CALIFORNIA YANKEE

7 ex-CIA chiefs ask Obama to abort Holder's CIA inquisition

Seven former directors of the Central Intelligence Agency urge President Obama to stop Attorney General Eric Holder's politically motivated decision to conduct a criminal investigation of CIA operatives who used enhanced the interrogation techniques.

The seven directors; John Deutch, Porter Goss, Michael Hayden, James Schlesinger, George Tenet, William Webster and James Woolsey, tenures span 35 year period, wrote a letter to Obama saying the Holder inquisition will "seriously damage the willingness of many other intelligence officers to take risks ... vital to success in the long and difficult fight against the terrorists who continue to threaten us." The former directors re also concerned about "the serious damage" the Holder inquisitions have  done to our ability to obtain the cooperation of foreign intelligence agencies. You can read the entire letter below.

In the following video, former Arkansas governor and presidential candidate Mike Huckabee tells Hannity that CIA morale has never been lower.

I'm truly fed up with Obama's political retribution dressed up as investigations of the looney left-wing's fanciful allegations of Bush administration war-crimes.

Obama tries to have it both ways with his often repeated obfuscation that "we need to look forward as opposed to looking backwards." First Obama refuses to rule out the so-called investigations, then he gives Attorney General Holder the green light to start the show trials. Holder's decision to conduct this inquisition presents a clear appearance of impropriety because there is a record that his mind was made up about this issue long before he became Obama's Attorney General.

Here's the letter:

September 18, 2009

The President
The White House
Washington, D.C.

Dear Mr. President:

We have served as Directors of Central Intelligence or Directors of the CIA for Presidents reaching back over 35 years. We respectfully urge you to exercise your authority to reverse Attorney General Holder’s August 24 decision to re-open the criminal investigation of CIA interrogations that took place following the attacks of September 11.

Our reasons for making this recommendation are as follows.

The post-September 11 interrogations for which the Attorney General is opening an inquiry were investigated four years ago by career prosecutors. The CIA, at its own initiative, forwarded fewer than 20 instances where Agency officers appeared to have acted beyond their existing legal authorities. Career prosecutors under the supervision of the US Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia determined that one prosecution (of a CIA contractor) was warranted. A conviction was later obtained. They determined that prosecutions were not warranted in the other cases. In a number of these cases the CIA subsequently took administrative disciplinary steps against the individuals involved. Attorney General Holder’s decision to re-open the criminal investigation creates an atmosphere of continuous jeopardy for those whose cases the Department of Justice had previously declined to prosecute. Moreover, there is no reason to expect that the re-opened criminal investigation will remain narrowly focused.

If criminal investigations closed by career prosecutors during one administration can so easily be reopened at the direction of political appointees in the next, declinations of prosecution will be rendered meaningless. Those men and women who undertake difficult intelligence assignments in the aftermath of an attack such as September 11 must believe there is permanence in the legal rules that govern their actions. They must be free, as the Chairman of the Senate Homeland Security Committee, Senator Lieberman, has put it: “to do their dangerous and critical jobs without worrying that years from now a future Attorney General will authorize a criminal investigation of them for behavior that a previous Attorney General concluded was authorized and legal.” Similar deference needs to be shown to fact-based decisions made by career prosecutors years ago.

Not only will some members of the intelligence community be subjected to costly financial and other burdens from what amounts to endless criminal investigations, but this approach will seriously damage the willingness of many other intelligence officers to take risks to protect the country. In our judgment such risk-taking is vital to success in the long and difficult fight against the terrorists who continue to threaten us.

Success in intelligence often depends on surprise and deception and on creating uncertainty in the mind of an enemy. As President you have the authority to make decisions restricting substantive interrogation or any other intelligence collection method, based on legal analyses and policy recommendations. But, the administration must be mindful that public disclosure about past intelligence operations can only help Al Qaeda elude US intelligence and plan future operations. Disclosures about CIA collection operations have and will continue to make it harder for intelligence officers to maintain the momentum of operations that have saved lives and helped protect America from further attacks.

Finally, another certain result of these reopened investigations is the serious damage done to our intelligence community’s ability to obtain the cooperation of foreign intelligence agencies. Foreign services are already greatly concerned about the United States’ inability to maintain any secrets. They rightly fear that, through these additional investigations and the court proceedings that could follow, terrorists may learn how other countries came to our assistance in a time of peril. The United States promised these foreign countries that their cooperation would never be disclosed. As a result of the zeal on the part of some to uncover every action taken in the post-9/11 period, many countries may decide that they can no longer safely share intelligence or cooperate with us on future counter-terrorist operations. They simply cannot rely on our promises of secrecy.

We support your stated commitment, Mr. President, to look to the future regarding these important issues. In our judgment the only way that is possible is if the criminal investigation of these interrogations that Attorney General Holder has re-opened is now re-closed.

Sincerely,
Michael Hayden
Porter Goss
George Tenet
John Deutch
R. James Woolsey
William Webster
James R. Schlesinger

Obama added to Mount Rushmore

Greenpeace activists environmental terrorists defaced Mount Rushmore by hanging a sixty-five feet high by thirty-five feet wide banner "featuring" a portrait of President Obama and the political message, "stop global warming."

Shame on Greenpeace.

Al Qaeda wants to use Pakistani nuclear weapons against US

Reuters reports that if Al Qaeda were in a position to do so, the terrorist organization would use Pakistan's nuclear weapons against the United States:

"God willing, the nuclear weapons will not fall into the hands of the Americans and the mujahideen would take them and use them against the Americans," Mustafa Abu al-Yazid, the leader of al Qaeda in Afghanistan, said in an interview with Al Jazeera television.

[. . .]

Asked about the group's plans, the Egyptian militant leader said: "The strategy of the (al Qaeda) organization in the coming period is the same as in the previous period: to hit the head of the snake, the head of tyranny -- the United States

Mustafa Abu al-Yazid's statement is another reminder why President Obama is wrong to back away from the War On Terror.

Guantanamo Bay detainee transferred to New York

So it begins. The Obama administration has made its first transfer of a detainee at the terrorist detention facility at Guantanamo Bay to United States soil.

Ahmed Ghailani, arrived in New York early Tuesday to be tried in federal court in lower Manhattan for his role in the 1998 bombings of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, which killed more than 224 people.

Ghailani's transfer to New York trial is an important first step in the implementation President Obama's decision to close the terrorist detention center at Guantanamo Bay even though we still haven't been told where Obama will put the terrorists when he closes GITMO.

According to military prosecutors, after the August 7, 1998, bombings of U.S. embassies in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, Ghailani worked for Al Qaeda as a document forger, trainer at a terror camp and bodyguard to bin Laden, according to military prosecutors. He was categorized as a high-value detainee by U.S. authorities after he was captured in Pakistan in 2004 and was transferred to the detention center at the U.S. naval base in Cuba two years later.

Obama brings this Guantanamo detainee to the United State, despite the fact that by a better than 2-to-1 margin, Americans oppose closing the Guantanamo Bay terrorist detention facility and moving some of those prisoners to the United States:

Americans are especially resistant to closing the prison and transferring the terrorism suspects to prisons in their own states -- only 23% favor this, while 74% are opposed. That represents a nine-point falloff from the 32% who support moving prisoners to the United States (with no specific location mentioned). Thus, even a segment of Americans who in general support closing Guantanamo are opposed to moving its terrorism suspects to prisons in their own "backyard."

Once again, as with the $50 billion bankruptcy/bailout of General Motors, Obama demonstrates he will do whatever his liberal left-wing extremist supporters want, regardless of what most Americans think.

Video and Text of Obama's speech to the Muslim world

You can watch or read President Obama's entire speech to the Muslim world below:

Text of President Obama's speech to the Muslim world, delivered on June 4, 2009, courtesy of the White House.

REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT ON A NEW BEGINNING

Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt

PRESIDENT OBAMA:  Thank you very much.  Good afternoon.  I am honored to be in the timeless city of Cairo, and to be hosted by two remarkable institutions.  For over a thousand years, Al-Azhar has stood as a beacon of Islamic learning; and for over a century, Cairo University has been a source of Egypt's advancement.  And together, you represent the harmony between tradition and progress.  I'm grateful for your hospitality, and the hospitality of the people of Egypt.  And I'm also proud to carry with me the goodwill of the American people, and a greeting of peace from Muslim communities in my country:  Assalaamu alaykum. (Applause.)

Obama's speech to the Muslim world

Credit where credit is due. Obama, as I suggested he do a year ago, finally confronted his, and our Muslim issue.

The first 15 minutes of President Obama's speech to the Muslim world was what I wanted to hear from candidate Obama a year ago. Had he given that portion of his speech during the presidential campaign much of the irrational fear of Obama as some sort of Muslim Manchurian candidate would have been relieved.

I found it Ironic that when Obama turned to democracy, religious freedom and women's rights, the speech was reminiscent of the remarkable series of speeches President Bush gave about the advance of freedom.

This was one of President Obama's more important speeches and he rose to the occasion and gave a fine speech. There are numerous things about Obama's speech to the Muslim world I could criticize, but I will save that for another article.

If you missed Obama's speech you should invest the 30 minutes required to read, listen to, or watch the entire speech. Reading summaries, excerpts and critiques lets others do the thinking for you. Snippets can't help you grasp the import, which you should have especially if you want to disagree in a knowledgeable manner.

The text of President Obama's speech to the Muslim world, as prepared for delivery is available here.

Obama's speech to Muslim world preview

Ben Rhodes, President Obama’s foreign policy speechwriter, says Obama will address issues "that matter to people's lives" such as economic development, education, health, science and technology, and express the need for democracy, human rights when he addresses the Muslim world Thursday.

We can also gather a glimpse of what Obama might say Thursday from his January 27, 2009 interview with  the Arab satellite television station Al Arabiya. In his first interview after taking office, Obama told Al Arabiya that Americans are not the enemy of the Muslim world:

Now, my job is to communicate the fact that the United States has a stake in the well-being of the Muslim world that the language we use has to be a language of respect. I have Muslim members of my family. I have lived in Muslim countries.

[. . .]

And my job is to communicate to the American people that the Muslim world is filled with extraordinary people who simply want to live their lives and see their children live better lives. My job to the Muslim world is to communicate that the Americans are not your enemy.

Further clues to what Obama might say to the Muslim world can be gleaned from his April 6, 2009 speech to the Turkish parliament. Obama told the parliament the United States is not, and will never be, at war with Islam and that a partnership with the Muslim world is critical:

I also want to be clear that America's relationship with the Muslim community, the Muslim world, cannot, and will not, just be based upon opposition to terrorism. We seek broader engagement based on mutual interest and mutual respect. We will listen carefully, we will bridge misunderstandings, and we will seek common ground. We will be respectful, even when we do not agree. We will convey our deep appreciation for the Islamic faith, which has done so much over the centuries to shape the world -- including in my own country. The United States has been enriched by Muslim Americans. Many other Americans have Muslims in their families or have lived in a Muslim-majority country -- I know, because I am one of them.

Above all, above all we will demonstrate through actions our commitment to a better future. I want to help more children get the education that they need to succeed. We want to promote health care in places where people are vulnerable. We want to expand the trade and investment that can bring prosperity for all people. In the months ahead, I will present specific programs to advance these goals. Our focus will be on what we can do, in partnership with people across the Muslim world, to advance our common hopes and our common dreams. And when people look back on this time, let it be said of America that we extended the hand of friendship to all people.

There's an old Turkish proverb: "You cannot put out fire with flames." America knows this. Turkey knows this. There's some who must be met by force, they will not compromise. But force alone cannot solve our problems, and it is no alternative to extremism. The future must belong to those who create, not those who destroy. That is the future we must work for, and we must work for it together.

And of course Obama will continue his never-ending string of apologies.

Pelosi can't explain what she knew about waterboarding

The House Republican Conference has released a new video highlighting Speaker Pelosi's inability to get her waterboarding story straight:

I was taught that it is easy to keep your story straight that if you just tell the truth.

Liberal extremists seek disbarment of Bush lawyers

Encouraged by the green light President Obama recently gave to his Attorney General, Eric Holder, left-wing liberal/progressive extremists are seeking disbarment of a dozen Bush administration lawyers linked to legal opinions concerning the CIA's enhanced interrogation techniques.

The extremists are seeking retribution by persecution because these lawyers concluded, after a legal review, the enhanced interrogation techniques, including waterboarding, did not violate the legal prohibition of torture.

Any discussion of the enhanced interrogation techniques must specify how Congress defined torture. According to Victoria Toensin, once chief counsel for the Senate Intelligence Committee and deputy assistant attorney general in the Reagan administration, Congress defined torture in a 1994 criminal statute:

The 1994 law was passed pursuant to an international treaty, the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment. The law's definition of torture is circular. Torture under that law means "severe physical or mental pain or suffering," which in turn means "prolonged mental harm," which must be caused by one of four prohibited acts. The only relevant one to the CIA inquiry was threatening or inflicting "severe physical pain or suffering." What is "prolonged mental suffering"? The term appears nowhere else in the U.S. Code.

Congress required, in order for there to be a violation of the law, that an interrogator specifically intend that the detainee suffer prolonged physical or mental suffering as a result of the prohibited conduct. Just knowing a person could be injured from the interrogation method is not a violation under Supreme Court rulings interpreting "specific intent" in other criminal statutes.

Toensin also notes "the Senate rejected a bill in 2006 to make waterboarding illegal," a fact which "negates criminalization" of the interrogation method. Congress did not prohibit use of waterboarding  until 2008.

Attorney General Holder has already made his mind up about the left's assertions that the legal authority justifying the CIA interrogation methods was more than wrong. Holder's prejudgment of this issue creates an appearance of a conflict of interest, which ought to cause Holder to recuse himself, as Attorney General John Ashcroft did in the Plame investigation.

Pelosi vs. the CIA

Greta Van Susteren's "On the Record" had a great segment last night on Nancy Pelosi's war with the CIA. The following video also includes a four minute segment of Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell discussing the impact President Obama's half-baked decision to close the terrorist detention facility at Guantanamo Bay:

On Fox News' "Special Report," Columnist Charles Krauthammer summed up the Pelosi's position this way:

"The charge that the C.I.A. lied to her is extremely serious one. She is now at war with the C.I.A., and it has the means by leaking selectively of destroying her, and I suspect it will do that....

Krauthammer may be right, but Speaker may have been left with no other option. After all, she backed herself into a corner with her nuanced parsing of her denial of never being told about waterboarding.