Obama's Policies: America's New Risk from Terrorists

In issuing these executive orders, Mr. Obama is returning America to the failed law enforcement approach to fighting terrorism that prevailed before Sept. 11, 2001.

The column below by John Yoo, which appeared last Thursday in the Wall Street Journal, analyzes some of the decisions President Obama made in his first week as commander-in-chief. Taken together, these decisions, as Yoo notes, “will seriously handicap our intelligence agencies from preventing future terrorist attacks.”

Obama Made a Rash Decision on Gitmo;

By John Yoo [condensed]

During his first week as commander in chief, President Barack Obama ordered the closure of Guantanamo Bay and terminated the CIA's special authority to interrogate terrorists.

While these actions will certainly please his base -- gone are the cries of an "imperial presidency" -- they will also seriously handicap our intelligence agencies from preventing future terrorist attacks. In issuing these executive orders, Mr. Obama is returning America to the failed law enforcement approach to fighting terrorism that prevailed before Sept. 11, 2001.

He's also drying up the most valuable sources of intelligence on al Qaeda, which, according to CIA Director Michael Hayden, has come largely out of the tough interrogation of high-level operatives during the early years of the war. The question Mr. Obama should have asked right after the inaugural parade was: What will happen after we capture the next Khalid Sheikh Mohammed or Abu Zubaydah? Instead, he took action without a meeting of his full national security staff, and without a legal review of all the policy options available to meet the threats facing our country.

It's also likely Mr. Obama will declare terrorists to be prisoners of war under the Geneva Conventions. The Bush administration classified terrorists -- well supported by legal and historical precedent -- like pirates, illegal combatants who do not fight on behalf of a nation and refuse to obey the laws of war.

The CIA must now conduct interrogations according to the rules of the Army Field Manual, which prohibits coercive techniques, threats and promises, and the good-cop bad-cop routines used in police stations throughout America. Mr. Obama has also ordered that al Qaeda leaders are to be protected from "outrages on personal dignity" and "humiliating and degrading treatment" in accord with the Geneva Conventions.

His new order amounts to requiring -- on penalty of prosecution -- that CIA interrogators be polite. Coercive measures are unwisely banned with no exceptions, regardless of the danger confronting the country. Eliminating the Bush system will mean that we will get no more information from captured al Qaeda terrorists.

Every prisoner will have the right to a lawyer (which they will surely demand), the right to remain silent, and the right to a speedy trial. The first thing any lawyer will do is tell his clients to shut up.

The KSMs or Abu Zubaydahs of the future will respond to no verbal questioning or trickery -- which is precisely why the Bush administration felt compelled to use more coercive measures in the first place. Our soldiers and agents in the field will have to run more risks as they must secure physical evidence at the point of capture and maintain a chain of custody that will stand up to the standards of a civilian court.

Relying on the civilian justice system not only robs us of the most effective intelligence tool to avert future attacks, it provides an opportunity for our enemies to obtain intelligence on us.

If terrorists are now to be treated as ordinary criminals, their defense lawyers will insist that the government produce in open court all U.S. intelligence on their client along with the methods used by the CIA and NSA to get it. A defendant's constitutional right to demand the government's files often forces prosecutors to offer plea bargains to spies rather than risk disclosure of intelligence secrets.

Reprinted with permission from

ACT for America

P.O. Box 12765

Pensacola, FL 32591

http://www.actforamerica.org/

The Free Assemblage of Metaphysical Naturalists is the SM of
The Free Assemblage of Metaphysical Naturalists LLC.
The Academy of Metaphysical Naturalism TM,
The Academy of Metaphysical Naturalism Blogger TM, and
Academy of Metaphysical Naturalism Blogger Extra TM are the educational arms of the LLC and are:
© 2008-2009 by Curtis Edward Clark and Naturalist Academy Publishing ®

mailto:freeassemblage@gmail.com

http://freeassemblage.blogspot.com/

Obama's Umbrella of Good-Will

Obama's good-will may be in his lack of pretension, and of political posturing, but what is it that people mean when they say they want him to succeed?

There is a lost art to communication. It seems to be in the area of saying what you mean.

As as example, I will paraphrase a conversation between Bill O'Reily and Glen Beck, on O'Reily's program "The O'Reily Factor".

O'Reily said he thought Obama was a good guy, but wasn't sure if he wanted Obama's policies to succeed. If Obama fails, his socialistic policies will be out in four years, and someone with better--hopefully free market--ideas would be elected.

Beck, looking a bit puzzed as to how to respond, said he wanted to see Obama succeed. Beck himself is a nice guy, who like Obama, basically wants to see an end to "left" and "right" political bickering, and thinks all politicians are capable of being up to no good, or even "scoundrels" if the opportunity arises.

O'Reily, taken aback by conservative Beck's wish for Obama's success, asked how Beck could wish to see the liberal/collectivist policies of our incoming President actually work. If they work, we would see more of them.

O'Reily meant, "How could Beck wish to see socialism flourish and be successful?" O'Reily himself has said he has no ill will toward Obama the man, who to all appearances seems to be much more psychologically honest than any politician we have seen in decades, with the exception of Ronald Reagan, but even he was decades ago.

Beck replied that he didn't wish to see the President fail, because it meant America would not rise from its financial mess; but you could by looking at his expression that he was still lost for the right thing to say under the circumstance. He was struggling to explain how a conservative pundit, himself, actually want BIGGER government to succeed? Beck's reply, again paraphrased, was that he wished no ill toward any one trying to succeed at an honest job, and wanted to see America succeed.

The communication gap here was that while Beck was talking about the job of the Presidency itself being an honest one, he could not gather his thoughts quick enough to say that a looter in an honest job is still a looter. It wasn't the socialism Beck wanted to succeed; it was only the idealism of a strong, good, morally honest America that he wanted to see again.

But that is what he failed to say on "The O'Reily Factor." Instead, in a wishy-washy way he said he wanted whatever Obama wanted because if Obama failed, America failed.

A certified public accountant, obviously someone with an honest profession, is a looter if he makes off with his clients' money.

A President is still a looter if he creates debt for future generations, robbing them of their ability to be free of the slavery of that debt. Our children and grandchildren, and probably our great-grandchildren, in other words our posterity, will be born as indendured servants of the IRS, or whatever government agency is collecting the debt-reduction taxes in the future.

That indenture may prevent our posterity from their own pursuit of happiness.

A President who today takes from you to give to me or my children what what we do not have, is a looter. A President who removes the roadblocks preventing me from becoming wealthier on my own, and acquiring on my own and for my children what you have is doing an honest job in his administrative capacity.

Beck really doesn't want socialism to succeed. The only people who want to see it succeed are those who think that dishonest people operating in a capitalist environment will be stopped in a socialist environment.

The only people who want to see socialism succeed are those who don't see what our first millionaire, Ben Franklin, saw; who don't see what men and women like Carly Fiorina, Steve Jobs, Warren Buffett, Oprah, and two thousand seven hundred forty new millionaires per day (in the year 2000) see--that the fortune of America and its people is not made by redistributing wealth, but rather by its creation.

What Bill O'Reily really meant to say--but didn't--was that he wants the U.S. to succeed but not because of Obama's policies. What Glen Beck really meant to say was that he wanted Obama to succeed--in spite of his policies--for the sake of America.

Those are the things that I want for our nation, too. This really is a new era dawning, because it seems we have a President who, despite his own very leftist political leanings and beliefs, has the ability to unite Americans--for the moment at least--under his umbrella of good-will, lack of pretension, and lack of political posturing.

It still remains to be seen just what kind of leader Mr. Obama will be. A week before in innauguration he already muscled Congress into giving him the out-standing $35b, by threatening a veto he knew could not be overturned.

We have already seen him sidestep the issue of his alleged-Marxism, which began with his now-famous remark made to the now-famous Joe the Plumber (who is no longer a plumber, but a "reporter of the people" for Pajamas Media).

There is hardly a politician in Washington or elsewhere with any character-star-attraction like Obama's, who is rooting for outright capitalism except for media-darling Ron Paul, who, unlike Mr. Obama, "never votes for legislation unless the proposed measure is expressly authorized by the Constitution."

If actions speak louder than words, Paul understands the art of saying what you mean.

But if is true about actions, President Obama will have the loudest voice in the world, and he will say through his collectivist actions precisely what he means.

I want his personal integrity to succeed; I want his charm and his ability to unite this nation, to succeed; I want to watch his family succeed growing into their new position as First Family; I want the "feel-good" metaphysics of Mr. Obama to succeed.

I do not want his socialism to succeed, and I sincerely hope that in some way, an idea of capitalism begins to creep into his policies. We've had "creeping socialism" for so long that we are now unable to stop it from steam-rolling over us.

The Free Assemblage of Metaphysical Naturalists is the SM of
The Free Assemblage of Metaphysical Naturalists LLC.
The Academy of Metaphysical Naturalism TM,
The Academy of Metaphysical Naturalism Blogger TM, and
Academy of Metaphysical Naturalism Blogger Extra TM are the educational arms of the LLC and are:
© 2008-2009 by Curtis Edward Clark and Naturalist Academy Publishing ®

mailto:freeassemblage@gmail.com

http://freeassemblage.blogspot.com/