In Saturday’s radio announcement, President Bush announced that he was vetoing an intelligence bill which he said would hamper CIA efforts to deter terror. Bush said, “The bill Congress sent me would not simply ban one particular interrogation method, as some have implied. Instead, it would eliminate all the alternative procedures we've developed to question the world's most dangerous and violent terrorists. This would end an effective program that Congress authorized just over a year ago. “ Bush also thanked those serving in Homeland Security and related areas of government.
THE PRESIDENT: Good morning. This week, I addressed the Department of Homeland Security on its fifth anniversary and thanked the men and women who work tirelessly to keep us safe. Because of their hard work, and the efforts of many across all levels of government, we have not suffered another attack on our soil since September the 11th, 2001.
This is not for a lack of effort on the part of the enemy. Al Qaida remains determined to attack America again. Two years ago, Osama bin Laden warned the American people, "Operations are under preparation, and you will see them on your own ground once they are finished." Because the danger remains, we need to ensure our intelligence officials have all the tools they need to stop the terrorists.
Unfortunately, Congress recently sent me an intelligence authorization bill that would diminish these vital tools. So today, I vetoed it. And here is why:
The bill Congress sent me would take away one of the most valuable tools in the war on terror -- the CIA program to detain and question key terrorist leaders and operatives. This program has produced critical intelligence that has helped us prevent a number of attacks. The program helped us stop a plot to strike a U.S. Marine camp in Djibouti, a planned attack on the U.S. consulate in Karachi, a plot to hijack a passenger plane and fly it into LibraryTower in Los Angeles, and a plot to crash passenger planes into HeathrowAirport or buildings in downtown London. And it has helped us understand al Qaida's structure and financing and communications and logistics. Were it not for this program, our intelligence community believes that al Qaida and its allies would have succeeded in launching another attack against the American homeland.
The main reason this program has been effective is that it allows the CIA to use specialized interrogation procedures to question a small number of the most dangerous terrorists under careful supervision. The bill Congress sent me would deprive the CIA of the authority to use these safe and lawful techniques. Instead, it would restrict the CIA's range of acceptable interrogation methods to those provided in the Army Field Manual. The procedures in this manual were designed for use by soldiers questioning lawful combatants captured on the battlefield. They were not intended for intelligence professionals trained to question hardened terrorists.
Limiting the CIA's interrogation methods to those in the Army Field Manual would be dangerous because the manual is publicly available and easily accessible on the Internet. Shortly after 9/11, we learned that key al Qaida operatives had been trained to resist the methods outlined in the manual. And this is why we created alternative procedures to question the most dangerous al Qaida operatives, particularly those who might have knowledge of attacks planned on our homeland. The best source of information about terrorist attacks is the terrorists themselves. If we were to shut down this program and restrict the CIA to methods in the Field Manual, we could lose vital information from senior al Qaida terrorists, and that could cost American lives.
The bill Congress sent me would not simply ban one particular interrogation method, as some have implied. Instead, it would eliminate all the alternative procedures we've developed to question the world's most dangerous and violent terrorists. This would end an effective program that Congress authorized just over a year ago.
The fact that we have not been attacked over the past six-and-a-half years is not a matter of chance. It is the result of good policies and the determined efforts of individuals carrying them out. We owe these individuals our thanks, and we owe them the authorities they need to do their jobs effectively.
We have no higher responsibility than stopping terrorist attacks. And this is no time for Congress to abandon practices that have a proven track record of keeping America safe.
Hee hee hee - you're good! Thanks! TW Written by Tee Dub
on 3/12/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
To Tee Dub: I have researched your recent post concerning the "knock on wood" reference. And, as I suspected, your reference is quite accurate according to reputable sources. However, I must take academic issue with your assertion that "people still knock on wood to deafen the animist spirits that dwell within it.." While it is undeniable that many people do "knock on wood", I venture that that virtually all of them do so because it is a lighthearted superstition passed along through generations. I further venture that virtually none of those who choose to "knock on wood" do so "to deafen the animist spirits.." And I also further venture that those select few scholars, who are aware of the animist spirit origins of this tradition, are much too intellectually practical to exercise this ignorant, plebeian custom. Perhaps you may be able to provide us with some peer-reviewed references as to 1) the level of awareness of the animist origins of this custom among the American public, and 2) an analysis of the use of this custom as compared to said awareness. I look forward to your further citations on this matter. And thank you in advance for your efforts. Written by The Analyst
on 3/12/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
As the immortal Samuel Jackson once put it, "I don't remember asking you a g*dd**n thing!" TW Written by Tee Dub
on 3/11/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
teedub, You are such a pompous show-off, straining to impress us with your obscure references. I'm sure you could care less, but I plan to never read one your posts again, knock on wood. Written by
on 3/11/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
P.S. There are a lot of things that people continue to do that don't work - people still "knock on wood" to deafen the animist spirits that dwell within it, for just one example. Just because something's been around a long time does not justify it. Example: Stating in 1862 that "Slavery's okay, because it is sanctioned in the Bible," and that "There have always been slaves." TW Written by Tee Dub
on 3/11/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
This just in: Jack Cloonan on his experience as a terrorist interrogator:
I worked as a special agent for the FBI's Osama bin Laden unit from 1996 to 2002. During that time, my colleagues and I had the chance to question numerous operatives from al-Qaeda. We broke many terrorists. But we did it the right way: by being intelligent and humane. One man we captured was Ali Abdul Saoud Mohamed, an al-Qaeda operative behind the 1998 bombings of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. Ali Mohamed had fully expected to be tortured once we took him in. Instead, we assured him that we wouldn't harm him, and we offered to protect his family. Within weeks, we had opened a gold mine of information about al-Qaeda's operations....Intelligence failures had much to do with the atrocity of September 11, but those had nothing to do with a lack of torture. Let me be clear on one crucial point: it is the terrorists whom we won over with humane methods in the 1990s who continue to provide the most reliable intelligence we have in the fight against al-Qaeda. And it is the testimony of terrorists we tortured after 9/11 who have provided the most unreliable information, such as stories about a close connection between al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein. Read the whole thing:
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2008/0801.cloonan.html Written by Tee Dub
on 3/11/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
1) Never tried it - and have no desire to do so - nevertheless if "torture does not work" then I imagine it would not still be in practice for these thousands of years. If different people come up with the "same story" and these leads prove to be true then IT IS an effective means of getting at the truth, "distasteful" though it may be. 2) "(T)orture does migrate" - simple, after our torturers have "done their thing" - kill them. (okkkaaaay... fine... it is disgusting to contemplate torture and no, I wouldn’t want a torturer to marry my daughter – point taken). 3) I do not "respect evil" but those who would be willing to harm you or I or those we love would not do so if we were organized crime kingpins or such. So "evil" does get respect from those who would otherwise not think twice of harming innocent people. There are many who are willing to do disturbing things to keep us safe - including putting their life on the line - even for those of us who would call them "cowards", "baby-killers", etc. I do wish we could all respect our differences and love one another, but that unfortunately is not the world we live in. Hopefully those who think we are "going too far" with this modern-day Crusade against the modern-day-practitioners of Jihad will continue to feel justified, as the alternative means the “forces of Allah” have struck a major blow against the West (hopefully not in our humble little city). Written by kpf, bald, fat, cowardly virgin, but a good dancer
on 3/11/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Kpf, three points: 1) torture does not work; people will say anything to get it to stop, and so it is not an effective means of getting at the truth. Therefore the "ticking bomb" scenario you cite is something better kept in the realm of fiction, where it belongs. 2) torture does not stay limited to "evil doers" - unfortunately, it has a tendency to "come home" - here's a statement from the author of the book _Torture and Democracy_, Darius Rejali: "(T)orture does migrate, and there are some good examples of it both in American and French history. The basic idea here is that soldiers who get ahead torturing come back and take jobs as policemen, and private security, and they get ahead doing the same things they did in the army. And so torture comes home. Everyone knows waterboarding, but no one remembers that it was American soldiers coming back from the Philippines that introduced it to police in the early twentieth century. During the Philippine Insurgency in 1902, soldiers learned the old Spanish technique of using water tortures, and soon these same techniques appeared in police stations, especially throughout the South, as well as in military lockups during World War I. Likewise, the electrical techniques used in Vietnam appeared in the 1960s appeared in torturing African Americans on the south side of Chicago in the 1970s and 1980s, and, as I argue in the book, that wasn’t just an accident." 3) Finally, your prison analogy is a little bizarre, to say the least. Maybe you "respect evil" but I sure don't, and I daresay most people would agree with me. I, for one, am not willing to cede my humanity in order to feel "safer". Period. That is truly cowardice. TW Written by Tee Dub
on 3/11/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
I wish the world could - as Lennon's "Imagine" states - "would live as one." I truly, truly do. Nevertheless reality intrudes. Here's an interesting tidbit about humanity: if you're a decent guy who somehow winds up in prison, you'll probably be raped. However if you're some scumbag SOB Mafioso dude who - if harmed - will see that the people who harmed you will have their wives and daughters harmed in retaliation, well...you'll be left alone in prison, even treated with the greatest respect. So what I'm saying is: we as a species "respect evil." We abuse decency but respect evil. There "we" are. Anyway, do we want these religious kooks (Islamic, Christian, whiteys or "people of color" - it does not matter what kind of “nutcase”) using WMD in our cities? No. Am I proud of us using torture? No. Would I condone it if it prevents a suicidal religious nutcase from killing thousands or millions? Absolutely. Written by kpf
on 3/11/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
I think I'll stick with the blank for now. There's very little difference between that and some nonsensical screen name, but it just annoys you so much. You should appreciate having someone else to vent your bitterness on, even if you don't have screen name to address it to. And please remember, it's "your" country, but it's our country, too. Written by
on 3/10/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Hey no-name, what do YOU think? Do you think the United States of America should be TORTURING people? Is that what YOU think? And rather than comparing me to Chavez (is that an argument, or just an ad hominen attack?), why don't you give what I have to say some thought! Rather than just vilifying me as a "Lefty Radical" why don't you entertain the notion that maybe, sometimes, like a stopped clock, I'm right? Are you incapable of doing that? I agree with what Jeff Crouere writes fairly often - ask anyone who posts here on a regular basis. I'm not afraid of agreeing with the conservative opinion when I think it's right - can YOU say the same thing about yourself? And come up with a damn screen name already. Surely you have some creativity. TW Written by Tee Dub
on 3/10/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
teedub, It's getting harder to distinguish the daily quotes between you and Chavez every day. Does your heart only bleed for the downtrodden, oppressed and poor in "your" country? Or do you feel for the muslim populations of the world being oppressed and threatened by radical fundamentalist regimes elsewhere? And if you do care about human rights in those countries, what should "your" country be doing about that? And just for argument's sake, let's assume that the great satan, Bush, is out of the picture. I don't think you can come up with any meaningful new descriptions or comparisons for him. What should Hillary or Obama do once you get them elected? Written by
on 3/10/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
That should read the "duh" not "D'oh!" (yes, I know I'm an a$$) Written by kpf
on 3/10/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
That should read the "worst" one ever. D'oh! TW Written by Tee Dub
on 3/9/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Lincoln suspended habeas corpus, and Roosevelt locked up Japanese Americans in internment camps. These actions were wrong as well. So Sid, in one sense you're right, war is not good for the preservation of civil liberties. That being said, no one but Bush vetoed that bill. Whom else should I blame? I pick on him because he's simply a terrible, horrific, pathetic president - quite possibly the worse one ever. TW Written by Tee Dub
on 3/9/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Tee Dub do you honestly think that Pres. Bush is the only president that has ever been in charge when some of these cruel tactics were used? Is he the only President to authorize this? After Sept. 11th, 2001 I think there are not many people that would have not turned their heads when information was needed. Doesn't make it right or moral, but c'mon, quit picking on only one person. Written by Sid
on 3/9/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin. Written by Tee Dub
on 3/9/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
We lived in a dangerous world in 1941, but the United States did not stoop to torture! Think about it - the President of the United States of America vetoed a bill because he wants to continue the Spanish Inquisition practice of waterboarding! This is an outrage! This is not a media story, you moron - this is not the media talking; this is people who love this country and hate what Bush and his ilk have done to it! History is not going to be kind to this administration. Everything they touch turns to sh*t. I want my country back from idiots who think it's okay to torture people! Torture does not work, and it's wrong! Dear God, Les, are you ready to sacrifice everything this country stands for just because you're afraid of a few radical Muslims? I sir, am not! TW Written by Tee Dub
on 3/9/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
President Bush makes a clear case for his veto.Congress authorized law a year ago and now seeks to void very valuable legislation that, together with Homeland Security work hss prevented a repeat of 9-11.The media has picked up on the emotional hype regarding questioning by the CIA of terrorists to prevent attacks.How foolish we are if we follow their path.Wake up people,we DO live in a very dangerous world!!!Les Needham Written by les needham
on 3/8/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE