SANDERS: No, I don't. That was 40 years ago. But let me tell you this, I do have concerns about past activities of the CIA. CIA was involved in the overthrow of a gentleman named Mohammad Mosaddegh way back when in Iran, overthrew him on behalf of British oil. And you know what happened? That led to the Iranian Revolution and we are where we are today. The CIA was involved in the overthrow of Salvador Allende in Chile, a democratic candidate, he won a fair election, the CIA overthrew him. So I have a lot problems with some parts of our history, which continues to the present.
Q: But the institution itself of the CIA?
SANDERS: Oh, the CIA plays an important role. But have they done things which they should not have done on behalf of the United States government? Absolutely.
She made no mention of her stance on all of the other healthcare expenses incurred by insuring soldiers, such as the over $40 million spent on Viagra alone--roughly five times more than the estimated cost of transition-related care for trans individuals.
A: It’s a myth in the sense when you consider what this administration has done over six years, given the attacks we faced on 9/11. Our first responders are not getting the support they deserve, the administration has been resistant in supporting them; the war in Iraq, rather than dealing with the Taliban in Afghanistan where our efforts should have been over the last number of years Stateless terrorism is a multinational problem. It requires a multinational response. This administration has walked away from that. The very institutions we need to build to have us effectively engage and fight back against terrorism, this administration seems to take the other track and move in another direction. We need to have leadership that knows how to build relationships to encourage that kind of participation. This administration’s done just the opposite.
A: Because the fact of the matter is that the global war on terror has been a pretext for aggressive war. As president, I intend to take America in a different direction, rejecting war as an instrument of policy, reconnecting with the nations of the world, so that we can address the real issues that affect security all over the globe and affect our security at home: getting rid of all nuclear weapons, participating in the chemical & biological weapons conventions, the landmine treaty, joining the International Criminal Court, signing the Kyoto climate change treaty. The world is waiting for an American president who reaches out in a hand of friendship; who understands this is a complex world, but doesn’t see the world in terms of enemies. The minute that we have dichotomous thinking of us versus them, we lose the opportunity to be able to connect with people.
TRUMP: How did he keep us safe when the World Trade Center came down during the reign of George Bush? He kept us safe? That is not "safe," Marco. That is not safe.
RUBIO: The World Trade Center came down because Bill Clinton didn't kill Osama bin Laden when he had the chance to kill him.
TRUMP: George Bush had the chance, also, and he didn't listen to the advice of his CIA.
SANTORUM: Under certain circumstances or any circumstances?
Q: Under any circumstances that you could imagine.
SANTORUM: Sure.
JOHNSON: I would not.
PAUL: No, I would not, because you don't achieve anything.
SANTORUM: Well it's just simply not true, Ron. The fact is that what we found is that some of this information that we find out that led to Osama Bin Laden actually came from these enhanced interrogation techniques.
PAUL: Not true.
SANTORUM: And by the way we wouldn't have been able to launch a raid into Pakistan to get Osama Bin Laden if we weren't in Afghanistan.
CAIN: I heard Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu say it very clearly a few months after 9/11 2001 after the tragedy, the terrorist have one objective, to kill of us and so, yes, I believe that we should do whatever means possible in order to protect the people of this nation, that's their ultimate goal.
Cain: I believe in following the procedures that have been established by our military. I do not agree with torture, period. However, I will trust the judgment of our military leaders to determine what is torture and what is not torture. That is the critical consideration.
Q: You're familiar with the long-running debate we've had about whether waterboarding constitutes torture or is an enhanced interrogation technique. In the last campaign, John McCain and Barack Obama agreed that it was torture; do you agree?
Cain: I agree that it was an enhanced interrogation technique.
Q: You would return to that policy?
Cain: Yes, I would return to that policy. I don't see it as torture. I see it as an enhanced interrogation technique.
SANTORUM: Under certain circumstances or any circumstances?
Q: Under any circumstances that you could imagine.
SANTORUM: Sure.
JOHNSON: I would not.
PAUL: No, I would not, because you don't achieve anything.
SANTORUM: Well it's just simply not true, Ron. The fact is that what we found is that some of this information that we find out that led to Osama Bin Laden actually came from these enhanced interrogation techniques.
PAUL: Not true.
SANTORUM: And by the way we wouldn't have been able to launch a raid into Pakistan to get Osama Bin Laden if we weren't in Afghanistan.
CAIN: I heard Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu say it very clearly a few months after 9/11 2001 after the tragedy, the terrorist have one objective, to kill of us and so, yes, I believe that we should do whatever means possible in order to protect the people of this nation, that's their ultimate goal.
A: I have worked very hard to try to convince the administration to do those things that would make us safer. And I think there's a big disconnect between the rhetoric and the reality. We haven't secured our borders, our ports, our mass transit systems. You can go across this country and see so much that has not been done. The resources haven't gotten to the front lines where decisions are made in local government the way that they need to. And I think that this administration has consistently tried to hype the fear without delivering on the promise of making America safer. And its foreign policy around the world has also made the world less stable, which, of course, has a ripple effect with respect to what we're going to face in the future. So I hope that we can put that myth to rest. It is certainly something I will try to do during the campaign.
Sen. GRAHAM (R-SC): I want to know who took the references to Al Qaida out of the talking points? I'm not going to stop [holding up nomination hearings] until we get to the bottom of it.
Sen. REED: This is unprecedented and unwarranted to stop or attempt to try to stop the nomination of a secretary of defense and a CIA director. Almost simultaneous to the situation in Benghazi, there were attacks on our embassies in Cairo. In fact, mobs were storming the gates. There were threats throughout the region: the situation was confusion. A military response would have been difficult if not impossible because of simply time and space.
Q: You say that holding up nominations is unwarranted?
REED: To ask legitimate questions is completely appropriate. But to say, "I'm going to disrupt the nomination of two key members of the president's Cabinet," I don't think that's appropriate. I don't think it's warranted. I think it is an overreaction.
In June, Senator Graham defended NSA surveillance practices, saying they are "limited to tracking people who are suspected to be terrorists."
The NSA has now disclosed that one of its programs illegally intercepted thousands of domestic emails and communications annually for at least three years before informing the FISA court. "Lindsey Graham was aware of NSA privacy violations and deliberately misled South Carolinians," said Stamper. "Accordingly, I call on Senator Graham to apologize to the people of South Carolina."
Graham said back in June: "I'm glad the NSA is trying to find out what the terrorists are up to overseas and in our country. I'm glad that activity is going on, but it is limited to tracking people who are suspected to be terrorists."
TRUMP: What we want to do, when we want to do it, and how hard do we want to hit? We are going to have to hit hard to knock out ISIS. We're going to have to learn who our allies are. We have allies, we have no idea who they are in Syria. Do we want to stay that route, or do we want to go and make something with Russia? But very important, who are we fighting with? Who are we fighting for?
BUSH: This is the problem. Donald Trump brought up the fact that he would accommodate Russia. Russia is not taking out ISIS. It is absolutely ludicrous to suggest that Russia could be a positive partner in this. I would restore the military, the sequester needs to be reversed. I would destroy ISIS, and I would create a policy of containment as it relates to Iran's ambitions and make it make clear that we are not going to allow Iran to move towards a nuclear weapon Those three things would be the first and foremost things that we need to do.
A: That is a million-to-one scenario. But I would take that responsibility [to authorize aggressive interrogations. However,] we could never gain as much from that torture as we lose in world opinion. We do not torture people. When I was in Vietnam, one of the things that sustained us as we underwent torture, is the knowledge that if we had our positions reversed, we would not impose that kind of treatment on them. It's not about the terrorists, it's about us. It's about what kind of country we are. The more physical pain you inflict on someone, the more they're going to tell you what they think you want to know. We have procedures for interrogation, adequate in 999,999 [out of a million] cases, and if we agree to torture people, we will do ourselves great harm in the world.
Cain: I don't see it as torture. I would return to that policy.
Bachmann: I would be willing to use waterboarding. I think it was very effective. Barack Obama is allowing the ACLU to run the CIA.
Paul: Well, waterboarding is torture. And it's illegal under international law and under our law. It's also immoral. And it's also very impractical.
Huntsman: This country has values. We have a name brand in the world. I've lived overseas four times. We diminish our standing in the world and the values that we project which include liberty, democracy, human rights, and open markets when we torture. We should not torture. Waterboarding is torture. We dilute ourselves down like a whole lot of other countries. And we lose that ability to project values that a lot of people in corners of this world are still relying on the United States to stand up for them.
"When a relative or a spouse or a loved one has to lie in a hospital for 21 months before they can get service, that is unacceptable," said Dickerson. "I'm mad as hell about that. I will fight for my vets every step of the way."
Bright: Agree
Here's what Graham said back in June: "I'm glad the NSA is trying to find out what the terrorists are up to overseas and in our country. I'm a Verizon customer. I don't mind Verizon turning over records to the government if the government is going to make sure that they try to match up a known terrorist phone with somebody in the United States. I don't think you're talking to the terrorists. I know you're not. I know I'm not. So we don't have anything to worry about."
Graham seemingly neglected the criticisms that come with operating a surveillance program that blanket tracks the records of people not even suspected of a crime.
GRAHAM: I don't think he's a hero. I believe he hurt or nation. He compromised our national security program designed to find out what terrorists were up to. So, the freedom trail is not exactly China or Russia. I hope we'll chase him to the ends of the earth, bring him to justice and let the Russians know there will be consequences if they harbor this guy.
Q: Should we put pressure on Russia to hold him there?
GRAHAM: Absolutely. They want to be part of the world community, the WTO. They want a good relationship with the United States. They should hold this felon and send him back home for justice.
GRAHAM: Well, there's a six-person rescue team left Tripoli to reinforce the annex in Benghazi. They arrived at 1:30 in the morning Libyan time. And it was not until 5:00 that they could get to the annex. They were held up for three and a half hours at the airport, had a lot of bureaucratic snafus. Here's my question: Did the president ever pick up the phone and call the Libyan government and say, "Let those people out of the airport?" Secretary Clinton said she was screaming on the phone at Libyan officials. Did the president call? This was incredibly mismanaged.
Sen. McCAIN (R-AZ): As Lindsey gave you the numbers, there are disproportionate cuts to defense. Defense is 19% of the discretionary spending. It's taken 50% of the cuts.
Q: But wouldn't that be a way to start, though?
GRAHAM: Here's why it won't work. We're taking $45 billion a year out of the Defense Department over the next decade. At the end of the decade, we're going to have the smallest Navy since 1915, 232 ships. We're going to have the smallest Air Force in history; the smallest Army since 1940. Our defense spending will be below 3% of GDP. We will have a hollow force. Personnel costs are exempted from sequestration. So you take all the systems, except military pay, and over a decade, you destroy the Defense Department. There is no amount of flexibility in the world will fix this.
In a recent interview, Graham tied together different areas where he believes Obama has failed: "When you tell the world we're gonna find the people who killed our four Americans in Libya, including the ambassador, and you do nothing about it; whether you agree with his policy in Syria, Egypt, whether you agree with his policies, when he tells people there will be consequences, and there are none, it sets in motion exactly what you see."
Graham argued he wasn't harping on Benghazi for political reasons: "Everything I've done has been about what I think is best for the country. I think it's best to find the truth about Benghazi, when my primary's over, I'm gonna still be on Benghazi," he said.
KASICH: We thought there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Colin Powell, who is one of the most distinguished generals in modern times said there were weapons there. The fact is we got ourselves in the middle of a civil war. The borders of that country were drawn after World War I by Westerners that didn't understand what was happening there. The tragedy of it is that we're still embroiled. If there weren't weapons of mass destruction we should never have gone.
Cain: It was an enhanced interrogation technique.
Q: You would return to that policy?
Cain: Yes, I would return to that policy. I don't see it as torture.
Bachmann: If I were president, I would be willing to use waterboarding. I think it was very effective. It gained information for our country. And I also would like to say that today, under Barack Obama, he is allowing the ACLU to run the CIA. You need to understand that today, when we interdict a terrorist on the battlefield, we have no jail for them. We have nowhere to take them. We have no CIA interrogations anymore. It is as though we have decided we want to lose in the War on Terror under President Obama. That's not my strategy. My strategy will be that the United States will be victorious in the War on Terror.
GRAVEL: With respect to Iran, we've sanctioned them for 26 years. We scared the bejesus out of them when the president says, "They're evil." Well, you know something? These things don't work. They don't work. We need to recognize them. And you know something? Who is the greatest violator of the non-proliferation treaty The United States of America. We signed a pledge that we would begin to disarm, and we're not doing it. We're expanding our nukes. Who the hell are we going to nuke? Tell me, Barack. Barack, who do you want to nuke?
OBAMA: I'm not planning to nuke anybody right now, Mike, I promise.
GRAVEL: Good. Good. We're safe then, for a while.
A: The key in electing the next president is to find somebody who will make sure that that scenario doesn't ever happen, & the key to that is prevention. We've all spent a lot of time talking about what happens after the bomb goes off. The real question is, how do you prevent the bomb from going off? That means intelligence & counterterrorism.
Q: How aggressively would you interrogate those being held?
A: I'm glad they're at Guantanamo. I don't want them on our soil. I want them on Guantanamo, where they don't get the access to lawyers they get when they're on our soil. I don't want them in our prisons. I want them there. Some people have said, we ought to close Guantanamo. My view is, we ought to double Guantanamo. And enhanced interrogation techniques have to be used -- not torture but enhanced interrogation techniques, yes.
Gingrich: Every possible aspect short of war of breaking the regime .
Q: Is it worth going to war to prevent that?
Romney: If there's nothing else we can do beside take military action, then of course you take military action.
Santorum: This is the most important national security issue that we're going to be dealing with this year: I agree with Romney on the issue of Iran getting a nuclear weapon. Back in 2004, I proposed giving money to the rebel forces there to help the pro-democracy movement and to put tough sanctions in place. I was opposed by Pres. Bush. And yet, we passed the Iran Freedom and Support Act. And then Pres. Bush didn't provide money for the pro-democracy movement. And Pres. Obama cut that money. Now we have a situation that's different. I disagree with Newt: more sanctions and providing more support for the pro-democracy movement isn't going to be enough.
SANTORUM: Under certain circumstances or any circumstances?
Q: Under any circumstances that you could imagine.
SANTORUM: Sure.
JOHNSON: I would not.
PAUL: No, I would not, because you don't achieve anything.
SANTORUM: Well it's just simply not true, Ron. The fact is that what we found is that some of this information that we find out that led to Osama Bin Laden actually came from these enhanced interrogation techniques.
PAUL: Not true.
SANTORUM: And by the way we wouldn't have been able to launch a raid into Pakistan to get Osama Bin Laden if we weren't in Afghanistan.
CAIN: I heard Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu say it very clearly a few months after 9/11 2001 after the tragedy, the terrorist have one objective, to kill of us and so, yes, I believe that we should do whatever means possible in order to protect the people of this nation, that's their ultimate goal.
A: DHS is a monstrous type of bureaucracy. It was supposed to be streamlining our security and it's unmanageable. I mean, just think of the efficiency of FEMA in its efforts to take care of the floods and the hurricanes.
Q: You would eliminate DHS in the midst of a war?
A: We should not go to more bureaucracy. It didn't work. We were spending $40 billion on security prior to 9/11, and they had all the information they needed there to deal with the threat, and it was inefficiency. So what do we do? We add a gigantic bureaucracy, which they're still working on trying to put it together, and a tremendous amount of increase in f
Cain: I don't see it as torture. I would return to that policy.
Bachmann: I would be willing to use waterboarding. I think it was very effective. Barack Obama is allowing the ACLU to run the CIA.
Paul: Well, waterboarding is torture. And it's illegal under international law and under our law. It's also immoral. And it's also very impractical. There's no evidence that you really get reliable evidence. Why would you accept the position of torturing 100 people because you know one person might have information? And that's what you do when you accept the principal of torture. I think it's uncivilized and has no practical advantages and is really un-American to accept on principal that we will torture people that we capture.
SANTORUM: Under certain circumstances or any circumstances?
Q: Under any circumstances that you could imagine.
SANTORUM: Sure.
JOHNSON: I would not.
PAUL: No, I would not, because you don't achieve anything.
SANTORUM: Well it's just simply not true, Ron. The fact is that what we found is that some of this information that we find out that led to Osama Bin Laden actually came from these enhanced interrogation techniques.
PAUL: Not true.
SANTORUM: And by the way we wouldn't have been able to launch a raid into Pakistan to get Osama Bin Laden if we weren't in Afghanistan.
CAIN: I heard Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu say it very clearly a few months after 9/11 2001 after the tragedy, the terrorist have one objective, to kill of us and so, yes, I believe that we should do whatever means possible in order to protect the people of this nation, that's their ultimate goal.
A: If we know there's going to be another attack and these people know about it, I would tell the people who had to do the interrogation to use every method they could think of. It shouldn't be torture, but every method they can think of.
Q: Would you support enhanced interrogation techniques like water-boarding?
A: Well, I'd say every method they could think of, and I would support them in doing that. I've seen what can happen when you make a mistake about this, and I don't want to see another 3,000 people dead in New York or any place else.
Likewise the Air Force. The Air Force has been reduced to about 4,000 planes. We need to increase that to a minimum of 6,000 planes so that we can project power, and use our air power superiority.
The Navy: We've got 272 ships, the least we've had since 1917, literally a century ago was the last time we had a navy with this few ships. We need to increase that to a minimum of 350 ships.
And, we need an overall force level of 1.4 million troops at a minimum [up from the current level of 1.3 million active personnel].
The central role of the federal government is to defend our nation. To do this effectively, our military must remain strong, well trained, fully equipped, and second-to-none. Furthermore, our intelligence resources cannot be hamstrung by out-dated regulations, such as the Congressional prohibition on foreign assassination. Our nation's in-the-field human intelligence must be bolstered and strengthened to account for the shameful gutting of our intelligence agencies by the Clinton presidency.
For those who've forgotten your social studies, the Fourth Amendment affirms the right of the people "to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures"--and requires search warrants to be issued "upon probable cause."
Who doesn't support this amendment? Sen. Lindsey Graham--who has attacked Paul in the past for his defense of liberty. Graham has repeatedly defended the mass snooping of the National Security Agency (NSA)--going so far as to say he was "glad" the government was unconstitutionally obtaining private records with no warrant and no probable cause.
"Here's my challenge to Lindsey Graham: Stop fearmongering using other people's sound bites--and other people's blood and treasure--and give us some hard numbers," Ravenel said. "Tell us exactly how much is it going to cost to mold Iraq into the country you want it to be? We know trillions of dollars and thousands of lives have already been lost there in the name of 'nation-building'--yet the situation is worse than it's ever been. So tell us Senator: How many more trillions of dollars is it going to take? How many more dead heroes? How many more lost limbs? How many more shattered families? How many more PTSD victims?"
A: I believe my position hasn't changed. There is a group of individuals who are radical jihadists; we nee to call them by name. They believe it is okay to kill people in the name of their religion. It is not all Muslims. But there is a subgroup who believe it is okay. In fact it is their plan and design to kill people. The people and the mindset that killed 3,000 of our fellow citizens on September 11th, 2001 would have killed 300,000 if they could have, or three million. We need to do everything we can to make sure that doesn't I support enhanced interrogation techniques under limited circumstances.
Scott: Agree
A supporter of calling a vote, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), said it accommodated privacy concerns by restricting the set of records related to terrorism investigations that the government can request from telecommunications companies, while still giving the government the powers it needed to stop terrorism.
A bill opponent, Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) said the bill failed to require companies to maintain telecommunications records for long enough to make investigations effective. The vote was 57 yeas to 42 nays, with 3/5 majority required to call a vote.
YEAS: Scott R-SC
NAYS: Graham R-SC
A: We're talking about it in such a theoretical fashion. You say that nuclear devices have gone off in the US, more are planned, and we're wondering about whether waterboarding would be a bad thing to do? I'm looking for "Jack Bauer" at that time, let me tell you [referring to the counterrorism agent in TV's "24", who uses any methods needed to achieve desired results]. We are the last best hope of Western civilization. And so all of the theories that go behind our activities subsequent to these nuclear attacks going off in the US, they go out the window because when we go under, Western civilization goes under. As president you should make sure 1) it doesn't happen, but 2), you better respond in a way that makes them fearful of you because otherwise you guarantee something like this will happen.
| |||
| 2016 Presidential contenders on Homeland Security: | |||
|
Republicans:
Sen.Ted Cruz(TX) Carly Fiorina(CA) Gov.John Kasich(OH) Sen.Marco Rubio(FL) Donald Trump(NY) |
Democrats:
Secy.Hillary Clinton(NY) Sen.Bernie Sanders(VT) 2016 Third Party Candidates: Roseanne Barr(PF-HI) Robert Steele(L-NY) Dr.Jill Stein(G,MA) | ||
|
Please consider a donation to OnTheIssues.org!
Click for details -- or send donations to: 1770 Mass Ave. #630, Cambridge MA 02140 E-mail: submit@OnTheIssues.org (We rely on your support!) | |||