Saturday, May 2, 2009
Some More Nuance on GITMO from Obama
The New York Times has this interesting story.
Let's review what the Obama administration has done. On their second day, they pronounced that GITMO would close within a year. Subsequently, they suspended all military tribunals there until May 20th. Furthermore, they made an executive order suspending waterboarding and other enhanced interrogation techniques. Since then, they have been cryptic about their future plans with both GITMO itself and the future of most of the detainees there. Then, in the last week, it has been rumored that seven folks of the Chinese terrorist separatist group the Uighers will be released into the U.S. in the next few weeks.
Of course, one of the main reasons that President Obama wanted to close GITMO so badly is that the military tribunals held there were to him, and most liberals, such an affront to human rights. Yet, now it appears that many of these same GITMO detainees will still face military tribunals.
Talk about nuance. Some GITMO detainees will be released into the U.S. Others will face federal prosecutions. Still, others will face the very same military tribunals that Obama, the candidate, condemned. The irony doesn't end there. Here's how the New York Times characterized why some of these folks will still face military tribunals.
In other words, while President Obama has outlawed and condemned enhanced interrogation techniques like waterboarding, he still intends to use the information that we got as a result against some of these prisoners. Since a federal court would never allow such evidence, the administration is now considering using the very same military tribunals he once condemned as candidate.
Of course, the tricky legal issues won't end there. Once these folks are transferred onto U.S. soil and moved into the federal prison system, it won't be that easy not to give them the same rights as other federal inmates. As such, moving them onto American soil but trying them in a secret military tribunal would require the same sort of tortured legal logic that they now accuse the Bush administration of using to justify waterboarding.
The worst part of this for the Obama administration is that ultimately no one will be pleased. Human rights groups won't stand for any of these prisoners being tried in secret military tribunals. Americans don't want these folks to be moved into the continental U.S. They certainly don't want them released into the U.S. like the Uighers. Our image abroad won't improve from a halfway measure. As such, closing GITMO has opened a pandora's box that will only continue to create havoc for him.
The Obama administration is moving toward reviving the military commission system for prosecuting Guantánamo detainees, which was a target of critics during the Bush administration, including Mr. Obama himself.
Officials said the first public moves could come as soon as next week, perhaps in filings to military judges at the United States naval base at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, outlining an administration plan to amend the Bush administration’s system to provide more legal protections for terrorism suspects.
Let's review what the Obama administration has done. On their second day, they pronounced that GITMO would close within a year. Subsequently, they suspended all military tribunals there until May 20th. Furthermore, they made an executive order suspending waterboarding and other enhanced interrogation techniques. Since then, they have been cryptic about their future plans with both GITMO itself and the future of most of the detainees there. Then, in the last week, it has been rumored that seven folks of the Chinese terrorist separatist group the Uighers will be released into the U.S. in the next few weeks.
Of course, one of the main reasons that President Obama wanted to close GITMO so badly is that the military tribunals held there were to him, and most liberals, such an affront to human rights. Yet, now it appears that many of these same GITMO detainees will still face military tribunals.
Talk about nuance. Some GITMO detainees will be released into the U.S. Others will face federal prosecutions. Still, others will face the very same military tribunals that Obama, the candidate, condemned. The irony doesn't end there. Here's how the New York Times characterized why some of these folks will still face military tribunals.
Officials who work on the Guantánamo issue say administration lawyers have become concerned that they would face significant obstacles to trying some terrorism suspects in federal courts. Judges might make it difficult to prosecute detainees who were subjected to brutal treatment or for prosecutors to use hearsay evidence gathered by intelligence agencies.
In other words, while President Obama has outlawed and condemned enhanced interrogation techniques like waterboarding, he still intends to use the information that we got as a result against some of these prisoners. Since a federal court would never allow such evidence, the administration is now considering using the very same military tribunals he once condemned as candidate.
Of course, the tricky legal issues won't end there. Once these folks are transferred onto U.S. soil and moved into the federal prison system, it won't be that easy not to give them the same rights as other federal inmates. As such, moving them onto American soil but trying them in a secret military tribunal would require the same sort of tortured legal logic that they now accuse the Bush administration of using to justify waterboarding.
The worst part of this for the Obama administration is that ultimately no one will be pleased. Human rights groups won't stand for any of these prisoners being tried in secret military tribunals. Americans don't want these folks to be moved into the continental U.S. They certainly don't want them released into the U.S. like the Uighers. Our image abroad won't improve from a halfway measure. As such, closing GITMO has opened a pandora's box that will only continue to create havoc for him.
Souter's Replacement...Republican's Opportunity: My Contrarian View
If played right, the Republicans have plenty of opportunity coming when the hearings come for the replacement of Justice David Souter. Because Souter was himself fairly liberal, the court won't move much unless someone very radical is chosen. As such, no matter who is chosen presents Republicans with an opportunity.
The most obvious opportunity is if President Obama picks someone incompetent or with some sort of tax issue. The way to play that is so obvious that I won't even go into the strategy in such a situation. As such, let's focus on a judge that is qualified but with three possible ideologies: someone more moderate than Souter, someone about as liberal as Souter, and someone more liberal than Souter.
First, the Republicans have nearly no power to stop any nominee. As such, I believe that the hearings shouldn't be about the nominee at all. Rather, they should make it about President Obama's judicial philosophy which he articulate yesterday.
Now, "empathy" is a code word, a reasonable sounding one, for the Supreme Court being used as a tool of Social Engineering. In fact, President Obama sees the Supreme Court as an extension of his overall goal to change America through income redistribution. He's said as much.
Here's the most important part of the interview.
Now, a hearing for a Supreme Court Justice is the perfect platform to turn this from nice sounding euphimisms into the radical agenda that it is. This can be done through direct questions like "President Obama believes that the Supreme Court should venture into issues of redistribution of wealth and political and social justice. Is this something you agree with? How would you see it come about?" There are other direct questions like this one. "President Obama believes that empathy for the poor and downtrodden is an important quality for a Supreme Court Justice. Do you agree and can you give an example of a case in which empathy played a role in your decision making?"
This can also be done through a series of hypotheticals in which cases are created that pit the weak against the poor. If the nominee is sufficiently moderate, they would reject this philosophy entirely. As such, the Republicans would put the Democrats in the uncomfortable position of having the nominee thoroughly reject this philosophy.
Now, the likely scenario is that the nominee is as radical as President Obama himself on such issues. For instance, Justice Sonya Sotomayor once proclaimed that it "is important for a Justice to take experiences as women and people of color in their decisionmaking, should affect our decisions.” This is the sort of statement that can and should be explored in a hearing. Judge Sotomayor has a long record as a Justice on the 2nd Circuit. As such, her belief, like that of Obama's himself, that the court is a tool of "social justice" has a long paper trail.
For instance, just recently in the case of Ricci v. DeStefano she tried to dismiss a case against a group of white firefighters in a case involving issues of testing and institutional racism. The case would have been dismissed had her fellow judge, Jose Cabranes, not roundly criticized her.
In fact, all of this is bias. What both President Obama and Judge Sotomayor want is for the Supreme Court to be biased toward the weak and against the powerful. Rather than interpreting the law as is, they want the court to show bias for one group against another and figure out a way to make the law work to their advantage. It's time for a full debate between those that believe in the philosophy of strict constructionism and those, like the President, that believe the Constitution is a living breathing document.
It's also important that these hearings plant the seed that the Supreme Court is just one tool for the President's RADICAL agenda. He is determined to engage in wealth redistribution. He is also determined in controlling the economy through central planning. Because the President is such a good speaker and so charismatic, his radicalism is often masked. It's a lot less likely that someone like Judge Sotomayor will be nearly as charismatic. Her own radicalism won't be masked by good speechmaking. Put President Obama's judicial philosophy on trial and sow the seeds that his judicial philosophy is part of a larger radical agenda. That's what I would do if I were a Republican on the Senate Judiciary.
The most obvious opportunity is if President Obama picks someone incompetent or with some sort of tax issue. The way to play that is so obvious that I won't even go into the strategy in such a situation. As such, let's focus on a judge that is qualified but with three possible ideologies: someone more moderate than Souter, someone about as liberal as Souter, and someone more liberal than Souter.
First, the Republicans have nearly no power to stop any nominee. As such, I believe that the hearings shouldn't be about the nominee at all. Rather, they should make it about President Obama's judicial philosophy which he articulate yesterday.
I will seek somebody with a sharp and independent mind, and a record of excellence and integrity,” he said. “I will seek someone who understands that justice isn’t about some abstract legal theory or footnote in a case book, it is also about how our laws affect the daily realities of people’s lives, whether they can make a living, and care for their families, whether they feel safe in their homes, and welcome in their own nation. I view that quality of empathy, of understanding and identifying with peoples hopes and struggles as an essential ingredient for arriving at just decisions and outcomes.”
Now, "empathy" is a code word, a reasonable sounding one, for the Supreme Court being used as a tool of Social Engineering. In fact, President Obama sees the Supreme Court as an extension of his overall goal to change America through income redistribution. He's said as much.
Here's the most important part of the interview.
If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court. I think where it succeeded was to invest formal rights in previously dispossessed people, so that now I would have the right to vote. I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order as long as I could pay for it I’d be o.k. But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society. To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as its been interpreted and Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties.
Now, a hearing for a Supreme Court Justice is the perfect platform to turn this from nice sounding euphimisms into the radical agenda that it is. This can be done through direct questions like "President Obama believes that the Supreme Court should venture into issues of redistribution of wealth and political and social justice. Is this something you agree with? How would you see it come about?" There are other direct questions like this one. "President Obama believes that empathy for the poor and downtrodden is an important quality for a Supreme Court Justice. Do you agree and can you give an example of a case in which empathy played a role in your decision making?"
This can also be done through a series of hypotheticals in which cases are created that pit the weak against the poor. If the nominee is sufficiently moderate, they would reject this philosophy entirely. As such, the Republicans would put the Democrats in the uncomfortable position of having the nominee thoroughly reject this philosophy.
Now, the likely scenario is that the nominee is as radical as President Obama himself on such issues. For instance, Justice Sonya Sotomayor once proclaimed that it "is important for a Justice to take experiences as women and people of color in their decisionmaking, should affect our decisions.” This is the sort of statement that can and should be explored in a hearing. Judge Sotomayor has a long record as a Justice on the 2nd Circuit. As such, her belief, like that of Obama's himself, that the court is a tool of "social justice" has a long paper trail.
For instance, just recently in the case of Ricci v. DeStefano she tried to dismiss a case against a group of white firefighters in a case involving issues of testing and institutional racism. The case would have been dismissed had her fellow judge, Jose Cabranes, not roundly criticized her.
In fact, all of this is bias. What both President Obama and Judge Sotomayor want is for the Supreme Court to be biased toward the weak and against the powerful. Rather than interpreting the law as is, they want the court to show bias for one group against another and figure out a way to make the law work to their advantage. It's time for a full debate between those that believe in the philosophy of strict constructionism and those, like the President, that believe the Constitution is a living breathing document.
It's also important that these hearings plant the seed that the Supreme Court is just one tool for the President's RADICAL agenda. He is determined to engage in wealth redistribution. He is also determined in controlling the economy through central planning. Because the President is such a good speaker and so charismatic, his radicalism is often masked. It's a lot less likely that someone like Judge Sotomayor will be nearly as charismatic. Her own radicalism won't be masked by good speechmaking. Put President Obama's judicial philosophy on trial and sow the seeds that his judicial philosophy is part of a larger radical agenda. That's what I would do if I were a Republican on the Senate Judiciary.
Friday, May 1, 2009
The Supreme Court Is NOT Meant for "Social Justice"
President Obama again repeated his troubling prerequisite for a Supreme Court Justice.
In fact, a Supreme Court Justice is supposed to decide Constitutionality in the most detached manner. The SC is a place where matters of law and Constitutionality are decided. It's not a place where sympathetic plaintiffs/defendents get their way. It's not a place where the weak have their lives understood.
This reasoning isn't merely absurd its dangerous. More and more, President Obama makes clear that he believes those in a position of power owe more to the country, and it is his job to take it from them so that those in a lesser position get more from the government. This sort of from each according to means to each according to need philosophy is bad enough in economics, it is just plain absurd when it's applied to the Supreme Court.
You'll notice that when he gave examples of empathy he never said that he is looking for a judge that is empathetic to the pressures of being a Chief Executive Officer or trust fund baby. The president doesn't want a Supreme Court Justice empathetic to all Americans. He wants a Supreme Court Justice empathetic to those Americans that he believes deserve something more from our system.
Take what he said to its logical conclusion. He wants Justices that craft opinions so that folks like single mothers and struggling pay check to pay check middle class folks get relief from the courts. In other words, the Constitution should be ignored or at least manipulated so that it benefits those folks that he finds sympathetic.
In other words, the cases shouldn't be framed so that Justices decide whether or not an issue say meets the standards of the fourth amendment. Instead, the fourth amendment needs to be framed so that a single mother benefits. This is what he is saying he is looking for from a Supreme Court Justice. He wants the Supreme Court to be a tool of Social Justice and worse than that, he doesn't hide his intentions at all.
“I will seek somebody with a sharp and independent mind, and a record of excellence and integrity,” he said. “I will seek someone who understands that justice isn’t about some abstract legal theory or footnote in a case book, it is also about how our laws affect the daily realities of people’s lives, whether they can make a living, and care for their families, whether they feel safe in their homes, and welcome in their own nation. I view that quality of empathy, of understanding and identifying with peoples hopes and struggles as an essential ingredient for arriving at just decisions and outcomes.”
In fact, a Supreme Court Justice is supposed to decide Constitutionality in the most detached manner. The SC is a place where matters of law and Constitutionality are decided. It's not a place where sympathetic plaintiffs/defendents get their way. It's not a place where the weak have their lives understood.
This reasoning isn't merely absurd its dangerous. More and more, President Obama makes clear that he believes those in a position of power owe more to the country, and it is his job to take it from them so that those in a lesser position get more from the government. This sort of from each according to means to each according to need philosophy is bad enough in economics, it is just plain absurd when it's applied to the Supreme Court.
You'll notice that when he gave examples of empathy he never said that he is looking for a judge that is empathetic to the pressures of being a Chief Executive Officer or trust fund baby. The president doesn't want a Supreme Court Justice empathetic to all Americans. He wants a Supreme Court Justice empathetic to those Americans that he believes deserve something more from our system.
Take what he said to its logical conclusion. He wants Justices that craft opinions so that folks like single mothers and struggling pay check to pay check middle class folks get relief from the courts. In other words, the Constitution should be ignored or at least manipulated so that it benefits those folks that he finds sympathetic.
In other words, the cases shouldn't be framed so that Justices decide whether or not an issue say meets the standards of the fourth amendment. Instead, the fourth amendment needs to be framed so that a single mother benefits. This is what he is saying he is looking for from a Supreme Court Justice. He wants the Supreme Court to be a tool of Social Justice and worse than that, he doesn't hide his intentions at all.
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.
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.
Council Winners
Winning Council Submissions
First place with 2 1/3 points! - Wolf Howling - Words Have Meaning Rick
Second place with 1 2/3 points - Soccer Dad - It’s easy being green. Not.
Third place with 1 point - (T*) Right Truth - The next 1,360 days
Third place with 1 point - (T*) The Razor - Why An Alcoholic Supports the Legalization of Illicit Drugs
Third place with 1 point - (T*) The Colossus of Rhodey - Did the NY Times bury an “inconvenient” torture memo story? And a torture question …
Fourth place with 2/3 point - (T*) - Bookworm Room - Torture, Real and Imagined
Fourth place with 2/3 point - (T*) - The Provocateur - Is Commercial Real Estate Next?
Winning Non-Council Submissions
First place with 2 2/3 points! - Legal Insurrection - Which city would you sacrifice?
Second place with 2 1/3 points - Michael Sheurer @ WaPo - Say Its Osama. What If He Won’t Talk?
Third place with 1 point - The Washington Times - Barack’s in the basement
Fourth place with 2/3 point - (T*) - Right Wing Nut House - The Moral Parameters of Torture
Fourth place with 2/3 point - (T*) - Cheat Seeking Missiles - John And Teresa And Conflict
Fifth place with 1/3 point - (T*) - The New Republic - Regift, Please!
Fifth place with 1/3 point - (T*) - The New Ledger - What Will the Stress Tests Mean
First place with 2 1/3 points! - Wolf Howling - Words Have Meaning Rick
Second place with 1 2/3 points - Soccer Dad - It’s easy being green. Not.
Third place with 1 point - (T*) Right Truth - The next 1,360 days
Third place with 1 point - (T*) The Razor - Why An Alcoholic Supports the Legalization of Illicit Drugs
Third place with 1 point - (T*) The Colossus of Rhodey - Did the NY Times bury an “inconvenient” torture memo story? And a torture question …
Fourth place with 2/3 point - (T*) - Bookworm Room - Torture, Real and Imagined
Fourth place with 2/3 point - (T*) - The Provocateur - Is Commercial Real Estate Next?
Winning Non-Council Submissions
First place with 2 2/3 points! - Legal Insurrection - Which city would you sacrifice?
Second place with 2 1/3 points - Michael Sheurer @ WaPo - Say Its Osama. What If He Won’t Talk?
Third place with 1 point - The Washington Times - Barack’s in the basement
Fourth place with 2/3 point - (T*) - Right Wing Nut House - The Moral Parameters of Torture
Fourth place with 2/3 point - (T*) - Cheat Seeking Missiles - John And Teresa And Conflict
Fifth place with 1/3 point - (T*) - The New Republic - Regift, Please!
Fifth place with 1/3 point - (T*) - The New Ledger - What Will the Stress Tests Mean
The "Torture" Debate: Another of President Obama's Non Sequitors and Strawman Arguments
First, it should be abundantly clear to all that have paid even mild attention to any or all three press conferences that they are 1) a total bore 2) reveal nearly nothing and 3) are ultimately a total waste of time. The president answers a total of 13 questions each time and that's because he goes on and on and on and on to the point that almost no one remembers what question he is asking. It should surprise no one that the viewership has dropped from 50 million for the first one to 30 million for the last one. Any further press conferences will see even fewere viewers.
Now then, the most news from the press conference likely came from President Obama's answer to the torture question. He said that he believes that waterboarding is torture. Some, like Sean Hannity, have condemned the president for this answer though Hannity seems to find new and creative ways to criticize the president. I have no problem with this answer. He was asked a direct question about a personal opinion. In his personal opinion, waterboarding is torture. Torture is not very strictly defined. The UN defines it as "sustained severe pain". That can mean all sorts of things.
It was however what he said next that epitomizes President Obama at his worst.
Now, this answer is disingenuous at best and a flat out lie at worst. Under the best of circumstances there is no way to know if information that we received using waterboarding could have been gotten through other means. Beyond that, we know full well that the likely answer is that we couldn't have. That's because interrogators tried other methods on Khalid Sheikh Muhammad, and only after waterboarding him did he reveal detailed plots still in the works.
What we know is this. When he was first captured, he said that he was looking forward to meeting his attorney in New York. Initially, KSM thought he would be tried criminally and given all full rights of a criminal. Of course, the Bush administration was no longer treating terrorism as a criminal matter. Then, interrogators interrogated KSM for days. When asked about future plots, KSM simply said, "soon you'll find out".
Then, he was waterboarded and as a result of those interrogations the plot to blow up the Brooklyn Bridge and a 9/11 style attack on Los Angeles. Now, given this evidence it's totally intellectually dishonest to say we would have gotten the same information without using waterboarding. The fact is that interrogators tried all sorts of other things totally unsuccessfully. Only after KSM was waterboarded did he give up these plots.
Then, President Obama further muddied the waters on the "torture" debate when he said this.
Of course, this was again either a naive or totally disingenuous statement. It's a matter of public record that Winston Churchill held secret torture prisons for Nazi SS officers. The torture debate comes down like this. Either you think that methods like waterboarding are torture and are unacceptable anytime, or you think that when lives are jeopardy interrogators need to do all they can to extract information.
Now, those that believe in the former often then make the leap to also say that waterboarding doesn't work anyway. That is a disingenuous and intellectually dishonest assertion. The facts speak for themselves.
What's worse about all of this is that they carry on a theoretical debate that is only allowed because of the real effects of waterboarding. Does anyone really believe that had we ever been hit again that there would be any debate about waterboarding? In fact, the only debate now would be over truly midievel methods of torture. Here is the inconvenient truth of those against waterboarding. It did work. As a result of its effectiveness, plots that would have killed Americans were stopped. As a result, our homeland has been safe since 2001. Because it is now nearly eight years, it is more acceptable to make a theoretical argument about "torture". Yet, this argument is only being made because the very methods being condemned were used, used effectively, and kept us safe.
Now then, the most news from the press conference likely came from President Obama's answer to the torture question. He said that he believes that waterboarding is torture. Some, like Sean Hannity, have condemned the president for this answer though Hannity seems to find new and creative ways to criticize the president. I have no problem with this answer. He was asked a direct question about a personal opinion. In his personal opinion, waterboarding is torture. Torture is not very strictly defined. The UN defines it as "sustained severe pain". That can mean all sorts of things.
It was however what he said next that epitomizes President Obama at his worst.
I have read the documents. Now they have not been officially declassified and released. And so I don't want to go to the details of them. But here's what I can tell you, that the public reports and the public justifications for these techniques, which is that we got information from these individuals that were subjected to these techniques, doesn't answer the core question.
Which is, could we have gotten that same information without resorting to these techniques? And it doesn't answer the broader question, are we safer as a consequence of having used these techniques?
So when I made the decision to release these memos and when I made the decision to bar these practices, this was based on consultation with my entire national security team, and based on my understanding that ultimately I will be judged as commander-in-chief on how safe I'm keeping the American people.
Now, this answer is disingenuous at best and a flat out lie at worst. Under the best of circumstances there is no way to know if information that we received using waterboarding could have been gotten through other means. Beyond that, we know full well that the likely answer is that we couldn't have. That's because interrogators tried other methods on Khalid Sheikh Muhammad, and only after waterboarding him did he reveal detailed plots still in the works.
What we know is this. When he was first captured, he said that he was looking forward to meeting his attorney in New York. Initially, KSM thought he would be tried criminally and given all full rights of a criminal. Of course, the Bush administration was no longer treating terrorism as a criminal matter. Then, interrogators interrogated KSM for days. When asked about future plots, KSM simply said, "soon you'll find out".
Then, he was waterboarded and as a result of those interrogations the plot to blow up the Brooklyn Bridge and a 9/11 style attack on Los Angeles. Now, given this evidence it's totally intellectually dishonest to say we would have gotten the same information without using waterboarding. The fact is that interrogators tried all sorts of other things totally unsuccessfully. Only after KSM was waterboarded did he give up these plots.
Then, President Obama further muddied the waters on the "torture" debate when he said this.
was struck by an article that I was reading the other day talking about the fact that the British during World War II, when London was being bombed to smithereens, had 200 or so detainees. And Churchill said, 'We don't torture,' when the entire British -- all of the British people were being subjected to unimaginable risk and threat."
Of course, this was again either a naive or totally disingenuous statement. It's a matter of public record that Winston Churchill held secret torture prisons for Nazi SS officers. The torture debate comes down like this. Either you think that methods like waterboarding are torture and are unacceptable anytime, or you think that when lives are jeopardy interrogators need to do all they can to extract information.
Now, those that believe in the former often then make the leap to also say that waterboarding doesn't work anyway. That is a disingenuous and intellectually dishonest assertion. The facts speak for themselves.
What's worse about all of this is that they carry on a theoretical debate that is only allowed because of the real effects of waterboarding. Does anyone really believe that had we ever been hit again that there would be any debate about waterboarding? In fact, the only debate now would be over truly midievel methods of torture. Here is the inconvenient truth of those against waterboarding. It did work. As a result of its effectiveness, plots that would have killed Americans were stopped. As a result, our homeland has been safe since 2001. Because it is now nearly eight years, it is more acceptable to make a theoretical argument about "torture". Yet, this argument is only being made because the very methods being condemned were used, used effectively, and kept us safe.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
