Torturing the truth more than our enemies

On September 11, 2001, a date which certainly ought to "live in infamy," 19 violent enemies of the United States carried out vicious airliner attacks on New York City and Washington, D.C., killing nearly 3,000 persons. This is known to all, of course. Yet the ruling party today is determined to deprive us of the necessary means to prevent more attacks by abandoning the policies which protected us for the last eight years. President Barack Obama and his fellow Democrats in Congress profess to be horrified at the specific tactics which the Central Intelligence Agency used to elicit information from three"high-value" targets. These men were seized in our successful campaign against the Taliban regime in Afghanistan that harbored the Al Qaeda terrorists who carried out the 9/11 and other acts of mayhem, such as the previous bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993.

I say "profess" because the "torture" to which these mass murderers were subjected did not elicit any outrage from Democrats when they were briefed on the techniques back in 2001. There appeared to be general agreement that no stone should be left unturned in the effort to gain whatever information that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Abu Zubaydah and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri could provide.

Although Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi denies it now, others present with her at the briefings the Bush Administration gave to congressional leaders have said that she not only knew of the enhanced interrogation techniques but approved of them, even urging that the CIA go beyond them if necessary. She was responding then as virtually every other American would have in her circumstances, given the enormity of the evil inflicted upon us and the undeniable evidence that these three men were either directly responsible for or fully informed about the 9/11 outrage.

The most useful information obtained was that an airliner attack was planned for Los Angeles. Was thwarting that attack not worth the CIA’s best efforts?

Webster’s Dictionary defines torture as "the infliction of severe pain, as to force information or confession." While any definition is only as accurate as its correspondence to reality, and that depends upon the judgment of those who understand what it is, a dictionary provides an impartial reference point.

However, the Wikipedia definition of waterboarding, which is based upon the contributions of "editors" who may or may not be impartial, describes waterboarding as "a form of torture" which "consists of immobilizing the victim on his or her back with the head inclined downwards, and then pouring water over the face and into the breathing passage." It adds: "In contrast to submerging the head face-forward in water [the technique used in the Spanish Inquisition], waterboarding precipitates a gag reflex almost immediately. The technique does not inevitably cause lasting physical damage."

This is torture?

The rest of this story is that waterboarding has been used on American servicemen for years to prepare them for the abuse they will be subjected to should they be captured by enemy forces. There is no evidence that they have ever been subjected to the unspeakable methods favored by despotisms.

Few of us do not know that mutilation and decapitation have been resorted to by Islamist terrorists. It beggars belief that men who are that brutal will be inspired to change their ways by our refusal to use a harsh method that actually falls short of real torture.

Meanwhile, two Bush Administration legal advisors who thought through the constitutional and legal implications of enhanced interrogation techniques and wrote extensive memos about them, have been treated as evil men who provided cover for the government’s allegedly brutal policies. This is second-guessing at best and witch hunting at worst.

As Alexander Hamilton wrote in The Federalist Papers, "A government ought to contain in itself every power requisite to the full accomplishment of the objects committed to its care, and to the complete execution of the trusts for which it is responsible, free from every other control but a regard to the public good and to the sense of the people."

The first duty of the government is public safety which, if it is to be adequately provided for, cannot be restricted as to means unless those means are immoral. It is not clear that subjecting a highly select group of known terrorists to maximum discomfort amounts to torture. If our government actually shrinks from its duties, the torture for millions of people will be far worse than that on three al-Qaeda operatives.

A brave captain in a fearful world

Today we witnessed a brave captain evade death by taking bold action off the coast of Somalia. Our magnificent Navy Seals took out three of his captors and seized the routth. Thank you to: the US Navy, President Obama for authorizing the mission, and Captain Phillips for affirming the superiority and pride of the United States. With that said, I’d like to have a discussion of how we got here and where do we go now. I would say, we got here due to the cowardice of many countries around the world, and the willingness of the shipping companies to pay ransoms to pirates rather than fight and defeat the enemy.

Let’s not kid ourselves, this is an enemy. What upsets me, is words like “we have the pirate in custody,” and let’s bring the pirate “to court in New York.” Are we fighting an enemy or are we having a law enforcement action? In our PC world we seem to be in the law enforcement mode, not the “fight the enemy mode.”

I put forth this thesis:

Until our leaders take a different attitude towards our enemies, we will continue to have to live through episodes like this. Here’s how you’ll know when we finally take this seriously. The words go like this:

“We killed 3 pirates and captured the 4th.” “We have the 4th pirate and will only release him when this war is over. No trials, no lawyers.”

Until our leaders and the rest of the world starts thinking like this, we will all remain FEARFUL not POWERFUL.

BHO sees no evil with 'enemy' semantics

In a dramatic break with longstanding U.S. government policy and established interpretations of the laws of war, the Obama administration announced Friday afternoon (a time when the government announces policy changes it hopes will be ignored or buried by the news media) that it will abandon the use of the term “enemy combatant” as a standard “for the government’s authority to hold detainees at the Guantanamo Bay Detention Facility.” (DOJ release) This latest flipflop on legal policy regarding Guantanamo detainees is inconsistent with Obama’s recent policy declaration on detainees held in other areas and established norms of international law – as noted in a previous post. More importantly, it leaves those detainees in legal limbo and opens up the status of all detainees for legal challenges on spurious grounds – a litigator’s wet dream, but a national security nightmare. Incoherent:

The Obama/Holder elimination of “enemy combatant” designation leaves detainees in legal limbo:

The Justice Department filing doesn't give the war prisoners a specific designation. They aren't described as POWs or enemy combatants or unprivileged belligerents, all categories of war prisoners under international law.

A Justice Department official said Friday that, for now, they are just considered ''detainees..”

According to accepted norms of international law, there can be no grey area in detainee status:

"There is no intermediate status; nobody in enemy hands can be outside the law,"[4] as stated in the commentary of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) on the Geneva Conventions, "If civilians directly engage in hostilities, they are considered 'unlawful' or 'unprivileged' combatants or belligerents.” Commentary: IV Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War (1958)

In the United States, the Military Commissions Act of 2006 codified the legal definition of the term “enemy combatant” and invested the U.S. President with broad discretion to determine whether a person may be designated an unlawful enemy combatant. Holder’s Justice Department, in declaring that only the AUMF (Authorization for the Use of Military Force, 18 September 2001) is the basis for detention authority, contravenes the intent of Congress and subsequently enacted legislation.

Inconsistent:

Elimination of the “enemy combatants” designation for detainees at Guantanamo directly contradicts the continued use – in fact, reinforcement – of the term with regard to detainees held in venues other than Guantanamo (cf recent Obama policy declaration re: Bagram detainees).

We move the most dangerous prisoners – those with the most involvement in terrorist plots, the most presumed intelligence value, the most hard-core members of terrorist organizations - to Guantanamo. Suddenly, they’re no longer “enemy combatants” due to a change in venue? This defies all logic.

Dangerous:

This latest policy shift unnecessarily narrows the scope of authority for detention of terrorists AND the scope of activity subjecting individuals to capture and detention. Strictly speaking, the policy limits detention to those directly connected to the 9/11 attacks, or members of “Taliban or al Qaida forces or associated forces.” What about other terrorist activity, either concurrent or subsequent to 9/11? What about terrorists not belonging to the Taliban, al Qaida, or other “associated forces”? Analogies come to mind about lacking authority to combat and capture Japanese soldiers because they didn’t take part in the Pearl Harbor raid (to say nothing of German, Italian, or other Axis forces). Defense attorneys are no doubt salivating at the prospect of suing to free poor “Achmed” because he’s not a card-carrying member of al Qaida (never mind the fact that he blew up dozens of innocents) – however, those of us in the actual profession of Defense (of this country) are left betrayed by the knowledge that the bad guys we captured and sent to Guantanamo might get released on a technicality.

Yep, that’s “consistent with national security” all right.

Teacher's Desk: Renew or Release?

Not only is March the time for CSAPs in Colorado, it is the time principals weed out their probationary teaching staff. Ouch. This is supposed to be the culmination of two or more observations and several walk-throughs and other information gathering (attendance, ability to work with deadlines, complaints, etc.). Unfortunately, some incompetent or mediocre principals have this authority. Principals in DPS and elsewhere look to non-renew a probationary teacher’s contract if the teacher is at the end of her three years with the school district. According to Jeremy P. Mayer in March 11th’s Denver Post Online, districts have a very difficult time firing tenured teachers, so many districts do the dance of the lemons instead, shuffling poor instructors from school to school. Almost no tenured teacher is fired. Many, many times really great probationary teachers find themselves non-renewed because the district would rather employ a Teach for America or recently licensed teacher because they are cheaper!

I have two friends going through this right now, and a third with an equally frustrating situation. My third highly regarded colleague, a retired Denver teacher, is not being hired because her last principal of her final year says untrue, unpleasant things about her to prospective employers. (I had that happen to me too, except I have the right to sue since our negotiated agreement specifically stated that all personnel questions would go to a certain gentleman in human resources and the principal was not to discuss my employment. I chose not to be litigious.) These ladies are fabulous, no-nonsense educators with a ton of experience.

What connects them is that they go over and beyond to guarantee their students achieve. That takes more than dedication, it takes courage. It is easier to let things go, be a “don’t rock the ship” “go along, get along” teacher than it is to find ways of improving oneself, improving students’ academic achievement and behaviors, and improving the school. It is about being the voice for those who are not heard and using a tough love approach when the student needs it.

Mediocre and incompetent principals insist on a staff he or she can control and most often scoff at true collaboration and excellent instruction. The only feedback many teachers get is criticism. It is rare for parents or students to tell their teacher that they appreciate how they have improved and how the teacher helped them to succeed. I have been getting that this week from both parents and students. It was truly welcomed because I received a letter in the mail from the University of Colorado that I was not accepted to their doctoral fellowship in educational policy for next fall. My students’ praise certainly took the sting away from that disappointment.

One of my Special Education English Language Learners wrote the following:

“I get more help at Colorado High School Charter than I did at John F. Kennedy because the teachers at Kennedy did not know what to do to teach me, but at CHSC, all the teachers know I am on an IEP (Individual Education Plan), so I like this school better. I did not learn anything at Kennedy because I didn’t know how to read or understand math. They never helped me to understand any of it. I did not know many words when we read or wrote something, but I do now.”

I’m this young lady’s reading and math teacher and have seen such tremendous growth. Through tough love on my part, she began attending school regularly, making better choices, and participating in class. She became a hard worker, completed all assignments and is on track to graduate in May. Because I was non-renewed, neither my friends, nor myself can work again in a Denver Public District School.

Kathleen Kullback is a licensed special educator with an MA in Educational Leadership and is a former candidate for the State Board of Education

BHO retreats further on detainee issue

Here's more on the issue of detainees in the Global War on Terror, the story that just won’t die. After railing for years against the Bush Administration policies on detention of enemy combatants captured during operations in Afghanistan and other battlegrounds of the War on Terror (which they've quit calling by that name), the Obama Administration is making a series of stunning reversals from overheated campaign rhetoric to the policies applied when actually governing. Undoubtedly, you’re all “shocked, shocked” that this is so… The first development, buried so deep in the news that it didn’t even make the Denver papers was the release of an official report commissioned by the Obama administration on the treatment of enemy combatants held at the Guantanamo Bay detention facility. An exhaustive investigation concludes that

“...the Guantanamo Bay prison meets the standard for humane treatment laid out in the Geneva Conventions, according to a report for President Barack Obama, who has ordered the terrorist detention facility closed within a year.” …

“The report found the camp to be in compliance with the Geneva Conventions Common Article 3, the international rules that require the humane treatment of prisoners taken in unconventional armed conflicts, like the war on terrorism. The camp’s controversial force-feeding of prisoners on hunger strikes was also found to be compliant with the Geneva guidelines, a second government official confirmed.”

As a presidential candidate, Obama criticized the detention center - and almost immediately upon taking office, he issued an Executive Order to close the facility at the U.S. naval base in Cuba within a year. Perhaps a bit too hasty? Clearly, this report brings into question the underlying basis for that order.

Thus it's Campaign Rhetoric: 0, Facts: 1

So what to do with the detainees?

“Attorney General Eric Holder, meanwhile, named a top federal prosecutor, Matthew Olsen, as executive director of Obama’s Guantanamo Detainee Review Task Force, which will recommend where to send each detainee. Obama has ordered the task force to consider whether to transfer, release or prosecute the detainees, or figure out some other ‘lawful means for disposition’ if none of those options is viable.”

As noted in my original post on this topic, other “lawful means for disposition” does NOT include Ritter’s proposal to bring them as a group to Colorado’s SuperMax penitentiary - all protestations and obfuscations of self-proclaimed media “watchdog” groups to the contrary.

The second development in this issue - which has received a bit more media attention - is Obama’s reversal from his campaign rhetoric critical of the previous administration’s “extralegal” detention of enemy combatants. Obama policy NOW is in complete agreement with Bush administration policies and legal arguments:

“… the Obama Justice Department has told a federal court that detainees currently being held by the United States at Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan are unlawful combatants not subject to the Geneva Conventions and can be held without charge for as long as the conflict in Afghanistan continues. The position is exactly the same one taken by the Bush Administration.”

And now it's Campaign Rhetoric: 0, Facts: 2

On this issue, at least, the Obama Administration is discovering the difference between campaigning and governing. Nothing like learning on the job… As I predicted on the Backbone Radio show on February 8th (5pm segment), the Democrats (aided and abetted by the Liberal Establishment Mass Media, or LEMMings) are now anxious to sweep this issue under the rug, now that they can no longer use it as a rhetorical club with which to beat up a Republican administration. In fact, even Obama’s Executive Order to close Gitmo could easily be reversed, once the issue is no longer in the media spotlight. Wouldn’t THAT be an interesting development a year or so from now?

Action items - how YOU can get involved:

House Republicans recently introduced legislation to prohibit federal courts from ordering the release or transfer of Gitmo detainees into the U.S. The Enemy Combatant Detention Review Act (HR 630) establishes clear rules regarding the detention of known terrorists.

Senator James Inhofe also introduced the Guantanamo Bay Detention Facility Safe Closure Act of 2009 (S370) that will PROHIBIT the United States government from using ANY funds to transfer detainees from Gitmo onto United States soil and PROHIBIT the United States from using ANY funds to construct a facility on U.S. soil to house these detainees.

Contact your congressional representative or senator in Washington, DC and contact Governor Ritter in Colorado and let them know what YOU think about these policies.

Power to the People!