It’s a Q&A with Barack Obama December 20th in the Boston Globe, Charlie Savage wrote the story.

< this section has been updated — due to factual error > – in a continuing effort to post only the truth and verifiable information. Thanks for the heads up -Gordo.

8. Under what circumstances, if any, is the president, when operating overseas as commander-in-chief, free to disregard international human rights treaties that the US Senate has ratified?

Obama: It is illegal and unwise for the President to disregard international human rights treaties that have been ratified by the United States Senate, including and especially the Geneva Conventions. The Commander-in-Chief power does not allow the President to defy those treaties.

He gets it wrong on who ratifies treaties and who consents to them. He says the president doesn’t have the authority to abolish treaties. And the president does! Bush abolished the ABM Treaty shortly after taking office because Bush said it’s irrelevant. The Soviets are gone. I’m getting rid of this. The liberals went nuts, but they couldn’t stop him because the president does have the authority to get rid of treaties. Obama says here that the president does not have the authority to undermine Congress, the Senate here, which ratifies treaties. The Senate doesn’t ratify, they consent to them. The president makes treaties, negotiates them, comes up with them, for crying out loud.

Andy McCarthy posted an article, National Review Online, discussing the announcement that military prosecutors have decided to seek the death penalty against Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and five others who are complicit in the 9/11 attacks. This is the 9/11 Six, and the article raises the issue of what kind of enforcement paradigm we’re going to have. Do we go back to the September 10th approach of treating foreign jihadists as if they were ordinary criminal defendants entitled to all the rights and privileges of the civilian justice system, or should we treat the enemy as a war criminal in a conflict in which it’s vital that we protect the intelligence we depend on to save American lives?

In other words, are we going to go back to the Jamie Gorelick Clinton days where we’re going to treat these enemy combatants as just civilians in court and we’re going to hear testimony and we’re going to divulge intelligence secrets of what it took to nail them, or are we going to treat them as enemy combatants, military tribunals and this kind of thing?

As McCarthy wrote, it’s a real opportunity for Senator McCain to separate himself from Obama and Clinton. We still have the military commission option because Congress passed the Military Commissions Act in 2006, and McCain voted for that. Obama and Clinton voted against it.

What do our three plausible candidates think should be done with Khalid Sheikh Mohammed? This is a gift, and McCain should grab it, but he probably won’t, because he wants to shut down Guantanamo. He believes Guantanamo is bad. He believes that torture happens in Guantanamo. But McCarthy is right. This is a golden opportunity for McCain to put into play and demonstrate his vast experience at national security and protecting the country, because Obama and Clinton both want the 9/11 Six and future terrorists like this to be brought home here, put in the civilian justice system, and tried the same as we would try a bank robber, in time of war.

Now, McCain gave an interview to Der Spiegel, a German magazine. This is more from Andy McCarthy.

Here’s the question from Der Spiegel:

“America has lost a lot of friends because President George W. Bush angered, indeed outraged, them. He allowed human rights to be violated at Guantanamo Bay, and he dismissed the joint effort to combat global warming. Under a President McCain, could we expect a change of course?”

McCain’s answer: “Yes. I would announce that we are not ever going to torture anyone held in American custody. I would announce that we were closing Guantanamo Bay and moving those prisoners to Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, and I would announce a commitment to addressing climate change and my dedication to a global agreement — but it has to include India and China.”

Folks, if you’re wondering why so many of us on this side of the aisle are disappointed, it’s because this answer is depressing. It’s disappointing. We haven’t violated human rights at Guantanamo. Senator McCain accepts the premise, not only, by the way, accepts the premise, he takes the opportunity to grandstand on torture. He intimates that President Bush has presided over a torture regime.

Der Spiegel says, “The world hates your country, and the world hates your president, President Bush because of torture and human rights violations and global warming.” McCain says, “Absolutely right, but I’m not going to do any of that, that Bush has done that, people hate us for.”

Reference:

Boston Globe: Barack Obama’s Q&A – Charlie Savage
Weekly Standard: Obama Unplugged; Lost Without a Teleprompter – Dean Barnett
Der Spiegel: ‘I Have a Long Record of Working Together with Our Allies’
National Review: Obama on the Executive – John Derbyshire
National Review: The 9/11 Six: An Opportunity for Senator McCain – Andrew C. McCarthy

From the Times of London…

“Al-Qaeda Leaders Admit: ‘We are in Crisis. There is Panic and Fear’ — Al-Qaeda in Iraq faces an ‘extraordinary crisis.’ Last year’s mass defection of ordinary Sunnis from Al-Qaeda to the US military ‘created panic, fear and the unwillingness to fight’. The terrorist group’s security structure suffered ‘total collapse.’ These are the words not of Al-Qaeda’s enemies but of one of its own leaders in Anbar province — once the group’s stronghold. They were set down last summer in a 39-page letter seized during a US raid on an Al-Qaeda base near Samarra in November. The US military released extracts from that letter yesterday along with a second seized [letter] in another November raid that is almost as startling. … US intelligence officials cautioned, however, that the documents were snapshots of two small areas and that Al-Qaeda was far from a spent force.”

Now, the story does mention here on page two…

“The Anbar letter conceded that the ‘crusaders’ — Americans — had gained the upper hand by persuading ordinary Sunnis that Al-Qaeda was responsible for their suffering and by exploiting their poverty to entice them into the security forces.”

So the point of the story is: Hey, the Iraqis didn’t get to this conclusion all by themselves. They had to be talked into it by the Americans, and that isn’t fair in a time of war. The Americans talked the Sunnis out of being with Al-Qaeda in Iraq! So whenever there’s good news, it has to be sprinkled and peppered with pessimism.

At the same time, Nancy Pelosi has called Iraq a failure. She said twice Sunday–

‘Iraq is a failure,‘ adding that President Bush’s troop surge has not produced the desired effect. “The purpose of the surge was to create a secure time for the government of Iraq to make the political change to bring reconciliation to Iraq. They’ve not done that.” She then hastened to add, by the way, “The troops have succeeded. God bless them.”

From Late Edition, Wolf yesterday, who said to Pelosi, “You’re not worried all the gains that have been achieved over the past year in Iraq might be lost?”

PELOSI: There haven’t been gains, Wolf. The gains have not produced the desired effect, which is the reconciliation of Iraq. This is a failure. This is a failure! The troops have succeeded. God bless them. We owe them the greatest debt of gratitude, the sacrifice, their patriotism, and for their courage, and to their families as well. This is a — a disaster, and we cannot perpetuate it. We have to make decisions. And this is — the loss of life of nearly 4,000 of our troops, an average of 800 a year, tens of thousands injured; some of them permanently, blind, amputations.

Thank goodness. I’m so happy the Democrats are back on this.

Here we are in the middle of Iraq. I want to send out a hearty congratulations with sincere love, devotion, awe and respect to all of you wearing the military uniform of this country, in whatever branch in which you serve. Those of you in Iraq, those of you in Afghanistan, those of you who have been, those of you who are back, those of you who are back and going back; God bless you. You are succeeding. You are achieving victory.

— and let it be heard, the Democrat Party leadership today has no desire for your victory to be known.

They have no desire for your victory to be proposed and accepted by the American people.

You keep on, because Americans understand that you are succeeding and we understand this because Iraq is not even on the table as an election issue. Nobody is even talking about it on the Democrat side here. They can’t, they have already declared defeat, over and over again.

UK Times: Al-Qaeda Leaders Admit: ‘We Are in Crisis. There is Panic and Fear’

Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury is losing it.

This is the guy who first cast doubts on the whole concept of the still star over Bethlehem around Christmastime, and then began talking about, “Well, you don’t really need to believe in the resurrection to be a Christian.”

Yes, you do…

Now, have you heard about this? This guy is back.

The Archbishop of Canterbury said yesterday that “the adoption of Islamic Sharia law in the UK is unavoidable and that it would help social cohesion. Rowan Williams told BBC Radio 4’s World One that UK has to ‘face up to the fact’ that some of its citizens do not relate to the British legal system. Muslims could choose to have marital disputes or financial matters dealt with in a Sharia court. He added that Muslims should not have to choose between the stark alternatives of cultural loyalty or state loyalty. He said there was a place for finding a constructive accommodation in areas such as marriage, allowing Muslim women to avoid western divorce proceedings.”

This is what you get when you have unchecked, unbridled liberalism.

By the way, this is liberalism disguised as an archbishop, as a religious figure. Liberals will give away the culture and the freedom of western democracies. They will give it away, for whatever reasons, who cares; all you need to know is they will give it away. And people like this, Rowan Williams, are not isolated, they’re not alone.

There are lots of these kinds of people who think this way in this country.

Jail politicians who ignore climate science: Suzuki

“David Suzuki has called for political leaders to be thrown in jail for ignoring the science behind climate change. At a Montreal conference last Thursday, the prominent scientist, broadcaster and Order of Canada recipient exhorted a packed house of 600 to hold politicians legally accountable for what he called an intergenerational crime. Though a spokesman said yesterday the call for imprisonment was not meant to be taken literally, Dr. Suzuki reportedly made similar remarks in an address at the University of Toronto last month.”

Yes, I’m afraid he does.

And get this. He wants to take decisions on global warming in government away from politicians and put it in the hands of scientists, who of course are not governed by politics, are they?...

This is what liberals do. This is who they are. They’re telling us every day.

Reference:

Jail politicians who ignore climate science: Suzuki

This is all over the news today.

It’s in the New York Times, do you know that ethanol and biofuels now are causing global warming?

“Converting land for biofuel worsens global warming.”

Yes, it’s true, thank you, liberals.

“Clearing raw land to produce biofuels actually contributes to global warming by emitting large amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, researchers have warned.”