Drone policy, harsh interrogations focus of CIA nominee hearing

World ( 31 )

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

Back to top

Order by Time Order by Popularity

31 Comments

Login to comment

  • -3

    BertieWooster

    The U.S.A. used to be called the Land of the Free.

    No longer.

    Imprisonment, punishment and even killing without recourse to justice are now totally OK. Illegal wars, torture, Guantanamo, the U.S.A. is edging closer to the USSR under Stalin.

  • 0

    bass4funk

    The U.S.A. used to be called the Land of the Free.

    Freedom doesn't mean you can do whatever you want. CA, you are not allowed to smoke most places, that's for your physical health, that right was taken away years ago, but we are all greatly benefited from that. hats why CA. Is one of the healthiest state, clean free air in establishments where you eat. Does that mean, there is no freedom? No? It's still the land of the free, best place to live. Freedom comes with a price, you can give up a small bit to keep the large majority.

    Imprisonment, punishment and even killing without recourse to justice are now totally OK. Illegal wars, torture, >Guantanamo, the U.S.A. is edging closer to the USSR under Stalin.

    What are you talking about? Civil rights in the US don't apply to terrorists. Water boarding is not torture, getting water poured on your face, getting up and walking again is not the same as a predator drone blowing up a whole family to bits. Obama was the one that wanted to distance itself from the so called "torture policies" of the Bush admin. So now it seems that Obama is finally tapping into his inner Bush ( finally) and stopping these terrorists, suspected plots and future plans. Personallty, I would rather have the SEALS catch these thugs, interrogate them to get some intel of their operations, but Obama chooses to blow them up to bits than to apprehend these thugs. No country, no flag, rouge, they don't need to have the same rights as terrorists. American terrorists like Anwar Al-Alwaki got what they deserved ( as did his son) you want to hang with the terrorists as an American, then you should be able to die like them. Obama did the right thing and I hope he steps it up a notch.

  • -1

    Wolfpack

    So for the Left, putting a hardened terrorist through the ordeal of simulated drowning is so horrible that it's unthinkable that this could be done by their government. But it's cool for Obama to personally select an American citizen to be the target for assassination by having them blown to pieces without the benefit of a trial to prove that they are guilty of any wrongdoing? Wow - it's getting harder and harder to understand the policy rationalizations of Obama and his sycophants in the Democrat party and the national media. This is not merely hypocrisy, it is the suspension of logical reason altogether.

    And this just a few weeks after Obama closed the office he established the day after he took office that was to oversee the shutdown of the horrid Gitmo gulag. Hey Barack, the Nobel Committee is on the phone, they want their Peace Prize back!

  • 1

    viking68

    Bass4funk, agree with you wholeheartedly.

    People who try to make these pollyanna type arguments will open the door for another Al-Alwaki to create jihadis and then they will complain about terrorism. We are not dealing with nation states here. We are fighting ideas and ideals, some more twisted than others, that move people to commit evil acts against others.

    You can't yell fire in a theater, and these guys are yelling "kill Americans" or kill the unbelievers to people they know will act. Do we kill the many people who hear the message so that we catch the five or ten who will act? NO, that would be the acts of totalitarians, of which there are too many in the world. We have focused on killing those in the command structure, of which Al-Alwaki was a part of in several ways.

    I said this before 9/11, these jihadis are not content to live where they are and impose their rule locally. They want to change the world because they think they know the right way to live, and you are not living right and are corrupting others.

    I agree with the drone strikes over the spec ops raids to capture some of these guys because it is safer for the spec ops guys. But don't believe the spec ops guys are sitting back having a beer because some robot is being flown by a 9 to 5 pilot commuting to work at a U.S. base. The spec ops guys have been very busy after 9/11, but their actions are just not widely published.

  • 0

    Droll Quarry

    So.... following the logic in bass4funk's post all the government needs to do is declare anyone a terrorist and they can automatically be killed without any due process of law?

  • -2

    Wakarimasen

    Bertie ntirely agree Govet. powers and actions in the US are more draconian than most European countries.

  • -1

    bass4funk

    @droll

    So.... following the logic in bass4funk's post all the government needs to do is declare anyone a terrorist and they can automatically be killed without any due process of law?

    If the intel is proven factual, is precise, conclusive, plotting to aid terrorists in harming and trying to destroy America or Americans, then by all means, Yes.

  • 0

    Virtuoso

    It doesn't really matter any more who is president of the US. He's a puppet who dances to the tune of the military-industrial complex and if he dare attempt to rein them in, he'll wind up like poor JFK did in 1963.

  • 0

    viking68

    Do you really think Al-Alwaki being killed was unjustified? Or the other jihadis killed by drone or otherwise?

    I do agree that there must be some oversight, as suggested by bass4funk. Without oversight, as Droll suggests, the U.S. can easily kill some without due process of law. The unfortunate part is that we don't get to see the oversight. It is hidden away in secrecy and leads to the questions raised here about unchecked power.

    I should remind people that war is messy and does not always conform to our civil ideas of decency. However, the U.S. is one country that does try to be decent. It wasn't the U.S. that started this war, and it is not a typical war against a nation.

    We are not talking about carpet bombing everything that moves either, look to countries like Russia and China for that kind of tactic, e.g., Russia using gas that killed a majority of hostages just so the Chechen terrorists were killed.

  • 1

    Droll Quarry

    The drone program could just as easily be extended to organized crime figures or drug dealers or bank robbers or occupy wall street protesters or tea party members or green peace or....... It should not be up to the government who it can kill!. The government will always do what is best for the current government and what is best for the current government is not always best for the people.. or freedom..or religion or.....

  • 1

    Surf O'Holic

    Wow, the neo-con, pro-stasi warmongers are out in full-force to defend American Authoritarian Exceptionalism. All that's missing from Brennan is a crisp SS uniform.

    " Civil rights in the US don't apply to terrorists."

    Where is that in the Constitution? Amendment 5 or 8?

    " Water boarding is not torture…"

    No?

    " these ####### are not content to live where they are and impose their rule locally. They want to change the world because they think they know the right way to live, and you are not living right and are corrupting others."

    And that's different from US foreign policy how?

    " It wasn't the U.S. that started this war, and it is not a typical war against a nation."

    If you're so short-sighted to think it started on 9-11, then maybe you should read up on the CIA-orchestrated installment of the Shah in 1950's.

    A war cannot be fought against an "idea". That would be called a crusade.

  • -1

    Droll Quarry

    The United States just can't seem to grasp that not everyone in the world wants freedom. A sterling example is Iraq. The moment Saddam was gone the population went back to doing what it had been doing for the past 5000 years....killing each other. When the people of any nation are really ready to fight for their freedom and understand what it means, true revolution will happen. Until that time comes any foreign supported insurrection will just change one like regime for another like regime that has broke the code on gaining international sympathy and hired the better PR company.

  • 3

    SuperLib

    Droll Quarry: The drone program could just as easily be extended to organized crime figures or drug dealers or bank robbers or occupy wall street protesters or tea party members or green peace or

    Nah, probably not.

  • 1

    Droll Quarry

    @ SuperLib

    I'm glad you support the drone program. It is heartening to see someone agree with the wasteful process of lawyers and courts and judicial systems. It is very energy efficient and green minded to allow a small heavily armed fuel efficient aircraft summarily kill an American citizen and anyone near him/her based on the recommendation of unnamed persons and unspecified documents and evidence that will never be made public. I just don't know why that would cause any concern at all. I can see we think alike and know how to do what needs to be done.

  • -1

    Psyops

    Im all for the drone program. Besides, this guy stop being an American the min he decided to fight America so he became a nice soft puggy target. Besides this guy was blown to bits in Yemen not in the US. The general american public has no need to fear of drones blasting Americans at home. Thats FBI turf. I thank the govt for saving me tax dollars with one missile instead of feeding this sack of $H!t and going through the judicial procedure. I blame HIM for causing his own death not the drone program.

  • 0

    viking68

    Surf O' Holic,

    I agree with who ever said that civil rights do not apply to terrorists, they only apply to U.S. citizens and people in the country. If the terrorist is a U.S. citizen or in the country, then yes they should have civil rights. If we detain people (like at Guantanamo), then we should give the detainees some form of civil rights.

    America generally attempts to persuade other countries to act the way they want similar to how states are treated in areas the federal government has no basis to govern. I would rather America left every country alone and not meddle, but it does.

    Sure, individual people or groups within the government go overboard when there is no oversight. You only have to look at the CIA's attacks on unions in Australia in the 70's to understand that and your example of the Shah of Iran is certainly on point and quite disgusting, especially when you look at all the other meddling that the U.S. has done. The point is, there usually is some oversight in America so that wrongs when they happen hopefully can be corrected or can be stopped before they start.

    As far as a crusade, the war against al queda and jihadis is a war of ideas, like all wars. The goal of any war is to make the other side give up on their ideas. But, calling the war a crusade is a mistake since only one side is trying to impose religion on another culture (or should I say every other culture in the world).

    No, I don't think the war started on 9-11. It was a critical event that woke up Americas to the knowledge that extremists were doing all they could to kill them where they lived. It was no surprise to me. Friends were dying long before 9-11.

  • 1

    SuperLib

    Droll Quarry: I'm glad you support the drone program.

    My pleasure.

  • -1

    bass4funk

    I should remind people that war is messy and does not always conform to our civil ideas of decency. However, the U.S. is one country that does try to be decent. It wasn't the U.S. that started this war, and it is not a typical war against a nation.

    That's the exact point I was trying to make. These rouge terrorists think that they are impervious of any attack or assault, but they are the ones that started attacking us, but we are not allowed to defend ourselves, root out and destroy confirmed terrorists? Totally absurd.

  • 0

    Surf O'Holic

    " civil rights do not apply to terrorists, they only apply to U.S. citizens and people in the country."

    Not according to the US Law. Due Process applies to all.

    " The goal of any war is to make the other side give up on their ideas."

    I believe the goal of war is submission of the declared enemy or surrender. The goal of debate or discussion is to promote one's idea or persuade others to agree by non-violent means. Both the jihadists and militants are not more than armed belligerents.

    The 9-11 attacks, as well as the first WTC bombing among others, were blowback from US-led interventionist actions even from the horse's mouth.

  • -1

    Surf O'Holic

    bass, your premise, " but they are the ones that started attacking us…" is a major error.

    After each attack on a US interest(Kohbar, USS Cole, WTC 1, 9-11…Benghazi, etc.) the group(s) claiming responsibility stated their attacks were retribution for acts against their people in their homelands. With the ongoing drone attacks in various countries, it's not a leap to predict blowback further endangering not only Americans, but also collateral damage.

  • 1

    Madverts

    Heh, I didn't realize people still stuck up for the rights of islamic terrorists. It's pretty obvious their scourge won't leave the earth unless we kill every last one of them.

    It's a tall order I realize, and I commend the Americans leading the way with their drone programme. It's a shame Langley can't hook this up to the Playstation Network so we can all play on line.

  • 1

    Surf O'Holic

    What some misconstrue as support for reprehensible acts of religiously brainwashed radicals is in fact support for the secular, rational-based rule of long-established law which begins with the presumption of innocence and a guarantee of the due process of law, a fair and speedy trial, without cruel and unusual treatment.

    Has there been a Congressionally approved Declaration of War?

  • 0

    viking68

    You basically want the enemy to give up on the idea that making war is worth it. There are other forms of this goal and ways of accomplishing this goal, but was has basically this goal.

    It is hard to declare war on something that is not a country. Still, Congress funds it.

    The original justifications for those attacks was the U.S. presence in Saudi Arabia, a country they didn't control and that invited the U.S. to establish bases there. Why were bases established there? #1 To protect the oil supply, and #2 to protect a friendly country in the region. Those justifications changed when the was a new PR opportunity with Iraq.

    The real goal of the jihadis is to impose their version of Sharia law on everyone and to prevent others from influencing those under their version of Sharia law to change their mind. The fact that everyone in the world knows America, whether through McDonalds or something stupid done by America, is a constant source of influence against this goal. So, they want to eliminate America or at least show they are strong in fighting them to support their Sharia law.

  • 0

    SuperLib

    Surf: After each attack on a US interest(Kohbar, USS Cole, WTC 1, 9-11…Benghazi, etc.) the group(s) claiming responsibility stated their attacks were retribution for acts against their people in their homelands.

    Makes total sense if you ignore the fact that Islamic terrorists have killed people from dozens of different countries, and the vast majority of people they kill are other Muslims. I suppose you have a laundry list of "root causes" for all of those attacks as well?

    If you look at it from the point of view that they want to impose their will on anyone who does not subscribe to their beliefs, whether they be American or Japanese or Saudi, then you'll find their pattern of attacks make sense: kill anyone who isn't them.

  • -1

    viking68

    Human rights apply to all. Civil rights are only for Americans and people in America. The Geneva Convention provides due process and other rights for combatants from nation states, otherwise, they would not have any.

    The jihadis do not fall anywhere among these, but when they are deprived of their liberty when captured, you have to give them some rights. That is why there has been a struggle with determining what rights should be afforded to these captured combatants and where they should be tried. In the end, the military tribunals govern the rights of combatants, which are not the same as civil rights, but they are close.

  • 0

    Surf O'Holic

    " Makes total sense if you ignore the fact that Islamic terrorists have killed people from dozens of different countries, and the vast majority of people they kill are other Muslims."

    Yes, the radicals from each sect go about killing those from other sects, like in Iraq. The beauty of religion.

    But you can't deny that by the various interventions that hatred has been spread like plague. Well done.

  • 0

    Surf O'Holic

    " It is a measure of how far we have fallen as a nation — not only that President Obama asserts and exercises such a terrible power, but that only 11 U.S. senators would be willing to affix their names to a letter to ask the Obama administration to provide its legal reasoning. If John Brennan is confirmed as CIA director, and the killings of U.S. citizens continue based on this whitewash of a white paper, then the U.S. Senate will have yielded up to the president without even a fight the power to kill citizens without judicial due process —a power that has been unknown in the English-speaking world for at least 370 years.

    Herb Titus taught constitutional law for 26 years, concluding his academic career as founding dean of Regent Law School. Bill Olson served in three positions in the Reagan administration. They now practice constitutional law together, defending against government excess, at William J. Olson, P.C. They filed an amicus curiae brief supporting a preliminary injunction in the Chris Hedges challenge to the detention provisions of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 (“NDAA”), addressing the Treason Clause, and also filed an amicus curiae brief in that case in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit."

  • 0

    SuperLib

    Surf: Yes, the radicals from each sect go about killing those from other sects, like in Iraq. The beauty of religion.

    So when terrorists kill other Muslims it's the beauty of religion, when they kill Americans it's because of a specific reaction to foreign policy. Looks like you have everything covered.

  • -3

    Fugacis

    The only fit punishment for someone like Brennan is to be waterboarded for a solid month in a hut in Waziristan while drones fly overhead dropping bombs progressively closer to his location.

    Waterboarding is not "simulated drowning" - it IS drowning. In cases where it has been done by less skilled torturers (and yes, that's what they are, and that's who the CIA apparently hires), it has led to death by...umm...drowning. The intake of large amounts of water and suffocation of the lungs.

    It is torture, just as much as thumbscrews or mutilation. People who have suffered it usually suffer intense PTSD for the rest of their lives; often a phobia of water; and they will attest that it is torture for them. Some are driven to the point of psychosis or catatonia.

    How Obama can sleep at night knowing that his regime is allowing this is beyond me. How he can dare to say that the US is better than the thugs who torture American prisoners is appalling and sickening. No civilised nation inflicts torture. It is inhuman and degrading to our moral condition.

    And no, it's not even effective. Perhaps the totalitarian duckspeakers above could point me to ONE single piece of useful intelligence that has been gleaned from torture. Just one. The answer is that there have been none. When Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was waterboarded more than 150 times, he professed knowledge of planned terrorist attacks on the White House, Sears Towers, Bali, Big Ben, and numerous others. All were found to be fraudulent; he was saying anything that he thought would stop the torture.

    How many other wild goose chases do you suppose the coalition has gone on because it got false intelligence from mountain shepherds who knew nothing of value but were nevertheless enthusiastically tortured by a CIA agent?

    Torture is useful for two things: false confessions, and terrorism. Both of which the US has conducted extensively.

    And as for the drone strikes, those have bombed weddings to bits. More than 200 children in Pakistan have been killed as "collateral damage". How degraded and sick you have to be to justify that is beyond me.

  • -1

    Wolfpack

    Waterboarding is not "simulated drowning" - it IS drowning.

    Three terrorists were water-boarded between 9/11 and 2003. All three of them are still alive today. Obviously, they did not drown.

    Since before taking office, President Obama and the Left in general have harshly criticized President Bush for the enhanced interrogation program. He even had Attorney General Eric Holder attempt to prosecute those in the CIA that were involved. Those prosecutions went no where of course - it was all political theater.

    However, since taking office President Obama has personally ordered the killing of three American citizens. No trial, no reading of their rights, nothing. Water-boarding was no a walk in the park - and it certainly wasn't meant to be - but is much preferable to being blown to bits by a hell-fire missile. There are a few on the Left that aren't so in the tank for Obama that they will not accept Obama's rank hypocrisy - but they are few and far between.

  • -2

    SuperLib

    Fugacis: [Waterboarding] is torture, just as much as thumbscrews or mutilation.

    Except that it's not. We can debate the nuance of the word "torture" if you want, and I can even agree that it shouldn't be used. But it's obviously not the same as thumbscrews or mutilation. There is a difference between "I think I can get away with saying this" and "I really believe this."

    How Obama can sleep at night knowing that his regime is allowing this is beyond me.

    Obama banned waterboarding.

    And no, it's not even effective.

    That's debatable. No one will really know how effective it was since the reports are conflicting at best. Again, that isn't support for the technique, just stating the facts.

    How many other wild goose chases do you suppose the coalition has gone on because it got false intelligence from mountain shepherds who knew nothing of value but were nevertheless enthusiastically tortured by a CIA agent?

    Do you have any specific information or are you just running with anything your imagination brings up?

    And as for the drone strikes, those have bombed weddings to bits. More than 200 children in Pakistan have been killed as "collateral damage". How degraded and sick you have to be to justify that is beyond me.

    Welcome to war.

Back to top

Login to leave a comment

OR

More in World

View all

View all

  • Export/Import Personnel

    Export/Import Personnel
    Yamato Soysauce Miso Co., Ltd. 株式会社ヤマト醤油味噌, 石川県
    Salary: 月給 23万円 ~ 25万円 相談可

  • Administration Officer

    Administration Officer
    Destination Asia Japan, 東京都
    Salary: 月給 8万円 ~ 10万円

  • PR／Translator

    PR／Translator
    株式会社CMC ( CMC ), 東京都
    Salary: 月給 31万6000円 ~ 35万円 相談可

  • International Account Manager

    International Account Manager
    Cosmo PR Corporation (株式会社 コスモ・ピーアール), 東京都
    Salary: 年収 500万円 相談可

  • 営業アシスタント

    営業アシスタント
    株式会社　天時情報システム, 東京都
    Salary: 月給 25万円 ~ 35万円 相談可 歩合制