Outsourcing Torture, Rendition, Torture Fuels Public Opinion, Middle Eastern Allies Interrogation Techniques
To subscribe to ZingerKing, enter your email address in the Subscribe box located to the right in the purple sidebar on the website.
Mon/Tues May 25,26 2009
Today’s Zinger:
Outrage Is The Fuel Of Public Opinion
The Morning Briefing:
The media and the Obama administration have fueled public outrage over the use of “torture” and enhanced interrogation techniques in the early years of the war on terror. A recent article in the New York Times applauds the Obama administration for the policy to work with “allies” in the Middle East on terror. This includes our “allies” taking high value captured terrorists and interrogating these individuals.
In many Middle Eastern countries, there are no laws against torture. If we expect terrorists to be governed under the rules of the army service manual for captured prisoners, as mandated by President Obama, or the laws of the Geneva convention, then why would we outsource interrogation to a country that routinely uses torture in interrogations?
The Discussion:
Words, pretty words, but just words. We have heard President Obama give eloquent speeches about his disdain for torture and his impassioned statements that there are better ways to get information from combatants than waterboarding or other enhanced interrogation techniques. We have heard the Congressional outrage over the waterboarding of three captured Al Qaida terrorists in 2002 and 2003. Calls for Bush war crimes could be heard from the Hall of Congress and through the halls of most newspapers in the country.
The Media has featured many articles and commentaries decrying the Bush administration’s techniques for garnering information from terrorists after 9/11 through "enhanced interrogation techniques". The Obama administration has found a way to get this information without Americans pouring the water. This administration has outsourced the dirty work to Middle Eastern allies. As reported in the New York Times on Saturday May 23, 2009, allies gather the information and share it with us. Click here to access the article. US Relies More On Allies In Terror Cases
The New York Times applauds the administration’s new relationship with allies in the Middle East working together on terror cases. The United States has relied on our allies for information gathering through interrogation for decades. In World War II we relied on information obtained by the Soviet Union and England. In Vietnam we relied on the South Vietnamese and Korea. Recently, the architect of rendition under President Clinton (rendition being the term used for outsourced enhanced interrogation), has come forward to discuss his role in developing the approach to interrogation by allies in the Middle East. The interrogation techniques used in the Middle East under the Clinton rendition plan make waterboarding look like a day at the water park.
Middle Eastern countries do not have laws against torture. They use torture as a routine method of interrogation for suspected criminals. There are no rules in the Middle East. There is no line to cross other than death. Those interrogated in the Middle East are sometimes maimed and disfigured.
The New York Times article makes no mention of the role of torture in Middle East. The administration has made no mention of the new outsourced interrogations.
Conclusion:
This is not a question about the Bush years. This is not a question about the use of torture or enhanced interrogation techniques. This is a question as to what our allies are really doing with regards to newly captured terror suspects. This is a question about the media's reporting. Suspend for a moment the outrage regarding Bush and ask the question, is it better to interrogate under American supervision or outsource this to the Middle East where no rules apply?
The penalty of law for murder is the same if you pull the trigger or if you hire a third party to murder someone for you. Isn't torture the same? The New York Times and the radical left scorn the Bush years for their interrogation policies. Why isn’t that same concern and outrage taking place now? The Bush administration stopped the use of rendition and conducted the interrogations under American supervision. The Obama administration has reinstated rendition. If the administration feels there is no concern about the use of torture by our Middle Eastern allies, then why would you send terrorists to these countries rather than interrogating under American supervision? Is it because the administration wants to publicly say we do not torture and keep the negative focus on the Bush administration?
Recent Articles in ZingerKing:
To access these articles Click Here or go to www.ZingerKing.com The links to the articles appear in the purple sidebar under recent articles. Sample topics include:
California is going to "pot" to cure its financial crisis
Nancy Pelosi's war with the CIA
Running on empty, federal deficits
Obama's management style
Islamic Fundamentalism. Stage four religious cancer
Unashamed Request:
Please forward a link to ZingerKing to a friend, family member or colleague that you believe would enjoy or benefit from these discussions.
Mon/Tues May 25,26 2009
Today’s Zinger:
Outrage Is The Fuel Of Public Opinion
The Morning Briefing:
The media and the Obama administration have fueled public outrage over the use of “torture” and enhanced interrogation techniques in the early years of the war on terror. A recent article in the New York Times applauds the Obama administration for the policy to work with “allies” in the Middle East on terror. This includes our “allies” taking high value captured terrorists and interrogating these individuals.
In many Middle Eastern countries, there are no laws against torture. If we expect terrorists to be governed under the rules of the army service manual for captured prisoners, as mandated by President Obama, or the laws of the Geneva convention, then why would we outsource interrogation to a country that routinely uses torture in interrogations?
The Discussion:
Words, pretty words, but just words. We have heard President Obama give eloquent speeches about his disdain for torture and his impassioned statements that there are better ways to get information from combatants than waterboarding or other enhanced interrogation techniques. We have heard the Congressional outrage over the waterboarding of three captured Al Qaida terrorists in 2002 and 2003. Calls for Bush war crimes could be heard from the Hall of Congress and through the halls of most newspapers in the country.
The Media has featured many articles and commentaries decrying the Bush administration’s techniques for garnering information from terrorists after 9/11 through "enhanced interrogation techniques". The Obama administration has found a way to get this information without Americans pouring the water. This administration has outsourced the dirty work to Middle Eastern allies. As reported in the New York Times on Saturday May 23, 2009, allies gather the information and share it with us. Click here to access the article. US Relies More On Allies In Terror Cases
The New York Times applauds the administration’s new relationship with allies in the Middle East working together on terror cases. The United States has relied on our allies for information gathering through interrogation for decades. In World War II we relied on information obtained by the Soviet Union and England. In Vietnam we relied on the South Vietnamese and Korea. Recently, the architect of rendition under President Clinton (rendition being the term used for outsourced enhanced interrogation), has come forward to discuss his role in developing the approach to interrogation by allies in the Middle East. The interrogation techniques used in the Middle East under the Clinton rendition plan make waterboarding look like a day at the water park.
Middle Eastern countries do not have laws against torture. They use torture as a routine method of interrogation for suspected criminals. There are no rules in the Middle East. There is no line to cross other than death. Those interrogated in the Middle East are sometimes maimed and disfigured.
The New York Times article makes no mention of the role of torture in Middle East. The administration has made no mention of the new outsourced interrogations.
Conclusion:
This is not a question about the Bush years. This is not a question about the use of torture or enhanced interrogation techniques. This is a question as to what our allies are really doing with regards to newly captured terror suspects. This is a question about the media's reporting. Suspend for a moment the outrage regarding Bush and ask the question, is it better to interrogate under American supervision or outsource this to the Middle East where no rules apply?
The penalty of law for murder is the same if you pull the trigger or if you hire a third party to murder someone for you. Isn't torture the same? The New York Times and the radical left scorn the Bush years for their interrogation policies. Why isn’t that same concern and outrage taking place now? The Bush administration stopped the use of rendition and conducted the interrogations under American supervision. The Obama administration has reinstated rendition. If the administration feels there is no concern about the use of torture by our Middle Eastern allies, then why would you send terrorists to these countries rather than interrogating under American supervision? Is it because the administration wants to publicly say we do not torture and keep the negative focus on the Bush administration?
Recent Articles in ZingerKing:
To access these articles Click Here or go to www.ZingerKing.com The links to the articles appear in the purple sidebar under recent articles. Sample topics include:
California is going to "pot" to cure its financial crisis
Nancy Pelosi's war with the CIA
Running on empty, federal deficits
Obama's management style
Islamic Fundamentalism. Stage four religious cancer
Unashamed Request:
Please forward a link to ZingerKing to a friend, family member or colleague that you believe would enjoy or benefit from these discussions.
I read the New York Times article and was pleased that our country was working more closely with other countries on terrorism. It wasn't until after I read your article that I realized the potential implications of this cooperation.
Thank you for calling this to our attention. I don't understand why the media is not reacting the same way Zinger did. It does make you wonder if there is too much cooperation between the administration and the media.
Reply to this