CIA Must Assure Agents It Has Their Backs by Ron Kessler

CIA Must Assure Agents It Has Their Backs by Ron Kessler - -

This article came up in a recent conversation about the continuing malaise at the CIA as a result of the agency being a football in the dangerous game of political expediency:

Newsmax.com: Bond: CIA Must Assure Agents It Has Their Backs Despite Criticism Wednesday, June 10, 2009 9:42 AM By: Ronald Kessler

http://www.newsmax.com/kessler/CIA_Panetta_security/2009/06/10/223533.html

Given recent chilling developments, the CIA needs to take steps to assure operations officers that the agency backs them, Republican Sen. Kit Bond told Newsmax.

The Missouri Republican, vice chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, cited Philip Mudd’s withdrawal from consideration as chief of intelligence of the Department of Homeland Security because Democrats were planning to raise the fact that he had participated in CIA briefings of members of Congress about enhanced interrogation techniques.

[…]

As noted in the Newsmax article "Democrats Undercut Our Security Again," besides being tremendously knowledgeable, Mudd is known for being open-minded and nonpartisan.

Yet as Mudd was about to undergo questioning before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, it became clear that Democrats planned to use him as a whipping boy for Bush administration policies, especially enhanced interrogation.

[…]

When Mudd’s nomination ran into political headwinds, Obama was willing to toss one of the country’s most respected intelligence professionals, depriving Homeland Security of expertise in a position that is vital to protecting the country.

Calling the Newsmax account “right on target,” Bond said he plans to ask Panetta what steps he plans to take to try to counteract the CIA’s reversion to the kind of risk aversion that contributed to the failure to detect the 9/11 plot.

Read the entire article here: Newsmax.com: Bond: CIA Must Assure Agents It Has Their Backs Despite Criticism Wednesday, June 10, 2009 9:42 AM By: Ronald Kessler

http://www.newsmax.com/kessler/CIA_Panetta_security/2009/06/10/223533.html

20090610 SDOSM CIA Must Assure Agents It Has Their Backs by Kessler

Ronald Kessler is chief Washington correspondent of Newsmax.com. View his previous reports and get his dispatches sent to you free via e-mail. Go here now.

Democrats Undercut Our Security Again

Sotomayor Called the Death Penalty Racist

Obama's Speech — Right Way to Fight Terrorism

GOP House Caucus To Fight Media Bias

Washington Post Has Become a Model for the Media

Kevin Dayhoff Soundtrack: www.kevindayhoff.net
Kevin Dayhoff Art: www.kevindayhoffart.com
Kevin Dayhoff Westminster: www.westgov.net
Twitter: https://twitter.com/kevindayhoff
Twitpic: http://twitpic.com/photos/kevindayhoff
YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/kevindayhoff
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1040426835

FOXNews.com: Text of President Obama's Speech on National Security

FOXNews.com RAW DATA: Text of President Obama's Speech on National Security

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/05/21/raw-data-text-president-obamas-speech-national-security/

President Obama delivered a speech Thursday on his plan to maintain national security and American values.

FOXNews.com Thursday, May 21, 2009

RAW DATA: Text of Dick Cheney's National Security Speech at AEI [2009-05-21]

Obama 'Distracted' by Biden's 'Indiscipline,' Book Asserts [2009-05-21]

Comedian Wanda Sykes Draws Fire With Cracks About Rush Limbaugh's Health, Patriotism [2009-05-11]

Cable Anchors, Guests Use Tea Parties as Platform for Frat House Humor [2009-04-16]

New Errors Surface About Accuracy of CIA Document on Interrogation Methods

These are extraordinary times for our country. We are confronting an historic economic crisis. We are fighting two wars. We face a range of challenges that will define the way that Americans will live in the 21st century. There is no shortage of work to be done, or responsibilities to bear.

And we have begun to make progress. Just this week, we have taken steps to protect American consumers and homeowners, and to reform our system of government contracting so that we better protect our people while spending our money more wisely. The engines of our economy are slowly beginning to turn, and we are working toward historic reform of health care and energy. I welcome the hard work that has been done by the Congress on these and other issues.

In the midst of all these challenges, however, my single most important responsibility as President is to keep the American people safe. That is the first thing that I think about when I wake up in the morning. It is the last thing that I think about when I go to sleep at night.

This responsibility is only magnified in an era when an extremist ideology threatens our people, and technology gives a handful of terrorists the potential to do us great harm. We are less than eight years removed from the deadliest attack on American soil in our history. We know that al Qaeda is actively planning to attack us again. We know that this threat will be with us for a long time, and that we must use all elements of our power to defeat it.

Already, we have taken several steps to achieve that goal. For the first time since 2002, we are providing the necessary resources and strategic direction to take the fight to the extremists who attacked us on 9/11 in Afghanistan and Pakistan. We are investing in the 21st century military and intelligence capabilities that will allow us to stay one step ahead of a nimble enemy. We have re-energized a global non-proliferation regime to deny the world's most dangerous people access to the world's deadliest weapons, and launched an effort to secure all loose nuclear materials within four years. We are better protecting our border, and increasing our preparedness for any future attack or natural disaster. We are building new partnerships around the world to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al Qaeda and its affiliates. And we have renewed American diplomacy so that we once again have the strength and standing to truly lead the world.

These steps are all critical to keeping America secure. But I believe with every fiber of my being that in the long run we also cannot keep this country safe unless we enlist the power of our most fundamental values. The documents that we hold in this very hall - the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights -are not simply words written into aging parchment. They are the foundation of liberty and justice in this country, and a light that shines for all who seek freedom, fairness, equality and dignity in the world.

I stand here today as someone whose own life was made possible by these documents. My father came to our shores in search of the promise that they offered. My mother made me rise before dawn to learn of their truth when I lived as a child in a foreign land. My own American journey was paved by generations of citizens who gave meaning to those simple words - "to form a more perfect union." I have studied the Constitution as a student; I have taught it as a teacher; I have been bound by it as a lawyer and legislator. I took an oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution as Commander-in-Chief, and as a citizen, I know that we must never - ever - turn our back on its enduring principles for expedience sake.

I make this claim not simply as a matter of idealism. We uphold our most cherished values not only because doing so is right, but because it strengthens our country and keeps us safe. Time and again, our values have been our best national security asset - in war and peace; in times of ease and in eras of upheaval.

Fidelity to our values is the reason why the United States of America grew from a small string of colonies under the writ of an empire to the strongest nation in the world.

It is the reason why enemy soldiers have surrendered to us in battle, knowing they'd receive better treatment from America's armed forces than from their own government.

It is the reason why America has benefited from strong alliances that amplified our power, and drawn a sharp and moral contrast with our adversaries.

It is the reason why we've been able to overpower the iron fist of fascism, outlast the iron curtain of communism, and enlist free nations and free people everywhere in common cause and common effort.

From Europe to the Pacific, we have been a nation that has shut down torture chambers and replaced tyranny with the rule of law. That is who we are. And where terrorists offer only the injustice of disorder and destruction, America must demonstrate that our values and institutions are more resilient than a hateful ideology.

After 9/11, we knew that we had entered a new era - that enemies who did not abide by any law of war would present new challenges to our application of the law; that our government would need new tools to protect the American people, and that these tools would have to allow us to prevent attacks instead of simply prosecuting those who try to carry them out.

Unfortunately, faced with an uncertain threat, our government made a series of hasty decisions. And I believe that those decisions were motivated by a sincere desire to protect the American people. But I also believe that - too often - our government made decisions based upon fear rather than foresight, and all too often trimmed facts and evidence to fit ideological predispositions. Instead of strategically applying our power and our principles, we too often set those principles aside as luxuries that we could no longer afford. And in this season of fear, too many of us - Democrats and Republicans; politicians, journalists and citizens - fell silent.

In other words, we went off course. And this is not my assessment alone. It was an assessment that was shared by the American people, who nominated candidates for President from both major parties who, despite our many differences, called for a new approach - one that rejected torture, and recognized the imperative of closing the prison at Guantanamo Bay.

Now let me be clear: we are indeed at war with al Qaeda and its affiliates. We do need to update our institutions to deal with this threat. But we must do so with an abiding confidence in the rule of law and due process; in checks and balances and accountability. For reasons that I will explain, the decisions that were made over the last eight years established an ad hoc legal approach for fighting terrorism that was neither effective nor sustainable - a framework that failed to rely on our legal traditions and time-tested institutions; that failed to use our values as a compass. And that is why I took several steps upon taking office to better protect the American people.

First, I banned the use of so-called enhanced interrogation techniques by the United States of America.

I know some have argued that brutal methods like water-boarding were necessary to keep us safe. I could not disagree more. As Commander-in-Chief, I see the intelligence, I bear responsibility for keeping this country safe, and I reject the assertion that these are the most effective means of interrogation. What's more, they undermine the rule of law. They alienate us in the world. They serve as a recruitment tool for terrorists, and increase the will of our enemies to fight us, while decreasing the will of others to work with America. They risk the lives of our troops by making it less likely that others will surrender to them in battle, and more likely that Americans will be mistreated if they are captured. In short, they did not advance our war and counter-terrorism efforts - they undermined them, and that is why I ended them once and for all.

The arguments against these techniques did not originate from my Administration. As Senator McCain once said, torture "serves as a great propaganda tool for those who recruit people to fight against us." And even under President Bush, there was recognition among members of his Administration - including a Secretary of State, other senior officials, and many in the military and intelligence community - that those who argued for these tactics were on the wrong side of the debate, and the wrong side of history. We must leave these methods where they belong - in the past. They are not who we are. They are not America.

The second decision that I made was to order the closing of the prison camp at Guantanamo Bay.

For over seven years, we have detained hundreds of people at Guantanamo. During that time, the system of Military Commissions at Guantanamo succeeded in convicting a grand total of three suspected terrorists. Let me repeat that: three convictions in over seven years. Instead of bringing terrorists to justice, efforts at prosecution met setbacks, cases lingered on, and in 2006 the Supreme Court invalidated the entire system. Meanwhile, over five hundred and twenty-five detainees were released from Guantanamo under the Bush Administration. Let me repeat that: two-thirds of the detainees were released before I took office and ordered the closure of Guantanamo.

There is also no question that Guantanamo set back the moral authority that is America's strongest currency in the world. Instead of building a durable framework for the struggle against al Qaeda that drew upon our deeply held values and traditions, our government was defending positions that undermined the rule of law. Indeed, part of the rationale for establishing Guantanamo in the first place was the misplaced notion that a prison there would be beyond the law - a proposition that the Supreme Court soundly rejected. Meanwhile, instead of serving as a tool to counter-terrorism, Guantanamo became a symbol that helped al Qaeda recruit terrorists to its cause. Indeed, the existence of Guantanamo likely created more terrorists around the world than it ever detained.

So the record is clear: rather than keep us safer, the prison at Guantanamo has weakened American national security. It is a rallying cry for our enemies. It sets back the willingness of our allies to work with us in fighting an enemy that operates in scores of countries. By any measure, the costs of keeping it open far exceed the complications involved in closing it. That is why I argued that it should be closed throughout my campaign. And that is why I ordered it closed within one year.

The third decision that I made was to order a review of all the pending cases at Guantanamo.

I knew when I ordered Guantanamo closed that it would be difficult and complex. There are 240 people there who have now spent years in legal limbo. In dealing with this situation, we do not have the luxury of starting from scratch. We are cleaning up something that is - quite simply - a mess; a misguided experiment that has left in its wake a flood of legal challenges that my Administration is forced to deal with on a constant basis, and that consumes the time of government officials whose time should be spent on better protecting our country.

Indeed, the legal challenges that have sparked so much debate in recent weeks in Washington would be taking place whether or not I decided to close Guantanamo. For example, the court order to release seventeen Uighur detainees took place last fall - when George Bush was President. The Supreme Court that invalidated the system of prosecution at Guantanamo in 2006 was overwhelmingly appointed by Republican Presidents. In other words, the problem of what to do with Guantanamo detainees was not caused by my decision to close the facility; the problem exists because of the decision to open Guantanamo in the first place.

There are no neat or easy answers here. But I can tell you that the wrong answer is to pretend like this problem will go away if we maintain an unsustainable status quo. As President, I refuse to allow this problem to fester. Our security interests won't permit it. Our courts won't allow it. And neither should our conscience.

Now, over the last several weeks, we have seen a return of the politicization of these issues that have characterized the last several years. I understand that these problems arouse passions and concerns. They should. We are confronting some of the most complicated questions that a democracy can face. But I have no interest in spending our time re-litigating the policies of the last eight years. I want to solve these problems, and I want to solve them together as Americans.

And we will be ill-served by some of the fear-mongering that emerges whenever we discuss this issue. Listening to the recent debate, I've heard words that are calculated to scare people rather than educate them; words that have more to do with politics than protecting our country. So I want to take this opportunity to lay out what we are doing, and how we intend to resolve these outstanding issues. I will explain how each action that we are taking will help build a framework that protects both the American people and the values that we hold dear. And I will focus on two broad areas: first, issues relating to Guantanamo and our detention policy; second, issues relating to security and transparency.

Let me begin by disposing of one argument as plainly as I can: we are not going to release anyone if it would endanger our national security, nor will we release detainees within the United States who endanger the American people. Where demanded by justice and national security, we will seek to transfer some detainees to the same type of facilities in which we hold all manner of dangerous and violent criminals within our borders - highly secure prisons that ensure the public safety. As we make these decisions, bear in mind the following fact: nobody has ever escaped from one of our federal "supermax" prisons, which hold hundreds of convicted terrorists. As Senator Lindsey Graham said: "The idea that we cannot find a place to securely house 250-plus detainees within the United States is not rational."

We are currently in the process of reviewing each of the detainee cases at Guantanamo to determine the appropriate policy for dealing with them. As we do so, we are acutely aware that under the last Administration, detainees were released only to return to the battlefield. That is why we are doing away with the poorly planned, haphazard approach that let those detainees go in the past. Instead, we are treating these cases with the care and attention that the law requires and our security demands. Going forward, these cases will fall into five distinct categories.

First, when feasible, we will try those who have violated American criminal laws in federal courts - courts provided for by the United States Constitution. Some have derided our federal courts as incapable of handling the trials of terrorists. They are wrong. Our courts and juries of our citizens are tough enough to convict terrorists, and the record makes that clear. Ramzi Yousef tried to blow up the World Trade Center - he was convicted in our courts, and is serving a life sentence in U.S. prison. Zaccarias Moussaoui has been identified as the 20th 9/11 hijacker - he was convicted in our courts, and he too is serving a life sentence in prison. If we can try those terrorists in our courts and hold them in our prisons, then we can do the same with detainees from Guantanamo.

Recently, we prosecuted and received a guilty plea from a detainee - al-Marri - in federal court after years of legal confusion. We are preparing to transfer another detainee to the Southern District of New York, where he will face trial on charges related to the 1998 bombings of our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania - bombings that killed over 200 people. Preventing this detainee from coming to our shores would prevent his trial and conviction. And after over a decade, it is time to finally see that justice is served, and that is what we intend to do.

The second category of cases involves detainees who violate the laws of war and are best tried through Military Commissions. Military commissions have a history in the United States dating back to George Washington and the Revolutionary War. They are an appropriate venue for trying detainees for violations of the laws of war. They allow for the protection of sensitive sources and methods of intelligence-gathering; for the safety and security of participants; and for the presentation of evidence gathered from the battlefield that cannot be effectively presented in federal Courts.

Now, some have suggested that this represents a reversal on my part. They are wrong. In 2006, I did strongly oppose legislation proposed by the Bush Administration and passed by the Congress because it failed to establish a legitimate legal framework, with the kind of meaningful due process and rights for the accused that could stand up on appeal. I did, however, support the use of military commissions to try detainees, provided there were several reforms. And those are the reforms that we are making.

Instead of using the flawed Commissions of the last seven years, my Administration is bringing our Commissions in line with the rule of law. The rule will no longer permit us to use as evidence statements that have been obtained using cruel, inhuman, or degrading interrogation methods. We will no longer place the burden to prove that hearsay is unreliable on the opponent of the hearsay. And we will give detainees greater latitude in selecting their own counsel, and more protections if they refuse to testify. These reforms - among others - will make our Military Commissions a more credible and effective means of administering justice, and I will work with Congress and legal authorities across the political spectrum on legislation to ensure that these Commissions are fair, legitimate, and effective.

The third category of detainees includes those who we have been ordered released by the courts. Let me repeat what I said earlier: this has absolutely nothing to do with my decision to close Guantanamo. It has to do with the rule of law. The courts have found that there is no legitimate reason to hold twenty-one of the people currently held at Guantanamo. Twenty of these findings took place before I came into office. The United States is a nation of laws, and we must abide by these rulings.

The fourth category of cases involves detainees who we have determined can be transferred safely to another country. So far, our review team has approved fifty detainees for transfer. And my Administration is in ongoing discussions with a number of other countries about the transfer of detainees to their soil for detention and rehabilitation.

Finally, there remains the question of detainees at Guantanamo who cannot be prosecuted yet who pose a clear danger to the American people.

I want to be honest: this is the toughest issue we will face. We are going to exhaust every avenue that we have to prosecute those at Guantanamo who pose a danger to our country. But even when this process is complete, there may be a number of people who cannot be prosecuted for past crimes, but who nonetheless pose a threat to the security of the United States. Examples of that threat include people who have received extensive explosives training at al Qaeda training camps, commanded Taliban troops in battle, expressed their allegiance to Osama bin Laden, or otherwise made it clear that they want to kill Americans. These are people who, in effect, remain at war with the United States.

As I said, I am not going to release individuals who endanger the American people. Al Qaeda terrorists and their affiliates are at war with the United States, and those that we capture - like other prisoners of war - must be prevented from attacking us again. However, we must recognize that these detention policies cannot be unbounded. That is why my Administration has begun to reshape these standards to ensure they are in line with the rule of law. We must have clear, defensible and lawful standards for those who fall in this category. We must have fair procedures so that we don't make mistakes. We must have a thorough process of periodic review, so that any prolonged detention is carefully evaluated and justified.

I know that creating such a system poses unique challenges. Other countries have grappled with this question, and so must we. But I want to be very clear that our goal is to construct a legitimate legal framework for Guantanamo detainees - not to avoid one. In our constitutional system, prolonged detention should not be the decision of any one man. If and when we determine that the United States must hold individuals to keep them from carrying out an act of war, we will do so within a system that involves judicial and congressional oversight. And so going forward, my Administration will work with Congress to develop an appropriate legal regime so that our efforts are consistent with our values and our Constitution.

As our efforts to close Guantanamo move forward, I know that the politics in Congress will be difficult. These issues are fodder for 30-second commercials and direct mail pieces that are designed to frighten. I get it. But if we continue to make decisions from within a climate of fear, we will make more mistakes. And if we refuse to deal with these issues today, then I guarantee you that they will be an albatross around our efforts to combat terrorism in the future. I have confidence that the American people are more interested in doing what is right to protect this country than in political posturing. I am not the only person in this city who swore an oath to uphold the Constitution - so did each and every member of Congress. Together we have a responsibility to enlist our values in the effort to secure our people, and to leave behind the legacy that makes it easier for future Presidents to keep this country safe.

The second set of issues that I want to discuss relates to security and transparency.

National security requires a delicate balance. Our democracy depends upon transparency, but some information must be protected from public disclosure for the sake of our security - for instance, the movements of our troops; our intelligence-gathering; or the information we have about a terrorist organization and its affiliates. In these and other cases, lives are at stake.

Several weeks ago, as part of an ongoing court case, I released memos issued by the previous Administration's Office of Legal Counsel. I did not do this because I disagreed with the enhanced interrogation techniques that those memos authorized, or because I reject their legal rationale - although I do on both counts. I released the memos because the existence of that approach to interrogation was already widely known, the Bush Administration had acknowledged its existence, and I had already banned those methods. The argument that somehow by releasing those memos, we are providing terrorists with information about how they will be interrogated is unfounded - we will not be interrogating terrorists using that approach, because that approach is now prohibited.

In short, I released these memos because there was no overriding reason to protect them. And the ensuing debate has helped the American people better understand how these interrogation methods came to be authorized and used.

On the other hand, I recently opposed the release of certain photographs that were taken of detainees by U.S. personnel between 2002 and 2004. Individuals who violated standards of behavior in these photos have been investigated and held accountable. There is no debate as to whether what is reflected in those photos is wrong, and nothing has been concealed to absolve perpetrators of crimes. However, it was my judgment - informed by my national security team - that releasing these photos would inflame anti-American opinion, and allow our enemies to paint U.S. troops with a broad, damning and inaccurate brush, endangering them in theaters of war.

In short, there is a clear and compelling reason to not release these particular photos. There are nearly 200,000 Americans who are serving in harm's way, and I have a solemn responsibility for their safety as Commander-in-Chief. Nothing would be gained by the release of these photos that matters more than the lives of our young men and women serving in harm's way.

In each of these cases, I had to strike the right balance between transparency and national security. This balance brings with it a precious responsibility. And there is no doubt that the American people have seen this balance tested. In the images from Abu Ghraib and the brutal interrogation techniques made public long before I was President, the American people learned of actions taken in their name that bear no resemblance to the ideals that generations of Americans have fought for. And whether it was the run-up to the Iraq War or the revelation of secret programs, Americans often felt like part of the story had been unnecessarily withheld from them. That causes suspicion to build up. That leads to a thirst for accountability.

I ran for President promising transparency, and I meant what I said. That is why, whenever possible, we will make information available to the American people so that they can make informed judgments and hold us accountable. But I have never argued - and never will - that our most sensitive national security matters should be an open book. I will never abandon - and I will vigorously defend - the necessity of classification to defend our troops at war; to protect sources and methods; and to safeguard confidential actions that keep the American people safe. And so, whenever we cannot release certain information to the public for valid national security reasons, I will insist that there is oversight of my actions - by Congress or by the courts.

We are launching a review of current policies by all of those agencies responsible for the classification of documents to determine where reforms are possible, and to assure that the other branches of government will be in a position to review executive branch decisions on these matters. Because in our system of checks and balances, someone must always watch over the watchers - especially when it comes to sensitive information.

Along those same lines, my Administration is also confronting challenges to what is known as the "State Secrets" privilege. This is a doctrine that allows the government to challenge legal cases involving secret programs. It has been used by many past Presidents - Republican and Democrat - for many decades. And while this principle is absolutely necessary to protect national security, I am concerned that it has been over-used. We must not protect information merely because it reveals the violation of a law or embarrasses the government. That is why my Administration is nearing completion of a thorough review of this practice.

We plan to embrace several principles for reform. We will apply a stricter legal test to material that can be protected under the State Secrets privilege. We will not assert the privilege in court without first following a formal process, including review by a Justice Department committee and the personal approval of the Attorney General. Finally, each year we will voluntarily report to Congress when we have invoked the privilege and why, because there must be proper oversight of our actions.

On all of these matter related to the disclosure of sensitive information, I wish I could say that there is a simple formula. But there is not. These are tough calls involving competing concerns, and they require a surgical approach. But the common thread that runs through all of my decisions is simple: we will safeguard what we must to protect the American people, but we will also ensure the accountability and oversight that is the hallmark of our constitutional system. I will never hide the truth because it is uncomfortable. I will deal with Congress and the courts as co-equal branches of government. I will tell the American people what I know and don't know, and when I release something publicly or keep something secret, I will tell you why.

In all of the areas that I have discussed today, the policies that I have proposed represent a new direction from the last eight years. To protect the American people and our values, we have banned enhanced interrogation techniques. We are closing the prison at Guantanamo. We are reforming Military Commissions, and we will pursue a new legal regime to detain terrorists. We are declassifying more information and embracing more oversight of our actions, and narrowing our use of the State Secrets privilege. These are dramatic changes that will put our approach to national security on a surer, safer and more sustainable footing, and their implementation will take time.

There is a core principle that we will apply to all of our actions: even as we clean up the mess at Guantanamo, we will constantly re-evaluate our approach, subject our decisions to review from the other branches of government, and seek the strongest and most sustainable legal framework for addressing these issues in the long-term. By doing that, we can leave behind a legacy that outlasts my Administration, and that endures for the next President and the President after that; a legacy that protects the American people, and enjoys broad legitimacy at home and abroad.

That is what I mean when I say that we need to focus on the future. I recognize that many still have a strong desire to focus on the past. When it comes to the actions of the last eight years, some Americans are angry; others want to re-fight debates that have been settled, most clearly at the ballot box in November. And I know that these debates lead directly to a call for a fuller accounting, perhaps through an Independent Commission.

I have opposed the creation of such a Commission because I believe that our existing democratic institutions are strong enough to deliver accountability. The Congress can review abuses of our values, and there are ongoing inquiries by the Congress into matters like enhanced interrogation techniques. The Department of Justice and our courts can work through and punish any violations of our laws.

I understand that it is no secret that there is a tendency in Washington to spend our time pointing fingers at one another. And our media culture feeds the impulses that lead to a good fight. Nothing will contribute more to that than an extended re-litigation of the last eight years. Already, we have seen how that kind of effort only leads those in Washington to different sides laying blame, and can distract us from focusing our time, our effort, and our politics on the challenges of the future.

We see that, above all, in how the recent debate has been obscured by two opposite and absolutist ends. On one side of the spectrum, there are those who make little allowance for the unique challenges posed by terrorism, and who would almost never put national security over transparency. On the other end of the spectrum, there are those who embrace a view that can be summarized in two words: "anything goes." Their arguments suggest that the ends of fighting terrorism can be used to justify any means, and that the President should have blanket authority to do whatever he wants - provided that it is a President with whom they agree.

Both sides may be sincere in their views, but neither side is right. The American people are not absolutist, and they don't elect us to impose a rigid ideology on our problems. They know that we need not sacrifice our security for our values, nor sacrifice our values for our security, so long as we approach difficult questions with honesty, and care, and a dose of common sense. That, after all, is the unique genius of America. That is the challenge laid down by our Constitution. That has been the source of our strength through the ages. That is what makes the United States of America different as a nation.

I can stand here today, as President of the United States, and say without exception or equivocation that we do not torture, and that we will vigorously protect our people while forging a strong and durable framework that allows us to fight terrorism while abiding by the rule of law. Make no mistake: if we fail to turn the page on the approach that was taken over the past several years, then I will not be able to say that as President. And if we cannot stand for those core values, then we are not keeping faith with the documents that are enshrined in this hall.

The Framers who drafted the Constitution could not have foreseen the challenges that have unfolded over the last two hundred and twenty two years. But our Constitution has endured through secession and civil rights - through World War and Cold War - because it provides a foundation of principles that can be applied pragmatically; it provides a compass that can help us find our way. It hasn't always been easy. We are an imperfect people. Every now and then, there are those who think that America's safety and success requires us to walk away from the sacred principles enshrined in this building. We hear such voices today. But the American people have resisted that temptation. And though we have made our share of mistakes and course corrections, we have held fast to the principles that have been the source of our strength, and a beacon to the world.

Now, this generation faces a great test in the specter of terrorism. Unlike the Civil War or World War II, we cannot count on a surrender ceremony to bring this journey to an end. Right now, in distant training camps and in crowded cities, there are people plotting to take American lives. That will be the case a year from now, five years from now, and - in all probability - ten years from now. Neither I nor anyone else can standing here today can say that there will not be another terrorist attack that takes American lives. But I can say with certainty that my Administration - along with our extraordinary troops and the patriotic men and women who defend our national security - will do everything in our power to keep the American people safe. And I do know with certainty that we can defeat al Qaeda. Because the terrorists can only succeed if they swell their ranks and alienate America from our allies, and they will never be able to do that if we stay true to who we are; if we forge tough and durable approaches to fighting terrorism that are anchored in our timeless ideals.

This must be our common purpose. I ran for President because I believe that we cannot solve the challenges of our time unless we solve them together. We will not be safe if we see national security as a wedge that divides America - it can and must be a cause that unites us as one people, as one nation. We have done so before in times that were more perilous than ours. We will do so once again. Thank you, God Bless you, and God bless the United States of America.

20090521 Text of President Obamas Speech on National Security

Kevin Dayhoff Soundtrack: www.kevindayhoff.net http://kevindayhoff.blogspot.com/
Kevin Dayhoff Art: www.kevindayhoff.com
Kevin Dayhoff Westminster: www.westgov.net

Military National Security, Pres 2009 44 Obama speeches, Pres 2009 44 Obama-Barack, World Middle East Afghanistan, Military Natl Security Intel CIA, Military Global War on Terror, Military enhanced interrogation, Enhanced Interrogation qv Military, Torture qv Military enhanced,

Don Surber: Democratic Party Guilt

Don Surber: Democratic Party Guilt

May 13, 2009

Don Surber weighs-in on the escalating hard feelings between the CIA - the Democrat-dominated Congress and the Obama administration; as attempts to criminalize public policy differences are quickly becoming an acceptable partisan political tactic.

Also see: “Prosecutors to Question Rove on U.S. Attorney Firings” By Carrie Johnson Washington Post Staff Writer Thursday, May 14, 2009; 3:09 PM

No word as to whether or not these folks will also investigate the mass firings of the U.S. attorneys by President Bill Clinton.

Oh, silly me, it's okay when Democrats do it…

Meanwhile, see also: Speaker Accuses CIA of Lying May 14, 2009, 12:17 p.m. By Tory Newmyer Roll Call Staff - http://kevindayhoff.blogspot.com/2009/05/speaker-accuses-cia-of-lying.html

Don Surber: Democratic Party guilt

Democratic Sen. Carl Levin: The Central Intelligence Agency is out to make us look paranoid.

Out, out damned spot.

After decades of shabby treatment by the Democrats in Congress, CIA personnel sense another attack coming. They waterboarded three guys — including the man who beheaded Daniel Pearl — and got the information that spared the nation. Now CIA personnel see the Democrats trying to distort that into torture.

Apparently, someone is trying to ward off the witch hunt by leaking the truth to the newspapers: Democrats knew and went along with it because they did not want to be held responsible for a second 9/11.

[…]

Levin told Politico: “I think there is so much embarrassment in some quarters [of the CIA] that people are going to try to shift some of the responsibility to others — that’s what I think.”

Read Mr. Surber’s entire post here: Don Surber: Democratic Party guilt


http://blogs.dailymail.com/donsurber/2009/05/13/democratic-party-guilt/#more-8416

And be sure to read the one comment: gk1 Says: May 13th, 2009 at 6:23 pm
Interesting when it was the CIA leaking against the Bush admin they were brave “non partisan” watchdogs speaking out against a corrupt, power hunger presidency. When they leak against democrats its because of “embarassment”….

20090513 SDOSM Don Surber Democratic Party Guilt

Kevin Dayhoff Soundtrack: http://www.kevindayhoff.net/ http://kevindayhoff.blogspot.com/
Kevin Dayhoff Art: http://www.kevindayhoff.com/
Kevin Dayhoff Westminster: http://www.westgov.net/

Speaker Accuses CIA of Lying

Speaker Accuses CIA of Lying May 14, 2009, 12:17 p.m. By Tory Newmyer Roll Call Staff

Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) pushed back hard against the controversy over what she knew, and when, about harsh Bush-era interrogation techniques by accusing the CIA of lying to her in a classified briefing on the matter in September 2002.

“At every step of the way, the administration was misleading the Congress. And that is the issue,” Pelosi told reporters Thursday.

[…]

Meanwhile, Rep. Pete Hoekstra (R-Mich.), the ranking member on the Intelligence Committee, immediately derided Pelosi’s statements. “What is this, like version 3.0 from Nancy’s perspective of what happened in that meeting?” he asked.

Hoekstra said Pelosi’s allegations about the CIA are serious, calling it “a very, very serious charge. I’m not a lawyer, but I would expect that Congress would treat that as a crime.” 2009 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved.

[…]

Read the entire article in Roll Call here: Speaker Accuses CIA of Lying

http://www.rollcall.com/news/34921-1.html

Related from http://www.rollcall.com/:

Waxman, Markey Announce Breakthrough on Climate Change Bill

Reid: Johnsen Doesn’t Have Votes for DOJ Post

Pelosi Knocked Off Her Game

HOH’s One-Minute Recess: Zoo in the Swamp

Speaker Accuses CIA of Lying

Reid Lays Out Lofty Agenda, Warns of Votes Next Weekend

Supreme Court Suspense Heads to a Conclusion

Democrats Rethink Paying for Gitmo Closure

Reid: Johnsen Doesn’t Have Votes for DOJ Post

A Big Thaw for Climate Change

Heard on the Hill: We Interrupt This Hearing

Armed and Ready for Battle May 11, 12 a.m.
At the beginning of the year, House Armed Services Committee Chairman Ike Skelton (D-Mo.) promised a jam-packed agenda for his committee, with hearings on Iraq, Afghanistan-Pakistan issues and the Pentagon’s acquisition process. Read Full Article

McHugh Moves Into Spotlight

Lobbyists Closely Following Agenda

Top Staffer Conaton Preaches Togetherness

House Armed Services Committee Through the Ages

Committee Insider Index

20090414 Roll Call Speaker Pelosi Accuses CIA of Lying

Kevin Dayhoff Soundtrack: http://www.kevindayhoff.net/ http://kevindayhoff.blogspot.com/
Kevin Dayhoff Art: http://www.kevindayhoff.com/
Kevin Dayhoff Westminster: http://www.westgov.net/

WSJ: Presidential Poison

WSJ: Presidential Poison

REVIEW & OUTLOOK

APRIL 23, 2009

His invitation to indict Bush officials will haunt Obama's Presidency.

Mark down the date. Tuesday, April 21, 2009, is the moment that any chance of a new era of bipartisan respect in Washington ended. By inviting the prosecution of Bush officials for their antiterror legal advice, President Obama has injected a poison into our politics that he and the country will live to regret.

clipped from online.wsj.com

Presidential Poison

Mark down the date. Tuesday, April 21, 2009, is the moment that any chance of a new era of bipartisan respect in Washington ended. By inviting the prosecution of Bush officials for their antiterror legal advice, President Obama has injected a poison into our politics that he and the country will live to regret.

Policy disputes, often bitter, are the stuff of democratic politics. Elections settle those battles, at least for a time, and Mr. Obama's victory in November has given him the right to change policies on interrogations, Guantanamo, or anything on which he can muster enough support. But at least until now, the U.S. political system has avoided the spectacle of a new Administration prosecuting its predecessor for policy disagreements. This is what happens in Argentina, Malaysia or Peru, countries where the law is treated merely as an extension of political power.

20090423 WSJ: Presidential Poison
Presidential Poison
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124044375842145565.html

http://clipmarks.com/clipmark/85ADC4AB-3D1E-4CC3-BB71-9C557CED6B12/

Kevin Dayhoff Soundtrack: www.kevindayhoff.net http://kevindayhoff.blogspot.com/
Kevin Dayhoff Art: www.kevindayhoff.com
Kevin Dayhoff Westminster: www.westgov.net

Cartoon: No Good Deed

Cartoon: No Good Deed

April 27, 2009

http://click.bsftransmit1.com/ClickThru.aspx?pubids=lafUp6VZCXiPV8va%2bhJoRc95Sb2F9ReH7wYOXNNoCeU%3d&digest=lx6SUsevv8K1w5NPGxgMzw

Related:

Smiling Faces - President Barack Obama stopped by CIA headquarters April 20, 2009

http://kevindayhoff.blogspot.com/2009/04/obama-stopped-by-cia-headquarters-april.html

http://www.thetentacle.com/ Smiling Faces - President Barack Obama stopped by CIA headquarters… http://tinyurl.com/ct6ue8

http://kevindayhoff.blogspot.com/2009/04/smiling-faces-president-barack-obama-at.html

20090420 SDOSM Remarks By The President To CIA Employees http://tinyurl.com/cff6nc

http://kevindayhoff.blogspot.com/2009/04/remarks-by-president-to-cia-employees.html

20090422 SDOSM 1971 Smiling Faces Tell Lies by The Undisputed Truth

http://kevindayhoff.blogspot.com/2009/04/1971-smiling-faces-tell-lies-by.html

ALG Editor's Note: William's award-winning cartoons published at GetLiberty.org are a free service of ALG News Bureau. They may be reused and redistributed free of charge.

20090427 Cartoon No Good Deed

Kevin Dayhoff Soundtrack: www.kevindayhoff.net http://kevindayhoff.blogspot.com/
Kevin Dayhoff Art: www.kevindayhoff.com
Kevin Dayhoff Westminster: www.westgov.net

Slow Roll Time At Langley By David Ignatius

Slow Roll Time At Langley By David Ignatius Wednesday, April 22, 2009

At the Central Intelligence Agency, it's known as "slow rolling." That's what agency officers sometimes do on politically sensitive assignments. They go through the motions; they pass cables back and forth; they take other jobs out of the danger zone; they cover their backsides.

Sad to say, it's slow roll time at Langley after the release of interrogation memos that, in the words of one veteran officer, "hit the agency like a car bomb in the driveway." President Obama promised CIA officers that they won't be prosecuted for carrying out lawful orders, but the people on the firing line don't believe him. They think the memos have opened a new season of investigation and retribution.

The lesson for younger officers is obvious: Keep your head down. Duck the assignments that carry political risk. Stay away from a counterterrorism program that has become a career hazard.

Obama tried personally to reassure the CIA workforce during a visit to Langley on Monday. He said all the right things about the agency's clandestine role. But it had the look of a campaign event, with employees hooting and hollering and the president reading from his teleprompter with a backdrop of stars that commemorate the CIA's fallen warriors. By yesterday, Obama was deferring to the attorney general whether to prosecute "those who formulated those legal decisions," whatever that means.

Read the entire column here: Slow Roll Time At Langley By David Ignatius

20090422 Slow Roll Time At Langley By David Ignatius
Kevin Dayhoff www.kevindayhoff.net http://kevindayhoff.blogspot.com/

Obama stopped by CIA headquarters April 20

"Smiling Sheep" by Kevin Dayhoff April 22, 2009

Smiling Faces - President Barack Obama stopped by CIA headquarters April 20, 2009

http://www.thetentacle.com/ Smiling Faces - President Barack Obama stopped by CIA headquarters… http://tinyurl.com/ct6ue8

http://kevindayhoff.blogspot.com/2009/04/smiling-faces-president-barack-obama-at.html

20090420 SDOSM Remarks By The President To CIA Employees http://tinyurl.com/cff6nc

http://kevindayhoff.blogspot.com/2009/04/remarks-by-president-to-cia-employees.html

20090422 SDOSM 1971 Smiling Faces Tell Lies by The Undisputed Truth

http://kevindayhoff.blogspot.com/2009/04/1971-smiling-faces-tell-lies-by.html

20090422-Smiling-Sheep.gif
20090422 SDOSM Obama stopped by CIA headquarters April 20

Kevin Dayhoff www.kevindayhoff.net http://kevindayhoff.blogspot.com/

Smiling Faces - President Barack Obama at CIA headquarters

‘Smiling Faces…’

 April 22, 2009  Kevin E. Dayhoff  http://www.thetentacle.com/

 On Monday a smiling President Barack Obama stopped by CIA headquarters for the first time since taking office. It was a charm offensive to give the agency a pep talk to help stave off low morale issues.

 This comes after he released, just last Thursday, four Office of the Legal Counsel memos classified “Top Secret,” that were authored by John C. Yoo, Jay S. Bybee and Steven G. Bradbury.

 The first document was dated August 1, 2002, two were dated May 10, 2005, and a fourth was from May 30, 2005. They laid-out the argument that certain interrogation techniques used by the CIA on suspected al Qa’ida terrorist detainees were legal.

 Missing among the documents is the information as to when high-ranking members of Congress were briefed on these activities.

 The release of the 124 pages is the latest in a series of affronts that amount to a breach of faith and trust with the men and women who are tasked with protecting us from danger and harm. This has been done solely for political gain – and to run a stick in the eye of the previous administration as a function of a “We Won” personal vendetta.

 Whispers in the hallways indicate that as a result of this latest round of cutting the CIA off at the knees has resulted in serious morale problems at the agency with many dedicated members of the (once)elite arm of our frontline national defense force looking for the door.

 Read the rest here: ‘Smiling Faces…’

http://www.thetentacle.com/ShowArticle.cfm?mydocid=3123

 20090422 TT Smiling Faces ttked

Kevin Dayhoff www.kevindayhoff.net http://kevindayhoff.blogspot.com/

Remarks By The President To CIA Employees

THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release

April 20, 2009

REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT TO CIA EMPLOYEES

CIA Headquarters

Langley, Virginia

3:41 P.M. EDT

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you, everybody. (Applause.) Thank you. Thank you. (Applause.) Well, thank you for the extraordinary welcome. And thanks, for those of you who prepared from the CIA gift shop -- (laughter) -- the t-shirts, the caps, the water bottles. (Laughter.) Michelle and the girls will appreciate that very much. (Laughter.)

It is a great honor to be here with the men and women of the CIA. I’ve been eager to come out here to Langley for some time so I can deliver a simple message to you in person on behalf of the American people: Thank you. Thank you for all the work that you do to protect the American people and the freedom that we all cherish.

The CIA is fundamental to America's national security. And I want you to know that that's why I nominated such an outstanding public servant and close friend, Leon Panetta, to lead the agency. He is one of our nation’s finest public servants, he has my complete confidence, and he is a strong voice in my national security team, as well as a strong advocate for the men and women of the CIA.

I also benefit from the counsel of several agency veterans -- chief among them, Steve Kappes, who's stayed on to serve as Leon’s Deputy, and he's done outstanding work. (Applause.) I have to add just as an aside, by the way, I just met with a smaller group of about 50 so we could have a dialogue, and all of you look really young. (Laughter.) And so to have a graybeard literally and figuratively -- (laughter) -- like Steve Kappes here I think is absolutely critical.

I also want you to know that we have one of your own, John Brennan, who is doing a terrific job as my advisor for counterterrorism and homeland security. And we are very grateful for the work that he does and the insights that he brings from his long years of service here at the CIA.

And I’d be remiss if I didn’t mention the extraordinary former CIA officer and Director of Central Intelligence, Bob Gates, who is also part of our Cabinet and every once in a while gives me a few tips. (Applause.)

Let me share with you just a few thoughts about the situation in which we find ourselves. First, I want to underscore the importance of the CIA. When the CIA was founded, you were focused on one overarching threat: the Soviet Union. And for decades, the CIA carried out a critically important mission. With the end of the Cold War, some wondered how important the CIA would be to our future. Now we know.

Here in the 21st century, we've learned that the CIA is more important than ever, for, as Leon mentioned, we face a wide range of unconventional challenges: stateless terrorist networks like al Qaeda, the spread of catastrophic weapons, cyber threats, failed states, rogue regimes, persistent conflict, and now we have to add to our list piracy.

The CIA is unique in the capabilities of collection, analysis and operation that you bring to bear. So you are an indispensable tool, the tip of the spear, in America’s intelligence mission and our national security. It is because of you that I can make good decisions. You prove that the key to good intelligence is not simply technology -- it's the quality of the men and women who have signed up to serve.

You're on the front lines against unconventional challenges. You help us understand the world as it is. You support the work of our troops and our diplomats and law enforcement officers. You disrupt terrorist plots and you're critical to our efforts to destroy terrorist networks. You serve capably, courageously, and from here in Virginia to dangerous outposts around the globe, you make enormous sacrifices on our behalf. So you should be proud of what you do.

Second, you need to know that you've got my full support. For decades, the American people have counted on you to protect them. I know that I've come to personally count on your services; I rely on your reporting and your analysis, which finds its way onto my desk every single day.

And I know you've got a tough job. I know there's no margin for error. And I know there are endless demands for intelligence and there is an urgent necessity to collect and analyze information, and to work seamlessly with other agencies to act on it. And what makes it tougher is when you succeed –- as you so often do -- that success usually has to stay secret. So you don't get credit when things go good, but you sure get some blame when things don't. Now -- (laughter) -- I got a "Amen" corner out here. (Laughter.)

Now, in that context I know that the last few days have been difficult. As I made clear in releasing the OLC memos -- as a consequence of a court case that was pending and to which it was very difficult for us to mount an effective legal defense -- I acted primarily because of the exceptional circumstances that surrounded these memos; particularly the fact that so much of the information was public, had been publicly acknowledged, the covert nature of the information had been compromised.

I have fought to protect the integrity of classified information in the past, and I will do so in the future. And there is nothing more important than protecting the identities of CIA officers. So I need everybody to be clear: We will protect your identities and your security as you vigorously pursue your missions. I will be as vigorous in protecting you as you are vigorous in protecting the American people.

Now, I have put an end to the interrogation techniques described in those OLC memos, and I want to be very clear and very blunt. I've done so for a simple reason: because I believe that our nation is stronger and more secure when we deploy the full measure of both our power and the power of our values –- including the rule of law. I know I can count on you to do exactly that.

There have been some conversations that I've had with senior folks here at Langley in which I think people have expressed understandable anxiety and concern. So I want to make a point that I just made in the smaller group. I understand that it's hard when you are asked to protect the American people against people who have no scruples and would willingly and gladly kill innocents. Al Qaeda is not constrained by a constitution. Many of our adversaries are not constrained by a belief in freedom of speech, or representation in court, or rule of law. I'm sure that sometimes it seems as if that means we're operating with one hand tied behind our back, or that those who would argue for a higher standard are naïve. I understand that. You know, I watch the cable shows once in a while. (Laughter.)

What makes the United States special, and what makes you special, is precisely the fact that we are willing to uphold our values and our ideals even when it's hard, not just when it's easy; even when we are afraid and under threat, not just when it's expedient to do so. That's what makes us different.

So, yes, you've got a harder job. And so do I. And that's okay, because that's why we can take such extraordinary pride in being Americans. And over the long term, that is why I believe we will defeat our enemies, because we're on the better side of history.

So don't be discouraged by what's happened in the last few weeks. Don't be discouraged that we have to acknowledge potentially we've made some mistakes. That's how we learn. But the fact that we are willing to acknowledge them and then move forward, that is precisely why I am proud to be President of the United States, and that's why you should be proud to be members of the CIA. (Applause.)

Third point -- third point: I want you to know how much the American people appreciate your service. Sometimes it's hard to acknowledge sacrifices made by the people whose work or even identity must remain secret. And that's part of the enormous burden that you carry when you sign up. You make extraordinary sacrifices giving up parts of your life in service to your country. Many of you take long deployments overseas. You miss seeing your families. You miss weekend barbecues and the birthday parties, watching your children grow up. You can't even exchange in the simplest pleasure of talking about your job or complaining about your job openly. (Laughter.)

There are few signs of patriotism more powerful than offering to serve out of the limelight. And so many of you have signed up to serve after 9/11 -- that's partly why you're all so young -- fully aware of the dangers before you. You serve courageously, but your courage is only known to a few. You accomplish remarkable things, but the credit you receive is the private knowledge that you've done something to secure this country.

That's a sacrifice that's carved into those marble walls. Those 89 stars stand as a testament to both the men and women of the CIA who gave their lives in service to their country, and to all who dedicate themselves to the mission of this Agency.

Now we must look forward to the future with confidence. All that you've achieved, I believe that the CIA's best days are still yet to come. And you will have my support and appreciation as you carry on this critical work. We live in dangerous times. I am going to need you more than ever, precisely because we're seeing changes in our foreign policy and we want to send a new message to the world. That requires better intelligence, not less of it. That means that we're going to have to operate smarter and more effectively than ever.

So I'm going to be relying on you and the American people are going to rely on you. And I hope that you will continue to take extraordinary pride in the challenges that come with the job.

Thank you very much. God bless you, and God bless the United States of America. (Applause.)

END 3:48 P.M. EDT

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Remarks-by-the-President-to-CIA-employees-at-CIA-Headquarters/

20090420 SDOSM Remarks By The President To CIA Employees

Related: http://www.thetentacle.com/ Smiling Faces - President Barack Obama stopped by CIA headquarters… http://tinyurl.com/ct6ue8
Kevin Dayhoff www.kevindayhoff.net http://kevindayhoff.blogspot.com/

This week in The Tentacle for Wednesday April 22 2009

This week in The Tentacle

Wednesday, April 22, 2009
‘Smiling Faces…’
Kevin E. Dayhoff
On Monday a smiling President Barack Obama stopped by CIA headquarters for the first time since taking office. It was a charm offensive to give the agency a pep talk to help stave off low morale issues.

In the Face of Tragedy…
Michael Kurtianyk
On Sunday morning, I heard the church bells ring as I went to get the morning papers. I wanted to make sure that I picked them up before my 7-year-old daughters got to them. I knew what the headlines were going to be, and I didn’t want daughters to read the headlines before my wife and I had a chance to talk and prepare for that conversation.

A Malay Wedding – Part Two
Tom McLaughlin
Seremban, Malaysia – It’s the day before the celebration. Nazir’s son picked me up at the airport and I feigned I knew him, faking it most of the way. The marble finally dropped into the correct location in the brain and I realized who he was and could participate in the conversation instead of stupidly nodding my head.

Tuesday, April 21, 2009
Selling Newspapers?
Roy Meachum
"State of Play" opened this weekend; the film will be discussed with Bob Miller on his WFMD "Morning Express" Friday. Its’ message about modern newspapering burns in my mind and cannot wait another three days.

A Call to Arms…
Farrell Keough
I had the privilege of attending the Frederick County Tea Party. While neither man will accept the credit, great thanks goes out to Blaine Young and Bob Miller of WFMD radio, 930 A.M. That attendance on such an awful day to be outside was remarkable!

Monday, April 20, 2009
General Assembly Journal 2009 – Volume 12
Richard B. Weldon Jr.
The General Assembly Department of Legislative Services produces a document each year summarizing the legislative session. This year, I thought I’d produce my own right here on The Tentacle.

Because Hope is not a Method
Steven R. Berryman
My name is Steve, and I’m a “right-wing extremist.” That’s how I would start an “AA” meeting if those letters stood for “activists anonymous!”

Friday, April 17, 2009
Tea Party 2009
Roy Meachum
The story made all the papers: Washington Post, New York Times, etc. In Frederick, the News-Post slapped it across the front page: "Tea Party" Brews on Tax Day."

The Tea Has Been Tossed
Joe Charlebois
Just as a beaten dog will eventually turn on his owner, or a slave endeavor to escape the bondage of even the most benevolent master, a people can only be suppressed so long before they cry “No more!”

Thursday, April 16, 2009
Health Care Reform – Part 1
Patricia A. Kelly
Barack Obama is not the only one who believes that health care reform is essential to the economic and personal well-being of Americans. Technically, we can’t be beat, but our system is a mess.

Will This History Repeat Itself?
Tony Soltero
Fourteen years ago, on April 19, 1995, a young man named Tim McVeigh bombed the Alfred P. Murrah building in Oklahoma City, killing 168 Americans. It remains to this day the worst act of domestic terrorism in American history.

A REVIEW – No Conventional Story
Roy Meachum
Chazz Palminteri had 'em rolling in the aisles Tuesday. The Hippodrome Theatre brought his "Bronx Tale" to Baltimore. To say the one-man show was an opening night smash would be understatement of the most egregious sort.

Wednesday, April 15, 2009
The First Summer
Kevin E. Dayhoff
As the first summer approaches following the departure from the White House of President George W. Bush, I am reminded of the story that in the first summer after President Harry Truman left office, he took a road trip with his family in which he visited Frederick.

A Malay Wedding – Part One
Tom McLaughlin
Seremban, Malaysia – Three months before the wedding-I had returned to Malaysia after a 35-year absence, a former Peace Corps Volunteer. A couple of phone calls put me in touch with my kampung folks and a joyful reunion ensued.

Bob Dylan: An Appreciation
Michael Kurtianyk
I’m not sure when I first heard Bob Dylan. My guess would be at home on the radio hearing “Blowin in the Wind,” or “Like a Rolling Stone.” Growing up, my musical tastes veered toward what today would be called “Classic Rock” or “AOR (“Album-Oriented Rock”).

Tuesday, April 14, 2009
Naming a Puppy
Roy Meachum
One survey shows 21 percent of respondents object to the name (Bo) the Obama girls have chosen for their new Portuguese Water Dog puppy. Of course, it's plain dumb for any survey to ask. But, good grief! – one in five object to the name!

Advice from The Voice of Experience – Part 2
Nick Diaz
In my last installment on http://www.thetentacle.com/, I started giving readers, potential motorcyclists all, some advice on buying good, used, cheap motorcycles. I stressed the importance of doing one’s “homework,” which means thinking things over as one finds out about the various types, models, and brands of motorcycles available.

Monday, April 13, 2009
General Assembly Journal 2009 – Volume 11
Richard B. Weldon Jr.
A race worth saving? No, this is not some deep philosophical question about the future of mankind. The race is the Preakness, and the question relates more to the last minute effort to avoid a potential bankruptcy sale.

About the Net
Steven R. Berryman
What the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), once contrived to connect university research scientists to each other in the course of their daily work, has now become the world’s greatest tool, toy, and liability – our Internet.

20090422 SDOSM This week in The Tentacle

Kevin Dayhoff www.kevindayhoff.net http://kevindayhoff.blogspot.com/

Statement of President Barack Obama on Release of OLC Memos

THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
____________________________________________________________________________FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE April 16, 2009

Statement of President Barack Obama on Release of OLC Memos

The Department of Justice will today release certain memos issued by the Office of Legal Counsel between 2002 and 2005 as part of an ongoing court case. These memos speak to techniques that were used in the interrogation of terrorism suspects during that period, and their release is required by the rule of law.

My judgment on the content of these memos is a matter of record. In one of my very first acts as President, I prohibited the use of these interrogation techniques by the United States because they undermine our moral authority and do not make us safer. Enlisting our values in the protection of our people makes us stronger and more secure. A democracy as resilient as ours must reject the false choice between our security and our ideals, and that is why these methods of interrogation are already a thing of the past.

But that is not what compelled the release of these legal documents today. While I believe strongly in transparency and accountability, I also believe that in a dangerous world, the United States must sometimes carry out intelligence operations and protect information that is classified for purposes of national security. I have already fought for that principle in court and will do so again in the future. However, after consulting with the Attorney General, the Director of National Intelligence, and others, I believe that exceptional circumstances surround these memos and require their release.

First, the interrogation techniques described in these memos have already been widely reported. Second, the previous Administration publicly acknowledged portions of the program – and some of the practices – associated with these memos. Third, I have already ended the techniques described in the memos through an Executive Order. Therefore, withholding these memos would only serve to deny facts that have been in the public domain for some time. This could contribute to an inaccurate accounting of the past, and fuel erroneous and inflammatory assumptions about actions taken by the United States.

In releasing these memos, it is our intention to assure those who carried out their duties relying in good faith upon legal advice from the Department of Justice that they will not be subject to prosecution. The men and women of our intelligence community serve courageously on the front lines of a dangerous world. Their accomplishments are unsung and their names unknown, but because of their sacrifices, every single American is safer. We must protect their identities as vigilantly as they protect our security, and we must provide them with the confidence that they can do their jobs.

Going forward, it is my strong belief that the United States has a solemn duty to vigorously maintain the classified nature of certain activities and information related to national security. This is an extraordinarily important responsibility of the presidency, and it is one that I will carry out assertively irrespective of any political concern. Consequently, the exceptional circumstances surrounding these memos should not be viewed as an erosion of the strong legal basis for maintaining the classified nature of secret activities. I will always do whatever is necessary to protect the national security of the United States.

This is a time for reflection, not retribution. I respect the strong views and emotions that these issues evoke. We have been through a dark and painful chapter in our history. But at a time of great challenges and disturbing disunity, nothing will be gained by spending our time and energy laying blame for the past. Our national greatness is embedded in America’s ability to right its course in concert with our core values, and to move forward with confidence. That is why we must resist the forces that divide us, and instead come together on behalf of our common future.

The United States is a nation of laws. My Administration will always act in accordance with those laws, and with an unshakeable commitment to our ideals. That is why we have released these memos, and that is why we have taken steps to ensure that the actions described within them never take place again.

##

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Statement-of-President-Barack-Obama-on-Release-of-OLC-Memos/

20090416 SDOSM St of Pres Barack Obama on Release of OLC Memos
Kevin Dayhoff www.kevindayhoff.net http://kevindayhoff.blogspot.com/

No Charges Over CIA's Enhanced Interrogations

No Charges Over CIA's Enhanced Interrogations

Sometimes you have to shake your head and wonder what in the world the Obama administration is thinking.

For anyone who knows anything about history, why would any administration, Republican or Democrat, ever even consider criminalizing a public policy for which they may disagree?

That is unless, the Obama administration thinks it will govern for life. Don’t they think of the ramifications? How would this administration like to have much of what it is currently doing be examined with a fine tooth comb, just itching for something, anything, for which to criminalize?

I certainly disagree with much of this administration’s policies and look forward to a day when sanity returns to the White House, but I will hope that when the next conservative government takes its place, that it looks forward and not as nearly – pathologically pre-occupied with vilifying and criminalizing the actions of the Obama administration officials…

Of course, as President Barack Obama is hopefully learning, governing is a far cry different from campaigning and by now he must – we hope – be learning that once one sits in the Oval Office, things look differently when it comes to matters of national security…

Washington Post News Alert

2:57 p.m. ET Thursday, April 16, 2009

Administration: No Charges Over CIA's Enhanced Interrogations

Justice Department releases Bush-era legal memos about harsh techniques used by CIA interrogators on terrorism suspects. Obama says that no charges will be filed against CIA agents who were operating "in good faith."

For more information, visit washingtonpost.com

20090416 Administration No Charges Over CIA Enhanced Interrogations

Kevin Dayhoff www.kevindayhoff.net http://kevindayhoff.blogspot.com/

No Pardon For Libby

No Pardon For Libby

Bush uses clemency powers sparingly to the end by Michael Isikoff Jan 19, 2009 Newsweek Web Exclusive www.newsweek.com/id/180448

In a move that has keenly disappointed some of his strongest conservative allies, President Bush has decided not to pardon Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, for his 2007 conviction in the CIA leak case, two White House officials said Monday.

On Bush's last full day as president, Bush did commute the sentence of two former Border Patrol agents—Jose Compean and Ignacio Ramos—for shooting a Mexican drug dealer and then lying about it. But White House press spokesman Tony Fratto told NEWSWEEK "you should not expect any more" pardons and commutations from Bush before he leaves office Tuesday. Another senior official, who requested anonymity discussing sensitive matters, confirmed that no more pardons would be granted.

[…]

But the decision not to pardon Libby stunned some longtime Bush backers who had been quietly making the case for the former vice presidential aide in recent weeks. A number of Libby's allies had raised the issue with White House officials, arguing that as a loyal aide who played a key role in shaping Bush's foreign policy during the president's first term, including the decision to invade Iraq, Libby deserved to have the stain of his felony conviction erased from the record. In the only public sign of the lobbying campaign, The Wall Street Journal published an editorial strongly urging Libby's pardon.

[…]

The rejection of Libby's bid is consistent with Bush's overall stingy record when it comes to using presidential pardon powers. In part as a reaction to Bill Clinton's last-minute pardon spree, including the especially controversial one granted to fugitive financier Marc Rich, Bush has issued far fewer pardons than any president in modern history, according to clemency scholars.

Read the entire article.
www.newsweek.com/id/180448
20090119 Newsweek No Pardon for Libby By Michael Isikoff
_____

It is an enigma. From what I have read in-depth, Mr. Libby’s only crime was to mess-up on recalling the chronology of events. As it was discovered, Former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage was the leaker of Valerie Plame Wilson's identity and the source for both Bob Woodward and Bob Novak.

Another account does reveal: “However, Mr. Novak has confirmed that President Bush's chief political strategist, Karl Rove, confirmed the information and was the second source cited in the column.

Mr. Armitage is/was not a political partisan. He just made a mistake. According to one published account: “But Newsweek reports Armitage didn't know Plame's employment was classified.”

Reportedly, Secretary Armitage told CBS Evening News: “I feel terrible… Every day, I think, I let down the president. I let down the secretary of state. I let down my department, my family, and I also let down Mr. and Mrs. Wilson.”

Apparently there was quite a bit of bad blood between Mr. Libby and the special counsel investigating the leak, Patrick Fitzgerald and Fitzgerald took an opportunity to even the score.

It was a political prosecution… Made worse by the hypocrisy that we know as partisan politics in Washington.

Libby should have never been prosecuted and President George W. Bush ought to have pardoned him.

Kevin Dayhoff www.kevindayhoff.net http://kevindayhoff.blogspot.com/

Washington Post: Panetta Chosen As CIA Director

Washington Post: Panetta Chosen As CIA Director

Well duh! I'm not sure "stunned" is nearly strong enough a word.

The intelligence community is beside itself...

However, Mr. Panetta is pretty sharp people.

On the flip side, he was chief of staff when President Clinton dropped the ball repeatedly on national security matters...

Not to worry, if President-elect Obama sticks by him he will be confirmed - it just won't be real pretty

Panetta Chosen As CIA Director

Some Question Intelligence Experience

By Anne E. Kornblut and Joby Warrick Washington Post Staff Writers Tuesday, January 6, 2009; A01

President-elect Barack Obama stunned the national intelligence community by selecting Clinton White House chief of staff Leon E. Panetta, a longtime Washington insider with little intelligence experience, to serve as the next head of the CIA.

The decision -- which was also met with wariness on Capitol Hill -- reflects a desire to change the intelligence power structure, officials close to the selection said yesterday. Obama has chosen retired Navy Adm. Dennis C. Blair as the director of national intelligence, a job he intends to reinforce as the "lead horse" on intelligence issues, an official close to the selection process said.

Panetta, 70, is widely regarded as a good manager who knows the government bureaucracy well. Panetta, a former eight-term member of Congress who has run a think tank in California for the past decade, has no significant ties to the agency that Obama has criticized for using harsh interrogation methods. Panetta has openly objected to the use of such methods, writing in an essay last year that the United States "must not use torture under any circumstances." Obama had trouble filling the CIA slot in part because other candidates were perceived as tainted for having supported aspects of the Bush administration's interrogation and intelligence programs.

[…]

That would be the “Bush administration's interrogation and intelligence programs” that kept us safe…

Read the rest of the article here: Panetta Chosen As CIA Director

20090106 WaPo Panetta Chosen As CIA Director

Kevin Dayhoff E-mail him at: kdayhoff AT carr DOT org His columns appear in The Tentacle, www.thetentacle.com; The Westminster Eagle /Eldersburg Eagle The Sunday Carroll Eagle - Opinion: http://explorecarroll.com/opinion-talk/ www.kevindayhoff.net http://kevindayhoffart.blogspot.com/ www.westminstermarylandonline.net http://kbetrue.livejournal.com/ http://www.youtube.com/user/kevindayhoff http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1040426835 http://picasaweb.google.com/kevindayhoff