Showing posts with label Yemen. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Yemen. Show all posts

Sunday, August 11, 2013

An 'orgy of drones' in Yemen

I'm re-posting this article in full because I don't think it made front page news in the U.S. that we launched nine drones strikes in 10 days in Yemen and killed at least 36 "suspected militants."

We absolutely must know about these drone strikes in our name, ostensibly to protect us, that create fear and hatred toward the U.S.

Then we turn around and ask, incredulously, "Why do these crazy Muslims hate America?"




By Joshua Hersh
August 11, 2013 | Huffington Post

On Friday night, Farea al-Muslimi, a young Yemeni journalist and activist, went for a drive with a friend around the capital city of his home, Sanaa.

It was a holiday weekend, the second day of the Muslim holy festival of Eid al-Fitr, and the streets were calm. But what struck al-Muslimi the most as they crossed through the town, was that they hardly encountered any security presence.

"We didn't see a single checkpoint," he told HuffPost. "No one buys the idea that there is a security threat here. They simply don't see it -- I don't see it."

Over the previous week, the United States and other Western nations ramped up terror alerts about Yemen, a small nation on the tip of the Arabian peninsula that attracts a disproportionate amount of American attention. A recent terrorism alert prompting the closures of nearly two dozen American embassies around the Arab world was "emanating from Yemen," the U.S. said, and earlier in the week American citizens were urged to flee Yemen. The staff of the U.S. embassy there was spirited to Germany on a military cargo plane.

However, as the week progressed, signs of terror did not take the form of an attack by al Qaeda of the Arabian Peninsula, an increasingly powerful franchise of the feared terrorist organization, but instead, as Haykal Bafana, a Sanaa-based Yemeni lawyer, put it recently, of an "orgy of drones."

Over the past 10 days, at least nine American drone strikes have been conducted across the country's remote provinces, most recently on Saturday evening. At least 36 people, all of them immediately deemed "suspected militants" by the Yemeni government, were killed, according to wire service counts. On Thursday alone, there were three drone attacks, an unprecedented rate; Saturday's was the fifth in 72 hours.

For those left in Yemen, it has been like living in a universe parallel to the one described in American terror alerts, Bafana said on Saturday. "It's like there are two different Yemens," he said. "The one the U.S. and Yemeni government claims is always under a terrorist threat, and the one we actually live in, with drones. It's like they stepped through the looking glass."

For Farea al-Muslimi, that's meant a week of fear and anger. "You can tell how frustrated the people here are," al-Muslimi said, when reached by phone late on Friday.

Earlier in the week, he said, when an American P-3 Orion spy plane circled over Sanaa for nearly 10 hours, loudly buzzing as residents tried to celebrate the start of Eid, residents stopped in their tracks to protest. "People were standing in the street and screaming at it," he said.

Al-Muslimi became something of an American household name, at least in the relatively small circle of people who monitor America's counter-terrorism policies and drone usage, earlier this year when he live-Tweeted accounts of a drone strike from his family's village, Wessab.

He subsequently traveled to Washington, D.C., where he testified before Congress about the experience, telling lawmakers that drone strikes were destroying America's image in Yemen, and driving ordinary citizens into the arms of al Qaeda and other militants. "What violent militants had previously failed to achieve, one drone strike achieved in an instant," he said at the time.

In the ensuing months, amid a growing atmosphere of dissent about the use and abuse of drone warfare in Washington, President Barack Obama found himself compelled to speak publicly about the policy. In a speech in May, he acknowledged America's role in drone strikes and pledged to create a legal framework for oversight of the program.

But The New York Times and others have since reported that the reality in targeted areas like Yemen shows that drone policy is anything but reformed.

In Yemen, there have already been 22 strikes this year, close to the pace in 2012 when Obama ordered a record 42 drone strikes,according to the Long War Journal. And in Pakistan, another frequent target of American drones, there were more strikes in July than in any month since January.

The history of U.S. drone wars in Yemen includes a number of tactical successes, of course, including the strike that killed feared al Qaeda propagandist Anwar al-Awlaki, an American citizen. But it's also littered with devastating failuresinnocent families and children have been hit by misguided missiles, first-aid responders have found themselves targeted by a practice known as "double-tapping," and even some prominent anti-al Qaeda clerics have been assassinated.

The day after Obama was reelected for his second term, for instance, he ordered a strike that killed a tribal leader known for negotiating with al Qaeda militants to reduce their lethality. More recently, officials acknowledged that a strike last summer killed Salem Ahmed bin Ali Jaber, a popular sheik who a few days earlier delivered a sermon on the evils of al Qaeda.

Mohammed al-Qadhi, a Sanaa-based Yemeni journalist, said that so far there is no conclusive evidence that the current attacks killed innocents. Others, including Bafana, who tracks the strikes through his own network, said the first strikes last week in Hadhramauat killed at least four civilians, including a child.

Either way, al-Qadhi said the latest strikes are producing an uptick in popular discontent and protest -- on Facebook and Twitter, in the targeted villages, and at the now-vacant American embassy in Sanaa.

"People feel they don't have a government anymore," al-Qadhi said by phone. "They feel we don't have a government to attack the militants, so the Americans are handling it for us, and they are encroaching onto the sovereignty of Yemen."

The killings, he added, "may be good for Americans but in the end it doesn't solve the problem completely, especially if some civilians are killed. It just creates a kind of sympathy with al Qaeda. And I think al Qaeda will not stop attacking. I think they will retaliate, and they will fire back again in retaliation to these attacks."

The practitioners of America's counterterrorism strategy also sometimes seem at a loss to explain the U.S. policy's objectives.

“It’s too early to tell whether we’ve actually disrupted anything,” a top U.S. official told The Washington Post this week, of the most recent round of strikes. “What the U.S. government is trying to do here is to buy time."

To al-Muslimi, the return of drone warfare almost reflects an aimlessness among American policymakers. "Just like troubled teenagers with bad parents might run to the addiction of drugs and alcohol when it has problems, Americans are running to drones when they have terrorism problems," he said. "Alcohol makes you forget your failures, and for the Americans it seems like drones are for when they want to forget their counter-terrorism failures. It's senseless."

Meanwhile, he said, this week's action may have made some Americans feel better, but it's only increasing the sense of terror in Yemen.

"When there is a normal war, people can hide, or they can stay away from the military -- they can make choices and be careful," al-Muslimi said."But when drones come, you just don't know when you'll be next. The fear is incredible."

Thursday, September 13, 2012

What U.S. 'appeasement'?!

I can't believe anybody still publishes V.D. Hanson.  He should have been chased across the U.S. border by an angry mob years ago.

How in the world has Obama "appeased" radical Islamists?  By killing bin Laden and more Taliban fighters in four years than Dubya did in eight? By increasing drone strikes in sovereign Pakistan 6 times, not to mention Yemen and Somalia? By having not a single Islamist terrorist attack on U.S. soil?  By refusing to close Dubya's Guantanamo Bay detention camp?  By carrying out extra-judicial killings of U.S. citizens suspected of Islamist terrorism?  VDH doesn't specify. It's all understood, I guess, if you too reside in his crazy alternate universe where Iraqis are still greeting us with flowers, and we are winning Afghans' hearts and minds as we kill them.

Look, folks, we don't control Egypt, Libya, or Afghanistan and Iraq for that matter. The difference between the first two and the last two countries is pretty significant though: the people of the former two countries decided to overthrow their leaders, and spilled their own blood to make it happen, whereas in the latter two countries, we did it for them and then stuck around way past our welcome as Occupiers.  In Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, Syria, Bahrain and Yemen, the Arab Spring was their idea; it was their revolution, not ours.  Meanwhile, we have spent a few $ billion in Egypt and Libya on arms and aid, and a few $ trillion in Iraq and Afghanistan.  Not to mention 4,486 U.S. troops killed in Iraq and 2114 in Afghanistan.

If Obama's way is "leading from behind," I'll opt for that any day.  Unworldly and ignorant Mitt Romney and the disgraced neocons whispering terrible advice in his ear are living in the illusions of 2002, not the realities of 2012. We're smarter and better than that now.  Forward, indeed!


By Victor Davis Hanson
September 12, 2012 | National Review

Wednesday, September 12, 2012

War Nerd: Obama's a better C-in-C than W but a terrible cheerleader

Classic War Nerd.  Glad to see he's back.  

Did you know that the U.S. had no troops killed in action in Iraq in 2011? Zero.  None.  That's f-ing amazing.  As Gary put it: "Once the big US forces left, the Iraqis stopped attacking us. I mean completely."  

Kinda makes all those folks like, um, (cough-cough!), myself look pretty damn smart for saying the Iraqis didn't hate us for who we were or our freedom, they hated the open-ended U.S. occupation.  And it makes all those people who said they were just crazy Muslims look kind of dumb, doesn't it?  I mean, you can't be crazy violent Muslim one year and sane democrat the next.

Still, 'Bama can't get any love from W's erstwhile GWOT-lovers and troop-honorers. He's just too eerily calm and collected about his blood & guts.  And he never spikes the ball in the endzone, even when he nailed the biggest bearded baddy of them all.  He lets others do his bragging for him, like Crazy Old Joe repeating in semi-senile fashion, "GM is alive and bin Laden is dead."  Obama's steady nerves, quiet modesty and self-restraint may be admirable traits in a Clint Eastwood-type film hero, but these are terrible traits in a U.S. president.  

Concludes Gary:

War isn’t about “winning” wars, so much — the 2004 election proved that once and for all. It’s about having something to woof on behalf of, like the NFL squared. Bush was the worst warrior since George Villiers, but he was a pro at cheerleading and we reelected him. Obama’s been a big surprise as a C-in-C, a damn good, cool-headed master of assassins, which is what you need for counterinsurgency … but he’s worse than nothing as a cheerleader.




By Gary Brecher
September 11, 2012 | NSFW Corp


Thursday, January 28, 2010

Ames: When A attacks, America attacks country Z

Whoever hits us next, we should just retaliate against whatever liberal-socialist country pisses us off the most. If the next underwear bomber is from Saudi Arabia, we should bomb Venezuela. If the next hijacking is conducted by Yemenis, we should invade North Korea.

Believe it or not, there are those who say that an "unpredictable" U.S. war machine is the best defense of liberty. In other words, if the "bad guys" -- and their passive allies-- think America is a totally nuts loose cannon, they'll think twice about messing with us. Seriously, I'm not making this up.


Add Yemen to America's long list of easy enemies.
By Mark Ames
March 1, 2010 Issue | The American Conservative

If the last few decades prove anything about America's strategy in fighting Islamic terrorism, it's that no matter what the other side throws our way, America will respond in the most counterintuitive and self-destructive manner imaginable.

The routine goes something like this: if America is attacked by terrorists from Country A, then our response will be to bomb the hell out of Country Z, in which Z equals a doormat of a country whose sole purpose is to provide an easy, morale-boosting win. This strategy has produced mixed results, from total failure to complete catastrophe, depending on variable Z. The doormats have turned out to be booby-trapped.

Take our most recent example of this counterterror formula: a terrorist from Country A (Nigeria) tries and fails to down an American plane. According to the warped logic of the U.S. foreign-policy establishment, we must naturally attack Country Z—Yemen. Leaving aside the question of how effective it is to bomb any demographically-exploding Third World country, let's follow the hawkish logic: some misfit can't figure out how to blow up his underwear, but we still have to find perpetrators to punish. Problem is, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab is from Nigeria, which has almost 80 million Muslims, the largest number in sub-Saharan Africa. So that's not going to work. There's Saudi Arabia, where al-Qaeda's founder, its sponsors, and its ideological support all come from—that would be a logical Country A to bomb. But the Saudis sponsor the American foreign-policy establishment at least as much as they sponsor anti-American terrorism, so bombing them would be tantamount to suicide for our policymakers. Then there's Pakistan, another logical choice: that country's notorious spy service is believed to have been protecting al-Qaeda's leadership lo these many years—why not bomb Pakistan? Answer: we're already fighting, and losing, against a Pakistani proxy army, the Taliban. Just imagine how much worse things would be if we expanded the conflict to Pakistan proper, which has over five times the population of Afghanistan and nuclear weapons to boot.

Yet the simple-minded hawks need to invade and bomb someone, just so long as it's someone they believe will be a pushover; an easy victory where the results are all but fixed in advance; some country that could play the military equivalent of the Washington Generals to America's Harlem Globetrotters.

That's how Yemen, a place Abdulmutallab passed through and supposedly got his training in, becomes the new Country Z—the tangentially related state we need to bomb to make things better. As far as the meatheads in D.C. know, Yemen should be a pushover. Otherwise, we'd have heard something about Yemen by now.

Ah yes, lovely Yemen, the perfect choice for another open-ended war, exactly what the bankrupt, overstretched, kneecapped American empire needs. It's the sort of counterintuitive target the counterintuitive imperialists who have brought us so much ruin would choose for their last gamble: it's as if they selected Yemen precisely because there's nothing to steal and nothing to conquer. The only thing a war with Yemen would guarantee is more death, more debt, and generations of anti-American hate to keep our grandchildren busy. To the serial losers who coaxed America into the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, the losing odds Yemen offers are just too tempting to pass up.

So Sen. Joseph Lieberman goes on television and says, "Iraq was yesterday's war. ... Afghanistan is today's war. If we don't act pre-emptively, Yemen will be tomorrow's war. That's the danger we face." This sums up just how deranged America's hawks have become. To their minds, wars come in three tenses: past, present, and future. Leaving aside the fact that Afghanistan was yesterday's war before it became today's war and that America is still losing both wars in whichever tense Lieberman uses, consider his argument: I gambled American power on Iraq, and I lost; I'm now in the process of losing another war. Therefore, if we don't want to lose the next war, we need to start it now—to trick time, so to speak, so that we can fight the future in the present tense.

No wonder American power is collapsing harder than just about any empire in history. But it's not as though Lieberman is displaying any originality. The politicians and wonks leading America down the drain are following a logic that's been operating for the past three and a half decades, always with disastrous results. It hasn't mattered whether the controls of the U.S. war machine were in the hands of a peanut farmer or a washed-up actor, a rich white chickenhawk or a socialist of color, America's military strategy vis-à-vis Islamic terrorism knows no party line—or common sense.

Just look at the record. In 1975, America was smarting from defeat in Vietnam, Gerald Ford was president, and a couple of "bold-thinking" hotheads in his administration had a brilliant idea for how to restore America's confidence. As luck would have it, Cambodia, one of the world's poorest countries, then in the middle of a Khmer Rouge holocaust, offered itself as Country Z. Cambodian Communists seized a U.S. merchant boat, the Mayaguez, and briefly held the crew hostage.

Rather than negotiating for their release, Ford's defense secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, and his underling Dick Cheney pushed for a massive military "rescue operation." It was a disaster: some 40 American servicemen were killed in the attempt to take control of the island where our sailors were supposedly being held. In fact, the Americans had already been released before the operation started.

In 1983, Hezbollah suicide bombers killed 220 Marines, the worst death toll the service has suffered since the battle of Iwo Jima and perhaps the most pointless mass-death of Marines in the outfit's brilliant history. Reagan's response: invade Grenada, a resort island a few miles off of Florida. In his defense, at least he didn't invade Iraq or Afghanistan, but the basic policy of reacting to terrorism by invading some other "cakewalk" country was set.

Also on Reagan's watch, Iranian-backed militants in Lebanon kidnapped American citizens and twice blew up the U.S. Embassy. His response: send the Ayatollah a birthday cake and a Bible, along with shiploads of TOW antitank weapons to help Khomeini fight Iraq. Still, something had to be done for public consumption, given all the Americans that the Iranians was killing. So Reagan chose to pick on Col. Muammar Qaddafi, the Gary Numan of scary Muslim villains. He bombed Qaddafi's tents and killed the cross-dresser's 4-year-old daughter.

The last terror attack of the Reagan era came just a few weeks before the 40th president left the White House, when a Pan Am jet was blown up over Scotland. Everyone and his grandma knew that the Iranians and their Syrian proxies were retaliating for the USS Vincennes shooting down an Iranian passenger jet in the Persian Gulf a few months earlier. But guess who George H.W. Bush, Reagan's replacement, blamed the Pan Am explosion on? "Glass Jaw" Qaddafi. Unlike the Iranians, Qaddafi could be counted on to cave and cry uncle, even when he wasn't guilty. He handed over one of his agents for a show trial in Scotland, and as if it were part of the deal, that Libyan agent was released a few years later by British authorities because he wasn't feeling well, or something like that.

Then there was Clinton. In 1993, proto-al-Qaeda terrorists led and funded by Saudi Wahhabis tried blowing up the World Trade Center with van-bombs. Clinton's response: roast a bunch of American Kool-Aid drinkers in Waco, Texas. (The implication is that Texans are the Libyans of North America, all bark and no bite.) In October 1993, Somali terrorists humiliated American forces in the worst military disaster since the 1983 Lebanon barracks bombing. Briefly, America was sobered up by the experience and decided not to bomb someplace like Bhutan or Upper Volta, though I'm sure policy planners considered it. By the time of the Kenya and Tanzania embassy bombings in 1998, Clinton couldn't hold back, so naturally he destroyed a Sudanese aspirin plant and put on a harmless though expensive fireworks show in Afghanistan.

Under George W. Bush, America's asymmetrical strategy went off the scale: Saudis, Kuwaitis, and Egyptians trained in Afghanistan and commanded by a Pakistani attacked America with airplanes, and we responded with a catastrophic invasion of Iraq. Operations in Afghanistan became a sideshow to the main event in Mesopotamia. And, as it turns out, right after 9/11 our ultra-hawks considered opening an even more illogical front: a top-secret memo cited in the 9/11 Commission Report—apparently written by Under Secretary of Defense Douglas Feith for Donald Rumsfeld—urged "hitting targets outside the Middle East in the initial offensive," including Paraguay, Argentina, and Brazil. The report notes, "The author suggested … since U.S. attacks were expected in Afghanistan, an American attack in South America or Southeast Asia might be a surprise to the terrorists"—not to mention a shocker to any member of the reality-based community.

Which brings us to the Nigerian underwear bomber and 2010's pending war in Yemen. It doesn't take a genius to see how this will end up. It's just too bad that we're the ones picking up the tab for Lieberman and company's mad misdirection.

Sunday, January 3, 2010

Here we go again: War on Yemen!

The neocons must be delighted with America's imminent war with Yemen. So must be al Qaeda. Funny how that goes.


Extraordinarily, the US is making exactly the same mistake as in Iraq and Afghanistan

By Patrick Cockburn
December 31, 2009 | The Independent

We are the Awaleq

Born of bitterness

We are the nails that go into the rock

We are the sparks of hell

He who defies us will be burned

This is the tribal chant of the powerful Awaleq tribe of Yemen, in which they bid defiance to the world. Its angry tone conveys the flavour of Yemeni life and it should give pause to those in the US who blithely suggest greater American involvement in Yemen in the wake of the attempt to destroy a US plane by a Nigerian student who says he received training there.

Yemen has always been a dangerous place. Wonderfully beautiful, the mountainous north of the country is guerrilla paradise. The Yemenis are exceptionally hospitable, though this has its limits. For instance, the Kazam tribe east of Aden are generous to passing strangers, but deem the laws of hospitality to lapse when the stranger leaves their tribal territory, at which time he becomes "a good back to shoot at".

The Awaleq and Kazam tribes are not exotic survivals on the margins of Yemeni society but are both politically important and influential. The strength of the central government in the capital, Sanaa, is limited and it generally avoids direct confrontations with tribal confederations, tribes, clans and powerful families. Almost everybody has a gun, usually at least an AK-47 assault rifle, but tribesmen often own heavier armament.

I have always loved the country. It is physically very beautiful with cut stone villages perched on mountain tops on the sides of which are cut hundreds of terraces, making the country look like an exaggerated Tuscan landscape. Yemenis are intelligent, humorous, sociable and democratic, infinitely preferable as company to the arrogant and ignorant playboys of the Arab oil states in the rest of the Arabian Peninsula.

It is very much a country of direct action. Once when I was there a Chinese engineer was kidnapped as he drove along the main road linking Sanaa to Aden. The motives of the kidnappers were peculiar. It turned out they came from a bee-keeping tribe (Yemen is famous for its honey) whose bees live in hives inside hollow logs placed on metal stilts to protect them from ants. The police had raided the tribe's village and had damaged hives for which the owners were demanding compensation. The government had been slow in paying up so the tribesmen had decided to draw attention to their grievance by kidnapping the next foreigner on the main road and this turned out to be the Chinese engineer.

Yemen is a mosaic of conflicting authorities, though this authority may be confined to a few villages. Larger communities include the Shia around Sanaa in the north of the country near Saada, with whom the government has been fighting a fierce little civil war. The unification of North and South Yemen in 1990 has never wholly gelled and the government is wary of southern secessionism. Its ability to buy off its opponents is also under threat as oil revenues fall, with the few oilfields beginning to run dry.

It is in this fascinating but dangerous land that President Barack Obama is planning to increase US political and military involvement. Joint operations will be carried out by the US and Yemeni military. There will be American drone attacks on hamlets where al-Qa'ida supposedly has its bases.

There is ominous use by American politicians and commentators of the phrase "failed state" in relation to Yemen, as if this some how legitimised foreign intervention. It is extraordinary that the US political elite has never taken on board that its greatest defeats have been in just such "failed states"', not least Lebanon in 1982, when 240 US Marines were blown up; Somalia in the early 1990s when the body of a US helicopter pilot was dragged through the streets; Iraq after the overthrow of Saddam Hussein; and Afghanistan after the supposed fall of the Taliban.

Yemen has all the explosive ingredients of Lebanon, Somalia, Iraq and Afghanistan. But the arch-hawk Senator Joe Lieberman, chairman of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security, was happily confirming this week that the Green Berets and the US Special Forces are already there. He cited with approval an American official in Sanaa as telling him that, "Iraq was yesterday's war. Afghanistan is today's war. If you don't act pre-emptively Yemen will be tomorrow's war." In practice pre-emptive strikes are likely to bring a US military entanglement in Yemen even closer.

The US will get entangled because the Yemeni government will want to manipulate US action in its own interests and to preserve its wilting authority. It has long been trying to portray the Shia rebels in north Yemen as Iranian cats-paws in order to secure American and Saudi support. Al-Qa'ida in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) probably only has a few hundred activists in Yemen, but the government of long time Yemeni President Ali Abdulah Salih will portray his diverse opponents as somehow linked to al-Qa'ida.

In Yemen the US will be intervening on one side in a country which is always in danger of sliding into a civil war. This has happened before. In Iraq the US was the supporter of the Shia Arabs and Kurds against the Sunni Arabs. In Afghanistan it is the ally of the Tajiks, Uzbeks and Hazara against the Pashtun community. Whatever the intentions of Washington, its participation in these civil conflicts destabilises the country because one side becomes labelled as the quisling supporter of a foreign invader. Communal and nationalist antipathies combine to create a lethal blend.

Despite sectarian, ethnic and tribal loyalties in the countries where the US has intervened in the Middle East, they usually have a strong sense of national identity. Yemenis are highly conscious of their own nationality and their identity as Arabs. One of the reasons the country is so miserably poor, with almost half its 22 million people trying to live on $2 a day, is that in 1990 Yemen refused to join the war against Iraq and Saudi Arabia consequently expelled 850,000 Yemeni workers.

It is extraordinary to see the US begin to make the same mistakes in Yemen as it previously made in Afghanistan and Iraq. What it is doing is much to al-Qa'ida's advantage. The real strength of al-Qa'ida is not that it can "train" a fanatical Nigerian student to sew explosives into his underpants, but that it can provoke an exaggerated US response to every botched attack. Al-Qa'ida leaders openly admitted at the time of 9/11 that the aim of such operations is to provoke the US into direct military intervention in Muslim countries.

In Yemen the US is walking into the al-Qa'ida trap. Once there it will face the same dilemma it faces in Iraq and Afghanistan. It became impossible to exit these conflicts because the loss of face would be too great. Just as Washington saved banks and insurance giants from bankruptcy in 2008 because they were "too big to fail," so these wars become too important to lose because to do so would damage the US claim to be the sole superpower.

In Iraq the US is getting out more easily than seemed likely at one stage because Washington has persuaded Americans that they won a non-existent success. The ultimate US exit from Afghanistan may eventually be along very similar lines. But the danger of claiming spurious victories is that such distortions of history make it impossible for the US to learn from past mistakes and instead it repeats them by fresh interventions in countries like Yemen.

Friday, January 1, 2010

Poll: Americans want to torture 'EunuchBomber'

Look, the answer is simple: pass a law. Take the burden off our Chief Executive to re-interpret the Constitution. Congress should pass a law denying normal Constitutional protections to terrorists who commit terroristic acts on U.S. soil. That would solve this whole problem. Sort of. Then we could torture this boy (an "amateur") to our hearts content to find out things that we already know, like this whole thing was planned in Yemen. [Note to self: Find pretext to invade and occupy Yemen. Then maybe re-invade Somalia, across the Gulf of Aden.] Indeed, more than half of the remaining prisoners at Guantanomo are from Yemen.

All this Monday-morning tough-guy talk is just what we came to expect from Bush-Cheney and their neocon coterie in the think tanks and MSM, but really, what good's it going to do us now? Just a thought, but maybe our biggest problem right now isn't to torture this kid, but to figure out how to prevent similar attacks in the future -- for instance, by installing reliable "puffer" detection machines in all points of entry to the USA? Naw, that's too easy. We need fireworks, baby! We need heads on a platter! Bring on the shock & awe! Yemen, your days are numbered! (If it weren't for all your tasty oil, that is.)


Rasmussen: 58% want underwear bomber waterboarded
By Muriel Kane
December 31, 2009 | Raw Story

The latest Rasmussen poll indicates that a majority of Americans support hard-line attitudes towards the would-be terrorist who attempted to blow up an airliner on Christmas day.

Of those polled, 71% would like to see the crime investigated by military rather than civilian authorities, and 58% believe that Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab should be subjected to "aggressive" interrogation techniques in order to gain information. Men, younger voters, and Republicans were most strongly in support of the use of harsh methods.

In addition, 79% expect another terrorist attack in the United States during the next year -- a huge jump from the 49% who held that opinion last August -- and 30% believe the terrorists are winning.

Hard-line sentiments were also reflected in the answers to questions about airport security -- 54% would like to see the United States take control of boarding procedures at foreign airports -- closing the prison at Guantanamo Bay, and probes of CIA torture during the Bush administration.

Liberal blogs have been skeptical all year about Rasmussen polls which show President Obama with an approval rating far lower than any other polling organization, and polling analyst Nate Silver in particular has recently subjected Rasmussen to fierce mockery. This latest poll is likely to only increase the controversy.

The results of the poll have already been proclaimed by conservative blogs. A blogger at Weasel Zippers exulted, "Obama's bleeding-heart liberal approach to national security issues is failing. The Left is pushing their insane agenda too far for most Americans."

Ed Morrissey at Hot Air headlined his version of the story "58% prefer the Cheney option on EunuchBomber," and explained, "I just call it the Cheney Option because it recalls a time when we treated terrorists as unlawful combatants rather than defendants. Apparently, a healthy majority of Americans agree with that approach."

Liberal blogger Greg Sargent, however, headlined his own reaction, "Cheney Camp Rejoices That Majority Wants To Torture Bombing Suspect"

Michael Goldfarb, presumably speaking for the Cheney camp, is really, really psyched about a new Rasmussen poll finding that a majority wants to torture the plane bombing suspect, Sargent writes. "The fact that the Cheney camp is grabbing onto this one poll as vindication says more about the degree to which Cheney has lost the overall national security argument than it does about anything else."