This past week President Obama authorized the release of a set of classified memorandums written during the Bush administration. These documents outlined the procedures and tactics employed during the interrogations of captured senior Al Qaeda operatives and have been referred to by the press as the "torture memos". President Obama's release of these memos took place despite substantial protest. The four most recent CIA Directors-John Deutch, George Tenet, Porter Goss and Michael Hayden-all recommended against the release of these memorandums. President Obama's own newly appointed Director of CIA, Leon Panetta, also recommended against releasing the documents. Yet President Obama, in a seemingly relentless effort to discredit his predecessor, George W. Bush, made the memorandum available to the public anyway.
In taking this action, President Obama has effectively defined the limits of what America, at its most aggressive and most passive, would do against Al Qaeda detainees. This will undoubtedly allow groups like Al Qaeda to adjust the preparation and training of their operatives. Administration officials as well as some journalists on the left have argued that the President took into consideration the fact that much of the memos' contents have already made it into the press. This is a hollow defense. Speculation or discussion of these details in the press may allow Al Qaeda and other terrorists to assess potential U.S. capabilities to some extent. But official White House memorandums released to the public, and immediately downloadable online, are the gold standard for Al Qaeda.
In addition to bolstering Al Qaeda's tactical position and morale, I argue that President Obama has also demoralized those members of the Clandestine Service that make enormous personal sacrifices and take tremendous risks in the fight to keep our nation safe. After having served most of my adult life in CIA's Clandestine Service and having led many important counterterrorism missions, I can say that the rank and file is truly horrified by President Obama's naïve decision making. Apologists for Obama's misguided decision may counter by highlighting the President's announcement that no CIA employees who participated in the interrogation program will be prosecuted. Surely President Obama understood that taking such action would have accelerated retirement of many senior officers already eligible to depart and would have also caused a significant number of resignations.
On top of all this, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Patrick Leahy, called recently for a "truth and reconciliation commission"-much like what South Africa used to address decades of apartheid. Leahy's "truth commission" would purportedly be established to investigate allegations of wrongdoing at the Justice Department during the Bush Administration. It would allow America to cleanse itself of what he terms Bush Administration crimes. This is simply a cheap political stunt designed solely for Democratic political advantage and will further undermine our ability to defend ourselves against Al Qaeda terror.
On a daily basis we watch countries like Iran and North Korea continue to advance their technology in the area of weapons of mass destruction. What the Obama administration fails to comprehend is that terrorist groups are also evolving their tradecraft and the lethality with which they plan to strike. The fact that we did not suffer a significant follow-on attack in the continental United States during George W. Bush's eight year presidency resulted from the extremely aggressive posture taken by his administration. George W. Bush, for all his mistakes and missteps, did understand that we were at war with a lethal and insidious enemy, and he conducted himself accordingly. Sadly, it is inevitable that a time will come when we learn of an impending catastrophic attack on an American city. In today's highly globalized society, small numbers of people can leverage technology to do terrible things. Given the positions staked out by President Obama, how does a reasonable person believe the national security apparatus will function in such a crisis? Will individuals be willing to accept the reality of such a threat and be allowed to act decisively at the lowest level to counter the threat, or will such threats have to work their way up the chain of command, at the cost of time, for reflection by President Obama himself?
President Obama's handling of the classified Bush-era interrogation memorandums displays a lack of maturity. More dangerously, it displays a lack of understanding of what could lie ahead for the nation. Like all Presidents in the modern age, Obama is likely to face events in the years ahead that will be heartrending. To prepare for these challenges and to minimize the impact on the nation, he must avoid rewarding our enemy and build consensus within the national security establishment. Unfortunately, with the release of these memos, the hope that President Obama would conduct himself in foreign affairs as a moderate pragmatist has all but evaporated.
Gary Berntsen is a decorated former Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) career officer who served in the Directorate of Operations between October 1982 and June 2005.
Unless you've worked at the CIA and have the knowledge of CIA Directors-John Deutch, George Tenet, Porter Goss, Michael Hayden, Leon Panetta, or Gary Bernsten, I really don't give a flip what your opinion is. These men have access to FACTS.
"These men will say anything to defend their positions...anything."
And of course since they're not spouting the leftist party line they "Have" to be lying...right? not a fact to be found?...and of course you know this because...you........--> "felt" it had to be ! LOL! Unlike the tons of facts you toss out when those facts show your leftist Gods in a less than flattering light...but why bring that up...you don't feel it's the truth do you! LOL!
The language of priorities is the religion of Socialism.....Aneurin Bevan
These men will say anything to defend their positions...anything. That makes what they have to say worth less than your opinions.
LOL! That's pretty weak, Ron. You can do better.
*****
You can borrow from the Devil
You can borrow from a friend
But the Devil will give you twenty
When your friend only got ten
- Ramblin Jack Elliot
Someone needs to explain to me how exposing the legal reasoning which was used to justify things that we and the whole world already knew had been done (there's nothing I saw in the memos with regard to techniques used which wasn't in the Red Cross report or in earlier public statements, except for the one detail about the insect in the box) can harm national security.
Does al Qaeda have an office full of lawyers who will somehow analyze this reasoning and come up with a strategy to destroy us with amicus curiae filings?
like facts are going to make a difference to the radical leftists this time....they could care less about the facts, hurting the moral of those who sacrifice to defend us and make us safer, or how they embolden the terrorists.
It is all about getting Bush at any cost....and it is so obvious.
It's all about protecting Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, etc... you rightwingers are all too obvious, that's what you did for the last 8 years and you haven't changed. You haven't given a fuck about the US as a nation.
"It's all about protecting Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, etc... you rightwingers are all too obvious, that's what you did for the last 8 years and you haven't changed. You haven't given a fuck about the US as a nation."
Nope...once again you have it wrong! It's about your half-ass politics and the defense of everything leftist no matter how much it actually does hurt this country and it's people...that's what it always is with you idiots and always will be! There's nothing too low for you fucks to defend and nothing too petty for you to attack....bitch, moan and complain and blame for eight years and now defend the indefensible like the zealot cultist you are...all born out of your ignorance and your petty hate! Your above statement makes/proves the point to a "T"!
The language of priorities is the religion of Socialism.....Aneurin Bevan
"defend the indefensible like the zealot cultist you are"
That's you in a nutshell, and the rest of the rightwing, defending the indefensible and pretending that either it didn't happen or that if it happened it was no big deal. GFY skippy
Do you have to have it spelled out for you the importance of keeping our interagation techniques secret, are you and all the other dim-bulb leftists really that stupid and ignorant?
Do you not have even enough common sense to understand that if we have to divulge every bit of information detailing how we interrogate, the information gathered or not, and how spineless America is when it comes to captured enemy? Are you really that stupid?
We will now be completely helpless with future prisoners because of thoughtless, brainless, gutless, idiots like yourself.
Our military will, or already has been, be completley demoralized over this brain-dead fuckup all in the interst of leftist hate and get-Bush-at-any-cost bullshit. Their only alternative is now to take no prisoners and instead just shoot them. Or at least until the leftist get bullets outlawed for being too painfull, cruel, and unusual punishment. Hey, I know, we could have bean-bag armies....
Keep hoping you're right, carolyn, I'm hoping you're wrong, for the sake of our nation. I also hope that those from the Democrats that "signed off" on all this are either prosecuted as well or found to have also been lied to about what was going on.
I remember the suicide missions of the 9/11 hijackers and the totureous beheadings of Americans in Iraq, and the only thing I think about is Thank God! there are American patriots willing to give their service to take these monsters on.
Does al Qaeda have an office full of lawyers who will somehow analyze this reasoning and come up with a strategy to destroy us with amicus curiae filings?
No but the ACLU woud be happy to provide them with all of their expertiser available. Any more quea=-stions?
Does al Qaeda have an office full of lawyers who will somehow analyze this reasoning and come up with a strategy to destroy us with amicus curiae filings?
No but the ACLU woud be happy to provide them with all of their expertiser available. Any more quea=-stions?
*********************************************
So, poetse, it is your premise that the ACLU and al Qaeda are equivalent? Your assertion assumes that the ACLU is supporting al Qaeda. Is that what you intended to say?
So, poetse, it is your premise that the ACLU and al Qaeda are equivalent? Your assertion assumes that the ACLU is supporting al Qaeda. Is that what you intended to say?
As usual, Jim, you jump to conclusions. The ACLU offers its services where needed, If al Qaeda does not have its own lawyers and wants to persue the legal course suggested by Jan, I see nopthing that woul prevent their offering their services
As usual, Jim, you jump to conclusions. The ACLU offers its services where needed, If al Qaeda does not have its own lawyers and wants to persue the legal course suggested by Jan, I see nopthing that woul prevent their offering their services
*****************************
And, what problem would you have with that? I'm sure that you are not suggesting that "Equal Protection under the Law" is a premise to just forget?
Jim..
This message has been edited by Avalon99 on Apr 23, 2009 9:40 PM
Why did you ignore the serious question and only answer the snarky comment? Here's the serious question:
Someone needs to explain to me how exposing the legal reasoning which was used to justify things that we and the whole world already knew had been done (there's nothing I saw in the memos with regard to techniques used which wasn't in the Red Cross report or in earlier public statements, except for the one detail about the insect in the box) can harm national security.
Well, let's do it this way. When lawyers arer asked for a legal opinion, that opinion is as valid as any other until the case is taken to court and tried.
Now during the Bush administration, there were polices deemed legal. Had the been taken to court, the Court might have ruled for them or against them depending on the court, And were it to be taken to another court a few years from now that court might reverse the other court's decision.
Therefore, one can reasonable conclude that people cannot be prosecuted for giving incorrect legal opinions. If an attorney gives too many wrong opinions, the ABA is the proper authority to handle the matter. Not the following admin 9streation who disagrees with the previous administration.
There can be no rule of law if we prosecute everyone who renders a wrong opinion. We would run out of judges in no time,.
The judicial system is based on appeals--that means the are looking for a different opinion.
Does that answer your question. It is for the sanity of the rule of law.
.
Sorry, lawyers are not judges, when a judge renders a decision about the law he is doing his job, when a lawyer interprets the law he is doing a judges job. If Bush wanted to test the legality of the definition of torture that was on the books he should have taken a case before the courts not to his lawyers.
Sorry, lawyers are not judges, when a judge renders a decision about the law he is doing his job, when a lawyer interprets the law he is doing a judges job. If Bush wanted to test the legality of the definition of torture that was on the books he should have taken a case before the courts not to his lawyers.
So I should go to a judge for legal advice since a lawyer doesn't have the right to an opinion.. Sorry, Ron, Lawyers are always interpreting the law. That's exactly how the earn their money. What Chance do you have of winning this case? Can a Judye be the only one qualified to answer that question?
Was the definition of torture defined in a court of law? NO, i8t was\n't sufficiently defined so that legal scholars could all agree on its definition.
But, you Ron think it's legal or illegal when it is no more than opinion.
Do you not know that identical cases have been taken to different courts and had different outcomes?
This message has been edited by Poetse12 on Apr 24, 2009 9:10 AM
I personally would limit the rights of the constitution of the United States. And people who are not citiuzens if for crimes commited in the us. aRE dEMOCRATS CTIZENS?
I personally would limit the rights of the constitution of the United States. And people who are not citiuzens if for crimes commited in the us. aRE dEMOCRATS CTIZENS?
*********************************************
Ok... you answer the question: "Are Democrats Citizens"?
I find it very ironic that the leftist government of the United States is going to go after lawyers for their "opinions"...which is no way legal but is also going after the goose that layes the golden eggs for the Democrats...or is it to keep the "Geese" in line that have strayed from the reservation...as it obviously seems! Paradox seems to fit.... but partisan politics seems to be a "tailored fit" but who really is the tailor???
The language of priorities is the religion of Socialism.....Aneurin Bevan
Yes, Jim. If you remember your Civics lessons from long ago you would know the definition of "citizen."
And if you recall your history lessons, you woul know that Equality before the applied to all citizens who were men and owned property and paid their taxes.
Well, let's do it this way. When lawyers arer asked for a legal opinion, that opinion is as valid as any other until the case is taken to court and tried. ...
I didn't ask about the quality of the reasoning, or whether you think it's appropriate to prosecute lawyers for their reasoning, I asked how revealing legal reasoning can damage national security.
So far, nobody is willing to respond to that question. I wonder why - could it be because you all know your argument is pure 100% horseshit?
This message has been edited by jrooth on Apr 24, 2009 9:49 AM
Well, as you ms=ay or may or may not know Muslims are strict legalists. In fact, in every country in which they reside, they consider Allah's law above the law of ant government.
Therefore in understanding how the law is reasoned, they are able to understand why some in this country prosecute those who fight them. And in determining the weakness in our judicial system, they are able to overcome the objections to their being the enemy and show that the real enemy is the group who was fighting them.
You are aware that Muslims have special prayer rooms and receive special treatment in our schools and public places that are forbidden to Christians and other religions in this country.
The reaso, of course, is the have studied the reasoning for our legal opinionds.
Isn't Cheney playing politics in defending the action sby saying Obama has made the US less safe by releasing the memos?
So if one seeks to destroy the reputation of another be exposine ang disparaging his methods, is it playing politics to defend his actions?
Obviously6 the actions of one person is always considered the best possible action to take at that particular time. He is entitkled to take those actions and defend them as the proper actions.
But when his opponent attempts to show wrong his actions are, he is playing politics unless there is a valid reason to show those actions. So the question is what was gained by releasing infortmation about the previous administration and was it nesscessary to release it for reasons other thasn political?
![[linked image]](http://www.network54.com/Realm/JansRealm/wfelix.gif)
