Regarding Torture

When I was younger, I saw the world in much more vivid contrasts of black and white; now, I see so much of the world in shades of gray. I almost wish for the innocents of youth and the purity of ideas that saw a lot more black and white. I try to remind my self that because there are a lot of shades of gray that that does not mean that there is not a black and white.

Torture is wrong. I do not condone torture. On the other hand, we must have more tools at our disposal than simply asking politely when trying to get information from the bad guys. Anything between asking politely and absolute brutality with disregard for human life is a shade of gray. We know that intelligence activity involves lying and betrayal and deception and getting our hands dirty. In our everyday life, we do not condone these things.

As I have thought about the issue of the CIA’s roll in the use of what is generally considered torture, I think that the CIA was trying to draw a fine line somewhere along the scale of gray. There were complex rules that stated how many times waterbording could be used in any one 24 hour period and in any one month, and how long each session could last. I understand there were even requirements for the temperature of the water and a requirement that a doctor be present.

Were all of the rules governing waterboarding sufficient to keep the use of this “enhanced interrogation techniques” from crossing the gray scale from light gray to dark gray? I don’t know.

It is worth keeping in mind, that the CIA was not operating in a vacuum. This was not just George W. Bush and Dick Cheney acting independently or the CIA going it alone. There was Congressional oversight. Top legislators knew of interrogations. The CIA briefed Democrats and Republicans on the congressional intelligence committees more than 30 times about the use of enhanced interrogation techniques. Congress could have stopped it. Congress did not object or withold funding.

Among those who were briefed and tacitly approved the techniques were many of the same Democrates, including Nacy Pelosi, who now want to prosecute George W. Bush. We should keep in mind, that these techniques occurred in the aftermath of 9/11 when everyone thought that another attack was eminent. If I would I have been one of the congressmen who sat in on the CIA briefing, would I have objected and publicly condemned it? I don’t think I would have. Maybe later I would regretted that I did not, but at the time, I would have probably acted no differently than the congressmen who sat in on those briefings. If Bush is prosecuted for approving the use of torture, so should Nancy Pelosi and every congressman who acquiesced and did not publicly object and try to stop it at the time. That is all of them.

Top Stories

Diane Feinstein, The FDIC, and a lucrative contract

Yesterday, the Washington Times revealed that Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA) offered on October 30th, 2008 to secure $25 billion in taxpayer money for the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) directly on the heels of the agency awarding a three-year contract to CB Richard Ellis (CBRE), a company run by Feinstein's husband, Richard Blum. What makes this case especially interesting is that Ms Feinstein is not even a member of the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs which has jurisdiction over FDIC and the FDIC is supposed to operate from bank-paid insurance premiums and not tax dollars.

Were not the Democrats going to end the “culture of corruption” in Washington?

Can anyone say "apparent conflict of interest?"

The Senate Ethics Committee needs to investigate to determine if the government contract was awarded in return for the Senator introducing the legislation funding the FDIC. Does anyone expect it to happen?

Top Stories

Barack Obama and Hugo Chavez

Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev

Richard Nixon and Mao Tse-tung

Franklin D. Roosevelt and Joseph Stalin

Top Stories

Dick Cheney Blast Obama

Mr. Cheney, Please just shut up!

Mr. Cheney, please exit the stage. ‘Please turn out the lights; the party’s over; they say that all good things must end.’

You had your turn. Not many people like you. Fairly or not you are perceived as the person who was the real power behind the throne, who led us into an unnecessary war and generally mismanaged the country for eight years. Many perceive you as a Dr. Strangelove-type character. I seriously doubt anyone is listening when you speak except for a handful of neocon Bush loyalist.

I suspect that every time you speak, you drive some wavering Obama supporters, who may be having buyers remorse, right back into the Obama camp. They see you and remember why that voted for “change.”

The Republican party needs new faces and new voices. There is plenty of room to criticize Obama, but please let someone else do it. In this interview you criticize Obama’s apologizing tour of Europe and his handshake with Chavez. Other people are doing that. Do you think it helps coming from you? You also defend water boarding and torture. I think the less said about that from you, the better. If you feel you must defend those policies, write a book.

Your former “boss,” President Bush, has had the good grace and decency to keep his mouth shut since leaving office. I admire him for that.

Please, Mr. Cheney, go home, play with the grandkids before that ticker gives completely out and write your memoirs. But please, keep your face off of the TV.

Top Stories

U.S. need not become a nation of economic bozos

By: James Bowers, OpEd Contributor, Washington Examiner, 04/13/09

April is Financial Literacy Month. This year its importance is more apparent than ever as America faces an economic crisis largely caused by our collective failure -- from bankers, to legislators, to homebuyers -- to make smart financial choices.
To highlight this lack of economic and personal finance knowledge, our organization released the startling results of a new survey which shows just how much we still don’t know. [Full Article]

Top Stories

Obama's shift in United States policy toward Cuba

Last Monday, President Obama issued an order to eliminate all limits on travel and remittances by Cuban Americans to Cuba. Previously, the US government only allowed Cuban Americans to visit the island once a year and limited to $75 a month the amount of money Cubans could send to relatives. This policy change may be a minor change but it represents the most significant shift in United States policy toward Cuba in decades.

In another move, a policy change permits U.S. telecom network providers to build fiber-optic cable and satellite communications facilities linking the U.S. and Cuba. These moves, as well as statements from President Obama saying he wanted to have discussions with Cuba, have been met with a positive response from Raul Castro, who has said that his government was willing to discuss everything with the US Government including human rights, freedom of the press and political prisoners. Theses are welcome developments.

Since Fidel Castro’s retirement, we have seen small positive changes taking place in Cuba. The government has legalized private taxicabs, it has given individuals the deed to their homes, it has allowed Cubans to own cell phones, it has permitted Cubans to stay in luxury hotels, and it has encouraged and expanded private farms. These changes are encouraging.

This new policy allowing Cuban Americans to visit relatives in Cuba more often and send more money home will lead to more change. The more Cubans have contact with their relatives in the US, the more they will come to realize that communism is a failure. They will develop a thirst for freedom and a desire for an improved standard of living. If their relatives in America can send them money, they will be less dependent on the Cuban government for all of their wants and needs. With money to spend, there will develop pressure on the government to permit markets to satisfy market demand.

Unless, Cuba really does something stupid, like shoot down an airplane or arrest a visiting Cuban American on trumped up charges of spying, we should quickly move toward a complete lifting of the embargo and travel restrictions. If the US would end the embargo and travel restrictions, we would see an acceleration of Cuba’s transformation. If American dollars could flow freely to Cuba, we would see concession on the part of Cuba to accommodate investors and a relaxation of restrictions on Cuban’s so they could provide goods and services that would capture American dollars.

Our policy toward Cuba has lacked all logic for a very long time. Our embargo of Cuba is a counterproductive Cold War relic that keeps Cuba a nearly orthodox communist society by inhibiting the growth of other spheres of influence. It also allows Cuba to blame all of its problems on the United States and the embargo rather than Cuba’s socialist policies.

I think President Obama’s most recent move lifting restrictions on Cuban American travel to Cuba and remittances was the right think to do. I encourage him to take the next step. The cold war is over; It is time to lift the embargo.

Top Stories