More on the absurd hamstringing of the CIA in intelligence gathering– 15 years behind bars for denying terrorists’ sleep? Thanks to a frequent guest on Secure Freedom Radio– Rep. Pete Hoekstra– we really dodged a bullet. Curt Winsor, former US Ambassador to Costa Rica, joins Frank to discuss events in Latin America. Then, SFR regular and Washington Times geopolitics editor Bill Gertz on technology transfer to hostile regimes.
Let me start right now by revisiting an issue with you on yesterday with Aaron Harrison about an authorization bill for the intelligence community that went into the maw of the House of Representatives, it looked as though it was headed to passage by the House with an incredible provision in it. It envisioned punishing, with criminal prosecution with sanctions up to 20 years in prison any member of the intelligence community who engaged in cruel or degrading interrogations of our enemies.
Now that may sound on the face of it to be unobjectionable, but it’s clear that when you start telling those who are putting their lives on the line to protect us that they will be subjected to criminal prosecution were they to do something perhaps no more “degrading” than denying a terrorist sleep, a proven and effective technique for inducing cooperative from folks who are trained and certainly disciplined in the business of not cooperating. You are unfortunately giving the good guys every disincentive to do their job, and creating ever greater opportunities for the bad guys to do theirs. And let’s be clear what that means: the bad guys will kill us.
Now I’m very pleased to report that I think as the result of opposition, both from members of Congress and from the public (to the extent that it was made aware in this dark of night operation by the House Democrats) of the character of this amendment offered by Congressman Jim McDermott of Washington State (one of the real Lefties on Capitol Hill), the House Democratic leadership thought better of this idea. They pulled back from the brink, they did not push the bill forward with this amendment in it; and as a result, we dodged a bullet folks— and I just wanted to tell you that I think it’s critically important that we did, it’s critically important not least to those who we are asking to do the difficult and often politically charged business of interrogating enemy detainees. A vital function, and we saw it play out in terms of this business with Abdulmutallab (the so-called “panty bomber”) not properly interrogated, lawyered up, and then subsequently began to talk a bit more which is all to the good.
We absolutely, positively need to let those who we have charged with eliciting information from uncooperative folks, especially hardened, trained terrorists—that we have the back of those in the intelligence community who are doing their jobs, not that we are trying to penalize them, incarcerate them, or otherwise destroy their careers.
Now to go back to something we talked about once before, and I think it’s particularly germane in this business, where the Left in the House of Representatives are trying very hard to see what they could do to further diminish, further constrict the techniques we could use. Already President Obama has said we’re not going to use anything other than the rules approved in the US Army Field Manual. Well, that denies us a very considerable array of coercive, some say enhanced interrogative techniques that have proven effective. And one that we discussed with Mark Thiessen, who was a speechwriter for the W. Bush Administration, he is the author of a terrific new book on this subject, Courting Disaster it’s called. Mark Thiessen pointed out that one of the three Al-Qaeda terrorists who were actually subjected to water-boarding, arguably the most controversial of these enhanced interrogative techniques, actually thanked his interrogators after he was subjected to it.
Why? He did so because that enabled him once he was pressed in a way he could not resist. It enabled him, consistent with his training, consistent with his Sharia doctrine, to yield, to give up that information. Now if you prevent our interrogators from being able to do that sort of thing, from having the tools at their disposal that enable them to elicit that kind of information by effectively breaking the will, overcoming the resistance of those they are interrogating; you greatly increase the probability that information that may be actionable, information that may be vital to protecting American lives, remains withheld from us. Now that is something we should not be doing, it is something that we cannot safely do especially when the Administration seems to have backed itself into a corner at the moment, of killing these guys because it has effectively foreclosed not only detention, but also the proper techniques for interrogating them.
Now let me be clear, I’m not saying you shouldn’t kill them when the opportunity presents itself, at least in certain instances where that will save American lives by doing it—it will ensure that we don’t unnecessarily jeopardize our forces or our interests. But here’s the problem: these guys may have information we have information we have got to get, the so-called “ticking time bomb” issues arises. We’ve got to be able to capture them on occasion at least; we’ve got to be able to detain them securely in Guantanamo Bay, we’ve got to be able to interrogate them. You don’t do all of those things, you put lives and perhaps the country itself at risk.
I’m glad the House of Representatives had the wisdom to pull back from a new affront to our security, and I hope this will be the beginning of more sensible policies out of particularly the Democratic House, but Congress in general and certainly the Obama Administration, because at the end of the day again it’s our lives that are on the line.
Well that’s what I think. Let me know what you think. Send us a note!
Let me start right now by revisiting an issue with you on yesterday with Aaron Harrison about an authorization bill for the intelligence community that went into the maw of the House of Representatives, it looked as though it was headed to passage by the House with an incredible provision in it. It envisioned punishing, with criminal prosecution with sanctions up to 20 years in prison any member of the intelligence community who engaged in cruel or degrading interrogations of our enemies.
Now that may sound on the face of it to be unobjectionable, but it’s clear that when you start telling those who are putting their lives on the line to protect us that they will be subjected to criminal prosecution were they to do something perhaps no more “degrading” than denying a terrorist sleep, a proven and effective technique for inducing cooperative from folks who are trained and certainly disciplined in the business of not cooperating. You are unfortunately giving the good guys every disincentive to do their job, and creating ever greater opportunities for the bad guys to do theirs. And let’s be clear what that means: the bad guys will kill us.
Now I’m very pleased to report that I think as the result of opposition, both from members of Congress and from the public (to the extent that it was made aware in this dark of night operation by the House Democrats) of the character of this amendment offered by Congressman Jim McDermott of Washington State (one of the real Lefties on Capitol Hill), the House Democratic leadership thought better of this idea. They pulled back from the brink, they did not push the bill forward with this amendment in it; and as a result, we dodged a bullet folks— and I just wanted to tell you that I think it’s critically important that we did, it’s critically important not least to those who we are asking to do the difficult and often politically charged business of interrogating enemy detainees. A vital function, and we saw it play out in terms of this business with Abdulmutallab (the so-called “panty bomber”) not properly interrogated, lawyered up, and then subsequently began to talk a bit more which is all to the good.
We absolutely, positively need to let those who we have charged with eliciting information from uncooperative folks, especially hardened, trained terrorists—that we have the back of those in the intelligence community who are doing their jobs, not that we are trying to penalize them, incarcerate them, or otherwise destroy their careers.
Now to go back to something we talked about once before, and I think it’s particularly germane in this business, where the Left in the House of Representatives are trying very hard to see what they could do to further diminish, further constrict the techniques we could use. Already President Obama has said we’re not going to use anything other than the rules approved in the US Army Field Manual. Well, that denies us a very considerable array of coercive, some say enhanced interrogative techniques that have proven effective. And one that we discussed with Mark Thiessen, who was a speechwriter for the W. Bush Administration, he is the author of a terrific new book on this subject, Courting Disaster it’s called. Mark Thiessen pointed out that one of the three Al-Qaeda terrorists who were actually subjected to water-boarding, arguably the most controversial of these enhanced interrogative techniques, actually thanked his interrogators after he was subjected to it.
Why? He did so because that enabled him once he was pressed in a way he could not resist. It enabled him, consistent with his training, consistent with his Sharia doctrine, to yield, to give up that information. Now if you prevent our interrogators from being able to do that sort of thing, from having the tools at their disposal that enable them to elicit that kind of information by effectively breaking the will, overcoming the resistance of those they are interrogating; you greatly increase the probability that information that may be actionable, information that may be vital to protecting American lives, remains withheld from us. Now that is something we should not be doing, it is something that we cannot safely do especially when the Administration seems to have backed itself into a corner at the moment, of killing these guys because it has effectively foreclosed not only detention, but also the proper techniques for interrogating them.
Now let me be clear, I’m not saying you shouldn’t kill them when the opportunity presents itself, at least in certain instances where that will save American lives by doing it—it will ensure that we don’t unnecessarily jeopardize our forces or our interests. But here’s the problem: these guys may have information we have information we have got to get, the so-called “ticking time bomb” issues arises. We’ve got to be able to capture them on occasion at least; we’ve got to be able to detain them securely in Guantanamo Bay, we’ve got to be able to interrogate them. You don’t do all of those things, you put lives and perhaps the country itself at risk.
I’m glad the House of Representatives had the wisdom to pull back from a new affront to our security, and I hope this will be the beginning of more sensible policies out of particularly the Democratic House, but Congress in general and certainly the Obama Administration, because at the end of the day again it’s our lives that are on the line.
Well that’s what I think. Let me know what you think. Send us a note!
