Mid-morning Hilarity Break

 

Via Transsylvania Phoenix:

This is going to stick with me for a long time!

Stoutcat

The Democrats’ Waterboarding Problem

 

Hard on the heels of my last post comes this interesting take from Legal Insurrection:

“Many Democrats in Congress have pushed for release of documents and the holding of hearings on waterboarding and other interrogation methods. Putting aside for now whether the release of such information should take place, it appears that Obama started the ball rolling down hill by releasing the interrogation memos. Barring active intervention by Obama, there will be some further level of document release, Congressional investigations, and public hearings.

This presents a problem mostly for Democrats. Republicans who were briefed on the interrogation methods at least will be consistent, for the most part, in maintaining that the methods were lawful and useful. No Republican is going to be harmed politically by the revelations because most Americans support these methods against people like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed…

For Democrats, however, the damage could be significant. Nancy Pelosi already has lost a great deal of credibility from her changing stories. Dozens of other Democrats, including such senior Senators as Jay Rockefeller, apparently also were briefed on the interrogation methods and either were silent, approved, or encouraged the policy.

This whole issue is a game-changer, and I expect that we’ll be seeing an invisible backlash on it — invisble in the same sense that the Tea Parties were invisible to many: with little to no media coverage, mockery and name-calling by clueless celebrities, a President in denial… 

Quietly, we may see the trend drift toward new faces contesting the firmly-entrenched insiders in the 2010 elections; we may see many of the old guard decide it’s time to “spend more time with the family” rather than face re-election; we may even see a few more party switches a la Arlen Specter (yes, Olympia Snowe, I’m talking about you!). In the long run, these are all good things.

The Legal Insurrection piece ends with a prediction, which sounds just about right to me:

Here’s my prediction of what will happen if Democrats push the investigation to the bitter end causing damage to national security, a political death match with the CIA, and Democrat-on-Democrat finger pointing:

Stenny Hoyer, Speaker; Jane Harman, Majority Leader; Nancy Pelosi, Chair of the House sub-committee on fresh water fisheries; Republicans, unexpected gains in 2010 mid-term elections.

Time will tell, but I sure like the mental picture of Nancy Pelosi on the sub-committee on fresh water fisheries. After all, how much harm could she do there?

Stoutcat

Answer the Question: Is Waterboarding Torture?

Last week, Bob Owens published a post entitled, “The Pro-Torture Obama Justice Department” on his blog, Confederate Yankee. It’s a short and succinct piece, and I have his permission to publish it in full here at Grand Rants.

Mr. Owens writes:

“We’re against torture and for going after those who advocate it—except when we feel justified in using the same argument, of course.”

That there is a torture “debate” shows that we have both immature and immoral intellects in positions of power. “Enhanced interrogation”—and indeed, outright medieval torture tactics (if they were actually effective, and I don’t think they are)—are of course morally justified to save the lives of hundreds or thousands.

Immorality as it relates to the use of torture to extract information from known terrorists regarding imminent threats is easily defined as hiding behind abstract ideals and culturally-comfortable moral constructs to justify doing less than everything possible to save Americans lives. Period. It is the leftist position, commonly cited as the “anti-torture” position that is morally bankrupt here, without question.

Since it apparently needs to be said: YES, our lives are more important than the rights or lives of terrorists.

When terrorists embrace a belief system and moral code that defines civilians as legitimate targets, they forfeit their their rights.

As someone said elsewhere, if you want a true definition of torture, make someone choose between burning alive or plunging 80 stories to their death. If such a choice can be avoided by waterboarding a terrorist, then the only moral thing to do is to waterboard him, and it is the people who argue otherwise who are morally-stunted children.

I think Mr. Owens hit a home run with that piece, and the clincher is his last paragraph, which I’ll repeat:

“As someone said elsewhere, if you want a true definition of torture, make someone choose between burning alive or plunging 80 stories to their death. If such a choice can be avoided by waterboarding a terrorist, then the only moral thing to do is to waterboard him, and it is the people who argue otherwise who are morally-stunted children.”

However, Owens seems to be writing from the initial premise that waterboarding is, in fact, torture. Many reasonable people so believe. But I must disagree with Mr. Owens on this issue. Waterboarding, as it has been defined, and as it was used on the three high-value prisoners back in 2002-2003, simply does not meet the criteria for torture set out by our own justice department.

So first of all, let’s take a look at what the U.S. Government means when it refers to torture. According to the Department of Justice, the verb, “to torture” means:

“…any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.

So we have a three-part definition of the word; severe pain and suffering intentionally inflicted on a person for:

• Obtaining information or a confession
• Punishing him for an act he committed (or is suspected of having committed)
• Intimidating or coercing him

I haven’t seen anyone argue that the waterboardings were performed for anything other than obtaining information, so right away we can see that waterboarding as punishment and waterboarding as intimidation are moot.

Moving along from the definition of the word, let’s take a look at the parameters of the act itself, according to the DoJ:

[A]n act must be specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering and that mental pain or suffering refers to prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from

(1) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering;

(2) the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality;

(3) the threat of imminent death; or

(4) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality.

Now please bear in mind that we are referring to three hardened terrorists in our custody (Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, Abu Zubayadah, and Khalid Sheik Mohammed) whom we knew to have vital information about key Al Qaeda members and about upcoming planned attacks. According to published reports, waterboarding was used on the three over a period of some time, and it did elicit a deal of high-value information, including news of another large-scale attack planned for the Los Angeles Library Tower.

These terrorists disclosed valuable information after being waterboarded. Several terrorist plots that could have killed countless American civilians and military were thwarted. Names of other terrorists were revealed. And yet, the terrorists are still alive and have not suffered any prolonged mental or physical harm.

Do these actions meet the definition of torture, described by the DoJ above? No, they do not. Therefore, is waterboarding, as performed by US interrogation specialists, torture? No, it is not.

If it were actual torture, do you really think that we’d see members of the media volunteer to undergo waterboarding just to see how bad it is? (What if the technique was the extraction of fingernails? Any volunteers?) If it were actual torture, do you really think tens of thousands of our military men and women would be required to undergo it in the course of their training? No.

However, waterboarding is now illegal, because President Obama has banned its use. By doing so, the President has removed a valuable weapon from our arsenal, and we are a little less safe for it.

I’ll close by reiterating Mr. Owens, lest we forget the important lesson:

As someone said elsewhere, if you want a true definition of torture, make someone choose between burning alive or plunging 80 stories to their death. If such a choice can be avoided by waterboarding a terrorist, then the only moral thing to do is to waterboard him, and it is the people who argue otherwise who are morally-stunted children.

True torture vs. torture as petulantly defined by “morally-stunted children.” You decide.

Stoutcat

Update Concerning “Scare Force One” Over NYC

 

This just in from the Air Force via Bob Owens at Confederate Yankee… (Thanks, Bob!) The question is, “Exactly who was in those planes that buzzed NYC?” Here’s an official response…

Mr. Owens–

Documents related to your inquiry may be requested through
the Air Force Freedom of Information Act office: request options and
instructions are available at http://www.foia.af.mil/. However, the flight in question occurred as part of a scheduled training mission, so there were no passengers on board. Requested documents therefore will only list military personnel.

Lt Col Tadd Sholtis
Deputy Chief, Current Operations
Secretary of the Air Force Office of Public Affairs

That leaves me with a couple of questions about that statement… Was Lt. Col Tadd Sholtis talking about the chase planes, Scare Force One itself, or both? And who constitutes a “non passenger”?

You know, the more we look at this, the worse it gets… Either a bunch of political/military people were phenomenally stupid and gave the OK for the “training” flight that justifiably scared the snot out of a boatload of innocent people, or it was a special-interest joyride. (Or maybe it was a combination of the two.)

I’ll keep you posted concerning my own FOIA request.

Shaking my head…

Alan Speakman

Roxana Saberi To Be Freed?

 

Just in from the BBC, news that imprisoned American Roxana Saberi will be set free some time today–in fact, may already be free:

A court in Iran has cut US-Iranian reporter Roxana Saberi’s jail sentence to two years suspended, and will free her later on Monday, her lawyer says.

The court heard Ms Saberi’s appeal against her original eight-year prison sentence on Sunday, after an international outcry.

She will be able to leave the country but has been banned from working as a journalist in Iran for five years.

Ms Saberi was convicted of spying for the US in April but denies the charge.

Ironically, her initial “trial” lasted only an hour, while her “appeal” lasted nearly five hours, and she was allowed 30 minutes with her lawyer prior to the appeal.

I rejoice that Ms. Saberi will be released and will soon be with her parents.

But I can’t help but wonder how this positions America in the eyes of Iran and the entire Middle East. Was it Teheran’s dismay at Obama’s and Hillary’s ”deep” and “grave” concern about the situation that let Ms. Saberi out of the notorious Evin Prison? Or did the Iranian government get something more valuable out of playing—and playing well—the quid pro quo game?  We may never know.

Welcome home, Roxana Saberi!

Via HotAir

Stoutcat

Scare Force One Photo: Obama’s “Exif” Strategy?

 

UPDATE: Welcome, Ace of Spades readers! Feel free to browse around and enjoy yourselves.

Color me skeptical, but there’s something that still doesn’t smell right about that April 27 $328,000 photo op flight involving Air Force One (tail number 28000 when the POTUS is not on board) that caused utter panic on the ground as it buzzed New York City.

Here’s the picture location from the White House web site:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/assets/photos/AF1_photo1.jpg

First of all, it’s an awful picture for an official “Photo Op”:

• It’s dark
• The canopy of the plane taking the photo is reflecting light in the upper right
• By “hundreds of thousands of dollars‘” standards, it’s low-resolution

But there’s something else that’s possibly even more telling about this photo: If you take the shot into a decent photo software package, the Exif (Exchangeable image file format) data is missing.

Here’s what I’m talking about; below is a link I picked at random to a typical White House image release:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/assets/slideshows/896×504/americas03.JPG

Now, if we look at the Exif info, everything looks as expected:

See all that geek data in the bottom 2/3rds of the Exif window? Well, that’s typical for digital cameras. It contains  technical information about the photo, including the brand of camera, shutter speed, aperature settings etc. and is automatically embedded into the photo at the time it is created. Not everycamera generates those numbers, but the majority do. Now, look at the Exif data for the $328,000 photo:

Looks kind of stark, doesn’t it? Hey, it’s possible the camera didn’t support that info (though I’m skeptical in the extreme). IMHO, it’s far more likely that the data was purged before the picture was released because the shot was taken by a POS (Point and Shoot) camera. And it’s an either/or situation. For the moment… your call. In any event, that’s a crappy $328,000 photo.

But mark these words: If it turns out that the April 27 flight wasn’t a “photo op” gone bad but instead was a joy ride for insiders, lobbyists, or “movers and shakers”, mainstream America is going to have a kitten! Americans will tolerate a lot from their elected officials – we’ll take unfair tax hikes and corruption from both the Right and Left. We’ll wince away at “Read my lips” and “the definition of ‘is’”.

But we will not accept a “Let them eat cake” governmental mindset that sends New Yorkers justifiably running screaming into the streets for fear that their buildings are about to be hit again. Events like 9/11, Pearl Harbor, and even the Civil War resonate to the very core of our national being.

This is thin ice…

Once again, I suggest that you submit a Freedom Of Information Act Request to find out exactly who was on Flight 28000…

Alan Speakman

You Made Me, Me

Before I was myself you made me, me
With love and patience, discipline and tears,
Then bit by bit stepped back to set me free,

Allowing me to sail upon my sea,
Though well within the headlands of your fears.
Before I was myself you made me, me

With dreams enough of what I was to be
And hopes that would be sculpted by the years,
Then bit by bit stepped back to set me free,

Relinquishing your powers gradually
To let me shape myself among my peers.
Before I was myself you made me, me,

And being good and wise, you gracefully
As dancers when the last sweet cadence nears
Bit by bit stepped back to set me free.

For love inspires learning naturally:
The mind assents to what the heart reveres.
And so it was through love you made me, me
By slowly stepping back to set me free.

Nicholas Gordon

To mothers everywhere, and most especially to my own dear mother, Happy Mother’s Day. And thank you.

Stoutcat

After 261 Years, “Amazing Grace” Still Comforts

Happy Birthday, Amazing Grace!

“Amazing grace! How sweet the sound
That saved a wretch like me!”

John Newton (1725 - 1807)

We’ve heard the song so many times that it has become a cliche to many. It’s often played at funerals and for coverage of solemn events. But the back-story of the creation of Amazing Grace is, itself, amazing and deserving of a spotlight today, May 10th.

It was this day in 1748 the song’s author, John Newton, credits as the day he was inspired by providence to write what is one of the most beloved hymns in the world.

Newton was an unlikely candidate to write hymns. He was a slave trader for years, both as a sailor and eventually as a captain of his own ship.

The moment of his inspiration came while sailing home from one such slaving journey. A brutal storm hit his ship and, despite all efforts, the ship began taking on water. Newton left the main deck to return to his quarters. A moment later, the sailor who replaced him on deck was swept overboard and lost. Convinced there was nothing more they could do to save the ship, he retired to his quarters, and in a moment of release that can be understood only by those facing imminent death, accepted whatever fate lay ahead, asking only, “Lord, have mercy upon us.”

Amazingly, the ship held together and it was then he came to the conclusion that God had personally addressed his request and saw the ship through the storm. Later, when they found land, they docked for repairs only to be told the ship would likely not have stayed together more than a day due to all the storm damage.

Newton would eventually renounce the slave trade and become an abolitionist and minister. In addition to his preaching, he would also write hymns. One of the first works was what we now know as “Amazing Grace”, actually written sometime between 1760 and 1770.  Though at least a decade had passed, he still remembered vividly the event that he referred to as his “deliverance” as he wrote:

Amazing grace! (how sweet the sound)
That sav’d a wretch like me!
I once was lost, but now am found,
Was blind, but now I see.

’Twas grace that taught my heart to fear,
And grace my fears reliev’d;
How precious did that grace appear,
The hour I first believ’d!

Thro’ many dangers, toils and snares,
I have already come;
’Tis grace has brought me safe thus far,
And grace will lead me home.

The Lord has promis’d good to me,
His word my hope secures;
He will my shield and portion be,
As long as life endures.

Yes, when this flesh and heart shall fail,
And mortal life shall cease;
I shall possess, within the veil,
A life of joy and peace.

Some additional facts about the song Amazing Grace:

• An additional stanza was incorrectly attributed to the song by Harriet Beecher Stowe in her book, “Uncle Tom’s Cabin. But the verse became so popular it’s been left in.
• The song was translated into Cherokee by Samuel Worcester and was sung by tribe members as they were forced along the Trail of Tears. The Cherokee version of Amazing Grace is still a popular song within the Cherokee nation as a way to pay respect to loved ones who have passed.
• Though the song was pretty much forgotten in Europe for over a century, it remained popular in America and was adopted by the pop culture when folk music legend Judy Collins recorded an a capella version with a men’s choir.

Through the years, the song has become a metaphor for so many forms of grace and can be adapted to each person’s private moment of deliverance. Amazing Grace has been recorded and performed by more artists and  genres than just about any other song.

This live performance, however, by Il Divo, is one of the finest I’ve ever experienced and is a fitting tribute to a hymn written by a man humbled before the power of Grace. I urge you to click the link and experience it as well.

I have only scratched the surface on this remarkable story and song. I encourage everyone to refer to the links included above and below for more information.

NOTE: Some of the links are to youtube videos taken at events, some of which may be emotionally moving. This only serves to illustrate just how comforting and meaningful the song is for those involved.

Gerry Ashley

RINOs Begone!

Zo is at it again. Watch and enjoy.

Right on, Zo!

Stoutcat

New Campaign: Buy a Dem a Dictionary

 

It’s not their fault, they just don’t understand what they’re saying. But you can help, and here’s how! 

First we had the original Conjugator-in-Chief, Bill Clinton, who attempted to weasel his way out of saying he lied under oath by trying to re-define the words he used.

“”It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is. If the–if he–if ‘is’ means is and never has been, that is not–that is one thing. If it means there is none, that was a completely true statement…”

If he’d had a dictionary, he could have looked up the word “is”.

Then we have a whole host of Democrats who claim they didn’t actually understand they voted for authorization for the President (Bush, of course) to attack Iraq…

“…the next section authorizes the president “to use the armed forces of the U.S. as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to (1) defend the national security of the U.S. against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and (2) enforce all relevant UNSC resolutions regarding Iraq.”

“The third section says that if the president decides to exercise the authority granted in the previous section, he must report to Congress no later than 48 hours after exercising that authority.”

… and subsequently claimed that they didn’t realize that’s what they were actually voting for. What part of ‘authorizes the president “to use the armed forces of the U.S. as he determines to be necessary and appropriate’ did they mis-understand?

If they’d had dictionaries, they could have looked up the word “authorization”.

Later, we have another President (Obama, in this case) who doesn’t understand what he meant when he declared that “lobbyists won’t find a job in my White House.” Because, of course, it depends on what the word “lobbyist” means…

Ron Kirk has never been a registered federal lobbyist,” White House spokesman Ben LaBolt told ABC News….”How precisely is it a loophole when we never pledged to bar state lobbyists?” a Democratic official asks.

So, in ObamaLand, “lobbyist” doesn’t always mean “lobbyist“. Sometimes, “lobbyist” means “not a lobbyist at all–look over there at that unicorn!“

If Obama had a dictionary, he could have looked up the word “lobbyist”.

And now, we have the Speaker of the House, who adamantly refuses to admit that she understood that in enhanced interrogations, waterboarding is a technique that was available and could or would be used in certain cases. This in light of the documents recently released that clearly state that she and select others in Congress were briefed on harsh tactics to be used on Abu Zubaydah.

Nancy, there are some pretty good reference books in the Library of Congress…

Do you have friends who are Democrats? If so, please buy them a dictionary and teach them how to use it. It could save them untold embarrassment and perhaps prevent them from using words they don’t understand under oath, in legislation, in campaign promises, in security briefings.

Folks, have a heart. Buy a Dem a dictionary! Don’t wait; do it today. You won’t be sorry–and neither will your Deomcratic friends.

Stoutcat