Seven former CIA chiefs to Holder: Drop the interrogation probe
posted at 8:08 pm on September 18, 2009 by Allahpundit
The good news: Two of them served under Clinton, making this plea very bipartisan indeed.
The bad news: Evidently we’ve had seven racists in charge of the CIA.
Allowing future investigations and prosecutions “will seriously damage the willingness of many other intelligence officers to take risks to protect the country,” the seven men write. “In our judgment such risk-taking is vital to success in the long and difficult fight against the terrorists who continue to threaten us.”
Moreover, they argue, “public disclosure about past intelligence operations can only help Al Qaeda elude US intelligence and plan future operations. Disclosures about CIA collection operations have and will continue to make it harder for intelligence officers to maintain the momentum of operations that have saved lives and helped protect America from further attacks.”
The seven former directors are Michael Hayden and Porter Goss, who served under President George W. Bush; George Tenet, who served under Bush and President Bill Clinton; John Deutch and R. James Woolsey, who served under Clinton; William Webster, who served under Presidents George H.W. Bush and Ronald Reagan; and James R. Schlesinger, who served under President Richard Nixon…
The former directors who wrote the letter also argue that a “certain result of these reopened investigations is the serious damage done to our intelligence community’s ability to obtain the cooperation of foreign intelligence agencies,” which are “already greatly concerned about the United States’ inability to maintain any secrets.”
Points well taken. And needless to say, I’m no dove. But look: If it’s inappropriate for Holder to investigate even agents who went beyond the interrogation guidelines drafted by Bush’s legal team, what exactly is the limiting principle on CIA actions here? Some claim that the problem is his decision to reopen cases that Bush’s DOJ declined to prosecute, but I have a hunch that the real issue is putting any agent in legal jeopardy who’s acting in good faith — no matter how extremely — to foil a terrorist plot. Cheney admitted as much to Chris Wallace last month, in fact:
WALLACE: Do you think what they did, now that you’ve heard about it, do you think what they did was wrong?
CHENEY: Chris, my sort of overwhelming view is that the enhanced interrogation techniques were absolutely essential in saving thousands of American lives and preventing further attacks against the United States, and giving us the intelligence we needed to go find Al Qaeda, to find their camps, to find out how they were being financed. Those interrogations were involved in the arrest of nearly all the Al Qaeda members that we were able to bring to justice. I think they were directly responsible for the fact that for eight years, we had no further mass casualty attacks against the United States.
It was good policy. It was properly carried out. It worked very, very well.
WALLACE: So even these cases where they went beyond the specific legal authorization, you’re OK with it?
CHENEY: I am.
That’s nothing less than carte blanche for U.S. security to do whatever it needs or wants to defend the country. But in that case, why bother with specific legal authorization? If counterterrorism forces have free rein then it’s pointless to debate whether waterboarding goes too far since they’ll simply go beyond waterboarding if and when they choose. What’s the limiting principle here?
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 Next »
As if Holder cares?
Branch Rickey on September 18, 2009 at 8:11 PM
Well, I’m not sure that Cheney was responding to the charges that some agents violated the authorized procedures or whether he was responding approvingly to the overall program despite those violations.
I.e., “I’m okay with the program even including those violations” and not that the violations were “okay”.
That’s what, I hope, Cheney was saying since earlier he said that those who did violate the authorized procedures had been punished internally or sent to jail.
SteveMG on September 18, 2009 at 8:12 PM
Pandering to Muslims
This was to deepen the bonds with the terrorists.
seven on September 18, 2009 at 8:13 PM
I think Holder should prosecute the first crooked offical he see’s in the morning.
He can start with the guy he see’s in the mirror while shaving.
Hog Wild on September 18, 2009 at 8:13 PM
But President Obama is just letting Holder do his job, unlike that evil Bush, who politicized the DOJ worse than every other President combined.
BadgerHawk on September 18, 2009 at 8:14 PM
When I was in D.C. last weekend, I had seen a bus with a advertising banner on the side of it: Do You Want to Become A CIA Officer?
I was not the only one in town who found the irony in the advertisement given the direction the DoJ is headed.
madmonkphotog on September 18, 2009 at 8:15 PM
Shame on you AP you left out the part that career prosecutors investigating the charges on those referred to justice for going beyond what was authorized. One was prosecuted and several others were punished by CIA. The point was that the non political prosecutors found no cause for prosecutions but now a politically appointed AG wants to open up investigations.
chemman on September 18, 2009 at 8:16 PM
It’s a real problem , but we know Holder is bush bashing.
the_nile on September 18, 2009 at 8:16 PM
Things have become so complicated for Eric Holder. It used to be a simple matter of checking a list of campaign donors, and if the name was on it, either decline to prosecute or issue a pardon.
Cicero43 on September 18, 2009 at 8:16 PM
Perhaps he just read it differently?
I disagree with his reading and interpretation of Cheney’s response.
But I don’t think that AP’s malicious here.
I’m not sucking up to him; I just think he has a different reading than you and I do.
SteveMG on September 18, 2009 at 8:18 PM
I think here there was some encouragement that if an agent needed to go a bit beyond the guidelines, that’s ok. I don’t think anyone was advocating bamboo under the finger nails, hot pokers or just sua sponte taking a suspect out and shooting him dead.
And I’m ok with that. This is not a pleasant war. Even in WWII it was Eisenhower, IIRC, who wasn’t to concerned about taking German snipers prisoner if they surrendered once they were out of ammo.
rbj on September 18, 2009 at 8:19 PM
WALLACE: So even these cases where they went beyond the specific legal authorization, you’re OK with it?
CHENEY: I am.
That’s nothing less than carte blanche for U.S. security to do whatever it needs or wants to defend the country.
I hate to nit pick but I didn’t hear or read the words Carte Blanche from Mr. Cheney.
fourdeucer on September 18, 2009 at 8:19 PM
If you follow the guidelines, you are ok. If you violate the guidelines and can prove that the intelligence gained is greater than the moral and physical cost, you may still be ok. But it is your risk.
Its sort of like the principal of using deadly force on a fleeing felon, where police can do so if they reasonably believe he is a fleeing felon and the rest of us can only do so if we are correct in our belief.
levi from queens on September 18, 2009 at 8:20 PM
I can’t believe these Klan-hooded countryside-riding Clinton appointees have the gall to oppose Obama. These CIA chiefs spread cocaine in minority neighborhoods, such as.
/On grade A CIA crack.
Apologetic California on September 18, 2009 at 8:20 PM
Now more than ever Obama needs to keep the Bush administration in the news. There is nothing principled about this.
GaltBlvnAtty on September 18, 2009 at 8:20 PM
I believe that Cheney’s “it” is the overall program and not those unauthorized cases.
SteveMG on September 18, 2009 at 8:21 PM
I believe one agent or contractor was sent to prison for 15 years for unauthorized techniques or actions.
And he was prosecuted by the Bush DOJ.
So I assume there are at least some limits on what they can do.
Otherwise, why the prosecution?
SteveMG on September 18, 2009 at 8:23 PM
This is what happens when you put an ACORN lawyer in charge of our security and intelligence.
elduende on September 18, 2009 at 8:23 PM
When it comes to defending the country from attack, how can there be any limiting principles? On what principled grounds do you NOT protect the country from attack?
keep the change on September 18, 2009 at 8:27 PM
Obama and Holder don’t care. Their hatred for Bush and Cheney is beyond the pale.
It’s sickening to see a president capitulate to the enemy and probe patriots that defend the nation.
cubachi on September 18, 2009 at 8:28 PM
If Holder took his oath of office and his job seriously he would be probing ACORN and SEIC. Of course he doesn’t, so he won’t. He should be impeached, but of course, he won’t be.
MB4 on September 18, 2009 at 8:28 PM
Now we all know what the lunatics running the asylum is like.
MB4 on September 18, 2009 at 8:30 PM
The left has no stomach for what must be done in the world of counter terrorism espionage. None. It’s all “sunshine and moonbeams” for them, everyone of our “enemies” have good in them and just want to live in peace with us, if we’ll just let them be!
Sad as it is, some men must engage in awful tactics in order to keep the free world safe from those who would enslave it.
War is, indeed, hell. Not pretty, not at all like Hollywood has portrayed it in the past.
What is the saying….”Some must live in the shadows so that most may live in the light”?
Intrepid on September 18, 2009 at 8:31 PM
It’s carte blanche only in the absence of specific legal prohibition. In the cases where there is no specific legal authorization and there is no legal authority, either in our own laws or the treaties that we have ratified, deciding what our CIA agents can do, why would anyone think that they shouldn’t do anything they can do within the bounds of legal prohibition?
Not being an CIA agent, I wouldn’t know, but I am fairly sure the legal authority that CIA derives its powers from does not say that CIA is limited strictly to enumerated powers (unlike our Constitution, with respect to the federal government).
novakyu on September 18, 2009 at 8:31 PM
Were the wiretapped, waterboarded, etc. US citizens? If not, no problem.
SDN on September 18, 2009 at 8:31 PM
I literally laughed out loud (honest, I didn’t even abbreviate!). Allah, you’re the best.
Splashman on September 18, 2009 at 8:32 PM
…..
And? There’s suddenly a problem in American defense and intelligence officials doing whatever they have to do to terrorists in order to keep America safe?
amerpundit on September 18, 2009 at 8:33 PM
Out of curiosity, how many former CIA chiefs are still alive? If this turns out to be 7 out of 7, then that is a bit more weight.
AnotherOpinion on September 18, 2009 at 8:33 PM
An even worse they have now formed into a racist mob of hooligans.
MB4 on September 18, 2009 at 8:33 PM
Wouldn’t you have to start with the premise that these agents don’t mind performing interrogations, enhanced or otherwise. It’s not like they are animals. As to whether it was worth it, I would have to know the information given. I am not likely to ever know but I bet Mr. Cheney does.
Cindy Munford on September 18, 2009 at 8:35 PM
Look….the bible says “an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth” I think that the US was VERY restrained in its tactics, because if they followed biblical teaching it would be “decapitated head for decapitated head”…we should be fighting fire with fire for hecks sake..but we just choose our fire wisely in the US, versus the scorched earth fire tactics of terrorists.
johng on September 18, 2009 at 8:35 PM
Holder should realize by now that the CIA has several decades experience taking care of Commies.
viking01 on September 18, 2009 at 8:36 PM
Barry has never met a terrorist or a dictator that he couldn’t warm up to. They’re simply terribly misunderstood and shouldn’t be abused, sanctioned or punished. On the other hand, our intelligence, security and military forces …well, they’re just some kind of rogue animals that need to caged.
Barb Dwyer on September 18, 2009 at 8:36 PM
What did Barack Obama and Eric Holder know about ACORN and when did they know it?
MB4 on September 18, 2009 at 8:37 PM
With the current terrorist threat developing in NY I wonder who would be better to interrogate, a Bush/Cheney interrogator or a Obama/ Biden interrogator.
fourdeucer on September 18, 2009 at 8:37 PM
The restraining principle is still the Constitution and the laws of the nation.
Even the ones that protect terrorists (and it’s not just the Geneva Conventions; it’s US laws that protect alien terrorists).
Fortunately or unfortunately.
SteveMG on September 18, 2009 at 8:38 PM
I think the same thing every time they come under attack.
thomasaur on September 18, 2009 at 8:38 PM
Wrong, Allah. All it means is that good cops sometimes cross the line to fulfill their responsibility. It is up to higher authority to determine, after the fact, whether the distance from the line was “too much.” It’s fuzzy and has to be that way, otherwise lowest-common-denominator behavior will take over and nothing will get done. That’s why law enforcement deserves even more respect — they take risks both from external and internal (political) enemies to keep us safe.
Splashman on September 18, 2009 at 8:39 PM
There are 11 former CIA directors including George Herbert Walker Bush.
William Amos on September 18, 2009 at 8:39 PM
I should say there are 11 that are still alive
William Amos on September 18, 2009 at 8:40 PM
Sounds good to me (as i think about my family) because if its them or us, so be it.
Greed on September 18, 2009 at 8:40 PM
It appears that of the former DCI’s, only Stansfield Turner and Bob Gates did not sign this letter. Turner not signing is no surprise. Gates is currently serving as SecDef and his signature would be a big no-no.
coldwarrior on September 18, 2009 at 8:41 PM
I’m with Jack Bauer.
Pick the right people. Train them. Give them what they need to do their jobs. Monitor them. But in the end, let them do their jobs.
The last 8 years prove that we’re doing something right. And radical Islam respects only one thing…the strength of it’s adversary.
DrW on September 18, 2009 at 8:41 PM
And George H.W. Bush wasn’t a signatory either. Wonder why he didn’t sign the letter?
coldwarrior on September 18, 2009 at 8:42 PM
The story would’ve been a former president signing a letter “attacking” Obama, rather than CIA chiefs calling for the investigation to end?
amerpundit on September 18, 2009 at 8:43 PM
Because he had a higher rank. He would be better fit as a ex president than an ex CIA head.
William Amos on September 18, 2009 at 8:44 PM
The interrogation procedures were authorized by the President after legal advice by the OLC which determined which procedures were legal and which were not.
So, there were limits.
And nowhere do I see that Cheney didn’t recognize those limits.
SteveMG on September 18, 2009 at 8:45 PM
Point taken on G.H.W. Bush.
What does amaze me is that John Deutch signed this letter. His tenure at CIA was a disaster across the board.
coldwarrior on September 18, 2009 at 8:45 PM
Obama and his left wing activists friends wanted this war that they can’t possibly win with the CIA,now they have it.
It is going to be a veryyyyyyyyyyyyyyy long 3 1/2 years for Mr. Hope and Change.
Baxter Greene on September 18, 2009 at 8:46 PM
I have heard several times that Algore endorsed enhance interrogations during the last administration, why doesn’t he catch any flack.
Cindy Munford on September 18, 2009 at 8:46 PM
By the same standards we are judged I must ask, Are they racist ?
bluegrass on September 18, 2009 at 8:50 PM
The Bible also says “Holding fast the faithful word” (Titus 1:9). Hey, great! That means I should read HotAir on a laptop while riding a motorcycle at 130mph!!!
Cool, huh? I can grab part of a verse out of context and make it mean whatever I want, while getting credit for being vaguely religious! I love the Bible!
/snark
Seriously, if you haven’t studied God’s Word comprehensively, don’t use it to prop up your opinion, because only ignoramuses will agree with you. Intelligent people (Christians and non-Christians) will just roll their eyes.
Splashman on September 18, 2009 at 8:56 PM
Because he’s Algore, duh. ; )
thomasaur on September 18, 2009 at 8:56 PM
What we have here is a politician going after agents who acted in good faith because of political opportunism. There is a reason the Democrats weren’t going after these guys in 2002-6, and it wasn’t because they didn’t know what was going on.
So should their be procedure? Sure. But we already had that under Bush, and arguably even after 9/11 we had our agents working under too stringent protocols. Remember when we didn’t kill Mullah Omar because a lawyer objected?
Or, if you really want to consider the “success” of the lawfare model why don’t we look at Bill Clinton refusing to take Osama Bin Laden from the Sudanese. A laxer set of restrictions on the CIA and there is likely no 9/11.
18-1 on September 18, 2009 at 8:57 PM
Given the ACLU’s paparazzi schtick, it’s worth considering that any investigation led by Holder will be characterized by leaks to the media. I don’t find it difficult to believe that an agent, even if not exceeding his legal authority, might wake to see his personal information published on the front page after such a leak. It’s not as if the Times has never done anything like that before.
Neither do I find it hard to imagine, after Haditha, that there wouldn’t be some scapegoats offered up as a PR sacrifice, irrespective of their innocence. This administration throws people under the bus all the time, why would a lowly interrogator be safe?
landshark on September 18, 2009 at 8:57 PM
“What is the limiting principle?”
The CIA and Justice Dept. guidelines are the limiting principle.
So the question returns to: what does management do when it discovers somebody is violating the guidelines?
First management reinforces the proper behavior through training. Secondly management may decide it is necessary to remove the offender from that assignment. Thirdly management may decide it is necessary to meet out negative repercussions within the organization. Only in the extreme case of someone acting in bad faith, or as a sick wacko does management move to prosecution.
Reports suggest that management handled these situations properly. I despise those who are now seeking legal measures against these agents who acted in good faith. It is shameful and I feel a moral burden to offer up my own welfare to defend them as they did to defend me.
Does that answer the question to your satisfaction?
John E. on September 18, 2009 at 8:57 PM
FIFY.
BuckeyeSam on September 18, 2009 at 8:58 PM
What are you smokin? If it’s that good, at least share……..
JeffinOrlando on September 18, 2009 at 8:59 PM
Nailed by tagless sarcasm.
thomasaur on September 18, 2009 at 9:01 PM
.
As always, ed, you are just soooo enlightened and reasonable.
You’d show up at a gun fight with a water weany.
peacenprosperity on September 18, 2009 at 9:02 PM
Hold them to the same standards as the U.S. military.
Also known as…they aren’t allowed to waterboard.
Holder needs to extend the investigation to include the Gonzo 6 lawyers who were approving this stuff and Cheney also.
Spathi on September 18, 2009 at 9:03 PM
I may be a little bit Archie Bunker-ish about this, but I don’t have a problem with patriots who are sworn to protect this country having a little bit of free rein when dealing with animals like these.
They have done it for years, WW2 through the cold war and managed to do a pretty good job without any real bad press until there was a political agenda that tried to make a mountain out of a molehill (i.e. Abu-Gurab, waterboarding at Gitmo etc.)
Handwringing over the leash being slipped for the CIA is playing into the lefts argument and giving credence to it.
Cheney is right.
conservnut on September 18, 2009 at 9:05 PM
AP, you’re a funny guy.
jaime on September 18, 2009 at 9:06 PM
Cindy, you better believe Al Gore was all for “any means necessary” when his but was on the line for security:
Bill Clinton ..*Extraordinary Rendition* Torture in Egypt
http://www.sodahead.com/blog/79511/bill-clinton-extraordinary-rendition-torture-in-egypt/
According to Clinton administration official Richard Clarke:
Clinton was all for it to:
Audio: Clinton endorses “torture” in special cases; Update: World opinion opposes “torture”
posted at 12:30 am on October 19, 2006 by Allahpundit
http://hotair.com/archives/2006/10/19/audio-clinton-endorses-torture-in-special-cases/
…and Chuckie Shcumer:
Audio: Schumer in 2004 on enhanced interrogation techniques; Update: Hypocrisy confirmed
posted at 11:34 am on May 13, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
http://hotair.com/archives/2009/05/13/audio-schumer-in-2004-on-enhanced-interrogation-techniques/
When they were power, torture was “smart power”.
Put a Republican in the White House and these practices magically turn into “War Crimes”.
How Progressive!!!!!
Baxter Greene on September 18, 2009 at 9:06 PM
In response to Wallace’s final query – I agree with Cheney. When it comes to defense of the country and it’s citizens – when presented with a real threat – I believe that agents should act with any means available.
I am at a loss how people seem to confuse dealing with Al Qaeda terrorists should be a law enforcement issue. They are the enemy – and would kill US citizens if the opportunity presented itself.
This is a war. Handcuffing intelligence agents – just like troops in the field by more restrictive rules of engagement – simply gets more American soldiers killed – and renders intelligence agents impotent.
I disagree – I think AP is a wee bit of a dove.
Danny on September 18, 2009 at 9:06 PM
The President is also against the investigation, at least that’s what he says.
So why is Holder pressing onward?
hawksruleva on September 18, 2009 at 9:07 PM
If you believe that, I have a bridge you may be interested in.
conservnut on September 18, 2009 at 9:09 PM
Indeed, the norms of war call for summary execution for captured pirates, terrorists, spies, and the like.
The fact that we are giving such the protections of both civilian criminal suspects and prisoners of war is obscene.
18-1 on September 18, 2009 at 9:11 PM
Whatever it takes to get a valid confession. Limiting principles when your adversary intends to kill millions of your citizens, including women and children?
Ha, let’s not get all soft and squishy because a couple terrorists were given the equivalent of a modified wedgie.
Start with waterboarding and work up from there until material evidence comes forth.
FireBlogger on September 18, 2009 at 9:13 PM
necessity. period.
homesickamerican on September 18, 2009 at 9:13 PM
So these 7 men used to head our intelligence agencies ?
And they can’t figure out why Obama regime is doing what it is doing ?
Read your own words quoted above, gentlemen.
The regime not only knows about the damage that it is initiating, IT IS COUNTING ON IT.
macncheez on September 18, 2009 at 9:16 PM
Once these people are detained the government still must follow laws that regulate how they can be treated.
As I undertand the statutes, the executive branch can’t do whatever they want with them. Yes, they can execute them; but they cannot torture them.
Just as we have regulations limiting what we can do with POWs, we have laws (US and other international treaties we signed onto) limiting what can be done even to terrorists.
Whether those laws are good or bad, right or wrong is another matter.
SteveMG on September 18, 2009 at 9:16 PM
spot on my friend
cmsinaz on September 18, 2009 at 9:16 PM
Wow, good piece!
FireBlogger on September 18, 2009 at 9:17 PM
The limiting principle is the same limit that we place on government on every other occasion: the rule of law.
SteveMG on September 18, 2009 at 9:17 PM
To the real hawks, there is none. Is that a good thing? Probably not.
ernesto on September 18, 2009 at 9:22 PM
That’s nothing less than carte blanche for U.S. security to do whatever it needs or wants to defend the country. But in that case, why bother with specific legal authorization? What’s the limiting principle here?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I’m sorry, AP, I know this isn’t CIVIL, but you’re not a beta-male… you’re just flat out a p**sy…
fabrexe on September 18, 2009 at 9:26 PM
Thanks,
It’s real easy for liberals to criticize the practices that saved thousands of lives while they sit comfortable in their coffee shops.
The success of these policies has pushed the urgency and seriousness of stopping terrorist hell bent on our destruction to the back of the line.
I think Holder and his liberal cohorts should have to spend a year in Tel Aviv and see what it is like to live in fear of the restaurant you are eating in being blown up or having missiles rain down on your head by the thousands day after day.
It is no wonder Obama has a 4% approval rating from a country that knows terrorism better than just about anybody.
Baxter Greene on September 18, 2009 at 9:26 PM
I flew EA-6B Prowlers in the Navy and the guiding principle in Navair is “here is the “short” list of things you can’t do with the plane, use your creativity inside these bounds…if you bend or break the plane, but you don’t violate any of the specific items on the prohibited list you get a fair chance to make your case that what you did was necessary.”
You will get to go and stand in front of the long green table – in your prettiest uniform – and you might still get your pee-pee whacked (that’s a technical term), but the individual incident will get looked at in the context of that particular event. I would like to believe this or something similar is the ROE of how our intel guys are operating.
However, if you are standing before the table and you did a “don’t do thing” it’s all uphill from there and your story better be good.
yakyak on September 18, 2009 at 9:27 PM
Limiting principle: good-faith belief that what you’re doing is legal.
Seems a bit constricting when idiots make the laws, but you gotta work with the gummint and laws you have, not the ones you want.
misterpeasea on September 18, 2009 at 9:31 PM
In re: waterboarding
Considering what had just happened on 9/11, and given how little we knew of the enemy and future plans, what would you have done Allah? Advised them of their rights?
Given all the ‘safeguard’ crap those CIA agents went through to “waterboard” the sheik, I and many other people don’t consider that “Torture”.
I’d have willing told the sheik that I intended to give him 30 seconds to start talking before I put a 230 grain .45 bullet into each one of his body joints. Now that, Allah, would be “Torture”.
You want to weep for someone, weep for the innocent dead!
GarandFan on September 18, 2009 at 9:53 PM
Obama had better HOPE his “new and improved interrogation teams” get something out of Najibullah Zazi. Because if they soft pedal on this guy, and something happens they could have prevented, Barry Obama is going to be A LAME DUCK PRESIDENT from that moment forward.
GarandFan on September 18, 2009 at 9:56 PM
Barry Obama doesn’t care if he is a lame duck
He will destroy our country and its people and will always be thankful for that opportunity
macncheez on September 18, 2009 at 10:03 PM
Civil society designs it’s laws under the assumption of peace, and wisely reserves the option of suspending them when that assumption no longer holds. War is by its very definition, a contest for survival and that in the final analysis is the “limiting principle”.
After all, the losers don’t get the chance to sit around in their parlors and bemoan the savagery they indulged and the battle scars they will carry for the rest of their lives. The losers that survive are forever sentenced to reading the history written by their conquerors, and watching their children grow up in someone else’s new order. The winners may return to their civil order and congratulate themselves for feeling guilty, while the losers try to make a life in the ashes of what they might have been.
A Declaration of War is, in effect, a public notice that civilization is temporarily suspended while we all pitch in to make sure that when the fight is over, we are the ones who get to apologize for winning so savagely.
Lew on September 18, 2009 at 10:05 PM
Arguing these vital national security details out in public ~in the midst of the most dangerous war against the most homicidally insane and mass-murderingly malevolent enemy we have ever faced … the terroristic Jihad of Imperialistic Islam~ is the true madness here.
These secret techniques and charges should all be taken care of in closed-sessions …where we are not publically revealing our covert methods, hamstringing our ability to fight, and cutting our own throats to appease the p.c., multiculti at-home and around-the-world audience, most of whom are intent on bring America down by every means possible.
Openly undermining our nationa’s ability to defend itself is suicidal stupidity of the lowest order and highest calibre.
Doesn’t anyone in this infantile, anti-historical Administration understand the value of secrecy to security?
The only course to stop this lunacy is:
IMPEACH OBAMA …for releasing terrorists to Bermuda for ice cream cones.
And for his daily damaging of our nation’s chances at survival.
profitsbeard on September 18, 2009 at 10:07 PM
You think Obama would accept a hunting trip invitation from Cheney?
Jeff from WI on September 18, 2009 at 10:18 PM
What is curious is people who think that Holder and BO disagree, BO ordered this. No doubt. Holder is his pawn.
proconstitution on September 18, 2009 at 10:47 PM
3 more years of being held hostage by Marxists. Dude!
Mojave Mark on September 18, 2009 at 10:54 PM
Ignorance breeds fear. The assumption being made is that if the public doesn’t know about the crime, investigation or punishment then it must not be happening. Ergo the intel community must have carte blanche to do whatever it wants.
As someone who got to spend some time down the rabbit hole that’s just not the case. The limiting principle is the Constitution and there are numerous mechanisms in place to catch and prosecute offenders. The real issue isn’t whether or not to investigate and prosecute, but rather whether that should be done in public.
In every counter intelligence training session instructors stressed the need to protect sources and methods. If the enemy knows what you are doing, how you do it, and what your capabilities are he can change his behavior to evade detection or worse feed you bad information causing you to misallocate your resources.
If there are/were any bad apples they have most likely already been dealt with. A DOJ investigation would be a purely political affair – and the ultimate Liberal wet dream because, not only would it serve no purpose, but it has the potential to be extremely detrimental to our national security. Americans aren’t the only ones who read the papers and watch TV.
Onus on September 18, 2009 at 10:56 PM
More burnishment for the Dem’s national security cred!
chickasaw42 on September 18, 2009 at 11:27 PM
Holder to Special Prosecutor: “I’ve got seven more names for you.”
mrt721 on September 18, 2009 at 11:40 PM
CIA secretary Pannetta is a known progressive…he speaks from both sides of the mouth.
njpat on September 18, 2009 at 11:43 PM
I swore I was through watching O’Reilly because he is really grating on me, but did watch either Wednesday or Thursday and Michael Scheuer, the former CIA guy, was on with some news pertaining to the waterboarding of Khalid Sheik Mohammed & others. What he said was classified info, and said Obama and his administration are lying to the American people about what is in the report, and that is why they won’t declassify it. He said waterboarding was not used until the last resort and only after Khalid taunted them and told them they were soft. O’Reilly said he would file to get the info released. Did anyone else see that?
silvernana on September 18, 2009 at 11:55 PM
We already know the libs in charge of this FUBAR administration live in wonderland, it takes this type of focused searchlight strength signal beam to hopefully cut through the political purple haze and get the herd to shy off in another direction.
Speakup on September 19, 2009 at 12:20 AM
Like he gives a flip what they think?
This [solely my opinion] ‘auto-de-fe’ Holder planning on hosting will cause ripples far beyond the ‘stated targets’. The impact of this will indirectly effect the intelligence community beyond the CIA. Within the CIA, as this drags on, eventually the only functioning elements within will be the ‘political hacks’, the ‘agenda-driven’ operatives, the ‘paper-shufflers’ and the moles.
The Field Operatives will still be out there but their actions will be tempered by the ‘investigations’ and the ‘show trials’ at the local level, and up the chain of command [as the leadership either changes or becomes more 'skittish'].
Where and when will it end? In part, that depends on how much Holder and his Congressional allies can ‘juice it up’. Right now, the general public sentiment is against this. If the targets can be successfully painted as ‘monsters’ then they might be able tamp down the backlash [since there's already a sizable negative opinion from the get-go].
Since the Left failed to silence alternative info channels, the ‘juice-up’ option hinges on ‘information management’. A successful one-sided presentment of the ‘facts’ might forestall a polling crash which could foreshorten the Far Left’s witch-hunt against Bush’s policies [and his people]. Could they pull it off? Maybe, but I doubt it.
Never the less, the damage will be done. The ‘pros’ will keep their heads down, and the worse elements [as described above] inside the CIA will rule the roost. And, of course, Teh One’s moonbat base will party like there’s no tomorrow.
Anyone with a working brain should hope for this nonsense to die at the starting gate; even a partial success will inflict damage on the intel community that will exceed the Church Hearings. The country will become polarized [the more the Left gets away with 'juicing up' the process, the worse the polarizing will be]. And the precedent of political prosecution of a previous administration will be set [something that could come back to haunt #44].
And how will the reversal of the damage done come about?
Regretfully, a second 9-11, that will probably be far worse in scope than the first. And for the ones who set us on this path, they shouldn’t be too shocked if the ‘escape hatch’ [that the policy authors that gave us the first 9-11 used] turns up ‘welded shut’.
The lucky ones will fall into the hands of the new Administration.
CPT. Charles on September 19, 2009 at 12:29 AM
As long as it’s not done to U.S. citizens, I don’t think there should be hardly any limits to what interrogators can do to get information out of someone. Fortunately, the non-lethal and non-harmful method of waterboarding appears to be very effective. I cannot imagine why we would stop using it.
jonezee on September 19, 2009 at 12:34 AM
You make some great points. I do think that a clarification needs to be made, though. The CIA handles HUMINT (human intelligence). This is only part of our intelligence gathering capabilities. NSA handles SIGINT (signals intelligence) and the NRO handles our recon satellites. Sowhile Eric Holder is busy sending the CIA up the river, it osn’t causing a devastating effect on our intel gathering community per say, I’d hate to think what a blow to moral it would have on all intel gathering agencies.
Rightwingguy on September 19, 2009 at 12:48 AM
Sounds like a plan to me.
Hawkins1701 on September 19, 2009 at 12:49 AM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »