Defense Secretary Gates Says Iran Diplomacy is the Answer, Not Military Action

Gates: "Diplomacy, not war in Iran"

Robert Gates made clear this morning that he does not see the Iranian problem as one that can be solved principally by military means:

“WASHINGTON (Reuters) — Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Sunday that diplomacy and sanctions rather than military action are the way to persuade Iran to change its nuclear program as divisions emerge in the Iranian leadership.

Iran’s nuclear dispute with the West intensified last week after Tehran disclosed that it is building a second uranium enrichment plant.

“While you don’t take options off the table, I think there’s still room left for diplomacy,” Gates said on CNN’s Sunday program “State of the Union.”

The Pentagon chief said military force would only gain time but not convince Iranians to abandon their quest for nuclear weapons.”

I find it fascinating that politicians don’t realize that military action in Iran would only increase the risk of terrorism  from groups such as Hezbollah.

I do disagree with Gates, however, on issuing sanctions on Iran, though. Sanctions would only internalize their conflict with the rest of the world and would rally the public around the Iranian government. Essentially, it would give Iranians a reason to bind together around a specific cause; American intervention.

And obviously, the fact that we can’t afford another conflict doesn’t seem to cross their minds.

Source: Below the Beltway

http://belowthebeltway.com/2009/09/27/secdef-gates-on-iran-diplomacy-is-the-answer-not-military-action/

Obama: Iran Is on Notice, Won’t Rule Out Military Action

Is Second Facility Really ‘Provocative’ or a Hedge Against Attack?

Iranian uranium enrichment facility

Citing Iran’s revelation earlier this week that it is constructing a second, smaller uranium enrichment facility, President Barack Obama demanded that the Iranian government “come clean” about his long-standing accusations of a nuclear weapons program, and said he would not rule out attacking the nation if they refused.

Obama said the second facility, reportedly an underground plant outside of Qom, was “inconsistent with a peaceful program” and claimed that the nation was “breaking rules that all nations must follow.”

Despite these claims, it isn’t apparent that Iran broke any rules with the facility. The IAEA only requires that it be informed six months before the facility is operational, which Iran apparently did on Monday. The IAEA has said the information it has been given suggests the facility, like Iran’s current one, is only designed to enrich uranium to 5%, useful only for civilian purposes.

Read the rest of the article at Antiwar.com.

Sources of 9/11 Commission Report Were Tortured

9/11 Commission Report

An MSNBC investigation into the 9/11 Commission Report details how pieces of data were obtained through the use of “harsh interrogations.” From the report:

The 9/11 Commission suspected that critical information it used in its landmark report was the product of harsh interrogations of al-Qaida operatives – interrogations that many critics have labeled torture. Yet, commission staffers never questioned the agency about the interrogation techniques and in fact ordered a second round of interrogations specifically to ask additional questions of the same operatives, NBC News has learned.

Majid Khan was one of those sources subjected to harsh interrogation techniques in order to obtain information. As the report states:

“The Americans tortured him for eight hours at a time, tying him tightly in stressful positions in a small chair until his hands feet and mind went numb. They retied him in a chair every hour, tightening the bonds on his hands and feet each time so that it was more painful. He was often hooded and had difficulty breathing. They also beat him repeatedly, slapping him in the face, and deprived him of sleep.

“When he was not being interrogated, the Americans put Majid in a small cell that was totally dark and too small for him to lie down in or sit in with legs stretched out. He had to crouch. The room was also infested with mosquitoes. This torture only stopped when Majid agreed to sign a statement that he wasn’t even allowed to read.

Ultimately, Khan’s testimony was taken out of the final report, but this shows just how unreliable information obtained through torture can be. In fact, the Commission Final Report recommended that the US encourage an end to torture.

Liberals Elected Bush to a Third Term

George W. Obama

Well, it looks like Obama has broken another one of his campaign promises. While on the campaign trail, Obama often alluded to ending the Bush-era military commission system for prosecuting accused terrorists. While he never directly advocated its abolition, he was repeatedly quoted as saying he would reform the tribunals “by bringing swift and sure justice to terrorists through our courts and our Uniform Code of Military Justice.” However, President Obama has reversed course today, and said he will plan to continue the military tribunals.

“Military commissions have a long tradition in the United States,” said Obama in a statement. “They are appropriate for trying enemies who violate the laws of war, provided that they are properly structured and administered.”

Lt. Cmdr. Brian Mizer, the military lawyer who defended Salim Hamdan, Osama bin Laden’s personal driver, disagrees with Obama’s assessment. In an AP interview, Mizer expressed his dismay in the president’s decision to continue the Guantanamo terror tribunals. Mizer states,

“What is particularly disappointing is the fact that the government is now openly stating that the reason he is reviving this commissions process is because it is going to be hard to obtain convictions in traditional courts. And this would be the first time in our Republic that we have created a court system [simply] to obtain convictions, and that’s more than disappointing.”

Lt. Cmdr. Mizer then discusses other alternatives available that could be effective in adequately hearing the cases of these terror suspects.

“It would be either Court marshal for those individuals who have committed actual war crimes under the laws of war, or in federal court. Our founding fathers created a system of justice that has endured for over 200 years. And there’s nothing unique about this threat that requires fake courts applying laws that did not exist at the time the offenses allegedly took place.”

What is abundently clear is there is little difference between the democrat officials and the republican officials in terms of foreign policy. Congratulations America, you voted Bush into his third term!

Torture: Pandora’s Box?

Waterboarding Americans?

On May 3, 1946, the International Military Tribunal for the Far East (Tokyo Trials) began investigations into atrocities of our prisoners of war committed by the Japanese during World War II. Among these atrocities were waterboarding. Seven Japanese generals were charged, convicted, and executed for their participation in waterboarding US soldiers to extract intelligence.

In 1983, Texas sheriff James Parker and three of his deputies were convicted for conspiring to force confessions. The method they used: water torture. The sheriff was sentenced to ten years in prison, and the deputies to four years.

The case against torture has been embedded deeply into our country’s history. When did this change? Did September 11 change everything?

Just like any other government program, when you give the government permission to torture terrorists, it won’t stop. In fact, it will most likely grow. When the Department of Homeland Security identifies you as a terrorist, either because you are pro-life, an environmental activist, own a gun, or are political, will torture be acceptable? Either way it won’t matter, because by then, it’s too late.