IF TREASON IS IMPEACHABLE, THEN OBAMA SHOULD BE IMPEACHED

I SAY THE FOLLOWING, WRITTEN BY MUKSASEY AND HAYDEN - IF TRUE - MEANS OBAMA HAS COMMITTED TREASON:

The release of these opinions was unnecessary as a legal matter, and is unsound as a matter of policy.

Its effect will be to invite the kind of institutional timidity and fear of recrimination that weakened intelligence gathering in the past, and that we came sorely to regret on Sept. 11, 2001.

Although evidence shows that the Army Field Manual, which is available online, is already used by al Qaeda for training purposes, it was certainly the president's right to suspend use of any technique.

However, public disclosure of the OLC opinions, and thus of the techniques themselves, assures that terrorists are now aware of the absolute limit of what the U.S. government could do to extract information from them, and can supplement their training accordingly and thus diminish the effectiveness of these techniques as they have the ones in the Army Field Manual.

THIS AIDS AND ABETS THE ENEMY. THIS STRENGTHENS THE ENEMY AND WEAKENS US. HENCE IT IS TREASON. THEREFORE IT IS IMPEACHABLE.

OBAMA SHOULD BE IMPEACHED.

HE IS A CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER TO THE REPUBLIC.

Krauthammer:

On the release of Bush administration memos on interrogation methods:

I think it does harm the United States. It gives away a lot of our techniques.

And I disagree. I don't see it as a dark chapter in our history at all.'

You look at some of these techniques — holding the head, a face slap, or deprivation of sleep. If that is torture, the word has no meaning.

I would concede that one technique, simulated drowning, you could call torture, even though the memos imply that legally it didn't meet that definition. I'm agnostic on the legalism….

But let's concede that it's a form of torture. I think it's perfectly reasonable to use it in two cases, that the ticking time bomb, if an innocent is at risk and you've got a terrorist that has information that would save that innocent and isn't speaking. That's an open and shut easy case.

A second case is a high-level Al Qaeda operative, a terrorist, who knows names and places and numbers and plans and safe houses and all that, and by using techniques to get information, you're saving lives.

If I have to weigh on the one hand the numberless and nameless lives saved in America by the use of these techniques, and we had a CIA director who told us that these techniques on these high-level terrorists was extremely effective in giving us information.

If you have to weigh on one hand that the numberless and nameless lives saved, against the 30 seconds or so of terror in the eyes of a terrorist who is suffering this technique, I think the moral choice is easy.

It's not a dark chapter in our history. It is a successful one. We have not had a second attack, and largely because of this.

IF WE ARE ATTACKED, THEN ALL THE BLOOD IS ON OBAMA'S HANDS.