Congress Knew About the Interrogations (Obama should release the rest of the memos)

Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair got it right last week when he noted how easy it is to condemn the enhanced interrogation program "on a bright sunny day in April 2009." Reactions to this former CIA program, which was used against senior al Qaeda suspects in 2002 and 2003, are demonstrating how little President Barack Obama and some Democratic members of Congress understand the dire threats to our nation.

George Tenet, who served as CIA director under Presidents George W. Bush and Bill Clinton, believes the enhanced interrogations program saved lives. He told CBS's "60 Minutes" in April 2007: "I know this program alone is worth more than the FBI, the Central Intelligence Agency and the National Security Agency put together have been able to tell us."

Last week, Mr. Blair made a similar statement in an internal memo to his staff when he wrote that "[h]igh value information came from interrogations in which those methods were used and provided a deeper understanding of the al Qa'ida organization that was attacking this country."

Yet last week Mr. Obama overruled the advice of his CIA director, Leon Panetta, and four prior CIA directors by releasing the details of the enhanced interrogation program. Former CIA director Michael Hayden has stated clearly that declassifying the memos will make it more difficult for the CIA to defend the nation.

It was not necessary to release details of the enhanced interrogation techniques, because members of Congress from both parties have been fully aware of them since the program began in 2002. We believed it was something that had to be done in the aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attacks to keep our nation safe. After many long and contentious debates, Congress repeatedly approved and funded this program on a bipartisan basis in both....

...demonstrating how little President Barack Obama and some Democratic members of Congress understand the dire threats to our nation.

It's not that B.O. and The Little Armpits don't understand, it's that they just don't give a flying fig.

This should be obvious in the denials of culpability that followed the attacks on 9/11.

To this day, not a single RAT will acknowledge the hamstringing that The Church Commission and Jamie Gorelick's "firewall" brought to our intelligence gathering agencies.

Why can’t Obama be impeached for giving military secrets away?
Just wondering and wondering what the future holds for our military and their moral.

And making out like our veterans are rabid threats to security when they return home to us is not what any President should be saying. How depressing.

I’m Canadian and proud of the U.S. and Canadian military and the sacrifices they are making for us. God Bless Them.

Here is Blair's initial memo.
-------------
Statement by the Director of National Intelligence Dennis C. Blair

April 16, 2009

The Department of Justice released today four previous Office of Legal Counsel opinions which concluded certain harsh interrogation techniques used by CIA officers on suspected al Qa'ida terrorists were legal. The opinions spell out in graphic detail techniques used in questioning high value detainees suspected of involvement in, and plans for, terrorist activity against the United States and its allies.

As the leader of the Intelligence Community, I am trying to put these issues into perspective. We cannot undo the events of the past; we must understand them and use this understanding as we move into the future.

It is important to remember the context of these past events. All of us remember the horror of 9/11. For months afterwards we did not have a clear understanding of the enemy we were dealing with, and our every effort was focused on preventing further attacks that would kill more Americans. It was during these months that the CIA was struggling to obtain critical information from captured al Qa'ida leaders, and requested permission to use harsher interrogation methods. The OLC memos make clear that senior legal officials judged the harsher methods to be legal.

Those methods, read on a bright, sunny, safe day in April 2009, appear graphic and disturbing. As the President has made clear, and as both CIA Director Panetta and I have stated, we will not use those techniques in the future. But we will absolutely defend those who relied on these memos and those guidelines.

As a young Navy officer during the Vietnam years, I experienced public scorn for those of us who served in the Armed Forces during an unpopular war. Challenging and debating the wisdom and policies linked to wars and warfighting is important and legitimate; however disrespect for those who serve honorably within legal guidelines is not. I remember well the pain of those of us who served our country even when the policies we were carrying out were unpopular or could be second-guessed.

We in the Intelligence Community should not be subjected to similar pain. Let the debate focus on the law and our national security. Let us be thankful that we have public servants who seek to do the difficult work of protecting our country under the explicit assurance that their actions are both necessary and legal.

There will almost certainly be more public attention about the actions of intelligence agencies in the past. What we must do is make it absolutely clear to the American people that our ethos is to act legally, in as transparent a manner as we can, and in a way that they would be proud of if we could tell them the full story.

- - - - - - - -
Nothing about effectiveness of the techniques here.

In a perfect world he might be. I think this rises to the level of giving “aid and comfort” to the enemy, which is part of the statutory definition of treason, which in turn must be considered a ‘high crime’ under the Constitution, for which a president can be impeached. The reality is however, that with Democrats in control of both houses of Congress, there isn’t a snowball’s chance in hell of this happening, and beyond that frankly, the country just doesn’t have the stomach for it. The Republicans lived to regret, I think, the Clinton impeachment trial, and this would only be worse. I’m afraid if we’re to see another impeachment of a president, it would have to be an egregious and flagrant violation of the law. Until then, all we can do is shout, organize, and wait for the next election cycle as this Leftist, crypto-Islamic appeaser busies himself destroying the fabric of the American republic.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.