There has been an awful lot of discussion surrounding the torture subject again since the Obama administration has floated the idea of criminal investigations into the harsh interrogation methods used by the CIA to extract information from al-Qaida operatives. The Obama administration has received both harsh criticism and demands for further investigation after the releasing the CIA memos detailing the interrogation methods used by the CIA and the decision making process surrounding them. I believe this is a reckless step aimed at political gain and poses a great risk to our nation on many fronts.

To begin this discussion, one must first decide what exactly torture is and what remains a harsh interrogation method that does not cross this line. This is a question over which much debate has raged throughout the last few years. While some clearly see water boarding as torture, others disagree and find the practice perfectly acceptable when used in high level, critical interrogations where other methods have failed. Many would also argue that these interrogation methods are ineffective and do not produce reliable results. However, it appears that the evidence in hand on that point tends to demonstrate otherwise.

This is a difficult question to answer, as Americans have always fought against regimes that torture and abuse people. Therefore to even consider such measures must place great strain on our core beliefs. Herein lies a question faced by many of our great leaders in the past, to what lengths can we go to protect this nation without destroying what this nation stands for? When President Lincoln was faced with the dissolution of the Union, he suspended the basic rights guaranteed under by Constitution under the Bill of Rights and marched a standing army against American citizens to preserve that Union. When President Truman faced the decision to invade Japan at the cost of millions upon millions of American and Japanese lives, or to drop tremendously devastating weapons of mass destruction on civilian population centers in an attempt to force a Japanese surrender, he chose the lesser of two evils and the lower cost of life. When President Bush was faced with another impending terrorist attack on this nation, he authorized what methods he thought legal and justified to extract the information from our enemies that allowed us to prevent these attacks. For none of these men were these decisions light, but they were easy ones to make. They did what they must to protect this nation in dire times of need. They chose the only path they could to save this nation or the lives of her citizens.

For me this question is simple. I for one do not consider water boarding to be torture, nor do I consider many of the other methods detailed in the memos that were foolishly released by the Obama administration to be above the uncrossable line. When dealing with a ruthless enemy who will slowly cut the head off of an innocent American contractor while filming it for propaganda purposes, I find it perfectly acceptable that we would pour water over his head until he decides to talk. When dealing with a people who believe it acceptable to murder their own children in ‘honor killings’ because they have not behaved in some particular way, I find no problem sticking them in a room with an insects that they fear. When dealing with a people that strap bombs on to women and children, teach that it is acceptable to beat your wives and kill indiscriminately innocent people who will not yield to their way of life, I do not see a problem with slamming them up against a wall and threatening to beat the information out of them.

Someone asked me a very simple question one day in an attempt to define what I saw as torture. If your children had been kidnapped and the man sitting before you had the information that would save their lives, to what lengths would you go to obtain that information? Where ever you chose to stop or whatever you decided you could not do, was your definition of torture. After contemplating the question for some time, I realized that it is not that difficult of a question for me to answer. This may make me a horrible person in some people’s eyes, but I could think of very little that I would not do to save the life of just one of my children, not mention all of them. If the person still possessed the ability to draw breath once they gave me what I needed, they should consider themselves very fortunate indeed. I would gladly water board him and his entire family to save my children and I would sleep well at night knowing I had done so. I would stop at nothing to protect my children. How could I think less of a nation that did likewise to protect her citizens?

Someone once argued with me that I would be sacrificing my morality by taking such actions, even in the defense of my children. I disagree. I feel that it would be a moral imperative to do anything and everything possible to save my children. Failing to do so would be the ultimate moral failure. These people have sworn to kill as many innocent Americans as the possibly can by any means that they can. We are at war with an enemy that knows no rules and respects no boundaries. Our citizens and soldiers are offered no quarter and are brutally murdered and hung in public as examples of their barbarism. How there are people in this country who have a problem with pouring water on these people to scare them into releasing information that will thwart their horrific plans is far beyond me. Failing to do so, to me, seems the ultimate failure of a nation and its moral obligation to protect its people.

Once again the Supreme Court of the United States has over stepped its authority and ruled on a matter outside of the jurisdiction of the judicial branch thereby creating law that did not exists and has no Constitutional basis or justification. In a 5 to 4 ruling today the Supreme Court ruled that enemy combatants detained at Guantanamo Bay have rights under the Constitution of the United States.

This ruling is far reaching and extremely damaging to our military and their ability to conduct their missions safely. For starters, the 270 men still detained at Guantanamo are not American citizens. They were not captured on American soil, nor are they being detained within any American civil system. They are unlawful enemy combatants, captured during hostile action against the American military on foreign soil. They have absolutely no rights under American criminal law and have no standing to bring suit in the American criminal or civil systems. They DO NOT even have rights under the Geneva Convention which we have given them anyway and gone out of our way to insure, sometimes far beyond the basic guarantees of the Convention.

This ruling by the errant Justice’s opens up the American legal system to these combatants and gives them the right to challenge their detention under that system. By ruling in such a way, they are then afforded all the rights that are guaranteed to any America citizen accused of a crime. This gives them the right to lawful search and seizure, the right to a speedy and public trial, the right to confront his witnesses, the right to a Grand Jury, the right to public defense and the right to bail. This also affords them the right to the Fifth Amendment and protection of self-incrimination.

Do we really want these rights to be conferred to terrorist engaged in combat with our soldiers on the battlefield?

Do we want to pay for the public defense of those responsible for the deaths of thousands of innocent Americans or the deaths of our soldiers?

Do we want to allow bail for a know terrorists who’s duty of faith is to kill as many of us as possible?

Do we want to force our soldiers into having to read Miranda rights to any one they capture and detain while in combat with our enemies?

Do we want to allow a terrorist with imminent tactical knowledge of impending terrorist activities to plead the Fifth Amendment and withhold that information thereby endangering the lives of American citizens?

What the hell are these people thinking? Do you realize that American military personnel serving in a war zone have FEWER rights than what the Supreme Court just guaranteed to these terrorists?

This places our soldiers at enormous risk. You should read the story of SEAL Team 10 and hear the emotional words of Marcus Luttrell. This is the story of a SEAL team sent into Afghanistan to eliminate al-Qaeda leadership targets. On one mission, while they waited for an opportunity to engage one such target, they were discovered by two Afghan sheep herders. Forced to make a quick decision whether to kill the two herders or let them go, the SEAL team followed their rules of engagement and let the two civilians go. Moments later they were overrun with al-Qaeda operatives and most of their team wiped out. The SEAL team sent into rescue them was also destroyed. In total, nineteen people lost their lives because a six man team of Unites States Navy SEALs was not allowed to do what they needed to do, no matter how distasteful it was, to protect themselves during battle.

“It was the stupidest, most Southern-fried, lame-brained decision I ever made in my life to vote to let them go … I actually cast a vote that I knew would sign our death warrant.” – Marcus Luttrell

The Supreme Court has just placed further restrictions on our military that endanger them even more than they are now and grants more rights to illegal enemy combatants and terrorist that our own soldiers have. This is borderline treason and in my view should be seen as granting aid and comfort to our enemies in a time of war.

We must find a way to reign in our Judiciary, else it will be the fall of this nation.

Let us not forget who we are dealing with here. These are the same barbaric inhuman filth that sawed the head off of an American civilian while he screamed then hung his body by his feet on display for all to see.

Fine. Don’t capture them. Don’t detain them. Kill them all, every last frakking one.

It is time for me to weigh in on the interrogation question. This is a question that has occupied this country and this military for quite some time. While I do not condone torture I do believe that there are times when aggressive forms of interrogation are required. I watched The Factor last night where opposing views met to discuss the validity of aggressive interrogation and what constitutes torture.

ABC News investigative reporter Brian Ross appeared and discussed his investigation into the CIA interrogation practices and the success that they have had using aggressive methods.

“The CIA broke 14 high value leaders in secret prisons,” Ross declared. “They used coercive techniques. They started with a slap in the chest, then cold rooms, then sleep deprivation, then waterboarding, where you think you are drowning and about to die. In the case of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the information he gave up was very valuable regarding one plot which would have involved an airplane attack on the tallest building in Los Angeles. It’s clear that in several cases coercive interrogation does seem to have an effect, and that’s the bottom line.”

“In all 14 cases coerced interrogation was used, and in all 14 cases they gave it up. And you say more than a dozen plots were stopped. I want to make it crystal clear that what we have said is true,” commented the host of The Factor, Bill O’Reilly.

To offer a counter point, Human Rights Watch’s Caroll Bogert joined the program and stated plainly that regardless of the outcome, such methods were torture and should never be employed. She claimed that too much false information is generated and that only approved Geneva Conventions methods should be used, or as Bill O’Reilly referred to it, name, rank and jihad number.

Here is the exchange between Bogert and O’Reilly:

“Torture is a method that should never be used by the United States. Sleep deprivation over days is a form of torture, and waterboarding is unquestionably a form of torture.”

The Factor reminded Bogert of evidence to the contrary. “Brian Ross just said that 12 plots were thwarted that would have killed thousands of Americans. Are you going to sit there and say those deaths would have been allowed?”

“I can’t confirm or deny Brian Ross’s reporting,” Bogert replied, “but you can’t say that traditional means of law enforcement would not have produced that same information. You can trick people, you can talk tough with people. I would not deny that torture may in some circumstances produce evidence, but at what cost?”

Brian Ross has defined waterboarding as the following:

The prisoner is bound to an inclined board, feet raised and head slightly below the feet. Cellophane is wrapped over the prisoner’s face and water is poured over him. Unavoidably, the gag reflex kicks in and a terrifying fear of drowning leads to almost instant pleas to bring the treatment to a halt. According to the sources, CIA officers who subjected themselves to the water boarding technique lasted an average of 14 seconds before caving in. They said al Qaeda’s toughest prisoner, Khalid Sheik Mohammed, won the admiration of interrogators when he was able to last over two minutes before begging to confess.

Wow. He also commented that most of the people being interrogated lasted only a matter of seconds before giving up the information. Apparently, these fanatics who do not fear death but openly accept it, definitely fear this treatment.

The question arises as to what is acceptable and what is not. We cannot simply apply Geneva standards to these men when thousands of American lives hang in the balance and normal interrogation does not work. Khalid Sheik Mohammed was even told by interrogators that they would harm his children, which had also been detained, if he did not give up the information. He commented that he did not care what they did to his children; it would only hasten their journey to meet Allah.

I still maintain that terrorists are not subject to the protections of the Geneva Convention, since the exclusion of these participants from said protections is expressly defined in the Convention. However, since our Supreme Court Jesters have decided to overstep their jurisdictions and require our government to apply these protections to terrorist, we must clearly define the lengths to which we can go. The definitions in the conventions are so broad that some have claimed not guaranteeing eight ours of sleep each day to detainees is to be considered torture. What? Well hell, I am being tortured then because I am routinely not guaranteed eight hours of sleep.

Of the techniques currently employed by the CIA, waterboarding is by far the most aggressive, yet it causes no physical harm and only a temporary fear of death. If this method saves thousands of American lives by quickly obtaining information from some of the worst terrorist that we face, I say we should definitely employ the technique. I do not think it should be done by the military, but rather in a controlled environment by professionally trained interrogators with an agency such as the CIA. I also believe that it should be transparent to the Senate Intelligence Committee and that the people conduction such interrogation should be protected from civil and criminal prosecution as long as the follow they guidelines for such treatment.

This treatment should not be applied to standard combatants in the field by military personnel, but to high value assets such as key leadership figures in the terrorist organizations. It would seem that this is the current operating practices of the CIA, since there have been thousands captured and only fourteen have been subjected to this treatment. It would also seem that it has been extremely effective in saving the lives of Americans.

Again, I am against torture, I think that we are above that and that it does not represent our core values. I am not against aggressive interrogation with clearly defined limits that goes beyond the normal measures that are employed in a criminal investigation. We should remember two things:

Our enemy will not honor any convention on treatment of prisoners and will torture and kill anyone they capture.

Furthermore, we are at war and thousands of American lives are at stake. Sometimes we have to get our hands a little dirty.

I have been watching the events running up to the fall elections with great concern. The Democratic party is poised to take control of some key House and Senate positions and I am hoping that the Republican party can front a wining strategy to avoid this at all costs. We have seen recent evidence as to why having a Democrat controlled House or Senate would be disastrous for this country. I will attempt to show you what scares me the most out of this prospect while I make a serious attempt to avoid the rhetoric.

The Patriot Act:
While probably not perfect in all aspects, the Patriot Act has been one of the most influential tools in combating terrorist domestically since its inception shortly after 9/11. The Democrats did everything possible to defeat this bill, including a filibuster on the Senate floor.

“We killed the Patriot Act,” boasted Minority Leader Harry Reid, Nevada Democrat, to cheers from a crowd at a political rally after the vote. - Patriot Act extension filibustered, by Charles Hurt, The Washington Times, December 17, 2005.

NSA Monitoring Programs:
Key Democrats have directed the party into fighting against many efforts of the National Security Agency even when those actions have been legal and the Senate Intelligence Committee had been fully briefed, including both the data mining efforts and the foreign intercepts. There have been calls for investigations into classified operations for intelligence gathering that would severely hamper the ability for our military to gather information.

Last night, I filed an amicus brief with 71 other Democratic Members of Congress in two cases challenging the Bush Administration’s illegal warrantless domestic spying.

It is very disturbing that, on the same day we learn that the NSA has been secretly collecting the phone records of tens of millions of Americans, we also learn that the Department of Justice has abruptly cancelled its investigation into the Agency’s warrantless wiretapping program. These developments clearly point to the urgent need for oversight and review of this program. Congress has failed to provide this critical oversight which has led us to the courts. – 72 Democrats Challenge Illegal NSA Domestic Spying, by Congressman John Conyers, Thu May 11, 2006 at 10:38:15 AM PDT (as posted on the DailyKOS).

This program was in no way illegal, highly classified and had been briefed to the Senate Intelligence Committee long before it was brought to the public light. The Department of Justice halted its investigation because of the classified nature of the intelligence operation and the lack of evidence that it was illegal. Also, this program involved NO warrantless wiretapping, only data mining and algorithmic calculation of calling patterns to known/suspected terrorist numbers.

Recently they cheered the ruling of a liberal activist Judge who said that the foreign intercepts that the NSA was conducting on communications involving known/suspected terrorists was illegal. This program involved the monitoring of communications from within this country to numbers know or suspected to be Al-Qaeda related. It only involves monitoring of an American citizen if they are contacting a suspected/know terrorist number. It involved no monitoring of internal communications at all. Thus under the National Security Act of 1947, the Constitutional powers of the President to conduct war and even under the FISA law, which does not apply to foreign communications, it is in every way a legal activity. The Democrats hailed this ruling as a major victory.

Joe Liberman:
A staunch Democrat who votes down the liberal party line 90% of the time, yet had the audacity to support President Bush in his efforts to fight terrorism and the war in Iraq. The Democrats are currently engaged in a wholehearted attempt to destroy Joe Liberman politically and prevent him from running and winning as an Independant in Connecticut. This further proves how intollerant and dangerous the Democratic party has becom. It also means that there is no hope for and no tollerance left for a “moderate” liberal in the party. You must fall in line or be destroyed. The idea that if you don’t support the “Party” then we will destory you, is straight out of Communist Russia or Nazi Germany. Better polish those boots and start practicing the Michael Moore goosestep if you want to be a Democrat.

Foreign Policy:
The Democrats, as are many in this country, are sour on Iraq. They are claiming that it is deterring our fight against terrorism, even though it is the conflict responsible for most of the confirmed eliminations of known terrorists. Many of them want us to pull out of Iraq prematurely. This would be one of the gravest mistakes in modern times. With Iran pursuing nuclear weapons and assisting Hezbollah along with Syria against Israel, a premature withdrawal of forces from Iraq would signal a staggering victory for Islamic extremist and embolden them to become more audacious with their tactics.

The thing I fear the most is that the Democrats keep saying we need a change in Iraq, a different direction. When put to the question and asked directly what they would do in Iraq as Sean Hannity did to a Democratic strategist last night, something very frightening emerges. If answered at all, the response is that they would engage more people in discussion. What? Talk? I am sorry the time for talking is past. What will it take to make these people realize that you cannot talk or negotiate with extremists. My God, if we have learned nothing else I assumed we would have learned that.

We have seen Democratic foreign policy through the mistakes of Bill Clinton. He practically handed North Korea nuclear weapons, refused to take Osama Bin Laden from the Sudan when they offered him up, did nothing in response to the USS Cole and made a horrible mess of Mogadishu by pulling out as soon as things got tough. Mogadishu taught Bin Laden that America was weak and could not handle casualties. His own words, not mine. We cannot afford and may not be able to survive more Democratic foreign policy.

Detention of Combatants:
The Democrats have cheered the illegal decision of the Supreme Court which requires us to apply Geneva Convention rights upon terrorist subjects, in direct violation of the Convention rules. They have tried to convey Constitutional rights on the detainees and allowed them access to the American civil Criminal Justice system. You tax dollars have paid to defend the very people who want to kill you in your own court system. These combatants clearly fall under the jurisdiction of military tribunals since they are 1) not US citizens, 2) were captured in a combat zone on foreign soil and 3) the illegal acts of violence against a recognized military force were committed on foreign soil. They have no standing in a US civilian court.

Bush Lied to Us:
If that were true, then so did every major Democratic leader. They were all saying the same thing when we went to war with Iraq. He was a grave threat. He had to be stopped. Oh, yeah, and he had weapons of mass destruction. I could quote you Albright, Kerry, Clinton, Reid, Pelosi and on and on, all saying the same thing.

No WMD:
Now that we finally have evidence of WMDs, all of a sudden those are not the ones we were looking for. That is about the single lamest argument I have heard during this whole conflict. It

is like telling a police officer who is searching a man’s home for crack cocaine that he should not arrest him for the dead bodies he found in his bedroom. It is insane logic.

Impeach! Impeach! Impeach!:
For what? What crime has the president committed? I challenge anyone to show me one crime that this President has committed. I am not talking all this crap about misleading us to war, the legal illegal intelligence gathering or some whackjob theory of how he personally destroyed the twin towers through some elaborate government plot and controlled explosives. I mean a real crime punishable through impeachment as defined under the Constitution of the United States. If the Democrats gain power, our President may face a push to impeach him on ludicrous charges for the last two years of his term instead of being allowed to continue to fight our enemies.

Ends Do Not Justify Means:
This is more of the rant that circulates the left. Well I am sorry, people but sometimes they just might. Let’s list the ends that we have:

• Two-thirds of Al-Qaeda leadership dead or captured.
• A brutal dictator responsible for the oppression of millions and deaths of hundreds of thousands removed from power.
• Millions of people now free with an elected government and a chance at their own destiny.
• Momar Qadafi has turned over all remaining WMDs and pledged to help Middle East peace.
• Egypt has conducted free democratic elections.
• Multiple terrorist organizations funds have been seized, communications disrupted, leadership dismantled and safe havens reduced.
• Multiple terrorist plots have been stopped before they occurred.
• NO TERRORIST ATTACK ON UNITED STATES HOLDINGS!

I am sorry, but I think those ends have clearly justified the means by which we brought them about.

I fear what will happen if we revert to a Democrat led congress and see Democratic foreign policy return. I fear for my country. I fear for my children.

The disgraceful main stream media strikes again. Note the following quotes:

“The Bush administration, in an apparent policy reversal sparked by a recent Supreme Court ruling, said today it will extend the guarantees of humane treatment specified by the Geneva Conventions to detainees in the war-on-terror.” - By Fred Barbash, Washington Post Staff Writer, Tuesday, July 11, 2006; 12:26 PM

“The White House confirmed on Tuesday that the Pentagon had decided, in a major policy shift, that all detainees held in US military custody around the world are entitled to protection under the Geneva Conventions.” - By Demetri Sevastopulo in Washington, Published: July 11 2006 05:39

Ah the familiar slant of headlines. This was NOT a major shift in policy. The U.S. has ALWAYS had rules requiring the humane treatment of all detainees. These people do not abide by the convention rules and thus remove themselves from protection of the convention as shown in the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, Article 5:

“…

Where in occupied territory an individual protected person is detained as a spy or saboteur, or as a person under definite suspicion of activity hostile to the security of the Occupying Power, such person shall, in those cases where absolute military security so requires, be regarded as having forfeited rights of communication under the present Convention.

…”

Furthermore, the application of this convention only applies to those who have a “fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance” and conduct “their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war” under the Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, Article 4, Section 2:

“2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfill the following conditions:

( a ) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

( b ) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;

( c ) That of carrying arms openly;

( d ) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war. ”

The idea that the Supreme Court so blatantly overstepped its bounds and ruled that we should in fact ignore the stipulations set forth in the Geneva Convention and ignore its rule about whom it applies to is ridiculous.

The Supreme Court, who has no jurisdiction in this matter, has ordered our President and our military to ignore the rules defining combatants as set forth by the Geneva Convention.

Wonder why liberals are hailing this as a victory? Oh, yeah they don’t think they have to follow the rules either. See any headlines about Congressman Jefferson getting told by the courts that the FBI had every right to raid his office and seize his documents? I didn’t think so.

Here is one for you: Judge Rules FBI Raid on Rep. Jefferson’s Office Was Legal. He appealed today, saying that it is not right for the FBI to investigate him because… uhm… well I guess because he is above the law, a liberal and a Democrat. That is about the only thing I could get out of the appeal.

The pendulum swings both ways. Democrats scream, “Culture of Corruption!” when it swings over Republicans. They scream injustice and racism when it swings over their own.