Obama's War on Al Qaeda

With the killing of Anwar Al-Awlaki (along with a bonus terrorist), I once again have to give President Obama credit for taking decisive, effective action against Al Qaeda. As much as I dislike the president, and think he's an naive incompetent when it comes to foreign policy in general, I have to admit that he has pursued our war with Al Qaeda with every bit as much ferocity as his predecessor. If anything, he has expanded our global reach, and has demonstrated that there are few safe havens for terrorist enemies of the U.S. -- especially leaders like al-Awlaki.

Back in 2009 I wrote a series of posts giving my opinion on things I thought we should be doing to prosecute our war against radical Islamic terrorists. In the concluding post I said,

The U.S. needs to start instilling some terror of our own in our enemies. The current fear faced by Al Qaeda and Taliban leaders in the Afghanistan-Pakistan border region -- that they could be killed at any minute by a drone strike -- should be extended to terrorist enemies across the globe. Rather than fear arrest, every member of an Islamic terror organization, their supporters, and the radical Islamic clerics who cheer them on, should be made to live their lives waiting for a bullet in the head from a U.S.-directed assassin.

I also wrote,

there is little hope that anything I've suggested will be done by the current administration

Clearly I was wrong. The President has actually done some of what I advocated in the passage above. His establishment of drone bases gives us the means to strike at terrorists in various areas. More importantly, he has not allowed U.S. striking power to be crippled by the blind legalism of terrorist rights supporters. All the bases and drones in the world are useless without the will to send them into action. Unlike some -- including a minority on the right -- the president appears to be able to tell the difference between terrorist enemies who should be eliminated, and criminals subject to the legal system. In the case of al-Awlaki, he rightly decided that in this special case, American citizenship should not shield someone who is openly recruiting terrorists to strike America.

I'm a Republican partisan and I don't want to see Obama get re-elected. But it my opinion it is intellectually dishonest for Republicans to pretend that the president is somehow soft on terrorism, at least as it applies to operations against Al Qaeda and its affiliates worldwide. The evidence says that he isn't, and he should get credit for the things he does right, even from political opponents.

The CIA & Juan Cole

The New York Times published a story yesterday about an ex-CIA agent, Glenn L. Carle, who makes a dramatic claim of improper & probably illegal CIA activity during the Bush administration.

[Carle] said the White House at least twice asked intelligence officials to gather sensitive information on Juan Cole ... Carle said his supervisor at the National Intelligence Council told him in 2005 that White House officials wanted “to get” Professor Cole, and made clear that he wanted Mr. Carle to collect information about him, an effort Mr. Carle rebuffed. Months later, Mr. Carle said, he confronted a C.I.A. official after learning of another attempt to collect information about Professor Cole. ... It is not clear whether the White House received any damaging material about Professor Cole or whether the C.I.A. or other intelligence agencies ever provided any information or spied on him.

There is no corroboration for this story.

Intelligence officials disputed Mr. Carle’s account, saying that White House officials did ask about Professor Cole in 2006, but only to find out why he had been invited to C.I.A.-sponsored conferences on the Middle East. The officials said that the White House did not ask for sensitive personal information, and that the agency did not provide it.

The Bush administration had plenty of enemies in the CIA, so this sort of uncorroborated story is highly dubious at best. Naturally the Times would like an anti-Bush story to be true, and happened to leave out an important detail which was brought to my attention by Alana Goodman in Commentary.

There are a few key pieces of information the Times leaves out. One is that Carle’s soon-to-be-released book (which the Times only mentions in passing), is about Carle’s disillusionment with the CIA and the war on terror. ... Sounds like Carle isn’t a big fan of the Bush administration. It might have been helpful for the Times to include that piece of background in its article.

Goodman also points out that Cole has no credibility anyway except with leftists, so why would the administration even bother to go to those lengths?

Is it possible that the Bush administration misused the CIA as Carle claims? Sure. But is it likely, given what we know from this story? No. What is more likely that Carle a) is one of the many people who still suffers from Bush Derangement Syndrome, b) read way too much into an innocuous request asking why Cole was at that conference, and c) is spinning a fairy tale in an effort to sell books.

Bin Laden Finally Eliminated

I was watching the Phillies - Mets game, still in progress as I write this, when the announcement came. Bin Laden, aside from being a murderous enemy, was a tough survivor. The Soviet Union couldn't manage to kill him, and we've been after him for at least ten years. As many suspected he was hiding out in Pakistan. It's great to see the U.S. pull off an effective covert operation, kill our most wanted terrorist enemy, and sustain no casualties in the process.

Covert teams assigned to kill enemy leaders should be one of our main weapons in this asymmetric war against radical Islamic non-state terrorists. It's unclear exactly who comprised this particular team, but based on first reports it appears to have been a CIA/military collaboration.
The death of Bin Laden should send a message to other enemies that if we can find and kill him, we can kill them too.

No Prosecutions for Keeping Secrets Secret

The Justice Department announced today that there will be no criminal prosecutions of CIA officers who destroyed interrogation tapes.

After a closely watched investigation of nearly three years, the decision by a special federal prosecutor is the latest example of Justice Department officials’ declining to seek criminal penalties for some of the controversial episodes in the C.I.A.’s now defunct detention and interrogation program.

Those tapes should have never been made in the first place, and those who destroyed them rightly recognized that they'd be a bonanza for anti-American propaganda should they become public.

Mr. Rodriguez [the key CIA officer involved] had argued that “the heat” agency officials would take over destroying the tapes “is nothing compared to what it would be if the tapes ever got into the public domain.”

Mr. Rodriguez told another top C.I.A. official that if the images were disclosed “out of context, they would make us look terrible; it would be ‘devastating’ to us,” an e-mail said. The tapes showed hours of interrogation of the two detainees, including the infliction of a technique called waterboarding that simulates drowning.

Details of CIA interrogation tactics should have remained secret. It's bad enough that so many details were released to the public as it is. But actual video would be even worse. Rodriguez and his associates should be commended for their actions, not investigated for prosecution. As his attorney says,

Rodriguez is “a hero and a patriot, who simply wanted to protect his people and his country,”

As I've pointed out many times before, intelligence agencies do all sorts of ugly things for national security purposes, many of which would be illegal if done in any other context. That's why we have restrictions on what the CIA can do inside the U.S. The very idea that we would prosecute a CIA officer for making sure that information damaging to America remains secret is crazy, and is typical of a blind legalistic attitude found among those who think nothing of crippling U.S. intelligence gathering capabilities. Fortunately even the Obama Justice Department has enough sense not subscribe to such an idea.

Leftists Upset at Even the Joking Suggestion that an Enemy of the U.S. Might be Eliminated

Jonah Goldberg of National Review, who is pretty good at riling up the left, wrote an article in the Chicago Tribune called, "Why is Assange Alive?" Despite the provocative title, if you actually read the column you will see that Goldberg is not calling for the Wikileaks head to be killed. Instead, he is making fun of those who see the CIA and U.S. intelligence in general as some sort of evil entity wreaking havoc throughout the world.

if you read left-wing accounts of the intelligence community, two versions dominate. The CIA and similar outfits are either evil and incompetent, or evil and supercompetent. Sometimes the folks at The Nation will mock the CIA for trying to blow up Fidel Castro with an exploding cigar. Other times some Oliver Stone type will insist that the military, or the CIA, or the National Security Agency or rogue elements from those quarters, managed to assassinate John F. Kennedy and pin it on a Marxist dupe named Lee Harvey Oswald.

Under either scenario, you'd think Assange, super-whistle-blower of the international left, would be a greasy stain on the Autobahn already.

He uses the fact that nothing has happened to Assange -- a mysterious disappearance or death in the case of the super-competent evil CIA, or a bungled assassination plot in the case of the incompetent evil CIA, as a tool to debunk either view of the agency. But that's going way too far for the left. Look at some of the hilarious reactions. Here's reading-comprehension challenged DougJ posting at Balloon Juice.

Jonah Goldberg calls for Julian Assange’s murder. ... If you don’t think that the right is serious about using violence to take power, you’re not paying attention.

Uh no, he didn't. And even if he had, advocating violence against an enemy of the U.S. has nothing to do with taking power and using violence against political opponents in America. But understanding that would require not just reading comprehension, but logical reasoning ability, something in short supply at Balloon Juice and similar blogs.

Then there is Talk Left, which is usually a bit more rational.

It's not a serious question of course. And Goldberg is not a serious person. But for all the fainting couches the "progressive elite" pundits fell on regarding Markos' book American Taliban, it is remarkable that this column was published by a major newspaper in the United States.

The left really hates Goldberg. There's not even the slightest comparison between Markos' ridiculous book, which even the left panned, and anything Goldberg wrote in that column. Why wouldn't it be suitable for a major newspaper? Most of the left is so far out of touch with mainstream American thought, that they are easily shocked by things that come from differing perspectives.

Here's the always laughable Alex Pareene at Salon.

The point of the column is to assert that Assange should be murdered, because he is obviously horrible, while also saying that Goldberg is "OK" with the government not assassinating a foreign national guilty of no actual crime, so that people can't say Goldberg called for Assange to be killed.

Goldberg specifically says he isn't calling for Assange to be killed, the point of the column is entirely obvious, but Pareene prefers to just make up his own interpretation in order to attack Goldberg.

Those are just a couple of the hysterical leftist reactions. They are horrified at even the joking suggestion, used to make an entirely different point, that the U.S. should do anything about a foreign national waging an information war against America, doing everything possible to undermine the U.S. war effort, and serving as a useful idiot for Al Qaeda and the Taliban.

Pointless Trial For Former Gitmo Detainee

There's an article in the New York Times that provides a prime example of blind legalism in action. It's difficult to read it without laughing incredulously that we are actually wasting all this time and effort putting a known terrorist on trial in the civilian court system -- let alone agonizing over various details.

Here's the situation. Back in 2004 we captured Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani, who was implicated in the 1998 bombing of two U.S. African embassies. It's blatantly obvious that he's guilty. Ghailani was first held in a "secret" CIA prison, and then moved to Guantanamo. His interrogation revealed the name of the person who sold him explosives, Hussein Abebe, who was then tracked down. Abebe admits selling Ghailani the explosives thinking that they'd be used for legitimate mining purposes. So what's the problem?

Naturally, like every terrorist, Ghailani claims he was tortured. Instead of just ignoring his claim, for which there is zero evidence, the judge is worried about how the U.S. government found out about Abele, and why he is cooperating. There's a question of whether or not he will be permitted to testify.

This situation demonstrates yet again the problems with pretending that hostile aliens have U.S. constitutional rights, or that the civilian legal system applies to covert intelligence operations and secret war efforts against terrorist enemies. Once it was confirmed that Ghailani was part of the embassy bombings, he should have received a quick summary execution -- preferably in secret. There's no reason to go through this farce and waste all sorts of time and money, just so the administration can conduct a show trial. It serves no good purpose, is unnecessary and risks further damage to our ongoing intelligence operations and war efforts. Since it appears that Ghailani is clearly guilty, I have little doubt that the administration will be able to secure some sort of conviction. But just by exposing this sort of case in civilian court, there is always the danger of having a judge make a ruling that will impose more restrictions on our covert actions.   

Court Recognizes that Rendition Requires Keeping Secrets

Amazingly enough, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals actually ruled in favor of state secrets and against a lawsuit brought by the ACLU on behalf of individuals who claim they were kidnapped and tortured. The ruling is a major blow to terrorist rights supporters and their efforts to cripple U.S. intelligence operations. They've vowed to take the case to the Supreme Court, where it will hopefully be dismissed for good.

AP Reveals CIA Secrets

The Associated Press is getting into the game of revealing national security secrets. The heart of the story is at the beginning of the article.

A white, unmarked Boeing 737 landed in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, before dawn on a CIA mission so secretive, many in the nation's war on terrorism were kept in the dark.

Four of the nation's most highly valued terrorist prisoners were aboard.

They arrived at Guantanamo on Sept. 24, 2003, years earlier than the U.S. has ever disclosed. Then, months later, they were just as quietly whisked away before the Supreme Court could give them access to lawyers.

It's good to know that the CIA did its best to put off the consequences of giving terrorists rights for as long as possible. They should be congratulated for taking such steps.

The transfer allowed the U.S. to interrogate the detainees in CIA "black sites" for two more years without allowing them to speak with attorneys or human rights observers or challenge their detention in U.S. courts.

And that was a good thing. Who knows what information might have been missed, had terrorist rights supporters prevailed more quickly in their efforts to cripple U.S. intelligence gathering?

Although it is nice to know the CIA took extensive measures to protect the country and extract information from top Al Qaeda leaders for as long as possible, none of this information should ever have seen the light of day. Each time CIA operational methods are revealed, there is a chance that we will have comprised tools that may be necessary in the future.

Restrictions on Intelligence Gathering May Have Deadly Consequences

It's a truism that intelligence is a key weapon against terrorism. The best way to stop a terrorist operation is to find out about it in advance, and nip it in the bud. Once an act of terrorism reaches the execution stage it is very difficult to stop, and we are reduced to relying on luck or the mistakes of the terrorist himself to prevent disaster. Marc Thiessen, writing in the Washington Post, argues that we may be "passing up chances to stop terrorist plots."

just a few months before Shahzad attempted to blow up a car bomb in the heart of Manhattan, U.S. and Pakistani officials captured the highest-ranking Taliban leader ever detained in the war on terror -- Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar. This raises a critical question: Could Baradar have warned us about the Times Square attack?

That's a good question. As Theissen points out, the foolish legalistic restrictions placed on the CIA prevent us from gaining such intelligence. Instead we have to rely on the unreliable Pakistani intelligence service to take the lead conducting interrogations -- a service known to have close ties with Islamist groups.

officials said they have learned nothing from Baradar that could be used to track down other Taliban leaders, or inform the planning of U.S. military operations." The failure to properly exploit Baradar prompted the CIA to push for his transfer to a U.S.-run prison in Afghanistan -- a request that was apparently denied.

Apparently the ISI is taking its time getting information from Baradar, and allowing him to set the agenda.

It would be a different story in a CIA black site. But President Obama shut down the CIA's black sites and dismantled the agency's interrogation program.

And we may yet pay for those idiotic actions with a terrorist plot that escapes detection. The Obama administration is not even making use of the new interrogation unit it created.

he created something called the High-Value Interrogation Group (HIG) -- a less controversial alternative for questioning senior terrorist leaders like Baradar and KSM. Yet according to multiple media accounts, the HIG has not been deployed to participate in Baradar's interrogation. Why not? While the HIG is not authorized to use even the most mild enhanced interrogation techniques that could compel Baradar's cooperation, it was purportedly created for just such a circumstance. If the HIG is not going to being used to question the highest-ranking Taliban leader ever taken into custody, who exactly is it going to interrogate?

Another good question. I give the Obama administration credit for aggressively going after terrorist enemies both militarily and with its expanded drone assassination campaign. But by caving at least partially to the whining of terrorist rights supporters -- people far more concerned about the imaginary rights of foreign enemies than U.S. national security -- the administration has damaged our intelligence gathering capabilities, putting us in a position where we need even more luck than usual to avoid a terrorist strike. When we capture a known enemy terrorist leader such as Baradar, our primary concern should be gaining intelligence necessary to protect the U.S. What's better for U.S security, an extensive CIA interrogation with all options available to extract information, or relying on the cooperation of Pakistan's ISI? The answer seems pretty obvious -- at least if you aren't a terrorist rights supporter. But since that's no longer an option, let's hope our luck continues to hold, we continue to have people in the right place at the right time to spot terrorist plots unfolding, and that all the terrorists make as many mistakes as the last few. 

The CIA tapes: Destruction Was a Good Thing

The usual suspects are worked up regarding a New York Times report that former CIA director Porter Goss approved of destroying interrogation video tapes. All this newly released document shows is that Goss exercised good judgment. Since the CIA is apparently unable to prevent secret information from leaking to press organizations devoted to undermining U.S. intelligence operations, the more sensitive information destroyed before it can be revealed the better. 

What we should be worried about regarding the CIA tapes is the fact that we even know about their existence in the first place. There's no good reason the public should know about details regarding secret interrogations, and no reason that the details of internal CIA decision making, such as whether or not the director approved a particular measure, should be open knowledge. As I've argued repeatedly here, it appears that many people simply don't have a clue about the importance of secrecy to secret operations. Questions of misconduct about secret intelligence operations should be handled without exposing them to the public.  What's the point of even having secrecy classifications, if any idiot with a Freedom of Information request can extract internal documents regarding the operations of an intelligence organization that requires secrecy for many of its missions? 

Terrorizing the Terrorists

That's a policy I've advocated for some time. And while I've had my doubts about the drone assassination program, according to the New York Times, it is working to spread terror amongst our enemies -- and that's a good thing.

Militants now sneak into villages two at a time to sleep, he said. Some homeowners were refusing to rent space to Arabs, who are associated with Al Qaeda, for fear of their families’ being killed by the drones, he said.

You know you have an effective terror campaign when neutrals, some of whom might even be sympathetic to Taliban and Al Qaeda fighters, turn against them out of fear for their own safety. 

The strikes have become so ferocious, “It seems they really want to kill everyone, not just the leaders,” said the militant, who is a mid-ranking fighter associated with the insurgent network headed by Jalaluddin and Sirajuddin Haqqani. By “everyone” he meant rank-and-file fighters, though civilians are being killed, too. ... Tactics used just a year ago to avoid the drones could not be relied on, he said. It is, for instance, no longer feasible to sleep under the trees as a way of avoiding the drones. “We can’t lead a jungle existence for 24 hours every day,” he said.

If this report, and the statements of this militant are representative, then the drone campaign has indeed succeeded in terrorizing our enemies. They live in constant fear of the drones, and the civilian population is turning against them.

I've been skeptical of the drone assassination campaign because of the ratio of enemy to civilian deaths, the danger of backlash and destabilization within Pakistan, and the limitations of a strategy based largely on air power. But if stories like this one are correct, it seems to be working. 

A Pro-Intelligence Veto

The president is threatening to veto the 2010 intelligence authorization bill. According to the Washington Post, the administration objects to

a provision that would force the administration to widen the circle of lawmakers who are informed about covert operations and other sensitive activities.

I do plenty of Obama-bashing here, and link many articles harshly critical of the president, but he deserves credit when he actually takes a positive step -- or at least threatens to. The last thing we need is to inform even more people about covert operations.  If anything, we should reduce the number of people who have access to such sensitive information. The whole point of "covert" operations is that they are conducted secretly. That's why they are called "covert." We already have major problems keeping secrets -- a problem compounded by an irresponsible press that will quickly print any leak, especially ones that might undermine U.S. military & intelligence efforts. The more people who know about secret operations, the greater the chance that someone will reveal information. Here's administration spokesman, Office of Management and Budget Director Peter Orzag.

the new requirement would "undermine the president's authority and responsibility to protect sensitive national security information." ... Orszag also opposed a Senate bill provision that required notification of "any change in a covert action," which he described as setting up "unreasonable burdens" on the agencies, particularly the CIA . The House bill also requires notification of intelligence "significant undertakings," a term that Orszag described as "vague and uncertain."

The administration should be commended for refusing to sign on to a bill that will impose further restrictions on intelligence gathering, and make it even more likely that secrets will be exposed. Let's hope that if this bill passes, the president carries through on his threat and vetoes it.

Contractors Helping Kill Terrorists

The New York Times ran a big story about it today.

Under the cover of a benign government information-gathering program, a Defense Department official set up a network of private contractors in Afghanistan and Pakistan to help track and kill suspected militants

That sounds like a good idea. Too bad we couldn't keep it secret.

The official, Michael D. Furlong, hired contractors from private security companies that employed former C.I.A. and Special Forces operatives. The contractors, in turn, gathered intelligence on the whereabouts of suspected militants and the location of insurgent camps, and the information was then sent to military units and intelligence officials for possible lethal action in Afghanistan and Pakistan, the officials said.

In my opinion, this is exactly the sort of thing we should be doing, but unfortunately, Furlong is now in trouble.

Officials say Mr. Furlong’s operation seems to have been shut down, and he is now is the subject of a criminal investigation by the Defense Department for a number of possible offenses, including contract fraud.

If you go through the long article, it appears that Furlong's operation led to enemy deaths. That's a good thing. Unfortunately he apparently stepped on some toes at the CIA. This is just speculation on my part, but I'd be willing to bet that someone got upset that an outsider was running a valuable intelligence operation and decided to shut him down. If Furlong's operation did provide significant information that enabled us to target terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan, he should be commended and promoted, not prosecuted. We need people who can find creative ways to produce useful intelligence. And as usual, we need to do a far better job of protecting the secrecy of our operations. 

That's Why We Have a CIA

Georgetown law professor Gary Solis wrote an article in yesterday's Washington Post called, "CIA drone attacks produce America's own unlawful combatants." The thrust of the column is that since the CIA is not part of the uniformed military, their role in hostilities makes them unlawful civilian combatants.

No less than their insurgent targets, they are fighters without uniforms or insignia, directly participating in hostilities, employing armed force contrary to the laws and customs of war. Even if they are sitting in Langley, the CIA pilots are civilians violating the requirement of distinction, a core concept of armed conflict, as they directly participate in hostilities.

This is true, but it's also completely irrelevant as an argument against the drone campaign. It merely states the obvious, and demonstrates why viewing wars through a legalistic lens is pointless and counterproductive.

As I have noted many times on this blog, the main reason countries have covert intelligence agencies, is to conduct operations which are by definition illegal. Most covert operations blatantly violate the laws of whatever country they occur in, international law, and often domestic law -- that's one major reason why CIA operations within the United States are tightly restricted. Saying that CIA actions in killing enemy targets are the acts of illegal combatants is utterly meaningless. Doing illegal things is its mission. Of course CIA operators will be viewed rightly as illegal combatants by enemies.

If captured, the unlawful acts committed during their direct participation makes them subject to prosecution in civilian courts or military tribunals. They are not entitled to prisoner-of-war status.

I seriously doubt any CIA covert operator has illusions on this score. Spies, saboteurs, assassins, and other types of illegal combatants do not, and should not have legal protection -- and have not traditionally, except for "legal" spies with diplomatic cover. 

By viewing the drone campaign as a military operation involving the CIA as illegal civilian combatants, Solis has it exactly backward. The drone campaign is an assassination program aimed at eliminating specific individuals. The military is assisting the CIA in carrying out assassinations. If he wanted to make a legal argument of some relevance, he might reasonably argue that the military shouldn't be openly supporting assassinations. But overall, his article illustrates yet again just how useless legalism is when applied to warfare. Ivory tower debate over laws and rules when applied to warfare has little impact, except to possibly impose more restrictions on those who actually follow rules -- in this case our side. And legalism applied to the actions of an organization designed to operate outside the law is both stupid and dangerous. It's stupid because it ignores the nature and purpose of the CIA, and it's dangerous because it imposes restrictions that cripple the ability of the CIA to carry out its missions.

The Latest Whining About Waterboarding

No one has been waterboarded for years now, but terrorist rights supporters are still outraged about the treatment of Al Qaeda leaders like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. The latest is an article at Salon.com by Mark Benjamin called, "Waterboarding for Dummies."It's worth a look as a good reminder of the thinking of those who care more about the welfare of known terrorists than U.S. national security.

recently released internal documents reveal the controversial "enhanced interrogation" practice was far more brutal on detainees than Cheney's description sounds, and was administered with meticulous cruelty.

That's something we are supposed to be worried about.

the CIA turned to a special saline solution to minimize the risk of death...The agency used a gurney "specially designed" to tilt backwards at a perfect angle to maximize the water entering the prisoner's nose and mouth, intensifying the sense of choking – and to be lifted upright quickly in the event that a prisoner stopped breathing.

Ok, so they were doing their job. The idea behind torturing someone for information is to extract information, not kill them. You wonder what exactly these people thought the CIA was doing when conducting waterboarding.

The documents also lay out, in chilling detail, exactly what should occur in each two-hour waterboarding "session."

Wow, what a surprise. I guess the interrogators should have just improvised rather than planning out their actions.

"This is revolting and it is deeply disturbing," said Dr. Scott Allen, co-director of the Center for Prisoner Health and Human Rights at Brown University who has reviewed all of the documents for Physicians for Human Rights.

None of it is even a little bit revolting or disturbing. The CIA was taking extensive precautions to avoid accidentally killing their prisoners.

"The so-called science here is a total departure from any ethics or any legitimate purpose.

Nonsense. Attempting to gain information from terrorists for national security reasons is definitely a legitimate purpose.

It just sounds like lunacy," he said. "This fine-tuning of torture is unethical, incompetent and a disgrace to medicine."

What sounds like lunacy is someone complaining that the CIA did its best to keep terrorists alive while they waterboarded them. The ethics are debatable. It was obviously competent, since they didn't kill anyone with waterboarding, and saying it was a disgrace to medicine is just silly emotionalism.

the agency's methods went far beyond anything ever done to a soldier during training. U.S. soldiers

I would certainly hope so. We aren't going to treat enemies the same way we train our own soldiers. When we train soldiers with live ammo, we don't try to hit them as we do with enemies.  Benjamin goes on to give a litany of details about how horrible waterboarding was, and how the CIA took various measures to prevent terrorists from dying. He finishes up with,

The memo also contains a last, little-noticed paragraph that may be the most disturbing of all. It seems to say that the detainees subjected to waterboarding were also guinea pigs.

Of course if you read the section in question, it just stresses that everything needs to be documented. But Benjamin finds that "disturbing."

Nothing about the CIA techniques in the article is particularly disturbing. What is disturbing is that we know any of this information in the first place. The interrogation methods of a secret intelligence organization should be kept secret for obvious reasons. When we have an Al Qaeda leader in custody, by definition we have someone who obeys no laws or rules of warfare, deliberately targets civilians, and openly aspires to slaughter as many Americans as possible -- be they soldiers on a battlefield, or children in a day care center. Such an enemy should be entitled to no rights or consideration whatsoever. I find nothing disturbing about the torture of such an individual, whether the CIA waterboarding techniques, or far harsher torture. What I do find disturbing is the excessive concern for the welfare of such enemies, and the constant attacks on Americans who attempted to protect the country.   

Terrorist Rights Supporters and General Petraeus

General David Petraeus was interviewed on Meet the Press today. It's pretty funny to see that the usual terrorist rights supporters -- mostly leftists, have seized on one section of the interview which they think supports their position. For example, here's Spencer Ackerman with a sneering "Open Letter" to Liz Cheney, who supports enhanced interrogation. After noting Petraeus' comments rejecting what he called "expedient measures," in favor of techniques consistent with the Army Field Manual, Ackerman asks

You’re a former deputy assistant secretary of state! You obviously know better than the man who implemented the surge in Iraq. Why don’t you enlighten Gen. Petraeus about all the glories of torture? And since you consider “enhanced interrogation” so necessary to secure the country, perhaps there’s a full-page ad you’ll take out in a major newspaper?

Well, I'm sure Liz Cheney can speak for herself, but I'd like to take this opportunity to fill in Ackerman. I'll start with the obvious. David Petraeus is a high-ranking, serving officer of the U.S. Army. As such, he's hardly going to break with the administration line when asked whether he would prefer to be able use enhanced interrogation techniques. His words on this issue at this particular time are completely meaningless. Enhanced interrogation techniques have already been banned, and the general knows they aren't going to be acceptable -- at least not openly -- under the Obama administration, so why in the world would he say anything other than what he said?

Second, it's pretty funny how terrorist rights supporters like Ackerman love to use the military prestige of a general when his position agrees with theirs. But when a person like General Michael Hayden, former head of the CIA, and in a position to know far more about interrogation and intelligence than the head of U.S. Central Command defends enhanced interrogation methods, well we can just ignore him. I could easily turn Ackerman's silly "open letter" around and ask, who are you, Spencer Ackerman, to claim to know better than a former CIA director? Why should we listen to Petraeus but not Hayden? The words of a serving general like Petraeus carry far less weight than the statements of a retired general who is now free to speak his mind.

Third, and this also falls within the obvious realm, is the use of the word torture. Whether or not many enhanced interrogation techniques constitute torture is a matter of debate. Even waterboarding, which a majority (including myself) agree is torture, is not considered torture by many of those advocating it. Ackerman is just poisoning the well by using the term torture. If someone is arguing for the use of techniques which she herself does not believe are even torture, it's pretty idiotic to use a phrase like "the glories of torture" in reference to her position.

But what about people like myself, who do believe torture should be an option against known terrorists -- including techniques which are indisputably acknowledged as torture? How do we answer what Ackerman portrays as the great, not-to-be questioned wisdom of General Petraeus? Actually, I agree with Petraeus that in most circumstances the military should have nothing to do with questionable interrogation practices, let alone torture. It's important to maintain the honor of the military as a force that offers humane treatment to captured enemies. Compromising the military, having it violate its own rules and procedures, and involving it in the dirtiest side of intelligence gathering were and are bad ideas. But we happen to have an organization that isn't the military. Not only isn't it the military, but it was specifically created to act in secret, to violate laws and rules, and to carry out the dirty business of getting intelligence by means which in most civilian circumstances would be considered crimes. It's called the CIA. The military and the CIA are different entities with different missions, rules, and methods of operation. Attempting to constrain the CIA by restricting it to military procedures is every bit as stupid and shortsighted as corrupting and damaging the military  by allowing it to engage in practices not suitable for its mission and status.

As Ackerman demonstrates yet again, despite the existence of excellent arguments against the use of torture, most terrorist rights supporters rely on simplistic, illogical, emotional screeds that are easily debunked. Ackerman's "open letter" is nothing more than an appeal to authority, combined with poisoning the well, and an ad hominem attack on Cheney as someone who believes in the "glories of torture." Pretty weak stuff. 

Drone Strikes & Secrecy

I happened to notice an article at MSNBC called, "Secrecy of U.S. strikes in Pakistan criticized." There are some legitimate concerns about the drone assassination program. Are the results worth the collateral damage, the public relations problems, and the destabilizing effects on Pakistan? That's a difficult question to answer. But one thing that shouldn't be in question is the need for secrecy. 

You'll hear many people claim that we need more transparency from the government, that secrecy is dangerous, and that openness is the best policy. What we actually need is far more secrecy, particularly when it pertains to the secret operations of secret intelligence agencies. Many of our problems in the intelligence arena stem from the fact that we have failed to keep secrets. But getting back to the article,

More information about the CIA-run program could help offset opposition in Pakistan and also assuage concerns that the strikes violate international law.

How ridiculous is that assertion? First, opposition in Pakistan has nothing to do with not having enough information. The fact that foreign drones are operating in their country and killing Pakistanis, whatever portion are innocent victims, is going to produce opposition. Providing information that shows that a high proportion of militants are being killed, will simply be dismissed as U.S. propaganda. Second, intelligence agencies such as the CIA are designed in part specifically to violate international law. Obviously assassinating people is going to be interpreted as being against international law. If it is in the U.S. interest to eliminate these targets, international law is irrelevant except for public relations purposes. And that's another reason to maintain as much secrecy as possible.

"I think the main concern for those of us looking at it from the outside is we don't know what the criteria are for the individual decision of whether to pull the trigger or not," said Paul Pillar, a former senior counterterrorism official at the CIA.

Here's someone that should know better. As a former member of the CIA, he should be aware that he doesn't have a need to know. Sorry, Paul. Operational security is far more important than your desire to feel good about the drone assassination program. And then of course there are the usual suspects.

Several different groups, including the U.N. and the American Civil Liberties Union, have pressed the U.S. to reveal who it is killing in the strikes but have so far been rebuffed.

And they should continue to be rebuffed. The ACLU is an open supporter of terrorist rights, and the UN clearly can't be trusted with any sensitive information.

The U.S. government refuses even to acknowledge the drone program in Pakistan

The Obama administration is doing exactly the right thing in refusing to release more details. The less revealed the better. 

This is How You Fight Terrorists

As I read a New York Times article called, "Elite U.S. Force Expanding Hunt in Afghanistan," I had two thoughts. My first thought was, I wish they hadn't reported on this, since these types of operations require secrecy. But given that it is being reported, I see these operations as an extremely positive sign that the U.S. is taking effective actions that will seriously damage terrorist groups. From the article:

Secretive branches of the military’s Special Operations forces have increased counterterrorism missions against some of the most lethal groups in Afghanistan and, because of their success, plan an even bigger expansion next year, according to American commanders.

If you read the article, it reveals that the U.S. military is using elite special operations units such as Delta Force, and SEAL teams to carry out what are in effect military assassination missions designed to take out enemy leaders.

American commanders in Afghanistan rely on the commando units to carry out some of the most complicated operations against militant leaders, and the missions are never publicly acknowledged.

No one is speaking out publicly about such missions, including the Obama administration. And that's a good thing. Reports such as this one should be met with a standard "no comment" response.

Back in my series of posts called, A New War Against Radical Islam, I specifically advocated the increased use of secret operations, and the deployment of teams of assassins to target terrorist leaders -- although my focus was on the CIA rather than the military. But according to at least one source, the CIA is involved as well.

an official with Pakistan’s main spy agency, the Inter-Services Intelligence directorate, or I.S.I., said there had also been more than 60 joint operations involving the I.S.I. and the C.I.A. in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas and Baluchistan in the past year.

The official said the missions included “snatch and grabs” — the abduction of important militants — as well as efforts to kill leaders.

If true, that is very good news, and shows that despite public efforts damaging to the CIA, the Obama administration is secretly making effective use of the agency as a weapon against terrorists.

ABC News Gloats About Damaging U.S. National Security

ABC News is congratulating itself about its "exclusive" reporting exposing a formerly secret CIA prison in Lithuania. Aside from the damage to the CIA from yet another expose, the report also has negative consequences for Lithuania. The head of Lithuanian intelligence resigned yesterday in the aftermath of the report.

After ABC News revealed the location of the prison, a top Lithuanian official said that the report was damaging to his country's reputation.

I realize that we can't expect a shred of patriotism or concern for national security from most U.S. news organizations, but the obvious self-satisfaction at ABC is still grating. Never mind that future attempts to gain the cooperation of friendly states on intelligence matters are likely to be far more difficult. They clearly can't trust us to keep secrets secret. Why cooperate and risk exposure, international embarrassment, or negative political consequences? Lithuania assisted the U.S. by hosting a secret CIA facility and what thanks does it get? It gets a U.S. news organization running around its country exposing its secrets. Plus it gets terrorist rights supporters using its country for anti-American propaganda, and accusing it of being complicit in "torture."

"The activities in that prison were illegal," said John Sifton, a New York attorney whose firm One World Research investigates human rights abuses. "They included various forms of torture, including sleep deprivation, forced standing, painful stress positions."

Needless to say these are allegations based on very little, other than his own interpretations, including about what constitutes torture. But Sifton, an American, has no problem disseminating anti-American propaganda. 

About the only positive in the story is the response of the CIA itself.

The CIA declined to talk about the prison. "The CIA's terrorist interrogation program is over," said CIA spokesman Paul Gimigliano. "This agency does not discuss publicly where detention facilities may or may not have been."

It's good to see that the agency is refusing to comment, as it should about any intelligence matters that are supposed to be secret.

Italy vs. the CIA

An Italian court has convicted 23 Americans of crimes involving a rendition case in 2003, where a radical Muslim cleric was kidnapped from Milan and rendered to Egypt. Fortunately, the U.S. citizens were all tried in absentia and are not in custody, so this is an empty verdict. But there is talk of requesting extradition. Here's my take on the case.

The U.S. government should only carry out renditions in allied states with the consent of the allied government. Was neutralizing one terrorist really worth jeopardizing relations with Italy? If it is truly necessary to violate the sovereignty of a friendly state like Italy, it should be done in a secret and deniable way. We should not be in a position of having to defend such actions in court. 

Having said that, the U.S. government has an obligation to protect its operatives from foreign retaliation. Under no circumstances should the U.S. agree to extradite any of these individuals, no matter what the Italian government or courts demand. If the Italian government goes so far as to actually request extradition, we should treat that as an unfriendly act, and respond accordingly. Italy is well aware that rendition operations were U.S. government missions, sanctioned at the highest levels. Italian anger should be focused where it belongs, at the U.S. government. Demanding an apology and assurances that the U.S. will not violate Italian sovereignty in the future would be a reasonable response. Prosecuting individual CIA agents as if they were common criminals, rather than agents of the U.S. government, is just not acceptable.