Obama flip-flops on potential torture prosecutions

posted at 1:33 pm on April 21, 2009 by Ed Morrissey

Jim Geraghty’s axiom continues to apply as another Barack Obama Position Expiration Date arrives.  After a series of rebuffs towards those who want war-crimes trials against Bush administration officials for allegedly approving torture, Obama reversed himself today and suggested that such trials might take place.  Jake Tapper gives the details:

President Obama suggested today that it remained a possibility that the Justice Department might bring charges against officials of the Bush administration who devised harsh interrogation policies that some see as torture. …

The Bush-era memos providing legal justifications for enhanced interrogation methods “reflected us losing our moral bearings.” The president said that he did not think it was “appropriate” to prosecute those CIA officers who “carried out some of these operations within the four corners of the legal opinions or guidance that had been provided by the White House.”

But in clear change from language he and members of his administration have used in the past, the president said that “with respect to those who formulated those legal decisions, I would say that is going to be more of a decision for the Attorney General within the parameters of various laws and I don’t want to prejudge that. I think that there are a host of very complicated issues involved there.”

Just yesterday, asked by a reporter as to why the administration was not seeking to “hold accountable” Bush administration lawyers who may have “twisted the law,” White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said, “the president is focused on looking forward, that’s why.”

And now he’s focused on the past?  If so, it may be because Obama decided that he couldn’t take any more heat from the far Left.  They’ve been wanting blood for years and expected to get it with a Democrat in the White House and Democrats controlling Capitol Hill.  Obama did a pretty good job of putting them off for three months, but apparently that’s the limit of his endurance.

In some ways, though, Obama put himself in an untenable position.  The self-proclaimed Constitutional scholar had argued all along that the US broke laws during interrogations, and made that point again when it released the Bush-era OLC memos.  In a nation of laws, how does one make that claim as President and not allow the supposed crimes to be probed?  Listening to the rhetoric, this flip-flop was entirely predictable.

Obama can open the door to prosecutions, but who will he prosecute?  He’ll find it difficult to go after the interrogators, who relied on some strange opinions from the normally-binding Office of Legal Counsel.  The prosecution can try undermining that by claiming it as a Nuremberg defense, but this wasn’t Nazi Germany and the OLC exists to give this kind of legal direction.  Interrogators relied on those interpretations in good faith.

That leaves George Tenet and the OLC attorneys, but they didn’t conduct the torture, and the OLC didn’t order the interrogations, either.  They responded to a request from the CIA to opine on the legality of the procedures.  Holder can prosecute Tenet, but then he’d also have to file charges against several members of Congress who were briefed on the procedures and never objected — including current Speaker Nancy Pelosi.  If Tenet would get prosecuted for ordering the interrogation techniques, then Pelosi and others would have to get prosecuted for being accessories in not taking action to stop them.

Obama had it right in the first place.  He made the decision to ban those procedures, and he should just keep looking forward.  If those interpretations were flawed, and I’d agree that at least some of them were, they’ve been withdrawn.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4

The democrats have been successful with the help of their activists friends in the MSM of injecting selective amnesia when it comes to their statements regarding the wars in Iraq/Afghanistan and the policies that were instituted in fighting it.

Hopefully this political stunt will bring all the democratic support for the very same policies they call Bush a war criminal over right up front for everybody to see how hypocritical and corrupt they are.

Baxter Greene on April 21, 2009 at 3:59 PM

I think you have put your finger on the principle reason this “prosecuting the Bush Administration for war crimes” nonsense will never get very far. There are too many uncomfortable skeletons in Democrat closets – it’s too obvious they changed their positions with hindsight, particularly in the hysterical intensity of their effort to win back the White House in 2004. Bush’s success in keeping them safe gave them the luxury of developing exquisitely refined and nuanced positions on various aspects of the war that had terrified them throughout 2002. If Bush had not succeeded in shutting down al-Qaeda’s domestic operations, and the terrorists had managed to finish the job thwarted by the heroes of United 93, these same Democrats would be asking if there was anything more harsh than waterboarding we could use. The current criticism of Bush’s intelligence-gathering policies comes from the same party that still sets aside a weekend every year to agonize over the method we used to defeat the Empire of Japan.

The hard truth is that the modern era of asymmetrical warfare puts a huge premium on intelligence gathering, which is never going to be something you can earn a Boy Scout merit badge in. The gamble of the terrorist is that immense military might is impotent when it doesn’t know where to strike, or how to defend against attacks that can come from any direction, against targets with no military significance. Intelligence is the first line of defense against terrorists – we cannot protect ourselves from it with alert bombers and distant early warning radar. We cannot create a military border against it. Without proper intelligence, our military can only avenge the victims. It is a game the enemy only has to win once, to inflict a horrific loss of life. It’s a game we’ve been winning with remarkable consistency for eight years, and now the Democrats flirt with the idea of retroactively turning those victories into defeats. As Dick Cheney has been pointing out, we have already prevented other atrocities by being less than nice with terrorists.

Another valuable asset to national defense in the age of terror is consistency. The enemies of America must be sent clear signals that transfers of power and changes in leadership will not create opportunities for them. They cannot be allowed to think they only need to outlast the current President to achieve their goals, or get away with their crimes. Needless to say, this is the opposite of the image Obama presents to the world – he spends every day proving the illegal cash funneled into his campaign was money well spent. Someone like Hugo Chavez should never be allowed to feel he’s only one election away from getting a submissive president who will act to validate his insane policies and anti-American attitudes. More violent enemies should never be allowed to think they can look forward to the day when the men and women who defeated them will be tried as criminals, setting a precendent their successors will not be eager to follow. Liberals like to stridently insist that patriotism requires us to salute Barack Obama because he represents America, but they are disgustingly eager to allow America’s enemies to conclude their opponent over the last eight years was not America, but just George W. Bush.

Doctor Zero on April 21, 2009 at 5:06 PM

The left won on this issue without one single silly tea party.

getalife on April 21, 2009 at 2:38 PM

Really?

Sheehan laying Siege to Bush’ Texas home for months on end?
Code Pink protesting everywhere?
Losers attacking Marine recruiting centers?

Yeah you’re right… not teabag parties but plenty of silly pink hat parties led by Perez Hilton.

Skywise on April 21, 2009 at 5:10 PM

Over and over and over the Obama administration maintains the same policies that they accused Bush of being a war criminal for using:


Hope and Change Administration: Detainees have “no constitutional rights”

posted at 9:45 am on February 21, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
http://hotair.com/archives/2009/02/21/hope-and-change-administration-detainees-have-no-constitutional-rights/

Detainees being held at Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan cannot use US courts to challenge their detention, the US says.

The justice department ruled that some 600 so-called enemy combatants at Bagram have no constitutional rights.

No rights!!!!
All Bush had to do was move them from Cuba and he could have avoided all the moral whining from liberals that will practice the same policies but just in a different place.

Now thats change that only a liberal could believe in.

Obama nominees sound like Bush nominees:


Indefinite Detention-Lite: Et Tu, Elena Kagan?

By Spencer Ackerman 2/11/09 11:22 AM
http://washingtonindependent.com/29849/indefinite-detention-lite-et-tu-elena-kagan

Harvard Law Dean Elena Kagan, President Obama’s choice to represent his administration before the Supreme Court, told a key Republican senator Tuesday that she believed the government could hold suspected terrorists without trial as war prisoners.

I don’t think there’s any question that we are at war, and I think, to be honest, I think our nation didn’t realize that we were at war when in fact we were. When I look back at the 90s and Tanzania embassy bombings, the bombing of the Cole, I think we as a nation should have realized that at that point we were at war. We should not have waited until September 11th, 2001 to make that determination.

Good God she sounds like Bush.

How does the new head of the CIA feel about(according to liberals) outsourcing torture.

CIA Signals Continuity With Bush Era

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123560612118376885.html

CIA Director Leon Panetta, in his first meeting with reporters, said the agency will continue to carry out drone attacks on militants in Pakistan. He also said that while CIA interrogations will have new limits, President Barack Obama can still use his wartime powers to authorize harsher techniques if necessary.


Once again,if enhanced interrogation is so wrong,why does Obama leave the door open for it.

Mr. Panetta clarified his position on renditions, in which the CIA transports detainees to another country. “We are obviously going to seek assurances from that country that their human rights are protected and that they are not mistreated,” he said. That position is in line with the stated position of previous administrations, though some detainees who were rendered during the Bush administration say they were tortured.

Wow!!!
The other countries are going to “promise” not to torture.
What a major change.
Rendition is now okay!!!!

Yea, this circus that the democrats are starting is going to blow right up in their face.

Day after day after day democrats are going to be exposed for how much they supported these policies while Bush was President and how they support them now.

Baxter Greene on April 21, 2009 at 5:17 PM

“If Tenet would get prosecuted for ordering the interrogation techniques, then Pelosi and others would have to get prosecuted for being accessories in not taking action to stop them.”

Two words for that thought: Bull, crap. Ed, do you honestly think this administration couldn’t prosecute a Bush administration official without also prosecuting Pelosi? Seriously?

jdp629 on April 21, 2009 at 5:19 PM

WHENEVER Obama is “giving” some item, he is actually preparing the removal and destruction of all reference to that entire genre of items.

maverick muse on April 21, 2009 at 5:26 PM

You lost the argument right there, not2bright.

Grow Fins on April 21, 2009 at 4:43 PM

Was I posting to you? I didn’t think so…I have no idea what argument you are talking about.
Do you mean the one where Cheney has every right to defend himself…
Or do you mean the one where the Country has every right to defend itself…
Or do you mean where I think the president is a little thin skinned because when he is “needled” he threatens to prosecute the people who are needling him…
Or do you mean where I don’t give a rip about that troll poster who lies, and never answers for her assertions…the troll who cruises by and drops one liners then runs…a “Honora”…

right2bright on April 21, 2009 at 5:27 PM

Doctor Zero on April 21, 2009 at 5:06 PM

As usual,Doctor Zero stands above the crowd.
No doubt the Bush Administrations success in keeping this country safe has been a double edged sword.

Nobody would be paying the bleeding heart liberals any attention crying about keeping terrorist up late and putting caterpillars in their cells if we were still suffering attacks:

B.C. researchers find decline in global terrorism, question previous data
1 day ago
http://canadianpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5iJciaxCBODpiOZKXuLS73Q0gpaBA

VANCOUVER — A group of researchers from Simon Fraser University says global terrorism is on the decline, despite previous data and public perceptions that suggest otherwise.
The university’s Human Security Report Project says fatalities from terrorist attacks around the world have, in fact, decreased by 40 per cent since 2001.


Are We Safer?

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives2/2008/05/020600.php

On the stump, Barack Obama usually concludes his comments on Iraq by saying, “and it hasn’t made us safer.” It is an article of faith on the left that nothing the Bush administration has done has enhanced our security, and, on the contrary, its various alleged blunders have only contributed to the number of jihadists who want to attack us.

Empirically, however, it seems beyond dispute that something has made us safer since 2001. Over the course of the Bush administration, successful attacks on the United States and its interests overseas have dwindled to virtually nothing.
Some perspective here is required. While most Americans may not have been paying attention, a considerable number of terrorist attacks on America and American interests abroad were launched from the 1980s forward, too many of which were successful. What follows is a partial history:

1988
February: Marine Corps Lt. Colonel Higgens, Chief of the U.N. Truce Force, was kidnapped and murdered by Hezbollah.
December: Pan Am flight 103 from London to New York was blown up over Scotland, killing 270 people, including 35 from Syracuse University and a number of American military personnel.
1991
November: American University in Beirut bombed.
1993
January: A Pakistani terrorist opened fire outside CIA headquarters, killing two agents and wounding three.
February: World Trade Center bombed, killing six and injuring more than 1,000.
1995
January: Operation Bojinka, Osama bin Laden’s plan to blow up 12 airliners over the Pacific Ocean, discovered.
November: Five Americans killed in attack on a U.S. Army office in Saudi Arabia.
1996
June: Truck bomb at Khobar Towers kills 19 American servicemen and injures 240.
June: Terrorist opens fire at top of Empire State Building, killing one.
1997
February: Palestinian opens fire at top of Empire State Building, killing one and wounding more than a dozen.
November: Terrorists murder four American oil company employees in Pakistan.
1998
January: U.S. Embassy in Peru bombed.
August: Simultaneous bomb attacks on U.S. Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania killed more than 300 people and injured over 5,000.
1999
October: Egypt Air flight 990 crashed off the coast of Massachusetts, killing 100 Americans among the more than 200 on board; the pilot yelled “Allahu Akbar!” as he steered the airplane into the ocean.
2000
October: A suicide boat exploded next to the U.S.S. Cole, killing 17 American sailors and injuring 39.
2001
September: Terrorists with four hijacked airplanes kill around 3,000 Americans in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania.
December: Richard Reid, the “shoe bomber,” tries to blow up a transatlantic flight, but is stopped by passengers.
The September 11 attack was a propaganda triumph for al Qaeda, celebrated by a dismaying number of Muslims around the world. Everyone expected that it would draw more Muslims to bin Laden’s cause and that more such attacks would follow. In fact, though, what happened was quite different: the pace of successful jihadist attacks against the United States slowed, decelerated further after the onset of the Iraq war, and has now dwindled to essentially zero. Here is the record:
2002
October: Diplomat Laurence Foley murdered in Jordan, in an operation planned, directed and financed by Zarqawi in Iraq, perhaps with the complicity of Saddam’s government.
2003
May: Suicide bombers killed 10 Americans, and killed and wounded many others, at housing compounds for westerners in Saudi Arabia.
October: More bombings of United States housing compounds in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia killed 26 and injured 160.
2004
There were no successful attacks inside the United States or against American interests abroad.
2005
There were no successful attacks inside the United States or against American interests abroad.
2006
There were no successful attacks inside the United States or against American interests abroad.
2007
There were no successful attacks inside the United States or against American interests abroad.
2008
So far, there have been no successful attacks inside the United States or against American interests abroad.

If Obama is serious about full disclosure and transparency,he will release “ALL” of the CIA documents that will surely add to this list of thwarted attacks:

Foiled Terror Plots Against America Since 9/11

Thursday , September 11, 2008
http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_story/0,3566,335500,00.html
By Joseph Abrams and Jonathan Passantino

The following is a list of known terror plots thwarted by the U.S. government since Sept. 11, 2001.
December 2001, Richard Reid: British citizen attempted to ignite shoe bomb on flight from Paris to Miami.
• May 2002, Jose Padilla: American citizen accused of seeking radioactive-laced “dirty bomb” to use in an attack against Amrica. Padilla was convicted of conspiracy in August, 2007.
September 2002, Lackawanna Six: American citizens of Yemeni origin convicted of supporting Al Qaeda after attending jihadist camp in Pakistan. Five of six were from Lackawanna, N.Y.
• Click to view photos of suspected terrorists and attack sites.
May 2003, Iyman Faris: American citizen charged with plotting to use blowtorches to collapse the Brooklyn Bridge.
June 2003, Virginia Jihad Network: Eleven men from Alexandria, Va., trained for jihad against American soldiers, convicted of violating the Neutrality Act, conspiracy.
• August 2004, Dhiren Barot
: Indian-born leader of terror cell plotted bombings on financial centers (see additional images).
August 2004, James Elshafay and Shahawar Matin Siraj: Sought to plant bomb at New York’s Penn Station during the Republican National Convention.
August 2004, Yassin Aref and Mohammed Hossain: Plotted to assassinate a Pakistani diplomat on American soil.
June 2005, Father and son Umer Hayat and Hamid Hayat: Son convicted of attending terrorist training camp in Pakistan; father convicted of customs violation.
August 2005, Kevin James, Levar Haley Washington, Gregory Vernon Patterson and Hammad Riaz Samana: Los Angeles homegrown terrorists who plotted to attack National Guard, LAX, two synagogues and Israeli consulate.
December 2005, Michael Reynolds: Plotted to blow up natural gas refinery in Wyoming, the Transcontinental Pipeline, and a refinery in New Jersey. Reynolds was sentenced to 30 years in prison.
February 2006, Mohammad Zaki Amawi, Marwan Othman El-Hindi and Zand Wassim Mazloum: Accused of providing material support to terrorists, making bombs for use in Iraq.
April 2006, Syed Haris Ahmed and Ehsanul Islam Sadequee: Cased and videotaped the Capitol and World Bank for a terrorist organization.
June 2006, Narseal Batiste, Patrick Abraham, Stanley Grant Phanor, Naudimar Herrera, Burson Augustin, Lyglenson Lemorin, and Rotschild Augstine: Accused of plotting to blow up the Sears Tower.
July 2006, Assem Hammoud: Accused of plotting to bomb New York City train tunnels.
August 2006, Liquid Explosives Plot: Thwarted plot to explode ten airliners over the United States.
March 2007, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed: Mastermind of Sept. 11 and author of numerous plots confessed in court in March 2007 to planning to destroy skyscrapers in New York, Los Angeles and Chicago. Mohammedalso plotted to assassinate Pope John Paul II and former President Bill Clinton.
May 2007, Fort Dix Plot: Six men accused of plotting to attack Fort Dix Army base in New Jersey. The plan included attacking and killing soldiers using assault rifles and grenades.
• June 2007, JFK Plot: Four men are accused of plotting to blow up fuel arteries that run through residential neighborhoods at JFK Airport in New York.
September 2007, German authorities disrupt a terrorist cell that was planning attacks on military installations and facilities used by Americans in Germany. The Germans arrested three suspected members of the Islamic Jihad Union, a group that has links to Al Qaeda and supports Al Qaeda’s global jihadist agenda.

And of course the death of the most lethal al-qaeda terrorist,responsible for tens of thousands of deaths:
MUSAB AL-ZARQAWI.

Baxter Greene on April 21, 2009 at 5:35 PM

Baxter Greene on April 21, 2009 at 5:35 PM

That is one heck of a list…

right2bright on April 21, 2009 at 5:38 PM

Obama can open the door to prosecutions, but who will he prosecute?

Does it really matter? Don’t they think they’ll gain by merely having the possibility swirl around for the next few years while painting Republicans as criminals? They could take all the initial steps with probes on the A.G.’s part, and kangaroo court hearings on the part of Leahy and Congress, but fall short of actually prosecuting anyone.

Moreover, the fear of prosecution for past “crimes” could will hinder aggressive action towards our enemies on the part of anyone in the C.I.A., A.G.’s office, F.B.I., or even the White House, in the unlikely event that anyone disagrees with Obama’s world view of appeasement.

Buy Danish on April 21, 2009 at 5:45 PM

Hey right2bright how do you know getalife is big? I mean is heshe fat? Have you seen it? Is it on you tube or something?

Here I am having a conversation about it…pleeeeze build the site for lib er als so I don’t get caught in these weird blogversations. Take your thorzine getalife and getaman.

jarhead0311 on April 21, 2009 at 4:49 PM

Today I am on a “Remember Animal Farm” kick.
In there you have Snowball, Napoleon, and Squeaky…three pigs of many that lied, twisted truths, got fat on those lies while telling others that they had to suffer for the pigs well being.
The administration of Obama are the Pigs in Animal Farm…they are changing words (no more terrorism), changing their objectives (everyone must suffer, but they are feeding themselves), the pigs are feeding at the trough of life that we are providing for them. All the while they are telling us how “valuable” their thinking is, after all only they can “fix the problems”, problems that during the campaign were serious, but now they can be “fixed” and Obama is going to.

“I will work harder” and “Napoleon is always right.” These two maxims soon reinforce each other when, three weeks after the banishment of Snowball, the animals learn that Napoleon supports the windmill project. Squealer explains that their leader never really opposed the proposal; he simply used his apparent opposition as a maneuver to oust the wicked Snowball. These tactics, he claims, served to advance the collective best interest. Squealer’s words prove so appealing, and the growls of his three-dog entourage so threatening, that the animals accept his explanation without question.

Therefore…liberal trolls are the “squealing pigs” of the Animal Farm, of Obama/Napoleon.
And here is another synopsis that fits:

The pigs begin living in the farmhouse, and rumor has it that they even sleep in beds, a violation of one of the Seven Commandments. But when Clover asks Muriel to read her the appropriate commandment, the two find that it now reads “No animal shall sleep in a bed with sheets.” Squealer explains that Clover must have simply forgotten the last two words. All animals sleep in beds, he says—a pile of straw is a bed, after all. Sheets, however, as a human invention, constitute the true source of evil. He then shames the other animals into agreeing that the pigs need comfortable repose in order to think clearly and serve the greater good of the farm.

See a pattern now of these liberal pigs?

right2bright on April 21, 2009 at 5:51 PM

Baxter Greene on April 21, 2009 at 5:35 PM

That IS one heck of a list right2bright.

I wonder if Obama is aware of it??

I am pretty confident the list will start to populate it self this year.

It may be awhile before you can write this again:

There were no successful attacks inside the United States or against American interests abroad.

izoneguy on April 21, 2009 at 5:53 PM

Here’s a golden oldie about the empty suit “Independent” getalife voted for in 2004 when she got to vote for the first time:

PRESIDENT-ELECT John F. Kerry’s rise to the nation’s highest office came as little surprise following almost four years of remonstrations against President George W. Bush for his bizarre attack on the defenseless people of Afghanistan.

Kerry, a decorated Vietnam veteran, was the right man for a nation outraged by the Bush administration’s pre-emptive war, which, it now seems clear, was based on highly speculative intelligence that Saudi Arabian- born terrorist Osama bin Laden was planning an attack on the United States.

Absent absolute proof of such an imminent attack, Bush’s Sept. 10 bombing of Afghanistan earned him international condemnation and, in all likelihood, an indictment in coming weeks. U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan, appearing last night on “Larry King Live,’ said the United Nations’ International Criminal Tribunal likely would bring charges of genocide against Bush.

Bush also faces federal charges at home for his baseless arrest of 19 foreign nationals, many of them native Saudis, whose “crime’ was attending American flight schools. The Council on American-Islamic Relations has joined the American Civil Liberties Union in a joint suit against both Bush and former Attorney General John Ashcroft, charging racial profiling, unlawful arrest and illegal search and seizure.

Kerry’s campaign mantra “You go to war because you have to, not because you want to’ clearly resonated with Americans as they tried to make sense of Bush’s Sept. 10 attack on Afghanistan. Neither the president, nor national security adviser Condoleezza Rice convincingly defended their actions during the recent “9/10 Commission’ hearings, which Congress ordered in response to public outcry.

The commission’s purpose was to try to determine what compelled the president to launch a war against Afghanistan. What kind of intelligence suggested that such an act was justified?

The main target of the attack was bin Laden, friend to Afghanistan’s brutal Taliban regime, as well as al-Qaida training camps in that war-ravaged nation. Al-Qaida, an international terrorist network, has been blamed for numerous attacks on U.S. interests, including the USS Cole bombing, which killed 17 sailors.
Even though Bush’s military campaign was successful in ending the oppressive Taliban regime, bin Laden apparently escaped and al-Qaida continues to flourish.
Some intelligence sources speculate that bin Laden’s operatives may be trying to secure weapons of mass destruction from Iraq’s Saddam Hussein.

Even though Saddam continues to send money to the families of Palestinian terrorists and is believed to have programs for developing WMD, Kerry says he is committed to containing Saddam through continued sanctions and the U.N. oil-for-food program.

In any case, experts say that intelligence about Saddam’s WMD program is just as speculative as was the intelligence that prompted Bush to attack Afghanistan. The man credited with sounding the alarm on bin Laden and al-Qaida was Richard Clarke, a counterterrorism expert who has served four presidents, including Ronald Reagan, George H. Bush and William Jefferson Clinton.

In a Jan. 25 memo to Rice, for instance, Clarke urged immediate attention to several items of national security interest: the Northern Alliance, covert aid, a significant new ’02 budget authority to help fight al-Qaida and a response to the USS Cole.

At Rice’s and Clarke’s urging, Bush called a meeting of principals and, after “connecting the dots,’ decided to wage war against Afghanistan.

What did the dots say? Not much, in retrospect. Apparently, the president decided to bomb a benign country on the basis of “chatter’
that hinted at “something big.’

With no other details on the “big,’ and weaving together random bits of information from a variety of questionable sources, Bush and company decided that 19 fundamentalist Muslim fanatics would fly airplanes into the World Trade Center towers and the Pentagon on 9/11.

Under questioning by the “9/10 Commission,’ Clarke denied that his memo was anything more than a historical overview with a “set of ideas and a paper, mostly.’ The bipartisan commission concluded, therefore, that Bush’s “dot-connecting’ had destroyed American credibility and subjected the United States to increasing hostility in the Arab-Muslim world.

Last week, Saddam Hussein and Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat joined French and German leaders in condemning Bush and urging American voters to cast their ballots for regime change in America. Kerry was the clear response to that call.

In a flourish of irony and the spirit of bon vivant for which the new president is widely known, Kerry gave his acceptance speech from Windows on the World, the elegant restaurant atop the World Trade Center’s Tower One.

Del Dolemonte on April 21, 2009 at 5:54 PM

Still waiting Getalife oh she probably went to another thread.

garydt on April 21, 2009 at 5:58 PM

Still waiting Getalife oh she probably went to another thread.

garydt on April 21, 2009 at 5:58 PM

She lied and said she answered you…page three.
Give it up, she is a waste of time.

right2bright on April 21, 2009 at 6:01 PM

Please be specific, and I will chase you to another thread.

garydt on April 21, 2009 at 4:18 PM

garydt, get-a-clue will never provide any logical or reasoned answers based on facts. I know this to be true because I’ve tried many times to get him/her/it to back up the stale and moldy lefty memes he/she/it constantly espouses and all I get in return is deflection, projection, and personal attacks but no facts, logic, or reasoning ever, par for the course coming from a lefty! Not that you are but I wouldn’t hold your breath waiting for any answers from get-a-clue!

Liberty or Death on April 21, 2009 at 6:12 PM

tneloms on April 21, 2009 at 3:46 PM

There has to be a particular statute that was violated, not something you think was wrong or bad.

Illegal means a law was violated. Yet you don’t name a law that was violated, just something done you think was wrong. You are arguing for an ex post facto prosecution, which violates our constitution.

blue13326 on April 21, 2009 at 6:14 PM

Sure wish Bom’s would leave the subject alone and move on.

johnnyU on April 21, 2009 at 6:25 PM

Obama used and manipulated the anger of the left to raise money and to help him get elected..now he has to deal with the reality that Bush was not alone here. Tenet is a Democrat, Pelosi is a Democrat and back when people were worried about the next attack they expected the government to protect them. Back then the primary concern was how the government failed to stop the terrorists, what went wrong and how to stop another attack…now the concern is CYA.

Terrye on April 21, 2009 at 6:26 PM

right2bright on April 21, 2009 at 6:01 PM

Please stop talking about Meghan Mc that way!

Al in St. Lou on April 21, 2009 at 6:35 PM

Obama has no intention of actually prosecuting. So why would he float prosecutions for torture right after nixing the idea?

1. As a sop to shut up the B/CDSers nipping at his heels–for a bit anyway.

2. To take attention off the 30 or so Dems being investigated for real lawbreaking and perhaps establish the talking point that the previous administration committed *even worse* crimes (and look how lenient we were).

3. To give weight to the talking point that such interrogation methods actually are torture and actually are illegal.

4. And, most likely, as a warning shot across Cheney’s bow to say, “Hey, sucker, don’t make me look bad again.”

Just reading some of the dismal comments here, it’s obvious there are those who eat this kind of bile-custard up. To me, just more proof that Obama has no business in the office he was elected to. I knew it would be a tough four years, but I’ve had the volume of crap I expected out of him in just the first three months. Sheesh.

Chaz on April 21, 2009 at 6:36 PM

O’bunghole had better start lining up people in his OWN cabinet to be prosecuted first, namely Eric Holder and Rohm Emmanuel, oh, and let’s not forget EVERYONE who served in the Clinton Administration for illegally wiretapping gun owners and violating the Posse Comitatus Act.

This is going to be a circus that ONLY leftists can create.

I just can’t wait for O’bunghole and his Cabinet to leave office so THEY can be prosecuted for actually breaking the law and violating the Constitution.

nelsonknows on April 21, 2009 at 6:38 PM

Chaz on April 21, 2009 at 6:36 PM

Some people think that Obama wants to get reelected with something other than a free election. Scaring voters by imprisoning Republicans from the previous administration may be a good start on scaring us. Oh! I know: You won’t be scared that easily. Well, you haven’t seen the rest of his tactics yet. At some point, people will start to go along to get along—and then we won’t be the same Republic.

Al in St. Lou on April 21, 2009 at 6:42 PM

Still waiting Getalife oh she probably went to another thread.

garydt on April 21, 2009 at 5:58 PM

I’ve been waiting for three days for getalife’s answer to why EVERYONE on the FBI’s Most Wanted List for Domestic Terrorism, is a left-wing extremist. getalife is like most leftists, truth makes them gag.

nelsonknows on April 21, 2009 at 6:42 PM

right2bright on April 21, 2009 at 5:38 PM

izoneguy on April 21, 2009 at 5:53 PM

You are right,a very long and successful list that every American should be proud of.

President Bush,our Intelligence Agencies,and most of all,THE AMERICAN SOLDIER have done one he!! of a job protecting this country.

Baxter Greene on April 21, 2009 at 6:42 PM

Al in St Lou,

I don’t know. Just going by the effect Obama’s wobbly ways are having on me, I’m moving pretty damn far from a “go along to get along” mood.

Chaz on April 21, 2009 at 6:50 PM

This is a devastating post by Karl over at Pattrico that give s a good indication of one of the reasons Obama may be wanting
to create a serious distraction with his supposed “torture” circus trial:

Pres. Obama’s fantasy foreign policy
Filed under: General, Obama — Karl @ 9:49 am
http://patterico.com/2009/04/21/pres-obamas-fantasy-foreign-policy/

[Posted by Karl]

Asked to describe the “Obama doctrine” for foreign policy, Pres. Obama could not help but get a bit defensive:

Clearly, Obama does not want to answer questions about the overall results of his “doctrine” because those answers are not pretty. Pres. Obama would prefer to blame his predecessors, especially former Pres. Bush. However, the Washington Post’s Jackson Diehl — hardly a raving wingnut — addresses that ploy’s expiration date:

Now comes the interesting part: when it starts to become evident that Bush did not create rogue states, terrorist movements, Middle Eastern blood feuds or Russian belligerence — and that shake-ups in U.S. diplomacy, however enlightened, might not have much impact on them.

Diehl surveys the results of the Obama doctrine to date, with devastating effect. North Korea rejected Obama’s diplomatic overtures to test a missile designed for a range that could strike Hawaii or Alaska. Neither Israel nor the Palestinian Authority were impressed by Obama’s intervention — or willing to offer even token concessions.

Russia ignored Obama’s diplomatic overtures of appeasement (as comical as they may have been) on NATO and missile defense, and is blatantly violating its cease-fire agreement with two Georgian republics. Iran rejected Obama’s overtures, announcing its plan to expand its uranium enrichment and trying an American journalist for espionage.

With Obama’s economic policies being rejected even by his own party and getting nothing more than photo ops and pats on the back internationally,Obama needs to feed his sheep this torture show to keep them united in anger.

Problem is there is a good chance this is going to blow right up in his face with the democrats being knee deep in agreeing to the same Bush policies that they call him a war criminal over and the very same policies that Obama is using now.

Baxter Greene on April 21, 2009 at 7:19 PM

Is it news that this guy flip-flopped?

Isn’t flip-flopping his thing?

Isn’t the real news that this guy wants to imprison anyone he sees as an enemy or dissident to his agenda?

ericdijon on April 21, 2009 at 7:36 PM

blue13326 on April 21, 2009 at 6:14 PM

There were two things I was saying. I first said that I thought the government had a case based on criminal malpractice, which is something I read elsewhere (don’t remember), but as you pointed out I haven’t been able to find a legal basis for this.

Conspiracy to commit crimes could be one possibility, by the way. For example, http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sec_18_00002340—A000-.html (conspiracy to torture) and http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sec_18_00002441—-000-.html (conspiracy to commit war crimes).

I’m not a lawyer, but I’ve read on legal blogs about the possibility of prosecution (and not being completely dismissive), so I still think it’s possible.

The second thing I said was mostly in response to Romeo13, who claimed that *if* what I said were true, it would be making speech and opinions illegal. My response was that I don’t think that’s true, and that if purposely giving faulty legal advice to enable a crime isn’t actually illegal, it should be (in very restricted circumstances).

That doesn’t mean that if it’s not illegal that I think Justice Department officials should be prosecuted anyway (I don’t). I hope that current law supports such a prosecution, because I think it should be illegal in general. If current law doesn’t support it, then of course I would oppose prosecution because ex post facto prosecutions are wrong.

tneloms on April 21, 2009 at 7:44 PM

By the way, I’m not necessarily saying that Justice Department officials should actually be prosecuted under these laws or that I think what they did should be illegal. I think that intentionally giving faulty legal advice to purposely allow a crime to happen should be illegal. I think some of their opinions were ridiculous, but whether what they did rose to that level I’m not really sure.

tneloms on April 21, 2009 at 7:45 PM

Baxter Greene on April 21, 2009 at 5:35 PM

Phenomenal work on that list!

Doctor Zero on April 21, 2009 at 8:10 PM

So Obama is seriously considering prosecuting opposing politicians for a political disagreement? Does the man realize the fire he is playing with?

If one of these persecutions occurs we are no longer a Republic.

Looting the treasury, jailing political opponents, and creating a cult of personality, Obama certainly has learned from the third world…hasn’t he?

18-1 on April 21, 2009 at 8:16 PM

Obama had it right in the first place. He made the decision to ban those procedures, and he should just keep looking forward. If those interpretations were flawed, and I’d agree that at least some of them were, they’ve been withdrawn.

Looking for a position on nObamas staff Ed?

dmann on April 21, 2009 at 8:49 PM

Baxter Greene on April 21, 2009 at 5:35 PM

Thank you for that extensive, well researched overview of terrorist activities, successful and foiled.

When I compare your intellectual, well thought out and detailed work to Ivy League LazyBama’s hundreds of sloppy, unresearched, unbackable and untrue statements, not the least of which that our US anti-terror policy under Bush “hasn’t made us any safer”, it makes my hair stand up.

If we weren’t dealing with real threats to human life, LazyBama could be laughed off. As it is, he is a disgrace.

tigerlily on April 21, 2009 at 9:05 PM

As for me, I’m about to go and take the ASVAB to prepare for service to my country. My country that waterboards or doesn’t. My country that allows law breakers or doesn’t. Your words are empty. Take peaceful action, get a hobby…

Dr. Manhattan on April 21, 2009 at 3:00 PM

Good luck on your ASVAB. I learned more about my skills and capabilities as a result of that test than all of my previous schooling.

And, even in advance, thanks for your service!

massrighty on April 21, 2009 at 9:11 PM

Obama attempts to prosecute even one of any involved in the decision process…all bets are off.

There are serious rumblings within the Intel community already. We had a mass loss of personnel during the Clinton years for far less shenanigans. Obama (or Holder) move forward to indict anyone connected with the subject at hand and there will be yet another exodus of highly trained, highly skilled, once 100% dedicated officers and operators, making the Clinton loss look like a meager migration.

coldwarrior on April 21, 2009 at 9:33 PM

This is how Obama is bringing on the next civil war.

Bring it on, Obama. Bring it on.

pabarge on April 21, 2009 at 9:46 PM

Out of curiosity, does anyone know what law would be used to prosecute these lawyers? Is it a crime to give a legal opinion now? If so, I’m bailing on the profession, pronto.

How about instead we urge the firing of Eric Holder for not listening to the objective legal advice of the Justice Department on D.C. “voting rights”? Anyone?

Or maybe we could prosecute half of the Obama Administration for its continuing assaults on American sovereignty which together add up to the near-treasonous?

And, come to think of it, why is Napolitano still heading up the Department of Homeland Safeguarding Against “Man-caused Disasters” and “Right-wing Extremists”?

cackcon on April 21, 2009 at 9:49 PM

Oh, I’m not through yet. Let’s impeach every Supreme Court Justice who has ever wiped his a– with the federal constitution because he wanted to impress the Harvard Law faculty. We’ll make it retroactive, too.

And for those Justices who trump American law with the laws of Europe, a prison sentence might be appropriate as well. Yes, I’m talking to you, Justice “Hey, Let’s Abolish the Age of Consent” Ginsburg.

cackcon on April 21, 2009 at 9:52 PM

I actually hope Obama is stupid enough to ignite another firestorm of reaction with prosecutions.

moxie_neanderthal on April 21, 2009 at 10:06 PM

Wow, great thread all… Great information dripping off my monitor compliments of the HA community.

This administration is proving to be exactly what we predicted; naive, clumsy, in over their heads, and really weak on foreign policy.. None of that compares to the out right contempt Obama has for the history & traditions of America. This man is trashing the ethics & traditions that come with the office of potus.

Another dynamic that is becoming clear even to those who have spent most of their lives holding reporters & journalists up on a pedestal, is the outright disdain and contempt the MSM has for America. The recent footage of the POS brain-dead Liberal hag calling herself a reporter from CNN, along with the POS brain-dead hag of a comedian disguised as an analyst for NBC, calling all whom participate in the Tea Party civil protests “racist” & “white trash.” This footage is very revealing and completely over the top. Trying to make a case that there is the existence of racist white trash people who protest, but at the same time there is the existence of really smart elite beautiful white people who are not racist and are not white trash because they ?????…

Very revealing indeed. The MSM just stuck the knife deeper into their hearts all by their big selves; but hey, they actually think they are the smart ones!

Keemo on April 21, 2009 at 10:26 PM

See a pattern now of these liberal pigs?

right2bright on April 21, 2009 at 5:51 PM

I want to pay only 3% of my net income in taxes.

unclesmrgol on April 21, 2009 at 10:32 PM

(1) Out of curiosity, does anyone know what law would be used to prosecute these lawyers? Is it a crime to give a legal opinion now? If so, I’m bailing on the profession, pronto.

Cackon, bail now. It is not a value-adding profession and when the balloon goes up it would be better if you knew some survival skills, gold.

The law? Hmm, conspiracy to something or other. Clearly the lawyers were not in the room with the prisoner, but thousands of miles away in a government office…

Let’s impeach every Supreme Court Justice who has ever wiped his a– with the federal constitution because he wanted to impress the Harvard Law faculty.

Yeah if you want to try someone for writing a bad opinion, try any one of the thousands of tax attorneys around the country who write opinion letters to their clients on the viability of tax shelters and leveraging their assets for tax purposes. Or try the Harvard Law Review.

pomerpants on April 21, 2009 at 10:34 PM

Baxter Greene on April 21, 2009 at 5:35 PM

Excellent.

Trochilus on April 21, 2009 at 10:46 PM

On the stump, Barack Obama usually concludes his comments on Iraq by saying, “and it hasn’t made us safer.” Baxter Greene on April 21, 2009 at 5:35 PM

I don’t think there is anyone who could argue with the proposition that after 9/11, Bush has kept us “safe.” In order to argue the question of “safer,” we have to contrast Bush’s record with an unknown alternative history. I don’t know how such an argument could be made, frankly, and don’t understand our intelligent president making such a patently unsupportable statement, but I do think it’s safe to say that Obama is not improving his chances going forward by hamstringing our intelligence-gathering capabilities. I wish that sometime when Obama is out campaigning somewhere as usual, and he recycles that “Bush hasn’t made us safer” talking point, that some nascent Joe the Plumber would yell out, “Safer than what?” Uuuhhh. . .

smellthecoffee on April 21, 2009 at 11:50 PM

Holder can prosecute Tenet, but then he’d also have to file charges against several members of Congress who were briefed on the procedures and never objected — including current Speaker Nancy Pelosi. If Tenet would get prosecuted for ordering the interrogation techniques, then Pelosi and others would have to get prosecuted for being accessories in not taking action to stop them.</blockquote>

True that. Did TOTUS not think this through? This is exactly the reason Pelosi didn’t go after president bush for WMD in iraq; too many democrats, at the highest level, loudly supported him.

TN Mom on April 22, 2009 at 12:00 AM

This is an absolute outrage. If the Obama administration does prosecute those who outlined these policies then there should be a march on Washington that would make the tea parties look like a backyard barbecue.

Think about it. After 9/11 and 3000 dead Americans these guys had the incredible burden of making sure this didn’t happen again, so they came up with legal arguments for enhanced interrogation techniques for one reason: to save American lives.

In other words, when the chips were down these guys had our back. If they do get prosecuted, we should have their backs. These guys should be awarded medals, but instead they have to worry about going to jail. Unbelievable.

JohnInCA on April 22, 2009 at 12:17 AM

John Hinderaker has a great analysis of this situation at PowerLine.

Criminalizing Conservatism

Is Obama also “open to” criminal investigation and prosecution of the members of the House and Senate leadership and Intelligence committees who were repeatedly briefed on the interrogation tactics that were used by the CIA?

Loxodonta on April 22, 2009 at 12:27 AM

Frankly, I don’t think the Obamanauts are competent enough to present a convincing case against CIA operatives to even the most left-leaning jury ever assembled.

n0doz on April 22, 2009 at 12:35 AM

n0doz on April 22, 2009 at 12:35 AM

Making a case, might be difficult.

Obtaining an indictment, easy as breathing.

Here’s the rub…

If ANY Agency personnel are indicted, consider this.

The average Agency operations officer earns between $45k to $98k…per year. Not a hell of a lot, considering what we had to/have to put up with daily.

I’m not talking about senior sub-cabinet inhabitants of the Office of the Director of national Intelligence, I am talking about the men and women out there on the tip of the spear. $45-$98k. And the upper end of that indicates at least 10-15+ years already in the field.

These folks, my former colleagues, are not rich. And salaries as these, in the DC area, maintaining a mortgage, and the added costs of living in DC, or in some of the various countries where they work? Puts them below most in private business with similar skills and experience.

Thus, IF indicted…they are going to have to lawyer up…and in the DC area, the average lawyer earns about $75k to $150k, and this includes the ambulance chasers and guys who handle DUI’s. To get a good or very good lawyer in the DC area, look for about $200-$400 for the hourly fees.

So, let’s not only expose the folks at CIA to undue legal harrassment, but let’s also bankrupt them at the same time.

Have had one or two former colleagues who are still paying off legal fees from over a dacade ago for having to respond to specious charges in relation to their work.

Obama was met with enthusiasm from the lower level logistics and admin personnel at the Agency yesterday. The operations types…not so much.

coldwarrior on April 22, 2009 at 12:54 AM

Baxter Greene on April 21, 2009 at 5:35 PM

Phenomenal work on that list!

Doctor Zero on April 21, 2009 at 8:10 PM

Wow!!
Like getting a compliment from Charles Krauthammer.

tigerlily on April 21, 2009 at 9:05 PM

Trochilus on April 21, 2009 at 10:46 PM

smellthecoffee on April 21, 2009 at 11:50 PM

Keemo on April 21, 2009 at 10:26 PM

I know there are several reasons for the about face by the Obama administration concerning politicizing the difficulties of war (such as massively moving the goalposts
on what constitutes torture) and Obama needs to appease his base (apparently BDS is all they have still),but when I see
discloser’s like this,it makes me wonder just how strong a case they really have here:


NYT: Harsh techniques worked, intel chief says
Private memo says interrogation methods helped nation in terrorism fight

By Peter Baker
The New York Times
updated 10:21 p.m. ET, Tues., April 21, 2009
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30335592/


Some parts of memo deleted

Admiral Blair’s assessment that the interrogation methods did produce important information was deleted from a condensed version of his memo released to the media last Thursday. Also deleted was a line in which he empathized with his predecessors who originally approved some of the harsh tactics after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

“I like to think I would not have approved those methods in the past,” he wrote, “but I do not fault those who made the decisions at that time, and I will absolutely defend those who carried out the interrogations within the orders they were given.”

A spokeswoman for Admiral Blair said the lines were cut in the normal editing process of shortening an internal memo into a media statement emphasizing his concern that the public understand the context of the decisions made in the past and the fact that they followed legal orders.

I call bullsh!t on this statement.

You don’t edit out statements of this magnitude for purposes of condensing a report.

I think Dick Cheney has thrown the Obama Administration a curve ball with wanting total disclosure and now Obama is going to have to open up for the world the democrats total involvement into the very practices they have called “war crimes” for years or face cannibalism from his left wing base.

This Micheal Mooring up of the news to fit the democratic agenda works on John Stewart/MSNBC/CBS crowd but has fallen flat when put to the test of factual analysis and proof of guilt by bi-partisan panels (Bush lied theme blown away by every investigation for example).

But everyone knows that dealing with lawyers and Congress,it’s not about “right or wrong” but who can poke holes in the law well enough to push their agenda and how the press frames the issue.

I suspect the democrats being in control will push for another seriously partisan review like the 2008 Senate Intelligence report that only took what President Bush and Republicans said about pre-war intel concerning Iraq and did
not hold democrats accountable for the more than 10 years condemning Saddam for his WMD/nuclear program and ties to Al-Qaeda.
Ironically,this report vindicated Bush concerning the bogus “Bush lied” drivel more than any other report put forward (especially vindicating Bush on Iraq’s ties to Al-Qaeda before the invasion).

democrats tried this “war on Bush” tactic with a rush of subpoena’s in 06 which helped drop their approval ratings
into the single digits for the first time in history.

Serious issues like the economy,Iraq/Afghanistan/Iran/Pakistan/N.Korea being muddled up with partisan witch hunts that already show serious cracks with the discloser’s about how successful these techniques were could really bite the democrats in the arse
IF REPUBLICANS STAY STRONG AND FIGHT ON THIS ISSUE.
ALL THE REPUBLICANS ON THE HILL NEED TO GROW A PAIR OF CHENEY BALLS TO STOP THIS PARTISAN WITCH HUNT.

Baxter Greene on April 22, 2009 at 2:01 AM

Obama was met with enthusiasm from the lower level logistics and admin personnel at the Agency yesterday. The operations types…not so much.

coldwarrior on April 22, 2009 at 12:54 AM

Great points,your inside analysis is very informative.

The CIA has already stated they are ready to go to war against the Obama administration:

Comment: CIA Insiders Issue Political Threats Against Obama, Panetta
January 8, 2009 ·
http://intelligencenews.wordpress.com/2009/01/08/02-32/

Another “former senior official” warned Obama and Panetta to “think twice about pledges they make now [about the handling of terrorism detainees] because they may come back to haunt them in the future if some dire circumstances occur”.
Baxter Greene on April 21, 2009 at 4:24 PM

Do you see a lot of back door disclosure/leaks from angry,disgruntled CIA officials that don’t appreciate being politicized when they are trying so hard to keep America safe.

Baxter Greene on April 22, 2009 at 2:13 AM

As for me, I’m about to go and take the ASVAB to prepare for service to my country. My country that waterboards or doesn’t. My country that allows law breakers or doesn’t. Your words are empty. Take peaceful action, get a hobby…

Dr. Manhattan on April 21, 2009 at 3:00 PM

I saw this earlier and forgot to congratulate you on your preparations for becoming an American Soldier.
It is a very strong decision and my family wishes you well.

I hope to join you.
I passed the ABSVAB and got through MEPS up until I was denied for severe hearing loss.
The Army sent me to a specialist who gave me a waiver.
The Chief Medical Officer gave me a waiver(reluctantly)but
the surgeon generals office ended up denying my waiver request.
I immediately set up getting the hearing loss corrected but was only 3 weeks from my 42 birthday.
I am home now after getting my right ear corrected and have to wait 3 months before I get my left ear done.

During this time I have collected referrals from Business’s that am associated with or they are accounts of mine.
I have worked with Veteran groups for years and asked the 101′st local Veteran affairs official write a referral for me also.
I am combining these recommendations with my college degrees,and MEPS paperwork(at 42 I am in pretty good shape with a 400 lb. bench press/550 lb. squat/and 4.7 40 time) and asked the state GOP leader to present them to Rep. Coble/Rep. Fox/Senator Burr for a chance to get an age waiver after my hearing is fixed.
I have already arranged previously to sell my business and
my Wife and Daughter support my decision to serve 100%.
I think it is a slime chance I will get in but am going to use every avenue I can to be an American Soldier.
I would love nothing more than to join you in serving this country and being a part of the biggest fight for Freedom the world has ever seen concerning the Jihadist and their quest for the modern Caliphate.

If I don’t join you,you and everyone that serves has the full support of my family and we wish you a safe return from a victorious mission.

Baxter Greene on April 22, 2009 at 2:43 AM


Fred Thompson is dead on about Obama’s torture circus.
Put members of congress under oath about their support of these policies.

this link:
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NzdlOTI3MzgwZDM3YTdhNmMzY2M4MWVmNDU3ZWEyNjQ=
or this one:
http://www2.nationalreview.com/dest/2009/04/21/42109rantinterrogationmemos1.mp3

Baxter Greene on April 22, 2009 at 4:33 AM

“Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.” Barry Goldwater, the Left’s favorite conservative.

Mr. Grump on April 22, 2009 at 8:51 AM

Amazing flip-flop and so obviously political. The tea parties certainly shook up the WH.

AnninCA on April 22, 2009 at 9:10 AM

Should obama follow through on this, it will be some of the strongest ammunition against his will to protect this country that he has yet exhibited. And the level of hypocrisy on the Hill without equal–however, that apparently does not bother them nor their blind following. Let them proceed, it will be their undoing.

jeanie on April 22, 2009 at 9:15 AM

obama is a lame piece of shit… enough said…

NRA Lifer on April 22, 2009 at 9:31 AM

So, let’s not only expose the folks at CIA to undue legal harrassment, but let’s also bankrupt them at the same time.

Have had one or two former colleagues who are still paying off legal fees from over a dacade ago for having to respond to specious charges in relation to their work.

Obama was met with enthusiasm from the lower level logistics and admin personnel at the Agency yesterday. The operations types…not so much.

coldwarrior on April 22, 2009 at 12:54 AM

That’s an excellent and chilling point, especially when you consider that the high-end liberal trial lawyers of D.C. are unlikely to offer special discounts for persecuted Bush-era intelligence analysts and field officers.

Luckily, there’s no reason to suspect this Administration would ever try to destroy political targets by lawyering them to death. It’s not like any high-ranking officials in the Cabinet have a documented history of such villainy.

By the way, did you have any friends that worked in the White House Travel Office?

Doctor Zero on April 22, 2009 at 9:32 AM

Is it possible the “Anti-Christ” is here?

ultracon on April 22, 2009 at 10:18 AM

Interesting about the legal fees. I think until we stop this nonsense, we’re doomed to attract stupid talent into these areas of national security work.

We’re really not very good at this.

AnninCA on April 22, 2009 at 10:19 AM

And to add, from the Washington Post, no less.

The folks at CIA are not at all happy with Obama.

coldwarrior on April 22, 2009 at 10:49 AM

Eric Holder (Barack Obama’s choice for Attorney General), on the question of whether unlawful combatants captured in the war on terror are entitled to prisoner-of-war status under the Geneva Convention. From an interview on CNN, January 2002:
One of the things we clearly want to do with these prisoners is to have an ability to interrogate them and find out what their future plans might be, where other cells are located; under the Geneva Convention that you are really limited in the amount of information that you can elicit from people.

It seems to me that given the way in which they have conducted themselves, however, that they are not, in fact, people entitled to the protection of the Geneva Convention. They are not prisoners of war. If, for instance, Mohamed Atta had survived the attack on the World Trade Center, would we now be calling him a prisoner of war? I think not. Should Zacarias Moussaoui be called a prisoner of war? Again, I think not.

Team Obama regarding torture.

seven on April 22, 2009 at 12:23 PM

Liberals like Obama have about as much common sense regarding personal defense as they do national defense.

To libs, a woman beaten, raped and left for dead is morally superior than a woman standing over her attacker with a smoking gun.

To libs, a city bombed with hundreds if not thousands of dead civilians is morally superior than if we had waterboarded one terrorist to have prevented it.

What’s worse, this nation seems to have a majority who agree with the lib mindset as they keep electing more and more who lean towards that perspective.

God protect this nation… because the libs sure wont.

:(

Yakko77 on April 22, 2009 at 8:58 PM

They are merely getting their ducks in a row.

Besides, what the hell are we going to do about it?

Who’s going to complain that will make any difference?

If you do, then you’re partisan, and that’s only allowed on the Left.

Notice this game they’re/He’s playing? “No, we won’t do that…yes we will…no, maybe not…on second thought.”

I thought the cap and trade thing was dead, but it’s coming back. They’re toying with the opposition (whoever that is). They allow something to be brought up, makes some news, they/He pretends to reject it, and then it pops up later through and alternate route.

If you complain the first time, and nothing happens, then the second time fewer will listen because then you’re Chicken Little.

Interesting game-just wish it was happening in a different country.

I increasingly believe us to be screwed.

Dr. ZhivBlago on April 22, 2009 at 11:35 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4