MSNBC called them “shameful”. A New York Times headline called them “brutal”. And they are talking about CIA interrogation tactics used against terrorists as revealed in memos ordered released by president Obama, tactics like:
*putting a caterpillar in a box with a terrorist who was said to be afraid of stinging insects.
*slapping terrorists with the fingers apart per instruction.
*forcing terrorist to walk around nude.
*bland protein food instead of real meals.
*and in just three cases(!), waterboarding, which was done with a doctor present to make sure it was safe.
This is not a joke. This is what is called ‘torture’ by liberals. So when Obama told Congress on February 24, 2009 that the United States “does not torture” we now know that that is true.
Now consider how terrorists deal with their captives: They torture them brutally, often for days, and then chop their heads off.
We should perhaps give credit to Obama because finally we know what the left has been caterwauling about for years now. The only problem is that up until now, these tactics were not known and had kept the terrorists in the dark. Now the terrorists are certainly laughing at us and are emboldened.
This fake outrage over so-called ‘torture’ is just more fabricated indignation like that over the Abu Ghraib prison where a few renegade US soldiers allegedly subverted the Geneva Conventions by placing women’s underwear on captives’ heads and putting a dog leash around the neck of another. And while this sounds like an average Saturday night out in San Francisco, this is the type of ‘torture’ that the American left inflates into an inexcusable violation of international law.
And this is the type of ‘torture’ that millions of people would have gladly accepted throughout the ages instead of the real torture that they got, including death.
So where is the international outrage at Castro for holding political prisoners for decades in the worst conditions imaginable, while the same leftists who protest a bug in a box with a terrorist seek better relations with Cuba?
This is Liberal Dementia Syndrome exacerbated by large quantities of drugs consumed in the 1960s. Because it comes from the New York Times and the contemporary American left, which is completely out of its mind.
There is no outrage over Cuba because leftists’ own environments are filled with violence and death. Consider these everyday violations of civil society here in America in liberal strongholds, without a hint of indignation from the Democrats or their media:
*astronomical rates of disease, and thousands of deaths every year in homosexual communities among young males who should be in the prime of their lives.
*20,000 full-term babies literally killed at birth (so-called ‘late-term’ abortion) ever year, along with more than a million regular abortions.
*millions of gratuitous murders, shootings, assaults, stabbings, robberies and rapes in black neighborhoods controlled lock, stock and barrel by the Democrats.
*endless violence in Hollywood movies and TV shows produced by liberals, leading to incidents like the Columbine high school massacre in 1999 which was inspired by the film Natural Born Killers.
But put a bug in a box with a terrorist and you have outrage.
It is important to understand what is happening here. Leftists have been ginning up irrational hated of Bush, the CIA, the military, etc. using any tactic they can by provoking irrational rage. The fake Abu Ghraib prisoner ‘scandal’ was used to create hatred of American military power; the phony ‘global warming’ fairy tale is being used against our industrial production and our way of life; while one actress (who else?) called grass-roots Tea Party protests “hating a black man” (Obama).
What do all these have in common?
They are baseless, shameless and manipulative taunts that are used to provoke immature and irrational members of the Democrat core constituency – feminists; blacks; college professors; dumb white liberals; dumb white rich liberals; radical college students; journalists; union activists; uneducated people etc. The media strategy is this: Put out a phony story, promote it aggressively with lies and innuendo, and then wait for anger to build among crackpot Democrat voters.
In releasing the documents from the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, Obama and his allies are claiming that they are not harming our efforts. But in fact these will have a chilling effect on future interrogators.
Writing in the Wall Street Journal, Bush CIA director General Michael Hayden and Bush attorney general Michael Mukasey said that charges that interrogations don’t work are wrong:
The terrorist Abu Zubaydah (sometimes derided as a low-level operative of questionable reliability, but who was in fact close to (9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed) and other senior al Qaeda leaders) disclosed some information voluntarily. But he was coerced into disclosing information that led to the capture of Ramzi bin al Shibh, another of the planners of Sept. 11, who in turn disclosed information which — when combined with what was learned from Abu Zubaydah — helped lead to the capture of KSM and other senior terrorists, and the disruption of follow-on plots aimed at both Europe and the U.S. Details of these successes, and the methods used to obtain them, were disclosed repeatedly in more than 30 congressional briefings and hearings beginning in 2002, and open to all members of the Intelligence Committees of both Houses of Congress beginning in September 2006. Any protestation of ignorance of those details, particularly by members of those committees, is pretense.
General Hayden has said that as much as 60% of the information we have on al Qaeda structure and operations comes from “enhanced interrogation techniques”, which have worked well, according to Fox News.
The documents also offer justification for using the tough tactics.
A May 30, 2005, memo says that before the harsher methods were used on top Al Qaeda detainee Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, he refused to answer questions about pending plots against the United States.
“Soon, you will know,” he told them, according to the memo.
It says the interrogations later extracted details of a plot called the “second wave” to use East Asian operatives to crash a hijacked airliner into a building in Los Angeles.
Wrote Hayden and Mukasey about the small number of detainees on whom even these light-duty interrogations were used:
The techniques themselves were used selectively against only a small number of hard-core prisoners who successfully resisted other forms of interrogation, and then only with the explicit authorization of the director of the CIA. Of the thousands of unlawful combatants captured by the U.S., fewer than 100 were detained and questioned in the CIA program. Of those, fewer than one-third were subjected to any of the techniques discussed in these opinions. As already disclosed by Director Hayden, as late as 2006, even with the growing success of other intelligence tools, fully half of the government’s knowledge about the structure and activities of al Qaeda came from those interrogations.
Democrats have claimed that only Army Field Manual guidelines for interrogation should be followed. But the manual is intended for front-line soldiers operating in the field in a traditional war who need to question captives on site, not for upper-level interrogations of “high-value detainees” in controlled circumstance, said Hayden and Mukasey, who added:
In his book The Terror Presidency, Jack Goldsmith describes the phenomenon we are now experiencing, and its inevitable effect, referring to what he calls “cycles of timidity and aggression” that have weakened intelligence gathering in the past. Politicians pressure the intelligence community to push to the legal limit, and then cast accusations when aggressiveness goes out of style, thereby encouraging risk aversion, and then, as occurred in the wake of 9/11, criticizing the intelligence community for feckless timidity. He calls these cycles “a terrible problem for our national security.” Indeed they are, and the precipitous release of these OLC opinions simply makes the problem worse.
To put this all in context, 9/11 was a result not just of plain timidity, but of the Clinton administration’s refusal to collect intelligence on terrorists after decades of erosion of our collective will starting with the Church Committee hearings of the 1970s. So over a period of several years in the second half of the 1990s, a group of young Middle Eastern males infiltrated into the US, took flying lessons, moved freely about the country, got money wired from overseas, communicated through the internet, obtained drivers’ licenses, and took reconnaissance flights on commercial airlines. And when the party of Obama ignored all this and handed Bush an empty briefing book on terrorism, 9/11 was the result.
This was the previous result of liberal policies on our national security. Prepare for more of the same… or worse.
Please visit my website at www.nikitas3.com for more. You can print out for free my book, Right Is Right, which explains why only conservatism can maintain our freedom and prosperity.