08/25/09 By Charles Hakes 'Inhumane' CIA terror tactics spur criminal probe (AP)
AP - The Obama administration launched a criminal investigation Monday into harsh questioning of detainees during President George W. Bush's war on terrorism, revealing CIA interrogators' threats to kill one suspect's children and to force another to watch his mother sexually assaulted.
Of course, Holder's in charge of this.
This is no doubt an ugly business however you slice it. But the two worst things that can come of it are:
1. A public expose` of the terrorist interrogation methods that worked will make the methods less effective.. Some methods were based on fear. Terrorists thought they might be killed. Now they will know that they won't be killed.
It's too bad that any of this had to happen, of course, It's even worse that 3,000 people on 9/11 thought were going to die, and then did die at the hands of terrorists.
Terrorists suffered anguish from lies they were told during interrogation. Tough! The survivors of those 3,000 victims suffered anguish and will do so for the remainder of their days. The terrorists could talk and rid themselves of the anguish they were suffering. There could be no surcease of anguish for the survivors.
2. Public humiliation and perhaps prosecution of Americans who did their duty and kept us all safe is shameful treatment for them. Whatever was done was effective. Further attacks were thwarted because of intelligence. We had no more attacks.
I don't know if what our interrogators did was legal or moral. I think we must entertain the notion that, considerations of legality and morality aside, it was effective. It would have been immoral to lose more American lives to terrorists if that were possible to avoid. If there is a choice to be made between protecting terrorists and protecting American citizens Holder needs to understand that his duty is to protect Americans and not terrorists.
So we need to give our interrogators -- those American patriots who did the dirty work that had to be done -- some quiet attaboys instead of prosecutions, and then leave them alone. They performed a duty that Holder and his unpatriotic lackeys can't even fathom.
Also I don't care about the legality or morality of our interrogation methods because I would prefer terrorists to be roasting on Beelzebub's spits in hell.
But then I thought perhaps Holder should be given the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps he has some special abilities when it comes to determining what is just treatment for terrorists. So I did a quick on-line review of Wikipedia. I expected to find some military service, perhaps in intelligence, that might qualify him. There was nothing -- no military, no intelligence. (Oops!)
These are Holder's special qualifications: (quoted from Wikipedia)
Terrorist experience #1: Holder was involved in Clinton 's decision to reduce the criminal sentences of 16 members of the Boricua Popular Army, an organization that has been categorized by the FBI as a terrorist organization. The clemency request was initially opposed in 1996 by U.S. Pardons Attorney Margaret Love. When Holder was elevated to Deputy Attorney General in 1997, he was asked to reexamine the issue by three members of Congress. In July 1999, Holder recommended clemency to Clinton with a report from then U.S. Pardons Attorney Roger Adams that neither supported nor opposed clemency. A month later, Clinton granted the clemency. According to The Hartford Courant, the clemency was unusual because it was opposed by the FBI, the federal prosecutor and the victims. According to the newspaper, it was also unusual because, before the commutations, the Boricua Popular Army members were not required to repudiate their actions, and they were not asked to provide any information concerning the whereabouts of Victor Manuel Gerena, a co-conspirator and one of the FBI Ten Most Wanted Fugitives, or the millions of dollars stolen by the group in a 1983 robbery of Wells Fargo in West Hartford, Connecticut
So Holder's first terrorist experience that I could find was his role in the pardon of 16 terrorists, which he did in exchange for absolutely nothing. That is, nothing we know about.
Score: Terrorists 1, America 0.
Terrorist experience #2: In 2004, Holder helped negotiate an agreement with the Justice Department for Chiquita Brands International in a case that involved Chiquita's payment of "protection money" to the United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia, a group on the U.S. government's list of terrorist organizations.[22][23] In the agreement, Chiquita's officials pleaded guilty and paid a fine of $25 million. Holder represented Chiquita in the civil action that grew out of this criminal case.[23]
This thinking seems more convoluted than the contents of a gut wagon down at the slaughterhouse in mid-July. It also smells about the same. Let's see if I can straighten this out. Chiquita was getting shook down by a Latin-American terrorist organization for "worker protection." The Justice Department jumped in on this and instead of saying that the terrorists were wrong for shaking down Chiquita that Chiquita was wrong for getting shook down. The Justice Dept probably made the case that Chiquita was bribing the terrorists instead of the terrorists shaking down Chiquita. If you look at it that way, the payoffs were criminal, even if a necessary cost of doing business. So Chiquita was fined $25 million by the Justice Department for getting shook down. Holder negotiated that agreement. Wow. He may be a bad enemy but it sounds like he could be a worse friend.
Anyhow, that's terrorist experience #2 for Holder. Score: Terrorists 2, America 0.
Here's terrorism experience #3: Holder favors closing the Guantanamo Bay detention camp,[28] although he has said that the detainees are not technically entitled to Geneva Convention protections.[29] He is opposed to the Bush administration's implementation of the Patriot Act, saying it is "bad ultimately for law enforcement and will cost us the support of the American people."[30][31] He has been critical of Enhanced interrogation techniques and the NSA warrantless surveillance program, accusing the Bush administration of a "disrespect for the rule of law... [that is] not only wrong, it is destructive in our struggle against terrorism."[32]
Without belaboring the point, Holder not only misconstrues the mindset of the American people toward anti-terrorism measures but goes so far as to say that intelligence methods are destructive in the struggle against terrorism. He has no experience that would make this a qualified opinion.
Terrorists 3, America 0.
Where does Holder see the threat to the safety of Americans?
It's not from terrorists, it is from American citizens themselves.
While D.C. v. Heller was being heard by the Supreme Court in 2008, Holder joined the Reno-led amicus brief, which urged the Supreme Court to uphold Washington, D.C.'s handgun ban and said the position of the Department of Justice, from Franklin Roosevelt through Clinton, was that the Second Amendment does not protect an individual right to keep and bear arms for purposes unrelated to a State’s operation of a well-regulated militia.[25] Holder said that overturning the 1976 law "opens the door to more people having more access to guns and putting guns on the streets."[26]
Holder may or may not be correct about the position of the Department of Justice. The position of the Department of Justice shouldn't matter in our democratic republic. It is the position of the American people on the matter that should dictate the position of the Department of Justice. It doesn't appear that Holder understands this. He seems to think that the DOJ makes rules for the governance of citizens.
Holder says Americans cannot be trusted with guns. I say Holder cannot be trusted to deal with any matters involving the protection of American citizens from threats originating within or without our nation.
Just who in hell does he think the enemy is?
|
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
Inhumane' CIA terror tactics spur criminal probe
Saturday, June 27, 2009
How about this, President Obama? We win. They Lose.
President Obama seems to be grappling with an approach to safely resolve the grave international problems of Iran and of North Korea. He is floundering for the right tactics when what he needs is the right strategy. As my friend Herb Meyer, who worked closely with Reagan in winning the Cold War, reminds us, Reagan's strategy was straightforward: "How about this? We win. They lose."
Saturday, May 30, 2009
Wrong Then, Wrong Now
The Obama administration is repeating Clinton’s national-security errors.
Friday, May 29, 2009
Bush Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder
Thursday, May 28, 2009
Our Values and Terrorist Incentives
Friday, May 22, 2009
Obama in Bush Clothing: America Fights On
The 10 punches Dick Cheney landed on Barack Obama's jaw
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
100 Days of Devastatingly Swift Success
Going forward, it won’t be possible to continue to place blame on former President Bush and the Republicans. If President Obama fails, it will be his failure and his alone.
Saturday, April 11, 2009
Living With the Bomb -- Literally
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
America Has a Naive President
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
An Open Letter to President Obama - # 4
An Open Letter to President Obama - # 4
Hello again Mr. President,
Sorry these letters have become monologues instead of dialogues but that is what happens when only one side is willing to partake in the discussion. If you ever really want to respond, perhaps it will help to read the previous three letters I wrote to you. Following are those links for your convenience:
Link for Letter #1 , Link for Letter #2 , Link for Letter #3
Mr. President, you have the most difficult job in the world. But no matter how big the job, all successful executives do one thing well. They set priorities. You simply cannot do everything at once. Even if you could, doing things in order saves an incredible amount of duplication and waste.
I hope today we can establish just three priorities upon which most Americans would agree. Yes, a case could be made for one or two other major items which might be included, but for discussion purpose let us start with just these three.
First: National Security
Nothing matters if we lose our sovereignty. Period. You can talk all day long about education, taxes, a college football playoff system, stem cell research, what kind of first dog you want for the kids, home foreclosures, whether or not Rush Limbaugh is the head of the Republican party, healthcare, providing additional funding to ACORN to further subvert our election process, immigration, well you get the idea. The point is, if we lose our way and become a second class power none of the other worthwhile programs will have any meaning or effect. If you accept the premise that in any group (people or countries) one is always the leader and there is always a pecking order from strongest to weakest, then all things being equal (and they never are) I prefer that the US be that leader.
I would argue that national security is the first, second, third, fourth, and fifth priority. Can we at least agree that it is your number one job as President of the United States to keep us safe from all threats foreign and domestic? Good. Now we are getting somewhere. Ben Johnson in FrontPage magazine said it perfectly.
"It appears he (President Obama) views the defense budget as a nest egg to be raided for "investment." He has promised cuts in Defense -- and that is one pledge we may rest assured he will keep. He similarly promised to "reform our defense budget so that we're not paying for Cold War-era weapons systems we don't use." Of course, we use hardly any of them. That's the point of having a deterrent force, another shibboleth of the Left. The primary American value is the preservation and continuance of the United States of America. If American values conflict with the well-being of her citizens and elevate the legal rights of its attackers to such a level that it inhibits anti-terrorism measures, then those values make us neither safer nor stronger but more susceptible."
In previous letters I touched on many other national security issues so let us get to some other priorities.
Second: Jobs
Once we are secure and free, the next most important priority in the US is jobs. It is not the governments function to provide jobs, it is the governments function to create an environment conducive to job growth. Through effective tax policy and regulation we should have the most job friendly economy in the world. We have the work force, technology, and skills to achieve virtually zero unemployment.
Almost without exception we shoot ourselves in the foot time and again when we lose jobs to other countries. Whether it be through government supported union inflexibility, or one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world, or intrusive government regulations, or minimum wage laws, which effectively choke off entry level positions normally used to train the workforce for the next level of responsibility, we find the US taking a back seat to our trading partners. We have lost our manufacturing base and I believe your second priority is to develop programs to get it back.
We need jobs. What is the point of discussing Social Security, education, clean energy, healthcare, etc, if we do not have jobs on which we pay taxes, so the these programs can be funded?
You recently said, "The high cost of health care has weighted down our economy and our conscience long enough. So let there be no doubt -- health care reform cannot wait, it must not wait, and it will not wait another year".
Sir, with all due respect what is weighing down our economy is the loss of jobs and the tax base those jobs produce. We have the finest healthcare system in the world. Perfect, NO... but miles ahead of any other. There is not a successful model of government run healthcare anywhere. Why not try the free market solutions first before condemning our system to the trash heap of other failed government programs.
Free small business to create jobs and you will be well on your way to fixing many of the social problems we face.
Third: A Sensible Energy Policy
I emphasize sensible because I believe you have veered off the path of sensible onto the "yellow brick road" of wishin' and hopin'. A large majority of Americans place energy independence near the top of their priority list. It is with good reason, because a sound energy policy strongly supports both national security and jobs.
The less we depend on foreign governments for our energy the more self sufficient we are. Anytime we depend on others for our energy needs, we run the risk (especially in times of war or emergency) of severe shortages. The more we use our own resources such as oil, clean coal, natural gas, oil shale and tar sands (all of which we have in abundant supply) the more our jobs and dollars stay in the US. How many jobs could we create if we built ten more oil refineries and/or nuclear power plants? How many jobs could we create if we drilled for oil both on and off shore, and utilized our more than ample supply of oil shale and tar sands? You cannot export this kind of job.
Do not misunderstand, I support your plan to develop green technologies for the future. It is a good and desirable goal. It is just that now, today, these unproven technologies simply cannot provide the quantity of energy we need to exist in any serious degree. To make matters worse, it seems you refuse to acknowledge that a large portion of the scientific community dispute the theory of man made global warming. It is the height of irresponsibility to spend billions upon billions of dollars to solve a problem until we understand it and can define it properly. Pat Sajak asked a very sobering question:
"What is the perfect temperature"? "If we are to embark on a lifestyle-altering quest to lower the temperature (or at least minimize its rise), what is our goal? I don’t ask this flippantly. Can we demonstrate that one setting on the global thermostat is preferable over another? If so, what is it, and how do we get there? And, once there, how do we maintain it? Will we ever have to “heat things up” again if it drops below that point?"
Mr. President, the science is not settled. The debate is still open, whether or not you agree. Your "cap and trade" program is a huge tax on the very people you promise will suffer no tax increase. A year ago, you said, “Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.” Think of "cap-and-trade" as a price-protection racket for inefficient technologies. You cannot un-break this egg. Please slow down on this one. It will be better for all to err on the side of national security and jobs rather than "pie in the sky" technologies that, while worthwhile, are clearly a generation away from reality.
Please remember our nation's priorities. There is time to attempt to solve all the other problems later. If you do not attend to our priorities now, none of the other goals will be important anyway.
Respectfully,
Steve Mishket
03/10/09
Friday, February 20, 2009
An Open Letter to President Obama - # 2
An Open Letter to President Obama - # 2
Mr. President, I really did not think I would be writing to you again so soon. Following is a link to my first letter in case you did not get a chance to read it. I really did not expect a reply but it would have been nice.
Shame on you Sir, for not renouncing your attorney general, Eric Holder, for calling us a "Nation of Cowards" in regard to race relations. You should slap him silly for having the nerve to suggest such a thing. Its time to get over it. We ARE NOT a racist nation. Sure there are individuals who have a problem but we ARE NOT a racist country. This deserves no special praise but look how far we have come in such a short time. We have two black former Secretary's of State, a black former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, a black attorney general (the one who calls us cowards) , a black chairman of the RNC, a black President, black CEO's in charge of major corporations, black senators and congressmen, as well as black neighbors, friends and co-workers.
This will draw the wrath of many, but blacks comprise less than 15% of the population. Do the math. An overwhelming majority have acted in a completely non racist way. Politically speaking, the only time race comes up is when the left brings it up and it is always as a pejorative toward the right.
Shame on you Sir, for supporting caps on executive pay. Companies compete for top talent just as professional sports teams do. If you want to propose change why not support pay for performance? Set realistic performance levels and pay on that basis. Large and small businesses do it all the time. It is not perfect but at least it has a basis in logic. And while you are at it, please include congressional pay. At the current level of congressional performance they would be working for nothing or owe us money.
Shame on you Sir, for supporting and signing a massively bloated Stimulus Bill which was rammed through congress without allowing time for it to be read and/or debated. What happened to your campaign pledge to post all legislation on a web site for at least five days so "we the people" could study and digest it. To make matters worse, the copies you sent to our representatives to review were not in a format which allowed them to quickly search for key words and phrases. This resulted in several toxic provisions remaining in the bill which allegedly were negotiated out before the vote. One example: the healthcare provision, which in effect, will (down the road) allow the government to decide (pay for or not pay for) which treatment older patients are entitled to. If the government deems it not cost effective to treat your ailment... you die. The compassion overwhelms me.
Still on the Stimulus Bill... did it ever occur to anyone to CUT spending. You promised to go over the budget line by line to eliminate waste. Have you been too busy to do that? Maybe you could assign the task to an underling. I am retired and I have time if you are looking for a volunteer.
Shame on you Sir, for not taking Russian Prime Minister Putin's warning to heart. He said:
"The US should take a lesson from the pages of Russian history and not exercise “excessive intervention in economic activity and blind faith in the state’s omnipotence”. “In the twentieth century, the Soviet Union made the state’s role absolute,” Putin said during a speech at the opening ceremony of the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. “In the long run, this made the Soviet economy totally uncompetitive. This lesson cost us dearly. I am sure nobody wants to see it repeated.” Putin said, “Nor should we turn a blind eye to the fact that the spirit of free enterprise, including the principle of personal responsibility of businesspeople, investors, and shareholders for their decisions, is being eroded in the last few months. There is no reason to believe that we can achieve better results by shifting responsibility onto the state.”
Mr. President, how can you not take this seriously and learn from it?
Shame on you Sir, for only giving lip-service to bipartisanship. You have talked a good game but when given the perfect opportunity (the Stimulus Bill) you effectively shut out all opportunity to bring us together. 46% of the country does not agree with you. We do not want to be a Socialistic country. As someone said, "One man's bipartisanship is another's capitulation". We do not want to be bipartisan in any matters involving our trend toward socialism. We will not capitulate on this.
Shame on you Sir, for supporting and recommending that we can solve the credit crisis by encouraging the use of more credit. Its like giving an alcoholic another drink while demanding that he quit. You complained about "predatory" lending practices such as A.R.M.'s with low teaser rates that then reset much higher a few years later. In your just released Mortgage Stabilization Plan, mortgage rates would be reduced for homeowners who have seen their payments rise to more than 38% of their monthly income. But those reductions last just five years, after which they begin to reset to higher rates. In short, your plan is just drawing out the artificially low rates a bit longer. Isn't that exactly what you have been critical of?
Shame on you Sir, for continuing to prop up the failing auto industry. Auto companies are dying and nothing you do can bring them back. Prepare a nice eulogy and thank the unions for killing our beloved patient. Rest in peace. I am sure you know in states that heavily rely on unions, few if any are fiscally successful like Michigan, California, New York, Pennsylvania, etc. Right to work states consistently show greater job growth than non right to work states. There is a message here.
Shame on you Sir, for continuing to blame past administrations for the current problems you face. While you were running for president you said you could make it better. OK, go ahead, we are waiting. You keep saying it is worse than you thought, and it could still get even worse. That just tells me you were unaware and out of touch when you were running for president. You are president now. Your actions from January 20, 2009 on will make things better or worse. It seems your actions now are continuing the bad times you are just now becoming aware of.
Shame on you Sir, for betraying the future your two beautiful little girls will face. They need positive role models to look up to. You certainly are that in some ways. If you become the president that puts us over the edge on the road to socialism, the president that takes away our individual freedom and responsibility, or the president that bankrupts this country beyond repair, they will be making excuses for you for the rest of their lives.
I will close for now with a quote from our mutual favorite president.
You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich.
You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.
You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift.
You cannot lift the wage earner up by pulling the wage payer down.
You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred.
You cannot build character and courage by taking away men's initiative and independence.
You cannot help men permanently by doing for them, what they could and should do for themselves.
---Abraham Lincoln
Actually, Ronald Reagan is my favorite but I was trying to bond.
Respectfully,
Steve Mishket
stevemishket@comcast.net
02/20/09