Posts Tagged ‘interrogation’

Obama’s Agenda Self-Destructing: Send In CIA Demagogues And Change The Subject

August 24, 2009

This is about as transparent as it gets. Obama’s health care plan is self-destructing, his own liberal base is falling away, and all of a sudden the Obama White House and a following-like-a-puppy mainline media is redirecting our attention to why we should supposedly be angry at the CIA so we won’t think about why we should be angry at Obama’s attempt to take over our health care.  As reported:

The US attorney general, Eric Holder, is poised to order a special criminal investigation into CIA agents who may have gone too far in the interrogation of al-Qaida and other suspects taken after the 9/11 attacks, it emerged today.

Holder’s intention to push ahead with an investigation came on the day that the CIA was ordered by the court to release hundreds of pages of previously hidden documents detailing how interrogations were conducted.

The attorney general’s imminent decision to order the investigation runs counter to the wishes of the CIA director, Leon Panetta, who was appointed by Barack Obama, and has argued in favour of looking forward rather than back.

Leon Panetta apparently didn’t react well to the Democrats’ ideological and politically timed demonization of his agency:

Obama White House v. CIA; Panetta Threatened to Quit
Tensions Lead to CIA Director’s “Screaming Match” at the White House
By MATTHEW COLE, RICHARD ESPOSITO and BRIAN ROSS
August 24, 2009

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.

It is fitting that Obama would decide to unleash this show-trial investigation just days after this tearjerker of a moment when Libyan leader Gaddafi treated a terrorist bomber to a hero’s welcome and embraced him:

Come on, America!  THAT’S how to treat a terrorist!!!

Rather than ask tough questions of terrorists, like Obama now wants to criminalize, it is apparently far better to just let them go, like Scotland did with the Lockerbie Pan Am Flight 103 bomber.  He murdered 270 people, including 189 Americans.  Eleven days per murdered victim seems perfectly appropriate.

Don’t you dare be tough on these poor, poor terrorists.  Come on, demonstrate your liberalism by showing that famous brand of misplaced egalitarian compassion for the terrorist.

It doesn’t matter if waterboarding saved lives.  It doesn’t matter if Khalid Sheik Mohammed – who had previously refused to cooperate – turned into a human Rolodex of terrorists after a few sessions on the waterboard.  It doesn’t matter if the very memo that Eric Holder claims to be basing his “investigation” on said that “the program was considered an ‘absolute success.'”

Right now, Obama intelligence officials are engaging in shouting matches, and the morale at the CIA is at a thirty year low according to at least six agency insiders.  As one retired case officer says, “We’ve gone from chasing the bad guys to being portrayed as the bad guys ourselves.”

The CIA is no longer trusted to interrogate terrorists.  Now, the White House will be taking over:

WASHINGTON — The White House says it will directly supervise a new unit that is being set up to interrogate high value terror detainees. The announcement came Monday as the Obama administration named a federal prosecutor who will investigate past cases of detainee mistreatment.

For years, the Central Intelligence Agency stood at the forefront of U.S. efforts to extract information from terror suspects in the post-9/11 era. That role is changing, according to White House spokesman Bill Burton.

What’s going to happen?

But oh, happy, happy day for jihadist murderers the world over who may chance to hear from Samantha Power’s own lovely lips: “You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney present during questioning. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you. Do you understand these rights?”

Obama might as well just abolish the CIA and be done with it.  He’s gutted their effectiveness as an organization by now.

Let’s get to the heart of why this is being done:

[Michael] Steele also suggested that the timing was suspicious. “Now this becomes a part of the national focus and debate while we try to deal with their failure to address sufficiently, and I think smartly, the health care issue that the nation is currently confronted with,” he said, adding that “every time they find themselves up against the wall…they find a boogey man.”

“They want to make George Bush and his administration a continual boogey man and at this point I say. ‘Get over it, move on.’ ”

But what Michael Steele doesn’t realize is that Barack Obama and his fellow Democrats are one-trick ponies.  All they’ve GOT is demagoguery; and if that fails, they’re left with pumping sunshine.  They have to keep demagoguing and demonizing every single scapegoat they can find, because otherwise the American people will see how incompetent Democrats actually are.

Obama is desperate, and he’s flailing around for anything that might change the downward-spiralling dynamic.   He’s hoping that he can convince his base that he isn’t the sellout they increasingly sense he is so that they’ll put their weight behind him, and he’s closing his eyes and rolling the dice.

Let’s just hope that the dice don’t turn up the snake eyes of a major terrorist attack.

Advertisements

Obama Searches In Vain For CIA Director Who Won’t Offend Left

December 4, 2008

Obama’s first (and as of now only) pick for the Director of Central Intelligence bowed out of the process after the left tore into him as a “torturer.”  Apparently, John Brennan didn’t want the job badly enough to put up with the typical left-wing character assassination tactics.

Bill O’Reilly was on the radio yesterday pointing out that Obama may have a tough time finding a good DCI. Given the left’s hatred for “intelligence” and “interrogations” and many of the other things this country needs in order to keep itself safe from terrorist attacks, and given the appointment of Eric Holder for Attorney General, many candidates might well fear that they would have to choose between either protecting the country or staying out of jail.

The Star Tribune writes:

Finding a candidate for CIA chief who has the operational experience and is politically “clean” will be difficult, agreed a current senior intelligence official.

John Radsan, a former assistant general counsel at the CIA, said Obama has to strike a difficult balance.

“They need somebody who rose to the level of a division chief in the clandestine service but didn’t spend too much time” with former CIA directors George Tenet and Porter Goss and current director Michael Hayden.

“But in the senior ranks you can’t escape the reality that the CIA is associated with controversial practices since 9/11,” Radsan said.

Brennan served as Tenet’s chief of staff from 1999 to 2001 and as deputy executive director of the CIA from 2001 to 2003, as the interrogation and rendition program was created.

Scott Horton, a Hofstra University law professor who has worked with the Senate Judiciary Committee on the CIA’s interrogation and detention program, said he believes Congress would take a firm line against anyone closely associated with the agency’s harsher policies. California Sen. Dianne Feinstein, tapped to head the Senate Intelligence Committee, opposes the CIA’s interrogation program and will play a key role in confirming Obama’s pick.

“Brennan knew it was going to be messy,” Horton told The Associated Press.

But while Obama has clearly articulated and supported many of the liberal positions regarding these issues, Obama suddenly finds himself in the position of where the rubber meets the road.

Here’s Obama’s petard from which to dangle: if he does anything to undermine the Bush policies that protected us from terrorist attacks in the aftermath of 9/11 (the Patriot Act, domestic surveillance of international calls from suspected terrorists, the Guantanamo Bay detention facility, and yes, harsh interrogation tactics such as waterboarding) and the United States is subsequently attacked again, he’s political road kill.  But how can he support such policies given his previous public positions?  And how can he avoid the understandable outrage of his base who will justifiably feel betrayed if he affirms the basic Bush positions?

Meanwhile, we have revelations such as this one:

Study: WMD Attack In U.S. Likely By 2013
Commission Report Says A Nuclear Or Biological Attack Should Be Expected Within Five Years
WASHINGTON, Dec. 1, 2008

(CBS/AP) The United States can expect a terror attack using nuclear or more likely biological weapons before 2013, reports a bipartisan commission in a study briefed Tuesday to Vice President-elect Joe Biden.

It suggests that the Obama administration bolster efforts to counter and prepare for germ warfare by terrorists.

“Our margin of safety is shrinking, not growing,” states the report, obtained by The Associated Press. It is scheduled to be publicly released Wednesday.

And, of course, that report immediately following a terrorist attack in India in which nearly two hundred people were murdered, and in which Jews and Americans were specifically targeted.

Democrats attacked Bush Attorney General appointee Michael Mukasey and pressured him to denounce waterboarding as a legally permissible interrogation technique under any circumstances (whereas Obama has found an attorney general who is as willing to condemn enhanced interrogation as he was to support the pardon for convicted millionaire tax frauds).  Just as Democrats have now destroyed John Brennan simply because he didn’t come out forcefully enough against it to suit them.

But here’s a newsflash: waterboarding works.  I will make anyone who wants to take me up on it a bet: say the information is your social security number.  You try to mine from me by being nice, and becoming my friend, and giving me candy.  I’ll try to get yours from you by waterboarding you until you either tell me or you grow a pair of gills.  I bet you I’ll get your social security number from you, and you’ll never, ever, ever get mine from me.  Take me up on the bet.  As Inspector Hally Callahan once said, “Go ahead.  Make my day.”

We used waterboarding on three suspects.  You can’t exactly say we went nuts over the sheer pleasure of waterboarding.  And it worked every time.  We broke them.  They talked.  Hardened men who despised us and everything we stood for suddenly sang like jaybirds.

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed broke and named at least six major terrorists as a direct result of waterboarding.  And as a result of the information that he provided, the US was able to go after other high level sources, and then use those sources to go after still others.

Now, let me provide you with the previous Democratic administration’s “alternative” approach:

[Zacarias] Moussaoui entered the United States in February 2000 and enrolled in the same Oklahoma flight school Murad had attended. After flunking out in Oklahoma, he resumed lessons on flight simulators in Eagan, Minnesota, where his eccentric behavior aroused suspicions. The F.B.I. detained him on immigration charges on August 17. Among his possessions, they discovered a laptop computer.

Eager to examine the computer, Minneapolis F.B.I. agents repeatedly requested a special warrant to examine Moussaoui’s computer, and bureau attorneys in Washington repeatedly denied their requests, claiming there was insufficient evidence. The special court that reviews warrants covered by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act has approved more than 12,000 Justice Department applications for covert search warrants and wiretaps and rejected only one since the act was passed in 1978.

Coleen Rowley      After the 9/11 attacks, F.B.I. agent Coleen Rowley, general counsel in the Minneapolis field office, wrote a scorching 13-page open letter to F.B.I. Director Robert S. Mueller III and the Senate Intelligence Committee. She asserted that the French government had shared ample intelligence on Moussaoui, including information on his links to Osama bin Laden, information that supported requests for a special surveillance warrant to search Moussaoui’s laptop computer in the weeks before the terrorist attacks. (The French, who had put Moussaoui on a watch list in 1999 because they suspected him of terrorist activities, insisted that they had shared their thick dossier with American intelligence agencies.) Rowley said some field agents were so frustrated that they joked about spies and moles for bin Laden working at Washington headquarters.

A Time Magazine story confirms the above account.

That laptop computer belonging to 9/11 co-conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui contained enough names, account numbers, and information to have prevented the 9/11 terror attacks had it been immediately accessed.  But we decided that it was preferable to allow Moussaoui’s 19 terrorist pals to murder 3000 American citizens rather than risk violating his “privacy rights.”

And I hate to tell you, but we’re returning to that old position.

My view?  I wish we had acquainted Zacarias Moussaoui with the creative use of an incline board and a garden hose, and started asking him some questions.

Given the documented likelihood of a terrorist attack on American soil using weapons of mass destruction – again citing Inspector Harry Callahan – “You’ve got to ask yourself one question: Do I feel lucky?”

“Well, do ya, punk?”

If you feel lucky, you might well side with Democrats.  You be opposed to any kind of “profiling.”  You’ll be outraged over the thought that the government would actually listen to calls coming into the United States from suspected terrorists overseas.  You will become totally unglued over the thought that we would be so barbaric as to waterboard terrorists, or hold them against their will at a place like Gitmo.

If you don’t feel quite so lucky, you’ll realize that we could very well find ourselves in a situation where we detain a terrorist suspect, and need to find out what he knows while the clock ticks down to the launching of a WMD-attack that will leave hundreds of thousands or more Americans dead.  And you count on your government to protect you by forcing that homicidal S.O.B. to talk before his friends murder you and your entire extended family.

Based on the results of November 4, we’re feeling pretty darn lucky.  You would never elect Democrats to have total control over your protection if you weren’t.

Now all we can do is hope that Barack Obama looks at the intelligence information detailing the threats against this country, faints out of sheer terror, regains consciousness, and proceeds to break virtually every single one of his foreign policy campaign promises in order to actually protect this country from violent people who hate it with a psychotic passion.  We have to hope that Obama realizes that one attack – given the fact that Bush protected us – will likely spell his political demise as an outraged country repudiates both his leadership and the Democratic Party that put him in power, and that he will take appropriate steps to fulfill his foremost role as President and protect this country.

And, yeah, given who we’ve chosen to protect us, and given the events of just the last week (e.g. the Mumbai terror attacks, and the official report predicting a major WMD terror attack on US soil), we’re going to need to be lucky.