June 14, 2009

Judge: Terrorist can sue over torture memos

Judge: Terrorist can sue over torture memos

First time a government lawyer has been held potentially liable for abuse


A convicted terrorist can sue a former Bush administration lawyer for drafting the legal theories that led to his alleged torture, ruled a federal judge who said he was trying to balance a clash between war and the defense of personal freedoms.
The order by U.S. District Judge Jeffrey White of San Francisco is the first time a government lawyer has been held potentially liable for the abuse of detainees.

White refused to dismiss Jose Padilla's lawsuit against former senior Justice Department official John Yoo on Friday. Yoo wrote memos on interrogation, detention and presidential powers for the department's Office of Legal Counsel from 2001 to 2003.

Padilla, 38, is serving a 17-year sentence on terror charges. He claims he was tortured while being held nearly four years as a suspected terrorist.

White ruled Padilla may be able to prove that Yoo's memos "set in motion a series of events that resulted in the deprivation of Padilla's constitutional rights."
"Like any other government official, government lawyers are responsible for the foreseeable consequences of their conduct," wrote White, a Bush appointee.

Yoo did not return telephone and e-mail messages Saturday.

White ruled that Yoo, now a University of California at Berkeley law professor, went beyond the normal role of an attorney when he helped write the Bush administration's detention and torture policies, then drafted legal opinions to justify those policies.

Yoo's recently released 2001 memo advised that the military could use "any means necessary" to hold terror suspects. A 2002 memo to then-White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales advised that treatment of suspected terrorists was torture only if it caused pain levels equivalent to "organ failure, impairment of bodily function or even death." Yoo also advised that the president might have the constitutional power to allow torturing enemy combatants

Enemy combatant

Padilla is an American citizen who was arrested in Chicago in 2002 and accused of conspiring with al-Qaida to detonate a radioactive "dirty bomb."

He was held in a Navy brig in Charleston, S.C., for three years and eight months as an enemy combatant. Padilla's lawsuit alleges Yoo personally approved his time and treatment in the brig.



Wild Thing's comment.........

“This lawsuit poses the question addressed by our founding fathers about how to strike the proper balance of fighting a war against terror, at home and abroad, and fighting a war using tactics of terror.”

Wake up, judge, and smell the green tea. The Founding Fathers had no clue about this war on terror conducted by savage animals bent on destroying our whole country. But there IS plenty of stuff and warnings about a president like Obama and how to protect our country from someone like that if SOMEONE would READ our CONSTITUTION!

Posted by Wild Thing at 05:48 AM | Comments (8)

May 24, 2009

New RNC Ad has Pelosi in Washington Version of James Bond ~ LOL

Pelosi v. The CIA


Wild Thing's comment.........

LMAO the Democrats don't like it.

RNC's below-the-belt shot at Nancy Pelosi

But when you see Nancy Pelosi, the Republican National Committee wants you to think “Pussy Galore.”

At least that’s the takeaway from a video released by the committee this week – a video that puts Pelosi side-by-side with the aforementioned villainess from the 1964 James Bond film “Goldfinger.”
The RNC video, which begins with the speaker’s head in the iconic spy-series gun sight, implies that Pelosi has used her feminine wiles to dodge the truth about whether or not she was briefed by the CIA on the use of waterboarding in 2002. While the P-word is never mentioned directly, in one section the speaker appears in a split screen alongside the Bond nemesis – and the video’s tagline is “Democrats Galore.”

More of the article HERE it is VERY funny and they are really upset.

So typical of the democrats to be more upset about this then they were about what Pelosi did.

Posted by Wild Thing at 05:46 AM | Comments (6)

May 22, 2009

Why Pelosi Must GO!

Dick Morris Unplugged - Bye Bye Pelosi. Commentary on Nancy Pelosi's slow destruction and inevitable demise.

And there is also this article at

The Hill


by Dick Morris

It’s obvious that either Leon Panetta, Obama’s head of the CIA, or Nancy Pelosi, his party’s Speaker of the House, has to go. No administration can tolerate a permanent, public civil war between two such high-ranking officials.

Especially when their disagreement stems not from issues of policy but from matters of veracity and credibility, the battle must end in one of their resignations. You cannot have the head of the nation’s first line of defense against terrorism calling the Speaker of the House a liar and being attacked by her in turn.

Obviously, Obama cannot fire Panetta. First of all, he just appointed him. And second, to cave in to Pelosi (D-Calif.) would earn him the massive disrespect and disapproval of the very operatives on whom he must depend to keep the nation safe.

Already skeptical of his leftist credentials, the analysts at the CIA would regard it as a massive vote of no confidence if their chief were fired for believing in them.

Like Clinton — whose draft-dodging made his relationship with the military problematic — Obama takes office amid reservations about him on the part of the intelligence community. He has taken pains to reach out to both the uniformed and white-collar intelligence officials to smooth his way and win their trust.

Panetta took over as CIA chief under the cloud of his agency’s distrust of the man who appointed him. Now he is standing firm for his agency and winning its loyalty and support.

Obama cannot pull the rug out from under him without incurring the agency’s permanent animosity. Before Sept. 11, 2001, that may have been an acceptable risk. Now it is not.

But Pelosi is expendable. The job of a Democratic Speaker is to pass the program of the Democratic president. Her ability and track record is measured on a scale of effectiveness. If she is ineffective, she’s not up to the job.

There is no way that Nancy Pelosi can be effective while she is engaged in a war of words with the Democratic head of the CIA.

House members have a shark’s instinct for blood in the water and know full well that satisfying Pelosi is likely to be an unrewarding occupation.

With House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) waiting in the wings, few congressmen would be willing to treat the IOUs from Pelosi they get for casting difficult votes as worth much more than Confederate currency.

Remember that Pelosi won by only 118-95 in her election as Speaker. Her support was not overwhelming to begin with. She is a movement liberal. Her political antecedents come from the McGovern wing of the party. She is a leftist/reformer. An insurgent.

But Hoyer is a regular Democrat. Representing a district in the D.C. suburbs of Maryland, he is almost a civil servant himself. He is no radical.

While he can be counted on to pass Obama’s programs like a good Democrat, he is not the kind of guy who will get out in front of the president to upstage or pressure him.

He will fit right in, unobtrusively backing the president. (Full disclosure: He’s a former client. Very former.)

Above all, Obama cannot allow the distraction and disruption of a feud between Speaker and CIA head to sow the image of an administration at war with itself.

The Speaker is the hired help. She exists to serve her president. And, right now, he needs this fight like he needs a hole in the head.

Wild Thing's comment........

Pelosi has made some BIG enemies so I honestly can't tell if the dems will throw her under the bus and the heck out ot Congress even or just let what she has done slide like they do all their other criminals.

I agree with Morris, she has to go and I don't think Obama likes her. heh heh That might make a difference in her having to leave too.

....Thank you Mark for sending this to me.

3rd Mar.Div. 1st Battalion 9th Marine Regiment
1/9 Marines aka The Walking Dead
VN 66-67

Posted by Wild Thing at 05:48 AM | Comments (4)

May 17, 2009

Incompetent and Liar Nancy Pelosi

Waterboarding allegedly ordered by Leon Panetta .

Allegedly the "torturers" were heard singing an improvised "beer" song: 99 bottles of Perrier on the wall, 99 bottles of Perrier, take one down pass it around, 98 bottles of Perrier on the wall.


What Speak Pelosi said about Saddam's chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction

January 16, 2004
National Press Club

Note DATE above this is from 2004

Sam Husseini Questions House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi

QUESTION [Sam Husseini]: Ms. Pelosi, this is you on "Meet the Press" on November 17th, 2002, quote: "Saddam Hussein certainly has chemical and biological weapons. There's no question about that."

Wasn't it your job to ask questions about that? And doesn't that make you a rather weak person, in contrast to some of your colleagues in the House -- in the Democratic House -- who did ask those questions as the Bush administration pushed towards war, that you said, quote, "Saddam Hussein certainly has --"

PELOSI: I heard your question.

QUESTION: "-- chemical and biological weapons. There's no question about that," and none have been found?

PELOSI: That was the evidence is that Saddam Hussein had had chemical and biological weapons and he used them. However, that was when they were asking about nuclear, and I said there was no evidence of any nuclear weapons.

In fact, thank you for bringing up this question, because you give me an opportunity to say that, as the senior Democrat on the Intelligence Committee in the debate leading up to the vote, I said that the intelligence does not support the threat that the administration is putting forth in Iraq, and that while there may be chemical and biological weapons, because they're rampant in the region, there was no imminent threat that would justify our going to war; that we had not exhausted all of our remedies.

PELOSI: I want to also announce that my colleague on the Intelligence Committee, Congresswoman Jane Harman, the senior Democrat, will be making a speech, I think, noon in California to the World Affairs Council. They are questioning the national intelligence estimate and the intelligence going into the war.

But I voted against the war because I said the intelligence did not support the threat. Sixty percent of the House Democrats voted against the war. And that is my response to your question.

QUESTION: I'd just like to clarify, please, are you still not conceding that this is a false statement, to this day, that "Saddam Hussein certainly has chemical and biological weapons, there's no question about that?" Are you not conceding that that's a false statement?

PELOSI: The point is is there an imminent threat to the United States? Is there a nuclear plume? What I was responding to there is that the intelligence did not support the threat. And while you might concede that in the region there was programs to develop chemical and biological, there was no reason to go to war and we had not.

Now that is my response. If you want to ask it three times, that's up to the audience if they want --

MODERATOR: Thank you sir. Let's go to the next question please.

Nancy Pelosi Goes Into Hiding

The Hill

By Emily Goodin
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) turned down invitations to be on several Sunday morning talk shows and is instead spending the weekend with her family.

The Speaker was invited to appear on NBC's "Meet the Press,” ABC's "This Week,” “Fox News Sunday” and CNN’s “State of the Union,” according to sources at the networks.One source said Pelosi (D-Calif.) will be attending her granddaughter's first communion in Phoenix on Sunday.

Pelosi's office confirmed she is with her family this weekend.

"We have turned down Sunday shows many, many times before," Pelosi spokesman Nadeam Elshami said.

Newt Gingrich, former Speaker of the House, kept the pressure on in a CNN interview:

Newt Gingrich continued his attacks on House Speaker Nancy Pelosi Saturday, saying she "defamed everyone" in the intelligence community and he can't "see how she can serve as speaker if it turns out that she has lied about national security both to the House and to the rest of the country.”
"I would expect at that point a motion of censure, and I think under the rules of the House, you can't serve for the rest of that term if you've been censured," Gingrich, a former Republican speaker of the House, said in an interview with CNN.
Gingrich, R-Ga., said Pelosi, D-Calif., “has lied to the House” in claiming that she was never briefed by the CIA about the Bush administration’s use of waterboarding and other harsh tactics.
"I think she has lied to the House, and I think that the House has an absolute obligation to open an inquiry, and I hope there will be a resolution to investigate her. And I think this is a big deal. I don't think the Speaker of the House can lie to the country on national security matters,” Gingrich said.
He continued: "I think this is the most despicable, dishonest and vicious political effort I've seen in my lifetime."
"She is a trivial politician, viciously using partisanship for the narrowist of purposes, and she dishonors the Congress by her behavior."
"Speaker Pelosi's the big loser, because she either comes across as incompetent, or dishonest. Those are the only two defenses,” Gingrich said. “The fact is she either didn't do her job, or she did do her job and she's now afraid to tell the truth.”



Pelosi Statement on Panetta Message to CIA Employees

Washington, D.C.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi issued the following statement today in response to a message today to CIA Employees from Director Leon Panetta:

“We all share great respect for the dedicated men and women of the intelligence community who are deeply committed to the safety and security of the American people. My criticism of the manner in which the Bush Administration did not appropriately inform Congress is separate from my respect for those in the intelligence community who work to keep our country safe. What is important now is to be united in our commitment to ensuring the security of our country; that, and how Congress exercises its oversight responsibilities, will continue to be my focus as we move forward.”


Wild Thing's comment........

If things play out the way I suspect they will, Pelosi’s armor is going to look more like she took a direct hit from a late-model RPG.

"turned down invitations to be on several Sunday morning talk shows and is instead spending the weekend with her family"

She doesn't want to face any tough questions and besides right now she has both feet in her mouth.

Posted by Wild Thing at 05:55 AM | Comments (15)

Pelosi Gets Utterly Krauthammered

Krauthammer: Pelosi Is Now At War With The CIA; I Suspect They Will Destroy Her


"Her charge of the CIA lying to her is utterly implausible. Why would it lie to her and tell all the others the truth? It makes no sense at all; and it was refuted by the black and white Obama CIA memo –– not a memo out of the Prince of Darkness: Bush and Cheney; but Obama CIA –– would show that in the briefing in which she says none of this simulated drowning occurred, they had specifically told her about the Enhanced Interrogation Techniques that had been used on a prisoner, obviously, a month earlier."


Wild Thing's comment.......

Krauthammer is no less then awesome.

The next in line for Pelosi’s job is Steney Hoyer (D-MD) an enemy of Pelosi’s.

Posted by Wild Thing at 05:47 AM | Comments (10)

May 15, 2009

Liar, Liar Pantsuit On Fire Pelosi Says the CIA Are Liars

Nancy Pelosi: CIA was misleading The U.S. Congress about torture methods- 05-14-09


Pelosi says she learned of waterboarding in 2003


Under strong attack from Republicans, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi accused the CIA and Bush administration of misleading her about waterboarding detainees in the war on terror and sharply rebutted claims she was complicit in its use.

"To the contrary ... we were told explicitly that waterboarding was not being used," she told reporters, referring to a formal CIA briefing she received in the fall of 2002.
Pelosi said she subsequently learned that other lawmakers were told several months later by the CIA about the use of waterboarding.
"I wasn't briefed, I was informed that somebody else had been briefed about it," she said.

The House's top Democrat made her comments at a news conference where she was peppered with questions about her knowledge of a technique she and others have called torture. Republicans have insisted in recent weeks that Pelosi and other Democrats knew waterboarding was in use, but made no attempt to protest.

In a written response issued moments after Pelosi spoke, an official at the CIA neither disputed nor accepted the California Democrat's statements.

Instead, George Little, head of the CIA office of public affairs, said it would be up to Congress to determine whether notes made by agency personnel at the time they briefed lawmakers were accurate. He said the notes could be made available at the CIA "for staff review."

Pelosi renewed her call for a so-called truth commission to investigate the events in the Bush administration that led to the use of waterboarding and other harsh interrogation techniques. While President Barack Obama has banned waterboarding, calling it torture, he has been notably cool toward an independent inquiry that might distract attention from his domestic agenda.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., also has expressed opposition, as have congressional Republicans.

Pelosi was particularly harsh in describing the CIA.

"They mislead us all the time," she said. And when a reporter asked whether the agency lied, she did not disagree.

She also suggested that the current Republican criticism marked an attempt to divert attention from the Bush administration's actions.

"They misrepresented every step of the way, and they don't want that focus on them, so they try to turn the attention on us," she said.

Pelosi contended that Democrats did what they could to stop the use of waterboarding. The senior Democrat on the Intelligence Committee, who received the 2003 briefing on the practice, sent the CIA a formal letter of protest, she said.

But Pelosi defended her own lack of action on the issue, saying her focus at the time was on wresting congressional control from Republicans so her party could change course.

"No letter could change the policy. It was clear we had to change the leadership in Congress and in the White House. That was my job—the Congress part," Pelosi said.



Storm center over Pelosi

The Hill

( snipets from the article)

During a tense press conference, Pelosi sought to deflect criticism to the CIA, which she said lied to her about the practice.

Her accusation in her weekly press conference Thursday raised the stakes in that fight, pitting her against the agency charged with fighting international terrorism. And she twisted the knife when she compared the agency’s interrogation briefings to its faulty intelligence about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, a sensitive topic at the CIA.

“Those briefings gave me inaccurate and incomplete information,” Pelosi told reporters at her weekly news conference.
“I think the problem is that the Speaker has had way too many stories on this issue,” House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) said at his weekly news conference. “It’s pretty clear that [Democratic leaders] were well-aware of what these enhanced interrogation techniques were, they were well-aware that they had been used, and it seems to me that they want to have it both ways.”
He also said he found Pelosi’s assertion that she was misled by the CIA highly dubious.
“I’ve dealt with our intelligence professionals for the last three and a half years on an almost daily basis, and it’s hard for me to imagine that our intelligence area would ever mislead a member of Congress ... I don’t know what motivation they would have to mislead anyone.”

The CIA stood by the account of its briefings, which were released last week after a request from Republicans.

“The language in the chart — ‘a description of the particular EITs [enhanced interrogation techniques] that had been employed’ — is true to the language in the agency’s records,” said George Little, a CIA spokesman.

The CIA records indicate Pelosi was briefed specifically about interrogation methods used on suspected terrorist Abu Zubaydah. But the records don’t specifically cite the practice of waterboarding.


Wild Thing's comment.............

LOL Can you imagine Nancy Pelosi as a CIA Spook. I think it would be a short career. hahahaha They have to remember who, what, where, when and Nancy is falling apart trying to keep up with her lies.

Hello, I’m Nancy Pelosi, and I’ve got a secret.

Posted by Wild Thing at 04:50 AM | Comments (19)

May 13, 2009

Thank You Cheney!! Military Hater Obama Changes Mind About Releasing Detainee Photos



Obama Reverses Course on Releasing More Detainee Abuse Photographs

ABC News

Jack Tapper

Obama met with White House counsel Greg Craig and other members of the White House counsel team last week and told them that he had second thoughts about the decision to hand over photographs of detainee abuse to the ACLU, per a judge's order, and had changed his mind.

The president "believes their release would endanger our troops," a White House official says, adding that the president "believes that the national security implications of such a release have not been fully presented to the court."

At the end of that meeting, the president directed Craig to object to the immediate release of the photos on those grounds. In an Oval Office meeting with Iraq Commander General Ray Odierno, the president told him of his decision to argue against the release of the photographs.

The move is a complete 180. In a letter from the Justice Department to a federal judge on April 23, the Obama administration announced that the Pentagon would turn over 44 photographs showing detainee abuse of prisoners in Afghanistan and Iraq during the Bush administration.

The photographs are part of a 2003 Freedom of Information Act request by the ACLU for all information relating to the treatment of detainees -- the same battle that led to President Obama's decision to release memos from the Bush Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel providing legal justifications for brutal interrogation methods, many of which the International Committee of the Red Cross calls torture.

"The reversal is another indication of a continuance of the Bush administration policies under the Obama administration," ACLU attorney Amrit Singh told ABC News. "President Obama's promise of accountability is meaningless, this is inconsistent with his promise of transparency, it violates the government's commitment to the court. People need to examine these abusive photographs, but also the government officials need to be held accountable."

It's unclear what step the White House will now take, whether the administration will challenge the release in appellate court with new arguments or whether it will take the case to the Supreme Court.


VP Dick Cheney Spoke Out

Poison Photo-Drop .. decision to release photographs .. will imperil nation .. its defenders.

Andrew C. McCarthy Spoke Out!!

American soldiers, American civilians, and other innocent people are going to die because Pres. Barack Obama wants to release photographs of prisoner abuse. Note: I said, “wants to release” — not “has to release,” or “is being forced to release,” or “will comply with court orders by releasing.” The photos, quite likely thousands of them, will be released because the president wants them released. Any other description of the situation is a dodge.

Not a word about his notion that Abu Ghraib inspired new terrorist recruitment but that, for the pleasure of trying to destroy the previous administration, he would do what he condemns.


Wild Thing's comment.........

Cheney ROCKS! Andew C. McCarthy Rocks! Rush Rocks too for getting the word out. I don't care if Obama and his ilk don't give him credit. It is obvious the biggest, loudest words against release of the photos has been VP Dick Cheney.

Obama will try to get the creidt for the change not to do this but if the lefties for one second would stop and admit to themselves in the dark corners of their sick liberal brains they know, oh yes they know it was wrong and would put every one of our service members in grave danger, more then they are already.

Obama puts HIS political self-preservation first, this is NOT about the troops in danger or American citizens in danger. And he knows that, however controversial the release of of these photos the backlash to the release of these photos would be far greater to HIM.

Posted by Wild Thing at 04:55 PM | Comments (5)

House Majority Leader:Congressional Hearings Should Explore Pelosi's Interrogation Briefing

House Majority Leader: Congressional Hearings Should Explore Pelosi's Interrogation Briefing

Democrats will hold a series of hearings on Justice Department memos released last month that justified rough tactics against detainees, including waterboarding -- simulated drowning -- and sleep deprivation.

FOX News

The House majority leader reluctantly agreed Tuesday that congressional hearings should investigate Speaker Nancy Pelosi's assertion that she wasn't informed, more than six years ago, that harsh interrogation methods were used on an Al-Qaeda leader.

Rep. Steny Hoyer, D-Md., called Republican challenges to Pelosi's assertion a diversion from the real question of whether the Bush administration tortured terrorist suspects. Nonetheless, he acknowledged the controversy should be resolved.

Democrats will hold a series of hearings on Justice Department memos released last month that justified rough tactics against detainees, including waterboarding -- simulated drowning -- and sleep deprivation.

While Democrats want the hearings to focus on what they call torture, Republicans have tried to turn the issue to their advantage by complaining that Pelosi and other Democrats knew of the tactics but didn't protest. Pelosi was briefed in 2002 while on the House Intelligence Committee.

Hoyer, asked at a news conference whether Democrats were inviting political problems for themselves by holding hearings, said, "I think the facts need to get out.
"I think the Republicans are simply trying to distract the American public with who knew what when. My response to that is, look, the issue is not what was said or what was known; the question and focus ought to be on what was done."
But he added that the controversy over "what was said and when it was said, who said it ... is probably what ought to be on the record as well."

Hoyer also was asked whether he believes Pelosi's support has been undermined among Democrats.

"No, I don't," he said.

A Senate Judiciary subcommittee holds the first hearing on the interrogation policy on Wednesday, but has scheduled testimony unrelated to the Pelosi matter.

A CIA document made public last week shows that Pelosi received a briefing in September 2002 on the tactics used on Abu Zubaydah, an Al Qaeda leader and one of three prisoners subjected to waterboarding. Pelosi said she was told the agency was discussing its legal right to use the tactic in the future.

"We were not -- I repeat -- were not told that waterboarding or any of these other enhanced interrogation methods were used," said Pelosi, D-Calif.


Wild Thing's comment..........

They create the smoke screens and then accuse the “Republicans” of creating the Democrat smoke screen?

They play both sides of the street, talk out of both sides of their heads, and then blame the Republicans?

Whatever the TEA Parties do, we need to be sure that the Conservatives who are elected to Congress in 2010 and beyond are not mealy-mouth wimpy-fraidy-cats with a bunch of skeletons in their closets.

I know I’ve emailed the Republican Leadership many many times and FINALLY after OUR prodding, they’ve begun to speak up. But their voices are tentative, soft, showing fear.

I think we need a tuff as nails truth talking Conservative who has The Constitution and Federalist Papers memorized who will quote them and cut the liberals off at the knees. That’s ALL it will take, I believe, to wake the masses up from their pie-eyed mesmerized slumber. Confound the Liberals with the Constitution.

When it comes to fighting back for our coungtry, walk softly and carry a big stick? NO. Walk loudly and carry a big GUN.

Posted by Wild Thing at 04:42 AM | Comments (8)

May 12, 2009

Nancy Pelosi Lie of the Day

OK I could not help it, when I saw the photo of Nancy Pelosi with the article below my very first thought was how she looks like Michael Jackson. Look at the nose especailly. This is so weird. ~ Wild Thing

This was the original photo with the article.......

Pelosi: Torture protest improper in '03


House Speaker Nancy Pelosi learned in early 2003 that the Bush administration was waterboarding terror detainees but didn’t protest directly out of respect for “appropriate” legislative channels, a confidant of the San Francisco Democrat said Monday.

The Pelosi camp’s version of events is intended to answer two key questions posed by her critics: When, precisely, did she first learn about waterboarding? And why didn’t she do more to stop it?

Pelosi has disputed a CIA document, released last week, that shows she was briefed in September 2002 on the “particular” interrogation techniques the United States had used on Al Qaeda leader Abu Zubaydah. Pelosi has said she was told then only that the Bush administration was considering using certain techniques in the future — and that it had the legal authority to do so.

But there’s no dispute that on Feb. 4, 2003 — five months after Pelosi’s September meeting — CIA officials briefed Pelosi aide Michael Sheehy and Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.), then the ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, on the specific techniques that had been used on Zubaydah — including waterboarding.

Harman was so alarmed by what she had heard, she drafted a short letter to the CIA’s general counsel to express “profound” concerns with the tactic — going so far as to ask if waterboarding had been personally “approved by the president.”

According to the Pelosi confidant, Sheehy told Pelosi about the briefing — and later informed Pelosi, the newly elected minority leader, that Harman was drafting a protest letter. Pelosi told Sheehy to tell Harman that she agreed with the letter, the Pelosi insider said. But she did not ask to be listed as a signatory on the letter, the source said, and there is no reference to her in it.

Republicans aren’t buying it.

“If Nancy was so concerned about the waterboarding, why did she let someone else write the letter?” asked Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-Mich.), the ranking Republican on the intelligence committee. “If she was so upset, why did she let someone else raise objections?”

Democratic insiders acknowledge that Pelosi has not handled the media furor surrounding the interrogation briefings — and what she was told and when — in a timely or aggressive manner.


Wild Thing's comment.......

The lying, cheating Liberal loon is at it again. She is saying....“I was going to protest it, I really, really was!”

Like Hanoi John Kerry’s I was against the war, before I was for it, but then I didn’t fund it” nonsense.

LOL Nice try Pelosi, hahaha but it doesn’t explain you lying through your teeth saying you hadn’t heard they were using these techniques.

And I love it, Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-Mich.) is not letting go.

Posted by Wild Thing at 06:55 AM | Comments (21)

May 08, 2009

Intelligence Report: Pelosi Briefed on Use of Interrogation Tactics in Sept. ’02

Intelligence Report: Pelosi Briefed on Use of Interrogation Tactics in Sept. ’02

ABC News

ABC News’ Rick Klein reports: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was briefed on the use of “enhanced interrogation techniques” on terrorist suspect Abu Zubaydah in September 2002, according to a report prepared by the Director of National Intelligence’s office and obtained by ABC News.

The report, submitted to the Senate Intelligence Committee and other Capitol Hill officials Wednesday, appears to contradict Pelosi’s statement last month that she was never told about the use of waterboarding or other special interrogation tactics. Instead, she has said, she was told only that the Bush administration had legal opinions that would have supported the use of such techniques.

The report details a Sept. 4, 2002 meeting between intelligence officials and Pelosi, then-House intelligence committee chairman Porter Goss, and two aides. At the time, Pelosi was the top Democrat on the House intelligence committee.

The meeting is described as a “Briefing on EITs including use of EITs on Abu Zubaydah, background on authorities, and a description of particular EITs that had been employed.”

Democratic Leaders of Congress were briefed at more than 30 meetings on enhanced interrogation techniques since 2002.


Republicans Claim Top Lawmakers Were in the Loop on Interrogations

FOX news

FOX News has learned there were more than 30 meetings and briefings with members of Congress on the subject since 2002.

The first such briefing dealt with the interrogation of Abu Zubaydah, the Al Qaeda operations chief who ran the training camps in Afghanistan where the Sept. 11 hijackers were trained. Sources said California Rep. Nancy Pelosi, now the speaker of the House, attended the meeting with then-Rep. Porter Goss, R-Fla. (who later became CIA director), and she did not raise any objections.

The briefings were given to the chairmen and ranking members of the intelligence committees in the House and Senate until 2006. That could cover Sen. John Rockefeller, W.Va., and Rep. Jane Harman, Calif., both Democrats, as well as Sen. Pat Roberts, Kan., Sen. Lindsey Graham, S.C., Sen. Richard Shelby, Ala., and Rep. Pete Hoekstra, Mich., all Republicans.


Wild Thing's comment.........

There are career people on both sides of the aisle over at CIA. Some very very good ones and some very bad.

They are united in their defense of the CIA, however. You do not attack the spook house unless you are loaded for bear. I am sure they have enough "stuff" on Pelosi to burn her from hell to breakfast.

Posted by Wild Thing at 05:45 AM | Comments (6)

May 07, 2009

The Torture of American Soldiers

The Torture of American Soldiers

By: Jamie Glazov


"Frontpage Interview’s guest today is Dave Gaubatz, the first U.S. civilian (1811) Federal Agent deployed to Iraq in 2003. He is currently the Director of the Mapping Sharia Project and the Owner of DG Counter-terrorism Publishing

FP: Dave Gaubatz, welcome to Frontpage Interview.

There has been an enormous amount of talk about torture of Islamic terrorists who have been captured, specifically since the war in Iraq (2003); what are your thoughts?

Gaubatz: I believe it is time intelligence officers and other agents who were involved in obtaining evidence from terrorists on the ground in Iraq at the start of the war (2003) begin helping one another out and telling it like it was.

In April – July 2003, while in Nasiriyah, Iraq, I had the opportunity to talk with the Director of Saddam’s Nasiriyah Hospital, several doctors, and nurses who actually attended to Private Jessica Lynch when she was a POW. In addition another agent and I had the opportunity to 'interrogate' the Director of the 'Red Crescent' who was located across the road from the hospital. This Director was responsible for the torture and death of American soldiers from the 507th Maintenance Company, Fort Bliss, TX, and many other service members throughout Iraq.

FP: What guidance were you and your team of counter-terrorism officers provided for conducting interviews or interrogations?

Gaubatz: Jamie, it is important to note many of the interrogations our team conducted were not within the safe confines of a ‘friendly’ base or inside a prison. The vast majority of our interrogations were in the field. The only guidance other agents and I had received was the enemy we were fighting were specifically Islamic terrorists (Saddam civilian Fedeyeen and supporters of Al Qaeda); neither who wore military uniforms.

When I was deployed to Iraq, I was an 1811 U.S. Federal Agent. I had been briefed by our government that since I was a civilian, but would have identification indicating I was a Major, be carrying an M16, a 9mm, and other weapons. If the enemy captured me I would be considered a spy under the ‘Geneva Convention’ and would likely be executed. Our government leaders advised me during briefings they would have no legal authority to prevent this. I acknowledged I understood these rights and was willing to take the risks for our country.

These were essentially our rules of engagement in the field as well. If the enemy had no uniform they were not soldiers and were considered terrorists. They had no rights. This did not mean we abused captured enemies, but it does mean we thought we had the support of our government to obtain all and any information that would protect our ‘troops’ and our country. And we did collect an enormous amount of intelligence.

FP: Can you name politicians who were aware of intelligence that was being obtained during interrogations?

Gaubatz: It would be easier to name the ones who were not concerned. In early 2003, Americans fighting in Iraq felt we had the support of all politicians, regardless of political affiliation. We had inquires from politicians of all levels about the intelligence we were collecting. These politicians had constituents who wanted answers on the war and I believe deserved answers. Our teams wrote hundreds of intelligence reports and we briefed many through other electronic means. One such person at the time was then Senator Joe Biden (now VP Biden). I still have my war notes taken from the field, and his name was written in my book on 7 June 2003.

Biden was aware of intelligence we were obtaining from the field, and never did anyone question our methods of obtaining the intelligence. We were professionals and collected intelligence using the best method one could when surrounded by enemies sometimes 6 to our 2.

FP: Can you provide some specific intelligence you were able to obtain during filed interviews and interrogations?

Gaubatz: Yes, it is time American intelligence officers begin bringing forth the truth of the realities of how our brave troops were treated during Operation Iraqi Freedom by the same people who are now being protected and soon to be released by President Obama and with the support VP Biden, who knew the truth about our soldiers being tortured.

Why will he not speak about it? Did Biden know Iranians were entering Iraq and providing sophisticated weapons to Islamic terrorists to kill our brave troops? I am not trying to single out Biden who knew what was going on, but to let the American people understand both Republicans and Democratic leaders were aware of the situation in Iraq.

We were being encouraged by both parties to obtain intelligence to protect our troops and country.

When we went to war in 2003, we were facing an enemy we were not prepared for, and still aren’t. The enemy was not simply the Army of Saddam, but the Islamic terrorists who were residing in Iraq well before 2003. Once we entered Iraq, the Iranians began entering southern Iraq and were paying Islamic suicide bombers to kill Americans. VP Biden and all key government leaders were provided reports of these acts.

Now I watch television daily and hear our liberal leaders whining about Islamic terrorists who may have been ‘slapped’, or put into a box with a caterpillar. None of these liberals were standing up for civilian intelligence officers in 2003 that were being deployed to Iraq with misleading identification and weapons.

When we went to war in 2003, we were facing an enemy we were not prepared for, and still aren’t. The enemy was not simply the Army of Saddam, but the Islamic terrorists who were residing in Iraq well before 2003. Once we entered Iraq, the Iranians began entering southern Iraq and were paying Islamic suicide bombers to kill Americans.

I mentioned in my first question, I had interrogated ‘Enemy Prisoners of War’ (EPWs) in the field during the war. One was the Director of the Red Crescent in Nasiriyah, Iraq.

Below is the reality of what our troops faced and the tortures they endured. We obtained intelligence during interrogations. We subsequently saved lives.

Below is a sampling of the results of the interrogations agents and I obtained: I have the documents, photographs, and contact information of Iraqis and U.S. personnel who were also aware. Anything I write or speak about can be verified. Simply ask VP Biden and our President to release the complete intelligence reports my team and I wrote in 2003.

1. When the members of the 507th were ambushed in Nasiriyah, Iraq, Private Jessica Lynch was initially taken to an Iraqi military base hospital in the Nasiriyah area (not the civilian hospital). Some of the other 507th were killed during the ambush, and others were captured and then murdered.

2. I visited the military hospital Private Lynch was held and it can be best described as 'filth'. Jessica suffered physically and psychologically at this military facility.
3. When our brave troops began bombing this Iraqi base, the Iraqis decided to move Private Lynch to the Nasiriyah civilian hospital. The leaders of the Baath Party were using the basement of the hospital and its many tunnels as sanctuary.
4. Jessica Lynch was drugged, tied up, and placed under the stretcher in a Red Crescent vehicle. The Director of the Red Crescent was a senior member of the Baath Party and was allowing the use of ambulances to transport weapons and Saddam supporters (military and Saddam's civilian Fedeyeen forces) throughout Iraq. Our U.S. military on the ground had been informed the 'Rules of Engagement' did not allow searching mosques, schools, or Red Crescent ambulances. U.S. military personnel died as a result of this.
5. A few days before Private Lynch was rescued, she was placed in Saddam’s civilian hospital.
6. The doctor of Jessica Lynch and a brave Iraqi lady was 'Hameeda'. She is the sister-in-law of my good friend Mohammed Odeh Al Rehaief. Mohammed is the Iraqi lawyer who had provided intelligence to U.S. forces which enabled Jessica to be rescued.
7. Jessica Lynch's hospital bed was located near a window overlooking a soccer field near the grounds of the hospital. She had been forced to watch as some of her team members were tortured, beheaded and buried.
8. One agent and I had interviewed the Saddam Hospital staff and determined the location of the dead Americans who had been killed during the 507th ambush.
9. The Director took us to a position on the soccer field and said the 507th members had been buried in front of the soccer goal posts, so the children would run over their graves while playing soccer. This was to dishonor our ‘troops’.
10. The Director informed us the 507th members had been beheaded and many had been dragged through the streets of Nasiriayh.
11. The night before Jessica Lynch was rescued; the Fedeyeen had threatened to take Jessica Lynch from her hospital bed, use a ‘Red Crescent vehicle, and go into the desert area outside of Nasiriyah. The Fedeyeen were going to bury Jessica alive in the vehicle. The doctor of Jessica was able to talk the Fedeyeen out of removing her this night. The next day our troops rescued her.
12. I wrote numerous intelligence reports pertaining to these tragedies and others. Senator Biden and many others were aware of the tortures our troops underwent, and the ‘interrogation results I and others had conducted on Enemy of Prisoners of War (EPW), and the results.

FP: Can you mention any other intelligence you were able to obtain during interrogations?

Gaubatz: I have hundreds of pages of personal notes, photographs, names, dates, locations, and yes, VP Biden was aware of intelligence we were obtaining from EPWs. He nor any politician ever asked how we were obtaining.

EPWs informed our teams of hidden weapons, the locations of Fedeyeeen forces, the locations and methods of ‘suicide bombers, and the Iranians who were entering southern Iraq to provide specialized weapons to insurgents, and paying Iraqis to conduct ‘suicide bombings against our troops’.

I still have the listing of insurgents, their locations, and the type weapons they had to use against our troops. These notes were written in Arabic, translated into English and then forwarded to all levels of our government.

Our troops knew in 2003 we were facing an ‘evil ideology’ of Islamic terrorists, many died, and many more will likely sacrifice their lives because we have politicians who care more for their careers than they do the security of our nation.

I am releasing several never before seen documents and photographs I obtained while working counter-intelligence/counter-intelligence in 2003. Why? Because the intelligence gathering abilities of our brave officers is being hampered, this translates into our country facing a national security threat from Islamic terrorists. This means our children will become their targets.

I believe it disturbs many Americans and the intelligence officers that now we have liberal Democrats in office who know the truth about the sufferings of our troops, and now stand up for the rights of Islamic terrorists who may have to be pushed around to save our troops. I will not be one responsible for their deaths and the sufferings their parents will go through simply because a politician wants to placate the liberals who care more for Islamic terrorists than they do for their neighbor’s son or daughter fighting for our country.

FP: Final words?

Gaubatz: I have never written or said anything I can’t substantiate under oath when required to do so. Will VP Biden, Pelosi or others do the same under oath? I believe it is time the American public demand they begin answering our questions; with their right hand raised, using a Bible, not the Quran. Thank you.


NY POST.com:

by Adam Brodsky


Now the Obama folks will hand out scores of new photos from investigations at US prisons in Iraq and Afghanistan.

They will be again, no doubt, by the hand-wringing and calls for prosecution over tactics described in the memos and whatever is in the new photos.

Consider those tactics: throwing cold water at prisoners, sleep deprivation, slamming them against walls and, of course, waterboarding -- pouring water on a cloth over the prisoner's nose and mouth for no more than 40 seconds.

Will the head-choppers and acid-bathers be deterred by this -- or entertained?

The New York Times describes one technique, "the facial hold," as "essentially what grandma does to a visiting grandchild who misbehaves -- with hands holding the sides of the head as questions are asked."

Huh? Were prisoners supposed to fear being kissed?

Indeed, the photos alone may set off more calls for legal action and inquiries. How high up the chain of command was such behavior condoned?

The left insists that we not stoop to our enemies' level, lest we become no better than them. But that's flawed moral logic. "Harsh" questioning is meant to save lives and protect freedoms; terrorists practice butchery to inflict pain, usurp power and drive innocents into submission.

America will never be in the same moral swamp as terrorists, no matter how "harsh" our interrogations, because our intent is to fight evil, not conduct it. And terrorists forfeit any claim to civilized treatment when they abandon it themselves.

Still, we nonsensically continue to regard them as morally equal. When pirates attacked the Maersk Alabama recently, the ship's crew struck a deal: It would release a pirate it had captured, and the pirates would hand back the ship's captain. The crew then carried out its half of the deal, releasing their prisoner. Guess what? The pirates reneged and kept the captain.

Well, duh. Pirates shouldn't be trusted or accorded the good faith shown others. Nor should terrorists. The Navy sharpshooters who killed three of the brigands displayed the more appropriate response.

Our new enemies require us to adopt new standards. But never for a moment should anyone think such changes compromise our moral standing.

Self-flagellation and restraint won't make us more noble. But they might just make us more . . . dead.


Wild Thing's comment.........

There are plenty of articles about how the terrorists have been treated, blogs that cater to the enemy, raise money to send to the enemy as Code Pink did with their check for some $600,000 they delivered to the al quada.Politicians with treason in their very souls siding against our troops by their comments and lies.

There is something that has embedded itself into these people that is so sick, so twisted I don't think anything can change their minds unless it was a lobotomy.

We hear them speak out big time with the help of the media how many have been killed in Iraq, and doing this with full knowledge that the numbers are mostly including the lives of the terrorists that have been killed. But instead of telling the truth they round them all up, terrorists and civilians one and all and throw that number around as FACT of how many lives our troops murdered... yes murdered. That is how they make it seem as they work their propaganda on the dummies watching on TV and nodding oh yessss aren't we just so horrible to kill all those civilians.

Screw That!

Now we are stuck with Obama as he does his unnecessary kind of diplomacy by kissing up to the leaders of Afghanistan and Pakistan as he tells them please I beg of you, we are so sorry to have killed your civilians and I promise to get to the bottom of who these killers in our military are. This coming from the CIC!

THAT is just not going to cut it with me. Don't mess with our military Hussein!

We have had beheadings, real not imagined torture, cutting up a body so badly it could only be identified by DNA and on and on done to our troops that were kidnapped. There was not one once of outrage about any of that, NONE from the media, nor the politicians.

Only from bloggers that care enough about our military to rant about these nightmares and insanity done to our troops.

This whole thing with the interrogation memos and now the photos to be released, all of it will back fire. I don't care if it backfires on Obama and his ilk it should. BUT what I am concerned about it that it will hurt our troops. They are the ones out there, they are the ones in danger. And they are the ones Obama is sticking a knife into their hearts and souls and morale.

Our troops are warriors, American Heroes all of them and they deserve better!!!

Posted by Wild Thing at 06:48 AM | Comments (11)

April 28, 2009

Shepard Smith vs. Actor Jack Nicholson on Torture

Shepard Smith of Fox News drops F bombs and battles with Jack Nicholson's Colonel Jessep character
from a movie called " A Few Good Men" on the subject of torture.

Wild Thing's comment........

LOL few can lay it on the line quite like a Jack Nicholson character.

Posted by Wild Thing at 05:50 AM | Comments (6)

Liz Cheney Speaks Up About Interrogration

Dick Cheney's Daughter, Liz Cheney, Defends Her Father's "Torture " Policies - Part 1

This is how you do it, by the way. You don’t let them define the agenda; you certainly don’t let them define the terms; you concede nothing (you can always agree, but you do not concede); you keep going back to a disputed point over and over again until they get tired of trying to sneak one past you; you never lose your cool; when you catch them trying a stupid tactic like read a headline and pretend that it’s established truth, you call them on it without a hint of self-consciousness; and in this case, you don’t accept the other side’s presumptuous bluff that they speak for the American people. Because they don’t.


In Part 2 she is asked about VP Dick Cheney saying about Obama being a weak president and how he does not stand up for our country.


Wild Thing's comment...........

Gosh I LOVE how she did this!!!!

Last Friday I posted one of these videos.

Holder Won't Selectively Release Terror Memos

I didn't know there were two parts and both are fantstic. Thank God for the Cheney family. Thank you so much Mark.

So here are both of them and well worth watching, Liz Cheney is AWESOME she totally dismantled the MSNBC hack Nora O'Donnell .

Elizabeth Cheney Perry is married to Philip Perry, the former General Counsel of the United States Department of Homeland Security.

....Thank you Mark for sending this to me.

3rd Mar.Div. 1st Battalion 9th Marine Regiment
1/9 Marines aka The Walking Dead
VN 66-67

Posted by Wild Thing at 05:48 AM | Comments (4)

April 27, 2009

John Podesta's Letter Pushing For Judge Jay Bybee To Resign


Podesta letter: Impeach Bybee


John Podesta, the head of a left-leaning think tank who ran the Obama transition team, is calling for the impeachment of Jay Bybee, a federal judge and former Bush administration official who wrote one of the “torture memos” made public last week.

In a letter to House Judiciary Committee Chair John Conyers (D-Mich.), Podesta says that since he has "issued opinions that violate the Constitution and concealed relevant aspects of his legal views and professional conduct from the Senate, Bybee has neither the legal nor moral authority to sit in judgment of others."

Podesta becomes one of the most prominent Democrats to push for Bybee’s impeachment. The former Clinton chief of staff runs the influential Center for American Progress, and is close to the Obama administration. Obama has left open the door to prosecutions of the authors of the memos that authorized harsh interrogation techniques, even as the president has tried to tamp down calls for a congressional commission to investigate the matter.

Conyers last week announced that he would hold hearings on the memo writers, that while some of the authors were engaged in honest analysis, others were law breakers. He did not specify names, but warned, "We're coming after these guys."

Dear Chairman Conyers,

I am writing to ask you to consider holding impeachment hearings against 9th Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Jay Bybee, should he decide not to voluntarily resign.

As you are well aware, Judge Bybee is the only architect of the Bush administration’s torture program to currently hold public office.

A legal memorandum signed by Judge Bybee when he was the head of the Office of Legal Counsel and recently released by the Obama administration approved the use of cruel, inhuman, and degrading techniques, including waterboarding, slamming a detainee into a wall, depriving a detainee of sleep for up to eleven days at a time, and trapping a prisoner in a "confinement box" with insects in order to induce terror. The techniques endorsed by Judge Bybee’s memoranda violated U.S. law and our commitments under the United Nations Convention Against Torture.

On March 13, 2003, Judge Bybee was confirmed by a 74-19 vote in the Senate. During his Senate hearings, Mr. Bybee stonewalled the Judiciary Committee when asked about his role in national security matters. He said at the time, “As an attorney at the Department of Justice, I am obliged to keep confidential the legal advice that I provide to others in the executive branch." A number of Senators have now acknowledged that, had they known then what they now know, Judge Bybee would not have been confirmed.

Jay Bybee currently sits on the U.S. Court of Appeals, one level removed from the U.S. Supreme Court. He has taken an oath to uphold the Constitution. Yet, having issued opinions that violate the Constitution and concealed relevant aspects of his legal views and professional conduct from the Senate, Bybee has neither the legal nor moral authority to sit in judgment of others.

My organization, the Center for American Progress Action Fund, has collected signatures from approximately 20,000 Americans (see attached) who have expressed their deep-felt and sincere desire to see that Judge Bybee is held to account for authorizing torture. It is unacceptable to allow him to continue to serve in his current role. Judge Bybee should resign, but if he fails to do so, I urge you to begin impeachment proceedings against him.

John Podesta


Wild Thing's comment........

Impeach Bybee? I say we give the man a promotion to the Supreme Court.

Speaking of the Constitution Podesta, what about Obama Mugabi's birth certificate?

George Soros he owner of the Democrat Party must have demanded this letter from his acolyte Podesta.

Posted by Wild Thing at 05:46 AM | Comments (5)

April 26, 2009

Witchhunt Democrats Call for Impeachment of Judge Bayee About Interrogation Tactics

Democrats Call for Impeachment of Judge Who Justified Interrogation Tactics

Jay Bybee, one of the lawyers who wrote the opinions justifying the Bush-era interrogation tactics, is now a federal judge in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Democrats want that to change.

FOX news

Some Democrats in Congress are having a tough time convincing President Obama, as well as their colleagues, to form an independent "truth" commission to probe the evolution of interrogation tactics under the Bush administration.

So lawmakers who oppose those techniques are looking for the next best thing -- the impeachment of one of the authors of the so-called "torture memos."

Jay Bybee, one of the lawyers who wrote the opinions justifying the tactics, is now a federal judge in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

That should change, some Democrats say.

"I think someone who writes a how-to memo on how to break the law should not be a federal judge," said Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y.
Democratic Sen. Patrick Leahy, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee that gave Bybee a thumbs-up before he was confirmed by the full Senate, argues there never would have been a vote if those memos had been in the record at the time.
"Neither the White House, the Bush administration nor Mr. Bybee gave us the full truth when his nomination was before the Senate," the Vermont senator said. "Had we been given the full truth about what he did, he never would have been confirmed by the Senate. I think both Republicans and Democrats would have voted him down."

Democrats are getting a lot of pressure from left-leaning groups who are after Bybee's hide.

But Republicans seem to be bracing for a fight. Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., thinks it would be wrong to judge those legal opinions without considering they were written shortly after the Sept. 11 attacks -- when the CIA was trying to track down other Al Qaeda threats against the country.
"I think Judge Bybee should be given a medal for what he did," King said. "But even if I disagreed with those memos, these were memos written in good faith. These are well-written, well-reasoned memos -- people may disagree with them, but he belongs on the bench, he should stay on the bench."
Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., is on record strongly opposing the techniques used by the CIA, but he thinks it would be wrong to go after Bybee now.
"These people gave their honest opinions even if they were wrong," he told FOX News. "So now we're supposed to investigate them and criminalize them because of their honest opinions? You know, if you went after every lawyer in America who gave bad advice, we'd have pretty crowded dockets."
President Obama on Tuesday opened the door for the possible prosecution of those lawyers who drafted the Department of Justice memos, by deferring to the attorney general on the matter.
Attorney General Eric Holder says only that he'll follow the law in examining the memos, and since Tuesday, Obama has seemed to back away from the calls on the left for a criminal probe.


EDITORIAL: Impeach Bybee? What a joke

Obama loathes torture opinion that saved American lives

Las Vegas Review Journal

The laws of war, as subscribed to by most civilized nations -- even if adherence can be spotty -- draw an important distinction between uniformed prisoners of war and irregulars who wear no recognizable uniform, the better to meld into the general populace of non-combatants in order to act as spies or saboteurs, blowing up military installations behind the lines.

Once uniformed prisoners are taken, the rules call for them to be treated in a humane manner. Not so plainclothes spies, partisans and irregulars. In part because their activities blur the line between the military and the civilian populace, leading inevitably to more civilian casualties, the rules of war allow such operatives to be summarily lined up against a wall and shot.

Into which category above do the al-Qaida operatives captured after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, fall? They are certainly not uniformed prisoners of war, with a right to expect treatment as such under the Geneva or Hague conventions.

These al-Qaida thugs conspire to murder innocent women and children, without the slightest pretext that these are merely "collateral casualties" in a campaign against commonly recognized military targets. To what country can such thugs be remanded for justice? They can be taken out and shot at any time. The laws of war raise no objection.

From 2001 to 2003, when he was appointed a federal judge, Jay Bybee was head of the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel. In that role, he was asked for a legal opinion as to what interrogation techniques could be used on al-Qaida captives, in the -- finally successful -- attempt to get them to reveal their additional terrorist plans.

Documents recently released by the Obama administration -- even though heavily redacted -- reveal those interrogations were successful. Real plans for real additional deadly attacks, including one in Los Angeles, were revealed. The attacks could thus be thwarted. American lives were spared.

Mr. Bybee, now a justice of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and a senior fellow at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas Boyd School of Law, read and interpreted the law, as requested. There is no reason to believe he did anything but interpret -- to the best of his legal training -- what the law said. He wrote that using on the al-Qaida prisoners such techniques as simulated drowning, sleep deprivation, cramped confinement in boxes and other tactics do not constitute torture under the law.

Now, President Obama says Judge Bybee could be impeached for writing that 2002 memo.

On Tuesday, Nevada Sen. John Ensign called that prospect "outrageous."
"To call for him to be impeached when he was trying to give the proper legal advice is just ridiculous," Sen. Ensign told the Review-Journal. "You impeach people for ethical violations, for criminal violations. It would be like impeaching a member of Congress because they voted the wrong way."
Sen. Ensign further said he agrees with Mr. Bybee's reasoning.
"This was not torture," Sen. Ensign said. "This is the thing we have to get away from, that this is somehow accepted that it was torture. The United States does not engage in torture. This was 'advanced interrogation techniques.' "

Is that an attempt to draw too fine a line? Well, lines must be drawn somewhere. Our guys refrained from hooking anyone up to an electric generator, or pulling teeth with pliers. We certainly didn't cut off any heads with dull and rusty swords -- a technique our enemies have proudly videotaped themselves practicing ... on non-combatant journalists and charity workers.

How gentle must we be to please Mr. Obama's core peacenik constituency? Should mass murderers be expected to spill their future plans after we put them up in the presidential suite at the Boston Four Seasons and allow them daily consultations with a public defender, all on the U.S. taxpayer dime?

More to the point, does Barack Obama really want to set a precedent that -- within 100 days of a new administration taking office -- officials of the past administration will be subject to trial and imprisonment based on tactics adopted in good faith to combat this nation's murderous enemies?

Where would such a precedent end? Republicans will return to power, eventually. Should they begin, today, writing up indictments for every Obama official who proposes sending troops to Afghanistan, or to combat the Somali pirates? For every member of the Obama administration who plans to violate his or her oath of office to exercise only those powers specifically delegated in the Constitution?


Wild Thing's comment.......

Democrats want to get rid of this conservative federal judge.

This is outrageous. Bybee was told to give his legal opinion on behalf of his client, the Federal Government. And he gave that opinion. He certainly didn’t participate in any of the interrogations. He merely stated that, based on his research, the law didn’t prohibit those tactics. One can agree or disagree with his conclusion, but that hardly constitutes grounds for impeachment, especially since he wasn’t even a Federal judge at the time he wrote his opinions.

"I think someone who writes a how-to memo on how to break the law should not be a federal judge," said Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y

Nadler is an idiot, there were no laws broken, nor was there instruction on how to break the law. What was done was entirely legal and above board.

Notice how the RATS always are out there b-itching and screaming when someone makes an adult decision to actually solve a problem.

These people ( Obama and the democrats) are dangerous. If someone has the audacity to disagree with the left he must be summarily destroyed. It used to be great to live in a free country.

I just heard John Mc Cain on Face the Nation and I wanted to barf. He continues to cite the Geneva Convention as a reason not to do what we did with some of the captured terrorists. When is he and some of the like minded pundits going to read the Geneva Conventions.The way I understand it and let me know if I am wrong, because I am no expert on this.

The treatment of POW’s under the conventions applies to uniformed soldiers of Nation States. It specifically excludes non uniformed personnel engaging in hostile acts on the battle field and implies that they may be treated as “spies”. The terrorists that we picked up are not covered by the Geneva Conventions and never have been. The way they treat our men if captured is to torture and kill them. This argument about Waterboarding as torture is madness.

Posted by Wild Thing at 11:55 AM | Comments (12)

April 24, 2009

Hussein Obama Administration To Release Bush-Era Detainee Photo's

U.S. to reveal alleged prison abuse photos

Defense Department officials worry that the Bush-era images will prompt a backlash in the Middle East.

Los Angeles Times

The Obama administration agreed late Thursday to release dozens of photographs depicting alleged abuse by U.S. personnel during the Bush administration of prisoners in Iraq and Afghanistan.

At least 44 pictures will be released on May 28 -- making public for the first time images of what the military investigated as abuse that took place at facilities other than the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.

Military helped with CIA interrogation tactics, report says Defense officials would not say exactly what is contained in the photos, but said they are concerned that the release could incite a backlash in the Middle East.

The photos are apparently not as shocking as the photographs from the Abu Ghraib investigation that became a lasting symbol of U.S. mistakes in Iraq. But some show military service members intimidating or threatening detainees by pointing weapons at them. Military officers have been court-martialed for threatening detainees at gunpoint.

"This will constitute visual proof that, unlike the Bush administration's claim, the abuse was not confined to Abu Ghraib and was not aberrational," said Amrit Singh, a lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union, which obtained the agreement as part of a long-running legal battle for documents related to Bush-era anti-terror policies.

Wild Thing's comment......

Barack HUSSEIN Obama! Finishing the job Osama bin Laden started!

Anytime Obama says he isn’t going to do something, what it really means is he IS going to do it, just under a different name.

Today he says no hearings on this, hours later he tries it in the court of public opinion by selectively releasing what he thinks will bring about the desired outcome. Anything to discredit Bush. It doesn’t matter if it hurts the country and our military.

Posted by Wild Thing at 07:50 AM | Comments (9)

Holder Won't Selectively Release Terror Memos

Dick Cheney's Daughter, Liz Cheney, explains Waterboarding isn't torture it is used in SERE training.


Attorney General Eric Holder told Congress on Thursday he won't play "hide and seek" with secret memos



Attorney General Eric Holder told Congress on Thursday he won't play "hide and seek" with secret memos about harsh interrogations of terror suspects and their effectiveness. In testimony before the House Appropriations Committee, Holder said he's willing to release as much information as possible about the interrogations.

"It is certainly the intention of this administration not to play hide and seek, or not to release certain things," said Holder. "It is not our intention to try to advance a political agenda or to try to hide things from the American people."

Republicans — including former Vice President Dick Cheney — have urged the Obama administration to release other, still-secret documents detailing what intelligence was gained from the controversial interrogation techniques.

"I think you have an obligation to release the rest of the memos," said Rep. Frank Wolf, R-Va.

Holder said he wasn't sure exactly which memos Cheney is referring to, because he hasn't seen them. The attorney general suggested such classified documents may exist at other agencies.

"I'm the attorney general and I don't control many of the memos you might be talking about," said Holder.

At Thursday's hearing, members of both parties asked Holder if he plans to seek charges against those officials.

"I will not permit the criminalization of policy differences. However, it is my responsibility as attorney general to enforce the law. It is my duty to enforce the law. If I see evidence of wrongdoing I will pursue it to the full extent of the law," Holder said.


HERE are the Memos that Obama insisted on being released

Cheney wants the rest added to it since Obama has deciided to do a ONE SIDE HATE FILLED INVESTIGATION.

A 18-page memo, dated August 1, 2002, from Jay Bybee, Assistant Attorney General, OLC, to John A. Rizzo, General Counsel CIA.

A 46-page memo, dated May 10, 2005, from Steven Bradbury, Acting Assistant Attorney General, OLC, to John A. Rizzo, General Counsel CIA.

A 20-page memo, dated May 10, 2005, from Steven Bradbury, Acting Assistant Attorney General, OLC, to John A. Rizzo, General Counsel CIA.

A 40-page memo, dated May 30, 2005, from Steven Bradbury, Acting Assistant Attorney General, OLC, to John A. Rizzo, General Counsel CIA.


Wild Thing's comment.......

"Holder said he wasn't sure exactly which memos Cheney is referring to..."

What a liar, he knows, they are the ones Cheney requested from the archives.

Holder wants to give the terrorists immunity, so that they will testify against American heroes! Holder is ALREADY “selectively” releasing documents and memos. Holder only releases what helps his political view.

Bush should have had Holder investigated for the Marc Rich pardon.

Posted by Wild Thing at 07:47 AM | Comments (8)

FOX News Shepherd Smith Gets Animated

Fox News's Shepard Smith got into a heated debate over interrogation techniques Wednesday with colleagues Trace Gallagher and Judge Andrew Napolitano.

Appearing on FNC's webcast "The Strategy Room," Smith took issue with America using any interrogation method that could be deemed as torture regardless of whether or not it gave results and saved lives.


Wild Thing's comment.........

What a cowardly wuss! Jeez!

I wish people would get this upset when our enemies do things that are really torture.I mean my God what some of our brave warriors have gone thru in captivity.

AUGH, I realize FOX news has to have some that are not conservatives ( sadly that is how it works apparently), but can’t they find one a little more masculine, with a few brain cells??? Shep has always been a bit unstable. he got into a fist fight with a chick over a parking space during the big Florida recount in 2000.

Posted by Wild Thing at 07:44 AM | Comments (12)

Rep. Pete Hoekstra Says Congress Knew About the Interrogations

Rep. Pete Hoekstra told Sean Hannity last night

The Washington Journal

Peter Hoekstra ( Mr. Hoekstra, a congressman from Michigan, is ranking Republican on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence)

Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair got it right last week when he noted how easy it is to condemn the enhanced interrogation program "on a bright sunny day in April 2009." Reactions to this former CIA program, which was used against senior al Qaeda suspects in 2002 and 2003, are demonstrating how little President Barack Obama and some Democratic members of Congress understand the dire threats to our nation.

George Tenet, who served as CIA director under Presidents George W. Bush and Bill Clinton, believes the enhanced interrogations program saved lives. He told CBS's "60 Minutes" in April 2007: "I know this program alone is worth more than the FBI, the Central Intelligence Agency and the National Security Agency put together have been able to tell us."

Last week, Director of National Intelligence Dennis C. Blair, made a similar statement in an internal memo to his staff when he wrote that "[h]igh value information came from interrogations in which those methods were used and provided a deeper understanding of the al Qa'ida organization that was attacking this country."

Yet last week Mr. Obama overruled the advice of his CIA director, Leon Panetta, and four prior CIA directors by releasing the details of the enhanced interrogation program. Former CIA director Michael Hayden has stated clearly that declassifying the memos will make it more difficult for the CIA to defend the nation.

It was not necessary to release details of the enhanced interrogation techniques, because members of Congress from both parties have been fully aware of them since the program began in 2002.

We believed it was something that had to be done in the aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attacks to keep our nation safe. After many long and contentious debates, Congress repeatedly approved and funded this program on a bipartisan basis in both Republican and Democratic Congresses.

Perhaps we need an investigation not of the enhanced interrogation program, but of what the Obama administration may be doing to endanger the security our nation has enjoyed because of interrogations and other antiterrorism measures implemented since Sept. 12, 2001.


Nancy Pelosi: CIA Briefing- I did not know they would use waterboarding

Both parties supported US interrogation program
More revelations concerning CIA destruction of torture tapes

by Joe Kay

According to a Washington Post article on Sunday, in 2002 four leading congressmen, including the current speaker of the House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi, Democrat from California, were “given a virtual tour of the CIA’s overseas detention sites and the harsh techniques interrogators had devised to try to make the prisoners talk.”
The Post reports: “Among the techniques described, said two officials present, was water-boarding, a practice that years later would be condemned as torture by Democrats and some Republicans on Capitol Hill. But on that day, no objections were raised. Instead, at least two lawmakers in the room asked the CIA to push harder, two US officials said.”
Sunday’s article in the Post notes that beginning in 2002, the CIA gave top officials in Congress at least 30 private briefings, “some of which included descriptions of [water-boarding] and other harsh interrogations methods.”

The meetings included the leaders from both parties of the Senate and House intelligence committees. To date, press reports have revealed the names of six legislators who were briefed on the CIA torture program in 2002-2003: Democratic representatives Jane Harman (California) and Pelosi, Democratic senators Bob Graham (Florida) and John D. (Jay) Rockefeller (West Virginia), Republican Representative Porter Goss (Florida) and Republican Senator Pat Roberts (Kansas). Goss was subsequently made head of the CIA and was serving in that post when the tapes were destroyed in 2005.

Pelosi declined to respond in the Post article, but a “congressional source familiar with Pelosi’s position” told the newspaper that Pelosi recalled discussion of the techniques, but said they were still in the planning stage at the time. The source “acknowledged that Pelosi did not raise objections at the time.”

According to a December 8 article in the New York Times, congressional leaders were informed of the existence of the videotapes in February 2003, and were also informed of the intention of the CIA to destroy them. Harman is now claiming that she urged the CIA not to destroy the tapes, but there was no attempt to inform the American people.

These revelations show that the Democratic Party leadership knew of the CIA’s torture program and approved of it. Only when the CIA program was leaked in 2005 did Democrats feel obliged to posture as opponents of these practices.

Wild Thing's comment.......

I like what Hoekstra says, but I also don't think they don't understand, it's that they just don't give a flying fig. This should be obvious in the denials of culpability that followed the attacks on 9/11.

This is going to get ugly, quickly. If they attempt to prosecute one person who did thier best to keep us safe, there is going to be an enormous backlash.

Posted by Wild Thing at 07:40 AM | Comments (8)

April 23, 2009

Obama Injects a Poison Into Politics

Presidential Poison

The Wall Street Journal

Mark down the date. Tuesday, April 21, 2009, is the moment that any chance of a new era of bipartisan respect in Washington ended. By inviting the prosecution of Bush officials for their antiterror legal advice, President Obama has injected a poison into our politics that he and the country will live to regret.

Policy disputes, often bitter, are the stuff of democratic politics. Elections settle those battles, at least for a time, and Mr. Obama's victory in November has given him the right to change policies on interrogations, Guantanamo, or anything on which he can muster enough support. But at least until now, the U.S. political system has avoided the spectacle of a new Administration prosecuting its predecessor for policy disagreements. This is what happens in Argentina, Malaysia or Peru, countries where the law is treated merely as an extension of political power.

If this analogy seems excessive, consider how Mr. Obama has framed the issue. He has absolved CIA operatives of any legal jeopardy, no doubt because his intelligence advisers told him how damaging that would be to CIA morale when Mr. Obama needs the agency to protect the country. But he has pointedly invited investigations against Republican legal advisers who offered their best advice at the request of CIA officials.

"Your intelligence indicates that there is currently a level of 'chatter' equal to that which preceded the September 11 attacks," wrote Assistant Attorney General Jay Bybee, in his August 1, 2002 memo. "In light of the information you believe [detainee Abu] Zubaydah has and the high level of threat you believe now exists, you wish to move the interrogations into what you have described as an 'increased pressure phase.'"

Within hours of Mr. Obama's Tuesday comments, Senator Carl Levin piled on with his own accusatory Intelligence Committee report. The demands for a "special counsel" at Justice and a Congressional show trial are louder than ever, and both Europe's left and the U.N. are signaling their desire to file their own charges against former U.S. officials.

Those officials won't be the only ones who suffer if all of this goes forward. Congress will face questions about what the Members knew and when, especially Nancy Pelosi when she was on the House Intelligence Committee in 2002. The Speaker now says she remembers hearing about waterboarding, though not that it would actually be used. Does anyone believe that? Porter Goss, her GOP counterpart at the time, says he knew exactly what he was hearing and that, if anything, Ms. Pelosi worried the CIA wasn't doing enough to stop another attack. By all means, put her under oath.

Mr. Obama may think he can soar above all of this, but he'll soon learn otherwise. The Beltway's political energy will focus more on the spectacle of revenge, and less on his agenda. The CIA will have its reputation smeared, and its agents second-guessing themselves. And if there is another terror attack against Americans, Mr. Obama will have set himself up for the argument that his campaign against the Bush policies is partly to blame.

By indulging his party's desire to criminalize policy advice, he has unleashed furies that will haunt his Presidency.


FOX news

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., said Wednesday that he prefers to have a bipartisan investigation of Bush-era interrogation policies but that separate congressional investigations will go forward, including his own committee's.

"I'm not one who feels we should turn the page if you haven't read the page," Leahy said.
Democrats on Wednesday defended the call for probes into the drafting and use of harsh interrogation techniques, a day after President Obama opened the door for potential prosecution of those lawyers who justified the tactics in legal memos.
"This isn't a partisan witch hunt," said Sen. Ted Kaufman, D-Del., who also is on the Judiciary Committee.
An aide to Leahy said the senator is talking to Republican colleagues behind the scenes to try to build support for an independent commission, something Obama now says he would support.

White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, though, suggested the Justice Department is the best entity to examine the issue.

"I think that the lawyers that are involved are plenty capable of determining whether any law has been broken," he said. "I want to stress that that determination is not going to be made by the president, or the vice president, or anybody that works in the White House, because that's why many, many, many, many moons ago we created a Department of Justice."


Leahy's un-American activities commission


Many of the same members who are so critical today remained silent when they were briefed about our counterterrorism efforts. In December 2007, The Washington Post reported that in 2002 four members of Congress were given a virtual tour of the CIA’s overseas detention sites and were briefed on interrogation techniques. The bipartisan group, which included Pelosi, was specifically briefed on waterboarding. None of the four complained, and one of them asked if the methods being used were tough enough.

The CIA gave key legislative overseers about 30 private briefings, including waterboarding and other interrogation techniques in 2002 and 2003. It is curious that lawmakers who were repeatedly briefed and raised no objections should subsequently criticize those very same policies. That the criticism came only when memories of the Sept. 11 attacks faded and public opinion shifted suggests a political motive. If that is the case, trying to prosecute those involved is the concomitant attempt to criminalize these political differences.

Democratic Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vt)- in a 1985 television appearance Leahy disclosed classified information that one of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak's telephone conversations had been intercepted. The information that Leahy revealed had been used in the operation to capture the Arab terrorists who had hijacked the Achille Lauro cruise ship and killed American citizens, and the Union-Tribune claimed that Leahy's indiscretion may have cost the life of at least one of the Egyptian operatives involved in that operation. Because of his several leaks he was forced to step down from his seat on the Senate Intelligence Committee. Today he is Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee.


Hillary Clinton Disses Cheney on Torture Memos

Rep. Rohrabacher questions Hillary.

"It won't surprise you that I don't consider him (Cheney) a particularly reliable source." said Hillary Clinton.


Soros-funded MoveOn.org launched a new ad asking Attorney General Eric Holder to investigate "torture" by Bush Administration officials.


Wild Thing's comment.........

Karl Rove said, and I’m paraphrasing: “This is what you see in Third World coutries run by colonels wearing mirrored sunglasses.”

Maybe Obama thinks he can just throw some red meat to his base, that they'll be satisfied, and then he can divert their attention with another issue before it gets serious, but he may have unleased something he can't stop. This will end up having a life on it's own, except for one thing.......B. Hussein Obama gave birth to this.

Obama is insane and controlled by Soros who is an i evil, hateful man ....hmmmmm actually they both are. Only Obama is not the one with the smarts. I really don't think Obama is that bright, I could be wrong just a feeling when I watch him speak. He is slow and gives way too much time to trying to figure out what he wants to say.

The hate and blame Bush game got so much mileage for Obama that he is never going to let it go.

Posted by Wild Thing at 07:47 AM | Comments (6)

April 22, 2009

Obama Will Not Rule Out Prosecuting Bush For Torture!

Obama spokesperson Robert Gibbs today said that the administration will not rule out prosecuting President Bush for torture.

Asked what changed after it seemed the President did not intend to prosecute Bush Administration Officials regarding GITMO interrogation techniques ... Gibbs......."no one is above the law."


Wild Thing's comment.......

Power can be a wonderful thing, a person with power can do a lot of good in the world. But it also works the other way too. The power Obama has been given is not a good thing, it is the worst thing that could ever happen to a person like Obama. He will use his power to hurt others, and destroy our country.
Even for the short time he has illegally held the office of president he will go down in history as the worst president this nation has ever had.

Posted by Wild Thing at 05:55 AM | Comments (24)

April 21, 2009

Obama on Torture Memo Release

Obama Open to Prosecutions Interrogation Abuses

April 21, 2009

Obama Open to Prosecution of Officials Who Cleared Interrogation Tactics

President Obama says it is up to the attorney general whether to prosecute Bush administration lawyers who wrote the memos approving harsh interrogation tactics.

FOX news

President Obama left open the door Tuesday for charges to be brought against Bush administration lawyers who justified harsh interrogation techniques, though he continued to argue that CIA agents who used those tactics should not be prosecuted.

The president showed wiggle room on the issue as he faces calls from Democratic lawmakers and organizations like the American Civil Liberties Union to support such charges. Asked about the possibility of prosecution related to the interrogation program, the president deferred to Attorney General Eric Holder.

"With respect to those who formulate those legal decisions, I would say that that is going to be more of a decision for the attorney general within the parameters of various laws," Obama said. "And I don't want to prejudge that. ... There are a host of very complicated issues involved there."

It was the first time Obama took a question on the matter since his administration released a string of previously classified memos detailing harsh interrogation tactics used against terror suspects. At the time, Obama said agents who followed Department of Justice advice would not be prosecuted.

He reiterated that point Tuesday. "For those who carried out some of these operations within the four corners of legal opinions or guidance that had been provided from the White House, I do not think it's appropriate for them to be prosecuted," he said.

But while he also repeated his view that investigations into Bush officials could get politicized, he indicated for the first time an openness to such a course provided it is carried out in a "bipartisan fashion."

The attorneys who authored the memos, and who are the subject of an internal Justice Department ethics inquiry, are John Yoo, Jay Bybee and Steven Bradbury.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, wrote a letter to Obama Monday asking him to reserve comment on the issue while her panel completes its review of detainee interrogations. She estimated the study would be completed in six to eight months.

MoveOn is also seeking 200,000 signatures for a petition to Holder urging him to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate the interrogations.

One source familiar with the matter told FOX News that, if appointed, a prosecutor would most likely be limited to pursuing "aiding and abetting" charges against the lawyers who wrote the memos.
"If (Justice attorneys) go after them, that's all they can get them on because they didn't torture but they facilitated the torture," the source said, adding that prosecutors first have to prove a criminal act of torture was committed.
"But if I were these people, I would still get a very good lawyer," the source said.

Wild Thing's comment........

Here it comes - the start of a two or three year criminal investigation into all things Bush.Sheesh! This is an extremely treacherous road that Obama is traveling. Exposing national intelligence does not seem like something a president has ever done.

If Hussein tries to prosecute members of our armed forces OMG, please God don't let that happen.

Just as our operatives in the CIA have been intimidated by the inexcusable threats of the Obama administration, subsequently withdrawn, to prosecute CIA operatives, so now everyone who sets his hand to put pen to paper to render a legal opinion or simply a policy memorandum will hesitate to touch the pen to paper.

The liberals always loved to talk about the "chilling effect" upon free speech of a policy they do not like. Now they have become masters of the art. The Democrats have always tended to criminalize policy differences. Now Obama has one more tool to keep his administration under control.

There is literally nothing this man has done in office which is incongruent with a radical Marxist seeking due aggrandize personal power and irretrievably break our democracy.

President Bush could easily have had Bill Clinton investigated for so many things. All those ' gates" that went on during the Clinton era and dead bodies as well. But he didn't and he said the reason why he moved on about it was because he did not want to show disrespect for the actual office of the President. Not so much the person at all, but the office the person holds. (not exact quote, only how I remember it)

I think the idea was that if a President is taken down, kicked out of office etc. it needs to be done during their presidency not afterward as it takes on another life one that destroys a country in keeping it constantly at in a battle of legal wars for years. And while they are in office there is more of an urgency to get things done as soon as possible. I could be wrong about this.

Hussein's “...it does no good to revisit the crimes of the past; we must move forward,” stuff he was spouting on his Apology and Appeasement Tour obviously only applied to the his fellow anti-America, anti-USA, socialist, communist buddies that are leaders of other countries.

Posted by Wild Thing at 06:40 PM | Comments (4)

Vice President Dick Cheney Formally Asks CIA to Release Torture Memos

Sean Hannity interviewed Cheney on his show last night

Cheney Calls For More CIA Reports To Be Declassified


In a two part interview airing tonight and tomorrow night on FOX News Channel’s Hannity (9-10PM ET), Vice President Dick Cheney shared his thoughts on the CIA memos that were recently declassified and also revealed his request to the CIA to declassify additional memos that confirm the success of the Bush administration’s interrogation tactics:

They discussed the interrogation techniques used during the Bush years. Cheney was disturbed that the Obama Administration released techniques that were used but not the memos that showed the success of the efforts.


“One of the things that I find a little bit disturbing about this recent disclosure is they put out the legal memos, the memos that the CIA got from the Office of Legal Counsel, but they didn't put out the memos that showed the success of the effort. And there are reports that show specifically what we gained as a result of this activity. They have not been declassified.”
“I formally asked that they be declassified now. I haven't announced this up until now, I haven't talked about it, but I know specifically of reports that I read, that I saw that lay out what we learned through the interrogation process and what the consequences were for the country.”
“And I've now formally asked the CIA to take steps to declassify those memos so we can lay them out there and the American people have a chance to see what we obtained and what we learned and how good the intelligence was, as well as to see this debate over the legal opinions.”

And also this.....................


Vice President Dick Cheney told Fox News Channel’s Sean Hannity that President Obama’s handshake with Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez “was not helpful” and could lead “foes” of the U.S. to “think they’re dealing with a weak president.”
“I find disturbing is the extent to which he has gone to Europe, for example, and seemed to apologize profusely in Europe, and then to Mexico, and apologize there, and so forth,” Cheney told Hannity.
“And I think you have to be very careful. The world outside there, both our friends and our foes, will be quick to take advantage of a situation if they think they’re dealing with a weak president or one who is not going to stand up and aggressively defend America’s interests.”


Wild Thing's comment.........

Obama and his releasing memos to make us look bad but not releasing the rest of it that shows how it worked out for the good and what needed to be done is rock solid pure EVIL and that is just what B. Hussein Obama is....EVIIL and he truly hates America and our military.

God bless Dick Cheney, I LOVE how he is fighting back!!!!!! Cheney is one guy you DO NOT want to play hardball with! I love how he pops up out of nowhere. He isn't an attention WHORE like Obama and gang and he only speaks to the media `when it is relevant.

Obama’s definition of transparancy: “We will only tell you the side of the story that makes us look good”

Posted by Wild Thing at 04:55 AM | Comments (16)

April 18, 2009

Obama's Release of Memo's is Most Dangerous Thing a Pres. Has Ever Done in War Time

Obama attacked on all sides over release of terror memos

President Barack Obama was attacked from all sides on Friday over his decision to declassify four memos detailing harsh CIA interrogation methods approved by the George W Bush administration for use against terror suspects.

Telegraph co.uk

By Alex Spillius

President Barack Obama was attacked from all sides on Friday over his decision to declassify four memos detailing harsh CIA interrogation methods approved by the George W Bush administration for use against terror suspects.

Former senior Bush officials criticised the president for giving away secrets to terrorists, and claimed that the tactics had worked.

Meanwhile, human rights groups took issue with Mr Obama's declaration – issued alongside the memos – that agents who had used methods regarded as torture would not be prosecuted.

Amnesty International said: "The US Department of Justice appears to have offered a get-out-of-jail-free card to people involved in torture."
It added: "Torture is never acceptable and those who conduct I should not escape justice."

The American Civil Liberties Union, which brought the freedom of information lawsuit in California that left the administration feeling it had no choice but to disclose the memos, wrote an open letter to Eric Holder, the Attorney General.

It demanded he appointed an independent prosecutor "to investigate who knew about and authorised the Bush administration's torture policies" and bring prosecutions if warranted.
Reaction in the Middle East suggested that Mr Obama's effort to build bridges with the Muslim world in the wake of Mr Bush's "war on terror" and conflict in Iraq would be adversely affected.
The Egyptian Organisation for Human Rights in Cairo said the decision would encourage other nations to let abuses pass.
"Obama told us he will hold to account the people who committed a crime or a human rights violation," he said. "So this is a wrong signal to the perpetrators of human rights – especially Third World countries."

Wild Thing's comment........

This imo is TREASON. Release of these top secret memos for political gain is an act of treason. Americans need to think for one minute as to who gains from the release of these documents: America’s enemies and Barrack Obama.

Hussein just beheaded intelligence gathering and it will be many many years before it can be trusted again.

ELINT (Electronic Intelligence Teams ) is our only hope for a long time, and we understand that it does have some limitations that has. That will probably be Obama’s next target.

And giving the enemy information on how they will be interrogated gives them a better chance to withstand it. thus, 0bama has given aid and comfort to the enemies of the US. The best ‘torture’ device you have, while you are being nice, is the victims own paranoia on how bad you’re going to be.

Posted by Wild Thing at 03:26 PM | Comments (8)

April 17, 2009

Obama Seeking to Destroy Our National Security Releases CIA Interrogation Techniques

So let's start here...............

Obama consulted widely on memos


White House senior adviser David Axelrod says President Barack Obama spent about a month pondering whether to release Bush-era memos about CIA interrogation techniques, and considered it “a weighty decision.”

“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.”

The president consulted officials from the Justice Department, the CIA, the director of National Intelligence and the Homeland Security Department, according to his adviser.

“It was a weighty decision,” Axelrod said. “As with so many issues, there are competing points of view that flow from very genuine interests and concerns that are to be respected. And then the president has to synthesize all of it and make a decision that’s in the broad national interest. He’s been thinking about this for four weeks, really.”

A former top official in the administration of President George W. Bush called the publication of the memos “unbelievable.”

“It's damaging because these are techniques that work, and by Obama's action today, we are telling the terrorists what they are,” the official said. “We have laid it all out for our enemies. This is totally unnecessary. … Publicizing the techniques does grave damage to our national security by ensuring they can never be used again — even in a ticking-time- bomb scenario where thousands or even millions of American lives are at stake."

“I don't believe Obama would intentionally endanger the nation, so it must be that he thinks either

1. the previous administration, including the CIA professionals who have defended this program, is lying about its importance and effectiveness, or

2. he believes we are no longer really at war and no longer face the kind of grave threat to our national security this program has protected against.”

Obama did not act on an arbitrary timeline. There was a deadline in a court case with the ACLU on Thursday. It had been extended, but the ACLU was not going to agree to another.

Georgetown Says It Covered Over Name of Jesus to Comply With White House Request


Wild Thing's comment.......

Obama consulted widely on memos BUT hen he sided with the terrorist!!!!

"I don't believe Obama would intentionally endanger the nation"

Excuse me sorry you are dead wrong. Traitor in Chief WOULD intentionally endanger our country AND our military that is what this is all about.

Note the deadline Traitor in Chief allowed to enter in with his decision. He wanted to make sure he did it FOR the ACLU. And aren't they a lovely bunch of commie cocoa nuts.

This Muslim president is a disaster. God help us!! He’ll reveal national secrets, but not his own secrets. This man is a menace to free society.

The idiot is peeing in his own pants thinking he is sprinkling on W’s boots. Class shows, as does the total lack of it, and Obama has none.

This Marxist Muslim Kenyan is a foreign and domestic enemy!!

And David Axelrod is a filthy Communist and lackey.


Obama released a memo today that described US interrogation methods approved for use on Al-Qaeda terrorist Abu Zubaydah.

Bush-era interrogations: From waterboarding to forced nudity....( link for complete article)

The memos were made public by the Justice Department with assurances from President Barack Obama that the intelligence officials who followed their guidance won't be prosecuted. However, the president's assurances don't apply to the former administration officials who crafted the legal justification for the interrogation program.

CIA Director Leon Panetta told agency employees in a memo Thursday that despite Obama's assurances, "This is not the end of the road on these issues," and agency officials should expect more pressure from the Congress , the public and the courts to release more information.
Panetta said: "The fact remains that CIA's detention and interrogation effort was authorized and approved by our government. For that reason, as I have continued to make clear, I will strongly oppose any effort to investigate or punish those who followed the guidance of the Department of Justice ." Panetta also said the CIA would provide legal representation to any officers investigated for their actions.
Jameel Jaffer , the director of the American Civil Liberties Union's national security project, said he thought the Obama administration left open the possibility of prosecutions.
"There's a remarkable amount of detail in the memos that makes clear that people at the very top of the Bush administration knew exactly what was going on," he said. "President Obama doesn't say anything about the architects of the program. To the extent that it offers anything like immunity, it offers immunity only to CIA interrogators who relied in good faith on legal advice."


CIA interrogation tactics: a terrifying ordeal


Justice Department documents, which the Obama administration simultaneously released and repudiated Thursday, describe the process from darkness to waterboarding in skin-crawling detail.

Prisoners were naked, shackled and hooded to start their interrogation sessions. When the CIA interrogator removed the hood, the questioning began. Whenever the prisoner resisted, the documents outlined a series of techniques the CIA could use to bring him back in line:

Nudity, sleep deprivation and dietary restrictions kept prisoners compliant and reminded them they had no control over their basic needs. Clothes and food could be used as rewards for cooperation.

Slapping prisoners on the face or abdomen was allowed. So was grabbing them forcefully by the collar or slamming them into a false wall, a technique called "walling" that had a goal of fear more than pain.

Water hoses were used to douse the prisoners for minutes at a time. The hoses were turned on and off as the interrogation continued.

Prisoners were put into one of three in "stress positions," such as sitting on the floor with legs out straight and arms raised in the air to cause discomfort.

At night, the detainees were shackled, standing naked or wearing a diaper. The length of sleep deprivation varied by prisoner but was authorized for up to 180 hours, or 7 1/2 days. Interrogation sessions ranged from 30 minutes to several hours and could be repeated as necessary and as approved by psychological and medical teams.

Some of these techniques, such as stripping a detainee naked, depriving him of sleep and putting a hood over his head, are prohibited under the U.S. Army Field Manual. But in 2002, the Justice Department authorized CIA interrogators to step up the pressure even further on suspected terrorist Abu Zubaydah.

Justice Department lawyers said the CIA could place Zubaydah in a cramped confinement box. Because Zubaydah appeared afraid of insects, they also authorized interrogators to place him in a box and fill it box with caterpillars (that tactic ultimately was not used).

"We find that the use of the waterboard constitutes a threat of imminent death," Justice Department attorneys wrote. "From the vantage point of any reasonable person undergoing this procedure in such circumstances, he would feel as if he is drowning at the very moment of the procedure due to the uncontrollable physiological sensation he is experiencing."

But attorneys decided that waterboarding caused "no pain or actual harm whatsoever" and so did not meet the "severe pain and suffering" standard to be considered torture.

Ex-CIA Chief Criticizes Release of Interrogation Memos

FOX news

Former CIA Director Michael Hayden says release of the memos will give terrorists a precise guide for what to expect in a CIA interrogation if those methods are ever approved for use again.
Michael Hayden, who led the CIA under George W. Bush, said CIA officers will now be more timid and allies will be more reluctant to share sensitive intelligence.
"If you want an intelligence service to work for you, they always work on the edge. That's just where they work," Hayden said. Now, he argued, foreign partners will be less likely to cooperate with the CIA because the release shows they "can't keep anything secret."
Hayden told The Associated Press the release will give terrorists a precise guide for what to expect in a CIA interrogation if those methods are ever approved for use again.

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.

Terror plots that were disrupted, the memos say, include the alleged effort by Jose Padilla to detonate a "dirty bomb" spreading nuclear radiation.

Last month, former Vice President Dick Cheney said that Obama's decisions to revoke Bush-era terrorist detainee policies will "raise the risk to the American people of another attack."


Wild Thing's comment.......

There's nothing to what they were getting authorization to do that even REMOTELY approached torture.

“Among the 10 techniques approved for use on Mr. Zubaydah was one tailored to his fear of insects. Mr. Zubaydah would be placed in a box with an insect, according to a partially redacted section in one memo. Mr. Zubaydah would be told it was a stinging insect, but it would actually be a harmless, such as a caterpillar, according to the memo.”

Wow ....... Caterpillar torture. How low can they get?

“that they won’t be prosecuted by the Justice Department.”

That caveat is what worries me. It says they won’t be prosecuted by the Justice dept, but once they give the names to the private prosecutors, watch out!

What a sleaze Obama is!

This has just destroyed our national security. Our intelligence gathering will be destroyed for years and years over this because intelligence demands complete secrecy not only about what we know, but about how we know it. From now on all of our allies and even some of our enemies who give us Intel on mutual enemies will no longer trust us. If we can’t keep our own secrets then how in the hell our we going to keep theirs? Even the former Soviet Union passed us intelligence when it benefited them, do you think the Russians , the British, and even Iran who passed on Intel about the Taliban will ever tells us anything again? They will be to afraid that Obama will use it to score political points and any leaked intelligence reveals how we got it. This is a sad day for America and Obama has just removed our most effective line of defense.

This was no election - it was phase one of a coup.


....Thank you Mark for sending this to me.

3rd Mar.Div. 1st Battalion 9th Marine Regiment
1/9 Marines aka The Walking Dead
VN 66-67

Posted by Wild Thing at 06:50 AM | Comments (15)

April 16, 2009

Obama Might Release Details of CIA's Interrogation Methods on Terrorists

FOX news

By Brit Hume

The Wall Street Journal, reports that President Obama is considering the release of CIA memos revealing in detail the interrogation techniques used in questioning terror suspects in the desperate days and months after 9/11.

The president's decision will tell us much about him. It is no secret that U.S. intelligence agents subjected key captives to rough treatment to extract information. Senior intelligence officials have said that the information obtained was some of the best they got and was vital to preventing further attacks. But the methods were harsh, to include the simulated drowning known as water boarding, and even the controlled banging of a suspect's head against a wall.

Some, including Senator John McCain, consider this stuff torture and the techniques are no longer in use. There is strong support for releasing the details from the left and with some in the administration including Attorney General Eric Holder.

But Mr. Obama is reported having doubts. Top intelligence officials argue that release of these details can only harm their work and their reputations. He may be wondering if it's good idea to inform terrorists precisely what treatment they will or will not face if captured. Maybe he's even looked up the 1947 law that created the CIA, which repeatedly mentions the responsibility of the intelligence agency and its leaders to protect two things: the sources and methods of their work.

Wild Thing's comment.........

Making enemies in the CIA? Bad career move, Barry/Hussein/ "Soutpiel puppet with a teleprompter"....not my president Obama.

Gosh oh golly I hope we don’t find out they did anything that was “really bad" You know like showing them a Playboy Magazine, or playing Winnie the Pooh shows with God forbid Piglet in them.

If Obama does this he will ONLY be kissing up to the terrorists and giving the middle finger to our side, to our country and to our troops and yep the CIA as well.

......Thank you RAC for sending this to me.

RAC has a website that is awesome. 336th Assault Helicopter Company

13th Combat Aviation Battalion - 1st Aviation Brigade - Soc Trang, Republic of Vietnam

Posted by Wild Thing at 07:55 AM | Comments (6)