criminals, to confess that there was link between 9/11 and Saddam.
PoM said: “I don’t know how many times this has to be stated or before you folks get it: Torture is against the law. Ronald Reagan signed an agreement in 1988 outlawing torture.”
Well PoM I’ll toss one of your heroes back at you.
“It depends on what the meaning of the words ‘is’ is.”
Water boarding is NOT torture, the attention grasp is not torture, caterpillars are not torture. Shoving an electric cattle prod in someones rectum or applying it to their testicles is torture, crushing their fingers and toes with a hammer is torture. We water board our own during SERE training, get over it.
This business about rules of war and torture are more assult on our senses from the code pink and lavender love dreamers of the New York Times and politically correct pushers. The higher moral authority reasonings sound outstanding from the pulpit but what do they have to do with the grim reality of killing? What are the rules of a knife fight? Rules such as argued here are more guide lines from behind the desk and not always recommended in the arena.
The object of war is to kill the other person first before he would kill you. Why be confused on the issue? Is shooting in the head proper and shooting in the knee torture? Bad things happen in war and men/women revert to their darkest elements. The entire theater is ripe with atrocity. The ugly, savage, and bestial part of human nature has come out in every armed conflict.
Andersonville prison was terrible, yet the president and the people forgave most of the perps. Ask the WWII guy if everyone was honorable. They were mostly forgiven even if they may have not completely forgiven themselves.
War is bad business. They happen. Unless one feels that they are inferior and needs to die, it is better to kill the enemy and come back alive by any and all means possible. Less than that is to drive blindfolded and handcuffed.
In general, torpedoes are not engineered for the U-turn maneuver, but that does not make it impossible. This is what the wages of false accusations look like.
#25 Tom F: I can tell you that in the world of law enforcement, “interrogation” is not the acceptable word. It’s “interview.”
The P.C. crowd decided that the former word was too harsh. It elicited visions of a black and white film noir in which a suspect is bound to a chair in a small, dark room, while a bright light is aimed into his eyes, all while being grilled relentlessly by a couple of fedora wearing Bogarts, smoking unfiltered Camels, who would, without warning, punch the accused in the nose.
Bottom line: liberals are not very skillful when it comes to self-defense. They are capitulating appeasers, apologising for trying to defend themselves in the first place, then laying down as the bad guys roll over them.
Pastor of Muppets – I don’t think you’ll find many patriotic Americans who believe it is right to break laws or that it is just to inflict cruel treatment on a defenseless person in your custody. Nor do I think it counts as any kind of insight to constantly direct attention to such trivia.
As you can see, even Obama doesn’t know what to do with a person whom all intelligence demonstrates is an insensate Islamist capable of inflicting great physical and psychological damage on our nation but whom the rules of evidence would set free. This must give you pause, or I would think it would. Surely it is not difficult to infer that in this same nebulous area hovering just outside the pale of the law and civilized consideration – this state of nature halo which still irreducibly rings everything – there is room for judicious men charged with enormous responsibility staring A Great Secret in the face to inflict some modicum of pain over the generally established threshold in order to elicit that enormous, illegitimate, evil secret and thereby neutralize it.
Consider also that these are highly controlled circumstances; no one advocates setting up a KGB apparatus. Nor does the employment of otherwise forbidden “techniques” risk or evidence incipient fascism.
This is not about law. Everyone on this site can appreciate your points. But at some point our liberalities subvert our order, and if a little monster like “Abu” Zubaidah has to – basically – thrown under an ocean wave and have water go down the wrong pipe, which has happened to me about 1,000 times, then gee, it really isn’t a close call and certainly isn’t the titanic judiciary-rocking circusmtance your fellow Leninists make it out to be.
“Torture is against the law. Ronald Reagan signed an agreement in 1988 outlawing torture.”
Please provide a link. I am curious about the definition of ‘torture’ that is used;
Is this it?
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1079/is_n2137_v88/ai_6742034/
If so, what about this;
“In view of the large number of States concerned, it was not possible to negotiate a treaty that was acceptable to the United States in all respects. Accordingly, certain reservations, understandings, and declarations have been drafted, which are discussed in the report of the Department of State. With the inclusion of these reservations, understandings, and declarations”
Here is the actual text;
http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/cat.htm
Including this;
“1. For the purposes of this Convention, the term “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. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.”
Note that last line. It seems that there are exceptions.
As a final thought, ever hear of the Kellogg Briand pact?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kellogg-Briand_Pact
That pact outlawed war. It was signed a few years before WW2 started. Think the anit-torture pact will do any better?
From the article: “Who imagined that Dick Cheney would pop up to remind Americans that the enhanced interrogation techniques worked?”
Not many people, but it’s certainly a good thing he stepped up to the plate. Please note no others in the Republican Party were uttering a peep of protest against this narcisisstic megalomaniac of a TOTUS we have to endure for the next 3-1/2 plus years.
This is what you get when a political party- the Democrats, in this case- puts the Party’s success ahead of the Country’s success.
Today’s liberals and Democrats should hang their heads in shame. The party of Harry Truman and John Kennedy and Scoop Jackson has become the party of naive, foul-mouthed fools.
puppet you are a puppet. You and the rest of the liberals that want to carry on about torture are puppets for the simple reason that this whole thing has nothing to do with torture. It’s about demonizing republicans in the hopes of holding on to POWER. Nothing more, nothing less.
#33 Moogie: Thanks for the info. I am just a little confused. Does it mean that people brought in for questioning are being interviewed for some sort of job? I guess “questioning” is too harsh of a word as well for the P.C. crowd. Maybe we should just bring them in to “share” their feelings. That sounds even better. It removes any indication of aggression. In fact while we are at it, “terrorist” is too strong of a word. Maybe we could call them, “freedom fighters”.