American People Rejecting Obama Terrorism Policy

Obama can’t be too happy about this. In what can only be considered a flat rejection of Obama policy, Rasmussen reports:

Fifty-eight percent (58%) of U.S. voters say waterboarding and other aggressive interrogation techniques should be used to gain information from the terrorist who attempted to bomb an airliner on Christmas Day.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that just 30% oppose the use of such techniques, and another 12% are not sure.

Seventy-one percent (71%) of all voters think the attempt by the Nigerian Muslim to blow up the airliner as it landed in Detroit should be investigated by military authorities as a terrorist act. Only 22% say it should be handled by civilian authorities as a criminal act, as is currently the case.

Cold Fury, who also notes the poll, says:

Yeah, well, the 58% who favor harsh treatment for implacable killers ought to have thought of that way before now. That’s not the change idiots voted for, and now we’re all stuck with it. Maybe if that 58% hadn’t forgotten the lessons of 9/11 (or refused to learn them in the first place), we wouldn’t be in the fix we’re in. Now all we can do is hope we stay lucky — because luck is all we have left, now that the Barrackhorroids are in charge

While I don’t dispute that there are a number of people who voted for Obama because they favored civilian treatment for the terrorist scum, I dare say the majority of the American voter thought it one of the more idiotic planks in his platform.  In reality, the numbers presented here haven’t shifted all that much on this specific topic from about 2005, going forward.  For that reason, I consider all bomb is claim to the moral high ground, to say nothing of his claim to a mandate of the masses, to be nigh on comical. it would make it all the way to high comedy, if it wasn’t so dangerous a concept.

CF also notes Ed Morressey at Hot Air saying:

In this case, though, I do find myself at least acknowledging that the FBI is a legitimate choice. After all, the terrorist was detained in the US, and his actions took place in American airspace. I’d prefer that the military handle it, but a case can be made for civilian processes.  As far as the waterboard is concerned, I’d prefer other methods get used. I doubt that the EunuchBomber has much information on other plots, unlike a Khalid Sheikh Mohammed or Ramzi Binalshibh. However, he shouldn’t be allowed to lawyer up before we have a chance to find out.

Too late for that. Any information UFA does have is going to stay locked up for good now. Nice job, Barky! I’m sure we’ll be able to find a proper way to thank you and the rest of the weak-on-defense Democrat Socialist morons (after Muslim terrorists manage another successful run at slaughtering a few hundred — or thousand — of us) for working so zealously to safeguard the supposed Constitutional rights of non-citizen enemy combatants.

I do have to say that I am sympathetic to Mike’s comments here.  I also have to say I’m a little annoyed with Ed, who should have figured out a long time ago that a trust in civilian law, assumes a civilian government that is trustworthy. That particular point has never been more potent in these United States than it is right now.  Mostly, because we’ve never had a government that was so untrustworthy before.

The first clue to the level of untrustworthiness is when they consider comments from Dick Cheney to be of a larger danger to Americans, than someone on an airliner with a bomb in his underwear.