Americans Don't Share Feinstein's (and Obama's) Outrage Over CIA Torture

Democrats are still trying to understand why they lost so big in November's elections.   I think the answer is simple:  Americans don't share the extreme liberal viewpoints of the Democrat party.

A perfect example, was the partisan Torture Report that Senator Dianne Feinstein  released a week ago.  In three new polls, Americans say that what the CIA did was necessary when put in the context of 9/11. 

In a PEW poll, 51% say torture was justified and only 43% thought the report should have been released.

A Washington Post/ABC poll showed an even more dramatic difference with 59% in support of the CIA interrogations; while only 31% agreed with Feinstein.  Then, an NBC/Wall Street Journal poll found that just 28% believed that the interrogations "went too far and were wrong."  On the other hand, 51% supported what was done.

Lastly, the NJ.com (New Jersey.com) website has been conducting an online poll. While the voting is a small sample and multiple votes are possible, it does show that those being polled don't think that it was appropriate for Feinstein to have released the report:

Americans get it.  Given what happened on 9/11, our government should have done everything possible, within reason, to protect us, and in the minds of most Americans, enhanced interrogations were within reason.

References:

PEW Research: About Half See CIA Interrogation Methods as Justified: http://www.people-press.org/2014/12/15/about-half-see-cia-interrogation-methods-as-justified/

Washington Post/ABC Poll: New poll finds majority of Americans believe torture justified after 9/11 attacks: http://www.daily-journal.com/news/local/new-poll-finds-majority-of-americans-believe-torture-justified-after/article_69fb9c64-6aff-52cc-a292-805bf61537d6.html

Americans don't share outrage on CIA techniques: Poll: http://www.cnbc.com/id/102273140

NJ.com: Poll: Should the Senate have released its report on CIA torture?: http://www.nj.com/hudson/index.ssf/2014/12/poll_should_the_senate_have_released_its_report_on_cia_torture_during_the_bush_administration.html

Drone Strikes Are More Detrimental To America's Reputation Than Torture

Amid all the flap over Democrat Senator Feinstein's release of the so-called "Torture Report", many have questioned why she, President Obama, and other Democrats seem to think that there is no "moral equivalency" between Obama's use of drones and George Bush's use of enhanced interrogation techniques. 

But, understand this.  Unlike Bush's so-called torture techniques -- which only affected a few dozen highly-valued captive terrorists -- two separate studies have shown that Obama's use of drones has resulted in thousands of civilian causalities.  Casualties not limited to men but, also, women and children.  While the lucky ones (I guess) are the civilians that were killed, many others have been  maimed or disfigured for life.  Other survivors are known to have suffered severe psychological trauma equivalent to PTSD. If that, in itself, isn't torture, I don't know what is.

Yet, even so, the White House claims that the drone strikes are precision/surgical strikes and that all care is given to protect civilians.  But, the world thinks differently as this chart from a 2014 Pew Research report shows:

So, if Senator Feinstein and President Obama think that releasing the torture report shows that we are taking the high ground by "admitting our mistakes" then, why aren't we also taking the high ground by admitting that drone strikes kill innocent civilians?   After all, the "torture" (enhanced interrogation) was known to the world almost a decade ago, and right now, drone strikes continue and are even being ramped up because of our fight with ISIS in Syria and Iraq.  As such, the number of civilian deaths and injuries just keep piling up.  Perhaps, it will take another president, following Obama's exit from office, to admit that drone strikes were moral mistakes in a similar attempt at regaining s lost trust in this country around the world.

References:

Video: Henry to Earnest: How Can You [Obama] Claim 'Moral Authority' On Drone Strikes:  http://insider.foxnews.com/2014/12/10/henry-earnest-how-can-you-claim-moral-authority-while-killing-innocents-drones

2012 Study: Drone strikes kill, maim and traumatize too many civilians, U.S. study says: http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/25/world/asia/pakistan-us-drone-strikes/

2013 Study: US drone strikes more likely to kill civilians than US jet fire: http://www.nbcnews.com/news/investigations/study-us-drone-strikes-more-likely-kill-civilians-us-jet-v19254842

Death toll of Obama’s Drone Campaign 5 Years Later: 2,400: http://www.juancole.com/2014/01/obamas-campaign-later.html

Pew Poll: Global Opposition to U.S. Surveillance and Drones: http://www.pewglobal.org/2014/07/14/global-opposition-to-u-s-surveillance-and-drones-but-limited-harm-to-americas-image/

Obama on CIA torture report: "When we make mistakes, we admit them":  http://www.cbsnews.com/news/obama-on-cia-torture-report-when-we-make-mistakes-we-admit-them/

US airstrikes in Syria, Iraq could lead to high civilian casualties: http://rt.com/news/192220-isis-airstrikes-civilians-us/

Torture Under Clinton Was Far Worse Than Under Bush

Senator Dianne Feinstein has released her Democrat-staff-written report on CIA torture during the George W. Bush years following 9/11.  In that report, we will find that the CIA used various forms of "psychological" interrogation techniques -- which Feinstein calls torture -- such as water boarding; which makes the person feel that they are drowning, when in fact, they are not, or, we see that we used various forms of sleep deprivation.

But, nowhere in that report will you find extreme forms of physical torture used like those seen in other countries where people are left bloodied by constant blows, have their bones broken, have certain parts of their bodies electrocuted, or have fingers and toes cut off.

As a country, we don't torture people in those ways. We've signed both the Geneva and UN Conventions that ban tortured interrogations on any prisoners or prisoners of war.

However, other countries are well versed in those physical torture techniques and, there is nothing in either the Geneva or UN Conventions that prevent us from using those countries to obtain information by those means that we, ourselves, are prevented from using.

That is why President Bill Clinton authorized the CIA to use something called "extraordinary rendition" to transfer abducted enemies-of-the-U.S. to countries who practiced true physical torture.  In this way, America could (theoretically) keep its hands clean in the process.  When Bush took office, that practice was stopped and the CIA used "enhanced interrogation" techniques at American facilities.  Techniques that were well restrained in comparison to what Bill Clinton authorized and which the Bush Administration felt were acceptable under previously signed Conventions.

Another thing that Feinstein doesn't seem remember is the fact Clinton's Attorney General, Janet Reno, used sleep deprivation against the Branch Dividians in Waco, Texas.  Yes, that's right Texas.  For days, loud music and high intensity spotlights were used to deprive the Dividians of sleep.

It is interesting that Dianne Feinstein solely focused on the Bush years, and never once, thought of  including the Clinton years in her report, when the torture process was totally unrestrained. 

Lastly, Senator Feinstein claims the interrogation techniques used were ineffective because they yielded false information that was purely being given to the CIA interrogators in order to stop what she calls torture.  Really?  Does anyone really think our CIA was so stupid to think that people wouldn't attempt to lie to them during an interrogation?  Everything that was learned had to be verifiable.  This was especially true when enhanced interrogation techniques lead to the disclosure of Bin Laden's personal courier's name.  It was the courier's house that Bin Laden was staying in when he was killed by our Special Forces team.  Also, if enhanced interrogation was so ineffective, why did the CIA continue to use it for six years after 9/11?

References:

CIA torture report brands post-9/11 program as brutal and ineffective: http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/dec/09/cia-torture-report-released

Extraordinary rendition: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraordinary_rendition

January 2009: Panetta faces rendition queries: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jan/15/panetta-faces-rendition-queries/?page=all

The deaths of Special Agents Todd McKeehan, Conway LeBleu, Robert Williams and Steve Willis resulted in a prolonged stand-off involving psychological operations tactics from the mission to capture Manuel Noriega in 1989. These included the playing of loud music, recordings of planes and chanting in addition to the use of spotlights to deprive the Branch Davidians of sleep: https://www.hsdl.org/blog/view/s_4524


United Nations Convention against Torture - Wikipedia:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Convention_against_Torture

Enhanced interrogation techniques: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enhanced_interrogation_techniques

Did Harsh Interrogation Tactics Lead To Bin Laden?: http://www.npr.org/2011/05/05/136005405/did-harsh-interrogation-tactics-lead-to-bin-laden

Feinstein's 'Torture' Report: Why Now?

Seven years after the whole world knew the U.S. conducted harsh interrogations, and five years after Obama banned it by executive order, Senator Dianne Feinstein wants to do one more autopsy on the topic by declassifying and releasing a summary report that she had previously commissioned.  In her explanation in wanting to do so, she said it would "ensure that an un-American, brutal program of detention and interrogation will never again be considered or permitted."  Of course, the release of the report will only serve to put the total blame on the Bush Administration and all other Republicans who will naturally be guilty by association for such an "un-American" and "brutal program."

But here's the back story on this whole "interrogation" mess.

First of all, Feinstein could have released such a report at any time over the last five years that she has served as chairman of the Select Committee on Intelligence.  But, she only elected to do so this year, an election year, when the Senate Democrats are in serious trouble.

Of course, what that report won't show is how complicit Democrats were in allowing those interrogation techniques; going all the way back to 2002.  Nor, will it take us back to the emotions of the days and weeks following 9/11 or recreate the shock and fear we experienced.  Americans demanded any and all measures that would make us feel safe again. Of course, this response was no different than this country's detention of Japanese Americans during World War II.  Another dark time in our past that should never be repeated.

Knowing Obama and how totally political he is, he will probably issue an executive order that declassifies the report and, as such, exposes interrogation techniques that could be used sometime in the future,  against our own soldiers, or by one country against another.  This is why the report has been classified all along.  Simply, there are some things that should not be common knowledge. 

References:

Hill (Democrats) Briefed on Waterboarding in 2002: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/08/AR2007120801664.html

Hayden thinks Feinstein's 'emotional' opposition to CIA interrogations taints report: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/04/06/hayden-thinks-feinstein-emotional-opposition-to-cia-interrogations-taints/http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/04/06/hayden-thinks-feinstein-emotional-opposition-to-cia-interrogations-taints/

The Democrats Tortured Torture Explanations

Besides being a brutal form of punishment or interrogation, torture also means to twist, pervert, or distort the facts. Certainly, over the last 4 or 5 weeks, Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Eric Holder are all guilty of 'torturing' a lot of the facts about torture.

At his last prime time press conference, Barack Obama tried to hold Britain up to the light as a shining example of a country that doesn't torture. To make that point, he referenced the written works of Winston Churchill. But, as I have shown in this blog (See my blog entry: "What Obama Is Missing On Torture"), Barack's comments are blatantly false because, from World War II and even up until the most recent years, Britain has been pretty active in all forms of torture.

Then, there's Obama's AG, Eric Holder. His 'holier than thou' attitude towards torture seems to be somewhat misplaced when, in fact, he was the deputy AG during the Clinton Administration when rendition and the subsequent torture of Al Qaeda captives was practiced quite often. Obviously, from a hearing yesterday (See Full Story), Mr. Holder was quite involved in the rendition process. This is apparently something that this top cop of our country has conveniently forgotten while he's been pushing to go after lawyers in the Bush Administration that gave legal opinions on harsh interrogation techniques.

Finally, let me introduce you to the Democrat who's the best piece of work when it comes to torturing the torture issue: Ms. Nancy Pelosi; Speaker of the House. Over the last few weeks, she's gone from completely knowing nothing to admitting that she knew of the techniques but didn't think they would use them; even though in a briefing in 2002, she was told that EIT (Enhanced Interrogation Techniques) had already been used (See Full Story). This is the same Pelosi who claimed that the Catholic Church was uncertain about abortion. A point that the Pope, himself, had to give her a dressing down on.

Whether Obama likes it or not, torture has been a practice going back to the Clinton years. To the best of anyone's knowledge, it stopped in 2006 under Bush. It is obvious that a lot of people, including a lot of Democrats, knew of the practice but didn't raise the red flag about what was being done until Obama got in office. I think that Obama made a large and very naive mistake by opening this can of worms. Now, if punishment of Bush people is pursued, then there are going to be a lot of Democrats who should also be punished. But, with that possibility looming, I think we will find that the Obama gang and the the Democrats in Congress will just quietly let this whole topic fade away without any investigations and, certainly, without any previously planned show trials and prosecutions. That's how politics works.

What Obama Is Missing On Torture

At this week's news conference, Barack Obama said: "I think waterboarding is torture." "I think" is not a definitive statement. It's an opinion. There is a reason for Obama's conditioning of this declaration because not everyone in the world believes that waterboarding is a pure form of torture. Certainly, not in the strictest sense. Beyond that, Obama also discounted the results of waterboarding by stating that he isn't sure that the information that was obtained through waterboarding couldn't have been obtained by some other, non-torturous means.

When Obama talks about "other means," I think he's referring to the civilian law enforcement interrogation technique of using "plea bargaining" to extract valuable information or a confession. Simply speaking, plea bargaining involves trading either jail time or something of value in exchange for information. But, plea bargaining only works with people that have "something to live for." Most terrorist beliefs are the antithesis of that concept. They generally have "something to die for" and, that something is their fanatical religious beliefs and their willingness to die while adhering to them. They feel that dying is the ultimate goal in their journey to the afterlife. So, rewarding them with lesser punishment or saving their lives by avoiding capital punishment is as silly as offering meat as a reward to a vegan.

I don't think that Obama and most liberals understand this new kind of enemy and their type of warfare and their belief system. This is not your father's World War II or Vietnam-like enemy. The traditional "war" mindsets are not going to work. These people are not beholding to any given country. They are the standard bearers of their god and not of any particular country. The traditional forms of "spying" become totally useless.

Unlike spying on state-sponsored military buildups, you just can't use satellite images to see weapons buildups and troop movements. These terrorists live and hide within the general populations of many countries; including our own. That's why the Bush Administration put so much emphasis on eavesdropping and internet "chatter" because it was the only way to "hear" what this enemy was up to. But the liberals balked at eavesdropping on the basis that it violated privacy rights. Now, too, they are balking at enhanced interrogation techniques.

Even the Clinton Administration clearly understood that this enemy was a different kind of enemy. To avoid claims of torturing captured terrorists and suspected terrorists, the Clinton Administration practiced "rendition" by sending those who were captured and suspected of terrorism to other countries that had no qualms about torturing people to get information. In those countries, there were no limits as to the methods of torture. There were no paper trails created by a bunch of justice department attorneys giving legal opinions on what is or isn't torture and the extent to which those methods could be applied. There were no doctors in attendance to insure that no permanent physical or mental damage was being inflicted. But, in the world of the liberal mindset, Bush and his people should be tried for war crimes and Clinton people who ruthlessly practiced rendition should get a pass.

Furthermore, Obama was dead wrong on Churchill and torture. While Churchill may have, in public, detested torture, it sure went on out of the sight of any public scrutiny (See Full Story). It probably goes on to this very day as noted in this news article: Revealed: Torture Centre Linked to MI5. Here's another article on the same subject that was just written in March of 2009: MI5 'torture' probe launched.

The problem with torture is that in open societies, like ours, the NGO's like Amnesty International have open access and are able to easily uncover these practices. However, in closed societies, like Cuba or Iran or North Korea, these practices remain hidden. Amnesty International has, in the past, stated that they think 91 countries practice torture. However, that estimate is based on those countries that they have been able to gain access to. The number is probably greater if closed societies were placed under scrutiny.

Obama is playing games with the facts to suit his ideological beliefs on torture and to satisfy the left's hatred of George W. Bush. He quotes Churchill and assumes that the general dummies within our population won't contest what he says. Most people will do anything to protect themselves and to ensure survival. But, Obama, in trying to be judgmental for ideological reasons, just doesn't understand that.

Many on the left detest Harry Truman's dropping of the two atomic bombs. But, that is a revisionist viewpoint; much like today with 9/11 and torture. To end World War II, Harry Truman weighed the estimated time it would take to bring the war in the Pacific to an end by conventional means and how many American and ally's lives would be lost in the process. His decision to use the bomb was based on the continued loss of thousands of American soldiers and the additional loss of thousands of Japanese civilians by the conventional bombing raids. But, even with that in mind, Truman ordered days of leaflet dropping over Hiroshima and Nagasaki in the hopes that the Japanese would heed the plea for surrender. However, even after Hiroshima, the Japanese monarchy ignored this reality and allowed the Nagasaki bombing to happen.

The problem with most of the politically-correct left of our generation is the practice of revisionist history. Conveniently, they ignore Clinton's rendition activities. They condemn Christopher Columbus for his brutality when he existed at a time in world history where the concept of human rights was barely embryonic. Slavery is another example. Many of our founding fathers practiced it. Should we now remove their names from our history books? Now, they want to remove the realities surrounding 9/11 and what the Bush Administration felt they had to do to keep this country safe.

All acts in history have to be put into the context of the time that they took place. The practices of "in hindsight" and "in retrospect" are judgmental actions done by people who seem to think they are morally superior to the people of a different time, place, and circumstance. Generally speaking, not one of those moral critics has ever had to protect or save a life or has been in mortal fear of an enemy that would kill them. I would ask these "pseudo gods" to step down from their soap boxes and try, for once, to step into the actual shoes of the ones they are criticizing.

Why Revealing CIA Techniques is So Wrong.

We have a Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) because we need to have our ears and eyes on the world to search out and uncover those who would do this country harm.

Forgetting about harsh interrogations for the moment, almost everything that the CIA does is illegal. They plant bugs, eavesdrop, and spy on the activities of other countries. They access and steal a country's classified documents. They have, in the past, conducted covert operations that could result in the overthrow and possible death of some of the world's nastiest leaders. And, yes, they have "taken people out" for strategic reason that would benefit this country. Because what they do is so illegal, their own lives are at constant risk.

When Francis Gary Powers was shot down over Russia, a key CIA operation of U-2 overflights was exposed. Besides taking a big P.R. hit on the world stage, the exposure of the U-2 capability completely obsoleted that spying capability. In the same way, the release of the Bush-era interrogation memos have killed the effectiveness of any interrogations in the future. Like the U-2 exposure, we have just had another hand tied behind our backs.

Furthermore, the CIA is now on notice that illegal activities won't be tolerated by Obama and the Democrats. What message does that send to an agency who almost exclusively operates outside the law. The last time I checked, I couldn't find any country in this world who has made spying on them a legal activity. In most every nation, spying is punishable by death. In this country, Julius and Ethel Rosenberg were executed in 1953 for spying on our atomic weapons program.

Thanks to Obama and his release of those interrogation memos, we have now emasculated all of our CIA operations. Almost everyone in the CIA, or anyone even involved with the CIA, will not be willing to take any risk, even if they know that risk could produce results that would protect this country. To the nonsensical Democrats, they seem to think this will make our country stronger. But, nothing could be farther from the truth.

Furthermore, I believe those memos are probably the best Taliban and Al Qaeda recruiting tools that have ever been designed. Prior to those memos, we had a form of psychological leverage because the enemy didn't know what techniques were actually used to "crack" the likes of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. Now, they know that we had doctors in attendance and that we severely limited those techniques so no physical harm took place. In their minds, now, they know they have nothing to fear if ever captured by the United States. Additionally, the purveyors of propaganda against this country will use those memos (and the photos to be released later next month) as a rallying cry against this country. Those memos and pictures will be used to show that America hates Muslims and that this is what they do to all Muslims. Just mark my words!

Lastly, I think if we are attacked again, it's Obama and the Democrats who can shoulder all the blame for it.

Those Interrogation Memos Show Bush Cared

If the Bush Administration didn't care about the legality of those so-called harsh interrogation techniques, we wouldn't have those memos giving legal opinion about their application and limitations. Instead, the "Administration" would have just gone ahead and done the interrogations. But, the fact that memos were being floated between the CIA, the Administration, and the Justice Department shows that there was an intent to stay within the legal boundaries of what is defined or not defined as torture.

This fact seems to be lost in this whole uproar about "torture" and "harsh interrogation" techniques. The moronic press and the rabid, frothing lefties of this country seem to simply think that these memos show that Bush and his gang conducted torture. But, instead it shows careful consideration as to the legality and to what limits had to be exercised in using these techniques. This fact, alone, shows that there was no wanton or willful attempt to conduct illegal torture. That, in turn, makes this whole "prosecution" of the legal opinion a left-wing witch hunt; and an attempt to conduct a show trial that could be akin to a kangaroo court in some banana republic.

To those on the left...please grow up!

This whole thing shows that politics is being put before the safety of our nation. That, to me, is much more concerning than the minimally hurtful techniques that were used against a handful of terrorists who fully intended to kill as many Americans as possible. And, that's sad. Very sad.

The Church Commission in Redux

Picture yourself as being blind and entering a strange room. Then, someone hits you on the side of your head. Suddenly, as a blind person, you've then lost both your bearings and confidence to get out of that room. You subsequently panic.

In many ways, the United States was a lot like that blind person in 2001 when the events of 9/11 hit. As a country, we were panicked by the events of that infamous day. The 9/11 Commission blamed much of what happened on an intelligence failure. The bottom line was that we really didn't have the "spying" wherewithal to see that 9/11 was coming. Consequently, we had to employ forms of harsh interrogation to overcome our "blindness" in order to keep this country safe. That's the real context in which harsh interrogations were done.

Much of that intelligence failure of 9/11 was a result of the Church Commission activities of the 1970's that forced this country to pull back from our spying throughout the world. Frank Church, a Democrat, and the Democrats of Congress who authorized his commission, followed the "peacenik" attitude of that time. They were all being driven by the hatred of anything that had to do with war and as a result of the failures of the Vietnam war. Those same attitudes continue on to this very day with the likes of Nancy Pelosi/Harry Reid/Barack Obama and most of the other anti-war Democrats that populate our Congress.

In many ways, the Church Commission was revived, yesterday, when Barack Obama said that he was "open" to prosecution of Bush Administration personnel that gave any "legal opinion" that allowed any harsh interrogation techniques (See Full Story).

If the Obama's gang of hateful lefties does go after the members of the Bush Administration, then, the effect of doing so can be as chilling to our intelligence operations, going forward, as was the effect of the Church Commission in the twenty-some years that lead up to 9/11. If former people in the Bush administration are, in some way, prosecuted, it will send a message to almost everyone in future administrations that they should hold back to avoid getting involved with any decisions that may come back to bite them in the future. At the very least, this means that "snap" decisions will not be made at times when quick decisions might be seriously needed. That could mean the difference of immediately acting on a lead (say, to catch Bin Laden) and, instead, letting it slip through our hands. At worse, it means that we may cripple our intelligence operations to the extent that we could easily suffer from the events of another 9/11-like event in the future.

This is so typical of this President and this Congress. Barack Obama talks of developing a Public/Private partnership to end this recession; but, then, turns around and constantly attacks Wall Street; forces reductions in pay and compensation; and back taxes incomes away. This just creates fear of government and hardly the partnership that is needed.

Similarly, in this situation, he talks of reaching across the aisle to unite and eliminate partisan politics. So, what does he do? He spawns a witch hunt over interrogations to cause increased division. Also, with this week's actions, he is creating an environment of "fear" that will, more than likely, cripple our intelligence operations. This despite his daily Obama-speak that says he wakes up each morning concerned about the safety of this country.

From the day he released the memo about harsh interrogation techniques, it was his intention to inflame his base on the left such as MoveOn.org. After all, he is a product of MoveOn.org and George Soros. They are the puppet masters for this guy.

In order to satisfy the left of his base and their rabid hate of Bush and his people, Obama is now willing to put our country at risk for god-only-knows how many years to come; just like the bone-headed Frank Church and his stupid commission. If the Bush Administration's legal opinions are illegal activities and so set in concrete in this country, then, maybe, we should prosecute every single Federal Judge whose decisions and opinions were ultimately overturned by our Supreme Court. After all, in most of those cases that judge's faulty decision completely violated some one's constitutional rights. We could start prosecutions with the most overturned court system in this country: The left-wing, California-based 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

Maybe, too, Obama's Attorney General, Eric Holder, should be prosecuted for his abuse of power in advising Mr. Clinton that he should give Marc Rich a full and complete pardon in what appears to be purely political payback for fund raising operations by Rich's wife. Then, too, Eric Holder should also explain his motives for also advising President Clinton to give 16 Puerto Rican nationalists --- who were all enemies of our State --- clemency. Maybe we should prosecute any Senator or Congressman who authors a bill and who gains its approval and it is passed into law; only to be overturned as being unconstitutional by our Supreme Court.

If we are going to go down this road of political retaliation every time a new Administration and dominant political party takes over, then those who are in charge, today, should be prepared for the same when they leave office. For example, if there is any waste in all this stimulus, maybe we should prosecute members of this Administration for misappropriation of funds. What this President and this left-wing Congress are doing is establishing a serious precedent for future decisions of government.

There is much that this country does that is far more torturous than waterboarding or the releasing of a caterpillar in a room with a known terrorists to extract valuable information. Think about Janet Reno, then working for Bill Clinton, and her directive to create high intensive lighting and loud music so that the Branch Davidians couldn't sleep and so they would eventually surrender. Wasn't that torture? Every day, hundreds of suspected criminals are tasered. I'm not actually sure, but tasers are probably just as extreme and injurious to a person as waterboarding or slamming someone into a padded wall. What about the psychological effects of putting prison inmates into solitary confinement. Is that not a form of torture?

As a country, and for over three years now , we have been well aware that waterboarding was being done. You can thank the New York Times for that. Yet, the people on the left are "now" acting as if this was the first time we ever heard of it. That's because this is another one of Obama's orchestrations of hate and division. It is just like the picketing of AIG homes by the SEIU labor union and by ACORN; Obama support organizations. This time, the "go-signal" was Obama's intentional release of the Bush Justice Department memos. This, then, became the appetizer for the hard left to literally go nuts. You had the far left crazies like Feinstein, Feingold, Leahy, Conyers, Soros, and MoveOn.org mobilize (just like the ACORN and SEIU over AIG bonuses). This reminds me of the same kinds of mobilizations you would see in a "banana republic" when the in-charge dictator would get thousand of loyalists into the streets to make it look as if the whole country was in an uproar over some whipped-up issue.

Lastly, our Congress, both Democrats and Republicans, were well aware of these interrogation techniques as a result of many confidential briefings that they attended during the Bush years. This is whole thing is political maneuvering and another attempt by this President to divide this country.

Our New Milk And Cookies War On Terror

We have an enemy that doesn't care if women and children are killed senselessly. They don't wear uniforms and they hide in schools, hospitals, homes, and religious places where our attempts to track them down and extricate or kill them could result in the deaths of even more innocent men, women, and children. They use suicide murders/bombers, in crowds, to kill their own people just to see if they can kill a single American. They will behead any American and American ally they capture; even if that person is a non-combatant such as a newspaper person, a social aid worker, or contractor. They might hang our captured troops from bridges or drag their dead and half-dead bodies through the streets. They literally believe that any act of terror, whether it be bombing or beheading, is their pathway to heaven. The principles of the Geneva Convention appear nowhere in their interpretation of the Quran.

With all that, Mr. Obama has decided we will take the high ground and be ethical in treating this, our extremely brutal enemy. He feels we should hold the high road; even if it means that many more of us will die. Apparently, the President thinks that, somehow, Al Qaeda and the Taliban are signatories to the Geneva Convention. I have a clue for him, they aren't! They carry no Army Field Manual. Only if we went to war with the Canadians or the French and others who signed the Geneva Convention would our troops be treated with respect (and, I'm not quite sure about the French).

I am not suggesting that we physically torture the enemy and, certainly, not on a widespread basis. But, mental torture, like water-boarding, has proved effective with Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. High profile captures harbor information that could save thousand of lives. What if we catch Bin Laden in an Obama Administration? Are we going to offer him milk and cookies; a snuggly blanket and slippers; and a warm fire in hopes that he spills the beans on all his operations? "Another cigar, Mr. Bin Laden?" Maybe, we would let him plea bargain a lighter sentence on his possible sentence of 2,974 consecutive life sentences for the deaths on 9/11. Right! That'll work! The only signal that we are sending to the likes of Bin Laden is that we are soft on terrorism. It's a green light for horribly killing more Americans and not an inhibitor to our troops being treated fairly as in the precepts of the Geneva Convention. We'll only make the French happy and those at Amnesty International who constantly blame America for everything; but always turn a blind eye to the Saddam Hussein's of the world when they are busy slaughtering their own people; usually for ethnic reasons.

We should never take our options off the table. It will be a lot worse for the image of the United States if Mr. Obama, later, decides to allow water-boarding on the likes of a Bin Laden after saying we would never water-board. Rather than say we won't use psychological interrogation techniques, the President would have been better off to tighten the rules and limits as to the who, the when, the how, and the where that this type of interrogation could be conducted. Now, we are in the position of not even using the civilian tactic of "good-cop bad-cop" without being in violation of the strictly written rules of the Geneva Convention. The all-hour, blaring of music that was used against the Branch Davidians and David Koresh would not have been allowed either.

Those who hate this country, usually out of jealousy, will always make us look to be the bad guys; no matter how careful we are. They are the same people who broadly decry this country anytime we use bombs; but, seem to ignore the fact, that, as much as possible, we use smart bombs to avoid any collateral deaths and damage. No other country cares so much as to develop such targeted weaponry. Those same America-bashers idolize the Palestinians as freedom fighters and revel in their use of suicide murders to kill innocent woman and children and they applaud the Palestinian tactic of blindly firing unguided missiles into civilian neighborhoods. And, the Palastinians do it every day and multiple times a day. Like most liberal progressives, Mr. Obama is living in a fantasy world. The real world is much crueler than he seems to think. And, that's just my opinion.

One last comment. While all those liberal countries, like France, criticize us for torture, the French, like many other countries, seem not to be as "clean" as they would expect us to be (See Full Story).