This is the ONE THING that we don't want to happen
Is the US Dollar Heading for a Mighty Crash?
The Dollar Is Set To Fall FurtherOther PERTINENT stuff:
Towns Rethink Self-Reliance as Finances Worsen - Towns dis-incorporating to address financial concerns? Wow.
Early retirement claims increase dramaticallyThis hasn't been reported by any mainstream media outlet:
Marty Weiss: Memorial Day Disaster--Foreigners Dumping Dollar Assets, Stocks & BondsTAKE THIS CHALLENGE - PRINT THIS ARTICLE AND STICK IT ON YOUR REFRIGERATOR. SEE IF IT COMES TO PASS BY DEC. '09. WRITE DOWN WHAT THE DOW IS TODAY ON THE ARTICLE. COME DECEMBER, YOU'LL KNOW WHO YOU SHOULDN'T BE LISTENING TO!!! Only a few economists actually predicted this recession/depression to begin with.
Survey: Most Economists See Recession End in '09
Sunday, May 31, 2009
WHat is going on
I'm sitting here thinking........."Would I bet against him?" Hmmmm.When this bubble blows -- it's over – HoweStreet
Fox Video: 3 mins- The 2012 Economic Apocalypse
Fox Video: 3 mins- The 2012 Economic Apocalypse
Thursday, May 21, 2009
This is Serious
To those of you who are single or married, saved or not saved, this is for you. I am a 35-year-old African American or Black brother dying of Aids. I would like to share my testimony with you. I am an owner of a Mortgage Company in Atlanta , GA. I own a 2007 Jaguar and I also own a $350,000 beautiful home in Cobb County . I have a beautiful Lady who is deeply in love with me and a loving family. But most important, I have Jesus, this is just a wake up call to all single brothers and sisters who are professing to be Christians, but don't want to be complete. Brothers, I had a beautiful young lady who loves the Lord and worships the ground I walk on. But I still wasn't quite happy because sometimes I would see another sister with a Coca-Cola bottle shape and just wanted to hit it. Because I was using a condom, I thought that I wouldn't catch the killer 'AIDS' but guess what? I did. And the person I caught it from was a girl that I knew well. But the condom came off and now I am dying of AIDS. Yes, I wore a condom. But yes it did happen. God gives us time after time to straighten our lives up. I do know the Lord in the pardon of my sins. I've been saved now for 7 years. I found out 7 months ago that I had the virus, and now I have full-blown Aids. I really didn't think that I was doing anything wrong, because I would t ell the women who I would deal with about the woman I love. I thought that was good enough. But it wasn't. I am a good man and also a God-fearing man; but my weakness was women... I really wasn't out there like you may think I was, but every once and a while I would see something I wanted to try. My girlfriend is a praying woman. I know now that she was intimate with me becaus e she loved me and she wanted to make me happy. Now I've given AIDS to the woman I love (who has been faithful to me) because of lust. Brothers and sisters, what I am telling you is that God is tired of us hurting each other and using each other for self-gratification. God has given me my home, my dream car and a beautiful woman and I took it all for granted. I've been tithing for 7 years. I am the chairman of my Deacon Board. But when I told my Pastor I had AIDS, he could not believe it because of the way I would carry myself. Brothers, If you have a sister who loves the Lord and who loves you for who you are and not for what you look like and not for what you have, cherish her. Sisters. If you have a brother who loves the Lord, love him and cherish him. My life has been altered. I've been with my lady since I was 20, and I've always used my young age as an excuse for not being loyal and not settling down with the woman I loved. I was being a hypocrite thinking that I was missing something, and not realizing that I had a good woman who loved and adored me. I wish I had been a real man and had appreciated the good woman God had sent me by not maki ng excuses and dedicating my life to her. I would love to travel and marry this beautiful young Lady, but now I can't. I've embarrassed my family, my church and my friends. But I was hardheaded and now I must suffer. God is cleaning up. Stop playing with God. God is revealing the secrets of us Christians. Brothers and sisters, we don't have to have so many 'friends,' you know what we call them. The ones we are planning to sleep with but haven't yet.' We often say that we don't want anyone to know our business, but God is about to reveal somethings. Especially to us young people. We think so carnal. But we say that we have been transformed. We have been transformed from what we want to be transformed from. Let's be real. God knows that the opposite sex attracts us. And he knows the de sires we have for each other, but we don't have to have multiple partners. If I could do it all over again, I would marry the woman I love and live happy forever. But now I can't! But you can! Singles...I gotta tell you, it's not worth it. I love you all Get rid of casual sex. This is really deep. After you've read this, think about yourself. Could this have been you? Some of you may not relate, but think about anything you are doing right now that is not of God. We are living in the last and final days, and pretending to be saved is not going to cut it. Professing that He is Lord, and yet worshipping the devil every chance you get will lead you to the same path as me. Get your mind out of the gutter and put it in the Word of God and you'll have great success. Don't and you'll have great woe. I love the LORD and thank Him for all that He does in my life; therefore, I'm passing this on. Yes, I do love Je sus who has forgiven me of the repeated sins. That forgiveness does not cancel out the consequences, at least not so far. But that's o n me. Still, the Lord is my source of existence and Savior. He keeps me functioning each day and is letting me share my story with you. I'm telling it like it is THIS REALLY is to help somebody. Without Him, I will be nothing. Without Him, I am nothing but with Him I can do all things. Phil 4:13 If you love Jesus, send this to lots of people!!!!!!Be Positive - Be Progressive...Take the time to make a positive difference in someone's life.
Minister Anthony J. Cox God Bless
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
Father: Army 'broke' soldier accused of killing 5
SHERMAN, Texas – The father of a U.S. soldier accused of killing five fellow troops in Iraq said his son "forfeited his life" but the military bears some responsibility for the rampage.
Wilburn Russell said Tuesday that 44-year-old Army Sgt. John M. Russell wasn't typically a violent person, but counselors "broke" him before gunfire erupted in a military stress center Monday in Baghdad.
"John has forfeited his life. Apparently, he said (to his wife), 'My life is over. To hell with it. I'm going to get even with 'em,'" said the elder Russell, 73.
His father said the younger Russell, an electronics technician, was at the stress center to transfer out of active duty. He said his son was undergoing stressful mental tests that he didn't understand were merely tests, "so they broke him."
"I hate what that boy did," said the elder Russell, speaking in front of the two-story house his son was buying with his German wife in a new subdivision. "We're sorry for the families, too. It shouldn't have happened."
Excerpts of his military record, obtained by The Associated Press, show Sgt. Russell previously did two one-year tours of duty in Iraq, one starting in April 2003 and another in November 2005. The stress of repeat and extended tours is considered a main contributor to mental health problems among troops serving in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Sgt. Russell, who is facing charges of murder and aggravated assault, was about six weeks from the end of his third tour of duty in Iraq, his father said. Wilburn Russell said his son e-mailed his wife in Germany early this month, telling her officers threatened him during what he called the two worst days of his life.
"His life was over as far as he was concerned," said the elder Russell, who didn't know whether his son was being disciplined or facing a discharge. "He loved the military."
The soldier's son, John M. Russell II, said he has communicated with his father by e-mail regularly. In the last message he received — April 25, the day after his 20th birthday — the younger Russell said his father sounded normal and planned to be back in Texas to visit in July.
"He's not a violent person," the son said. "He's just a loving, caring guy. He doesn't like to see anyone get hurt. For this to happen, it had to be something going on that the Army's not telling us about."
Sgt. Russell grew up in a rural, unincorporated area of Grayson County and graduated from Tom Bean High School in 1985. Records show he entered the Army National Guard in 1988 and served in the Guard until 1994, when he became an active duty soldier. His military record shows Russell served in Serbia through the last half of 1996 and Bosnia and Herzegovina in the last half of 1998.
He lives with his wife in Germany, where he's been for most of the past 10 to 15 years, but comes home a couple times a year, his father said.
The elder Russell said his son went active-duty after working various maintenance jobs around Sherman, a town of about 35,000 located about 60 miles north of Dallas. He'd also had a divorce and a few minor criminal scrapes in his hometown before enlisting.
When Russell's ex-wife sued for divorce in 1991, she obtained a temporary restraining order against him and an order withholding earnings for child support.
In an affidavit attached to the divorce petition, Denise Russell said her husband had committed "acts of family violence" and should be barred from coming within 200 yards of her or their son, then 2 years old. The document specifically cited an incident in which John Russell allegedly took the child after a confrontation with Denise Russell's mother.
"During this time, respondent physically attacked my mother, age 58, hitting her on the shoulders and about the head," the affidavit stated.
A call and visit to Russell's ex-wife weren't answered Tuesday.
In 1993, a month after the divorce decree was issued, Russell was charged with misdemeanor assault by threats, Grayson County online records show. The matter was later dropped.
Jack McGowen, listed as Russell's attorney for the divorce as well as the threat case, said Tuesday he couldn't recall either matter.
___
Associated Press Writers Danny Robbins and Jeff Carlton in Dallas, Pauline Jelinek in Washington and AP researcher Rhonda Shafner contributed to this report.
Wilburn Russell said Tuesday that 44-year-old Army Sgt. John M. Russell wasn't typically a violent person, but counselors "broke" him before gunfire erupted in a military stress center Monday in Baghdad.
"John has forfeited his life. Apparently, he said (to his wife), 'My life is over. To hell with it. I'm going to get even with 'em,'" said the elder Russell, 73.
His father said the younger Russell, an electronics technician, was at the stress center to transfer out of active duty. He said his son was undergoing stressful mental tests that he didn't understand were merely tests, "so they broke him."
"I hate what that boy did," said the elder Russell, speaking in front of the two-story house his son was buying with his German wife in a new subdivision. "We're sorry for the families, too. It shouldn't have happened."
Excerpts of his military record, obtained by The Associated Press, show Sgt. Russell previously did two one-year tours of duty in Iraq, one starting in April 2003 and another in November 2005. The stress of repeat and extended tours is considered a main contributor to mental health problems among troops serving in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Sgt. Russell, who is facing charges of murder and aggravated assault, was about six weeks from the end of his third tour of duty in Iraq, his father said. Wilburn Russell said his son e-mailed his wife in Germany early this month, telling her officers threatened him during what he called the two worst days of his life.
"His life was over as far as he was concerned," said the elder Russell, who didn't know whether his son was being disciplined or facing a discharge. "He loved the military."
The soldier's son, John M. Russell II, said he has communicated with his father by e-mail regularly. In the last message he received — April 25, the day after his 20th birthday — the younger Russell said his father sounded normal and planned to be back in Texas to visit in July.
"He's not a violent person," the son said. "He's just a loving, caring guy. He doesn't like to see anyone get hurt. For this to happen, it had to be something going on that the Army's not telling us about."
Sgt. Russell grew up in a rural, unincorporated area of Grayson County and graduated from Tom Bean High School in 1985. Records show he entered the Army National Guard in 1988 and served in the Guard until 1994, when he became an active duty soldier. His military record shows Russell served in Serbia through the last half of 1996 and Bosnia and Herzegovina in the last half of 1998.
He lives with his wife in Germany, where he's been for most of the past 10 to 15 years, but comes home a couple times a year, his father said.
The elder Russell said his son went active-duty after working various maintenance jobs around Sherman, a town of about 35,000 located about 60 miles north of Dallas. He'd also had a divorce and a few minor criminal scrapes in his hometown before enlisting.
When Russell's ex-wife sued for divorce in 1991, she obtained a temporary restraining order against him and an order withholding earnings for child support.
In an affidavit attached to the divorce petition, Denise Russell said her husband had committed "acts of family violence" and should be barred from coming within 200 yards of her or their son, then 2 years old. The document specifically cited an incident in which John Russell allegedly took the child after a confrontation with Denise Russell's mother.
"During this time, respondent physically attacked my mother, age 58, hitting her on the shoulders and about the head," the affidavit stated.
A call and visit to Russell's ex-wife weren't answered Tuesday.
In 1993, a month after the divorce decree was issued, Russell was charged with misdemeanor assault by threats, Grayson County online records show. The matter was later dropped.
Jack McGowen, listed as Russell's attorney for the divorce as well as the threat case, said Tuesday he couldn't recall either matter.
___
Associated Press Writers Danny Robbins and Jeff Carlton in Dallas, Pauline Jelinek in Washington and AP researcher Rhonda Shafner contributed to this report.
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
Chris Harper
U.S. deficit to be $1.8 trillion – AP - If you are.......I'm not so sure I'd be ignoring this much longer if I were you.
Part 3 of a Jim Rogers interview - says he likes Silver best of all metals right now.
Global Financial & Economic Crisis: How Much Time Do We Have Left? "The US-Dollar has been technically hyper inflated, even though no one is saying "the king is nude!!"... Not yet, anyway..."
Imminent Global Stock Market Crash to Support US Dollar - QUOTE: "Stock market rallies aimed at sucking in sheople-dupes based on bogus hedonic financial statistics, fairytale financial statements, fascistic injections of monopoly money into the economy and false Goldilocks news spin will continue on as a source of insider trading profits and as a ready source of capital to boost the dying dollar."
The Clock is Ticking on the US Dollar and Bond Markets - QUOTE: "There is no means of avoiding the final collapse of a boom brought about by credit expansion. The alternative is only whether the crisis should come sooner as a result of a voluntary abandonment of further credit expansion, or later as a final and total catastrophe of the currency system involved."
Nothing suggests we're anywhere near the bottom
Desperate Baby Boomers Return to Work - This has to be the lowest point of these people's lives.
Peter Schiff: Don't Be Fooled By Inflation
Short Sales: Banks Block Way Out of Foreclosure Crisis
Experts Say GM Bankruptcy is Almost Inevitable - This reminds me of someone who doesn't want to call a code.
Real Estate Crash Shifting to Commercial Properties
Part 3 of a Jim Rogers interview - says he likes Silver best of all metals right now.
Global Financial & Economic Crisis: How Much Time Do We Have Left? "The US-Dollar has been technically hyper inflated, even though no one is saying "the king is nude!!"... Not yet, anyway..."
Imminent Global Stock Market Crash to Support US Dollar - QUOTE: "Stock market rallies aimed at sucking in sheople-dupes based on bogus hedonic financial statistics, fairytale financial statements, fascistic injections of monopoly money into the economy and false Goldilocks news spin will continue on as a source of insider trading profits and as a ready source of capital to boost the dying dollar."
The Clock is Ticking on the US Dollar and Bond Markets - QUOTE: "There is no means of avoiding the final collapse of a boom brought about by credit expansion. The alternative is only whether the crisis should come sooner as a result of a voluntary abandonment of further credit expansion, or later as a final and total catastrophe of the currency system involved."
Nothing suggests we're anywhere near the bottom
Desperate Baby Boomers Return to Work - This has to be the lowest point of these people's lives.
Peter Schiff: Don't Be Fooled By Inflation
Short Sales: Banks Block Way Out of Foreclosure Crisis
Experts Say GM Bankruptcy is Almost Inevitable - This reminds me of someone who doesn't want to call a code.
Real Estate Crash Shifting to Commercial Properties
Monday, May 11, 2009
Bloomberg
MARC FABER Forecast Part I
MARC FABER Forecast Part II
401(k)s Hit By Withdrawal Freezes
Global Crisis "Vastly Worse" Than 1930's, Taleb Says "The global economy is facing “big deflation,” though the risks of inflation are also increasing as governments print more money, Taleb told the conference organized by Bank of America- Merrill Lynch. Gold and copper may “rally massively” as a result, he added."
Obamarket Update #74: You Want Stress? I'll Show You Stress
Bond Market: Why You Should Be Worried " ...the last thing we need right now is a collapse in the bond market. Unfortunately, it could be just around the corner..."
Boomers' Retirement Bummer
Small Business: Economic Recovery? What Recovery?
State Budget Gaps Widen as Revenues Fall
Mike Whitney: Economy On The Ropes
Rural Town Feel Downturn's Ripple Effects as Jobs Vanish in Northern Virginia
States Resort to Furloughs as Need for Services Increase
Bankrupt Banks
What's Up With These Numbers? Pakistan prez won't tell U.S. where nukes are'We have a right to our own sovereignty'
MARC FABER Forecast Part II
401(k)s Hit By Withdrawal Freezes
Global Crisis "Vastly Worse" Than 1930's, Taleb Says "The global economy is facing “big deflation,” though the risks of inflation are also increasing as governments print more money, Taleb told the conference organized by Bank of America- Merrill Lynch. Gold and copper may “rally massively” as a result, he added."
Obamarket Update #74: You Want Stress? I'll Show You Stress
Bond Market: Why You Should Be Worried " ...the last thing we need right now is a collapse in the bond market. Unfortunately, it could be just around the corner..."
Boomers' Retirement Bummer
Small Business: Economic Recovery? What Recovery?
State Budget Gaps Widen as Revenues Fall
Mike Whitney: Economy On The Ropes
Rural Town Feel Downturn's Ripple Effects as Jobs Vanish in Northern Virginia
States Resort to Furloughs as Need for Services Increase
Bankrupt Banks
What's Up With These Numbers? Pakistan prez won't tell U.S. where nukes are'We have a right to our own sovereignty'
Friday, May 1, 2009
Most Read
An official letter to the Attorney General of the United States
Andrew C. McCarthy
May 1, 2009
By email (to the Counterterrorism Division) and by regular mail:
The Honorable Eric H. Holder, Jr.
Attorney General of the United States
United States Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C. 20530-0001
Dear Attorney General Holder:
This letter is respectfully submitted to inform you that I must decline the invitation to participate in the May 4 roundtable meeting the President’s Task Force on Detention Policy is convening with current and former prosecutors involved in international terrorism cases. An invitation was extended to me by trial lawyers from the Counterterrorism Section, who are members of the Task Force, which you are leading.
The invitation email (of April 14) indicates that the meeting is part of an ongoing effort to identify lawful policies on the detention and disposition of alien enemy combatants—or what the Department now calls “individuals captured or apprehended in connection with armed conflicts and counterterrorism operations.” I admire the lawyers of the Counterterrorism Division, and I do not question their good faith. Nevertheless, it is quite clear—most recently, from your provocative remarks on Wednesday in Germany—that the Obama administration has already settled on a policy of releasing trained jihadists (including releasing some of them into the United States). Whatever the good intentions of the organizers, the meeting will obviously be used by the administration to claim that its policy was arrived at in consultation with current and former government officials experienced in terrorism cases and national security issues. I deeply disagree with this policy, which I believe is a violation of federal law and a betrayal of the president’s first obligation to protect the American people. Under the circumstances, I think the better course is to register my dissent, rather than be used as a prop.Moreover, in light of public statements by both you and the President, it is dismayingly clear that, under your leadership, the Justice Department takes the position that a lawyer who in good faith offers legal advice to government policy makers—like the government lawyers who offered good faith advice on interrogation policy—may be subject to investigation and prosecution for the content of that advice, in addition to empty but professionally damaging accusations of ethical misconduct.
Given that stance, any prudent lawyer would have to hesitate before offering advice to the government. Beyond that, as elucidated in my writing (including my proposal for a new national security court, which I understand the Task Force has perused), I believe alien enemy combatants should be detained at Guantanamo Bay (or a facility like it) until the conclusion of hostilities. This national defense measure is deeply rooted in the venerable laws of war and was reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in the 2004 Hamdi case. Yet, as recently as Wednesday, you asserted that, in your considered judgment, such notions violate America’s “commitment to the rule of law.” Indeed, you elaborated, “Nothing symbolizes our [adminstration’s] new course more than our decision to close the prison at Guantanamo Bay…. President Obama believes, and I strongly agree, that Guantanamo has come to represent a time and an approach that we want to put behind us: a disregard for our centuries-long respect for the rule of law[.]” (Emphasis added.)Given your policy of conducting ruinous criminal and ethics investigations of lawyers over the advice they offer the government, and your specific position that the wartime detention I would endorse is tantamount to a violation of law, it makes little sense for me to attend the
Task Force meeting. After all, my choice would be to remain silent or risk jeopardizing myself.For what it may be worth, I will say this much. For eight years, we have had a robust debate in the United States about how to handle alien terrorists captured during a defensive war authorized by Congress after nearly 3000 of our fellow Americans were annihilated. Essentially, there have been two camps. One calls for prosecution in the civilian criminal justice system, the strategy used throughout the 1990s. The other calls for a military justice approach of combatant detention and war-crimes prosecutions by military commission. Because each theory has its downsides, many commentators, myself included, have proposed a third way: a hybrid system, designed for the realities of modern international terrorism—a new system that would address the needs to protect our classified defense secrets and to assure Americans, as well as our allies, that we are detaining the right people. There are differences in these various proposals. But their proponents, and adherents to both the military and civilian justice approaches, have all agreed on at least one thing: Foreign terrorists trained to execute mass-murder attacks cannot simply be released while the war ensues and Americans are still being targeted. We have already released too many jihadists who, as night follows day, have resumed plotting to kill Americans. Indeed, according to recent reports, a released Guantanamo detainee is now leading Taliban combat operations in Afghanistan, where President Obama has just sent additional American forces.The Obama campaign smeared Guantanamo Bay as a human rights blight. Consistent with that hyperbolic rhetoric, the President began his administration by promising to close the detention camp within a year. The President did this even though he and you (a) agree Gitmo is a top-flight prison facility, (b) acknowledge that our nation is still at war, and (c) concede that many Gitmo detainees are extremely dangerous terrorists who cannot be tried under civilian court rules. Patently, the commitment to close Guantanamo Bay within a year was made without a plan for what to do with these detainees who cannot be tried. Consequently, the Detention Policy Task Force is not an effort to arrive at the best policy. It is an effort to justify a bad policy that has already been adopted: to wit, the Obama administration policy to release trained terrorists outright if that’s what it takes to close Gitmo by January.Obviously, I am powerless to stop the administration from releasing top al Qaeda operatives who planned mass-murder attacks against American cities—like Binyam Mohammed (the accomplice of “Dirty Bomber” Jose Padilla) whom the administration recently transferred to Britain, where he is now at liberty and living on public assistance. I am similarly powerless to stop the administration from admitting into the United States such alien jihadists as the 17 remaining Uighur detainees. According to National Intelligence Director Dennis Blair, the Uighurs will apparently live freely, on American taxpayer assistance, despite the facts that they are affiliated with a terrorist organization and have received terrorist paramilitary training. Under federal immigration law (the 2005 REAL ID Act), those facts render them excludable from the United States. The Uighurs’ impending release is thus a remarkable development given the Obama administration’s propensity to deride its predecessor’s purported insensitivity to the rule of law.
I am, in addition, powerless to stop the President, as he takes these reckless steps, from touting his Detention Policy Task Force as a demonstration of his national security seriousness. But I can decline to participate in the charade. Finally, let me repeat that I respect and admire the dedication of Justice Department lawyers, whom I have tirelessly defended since I retired in 2003 as a chief assistant U.S. attorney in the Southern District of New York. It was a unique honor to serve for nearly twenty years as a federal prosecutor, under administrations of both parties. It was as proud a day as I have ever had when the trial team I led was awarded the Attorney General’s Exceptional Service Award in 1996, after we secured the convictions of Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman and his underlings for waging a terrorist war against the United States. I particularly appreciated receiving the award from Attorney General Reno—as I recounted in Willful Blindness, my book about the case, without her steadfastness against opposition from short-sighted government officials who wanted to release him, the “blind sheikh” would never have been indicted, much less convicted and so deservedly sentenced to life-imprisonment. In any event, I’ve always believed defending our nation is a duty of citizenship, not ideology. Thus, my conservative political views aside, I’ve made myself available to liberal and conservative groups, to Democrats and Republicans, who’ve thought tapping my experience, would be beneficial. It pains me to decline your invitation, but the attendant circumstances leave no other option.
Very truly yours,
/S/
Andrew C. McCarthy
cc: Sylvia T. Kaser and John DePue
National Security Division,
Counterterrorism Section
Andrew C. McCarthy
May 1, 2009
By email (to the Counterterrorism Division) and by regular mail:
The Honorable Eric H. Holder, Jr.
Attorney General of the United States
United States Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C. 20530-0001
Dear Attorney General Holder:
This letter is respectfully submitted to inform you that I must decline the invitation to participate in the May 4 roundtable meeting the President’s Task Force on Detention Policy is convening with current and former prosecutors involved in international terrorism cases. An invitation was extended to me by trial lawyers from the Counterterrorism Section, who are members of the Task Force, which you are leading.
The invitation email (of April 14) indicates that the meeting is part of an ongoing effort to identify lawful policies on the detention and disposition of alien enemy combatants—or what the Department now calls “individuals captured or apprehended in connection with armed conflicts and counterterrorism operations.” I admire the lawyers of the Counterterrorism Division, and I do not question their good faith. Nevertheless, it is quite clear—most recently, from your provocative remarks on Wednesday in Germany—that the Obama administration has already settled on a policy of releasing trained jihadists (including releasing some of them into the United States). Whatever the good intentions of the organizers, the meeting will obviously be used by the administration to claim that its policy was arrived at in consultation with current and former government officials experienced in terrorism cases and national security issues. I deeply disagree with this policy, which I believe is a violation of federal law and a betrayal of the president’s first obligation to protect the American people. Under the circumstances, I think the better course is to register my dissent, rather than be used as a prop.Moreover, in light of public statements by both you and the President, it is dismayingly clear that, under your leadership, the Justice Department takes the position that a lawyer who in good faith offers legal advice to government policy makers—like the government lawyers who offered good faith advice on interrogation policy—may be subject to investigation and prosecution for the content of that advice, in addition to empty but professionally damaging accusations of ethical misconduct.
Given that stance, any prudent lawyer would have to hesitate before offering advice to the government. Beyond that, as elucidated in my writing (including my proposal for a new national security court, which I understand the Task Force has perused), I believe alien enemy combatants should be detained at Guantanamo Bay (or a facility like it) until the conclusion of hostilities. This national defense measure is deeply rooted in the venerable laws of war and was reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in the 2004 Hamdi case. Yet, as recently as Wednesday, you asserted that, in your considered judgment, such notions violate America’s “commitment to the rule of law.” Indeed, you elaborated, “Nothing symbolizes our [adminstration’s] new course more than our decision to close the prison at Guantanamo Bay…. President Obama believes, and I strongly agree, that Guantanamo has come to represent a time and an approach that we want to put behind us: a disregard for our centuries-long respect for the rule of law[.]” (Emphasis added.)Given your policy of conducting ruinous criminal and ethics investigations of lawyers over the advice they offer the government, and your specific position that the wartime detention I would endorse is tantamount to a violation of law, it makes little sense for me to attend the
Task Force meeting. After all, my choice would be to remain silent or risk jeopardizing myself.For what it may be worth, I will say this much. For eight years, we have had a robust debate in the United States about how to handle alien terrorists captured during a defensive war authorized by Congress after nearly 3000 of our fellow Americans were annihilated. Essentially, there have been two camps. One calls for prosecution in the civilian criminal justice system, the strategy used throughout the 1990s. The other calls for a military justice approach of combatant detention and war-crimes prosecutions by military commission. Because each theory has its downsides, many commentators, myself included, have proposed a third way: a hybrid system, designed for the realities of modern international terrorism—a new system that would address the needs to protect our classified defense secrets and to assure Americans, as well as our allies, that we are detaining the right people. There are differences in these various proposals. But their proponents, and adherents to both the military and civilian justice approaches, have all agreed on at least one thing: Foreign terrorists trained to execute mass-murder attacks cannot simply be released while the war ensues and Americans are still being targeted. We have already released too many jihadists who, as night follows day, have resumed plotting to kill Americans. Indeed, according to recent reports, a released Guantanamo detainee is now leading Taliban combat operations in Afghanistan, where President Obama has just sent additional American forces.The Obama campaign smeared Guantanamo Bay as a human rights blight. Consistent with that hyperbolic rhetoric, the President began his administration by promising to close the detention camp within a year. The President did this even though he and you (a) agree Gitmo is a top-flight prison facility, (b) acknowledge that our nation is still at war, and (c) concede that many Gitmo detainees are extremely dangerous terrorists who cannot be tried under civilian court rules. Patently, the commitment to close Guantanamo Bay within a year was made without a plan for what to do with these detainees who cannot be tried. Consequently, the Detention Policy Task Force is not an effort to arrive at the best policy. It is an effort to justify a bad policy that has already been adopted: to wit, the Obama administration policy to release trained terrorists outright if that’s what it takes to close Gitmo by January.Obviously, I am powerless to stop the administration from releasing top al Qaeda operatives who planned mass-murder attacks against American cities—like Binyam Mohammed (the accomplice of “Dirty Bomber” Jose Padilla) whom the administration recently transferred to Britain, where he is now at liberty and living on public assistance. I am similarly powerless to stop the administration from admitting into the United States such alien jihadists as the 17 remaining Uighur detainees. According to National Intelligence Director Dennis Blair, the Uighurs will apparently live freely, on American taxpayer assistance, despite the facts that they are affiliated with a terrorist organization and have received terrorist paramilitary training. Under federal immigration law (the 2005 REAL ID Act), those facts render them excludable from the United States. The Uighurs’ impending release is thus a remarkable development given the Obama administration’s propensity to deride its predecessor’s purported insensitivity to the rule of law.
I am, in addition, powerless to stop the President, as he takes these reckless steps, from touting his Detention Policy Task Force as a demonstration of his national security seriousness. But I can decline to participate in the charade. Finally, let me repeat that I respect and admire the dedication of Justice Department lawyers, whom I have tirelessly defended since I retired in 2003 as a chief assistant U.S. attorney in the Southern District of New York. It was a unique honor to serve for nearly twenty years as a federal prosecutor, under administrations of both parties. It was as proud a day as I have ever had when the trial team I led was awarded the Attorney General’s Exceptional Service Award in 1996, after we secured the convictions of Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman and his underlings for waging a terrorist war against the United States. I particularly appreciated receiving the award from Attorney General Reno—as I recounted in Willful Blindness, my book about the case, without her steadfastness against opposition from short-sighted government officials who wanted to release him, the “blind sheikh” would never have been indicted, much less convicted and so deservedly sentenced to life-imprisonment. In any event, I’ve always believed defending our nation is a duty of citizenship, not ideology. Thus, my conservative political views aside, I’ve made myself available to liberal and conservative groups, to Democrats and Republicans, who’ve thought tapping my experience, would be beneficial. It pains me to decline your invitation, but the attendant circumstances leave no other option.
Very truly yours,
/S/
Andrew C. McCarthy
cc: Sylvia T. Kaser and John DePue
National Security Division,
Counterterrorism Section
Misconceptions About The Interrogation Memos
By: Williams McSwain
Their goal was to allow the CIA and military to stay within the parameters of a murky area of the law.
President Barack Obama has reinvigorated the critics of George W. Bush's antiterrorism policies by opening the door to prosecuting or sanctioning those who crafted interrogation policy in the aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. These critics -- including the president -- are laboring under numerous misconceptions. Many of them have no experience with or understanding of military or CIA interrogation, the purpose of which is to gain actionable intelligence to safeguard our country. The recently released memos by lawyers in the Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel were written to assist interrogators in that critical mission. The memos cannot be fairly evaluated without that mission in mind.
Military and CIA interrogators are trained to use creative means of deception, and to play on detainee emotions and fears. This can be a nasty business. People unfamiliar with it, therefore, might even view a perfectly legitimate interrogation of a prisoner of war that is in full compliance with the Geneva Conventions as abhorrent by its very nature.
But military interrogation is not akin to a friendly chat across a conference table -- nor is it designed to gather evidence in a criminal trial, as an FBI interview might be. There is a fundamental distinction between law enforcement and military interrogations that we ignore at our peril.
Second-guessers can also fail to appreciate the increased importance of interrogation (and human intelligence in general) in the post 9/11 world. We face an enemy that wears no uniform, blends in with civilian populations, and operates in the shadows. This has made eliciting information from captured terrorists vital to the effort of finding other terrorists. As interrogation has become more important, drawing out useful information has become more difficult -- because hardened terrorists are often trained to resist traditional U.S. interrogation methods.
Fortunately, aggressive interrogation techniques like those outlined in the memos to the CIA are effective. As the memos explain, high-value detainees like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM), the mastermind of 9/11, and Abu Zubaydah, one of Osama bin Laden's key lieutenants, provided no actionable intelligence when facing traditional U.S. methods. It is doubtful that any high-level al Qaeda operative would ever provide useful intelligence in response to traditional methods.
Yet KSM and Zubaydah provided critical information after being waterboarded -- information that, among other things, helped to prevent a "Second Wave" attack in Los Angeles, according to the memos. Similarly, the 2005 report by Vice Adm. Albert Church on Defense Department interrogation policies, the "Church Report" -- of which I served as the executive editor -- documented the success of aggressive techniques against high-value detainees like Mohamed al Kahtani, 9/11's "20th hijacker."
The aggressive techniques in the CIA memos are also undeniably safe, having been adopted from Survival, Evasion, Resistance, Escape (SERE) training used with our own troops.
I have personally been waterboarded, put into stress positions, sleep deprived, slapped in the face. While none of this was enjoyable, I am none the worse for wear.
While such techniques are used in U.S. military training, some apparently consider them too brutal, too abusive, too inhumane -- in short, too much like "torture" -- to be used on fanatics like KSM who are bent on the mass murder of innocent American civilians. And if legal advisers such as Steven G. Bradbury, Jay S. Bybee and John Yoo are to be prosecuted for having sanctioned their use under careful controls, who's next? Every commander who ever implemented a SERE course?
Many critics also play the Abu Ghraib "trump card": The abuses of prisoners at that facility in Iraq allegedly "prove" the Bush administration's supposed policy of abuse, first codified in its legal memos. This ignores all relevant evidence.
As the Church Report concluded, after a thorough review of all Defense Department interrogation policies, the pictured abuses at Abu Ghraib bore no resemblance to approved policies at any level, in any theater. The 2004 Independent Panel to Review Department of Defense Detention Operations -- whose four members included two former secretaries of defense under President Jimmy Carter -- also stated that "no approved procedures called for or allowed the kinds of abuse that in fact occurred. There is no evidence of a policy of abuse promulgated by senior officials or military authorities."
Similarly, the critics like to default to Guantanamo as a symbol of the kind of abuse that Mr. Bush's antiterror policies allowed. Yet, at the time of the Church Report, there had been more than 24,000 interrogation sessions at Guantanamo and only three cases of substantiated interrogation-related abuse. All of them consisted of minor assaults in which military interrogators had exceeded the bounds of approved interrogation policy. Notably, the Church Report found that detainees at Guantanamo were more likely to have been injured playing recreational sports than in confrontations with interrogators or guards.
Mr. Bush's advisers were public servants with the memory of 9/11 still fresh in their minds, doing their best to give legitimate legal advice in a murky, largely undefined area of the law. Is this the stuff of which federal prosecutions, or even sanctions, are made?
As a former federal prosecutor, I know a good case from a bad one. I know a case based on solid evidence and even-handed application of the law versus one based on scoring political points. Mr. Obama and his attorney general, Eric Holder, have professed their desire to take politics out of the Justice Department, to restore integrity to a department that they believe had gone astray under Mr. Bush. Their recent actions, however, speak otherwise.
The bottom line is that any attempt to prosecute or sanction lawyers such as Messrs. Bradbury, Bybee or Yoo would be a fool's errand. And whatever our new president and his attorney general are, they aren't fools. Or at least I don't think they are. For the good of the country, I hope they don't prove me wrong.
Mr. McSwain, a former scout/sniper platoon commander in the Marines and assistant U.S. attorney, was executive editor of the 2005 Review of Department of Defense Detention Operations and Detainee Interrogation Techniques (The Church Report). He is an attorney in private practice in Philadelphia.
Their goal was to allow the CIA and military to stay within the parameters of a murky area of the law.
President Barack Obama has reinvigorated the critics of George W. Bush's antiterrorism policies by opening the door to prosecuting or sanctioning those who crafted interrogation policy in the aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. These critics -- including the president -- are laboring under numerous misconceptions. Many of them have no experience with or understanding of military or CIA interrogation, the purpose of which is to gain actionable intelligence to safeguard our country. The recently released memos by lawyers in the Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel were written to assist interrogators in that critical mission. The memos cannot be fairly evaluated without that mission in mind.
Military and CIA interrogators are trained to use creative means of deception, and to play on detainee emotions and fears. This can be a nasty business. People unfamiliar with it, therefore, might even view a perfectly legitimate interrogation of a prisoner of war that is in full compliance with the Geneva Conventions as abhorrent by its very nature.
But military interrogation is not akin to a friendly chat across a conference table -- nor is it designed to gather evidence in a criminal trial, as an FBI interview might be. There is a fundamental distinction between law enforcement and military interrogations that we ignore at our peril.
Second-guessers can also fail to appreciate the increased importance of interrogation (and human intelligence in general) in the post 9/11 world. We face an enemy that wears no uniform, blends in with civilian populations, and operates in the shadows. This has made eliciting information from captured terrorists vital to the effort of finding other terrorists. As interrogation has become more important, drawing out useful information has become more difficult -- because hardened terrorists are often trained to resist traditional U.S. interrogation methods.
Fortunately, aggressive interrogation techniques like those outlined in the memos to the CIA are effective. As the memos explain, high-value detainees like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM), the mastermind of 9/11, and Abu Zubaydah, one of Osama bin Laden's key lieutenants, provided no actionable intelligence when facing traditional U.S. methods. It is doubtful that any high-level al Qaeda operative would ever provide useful intelligence in response to traditional methods.
Yet KSM and Zubaydah provided critical information after being waterboarded -- information that, among other things, helped to prevent a "Second Wave" attack in Los Angeles, according to the memos. Similarly, the 2005 report by Vice Adm. Albert Church on Defense Department interrogation policies, the "Church Report" -- of which I served as the executive editor -- documented the success of aggressive techniques against high-value detainees like Mohamed al Kahtani, 9/11's "20th hijacker."
The aggressive techniques in the CIA memos are also undeniably safe, having been adopted from Survival, Evasion, Resistance, Escape (SERE) training used with our own troops.
I have personally been waterboarded, put into stress positions, sleep deprived, slapped in the face. While none of this was enjoyable, I am none the worse for wear.
While such techniques are used in U.S. military training, some apparently consider them too brutal, too abusive, too inhumane -- in short, too much like "torture" -- to be used on fanatics like KSM who are bent on the mass murder of innocent American civilians. And if legal advisers such as Steven G. Bradbury, Jay S. Bybee and John Yoo are to be prosecuted for having sanctioned their use under careful controls, who's next? Every commander who ever implemented a SERE course?
Many critics also play the Abu Ghraib "trump card": The abuses of prisoners at that facility in Iraq allegedly "prove" the Bush administration's supposed policy of abuse, first codified in its legal memos. This ignores all relevant evidence.
As the Church Report concluded, after a thorough review of all Defense Department interrogation policies, the pictured abuses at Abu Ghraib bore no resemblance to approved policies at any level, in any theater. The 2004 Independent Panel to Review Department of Defense Detention Operations -- whose four members included two former secretaries of defense under President Jimmy Carter -- also stated that "no approved procedures called for or allowed the kinds of abuse that in fact occurred. There is no evidence of a policy of abuse promulgated by senior officials or military authorities."
Similarly, the critics like to default to Guantanamo as a symbol of the kind of abuse that Mr. Bush's antiterror policies allowed. Yet, at the time of the Church Report, there had been more than 24,000 interrogation sessions at Guantanamo and only three cases of substantiated interrogation-related abuse. All of them consisted of minor assaults in which military interrogators had exceeded the bounds of approved interrogation policy. Notably, the Church Report found that detainees at Guantanamo were more likely to have been injured playing recreational sports than in confrontations with interrogators or guards.
Mr. Bush's advisers were public servants with the memory of 9/11 still fresh in their minds, doing their best to give legitimate legal advice in a murky, largely undefined area of the law. Is this the stuff of which federal prosecutions, or even sanctions, are made?
As a former federal prosecutor, I know a good case from a bad one. I know a case based on solid evidence and even-handed application of the law versus one based on scoring political points. Mr. Obama and his attorney general, Eric Holder, have professed their desire to take politics out of the Justice Department, to restore integrity to a department that they believe had gone astray under Mr. Bush. Their recent actions, however, speak otherwise.
The bottom line is that any attempt to prosecute or sanction lawyers such as Messrs. Bradbury, Bybee or Yoo would be a fool's errand. And whatever our new president and his attorney general are, they aren't fools. Or at least I don't think they are. For the good of the country, I hope they don't prove me wrong.
Mr. McSwain, a former scout/sniper platoon commander in the Marines and assistant U.S. attorney, was executive editor of the 2005 Review of Department of Defense Detention Operations and Detainee Interrogation Techniques (The Church Report). He is an attorney in private practice in Philadelphia.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)