Obama was on with George Stephanopoulos this morning and I dare say the left is a bit peeved, at least a little. He tells George that closing Gitmo is a bit more difficult then he would of imagined.
I think it’s going to take some time and our legal teams are working in consultation with our national security apparatus as we speak to help design exactly what we need to do
~~~It is more difficult than I think a lot of people realize
~~~Part of the challenge that you have is that you have a bunch of folks that have been detained, many of whom may be very dangerous who have not been put on trial or have not gone through some adjudication. And some of the evidence against them may be tainted even though it’s true. And so how to balance creating a process that adheres to rule of law, habeas corpus, basic principles of Anglo-American legal system, by doing it in a way that doesn’t result in releasing people who are intent on blowing us up.
Either way, he will close Gitmo…saying he doesn’t want to be ambiguous.
I don’t want to be ambiguous about this. We are going to close Guantanamo and we are going to make sure that the procedures we set up are ones that abide by our Constitution. That is not only the right thing to do but it actually has to be part of our broader national security strategy because we will send a message to the world that we are serious about our values.
Obama ambiguous? Serious about values? Yeeeaah. Keeping the most dangerous terrorists caught on the battlefield locked up is against our values to our new President. Not surprising, not shocking, not unexpected coming from this leftist. But disappointing.
He threw a bone out to the left however when he said he may investigate “possible” crimes committed by the Bush administration. Pure and utter hogwash but he has to appease the one’s who put him in that office. No crimes were committed….pure and simple. The left would of impeached already if there had been.
He also said that waterboarding is torture and he won’t allow it. Why allow something that works? That already disrupted dozens of al-Qaeda attacks?
Al-Qaeda logistics chief Zayn Abidin Muhammed Hussein Abu Zubaydah was interrogated in 2002 using the old tried and true techniques that got no where. They waterboarded him and in 35 seconds he cracked and gave up vital information about what al-Qaeda was planning. Lives were saved.
It’s been done 3 times when our country needed information from those who had killed 3,000 of our citizens. It’s only done during the most extroidinary of needs. But in Obama’s mind it needs to be banned. In our enemies eyes we are once again a paper tiger.
Finally he uttered the Socialist mantra, “We’re going to have to sacrifice for the greater good.”
From each according to his ability, to each according to his need
You can watch the whole interview below in three parts:
See author page
A vote to close Gitmo is a vote to release known murderers on the streets of America. Thousands of lawyers should be getting ready to name each politician, who votes to release them, in billion dollar lawsuits every time (and for every person) one of the terrorists murders someone.
Isn’t it all a moot point, now anyway? That the whole purpose of it was to make the waterboardee think that he was drowning? And now that they know they aren’t….
…any effectiveness it had is torpedoed if they’ve been trained and desensitized to the “torture”-feeling of simulated drowning (or actual slow-motion drowning, I suppose, depending on the intensity of the interrogator).
I think it’s probably a dead issue. But maybe I’m wrong. And any chance the CIA waterboarded more than the known three?
Someone shoot me up with the straight dope.
If all those in Gitmo are guilty of the crimes then the US should specify these crimes, then try them within the US Court system. Gitmo seems to me to be a way to circumnavigate the US justice system. If they are proven to be guilty by evidence then lock them up. If no crimes can be proven then release them and repatriate them back to their country of origin.
Oupst… I have posted this comment on the wrong thread, so here it is again:
Obama cannot close Gitmo. Where will he put all the Americans that will oppose him?
GaffaUK, I believe most of their accusations can be found online. As to being charged…that’s not consistent with Prisoners of War or Enemy Combatants. Just guessing. Hey! How ’bout sending em back to Afghanistan to let the Afghans deal em?
btw all, I’m gonna go out on a limb and say that if Zawahiri or Osama or some new #3 guy get grabbed during Obama’s rule…they might just look the other way about “harsh interrogation” techniques. Call me crazy, but I just don’t see some Delta guys or CIA Special Activities people working for years to get UBL or some higher up, and then reading Miranda Rights upon the snatch and grab as they enter the cave, bunker, basement, or ghetto apt.
Obama’s just paying lip service here. No one LIKES torture or even harsh interrogations, but in dire straights…yeah, I’m afraid it’s been proven to work (see also KSM and both of the others who had it done).
For those who claim water-boarding is not torture, I present a humble question: do you think you could be water-boarded into admitting, under oath and threatened with penalty of perjury, that it *is* torture?
If you answer “no”, I think you’re deluding yourself (or are ignorant about the effects of waterboarding). If you answer “yes”, what would the meaning of your sworn testimony be? Would it contradict your current assessment?
Note – I’m not discussing the effectiveness of the treatment, nor the appropriateness of using torture in extreme situations; I just want to elicidate the reasoning by which I’ve concluded that waterboarding is, in fact, torture.
Thanks!
-Kevin
You may think your question is humble, I see it as nonsensical. This method had been reserved for hardened terrorist murderers known to have information critical to saving lives of innocent people. Can’t see myself ever falling into same category and won’t care if you think I’m deluding myself or ignorant, knowing that many lives were saved by using this technique on evil, hey, guess I just have to live with your scorn.
“And as far as opponents of waterboarding are concerned, I have these questions to ask: Are a few moments of a terrorist’s discomfort more important than the lives of the innocents he seeks to destroy? Are two minutes of Moussaoui’s anguish worth more than the three thousand lives lost on 9/11? Does his momentary pain override a lifetime of hurt of those left behind?
If you can’t answer in the affirmative then hold your peace”
Closing paragraph of “The Case for Waterboarding” by Vasko Kohlmayer. This paragraph follows his thoughts on if Moussaoui whould have been waterboarded the attacks on the WTC, Pentagon and the downed plane in Pennsylvania may never have happened. The pain and anguish experienced by the survivors live on to this day as well as living with the horror of what their loved ones last moments were like. KSM suffered for less than three minutes, over and done.
Kohlmayer also explains the procedure and notes that our own CIA officers experience waterboarding in training.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=AFSC06FC-2ES2-4508-9C51-5589751B501C
Of course its torture. Its like the word submission. People have a hard bias towards it because of the misrepresentation of its actual definition and the way it is applied to anything and everything negative. Is it arguable that in my sons eyes, it is torture to wait for something he wants /really/ badly. Is it good in my eyes that he has to wait? Yes. Is it good in his eyes that I make him wait? No. Plus, is torture always physical? Humans are depraved and we have figured out many ways to torture people, physical or psychological.
Anyway my point is this, why argue if waterboarding is torture or not? The real question is if torture is no longer an option, then what kind of leverage exactly, does the U.S. have in coercing information from someone? Deprive them of food? Torture. Threaten to drop them off in their enemies territory? Torture (now and definitely later). Ask them politely? Stupid. Tell them we will ruin their credit score? Maybe torture. Depends if the terrorist is fiscally responsible and cares about their credit.
Torture is a necessary evil. It is also an avoidable evil (for them). Tell the truth, give good reliable leads, and you may even be protected a little once we bomb your friends into the stone age.
I think the U.S. and europe seem to have lost touch with reality. The reason why there is such loyalty among areas of the world that live among terrorists/terrorism is because if you decide to work with the enemy, they will just kill you. Most likely chop off your head, make a video of it, post it on the internet, stuff your body with explosives, call your family to come pick you up and then blow them up when they arrive. True story.
Oh well, I guess we could also read them their rights, ask politely and then let them go. But if they lie to us, they will be in big trouble. We will destroy their credit and that is no laughing matter!
First of all, I reject the use of the term torture for any procedure which has been used on our own troops as a training device or which numerous individuals have VOLUNTEERED to undergo just to see what it is like. Would you volunteer to have a power drill driven into your shoulder or have your eye gouged out? These are true torture techniques used by the other side.
As to the trustworthiness of the information given during interrogation, it is as suspect as any statement made and must be corroborated. As far as I can tell, waterboarding was not used to induce a prejudicial admission of guilt to justify holding these monsters. They were already being held for justifiable reasons and these techniques were used to extract additional information which they did not want to divulge. Acting on that information to successfully stop further attacks would have verified its truth directly. This is what the government has stated and I, for one, have no reason not to believe them.