Pakistanis express anger at the U.S.
CIA Director Michael Hayden has publicly confirmed what was already known -- that Al Qaeda has found a safe haven in Pakistan, along the rugged border with Afghanistan. He said the haven is a "clear and present danger" to America.
This business about Pakistan being our ally is abject nonsense. Most of the country despises us. Musharraf and some of the military have been a fickle ally but they did at least occasionally take the fight to al Qaeda and the Taliban. They didn't do it with abandon, though, precisely because (a) the people of Pakistan oppose it(they are fine with having anti-Western jihadists operating from safe-havens within their country), and (b) Pakistan has always been a strong supporter of the Taliban (which Benazir Bhutto was key to establishing in Afghanistan) for both cultural and geopolitical reasons.
If the rationale for continuing American combat operations in Iraq is, principally, that we cannot allow anti-Western radicals to establish a platform from which they can launch 9/11-style operations, how can we conceivably turn a blind eye to the platform they have in fact established in Pakistan's border region? Try as it might, international law has not (yet) repealed the sovereign right of self-defense. We are not required by anything so vapid as "our standing in the world" to tolerate an al Qaedastan in Pakistan, Iraq, Somalia, or anyplace else.
The majority of Pakistanis recognize that militancy is a major problem. A recent spate of suicide bombings in Pakistan's cities has brought that reality home. Meanwhile, the most extreme Islamic parties took the biggest hit in the February elections. However, says former Ambassador Schaffer, "that doesn't mean we all agree on what needs to be done." Dealing with a complex coalition will be a lot harder than negotiating with a military dictator. For the past six years, the U.S. tied Pakistan's cooperation in targeting high level Al Qaeda operatives and shutting down militant training camps to a $10 billion package of military and economic aid. The new coalition government might take a different tack on U.S. handouts. Sharif has said that Pakistan should rely less on such U.S. assistance.
Prime Minister Gilani promised this week to confront terrorism "with determination." But when it comes to U.S. cooperation, Gillani told the high-level State Department delegation, "all important policy matters and decisions on important national issues would be taken through the parliament." Not the Pentagon.
Anti-torture protesters demonstrate waterboarding in front of the Justice Department.
President Bush on Saturday vetoed a bill that would have explicitly prohibited the Central Intelligence Agency from using interrogation methods like waterboarding, a technique in which restrained prisoners are threatened with drowning. Critics, Democratic and Republican alike, have called waterboarding torture.
Bush said the veto -- the eighth in the past 10 months with Democrats in control of Congress -- was essential to fight terrorism. “And this is no time for Congress to abandon practices that have a proven track record of keeping America safe,” Bush said. Democrats quickly condemned the veto.
Was the veto a reaffirmation of the president's powers as commander-in-chief or an affirmation of torture?
It is an ugly business, and it is rightly banned. The interrogators who waterboarded Abu Zubaydah were breaking the law. They knew they were risking their careers and freedom. But if the result of the act itself was a healthy terrorist with a bad memory versus a terror attack that might kill hundreds or even thousands of people, it is a good outcome. The decision to punish those responsible for producing it is an executive one. Prosecutors and judges are permitted to weigh the circumstances and consider intent.
Which is why I say that waterboarding Zubaydah may have been illegal, but it wasn't wrong.
Opponents of Mr. Bush’s policies on prisoners have long argued that it is immoral, dangerous and counterproductive to abuse and torture prisoners. We do not hold out much hope that the president will heed our last, urgent plea not to veto this bill.
We urge him to read the Army Field Manual, which says: “Use of torture by U.S. personnel would bring discredit upon the U.S. and its armed forces while undermining domestic and international support for the war effort. It could also place U.S. and allied personnel in enemy hands at greater risk of abuse.”
It hasn't happened again.
Terrorism, and what the United States should do about it, is already a polarizing issue this election year. Nearly seven years after the 9/11, many Americans -- to say nothing of lawmakers -- still struggle to understand the threat and how to counter it.
Leaderless Jihad, a new book by a former CIA agent-turned-forensic psychiatrist, delves into the essential questions: Why do some Muslims become radicalized while others do not? How can violent Islamic radicalism be countered and defeated? Is the threat, which President Bush described as "the decisive ideological struggle of the 21st century and the calling of our generation," more limited and manageable than we think?
Among many obvious fallacies one is paramount: the number of victims is only one metric for judging terrorist activity, and possibly the least telling. The number of victims is the factor most open to reduction. A country can control that number the way it can few other numbers involving terrorism. It can't control the number of terrorists, it can't control the number of attacks, it can't control the number of attempts. But it can keep the terrorists, attacks, and attempts from being successful, which is precisely what U.S. anti-terrorist policy has concentrated on since 9/11, and to all indications, quite successfully.
What's excessive is the idea that we have to steel the national will to respond to an evil of such magnitude. No, we need to keep looking for them and stopping them. Otherwise, if their perverse ambitions to heroism are based on the idea that they are the vanguard of the clash of civilizations, why should we gratify their ambitions? Think of it this way, what if those who frequent the chat rooms found their cause disappearing from the headlines? What if they couldn't find themselves when they try to vanity google? What if they faded from being such a big part of our consciousness? Who would that really hurt -- us, or them?
The attorney general won't second-guess his own department's advice.
Attorney General Michael Mukasey won't investigate CIA waterboarding of three terror suspects after the 9/11 attacks; the Justice Department originally signed off on the method. "That would mean that the same department that authorized the program would now consider prosecuting somebody who followed that advice," he said. Waterboarding critics are frustrated.
Should there be an investigation? Or does waterboarding save lives?
A small number of terrorists, high-value targets, held overseas have gone through an interrogation program run by the CIA. It's a tougher program, for tougher customers. These include Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the mastermind of 9/11. He and others were questioned at a time when another attack on this country was believed to be imminent. It's a good thing we had them in custody, and it's a good thing we found out what they knew.
The procedures of the CIA program are designed to be safe, and they are in full compliance with the nation's laws and treaty obligations. They've been carefully reviewed by the Department of Justice, and very carefully monitored. The program is run by highly trained professionals who understand their obligations under the law. And the program has uncovered a wealth of information that has foiled attacks against the United States; information that has saved thousands of lives.
We have now the Attorney General of the United States telling Congress that it's not against the law for the President to violate the law if his own Department of Justice says it's not.
It is as brazen a defense of the unitary executive as anything put forward by the Administration in the last seven years, and it comes from an attorney general who was supposed to be not just a more professional, but a more moderate, version of Alberto Gonzales
President Bush has now laid down his most aggressive challenge to the very constitutional authority of Congress. It is a naked assertion of executive power. The founders would have called it tyrannical. His cards are now all on the table. This is no bluff.
Attorney General Michael Mukasey on Wednesday named John Durham (above) to oversee the probe of the destruction of CIA interrogation videotapes.
Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey announced Wednesday that the Justice Department will open a criminal investigation of the CIA's
destruction of videotapes that showed harsh interrogation tactics of suspected terrorists. Mukasey cautioned that "the opening of an
investigation does not mean that criminal charges will necessarily follow." But the move marks a significant escalation of the CIA tapes
inquiry, which began Dec. 8 following the CIA's disclosure that tapes showing interrogations of two al-Qaeda prisoners in 2002 were destroyed by the agency three years later.
John Durham has extensive experience in politically sensitive investigations. Durham will have his opportunity to determine whether anyone broke the law. People across the political spectrum should cheer this opportunity to clear the air and to see that the rule of law prevails.
But the recent revelations that the C.I.A. destroyed videotaped interrogations of Qaeda operatives leads us to conclude that the agency failed to respond to our lawful requests for information about the 9/11 plot. Those who knew about those videotapes — and did not tell us about them — obstructed our investigation. There could have been absolutely no doubt in the mind of anyone at the C.I.A. — or the White House — of the commission’s interest in any and all information related to Qaeda detainees involved in the 9/11 plot. Yet no one in the administration ever told the commission of the existence of videotapes of detainee interrogations.
