May 2nd 2009

Enhanced Justification For Enhanced Techniques

O

btaining intelligence from jihadist operatives is not about getting revenge for 9/11, it’s about wanting to protect the next one.  But still, when you listen to this tape, you may well find that the desire for revenge is just as high as the desire to keep the jihadists from our door.

A horror beyond the ability of mere words to capture, isn’t it?  Those the Rahmbamites would prosecute for trying to stop the next attack were all well aware that avoiding this sort of abomination was at the heart of their mission.  That their methods were so comparatively mild is a testament to the honor and goodness of America.

 

Share

No Comments yet »

January 14th 2009

A Welcome Accusation Of Torture

B

ob Woodward is on the anti-torture express, writing today about the case of Mohammed al-Qahtani, who, we are reminded way down in paragraph six, hoped to be the 20th highjacker, but his dreams of martyrdom were foiled when he was denied entry into the U.S. a month before the 9/11 attack.  He was later captured trying again to kill Americans, this time in Afghanistan.

As such, the Saudi national may have had important information about how the 9/11 plot was put together, who was involved, how the logistics were handled, and how financial payments were received. In other words, the information he was holding needed very much to become un-held.

To get that information, agents used nothing but legal methods: sustained isolation, sleep deprivation, nudity and prolonged exposure to cold. But, Woodward reports, Susan J. Crawford, the convening authority of military commissions, has found Qahtani’s treatment meets the legal definition of torture.

Her problem is not the methods, but the duration of the methods:

Crawford, 61, said the combination of the interrogation techniques, their duration and the impact on Qahtani’s health led to her conclusion. “The techniques they used were all authorized, but the manner in which they applied them was overly aggressive and too persistent. …

“For 160 days his only contact was with the interrogators,” said Crawford, who personally reviewed Qahtani’s interrogation records and other military documents. “Forty-eight of 54 consecutive days of 18-to-20-hour interrogations. Standing naked in front of a female agent. Subject to strip searches. And insults to his mother and sister.”

At one point he was threatened with a military working dog named Zeus, according to a military report. Qahtani “was forced to wear a woman’s bra and had a thong placed on his head during the course of his interrogation” and “was told that his mother and sister were whores.” With a leash tied to his chains, he was led around the room “and forced to perform a series of dog tricks,” the report shows.

That’s it? That’s humiliation, and it might constitute torture for a pimply, chubby seventh grader, but not for the likes of Qahtani.  As for Crawford’s biggest grouse, that this led to physical danger for the man who wanted to cause thousands of Americans to suffer mortal physical danger, there’s this:

… Qahtani had to be hospitalized twice at Guantanamo with bradycardia, a condition in which the heart rate falls below 60 beats a minute and which in extreme cases can lead to heart failure and death. At one point Qahtani’s heart rate dropped to 35 beats per minute, the record shows.

In other words, his health was carefully monitored, and when his heart rate slowed, he was hospitalized and treated.  That sounds like a carefully managed, intense interrogation, not torture.

As they say in the world of dealing with bloodthirsty, damned, America-hating, 7th century Islamist pigs, bring it on.  This is a case that should never have been brought but now it should be heard because our agents have to have clear direction – and, hopefully, courts will be wiser than Crawford and will allow the methods used on Qahtani.

Share

1 Comment »

September 17th 2008

Obama: 9/11 Is Our Fault

This morning, I posted this quote from Obama:

“This isn’t 9/11. We know how we got into this mess. What we need now is leadership that gets us out. I’ll provide it. John McCain won’t.”

My focus was on his recommendations for dealing with the economic crisis.  Wrong focus. What should have jumped out was:

“This isn’t 9/11.  We know how we got into this mess.”

Of all the windows Obama has given us into the darkness of his soul and the radicalism of his politics, this is the floor-to-ceiling, wall-to-wall one.  Here is a nominee campaigning hard to be the leader of the free world telling us we don’t know how we got into the mess of 9/11.

Where should I throw up first?  Let’s start with the worst:  We know how we got into the financial melt-down mess, but we don’t know how we got into the 9/11 mess. Obama may not be sure what exactly it was we did – troops in Saudi Arabia, support of Israel, not kneeling and bowing toward Mecca a few times a day – but it was something we did that drove al-Qaeda to fly our airliners into our buldings.

Obama has done a good job of playing the centrist Democrat and not parroting the words of the radicals who pin the blame for 9/11 on us, but in this statement he is showing he’s a comrade in arms with the Bill Ayres set.

Next, the don’t know phrase.  Is Obama ignoring the 9/11 Commission findings?  Is he cozying up with the 9/11 Truthers Wackos?  Most of us know exactly what happened:  Radical Islamists attacked us as an act of war, an act of jihad.

And finally, all 9/11 is in Obama’s eyes is a mess.  You don’t justify wars over messes.  You don’t launch a long-term engagement with the Islamist enemy over a mess.  You don’t support democracy as an alternative to Islamism in order to avoid future messes.  I have never heard a serious elected official state so profound a minimization of what occured on 9/11 since today.  I thought it was bad enough to call it a “tragedy” instead of an “attack,” but “mess” is an insult of an entirely different, and more obscene, level.

This is why Obama is glued to his teleprompter.  When he talks for himself, he says things like “This isn’t 9/11.  We know how we got into this mess,” and let us see that inside that empty suit is the screaming heart of an anti-American radical.

Share

11 Comments »

July 5th 2008

WTC #7 Building Collapse Mystery Solved?

O

ne of my good friends is an entirely reasonable man except that he’s a 9/11 Truther Nutcase. It seems oxymoronic, but it’s true – there’s no other wackiness about him at all. And one of his favorite arguments revolves around the failure thus far to come up with a reasonable explanation of why building #7 at the WTC complex fell.

It didn’t just fall, it fell perfectly, like the towers did, the upper floors collapsing in a mimicking of scenes of the destruction of Vegas hotels by planned demolition. My friend is therefore convinced it was all part of the big conspiracy – especially since the CIA’s New York offices were in #7.

(Why exactly the CIA would want to destroy its offices if it was behind the conspiracy is a bit nutty to me, but what do I know about how the minds of people who would knowingly kill thousands of their fellow citizens work?)

So now there’s a solution being proffered. I would load the BBC video if I could, but that part of WordPress still mystifies me, so here’s the link.

The cause, the clip says, is fire. The building couldn’t have fallen by controlled demolition because skyscraper design, unlike midrise tower design, precludes it.

I find this plausible because the Truthers Nutcases fail to understand the difference between the melting temperature of steel, which they claim can’t be reached with burning jet fuel, and the temperature at which it loses its tensile strength, which is much lower and can be.

Of course, #7 wasn’t hit by an airliner, so there was no jet fuel. But the BBC clip points out that there were subway systems and electrical substations beneath the building, and that an intense fire was raging there as part of the entire 9/11 catastrophe.

Will it convince my friend and his fellow travelers? I doubt it. You can stack facts up against conspiracies forever, and they still endure.

Share

5 Comments »

With Obama winning the presidency by seven percent, we can't blame the media. Their laudatory coverage and refusal to extensively probe into Obama's background and [lack of] experience was at best responsible for five percent of his vote, the pundits tell us. Here is a compilation of over 100 significant instances of pro-Obama/anti-McCain bias during the 2008 campaign.

For all 'Media Bias 2008' – Click Here