The below story, too long to place on Sound Politics, recounts the events surrounding the rescue of the captain of the MV Alabama from his captors, Somalia pirates. I received it from a Navy friend who claims it was written by a retired Admiral so it is third hand but I believe accurate, politics aside.
Posted by warrenpeterson at April 22, 2009 08:47 PM | Email ThisMakes you relish the talent and competence that we have out there in the world. And relish all the more how the political commissars were not able to queer the deal and turn it into an international dramatic production. Bravo Navy!
And may POTUS gain some first baby steps at learning about executive duties, delegation, and the avoidance of micromanagement.
Posted by: Insufficiently Sensitive on April 22, 2009 11:05 PMTellingly, Pres. Obama is more than happy to release classifications from the last administration. But what happens under his own administration will be more guarded. Most transparent and most ethical administration evah, right!
Posted by: Jeff B. on April 23, 2009 07:52 AMHere is what the WSJ has to say about the matter. I agree, it's sad that Pres. Obama is willing to sink his Presidency to go after the last Presidency. But this is the same guy that has taken the bad spending policy of the last administration and trebled it.
Posted by: Jeff B. on April 23, 2009 07:59 AMWhy don't you reference what the Geneva Convention says about prosecuting war criminals? I think that is far more relevant.
People who authorize torture are called war criminals. If we don't prosecute them, others will, which will make our already laughable Justice Department even more of a joke.
You can be as partisan as you want. America hangs people that torture. We don't coddle the.
If you disagree, then you have to admit it would be ok for the Taliban to torture any American Soldiers they capture right? Since we are the "good guys" we can torture, and "they" can't right? Sick. The torture road never ends. If the Bush Gang authorized torture, they should pay for the crime. Unless of course laws don't matter...
Posted by: All Facts Support My Positions on April 23, 2009 08:17 AMBeen on the Internet long, Warren?
Posted by: scottd on April 23, 2009 08:22 AM"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.'"
It's funny the sanctimonious dribble we get from the left. If Obama had the exact same intelligence that might protect a plot to take down the Columbia Tower in Seattle, and he acted on it based on the recommendations of his advisors, the CIA, the FBI, the Pentagon, etc. then he would rightly be hailed as a hero.
Obama sent over the FBI to negotiate. The Seals were there. The fact the pirates were ready to be easily picked off suggests there was plenty of opportunity. Gun to head of captain after several hours of "negotiating" to no avail says then was a good time to provide cover against Obama's negotiate at all cost, except for the safety of the captain, command.
I think Obama had to be ticked it went down like it did. He did a good recovery, though.
Posted by: swatter on April 23, 2009 10:22 AMWaterboarding has been around since Teddy Roosevelt, who used in in Cuba.
If some of the de-classified files from WWII are real, Franklin Roosevelt also was a "war criminal" by your standards. Some of the things done in the pacific theatre to get information make waterboarding seem like sesame street.
I am always amazed by how ready liberals are to attack police, military and public servants while coddling criminals and terrorists.
I'd actually welcome a full trial of Bush just to expose some facts like Pelosi and other dems full briefings on the subjects and their silence on the matters for years. This could end up being very, very embarassing for Madam Speaker.
Posted by: johnny on April 23, 2009 11:13 AMEither we prosecute people (politicians) that commit crimes or we don't. I want all corrupt / criminal politicians behind bars, regardless of party.
That is what makes me an American.
Country before party. Not something a Republicon would even consider...
I really doubt Speaker Pelosi authorized torture though. Took part in the day to day. That's one memo I haven't seen.
So I take it all the wingnuts think the Taliban should be able to torture any American prisoners they capture right? What's good for the goose...
GOP = Party of no, and torture. That's gotta hurt.
Posted by: All Facts Support My Positions on April 23, 2009 04:53 PMhttp://rawstory.com/news/2008/Pelosi_denies_prior_knowledge_of_waterboarding_0423.html
Truthiness robert?
All facts support my positions. The truth is ALWAYS on my side. It has to be. Just don't expect me to defend Dems that break the law.
So tell me. How many times did Bush say "We don't torture" johnnie? Condi? Just more lies under the bridge right?
Posted by: All Facts Support My Positions on April 23, 2009 05:04 PMNope... We kept America safe. Clinton did zip and the numbers kept adding up. Even that stupid wall that Clinton gang put up!
Now that hurts...
LOL
Fine, can he back it up??????????
Posted by: Medic/Vet on April 23, 2009 05:28 PMYou honestly think that the Taliban (or any of the other Islamofascists) gives a flying fart how we interrogate people?
Got some news for ya bub, Our enemy doesn't put people in a room with bug...they saw off peoples heads.
http://www.spokesman.com/blogs/olympia/2009/apr/23/income-tax-proposal-dead/
Eat it Dems, I'm lovin' it!
Posted by: Crusader on April 23, 2009 06:54 PMPelosi's lying through her teeth. And I'd lay odds that the dolts on 1090 claiming "beating to death" are lying, too...
Of course, lies don't matter to you if they further your Marxist, fascist agenda.
HOPE AND CHANGE!
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on April 23, 2009 09:27 PMLet me spell it out for you.
Waterboarding = Torture = Crime
If we don't prosecute, the rest of the world will. Hate to break it to you. Go ahead and defend torture, while I defend the rule of law.
Posted by: All Facts Support My Positions on April 23, 2009 11:09 PMCome on, you can do better... Olbermann doesn't know what he's talking about, and Pelosi is ON RECORD as LYING about what was going on...
So call Pelosi on the carpet; call your pet Slavers on the carpet for their failures.
Can you do that?
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on April 23, 2009 11:43 PMAs a Naval Aviator headed to a war zone in the '70's I attended SERE school (Survival, Escape, Resistance & Evasion). I was waterboarded, several times, to unconciousness. I've been there, I've had it done to me, I know one HELL of a lot more about it than you will EVER know.
Waterboarding = not fun at all = NOT torture.
But it's a damn good interrogation technique.
Posted by: Jay on April 24, 2009 06:23 AMThe point is that sometimes in this world you have to make a decision that won't be viewed well by history but is the right one. It's like when someone comes in your house and starts robbing the place and menacing the children - if you take a gun and shoot the invaders, that's violence and maybe even murder, but totally justifiable.
(Though liberal idiots will likely be much more inclined to seek prosecution against the person that protected their home and family than they would have been against the home invader. Go figure.)
Similarly, Bush authorizing waterboarding so that we had no more hijacked planes going into crowded skyscrapers - I'm okay with that. I think MOST Americans are okay with that.
Acts that save thousands - even 10's of thousands of innocent peoples lives based on interrogation of someone that has already shown they are capable of inspeakable evil, well, I consider that common sense management of a bad situation. If Obama has the opportunity to okay such methods in order to save thousands of American lives, I pray he'll have the brass to make the same decision.
On the other hand, using waterboarding (or beheading, or stoning to death, or cutting off hands, etc. which are all things that go on in islamic countries) aren't nearly as okay when the issue is infidelity, petty theft, being gay, or being of the wrong relgion.
Interestingly, liberals express a lot of outrage at Bush's interrogation techniques but you are pretty silent about the abuse that goes on in moslem countries. (How DARE we be culturally insensitive, right?)
So that's where I stand on the issue of waterboarding. If they did a little of it in Gitmo, well I hope it worked and consider it justified. The kind of carnage that passes for law in moslem countries I consider the real torture, but I don't see you folks on the left lining up to denounce it with nearly the enthusiasm.
As for Ron Reagan Jr, not sure why anything he says would ever been worth listening too.
He's a loser who rejects everything his father represents, couldn't find a real job, and realized that while he's basically unemployable he can make a pretty good living bashing dad.
Why is his opinion important other than the fact that he had a famous family member? Nadda.
It's unfortunately, but not uncommon in todays world that those who stand in the shadows of famous people find they can earn a living by trashing them in the press. It exists in both politics and the entertainment industry. (Can you say "Perez Hilton.")
Cindy Sheehan and Cindy McCain are other great examples. Basically talentless losers who found they can be "heroes"to the left by denouncing their more famous family members. Why would I consider ANYTHING they had to say worth my time?
(That there is a market for the "destroy the hero" phenomena says WAY more about braindead audience and the mainstream media than it ever will ever say about the warheroes that these two are making a living bashing.)
As for his specific contention that innocent prisoners were beaten to death: Last time I checked, Ron Reagan wasn't any more privy to this kind of information than Nancy Pelosi and congress. With as rabid as CNN and MSNBC have been on the warfront (and anti-Bush front) why hasn't this been front page news?
Could it be that Ron Reagan is grandstanding some more on that great successful radio station Air America? Humm, could be.
You lefties will have to blush at the new Rasmussen Poll (have the guts to read the crosstabs) that shows 65% of Americans of all political stripes agreeing that by releasing the memos regarding interrogation, that Pres. Obama has damaged National Security. 58% said he should not have released the memos. Every single age and gender demographic believes that Obama damaged National Security. And every single demographic believes that the US is more worried about foreign detainee rights than National Security. And Cheney is frankly a much better chess player than you folks like to admit. Because he called Obama's bluff, and is asking Obama to go ahead and also release the memos regarding congressional approval of the interrogation techniques. Selective release of the memos that make Bush look bad, but ignore the role of Congress in our political system. How convenient.
Mind you, we are not talking about US citizens here who have committed felonies, but foreign detainees who were actively fighting the US, engaging in terror plots designed to harm a large number of Americans at once, etc. That's a key distinction that many of you on the left don't want to make.
And you don't want to admit to yourselves that if today, Pres. Obama were to get actionable intelligence with respect to a new foreign detainee about a significant terror plot, that he would allow much more than he is publicly saying to get information from said detainee. Any President would.
If it comes down to decisions between legal semantics and concrete decisions that will likely save lives, it's not so easy to dismiss. These are the realities that President Obama will face, and that history will record. What if this new precedent becomes standard practice? It will be interesting to read the Obama memos in a few years. Americans will generally be very forgiving and thoughtfully upset with those times where we acted too aggressively in trying to stop terror. But there will be zero forgiveness when there is a strong correlation between over caution and a massive attack.
Going after Bush and crew is a political stunt that has hugely backfired on Obama. And many who comment here are part of the rabid, and as Rasmussen shows, small minority demographic that would go after Bush, even if it ended up damaging Obama's ability to lead, and possibly to retain his lead.
Foolish. And that's exactly the self destructive and impulsive overreach built in to the DNA of collectivist ideology.
Here's foolish: sending unmanned missiles in to kill Pakistanis on their own territory. Can you imagine if someone did that to us and a family with a bunch of American women and children got blown apart? We'd support any homegrown political force that would stand for our sovereignty.
Of course the Pakistanis will now get a Taliban government: at least the Taliban is standing up to the US, at least they're patriotic Pakistanis, while the current leaders of that country are too in love with our money to do anything but take orders from us.
When Pakistan falls--and it looks like it really could, don't just chalk it up to counter-productive Bush Cheney policies (that Obama unfortunately is continuuing). Blame the whole idea that violence ever makes good foreign policy.
PS. Jesus would agree with me, btw.
Thanks all,
New Left Conservative # 1
Posted by: New Left Conservative # 1 on April 25, 2009 10:22 PMHere's foolish: sending unmanned missiles in to kill Pakistanis on their own territory. Can you imagine if someone did that to us and a family with a bunch of American women and children got blown apart? We'd support any homegrown political force that would stand for our sovereignty.
Of course the Pakistanis will now get a Taliban government: at least the Taliban is standing up to the US, at least they're patriotic Pakistanis, while the current leaders of that country are too in love with our money to do anything but take orders from us.
When Pakistan falls--and it looks like it really could, don't just chalk it up to counter-productive Bush Cheney policies (that Obama unfortunately is continuuing). Blame the whole idea that violence ever makes good foreign policy.
PS. Jesus would agree with me, btw.
Thanks all,
New Left Conservative # 1
Posted by: New Left Conservative # 1 on April 25, 2009 10:22 PM