Driving While Female

In Saudi Arabia, it’s a crime, punishable by torture straight from the 7th century.

Saudi woman sentenced to 10 lashes for driving car, as religious establishment toughens stance

A Saudi woman was sentenced Tuesday to be lashed 10 times with a whip for defying the kingdom’s prohibition on female drivers, the first time a legal punishment has been handed down for a violation of the longtime ban in the ultraconservative Muslim nation.

Normally, police just stop female drivers, question them and let them go after they sign a pledge not to drive again. But dozens of women have continued to take to the roads since June in a campaign to break the taboo.

See also:
Saudi Woman Faces 10 Lashes for Defying Driving Ban [REPORT]
Saudi woman faces flogging for driving
Saudi Woman Sentenced to 10 Lashes for Driving Car
Saudi Woman Sentenced To Lashes After Defying Driving Ban
Saudi woman sentenced to 10 lashes for driving car
Female Driver Reportedly Sentenced to Lashing in Saudi Arabia
Saudi Woman Driver Sentenced to 10 Lashes After King Grants Vote
Saudi woman to get 10 lashes for driving a car
Saudi Woman To Be Lashed For Driving Car
Saudi woman driver vows to appeal flogging sentence
Saudi woman sentenced to 10 lashes with whip for driving car

It’s bad enough that the Saudi oil ticks are so backward that they make their women wear bags in public, but now they’re going to flog a woman, for driving? How barbaric is that? Where’s the outcry from the feminists and human rights activists? If this was happening in Israel, there’d already be a U.N. Security Council resolution condemning it.

/the whole Lefty world was in a prolonged uproar, screaming torture and war crimes, because the United States waterboarded three scum of the Earth terrorists, which resulted in no permanent physical or psychological harm, can you just imagine if we had subjected them to lashing?

Did The CIA Get Punked By Iran?

Something’s seriously wrong with this picture.

Intrigue, But Few Facts, Surround Iranian Scientist

The case of Iranian nuclear scientist Shahram Amiri is what counter-intelligence officers like to call a “wilderness of mirrors.”

Facts are slim.

Depending on which version you read – and there are multiple ones – Amiri was kidnapped by U.S. intelligence agents a year ago while on pilgrimage to Saudi Arabia, defected to the United States of his own free will, or simply decided to disappear for a while. The confusion was heightened when three different videos surfaced, all featuring a man who appeared to be Amiri, making different claim: that he had been kidnapped, that he was living freely in Arizona, and that he had escaped from U.S. custody.

The mystery deepened Tuesday when he suddenly appeared at the Iranian Interests Section of the Pakistan Embassy, saying that he wanted to go home. Iranian media say he was “handed over” to the Interests Section by U.S. officials.

For its part, U.S. officials say he was not kidnapped, not held against his will, not tortured, was living here freely, and has freely chosen to return to Iran,

So how did he get here? What was he doing here? Good questions, but ones U.S. officials are not answering.

Some reports say he defected and was giving the U.S. valuable information about Iran’s nuclear program. But some former intelligence officers say he might have been a false defector.

It has happened before.

See also:
Shahram Amiri: Iranian Nuclear Scientist Mystery Deepens [SYNOPSIS]
Pakistan Embassy Denies Harboring AWOL Iran Nuke Scientist
Shahram Amiri: new twist in mystery of nuclear scientist’s disappearance
Missing Iranian scientist surfaces in Washington
‘Abducted’ Iran scientist surfaces in US
Missing Iranian nuclear scientist turns up in Washington
Who wins propaganda war over Iran scientist?
Amiri’s abduction fresh scandal for US
Scientist Seeks to Return to Iran From U.S., Pakistan Says
Clinton: Iranian Nuclear Defector Is ‘Free To Go’
Profile: Shahram Amiri
Profile: Shahram Amiri, Iranian nuclear physicist who turned up in Washington
Shahram Amiri

Okay, let’s assume that Shahram Amiri is in the process of voluntarilly making his way back to Iran. First of all, if we was a defector, he’d be insane to want to return to Iran. Second, if he was abducted by the CIA and interrogated for a year before he “escaped”, would it be a smart idea to return to Iran? Why would they believe his story? Surely, at a minimum, he’d be subject to some very harsh interrogation, much harsher than any interrogation practiced by the CIA, as the Iranian intelligence agencies attempted to determine, to their satisfaction, whether he was abducted or whether he defected. The fact that the U.S. is insisting that Amiri is free to leave the United States at any time certainly doesn’t help bolster his abduction story.

/the only scenario that makes a whole lot of sense, at least to me, is that Shahram Amiri is a double agent/false defector and he knows that returning to Iran will earn him a hero’s welcome rather than probable torture or death

If He Hollers, Let Him Go

Gee, what a great idea!

Gitmo Detainee Ordered Released

A suspected al Qaeda organizer once called “the highest value detainee” held at Guantanamo Bay was ordered released by a federal judge Monday.

Mohamedou Ould Slahi was accused in the 9/11 Commission report of helping recruit Mohammed Atta and other members of the al Qaeda cell in Hamburg, Germany, who took part in the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks in the U.S.

Military prosecutors suspected Mr. Slahi of links to other al Qaeda operations, and considered seeking the death penalty against him while preparing possible charges in 2003 and 2004.

Judge James Robertson of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia granted Mr. Slahi’s petition for habeas corpus, effectively finding that the government lacked legal grounds to hold him. The order was classified, although the court said it planned to release a redacted public version in coming weeks.

Judge Robertson held four days of closed hearings in the Slahi case last year. Mr. Slahi testified via secure video link from the U.S. military’s detention facility at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, his attorney said.

“They were considering giving him the death penalty. Now they don’t even have enough evidence to pass the test for habeas,” said Mr. Slahi’s attorney, Nancy Hollander, of Albuquerque, N.M. She said she couldn’t comment further because the proceedings were classified. Mr. Slahi is still being held at Guantánamo.

The government may appeal. Justice Department spokesman Dean Boyd on Monday said the agency was “reviewing the ruling.”

Brig. Gen. John Furlow, who helped lead a Pentagon-ordered probe of detainee abuse at Guantánamo Bay, has testified that at one point Mr. Slahi was “the highest value detainee” at the site and “the key orchestrator of the al Qaeda cell in Europe.”

Plans to try him by military commission were derailed after prosecutors learned Mr. Slahi had been subjected to a “special interrogation plan” involving weeks of physical and mental torment, including a death threat and a threat to bring Mr. Slahi’s mother to Guantanamo Bay where she could be gang-raped, officials said.

Although the treatment apparently induced Mr. Slahi’s compliance, the military prosecutor, Marine Lt. Col. V. Stuart Couch, determined that it constituted torture and that evidence it produced couldn’t lawfully be used against Mr. Slahi.

Mr. Slahi is the cretin on the left.

See also:
Detainee abused at Guantánamo ordered freed
U.S. judge orders release of Guantanamo detainee
US judge orders to free Gitmo inmate linked to 9/11
Guantanamo Detainee al-Slahi Wins Habeas Case
Judge Orders Guantanamo Detainee Released
US court to release 9/11 suspect
Judge clears Gitmo inmate
US judge orders release of 9/11 recruiter
Clinton Judge – James Robertson – Set to Free Top Al-Qaeda Terrorist
Mohamedou Ould Slahi
Judge James Robertson
James Robertson (judge)

On no, the horror, the mean interrogators tormented Slahi and made an empty threat to gang-rape his mother! The Clinton Judge says release the nice terrorist you professional military monsters!

/they should take out full page ads in the New York Times, every day for a week in advance, and then let him go at Ground Zero

When Cheneys Attack

The Cheney family has formed a father-daughter tag team to take turns body slamming the far left agenda and ineptitude of the Obama administration’s policies. Okay, so it’s like shooting big fish in a small barrel but, hey, someone’s got to bring it and these two can hit where it hurts and inflict the excruciating political pain.

Cheney: Stop the ‘dithering’ as troops face danger

Former Vice President Dick Cheney on Wednesday night accused the White House of dithering over the strategy for the war in Afghanistan and urged President Barack Obama to “do what it takes to win.”

“Make no mistake. Signals of indecision out of Washington hurt our allies and embolden our adversaries,” Cheney said while accepting an award from a conservative national security group, the Center for Security Policy.

Cheney disputed remarks by White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel that the Bush administration had been adrift concerning the war in Afghanistan and that the Obama administration had to start from the beginning to develop a strategy for the 8-year-old war.

To the contrary, Cheney said, the Bush administration undertook its own review of the war before leaving office and presented its findings to Obama’s transition team.

“They asked us not to announce our findings publicly, and we agreed, giving them the benefit of our work and the benefit of the doubt,” Cheney said. The strategy Obama announced in March bore a “striking resemblance” to what the Bush administration review had found, the vice president said.

. . .

Cheney said the Obama administration seems to be pulling back and blaming others for its own failure to implement the strategy it had embraced earlier in the year.

“The White House must stop dithering while America’s armed forces are in danger,” the former vice president said. “It’s time for President Obama to do what it takes to win a war he has repeatedly and rightly called a war of necessity.”

Cheney criticized Obama’s decision to drop plans begun in the Bush administration for missile defense interceptors in Poland and a radar site in the Czech Republic, calling the move “a strategic blunder and a breach of good faith.” The administration said it will instead pursue a higher-tech system that is also more cost-effective.

“Our Polish and Czech friends are entitled to wonder how strategic plans and promises years in the making could be dissolved just like that with apparently little if any consultation,” he said. “President Obama’s cancellation of America’s agreements with the Polish and Czech governments is a serious blow to the hopes and aspirations of millions of Europeans.”

Cheney said those who try to placate Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin and accede to his wishes will get nothing in return but trouble.

Cheney accuses Obama of ‘libel’ against CIA interrogators

Maintaining his stature as one of the most forceful defenders of the Bush Administration’s defense policies former Vice President Dick Cheney accused President Obama of committing “libel” against CIA interrorgators on Wednesday

Mr. Cheney’s criticized the Obama White House in a wide-ranging address on foreign policy matters for abandoning commitments to allies in Poland and the Czech Republic in favor of the Russians, sacrificing American intelligence officials to satisfy the political left and “dithering” on taking action in Afghanistan, among other things.

. . .

In the speech, Mr. Cheney charged that President Obama has “filled the air with vague and useless platitude” when talking about torture and by calling enhanced interrogation technigques “torture” he has committed “libel” against CIA interrogators whom Mr. Cheney described as “dedicated professionals who acted honorably and well, in our country’s name and in our country’s cause.”

“What’s more, to completely rule out enhanced interrogation in the future, in favor of half-measures, is unwise in the extreme. In the fight against terrorism, there is no middle ground, and half-measures keep you half exposed,” he said.

Liz Cheney Launches Group to “Keep America Safe”

Like her father, former Vice President Dick Cheney, Elizabeth Cheney doesn’t think highly of President Obama’s policies. And now she has a new organization, Keep America Safe, dedicated to pressing her argument.

“Like a lot of Americans, we have watched with concern and dismay as the Obama administration has cut defense spending, wavered on the war in Afghanistan, and launched investigations into Americans serving on the front lines of the war on terror, while at the same time expanding legal protections for the terrorists that plot to attack this country,” Cheney writes in an opening statement, which is also signed by fellow board members Debra Burlingame and William Kristol. “These policies, along with President Obama’s abandonment of America’s allies and attempts to appease our adversaries are weakening the nation.”

The group vows to “make the case for an unapologetic approach to fighting terrorism around the world, for victory in the wars this country fights, for democracy, freedom and human rights, and for a strong American military that is needed in the dangerous world in which we live.”

See also:
Cheney’s Speech Tonight
Keep America Safe
Cheney: Stop the ‘dithering’ as troops face danger
Cheney Slams Obama For ‘Dithering’ War Policy
Cheney: Obama’s Afghan War Strategy ‘Bears Striking Resemblance’ to Bush’s
At Bush Administration Reunion, Cheney Attacks Obama … Again
Time for Obama to act on Afghanistan – Cheney
Liz Cheney forms group to take on Obama’s foreign policy
Cheney’s Daughter Launches Group Against Obama’s “Weak” Foreign Policy
Liz Cheney’s group ‘Keep America Safe’ takes on ‘radical’ White House
Liz Cheney Fighting ‘Radical’ White House
Liz Cheney Launches ‘Keep America Safe;’ Video Skewers Obama
Liz Cheney and Bill Kristol Start ‘Keep America Safe’
New Cheney Taking Stage for the G.O.P.
Liz Cheney, ‘Red State Rock Star’
The Media’s War Against Liz Cheney

The Cheneys, tag teaming truth to feckless Obama power.

/when Dick and Liz tag off to Lynne, standing on the top rope, you’ll know that Obama and liberals everywhere are going down for the ten count

Want To Get Away?

2009-05-14

Hat tip: Lucianne.com

Hey, why back down off the ledge when you can double down on your untenable position and outright accuse the CIA of lying to Congress, a serious crime?

Pelosi: CIA lied to Congress about harsh tactics

“The CIA was misleading the Congress” as part of a broader Bush administration pattern of deception about its activities, said Pelosi, D-Calif. “The only mention of waterboarding at that briefing was that it was not being employed.”

Asked whether the agency lied, she said yes.

Her comments amount to an allegation that the CIA violated its legal obligation to keep congressional leaders informed. Republicans responded by ratcheting up their criticism of Pelosi.

“I think the problem is that the speaker has had way too many stories on this issue,” said House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio.

See also:
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi: CIA Lied to Me
Pelosi: CIA misled her on waterboarding
Pelosi: The CIA Lied
Pelosi Accuses CIA of ‘Misleading’ Her on Interrogations
Pelosi and CIA Clash Over Contents of Key Briefing
Congress and Waterboarding
Someone’s Lying

But wait, there’s more . . .

Dems: CIA briefers may have broken law

Democrats on the House intelligence committee said Thursday that CIA officers broke the law in 2002 if they told Nancy Pelosi then that they had not yet engaged in waterboarding.

“If they make a false report, absolutely it’s illegal,” said Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), a member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. “If they fail to make a report when they’re obligated to that is also illegal — a violation of the National Security Act.”

Said CIA Spokesman George Little: “It is not the policy of the CIA to mislead the United States Congress.”

Wow, so Adam Schiff, among others, decides to put on his California king lemming costume and follow Nancy over the cliff. I hope he realizes that Mistress Nancy just declared war on the CIA and the CIA, especially after the abuse they’ve taken over the last month, won’t just lay down and take this quietly. Hey Nancy . . .

Well, what about it Nancy, you gonna pull those pistols or whistle Dixie?

/I fear this won’t end well for Madame Speaker’s Speakership, if she continues to press on

Credit Where Credit Is Due

Taking time out from his relentless crusade to destroy capitalism, the U.S. economy, and America as we used to know it, Obama finally got one right today.

Obama Seeks to Block Release of Detainee Abuse Photos

President Barack Obama reversed course and is seeking to block release of photographs that show the abuse of prisoners in Iraq and Afghanistan by U.S. personnel.

“This is not a situation in which the Pentagon has concealed or sought to justify inappropriate action,” Obama said today at the White House. “Publication of these photos would not add any additional benefit to our understanding of what was carried out in the past by a small number of individuals.”

Instead, it might “inflame anti-American opinion and put our troops in greater danger,” he said.

A federal appeals court ordered the release in connection with a Freedom of Information Act suit. Last month, the Justice Department told a federal judge that the administration would not resist a court order to turn over 44 photographs sought by the American Civil Liberties Union in the suit.

The president told his legal team last week that he “did not feel comfortable with release of the photos,” White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said earlier.

Gibbs said that Obama concluded that Justice lawyers, during former President George W. Bush’s administration, didn’t make the strongest case against release of the pictures.

“The argument that the president seeks to make is one that hasn’t been made before,” Gibbs said. “I’m not going to get into blame for this or that,” he said, adding that the case was working through the court system before Obama took office.

Evidence

During the Bush administration, release of photographs of prisoner abuse by U.S. troops at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq caused an international uproar. The pictures at issue are part of potential evidence in cases that have been wrapped up since 2004, Gibbs said.

Obama said releasing the pictures may have a “chilling effect” on future investigations.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates said he recommended to Obama that the photos be withheld and that both General Ray Odierno, who commands U.S. forces in Iraq, and General David McKiernan, the U.S. commander in Afghanistan, objected to the release.

“Our commanders have expressed very serious reservations and their very great worry that release of these photographs would cost American lives,” Gates said when asked about the issue at a House Armed Services Committee hearing.

Durbin, Lieberman Comment

Democratic Senator Dick Durbin of Illinois, one of Obama’s closest allies in Congress, said the legal brief in the court cases initially “led him to believe” that releasing the photographs was “inevitable.”

“Now they seem to have some reservations about what the impact of those photos might have, particularly on the security of troops,” Durbin said.

Senators Joseph Lieberman, a Connecticut independent, and Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican, supported Obama’s decision.

“It’s good for the troops to know that their commander-in- chief is going to bat for them and that is what he did today,” Graham said at the Capitol.

Lieberman said releasing the photos would have done more harm than good. When the Abu Ghraib photos were first released, “they were immediately put up on jihadist Web sites across the world and were used by al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups to recruit,” he said.

See also:
Obama seeks to block release of abuse photos
In reversal, Obama seeks to block abuse photos
Obama reverses course on alleged prison abuse photos
Obama sets up abuse-photos fight
Obama Moves to Block Release of Detainee Abuse Photos
Obama seeks to block release of abuse photos

Of course Obama had to be dragged kicking and screaming into changing his mind under intense pressure from his military commanders or else he he would have made this no-brainier decision in the first place. I mean, it’s obvious to any moron that doesn’t absolutely despise the U.S. military that releasing these photographs would do nothing besides incited and inflame our enemies, hand them a huge propaganda victory that they would exploit as a recruiting tool for years to come, and generally put U.S. troops worldwide in much greater danger.

/but hey, small victories, credit where credit is do, it was the correct decision, let’s just hope he follows through with opposing the release of the photographs in court

Someone’s Lying

Pelosi Stirs Questions With Denial She Was Briefed About Waterboarding

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi says she was never told during a congressional briefing in 2002 that waterboarding or other “enhanced” interrogation techniques were being used on terrorism suspects.

But in a story published in the Washington Post in December 2007, two officials were quoted saying that the California Democrat and three other lawmakers had received an hour-long secret briefing on the interrogation tactics, including waterboarding, and that they raised no objections at the time.

Really Nancy? Porter Goss begs to differ.

Security Before Politics

Since leaving my post as CIA director almost three years ago, I have remained largely silent on the public stage. I am speaking out now because I feel our government has crossed the red line between properly protecting our national security and trying to gain partisan political advantage. We can’t have a secret intelligence service if we keep giving away all the secrets. Americans have to decide now.

A disturbing epidemic of amnesia seems to be plaguing my former colleagues on Capitol Hill. After the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, members of the committees charged with overseeing our nation’s intelligence services had no higher priority than stopping al-Qaeda. In the fall of 2002, while I was chairman of the House intelligence committee, senior members of Congress were briefed on the CIA’s “High Value Terrorist Program,” including the development of “enhanced interrogation techniques” and what those techniques were. This was not a one-time briefing but an ongoing subject with lots of back and forth between those members and the briefers.

Today, I am slack-jawed to read that members claim to have not understood that the techniques on which they were briefed were to actually be employed; or that specific techniques such as “waterboarding” were never mentioned. It must be hard for most Americans of common sense to imagine how a member of Congress can forget being told about the interrogations of Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammed. In that case, though, perhaps it is not amnesia but political expedience.

Let me be clear. It is my recollection that:

— The chairs and the ranking minority members of the House and Senate intelligence committees, known as the Gang of Four, were briefed that the CIA was holding and interrogating high-value terrorists.

— We understood what the CIA was doing.

— We gave the CIA our bipartisan support.

— We gave the CIA funding to carry out its activities.

— On a bipartisan basis, we asked if the CIA needed more support from Congress to carry out its mission against al-Qaeda.

I do not recall a single objection from my colleagues. They did not vote to stop authorizing CIA funding. And for those who now reveal filed “memorandums for the record” suggesting concern, real concern should have been expressed immediately — to the committee chairs, the briefers, the House speaker or minority leader, the CIA director or the president’s national security adviser — and not quietly filed away in case the day came when the political winds shifted. And shifted they have.

Circuses are not new in Washington, and I can see preparations being made for tents from the Capitol straight down Pennsylvania Avenue. The CIA has been pulled into the center ring before. The result this time will be the same: a hollowed-out service of diminished capabilities. After Sept. 11, the general outcry was, “Why don’t we have better overseas capabilities?” I fear that in the years to come this refrain will be heard again: once a threat — or God forbid, another successful attack — captures our attention and sends the pendulum swinging back. There is only one person who can shut down this dangerous show: President Obama.

Unfortunately, much of the damage to our capabilities has already been done. It is certainly not trust that is fostered when intelligence officers are told one day “I have your back” only to learn a day later that a knife is being held to it. After the events of this week, morale at the CIA has been shaken to its foundation.

We must not forget: Our intelligence allies overseas view our inability to maintain secrecy as a reason to question our worthiness as a partner. These allies have been vital in almost every capture of a terrorist.

The suggestion that we are safer now because information about interrogation techniques is in the public domain conjures up images of unicorns and fairy dust. We have given our enemy invaluable information about the rules by which we operate. The terrorists captured by the CIA perfected the act of beheading innocents using dull knives. Khalid Sheik Mohammed boasted of the tactic of placing explosives high enough in a building to ensure that innocents trapped above would die if they tried to escape through windows. There is simply no comparison between our professionalism and their brutality.

Our enemies do not subscribe to the rules of the Marquis of Queensbury. “Name, rank and serial number” does not apply to non-state actors but is, regrettably, the only question this administration wants us to ask. Instead of taking risks, our intelligence officers will soon resort to wordsmithing cables to headquarters while opportunities to neutralize brutal radicals are lost.

The days of fortress America are gone. We are the world’s superpower. We can sit on our hands or we can become engaged to improve global human conditions. The bottom line is that we cannot succeed unless we have good intelligence. Trading security for partisan political popularity will ensure that our secrets are not secret and that our intelligence is destined to fail us.

The writer, a Republican, was director of the CIA from September 2004 to May 2006 and was chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence from 1997 to 2004.

So, who are you going to believe?

/I say let’s put Nancy under oath