Holder chooses Terrorists over Patriots

If you were cleared in advance legally to do the tough work of CIA interrogation to keep America safe and cleared after the fact by justice, would you feel persecuted for political reasons if a subsequent administration tried to scapegoat you for policies they didn’t like? Would you want to work for an organization which was so duplicitous? Eric Holder was never fit to be Attorney General which is why I opposed him from the beginning. He has a history of siding with the evil doers and against the good guys. He favors releasing terrorist, but restricting law abiding gun owners. He favors lightening sentences for career criminal predators, but wants to persecute patriots who saved countless lives fighting terrorists by any means necessary. It is alright if someone can’t stomach threatening the families of terrorists who have plans to kill your family. Just stay out of the way and let the adults do their job. It is psychological warfare. They didn’t even attempt to do it. These terrorists do not care about themselves. They are willing to die. How does the liberal brain trust propose breaking them? I know give them an all expense paid life in a tropical paradise. CIA chief Leon Panetta understood that this outrage shouldn’t be allowed to stand. He could have blocked it by sticking to his guns and submitting his resignation as he threatened to do. Unfortunately, he caved just like he always did in Congress. It appears this administration has two types of people, the weak and the evil. Neither is good for America. We need to stand up for our patriots in the CIA, if we do not who will they go after next? If Americans can’t stand up for the people who saved countless American lives, we are no longer worthy of being a superpower. We become just like the vacillating Europeans who accomplish nothing.

25 thoughts on “Holder chooses Terrorists over Patriots”

  1. What would you expect from the thugocrat who got Marc Rich his pardon?

    Note that some nominally-Republican morons in the Senate voted to confirm this jerk as Attorney General.

    All the reason to ignore those ‘begging letters’ and phone calls from Washington asking Republicans to donate to generic campaigns. Donate generously but do if for individual candidates with good voting records.

    Why support sellouts?

  2. David – your moral compass is broken.

    You are promoting the Nuremberg Defense. A generations ago Americans used to congratulate ourselves that we weren’t like the “good Germans” who would follow immoral orders out of false patriotism. Now we are split into two camps on that moral issue.

  3. In releasing these memos, the men and women of the CIA have assurances from both myself, and from Attorney General Holder, that we will protect all who acted reasonably and relied upon legal advice from the Department of Justice that their actions were lawful. The Attorney General has assured me that these individuals will not be prosecuted and that the Government will stand by them.
    Pres Obama 16 April 09

  4. In Nuremburg, the issue was the slaughter of the innocent. The state was not acting to preserve itself or its citizens. Your argument is specious. They did nothing wrong and the memos released show that they saved lives and were effective.

    The moral compass that is broken are those who would sacrifice the lives of the innocent for the comfort of the guilty.

  5. David: “If you were cleared in advance legally to do the tough work of CIA interrogation to keep America safe and cleared after the fact by justice, ….”

    Noman is absolutely correct! Obama is not correct!!

    It is quite clear that Cheney/Bush/Rummy tampered with the Justice Dept, not only having appointed federal attorneys fired for political purposes, but also for corrupting the fundamental legal processes by rewriting the rules for torture in violation of the Geneva Convention.

    Now we must have an investigation to determine whether there was criminal culpability from the bottom on up the chain leading to the very highest levels in the former Executive Branch.

    We cannot now opt to ignore the alleged behavior of the CIA agents, nor the environment that enabled this simply outrageous behavior, otherwise we have damaged our “moral compass” as a nation, in which case culpability will extend from the alleged culprits and their enablers to each American citizen who chooses to look the other way, like David and annoni here on this very blog!

  6. David, we would do well to return to the moral values of the Greatest Generation, which earned is rightly deserved respect around the world.

    You are wrong about the Nuremberg Principles. There were many charges lesser than “slaughter.”

    In fact, one of the charges brought against a group of German generals was this:

    # Murder and ill-treatment of prisoners of war, and arbitrarily designating combatants as “partisans”, denying them the status of prisoners of war, as well as their killing.

    Our American values compel us to hold our own people responsible to those standards, even if it is uncomfortable. We will be stronger for it.

    In Nuremburg, the issue was the slaughter of the innocent.

    According to the laws of their nation they were not innocent.

    The state was not acting to preserve itself or its citizens.

    The state said it was.

  7. David: “In Nuremburg, the issue was the slaughter of the innocent. The state was not acting to preserve itself or its citizens. Your argument is specious. They did nothing wrong and the memos released show that they saved lives and were effective.

    The moral compass that is broken are those who would sacrifice the lives of the innocent for the comfort of the guilty.

    David, to shut off investigation of our alleged abuses, which is your position, puts you on a very slippery slope to utter moral depravity comparable to what took place in Germany, certainly not in scale, but certainly with the rationalizations that enabled outrageous behavior.

    The defense of the Nuremburg defendants was that they were just obeying orders. The top leaders were held accountable by the Court, as should happen with our Justice Department investigation should it lead to their culpability.

    Instead, you want to shut down the investigation based on your prejudgment and your ideological support of the alleged culprits. In American values, there is no justification for your position, let alone in American jurisprudence.

    So I say that you have lost not only your moral compass, but also your jurisprudence compass! Please rethink your position.

  8. Please save the theoretical and examine the real world. The question is simple, we have been safe for 8 years, why?
    What works? What does not?

    Some who report to have a stronger moral compass than the rest of us demand safety and security but will do nothing to make that a reality and then have the nerve to dictate how that safety and security is delivered.

    For those who want to dump on those who carried out a legal policy for political gain, you should be ashamed.

    Mike Protack

  9. Terrorists can harm a few of our people, a few of our buildings, and maybe even an entire city. But they cannot harm our moral values or our Constitution. Only we can do that.

  10. Protack: “For those who want to dump on those who carried out a legal policy for political gain, you should be ashamed.”

    Right, the Bush Administration made their own law, and then obeyed it.

    Hopefully, investigations will demonstrate the illegality of this and bring them to trial. We either honor our rule of law, or we don’t. We cannot allow our elected leaders to behave outside of the law, even up to the level of our just past President. And we cannot have the Executive Branch make their own laws, which is the perogative only of the Legislative Branch. It appears that the Bush Administration is in violation of the Constitution.

  11. Lets apply these standards evenly. If we want to argue a Constitutional violation than the debate should be held over which article or amendment has been violated. I would also be interested to see the Supreme Court weigh in on the Constitutionality of what has happened. I am all for changing our government so that it more closely follows the Constitution. However, if we are going to do it on one point lets do it on all of them, and apply the same standard to each administration.

  12. Just don’t ask no-man or Perry why Lincoln, FDR and Truman are considered great presidents — especially when they acted illegally to a degree makes GW Bush look like a piker. Better yet, do ask them — just to see their preposterous, meandering and partisan hackery-based replies.

  13. The ‘illegal act’ of FDR in circumventing the Neutrality Act through Lend-Lease did not seem to ruffle many feathers except for the “America First” crowd. There was an active “peace movement” it largely reversed course when the USSR was invaded. The ‘Merchants of Death’ turned into ‘the Arsenal of Democracy’. Doing an end-run on the Boland Amendment was a similar ploy.

    The Moral Relativists are those who seem to believe that what most of us call evil is simply a different point of view.

    Thus we must appease those who have a different point of view. It worked for a while after Munich.

  14. Tim, they can’t point to anywhere in the Constitution that applies. They can’t talk about 4th and 5th amendment rights because they do not apply to enemy combatants. Habeas can be suspended according to the Constitution during war and insurrection by the Congress which gave the President a blank check to get these guys. I will point out that the very Speaker and Chairman who would protest voted for the blank check. The best case they can make are the Geneva Conventions but they only apply between signatory nations and not unlawful combatants and pirates.

    It is all about feelings, but their feelings would have people dead. Noman is willing to sacrifice an entire city for his misguided feelings. I am not. I am much more comfortable with my moral compass than his.

  15. One of the follies of Wilsonism was that ‘good intentions’ and public indignation were powerful weapons against the forces of true evil. The concept was echoed by the following three presidents. They oversaw the destruction of most of our Navy and even the abolition of the Black Chamber at the Department of State. They believed that treaties and disarmament would make the world a safer place.

    We see the same sort of starry-eyed sentimental slop coming from a variety of apologists for evil.

  16. So when Thomas Jefferson landed US Marines in Tripoli to assault the safe havens of the Barbary Pirates was it a “war of choice” or a legitimate defense of American interests? Just askin’ since it was our first war against Islamist terrorists.

  17. Noman to me “You are wrong about the Nuremberg Principles. There were many charges lesser than “slaughter.”

    No, I was not. The people charged with these lesser charges were mostly freed later on appeals or from pardons. It was about the vindictive behavior of the victors not justice.

    The POW’s were entitled to legal protection by treaty. Illegal combatants are not. Most of the world recognizes that. President Obama wants other nations to do the dirty work through rendition while not dirtying his hands. I don’t respect that. If you are willing to do rendition, don’t stand on a soapbox claiming that you are morally superior.

  18. The use of torture to obtain a confession was outlawed by the Fifth Amendment and rightfully so. Torture was once part of the ‘justice system’ and was supposed to stop at a certain point well short of death or permanent injury. This practice has been halted in most of the civilized world.

    The interrogation of captured airmen in Germany did not involve torture but clever techniques that revealed some information of interest. However, persons likely to be captured seldom had any high-value information. There were a few goofs where high-ranking officers privy to ULTRA were taken prisoner. Most military information grows stale rather rapidly.

    In the non-conventional warfare that is now the norm, we have no need for ‘confessions’ but information needs to be extracted. Not by the rack or thumbscrew but by techniques that will encourage a terrorist to reveal facts that can save innocent lives.

    Some of these techniques may not get the ACLU seal of approval but we know whose rights they care about.

  19. The FBI and the military both claim that useful information can be extracted without the use of torture, that in fact the information gathered by torture is less than reliable.

    Therefore, there is no defense for breaking the Geneva Conventions, as the Cheney/Bush administration were happy to do. For shame on them!

    David: “Habeas can be suspended according to the Constitution during war and insurrection by the Congress which gave the President a blank check to get these guys.”

    Maybe it can, but is it right to do so, especially in light of what I just wrote. Habeas corpus is a basic of our jurisprudence system, yet people like Dick Cheney and David Anderson are quite willing to forget it when we are under stress. I can’t agree with that.

    What I can agree with, however, is your criticism of Obama’s policy to continue renditions. Obama has slipped badly on that one. I hope he reconsiders!

  20. The FBI and the military both claim that useful information can be extracted without the use of torture, that in fact the information gathered by torture is less than reliable.

    Not so. Try reading something besides the Post or NYT.

    BO has everything ass-backward; unless the goal is to destroy the Unites States as we know it. Unfortunately, as an inveterate Ayres-Allinsky aparatchik, that is his goal.

    Stop the Commie bastards!

  21. Rick: “Not so. Try reading something besides the Post or NYT.”

    I am going on testimony by ex FBI and CIA agents which I’ve seen/read ever since we found out about the Cheney/Bush use of torture.

    Cheney is the only advocate of torture that I know of, as justified by Yoo’s writing of law for that purpose. The CIA torturers were acting on orders. He has yet to demonstrate that torture produced actionable and/or useful information not already gleaned by the FBI and the military using their standard non-torture techniques.

    These violations of the Geneva Convention generate charges of war crimes committed by Cheney/Bush. I hope at least Cheney is charged and prosecuted.

  22. How many German generals who served in combat roles were tried and convicted as war criminals? Jodl and Keitel were hanged as war criminals and their roles were that of obsequious messenger boys for illegal orders.

    Admirals Doenitz and Raeder got bum raps and even had high ranking American officers as defense witnesses. Neither men had joined the NSDAP. Hitler loathed the Navy and reviled it as “Christian” (in the best sense of the word).

    For the Japanese Army, quite a few got their necks stretched and they deserved it.

Comments are closed.