December 29, 2005
Waterboarding isn’t torture. It does no physical harm and leaves no scars. True, it makes people think they are drowning and is probably very unpleasant to endure. If it encourages terrorists to talk, I’m all for it. After all, if they talk they can stop the waterboarding. Who knows, it might have already prevented another 9/11 or worse.
When every Muslim religious leader (including Osama) issues a Fatwa ordering all Muslims to observe the Geneva conventions, maybe we can be nice to Muslim terrorists. Of course, observing the Geneva conventions would mean they couldn’t blow up civilians, burn civilians alive, hack off hostage’s heads, fly civilian aircraft into civilian buildings, and all those other unpleasant things terrorists do. But, since they show no signs of civilised behaviour, they should be treated as unlawful enemy combatants, aggressively exploited for any intelligence value they have, and then shot after a brief appearance before a military tribunal.
I seem to recall the FDR regime treated eight Nazi saboteurs rather harshly. Six were executed. Don’t like FDR’s methods? He won WW2. We need to win the current war just as decisively.
James Joyner seems to think water boarding terrorist scum isn’t sporting. I’d say it’s too good for them. And I’d also say that those who are busy exposing all of our intelligence methods should be treated like the Nazi saboteurs noted above; two of whom were US citizens.
December 28, 2005
Apparently not. This New York Post Editorial catalogues the NYT’s attempts to undermine the war on radical Islam. Here’s the list from the Post:
The most notorious example was the paper’s disclosure some 10 days ago that, since 9/11, the Bush administration has “secretly” engaged in warrantless eavesdropping on U.S.-based international phone calls and e-mails.
Last May, the Times similarly “exposed” — in painstaking detail — the fact that the CIA uses its own airline service, posing as a private charter company, as “the discreet bus drivers of the battle against terrorism.”
Then, not content to merely sabotage the federal government, the Times last week blew the whistle on the fact that the New York Police Department has been using plainclothes officers during protest demonstrations.
Of course, that’s just the tip of a rather large iceberg. The powers-that-be at the NYT saw fit to print Abu Ghraib stories on their front page — once the most important real estate in the news business — on 32 consecutive days. Their coverage of what was rogue behaviour by a few low level soldiers attempted to spread the lie that the US military routinely abused prisoners. To the extent that the lie was believed the enemy was aided and abetted.
Did the NYT say much about Saddams atrocities? Page A9 at best.
Did the NYT devote anything like the space to three successful elections in Iraq? No.
Which side is the NYT on? I’d say Al Qaeda’s. Now, that’s a strong statement. It’s a bit hard to think that a major newspaper in the city that lived through 9/11 would be there. But it does appear that way. Maybe the real problem is the NYT suffers BDS and that renders it incapable of recognizing how treasonous its actions have been.
December 27, 2005
Bill Roggio is not happy with the way the venerable Washington Post covered his embed with the Marines. He notes that:
I organized the trip [to Iraq] without any outside assistance, save that of a few trusted friends and my wife. It was funded entirely by donations from my readers. Well over 700 of my readers donated approximately $33,000, plus equipment and services, including plane tickets, a bullet proof vest, and other items. The average donation was about $50. The number of readers that donated $200 or more can be counted on the digits of my four limbs, the number of $500 donations can be counted on one hand, and a single donor contributed $2,000. This was an individual, and not an organization or corporation.
That’s rather different from what the WPO claimed. Bill, again:
In an email to Mr. Finer expressing my displeasure with being labeled a military information operation, Mr. Finer suggested I read the entire article. I assured him I did. The title and subtitle are not meaningless to the context of the article; it is implied I was a tool of the military, when in fact the military had no influence whatsoever in what I said from Iraq.
I think Bill Roggio has provided an analysis of US operations in Anbar province that is completely missing from MSM coverage. His posts told us what the operations were designed to achieve and how they measured up against the objectives. He was so far ahead of MSM reporters it was not funny; it was downright embarrassing for them.
Disclosure: I gave Bill $50. I gave Michael Yon $50.
December 27, 2005
The Democrats seem to think that the leaked NYT report on the Bush administration’s secret surveillance program is another club with which to bash Bush. MacRanger takes down Senator
Patrick Leaky Leahy, the Democrat who is leading the push for the Senate to investigate the surveillance program. The public has already figured out that the surveillance program monitored the commuications of terrorists within and outside the US. It understands that it is utterly moronic to stop spying on the enemy when he has made it to US soil. It knows that anyone calling Osama’s buddies in Pakistan or Abu Musab al-Zarqawi head-choppers in Iraq can expect the authorities to be interested in what is being discussed. The Democrats can’t seem to figure that out. Their position seems to be that terrorists operating in the US deserve the same constitutional rights and privileges as US citizens and legal residents.
The Democrats also seem to think that we no longer need such programs because there have been no major terrorist attacks on US soil since 9/11. It hasn’t occured to them that maybe, just maybe, one of the reasons why our enemies haven’t been able to attack us is because such programs are successful in preventing terrorist attacks. The public will be able to figure that out and will vote accordingly.
Politicizing the war on radical Islam and attacking our intelligence effort endangers our national security and the Democrats’ electoral prospects. I suppose the latter is the only good thing to come out of their treacherous leaking.
December 22, 2005
After pointing out that administrations back to Carter’s have used them without causing a ruckus she asks the obvious question:
Is it only potential terrorists communicating with known Al Qaeda figures while a Republican is president whose civil liberties need to be protected?
Actually, as Andrew McCarthy points out, the American public suffers countless warrantless searches every day with barely a squeak from the public, let alone the Democrats. The powers-that-be may:
Conduct a warrantless search — including a strip search — at the border of any American citizen entering or leaving the United States;
Conduct a warrantless search at the border of the baggage and other property of any American citizen entering or leaving the United States;
Conduct a warrantless search of any American citizen seeking to enter a public building;
His full list covers 27 instances where warrantless searches are allowed.
December 21, 2005
Junkyard Blog covers the territory. He has a link that reminds us of why Israel had to pursue the perpetrators of the Munich massacre and he concludes:
Dead Jews, Germany and terrorism do have a historic connection, one Spielberg has quite accidentally reminded the world of.
Germany’s treachery, cowardice and willingness to appease terrorists apparently did not make it into Spielberg’s fantasy film.
December 21, 2005
If the NSA had been tracking Mohammed Atta’s overseas phone-calls and emails, would 3000 Americans have died on 9/11?
Now the terrorists know that their phone calls and emails are being targetted by the NSA. They will switch to more secure methods of communication and be much harder to keep tabs on. We can thank the treacherous idiots at the New York Times for that. The reason Bush was so mad was obvious: the NSA was keeping tabs on God knows how many bad guys resident in the US and attacks were being prevented as a result.
If there is another major terrorist attack on America, you can bet your bottom dollar those same Democrats will be blaming Bush for not having done enough to stop the attack.
Next Page »