This really just makes me sick.

Navy Seals face assault charges

Facing charges for a bloody lip…. after the atrocities this asshole committed, this ends up being the headline.  I get it, that if we bend a little, a bloody lip can turn into a broken jaw, etc…  We’re held to the restraints of the Geneva Convention, yet we’re fighting against an enemy whom does not recognize these rules.  No one speaks up when they mutilate our soldiers; but the moment a terrorist get’s a black eye, or a bloody lip all hell breaks loose..

It reminds me of the water boarding  controversy.  These tactics resulted in obtaining information which helped protect Americans, but god forbid it’s uncomfortable for a terrorist.  Has anyone died from this tactic?  This tactic is to simulate drowning, not actually drowning someone.  Sure it’s miserable, but it’s effective without causing physical harm.

I’ve read comments surrounding this topic about the morality of ending a tactic which has stopped terror attacks and saved American lives.  I’m curious what others think about this?

Is it ever permissible to torture a human being? If this is so, under what conditions is this permissible. In the next two posts, I will try to defend the view that torture is indeed permissible in view of certain prerequisites, the most important being the consideration of the safety of others involved — in other words, will harm or death result to other people if the person in question, a terrorist or some other guilty party presumably, is not tortured? In the first I will try to ascertain a consistent and rigorous enough account of torture to, hopefully, meet most people’s expectation of the actions that comprise torture. In the second I will apply this definition to a series of cases involving torture and argue that under these circumstances, torture is morally permissible and socially responsible.

Thus, as I promised above for the first account, it will be necessary to establish some working definition of torture, as the uses of the term can vary based on one’s understanding and beliefs. A seemingly reasonable starting assumption is as follows: torture is the intentional inflicting of pain or distress on another person. Now to see whether this definition will fit the crucible of common sense, let us apply it to a current discussion of torture.

There is an ongoing debate, for instance, as to whether certain actions such as water-boarding constitute torture. One can hold the belief that torture is wrong while rejecting the belief that water-boarding is wrong, on the condition that one also believes that water-boarding is not torture. On the previous definition of torture, such a belief will be strictly inconsistent, for the assumption there was that ANY intentional infliction of pain for whatever reason will be torture. Yet this will not hold for at least a few cases. When I pinch someone, for instance, perhaps a friend or a family member, does this imply that I’m torturing them? While I am indeed inflicting a minor degree of pain on them, to answer in the affirmative would seem absurd. So would, but to a lesser degree, classifying the spanking of a child as torture seem to use the term in a way that would not make sense to most people. Thus it would seem that the infliction of pain simpliciter would not be enough to be considered as torture.

The default position, in light of the distinctions we’ve made, would seem to be that torture differs from other inflictions of pain in quantity alone. This would certainly work in the favor of advocates for certain “enhanced interrogation techniques,” as there the infliction of pain or suffering does not seem that great in comparison with interrogation methods that no one (or almost no one) would argue are not torture. Since drawing a line as to which actions are or are not torture would be arbitrary –  it would be ridiculous to classify torture as ( x ) amount of pain, where ( x ) is a quantity that could readily be measured — one could only make a distinction based on comparisons of certain actions that were unambiguously considered torture, e.g., the shoving of bamboo sticks beneath one’s fingernails.

This principle, however, also seems to be unsatisfactory for a number of reasons. Say, for instance, that a vicious serial rapist uses powerful anesthetic drugs in order to subdue his victims so he can sexually abuse them without their fighting back. Our common sense would suggest to us that the rapist abused the victim in one way that would fall under the descriptor we used to determine what torture is: he has inflicted both physical and psychological pain on his victim through his actions. Yet there is a problem: if the rapist’s victim is unconscious or barely conscious (let us assume for argument’s sake that it is the former) for the time that the rapist is abusing them, then it is arguable that the rapist is not torturing the victim as the victim does not in fact feel physical pain. To contest this account, one would have to demonstrate that one could experience pains in an unconscious state. As pain, from a scientific perspective, is the phenomenal feeling associated with actual or potential tissue damage, or described in terms of such damage, it would seem that any plausible candidate for an account of unconscious pains would be ruled out on this basis. While I do not deny that it is certainly possible that one could experience unconscious pains, I also think that the onus of proof is on the person who wishes to prove this.

There is, moreover, another difficulty in accepting the contention that torture is the intentional infliction of a high degree of pain. Let us return (though not joyfully) to the rapist from above. Imagine, further, that in addition to anesthetizing his victims during his sexual exploitation of them, the rapist also keeps them in a constant state of unconsciousness — or unawareness — through the use of the powerful anesthesia  he uses to rape them. Whether such drugs actually do exist at the moment is hardly relevant — such drugs can easily be imagined as existing, and the actual existence of date-rape drugs, in which the victim is in a stupor as to what’s going on, is evidence enough that the scenario is morally relevant.

Now, if the victim is never or barely ever conscious of their abusers actions, it would seem plausible to conclude that they cannot suffer psychological pain for the time that they are subject to this extended abuse. What I mean by this is that the victim, in light of their present circumstances, cannot know that they are being abused and cannot have really any coherent idea of what is happening to them. Thus it would seem that the victim is not suffering from psychological abuse, as a strong precondition of psychological pain is a general awareness of oneself at the present. (I do not say that psychological pain requires awareness of the harm or abuse one has suffered because one might have suffered from some traumatic event that one does not have present knowledge of, but which is the cause of present anxieties or emotional distress). As the imaginary victim has not suffered (conscious) physical or psychological pain at the hands of his abuser, it would seem to follow that the rapist has NOT tortured his victim. For anyone who believes that rape is a serious — perhaps the most serious type of — abuse a person could endure, this principle is unacceptable. Yet, if one rejects this scenario, one must also reject the notion that torture is determined by the quantity of pain alone in relation to cases that are unambiguously cases of torture.

Following the rejection of the previous two accounts, what could offer us a plausible candidate for the definition of torture? To provide such a candidate, we would need to give an account that escaped the objections above and that would still serve as a satisfactory account on its own. I think the following might provide such an answer that is needed. When we say that someone is tortured, pain or discomfort or abuse inevitably has a role. Yet this does not exhaust the circumstances in which torture takes place. We do not say that a policeman commits torture when he beats a rioter to submission who is trying to harm or kill him. Yet we would consider the policeman to have tortured the rioter if he beat the rioter while he was protesting peacefully and continued to beat him while he was defenseless. Beginning with this most recent example, let us enumerate some general principles that account for what torture consists in.

1. Thus, from the policeman-rioter example, the first condition of torture will be that the person tortured is in a position of vulnerability in which they are physically incapable of resiting their abuser.

2. The second will, I think, be that the torturer is inflicting pain or harm that is not conducive to the overall well-being of the individual who is tortured — for example, we do not say that the surgeon tortures his patient because they are anesthetized and incapable of resisting him as he inflicts physical harm on their tissues, as the doctor does this according to the patient’s will in order to benefit them.

3. This leads to the third principle — that the suffering inflicted is not voluntary, in the sense that the person tortured, if they were in their right mind, would not consent to the suffering they are subjected to. This last principle is important because it permits us to avoid the difficulties of the rapist-victim scenario detailed above — rape by its definition cannot be voluntary.

4. The fourth and final principle is that the person who suffers does so over an extended duration of time. (This can inevitably vary based on the torture inflicted: flaying someone alive would take a comparably short period of time in relation to other methods of torture, but would nonetheless be a long period relative to the harm inflicted — from the perspective on the flayed person, this would most likely seem to take much longer than it actually would.) We would not claim that a doctor who killed his unconscious patient by poisoning tortured them unless their death were to take an unusually long period of time.

While I do not claim that these four principles are not exhaustive in the sense of accounting for each and every instance of torture, I feel that they are able to avoid the above objections while accounting for the vast majority of cases and perhaps providing for some room for borderline cases — I mean that such cases could not ipso facto be ruled on one side of the fence or another, as it were, but would require some serious deliberation as to how they would be classified.

Simeon is a great kid. He does really well with the 1-2-3 system and really doesn’t do much to ruffle feathers, but sometimes the willful bug bites him. Usually in public and when I’m in a hurry. Last week he refused to walk while we were in a huge store. I was running late and needed him to move along. I had already carried him part of the way, but he is too much to carry so far AND he is perfectly capable of walking. He froze, he went blank, he melted to floor and screamed. I was so ANGRY! I’m a pretty rational disciplinarian, but I didn’t know what to do. If he were mine, there would be a swift swat on the hiney and we’d be done, but that’s not an option. So, I carried a screaming, wiggley, refusing to walk 3 year old out of the store. I wanted to scream and throw myself on the ground.

I believe techniques like “make as few rules as possible” and “avoid changing your toddlers schedule” are baloney! I have rules for his own good. I’m trying to help him develop moral character and protect his person. I don’t care if he eats his cereal with his hands or sings “whooo, hooo” as loudly as possible for 45 minutes straight (he did that this morning), but he must not touch the knife I told him not to. I also will not stop my life for a 3 year old. I work hard to cater to his naps and feeding schedule. I stay home with him and give him tons of attention, but  there are 2 other people in this household and we have needs too, I will not postpone my life entirely so that he can have things his way. Nope, not gonna happen.

I don’t know what to do. I get very frustrated when these episodes crop up and after the blogging incident, I’m afraid to ask my county for advice. They say they want to help, but they have made it clear they’d prefer me to have a happy, perfect family where the kids don’t throw temper tantrums and I always know what to do. Pshaw!!!

I feel that yelling, lecturing and taking things away from a three year old is punishment. Simeon’s language skills, or lack there of, make it difficult for me to know if he is able to remember that when I took a toy away 3 hours ago, it was because he disobeyed. And even if he does, he’s 3. I don’t believe he should have to suffer the consequences of his actions for hours and hours. A quick address is best, then we can both move on. Then again, several parents I know say spanking doesn’t work, but something else did for their kid. By reason, the things I’ve tried don’t work, so maybe spanking would. Of course, I have very little child rearing experience, so what do I know (can you tell I’m feeling a little cynical). Maybe I really do have it all wrong. Maybe there’s a solution out there that works and doesn’t include physical discipline. If you know of any, pass ‘em along ’cause we’re willing to try anything at this point (ya know, except maybe water boarding. I am pretty sure that would be wrong).

In a remarkable, courageous and honest ruling, Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, found that the government could not credibly support its allegation that Fouad Mahmoud Al Rabiah was part of the Taliban or al-Qaida, and that the evidence against him wasn’t sufficient to justify his continued detention. She ordered the government to release Al Rabiah “forthwith [1].” The actual statement read as follows:

Because the Government has not met its burden by a preponderance of evidence, the Court shall GRANT Al Rabiah’s petition for habeas corpus. The Court shall issue an Order requiring the Government to take all necessary and appropriate steps to facilitate Al Rabiah’s release forthwith. Dated: September 17, 2009

That there are institutions, procedures and individuals that still respect the rule of law, and the necessity of upholding our most cherished legal, judicial and moral precepts particularly in moments of crisis and fear should give us hope for our increasingly decimated republic.

But whereas we can argue for the rights of illegal detainees held in the USA few if any for that matter have raised a voice in outrage at the wholesale slaughter of imagined ‘terrorists’, ‘Taliban’ and ‘Al Qaeda’ operatives in the tribal areas of Pakistan. I say imagined because they are labeled ‘Taliban’ and/or ‘Al Qaeda’ to ensure that we never ask for evidence or proof and that we can kill them at will.

There the Pushtuns, a people dehumanized so completely that we do not even register their deaths, are being killed and maimed with impunity, thanks to the venal machinations of the Pakistani elite and toy-hungry military in bed with an American imperialist juggernaut that knows nothing other than the inspirations of its own greed and power.

The people of Pakistan’s tribal areas deserve their day in court if they are being accused of specific crimes and misdemeanors. Though I do not know what these would be other than that dastardly crime of not bending to the will of specious power and elite greed. I have argued in an earlier piece called Fear The Pushtun Bogeyman Or Scaring Children As An Imperialist Habit for the necessity of protecting the lives, and access to procedures of law and justice for all citizens of Pakistan particularly the criminalized Pushtun tribes of the frontier.

The Pakistan Army, and its establishment civilian leaders, have carried out an unjust, illegal, immoral and inhumane war against its own people. The bombs that capture our attention are a consequence of a belief that disproportionate force can erase memory and sorrow. The United States of America has provided the funds and the armaments and the quiet pat on the back. The war on the frontier serves political interests both in the USA and in Pakistan, ensuring that fear of this bogeyman never leaves us, that we believe that our manicured front lawns are in fact under direct threat of crazed, wide-eyed, bearded men in loose pants with designs to subjugate all that we love and cherish (Wall Mart? 24-cable TV? Unlimited internet porn?) and control the world.

Illegal detainees are being given a chance to argue their case, to defend themselves, and a Government that illegally tortured and incarcerated them is being taken to task. Here in the USA. But in Pakistan, where our surrogates are happy to dance to any tune we play, the deaths continue, the horror unfolds. There are few voices in opposition. So I suppose they will only come in the form of bomb blasts and more ‘terror’ attacks. Sow the wind, and reap the whirlwind.

I can’t take another Obama liberal moon bat speech, he does lie and badly

By Critic Jasper Pennies

Newsweek puts out some of the dumbest information I’ve ever read. The Tortured Brain is one of their dumbest articles yet.

The whole argument put forth by Sharon Begley is that neuroscience has found evidence that the brain will not put out truthful information when the person is under torture.

First of all. Do we really trust neuroscience? Sigmund Freud used to be a neuroscientist before he became a psychoanalyst. It just goes to show you that neuroscience is a gateway science to worse sciences.

Secondly, torture has been the most reliable thing I’ve ever used. When I stopped feeding my cat Chompchomp for 4 days in a row, it started meowing like crazy. Now, I knew it really wasn’t hungry and was really just trying to waste my time. So I water-boarded it for two weeks straight. After that, it stopped bothering me. I haven’t heard from it for the past two weeks. Clearly the truth came out there. The truth was that my cat Chompchomp really wasn’t hungry. It was just wanting to waste my time.

Torture is also good at getting honest opinions out of your lovers. I’ve probably water-boarded my last three lovers or was it four? Anyway water-boarding was clearly effective enough to pull the truth right out of their brains. In less than five days, these ol’ girlfriends of mine were all admitting just how beautiful, smart, handsome, and great I was. Clearly, torture was working in this department. So why wouldn’t it work against terrorist enemies of the United States?

So Newsweek is wrong again as usual. I just wish Newsweek would get its act together and praise Dick Cheney on every cover of newsmagazines it puts out. I think someday we should all water-board Dick Cheney in order to get him to admit just how great of a person he is. The guy is just too humble and holds back way too much.

Dick Cheney, admit just how great of a person you are or you’re going to be put into a dark narrow box with a weird creepy bug crawling around on you!

Cheney Previously Giving Thumbs Up To Simulated Drowning Of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed

MORE THAN ONE MOVIE—OFTEN A WESTERN—HAS USED THIS CLICHÉ: the hero, usually a cowboy, catches up with one of the bad guy’s accomplices by a river or a watering trough or such. He knocks him silly first, and from that point the dialogue becomes rather simple.

“Where is she?” “I don’t know.” Splash! Sounds of struggle, the sound of draining water as his head is pulled up by the hair, then gasping for air.

“Where is she.” “I don’t know.” Splash! More sounds of struggle, more gasping.

“Okay, okay.” “Tell me where she is.”

Wheez. Gasp. Cough, cough. “He took her out to the old abandoned mine up at Rattlesnake Flat.”

Trite. But I still feel excited during such scenes. I never get tired of them. Maybe that’s why Hollywood gets away with over-using them so shamelessly. A lot of people besides me like them. Even liberals pay good money to see this played out on the screen. Are scenes like this just trite clichés? Or is there possibly something about such scenes that rings true?

I grew up back east in the most populous parts of the country, including, for awhile, the suburban sprawl of Washington, D.C. As a young man, partly because of westerns, I emigrated to the rocky sagebrush country of the west. Something about it captured my imagination.

Back where I come from, even 30 years ago, people were civilized to a fault. Many, if they had an intruder, preferred calling 911 and waiting 15 or 20 minutes for the professionals to handle it when they arrived—often too late. As a country, we have gone the same route in our national security. Leave it to the professionals.

But here where I live, people never used to handle security that way. Even now, the old-timers prefer to take care of it themselves. Only afterwards would they call 911. From the inside of the suburban bubble some people live in, this looks shockingly barbaric. (Sheez! What planet are you from?) And they talk about how you can’t take the law into your own hands.

But here, depending on how far out in the mountains you live, an extremely dangerous situation could evolve over a couple of hours while the deputy is still on his way, and criminals know that. That puts the deputy on track to arrive in time to help load the bodies into the ambulance. It’s been like that a long time in many parts of the west, and it’s not going to change.

So, if you have the will to be free, and live where you want, you have to be willing to face things that aren’t pretty. You might get blood on your hands. And if criminals think you’re dangerous, they’re more likely to leave you alone.

People living in places like this can’t fathom the change in thinking of the other 80 percent of the country who live in cities. We have to take care of it ourselves here; the criminals know that, some of our newer residents know it too. And, for sure, the old-timers know it. No surprise, the crime rate is low. But some people in our country today would rather let the professionals handle it and keep the blood off their pretty, clean hands.

Some of us lack the guts to do what needs to be done, and that’s where the CIA comes in. They do a professional job, and the taxpayers pay for it. It’s a nice clean business we make of it.

But imagine we didn’t have professionals. Suppose a kidnapper came and took your wife and two teenaged girls, and you had no idea what would become of them. If the only solution was to climb on a horse with as many guns as you could carry and go after them, would you? Or would you depend on the government to do it for you? What if there was no government?

Suppose you climbed on a horse and went after them, and you caught up with one of the perpetrators by a river. What would you do? Check with attorneys to make sure dunking a criminal’s head under water is legal and doesn’t violate his rights? Waste time while someone might be raping your wife or one of your daughters?

A cowboy would take care of it.

I hear a slur from over Europe way sometimes. They say Americans are all cowboys. I’ve heard them say it. Let ’em. They’re not talking about about what we do or how we’re dressed. They’re talking about our attitude, and they don’t mean anything nice by it.

It’s time Obama stopped apologizing for America, and stopped worrying about what other nations think of
us—countries that criticize the way we protect our people, and, if it were their people in danger, would likely commit more clear violations of the Geneva conventions than our people allegedly did.

But it’s true we’re cowboys in some ways. People who have freedom tend to look that way to people who don’t. Especially people who prefer taking care of things themselves.

We in America have a big government now, and politicians and bureaucrats who don’t trust us to do for ourselves anymore. They’d rather Washington did it for us. And some of us are fuming mad about it, because they pass such laws that a man could be charged with a crime for protecting his family. A significant-enough minority of the people—even here in America—now think cowboy types are barbaric, ignorant, and backwards. They’ve been brainwashed by the spreading of a stereotype by leftist pundits, entertainers, and media. These talking heads have been inciting scorn for decent folks for a long time now.

Nevertheless, at the end of the day, protecting people still involves the same methods it always did. Some of us may like thinking of ourselves as more civilized than that. But it requires putting a spin on reality. The truth is: we just pass on that responsibility—and the dirty work—to professionals. That makes hypocrites, in my book, of the ones criticizing the professionals for doing what works and what the bravest of us would do if we had to.

And, the thing is: the professionals do a good job. They keep it legal and as humane as possible for people who likely don’t deserve it. Our CIA personnel deserve better than being intimidated and subjected to politically-motivated witch hunts. Sure, some people work outside the lines—and have been investigated and prosecuted already—but the faithful CIA people who did their job don’t deserve double jeopardy.

Do we prove we are humane by insisting on being namby-pamby with terrorists? Or just that we’re stupid? Do we prove ourselves more civilized if we prosecute professionals who serve us and do what we ourselves would do if we had to?

The truth be told: It’s going to backfire on Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder. Their throwing a bone to the far left by investigating what the CIA did under the Bush administration should be an embarrassment to reasonable Democrats. It looks like Obama can’t keep his promise to the American people to leave it alone. It looks like he and Holder can’t resist the temptation to pursue politically-motivated investigations. It looks like the far left drives him to do things against his will, like he chooses pleasing radicals over protecting the American people. It looks, in short, like he’s not leading.

But it isn’t going to fly. Because a lot of us are still cowboys at heart; it’s a good thing too.

And we’re gonna take care of this.

Found it on All Hat No Cattle:

“But according to a newly released memo from the CIA, they used horrible torture techniques on prisoners. Dick Cheney claimed that it wasn’t torture. Enhanced interrogation techniques, that’s what he called it, enhanced interrogation technique. And he didn’t shoot that guy in the face. No, no, that was enhanced quail hunting.”

-David Letterman

Needs no further comment.

The United States of America has always been a world leader when it comes to the humane treatment of those captured during conflict.  Our country has been a world leader when it comes to the development of legitimate legal guidelines as to what can and can not occur during armed conflict.  Our country has also been involved in significant ways with capturing and punishing those who have not treated others humanely during such conflict.

At the end of World War II, the United States was the driving force behind the Nuremburg Trials in Germany and the Tokyo War Crimes Trials in Japan.  One of the fruits of victory obviously is the ability to hold those who battled against us accountable for actions that we consider to be war crimes.

So what do men say when light is shed upon illegal and criminal behavior they participated in during the darkness of armed conflict?  What words do they use to explain their behavior?   The following quotes were taken from some of the men on trial in the Nuremburg Trials.

“Politicians brought the Nazis to power and started the war.  They are the ones who brought about these disgusting crimes, and now we have to sit there in the dock with them and share the blame!” Karl Doenitz,,German Admiral, chosen by Hitler to succeed him as fuehrer.  Doenitz  issued the “Laconia Order” to the German submarine fleet, forbidding  rescuing enemy survivors of sunken ships: He received a 10 year sentence.

“I don’t see how they can fail to recognize a soldier’s obligation to obey orders.  That’s the code I’ve live by all my life.”  Alfred Jodl,    Chief of Operations for the German High Command.  Jodl was hanged at Nuremburg on October 16, 1946.

“How can they say such things about me? I have only done my duty as an intelligence organ” Ernst Kaltenbrunner.  Kaltenbrunner and RSHA bear responsibity for “The Final Solution” to the Jewish question–and the 6 million Jews killed.  Kaltenbrunner was hanged at Nuremburg on October 16, 1946.

“I am the only one in the world who clearly saw the Jewish menace as a historical problem.” Julius Streicher.  Streicher was hanged at Nuremburg on October 16, 1946.

“Don’t let anybody tell you that they had no idea.  Everybody sensed there was something horribly wrong with the system.” Hans Frank, Governor-general of Nazi-occupied Poland, called the “Jew butcher of Cracow.” Frank was hanged at Nuremburg on October 16, 1946.

It does not take much effort to see that there is a pattern here.  Basically, these men knew that something was horribly wrong, that they were only obeying orders, and that they saw the people they mistreated as a threat to the well-being of their nation.  Some of them saw themselves as “minor players” in their criminal schemes and not responsible for their actions.  All of them saw their actions as lawful and made necessary by the dictates of those above them.   The “major players” were those up the chain of command who made the decisions that resulted in their behavior.

They were either hanged at Nuremburg for their crimes or served lengthy prison sentences.

Obviously the trials of those who were involved in the Holocaust during World War II involved charges that go beyond almost anything the world has experienced with regard to the nature and extent of their cruelty. My purpose here is not to compare the extent and nature of the crimes that occurred during World War II with the treatment experienced by “enemy combatants” captured during the Afghan and Iraq conflicts. That being said, it is obvious that the excuses used for mistreatment of individuals detained during conflict can be similar regardless of their extent and nature.

In the past, most of us accepted the fact that the United States does not torture those who have been captured during armed conflict.  However, the actions of the CIA and members of the military during the Afghan and Iraq conflicts have made it impossible to make that statement with any sense of credibility.

The Bush Administrations attempts to redefine the exact nature of torture were nothing more than attempts at excusing behavior that in the past has been considered criminal.  The musings and declarations of the Bush Justice Department and Office of Legal Counsel have been used as justifications for treating individuals in ways that the people of this country have never accepted in the past.

In the mind of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and their legal henchmen, the behaviors were justified because those we were fighting against were dangerous and were a threat to the nations well being.  In other words, we had to behave this way to protect the American people from further attack.

Does anyone know of any recorded instances of institutionally mandated torture of German soldiers by Allied troops during World War II?  There were none.   Were the forces of the Third Reich a clear and present danger to the well-being of the people of the United States of America? Yes they were.  Has anyone accused past administrations of mandating the torture of Japanese soldiers after the horrific attack of December 7, 1941? We have no evidence of that.  Were the military forces of the Japanese Empire a threat to the people of America? Ask the people who were in Pearl Harbor in December of  1941.  Our responses during these times of incredible national peril were consistent with what we expect from other nations.   We don’t sanction torture for the purpose of protecting the population.  Or at least we didn’t until now.

The United States of America saw to it that those involved horrific and criminal behavior during World War II were punished.  Men were hanged at Nuremburg.  Members of the armed services of the Japanese Empire were imprisoned  and even executed for mistreatment of Allied soldiers during the war.  By the way, one of the specific methods of mistreatment used against American soldiers was water boarding. 

If the recently announced investigation into the torture of enemy combatant’s results in criminal charges is brought against those being investigated, it will be interesting to hear their defenses. Here is what I expect we will hear.

• “We knew that we were stretching the limits and that the system had gone horribly wrong”. 
• “These people are dangerous and threats to the well-being of the American people”. 
• “I was following orders sent down from above because it is my responsibility to do so”.
• “I was only doing my job”.
• “We were told that it was ok by those above us in the chain of command!”  

Sound familiar?  If you don’t find this sickening then you might be of the mind that anything done in the name of liberty, to protect those living in this free country is fine.  There are those that believe that taking away the civil rights of others to ensure our own liberty and freedom is fine as long as those up the chain of command tell us it is ok.  However, there once was a time when we held people accountable for similar actions.

So what is it that is so different this time around?  Why is it that the Bush Administration forged ahead with a policy that was the exact opposite of the policies of past war time administrations?  There are those that claim that there is a significant difference in the threat.  There are those that believe that the only difference was in the nature of the nation’s leadership. There are those that lay a great deal of the responsibility on the man who has been most responsible for leading the country down this path, Dick Cheney.

That being said, if the recently announced investigation holds public servants at the bottom of the chain of command accountable for the decisions made at the top, then I think we are wasting our time.  Those at the top of the chain of command must not be allowed to attribute the behavior of their underlings to a few individuals who were out of control.  Why is it that the foot-soldier has to pay the cost for decisions made by political operatives and their legal advisors?

This investigation should be about those who justified the behavior of those required to carry out the orders.  Let me remind you that these orders were given by individuals who have never been on the field of battle, and never had to look into the eyes of individuals whose rights have been removed in the name of freedom and justice for all.  

Let’s leave the people at the bottom of the chain of command to their own consciences.  Go after the ones at the top. We should be going after those at the top whose actions brought us to the point where we can no longer say “The United States doesn’t torture.”  A closer look at their behavior will probably remove any doubt about who the dangerous ones really were. 

Hans Frank, one of the Germans executed for war crimes after World War II said “A thousand years will pass and Germany’s guilt will not have been erased”.  How many years will pass before the stain left by the actions of those who sanctioned torture in the name of freedom will fade away?

The last major foreign policy kerfuffle we had was a few months ago where we had those dueling foreign policy speeches between President Obama and former Vice President Dick Cheney. Of course, the conventional mainstream media wisdom was that Obama rocked the body that rocked the party, and we R’s would prefer it if Cheney just disappeared.

What actually happened was that, after the two speeches, late that Friday night after the media all went home, Obama signed an executive order (just like how George Bush would do) saying that he could hold terror suspects indefinitely (again, like George Bush). The moral of the story…Dick Cheney was right.

But that was then. Now, enhanced interrogation techniques were said to provide valuable intelligence says…THE WASHINGTON POST? Here is JBdotC senior foreign policy adviser Stephen F. Hayes with the report…

The Washington Post has an important front-page story this morning, with matter-of-fact reporting on the importance of Khalid Sheikh Mohammad as an intelligence source and the enhanced interrogation techniques that made him talk. The piece is headlined: “How a Detainee Became an Asset: September 11 Plotter Cooperated After Waterboarding.”

One key source is former CIA Inspector General John Helgerson, who acknowledged that two of the CIA’s “most powerful” enhanced interrogation techniques “elicited a lot of information. Certain of the techniques seemed to have little effect, whereas waterboarding and sleep deprivation were the two most powerful techniques and elicited a lot of information,” he said in an interview with the Post.

Helgerson authored the 2004 IG report that the Department of Justice released on Monday. The evidence presented in the IG report made clear that EITs had been effective, but Helgerson, well-known inside the CIA as an opponent of the program, stopped short of making that claim in a declarative fashion. In his interview with the Post there seems to be a subtle shift in his argument. In the IG report Helgerson had written that “measuring the overall effectiveness of EITs” is challenging and a “subjective process.”

Make sure to read Mr. Hayes’s full report. All I can say is that if the President, his boss Ms. Pelosi, and the rest of the Democrat Party want to make an issues out of this – again…get the popcorn!

UPDATE: Yep.

(This was funnier in conception.  Forgive my self-indulgence.)

The recent controversy regarding the rightness of what some consider torture and others consider unfortunate, but necessary, coercion, has people stuck in a conundrum.  On one hand, we don’t want to think of our boys in uniform performing such heinous acts on fellow human beings; on the other, we feel we need that ace-in-the-hole as a back-up plan for being really nice and hoping they decide to like us and tell us everything they know.  I’ve heard it described, and it doesn’t sound like a walk in the park, but I’d say it’s a fer-sight better than strategically-placed hot irons.

(Begin organ music.)

There is a darker side to this issue, however, that no one seems to be discussing.  It is something that happens here within our borders regularly.  We see signs of it wherever we go.  Literally.  Some we hear about in more banal context, by never imagine the true implications.

One such lurking nuisance is the Boarding School.  An innocent enough sounding name- if you don’t know they are really WATER Boarding Schools.  I ask you, why are we not irate at these institutions?   If young people are learning these “skills” there, what do we expect them to do with their lives afterward?  They have to practice their new profession.  So, of course, they end up in (Water) Boarding Houses, yet another overlooked torture chamber.  Not anymore.  We know what you’re really doing behind your closed doors.  We know why you take in ex-cons and homeless people.  Truth will out.

Yet, there is something even more debase and lurid than water boarding right in our communities:

They advertise proudly.  But lies are plastered on their store fronts.  They lure in unsuspecting patrons with a promise to care for their loved ones for a time; then, when the staff  know it is safe, your precious pups are used for intimidation and information extrication against animal haters.  That’s right: Pet Boarding is not what you thought.

Can you imagine the atrocity in action?  Instead of water, the victim is lowered slowly, struggling, into a pool of PUPPIES!  Enemies with allergies are strapped down and forced into a roiling mass of KITTENS!  All for the sake of finding out whether they really tried to swerve to miss your neighbor’s chihuahua that fateful night.

PETA will have a hey-day when they find out the truth.

Just look at the fear in their faces.

Terrorist suspect conviction and holdings have been open to debate many times, and over the years media coverage on terrorist interrogation has been kept relatively quiet. The theory being I guess, in most peoples minds, as long as terror suspects are in custody and are convicted not much else matters.

 But in this, the CIA seemed to open up their very own Water Boarding Therapy and Health Spa.

Terror suspects were allegedly taken to “secret” detention centre, held there, and tortured to within an inch of US Law. One prisoner was threatened with an electric drill and a gun. Another suspect was lead to believe that a fellow prisoner was being tortured and finally executed in the next room.

President George W Bush once said “The United States of America does not torture. And that’s important for people around the world to understand.” To address multitude of incident the Bush Administration adopted the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 which inhibits the inhumane treatment of prisoners. President Bush also made it well known he reserved the right to waive this bill if he thought right to do so.

A demonstration of Water Boarding

“The techniques they used were all authorized, but the manner in which they applied them was overly aggressive and too persistent….You think of torture, you think of some horrendous physical act done to an individual. This was not any one particular act; this was just a combination of things that had a medical impact on him.”
This was Susan J Crawford’s (coverning authority for Guantanamo Military Commissions)  response to the interrogation of Mohammed al-Qahtani, the so-called “20^th Hijacker.”

In 2007 the CIA and Presidential Officials authorized the use of Water Boarding and Stress Position torture techniques against terror suspects. Water boarding is designed to simulate drowning and the sensation of dying. To justify its use of water boarding, the Bush administration issued secret legal opinions that argued for a narrow definition of torture under U.S. law, including the Bybee memo, which it later withdrew. This would allow interrogators to be incredibly aggressive against terror suspects. According to the Justice Department the use of Water Boarding on one particular terrorist suspect allowed the US Government to stop a terrorist attack on Los Angeles.

In January 2009 President Barack Obama banned the use of Water Boarding.

In April 2009 the United States Department of Defense refused to comment on whether the Water Board Technique was still used for training purposes.

I admit I can get pretty opinionated when it comes to politics. I was a sound Clinton democrat, and a less convinced but supportive Bush republican. I believe strongly that both were good presidents, though they both made mistakes—they all do. How can I swing back and forth? Easy. I collect the facts myself and make my own decisions (OK, I do depend on CNN a bit). I belong to no party and therefore am not obliged to regurgitate any of their rhetoric. For those that bash Clinton or Bush, remember Truman. If you don’t know what I mean, get off your ass and look it up.

Now, what about President Obama? It’s possible I voted for the guy (I’m not saying yet), not because of all of the antiBush crap, but because here is a guy who has no choice but to strive to be the best he can be and do the best for his country; he could be (is) the first African American president and that’s a pretty heavy legacy. Even though he was a party yes man in Illinois he would not be able to do that as president—and I don’t think he has, but that might be the problem.

So far, it’s been congress chasing the Obama agenda, not the other way around, and some of the stuff going down is getting creepy:

1. He repeats some of the republican rhetoric from the campaign, ie ~the foundation of our economy is strong~ but then he:
2. Says, ~if you want to know what my positions are look at the people I surround myself with.~ I have and there are a few activists, communists, anticapitalists in the mix. What am I to make of this? We’ve got sound fundamentals but he doesn’t like capitalism?
3. He pushes congress to throw together the biggest spending bill in history, complete with pencil corrections, and then he signs it fully well knowing that no one had read it—including him. Doesn’t even come close to being cool.
4. He openly encourages congress to take stances opposing those of their constituents. (Perhaps I’m wrong, but I thought it was their job to represent what we want, regardless of what they want.)
5. There are all these stories about lists and reporting things to the government. This one, I HOPE, is just exaggerated GOP fodder.
6. He jumps to conclusions, even plays the “race card”. Dude!
7. Holds rallies with planted supporters and prepared Q & A then supports the bashing of the freedom of speech by those with opposing viewpoints.
8. Openly rewards organizations such as the labor unions, GE/MSNBC, Acorn, Apollo… that were instrumental in getting him elected.

Bottom line is that I don’t know where I stand yet but neither Bush nor Clinton ever scared me and this guy has me a tad edgy. I’m having a hard time convincing myself these things are presidential. If I’m wrong, please comment back and point out the similarities with any of our past 5 presidents—I’ll welcome the information (try and do it without mentioning the Iraq War—I lived in Iran for several years and have some insight into that region; I want facts guys not emotional rhetoric.)

Last bit for this political piece: what’s the deal with the torture papers? I wasn’t much a Cheney fan but the papers he wanted released were released and proved that water boarding those 3 terrorists stopped several attacks in the US and abroad? Kudos to the Prez for allowing the papers to be released but was this the anticipated outcome. We would have had more to jeer about if we hadn’t looked.

Is it possible that there was abuse of the interrogation system in the CIA? Yes, I believe it is possible. The people who were believed to go overboard with the interrogations have already been disciplined. But given the terrorists that we have interrogated I believe that the types of interrogation such as water boarding, firing blanks near the detainee, and other similar methods are indeed warranted. You can not expect to get valuable information from a terrorist (or why not call it like it is, murderer) without playing a little hard ball. I have heard things thrown around such as the interrogations causing detainee deaths, yet I have yet to hear of any type of method used that would cause death other than heart attack from being scared. I would be against physical torture such as breaking bones, or pulling out finger nails. However, you can not sit down and talk it out with these terrorists that we have been interrogating. All they would see that as is a weakness and never give up any useful information what so ever. These are the people who have killed thousands of innocent people and have no remorse. They feel they are justified by their beliefs to murder. We should be using as much force as possible to keep our country safe. If it meant keeping your loved ones safe, would you not use all means necessary to do so? At least we do not line them up to shoot them with a firing squad or cut their heads off on a television broadcast for all to see. We should be thanking the CIA and all of those who serve our country for keeping us safe for the past nearly 8 years and remember always who attacked first.

This opinion is based on the following articles:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/24/AR2009082401743_pf.html

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/08/25/cheney-republicans-blast-interrogation-probe/

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9A9DSQG0&show_article=1

The ISLE of GILLIGAN

By G. Santos, reporter, World Daily Planet News, Metropolis

My sources have revealed that popular talk show host, Glenn Beck, was held in a re-edumacation camp for the past two weeks on the remote Isle of Gilligan at the southwest tip of Barafrica until his rescue.

Mr. Beck was forced to work during the day in the fields growing high cholesterol foods and was nightly tortured by Smith Sheparhd by being forced to eat Sheparhd’s fungus infected toenail clippings. Beck’s captors did not use water boarding, but instead used water ballooning–where the victim runs back and forth in a confined space while being pummeled with water balloons that not only soaks the victim’s $1,000 outfit but also totally ruins the ‘do.

Beck’s rescue was funded and supplied by the great folks at Clorox, CVS, Wal-Mart, and Sprint to name just a few. Additional funding for Mr. Beck’s rescue came from the Stimulus Bailout Package and the Reinvestment Act of 2009.

The Rescue Boat

His rescue team was made up from the best America has to offer: Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Payne, Patrick Henry, Benjamin Franklin, Ronald Reagan and Sarah Palin on shotgun. In addition there was Jane Russell (the movie star), Howard Hughes (the millionaire), Joseph Hazelwood (the Exxon Valdez skipper), and Judas (because there is always at least one).

Glenn's fellow political prisioners

See...I told you! There is ALWAYS at least one JUDAS!

Since his harrowing experience on the island and his daring rescue, Mr. Beck has been reunited with his family and has returned to his syndicated radio show and his television show on FOX News and is none the worse for wear. In fact, when questioned by this reporter about the incident, Mr. Beck denied it ever happened. I, Geraldo Santos, understand that anyone would block out such a horrific memory and want to move on. You go, Glenn!

water boarding

Kompas hari ini membahas bahwa CIA sering kali menggunakan teknik interogasi yang kejam bahkan dapat dikatakan penyiksaan. Salah satu teknik yang sering digunakan adalah Water Boarding. Apakah Water Boarding itu?

Water Boarding merupakan salah satu teknik interogasi (ataupun penyiksaan) di mana “sang korban“ diikat kaki dan tangannya sehingga tidak dapat bergerak sama sekali. Kemudian “sang korban” dibaringkan pada suatu papan dengan posisi kaki lebih tinggi daripada kakinya. Mata korban pun ditutup dengan kain gelap. Langkah berikutnya adalah menuangkan air ke wajah korban tersebut. Penyiksaan ini menimbulkan sensasi bahwa sang korban sedang tenggelam namun tidak dapat berbuat apa-apa.

Teknik Water Boarding sendiri telah ada selama ratusan tahun.  Teknik ini merupakan teknik interogasi yang umum dilakukan pada masa Italian Inquisition pada tahun 1500-an. Selain itu juga sering digunakan di Penjara Cambodian pada jaman rezim Khemer Rouge pada tahun 1970-an. Kemudian pada tahun 2005 teknik Water Boarding ini dimasukkan pada “enhanced interrogation techniques“ yang hanya digunakan pada teroris yang memiliki “nilai yang tinggi“. Menurut  U.S. Department of Justice Water Boarding telah dilakukan sebanyak 10 kali dalam menginterogasi al-Qaida. Namun menurut banyak anggota CIA teknik ini merupakan teknik yang buruk karena terlalu menakuti korban, sehingga info yang diberikannya tidak dapat dipercaya sepenuhnya.

Jika Anda bertanya-tanya dalam hati seberapa menakutkannya teknik ini, sebagai pembanding, bahwa anggota CIA dan Navy Seal yang terlatih yang mencoba teknik ini hanya dapat bertahan (rata-rata) 14 detik. Jadi Anda dapat menyimpulkan betapa  seramnya teknik ini……

Original posting

A creative opportunity and display space is available for the upcoming season at the **** Gallery www.***.me in downtown ***, Maine. Artists pay rent and work in the Gallery instead of paying a sales commission. Sculpture, pottery, glassworks, fiber arts and other fine crafts are welcome and wall space is available for painters in oils, watercolor or acrylics. Working at the gallery provides you with the opportunity to interact directly with customers and collectors, giving you valuable feedback on your work. Artists may join the gallery at anytime. For more information, call ***-****, come in, or e-mail Gallery owner Lucinda *** at ***@***.com. I look forward to meeting you and reviewing your work for possible selection as one of the Gallery’s artists.

From QB to Lucinda

Lucinda,

In spite of all of this rain I am today a joyous man.  This sounds like a wonderful opportunity!  I am familiar with your gallery and the work of some of the artists (just LOVE the Zoe Calder pieces).  My own work, which I have not had the fortitude to show many people beyond friends and some former professors, could fit nicely into First Light’s mission.  This is exciting!

Could I get some more info about the rent and also how much space an artist could work with?

Best regards,

Quentin Bancroft

Hello Quentin;  What kind of work do you do?  Might you have some images that you can send via email to me?  The Gallery has several wall spaces available both full spaces and half spaces.  The full spaces are $130/month and there are two half spaces–one is $75 and one is $65. A full space person works a full day each week, May thru Christmas and a half-space person works a half-day each weeik.  I don’t accept work on consignment.  Artists set their own prices and organize their own space, with help from me.  There is no commission taken by the Gallery–artists receive the full price of any sales, except for a credit card fee.  Artists pay their own sales tax and need to get a sales certificate .  The only day that is avialable at this time is Tuesday although Sunday might be an option too.  I am interviewing several other artists at this time.  Work needs to be professional and high quality. and I need to see it in person.

Let me know if you have quesitons.  I am available this Saturday to look at your work.  Thanks for your interest in the Gallery.  You might check out our web seen web site at www.***.me.

Lucinda

From QB to Lucinda

Lucinda,

Thanks so much for the prompt reply.    I really have the mental wheels in motion for this right now and I so value the opportunity to get creative.

My work probably falls into the ‘other fine crafts’ area that you mention in the ad.  I think I would probably be interested in a full space.  Actually, I would definitely need one to accommodate my artistic vision.  I am working with the current political climate and state of global affairs in mind set against an inherently American craftwork background with use of materials from my own property.  It’s sort of an installation piece.

I have constructed five (5) mini waterboarding tables and tanks in protest of the use of torture in recent years by the CIA.  Each table has a live mole strapped to it (caught in my very own garden).  The moles take on a double meaning – firstly, that of the ‘espionage’ mole that our government uses to first gain access to and information from nefarious foreign entities, only to sometimes be caught in a trap once CIA funding is removed; secondly, as the ‘bastard’ moles that keep eating my kale and carrots, no matter how much arsenic I dump down their escape tunnels, and they are eventually caught in my Have-A-Heart trap.

Where does the ‘American craftwork’ come into play, you ask?  Here’s the coup!  The bags used to cover the moles’ heads during waterboarding are hand-sewn by yours truly using organic cotton.  I then lord over the entire installation in a pinstriped suit wearing a Donald Rumsfeld mask.  I could drop the mask if you think the customers might find it a little freaky.  Almost forgot…is there access to tap water at the gallery?

I would send you images of my prototype but the last time I went in for a close-up one of the moles bit me and I dropped my digital camera in the waterboarding tank.  So, I could invite you over to view the setup in my garage just to make sure it seems like it will fit into the gallery space-wise.  Sounds like Saturday is good for you?  How perfect…the 4th of July!!

Going forward I would probably take the Tuesday coverage in the gallery.  My pinochle game meets on Sundays anyway.

This is going to be so great.

Q.

From Lucinda to QB

Hello:  Although this sounds very creative and imaginative I don’t think it is appropriate for the gallery.  We have a focus on the inspiring and constructive rather than the political and deconstructive.  Perhaps you could interest a museum or a political organization in your work.

Thanks for your interest in the Gallery.

Lucinda

We just finished a recording of Blackout Beach, a surf song about torture. Arjun, the esteemed Kamina, performed double duty on drums and guitars. He also produced the song at the Rays’ household, which was amazing. The studio has all the gear, without any of the headaches of hourly charges and rented equipment.

The song was written to promote the Stephanie Skier play, Water Boarding. Details and lyrics are here:

Listen to the song Blackout Beach on our myspace

From the play’s bio
This world premiere of the original play Water Board: a play about torture aims to create awareness and discussion about waterboarding as a form of torture. Through live action performance, integrated video, original music and dialogue with the audience, this breathtaking show explores the contemporary politics and history of simulated drowning. The play engages audience members in a conversation that struggles with what it means to live under a government that practices and condones torture.

Lyrics

Kicking and screaming,
you strapped me down, held my feet over my head,
covered my face, do you love me?

Do I look the same as all the others?
why me and not another?
Do I look good with my face covered?
To you?

The Water’s crashing – Now please forget me
you’ve soaked my skull out

Pull me up Pull me up Pull me up

Maybe I’ll survive to be forgotten,
maybe they’ll my stuff my nose up with cotton,
will they feed me again… through the tube?
the tube?

The walls are all kind of changing colors,
I’ve gathered buckets of bugs and weeds from the flowers,
Is that you mother? No – not you. Not you…

The Water’s crashing – Now please forget me
you’ve soaked my skull out
who am I? who am I?

Pull me up Pull me up Pull me up

I must be jesus look what I’m coughing up,
I’m turning blood to water – yeah. That’s what he does,
does it mean a thing, to you? to you?