You extended deserved praise and congratulations to the SEAL team that killed Osama bin Laden. You did not, however, extend praise and congratulations last year to the SEAL team that captured Ahmed Abed — the most wanted al-Qaeda terrorist in Iraq — responsible for killing and mutilating a number of Americans. Instead, three members of that SEAL team — Officer Second Class Matt McCabe and Petty Officers Julio Huertas and Jonathan Keefe — were tried because Abed claimed he’d been slapped by one of the operators. All three SEALs were acquitted.
Will you now praise and congratulate McCabe, Huertas, and Keefe for capturing Abed? If not, why not?
Monday’s bonus questions: Similarly, you’ve justifiably praised the work done by intelligence officers leading to the termination of bin Laden. Even members of your own administration concede that some of the information leading to bin Laden resulted from the work of intelligence officers using EITs on Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and other high-value detainees. Yet, as Mona Charen notes, your administration isn’t praising these officers. Rather, Eric Holder is investigating them with an eye toward possible prosecution — even though their actions were assessed lawful at the time.
Do you agree with your attorney general’s decision? If so, aren’t you concerned that his actions might sow confusion and chill the resolve of intelligence officers pursuing leads today? Isn’t that risk important enough to at least get an explanation from Mr. Holder as to why dedicated intelligence officers – whose work, in part, led to the termination of the world’s most wanted terrorist — should be in continuing legal jeopardy for actions they’d been assured were not only lawful, but necessary to national security?
I might be mistaken. But I thought the administration was only investigating those officers whose conduct was alleged to have exceeded what even the bush admin said was legal.
Can anyone here shed any light on this point?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSure. The administration wasn't investigating them. They were court martialed. And not for "slapping" a prisoner but for punching him and lying to military investigators.
FOX News, April 21, 2010:
STEVE CENTANNI: ...Also in court today, a Navy petty officer, Kevin DeMartino, said he witnessed the attack in that holding cell, testifying that he saw Navy SEAL Matthew McCabe punch Abed in the stomach and saw blood on the prisoner's mouth. McCabe is the only defendant actually accused of assault. Huertas and another Navy SEAL face lesser charges. The case against the Navy SEALs has triggered outrage and anger from many who say these men are heroes, not criminals.
The SEALS were all acquitted of the charges. But I have no idea why Peter Kirsanow decided to misrepresent what the charges were, nor what any of it has to do with Obama.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAs a long time NRO reader, I'm confused. If I give credit for killing Osama to Bush, does that mean I have to blame Bush for the economy? Is there a way to absolve Bush for the economy, AND give credit to him for killing Osama? And can I blame the economy on Obama, and also find a way to be angry with Obama for killing Osama?
Thanks in advance for the feedback - I'm a bitter, underemployed, white senior citizen with entitlement issues. I'd like to "take my country back." I thought things would've worked out better for me by now, but since I'm generally small minded and petty I've found that it's better to channel my personal resentment and anger into politics. I'd like to stay angry at Obama for as long as possible - reason hardly matters - and I'm not sure if my capacity for rational dissonance is up to the task. Can someone at NRO explain in brief, simple terms how I can have my cake and eat it too? It would be nice to have a one size fits all, universal explanation for why Obama is so terrible.
Thanks so much - I'll be sure to send a donation in to keep this landmark of journalism afloat. I still remember NRO's bold stance against racial desegregation and opposition to the civil rights movement, and consider myself a lifetime fan. Keep up the good fight!
Also - please post more about gay marriage, abortion, and other social issues. I'm a huge moral scold and pride myself on pointing my nose into other people's business as much as possible. Unfortunately this has led to me having a small and unsatisfying social circle (not to belittle by feline companions). So if you can give me a chance to stew over the moral decline of our nation - albeit virtually - I'd be much obliged. My children and grandchildren can't wait for me to die. But at least I have the Corner! LOL! Thanks!
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse@redfate
That bastion of conservative thought, humanevents reported that Kevin Demartino's testimony was shredded and discredited here.
So yeah, it was slapping, with embelishment by a petty officer. Emphasis on 'Petty'
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse@redfate,
As is typical of NRO critics, you got Bobbytwotimes' reference wrong, and you are behind the times in your "facts" about the courts martial.
1. The "officers" Bobbytwotimes is referring to, are the CIA officers that Holder is investigating. And, no Bobby, they are not being investigated for going beyond "what even the bush [sic] admin said was legal;" they are being investigated for doing precisely what they were assured was legal and necessary.
2. "The SEALS were all acquitted of the charges." Which is the whole point, isn't it? A jury took a whole hour and forty minutes to find Dimartino's account not credible. And the SEALs were charged with "assaulting" Abed, NOT with lying about it, so you got that one wrong, also.
External Link
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI thought we were a nation of laws. What does catching bin laden have to do with whether the interrogator broke the law. Isn't justice supposed to be blind?
Isn't that what republicans said when they were impeaching bill Clinton for lying under oath about an affair? That no one is above the law?
You want Obama to ignore the law and stop a criminal investigation for what reason, exactly?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIf you don't think waterboarding or sleep deprivation or stress positive are torture, what about choking, beating someone's testicles with a baseball bat, or beating a prisoner to death during an "interrogation".
Should these acts be investigated, or not?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI am pretty certain that your questions will not be read or answered by this administration as they are busy killing terrorists at a greater rate than the last administration.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseBut they do demonstrate you don't know what you are talking about. Torture and EITs are considered unreliable methods of extracting information from out captives and until the Bush administration, were not sanctioned by our government. Top military leaders and political leaders across parties consider torture and these techniques anathema to American values. These techniques were not necessary or sanctioned during the world wars or the Cold War, crises that were far more dangerous to our nation than the war on terror. Why pro-torture apologists think this is somehow a winning issue for the GOP is beyond me.
As for the Seal case that Kirsanow brings up, he needs to think that one through as it has nothing to do with the administration.
Livewire,
Kirsanow said the /charge/ was slapping ("were tried because Abed claimed he’d been slapped by one of the operators") which would imply the trial itself had no merit. In fact, the SEALS faced serious allegations, and the trial cleared them. He's conflating the outcome of the trial with the cause of the trial.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseDear Doc,
Thanks for your honesty in stating that Torture and EIT are not one and the same. Too often people treat them as synonymous.
I would appreciate a reference to the source of your statement that EITs are unreliable. TO a certain degree ALL intelligence gathered is unreliable and needs confirmation. I am curious of anyone has documented the actual relative quality of different interrogation techniques.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseJust a nitpik, peter, but brush up on Navy ranks. McCabe was a PETTY Officer 2nd Class, there is no "Officer Second Class".
Bobby,
Why not investigate all servicemen and intelligence operatives for every conceivable crime of torture and see if we can find a conviction? Jeeze, man, you make no sense at all!
DrPalin,
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseLumping EITs with torture and claiming they aren't considered reliable is dishonest. EITs are reliable and most don't consider it torture. Then tossing them into a historical context really shows your ignorance.
Bobbytwotimes: What they are being charged with doing isn't a crime.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseBobbytwotimes: Had any of those other actions actually occured, they should be investigated. Fortunately, the charges were already investigated and found to be groundless.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseDoc: First off the claim that the current adminstration is killing terrorists faster than the previous is an interesting one, and would be even more fascinating if it were true.
Regardless, the reason they are having any success is because the ground work for that success was laid in previous administrations.
As to your beliefs as to what constitutes torture. To be kind, you are full of it.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOld Mort - the kids and grandkids respond:
Sorry, Old Mort, you big party-(insert objectionable word here), the "children and grandchildren that can't wait for you to die" are not interested in explanations for why Obama is so terrible. Do you HEAR us asking any questions? Or, running out to buy "Radical-in-Chief"? Who digs through the dusty archives of the distant past when FaceBook and Twitter are so real time and CONNECTED! Past, schmast. This is the fierce urgency of NOW! Who needs Kurtz, or the rest of the folks at NRO, to tell us who Obama is when you've got a guy who sounds exactly like the Zinn on our shelves, Chomsky at our podiums, and Piven whispering revolutionary sweet somethings in our ears? 60's all the way, Baby, it's TODAY and it's our TURN! Obama is the man, Man, and we children and grandchildren are too busy enjoying the glory of our own reflections in his image. We don't want our "we are the world" party to end. We FEEL our own power in our massing as a herd. Full steam ahead, no-questions-asked-fundamental-transformation is so gosh darn exhilarating!
What could possibly go wrong, you old coot? Just button up your mouth, keep your history books in your own attic, spend our inheritance (we don't believe in it anyway) donating to rags like NRO, and save your griping for your equally blind WWII buddies at the VFW club. Obama is on tv, between the teleprompters again.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIt's like looking in the mirror.
Doc: Those "unreliable" methods got us the intel that eventually led to Osama.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseDetermining what constitutes torture is a complicated issue, with no clear cut do's and don'ts. Lawyers earn their livings interpreting ambiguous laws written by others and it isn’t at all unusual for the way in which they interpret those laws to be influenced by their politics. Thus, President Obama, a Harvard lawyer, can justify demonizing CIA interrogators for waterboarding (which is far less intense than the water training Navy SEALS and Air Force pilots receive) during the Bush administration, while "losing no sleep" over the kill order he signed for OBL.
During his recent interview with Steve Croft of 60 Minutes, President Obama recognized that Presidents have to make difficult decisions they would prefer not to make because they have responsibilities most of us do not. Unfortunately, he recognizes that reality only on his own behalf and does not extend it to those outside his political circle. Just as President Obama holds his team to a different “civil discourse” standard than the standard to which he holds the opposing team, he’s not about to give George Bush the same benefit of the doubt he gives himself.
There is no Handbook for Interrogators and that handbook doesn’t exist for a reason. Not everyone agrees on what constitutes torture, which interrogation methods are most effective and whether there is ever a justification for the use of EIT’s. That being the case, we prefer to ignore the specifics and debate the subject in generic terms, i.e., the United States does not torture. When a Republican is in the Oval Office, liberals adamantly deny the existence of any ticking time bomb scenario that would justify the use of EIT’s, but behind closed doors they want those tools available for use by their side just in case (note the fine print on Obama’s executive order prohibiting the use of EIT’s).
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseCareful, Old Mort, that many strawmen in one place is a definite fire hazard!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOld Mort's just trolling. His comments have nothing to do the article. Please ignore him.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse@Dr: No, torture is considered an unreliable means of getting confessions. Under torture, most people will sign anything to get the pain to stop. So, if asked to confess to blowing down their houses and eating the three little pigs, most people will confess, regardless of their similarity to the big bad wolf. The interest in these cases is getting a confession from someone so the crime can be pinned on them - regardless of the truth.
When asking for intelligence information, the matter is different. The information can be verified. The person being interrogated is still being held, and the forceful techniques can be reapplied if the first set of information is found to be false. There is an interest in finding the truth, not a scapegoat.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse