This article seems to answer this question-You Decide:
Obama Playing Shameful Politics With CIA: Posted on NewsMax.Com-By Ronald Kessler–On May 14, 2009:
These are pertinent excerpts from this article:
“In the beginning, President Obama said he wanted to make us safer by letting potential terrorists know that we do not engage in torture. The idea was that sending that message would deprive terrorists of a recruiting tool.
So, even though enhanced interrogation techniques had not been employed since 2003, and Michael Hayden as CIA director banned their use three years later, Obama said he was stopping them.
Then Obama released Justice Department memos describing the enhanced interrogation techniques that had been used on three terrorists. In doing so, despite his claim that he did not want to do so, Obama provided terrorists with ammunition to recruit more terrorists.
At the same time, Obama chose not to release CIA documents showing that the interrogations provided leads that rolled up terrorist plots, saving thousands of American lives.
The White House even went so far as to edit out a statement by Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair that enhanced interrogations provided valuable information.
As Sen. Kit Bond, R-Mo., vice chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, has told me, Obama has been ìcherry pickingî what he releases for political purposes. See video of Ron kessler’s interview with Sen. Kit Bond Click Here Now:
Obama’s action in releasing the memos, in turn, spurred House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to deny that she knew anything about use of the techniques, even though the CIA had briefed her on them in September 2002. Rep. Pete Hoekstra, R-Mich., then asked the CIA to pinpoint when Pelosi and other congressional leaders had been briefed. When a CIA memo showed that Pelosi had dissembled about not being told of enhanced interrogation, she issued contradictory statements in an attempt to cloud the issue.
In the meantime, despite President Obama’s claim that he did not want to provide ammunition to terrorists so they could recruit more terrorists, he said he would release photos showing abuse of prisoners in Iraq and Afghanistan.
He finally backed down on releasing the photos. But having said he saw no harm in releasing them, he undermined the legal case for keeping them secret under the Freedom of Information Act.
Now that their own actions have backfired, congressional Democrats have decided that it was all a plot by the CIA. Despite the fact that the CIA prepared a listing of the briefings in response to a request by a member of Congress, Democrats are blaming the agency for releasing the details of the briefings to the Hill.
Charging that the CIA deliberately foisted the problem on Democrats, Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., who was briefed on enhanced interrogation techniques five times between 2006 and 2007 as a member of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, said, “I think there is so much embarrassment in some quarters [of the CIA] that people are going to try to shift some of the responsibility to others . . .”
Focusing on the timing of the release of the CIA memo listing the congressional briefings, Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., said he finds it “interesting that a document detailing congressional briefings was released just as some of the groups that have been responsible for these interrogation techniques were taking the most criticism.”
When asked by a reporter whether she thought the CIA was seeking political cover by releasing the documents, Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., chairwoman of the intelligence committee, said “Sure it is.”
Not quite. It was Obama who started the chain of events that is now boomeranging on Democrats. By releasing the CIA memos and pointing the finger of blame for what he has called a mistake, Obama targeted CIA officers for recrimination.
What’s more important, it is Obama along with congressional Democrats who has made the CIA risk-averse. Together, they have done that by demonstrating to CIA officers that when asked to engage in a risky venture that has been approved by the president, the Justice Department, and key members of Congress, they may suffer consequences if they trust those assurances.
As former Director of Central Intelligence Porter Goss has said, it is certainly not trust that is fostered when intelligence officers are told one day I have your back only to learn a day later that a knife is being held to it.
Thus, as detailed in the Newsmax story Obama Has Paralyzed the CIA, at a time when al-Qaida is plotting to wipe us out with a nuclear attack, Obama and the Democrats have jeopardized our safety by returning the CIA to a pre-9/11 risk-averse mentality.
Democrat’s effort to blame it all on the CIA shows they have no shame.”
Note: This article relates to this issue –You Decide:
Obama and Crimes Against Humanity: Posted on Townhall.com-By Ken Blackwell-On May 15, 2009:
These are pertinent excerpts from this article:
“Editor’s Note: Mr. Blackwell served as the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Human Rights Commission from 1991 – 1993.
This is a tale of two worldviews. It begins not unlike the opening paragraph of Dickens’ immortal work, A Tale of Two Cities. Schoolchildren once memorized these famous opening lines, back when schoolchildren memorized anything.
It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair…
President Obama at his Hundred Day White House séance proclaimed water-boarding to be torture. His was a clear, unambiguous, declarative statement. In making that statement, he opened up former President Bush and former Vice President Cheney to criminal prosecutions, here and before an international criminal court. And not just these men, but possibly hundreds of others, including members of Congress from his own party.
Cliff May, of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, takes a different approach to the question of whether water-boarding is torture or not. May was badgered by The Daily Show’s Jon Stewart. May’s answer is not as yes/no, as on/off as President Obama’s. May said it depends. May’s answer was more nuanced. Liberals used to like nuance, but that was when John Kerry was nuancing. Here’s how it went:
Jon Stewart: But answer my question: Is waterboarding torture? Yes or no?
Cliff May: Defining torture is not easy. A simple legal definition is that it “shocks the conscience.” Cutting off Daniel Pearl’s head on videotape — that shocks my conscience. Sending a child out as a suicide bomber — that shocks my conscience. People jumping off the World Trade Towers because they’d rather die that way than by burning — that shocks my conscience. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, mastermind of the 9/11 atrocities, gagging for a few minutes and, as a result, providing information that saves lives, then going back to his cell for dinner and a movie — no, my conscience is not shocked by that.
Are our consciences shocked by subjecting KSM to water-boarding?
Apparently, this enhanced interrogation technique didn’t shock the consciences of members of Congress who were briefed on its planned use. Some of us need to re-play those tapes of cell phone calls by people trapped in the World Trade Towers.
The question keeps coming back to whether we extend all the rights of American citizens to captured terrorists. And the question also comes back to whether the terrorists are to be accorded all the protections of the Geneva Conventions.
Increasingly, our courts are saying terrorists are to be given constitutional protections, here, in Afghanistan, and at Gitmo. Geneva is another matter.
This treaty binds nations to humane treatment of prisoners of war.
In order to be counted as a prisoner of war, you must be in uniform (John McCain was, Nathan Hale was not), you must be subject to military discipline, and you must be taking part in a war conducted by competent authority.
The Geneva Convention also governs respect for medical treatment of prisoners and wounded soldiers.
Take Al Qaeda in Iraq, for example. When one of their IEDs went off in 2003 near Baghdad and killed and wounded a number of American soldiers, a U.S. Army medical HUMVEE raced to the scene. Waiting for the medics to arrive, the terrorists set off a second IED. It had been planted there specifically to target the medical help. Inside the HUMVEE, an American female nurse was burned beyond recognition.
The purpose of the Geneva Convention was to give warring nations a strong, positive incentive to behave according to international norms and not to engage in conduct that “shocks the conscience.”
When we give Al Qaeda or Taliban terrorists prisoner of war status and Geneva Convention coverage—without demanding anything of them in return—we abandon one of the great achievements of the Geneva Convention.
Of course, some humans are not accorded human rights. Our courts have seen to that. President Obama named Justice Stephen Breyer as his ideal jurist. In 2000, Justice Breyer wrote the majority opinion in Carhart v. Stenberg. That was the case in which the U.S. Supreme Court struck down as unconstitutional Nebraska’s law against partial-birth abortion. Justice Breyer’s opinion is worth quoting at length. He described various techniques of late-term abortion that do not shock his conscience. Nor do these techniques—unlike water-boarding, unlike slapping, unlike sleep deprivation—shock President Obama’s conscience, or the consciences of our liberal rulers.
During a pregnancy’s second trimester (12 to 24 weeks), the most common abortion procedure is “dilation and evacuation” (D&E), which involves dilation of the cervix, removal of at least some fetal tissue using non-vacuum surgical instruments, and (after the 15th week) the potential need for instrumental dismemberment of the fetus or the collapse of fetal parts to facilitate evacuation from the uterus.
When such dismemberment is necessary, it typically occurs as the doctor pulls a portion of the fetus through the cervix into the birth canal. The risks of mortality and complication that accompany D&E are significantly lower than those accompanying induced labor procedures (the next safest mid-second-trimester procedures).
A variation of D&E, known as “intact D&E,” is used after 16 weeks. It involves removing the fetus from the uterus through the cervix “intact,” i.e., in one pass rather than several passes. The intact D&E proceeds in one of two ways, depending on whether the fetus presents head first or feet first. The feet-first method is known as “dilation and extraction” (D&X). D&X is ordinarily associated with the term “partial birth abortion.”
A little translation may be required: “at least some fetal tissue” translates to the unborn child’s arm, a leg, or maybe her head. “Dismemberment of the fetus with nonvaccuum surgical instruments” means cutting off her arms or legs with razor-sharp implements while the child, still alive, is capable of feeling excruciating pain.
Rest assured, this is not torture. It doesn’t meet the legal definition of torture because under the rule of Roe v. Wade, the unborn child does not meet the legal definition of a person.
Terrorists were once defined—like pirates and slave traders—as hostis humani generis, enemies of all mankind. As such, they received no due process rights. They had no right to counsel. They received no protections under international agreements. When seized on the high seas by the Royal Navy, they could be promptly hanged upon determination that they were engaged in the proscribed activities.
It would have shocked the consciences of our ancestors, however, to dismember even such low characters as pirates, to cut off their arms and legs, and to let them bleed profusely to death. The most inhuman of humans in the nineteenth century could not have been treated as the least of humans are treated in our enlightened United States, by order of the U.S. Supreme Court.
Our new president abhors torture, unless it is the torture of the unborn. In that case, it is not torture at all, but simply inducing fetal demise. This great international uproar over what is and is not torture has been generated because of the treatment of three known mass murderers. The slaughter of innocents in their thousands elicits no international outrage. This is part of what Justice Breyer sees as evolving international standards of decency.
In my opinion, the Obama Administration’s abortion agenda is indeed a crime against humanity.
This weekend, President Obama will receive an honorary Doctor of Laws from the University of Notre Dame. There, he will be honored, among other things, for his brave stand against torture.
He has appointed Kathleen Sebelius to head our nation’s health system. She is a disciple of the most notorious late-term abortionist in the county, a dismemberer, by his own count, of 60,000 fetuses.
The President and Secretary Sebelius want to force us all to pay for abortion-on-demand.
They want to force doctors and nurses to take part in killing unborn children. They will doubtless tell us our consciences should not be shocked. They’re only inducing fetal demise. Heaven help us all. And Heaven help Notre Dame.”
Note: These articles seem to support my recent Blogs –You Decide:
Top Intelligence Republican: Obama: ‘Ready, Fire, Aim’!
Does Human Rights Law Apply to Terrorists?
Another Imminent Homeland & National Security Issue!
“Food For Thought”
“God Bless & Keep Our USA Safe”