Yes We 'Scan' - Obama Defends NSA Spying Program! - (But) I'm No Dick Cheney!

Video:  Yes We 'Scan' - Obama Defends NSA Spying Program! - (But) I'm No Dick Cheney!

Technorati Tags: NSA,manipulation of the public,lies,Dick Cheney,NSA spying,Big Brother tactics,1984,scandals,cover-ups,Constitution,surveillance,flip-flop,freedom

Obama Defends Reversal on Releasing Detainee Photos

President Obama has decided to not release the photos which the Pentagon had planned to release by May 28 in response to a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union.

In a sharp reversal, President Obama announced Wednesday that he will not release hundreds of photos potentially showing U.S. military personnel abusing prisoners in Iraq and Afghanistan in the aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

"My belief is the publication of these photos would not add any additional benefits to our understanding of what was carried out in the past by a small number of individuals," Obama said in a brief appearance. "The most direct consequence would be to further inflame anti-American opinion and put our troops in greater danger."

Obama added that he's made it clear to military officials, however, that the abuse of detainees is "prohibited and will not be tolerated."

Obama told his legal advisers last week that he did not feel comfortable with the release of the photos because he believes they would endanger U.S. troops, and that the national security implications of such a release have not been fully presented in federal court, a senior administration official told FOX News.

The Pentagon had planned to release the photos by May 28 in response to a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union. That decision was made after the Justice Department lost its latest round in federal court and concluded that any further appeal probably would be fruitless.

But on Tuesday, the president raised the issue of these photos with Gen. Ray Odierno, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, during a White House meeting and told him of his decision to argue against this release, the official said.

Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell said Wednesday that Odierno was the most vocal opponent of releasing the photos and that he shared his concerns with Defense Secretary Robert Gates.

"Odierno was really the one who persuaded the secretary that this had to be fought and the secretary completely agreed," Morrell said.

Gates, in turn, vocalized the concerns to Obama in a series of discussions over the past weeks, Morrell said.

The belief of most of the commanders overseas was the potential the photos had to "incite violence and serve as a potential recruiting tool for terrorists" was too big to let happen without more of a fight.

The ACLU, which has claimed the release of the photos will help the American people decide whether the abuse was widespread, immediately criticized the decision.

"The Obama administration's adoption of the stonewalling tactics and opaque policies of the Bush administration flies in the face of the president's stated desire to restore the rule of law, to revive our moral standing in the world and to lead a transparent government," Anthony D. Romero, executive director of the ACLU, said in a statement.

"If the Obama administration continues down this path, it will betray not only its promises to the American people, but its commitment to this nation's most fundamental principles," he continued. "President Obama has said we should turn the page, but we cannot do that until we fully learn how this nation veered down the path of criminality and immorality, who allowed that to happen and whose lives were mutilated as a result.

"Releasing these photos -- as painful as it might be -- is a critical step toward that accounting," he added. "The American people deserve no less."

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said Wednesday that the president believes releasing the photos would only "sensationalize" rather than "illuminate" the investigation into detainee abuse.

Republican leaders praised Obama's decision.

"I agree with the president that the release of these photos would serve no purpose other than put our troops in greater danger," he said in a statement. "The president made the right decision and I applaud him for it."

House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, told FOX News he believes Obama made the right move.

"I think the release of these photos would do nothing more than give our enemies a recruiting tool that would put our soldiers in danger and frankly put Americans in danger," he said.

Some lawmakers had urged Obama to fight the release of the photos because they feared it would turn into a sequel to the Abu Ghraib prison scandal in Iraq, which caused an international backlash against the U.S. with photos in 2004 of smirking U.S. soldiers posing with detainees, some naked, being held on leashes or in painful positions.

Nine U.S. soldiers were eventually found guilty in the Abu Ghraib abuse case.

Whether the new photos are as repugnant as those from Abu Ghraib is still an open question. But one U.S. official told FOX News that hundreds of photos are involved, drawn from military investigations into alleged abuse between 2001 and 2005.

A senior Pentagon official told FOX News that the government will shift its defense to arguing the negative national security implications that the release of the photos will have.

This legal approach was not employed from the start, the official said, because it was working poorly in the original case that challenged the release of the Abu Ghraib photos. That case was dropped because the photos were all leaked.

Source:  FOXNews.com - FOX News' Major Garrett, Catherine Herridge, Justin Fishel, Steve Centanni and The Associated Press contributed to this report.

For whatever reason… We say good job Mr. President!!

We also say, good job Fox News, Dick Cheney, Lindsey Graham and all others that stood up for America and the safety of American Troops and the American Public!!

Related Resources:

• GOP Tries to Blunt Dem Assault on Bush-Era Officials as Senate Panel Debates Use of 'Torture'
• Report: Aide Told Pelosi of Waterboarding Use 
• Cheney Says: Obama Endangers the Nation 
• Nancy Pelosi Lied About Enhanced Interrogations - Is Anyone Surprised? 
• Fred Thompson: Obama Loosed 'Dogs of War' on CIA 
• On Torture And War Criminals 
• Muslims: 'We Do That On First Dates' 
• The West Coast Plot: An "Inconvenient Truth" 
• Hoekstra: Congress Knew About Memos 
• Video:  Top Intelligence Republican:  Ready Fire, Aim

The 100-Day Assault on America

Has it really been 100 days?

Aided by an eagerly compliant Democratic-controlled Congress, a sycophantic media, and a bunch of squishy Republicans, President Obama has taken the country on a radical, mind-boggling leap into collectivism.

Obama -- to use one of his favorite expressions -- doubled down, no, tripled and quadrupled down on Bush's "stimulus" and "rescue" packages, spending trillions of dollars to "bail out" financial institutions, too-big-to-fail businesses, and even deficit-running states. Obama promises to use taxpayer money to rescue "responsible homeowners" -- whatever that means -- from foreclosure, thus artificially propping up prices that shut out renters who would love to buy now-much-cheaper houses.

Obama proposes spending billions (or trillions?) more on "creating or saving" -- whatever that means -- 4 million, 3.5 million or 2.5 million jobs. Pick a number. Given the government's vast business expertise, Obama proposes spending gobs of money to "invest" in green jobs. And he's just warming up. He wants taxpayers to guarantee, presumably to all who request it, a "world-class education" -- whatever that means.

Firmly in charge of much of the domestic car industry, Obama effectively fired the CEO of General Motors. He threatens to fire still more executives in the parts of the financial services industry currently under the management, direction or control of Uncle Sam -- that eminent, well-regarded banker.

Obama blames the financial crisis on "greed" and the "lack of regulatory oversight." Funny thing about greed. Celebrated investor-turned-Obama-supporter/adviser Warren Buffett says, "Be fearful when others are greedy, and be greedy when others are fearful." Apparently, some practice good greed, while others engage in greedy greed.

As for regulation, the SEC already heavily regulates most of the troubled financial institutions. The world's largest insurer, AIG, operated under heavy regulation. The government-sponsored entities Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae -- blamed for irresponsibly buying, packaging and selling bad mortgages -- are regulated by a government agency, called the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight. Its sole responsibility is to oversee those two agencies. OFHEO, shortly before the government takeover of Freddie and Fannie, gave them two thumbs up.

Did the President, after campaigning against pork and earmarks, really sign bills that include both? Yes. Will the President's new budget really triple and quadruple the annual deficit? Yes. Will the President's budget really double the national debt within a few years and then increase still more beyond that? Yes. Do the President and members of Congress, many of whom never operated so much as a T-shirt concession booth, really believe that they can "modernize" health care, thus "saving" taxpayers buckets of money? Yes.

America traditionally represents the greatest possibility of someone's going from nothing to something. Why? In theory, if not practice, the government stays out of the way and lets individuals take risks and reap rewards or accept the consequences of failure. We call this capitalism -- or, at least, we used to.

Today's global downturn reflects too much borrowing and too much lending. But would borrowers and lenders -- at least in America -- have engaged in the same kind of behavior but for artificially low interest rates under the Federal Reserve System? Would borrowers and lenders have acted as precipitously but for the existence of Fannie and Freddie, which bought up their mortgages? Would banks have so readily lent money to those who clearly could not repay it but for the Community Reinvestment Act? That law pressured banks into relaxing their normal lending standards to help low-income borrowers.

Now let's turn to Job No. 1 -- national security. We no longer call the War on Terror the "War on Terror." We no longer call Islamofascist enemy detainees "enemy detainees." The President embarked on an I'm-not-Bush and we're-sorry-for-being-arrogant international tour. To the receptive, admiring G-20 nations, the President flogged America, calling us domineering and overbearing. What did the swooning leaders give in return? Virtually nothing. He wanted more assistance in fighting the war in Afghanistan. The NATO members offered more advisers and trainers, all, mind you, out of harm's way and only on a temporary basis.

The President offered a new relationship with Iran, provided Iranians "unclenched their fist." The President even sent a shout-out video to the Iranians on one of their holidays. What did he get in return? Iran promised to continue its march toward the development of a nuclear weapon and called Israel the "most cruel and racist regime."

Obama offered North Korea a kinder, gentler foreign policy. What did he get in return? The North Koreans, in violation of a United Nations resolution, attempted to launch a long-range missile. The President condemned the act. The United Nations Security Council convened an emergency session. What happened? Nothing. Well, not exactly nothing. North Korea kicked out the U.N.'s nuclear inspectors and announced the resumption of its nuclear weapons program. And North Korea, along with Iran, arrested and imprisoned American journalists.

On the other hand, Washingtonian magazine graced us with a spiffy, Photoshopped cover of a fit and toned swimsuit-wearing President Obama. So all is not lost.

At least he looks good.

By Larry Elder - a syndicated radio talk show host, contributor to TownHall.com and best-selling author. His latest book, "What's Race Got to Do with It?" is available now.

Related Articles:

• More on "The black-white divide in Obama's popularity"
  
• The black-white in Obama’s popularity
  

The CIA's Questioning Worked

Inreleasinghighly classified documents on the CIA interrogation program last week, President Obama declared that the techniques used to question captured terrorists "did not make us safer." This is patently false. The proof is in the memos Obama made public -- in sections that have gone virtually unreported in the media.

• Slow Roll Time At Langley

• The CIA's Questioning Worked 

• Crimes That Deserve Punishment

Consider the Justice Department memo of May 30, 2005. It notes that "the CIA believes 'the intelligence acquired from these interrogations has been a key reason why al Qaeda has failed to launch a spectacular attack in the West since 11 September 2001.' . . . In particular, the CIA believes that it would have been unable to obtain critical information from numerous detainees, including [Khalid Sheik Mohammed] and Abu Zubaydah, without these enhanced techniques." The memo continues: "Before the CIA used enhanced techniques . . . KSM resisted giving any answers to questions about future attacks, simply noting, 'Soon you will find out.' " Once the techniques were applied, "interrogations have led to specific, actionable intelligence, as well as a general increase in the amount of intelligence regarding al Qaeda and its affiliates."

Specifically, interrogation with enhanced techniques "led to the discovery of a KSM plot, the 'Second Wave,' 'to use East Asian operatives to crash a hijacked airliner into' a building in Los Angeles." KSM later acknowledged before a military commission at Guantanamo Bay that the target was the Library Tower, the tallest building on the West Coast. The memo explains that "information obtained from KSM also led to the capture of Riduan bin Isomuddin, better known as Hambali, and the discovery of the Guraba Cell, a 17-member Jemmah Islamiyah cell tasked with executing the 'Second Wave.' " In other words, without enhanced interrogations, there could be a hole in the ground in Los Angeles to match the one in New York.

The memo notes that "[i]nterrogations of [Abu] Zubaydah -- again, once enhanced techniques were employed -- furnished detailed information regarding al Qaeda's 'organizational structure, key operatives, and modus operandi' and identified KSM as the mastermind of the September 11 attacks." This information helped the intelligence community plan the operation that captured KSM. It went on: "Zubaydah and KSM also supplied important information about al-Zarqawi and his network" in Iraq, which helped our operations against al-Qaeda in that country.

All this confirms information that I and others have described publicly. But just as the memo begins to describe previously undisclosed details of what enhanced interrogations achieved, the page is almost entirely blacked out. The Obama administration released pages of unredacted classified information on the techniques used to question captured terrorist leaders but pulled out its black marker when it came to the details of what those interrogations achieved.

Yet there is more information confirming the program's effectiveness. The Office of Legal Counsel memo states "we discuss only a small fraction of the important intelligence CIA interrogators have obtained from KSM" and notes that "intelligence derived from CIA detainees has resulted in more than 6,000 intelligence reports and, in 2004, accounted for approximately half of the [Counterterrorism Center's] reporting on al Qaeda." The memos refer to other classified documents -- including an "Effectiveness Memo" and an "IG Report," which explain how "the use of enhanced techniques in the interrogations of KSM, Zubaydah and others . . . has yielded critical information." Why didn't Obama officials release this information as well? Because they know that if the public could see the details of the techniques side by side with evidence that the program saved American lives, the vast majority would support continuing it.

Critics claim that enhanced techniques do not produce good intelligence because people will say anything to get the techniques to stop. But the memos note that, "as Abu Zubaydah himself explained with respect to enhanced techniques, 'brothers who are captured and interrogated are permitted by Allah to provide information when they believe they have reached the limit of their ability to withhold it in the face of psychological and physical hardship." In other words, the terrorists are called by their faith to resist as far as they can -- and once they have done so, they are free to tell everything they know. This is because of their belief that "Islam will ultimately dominate the world and that this victory is inevitable." The job of the interrogator is to safely help the terrorist do his duty to Allah, so he then feels liberated to speak freely.

This is the secret to the program's success. And the Obama administration's decision to share this secret with the terrorists threatens our national security. Al-Qaeda will use this information and other details in the memos to train its operatives to resist questioning and withhold information on planned attacks. CIA Director Leon Panetta said during his confirmation hearings that even the Obama administration might use some of the enhanced techniques in a "ticking time bomb" scenario. What will the administration do now that it has shared the limits of our interrogation techniques with the enemy? President Obama's decision to release these documents is one of the most dangerous and irresponsible acts ever by an American president during a time of war -- and Americans may die as a result.

By Marc A. Thiessen – Posted: Tuesday, April 21, 2009

The writer, a visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution, served in senior positions in the Pentagon and the White House from 2001 to 2009, most recently as chief speechwriter for President George W. Bush.

Related Articles:

• Jack Bauer Is Officially Dead

• Hillary Clinton Blasts Cheney As Not ‘Reliable’

 Posted:  Knowledge Creates Power

Hillary Clinton Blasts Cheney As Not ‘Reliable’

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton slammed former Vice President Dick Cheney in testimony before Congress (today) Wednesday 4/22, saying she did not consider him a “reliable” source of information.

Clinton’s jab came during testimony before the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

Cheney says the Obama administration declassified only portions of Justice Department memos that invited criticism of the coercive interrogation measures used by the CIA. Other memos, he says, show the interrogations elicited vital intelligence that protected Americans, and urged Obama to release those documents as well.

The pointed exchange began as Rep. Dana Rohrbacher, R-Calif., asked Clinton whether she would support releasing the memos Cheney described.

"Well, it won't surprise you, I don't consider him a particularly reliable source of information," Clinton replied, referring to Cheney.

That response spurred Rohrbacher to redouble his efforts to get a straight answer, saying he was not asking for Clinton’s opinion of Dick Cheney.

"Madam secretary, I asked you a specific question," Rohrbacher reiterated.

Clinton’s response: "Congressman, I believe we ought to get to the bottom of this entire matter. I think it is in the best interest of our country, and that is what the president believes, and that is why he has taken the actions he did."

Secretary Clinton never answered to Rohrbacher’s question…

By: David A. Patten

Source:   Newsmax

Clip Reads:  Hillary Zings Cheney

At a hearing of the House Foreign Affairs committee, Hillary Clinton offers a

 few choice words about Dick Cheney. In reality, Hillary shows her true 

colors and obviously those of the White House.