Enemy of the State

It seems that most Democrats are willing to put more and more restraints on those Americans who are charged with protecting us. At every turn they will continue to put up obstacles to prevent not only the military but civilian forces like the CIA , from doing their jobs. The progressive democrats have never met a government rule or regulation they didn't like and are always advocating more and more regulations on business, the military and the civilian defense forces of this nation. Their mind set seems to be that no one but them understands this world, this nation, and its their duty to show the way. In short they want total control of everything, and I do mean everything.

A great example of the extremes that some progressives will go to handcuff those defending the country was a recent effort by Rep. Jim McDermott of Washington state to insert a provision into an Intel Bill that would impose harsh punishment on CIA interrogators should they cross some almost invisible line, while questioning terrorist detainees. Rep. McDermott's amendment to the bill would have provided for punishmentS ranging up to 15 years in some cases and life sentences should the detainee die. The amendment was removed, but shockingly 168 democrats voted to retain the amendment. Where do such people come from and why do many Americans continue to vote for these representatives who would, if left alone, leave us naked before the enemy. The voters of Rep. McDermott's district should hang their heads in shame for they have elected an unpatriotic "ENEMY OF THE STATE"!

House Passes Intel Bill After Stripping CIA Punishment Proposal

It took an extra day, but the House of Representatives on Friday approved a bill to reauthorize the nation's intelligence programs.

It took an extra day, but the House of Representatives on Friday approved a bill to reauthorize the nation's intelligence programs.

The House approved the bill by a 235-to-168 vote, after a controversial measure was removed that would have imposed tough punishments on CIA interrogators who cross the line while questioning suspected terrorists.

The House Democratic leadership team hoped to approve the measure Thursday, but in a stunning move was forced to yank the bill off the floor after the controversy over the CIA measure erupted.

Moderate and conservative Democrats joined most Republicans in crying foul when Rep. Jim McDermott, D-Wash., added a provision to the measure that could punish CIA officers for engaging in "cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment" when they interrogate terrorism suspects. There was no concrete language, though, describing what the terms "cruel, inhuman and vague" meant -- the bill would have given Congress several years to define the terms.

Some of the enhanced interrogation methods in question include using waterboarding, electric shock, beatings and dogs to intimidate suspects, as well as placing a hood over an individual's head.

Under the proposal, some interrogators could be jailed for 15 years -- or receive a life sentence if a detainee dies in custody -- if convicted.

"It's topsy-turvy land where we forget who the good guys are, who the guys trying to keep us safe are and who the bad guys are," Intelligence Committee member Rep. Mac Thornberry, R-Texas, said.

A senior House Republican aide said it was "a victory" that Democrats had to pull the intelligence bill from the House floor.

"You've really got to wonder what's going on here. The CIA no longer has a detention and interrogation program. That ended in January 2009 by executive order. It's over, so the need for this proposal is your classic head-scratcher," the source said.
read full article at FOX News.

Dead Men Tell No Tales!

Obama is increasingly using drones to attack and kill al Qaeda leaders in Pakistan and other places. Often in the past the CIA and other agencies have sought to capture these various leader in order to obtain valuable information about their networks and future plan of attack. These practices seem to have been put on hold for some reason. There is nothing wrong in killing these leaders where ever they are found, but at the same time we should remain aware that when we kill them important information also dies.

The question seems to be is president Obama afraid to use enhanced interrogation methods in order to obtain information and that being the case has decided to kill them where they are found and disregard the fact that, "dead men tell no tales"!

To be sure, unmanned drones are critical in the struggle against al Qaeda. They allow the United States to reach terrorists hiding in remote regions where it would be difficult for special operations forces to reach them, or to act on perishable intelligence when the only choice is to kill a terrorist or lose him. Constantly hovering Predator (or Reaper) drones also have a psychological effect on the enemy, forcing al Qaeda leaders to live in fear and spend time focusing on self-preservation that would otherwise be used planning the next attack. All this is for the good.

The problem is that Obama is increasingly using drone strikes as a substitute for operations to bring terrorist leaders in alive for questioning -- and that is putting the country at risk. As one high-ranking CIA official explained to me, in an interview for my book Courting Disaster, "In the wake of 9/11, [the CIA] put forward a program that had a lethal component to strike back at the people who did this. But the other component was to prevent this kind of catastrophe from happening again. And for that, killing people -- especially killing senior al Qaeda leaders -- is potentially counterproductive in that we can't know or learn of future attacks. You can't kill them all, and you don't want to kill them all from an intelligence standpoint. We needed to know what they knew." FOX News

Holder and Obama Gutting the CIA

BHO and Eric Holder have set a course aimed at destroying the effectiveness of the nations foremost spy agency. They have both and I repeat both taken steps at undermining this vital department of the federal government and their continuing effort pose a real and present danger to national security. Security which is the presidents most sacred vow. He has sworn to protect the people of the United States and is doing something that is making us less secure. He is doing this to appease his radical friends on the far, far left of American politics and he is doing this to gain favor in certain foreign circles all at the expense of your and my security. I would give him a new title for he is certainly not acting like a president of the United States, but rather a President of the World, that part of the world that leans left. He is making overtures to leaders in Iran, to leaders in certain Latin American countries where Marxist have gained or are gaining power. He has slapped some our best allies in the face such as Poland and other eastern European countries. Countries that have had a full taste of socialism and communism and have totally rejected those failed policies. Policies that the Obama administration are now embracing. Let us face a simple truth, yes I'll say it, Obama is a full blown radical socialist and he proves this more and more every day by his actions and those who he appoints to positions of power around him and his attempt to undermine such great American institutions as the CIA. Could he have something to hide, something so dangerous to him personally that he will destroy anyone or any organization that might uncover the lies in his past. He doesn't have to worry about the FBI, for his close personal friend Eric Holder, the Attorney General is at the helm there and doing his bidding. But quite obviously, the CIA provides some concerns. So I'm not asking Obama to back off on the CIA probe, because it will not happen. While the destruction of the CIA in not in the national security interest it is however necessary for Obama's personal security interest. Below is a letter sent to this usurper by former CIA directors:

Dear Mr. President:

We have served as directors of Central Intelligence or directors of the CIA for presidents reaching back over 35 years. We respectfully urge you to exercise your authority to reverse Attorney General Holder's August 24 decision to re-open the criminal investigation of CIA interrogations that took place following the attacks of September 11.

Our reasons for making this recommendation are as follows.

The post-September 11 interrogations for which the attorney general is opening an inquiry were investigated four years ago by career prosecutors. The CIA, at its own initiative, forwarded fewer than 20 instances where agency officers appeared to have acted beyond their existing legal authorities.

Career prosecutors under the supervision of the US Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia determined that one prosecution (of a CIA contractor) was warranted. A conviction was later obtained. They determined that prosecutions were not warranted in the other cases. In a number of these cases the CIA subsequently took administrative disciplinary steps against the individuals involved.

Attorney General Holder's decision to re-open the criminal investigation creates an atmosphere of continuous jeopardy for those whose cases the Department of Justice had previously declined to prosecute. Moreover, there is no reason to expect that the re-opened criminal investigation will remain narrowly focused.

If criminal investigations closed by career prosecutors during one administration can so easily be reopened at the direction of political appointees in the next, declinations of prosecution will be rendered meaningless. Those men and women who undertake difficult intelligence assignments in the aftermath of an attack such as September 11 must believe there is permanence in the legal rules that govern their actions.

They must be free, as the chairman of the Senate Homeland Security Committee, Senator Lieberman, has put it: "to do their dangerous and critical jobs without worrying that years from now a future attorney general will authorize a criminal investigation of them for behavior that a previous attorney general concluded was authorized and legal." Similar deference needs to be shown to fact-based decisions made by career prosecutors years ago.

Not only will some members of the intelligence community be subjected to costly financial and other burdens from what amounts to endless criminal investigations, but this approach will seriously damage the willingness of many other intelligence officers to take risks to protect the country. In our judgment such risk-taking is vital to success in the long and difficult fight against the terrorists who continue to threaten us.

Success in intelligence often depends on surprise and deception and on creating uncertainty in the mind of an enemy. As president you have the authority to make decisions restricting substantive interrogation or any other intelligence collection method, based on legal analyses and policy recommendations.

But, the administration must be mindful that public disclosure about past intelligence operations can only help Al Qaeda elude U.S. intelligence and plan future operations. Disclosures about CIA collection operations have and will continue to make it harder for intelligence officers to maintain the momentum of operations that have saved lives and helped protect America from further attacks.

Finally, another certain result of these reopened investigations is the serious damage done to our intelligence community's ability to obtain the cooperation of foreign intelligence agencies. Foreign services are already greatly concerned about the United States' inability to maintain any secrets. They rightly fear that, through these additional investigations and the court proceedings that could follow, terrorists may learn how other countries came to our assistance in a time of peril.

The United States promised these foreign countries that their cooperation would never be disclosed. As a result of the zeal on the part of some to uncover every action taken in the post-9/11 period, many countries may decide that they can no longer safely share intelligence or cooperate with us on future counter-terrorist operations. They simply cannot rely on our promises of secrecy.

We support your stated commitment, Mr. President, to look to the future regarding these important issues. In our judgment the only way that is possible is if the criminal investigation of these interrogations that Attorney General Holder has re-opened is now re-closed.

Sincerely,

Michael Hayden

Porter Goss

George Tenet

John Deutch

R. James Woolsey

William Webster

James R. Schlesinger

Obama's War on Terrorism (Overseas Contingency Operation)

Barry and the liberals in Congress have decided that the measures that have kept the home front safe from terrorist attack since 9/11 is no longer needed. Something that has worked has been discarded in favor of an Utopian view of the world. The new view of this administration is that if we just ease up on these killers they will see the change and thank us for it and gradually fall into line and accept Obama's new world order. His plan is to keep confrontation to a minimum and enter into talks where every he can. He feels that European nations, who have been critical of the Bush policies will now help us with what is being called, the "Overseas Contingency Operation". These policy includes treating terrorist captured on the battlefield the same as felony suspects captured in the United States---reading them their Constitutional rights. These misguided people in the current administration think this will gain favor with the terrorist and many world leaders---and they are right. Terrorist are applauding these changes and world leaders are cheering these actions. But will those on the left stand by this policy should another attack come on the homeland. The answer is simple, they will point the finger at others and hide behind the MSM who also favors such tactics. They will blame the CIA, who they are now gutting and making virtually impotent. Yes, they have a plan just in case another attack comes. Some will even find a way to blame Bush or Chaney---do you have any doubt about that. Now the new policy is in effect, and many Americans are waiting for the shoe to drop and wondering what will be the cost in lives loss, in property loss, and loss of prestige. Sadly those in power are ignoring calls from many to heed the dangers posed by a fearless and determined enemy who doesn't care about life---not even their own.

by Ron Russell
TOTUS

Handcuffing the CIA

Late last night while leaving a comment on Dread Pundit I found myself getting a little carried away in the comment box. I sometimes do that. Usually I don't have time to leave lengthy comments, but on this issue of torture and the sworn duty of the president to protect us a left a longer than usually comment. I'll share it with you now.

"What is or what isn't torture is the question. A question without a clear answer. The question should be will rough interrogation save hundreds or even thousands of lives and if so do we do it. It is the sworn duty of the president to defend Americans not to protect the rights of foreign nationals who may have vital information necessary to carry out that duty. Obama recently made a statement at one of his many public appearances and said, (I have to paraphrase): Yes information was obtained the question is could we have gotten it without harsh methods. This was without a doubt the most ignorant statements one in his position could make and no one member of the press called him on it. The implication of his answer was that the CIA interrogators immediately went to harsh methods when they started questioning the terrorist. That is not how things are done and Obama is aware of that. The CIA does not use harsh methods until all other measures have been exhausted. And as for the terrorist giving misleading information---of course that happens, but the information is checked out and if it is incorrect the CIA goes after the prisoner again and again and finally they get the truth. And in many cases lives are saved as a result of their efforts. To take this tool away from us is to condemn some Americans, not to torture, but to death at sometime in the future. This in not acceptable, this would be a criminal act on the part of the president and a violation of the oath he took. And if such an unthinkable thing should occur the president should be impeached and put on trial in the Senate and the country at that time would applaud that action. Obama may be able to walk on water, but he is skating on thin ice by restricting the actions of those who try to defend us. If he continues to listen to those voices on the far left, the voices coming from a vocal minority, the voices of the hate America crowd, the voices of weakness and appeasement Americans may die and their deaths will be on the hands of this indecisive weakling".