My blog buddy King last week….
What our media hasn't bothered to tell you is that the early interrogation and Enhanced Interrogation Techniques (EIT's) used against terrorist monsters like al-Nashiri, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, and Abu Zubaydah worked, just like former VP Dick Cheney said they did. Cheney was ridiculed endlessly for saying that, but the CIA IG report leaves no doubt.
Defenders of America's use of cruel and illegal torture tactics cling to the thread of their own devisings that "torture worked". Led by The Dick, many conservatives have desperately sought justifications for the obvious illegalities of torture. It could be that conservative watchers of "24" have been convinced by Kiefer that torture is good and just…or it could be that conservatives don't want to admit that their Super-Patriotic Heroes committed war crimes, because then, THEY, would be shown to be mistaken.
Whatever the motivation might be, these torture defenders are anxious, even frenzied at times, to find something, anything, to defend their indefensible gibberish……they'll grasp for virtually anything that even remotely, on first glance, can be construed to support their position.
That's what King from All Da King's Men does in the above block quote. Look at his words. Torture, or the name given to torture by the easily-queasied, "Enhanced Interrogation Techniques", according to King's reading of the recent CIA report on interrogations, "worked." Here's King in his own words….
The EIT's worked, whether we like them or not.
It's odd that King is so cock-sure that the CIA's interrogation report leaves "no doubt" that torture "worked" to save American lives. Why? Because even Fran Townsend, George W. Bush's Terrorism Advisor said of the CIA's report….."the report doesn't say that."
The truth in 32 seconds….
Transcript of Fran Townsend's comment…
It’s very difficult to draw a cause and effect, because it’s not clear when techniques were applied vs. when that information was received. It’s implicit. It seems, when you read the report, that we got the — the — the most critical information after techniques had been applied. But the report doesn’t say that.
How it is that King sees words in the CIA report leaving "no doubt" that torture "worked" to save U.S lives….when the Bushie insider Townsend doesn't……will have to be taken up with King.
I realize that many conservative supporters of torture could give a sh*t whether torture "worked" or whether the CIA report leaves "no doubt" about the wonder-working salvation power of acting like savages……it just doesn't matter, according to some conservatives. Their defense of institutionalized American savagery is simply….'if America is doing it, it is the right, just, necessary and proper thing to do, because America, of all world countries, is singularly exceptional.'
So, there's that.
However, in King's case, I'm beginning to think a reading and comprehension dysfunction is at work. I can't be 100% sure, you understand…but it kinda, sorta, looks that way…..
Now, don't forget…..King said of the CIA report that there is "no doubt" that torture "worked."
From King's Fox News link included in All Da King's Men's August 25th posting….
It is not possible to say definitively that the waterboard is the reason for Abu Zubaydah's increased production, or if another factor, such as the length of detention, was the catalyst. Since the use of the waterboard, however, Abu Zubaydah has appeared to be cooperative.
With respect to A-Nashiri, [redacted] reported two waterboard sessions in November 2002, after which the psychologist/interrogators determined that Al-Nashiri was compliant….Because of the litany of techniques used by different interrogators over a relatively short period of time, it is difficult to identify exactly why Al-Nashiri became more willing to provide information.
King has "no doubt" that the CIA report proves that torture "worked." The report from which King quoted, however, actually says, "…it's not possible to say definitively…", and, "….it is difficult to identify exactly…."
So…is it a reading and comprehension problem? Is it a wishful thinking problem? What is it that motivates some conservatives and libertarians to not be able to read and comprehend relatively clear language?
This CIA report reading and comprehension discussion can serve as a case study for the larger information wars that have blanketed America for a number of years.
It also helps in understanding how it was that America could so easily be talked into attacking Iraq, a non-threatening country that had done absolutely nothing to warrant being attacked and occupied by U.S forces for going on 7 years now.
It's all about deception……self-imposed because of comprehension in reading problems and wishful thinking, partisan blindness…..or gullibility. I'll leave it to others to determine which form of deception applies here.
Postscript: I just remembered another oddity. Ms. Condi Rice told the 9-11 Commission that Junior Leader didn't want to "swat at flies" in the months leading up to 9-11. Now we know why. The deviants of the Bush administration preferred catching anything that could be characterized as a "fly", and as many youthful deviants would prefer, torturing those flies by tearing wings and legs off one at a time. So there's that.
And there's also this….
Cheney thinks it was a sterling success when it came to national security and counter-terrorism. Perhaps there's something to this. After all, except for the catastrophic events of 9/11, and the anthrax attacks against Americans, and terrorist attacks against U.S. allies, and the terrorist attacks against U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, and Bush's inability to capture those responsible for 9/11, and waging an unnecessary war that inspired more terrorists, and the success terrorists had in exploiting Bush's international unpopularity, the Bush/Cheney record on counter-terrorism was awesome.
{ 21 comments… read them below or add one }
Did someone mention my name ?
The Rev has done an inferior job of trying to separate the truth from the facts. I hope nobody is fooled. If you read the entire CIA IG report from 2004, it leaves little doubt that the CIA's interrogation methods outed many terrorists and prevented many terrorist attacks. They saved numerous lives. Those are the facts, no matter how much the Rev attempts to spin them. The report mentions plot after plot that was thwarted, terrorist after terrorist that was captured. All that means absolutely nothing to the Reverend, because he is an extremist bent on perverting American interests. Therefore, he engages in deception. He goes so far as to advocate for preserving the civil rights of the mastermind of 9/11, Khalid Shaikh Mohammeda, who killed nearly 3,000 Americans in one day. Make no mistake about who is defending whom. Make no mistake about who the Reverend thinks is the enemy, and who the Reverend thinks is a patriot. The enemy is Bush. The people the Reverend is standing up for are Al Qaeda. Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, Abu Zubaydah, al-Nashiri, these are the people the Reverend stands up to defend, even as he calls George W. Bush a Nazi, torturing criminal. What kind of person could possibly think in these terms ? The Reverend stands up for the human rights of the people who want to murder us, and he condemns the people who are trying to keep us safe.
This is the warped thinking at work here.
This is King's response…."it leaves little doubt that the CIA's interrogation methods outed many terrorists and prevented many terrorist attacks."
Torture is a legal issue. Whether torture "works" has become the sideshow of the neo-cons, and, apparently, also libertarians like King. The CIA's IG report, as I noted, nowhere says specifically that by torturing, the CIA got critically valuable information that saved lives. That's what the Bushie Townsend said too.
So, now, with the sideshow debunked, perhaps conservatives and you know, centrists, can deal with the legal issue……..like they were so hellbent to do when Bill Clinton had an intern girlfriend. "It wasn't the sex, it was the lie"….Jesus.
Torture is illegal, waterboarding is torture, Bush-Cheney ordered waterboarding, and The Dick, at least, is mighty goddamn proud of it, defiant even.
People torture other people to get them to say what they want them to say. If you don't understand that, you don't understand anything about this issue. Cheney wanted them to say stuff about Iraq. They didn't have any info connecting Iraq…..so KSM made a bunch of stuff up while they were waterboarding him 180 times in 30 days…and then the FBI wasted a whole bunch of value f*cking time and resources tracking the made up sh*t down. That's what the f*ck happened. That's what KSM told intelligence officials.
Torture works to coerce false confessons. That is it's very purpose. Torture is illegal, violates treaties and conventions against torture the U.S signed on to, and domestically, waterboarding a prisoner got a sheriff 10 years in prison. Those are the facts, not some made up "torture works" sideshow. The Cheney Torture Freakshow is NOT vindicated in any way by this IG's report.
Now, those who do not have a clue about what's been going on because of conservative media and Fox propaganda, or simply because of ignorant biases, point their finger at me for stating the facts, accusing me of being a friend and sympathizer of al-Qaeda's bunch.
King, like many others, is confused about what is the crux of the issue regarding torture. Torture isn't about the enemy, it's not about al-Qaeda guys…..it's about us. It's about us because fidelity to laws and the Constitution are on the line with the torture issue. Separation of powers is very much at stake if this torture faux- legal regime stands. And it's about who we are as a people. Life ain't "24"…..that's ridiculous. We don't value savagery, at least we didn't. That's Hollywood, not reality.
If wanting the government to not savagely torture defenseless detainees because it's a violation of law and the Constitution and because it, you know, is inhumanely savage,…if that means I'm "standing up for KSM and Bin Ladin and Zubaydah"….then I don't know what to tell you.
I have no idea where you went off the track on this issue. Your take here on torture is very much like your take on defending the lawlessness associated with Cheney and Scooter's outing of a CIA agent.
They tell me that once you go lawless, you never go back….so, you know, I'm concerned.
Someone woke up John McCain, who sleeps on one of the cots he rotates amongst the Sunday talk shows, this time to appear on "Face the Nation" (8/31/09).
Sayeth McCain:
“I think the interrogations were in violation of the Geneva Conventions and the Convention Against Torture that we ratified under President Reagan.”
“I think these interrogations helped al-Qaeda recruit,” McCain said yesterday, adding: “the damage that it did to America’s reputation in the world we’re still on the way to repairing.”
At http://washingtonindependent.com/57121/mccain-admits-bush-administration-violated-international-law Daphne Eviatar asks:
"Now, once you acknowledge that the CIA, at the direction of senior cabinet officials, violated international humanitarian law that requires the United States to prosecute the perpetrators, the only way to justify not investigating is to say that the executive branch of government is above the law — or, put more pragmatically, that it’s politically too messy to investigate senior leaders in the U.S. government.
Republicans didn’t hesitate to investigate when it involved Democratic President Bill Clinton, however, or to bring charges against him for lying about a personal matter. And Congress didn’t turn its backs on the Iran-Contra scandal during the Reagan administration, which led to 14 senior officials charged with crimes, and 11 convictions. And of course the Watergate affair led to the indictment and conviction of senior Nixon administration officials, and impeachment charges against the president. Congressional investigations of sitting and past administrations are far from unprecedented.
So how does McCain explain why we ought to forget the whole torture problem — which led to the deaths of a still-unknown number of detainees in custody, some of whom the CIA still can’t account for — even as he acknowledges that it violated international treaties that legally obligate us to prosecute?"
I don't give a damn what we do to them. CIA Attackers – Self-deceived, gullible – or treasonous?
I don't see anyone defending torture. What I see is people expanding the definition of torture for political gain.
Perhaps by calling second hand smoke torture, we are not supposed to notice how unprepared this group is to lead.
Maybe if we call putting a caterpillar in someones cell torture, no one will notice how many election promises we have already broken. (transparency, no lobbyists on staff, putting science first, etc.)
Maybe if we call a water boarding torture, no one will notice just exactly how much we have stolen from future generation.
Do not forget that the Geneva Convention would allow us to try virtually all of detainees as spies for fighting a war while not being in uniform. And then executing them after finding them guilty.
Yep. We can kill them, but we can't pour water on a towel over their faces.
And the EIT's did work, no matter what the Reverend says. It says so in the report he is trying so hard to avoid. If we wanted to have an honest conversation on this subject, we'd have to start by admitting the EIT's worked and stopped terrorist attacks. That's why the Reverend won't admit that. He doesn't want to have an honest conversation. As always, his sole interest is to demonize those he disagrees with.
Bzzzzzzp says….
"I don't see anyone defending torture. What I see is people expanding the definition of torture for political gain."
"Maybe if we call a water boarding torture, no one will notice just exactly how much we have stolen from future generation."
Not maybe anything. This ain't about assigning new definitions to words. The phrase…"water boarding" was understood in the 80's as a felony crime punishable in one sheriff's case by 10 years in prison. The definition and meaning reamins the same as back then….the only thing that's changed is the mindset of lawless conservatives seeking to justify felonies if Republicans order them committed.
N.E. Frye goes after those who want to uphold the law…
"I don't give a damn what we do to them. CIA Attackers – Self-deceived, gullible – or treasonous?"
"CIA attackers??" What in the world?
N.E……is it your belief that the CIA should follow orders to violate existing law and the Constitution? If a president orders something to be done, does that in itself make what's been ordered legal….and therefore immune from American law?
And if you really believe this, then you realize that you are giving Obama carte blanche to order the "disappearing" of American conservatives and Republicans…you know, for national security purposes? Do you recognize that?
Because if the president is above all law when it comes to national security issues, then NOTHING Obama orders to be carried out would be in violation of anything. Are you all for Obama having this power?
How about other conservatives who defend presidential orders to illegally kidnap and torture people? Do conservatives understand that in their defense of the indefensible, they are defending ANYTHING Obama orders in the realm of national security?
Unless he captured a terrorist and waterboarded him, whether the sheriff was prosecuted back in the 80s is just a red herring, Reverend.
Rev says, "NOTHING Obama orders to be carried out would be in violation of anything."
So far, that's turned out to be exactly the case, and you support Obama on the majority of it.
Hey Rev, I just thought of a reason that waterboarding of terrorists is Constutional. It's YOUR reason. He did it for the "general welfare" of the American people. That's the excuse you use for every left-wing Constitutional violation that comes down the pike.
Yep, larry, it's a red herring. Because, you know, when jurisprudence is being crried out, precedence is never considered.
Your brilliant analysis, however, wasn't shared by the Republican of all Republicans, Ronald Reagan. Do you thing Reagan's miscue was because of the early onslaught of alzheimer's? Or was Reagan's signing of the Torture Convention a shrewd plan to fool the enemies of America, you know, Democrats?
Reagan must be the talking point of the last couple days on Kos or something as I've been seeing it everywhere, Reverend. It reeks of desperation.
I can imagine a sheriff was once charged with murder for shooting someone. Does this mean that our military cannot use guns?
larry, it just reeks.
larry,
I think this marks the first time the libs have ever agreed with Reagan.
Historic.
Honest to god….you guys actually believe that what our people did was proper?
Do you, cross your freaking heart swear, that you believe America should torture people?
No, I don't think America should torture people.
Why can't you agree that Americans should not redefine torture for political gain?
Rev says, "you guys actually believe that what our people did was proper?"
War is hell, Rev. I won't say what we did was proper. It was pretty awful, but 9/11 was a lot more awful. We had to do everything we could to prevent another one. I have a hard time standing up for the civil rights of the very people who pulled that massacre off, as you do. That feels…….wrong. Now we know the EIT's thwarted other terrorist plots (I've actually known that for years, but it was good to see it in an official report). Now you want to prosecute the people who thwarted those plots. I don't feel too good about that.
"Why can't you agree that Americans should not redefine torture for political gain?"
That's the point of investigations and prosecutions, right? To find out whether the Bushies "redefined torture for political gains." It's obvious that's what happened. Cheney told Yoo what to write to "legalize" torture and then ordered the CIA to torture detainees to obtain false confessions connecting Saddam with al-Qaeda. Cheney, as he was when Joe Wilson challenged him, was hellbent to justify his fraudulent scheme. He's ruthless, he outed Joe's wife to send a warning message to potential whistleblowers. The torture was all part of Cheney's cover-up. Torture produces unreliable information, because the freaking purpose of torture is to get the person to say what you want them to.
Cheney is the worst treasonous criminal in my lifetime.
An honorable person would say it is wrong to redefine torture for political gain, period.
An honorable knucklehead would say it is wrong to redefine torture for political gain, but that is not what I'm doing here.
But you are just a kool-aid drinker. This is what they told you to think and no facts can get in the way.
What it is,…..bzzzp….is illegal. "Redefining" laws on torture is the job of the Congress. Congress makes new laws, Presidents carry out those laws. Presidents can't hire lawyers to write-up new laws….that would be American tyranny.
Political manuevers are political manuevers…..breaking the law is breaking the law. Distinguishing between the two is what conservatives are trying to keep from happening.