Change you can believe in… I guess
by AlexinCT
Oh what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive! Well, this isn’t the first time at all. It is more likely one huge whopper in a campaign of untruths and another in the ample and ever growing chain of rampant displays of liberal stupidity. I am serious, how low can these people go? Read the tortured language in that Steven R. Hurst and Devlin Barrett AP piece, and tell me if you just don’t end up feeling like they offered the proof against their obvious premise as proof of their premise.
WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama has moved more forcefully than ever to abandon Bush administration interrogation policies, approving creation of a special White House unit for questioning terrorism suspects, as Attorney General Eric Holder weighs a Justice Department recommendation to reopen and pursue prisoner abuse cases.
A senior administration official told The Associated Press Monday that Obama has approved establishment of the new unit, to be known as the High-Value Detainee Interrogation Group, which will be overseen by the Naitonal Security Council. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because the program has not yet been officially announced.
Aside from the fact that these AP reporters seem to be unable to spell “National” correctly – go figure that – this convoluted logic leaves my brain hurting. So Obama is “forcefully abandoning” Bush administration interrogation policies by, you know, taking them to the next level and actually creating a special unit to question the terrorists. WTF? Are these people just shameless? How would they have reported this story if evil Bush’s people had come up with such a “special unit”? Dumb question, I know, because the answer is right in the article:
Obama campaigned vigorously against President George W. Bush’s interrogation policies in his successful run for the presidency. He has said more recently he didn’t particularly favor prosecuting Bush administration officials in connection with instances of prisoner abuse. But the issue now before Holder for consideration would have the new administration do precisely that: reopen several such cases with an eye toward possible criminal prosecution.
What was done under Bush was criminal. Obama expanding what was done under Bush is not just great - he is abandoning the Bush policies don’t you know – but grounds to, and proof that, we now should hold politically motivated persecution circuses against the people that stopped other terrorists attacks against us after 9-11! Again: WTF? In the mean time, real criminals – democrats in our congress – get passes from the MSM propagandists.
I am all for this administration to go after the CIA people for abuse! No, really. They can then also take the full and complete blame when nobody in the CIA, or for that matter anywhere, including this special unit, decides that they will not take any risks, whether told to do so by law or not, because of partisan democrats playing like they have morals for pure political gain. I am often left wondering why these democrats and their liberal base only have an attack of “morals” when said morals hurt either US interests, Americans in general, the opposition party in particular, or preferably, all three. Seriously, what do these libtards think this special unit’s purpose and role will be?
The structure of the new unit the White House is creating would depart significantly from such work under the previous administration, when the CIA had the lead and sometimes exclusive role in questioning al-Qaida suspects.
So what’s the difference between the CIA interrogating the terrorists and the members of the new unit interrogating them? Are they, because they are part of this new unit, above the same laws that the democrats are now rewriting so they can score cheap political points against the other side? Or are they going to be just another bunch of ineffective unionized bureaucrats the WH plans to blame when the next attack, almost guaranteed to happen with these morons in charge, happens? I certainly want to know.
One thing is certain. These moonbats are twisting themselves into pretzels to throw red meat out to their demented zombie followers. They are not even concerned about the obvious disconnects and illogic in their poorly constructed narrative which seems to be twisting the underlying facts to allow them to have it both ways. I wonder how these democrats are going to keep operating when the effectiveness of their propaganda outlets keeps getting eroded. Sane people have to be turning away from them and looking elsewhere for the truth as the MSM sets a new record at destroying whatever shred of credibility they might have left, as they continue to shill for these democrats.
Cross posted at Wasting time with Alex.
UPDATE: Looks like the Obama people did not think their distraction campaign through, because the CIA people are not playing along. Panetta is a kool-aid drinker. A hard core lib. And he is balking at this freak show because now that he is the one in charge at the CIA, he has to deal with the mess being made. He knows that destroying the CIA’s ability to operate for political purposes will hurt, and especially hurt him as the big boss. I guess the ideologues and idiots at the WH are so desperate to get back to Bush bashing, that they are willing to risk our lives. Nothing new there, they did it when they were in the minority for some 7 years. Just surprised to see them keep it up when they will be blamed. Maybe they think they can still blame Bush for the next attack? Who knows. At this point it is obvious, again, that they have no clue what they are doing. Amatuer hour gone wild.
UPDATE2: The why of Panetta’s anger. Let me point out the obvious paragraph:
…I make no judgments on the accuracy of the 2004 IG report or the various views expressed about it. Nor am I eager to enter the debate, already politicized, over the ultimate utility of the Agency’s past detention and interrogation effort. But this much is clear: The CIA obtained intelligence from high-value detainees when inside information on al-Qa’ida was in short supply. Whether this was the only way to obtain that information will remain a legitimate area of dispute, with Americans holding a range of views on the methods used. The CIA requested and received legal guidance and referred allegations of abuse to the Department of Justice. President Obama has established new policies for interrogation.
The interrogation techniques used worked. And it produced valuable and actionable intel. Even Panetta, whom had been on of those voices that had worked as hard as possible to “politicize” this whole affair before he was put in charge of the CIA, sees the danger in carrying on with this crap. The WH should ask Pelosi how well her pissing contest against the CIA - based on lies on her part - worked out for her. Now the WH is using politics to distract from a failed healthcare takeover.
Obama has painted himself in a corner. Healthcare is probably one of the least toxic issues left for him to deal with, and supposedly the hallmark of the left’s ideology. He can’t put it on the back burner and come back to it later, because if he does so then congress has to address such toxic and killer issues as the “Cap & Tax” bill, illegal immigration and the naturalization of some 12 to 20 million illegals, card check, and the tax issue. None of these items will have positive results on the Obama presidency. So he will try to distract from healthcare with this whole interrogation scheme, while not allowing congress to move past healthcare. In short we have bread & circuses for the forseeable future.
Comments
My reading of this is that the Obama administration is setting up this new unit to ensure that previous abuses are not repeated.
You seem to allude (and contradict yourself) to this in the second half of your post saying that operatives may feel shackled by new rules.
It’s one or the other - this administration is continuing or expanding the prior administration’s tactics - reneging on stump promises - or they are hamstringing interrogators. You’re trying to claim both at the same time.
Your posts seem to slide into some sort of prescient speculation on a fairly regular basis. You tell us what the libs are saying they are going to do - then you inform us what they really mean. I thought clairvoyance was something that was poo pooed by the Ayn Rand crowd?
Aren’t there enough real differences between the sides of the aisle to make a point without unfounded conjecture?
Kudos though, on getting through a post without using the word collectivist.
I’ll wait for more details to come out about this before I pass judgement - but on the face of it it seems like Obama has answered your question of “well exactly what do you do with these people?”
Really? Then please wax philosophical and educate me sir. Because I seem not to get it at all.
It sounds to me that what is happening is that a specific group is being set up with specific rules as to how to prosecute and process these people. It seems like it is going to operate under the Army Field Manual, and I assume the DTA and MCA.
You mean like what happened under Bush? Oh wait, I get it! Because this specific group now is called a “special unit”, is supposed to report to the WH, mayhap Obama himself, and there will be “new” rules – my guess is they will be identical or even broader than the old rules they now want to prosecute people for – this is sort of a different kind of the same.
Where, pray tell britishcress, do you think the people that will end up comprising this new special unit come from? And what kind of work do you think they will be doing? I mean the underlying and fundamental job they have – to collect vital and timely intelligence that will help us prevent attacks – does not change, does it? In the end they will be doing the same as those before them, unless they do not want to succeed.
My reading of this is that the Obama administration is setting up this new unit to ensure that previous abuses are not repeated.
Riiiiggght! Abuses! Got it. Don’t leave any doubt about your stupidity. Remember that when these people in that special unit always come up short or end up doing just the same stuff that was done under Bush. Except then it will not be abuses.
You seem to allude (and contradict yourself) to this in the second half of your post saying that operatives may feel shackled by new rules.
No sally, I did not allude. I pointed out that there is intelligence gathering, and then there is PC-based waste of time. Each will have consequences. Right now the motivation is to divert attention from the horrible failure of the Obama healthcare takeover with this moonbat red meat sh*t. In the end my bet is that these “new rules” will be the same old rules. They will have to be if the Obama people want results.
It’s one or the other - this administration is continuing or expanding the prior administration’s tactics - reneging on stump promises - or they are hamstringing interrogators. You’re trying to claim both at the same time.
No, sally. I am claiming they are saying one thing out of one side of their mouth, but will be doing the same things, behind the curtain. This crap is all smoke & mirrors. Big time lies. Bullcrap. I know Obama is a true believer, but he is not stupid. At least I really hope he is not. He can not afford the consequences of another attack after his WH basically does something like this.
Your posts seem to slide into some sort of prescient speculation on a fairly regular basis.
Your responses make it clear I am hitting home, a sore spot with you.
You tell us what the libs are saying they are going to do - then you inform us what they really mean.
If they were not so comfortable lying constantly this would be unnecessary.
I thought clairvoyance was something that was poo pooed by the Ayn Rand crowd?
Oh, how you hurt my feeeeelings! Because, you know, it can’t be the fact that this constant campaign of lying – saying one thing then doing or meaning another - is SOP (standard operating procedure) on the left….
Aren’t there enough real differences between the sides of the aisle to make a point without unfounded conjecture?
Aren’t you libs tired of having to defend the indefensible?
Kudos though, on getting through a post without using the word collectivist.
If the shoe fits…
my guess is they will be identical or even broader
Your guess?
In the end they will be doing the same as those before them,
Another assumption
that special unit always come up short or end up doing just the same stuff that was done under Bush.
Conjecture
In the end my bet is that these “new rules” will be the same old rules.
Another presunption.
I am claiming they are saying one thing out of one side of their mouth, but will be doing the same things, behind the curtain.
At least you admit it here.
Your responses make it clear I am hitting home, a sore spot with you.
I don’t see how. Is this another case where your just typing something makes it true?
I’m on deadline today - so I might not reply again - I’m not ignoring or hiding - just working.
Your guess?
Yeah, my guess. You might not have a clue about this sort of business but I do. Check out my update to the post. The kids playing at ruler just managed to set off another bomb. Panetta is going balistic. The Obamanites are about to get a rude lesson in why you do not f*ck around with the intelligence people. Ask Pelosi how much it smarts.
Another assumption
How about we make a deal sally. When I am proven wrong you can rub it in. When I am proven right you can apologize (won’t hold my breath).
Conjecture
Based on the record for the last 9 months? But again: don’t let facts, truth, or logic get in the way of your need to defend the indefensible.
Another presunption.
See my comment for your conjecture posting above.
At least you admit it here.
But am I wrong? Based on the track record and what they have done so far. One word: Pelosi.
I don’t see how. Is this another case where your just typing something makes it true?
Let me ask this again: How often have I been wrong so far sally? I am not claiming to be infallible, but I have been dead on about the inept people in charge, their constant lying, and their craven agenda. You might feel obligated to defend them, and might even feel dirty doing it, but you know I am right. It’s obvious to me.
I’m on deadline today - so I might not reply again - I’m not ignoring or hiding - just working.
Feel free to come back at your convenience. This is going to be one heck of a fun thing to watch play out, considering how it is already going all wrong for the WH.
What Sally said
This is it in microcosm though Alex - my post said that i was going to wait for the details about the HVDI before I decided what my thoughts on it would be.
I dunno, is that unreasonable to wait for the details before making a decision?
Or is it better just to scream and wail about what you think it might be like, just because you don’t like the guy in the White House?
If this turns out to be a pile of turd, I will say so. If it turns out to be a genius idea, then I shall say so. But I’m not going to make partisan judgments based on what I am ‘guessing’ is going to happen.
I dunno, is that unreasonable to wait for the details before making a decision?
Usually not, britishcress. Fair enough. However, I do feel obligated to point out that have a problem with how democrats seem to always wait for the details of a decision when it hurts their cause to do otherwise, but are first in line to not wait at all when they can use it against the other side. As I already said: if I am wrong down the line have at me. I am not worried much.
Or is it better just to scream and wail about what you think it might be like, just because you don’t like the guy in the White House?
Actually britishcress, this is a personal issue for me. I admit I don’t like the guy in the WH, but my take on this has nothing to do with that. In fact, while I give the guy in the WH hell for saying one thing and doing another, I so far think he has done what is right to perform his duty of protecting us from another attack. And not just because it vindicates Bush doing it back when, and proves the left was willing to put our lives in danger for political gain.
The WH is doing what it is doing now to distract people from the healthcare debacle. But there are serious consequences when you politicize intelligence gathering. I hold no illusion that the objection to these interrogations is politically motivated. This is not about justice. Like with the Plame affair, this has moved beyond justice or even fixing a wrong, and is now about “getting” someone so they can infer criminal behavior by Bush. Obama can’t let them go after Bush himself because that will create a situation where he might face the same from the other side for whatever reason. No president is dumb enough to allow that.
But the frightening thing that nobody seems to address is that if any and all of the people involved with or doing this work, figure that even following the law of the times is not good enough to protect them from some politically motivated bastard throwing them under the bus down the line, then the system breaks down. That is going to have consequences.
If this turns out to be a pile of turd, I will say so. If it turns out to be a genius idea, then I shall say so. But I’m not going to make partisan judgments based on what I am ‘guessing’ is going to happen.
Guess you have not been paying close attention to how this stuff has played out for the last few months then? If pointing out the fact that what we have under Obama is more of the same we had under Bush, except now the same stuff is repackaged and we get told it is different, is making a partisan judgment, then I am guilty and proud of it.
On a slightly unrelated topic, I’ve been comparing Obama to Carter from day one. After doing a fair amount of reading this weekend, I think we can also safely compare Obama to Woodrow Wilson. The similarities are astounding: both are lifetime academics with no actual experience in the real world and hard core “progressives” (communists) that have assumed that the world is aligned with their thinking when only other academics are.
Also, both are complete ignorant buffoons when it comes to economics, and idealistic to a dangerous extreme when it comes to foreign relations.
Or is it better just to scream and wail about what you think it might be like, just because you don’t like the guy in the White House?
No, the point here is that the Democrats have been doing this for 8 years and are now suspiciously quiet about Obama doing the same thing or expanding the scope of what Bush had done.
If this turns out to be a pile of turd, I will say so. If it turns out to be a genius idea, then I shall say so. But I’m not going to make partisan judgments based on what I am ‘guessing’ is going to happen.
That’s not the issue here, though. We’re at a near-consensus level here about it being quite turdly to do the interrogations as they were done under Bush (and Clinton). What Alex appears to have been saying is that we’re now getting obvious expansions of Bush-era policies under Obama which are getting no objections from most of the Left that was quite noisy when Bush was in charge.
Your comments above show even more partisan-bias in that it appears that you’ll accept these policies and give them a chance for now because you trust Obama’s judgment. Don’t forget that there were plenty of conservatives who vocally opposed Bush in this during his term.
Or is it better just to scream and wail about what you think it might be like, just because you don’t like the guy in the White House?
Why, exactly, is it better to assume that it must be A Good Thing and that we can all sit back and relax now, just because you do like the guy in the White House?
Alex - you’re all over the map here buddy. But it seems to be working.
You’ve got Rann and InsipiD believing that what is being proposed is the continuation of Bush era interrogation tactics. Gentlemen – Alex has already admitted that his whole post (up to the disjointed updates) is entirely based on conjecture.
As for these updates:
Update #1 – You seem to assert that it proves that the CIA is not playing along with the formation of the FBI interrogation unit that is being floated when in fact the brouhaha is over an independent federal prosecutor opening cases investigating the use of torture.
Obama is already on the record as to saying he would prefer to move on. Now I can see the validity of bringing up the Dems screwing with the CIA in another post or even the harm potentially pitting the two intelligence agencies against each other could do – but the way you’re lumping this stuff together it’s more like throw everything against the wall – hopefully something will stick.
Update #2 – Seems we have completely left the realm of the initial post re: the FBI interrogation unit now. Here’s a tip – when you’re cherry picking quotes you should leave off the one that refutes your argument.
Whether this was the only way to obtain that information will remain a legitimate area of dispute, with Americans holding a range of views on the methods used. The CIA requested and received legal guidance and referred allegations of abuse to the Department of Justice.
What started as a post about a new FBI unit could easily swing into one of the interminable torture debates now. Is this your intent?
Oh but look – we can relate this to the original post:
President Obama has established new policies for interrogation.
This completes your circle. First you tell us how Obama is going to continue the practices of the former regime and then you provide a quote from the head of the CIA saying that different policies have been established.
Is the CIA in a pile of shit?
Probably
Are things a mess?
No Doubt.
But does your post make sense?
Barely.
You’ve got three or four loosely connected ideas that could warrant some deeper thought – but your ham handed handling of them creates a mire that makes it really hard to guess what you’re really trying to say other than these guys over here are really really bad.
No, the point here is that the Democrats have been doing this for 8 years and are now suspiciously quiet about Obama doing the same thing or expanding the scope of what Bush had done.
No, the point here is that Alex thinks that it is going to be expanding the scope of what Bush has done – before the details have come out.
Your comments above show even more partisan-bias in that it appears that you’ll accept these policies and give them a chance for now because you trust Obama’s judgment.
What part of “wait for the details before making a decision” don’t you understand? Please point me to the bit where I said I will accept these policies. Either that, or admit that you lied.
Why, exactly, is it better to assume that it must be A Good Thing and that we can all sit back and relax now, just because you do like the guy in the White House?
Rann – please point out where I said it was a good thing….I’ll give you a hint – I didn’t and you are lying. Thanks for playing though.
Alex – thanks for the considered post – but I still ask you to wait for the details before you make absolute statements. Yes you can make predictions of what you think is going to happen, but that’s all they are. Jumping onto a talking point before the details have been released just ends up making you look like a tool. For more information see ‘death panels’.
However, I do feel obligated to point out that have a problem with how democrats seem to always wait for the details of a decision when it hurts their cause to do otherwise, but are first in line to not wait at all when they can use it against the other side
Okay – I can go with that – but does that mean that you guys do too? I thought you claimed to be the rational ones who lived in the ‘real world’?
Now I’m going to find out the details about the actual policy so I can make a judgement.
Rann – please point out where I said it was a good thing….I’ll give you a hint – I didn’t and you are lying.
First off: Fuck you.
Second off: You’re pulling a Moore. “Well I never specifically said it’s a GOOD thing!” while fighting Alex tooth and nail over qualifying it as a bad thing. Either denying it’s a bad thing or claiming we need to wait and see are both stances which assume a certain level of this being benign. You’re either arguing that this is a good thing, or that there’s not enough chance of it being a bad thing until we’ve lived under it for a couple of years.
Third off: Fuck you.
Fourth off: So basically, your response to pointing out of a large dose of hypocrisy inherent in your position is to go “Nyah nyah well you probably do it too plus you’re not rational!” Riiiight.
Fifth off: Fuck your family.
Sixth off: Oh now you’re going to go find out the details, after you’ve already slammed Alex over it and declared him a reactionary fearmongering nutball. No doubt should you find that there are implications that this will expand Bush’s policies on the subject, you will come back and admit to such, rendering a full apology to everyone you’ve insulted over it.
Seventh off: Fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuck yoooooooooou.
Um… who is pulling a Moore here?
You didn’t SAY it was a good thing, but it’s what you meant!
Again, I’d love you to point out where I said it was a good thing.
Either denying it’s a bad thing or claiming we need to wait and see are both stances which assume a certain level of this being benign.
You’re either arguing that this is a good thing, or that there’s not enough chance of it being a bad thing until we’ve lived under it for a couple of years.
There is a third option. Waiting to hear all the details, and then making a reasoned judgement as to whether it is a good thing or not.
Which is why I wrote:
I’ll wait for more details to come out about this before I pass judgement
The details hadn’t been announced yet. They were to be released the next day. All we knew is the name, and who would be in charge.
Jeez – even Alex, who I think you’ll agree disagrees with me on pretty much everything said “fair enough”. At least he had the intellectual honesty to say that his position was based assumptions he is making. Assumptions with experience to back them up, but assumptions nonetheless. He may well turn out to be right – all I stated was that I was going to find out more about it before I jumped to any conclusions.
But apparently now, actually finding out stuff means I’m some sort of Obama schill.
No doubt should you find that there are implications that this will expand Bush’s policies on the subject, you will come back and admit to such, rendering a full apology to everyone you’ve insulted over it.
Again – if you read what I wrote above, you’ll get an answer to the question
If this turns out to be a pile of turd, I will say so
Blimey, it’s like you don’t actually read stuff before you comment on it...oh, wait. nevermind.
Oh, and fuck you back.
Alex - you’re all over the map here buddy. But it seems to be working.
The words of someone that can’t admit their argument is falling apart.
You’ve got Rann and InsipiD believing that what is being proposed is the continuation of Bush era interrogation tactics.
Actually it is beyond the continuation of the Bush era policy. They are now setting up a secret unit that won’t be part of the CIA and thus will very likely avoid any need of having to face congress. It’s as unconstitutional as the whole Czar thing. All I have to do to prove this is bad is ask libs to honestly and truthfully - I know not possible - answer how they would have reacted if this was being done by Bush.
Gentlemen – Alex has already admitted that his whole post (up to the disjointed updates) is entirely based on conjecture.
No sally. Please stop lying. You have been the one trying to make that case. Unsuccessfully I might add. Let me type slowly so it sinks in: I pointed out, repeatedly, and will do so again, that my post is based on the actual facts and track record of what this administration said it would do before the election, what it then said it would do after the election, and what it actually did. based on that stuff, I am dead on where this is going.
Obama is already on the record as to saying he would prefer to move on.
Another case of Obama saying one thing but doing another. Makes my case for me. Have no doubt that this is again in the news because the WH is in desperate need of a distraction as their entire collectivist government take over agenda is on the verge of implosion.
Now I can see the validity of bringing up the Dems screwing with the CIA in another post or even the harm potentially pitting the two intelligence agencies against each other could do – but the way you’re lumping this stuff together it’s more like throw everything against the wall – hopefully something will stick.
Oh, the irony! Not that I am doing anything but laughing hard at this desperate attempt to provide cover for this WH disaster in the making sally, but do you even feel even a little dirty of accusing me of this stuff - as if it now was a bad thing - after some 8 years of democrats playing just this game?
Here is how these stories tie up together sally: the WH is looking for cover and a distraction, in the hopes it buys them time to reverse the slide into oblivion. This interrogation thing is coming up now, again, for that reason. Obama literally creates a new unit that will likely circumvent congressional oversight. The claim is made that it is different from the Bush years. Hope & change! Then we get the head of the CIA, a moonbat himself blowing his top off when the WH again goes back on their previous agreement to let sleeping dogs lie. Panetta knows this is a lose-lose thing for everyone, and he is making it clear.
Update #2 – Seems we have completely left the realm of the initial post re: the FBI interrogation unit now. Here’s a tip – when you’re cherry picking quotes you should leave off the one that refutes your argument.
Whether this was the only way to obtain that information will remain a legitimate area of dispute, with Americans holding a range of views on the methods used. The CIA requested and received legal guidance and referred allegations of abuse to the Department of Justice.
What started as a post about a new FBI unit could easily swing into one of the interminable torture debates now. Is this your intent?
Abso-freaking-lutely. The entire premise on which this supposed unit was created is based on manufactured and ridiculous accusations of torture. Waterboarding is a joke. Ask real torturers if they would ever admit to waterboarding. For people that infatuated with the ideology and beliefs of such greats as Stalin, Castro, Mao, and Pol Pot, you liberals should know better. Heck, Che Guevara, the left’s model icon, was a mass murdering butcher that tortured for sport. One would expect leftists to at least know real torture when they see it after that
What we have here is a case of craven politically motivated persecution because of ideological differences: its payback time. That’s my point.
Oh but look – we can relate this to the original post:
President Obama has established new policies for interrogation.
This completes your circle. First you tell us how Obama is going to continue the practices of the former regime and then you provide a quote from the head of the CIA saying that different policies have been established.
I guess you really need to hammer this obvious lie home to make your weak argument huh? What part of ”Its more of the same masquerading as something new and good” is so hard to get?
Is the CIA in a pile of shit?
ProbablyAre things a mess?
No Doubt.But does your post make sense?
Barely.
Weak. Q.E.D.
You’ve got three or four loosely connected ideas that could warrant some deeper thought – but your ham handed handling of them creates a mire that makes it really hard to guess what you’re really trying to say other than these guys over here are really really bad.
Sounds to me that you are the one that is desperate to prevent people from connecting the dots sally.
No, the point here is that Alex thinks that it is going to be expanding the scope of what Bush has done – before the details have come out.
Sorry dude, but that people are actually trying to defend Obama doing this just proves that this never was about anything but craven partisan politics. Even giving him a temporary reprieve, to gather facts, is a courtesy you can admit would never have been extended to Bush.
So let me get to the point since you seem to have missed it. Obama is now claiming that he is creating a new interrogation unit outside of the existing system. A new team that likely avoids congressional oversight by being out of the usual chain of command isn’t an expansion? You do see that the executive has just expanded their power here right britishcress? Again: how would the left be reacting if this had been done by Bush.
Oh wait! I got it. The left only wants to focus on the waterboarding because they can use that to demonize Bush. If Obama’s guys are not waterboarding, then it is nothing like the Bush interrogations! Because, you know, waterboarding was SOP and done to everyone, and the left needs it to be torture so they can say Bush=Hitler! Obama on the other hand is a saint, not to mention a fellow ideologue, so when he does it, it is hope & change!
There is no disconnect here as sally is trying so hard to pretend, and there is definitely something being done that expands the executive’s power in a way beyond Bush’s wildest dreams, here britishcress. Just because Obama has been one of the moonbats saying that waterboarding is torture – a lie – and wrong – who knows – doesn’t mean that when he does things like this he is not taking it beyond what Bush did.
What part of ”Its more of the same masquerading as something new and good” is so hard to get?
Here’s the deal Alex – the first time it is reported that interrogators under the auspices of the Obama administration have:
• Water boarded
• electrified genitals
• threaten rape
• performed mock executions
• threaten the lives of family
• or used power tools
on a detainee I will gladly admit your Amazing Kreskin abilities
Until then you’re just blowing smoke attempting to prove a trend based on unrelated actions. I could just as easily contend that because you underestimated some of your income on your taxes you also must cheat on your wife since both are dishonest actions.
Even giving him a temporary reprieve, to gather facts, is a courtesy you can admit would never have been extended to Bush.
Seriously? We can’t wait a day to find out more than the name of the organisation?
A new team that likely avoids congressional oversight by being out of the usual chain of command isn’t an expansion?
Absolutely, but lets find out if that it, in fact, the case, before we comment on it. Else we might just as well say:
A new team that likely is run by a secret clandestine organisation called the illuminati in order to keep the secret that Jesus had a child.
Seriously, I’m not arguing with you here Alex. You seem to think that by waiting to find out what Obama is actually proposing (doing) I am somehow defending him?
I can’t put this any more plainly. Gathering all the facts before you debate something is a GOOD thing to do! I can’t beleive people are on the other side of this…
Here’s the deal Alex – the first time it is reported that interrogators under the auspices of the Obama administration have:
• Water boarded
• electrified genitals
• threaten rape
• performed mock executions
• threaten the lives of family
• or used power toolson a detainee I will gladly admit your Amazing Kreskin abilities
As I predicted, you don’t let me down sally. The only reason the left had problems with interrogation teams during the Bush years is some manufactured politically motivated pap – that list above – it seems. As I already pointed out, for people that love the ideology of the world’s worst mass murderers and torturers, you lefties sure have gone soft since Bush was in office. Obama clearly does something that’s both a massive expansion of the executive’s power, obviates congressional oversight, and literally creates another “team” of people beholden to him, and all you can come back with is that carp above to defend it? I am getting to you, and badly too, am I not?
Besides, with no congressional oversight, a complicit media that has already proven they will lie for Obama and democrats, and these people only reporting to him, how will you know if any of these things do happen. Just to clarify however, with the exception of 3 cases of water boarding in total – 2 of them on Kalid Sheik Mohammed – all the other things were faked. Oh, and you forgot to mentions such horrible tortures as sleep depravation, loud music, and MSNBC shilling for Obama 24/7. Maybe you didn’t considering they are still happening with Obama in charge.
Until then you’re just blowing smoke attempting to prove a trend based on unrelated actions. I could just as easily contend that because you underestimated some of your income on your taxes you also must cheat on your wife since both are dishonest actions.
Moving the goal posts, and ignoring the facts. Got it, sally. If Bush had but promised not to do any of the above, then the left would have felt fine with the creation of a clandestine unit that reports and acts on presidential orders only.
Keep it up though, sally. Pretty please. With every post you make my case for me even more.
Seriously? We can’t wait a day to find out more than the name of the organisation?
Call me crazy for not caring about whatever clever name they can come up with for a new team that circumvents the existing checks & balances and congressional oversight, or anything else britishcress. I will say this again: if Bush had done this they would have called for his impeachment.
Absolutely, but lets find out if that it, in fact, the case, before we comment on it. Else we might just as well say:
Sure, I am quite certain that with the current Obama owned media focused on helping him save healthcare we will get such facts. Tell you what, I already have seen people point out that this is an extension of presidential power and that this team now circumvents the need for any kind of congressional accountability. Was not one of the usual MSM outlets though.
Seriously, I’m not arguing with you here Alex. You seem to think that by waiting to find out what Obama is actually proposing (doing) I am somehow defending him?
No, I am not britishcress. I am pointing out that the call that we need to be “waiting for details” is quite a turnaround from how this news would have been received if say someone else (Boosh!) had made it. It would right now be front page news, across the globe, that Bush was again trying to circumvent congress and usurp more power to his office. There would be calls for impeachment, not for details. The usual suspects in the media are treating Obama’s announcement of a team that reports directly to him and not to any of our intelligence agencies – CIA, FBI, and so forth - like a good idea! A new direction! WTF?
I can’t put this any more plainly. Gathering all the facts before you debate something is a GOOD thing to do! I can’t beleive people are on the other side of this…
If someone hands you an obvious shit sandwich do you take a few bites and let him tell you it is a gourmet sandwich to confirm it is not, or do you slap him down and rub it in his face?
I was under the impression that as a blogger, someone who tries to be taken seriously in reporting and commenting on the news, you might want to have all the facts before you make wild judgements. Nevermind then…
I am pointing out that the call that we need to be “waiting for details” is quite a turnaround from how this news would have been received if say someone else (Boosh!) had made it
No you’re not. You’re doing exactly what you accuse teh BDS sufferers of doing...not waiting for the details and just going off at the deep end.
Okay, lets actually look at the thing:
It comes directly from the recommendations of the Special task Force on interrogations and Transfer Policies, which includes the Director of national intelligence, The Attorney General, The Secretary of Defence, The Secretary of Homeland Security, the director of the CIA, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff – so not exactly Obama schills then.
They concluded that the ‘rules of engagement’ around interrogation should use the Army field Manual as its basis – after consulting with lots of intelligence officials and representatives of the armed forces. This includes sleep deprivation as a legitimate tactic. A clear set of rules is excellent, because it means if they are broken, we can go after those that broke them, rather than relying on clever lawyers to tell us if people were acting wrongly.
It might also help with the whole ‘we do not torture’ thing. I think this is a good thing.
It also recommended that an ‘elite agency’ should be formed from across agencies, with the specific task of interrogating terrorism suspects
Now they advised that the HIG should be ‘administratively housed’ within the FBI, but oversight by the NSA, which obviously sits within the DoD...hmmm....I think the director was appointed by Bush, and this guys is a serious soldier and intelligence man – but his boss is still obama...which doesn’t sound ideal in keeping politics out of the process. It reports to the head of the NSA, but how politicised is his position (and even if it currently isn’t how politicised could it become?)
The Whitehouse has assured that it is going to keep out of the process, ‘it is not going to be involved in any tactical decisions’. – great – but how do we actually know that?
They clarify later that “because the White House will not have any involvement, congressional oversight will be strong.” But this all sounds a little too vague for me.
So, in summary – The Good.
I like the fact that the ‘rules’ have been defined, and personally, that the rules have been defined as the ones in the UCMJ – much more in line with the Geneva Conventions et al. (We can debate torture if you like, but we did it for about 3 months last year, and I’m going with the recommendations of the experts on this one)
The bad.
Administratively housed within the FBI isn’t good. The language and assurances around oversight aren’t strong enough for me. I’d like to hear more about how this is going to work in practice, but overall it sounds a little like there is too much executive power residing in here. Who watches the watchmen and all that. At the moment all there seems to be is talk of a ‘case by case analysis’. Again, not sure how this is going to work in practice. Not at all comfortable with that.
I’m afraid I don’t really know enough to comment on the moving of the unit from CIA to FBI hands...it certainly will make a shift in the intelligence gathering community, and it will be interesting to hear what the CIA have to say about this going forward. The WH is saying at the moment the CIA didn’t want to house the HIG – but I’d expect some ruffled feathers and we’ll hear some more…
No you’re not. You’re doing exactly what you accuse teh BDS sufferers of doing...not waiting for the details and just going off at the deep end.
Except the BDS infected people usually had nothing to stand on and were often making stuff up whole cloth, britishcress. In this case I already pointed out it is based on what has been going on. If you need me to, let me know, and I will be glad to put together a post detailing Obama’s promises & comments on this subject both before the election and after the election, as well as what he actually did.
I am here again making fun of Obama because he is expanding what Bush did to a new level while the media spins that this is a new direction, and an improvement. As I told leftists long before Obama was elected: I expect the next president, especially if he is a democrat, to male Bush look like a genius, and vindicate him on the GWoT, while the reaction and behavior from the left when that happens will prove their problems with Bush to be shallow and politically motivated. Obama has done exactly that. The media and the reactions from the left to this, the umpteenth of these Obama expansions of Bush policy that drove the left nuts otherwise, prove the other part of my prediction.
They concluded that the ‘rules of engagement’ around interrogation should use the Army field Manual as its basis – after consulting with lots of intelligence officials and representatives of the armed forces. This includes sleep deprivation as a legitimate tactic. A clear set of rules is excellent, because it means if they are broken, we can go after those that broke them, rather than relying on clever lawyers to tell us if people were acting wrongly.
Now the issue is a clear set of rules? I thought the rules when Bush was in charge were pretty well defined too. The problem was not with the rules, but with the left re-interpreting the rules and redefining waterboarding – which I remember was in the military manual I had back when – as torture. If lets say sometime in the future, after these rules have been defined and agreed up, someone happens to drum into enough people that sleep deprivation is torture, and some people then demand Obama and everyone around him be tried for that, are you going to be OK with it? Because that’s what we have here.
You might believe Pelosi when she says she never knew about the CIA planning to use waterboarding, or even worse, using it, but I have it on good authority she had no problem with it until it became a convenient cudgel to hammer the republican administration in charge before Obama with. Then suddenly things changed.
I like the fact that the ‘rules’ have been defined, and personally, that the rules have been defined as the ones in the UCMJ – much more in line with the Geneva Conventions et al. (We can debate torture if you like, but we did it for about 3 months last year, and I’m going with the recommendations of the experts on this one)
Who? Che Guevara, Lenin, Stalin, and those types of guys? Sorry, could not help it. If waterboarding is torture, then putting people in prison or having to watch anything with Jeanine Garrofalo in it qualify as torture too.
The language and assurances around oversight aren’t strong enough for me. I’d like to hear more about how this is going to work in practice, but overall it sounds a little like there is too much executive power residing in here.
And here you make my point for me, sir. The media reported this as a change, a move in the right direction, Obama fixing all the Bush era problems and crimes, for which this article also heavy handedly hinted some kind of legal action was warranted. The same media that would have accused Bush of overreaching his authority and gathering more power to the executive if he had done anything like this. But hey, keep ignoring that.
Moving the goal posts, and ignoring the facts.
Wow - wipe the foam from your mouth young man.
The goalposts remain in place - you have no facts to base any of your assertions and no amount of flailing about will change that.
The media reported this as a change, a move in the right direction,
And that PROVES it’s not true. OY.
Everyody except Alex is complicit in the giant conspiracy that is OBAMATRON The CIA - FBI - NSA - DOD - MSM - AFL CIO - Ben and Jerry’s…
Remember to remove the tinfoil before trying to get on a plane.
Like I said - if any of your conjectures prove true I’ll be happy to admit you were right.
Let me move the goal posts in a bit for you - show me some links to ANYONE else anywhere with the same take on this as you.
You’re probably a Mets fan too.
Over and out.
MSM - AFL CIO - Ben and Jerry’s…
These groups aren’t sucking Obamatron dong?
And that PROVES it’s not true. OY.
Explain to me then why it is a good thing according to you leftists since what Obama did is literally expanding executive power and limited congressional oversight with this move, something your side would have thrown a huge tantrum over if done by Bush. You can avoid admiting that all you want, and I will keep hammering you with it.
Everyody except Alex is complicit in the giant conspiracy that is OBAMATRON The CIA - FBI - NSA - DOD - MSM - AFL CIO - Ben and Jerry’s…
I think the only people pretending this was a step in the right direction and not something that would had made the left demand the impeachement of Bush if he had done it, you collectivist appologists, are the only ones that don’t want to admit the hypocrisy and gall, here. But what’s new there, huh?
Like I said - if any of your conjectures prove true I’ll be happy to admit you were right.
So weak, but exactly what I expect. Not holding my breath, because even as it is being proven you are arguing it is not sally. Man, are you libs desperate. Don’t worry I will hammer you on this and on the economic disaster, including the disastrous healthcare take voer by government. The distraction is not working.
You’re probably a Mets fan too.
Sorry, Detroit Tigers. Not guessing what team you are a fan of sally, because I don’t want to insult them.
Not guessing what team you are a fan of sally, because I don’t want to insult them.
Probably a fan of that school team whose school wanted to forfeit the game after the fact because they won by too much.
Next entry: America's Economic Jeremiah Calls For Repentance
Previous entry: Avatar
Who's Logged In
Total Members: 7041
Total Logged in members: 3
Total guests: 73
Total anonymous users: 0
frankie,
noxiousphysicia,
Seattle Outcast,
Capitalism
Search
Search this site with Google
Search will take you to Google.com, which will display results from Right-Thinking and link you back here. Search using pMachineRecent Comments
Government take-overs, green machines, and excuse making for obvious failures
(1 total, Last @ 01:20)
Seattle Outcast: An "electric car" fails on more than just being overpriced and not usable for anything other than short commuting, but the greens conveniently forget to mention that transforming the world's vehicles to require being charged up regularly means that electricity generation capability and distribution infrastructure must be dramatically increased and…
The $8.7 Billion Hole
(4 total, Last @ 10:43)
Ed Kline: There’s a part of me that thinks we should still keep trying to fix these countries. But there’s a growing part that thinks this would be just throwing good money after bad. The world will make you a libertarian yet Hal.
Calculate the impact of Congress letting the Bush tax cuts expire..
(10 total, Last @ 08:46)
Seattle Outcast: What about the vermin sure to co inhabit the place with muirgeo1? Surly if you could overcome your allergy for the plywood shack you would then have to deal with that too? Would a .45 auto be overkill for shooting vermin? On second thought, I'll just torch the place and…
Calculate the impact of Congress letting the Bush tax cuts expire..
(10 total, Last @ 07:52)
AlexinCT: I know “the wealthy” make for great rhetorical fodder on the campaign trail, but I really would like to see someone runningn for election acknowledge that these evil greedy rich elite are actually also the ones who take the business risks required to real create jobs. Every time I hear…
Calculate the impact of Congress letting the Bush tax cuts expire..
(10 total, Last @ 07:25)
Seattle Outcast: Why not stay at muirgeo’s? He’s got a vacation home :) I'm allergic to cheap plywood shacks...
Last 30 Comments
I’ll wait for more details to come out about this before I pass judgement - but on the face of it it seems like Obama has answered your question of “well exactly what do you do with these people?”
It sounds to me that what is happening is that a specific group is being set up with specific rules as to how to prosecute and process these people. It seems like it is going to operate under the Army Field Manual, and I assume the DTA and MCA.
That is is under the juristiction of the NSA is a little troubling, but it seems to me that Obama is announcing a solution - I’ll wait to hear the details.