CIA Slated to Become Daycare Center

Andy McCarthy, the former Federal prosecutor most noted for convicting the terrorists that in 1993 bombed the World Trade Center, writes today over at National Review Online about a new provision stealthily inserted by the Dems into the intelligence bill being considered today in the House today. I’m going to post Mr. McCarthy’s entire article because I don’t see a good way of clipping the “important” parts. It’s all important!

While You Are Distracted by the Summit, Obama Democrats Are Targeting the CIA [Andy McCarthy]

The Obama Democrats have outdone themselves.

While the country and the Congress have their eyes on today’s dog-and-pony show on socialized medicine, House Democrats last night stashed a new provision in the intelligence bill which is to be voted on today.  It is an attack on the CIA: the enactment of a criminal statute that would ban “cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment.” (See here, scoll [sic] to p. 32.)

The provision is impossibly vague — who knows what “degrading” means? Proponents will say that they have itemized conduct that would trigger the statute (I’ll get to that in a second), but it is not true. The proposal says the conduct reached by the statute “includes but is not limited to” the itemized conduct. (My italics.) That means any interrogation tactic that a prosecutor subjectively believes is “degrading” (e.g., subjecting a Muslim detainee to interrogation by a female CIA officer) could be the basis for indicting a CIA interrogator.

The act goes on to make it a crime to use tactics that have been shown to be effective in obtaining life saving information and that are far removed from torture.

“Waterboarding” is specified. In one sense, I’m glad they’ve done this because it proves a point I’ve been making all along. Waterboarding, as it was practiced by the CIA, is not torture and was never illegal under U.S. law.  The reason the Democrats are reduced to doing this is: what they’ve been saying is not true — waterboarding was not a crime and it was fully supported by congressional leaders of both parties, who were told about it while it was being done. On that score, it is interesting to note that while Democrats secretly tucked this provision into an important bill, hoping no one would notice until it was too late, they failed to include in the bill a proposed Republican amendment that would have required full and complete disclosure of records describing the briefings members of Congress received about the Bush CIA’s enhanced interrogation program. Those briefings, of course, would establish that Speaker Pelosi and others knew all about the program and lodged no objections. Naturally, members of Congress are not targeted by this criminal statute — only the CIA.

More to the point, this shows how politicized law-enforcement has become under the Obama Democrats. They could have criminalized waterboarding at any time since Jan. 20, 2009. But they waited until now. Why? Because if they had tried to do it before now, it would have been a tacit admission that waterboarding was not illegal when the Bush CIA was using it. That would have harmed the politicized witch-hunt against John Yoo and Jay Bybee, a key component of which was the assumption that waterboarding and the other tactics they authorizied [sic] were illegal. Only now, when that witch-hunt has collapsed, have the Democrats moved to criminalize these tactics. It is transparently partisan.

In any event, waterboarding is not defined in the bill. As Marc Thiessen has repeatedly demonstrated, there is a world of difference between the tactic as administered by the CIA and the types of water-torture methods that have been used throughout history. The waterboarding method used by the CIA involved neither severe pain nor prolonged mental harm. But it was highly unpleasant and led especially hard cases like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (i.e., well-trained, committed, America-hating terrorists) to give us information that saved American lives. The method was used sparingly — on only three individuals, and not in the last seven years. The American people broadly support the availability of this non-torture tactic in a dire emergency. Yet Democrats not only want to make it unavailable; they want to subject to 15 years’ imprisonment any interrogator who uses it.

What’s more, the proposed bill is directed at “any officer or employee of the intelligence community” conducting a “covered interrogation.” The definition of “covered interrogation” is sweeping — including any interrogation done outside the U.S., in the course of a person’s official duties on behalf of the government. Thus, if the CIA used waterboarding in training its officers or military officers outside the U.S., this would theoretically be indictable conduct under the statute.

Waterboarding is not all. The Democrats’ bill would prohibit — with a penalty of 15 years’ imprisonment — the following tactics, among others:

- “Exploiting the phobias of the individual”

- Stress positions and the threatened use of force to maintain stress positions

- “Depriving the individual of necessary food, water, sleep, or medical care”

- Forced nudity

- Using military working dogs (i.e., any use of them — not having them attack or menace the individual; just the mere presence of the dog if it might unnerve the detainee and, of course, “exploit his phobias”)

- Coercing the individual to blaspheme or violate his religious beliefs (I wonder if Democrats understand the breadth of seemingly innocuous matters that jihadists take to be violations of their religious beliefs)

- Exposure to “excessive” cold, heat or “cramped confinement” (excessive and cramped are not defined)

- “Prolonged isolation”

- “Placing hoods or sacks over the head of the individual”

Naturally, all of these tactics are interspersed with such acts as forcing the performance of sexual acts, beatings, electric shock, burns, inducing hypothermia or heat injury — as if all these acts were functionally equivalent.

In true Alinskyite fashion, Democrats begin this attack on the CIA by saluting “the courageous men and women who serve honorably as intelligence personnel and as members of our nation’s Armed Forces” who “deserve the full support of the United States Congress.” Then, Democrats self-servingly tell us that Congress “shows true support” by providing “clear legislation relating to standards for interrogation techniques.” I’m sure the intelligence community will be duly grateful.

Democrats also offer “findings” that the tactics they aim to prohibit cause terrorism by fueling recruitment (we are never supposed to discuss the Islamist ideology that actually causes terrorist recruitment, only the terrible things America does to provide pretexts for those spurred by that ideology). These “findings” repeat the canards that these tactics don’t work; that they place our captured forces in greater danger (the truth is our forces captured by terrorists will be abused and probably killed no matter what we do, while our enemies captured in a conventional war will be bound to adhere to their Geneva Convention commitments — and will have the incentive to do so because they will want us to do the same); and that “their use runs counter to our identity and values as a nation.”

Unmentioned by the Obama Democrats is that officers of the executive branch have a solemn moral duty to honor their commitment to protect the American people from attack by America’s enemies. If there are non-torture tactics that can get a Khalid Sheikh Mohammed to give us information that saves American lives, how is the use of them inconsistent with our values?

Here is the fact: Democrats are saying they would prefer to see tens of thousands of Americans die than to see a KSM subjected to sleep-deprivation or to have his “phobias exploited.” I doubt that this reflects the values of most Americans.

There are practices listed in this bill that are used by local law enforcement on Americans suspected of committing crimes.Were these provisions singed into law, The CIA may as well either close their doors or become a daycare center for wayward jihadists.

It is shenanigans such as this that cause most American’s to not trust Democrats when it comes to keeping America safe from the Radical Islamists that have vowed to destroy us.

Thank you Andy McCarthy for keeping us informed about these threats to our freedom!

National Security and Obama

Like most Americans I’ve followed the events of the terrorist attack on Christmas day with growing concern. By the way, it wasn’t an attempted attack … it failed to down the aircraft, but it was an attack and ostensibly successful if measured by the additional denigration the TSA will subject the average US air traveler to.

The initial response of government officials such as Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Incompetanio, Deputy National Security Adviser John Brennan, and even Obama’s being MIA for three days did not inspire confidence. Incompetanio’s statement on the Dec 27th Sunday talk shows, “… the system worked …” was nothing more than an attempt to cover the administration’s back side. The following Sunday, Brennan’s’ round on the Sunday shows was not much more than a CYA tour. He didn’t address the problem … the administration blew it on connecting several glaring dots!

I know! What has been missing since 9/11 and is really needed is a department under the direct control of the National Security Adviser, called … uhmm … I don’t know …. maybe the DODC … sure, that’s it, the Department of Dot Connectors. That’s the ticket … another bureaucracy will solve the problem!

Instead, we are soon to be faced with the threat of full body scanners in order to board an airplane. The interesting thing about the current plan is that the TSA, in a pique of modesty, says that the face as well as the “genital” area will be digitally blurred. Gee, that’s encouraging; TSA will be unable to see any details in the exact area where the explosive material was “carried” by the panty bomber, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab.

Even if the TSA doesn’t blur everyone’s crotch, the images are not an xray and can’t detect a stick of dynamite stuffed up Mohammad’s rear-end (as opposed to being wrapped in his turban), which is how an attempt was made recently on Saudi Prince Mohammed bin Nayef, the assistant interior minister who has been spearheading the country’s war on terror. The Prince escaped with minor injuries.

The video below briefly covers the attack as well as interviews and profiles of former residents of Club Git-mo who President Bush released to Saudi Arabia for rehabilitation in their “arts for jihadists” program. There is even a shot of one of Abdula’s better paintings!

One of the new imaging machines would not detect a device carried internally, so what will the TSA’s response be when someone attempts to light a fuse protruding from his behind? It can’t be to install xray machines next. For frequent fliers, that would result in flying becoming the most dangerous form of travel, rather than the safest!

However, Muslims will not stand for entering a machine that projects an image of them basically nude. What would the TSA do about that? Exempt anyone who professes to be Islamic?

The only way to make flying safer is to stop looking for things and start looking for people. Every other country in the world that is serious about air safety and terrorism trains their security agents on how to interview passengers prior to boarding. I’ve been interviewed on many occasions when returning from European airports. They only ask three or four relatively innocuous questions, but they are trained to recognize when people are being untruthful or evasive.

The Israelis have become masters of this approach. Did you know that to board an El AL airlines flight … you aren’t required to remove your shoes? How could that be? Well for your information, El AL is widely acknowledged as the world’s most secure airline, after foiling many attempted hijackings and terror attacks through its security protocols

Such tactics are referred to by our liberal friends as PROFILING! However, it is Terror profiling … not criminal … not racial … TERROR profiling. And using such obviously right-wing, anti-civil rights methods is not going to happen anytime soon in this country, because as I said here, the current administration nor most of the bureaucracies in Washington are serious about the war we are in with Radical Islamism. Most even refuse to us that name.

Sad!

Update: Ran across this very funny parody on airport security this evening. Be sure and check it out. Rings so true!!!!

Get on it … or get out!

I have been a staunch supporter of George W. Bush’s defense policies since he ordered our troupes into Afghanistan in October 2001. This means I also backed his decision to invade Iraq and to stick it out there through some very rough times. The Islamofacist ended up choosing Iraq as their “last stand” and Bush was right in sticking with the mission.

What I understood was that if we didn’t take the fight to our enemy, al-Qaeda and other radical Islamofacist groups, they would bring the fight to us, al-la 9/11. We had to bring order to those stateless regions that our enemies used as bases for training, such as Afghanistan and Somalia; areas where these crazies could control the local population and recruit other young crazies to go out and do jihad.

Several recent events have started to cause me to change my position on this now so-called War on Terror. I suppose I began to take another look following the terrorist attack at Fort Hood by Major Nidal Malik Hasan, which I wrote about here.  The idea that the leaders in our military would allow someone with such seemingly radical beliefs, but more-so … actions, was rather a wake call to me. I had no idea that our military had changed so drastically in terms of its political correctness since my time in the Navy in the mid-1960′s. Mind you, bureaucracies protecting well-connected individuals within their ranks is older than Homer and the ancient Greek civilization.

What has been happening to our military is really nothing more than has been happening to our culture. We are becoming not only soft, our society is being feminized … emasculated. We have elected leaders that push this “kinder, gentler” crap not only on our institutions and society at large, but also on our military. From that, someone like Major Hasan is allowed to work within our most trusted institution at will.

The next event that continued to eat away at my belief that what we were going off kilter was when the AG, Eric Holder announced the government was going to bring Khalid Shaikh Mohammad, the brains behind many terrorist attacks, including the 9/11 attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, along with four of his fellow jihadist to New York and put them on trial in Federal Court. As I said in my post on this,

There can be only one of three outcomes of such a show trial:

• The trial will end in acquittals for one or more of the terrorists, which will make the outcome of the first Rodney King trial look like a birthday party,
• The trial will end in a life sentence for the terrorists … the same outcome had they continued being held in Gitmo, or
• The terrorists will be sentenced to death, giving them the world stage on which to declare their martyrdom, enticing thousands of wanta-be jihadists to take up the cause for Allah.

There is no way of turning this around, with the possible exception of terrorists pulling off a successful attack on our shores before the trial opens. Oh wait … that already happened!

What ever the outcome at the conclusion of such a show trial … we lose.

A couple of weeks ago the news broke that three Navy SEALs were facing a courts-martial for splitting the lip of Ahmed Hashim Abed, thought to be behind the slayings and mutilation of four U.S. security contractors in Falluja, Iraq. They are facing charges based solely on the word of Abed. This is in the same context of the courts-martial of six US Marines in the infamous Haditha case, where they were accused of massacring Iraqi civilians, only in this case the accuser was a combatant. Both events were driven by politicians more interested in political correctness than in defeating those who wish our society dead.

Last Tuesday evening, Obama gave is lackluster speech on his plans for the future of our military presence in Afghanistan. While I was pleased he was going to at least somewhat meet General Stanley McChrystal’s request of another 40,000 to 60,000 troupes, his putting a timetable on our continued presence there without regard to results was stupid. When a Presidential candidate, he espoused the same “strategy” for Iraq. This whole notion of an “exit strategy” being anything other than victory is ludicrous. You don’t put the lives of those willing to put themselves into harms way at risk without being willing to do whatever it takes to win.

His delivery at West Point was not something that inspired the cadets in attendance. What must they have thought, they themselves actually going into harms way in the next one to four years? “Hmmm … this guy isn’t interested in what happens way over there in Afghanistan … do I really want to stick my neck out for someone who worries more about how much the war costs than he does about winning?” Obama is trying to find a way of getting out without being accused of losing the war. His real interests lie in defeating Americanism, not the Taliban,  al-Qaeda or Jihadism.

Lastly, on Thursday I read an article by Andy McCarthy where he laments the fact that the Defense Department has brought Louay Safi to Fort Hood as an instructor, and that he has been lecturing on Islam to our troops in Fort Hood who are about to deploy to Afghanistan. Louay Safi is a top official of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), and served as research director at the International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT). Read Andy’s article, but I suspect it will anger you just as it did me. More political correctness to be sure, but this has taken PC to a new height.

It has become blandly obvious that neither our political leaders nor our military leaders are serious about winning in Afghanistan, and possible anywhere else either. That said, why are we putting our best and brightest at risk or even in a position where they could be accused of a “crime” and potentially spend time in prison for doing what we sent them out to do in the first place? I now say start pulling them out and bring them all home. After all, we have already become what Osama Bin Laden accused us of being … the weak horse.

I’m afraid that the only thing that will bring back the resolve we had in the Autumn of 2001 is for us to suffer another major attack. However, if such an attack doesn’t happen, we will most likely end up being defeated the way Briton and France are being defeated today … by a fifth column of liberals and jihadist slowly taking away our freedoms, one Amendment at a time.

Follow the Money?

I’ve listened to many talk show hosts and pundits over the past four days trying to come up with reasons as to why the Obama administration and specifically Attorney General Eric Holder would bring Khalid Sheik Mohammad (KSM) to New York and try him and his cohorts in Federal Court. I won’t go into all the reasons posited (I discussed some in my post here).

The two things I haven’t heard brought up are:

• how many multi-millions of dollars are going to be generated in attorneys fees defending KSM and will we taxpayers be on the hook to pay for it all?
• how many millions of those are going to find their way back to Obama and the Dems in the form of campaign contributions?

Fed Trials for Terrorist

The Administration announced Friday that they were going to bring five of the Gitmo terrorists, including 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, to New York and put them on trial within the Federal Court system. This is probably the stupidest thing that the idiots currently running the government could do. Such a trial will turn into a combination of the OJ Simpson trial and the Cirque du Soleil.

Last night I was reading The Corner over at National Review Online and what was in my opinion was an unbelievably naive post by Mike Potemra caught my eye:

Have the Trial in NYC? [Mike Potemra]

Some commentaries, including our own editorial, have suggested that it would be a terrible thing to try the 9/11 plotters here in Manhattan, because that would give the terrorists an opportunity to air Islamofascist propaganda. But let me ask this question: Wouldn’t this, from the standpoint of our national security, be a good thing? It is frequently alleged that the American public, not to mention the public in foreign countries, lacks a serious understanding of the terrorist threat. Wouldn’t having a bunch of coldblooded murderers of 3,000 innocents proclaiming live on TV how proud they are of what they have done, and asserting that what God wants most is for them to get out of prison and murder even more thousands of innocents, be a very effective way of teaching America — and the world — about the true character of our enemies?

Another aspect of this issue that disturbs me is the assertion made by some opponents of this move that America (and specifically New York) is somehow not strong enough to endure the emotional trauma of having this public trial. Now, I don’t want to come across as Mr. More-Patriotic-Than-Thou, or a swaggering NYC guy — I recognize that there are weaknesses in our national character, and the character of our city — but this strikes me as a rather unfair criticism of the American people, and the people of New York. So let me speak only for myself on this: I was an eyewitness of 9/11, and watched the Twin Towers fall; I favor a strong war effort against the terrorists, in Iraq, in Afghanistan, and any other place they are hiding; and, again speaking just for myself, I welcome bringing people I believe are among history’s worst villains here to our city to face a jury. Can twelve good people find the truth, and proclaim it to the world? Can the average American rise to this challenge? I urge people to think twice before answering too swiftly with “No.”

There’s another serious issue here, of course, one that I will leave to the experts on intelligence collection and the trial process. I saw Attorney General Holder on TV today saying that parts of the trial will be closed to the public. Will that be enough to safeguard our intelligence sources? I do not want to dismiss lightly the concerns expressed on this score. I think this debate over the trial is, in itself, helpful – because it, too, is an opportunity to discuss the character of the enemy, and that of our own country, in a very public way. In that contrast, America wins.

I responded to Mike in an email:

Where to begin?

First, the judge, the prosecutor and assistants, the court clerk, and every other court official’s names will be public. Regardless of how hard they try, the jurors’ name will be leaked to the media who will have no compunction of publishing them. This will put them and all of they’re relatives at risk of retaliation by any and every want-to-be jihadist in the Northeast. Everyone connected to the trial, regardless of the tenuousness, will be in jeopardy of grave harm.

Second, regardless of what is said by officials or “experts” in response to whatever propaganda is mouthed by these terrorists, it will be countered by people who will be believed by the world’s media and by Muslims who  have been trained to accept everything said by the “great Satan” as lies. Doesn’t matter what it is … “the sun just came up” … it’s a lie!

Third, I’m not so sure New York is strong enough to endure such a trauma. I’m not talking about the people who deliver the bread every morning, or the guys who spend all day hanging drywall, the folks selling hot dogs from their carts on Wall Street, or the folks who clean the windows 30 stories up in the air. I’m talking about the people who live in the condos on the upper West side … read the New York Times every morning, enjoy their weekends in the Hamptons. They will be traumatized by having to relive all the “pain” again.

Lastly … if you trust what Holder said that “parts of the trial will be closed to the public” … I’ve got a bridge I’d like to discuss with you.

There can be only one of three outcomes of such a show trial:

There is no way of turning this around, with the possible exception of terrorists pulling off a successful attack on our shores before the trial opens. Oh wait … that already happened!

UPDATE: I received a reply to my email above:

Mr. Pipkin, I thank you for sending this missive, but I must confess I preferred your work back in the early 70s, when you and your family gave the world “Gimme Dat Ding”–
warm regards
MP

Oh my, how devilishly clever! I don’t suppose I’ll be communicating with this (nit)wit again soon.

The Kopp-Etchells Effect

Michael Yon has spent the last several years in numerous war zones around the world, trying the make sure we are provided with accurate reporting on what is going on (unlike those “news” organizations that assumed those responsibilities in the past). His latest post brought more than a tear to my eye … it was inspiring! He has captured the heart of the brave men and women who place their lives on the line for our freedom, day after day, mission after dangerous mission!

As with many of Michael’s posts, there was magnificent photography, including the image below that supports his naming of the previously unnamed helicopter blade’s illuminance as the Kopp-Etchells effect:

Please … read Michael’s post and support him in his effort to insure we are kept aware of the dangers our country face from many corners of this dangerous world .