An Interesting Admission By Secretary Napolitano

It was a Fox News push by the Obama administration. While the president was sitting down with Brett Baier, the Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano was sitting down with Bill O'Reilly.


The subject turned to KSM about 4:40 in. O'Reilly asked Napolitano where she has adviced the president KSM should be tried. Napolitano replied

I have not advised the president on this.

That's rather remarkable. KSM is the most high level Al Qaeda we've ever captured and certainly the most high profile to ever be charged with anything. Yet, the Homeland Security Director has had absolutely no input as to where KSM should be tried.

If he's tried domestically, that's a Homeland Security issue. Yet, the president and the Homeland Security dept. don't appear to be having any dialogue about where he should be tried. That simply doesn't instill confidence that the administration will make a good decision on this matter.

Point Counter Point Weekly Addresses

The president spent this week's address touting pay go. Pay go is a good idea in theory. If it's strictly enforced and applied to all, or at least most of the budget, it makes sense. In pay go, any new spending is countered with a cut somewhere else. Of course, the current pay go only applies to about 60% of the budget.

Of course, the president's sudden push toward fiscal responsibility is not the least bit absurd. The president claims that D.C. spends too much as though he hasn't been leading that spending binge. He also took yet another shot at Bush by proclaiming that we had a budget surplus at the beginning of the decade and that he inherited a budget deficit of $1.4 trillion. We did have a budget surplus but we also didn't have a GWOT. His budget deficit numbers are dubious at best.

Lindsey Graham used the Reps' weekly address to go after the president's GWOT policies. He hit on familiar themes: KSM in New York, closing GITMO, and reading the Christmas Day bomber his rights.

It's hard to imagine that the public would loathe anything more than they loathe Obamacare, but if these talking points continue as effectively that may just happen. The president's Afghanistan policy is generally well liked, and his use of drones is effective. Of course, those get little coverage.

Instead, all the coverage is of the debacle on Farouk and the total nightmare that is the KSM trial. Graham effectively verbalized talking points that will become very familiar over the next few months. Of course, this was a target rich environment for him.

On Farouk, Obama Digs a Hole and Keeps Digging

In the span of a few days in August of 2005, the Bush administration defined itself negatively for its leadership or lack thereof. Once defined as such, there was little the Bush administration could do to reverse the perception of that debacle.

The Obama administration had just such a moment in the aftermath of the Christmas Day attempted hijacking. It took President Obama several days to say something. Secretary Napolitano proclaimed that "the system worked".

That was just the beginning. Then, news leaked that Farouk was only interrogated for fifty minutes and then read his Miranda rights. Then, no one in the administration seemed to be involved in making the decision, and Robert Gibbs went so far as to claim that in those fifty minutes we got all that we could out of Farouk.

The Obama administration is now backpedaling on trying KSM et al in New York. It's even looking more and more likely that all will wind up still being tried at GITMO. That will be a source for embarrassment for the administration but it's a mistake that can be rectified. If, in fact, they come to their senses and try them in the right place, it won't define them.

With Farouk, there is no such second chance. There was a moment for leadership and in that moment, there was none. I believe the administration knows it. That's why a terrorism expert like John Brennan has turned into a political hack going anywhere with a megaphone to defend the indefensible. It's probably why the administration leaked that after five weeks Farouk was speaking again.

All of this has only made things worse. The administration screwed up badly by immediately treating Farouk as a criminal rather than an enemy in war. They screwed up just as badly by not having someone that looked as though they were in charge in the immediate aftermath of the attempted hijacking. Yet, they've made things worse by stubbornly defending all of this behavior. By doing so, they've continued to dig a hole created in December.

Farouk Speaks

The Christmas Day bomber is speaking and giving fruitful information.

The Nigerian man accused of trying to use a bomb hidden in his underwear to bring down a Detroit-bound airliner on Christmas has been cooperating with investigators since last week and has provided fresh intelligence in multiple terrorism investigations, officials said Tuesday.

The FBI's interrogation of Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab has drawn fire from lawmakers who contend the Obama administration botched the case by giving Abdulmutallab the right to remain silent, rather than interrogating him as a military prisoner.

I'm very confused. I don't understand how Farouk could be giving us actionable intelligence. I don't understand how Farouk could give us anything of value. I don't understand this because the White House insisted for a month that the fifty minute interrogation yielded all that we could get from Farouk. How can he bring us anything new when he told us everything already?

Afghan Bomber a Double Agent

It's unbelievable that this story isn't getting more attention.

The suicide bomber who killed seven CIA operatives in Afghanistan last week was a Jordanian informant who lured intelligence officers into a trap by promising new information about al-Qaeda's top leadership, former U.S. government officials said Monday.

Here's the story in a nutshell. Jordanian intelligence recruited this individual to infiltrate Al Qaeda. The CIA began to work with him. He gained their trust. So, he was able to bypass security in Afghanistan. He walked into an area in which 7 CIA members were located and blew himself up. He was in fact an Al Qaeda double agent.

The ramifications are huge. First, these were seven top CIA agents. They're dead. Second, someone in the Jordanian intelligence recruited them and so they vetted them. What does this do to our relationship with them? Third, this was some plot. This guy passes himself off as an informant all while actually working with Al Qaeda.

We're all fixated on the airport plot meanwhile, this guy infiltrates the CIA and kills seven. Who knows how much intelligence he gave to Al Qaeda. Yet, this story is buried while we hyperanalyze the airport bombing.

Plea Deal for Would Be Hijacker?

Say it ain't so...

President Obama's chief counterterrorism adviser on Sunday defended the administration's decision to try in federal court the man charged with attempting to bomb an airliner on Christmas Day and indicated that he would be offered a plea agreement to persuade him to reveal what he knows about al-Qaeda operations in Yemen.

Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the 23-year-old Nigerian charged with the failed attempt on the Amsterdam-to-Detroit flight, was initially "talking to people who detained him" but now has a public defender and "doesn't have to," John O. Brennan said on "Fox News Sunday."

"We have different ways of obtaining information from individuals" in the criminal-justice process, Brennan said on NBC's "Meet the Press." "A lot of people . . . understand what they're facing, and their lawyers recognize that there is advantage to talking to us in terms of plea agreements, [and] we're going to pursue that." Brennan told CNN's "State of the Union" that other terrorism suspects have "given us very valuable information as they've gone through the plea-agreement process."

Let me be fair and defend the admin just for a minute. We all know that Farouk isn't the big shot. We all know that there's more to this cell. We don't know just who other members of this cell know. If we offer him a plea deal, then, he may reveal some info, that will lead to a capture, and dominos will fall.

Let me attack the administration. If that's your goal, you should have immediately classified this guy as an ILLEGAL enemy combatant, interrogated him until he gave you everything you now want, and then tried him in military court and given him the death penalty.

This isn't merely semantics. Blowing up a plane with hundreds of passengers is no crime. It's an act of war. It's designed to stunt the economy, send the population into panic, and draw a response from our military. That's not merely a crime. That's an act of war. In war, going after military targets is legitimate. Going after civilians isn't. That's why the Nazi spies were dealt with so harshly. Farouk committed an act of war against civilians. He deserves and should get no rights. Giving him any rights would lump him in with murderers and we're talking about two different acts entirely.

The administration has done just that. By doing so, they've given Farouk the same rights as a murderer. We all know from cop shows how law enforcement holds its nose when giving some a deal to get another. I'm sure the Feds weren't keen to give Sammy the Bull a deal but they did it to get Gotti. No such process is necessary in war time. Yet, the administration has turned terrorism into a criminal matter and as such, they need to give our enemies in war deals, as though they're merely criminals.

GITMO to Yemen?

Three Democrats have come out in opposition to this move and you can expect more.

Some Democrats are joining Republican lawmakers in opposing the transfer of suspected terrorists from the Guantanamo Bay prison to Yemen, citing Al Qaeda's increased activity in the poor Arab nation.

President Obama's top counter terrorism adviser, John Brennan, told Fox News that the transfers will continue if the administration deems them warranted.

"The Guantanamo facility must be closed," he said on "Fox News Sunday." "It has served as a propaganda tool for Al Qaeda. We're determined to close it. We're not going to, though, do anything that is going to put American security at risk."

The president himself has identified an Al Qaeda splinter group that was operating out of Yemen as responsible for the planning and operation of the Christmas day hijacking plot.

This practice of repatriating these guys back into their home country was a colossal failure under the Bush administration and it will be under the Obama administration as well if it isn't halted immediately.

There's about 90 Yemeni being held in GITMO now. About half are being scheduled to be sent back to their home country and the rest will be tried domestically in civilian courts.

Separating Fact from Fiction in the Attempted Hijacking

The bombing plot story is all part of the most under reported story of the year. That's the story of the growing terrorist threat within Yemen. In fact, right now, there's a pseudo proxy war going on within Yemen between Iran and the West. At the same time, Al Qaeda is gaining a foothold there.

It's still not certain that the would be bomber is part of Al Qaeda but that becomes more and more certain daily.

The statement that was posted on the Internet; al-Qaida in the Saudi Arabia said the 23-year-old Nigerian Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab coordinated with members of the group, an alliance of militants based in Saudi Arabia and Yemen.

Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab (born December 22, 1986) is a Nigerian man who allegedly tried to detonate an explosive or incendiary device on Northwest Airlines Flight 253 on December 25, 2009 which was en route from Amsterdam to Detroit, Michigan.

In fact, it appears that two of the planners were once residents of GITMO.

ABC News’ Brian Ross reported: “Two of the four leaders allegedly behind the Al Qaeda plot to blow up a Northwest Airlines passenger jet over Detroit were released by the U.S. from the Guantanamo prison in November 2007, according to American officials and Department of Defense documents.”

That's why the way our government has treated this following his arrest is that much more troubling. Farouk was arrested and put into our criminal system. Farouk is no criminal. What he attempted to do on that Northwest flight was no crime, but rather an act of way.

Because Farouk is in our criminal system, we can presume that his attorney has instructed him to stay silent. If, however, he were treated as an enemy combatant, our CIA/FBI would be interrogating him right now. So, if in fact he is part of a larger cell, we'd be getting that information as we speak.

Instead, he's likely invoked his right to remain silent and we're getting nothing from him. That's what Congressman Peter King has asked for.

The key question to answer is where in the government bureaucracy there was a breakdown. This guy's father ratted him out. You simply can't have a bigger red flag than that. So, why was he not on a do not fly list? That's the key question to answer. Of course, it will take days and weeks and months before we really have an answer. This incident can only be positive if that question is answered, the right people are held to account, and the problem is fixed.

This means the problems were all caused on the ground. So, right now, there's extra things being asked of people in the air. For instance, electronic devices are allowed to be used in less quantities. That adds a layer of inconvenience without resolving the main problem, which is keeping bad guys off our flights.

Finally, the most important question is whether or not Secretary Napolitano is up to the job. Her performance over the weekend was abysmal. Meanwhile, it's very likely that the communication breakdown was caused by her. Secretary Napolitano may need to be the first to go as a result.

With that said, it is, in my opinion, important to avoid turning this into a partisan witch hunt. Republicans have wasted no time doing this.

Republicans have wasted no time in attacking Democrats on intelligence and screening failures leading up to the failed Christmas Day bombing of Flight 253 — a significant departure from the calibrated, less partisan responses that have followed other recent terrorist activity.

The strategy — coming as the Republican leadership seeks to exploit Democratic weaknesses heading into the 2010 midterms — is in many ways a natural for a party that views protecting the U.S. homeland as its ideological raison d’etre and electoral franchise.

President Obama’s GOP critics have been emboldened during the past 48 hours by the stumbling initial response of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, who spent Monday retracting her Sunday claim that “the system worked” in the aftermath of Umar Farouk Abdulmuttalab’s near takedown of a jet ferrying nearly
300 people from Amsterdam to Detroit

I know how politics work. I get it. The problem with finger pointing is that it solves no problems. These are matters of life and death. Simply accusing Obama of incompetence and trying to use this incident to score points will weaken the President, strengthen the Republicans, but it will keep no one safe.

The Many Contradictions of the KSM Trial

As the policy that will have KSM and four of his cohorts unfolds, it becomes nothing more than a series of contradictions. I pointed out one yesterday. Attorney General Eric Holder said that he is well aware that we are at war. Then, Lindsey Graham asked him how many enemy combatants we had tried in civilian court.


This of course has become a viral video, but it points out a very important dichotomy of the policy. If these are enemy combatants in war, they must be tried by the military. If they are criminals, they must be tried in criminal courts. Eric Holder calls them enemies in war but wants them tried in civilian court. That's a contradiction he's yet to explain.

At the same time, the administration says that they want to try them in our justice system because they want to show the world that we can give our enemy a free, open, and fair trial. Yet, both Holder and President Obama have guaranteed not only convictions but that KSM will face the death penalty. Now, does it sound as though the administration is trying to give KSM a free, open, and fair trial? When then Governor Rod Blagojevich was first indicted, some folks criticized Pat Fitzgerald, the prosecutor, for being too bold in supporting the evidence against Blagojevich. The statements that Fitzgerald made were miniscule compared to having the President of the United States declare a man guilty and guarantee that said man WILL, not may or might, face the death penalty.

Such statements are obscenely prejudicial. How would we get a jury in New York City to be unbiased when the President of the United States declares the defendant guilty? Given that, the President clearly doesn't want a fair, free, and open trial but a show trial. He's already pre determined the outcome. In fact, under the right, or wrong, judge, those statements could be usedto throw the entire case out of court. The rules are very strict about the sorts of statements that the prosecution can make in lieu of a trial. Keep in mind, every defendant is given the presumption of innocence. So, KSM should be presumed innocent. Does it sound as though the administration is treating him as though he's innocent?

Finally, what if KSM were found not guilty? Does anyone believe we'd allow them to roam free in New York City? Of course not. In fact, the administration is hinting that he would be treated as enemy combatant during war even if he were found not guilty. So, what's the point of having the trial? Either way, he has no chance of being let free. Does that sound as though we're being free, fair, and open? Of course, not. Once again, that's a show trial. The outcome has been predetermined. Even if his outcome is somehow different, he's still not going to be let free. That's not showcasing our criminal justice system, it's perverting it.

The Unintended Consequences of Terrorist Ruling

By now, most have heard that several high value terrorists, including Khalid Sheikh Muhammad, will be moved to New York City. The consequences of this decision are massive and they will reverberate.

Those that defend the decision say that a civilian trial will be fair, open and thus show the rest of the world that we have the best justice system in the world. I have no doubt that all of those things are true, however none of them will benefit us in this case. The terrorists aren't going to hate us any less because we give their comrades constitutional rights in a trial that will certainly wind up in their executions.

The Europeans aren't suddenly going to become terror warriors because KSM received a civilian trial. In fact, this goes back to a debate that I thought had been settled. Was the attack on 9/11 an illegal act of war or heinous crime. Back in the 1990's, we treated the first WTC attack, the embassy bombings and the USS Cole bombing all as criminal attacks. Al Qaeda viewed all as an act of war. Al Qaeda had declared war on us in the mid 1990's. When Al Qaeda flew planes into the towers they weren't simply trying to kill a lot of people. They were hoping to eventually bring the entire country down. That's an act of war, and since it targeted civilians, it was an illegal act of war.

We try criminals in our court system. We try illegal enemy combatants in military courts. The best example I can give was of the German spy saboteurs in WWII. They were captured and put on trial not in a civilian court but by a military tribunal. There's was an act of war. We didn't treat them like criminals.

So to was Al Qaeda's act on 9/11. Yet, we want to give these folks the same protections we give murderers. They aren't merely murderers but illegal enemy combatants. There are many consequences. First, these are the worst of the worst. If they are tried in civilian court, all must be tried in civilian court. Just think about it. If KSM is given a civilian trial with full constitutional rights, then how will we justify trying a mid level operative any differently?

Second, all these trials will be a circus. We know this because we sat through four years of Zaracrias Moussaoui. It lasted the better part of four years. Moussaoui spewed anti American propaganda throughout and the whole thing became surreal. There's absolutely no chance that these guys will be acquitted. They know this. They also know that they have an opportunity to put the Bush administration, America, and the West on trial. They'll the CIA tactics on trial. They'll put American on trial.

Furthermore, these folks weren't arrested using traditional means of criminal arrest. There will be all sorts issues bringing evidence to trial. It will be challenged each and every step of the way. Many of our secrets may be exposed. Terrorists that have "flipped" may be forced to testify in open court.

That's one of the main reasons that we have military courts. They balance the necessary fairness and justice with the practicality of the war we are fighting. Civilian courts aren't capable of this. Many folks often say that we have convicted many terrorists in the past, like those that perpetrated the first WTC attack. That's true. We weren't in a full scale war then. We'll be trying our enemies during this war and do it in a civilian court.

White House Delays Troop Decision in Afghanistan

The White House is now signaling that no troop decision will be made until after the Afghanistan election is resolved.

It would be irresponsible to send more troops to Afghanistan until a legitimate and credible government is in place, the White House and top Democrats said Sunday.

White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel said the most critical issue facing U.S. strategy is whether the Afghans can be an effective partner in destroying Al Qaeda safe havens and bringing stability to the region.

"It would be reckless to make a decision on U.S. troop levels if in fact you haven't done a thorough analysis of whether in fact there's an Afghan partner ready to fill that space that U.S. troops would create and become a true partner in governing," Emanuel said in an interview Sunday on CNN's "State of the Union."

In Iraq, there was never an election widely viewed as fraudulent the way this one was, however that government didn't get legitimacy until after the security situation was resolved. At the end of 2006, the government of Nouri Al Maliki was anything but legitimate. That's because they couldn't protect the citizenry. The Bush administration was, thus, dealing with a similar problem. Had President Bush said that until there was a legitimate government we wouldn't commit to more troops, Al Qaeda would now share Iraq with Iran.

The rub, if you will, is that the government won't be legitimate until there is security. Afghanistan has voted three times in its history and so widespread fraud shouldn't have been all that surprising. If the Karzai government was able to protect the citizens, widespread corruption in the election wouldn't become a problem we'd have to deal with.

This idea of a legitimate government has been used by the current administration as a red herring so that they can delay the decision to send troops. The most significant issue in Afghanistan is security. Security isn't going to happen with the current number of troops. The general is asking for more troops and Obama simply refuses to give him his troops. If you're looking to not make a decision, then Afghanistan will provide you with a plethora of reasons not to do exactly that.

The election certainly complicates the matter. No one should minimize just how explosive that is in an already explosive situation. That said, to wait until that is resolved is to simply vote present on making a decision. Unfortunately, by voting present, all the president really does is keep the status quo for another month or two. Of course, we know the status quo won't work. So, the troops are stuck in a failing strategy with a president looking for any excuse not to make a decision. That the president voted present over 100 times in the Illinois Senate was a point opponents made on occasion. Supporters dismissed this lack of decision making. Yet, it's becoming clear that on all major decisions the President continues to vote present. As an Illinois Senator, he had that option without causing too many problems. As president, it's deadly, and that's playing out in Afghanistan.

Obama Ready to Reject Bush Doctrine Tenet

President Bush made his speech in the aftermath of 9/11 about a week afterwards. In the week between the attacks and his speech, there was a bit of debate about one specific issue. That issue was whether or not we were going to include the Taliban in our list of enemies for destruction along with Al Qaeda. I say there was just a bit of debate because most people were in agreement that the Taliban were no less responsible for 9/11 than Al Qaeda itself. Then, George Bush said this in his speech a week after 9/11.

we will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them

Bush continued.

From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.

That was the first tenet of the Bush Doctrine as it related to the GWOT. It was then, as it is now, rather non controversial. That's because it makes sense. Just as those that knowingly harbor a criminal are themselves criminals. Any regime that harbors terrorists must be held accountable for the terrorists.

It goes beyond that. Al Qaeda didn't merely show up one day in Afghanistan. They were invited in. They weren't invited for no reason. Instead, both Al Qaeda and the Taliban share an ideology and a world view. Al Qaeda wanted to be in Afghanistan, in part, because the Taliban imposed the sort of Islamic political philosophy that Al Qaeda agreed with. The two were ideological and strategic allies. One couldn't be dealt with, without dealing with the other.

This, I thought, was the one part of the Bush Doctrine that no one would challenge. Yet, it appears that President Obama is ready to drop that portion of the Bush doctrine.

Obama's developing strategy on the Taliban will "not tolerate their return to power," the senior official said. But the U.S. would fight only to keep the Taliban from retaking control of Afghanistan's central government -- something it is now far from being capable of -- and from giving renewed sanctuary in Afghanistan to Al-Qaeda, the official said.

...

Members of the president's national security team argued that the Taliban in Afghanistan do not pose a direct threat to the U.S., officials told The New York Times. It was unclear if everyone in the war council accepted the premise.

If the President follows through on this strategy that will reject a central tenet of the Bush Doctrine for the GWOT. No longer will we be treating the terrorists and their harboring regimes as one and the same. The president will treat Al Qaeda as the enemy and treat the Taliban as something else, something we can tolerate.

This makes no sense on a moral level. Al Qaeda is not a country. They operate because regimes invite them in. That's what the Taliban did. That makes the Taliban just as responsible for their terrorism as Al Qaeda itself. It also makes no sense on a strategic level. You can't separate the Taliban from Al Qaeda because they are in fact interchangeable.

Just as in pre-9/11 Afghanistan, these safe havens are home to broad cooperation between the Taliban and al Qaeda. The Taliban hosts camps for al Qaeda’s paramilitary army, as well as al Qaeda’s external network – that is, those terrorists responsible for striking the West. By some estimates there are more than 150 training camps, of various sizes and configurations, in the tribal areas in Northwestern Pakistan.

Senior al Qaeda leaders are routinely killed at Taliban safe houses, training camps, and compounds during U.S. airstrikes. Numerous Taliban leaders, including the Haqqanis (a father and son team who are based both in eastern Afghanistan and in Pakistan’s tribal areas, as discussed below), Hakeemullah Mehsud, Mullah Nazir, Hafiz Gul Bahadar, Omar Khalid, Mullah Fazlullah, and Faqir Mohammed host al Qaeda’s leaders and foot soldiers. These Taliban commanders conduct cross-border operations in Afghanistan, and aid al Qaeda in doing so as well.

So, how do you only go after Al Qaeda when Al Qaeda and the Taliban are fighting together, hiding together, and together in the overall war. That's doesn't even take into account that if we leave the Taliban in place that eventually they'll invite Al Qaeda back in, unless we want to stay in Afghanistan forever.

This would in fact be a massive change in the philosophy of the GWOT. If we aren't treating the terrorists and their sponsors as one and the same, we've now given license to any terrorist sponsoring state, a la Iran, much more license. If Obama pronounces that the Taliban can be left alone that will give that much more incentive for any other tyrant to invite terrorists into their nation. Of all the tenets of the Bush Doctrine, this is the one that I thought with most certainty would never be challenged. Yet, it appears that President Obama is on the brink of making a distinction between the terrorists and the states that sponsor them.

Connecting the Dots on Intelligence and Waterboarding

There are several questions that continue to surround the latest revelations in the CIA's EIT program. First, are waterboarding and other EIT techniques in fact torture? Whether these techniques worked or not, was it worth it? Could we have gotten any information from some detainees without using them? Finally, did we get valuable intelligence following the use of these techniques? Most of these questions are tangential. In that, there is no objective way to look at it and so your answer likely depends on your political ideology. Most will continue to be debated long after the release of the lateste memos.

Here's what's no longer debateable. Both Khalid Sheikh Muhammand and Abu Zubaydah account for an enormous amount of what we know about Al Qaeda in general. We know that both were in the top three in the leadership of Al Qaeda. We know that both were eventually waterboarded. We also know that both were initially not very cooperative but only became cooperative after the waterboarding.

That certainly doesn't answer the question about whether or not water boarding is torture. It doesn't answer the question about whether or not it's worth it. As Juan Williams points out, in a Democracy "we don't torture, period", and we don't say "it's all right to torture because it lead to a lot of information". It's hard however to argue the last two points any more. Because of the sensitivity of the matter, most of the details of the interrogations were redacted. What wasn't redacted was 1) both KSM and Zubaydah were initially not very talkative and 2)both were subjected to EIT's. Now, it's not very hard to connect the dots here. We tried standard interrogation methods and they didn't work. We tried some alternatives. Some of these were very tought and they did work.

There is a popular argument, made especially by John McCain, that if you torture someone they will tell you anything and most won't be true. That is certainly true, but the results speak for themselves. The memos make clear that both KSM and Zubaydah were a "rolo dex of information on Al Qaeda." That is how the interrogators analyzed the information that these two gave to interrogators. Both were initially not cooperative. Both were eventually waterboarded. Both eventually began singing like canaries. Is someone going to really say that waterboarding didn't work on these two? Are they really going to say that we could have gotten information from them in another way?

It's very hard to make the moral argument that even if waterboarding saves lives it's not worth it. That is taking a theoretical argument to an extreme that very few will agree with. If Americans have a decision between waterboarding a terrorist and losing American lives, most will choose waterboarding a terrorist. As such, most of those that make that argument will also claim that it doens't work. That's a much stronger argument. Not only is it immoral, but it doesn't work. It's a difficult argument to disprove. Yet, we now have overwhelming evidence that this is simply not so. If someone wants to claim that waterboarding is wrong no matter what the ends, that's one thing. If they want to claim that it doesn't work, that's now no longer an argument someone can make.

The "Tortured" Defense of Obama's National Security Policy

President Obama is really losing the debate over national security. One of the signs is that this is the only defense I have found of his policies, and his speech. Now, I don't read far left blogs like Daily Kos, the Huffington Post, and liberal favorite Salon so I am sure that there are defenses. That said, I have found very few in the so called MSM and since they are his cheering section and acolytes that is really saying something. Another good way to see just how badly the president is losing the debate is how tortured the defense of his policies are by his defenders. This piece, by Ruth Marcus, isn't the most tortured piece but its certainly up there.

First, Marcus lays out the three caricature positions that Obama's critics have accused him of being on national security: 1) a Bush clone 2) a dangerous and naive liberal and 3) a kinder and gentler Bush. Then, she spends the rest of the piece attacking each of these characterizations. By doing so, through the process of elimination, she tries to make the case that in fact President Obama is number 4) Obama inherited a minefield and is attacking it with pragmatism.

First of all, any of these characterizations is likely too simplistic. As such, you can attack any of them with a specific policy example and use that specific example as "proof" that Obama's isn't that caricature. First, Marcus spends several paragraphs essentially getting her talking points from the White House itself. She calls the situation a "mess" and says that Obama is only dealing with these issues because Bush was more concerned with usurping power than finding "due process" than President Obama wouldn't be dealing with this.

It's ironic that Marcus believes that President Obama has been caricatured when she uses every opportunity to caricature his opponent. The reality is that it wasn't President Bush that created a mess but the terrorists themselves. On many levels, their very existence is a legal black hole. That's why many military folks believe the best justice is one carried out and ended on the battlefield. Yet, Marcus believes that Bush did what he did not because he was dealing with the same thorny legal, ethical and geopolitical issues, but because he was drunk on power.

Had the Bush administration put in place basic elements of due process and fairness from the start, had it not been so determined to exalt executive power at the expense of coequal branches, Guantanamo would not be the toxic symbol it has become. Had the Bush administration not tainted evidence with its "enhanced interrogation techniques," perhaps more detainees -- and the most dangerous of them -- could be tried and convicted.

Most that have visited GITMO believe that the caricature of it is nothing compared to reality. It's ironic that Marcus believes that Bush turned GITMO into a "toxic symbol" because the constant drum beat of supposed human rights abuses by people like her was what went a long way toward creating this "toxic symbol". As for enhanced interrogation, Bush's main priority wasn't getting evidence that could be used in court but getting information that would stop further attacks. This seems to be a "minor point" that folks like Marcus seem to miss.

Obama may in fact convict many more of the detainees that he apprehends but by removing these techniques we simply aren't going to get as much information. This reality Marcus doesn't attract because in her world, giving due process to our enemies in war is more important than winning that war.

Marcus uses this false premise to then attack the first three caricatures.

So the caricatures of answers (a) "disappointing sellout" and (b) "naive liberal" are both wrong. Sometimes -- ending the use of "enhanced interrogation techniques," releasing the Office of Legal Counsel memos on the same -- he has embraced the "liberal" side. Sometimes -- reaffirming a broad state secrets privilege, reviving military commissions, envisioning a legal mechanism for preventive detention -- he has come down on the "conservative" side.

Which makes (c) "kinder, gentler Bush" the most intriguing wrong answer. This argument has been made most extensively by Jack Goldsmith, head of the Office of Legal Counsel under George W. Bush. Writing in the New Republic, Goldsmith asserted that Obama has "copied most of the Bush program, has expanded some of it, and has narrowed only a bit. Almost all of the Obama changes have been at the level of packaging, argumentation, symbol, and rhetoric."

It's true that Obama hasn't taken a strictly liberal or conservative position on national security. You can find both positions. For instance, he still believes that we can dialogue with Iran and he's continued the terrorist surveillance program. Like I said, all three of the first answers are themselves caricatures and so easily to dismiss. That doesn't make Marcus' view any more serious though. In fact, she spends only one paragraph defending it.

This is true only if you define "the Bush program" as what the courts and, to a shamefully lesser extent, Congress, had forced Bush to do by the end of his administration. Even similar-looking positions contain important differences whose significance Goldsmith minimizes. Obama suspended and then revived the military tribunals that Bush put in place -- but with improvements on excluding information obtained by coercion, limiting the use of hearsay and expanding access to lawyers.

More important, where Bush resisted any encroachments on executive power, Obama welcomes sharing power and responsibility. "Our goal is not to avoid a legitimate legal framework. In our constitutional system, prolonged detention should not be the decision of any one man," he said. "If and when we determine that the United States must hold individuals to keep them from carrying out an act of war, we will do so within a system that involves judicial and congressional oversight."

That's not glitzy rhetoric cloaking the same old policy. It's smart change, dangerously overdue.

To say that Obama is a pragmatist because he has added cosmetic changes to the military tribunals, tribunals that candidate Obama condemned, is the height of a journalist carrying water for a candidate. No one but the biggest ideologue believes that any of these changes will do anything of substance and are done only as a face saving measure. Candidate Obama made clear the problem was the tribunal system itself. He proclaimed boldly that our criminal court system could handle their trials. Now, Marcus is trying to re write history by making these changes something they aren't.

Then, she takes things a step further. Because Obama proclaims in vague words to work "within a system that involves judicial and congressional oversight", this makes Obama's policies so different from Bush's. In fact, GITMO was always under congressional oversight and cases that started there wound up in the Supreme Court. So, just because Obama says that things will be more transparent, full of oversight, and within the confines of our laws doesn't mean that 1) they weren't before and 2) they will be anymore legal now.

Those of us on the right that have criticized his policy haven't criticized everything reflexively. I believe it is naive to think that reaching out to Iran will do anything but give the Iranians more time to advance their own agenda. It's rather clear now that Obama decided to close GITMO without thinking it through, something Bush's opponents attacked him on relentlessly with Iraq policy. We further believe that releasing the memos was a naked act of politics that does nothing to advance our foreign policy agenda. We agree with his decisions to continue the terrorist surveillance program, renditions, and doubling down in Afghanistan. Though, we'd also like Obama to admit his naked hypocrisy and to admit that it's much easier to criticize a President's policy than to make it himself.

Her Stunning Hubris Will Only Make Her More Toxic, It Caricatures Her, and it Will Ultimately Do Her In

Does the Speaker really think that she can accuse our spies of lying, stand by that statement providing absolutely no evidence, and then say that's all you're going to answer about that situation? Frankly, I am a bit disappointed that I didn't point out this hubris in my previous piece on her.



If you think about it, this whole thing is only happening because of Pelosi's overwhelming hubris. She couldn't admit to the shame that she knew all along and didn't make any sort of an effort to stop it. Instead, she thought that she could just blame everyone but herself and have that work for her.

The irony of all this hubris is that one of her biggest undoing is that she can't stop being overcome with enormous nervous tension whenever she is in front of the camera. You can see this because her hand motions never match the tone in which she speaks. Furthermore, you can hear the nervous tension in her voice. The reason all these press conferences are such a disaster is because she is so visibly nervous. You can tell because her body language is all off and you can even hear the nervous tension in her voice.



Now, because of this "scheme" that Pelosi her press conference becomes an event that everyone looks forward to if not for its trainwreck rubber neck manner. Now, imagine this trainwreck happening in front of a rubberneck media once a week. Pelosi will just get more and more toxic. Apparently, none of this Pelosi could foresee happening. That's just how full of hubris she is. She thought that she could do all of this and simply get away with it.

I've always described hubris to people as the moment when arrogance becomes a fatal flaw. It will actually be sort of enjoyable watching her meltdown because the meltdown itself will only be caused by her own far too healthy an opinion of herself. Pelosi's hubris will do her in. She's already caricatured herself. Take a look at some more of her recent press conference appearances.




We're in for a weekly one of those until at least November 2010. The visibility on these press conferences will continue to go up dramatically. She will just become more and more of a caricature until she becomes so toxic that she must be removed.Until then, once a week we will be treated to something like this.

Get Ready for the Uighers

The Uighers are a group of Chinese separatists that often resort to violency in their goal of breaking their own traditional ethnicity and freeing it from the rest of China. In GITMO, there are a group of seventeen Uighers. Last year, the Pentagon decided to change their status from "enemy combatant". The reasoning behind this was that the Uighers beef was with China not the U.S. The reasoning was rather dubious. These particular Uighers were picked up in both Afghanistan and Pakistan. Some of them were picked up on the battlefield fighting American forces. Furthermore, these Uighers were known to have attended a terrorist training camp run by East Turkestan Islamic Movement, an Al Qaeda affiliate.

All of this laid the groundwork for what is about to occur. As a result of this determination, Federal Judge Richard Urbina ordered that these Uighers be produced in a Federal Court. They continued held in GITMO while the Bush administration appealed the decision. Then, things got even more dicey. President Obama made one of his first acts as president his intention to close GITMO. In February, a D.C. Circuit Court reversed Urbina's decision. So, as a matter of law, these Uighers could continue to be held in GITMO indefinitely.

From here though, things stop being about a matter of law. The Obama administration is determined to see GITMO close. They are also having all sorts of trouble getting any other nations to take on the prisoners there. The Uighers are actually wanted desperately by their home nation, China. Of course, that's only so they can be summarily tried and killed for crimes against their citizenry. As such, releasing them back to China is not an option. No other nation would ever take on these terrorists. As such, the administration believes that they need to lead by example. In other words, if the U.S. repatriates some GITMO detainees the rest of the world will be more willing to take some on themselves.

The Uighers appears to be the first in line. Last week, the administration leaked that seven of these folks would soon be released into the continental U.S. The administration will do this despite its own internal review of the danger they pose inside the U.S. So, sometime in the next few weeks these seven folks will be released free to roam the U.S. More than that, they will be free and provided welfare by the U.S. government. Worse than this, their release violates the REAL Act of 2005 which forbids anyone tied to a terrorist group from being released into the U.S.

GITMO is one of those issues that receives sporadic attention. The economy is on top of everyone's mind and so GITMO only makes the news when there's news. The release of these seven will be news, and it will again enflame the debate over its closing. The polling is rather overwhelming against both the closing of GITMO and especially against releasing them here. (even more against providing them government welfare) So, you can bet that upon their release, a contentious debate will get started.

There is one other thing that is important in this debate. That is the issue of the prison in Bagram in Afghanistan. That prison has received little media attention. That said, the president has decided that everything that applies to GITMO doesn't apply to Bagram. That will continue to stay open. The folks there won't get access to civilian lawyers. They won't be tried in civilian court, and many won't even be charged. As such, had these same Uighers wound up at Bagram, they would continue to be held incommunicado because President Obama is perfectly happy with that as long as the prisoner is there. One day, some in the press might notice the utter hypocrisy with which President Obama treats GITMO and Bagram.

Enhanced Interrogations: the Constitutional Argument

It's true. I am no Constitutional scholar but I will give it my best shot anyway.

To start the argument, I will pose a question. When can the President use their power as Commander in Chief? Now, this is a question without a definitive answer. In my opinion however, that is a power the President always has. Now, to make sure that the president doesn't abuse this sweeping power, the Constitution has laid in place several checks on it. The biggest check is the oversight power of the Congress. The second check is the power of the press.

As such, the president has carte blanche to do just about anything as commander in chief. It is then the job of the Congress and the press to make sure that this power is not abused. Now, let's apply that to the issue of enhanced interrogations. In this case, the president, acting as commander in chief, ordered the CIA to use certain techniques on certain Al Qaeda suspects in certain situations. In much the same way, FDR used the same power to create an office of censorship during WWII, Wilson created a Creel Commission during WWI, and Lincoln suspended habeas corpus during the Civil War. Then, after the fact, the Congress was duly informed and briefed. In fact, throughout the process, the Congress was briefed. If anyone felt there was abuse, it was then the time to voice concerns and investigate. In fact, the Congress didn't merely oversee the process but they funded it. Throughout the process, they funded it.

In this case, the Constitutional process was duly followed. The president acted as commander in chief. He personally took responsibility for the order, as is his power as commander in chief. In each case, the Congress was briefed. The Congress never objected or investigated. Furthermore, they continued to fund the program. Now, years later, some want to go back and do investigations after the fact. If we allow this, all policies would eventually wind up in court. Just imagine if a small government conservative winds up president and then decides that universal health care is unconstitutional. Then, what...will they haul in Obama's health secretary to face charges?

Then, there are those that say that the Constitution was followed but we broke international law bu violating the United Nations Convention Against Torture. This is a matter of debate. First, here is how the convention defines torture.

Any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.

That's hardly definitive. What exactly is severe? Is it severe to simulate drowning, play loud music, or hold someone in a dark and cold room? That's unclear and ultimately up to each individual country to define.

There's more. The Convention sets out no specific remedies if a country did violate. Even if we did, what does that mean? There is no specific punishment for violation. So, what is anyone supposed to do with the knowledge that we did? If the UN wants to bring sanctions against the U.S., let them bring that to the floor. Since we have veto power, I can only assume that we will veto any such sanction.

An Entirely Political Exercise Masquerading as Constitutional Debate

Let's try a thought experiment. Let's suppose that the Bush administration didn't use waterboarding and other enhanced interrogation techniques when capturing the likes of KSM. Let's further suppose that there was an attack several years later and it was then learned that KSM knew about it but we didn't get that information from him. Does anyone believe that this day, now, we wouldn't be using each and every tough interrogation technique available? Does anyone believe that anyone but the truly looney would have any doubt about their legality? Does anyone think we would be debating whether or not we should try those that made legal opinions about its legality?

What's truly infuriating about this debate is that many on both sides are turning a political debate into a Constitutional one. Let's make this clear. Whether or not waterboarding and other tough techniques are or are not torture is NOT clear. It is a debate that folks all stripes can have till everyone is blue in the face and reach no resolution. Furthermore, whether or not this is or is not Constitutional is also entirely unclear.

Here's how I know. Back in the 1940's, FDR set up an office of censorship. That's right. FDR brazenly violated the First Amendment. Now, I don't remember any of the lawyers involved in formulating the legal opinion to allow him to do this ever being threatened with prosecution. I don't remember anyone involved with this policy ever being threatened with prison. During WWI, Woodrow Wilson set up the Creel Commission, which among other things opened up mail of war opponents. This blatant violation of the Fourth Amendment landed no one in jail. Just more recently, the District of Columbia was found to violate the 2nd Amendment with their handgun ban. Despite decades of illegal activity, no one associated with the formulation or implementation of this blatantly unconstitutional policy was ever threatened with jail time.

The main difference between the three examples that I cited and the Bush policy is that those three were perpetrated against American citizens themselves not our enemy during war time. Now, some will purport to say that while FDR can censor and face no punishment, President Bush can't dunk Al Qaeda in water in order to gain valuable information that winds up saving American lives.

If the Obama administration believes this policy is both unnecessary and unconstitutional, then they should proceed without it. Furthermore, the best way to prove their point is to keep America as safe as the Bush administration did without its use. All the Obama administration needed to do to indict this policy is to make sure that there were no attacks under its watch without using it. Yet, that wasn't good enough. Istead of simply moving forward with that goal, they skipped, three months into their term, by trying to indict, literally, their predecessors.

This is a political exercise masquerading as a Constitutional one. What exactly will justice find to be illegal? Al Qaeda wear no uniform. They represent no country. They target civilians. Where exactly in the Constitution is there a black and white assertion that waterboarding these folks is against the Constitution. If the current Justice Department decides this interrogation technique is illegal, they can draw that opinion. Furthermore, the Obama administration can follow that opinion. To then decide that because another administration interpreted the Constitution differently on the same issue that would be an illegal act would masquerade a political debate as a Constitutional one.

Transparency Vs. Classified Information

The only thing more absurd and outrageous than the release of classified memos regarding interrogation techniques of Al Qaeda suspects was the reason given, transparency. Here is how it was described.

“He thought very long and hard about it, consulted widely, because there were two principles at stake,” Axelrod said . “One is the sanctity of covert operations and keeping faith with the people who do them, and the impact on national security, on the one hand. And the other was the law and his belief in transparency.”

This is all nonsense. First, there is nothing lawful in willingly declassifying classified information. Classified information is classified for a reason. It is not so much that our own citizens can't or shouldn't see it, but that our enemies can't and shouldn't see it. That's why the Bush administration never declassified these memos.

More than that, transparency was never meant for that which is supposed to be secret. What will he declassify next? Will he declassify certain Navy Seals missions in Pakistan? This isn't about transparency but politics. President Obama has decided to stop using all interrogations besides those in the Army Field Manual. On the other hand, he has decided to keep the terrorist surveillance program, the warrantless wiretapping program. Everyone should notice that he isn't very transparent about that program. He has NOT released secret memos spelling out the details of that program.

Of course, he hasn't. If he did, the program would be worthless. Of course, he's keeping that program. So, transparency is a lot less important when it will affect a current program. Logically though, if transparency is a high priority, isn't it more important in a current program rather than one that is discontinued? The president seems to be awfuly selective with when "transparency" is such an issue.

Of course, this has little to do with transparency and everything to do with politics. Releasing these memos allows for his predecessor to be painted as a mean guy. For the first time, we know all that terrible things that he allowed for the CIA to do to Al Qaeda thugs. Furthermore, it allows the current president to draw a distinction. Maybe he'll get some political hey, but frankly playing politics with national security is dangerous, it isn't very presidential, and it ought to be condemned by all.

Obama's Afghanistan Double Down: the Bold Irony

What if I told you that neo Con Robert Kagan was wholeheartedly supporting a foreign policy decision by President Obama at the same time the liberal, the Nation magazine, was condemning the same decision. Let no one say that President Obama is a straight down the line ideologue who's every move is easily predictable. Most his moves I would say are predictable, but there are moments when he surprises the political world.

His decision to double down in Afghanistan and outright own the war going forward is just one of those moments. Here's how neocon Kagan views the decision.

Hats off to President Obama for making a gutsy and correct decision on Afghanistan. With many of his supporters, and some of his own advisers, calling either for a rapid exit or a “minimal” counter terrorist strategy in Afghanistan, the president announced today that he will instead expand and deepen the American commitment. He clearly believes that an effective counter terrorism approach requires an effective counterinsurgency strategy, aimed not only at killing bad guys but at strengthening Afghan civil society and governing structures, providing the necessary security to the population so that it can resist pressures from the Taliban, and significantly increasing the much-derided “nation-building” element of the strategy. The United States, he argues, has to help the Afghan people fulfill “the promise of a better future,” by rooting out government corruption, helping the elected government provide basic services, fighting the narcotics trade, and, in general, advancing “security, opportunity, and justice.” This is the opposite of a “minimal” approach.

It is also evidence that the president is pragmatic in the best sense of the word. He and his key advisers, such as Richard Holbrooke, understand that better and more effective government in Afghanistan is a key to the successful defense of American security. Self-proclaimed “realists” argue, as always, that the pragmatic course is to pull back in Afghanistan. But President Obama recognizes in Afghanistan what the previous administration only belatedly recognized in Iraq: that the only way out is forward.

Here is how the Nation viewed the same decision.

The Obama plan instead will accelerate any plans Al Qaeda commanders have for attacking targets in the United States or Europe. The alternative for Al Qaeda is to risk complete destruction, an American objective that has not been achieved for eight years. A terrorist attack need not be planned or set in motion from a cave in Waziristan. The cadre could already be underground in Washington or London. The real alternative for President Obama should be to maintain a deterrent posture while immediately accelerating diplomacy to meet legitimate Muslim goals, from a Palestinian state to genuine progress on Kashmir.

...

Escalation of American troop levels is a slippery slope. John F. Kennedy sent 16,300 Americans to save South Vietnam from the Vietcong.

President Obama obviously has no intention of sending hundreds of thousands of American troops into Afghanistan or Pakistan. But escalation, once it begins, is increasingly difficult to stop. Already Obama's generals want more troops than the president is sending. The neoconservatives and Republicans are demanding a "must-win war" and denouncing any talk of an exit strategy. A gradual American escalation may play into the jihadist game plan, drawing more Western troops into jeopardy or permitting a retreat into mountainous wastelands if necessary. Any "redeployment" (another word for retreat in the minds of the neocons), other than returning with Bin Ladin's head on a platter, provokes a right-wing reaction at home. The easy solution to these pressures is another escalation followed by another, like one drink at a time.

...

In summary, be prepared for a war that spans the length of the Obama presidency, an Obama War. Expect the Congress to be inert and distracted. Expect little help from the media. But hey, we've been here before.

It's time for a new movement against reckless escalation, especially one that threatens to divert our attention from the crisis at home, while only leaving poverty, malnutrition and anti-American hatreds rising abroad.

Today, President Obama announced that additional troops were on their way with a "comprehensive" new strategy.

President Obama, declaring that coalition forces must "disrupt, dismantle
and defeat" Al Qaeda, called on Friday for thousands of additional U.S. troops
and billions of dollars in aid to fight terrorists in Afghanistan and
Pakistan.

The president, announcing what he called a "comprehensive new strategy" for the region following a two-month review, outlined an approach to the war that places far more emphasis than before on Pakistan.

Obama said he was ordering 4,000 additional U.S. troops to help train Afghan security forces and was calling on Congress to approve $1.5 billion a year in aid for Pakistan over the next five years.

The increases are aimed at making the security forces, governments and infrastructure of both countries more self-sufficient and stable, as well as capable of taking on Al Qaeda and the Taliban.

With that President Obama has embraced the war in Afghanistan even if it is still a cautious embrace. On domestic policy, President Obama can be referred to as solid liberal, far left, or radical depending on whether or not you want to identify his position as a pejorative. On foreign policy, his overall philosophy is difficult to place. His rush to close down GITMO and to attempt to give suspected terrorists rights similar to criminals make him rather dovish. On the other hand, he has largely kept Bush's policy in Iraq in place and now he has reluctantly embraced victory in Afghanistan. Meanwhile, he is simultaneously embracing diplomacy over military action when dealing with Iran. So, on foreign policy at least, President Obama gives everyone plenty to cheer and to criticize.