NYT's Shocking Guantanamo Editorial

The end of the world is upon us, perhaps not in an immediately apocalyptic sense, but the signs of the times are increasingly bizarre, and inexplicable things are happening. What else can explain the publication in today’s New York Times of a guest editorial singing the praises of the Guantanamo Bay terrorist detention center? After years of misleading and shallowly researched stories by its own staff recounting alleged torture and prisoner abuse by the U.S. military at Guantanamo, The New York Times revealed a glimmer of journalistic integrity by deeming Colonel Morris Davis’s “The Guantanamo I Know” as “fit to print.” Capital Cloak frequently decries liberal bias in the media, but is also fair in reporting when liberal media outlets like the Times make any effort to present both sides of an issue. If only it would happen more often!

Air Force Col. Davis, the chief prosecutor for the Defense Department in military commissions, which have come under fire from war critics and Bush administration opponents, provided specific details of the amenities afforded to terrorists housed at the Guantanamo detention center. Consider the following privileges prisoners there enjoy, keeping in mind that they are terrorists captured in battle with our troops or known to have plotted and carried out attacks worldwide, and decide for yourselves whether the notorious concentration camp-like descriptions of Guantanamo recklessly spoken by Democrats and gladly reported by the liberal media match the reality of life for prisoners:

The makeshift detention center known as Camp X-Ray closed in early 2002 after just four months of use. Now it is overgrown with weeds and serves as home to iguanas. Yet last week ABC News published a photo online of Camp X-Ray as if it were in use, five years after its closing.

Today, most of the detainees are housed in new buildings modeled after civilian prisons in Indiana and Michigan. Detainees receive three culturally appropriate meals a day. Each has a copy of the Koran. Guards maintain respectful silence during Islam’s five daily prayer periods, and medical care is provided by the same practitioners who treat American service members. Detainees are offered at least two hours of outdoor recreation each day, double that allowed inmates, including convicted terrorists, at the “supermax” federal penitentiary in Florence, Colo.

Standards at Guantánamo rival or exceed those at similar institutions in the United States and abroad. After an inspection by the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe in March 2006, a Belgian police official said, “At the level of detention facilities, it is a model prison, where people are better treated than in Belgian prisons.”

Critics liken Guantánamo Bay to Soviet gulags, but reality does not match their hyperbole. The supporters of David Hicks, the detainee popularly known as the “Australian Taliban,” asserted that Mr. Hicks was mistreated and wasting away. But at his March trial, where he pleaded guilty to providing material support to a terrorist organization, he and his defense team stipulated he was treated properly. Mr. Hicks even thanked service members, and as one Australian newspaper columnist noted, he appeared in court “looking fat, healthy and tanned, and cracking jokes.”

Given the descriptions offered by Col. Davis and from the firsthand accounts I have been privy to, it would seem that terrorists captured in Iraq and Afghanistan and held in Guantanamo enjoy far better living standards and hygienic conditions than media darling Paris Hilton recently experienced in Los Angeles County jail facilities. Where were the calls from the liberal media to close down the L.A. County jails for their inhumanity? Where were the arguments that America is losing its moral high ground through its substandard prison facilities for convicted celebrities? Celebrities should be outraged that terrorists receive better treatment at Guantanamo!

Col. Davis performed a further act of educational service for liberals who insist that military commissions do not comply with Geneva Convention articles. Not surprisingly, the Bush administration did its homework on the legalities of the powers of a commander in chief and came to the appropriate conclusion that military commissions do in fact provide all of the fundamental guarantees of Article 75 of the Geneva Convention Protocol:

Each accused receives a copy of the charges in his native language; outside influence on witnesses and trial participants is prohibited; the accused may challenge members of the commission; an accused may represent himself or have assistance of counsel; he is presumed innocent until guilt is established beyond a reasonable doubt; he is entitled to assistance to secure evidence on his behalf; he is not required to incriminate himself at trial and his silence is not held against him; he may not be tried a second time for the same offense; and he is entitled to the assistance of counsel through four stages of post-trial appellate review ending at the United States Supreme Court.

One myth is that the accused can be excluded from his trial and convicted on secret evidence. The administrative boards that determine if a detainee is an enemy combatant and whether he is a continuing threat may consider classified information in closed hearings outside the presence of the detainee. But military commissions may not. The act states, “The accused shall be permitted ... to examine and respond to evidence admitted against him on the issue of guilt or innocence and for sentencing.” Unless the accused chooses to skip his trial or is removed for disruptive behavior, he has the right to be present and to confront all of the evidence.

Despite all of these legal protections, none of which are offered to U.S. troops who have the misfortune of falling into terrorist hands, critics of Guantanamo have continued to argue that military commissions are unfair because hearsay evidence is permitted and considered for or against the defendant. U.S. criminal courts, where liberals apparently feel more comfortable about prosecuting terrorists, do not allow hearsay testimony. Col. Davis exposed the fallacy of this argument over the unfairness of military commissions and hearsay testimony by reminding critics of the following point:

…While this standard permits admission of some evidence that would not be admissible in federal courts, the rights afforded Americans are not the benchmark for assessing rights afforded enemy combatants in military tribunals.

There is no ban on hearsay among the indispensable rights listed in the Geneva Conventions. Nor is there a ban on hearsay for the United Nations-sanctioned war crimes tribunals, including the International Criminal Court, the International Criminal Tribunals for the Former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, and the Special Court for Sierra Leone. The Nuremberg trials also did not limit hearsay evidence. Simply stated, a ban on hearsay is not an internationally recognized judicial guarantee.

While Democrats, anti-war demonstrators, and the eager liberal media pummel the Bush administration for allegedly denying captured enemy combatants due process under Geneva Protocols at Guantanamo, they either ignorantly or intentionally disregard the fact that their sacred Geneva Protocols have been complied with in full and the prisoner facilities are superior in all respects to the standards of prisons anywhere in the world. Col. Davis’s guest editorial proved once again that when it comes to the ridiculous accusations from the left that President Bush and Vice President Cheney committed alleged “war crimes” related to treatment of enemy combatants in the War on Terror, there is plenty of hysteria but no substance.

Congratulations to the New York Times for doing, in this case at least, its job by publishing a conservative rebuttal to 4 years of misleading and inaccurate liberal reports of conditions at Guantanamo. Perhaps the Times will now run a series of editorials in which it will seek to repair the damage it has done to worldwide opinion of President Bush’s integrity on this issue after relentlessly impugning it for years. I won’t hold my breath for that to happen. That truly would be a sign that the end is near.

Technorati Tags:Guantanamo, Prisoner Treatment, Military Commissions, Geneva Convention, Bush Administration, Torture, Hearsay, Enemy Combatants

GOP Second Debate Report Cards

The second GOP candidates’ debate last night in Columbia, South Carolina was in every respect superior to the sophomoric production by MSNBC in the previous debate. The audience was treated to professionalism, “gotcha” questions, and a brilliant terrorism scenario designed by Fox News to reveal what the candidates would or would not do to protect America; Carl Cameron, who prophetically (or was it conspiratorially?) predicted moments before the debate that he anticipated one of the second tier candidates saying something unusual or controversial that would trip up some of the top tier candidates. See the Giuliani and Paul grade summaries for details of that magically fulfilled prophecy.

For a review of Capital Cloak grades from the first debate, click here.

Rudy Giuliani Grade A-
Strengths: Was very forceful and reassuring on terrorism and national security issues. Personally condemned Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid for his declaration that the war in Iraq is already lost and aggressively criticized efforts to set a timetable for troop withdrawal from Iraq. Insisted America cannot show weakness to its enemies. Giuliani produced the comment most quoted in the media after the debate. After soon to be ex-candidate Ron Paul blamed America for bringing 9/11 upon itself, Giuliani interrupted and stated the following:

That's really an extraordinary statement, as someone who lived through the attack of Sept. 11, that we invited the attack because we were attacking Iraq. I don't think I have ever heard that before and I have heard some pretty absurd explanations for Sept. 11. I would ask the congressman to withdraw that comment and tell us that he didn't really mean that.

Initially, as this exchange with Paul continued, it seemed somewhat suspicious, given Carl Cameron’s pre-debate prophecy, that Giuliani alone immediately responded, spectacularly fulfilling Cameron’s prediction of a decisive moment sparked by a second tier candidate. However, after replaying the exchange several times and studying the responses and body language of Paul, Giuliani, and the Fox panel, I determined that Giuliani’s response was spontaneous and emotionally sincere. As Giuliani interrupted and condemned Paul, his left thumb began to twitch against his podium, indicating a mixture of nervousness (fight or flight response) for the confrontation and genuine anger at Paul’s blame America first theory. Giuliani was fortunate to seize that moment. Unfortunately, by allowing only Giuliani the opportunity to rebut and rebuke Paul, Fox News awarded Giuliani a tremendous advantage and significant individual attention. That advantage was expanded in the post-debate interview with Sean Hannity. Giuliani was the first to be interviewed and successfully parlayed his decisive debate moment into further replays and sympathetic commentary from Hannity.

In addressing how far he would go in the hypothetical scenario of three suicide bombings in American malls and a terrorist in custody at Guantanamo who may have information about a fourth bomb, Giuliani gave a heartening response, declaring that he would order interrogators to “use every method they can think of” short of torture but including “enhanced interrogation techniques” which was clarified to mean water boarding.

Giuliani explained his abortion position much more clearly in this debate, emphasizing that he opposes the practice but respects opposing views and accepts the right of a woman to choose abortion. He cited his successes as mayor with reducing abortions while increasing adoptions. Although Mike Huckabee hit him hard in rebuttal for being opposed to something morally but doing nothing to stop it, Giuliani remained consistent despite the fact that his abortion stance is anything but conservative.

Weaknesses: Those who have worked in or dealt with Washington, DC, know that it has no parallel when it comes to bureaucracy, waste, or glacial pace of progress. Giuliani, in touting his success as mayor of New York, stated that if he could get things done there, Washington will be easy. That is comparable to saying that because you defeated Grenada in a war, taking on China, Russia, and Iran would be easy. Mayors have far more hands-on authority to control city government than our presidents have over the federal government. Giuliani also made the claim that as president he would not refill 50% of government jobs that will be open after a wave of retirees leave federal service during the next presidential term. He offered no details of what jobs he would cut and in what departments or agencies, nor was he pressed for specifics. I am not opposed to reducing the size of the federal bureaucracy, but I am opposed to campaign platitudes. Unless Giuliani will delineate the departments and jobs he would specifically leave unfilled or eliminate altogether, his pledge to do so should be considered mere pandering to the conservative base. Every candidate claims he will change Washington, but few have the courage to detail who they would fire or how many federal employees (who do vote and pay taxes) will be out of work.

Mitt Romney: Grade A-
Strengths: Speaks with an economy of words, which helped since of the three top candidates he had the fewest in which to address questions. Romney led off with the statement that America cannot project failure in Iraq or the War on Terror because the war is larger than Iraq, it is a fight against a global jihad bent on replacing moderate Islamic governments with radical Islamic rule, and once that is accomplished the jihad will focus on toppling western democracies.

Romney asked why Congress is so intent on establishing benchmarks for the war but never imposes benchmarks on itself for government performance. He pledged to establish performance benchmarks for all departments and agencies in the federal government. This is how he resurrected Bain and the Salt Lake City Olympics, and his statements left the impression that he would be a master reorganizer of the bloated federal bureaucracy.

Romney’s best moment came during the hypothetical terrorist mall bombings scenario mentioned above. Addressing the same question asked of McCain and Giuliani, how far would he go to extract information from a captured terrorist, Romney pointed out that if three bombs had already detonated and a fourth was out there and known only to a terrorist in Guantanamo, the government would have already failed the American people and that prevention is far better than reaction. He assured voters that he would authorize “enhanced interrogation” techniques, including water boarding in the hypothetical situation and continued by stating:

You said the person is going to be in Guantanamo. I'm glad they're at Guantanamo. I don't want them on our soil. I want them in Guantanamo where they don't get the access to lawyers they get when they're on our soil. I don't want them in our prisons. I want them there. Some people have said we ought to close Guantanamo. My view is, we ought to double Guantanamo.

McCain, of course, is one who has called for closing Guantanamo. Romney received the second loudest applause of the evening for this answer. Overall, Romney was just as polished, articulate, and convincing as in the first debate, if not more so.

Weaknesses- Romney defended the evolution of his pro-life position adequately, but through no fault of his own was denied an opportunity to address the topic of his faith. Ordinarily, I would view that as a positive, in that a candidate’s religion should not be a determining factor or “litmus test” for voters. However, if there ever was a venue where addressing the issue of religion would have helped Romney, it would have been in South Carolina, a state that continues to classify the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, despite 6 million U.S. members and 13 million members worldwide, as a cult rather than a church. Curiously, when introducing each candidate, Fox News projected on screen graphics which included vital information: Age, Religion, Family, Career. Whoa, was that religion at #2 on the list of vital information?

The Fox News Panel knew there would be no questions about religion, but drew a distinction between Romney and the other candidates by including religion in the on screen bios. Why? By reminding the audience that Romney is different without allowing him to address those differences and how they influence him politically, Romney was placed at a distinct disadvantage. Think of it this way: if these candidates were applicants for a federal job, which in essence they are, it would be a civil rights violation for an employer to require applicants to list their religious affiliation on the application. The reason for this is that an employer would be drawn to differences in personal beliefs rather than job qualifications such as education or experience. By displaying each candidate’s resume, including religion, on screen, Fox pointed out Romney’s differences from the other job applicants without providing an opportunity for context.

John McCain: Grade C
Strengths: Started out strong on Iraq and the larger War on Terror, reminding that when we lost in Vietnam, Vietnam did not follow us home, but the War on Terror will.

Weaknesses: Repeated his ridiculous assertion from the first debate that the GOP did not lose the 2006 elections because of the war, they lost because of out of control spending. I defy McCain or any of his campaign staffers to back up that assessment with any polling numbers or statistics. Virtually all pre and post-election polls, with or without the expected MSM liberal bent, identified a lack of perceived progress in the Iraq War as the #1 reason for voter dissatisfaction with the GOP. Most vulnerable Republicans lost to opponents who vowed to support measures that would bring the war to a close and make the Iraqis responsible for their own security.

McCain made another false assertion while attempting to defend the McCain-Kennedy immigration bill, which although he refuses to accept the label, is amnesty. McCain was factually inaccurate when he claimed that the thwarted Ft. Dix attackers did not cross our borders illegally, insisting that they abused the visa program to remain in America. Three of the arrested terrorists actually entered the U.S. illegally by crossing from Mexico into Texas in 1984, as reported previously. McCain’s defense of his immigration bill was nearly as porous as the border he claimed was never crossed.

The greatest weakness exhibited by McCain was his repeated emphasis on his ability to reach across the aisle in the Senate and work with Democrats. That may seem like a virtue rather than vice, but McCain’s bipartisan outreach has resulted in McCain-Feingold, a horrible piece of legislation that violates the First Amendment, and may yet produce amnesty with McCain-Kennedy. Bipartisanship for McCain translates into fence straddling. McCain is far too concerned with opinion, whether it is public opinion of him or world opinion of the United States. This was most evident in McCain’s response to the terrorist bombing scenario in which he was asked if he would order the torture of a terrorist if it would save American lives. McCain, who of course suffered 5 years of torture in Vietnam has a unique perspective, but he opposed torture not because it was wrong but because it would make America unpopular:

We could never gain as much we would gain from that torture as we lose in world opinion. We do not torture people. It's not about the terrorists, it's about us. It's about what kind of country we are. And a fact: The more physical pain you inflict on someone, the more they're going to tell you what they think you want to know.

Senator Brownback responded to McCain by reminding that the first responsibility of an American president is to protect American lives, not go to the UN or worry about world opinion. McCain is sadly mistaken if he thinks conservatives are as obsessed with world opinion as he seems to be. Americans are not willing to die by the thousands or millions for the “cause” of world opinion. McCain touts his military experience as his best qualification as a Commander in Chief, yet he prefers popularity to protection.

Other Candidates
Duncan Hunter: Grade C
He did not gain or lose ground because he merely repeated everything he said in the first debate. See my post on the first debate for a duplicate summary of Hunter.

Tommy Thompson: Grade C-
Not the Thompson everyone wants to see in these debates, and like Hunter, this performance was a clone of the first debate, although Thompson opposes cloning. Nothing new here.

Mike Huckabee: Grade C-
Huckabee gets two awards: funniest line of the night; and “worst pass the buck” of the night. Huckabee drew hysterical laughter when he stated that the government “spent money like John Edwards at a beauty shop.” He drew dead silence when he was asked about a letter he wrote to a convicted Arkansas rapist prior to the rapist’s appearance before a parole board, in which letter Huckabee stated his desire that the rapist would be paroled. The rapist was paroled and later killed a woman in Missouri. Huckabee started to take responsibility, but waffled, stating “I did not let him out, the parole board did.” He compounded that by incredibly admitting “I don’t have foresight. I have great hindsight like everyone else.” This response was remarkably poor and should by itself make anyone uncomfortable voting for Huckabee. First, a prisoner in a state prison appears before a state parole board holding a letter from the top state official expressing a desire that the prisoner would be paroled. What did Huckabee think a state parole board would do when the governor of the state wants the prisoner paroled?

Of course, they paroled the rapist because governors have direct authority over state employees. Huckabee blamed the parole board that acted out his stated desire. That is the antithesis of executive leadership. Second, leaders are supposed to have foresight, or vision to use an appropriate synonym. Reagan had vision, and Huckabee compares himself at every opportunity to Reagan. It did not require much foresight or vision to imagine that paroling a convicted rapist might lead to, gasp, repeated offenses or worse. In Huckabee’s case, it resulted in worse and he apparently never saw it coming. That is frightening for a man who wants to be president. Perhaps he should lower his sights and join the Iraq Study Group or the next 9/11 Commission, as those entities specialize in hindsight.

The only saving grace for Huckabee was that he challenged Giuliani on abortion, stating that if a person truly believes abortion is morally wrong, he ought to oppose it in every way. Unfortunately for Huckabee, this was not nearly enough to compensate for his horrific response to the rapist release question.

Ron Paul: Grade D-
Paul trotted out his tired and disingenuous argument that America never declared war on Iraq and thus the war is illegal and should be ended immediately. Never mind that the current war is merely a resumption of hostilities brought about by Saddam Hussein’s failure to comply with the terms of the cease fire that suspended the first Gulf War, Paul does not like to cloud the issue with facts. Of course, Paul provided the highlight of the debate by stating that America was responsible for 9/11 because of our own provocations in Iraq and other Middle East nations over a ten year period following the Gulf War. Giuliani’s rebuttal was already described, but Paul doggedly maintained that 9/11 was our fault and we should have no troops or presence in the Middle East. Paul also made a huge blunder by implying that Ronald Reagan turned tail and fled from Lebanon after the bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut. Insisting that Reagan displayed cowardice will never endear a candidate to the conservative base. Paul is not a serious candidate for president, and serves only as a foil, and a cranky, factually challenged one at that. His theatrics detract from serious debate and his presence at future debates should be reconsidered. Wendell Goler asked Paul the best question of the night: “Are you running for the nomination of the wrong party?”

Sam Brownback: Grade C+
As he did in the first debate, Brownback makes some valid points but sounds and expresses himself so much like Al Gore that he has no chance of gaining national appeal. Brownback reminded that America cannot win a war with one party for it and the other against it. That is so obvious that it should have gone without saying. Brownback’s most memorable answer came when he was asked what he would tell a rape victim who became pregnant if she wanted to have an abortion. He handled that thorny question by turning the questions to the rape victim: is the baby a person; does the baby have a right to life? Brownback answered his own questions by declaring that yes, he opposes abortion even in rape cases because it ends the life of a child. He also doubted that a woman would be better off after suffering a rape and compounding it by terminating a baby’s life. He concluded his response with the phrase, “pro-life and whole life for everyone.” Whatever one thinks of the hypothetical rape/abortion question, Brownback was honest, committed, and sensitive.

Tom Tancredo: Grade C
Tancredo, like Paul, is an issue pusher, with immigration topping his list. When Tancredo strays from immigration into cultural issues, his ship starts taking on water. His performance in this debate was no better than the first. His defining response of the debate came on the issue of terrorism, not immigration. In response to the terrorist bombing scenario, Tancredo stated that Islamic terrorists are not trying to kill Americans because we are wealthy, “they will kill us because it is a dictate of their religion, at least a part of it.” He further left no doubt that he would utilize all interrogation options to extract information that could save American lives: “At that point I’m looking for Jack Bauer.” In conclusion, he looked rather maniacally into the camera and warned that America must “make them fearful” so that they will be deterred from attacking America again.

James Gilmore: Grade D
Gilmore gets my “tacky move of the night” award for accusing his rivals of being phony conservatives, and then declining to name names, referring the audience to his web site and blog where he would be more specific. That cheap trick to drive traffic to his site was cut off at the knees when Chris Wallace demanded that Gilmore identify which opponents he was referring to while they stood on stage with him. For the second time in two debates, Gilmore has blustered about the fact that he was Virginia’s governor on 9/11 and that the Pentagon, which is technically in Arlington, VA, was attacked, thus he has first hand knowledge of grappling with terrorism. I would ask Gilmore to explain what he did as governor that in any way influenced the response to the Pentagon attack. The Pentagon may be in Arlington, but it is a federal facility with federal security, federal response units, and federal jurisdiction. The attack was on the Pentagon, not on Virginia. Gilmore should cease taking credit for his strong leadership on 9/11, which by his own admission in both debates consisted mainly of participating on a Homeland Security committee assembled to discuss how to get it right next time. Committee experience is not a qualification for a Commander in Chief.

The Winner:
Giuliani, by default, because his memorable exchange with Paul will be the most replayed highlight and that is free advertising. A strong position on national defense washes away many sins, in Giuliani’s case abortion, illegal immigration, and gun control. Few will remember anything he said about those issues, but no one will forget his emotional and patriotic anger at Paul. When voters choose a debate winner, they will consider which candidate they think will cause the most fear among terrorists or other enemies of America. In last night’s debate, Giuliani seized the opportunity to be that candidate. Romney was a very close second, and perhaps if he had been asked more questions he would have surpassed Giuliani. I found his Guantanamo statement just as effective and memorable as Giuliani’s tussle with Paul, but because it was in a less dramatic context it received far less media attention. McCain, again, was a distant third.

Photo Credits: Time.com

Tenet: Interrogations MVP of Terror War

Washington insiders are known for making startling revelations in the media immediately prior to the date on which their memoirs hit bookstore shelves. Former CIA director George Tenet is no exception. His book, At the Center of the Storm: My Years at the CIA, available for sale Monday, has already been a hot topic of discussion in the media, as portions of it have been leaked along with previews of Tenet’s appearance on CBS’ “60 Minutes” program to be aired Sunday. Speculation has run rampant that Tenet would anger the White House with his assessments of the War on Terror, but the NY Sun reported today that Tenet adamantly defended the Bush administration’s use of “aggressive interrogations” in a bold and straightforward manner uncommon among DC’s elite.

Tenet, addressing the issue of interrogations and alleged torture so ferociously opposed by Democrats, reportedly stated:

"I know that this program has saved lives. I know we've disrupted plots," Mr. Tenet said in a "60 Minutes" interview set to air Sunday before the release of his new book. "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," he said.

Consider that last sentence again carefully. In the estimation of a man who served as DCI under Presidents Clinton and Bush, aggressive interrogations, presumably including the technique known as “water boarding” (previously described by Capital Cloak here) have been the most effective tool in protecting America from terrorism. Interrogation of enemy combatants, so loudly denounced by war critics is more valuable than the FBI’s counterterrorism section and Joint Terrorism Task Forces found in every major American city. Aggressive interrogations yield more actionable intelligence than the NSA’s electronic and communications monitoring capabilities so feared by privacy scaremongers. Interrogations are worth more than CIA covert operations and intelligence analysts’ reports.

It is a remarkable statement from a man whose reputation and marketability are so closely intertwined with public perception of the CIA. The capture of these enemy combatants, and often the initial interrogations, are military rather than CIA operations, and thus Tenet is crediting Defense Intelligence (with additional assistance from CIA) for extracting more actionable intelligence than all other agencies and programs combined. When one considers the enormous flood of documents, captured transmissions, and reports from citizen informants currently swamping American intelligence agencies, one begins to realize how critical it is to obtain information directly from captured terrorists with firsthand operational knowledge of terror plots, terror leaders, names, aliases, locations, dates, times, and travel methods.

Theoretically, all of these pieces of a terror plot puzzle might eventually be put together by American intelligence. The NSA may capture a phone call in which vague references to an attack in America or Britain are made. Defense Intelligence may find laptop computers, surveillance videos, and maps on which targets are circled. The FBI may receive a warning from an anonymous citizen that Islamic men were talking about a bomb in New York. The pieces of the puzzle may be many and seemingly unrelated. That is complicated by the continued failure of intelligence agencies to share newly obtained information real time with each other, thus the chances of someone at one of these agencies putting the pieces together and discovering the big picture are slim indeed.

That entire puzzle process is typically avoided when enemy combatants are interrogated, and yes, interrogated aggressively. There is no need for a lucky analyst to discover a plot when the terrorists themselves, under moderate duress, reveal their plans and how to find the plotters. FISA warrants, privacy rights of Americans, the Patriot Act, FBI’s Carnivore, all the anti-terror tools liberals fear and despise are much less productive than direct capture and interrogation. That logic is at the heart of President Bush’s strategy to fight terrorists in the Middle East to prevent fighting them in America. He recognized long ago that taking the gloves off when interrogating captured al Qaeda operatives was the only sure way to infiltrate their organization and hit them before they hit America again. Of course, surveillance and other tools are still necessary for detection of so-called homegrown terrorists and should not be abandoned. Still, the arguments for aggressive interrogation, whether from President Bush, George Tenet, or former Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, have always been compelling and convincing.

Liberal (and some conservative) critics of the Bush administration’s handling of the War on Terror and national security must face three difficult questions: You are opposed to the Patriot Act; you are opposed to the NSA domestic surveillance program; you are opposed to FBI’s carnivore and other Internet mining tactics; you are opposed to the war against al Qaeda and other terrorists in Iraq; you are opposed to holding enemy combatants for interrogation; you are opposed to any form of aggressive interrogation, including water boarding; you are in favor of illegal immigration; you are opposed to citizen ownership of guns; are there any anti-terror policies you support? How do you propose we obtain intelligence before terrorists strike America again? Would you prefer to be incinerated by a bomb or see a terrorist frightened into revealing the location of that bomb because he “thought” he was drowning?

While it may seem improbable to most Americans, lulled as they are into believing they are safe, men like George Tenet and President Bush confront such doomsday scenarios daily. Note the strain and sense of urgency Tenet felt in his daily work:

"We don't torture people," the former director told CBS. "The context is it's post-September 11. I've got reports of nuclear weapons in New York City, apartment buildings that are going to be blown up, planes that are going to fly into airports all over again, plot lines that I don't know. … I'm struggling to find out where the next disaster is going to occur."

Tenet has been criticized by many within and outside the intelligence community for his perceived failure to put the puzzle together to prevent 9/11. However, such criticism sheds light on the critics and their motives. Prior to 9/11 and the subsequent wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, America relied solely on our intelligence agencies for understanding and penetration of terrorist groups. The War on Terror, however, through “aggressive interrogation,” has given America access to and understanding of the terrorists themselves. If American intelligence agencies could have received information in that manner prior to 9/11, Tenet and others would have had a much better chance to prevent the attack. Senators and Congressmen know this, but to keep the media spotlight on themselves they condemn these methods and list interrogation tactics among the list of reasons why the president is a “war criminal” or deserves impeachment.

Thankfully, Tenet recognized the overwhelming value and success of the interrogations at Guantanamo and other locations, and rose to defend the Bush Administration’s use of these tools to protect Americans from further terror attacks. Whether or not Tenet criticizes the administration for other perceived shortcomings remains to be seen, but he should be recognized for courageously and publicly warning against abandoning the tools and techniques that have proven most effective in thwarting terrorists: using their own knowledge against them.

British Crew Sells Stories (and credibility?) to Media

As a brief follow-up to my post Friday about the "psychologically pressured" British crew recently held captive in Iran, their actions since being released have only provided further evidence of their softness compared with past generations who suffered in POW camps in other wars.

This morning, SkyNews reported that some crew members have been selling their stories to the eager media, ensuring their instant celebrity status and fattening their wallets. British Ministry of Defense officials are now scrambling, attempting to determine what, if anything, can be done to restrict military personnel from selling their stories to the media and personally benefiting financially while remaining in military service. The decision was made in this case to allow the crew to sell their stories because of the "exceptional circumstances" they endured.

Critics of the Ministry's decision to allow the sale of the crew's stories rightly argue that stories sold for money are likely to be exaggerated in order to make the ordeal sound more "newsworthy."

The precedent set by the released crew is a dangerous one, as it is clear that Iran will be emboldened by Britain's lack of substantive response to the kidnapping and holding of its military personnel, as I described in Friday's post. One wonders how many war veterans who truly suffered as POWs never benefited even one penny from their ordeals, and more importantly, never expected such compensation.

From a propaganda perspective, the international community will find it increasingly difficult to condemn Iran for its actions when the kidnapped crew appears to be in many respects better off for their experience as hostages. Iran appears to have won the military and propaganda campaigns in this confrontation with Britain, and Britain's national security may be the ultimate loser as a result. The hostages, all smiles for the cameras, shook Ahmadinejad's hand and depositing royalty checks into their bank accounts for describing their ordeals encountered while performing military service. No punishment for Ahmadinejad and Iran, and no restraint on the returned hostages.

The contrast between the British crew and Douglas Bader and Admiral Stockdale is stark indeed.

Brit Crew Claims Opposing Captors "Not An Option": Heroic POWs in History Considered it the Only Option

A lot has been stated and written about the conduct of the British sailors and Royal marines held hostage by Iran until their release Wednesday after 13 days. Critics have argued that the sailors’ behavior was disgraceful, that apologies and confessions came too quickly and too easily, and that posing for pre-release smiling photos with Iranian President Ahmadinejad ran contrary to the expected British military code of conduct for prisoners. Defenders of the sailors and marines countered these criticisms by warning that at that time it was unknown what, if any, coercive tactics were employed by the Iranians to secure the apologies and confessions, nor were any of the captured personnel extensively trained in Survival, Evasion, Resistance, and Escape (SERE) techniques (hat tip to Spook86 at In From the Cold).

This morning the crew, safely returned and prepped by British officials for a press conference, spoke publicly about their 13 day ordeal and specified the interrogation tactics utilized by the Iranians to “force” the apologies and confessions. BBC reported that the sailors and marines were isolated from each other at times, and were stripped and subject to random interrogation. One marine described being blindfolded and lined up against a wall while interrogators ominously cocked firearms. An excerpt from the BBC report of the press conference follows:

They were also subject to random interrogation and rough handling, and faced constant psychological pressure.

In a joint statement the crew also stressed that they were inside Iraqi waters at the time of the capture.

Royal Marine Captain Chris Air said it became apparent that opposing their captors was "not an option."

"If we had, some of us would not be here today, of that I am completely sure," he said.

"We realised that had we resisted there would have been a major fight, one we could not have won and with consequences major strategic impacts.

“We made a conscious decision not to engage the Iranians and do as they asked," he said….

The officer in charge Lt Carman said: "We were interrogated most nights, and presented with two options.

"If we admitted we had strayed, we would be on a plane back to the UK soon. If we didn't we faced up to seven years in prison".

Keeping in mind that these sailors and marines were held hostage for 13 days, and that I have never faced that unnerving and terrifying situation, I believe it is fair to point out the contrast between how this young British crew conducted themselves in captivity for only 13 days with how others, who faced actual physical torture for years and suffered permanently disfiguring injuries as a result, acted much more honorably and admirably under worse circumstances. I do not imply that I would fare any better in captivity than the British crew did. The comparison is not with me but with many military veterans who have far more horrific tales to tell and did not obtain freedom after confessions or photo opportunities with captors.

For behavioral comparisons between these young Brits and war veterans who were POWs, Spy The News refers readers to Spook86’s excellent post today at In From the Cold, titled “Remembering Douglas Bader and Admiral Stockdale.” Bader, a pilot in the Royal Air Force, lost both legs in the 1930s but with prosthetic limbs became a fighter pilot in WWII. He was shot down and spent nearly 4 years in German POW facilities. He never stopped attempting to escape, despite his physical limitations. Stockdale, a Medal of Honor winner, worked tirelessly to reduce the torture inflicted on other American POWs in Vietnam through leadership by example. He disfigured his face by beating himself so he could not be used in North Vietnamese propaganda films made to fool the world into believing the POWs were being treated well in the camps. His repeated attempts to harm and kill himself rather than submit to his captor’s demands eventually worked to discourage the North Vietnamese from some of their more brutal torture and interrogation tactics as they saw his determination never to acquiesce with their demands for confessions or information.

Reading about these two men, and I would add to their heroic examples the experiences and resistance displayed by former POW Senator John McCain, the contrasts between them, could not be more evident. After only 13 days of isolation, as opposed to years of that dreaded treatment, and hearing guns cocked as they were blindfolded, the young British crew decided that opposing their captors “was not an option.” Baden, Stockdale, McCain, and thousands of POWs certainly felt that opposing their captors was the ONLY option, and to do otherwise would bring shame and dishonor to themselves and the military they represented.

I encourage readers to read about two of these men at In From the Cold, and to learn about Senator McCain’s experiences in his memoir, Faith of My Fathers. McCain candidly described the extensive and lengthy torture he endured before, much to his shame even today, he broke and provided a “confession” of his “war crimes” against the North Vietnamese. He provided them nothing of intelligence value, but the forced confession from an Admiral’s son was valuable for propaganda purposes. Comparing what he endured with what today’s British crew experienced for, in comparison, a mere 13 days prior to confessing to captors. The British officer in charge, Lieutenant Carman, made it clear that neither of the two options given to them by their Iranian captors included death or unspeakable physical torture. Instead they faced up to 7 years in prison if they would not comply, and speedy return to Britain if they would confess to having been in Iranian waters when captured. They chose the latter, with, by POW standards, minimal coercion.

What are Britain’s enemies to think when British military personnel make statements such as “fighting back was simply not an option?” Terrorists and others will likely view British military personnel worldwide as compliant and valuable as hostages, thus increasing the likelihood that more of them will be targeted in the future. Had they resisted and proven themselves determined and willing to endure interrogation rather than comply with terrorists (and let’s not cloud that issue with the fact that it was the Iranian military that seized them: the military of a terror sponsoring state consists of terrorists), they might have been harmed physically, and possibly even killed, but terrorists would have been reminded that they face a strong and fiercely unbending foe. Unfortunately the terrorists learned that seizing British sailors and marines results in no repercussions. Ahmadinejad smiled along with their happy, clean, adequately fed faces.

If British Lieutenant Carman had been Admiral Stockdale, he would have bashed his own face into a bruised, swollen mess and encouraged his fellow crew members to do the same once they were returned to each other after isolation a few nights before their release. Stockdale would never have allowed himself to be used to pose with Ahmadinejad in front of the Iranian media. Rather than submit to such a spectacle he would have beaten himself to a pulp, to condemn and embarrass his kidnapper. No such heroic tactics from this crew, however. Instead, they confessed to something they did not do (enter Iranian waters), apologized for doing what they did not do, and then smiled through their grip and grin session with Ahmadinejad, a terrorist sponsoring, holocaust-denying Hitler figure who was one of the main perpetrators of the 1979 seizure of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran and subsequent 444 day hostage crisis.

Having returned from captivity, the British crew fielded questions at this morning’s press conference and described the intimidating interrogations that caused them to confess and comply with their captors. While I am glad they are safe and have returned to their families and friends, I am wary of the message their minimal resistance has sent to Ahmadinejad and other terrorist sponsors about the current resolve of the British people. PM Tony Blair has done what he can in the War on Terror while hamstrung by British anti-war sentiment and his own liberal political policies. He is a lame duck prime minister now, and there is no Winston Churchill waiting in the wings to end the drift toward appeasement that characterized the British response to this hostage crisis. Britain should beware the consequences that will result from being perceived as weak and incapable of enduring discomfort.

What prompted Ahmadinejad to release the hostages Wednesday? There are several theories being tossed around in the media, but the one that seems most likely and that I would credit for Iran’s “goodwill gesture” is the rapid approach to the Persian Gulf of a third U.S. carrier group led by the USS Nimitz. Already staring down the barrels of two carrier groups in the Gulf, the addition of a third carrier group is certainly an unnerving situation for Iran, which appears to have released the hostages in an attempt to diffuse international hostility while Iran negotiates its nuclear programs.

With three carrier groups in the Gulf and numerous air bases in Iraq, Iran seems to have read the writing on the wall that an attack on Iran to cripple its nuclear program is becoming imminent unless Ahmadinejad changes course and becomes a responsible player on the world stage. Whether he will do so, of course, may depend on his assessment of America’s resolve and the fortitude of America’s allies. The conduct of Britain and British hostages during this recent crisis will do little to convince Ahmadinejad that he faces a formidable opposition to his desires, nuclear or otherwise. Carrier groups are, however, very convincing.

Post Editors and Columnist Absolute on Immorality of Torture: But What Would President Applebaum Do?

Apparently the only moral issue that liberals treat as an absolute is the faux-noble assertion that torture is always wrong, regardless of who is being tortured, or why. Today’s Washington Post editorial “Top-Secret Torture” meshes seamlessly with Post columnist Anne Applebaum’s commentary, “Tortured Credibility” to form a forked-tongued hiss against the Bush administration for allegedly torturing confessed terrorist mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. Both pieces asserted that the alleged use of torture had destroyed America’s credibility in the war on terror. The Post’s editors and columnist, relying on the military tribunal testimony of Mohammed, accepted at face value Mohammed’s accusations of torture in “secret CIA prisons”, and interpreted the fact that the Bush administration was debating the legality and merits of torture immediately prior to the capture of Mohammed in 2003 as concrete evidence that torture had actually been performed. In essence, if the administration openly debated the issue, it must have done so out of guilt for current and future applications of torture.
On that flimsy premise, the Post’s editors sink their fangs into America’s interrogation methods as it related to terrorists captured in Afghanistan and Iraq:

Yet some of the harshest action taken against Mr. Mohammed has already been widely reported: He was treated to "waterboarding," or simulated drowning, an ancient torture method that every U.S. administration prior to this one has considered illegal. CIA detainees are also known to have been subjected to temperature extremes and sleep deprivation.

The Post editorial sanctimoniously declared that all previous U.S. administrations had considered “waterboarding” to be illegal, but typically failed to place such an accusation in historical context. Conveniently omitted was the fact that only one U.S. administration prior to the current one had experienced an attack on U.S. soil by Islamic terrorists: The Clinton administration and the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center. After that incident, terrorists were tracked down by law enforcement, jailed, tried, convicted, and sentenced. The perpetrators of that attack remain incarcerated and will continue to be for multiple life terms. What was the result of that “humane and dignified” counterterrorism legal approach? It encouraged al Qaeda and other groups to conclude that they had nothing to fear from our legal proceedings and ponderously slow law enforcement investigations. They continued planning and executing more spectacular attacks, including the bombings of U.S. Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, the bombing of the Khobar Towers, the Bombing of the USS Cole, and ultimately 9/11.

The fact that the Bush administration was, gasp, “debating the merits of torture,” demonstrates only that the administration was doing its job by exploring all options, not immediately taking any choices off of the table simply because the international community might find them distasteful. Comparatively, the civilized world would prefer that we never utilize a nuclear weapon in combat, but we won’t be beating those proverbial swords into plowshares anytime soon. There are no Geneva Convention rules that apply to international terrorists like al Qaeda that recruit and operate in a multitude of nations, wearing no uniform and fighting under no recognized governmental flag. Prisoner of war status, let alone full American legal rights, should not be afforded these opportunistic killers. They are fighting for an extremist religious creed, not a nation.

A credible commander in chief never rejects outright any options available to him or her in the defense of the nation, and it is liberal peacenik utopianism to declare, as Applebaum did, that torture:

. . . is not merely immoral. . . it is also ineffective and in fact profoundly counterproductive: There is no proof that it produces better information but plenty of evidence that it has discredited the United States.

Applebaum is not privy to the classified interrogation reports generated during terrorist detainee interviews, and thus has no real knowledge of whether interrogation or “torture” tactics are implemented. Likewise, she is in no position to judge whether the information thus gleaned is better than intelligence obtained through criminal prosecutions or Geneva Convention compliant prisoner of war “interviews”. Since the intelligence gathered from Mohammed and other detainees, regardless of the methods used to obtain it, will remain classified for two more decades, it is reckless to make absolutist blanket statements now about the efficacy of intense interrogation or even actual torture in the War on Terror.

The frequent and injudicious use of torture is distasteful to everyone, including those who may be asked to perform it. However, if liberals continue to insist that torture is always wrong and should never be utilized, they may eventually come to rue the day they had an opportunity to discover and prevent a catastrophic attack but could not stomach the method that would have exposed the plot.

It is quite a simple exercise to think up a scenario in which the resolute morality of the anti-torture absolutists would face its ultimate challenge. Imagine that U.S. President Anne Applebaum, who was elected on a platform promising an end to the Iraq War and condemnation of torture as immoral and ineffective, is reading to children at an elementary school in Washington, DC one late summer morning. As she reads, her Chief of Staff whispers in her ear that the FBI, following a tip from a concerned Muslim-American, has captured a known terrorist who appears to be suffering from severe radiation poisoning in his apartment in Alexandria, VA.

The Chief of Staff further whispers that the terrorist has admitted to planting an armed, timed-detonation nuclear device inside the District of Columbia, but refuses to reveal where the device has been placed. The Chief of Staff concludes with the words, “He told the FBI the device would detonate in 2 hours. We cannot evacuate the city in that time, Madame President.” President Applebaum politely excuses herself without alarming the children, and moves to a holding room where she can confer with her advisers.

The CIA director advises President Applebaum that the terrorist in custody was previously imprisoned by the Russians during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. The CIA Director further advises that Russian intelligence received much useful information on Mujahideen movements from this terrorist because he displayed only moderate resistance to torture. Russian intelligence operatives had found “waterboarding” to be the single most effective method for extracting information from this individual now in FBI custody, usually requiring no more than 1 hour of the procedure before he broke.

The FBI Director reminds President Applebaum that the terrorist knows where the device is and how to disarm it, but laughs and shouts “Death to the Great Satan” when asked to reveal where the bomb is located. No one in the room wishes to be responsible for recommending it, but the question hanging in the air, to be answered only by President Applebaum, is, “Should we ‘waterboard’ this terrorist, find the bomb, and save Washington, or would that be immoral, further discrediting the United States in the eyes of the world?”

The Washington Post editorial and Applebaum’s column would indicate that the writers have not given sufficient consideration to the ramifications of declaring torture as an intelligence tool to be immoral and universally insisting that it should never be used. Sound advice in time of war would be to keep all available arrows in the quiver, no matter ho unattractive, sharp and prepared for flight. Moral absolutism as it applies to torture is convenient and noble in peacetime, but when potential death for millions hangs in the balance, as in the above hypothetical scenario, international opinion should not dictate what tools a U.S. president should utilize to “provide for the common defense” of the nation.

McCain: "I'm Sure I have a Policy on That, I Just Need to Check What it is"

After 25 years in Washington (as a Congressman and Senator), 2008 presidential candidate Senator John McCain, when asked his position on government subsidies for contraception, made the following statement on the campaign trail in Iowa, as reported by the Telegraph (UK):

"I'm sure I have a policy on that. I just need to check what it is," he replied, before seeking illumination from his aides.

Can a candidate or elected official really claim to have a policy on any issue if it is not ingrained sufficiently into his knowledge base that he can recall it without prompting from an aide? This one sentence response illustrates much of what is lacking in political campaigning and in a larger sense, in governance itself. Elected officials believe themselves too busy to dedicate themselves to any actual study and internalization of issues, preferring instead to hire cadres of aides to learn the issues for them and advise the politicians of what they should think and say about an issue. While this approach allows the politicians more time to engage in glad-handing and stump speaking for their election and reelection campaigns, it also has the unfortunate consequence of assuring that the individuals Americans actually vote for suffer a deplorable paucity of personal awareness of the issues on which they vote. Those issues seriously affect the nation’s course in economics, health, morality, and national security, but are deemed less important than campaigning by candidates while others learn the issues for them.

The question asked of Senator McCain was not a complicated one. Either you believe that the government should spend taxpayer money to buy contraceptives for America’s youth who choose promiscuity over abstinence, or you don’t. It is highly improbable that Senator McCain did not know what he thought about such a question, and if one defends his response by praising his wisdom in clarifying his position before answering, one is actually defending a candidate’s right to say what others want to hear rather than what he personally believes or what needs to be said. Stating what you believe and saying what needs to be said are demonstrations of leadership. Declining to answer questions until you can confer with aides and read your politically correct cue cards is a demonstration of unprincipled ambition. Soothsayers tell the masses whatever is popular and what they want to hear. Leaders tell the masses what needs to be done and why, knowing that it will likely be unpopular.

McCain also seems to be seeking a career as soothsayer to Europe and other regions that harbor anti-American sentiment (hat tip to Wizbang Politics). During his speech to the farmers of Cedar Falls, Iowa, McCain expressed great concern for America’s image around the world, particularly in Europe, and that restoring a good image (i.e. being more like them and less like us) will be a “top priority” if he is elected president in 2008. On the surface, the concept of improving relations with our once loyal European allies seems laudable, but then McCain explained what steps he would take to improve America’s image abroad and the pandering to European popularity takes an ominous turn:

"I would immediately close Guantanamo Bay, move all the prisoners to Fort Leavenworth (an army base in Kansas) and truly expedite the judicial proceedings in their cases," he said. "I would reaffirm my commitment to address the issue of climate change and greenhouse gas emissions. I know how important this is in Europe in particular."

Perhaps Senator McCain’s aides, who apparently tell him what his positions are, should advise him that he was elected to represent Arizona in the Senate, not The Hague, and that if elected president in 2008 he would be obligated to implement the will of the American electorate, not the EU. Climate change is also very important to Al Gore, so perhaps Senator McCain is auditioning for a VP spot in Gore’s undeclared but inevitable run for the White House, since these statements embracing liberal ideologies will assure McCain’s quick exit in the GOP primaries and availability as Gore’s running mate.

More troubling than his desire to please Europe is the fact that he embraces the idea of closing the Guantanamo detention facility, where enemy combatants are held and interviewed. At Guantanamo, terrorists captured during our counterterrorism actions worldwide are kept them from killing our troops in the field, and we receive the added benefit of occasionally gleaning valuable information from them that disrupts future terrorist attacks or provides better understanding of the structure and operational tactics of al Qaeda and other groups.

John McCain is opposed to torture, and based on his well-documented experience as a POW in Vietnam, the reasons for his opposition are valid and unassailable. However, Guantanamo is not Abu Ghraib, and as confessed 9/11 planner and self-proclaimed super terrorist Khalid Sheikh Mohammed clearly stated in his testimony last week, he was never tortured at Guantanamo and no part of his confession was the result of coercion or was extracted through torture tactics.

I wrote recently about the legal and practical dangers associated with closing Guantanamo and relocating the detainees to military brigs inside the U.S. Proposals for closure and relocation have come from Democrats in Congress, but Senator McCain has allied himself with their cause, another issue on which he has ignored the will of the people in order to cast himself as a “maverick” or as more palatable to the liberal media than his more conservative opponents for the GOP presidential nomination. Virginia’s citizens, regardless of party, are opposed to the relocation of Guantanamo detainees to Quantico or other facilities within the Commonwealth.

If Senator McCain’s support for facility closure is sincere, he should also be in favor of relocating the terrorist detainees to Arizona for criminal trials in federal courts in his own state. So far, Senator McCain has been silent on whether his Arizona constituents would approve of having hundreds of terrorists transported to and housed in their state. Perhaps the Senator has a policy on this, but needs to check with his aides to learn what it is.

Throughout his Senate career, Senator McCain has straddled the fences between the two parties far too often to be trusted by either one. In some respects, though he worded it differently, McCain echoed a sentiment he apparently shares with John Kerry. Kerry, as readers will remember, called America “an international pariah” during a World Economic Forum meeting in Davos, Switzerland. McCain, in his Cedar Falls speech, stressed his desire to counter the “ugly American” image prevalent in Europe. Kerry and McCain seem to share the conviction that anti-American sentiment in Europe is America’s fault, and that American policies and administrations (President Bush in particular) are responsible for giving Europeans cause to dislike America.

Conservative media, including Spy The News!, lambasted Kerry for his remarks, but McCain deserves equal condemnation for ignoring history (which he claims to study and love). Europeans have always disdained America and its culture. We were considered uncouth ruffians by the French during the Revolutionary War, and that opinion has not been changed by 231 years of global leadership in technology, industry, transportation, medicine, and military achievement. Not even our generous rebuilding of nations destroyed in world wars has moved European nations permanently into America’s corner.

Liberating France in WWII did not create an eternal debt of gratitude among the French, and rebuilding Germany did not prevent that nation from protesting against American Cold War policies or opposing our post 9/11 military actions. The Marshall Plan was unparalleled in human history for its strategic compassion and generosity, yet few of the nations restored to viability by that plan can be counted today as reliably pro-American. The idea that if America would stop being so American, and would try to be more like Europe, then Europe would love America and never oppose it again is patently ludicrous. The same logic is put forward by anti-war demonstrators who claim that if America will address the root causes of terrorism, or if America will stop supporting Israel, or if America will just sit down and negotiate with the terrorists, the terrorists will stop wanting to kill us.

Appeasement will always fail, regardless of whether the appeasement is given to “friend” or foe. America did not cause anti-American sentiment. Blaming America is an international pastime rivaling only soccer in popularity. Whether it stems from envy, revenge, fear, insecurity, or ignorance, the motivation behind anti-Americanism is rarely the result of American action or inaction, though we are demonized for both. They dislike America for what America is and for what the EU aspires to be but falls short.

Senator McCain’s aides may wish to consider researching whether the American electorate wants America to be more, or less, like Europe. Europe is gravitating, rather quickly, toward universal socialism via the EU. Religion has been purged from political discourse, and politically correct tolerance there has resulted in a severe decline in societal morals and families bound by marriage. The only segments of European society that are continuing to marry and produce children are religious immigrants from the Middle East, Africa, and Asia. Senator McCain, Senator Kerry, please remind us again why we want to be more like Europe? Other than 2 hour naps during lunch time and a mandatory month of annual summer vacation, there is little reason for America to adopt European societal or political habits.

Presenting Europe, and the rest of the world, with a strong, confident, and noble America that says and does what is right may not always win friends among the feckless, but it is a demonstration of leadership. McCain and Kerry consistently place their concern for global popularity ahead of what America’s voters want from their leaders. Also not surprisingly, McCain’s declining appeal to presidential election voters will assure that he, like Kerry, will remain a soothsaying Senator with frustrated presidential aspirations.

"I'm Sorry, So Sorry, but You Had it Coming": Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's Carefully Crafted "Confession" Fools Only the Foolish

During each installment of Fox News’ The O’Reilly Factor, Bill O’Reilly shares what he considered to be the “Most Ridiculous Item of the Day.” In that spirit, Spy the News! today offers the “Most Blatantly Dishonest Statement of the Day.” The newly confessed mastermind behind the 9/11 attacks, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM), who also admitted to beheading Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearle and planning nearly every major terrorist attack in the world between 1993 and his capture, uttered the following “apology” for some 9/11 casualties during a military tribunal (transcript available here):

When I said I'm not happy that 3,000 been killed in America, I feel sorry even. I don't like to kill children and the kids.

Unfortunately for Daniel Pearle, KSM’s “sorrow” for killing so many Americans on 9/11 did not dissuade him from savagely beheading Pearle on camera for the world to witness the following year. There is likewise no evidence of sorrow in any of the 31 terrorist actions or plots for which KSM claimed responsibility, including the Bali bombing pictured at right. Pages 17-19 of the tribunal transcript list each of the plots he allegedly planned according to his own confession. If KSM’s confession is accepted at face value, he would be considered history’s greatest terrorist mastermind, a jet-setting jihadist of unparalleled achievement. Yet that begs the question, did he actually plan and orchestrate this long list of planned attacks, or is he merely taking credit either for personal aggrandizement or to protect his al Qaeda co-conspirators? I find it highly improbable that KSM was involved with each of these plots to the level that he now alleges. His Oscar-worthy expression of "sorrow" fits neither his known personality nor his jihadist commitment, and thus should only be considered a tryout for Best Actor rather than as an expression of any semblance of humanity. Read the list of actions he claims responsibility for again, and you will find no remorse, no sorrow, no tears. You will only find hate and a heretical religious fervor.

It is not uncommon for a prisoner facing no hope of release to confess to multiple crimes or terrorist acts for a variety of reasons, ranging from hopes for assignment to a more exclusive prison facility than a common criminal would receive to diverting investigative attention away from his or her accomplices. A careful reading of KSM’s testimony suggests that he viewed his appearance before the tribunal as a method for judicial martyrdom and a public relations windfall. KSM revealed his understanding of world media and displayed remarkable skill in his ability to cast himself as a sympathetic figure to other peoples and nations “oppressed” by America.

He compared Bin Laden to George Washington and claimed that using current American criteria for declaring a warrior for "independence" to be an "enemy combatant," George Washington could have been classified one as well. Of course, KSM omits the fact that the American colonies formally declared their independence, formed an organized military service, and established an autonomous war time government. To my knowledge, radical Islamic terrorists have not done any of these and thus represent no declared or recognized nation, but I digress.

KSM artfully seized on rising anti-American sentiment in Latin America by condemning America for “invading” Mexico and stealing two-thirds of its territory in the name of Manifest Destiny in the nineteenth century. His testimony covered a broad range of historical and religious comparisons. He appeared to know instinctively how best to manipulate the media coverage of his confession to satisfy the anti-Bush appetite of the liberal media. He believed it would likely be his last opportunity to be heard.

There are some in the media who believe KSM’s statement that he was tortured by the CIA rather than interrogated, and others see similarities between his expressions of sorrow and the torture-induced “confessions” of war crimes the North Vietnamese extracted from American POWs, including Senator John McCain. McCain wrote about such confessions in great detail in his memoir Faith of My Fathers, and even a cursory comparison of those cruelty-induced confessions with the boastful admissions of KSM should convince anyone that KSM made no statements under duress at the tribunal and was not tortured into a confession, as our POWs were, in grotesque and unspeakable ways. To compare the two situations is an insult to the courageous suffering America POWs endured in Vietnam.

It is fascinating that many in the media accept KSM’s word as unassailable truth when he stated he was tortured by the CIA prior to his transfer to Guantanamo, but they omit his testimony that he was not tortured in any way at Guantanamo and that his confession was in no way induced by any tactics or made under duress. Selective trust in a terrorist is a dangerous mentality, and it clearly illustrates that some in the media trust a confessed terrorist mastermind responsible for thousands of deaths worldwide more than they trust President Bush. Media Bias? You decide. Spy The News! is confident of which one Daniel Pearle and the 9/11 victims would trust.