disliked Dick Cheney since the 2000 campaign, when this supposed rock-ribbed conservative revealed himself as an out-and-out social liberal supporting homosexual “marriage” and endorsing the liberal lie that there is an unjust wage gap between men and women. But on the issues of surveillance of terror suspects and enhanced interrogation of terrorist prisoners (I am referring here to waterboarding, to which only
prisoners have been subjected) I agree with him. Below is an
. The
is posted at Real Clear Politics.
SAVING US LIVES
By DICK CHENEY
May 22, 2009
Following are excerpts of former Vice President Dick Cheney’s address at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington yesterday.
NOW and for years to come, a lot rides on our president’s understand ing of the security policies that preceded him. Whatever choices he makes concerning the defense of this country, those choices shouldn’t be based on slogans and campaign rhetoric, but on a truthful telling of history.
Our administration always faced its share of criticism, and from some quarters it was always intense. That was especially so in the later years of our term, when the dangers were as serious as ever, but the sense of general alarm after 9/11 was a fading memory.
Part of our responsibility, as we saw it, was not to forget the terrible harm that had been done to America, and not to let 9/11 become the prelude to something much bigger and far worse.
Sept. 11 made necessary a shift of policy, aimed at a clear strategic threat.
To make certain our nation never again faced such a day of horror, we developed a comprehensive strategy, beginning with far greater homeland security. But since wars can’t be won on the defensive, we moved decisively against the terrorists in their hideouts and sanctuaries, and committed to using every asset to take down their networks.
We decided, as well, to confront the regimes that sponsored terrorists, and to go after those who provide sanctuary, funding and weapons to US enemies.
Over seven years into the effort, one thing we know is that the enemy has spent most of this time on the defensive—and every attempt to strike inside the United States has failed.
The key to any strategy is accurate intelligence, and skilled professionals to get that information in time to use it. Our administration gave intelligence officers the tools and lawful authority they needed to gain vital information. That authority is drawn from Article Two of the Constitution.
Our government prevented attacks and saved lives through the Terrorist Surveillance Program, which let us intercept calls and track contacts between al Qaeda operatives and persons inside the United States. The program was top-secret, and for good reason, until the editors of The New York Times got it and put it on the front page.
The Times had spent months publishing the pictures and the stories of everyone killed by al Qaeda on 9/11. Now here was that same newspaper publishing secrets in a way that could only help al Qaeda.
It impressed the Pulitzer committee, but it damn sure didn’t serve the interests of our country, or the safety of our people.
In the years after 9/11, our government also understood that the safety of the country required collecting information known only to the worst of the terrorists. And in a few cases, that information could be gained only through tough interrogations.
Our successors in office have their own views on all of these matters. By presidential decision, last month we saw the selective release of documents relating to enhanced interrogations. This is held up as a bold exercise in open government. We’re informed that there was much agonizing over this decision.
Yet somehow, when the soul-searching was done and the veil was lifted on the policies of the Bush administration, the public was given less than half the truth. The released memos were carefully redacted to leave out references to what our government learned through the methods in question. Other memos, laying out specific terrorist plots that were averted, apparently were not even considered for release.
But now that this once top-secret information is out for all to see—including the enemy—let me draw your attention to some points that are routinely overlooked. It is a fact that only detainees of the highest intelligence value were ever subjected to enhanced interrogation.
You’ve heard endlessly about waterboarding. It happened to three terrorists. One of them was Khalid Sheikh Mohammed—the mastermind of 9/11, who has also boasted about beheading Daniel Pearl.
We had a lot of blind spots after the attacks on our country. We didn’t know about al Qaeda’s plans, but KSM and a few others did know. And with many thousands of innocent lives potentially in the balance, we didn’t think it made sense to let the terrorists answer questions in their own good time—if they answered them at all.
From the beginning of the program, there was only one focused and all-important purpose. We sought, and we in fact obtained, specific information on terrorist plans.
Behind the overwrought reaction to enhanced interrogations is a broader misconception about the threats that still face our country.
You can sense the problem in the emergence of euphemisms that strive to put an imaginary distance between the American people and the terrorist enemy.
In that category, the prizewinning entry would be a recent editorial in a familiar newspaper that referred to terrorists we’ve captured as “abducted.” Here we have ruthless enemies of this country, stopped in their tracks by brave operatives in the service of America, and a major editorial page makes them sound like they were kidnap victims.
The enhanced interroga tions of high-value de tainees and the terrorist surveillance program have without question made our country safer.
Every senior official who has been briefed on these classified matters knows of specific attacks that were in the planning stages and were stopped by the programs we put in place.
This might explain why President Obama has reserved unto himself the right to order the use of enhanced interrogation should he deem it appropriate.
For all that we’ve lost in this conflict, the United States has never lost its moral bearings. And when the moral reckoning turns to the men known as high-value terrorists, I can assure you they were neither innocent nor victims. As for those who asked them questions and got answers, they did the right thing, they made our country safer, and a lot of Americans are alive today because of them.