Michelle Malkin » Public to White House: Move on; Pentagon prepares to release more torture photos

Public to White House: Move on; Pentagon prepares to release more torture photos

By Michelle Malkin • April 24, 2009 09:54 AM

Results from the latest Rasmussen poll show a public more in tune with Dick Cheney than George Soros:

Fifty-eight percent (58%) believe the Obama administration’s recent release of CIA memos about the harsh interrogation methods used on terrorism suspects endangers the national security of the United States. The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 28% believe the release of the memos helps America’s image abroad.

Thirty-seven percent (37%) of voters now believe the U.S. legal system worries too much about protecting individual rights when national security is at stake. But 21% say the legal system is too concerned about protecting national security. Thirty-three percent (33%) say the balance between the two is about right.

This reflects a significant shift over the past couple of years. In several surveys conducted during 2008, Americans were fairly evenly divided as to whether our legal system worried too much about individual rights or too much about protecting national security…

…Forty-six percent (46%) of voters disagree with Obama’s decision to close the prison camp for terrorism suspects at the Guantanamo Naval Base in Cuba, while 36% agree with the president’s action. Support for the decision has fallen since the president announced it in January.

Thus, Obama has backtracked on his openness to a Truth Commission. Another day, another flip-flop.

Nancy Pelosi prevaricates.

But, oh, Chinese Gitmo detainees may be coming to a neighborhood near you!

For the first time since taking office, President Barack Obama will see his Guantanamo policy tested before the US Supreme Court after 14 Chinese Uighurs detained without charge lodged a petition for their release.

The nine justices will decide this summer whether to hear the case that was filed Monday by the men asking the country’s high court to lift a bar imposed on their release by a federal court of appeals.

The 14, members of the predominantly Muslim and Turkic-speaking Uighur minority who were captured in Afghanistan in late 2001, have been cleared of accusations that they were “enemy combatants,” but legal wrangling over their fate continues.

The case has become a major political headache for the Obama administration, which has sought to avoid a major diplomatic bust-up with China at the same time as unpicking detention policies of the preceding administration of president George W. Bush.

Should the court opt to hear the case it could find itself embroiled in the establishment of new rules governing the detention of terror suspects, analysts say…

…The Defense Department and the State Department have tried unsuccessfully for several years to arrange the transfer of the Uighurs to a third country, saying they face the risk of persecution if they return to China.

The Obama administration has said it “cannot imagine” sending the inmates back to China.

Beijing regards the men as “Chinese terrorists.”

Baker Manning said a diplomatic solution could be found “for the vast majority” of Guantanamo detainees, but that the case of the Uighurs is “highly political.”

“China made clear to any country in the world that it would not be in their interest to take these men,” she said. “China has enormous diplomatic pressure on all other countries.”

Should the court reverse the lower court’s February decision and order the Uighurs freed, a US source speaking on the condition of anonymity said there was a possibility that they could be released in the US capital.

“This is now President Obama’s Guantanamo,” said Emi McLean, an attorney at the Center for Constitutional Rights, evoking US courts’ repudiation of Bush’s policy on the “war on terror” detention center three times in recent years.

“If (Obama) is truly committed to closing the detention center, these men should be on a plane to restart their lives in the United States.”

Montana, here they come?

***

Meanwhile, brace for this:

The Pentagon on Thursday agreed to release photos showing the treatment of prisoners in Afghanistan and Iraq, images that the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) says prove that detainee abuse was widespread during the Bush administration.

In a letter to the U.S. District Court Judge Alvin Hellerstein, Acting U.S. Attorney Lev Dassin said the Defense Department will release photos in response to a lawsuit filed by the ACLU in 2004. Officials are processing 44 photos plus “a substantial number of other images,” and will release them on May 28.

The ACLU had made a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to release the photos, and filed the lawsuit when it was denied by the Bush administration. A 2006 court ruling ordered 21 photos of prisoner treatment in Afghanistan and Iraq released, and the U.S. Court of Appeals last September upheld that ruling.

The Pentagon will not appeal the case to the Supreme Court, Dassin said in the letter.

Wonder if Rosa Brooks will be involved.

***

Ed Morrissey on the White House admission that the release of the OLC memos was an explicitly political response to Dick Cheney:

Instead of the headlines being about what the Bush administration sanctioned, they became about Nancy Pelosi’s denial and then non-denial of her knowledge on waterboarding interrogations, the success of the interrogations in preventing an attack, and Obama’s lack of testicular fortitude in sticking with his original position to let sleeping dogs lie. Small wonder that he began backtracking in earnest yesterday when meeting with Congressional leaders.

Now we have confirmation that Obama planned this all along as a political attack against a man who hardly matters on the national political scene any longer – or at least he didn’t until Obama decided to pick a fight with him. Just as with his strange attack on Rush Limbaugh, all it did was elevate his opponent and diminish himself.

Posted in: Gitmo, Torture

Printer Friendly

comments (197)

trackbacks (21)

See what others have said

Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.

Trackbacks

Trackback URL

Comments

« Older Comments

#686750

On April 25th, 2009 at 2:14 pm, fgmorley said:

go for it AZ
#686760

On April 25th, 2009 at 2:23 pm, fgmorley said:

On April 25th, 2009 at 2:11 pm, Ragspierre said:

But, I firmly believe, there are intermediate steps that morally have to be taken by brave people before the fight becomes violent.

And while we are taking intermediate steps for moral reasons the libs/fascists are not bothering with those messy details.

Hey, I’d be willing to see another plan such as yours, whatever that is. But I’ve been watching this sh!t go down for the last 40+ years. It doesn’t look promising, and the end game is getting pretty obvious and obnoxious and noxious.
#686763

On April 25th, 2009 at 2:24 pm, hitcharide said:

LGM said “America is protected by our higher moral values.” That’s about the dumbest thing I’ll probably read today; most of our enemies could care less about our “higher moral values,” and in fact, they COUNT on those “values” since they use them against us. Go speak to the family of Berg or Pearl about how well protected they were and see what response you get. As for the argument about waterboarding, I think I can settle that one as well. If my children are in danger from terrorists, there is no level I would not go to in order to protect them, and you better believe that waterboarding would rank pretty low against other applications I’d try, mainly with a large hammer and rusty barlow knife. I’d also do this for anyone elses children. I must have missed the meeting where the rights of innocent people are worth less than the rights of murdering animals. A lot of crap talk and rhetoric means NOTHING when lives are on the line, and a bunch of whiny liberal hand wringing over the mere possibility of some terrorist getting his feelings hurt doesn’t impress me much. If liberals spent half the time defending America against terrorists, nambla and crooked politicians in obummers cabinet as they do terrorists, I wouldn’t hold them so much in contempt. How stupid can a liberal get; a common street thug who mugs someone doesn’t spend much time worrying about “values,” so a known and well publicized terrorist will? Top that off with the hypocrisy of the liberal who, after being attacked, then expects the conservative to defend him…and then promptly takes sides with the attacker against the conservative! More knife-in-the-back behavior by those who have no “skin in the game” yet are very willing to gamble on someone elses “skin.” Sorry folks, I know lgm’s purpose on here is to aggravate and generally show his a*s, but this is one of those days where I’m just not inclined to suffer fools and idiots.
#686773

On April 25th, 2009 at 2:38 pm, Ragspierre said:

Hey, I’d be willing to see another plan such as yours, whatever that is. But I’ve been watching this sh!t go down for the last 40+ years. It doesn’t look promising, and the end game is getting pretty obvious and obnoxious and noxious.

We agree on all that. I find it very frustrating to read posters here who advocate doing what has been PROVEN not to work, and are so blind they cannot see the structural reasons it CANNOT work.

It is in response to obvious reality that I suggest a change in tactics to try something EFFECTIVE.

Do I KNOW it will work. Of course not.

But I have literally been modeling this idea since about 1992, when I first saw the handwriting on the wall in very clear terms.

Since that time, I put myself through law school, and I gained considerable insight into our tax system on the practical level.

People in the U.S. have been conditioned to be cowed by the IRS. Much…maybe most…of what they fear is myth. That is by design. I KNOW this, from first-hand experience.

Civil disobedience has to have a moral backing. Part of its power comes from the moral object lessons that complacent people see as it plays out.

I think it has to be tried, because if it works, it avoids what you and I both fear…and foresee…befalling our people.

For that reason alone, it is totally worth the risks, which are manageable and can be mitigated, IMNHO.

Watch for this. I only ask that people give it place in their thinking.
#686778

On April 25th, 2009 at 2:46 pm, fgmorley said:

On April 25th, 2009 at 2:24 pm, hitcharide said:

Well said, sir/madam/thoughtful person. I was absent the day that the rules of WAR were taught. I always thought it became a war when the rules of civilization went out the window.

Now we have lawyers deciding if it’s OK to launch a strike against the enemy. WTF???

If we are In a War then aren’t we supposed to WIN it? If not, then I guess I missed that day too.
#686783

On April 25th, 2009 at 2:51 pm, fgmorley said:

On April 25th, 2009 at 2:38 pm, Ragspierre said:

But I have literally been modeling this idea since about 1992, when I first saw the handwriting on the wall in very clear terms.

I realize that you cannot explain your ideas on this blog post, but I would be interested in learning more about them; if only to critique. I’m still not convinced that there is a peaceful solution, although I hope that there is.

So how would I learn more? I understand that there is there is a problem with giving contact info.
#686797

On April 25th, 2009 at 3:08 pm, Ragspierre said:

Thank you for keeping an open mind.

I have to establish a web-site…that is apparent.

Unfortunately, I am challenged in that technology, and have not found anyone to help me. I know I could pay for it, but don’t have the disposable income to do it up right. (It’s a myth that lawyers make a lot of money. Most don’t.)

I have to earn a living, and even posting to this blog is costly in terms of my time.

Watch, though. I have to do this soon, and I’ll make folks aware when it happens.

Thank you again.
#686802

On April 25th, 2009 at 3:17 pm, ArizonaNeanderthal said:

On April 25th, 2009 at 2:14 pm, fgmorley said:

go for it AZ

thank you!

And to the other: yes all too many of us have been “cowed-agreed to-been reasonable” with and by the IRS and a whole alphabet of unconstitutional agencies, acts, bureaucratic regulations and such. Slowly, sometimes faster, they have been dismantling rule of law and the Rights of a Free People.

So here and now we have to say not only STOP but start to roll them back. Reasonable Restrictions on the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, Speech, Assembly and Property Rights have to be rolled back and repealed, the cowards who defend them voted out of office.

When some twit defends these Reasonable Restrictions with “you can’t yell Fire in a crowded theater” thank them for their brilliant insight and ignore the twit. And when they bring up Tim McVeigh ask if they are going to put ALL college graduates on the list–there was a college graduate once who broke a law.

If you are to stay with the Republican Party-at least for the short term- get involved at the precinct and county level. There you CAN and WILL get together with fellow Conservatives to knee cap some RINO ideas and candidates.
Here in Arizona many of us are pretty much going to concentrate on denying John McCain the nomination in his re-election bid for 2010. Two fold: we want to defeat him AND if he does lead the ticket we fear too many Conservatives will stay home and cost us in other races-it has happened before.
#686803

On April 25th, 2009 at 3:18 pm, fgmorley said:

On April 25th, 2009 at 3:08 pm, Ragspierre said:

Unfortunately, I am challenged in that technology, and have not found anyone to help me. I know I could pay for it, but don’t have the disposable income to do it up right. (It’s a myth that lawyers make a lot of money. Most don’t.)

I commiserate on your lack of web expertise. I am in the same boat. Good luck, fight the good fight. I would imagine in your profession it gets pretty effed up on a daily basis, dealing with the all the left-wing commie mofos that think they are saving the world, one war-crime at a time, or whatever they are into.
#686816

On April 25th, 2009 at 3:31 pm, Ragspierre said:

fg…

When I went to law school, I also took a joint MBA program. I’d been in business, and wanted to get my ticket punched for all I’d learned and all the self-study I’d done.

It had the collateral benefit of keeping me sane (saner…?), as law schools are pure socialist indoctrination camps, utterly detached from reality as it exists. Obama is a typical law school professor.

I have a piece on that subject at http://rags.blogtownhall.com/

I was active in The Federalist Society, which helped, as well.
#686817

On April 25th, 2009 at 3:32 pm, fgmorley said:

On April 25th, 2009 at 3:17 pm, ArizonaNeanderthal said:

When some twit defends these Reasonable Restrictions with “you can’t yell Fire in a crowded theater” thank them for their brilliant insight and ignore the twit. And when they bring up Tim McVeigh ask if they are going to put ALL college graduates on the list–there was a college graduate once who broke a law.

Hey, don’t give them any more ideas. I hope you can make a dent there in AZ. I was wondering whether Goldwater was defeated after the ‘64 election. I don’t think so. This would put egg on McCain’s face, and that’s not a really bad thing.

In fact, I’m all for throwing the bastards out, no matter who or what party. It hasn’t been any particular party affiliation that has been the source of the problems for us. It’s been the entrenched against us, who are in the trenches.

Of course I’m a raging right-wing fanatic.
#686825

On April 25th, 2009 at 3:36 pm, Ragspierre said:

Here in Arizona many of us are pretty much going to concentrate on denying John McCain the nomination in his re-election bid for 2010.

I wish you well, even as I doubt you can. McAnus’s Incumbent Protection Act (McCain-Feingold) is one of those structural reasons I keep referring to that will defeat people’s attempts to make any real difference in DC.

I support your effort, though, and may send money to his opposition.
#686835

On April 25th, 2009 at 3:46 pm, fgmorley said:

To Ragspierre:

Got to leave now. Been interesting and enlightening. Will read your blog link and get back at you. Looks as if you have some blogosphere presence as it stands.

Later…
#687188

On April 26th, 2009 at 11:40 am, jsmiddleton4 said:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30415470/

Ah, the left’s campaign in full swing now. The current framing is no longer that it wasn’t effective, it is that the effectiveness is “unclear”.

The only thing unclear would have been the air in where LA used to exist if the effectiveness of the interogation methods were unclear…..
#687555

On April 27th, 2009 at 8:40 am, Ragspierre said:

http://townhall.com/columnists/MichaelBarone/2009/04/27/the_lefts_angry_mob_recalls_madame_defarge

A fine piece by Barone, who reminds us of things THE ONE has said that left open his techniques for getting information…