Thread: Mr. Obama... How far would you go to save an American life?

Posted by Bobby Eberle
April 22, 2009 at 8:00 am

http://www.gopusa.com/theloft/?p=1348

In case you hadn't heard, America is no longer fighting a "war on terror." That's right... Obama and company have decided to drop the phrase along with the term "terrorist." Apparently, it's fine to use the word "pirate," but we can no longer send the "wrong" message by referring to terrorists as "terrorists."

Do Obama and his left-wing cohorts remember what happened on September 11, 2001? I certainly do. Given the fact that Obama felt it necessary to release previously classified memos regarding American interrogation techniques, it seems to me that he is more concerned with the rights of terrorists than the lives of the American people. Yes, that sounds like a harsh statement, but read on, and let's put the facts together. It all comes down to this fundamental question that any American could ponder, "How far would you go to save an American life?"


First a bit of a timeline to bring everyone up to speed. Following the terrorist attacks of 9/11, the CIA and Bush administration performed a review of interrogation techniques: what was allowed, what was not allowed, etc. Over the course of this review it was determined that additional "enhanced interrogation techniques" could be used on terror suspects under very specific conditions. These enhanced techniques included the use of water boarding (simulated drowning).

CNSNews.com has provided a concise review of one of the interrogation memos dated May 30, 2005. The full memo is available at GOPUSA.

Following the capture of Khalid Sheik Mohammed (KSM), the mastermind behind the 9/11 attacks, the CIA was following leads regarding another proposed terror attack on the West coast of the United States. This attack, known as the "Second Wave," planned to "use East Asian operatives to crash a hijacked airliner into a building in Los Angeles." KSM and two other top al Qaeda leaders were questioned regarding the Second Wave. KSM's response was, "Soon, you will know."

Here comes the big question... What would you do now? There is intelligence that a terror attack is being planned for Los Angeles. How many hundreds or thousands of Americans could die in this attack? Sitting in front of you are three top-level terrorists whom you believe have vital information on the plans. Traditional interrogation techniques have not worked. What would you do?

The CIA went to the next step and waterboarded KSM and the two others. These were the only three terrorists ever subjected to waterboarding. The memo describes that waterboarding may be used under very strict limitations:

"It may be used on a High Value Detainee only if the CIA has 'credible intelligence that a terrorist attack is imminent'; 'substantial and credible indicators that the subject has actionable intelligence that can prevent, disrupt or delay this attack'; and '[o]ther interrogation methods have failed to elicit the information [or] CIA has clear indications that other ... methods are unlikely to elicit this information within the perceived time limit for preventing the attack.'"

The memo notes that "the interrogation of KSM -- once enhanced techniques were employed -- led to the discovery of a KSM plot, the 'Second Wave,' 'to use East Asian operatives to crash a hijacked airliner into' a building in Los Angeles."

There are many moral questions that arise if you really study what went on and what the results were. I remember writing a column back in 2005 about Abu Ghraib and the feedback I received. In that incident, some prisoners were paraded around and humiliated. I received a number of e-mails suggesting that as Christians, we should never resort to "torture." Does that depend on what you define as torture?

In trying to sift through some of the moral questions that arise from America's war on terror (oops, I said it again), I turned to my friend Deal Hudson, who is the Director of InsideCatholic.com. In addressing "torture," Hudson put it in the context of the "just war" philosophy.

Hudson: As with just war theory, there must be a clear threat; there must be reasonable chance for success; there must be a reasonable use of force (in the case [of torture] death or impairment should never be the result), and the consequences should not cause greater harm.

Hudson further explained to me that "the precise issue is whether or not the state can inflict suffering in order to protect the common good. If we say 'yes,' the circumstances have to be tightly prescribed."

So, did the U.S. follow "just war" thinking? Did the U.S. do what it needed to do from a moral perspective? The New York Times apparently does not think so. In a story appearing today, the NY Times describes the enhanced interrogation techniques as "brutal methods" and procedures of "gruesome origins." Barack Obama appears to side with the New York Times, as he is now leaving the door open to prosecuting some Bush administration officials for "torture" violations.

Back to the primary question to Obama and anyone who cares to ponder it. How far would you go to save an American life? Apparently, had Obama been president a few years ago, and given that the CIA had information about a proposed attack on Los Angeles, he would not have given the order to use waterboarding to get the information. Would you? Considering that the plot was thwarted, and hundreds or thousands of lives were saved, was waterboarding three terrorists worth the price? Obama says no. What do you say?

“Listen to what I am saying,” stated the source during an interview with Doug Hagmann, founder (NEIN). “The Department of Homeland Security Intelligence Assessment that is receiving so much attention is just the tip of the proverbial iceberg, and the true patriotic citizens of this country are on the Titanic. This is what bothers me. But is goes far beyond that assessment. There have been very significant changes made over the last few years that redirect the focus and assets of the intelligence community internally. These changes have greatly accelerated under this administration, and the threats have been redefined to include those who used to be patriots. It’s not only chilling but absolutely insulting to God-fearing Americans.”

hmmmm.....just hmmmmm.....

DOJ Reveals ...

Can’t say I’m getting all wee-weed up about the DOJ disclosure today that Bush/CIA interrogators threatened 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammed’s family (info that isn’t even new... http://www.amazon.com/One-Percent-Do...1152677&sr=8-1 )

No tear ... not one.

How about you? http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_cia_in...9ydGNpYXRocg--

Flashback: 9/11 Children http://abcnews.go.com/US/popup?id=2396057

Flashback: Angels on loan from God http://townhall.com/columnists/Miche..._loan_from_god

Via Sgt. Tim Sumner, photos of the angel children murdered on 9/11:



http://www.911familiesforamerica.org...1_children.jpg




http://michellemalkin.com/archives/i...osurrender.jpg
Lan astaslem: Arabic for “I will not submit/surrender”
http://michellemalkin.com/2006/09/11...ll-not-submit/

***

Distraction time: http://www.breitbart.com/article.php...cle=1&catnum=0

The US attorney general is set to name a special prosecutor to probe CIA interrogators suspected of having violated anti-torture laws, US media said Monday.

Eric Holder, America’s top law enforcement official, will name veteran justice department prosecutor John Durham to examine nearly a dozen cases of potential violations, according to the Washington Post.

…Obama has previously ruled that terror interrogators acting on legal guidelines written by the Bush administration after the September 11 attacks in 2001 should not face prosecution.

The buck stops with Obama, except when it’s politically inexpedient:

Leaders at the Justice Department and the intelligence community have clashed this year over the release of sensitive interrogation memos, military photographs of detainee abuse and how to handle the cases of more than 200 detainees at the prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Holder’s decision could complicate the Justice Department’s relationship with the White House, where President Obama has repeatedly expressed a desire to move forward from the national security controversies of the Bush administration. Deputy White House press secretary Bill Burton told reporters Monday that the president had complete faith in Holder and that the decision whether to launch an investigation was the attorney general’s sole prerogative.

“The White House supports the attorney general making the decisions on who gets prosecuted and investigated,” Burton said.

***

Update: Left-wing letdown over CIA abuse report distraction.

Hype and change…the subject. http://www.salon.com/politics/war_ro.../24/ig_report/

:





http://michellemalkin.com/2009/08/24...ksms-children/

[Obama’s CIA in turmoil; Panetta on the ledge; awaiting document dump
By Michelle Malkin • August 24, 2009 12:05 PM
http://michellemalkin.com/2009/08/24...-on-the-ledge/

F-bomb alert!

ABC News reports profanity-laced screaming matches between CIA director Leon Panetta and the White House (via HA Headlines). You might say he’s a bit wee-weed up: http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=8398902

A “profanity-laced screaming match” at the White House involving CIA Director Leon Panetta, and the expected release today of another damning internal investigation, has administration officials worrying about the direction of its newly-appoint intelligence team, current and former senior intelligence officials tell ABC News.com.

Amid reports that Panetta had threatened to quit just seven months after taking over at the spy agency, other insiders tell ABCNews.com that senior White House staff members are already discussing a possible shake-up of top national security officials. “You can expect a larger than normal turnover in the next year,” a senior adviser to Obama on intelligence matters told ABCNews.com.

…According to intelligence officials, Panetta erupted in a tirade last month during a meeting with a senior White House staff member. Panetta was reportedly upset over plans by Attorney General Eric Holder to open a criminal investigation of allegations that CIA officers broke the law in carrying out certain interrogation techniques that President Obama has termed “torture.”

See pp. 104-106 of Culture of Corruption.



More from ABCNews:

In addition to concerns about the CIA’s reputation and its legal exposure, other White House insiders say Panetta has been frustrated by what he perceives to be less of a role than he was promised in the administration’s intelligence structure. Panetta has reportedly chafed at reporting through the director of National Intelligence, Dennis Blair, according to the senior adviser who said Blair is equally unhappy with Panetta. “Leon will be leaving,” predicted a former top U.S. intelligence official, citing the conflict with [DNI Dennis] Blair. The former official said Panetta is also “uncomfortable” with some of the operations being carried out by the CIA that he did not know about until he took the job.

Flashback: Panetta on torture in the Washington Monthly. http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/fea...1.panetta.html


Once more: So much for the Greatest Transition in World History!


***

Left-wing blogs are buzzing about the White House release later today of an internal CIA report on torture that Panetta fought to limit:

With the Obama administration set later today to release an internal CIA report on torture, director Leon Panetta is preemptively defending his agency, claiming that CIA personnel simply followed the legal guidelines they were given.

In a message to agency employees — but in fact intended for the reporters to whom it was sent moments ago — Panetta called the information contained in the 2004 report “old news.” He pointed out that the CIA referred cases of abuse to DOJ for prosecution. And he noted: “The Agency sought and received multiple written assurances that its methods were lawful.”

And this from the left-wing WaPo “Plum Line” blog: http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/to...effectiveness/

The CIA today will release the two documents Dick Cheney requested this spring that he claims will prove torture worked.

I’ve also confirmed that the CIA will release a declassified version of the chapter in the CIA Inspector General’s 2004 report that’s widely expected to conclude that there’s no proof torture foiled any attacks.

What this means: The debate over whether torture worked is going to flare up in a big way today — and there may be a strong blast of evidence knocking down Cheney’s claims.

A source familiar with the situation confirmed that the above documents will be released. Over the weekend, news reports said this was “expected.” The two documents Cheney asked for date to 2004 and 2005, one of which may detail what top Al Qaeda official Khalid Muhammad revealed under torture.

The 2004 CIA I.G. report’s chapter on effectiveness, meanwhile, was reported to conclude that “it is difficult to determine conclusively whether interrogations provided information critical to interdicting specific imminent attacks.” The release of the full chapter could tell us lots more along these lines.

The source said the released materials will have some redactions, but we’ll definitely know more by the end of today than we do right now.

Gonna get interesting.

Originally Posted by janelle

Many of those who were responsible for 9-11 have been arrested or killed. Osama is still out there and I don't see Obama doing any better than anyone else to get him but I do see Obama wanting to release the ones who are under arrest.

If Bush had done his job properly, instead of listening to President Cheney we wouldn't even be arguing about this.