Holder Will Not Prosecute Intelligence Officials in Wake of 'Torture' Report; No Administration Officials Interviewed for Report

BALTIMORE, Maryland December 11, 2014 - One part of the recent article here on the so-called 'torture' report written by Democrats on the Senate Intelligence Committee was wrong and Credible and Incisive apologizes for same. In the article it was stated that Attorney General Holder was combing the report in advance of filing charges against those found to have violated Federal Law. In fact, Holder has stated that he will not file any charges against Bush Administration officials involved in the intelligence gathering duty. President Obama has stated that he empathizes with those officials and the decisions they made in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks that killed nearly 3,000 Americans.

One valid criticism of the report is that no member of the Bush Administration in charge of intelligence gathering was interviewed for the report. This is abominable inasmuch as the authors had years to conduct such interviews. It almost makes certain the fact that these authors were less interested in the truth than they were in embarassing those who ran intelligence for the USA in the wake of 9/11.

'Torture' Report Released by Democrats in Senate

BALTIMORE, Maryland December 9, 2013 - There are many conflicting views about the so-called "torture" report released today by Democrats on the Senate Intelligence Committee. Read without context, the edited release is downright appalling according to those who have seen it. Senator John McCain of Arizona - a longtime critic of so-called enhanced interrogation techniques - spoke with emotion on the Senate Floor, the lone Republican to do so. Other members of the GOP were critical of the release, seeing it as a political ploy just weeks before the Democrats lose control of the Senate and their ability to ever release the report, at least officially. The GOP also says, and the Obama administration agrees, that the release will endanger United States personnel and facilities abroad and even here at home. Military units have been put on high alert as a result as Obama seeks to avoid the so-called situation on the night of the Benghazi massacre, when, it was claimed, no appropriate Military Units were in a position to offer assistance to those under attack at Benghazi. Democrats ordered the preparation of the report and it cost taxpayers $40 million to do so.

The enhanced interrogation techniques drawing the most criticism are no longer used by the CIA. They were employed in the immediate wake of the 9/11 Massacres when intelligence indicated that follow-up attacks were imminent. The USA military and the CIA were able to capture several top Al Qaeda leaders, and when normal interrogation failed to loosen their lips, interrogators sought permission to use the so-called enhanced techniques. Ono of those enhanced techniques is known as water boarding, where a detainee is lashed to a chair at the end of a long board and dunked under water for varying periods of time. Another technique is sleep deprivation, and the report is said to document one instance where a detainee was kept awake for over seven days. Senator Diane Feinstein of California, a leader of the Senate Intelligence Committee, says one reason she insisted on the release of the report was that CIA officials continually lied to her about the techniques being used. The lies ran the gamut, from the duration of the techniques, the precise nature of the techniques, and how often they were employed. The Senate Committee is charged with overseeing the CIA and their ability to do so depends on the CIA being candid with committee members. The CIA, on the other hand, argue that telling the Senate Committee too much almost guarantees that sensitive and potentially harmful information will be leaked by Senators or their staffers.

Eric Holder, the ultra far left Attorney General, is said to be combing the report in advance of attempting to prosecute some of those involved in using the enhanced techniques. President Bush had a bevy of legal experts fully vet the techniques, and they were uniformly approved. In addition, CIA and military officials fully briefed congressional leaders prior to the use of the techniques. Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid were among those who were briefed and who approved of use of the techniques. These briefings were taking place in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, when Democrats were anxious to be seen as spearheading the United States' response to 9/11.

Levin Blasts GOP Leaders and Obama; A Look at a Small Catholic Music Company; Terps Move Up in AP Poll; Ravens Have Clear Path to Playoffs

BALTIMORE, Maryland December 9, 2013 - One public figure who I have come to respect a gread deal if Mark Levin. He almost seems a reluctant radio host and yet anyone who listens to him knows the tremendous passion he brings to his work. These days he is almost strident in his objections about the conduct and behind the scenes scheming, not of President Obama, but of John Beiner and Mitch McConnell, the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the incoming Senate President. Levin has charged that they are scheming to fund Obama Care, Obama's bald grab at power known, in the vernacular, as his executive order on immigration. As most Americans know, the promise of many Republicans on the campaign trail this summer and fall was to repeal Obama Care. In promising to do so, everyone realized that the chances of success now is not great since Obama will certainly veto any such legislation. But the hope is that even Democrats will be tempted to break ranks and vote for such legislation since so many of those who voted for Obama Care were voted out of office in the November elections, and public opinion polls continue to show a majority of all Americans want the law repealed altogether. Despite this, and despite McConnell's promises during his campaign, he has said that it is fruitless to attempt something that will not succeed. Levin believes it is more than that. He believes the two men are sympathetic to the legislation and to Obama's executive order on immigration, an order that purports to grant amnesty to over 5 million persons who came to the United States illegally. Not all of Mr. Levin's ire during his radio broadcast tonight was showered on Beiner and McConnell, however. He blasted Obama for the latest revelations on the scandal at the IRS. It now appears certain that thousands of documents, including income tax information about private citizens, were sent by the IRS to the White House. Apparently, another effort by Obama to discredit the Koch Brothers was the reason that some of the documents were sent to the White House.

Levin decried the lack of anger expressed by the media and even elected Republicans about such gross violations of the law. I would join with him on all of these counts. When elected officials so quickly act exactly contrary to the promises made during their campaigns is a gross violation of the voters' trust. It is also reprehensible to promise something and then not stick to your word. Shame on these men for doing what they did. And shame, again, on Obama, for what his office has done with the IRS in direct violation of American Federal Law.

In this most Holy Season of Advent, the cloistered sisters of Ephesus have recorded music for Advent through the auspices of the De Montfort Music company. De Montfort, a very small company that works with Catholic orders who regularly sing sacred music on their own. Visit their web page at http://www.demontfortmusic.com/ to learn of their offerings.

Maryland's basketball team actually moved up in the AP Top 25 in the latest poll released Monday. The poll, which has Kentucky at No. 1 and Duke at No. 2, moved the Terps up from 21 to 19 despite the fact that Maryland suffered its first setback of the season last Wednesday when they were defeated by Virginia, now ranked No. 6. Virginia beat Maryland in a hard fought game by 11 points, even though the Terps were without their leading scorer and best player, Dez Wells, and fellow starter Evan Smotrycz. Wells broke his wrist during the Terps victory over then No. 13 Iowa State, while Smotrycz reinjured the same foot that he broke during the offseason. Maryland rebounded from the loss to rout Winthrop on Saturday. They return to the Court on Wednesday for a game with North Carolina A & T. The game will be televised nationally on the BTN network, beginning at 7 pm Eastern Standard Time.

The Ravens' dominating performance against the Dolphins in Miami on Sunday caught many pundits by surprise. The feeling was that the "loss" to San Diego the week before - a second game literally stolen from the Ravens by NFL Officials - and the loss of All-Pro Defensive Lineman Hloti Ngata for the last four games of the regular season was the death knell to their playoff hopes for this season. Ngata was suspended by the NFL for substance violations. He would be eligible for the playoffs so long as the Ravens qualify. If you look at the standings today you will notice that the Ravens are technically not one of the playoff teams following this weekend's play. They are the first "team out," while the Steelers are the last team in because they have a slightly better division record than the Ravens. Both teams have identical 8-5 records, exactly one-half game behind the Bengals, who are 8-4-1. But hold on. The Ravens do control their own destiny. If the Ravens can win their remaining three games - home this Sunday against Jacksonville, at Houston and home against the Browns - they will qualify for the playoffs regardless of what the other teams in the conference do in their remaining games. Why? The Bengals and Steelers play each other again (they played each other this past weekend in Cincinatti) on the final week of the regular season. Even if both of those teams win their two games before that final weekend, something will have to give in that game. And the Ravens are so close to both of them that even if that is their only stumble, it will be enough to allow the Ravens to pass them. And if they tie? The Ravens would be 11-5 (.6875), the Steelers would be 10-5-1 (.667) and the Bengals would be 10-4-2 (.7142). But wait, the Bengals play Denver the week before they play Pittsburgh, and the Bengals are in Cleveland this weekend. I believe the Ravens will finish 11-5, the Steelers 10-6, and the Bengals 9-7-1. If the NFL officials hadn't stolen those two games from the Ravens, they would finiah at 13-3. If they finish at 11-5, they will be going into the playoffs as a 13-3 team. Watch out Patriots.

Burnley Runs Unbeaten Streak to 4 with 1-1 Draw Against Newcastle United; George Boyd Scores for Claret, Who Face Queens Park on Saturday

BALTIMORE, Maryland December 5, 2014 - Sean Dyche celebrated his 100th game as coach of Burnley by promising not to keep looking at the Premier League Table. His Claret took on surging Newcastle United at Turf Moor in a mid-week encounter between two of the League's hottest teams. When the match ended in a 1-1 draw, the Claret briefly climbed out of the land of the relegated, a magnificent accomplishment for a team that started as poorly as Burnley did. Alas, one night later Hull City earned a similar point and, as their goal differential is better than the Claret, they reclaimed the spot outside of the relegated three, although Hull and Burnley remain tied in points with 12.

Newcastle, having now come through a streak of seven games in which they earned 16 of the 21 possible points at issue, found themselves behind at Turf Moor as the two sides went to the half. George Boyd scored for Burnely in the 33rd minute - a play started nicely by red hot Danny Ings - to put the homestanding Claret ahead, 1-0. A second half goal by Papiss Cisse provided Newcastle with the necessary goal to earn a point in the match, witnessed by over 18,000 at Turf Moor.

On Saturday, Burnley travels to London to take on the Queens Park Rangers, a side, like the Claret, which was promoted to the Premier for this season. The Rangers trail Burnley on the table, and this is a pivotal match for them, to say the least.

The Magpies of Newcastle United are tied with Arsenal, Liverpool and Tottenham Hotspur after the match, each with 20 points.

Grand Jury Declines to Indict Police Officer in Staten Island Death of a Black Man Whose Death the Coroner Called Homicide

BALTIMORE, Maryland December 3, 2014 - In New York, the Grand Jury looking into the death of a black man, Eric Garner, has decided not to indict the police officer who caused Garner's death in the course of about one dozen officers placing Garner under arrest. Officer Daniel Pantaleo grabbed Garner around his neck once it appeared Garner was going to resist his arrest for selling contraband cigarrettes. The July 17, 2014 incident in Staten Island, New York was captured on video. Up to one dozen officers surrounded Garner - a huge, barrel-chested black man - and, when he allegedly resisted their attempts to take him into custody, Pantaleo put a hold on Garner and wrestled him down. Garner was said to suffer from asthma, and he could be heard saying on the video that he could not breathe as he lay on the ground, on his stomach, with police officers swarming over him, although not actually laying on his back. A controversial coroner's report ruled that Garner's death - due to compression of the neck and throat during his restraint - was a death by homicide. Nonetheless, the Grand Jury returned a decision of "no bill," meaning that the Grand Jury had voted not to indict Pantaleo. The Grand Jury could have indicted Pantaleo on charges ranging from first degree murder to any number of manslaughter charges or even for reckless endangerment. Garner did not actually die from the alleged choke hold, but had a heart attack subsequent to his arrest that, the coroner ruled, was brought on by the means of the arrest.

Coming, as it did, on the heels of the Feguson, Mo., Grand Jury decision not to indict a white police officer for the killing of a black man who did not have a weapon, city officials were prepared for mass protests. However, the weather in New York is cold and wet, and this may hold down the response.

The entire Staten Island incident will be magnified by what has just happened in Missouri. Also in the spotlight will be the actions of Eric Holder, the out-going United States Attorney General, who compared Michael Brown to Emmett Till, a young black man from Chicago who was tortured and murdered by two or more white men in Mississippi in late August, 1955. Till, in Mississippi to visit his great uncle, had spoken and, allegedly, flirted with a 21-year-old white proprietor of a grocery store. Three nights later, the woman's husband and another family member abducted Till from his great uncle's house, took him to a barn, beat him, gouged out one of his eyes, and shot him in the head. They threw his body into the Tallahatchie River with a 70-pound weight attached to his body with barbed wire. Three days later his body was discovered and pulled from the river. It was returned to Chicago, where he lived. There, Till's mother insisted on an open casket to force America to confront the heinous nature of the crime. The entire incident captivated and enraged America and put a strong focus on the racism that still lingered in the south.

Holder was openly criticized for comparing Brown's case to Till's.

Newly Updated: Sizing up the Blame When White Police Officers Shoot Black Citizens

BALTIMORE, Maryland December 1, 2014 - I've cringed more in recent weeks than I have throughout my entire life. It is the aftermath of Ferguson and now Staten Island that causes me this awful tension. Why us, Lord? We have tried hard. We have made big mistakes, but we have tried and we want to do good. Yet, I cringe when some angry white guy gets on the tube and says the entire blame for Ferguson is the abdication of responsibility by black parents. I cringe when some angry black man says white people are, by definition, racist. And I really really cringe when race hustlers claim - without coming right out and saying it - that black people will never be equal to white people in America but will, instead, forever need financial assistance and expanded legal protections.

Some say the Ferguson episode is part of what is right about America because we wash our dirty laundry right out there in the public eye. I know I feel a whole lot better about these United States after I listen to Rev. Al Sharpton berate all things patriotic. I watched the videos available from the night in question in dear old Ferguson and listened and read the information available from the grand jury in Missouri. Michael Brown, it seems, was a disaster waiting to happen on the night he was killed. But that doesn't mean he should've been killed.

Through all of this, in Ferguson and now in Staten Island, is a common thread. We, as Americans, will not admit the obvious lessons from these awful episodes, and we will not accept the obvious, the almost necessary penalties that society has pushed upon it when its people cannot or will not accept these truths.

This is what I mean when I say that we will not admit the obvious. Bear with me on this.

The first slaves were brought to what we colloquially call the New World in the year 1501. The nation that started the slave trade, it seems, was Spain. They weren't alone for long. Britain joined in this debauched slave trade in 1562. By 1581 there were slaves in Florida. In 1612 the first crop of tobacco was planted in Virginia and it was obvious, from the start, that this was a crop that was perfect for forced labor. Within seven years, in 1619, slaves had been imported from Africa to tend to the tobacco crops, first in Virginia, and then in other American locations. (I draw this historical account from my own knowledge and from a well-researched timeline posted at https://sharondraper.com/timeline.pdf)

England ended its involvement with slavery in 1833. The legendary civil rights leader, William Wilberforce, was one of the members of Parliament who first introduced the legislation that brought about the end of all things slavery-related. There is a movie that depicts these events called "Amazing Grace." The film follows Wilberforce's decades-long fight to eliminate Britain's participation in the slave trade, and it is both moving and gut-wrenching. The superb cast has Ioan Gruffudd as Wilberforce, Benjamin Cumberbatch as William Pitt the Younger, Michael Gambon as Charles James Fox, whose stunning defection from the side of the slave traders eventually wins the day for Wilberforce, Albert Finney, in a tour de force performance as a reformed but still self-tortured slave trader who injects so much of the God-Awful practice's barbaric inhumane reality onto the screen, and Romola Garai as Wilberforce's Wife, Barbara Spooner. There are, I'm positive, more realistic depictions of the slave-trading practice during the years right before and right after the American Revolution, but I am not familiar with them. Even for someone who knows the story, this movie will make you squirm and sweat.

It took America until January 1, 1863, when President Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation during the Civil War, to rid itself, officially, of slavery. But, as every American knows, the Emancipation Proclamation changed the law on paper, but the wholesale discrimination and other acts of repression openly practiced in American society against the black race took a century or more to disappear. And, to be honest, not every discriminatory result of slavery has gone away. Only God knows how long that will take. Ferguson and Staten Island indicate that the final act is not exactly right around the corner.

During the years of slavery in America, enslaved blacks were prohibited from learning to read and enslaved blacks were prohibited from learning to write. Enslaved blacks could not own property and in some states they were prohibited from marrying. Enslaved blacks were treated like chattel or property and in many cases berated, criticized and humiliated around the clock. Enslaved blacks were beaten and subjected to physical intimidation and punishment of the most fiendish kind. Furthermore, white people freely talked and acted as if they were racially superior, and even the suggestion that blacks and whites were equal was met with derision and open hostility.

Changes took place gradually, moving forward in fits and starts, and sometimes slipping backwards. There were improvements after Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation, but not quick changes. Improvements in the lot of the Black American were slow in coming and, when they finally did come, they did not show up nationwide but instead came to one part of the country at a different time than they came to other parts. Throughout these generations of time, whites ruled in American society and blacks either did what they were told or suffered for it. Only in the 20th century were improvements palpable. Only in the 1960's, 1970's and 1980's did blacks really begin to pull equal to whites in most phases of American life.

And yet Americans today expect that the sinister and debilitating effects of slavsry to have completely disappeared from our world today. At least by today, the thinking goes, we are so far past slavery that it is totally a thing of the past. It's been over a century, you know. Well, the legacy of slavery has not disappeared. What other reason is there for the ghettos of our great cities to be populated, by and large, by a minority race? How long does it take an entire race to completely recover from centuries of base discrimination; i.e. discrimination in all walks of life? It takes generations, at least. At least.

At least now blacks have an expectation of equal treatment. At least now public officials enforce laws that demand that all people be treated equally. At least now any person can escape the life they were born into. But for those who start in the ghetto, that escape will be far more difficult than the upward climb will be for someone born in an affluent suburb. The reality of equality? We are not there yet.

So this is the truth we want to ignore, but have to accept: Slavery did a tremendous amount of insidious harm. It wasn't just economic harm. Black intellectuallism was all but non-existant during the times of slavery, and even when slavery ended, the number of black intellectuals in America has grown ever so slowly. There are other professions that are only now gaining a respectable representation of minority persons. I graduated from the University of Maryland in 1977. In my final year I wrote a long piece for the school magazine on the trouble the school was having, not in attracting minority students, but in keeping them enrolled. It's hard to believe that as recently as the later days of the 20th century - 1975 to be exact - the National Pastime finally hired its first black manager. Blacks rally still to any lingering effect of racism because it is a vestige of slavery. Sadly, now there are the Sharptons of the world who seize situations like Ferguson for their own low-brow gain.

Only during the presidency of John Fitzgerald Kennedy did the idea of real societal equality get a firm kick in the pants. Other Presidents since then have pushed and pushed to get us where we are now. Johnson dragged the landmark civil rights acts through a sometimes openly hostile Congress. Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush the Elder, Clinton and Bush the Younger continued the surge forward, some more forcefully than others. One legacy of the two Bush Presidencies is the firm and inarguable societal statement that America will not slip backwards on civil rights, no matter who is president and no matter what the priority of the ruling party is.

Actual societal integration is now getting to be a reality as states and the federal government vigorously enforce open housing laws.

But the reality of our racial journey in America is that the black population was held back, thwarted, and prevented from making progress as a matter of public policy, and this went on for many many years. The reality of equality - the reality of having a right to live in a society where your race will not be used against you - is only now taking hold.

And still, stone cold statistics tell us that black people are far more likely to be shot by police than are whites. There are lots of reasons for this reality, but at least part of it is a legacy of racism and slavery. Certainly the most pervasive reason why blacks are far more likely to be shot by police than are whites is the geographic reality that the inner cities, the most violent part of America, is the domain, for the most part, of poor black people. More people are killed in urban settings, and some of those deaths are brought about because of gunfire from police. A huge percentage of the total number of police shootings are legally justified. The few that are found to not be legally justified are met with harsh punishments. Statistics tell of this, stone cold statistics. But this is not the end of the road. It cannot be.

Some shootings are legally justified, but not, in reality, absolutely necessary. In other words, the officer pulling the trigger will not be sanctioned for doing so, even though, in reality, the story might have had a different ending. This is the portion of police shootings that might be susceptible to change if the public will is mustered.

It does not seem like a huge leap for police departments to admit the truth of all of this without being indignant about it. Most of the time - in reality, almost all of the time - police are not to blame when a citizen is shot by an officer. Charles Barclay is taking heat now because he says "we have to be very careful in criticizing police. If it wasn't for police we would be living in the wild wild west in our neighborhoods." What Mr. Barclay says is also unquestionably true. But the fact that most police shootings are legally justified, and that police provide an absolutely necessary anti-crime force in urban areas, does not mean that open-minded people cannot look into the fact that a lot of police shootings are white officers shooting black people.

Officer Wilson - the man at the middle of the Feguson Uprising - says that if a white man did what Michael Brown did, he, too, would be dead. I won't argue with him, but there are times that I believe white officers shoot quicker and with more deadly results in situations where a shooting is legally justified but not actually necessary to protect the officer. Some of this is because whites have an inherant fear of blacks in urban settings. Is this justified? It isn't an easy question to even consider. I hope I can say that I assign my trepidation in a given situation to the so-called facts on the ground. If a person is attacking me and I have the means to defend myself, I want to believe I would use deadly force in a very few situations, only those when it is the only possible way to save my own life.

I believe that an overwhelming number of police officers - more, I believe, than some black leaders will admit to - are good and decent poeple trying their best to make the community they patrol a better place to live.

Society cloaks its police officers with a right to kill people so long as a well-defined set of conditions exist at the moment the lethal shot is fired. At a minimum, the Officer has to believe his life is in danger, or the life of a third person, and the only way to protect either his life or the innocent third person's life is to use so-called lethal force. What I wonder is whether the officer must use lethal force everytime he is cloaked with the protection of the law?

In the moment when snap decisions are made and lives are on the line, I want to believe that police officers are totally color blind. But police officers are human, and at the core of this extremely vexing problem is whether a vestige of racism plays a part in the life and death equation that is solved by the action taken by the officer. Society has to keep up the drumbeat of equality and dignity, and it also has to keep up the drumbeat of those other societal problems that play a role in this problem.

I literally break into a cold sweat even considering the questions that are confronted when we examine these issues. They are that innately troubling. And they - these questions - are well worth being troubled about.

Courageous Pontiff Joins Orthodox Christian Leader in Blasting ISIS and Other Jihadists for Butchering Christians in MIddle East

BALTIMORE, Maryland December 1, 2014 - Pope Francis has ended his three-day visit to Turkey after blasting ISIS and other Jihadists for butchering Christians, an act he said has no redeeming purpose. And in a rare joint statement on a present day issue, the Pope joined with the leader of the Orthodox Christian world to emphasize that there can never be justification for killing innocents, most notably Christian citizens of predominantly Muslim nations.

Incredibly, the President of Turkey took the opportunity to blame the west including the United States, for the killing of Christians. Recep Tayyip Erdogan said it was the fault of the West for the rise of ISIS, and the west has to accept their strategies and acts.

The Pontiff would have nothing of such talk. "Fanaticism and fundamentalism, as well as irrational fears which foster misunderstanding and discrimination, need to be countered by the solidarity of all believers," Pope Francis said.

The Pontiff met in Istanbul Saturday and Sunday with Bartholomew I, the leader of the Orthodox Christian Church, which has millions of followers in Russia, Turkey and other nations in the Eurasia areas. He was invited to the meeting by Bartholomew, who asked that the Pontiff participate with him in celebrating the Feast of Saint Andrew, founder of the Orthodox Church and brother of Saint Peter.

In a rare joint statement, the two Christian Leaders said “We cannot resign ourselves to a Middle East without Christians, who have professed the name of Jesus there for two thousand years.” the two Church leaders said in a joint declaration. The report and more information about the visit can be found in the Times of Israel and at the website of the Holy See at Vatican City, Rome. See: http://www.timesofisrael.com/pope-orthodox-head-pledge-to-protect-mideast-christians/#ixzz3KfZ7UzRL Also see the Holy See Web page at http://w2.vatican.va/content/vatican/en.html