Continuing Justice Probe of Interrogators is an Outrage

Attorney General Reopened Investigation Two Years Ago

In the wake of the killing of Osama bin Laden, with Barack Obama fresh off his “I killed bin Laden” victory tour, Attorney General Eric Holder’s criminal investigation into the interrogation techniques utilized by CIA officers against captured terrorists is front page news again.  Holder reopened the previously reviewed case after assuring Republicans that he would not do so.

In January of 2009, Republican opposition to Holder’s appointment as Attorney General subsided following his “private assurances” that he did not intend to pursue CIA officers who acted in “good faith” when conducting harsh interrogations of terror suspects.

Seven months later, Holder appointed a prosecutor to investigate alleged CIA interrogation abuses. In perfect Kerryesque form, a Justice Department official said at the time that opening a criminal investigation was something Holder “has come reluctantly to consider.”

So, was the Attorney General against the investigation before he was for it, or did he bamboozle the Republicans by saying what he had say to win confirmation? Let’s pick “B.”

The Obama Administration faces tough new criticism, as does Holder, following the now irrefutable confirmation from multiple sources that water-boarding (torture to liberals) played a key, early role in connecting the dots that ultimately led to bin Laden’s visit from Navy SEALs.

One would assume that Team Obama might finally reconsider its position on enhanced interrogation techniques. Not so much.

While on the New York leg of his victory tour, Obama met with Debra Burlingame, the sister of Charles “Chic” Burlingame, (pilot of the plane that crashed into the Pentagon), along with other families who were victims of 9/11. Burlingame confronted Obama about the Holder investigation of the men who interrogated Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, which multiple sources confirm produced critical intelligence in the hunt for bin Laden.

Burlingame: “We wouldn’t be here today if they hadn’t done their jobs. Can’t you at least give him [Holder] your opinion?” Obama’s curt response? ”No, I won’t.” At which point he turned and walked away.

While Barack “We don’t spike the football” Obama basks in the afterglow of HIS success, the irony is astounding: Policies and procedures that candidate Obama railed against during the 2008 campaign were critical in the end; justice was served to Osama bin Laden in spite of the best efforts of Captain Awesome and his minions.

The distinct possibility that this president would most likely have nothing to brag about today, had he been president during the seven years following 9/11, is not lost on millions of Americans.

You gotta give credit to Eric Holder though; at least he didn’t announce last week that the Justice Department will indict the CIA agents — talk about letting the air out of the Obama Victory Balloon. Would that have been a bummer for the White House, or what?

The intransigence of liberals on this issue seems more preposterous that ever — that is, until we remember one of the basic tenets of liberalism:

Liberals take a position, (which is usually based on emotion), then search for facts to support that position. In lieu of factual support, they will generally do one of three things:

1. Ignore the facts

2. Manipulate the facts

3. Make up their own “facts”

The fact that we (author included) give Obama credit for agreeing with the gutsy call to send in the SEALs should not, and does not mean that we must also ignore reality. The thought that, under the Obama Administration, a terrorist in  the hands of the CIA, with knowledge of an imminent catastrophic attack on the United States, would be asked “pretty please with sugar on it?” is frightening. High-minded and naive too.

About these ads

Categories: Barack Obama, Ideology, Liberals, Military Intelligence, Politics, Terrorism, The Global War on Islamofascism, The Obama Administration, War on Terror

12 replies

  1. The old “24” argument of justifying or defending torture is pointless, we as a nation made those forms of torture illegal decades ago. We prosecuted Japanese officers at the end of WWII for using the same techniques, we prosecuted Sheriffs in Texas for the same. They have not brought any plots to an end, they produce garbage intel.

    Here is a hint for you RWers….don’t start crowing (falsely) about how it lead to UBL….cause you only stir up public attention on an illegal govt act.

  2. This is not for the leftists, as they are unable to admit when they are wrong. It’s for those of you who live in the real world:

    As I’ve said before, facts are stubborn things that get in the way of the truth for liberals.

    Let the arrogant, hysterical name-calling begin. (make that “continue.”)

  3. LOL….UH, Don Rumsfeld TOTALLY flip-flopped on the whole “torture lead to UBL” meme, first saying it did not, then saying it did.

    But of course you still PHAIL…..the US has already found that waterboarding is illegal, it is torture.

    • We might say Panetta flipped too, huh? Ha!

      Thank God the boy king wasn’t president during the 10 years following 9/11.

      Done here too, off to non-time wasters. Carry on.

  4. Uh…no, Panetta did not “flip”, he stated that “enhanced torture” was used on detainees, but did not say it “lead to UBL”.

    Waterboarding was only one of many illegal techniques used by the CIA….oh, and Holder is only investigating those that went beyond LEGAL GUIDELINES:

    Wittes: “The Key … Is That The Investigation Should Focus Only On The Specific Incidents In Which People Exceeded The Legal Guidance.” In the same New York Times post, Benjamin Wittes, senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, wrote, “My best guess is that Attorney General Eric Holder probably acted quite reasonably.” Wittes further pointed out:

    But this leaves the question of what should happen to those operatives who acted beyond the exceptionally permissive guidance that the lawyers gave them. Some of these incidents are very ugly. Some detainees even died in custody. And if people acted in violent fashions beyond what the Justice Department authorized and if there is some reason for Holder to be dissatisfied with the manner in which the career prosecutors in the Justice Department previously investigated their cases, it strikes me as appropriate for him to request another look.

    The key, it seems to me, is that the investigation should focus only on the specific incidents in which people exceeded the legal guidance they were given. [New York Times, 8/24/09]

  5. Clancy’s latest book had a subplot where the officers of a Seal team (or similar unit) went into a mountain camp looking for his version of UBL – the “Emir”. While in the enemy camp they took out several guards – including two who were sleeping. Upon filing a report, the commander of the unit was brought up on charges for killing two men who were unarmed while they slept. The thought occurred to me, as his books tend to predict the future more often than not…. :

    It’s no wonder the administration can’t get their facts straight on what happened, how it happened, what led to the event. I imagine the SEAL(s) in question as well as their commanding officers are being pretty tight lipped as to the details about the valuable service they performed.

  6. Just as a side, here is a partial list of those that claimed that the killing of UBL was an “illegal” act.

    Andrew Napolitano
    Juan Williams
    Shepard Smith


  1. Obama been Lyin? - VolNation

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 4,355 other followers

%d bloggers like this: