Obama...

[Deo Vindice]

In a somewhat more perfect America, a huge parade would have been held in Los Angeles, honoring and celebrating the CIA — yes, the Central Intelligence Agency — once it was made public that the city had been spared a repeat of the 9/11 terrorist attack, due to intel gathered by the CIA from captured 9/11 terrorist mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammed (KSM, henceforth).

LA most likely will not do that, although I suppose it’s in the realm of possibility. However, the Obama administration has now made its position crystal clear:

If Obama was president at that time, he would have allowed terrorists to fly a hijacked jet airliner into the side of the 75-story US Bank Tower, occupied by 10,000 people, rather than authorize aggressive interrogation in order to stop it.

This is not an exercise in “what-if” scenarios. Obama practically said so. And to boot, he now plans to prosecute the very people who did stop the plot. Anyother person here on IA that thinks Obama would do differently, by all means please leave a reply and explain...

Now time for some logic!



[first, take a look at LA's skyline. The highest building is the US Bank Tower]

• Al Queda already demonstrated they could fly hijacked airliners into high-rise buildings.
• KSM, the mastermind of the 9/11 atrocity, was in captivity, and had information on the cell tasked with committing the Los Angeles “second wave” attack.
• Memos reveal that prior to waterboarding, KSM was a wall of intel silence, mocking his captors and giving no information beyond “Soon you will see.”
• Memos further reveal that due to waterboarding, KSM gave up vital information that US intel forces used to stop the 2nd wave attack and roll up that whole cell of terrorists.
• Many people are fond of saying that torturing (or even waterboarding) terrorists will not yield usable information, that the detainee will make up information just to stop the pain. And yet, a whole terrorist cell and plot were rolled up. Real people were arrested, along with reams upon reams of evidence implicating themselves and others. Waterboarding yielded real, not fake, information.

With me so far? There WAS an active plot, by people who had already demonstrated both the will and the ability to commit a grand-scale attack. It was stopped. It would not have been stopped if the CIA had not upped the intensity of their interrogation of KSM, graduating to waterboarding - a technique that causes no physical injury but gives the target a very dramatic sensation of drowning.

Can any other conclusion be drawn, so far, other than that waterboarding KSM stopped a major terrorist attack on Los Angeles, probably saving 2000-4000 American lives?

So, what does Obama have to say about it?

• He asserts that using waterboarding makes us less safe.
• He has declared to the world that waterboarding will not be done now, and it should have been done before. I.e. , more of those “failed Bush polices that we will no longer tolerate”.
• He has directed his AG to prosecute Bush administration officials who authorized waterboarding.

In other words, he is saying that he would allow 10000 Americans to burn and die rather than dirty his hands by authorizing waterboarding to gather the intel necessary to stop it.

In his moral universe, he weighs the morally difficult practice of authorizing aggressive (but ultimately unharmful) interrogation of terrorists to gain vital intel, versus his sworn duty to protect and defend America, and finds the solution simple.

Not only will he neglect, even shirk, his responsibility to defend America, he will go much further. He will attempt to criminalize and prosecute loyal, patriotic Americans who did decide that defending America was more important than the delicate sensibilities of terrorists and their American sympathizers. On yet another facet, the Obama administration shows its evil heart. So great is his desire to give the world an image of a kinder, gentler America, so bent is he on blaming any and all things on Bush, that he will willingly put America in more danger.

Small, craven, bitter men stabbing at the heels of the much greater men that came before them - these earn nothing but spite from me.

[Deke]

Sweet copy and paste.

Oooo, my turn!

Bush’s counterterrorism chief, Frances Fragos Townsend, told reporters that the cell leader was arrested in February 2002, and “at that point, the other members of the cell” (later arrested) “believed that the West Coast plot has been canceled, was not going forward” [italics mine]. A subsequent fact sheet released by the Bush White House states, “In 2002, we broke up [italics mine] a plot by KSM to hijack an airplane and fly it into the tallest building on the West Coast.” These two statements make clear that however far the plot to attack the Library Tower ever got—an unnamed senior FBI official would later tell the Los Angeles Times that Bush’s characterization of it as a “disrupted plot” was “ludicrous”—that plot was foiled in 2002. But Sheikh Mohammed wasn’t captured until March 2003.

Note: I don't give this anymore credit than what you posted being that it was simply a comment on the blog you copy and pasted from. But my point is that, it's a blog.

[Total_Blender]

I.
What you are doing here, is exactly an excercise in "what if" scenarios. Theres a specific term for structuring an argument the way you just did, its called "denying the antecedent":

The consequent in an indicative conditional is claimed to be false because the antecedent is false; if A, then B; not A, therefore not B.

You are saying that since torture caused KSM to give up knowledge, then we were able to take out the cell planning an attack.

But what really happened was... we got lucky that those people in the cell were stupid enough not to change their game plan once KSM was captured.

Edit: rather... that existing policies in law enforcement found and dismantled the cell before KSM was even captured

You don't really know how much useless information KSM did give up before giving up the info about the cell. His turning over the cell could have also just been a red-herring... securing him the means to plant disinformation.

You are assuming that we have learned nothing since 9/11 and there have been no measures put in place since then to prevent a 9/11 type scenario. While we are still vulnerable to an attack, procedures have been revised since then and theres a lot more awareness regarding terrorism.

II.
What happens in the occasion we have tortured innocent people? There have been several cases of the detainees at Gitmo being innocent of any wrongdoing. There are cases of informants turning in innocent travelers for cash bounties. Murat Kurnaz is one of those cases.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...120402307.html

III.
It is shit like this, like your post and the acts of torture themselves that will (to use a George W. Bush term) embolden our enemies. The terrorists will use the outrage over this in their recruiting... it makes us nothing more than the oppressive colonialists they say we are. You fail to see that the cause and effect scenario you have posited also works in reverse.

As a nation that not only sponsors, but endorses torture, would we really be any better than the "terrorist states" we are denouncing? What moral high ground would we have over our enemies who torture and mutilate American soldiers and then drag their corpses through the streets.

You talk about small, craven, and bitter men. Yet in your post, you have shown yourself to be nothing but. Is it the American way to use a cowardly tool like torture?

[Deke]

If Obama was president at that time, he would have allowed terrorists to fly a hijacked jet airliner into the side of the 75-story US Bank Tower, occupied by 10,000 people, rather than authorize aggressive interrogation in order to stop it.

This is not an exercise in “what-if” scenarios. Obama practically said so. And to boot, he now plans to prosecute the very people who did stop the plot. Anyother person here on IA that thinks Obama would do differently, by all means please leave a reply and explain...

And to further dismantle this ridiculous post, it absolutely is a "what-if" scenario. The fact of the matter is, Obama was not the president when this occurred. The United States was different when this occurred. The world viewed the United States differently when this occurred.



What if Obama was president at the time of this planned terrorist attack. Thousands of people obviously would have died because Obama doesn't believe in torture.


What if Obama had been born 8 years earlier. Obviously, no terrorist attack would have even been planned because Earth would have entered a time of world peace and prosperity.


What if Andrew Jackson was president. No terrorist attack would have occurred because he already nuked the entire middle east and Africa because him and all of his white friends already had all of the slaves they needed.


This thread is ridiculous.




On a friendly side-note: I'm guessing that Cashville = Nashville? If so, how do you like it? I took a job up there and start in July. I've heard nothing but good so far

[Vteckidd]

2 things

1) I know its TV, but the new season of 24 centers around this very issue. What would you do to stop a terrorist attack? How far would you go? What if killing 1 terrorist provides information that saves 1 american? 100? 1000?100000?

2) Karl Rove made a great comment about this last night. Obama is willing to punish people that differ in POLICY, not the LAW. That is a dangerous slope. And he has flip flopped AGAIN. He said early on there would be no prosecutions, now, he says he is open to it. This after meeting with Chavez and castro................


Im sorry, but there is a time and place for diplomacy, and there is a time for torture with reason. I would stand behind torture if it SAVES AMERICAN LIVES.

The people saying that torture is wrong, are the same people that are bitching about "why didnt we stop 9/11 before hand"

Obama cannot say we are safer NOW after he has only been in office 4 months. Bush kept us safe for over 7 years.

Time will tell if Obamas approach is effective

[Total_Blender]

2) Karl Rove made a great comment about this last night. Obama is willing to punish people that differ in POLICY, not the LAW. That is a dangerous slope. And he has flip flopped AGAIN. He said early on there would be no prosecutions, now, he says he is open to it. This after meeting with Chavez and castro................

Theres a difference between the law and "exploiting the loopholes in the law that allow us to use torture". And from what I heard its actually Eric Holder and the DOJ who are seeking prosecution.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/04/...e.prosecution/

It seems like they are not so much going after those who executed the torture as those who authorized it's use.

[Vteckidd]

Theres a difference between the law and "exploiting the loopholes in the law that allow us to use torture". And from what I heard its actually Eric Holder and the DOJ who are seeking prosecution.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/04/...e.prosecution/

It seems like they are not so much going after those who executed the torture as those who authorized it's use.

loopholes are still loopholes.

Holder is a pussy.

[tony]

This is stupid, plain and simple. I'm suprised it was even posted, I had to check to make sure it wasnt a joke.

[Vteckidd]

i wouldnt go so far as to say Obama would let a bunch of americans die, but i mean look at CLinton. He was SOFT on the middle east and abroad. We werent LOVED, and we werent FEARED either. Look where that got us.

Why do you think we were attacked on 9/11? DOnt tell me it was from Bush being in office for 1 year. We were VULNERABLE. Why were we vulnerable? Clinton had done nothing to strengthen us, he tore down the military (base closures in Europe, middle east, etc) , he had zero foreign policy. he was a good ole boy, dont mess with me i wont mess with you.

Like it or not, but facts support the Taliban and Osamas flourish and rise to power because of the 8 years under clintons watch. Terrorism happened (overseas) USS Cole , Saudi Embassy being bombed, etc and we did little to nothing to respond.

I would rather be feared, than everyone elses best friend (that eventually gets stabbed in the back)

And what about our allies? those who have stood by us, now we say "thanks but no thanks"

think outside the box

[Total_Blender]

i wouldnt go so far as to say Obama would let a bunch of americans die, but i mean look at CLinton. He was SOFT on the middle east and abroad. We werent LOVED, and we werent FEARED either. Look where that got us.

Clinton was certainly aware that Bin Ladin was a threat, so I am sure he kept tabs on the potential for terrorism. He had prepared documents waring W of Bin Ladin and the terrorists. Its not exactly like W got blindsided... he wasn't in a sensory deprivation chamber when the WTC bombing happend in '93 or when the USS Cole was attacked in 2000. The warning signs were there, he just didn't act on them. 9/11 did not happen on Clinton's watch, it happened on W's.

Foreign military bases and big military spending don't do much to protect against terrorism. What works is having good intel and acting on it. We've all seen how well W used intel... WMD's in Iraq, anyone?

[BanginJimmy]

Foreign military bases and big military spending don't do much to protect against terrorism. What works is having good intel and acting on it. We've all seen how well W used intel... WMD's in Iraq, anyone?

Clinton also gutted the intelligence community. He was playing favorites with the agencies so in turn the agencies were competing for money. That lead to a breakdown in communication. Agencies did not share info. The warning signs about the hijacked planes was not a single piece of intel. It was several pieces that painted the picture after they were put together. They were never put together because CIA had some of it, NSA had some of it, DIA had some of it, FBI had some of it.


Again, you bash Bush for not using intel to stop 9/11, but fault him for using better info with regard to Iraq. You cannot have it both ways. You either want the President to act on info or not.

[Total_Blender]

Again, you bash Bush for not using intel to stop 9/11, but fault him for using better info with regard to Iraq. You cannot have it both ways. You either want the President to act on info or not.

If all the intel agencies work too closely together, isn't that big brother? You want the president to act judiciously when it comes to intel and know when to act and when to hold back. It was obvious the intel on Iraq was BS from the get-go.

[BanginJimmy]

If all the intel agencies work too closely together, isn't that big brother?

You think it is big-brother if the NSA tells the CIA that terrorist A told terrorist B to take flight 91?

You want the president to act judiciously when it comes to intel and know when to act and when to hold back. It was obvious the intel on Iraq was BS from the get-go.

Of course it was obvious when you look back at it. Hindsight is always 20/20. Then again, we both know that we dont have even half of the info that Bush had.

[Vteckidd]

Clinton had the chance to take Osama out, and decided that an Arkansas College football game was more important.

You should read Dereliction of Duty, written by the former Nuclear Football carrier under clinton.

Funny how big military spending and foreign bases arent ok, but having good intel is. How do you think we get that intel?

Im sorry but most people would agree that Clinton weakened the country world wide, he allowed terrorist cells to flourish. They acted on 9/11 as well as during his administration.

Bush, sorry folks, he kept us safe whether you like it or not, his record speaks for itself.

[Total_Blender]

Funny how big military spending and foreign bases arent ok, but having good intel is. How do you think we get that intel?
.

The spending keeping a bunch of bases open and having the latest weapons systems is not mutually inclusive to having a good intelligence community. You can have one without necessarily having the other. Its not who has the most hardware, its who knows what the threats are and when/where that hardware will need to be used. Clinton knew this and he did engage Bin Ladin and his camp with missile strikes.

You can scoff at Clinton's failure to get him all you want but he still has the same batting average when it comes to Bin Ladin that Bush does and Bush threw a whole lot more spending at him than Clinton did

You can postulate a what if about Clinton and 9/11 til you are blue in the face, but you know if Clinton got a memo on his desk regarding a potential attack from Bin Ladin he would recognize the threat as valid.

[Vteckidd]

The spending keeping a bunch of bases open and having the latest weapons systems is not mutually inclusive to having a good intelligence community. You can have one without necessarily having the other. Its not who has the most hardware, its who knows what the threats are and when/where that hardware will need to be used. Clinton knew this and he did engage Bin Ladin and his camp with missile strikes.

You can scoff at Clinton's failure to get him all you want but he still has the same batting average when it comes to Bin Ladin that Bush does and Bush threw a whole lot more spending at him than Clinton did

You can postulate a what if about Clinton and 9/11 til you are blue in the face, but you know if Clinton got a memo on his desk regarding a potential attack from Bin Ladin he would recognize the threat as valid.

i forgot you are a defense expert now lol

Jimmy its not even worth arguing with him cause he posts opinions like they are facts.

Blender you post TOTAL conjecture and opinions or you pass yout thoughts off as facts.

beliefs are not necessarily true.

[81911SC]

I really don't see Obama doing much if we were attacked. I really don't. :sad:

[SL65AMG]

since were on the topic of obama.... ill add a little e-mail i just recieved from someone


Tuesday, April 21, 2009


Remember CANDIDATE Barack Obama? The guy who "wasn't going to take away
our guns"?

Well, guess what?

Less than 100 days into his administration, he's never met a gun he
didn't hate.

A week ago, Obama went to Mexico, whined about the United States, and
bemoaned (before the whole world) the fact that he didn't have the
political power to take away our semi-automatics. Nevertheless, that
didn't keep him from pushing additional restrictions on American gun
owners.

It's called the Inter-American Convention Against Illicit Manufacturing
of and Trafficking in Firearms, Ammunition, Explosives, and Other
Related Materials. To be sure, this imponderable title masks a really
nasty piece of work.

First of all, when the treaty purports to ban the "illicit" manufacture
of firearms, what does that mean?

1. "Illicit manufacturing" of firearms is defined as "assembly of
firearms [or] ammunition... without a license...."

Hence, reloading ammunition -- or putting together a lawful firearm from
a kit -- is clearly "illicit manufacturing."

Modifying a firearm in any way would surely be "illicit manufacturing."
And, while it would be a stretch, assembling a firearm after cleaning it
could, in any plain reading of the words, come within the screwy
definition of "illicit manufacturing."

2. "Firearm" has a similarly questionable definition.

"[A]ny other weapon" is a "firearm," according to the treaty -- and the
term "weapon" is nowhere defined.

So, is a BB gun a "firearm"? Probably.

A toy gun? Possibly.

A pistol grip or firing pin? Probably. And who knows what else.

If these provisions (and others) become the law of the land, the Obama
administration could have a heyday in enforcing them. Consider some of
the other provisions in the treaty:

* Banning Reloading. In Article IV of the treaty, countries commit to
adopting "necessary legislative or other measures" to criminalize
illicit manufacturing and trafficking in firearms.

Remember that "illicit manufacturing" includes reloading and modifying
or assembling a firearm in any way. This would mean that the Obama
administration could promulgate regulations banning reloading on the
basis of this treaty -- just as it is currently circumventing Congress
to write legislation taxing greenhouse gases.

* Banning Gun Clubs. Article IV goes on to state that the criminalized
acts should include "association or conspiracy" in connection with said
offenses -- which is arguably a term broad enough to allow, by
regulation, the criminalization of entire pro-gun organizations or gun
clubs, based on the facilities which they provide their membership.

* Extraditing US Gun Dealers. Article V requires each party to "adopt
such measures as may be necessary to establish its jurisdiction over the
offenses it has established in accordance with this Convention" under a
variety of circumstances.

We know that Mexico is blaming U.S. gun dealers for the fact that its
streets are flowing with blood. And we know it is possible for Mexico
to define offenses "committed in its territory" in a very broad way.
And we know that we have an extradition obligation under Article XIX of
the proposed treaty. So we know that Mexico could try to use the treaty
to demand to extradition of American gun dealers.

Under Article XXIX, if Mexico demands the extradition of a lawful
American gun dealer, the U.S. would be required to resolve the dispute
through "other means of peaceful settlement."

Does anyone want to risk twenty years in a sweltering Mexican jail on
the proposition that the Obama administration would apply this provision
in a pro-gun manner?

* Microstamping. Article VI requires "appropriate markings" on
firearms. And, it is not inconceivable that this provision could be
used to require microstamping of firearms and/or ammunition -- a
requirement which is clearly intended to impose specifications which are
not technologically possible or which are possible only at a
prohibitively expensive cost.

* Gun Registration. Article XI requires the maintenance of any records,
for a "reasonable time," that the government determines to be necessary
to trace firearms. This provision would almost certainly repeal
portions of McClure-Volkmer and could arguably be used to require a
national registry or database


some of it is portrayed in a biased sense but thats not why it was posted..... the content is whats important

[Total_Blender]

full text of said "ban on reloading"

http://www.state.gov/p/wha/rls/49907.htm

All it says in Article I. is that you need a license from the state. Which is probably the same GFL you need to CC anyway. Its up to the states to handle the licenses, I doubt Sonny Perdue and the General Assembly will make it very hard for you to get one.

And in Article IV. pay attention to the word "illicit" and how many times its used. As long as the gun clubs aren't involved in any kind of illegal activity (like gun running) they will be fine.

[eraser4g63]

^^ it doesn't matter how you package it or sweeten it, they are still infringing on second amendment rights.

[BanginJimmy]

^^ it doesn't matter how you package it or sweeten it, they are still infringing on second amendment rights.

That is a little bit of a stretch unless reload materials, namely the projectile and primer, are already regulated in the same fashion as store purchased ammo.