Klingner on DPRK


GTMO, detainees, terrorists, and Geneva

One of the best and most comprehensive pieces I have read on GTMO and detainees. It is such a must read I had to post the entire thing here. I encourage all to read it, especially those that claim to be legal scholars that have determined America is not good enough for them. Just saying. (And I CAN say it because HERE in AMERICA we have the 1st Amendment which provides for freedom of speech.)


Exclusive: On ‘Torture’ and the Geneva Conventions – A Match Made in Ignorance

Tom Ordeman, Jr.

Last week, President Obama and former Vice President Cheney found themselves in a sort of unannounced, televised pseudo-debate on the topic of Guantanamo Bay, interrogation and detention, and their combined impact on national security. This follows the Democrat-controlled Senate's rejection of (and refusal to fund) the closure of the Guantanamo Bay detention facility – a major setback, given that the announcement of the camp's closure was President Obama's first official act upon taking office. Given that many of the major talking points on both sides of the fence revolve around the "Geneva Convention," a bit of perspective on its relationship with the Gitmo detention facility would be a welcome change.

Few are aware that there are actually four Geneva Conventions – and in fact, any referral to "Geneva Convention" in the singular form is likely to be an inadvertent admission that the speaker is not actually very familiar with the Conventions, or their history or background. The four Conventions cover the following topics: the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in the Armed Forces in the Field (Convention I); the Condition of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of the Armed Forces at Sea (Convention II); the Treatment of Prisoners of War (Convention III); and the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War (Convention IV). Their combined framework provides for the lawful conduct of armed conflicts between nations and subsidiary forces, and for the treatment of casualties and prisoners of war once they are removed from combat. A derivative of the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907, the Geneva Conventions were drafted starting in the late 19th century, and their last major revisions (save for minor amendments) were completed in 1949. Unfortunately, few who demand a rigid application of the Geneva Conventions in the modern age are familiar with their requirements. Among its numerous requirements, the Third Geneva Convention dictates:

Uniforms of enemy armed forces captured by the Detaining Power should, if suitable for the climate, be made available to clothe prisoners of war. (Article 27)

Canteens shall be installed in all camps, where prisoners of war may procure foodstuffs, soap and tobacco and ordinary articles in daily use. The tariff shall never be in excess of local market prices. The profits made by camp canteens shall be used for the benefit of the prisoners; a special fund shall be created for this purpose. The prisoners' representative shall have the right to collaborate in the management of the canteen and of this fund. (Article 28)

Prisoners of war must be provided with mail service. Upon the outbreak of hostilities, and pending an arrangement on this matter with the Protecting Power, the Detaining Power may determine the maximum amount of money in cash or in any similar form, that prisoners may have in their possession. Any amount in excess, which was properly in their possession and which has been taken or withheld from them, shall be placed to their account, together with any monies deposited by them, and shall not be converted into any other currency without their consent. (Article 58)

The Detaining Power shall grant all prisoners of war a monthly advance of pay, the amount of which shall be fixed by conversion, into the currency of the said Power[.] (Article 60)

As little consensus as there may be between Americans on these issues, it seems reasonable to assume that most Americans would agree that the most dangerous al Qaeda and Taliban terrorists in American custody should not be wandering around an open detention facility, wearing their native dress, buying tobacco and other creature comforts from a DoD-provided canteen, doing so with monthly pay allowances afforded them from Federal tax income, while sending and receiving mail that could easily be used to pass or receive coded intelligence. The vernacular of the Geneva Conventions, particularly with respect to the definition of a Prisoner of War, is also important. Just as the detaining power is obligated to make such provisions as have been noted above, those detained may only enjoy "Prisoner of War" status if they have met the following conditions, among others:

They must be members of either a national army, or of a militia or volunteer corps.
They must be commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates.
They must have a fixed, distinctive sign recognizable at a distance.
They must carry arms openly.
They must conduct their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

While Taliban personnel would arguably qualify under several of these conditions, al Qaeda terrorists essentially qualify under none of these. Many who argue for a strict implementation of the Geneva Conventions are ignorant of the aforementioned requirements for the detaining authority, and of these requirements for consideration as a legitimate combatant. Being ignorant of these things, most are also ignorant of the fact that one of the key motivations for the adoption of the Geneva Conventions was to discourage the type of irregular, stateless warfare practiced by the likes of al Qaeda and the Taliban. The international community adopted and refined the Geneva Conventions during the late 19th and early- to mid-20th centuries in order to confine nations to a previously agreed-upon system of warfare. By seeking to afford the same rights to both legitimate Prisoners of War and illegitimate combatants, those who advocate such policies are essentially undermining one of the very goals that spurred the drafting of the Conventions in the first place.

Another tidbit from the Third Geneva Convention that might serve to demonstrate its irrelevance to the situation at Guantanamo Bay: the aforementioned Article 60 dictates that sergeants and other non-commissioned officers in detention must receive the equivalent of 12 Swiss francs per month in pay. Given that most readers are unlikely to be immediately aware of current exchange rates, it should be noted that 12 Swiss francs currently garner a grand total of $11.06. The fact that the Geneva Conventions were even written at a time when the international currency was the Swiss franc betrays their age, and their philosophical distance from the state of modern politics and warfare.

And what of the actual conditions at the Gitmo detention facility? While few would condone any sort of irresponsible or inhumane treatment of detainees, it seems a bit ironic that Americans who, by and large, believe that American criminals are treated too well for infractions such as armed robbery, murder, and rape, would then be dissatisfied when individuals like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Abu Zubaydah – men who confess openly to planning and facilitating the murders of literally thousands of innocent American civilians – are treated like the terrorists they are. Far from being the nightmare that many human rights campaigners make it out to be, Miss Universe was recently quoted as saying that her trip to Guantanamo Bay was both "fun" and "relaxing" (BBC, Fox). Several years ago, a group even published the Gitmo Cook Book, an indication that the food served to the detainees was more than fit for human consumption. No one would argue that the detention facility is the equivalent of a resort. Unfortunately, many seem to forget that a detention facility is not supposed to be a resort. Indeed, the Geneva Conventions themselves dictate no such thing, even for legitimate combatants, which the detainees at Guantanamo Bay are not according to the conditions set forth in the very Conventions in question. A detention facility is meant to be a controlled, humane holding facility for hostile agents who carried arms against the detaining power, and the facility at Gitmo succeeds in fulfilling that requirement.

While Americans almost universally disapprove of torture, the majority of the debate during the course of the last several years – to include memoranda released recently by the Obama Administration – has focused on waterboarding. One must ask oneself an honest question: can something really be considered torture if Christopher Hitchens and Playboy's Mike Guy have volunteered to undergo the procedure? Given that these two, countless military professionals who have participated in the SERE course, and the terrorists themselves appear none the worse for wear, can this technique really be considered torture? The Geneva Conventions universally outlaw torture, and one of the topics covered in leadership and ethics courses required of prospective American military officers is the topic of torture, and its near-universal ineffectiveness in interrogations. Most would agree that this prohibition is a correct policy from both moral and practical standpoints. However, given the assertions of the efficacy of many aggressive interrogation techniques, it seems fair to acknowledge that there are a number of effective interrogation procedures that, while being harsh, do not cross the line into the realm of bona fide torture.

Nearly eight years after the establishment of the Gitmo detention facility, the question now exists of what to do with the remaining terrorists held there. Thus far, the track record for released detainees – those who were considered the least dangerous - is relatively poor. Below are just a few of the stories of detainees returning to the fight:

Guantanamo inmate 'Joins Taleban' (BBC, AP)
Yemen captures al Qaeda leader once held at Gitmo
Released detainees 'go back to terrorism'
Guantanamo ex-prisoner detained

Perhaps the most prominent story in recent memory is that of a Gitmo detainee who was released, only to become a Taliban operations chief (AP, Times). So, even if it were appropriate to take all cues from the Geneva Conventions in this case, how would they direct the powers that be? One example can be found in the remaining infrastructure of the Orkney Islands, north of Scotland, where more than a thousand Italian prisoners – who, one must keep in mind, complied with the aforementioned requirements to be recognized as legitimate prisoners of war – were detained until both England and Italy agreed that hostilities were over. Having been removed from the battlefields of North Africa, the prisoners were put to work building the Churchill Barriers that serve as causeways to this day, and restricted German submarines from attacking the British naval station at Scapa Flow during the course of the Second World War. As is the case at Gitmo, the Italians' religious sensibilities were respected by their British captors, and that respect survives today in the form of the Italian Chapel on the island of Lamb Holm. Furthermore, these Italian prisoners never received trials, military tribunal or otherwise, and upon their capture starting in 1942 the ultimate length of their detention was never established. This hardly serves as an example whereby prematurely releasing detainees was encouraged by a strict interpretation of the Geneva Conventions.

One would expect that if an objective and neutral third party (perhaps a time-traveling Swiss non-commissioned officer carrying a total month's pay of total of 12 francs in his pocket) were to question President Obama, Osama bin Laden, and Mohammed Omar, one of the few talking points upon which the three men would agree would be that the war continues – hostilities have not ceased, bitter disagreements have not been resolved, and neither side has exhausted the other's will or ability to continue fighting. The dividend of this is that the release of at least most of those detainees who have already been set free is questionable, and the release of the remaining detainees (who can be considered, almost by default, to be the most dangerous among those detained) would be completely inappropriate under the present circumstances. Assuming widespread agreement that these remaining detainees ought to be detained for the time being, and conceding for the sake of discussion that Guantanamo Bay is not a convenient or desirable location in which to hold them, one must ask the natural question: is there any location that is better than Guantanamo Bay? Or, is it reasonable to acknowledge that, of all the possible locations for keeping the most dangerous terrorists in the world, Gitmo is probably the least bad place to keep them?

The Geneva Conventions are an admirable component of the legacy of a bygone age of warfare, during which time the face of combat was forever changed by such inventions as the Maxim Gun, mustard gas, the airplane... Indeed, the ratification of the final changes to the Geneva Conventions took place in 1949, just a few short years after the beginning of the Nuclear Age and the corresponding advent of the Cold War. These developments combined with the Geneva Conventions themselves to usher in the evolution of warfare that the world has witnessed during the course of the last century. Unfortunately, for all of the lives that the Geneva Conventions may have saved over the course of the 20th and early 21st centuries, it is likely that the growth of non-state and sub-state belligerents is a direction consequence of their ratification and poor implementation.

For many reasons, the United States has a vested interest in maintaining moral superiority over those enemies who throw acid in the faces of girls for going to school, flog men for trimming their beards, or behead foreign aid workers for vaccinating children. The situation at Guantanamo Bay has been controversial from its very beginning, and may very well be as precarious and detrimental as many claim. However, many of those who use the phrase "Geneva Conventions" as a talking point do the United States and the Geneva Conventions themselves a disservice by proclaiming that the Conventions should be rigidly implemented for the benefit of the very terrorists whom the Conventions were enacted to eliminate. America should not torture. America should respect international laws. America should respect human rights. Perhaps – perhaps – America should even close the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay. However, America should also think twice before looking to the Geneva Conventions as a model for how to treat terrorist detainees at Guantanamo Bay.

FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributing Editor Tom Ordeman, Jr. is a technical writer for a major defense contractor in Hampton Roads, Virginia. Feedback: editorialdirector@familysecuritymatters.org.


The REAL terrorist recruitment tool, the American LEFT and PRESS!

Guantanamo and the question of terrorist recruitment
By: Byron York
Chief Political Correspondent

In the next few days, you're going to see an increasingly intense debate on the question of whether the U.S. detention facility at Guantanamo Bay is a major factor in terrorist recruitment. In that debate, you're going to hear a name you might not have heard, Matthew Alexander. And you're going to learn that what you've been told about Guantanamo and terrorist recruitment is not the whole story.

In his speech on Thursday, President Obama gave two reasons for his decision to shut down Guantanamo. The first was that it has lowered American standing in the world, and the second was that it is a recruitment tool for terrorists. "Guantanamo became a symbol that helped al-Qaeda recruit terrorists to its cause," the president said. "Indeed, the existence of Guantanamo likely created more terrorists around the world than it ever detained." While Obama certainly views America's standing in the world as important, it is the charge that Guantanamo is a terrorist recruitment tool that is the real foundation of the decision to shut the detention center down. Absent that allegation, it is unlikely that Guantanamo would be slated for closing.
This is the question I have been asking myself. My conclusion without any research needed is that terrorists will use anything and/or manufacture stories in order to make excuses and recruit.

OH YEAH, outside of preventing plots...since when do we trust a terrorists word?
But where does the charge come from? Much, although not all, of it comes from one person. On "Meet the Press" Sunday, when Democratic Sen. Richard Durbin was asked for evidence to support his claim that Guantanamo has been a terrorist-recruitment tool, Durbin answered: "Major Matthew Alexander, who interrogated the al-Qaeda suspects in Iraq. And it was his conclusion that half of them had been recruited and were fighting, trying to kill Americans because of Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo." Alexander was the only authority Durbin cited.

In the Post op-ed, Alexander wrote, "I learned in Iraq that the No. 1 reason foreign fighters flocked there to fight were the abuses carried out at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo…It's no exaggeration to say that at least half of our losses and casualties in that country have come at the hands of foreigners who joined the fray because of our program of detainee abuse."
So let me get this right we have got the Executive and Senators getting their intel from anonymous op-ed pieces? What the fuck is going on? Who next? Can I expect to see Speaker Pelosi on Meet the Press this weekend citing Seymour Hersh as clear evidence to make drastic changes to our National Security policy?
Alexander told me that when he interrogated foreigners who came to Iraq to fight Americans, the reason they most often gave for joining the battle was their outrage over abuses at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo. Tales, and in the case of Abu Ghraib, photos from the two prisons deeply affected the fighters, Alexander explained. "Very high-ranking members of al Qaeda told me they didn't really believe in suicide bombing, but we left them with no choice," he said.
UMMM. "We left them no choice." WTF? That is about the most clear cut case of "blame America first" I have ever seen.
Of course, the most spectacular allegation of abuse of the Koran was a May 2005 story in Newsweek, which alleged that U.S. operatives had flushed a Koran down a toilet in Guantanamo as part of an effort to intimidate prisoners. The report was based on a single anonymous source, and Newsweek later retracted it and apologized. But the report was absolutely explosive, sparking riots around the world. It would be hard to deny that the Newsweek report had a more detrimental effect on Muslim opinion about Guantanamo than any inspector general's report.

So if Guantanamo must be closed because it is a symbol of America's abuse of Muslim detainees, and if the example of abuse in Guantanamo that most outraged Muslims worldwide was a story of alleged mistreatment of the Koran, and if that story was later retracted, then are we going through the enormous effort to close Guantanamo because of a bad story in Newsweek? The situation is more complicated than that, but the fact is, that's part of it.
While I did quote much of the article here, I did not quote all of it so please follow the link at the top to read the entire piece. In addition, a follow up piece by York:
The anonymous accuser of Guantanamo




This is by far one of the best pieces I have ever seen. I remember it to this day and was glad I was able to find it. This should remind all this day is not about "not going to work and just grilling some hamburgers."

Today we all have a job. We are not off! Today we must honor all those who died fighting on behalf of an ever grateful nation and her people. Today is the day to remind yourself that someones child, spouse, parent, friend, neighbor, AMERICAN gave all that a mortal can... but most important, the reason this day is so important is because they did not give all for themselves or for selfish reasons.

These heroes gave their lives for others and their country. It is our duty to remember them every day, but especially today. God bless and thank you to all those who gave their lives in defense of the United States of America.


President Barack Hussein Obama politicizes Memorial Day.

He simply cannot help himself, shoving his policy matters in to every drop of refuse that spills form his moronic mouth. It makes me sick.
This Memorial Day weekend, Americans will gather on lawns and porches, fire up the grill, and enjoy the company of family, friends, and neighbors. But this is not only a time for celebration, it is also a time to reflect on what this holiday is all about; to pay tribute to our fallen heroes; and to remember the servicemen and women who cannot be with us this year because they are standing post far from home – in Iraq, Afghanistan, and around the world.
Well he tried. Memorial Day is about honoring those who “died in defense of their country.” EVERY day should be a day where we honor those serving currently, or who have served honorably. Memorial Day is a time to specifically honor those made the ultimate sacrifice.

Want to know what it is not a time for?
That is why we are building a 21st century Department of Veterans Affairs with the largest single-year funding increase in three decades. It’s a commitment that will help us provide our veterans with the support and benefits they have earned, and expand quality health care to a half million more veterans.
Can anyone out there explain to me how health care is going to help those currently at rest in Arlington and other cemeteries across the nation?
That can mean sending a letter or a care package to our troops overseas. It can mean volunteering at a clinic where a wounded warrior is being treated or bringing supplies to a homeless veterans center. Or it can mean something as simple as saying "thank you" to a veteran you pass on the street.

That is what Memorial Day is all about. It is about doing all we can to repay the debt we owe to those men and women who have answered our nation’s call by fighting under its flag.
NO IT IS NOT. IT IS ABOUT HONORING THOSE WHO DIED FIGHTING FOR THE COUNTRY. There is a reason there is Veterans Day and Memorial day. Thank you for f’ing up the meaning of the day. And thank you for placing political policy in your address that has nothing to do with the issue.

President Obama, you are a grade A asshole.


Flags In


Arlington National Cemetery will continue the time-honored tradition of “Flags In” on Thursday, May 21st.

Soldiers from the 3rd U.S. Infantry Regiment (The Old Guard) will be joined by service members from the U.S. Marine Corps Ceremonial and Guard Company, U.S. Navy Ceremonial Guard, U.S. Air Force Honor Guard and the U.S. Coast Guard Ceremonial Honor Guard in placing more than 250,000 grave decorating flags at Arlington National Cemetery.

“Flags In” has been conducted annually since the 3rd U.S. Infantry Regiment (The Old Guard) was designated as the Army’s official ceremonial unit in 1948. Flags are placed one foot in front and centered before each headstone in the cemetery.

Flags will also be placed at the Tomb of the Unknowns by the Tomb Sentinels and at the cemetery’s Columbarium. All flags will be removed on Tuesday, May 26th before the cemetery opens to the public.

Ingraham DESTROYS Obama's "National Security" speech.


VPOTUS Cheney Schools potus

To the very end of our administration, we kept al-Qaeda terrorists busy with other problems. We focused on getting their secrets, instead of sharing ours with them. And on our watch, they never hit this country again. After the most lethal and devastating terrorist attack ever, seven and a half years without a repeat is not a record to be rebuked and scorned, much less criminalized. It is a record to be continued until the danger has passed.


Red Eye Host Greg Gutfeld on Media Bias, Liberal Intolerance...


Creator of POW/MIA Flag pases away.

Newt Heisley, the designer of the POW/MIA flag adopted by Congress in 1990 as a symbol of the nation's concern for those missing during military actions in Southeast Asia, died. He was 88.

Donna Allison, Heisley's fiancee, told The Associated Press Heisley died suddenly Thursday at his home after years of failing health. His death was first reported by The Gazette.

Heisley's image sketched in pencil in 1971 during the Vietnam War shows the silhouette of a gaunt man, a strand of barbed wire and a watchtower in the background with the words POW/MIA "You are not forgotten."

Congress in 1998 mandated the flag be displayed at the White House, U.S. Capitol, military installations and other federal buildings on national observances that include Memorial Day and Fourth of July.


Political left, deaf on National Security

Public, Political Left At Odds Over Interrogation
May 16, 2009

American voters believe harsh interrogations of high-value al-Qaeda detainees were justified by a 19-point margin in the most recent survey conducted by Resurgent Republic. The 53 to 34 percent margin is almost identical to a recent Gallup Poll that found 55 percent of Americans believed harsh interrogation techniques for terrorism suspects were justified.


Matthews BLOWS. A WTF moment.

Don't you love the righteous indignation, the tough stance on principle that Matthews takes. He is against it, damn the country to hell it is more important to make the terrorists comfy. At the same time, kudos to Harold Ford Jr. for actually putting the entire debate in to the proper god damn fucking context. We need morfe democrats like him.

But wait a moment...he is against when it was determined to be legal, but he finds it ok if it is illegal. WTF?!?!?!

This is the final proof, like it was needed, that Chris Matthews is a moronic partisan that is more than willing to put his personal feelings ahead of the safety of the country... that means he doesn't care if you or I die.


Murtha. UGH

The Republican who challenged Rep. John Murtha in 2008 says a top aide to the embattled Pennsylvania Democrat threatened to have him recalled to active duty in the U.S. Army so he could be court-martialed for engaging in politics while serving in the armed forces.

Bill Russell — who challenged Murtha in 2008 and intends to do so again in 2010 — said Murtha chief of staff John Hugya made the threat during a National Rifle Association event in mid-March.

Ret. Col. Gregory Ritch, a former Army Reserve officer who served as Russell’s commanding officer, said he heard Hugya make a similar threat in January.

“[Hugya] said, ‘When the [new] secretary of the Army comes in, we’re going to call his ass back to active duty and we’re going to prosecute him under the [Uniform Code of Military Justice],’” Ritch said Hugya told him during their January conversation.
His staff better watch out the can of worms they are opening. I will just point out a simple fact. They want to nail this man for serving and running? Murtha retired from the Marines in 1990. He was elected to the house in 1990. Do the math, I am seeing an overlap of military service and periods where he would have been campaigning.

Ok for him, but not Russell.

Piece of the week.: Andrew C. McCarthy

Poison Photo-Drop
President Obama’s decision to release photographs of prisoner abuse will imperil our nation and its defenders.

American soldiers, American civilians, and other innocent people are going to die because Pres. Barack Obama wants to release photographs of prisoner abuse. Note: I said, “wants to release” — not “has to release,” or “is being forced to release,” or “will comply with court orders by releasing.” The photos, quite likely thousands of them, will be released because the president wants them released. Any other description of the situation is a dodge.

If President Obama wanted to refrain from releasing these photos in order to protect the military forces he commands or promote the security of Americans — his two highest obligations as president — he could do so by simply issuing an executive order. The applicable statute expressly allows for it, just as it provides for Congress — now in the firm control of the president and his party — to withhold the photos from disclosure. Instead, Obama and congressional Democrats are choosing to release the photos.

They are making that choice fully aware that it will cost lives. It is a sedulous Democrat talking-point, repeated most recently by Carl Levin, the Senate Armed Services chairman and a key Obama ally, that the revelations of prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib inspired new terrorist recruits, caused American combat casualties, and made the United States more vulnerable to terrorist attack. This has long been Obama’s own position. It is a charge he made throughout the 2008 campaign, and it is one he repeated just a month ago in his Strasbourg speech: “When we saw what happened in Abu Ghraib, that wasn’t good for our security — that was a recruitment tool for terrorism. Humiliating people is never a good strategy to battle terrorism.”
This is a must read! Please continue reading over at NRO: Poison Photo-Drop


Obama politicizing National Security

Government officials familiar with the CIA's early interrogations say the most powerful evidence of apparent excesses is contained in the "top secret" May 7, 2004, inspector general report, based on more than 100 interviews, a review of the videotapes and 38,000 pages of documents. The full report remains closely held, although White House officials have told political allies that they intend to declassify it for public release when the debate quiets over last month's release of the Justice Department's interrogation memos.
So this administration wants to rail on everything that kept us safe for the past eight years. And now the Obama Administration is fully willing to politicize intelligence. Not this "declassification" was being talked about to "political allies" not say all members of Congress. And note they are holding off until things calm down. That way once we are starting to rebound from his most recent screw ups, and maybe the flames will die a bit Obama will come along and dump this JP5 on the world stage to light the world and country ablaze.
Although some useful information was produced, the report concluded that "it is difficult to determine conclusively whether interrogations have provided information critical to interdicting specific imminent attacks," according to the Justice Department's declassified summary of it. The threat of such an imminent attack was cited by the department as an element in its 2002 and later written authorization for using harsh techniques.
Ahh yes, just release the ones that makes people look bad (Note I say "look"). Hide the truth from the public. Look I don't care, would have preferred, if all of it stayed classified. But if you are going to use some of it to attack your political adversaries, let's also know all the death, destruction, and horror that was prevented. NOT BY YOU, but by people ACTUALLY willing to "provide for the common defense" of our country.

This Administration IS making our country and the world less safe. He is providing fuel to the fire. They claim that GTMO recruits terrorists. What do you think causes more?

1) People making up what they want about what goes on in GTMO to recruit? (They will just find something else the "evil west" does to replace GTMO should it close.)

2) Releasing classified information to our enemies that only show what APPEARS to be bad, but then not telling the world all the hell that was planned and prevented by the assholes that this Administration is now aiding. Kudos to the fucking President of ANYTHING BUT the United States of America.



GTMO WORKS, lefties get over it!


What does a bell, water, and death have in common.

The New York Times reported last week that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the alleged mastermind of the Sept. 11 terror attacks, was waterboarded 183 times in one month by CIA interrogators. The "183 times" was widely circulated by news outlets throughout the world.

"The water was poured 183 times -- there were 183 pours," the official explained, adding that "each pour was a matter of seconds."
Watch the video, and as you hear that bell ring (1 more than 183, mind you) imagine water flowing up your nose for a moment. That is what the left wants you to believe is torture. But then think about the fact that that bell ringing is a life GONE. It is not a simulated drowning, it is an actual death.

That is just the Pentagon, not Pennsylvania or the WTC. More people died at the Pentagon alone than KSM was water boarded. But hey, Obama is a nice guy and now al Qaeda will like us more. We can all hold hands and skip down the path of life together in harmony.


Pelosi: What and when. Oh snap!



Click the above image to see the full size, note the official document uses the past tense "had been employed." See the full document of who was briefed, and when: HERE (h/t Mike's America)


The Detainees -- 9/11

Grab the closest liberals hair and hold their face up to the screen, at the end ask them: "how does it?"

Support for "torture" grows on both sides of the aisle.

Even when called "torture," the support for enhanced interrogations GROWS. Click for a link to Rove's site where the poll is.



Carafano on Free Speech

Free speech in defense of liberty is no vice

History often books a room at Washington, D.C.’s Mayflower Hotel. It was there that Franklin Roosevelt penned “nothing to fear but fear itself” for his first inaugural address. Harry Truman lived there for most of his first 100 days as president.

Last summer, after ending her run for the White House, Hillary Clinton booked the Mayflower to introduce some 300 of her top donors to Barack Obama.

Last week, the venerable hotel may have hosted some history again.
More than a dozen top talk radio hosts and producers gathered there to discuss what to do about various plans emanating from Washington. Plans to throttle talk radio.

The talkers are worried. And they should be. What’s at stake is not just their livelihoods, but the weapon most vital to our national security: Free speech.