"Every one of us can imagine the following scenario: We get lucky; we get the No. 3 guy in al-Qaida, and we know there's a big bomb going off in America in three days and this guy knows where it is. We have the right and the responsibility to beat it out of him." – former President Bill Clinton, September 2006.
We now know that such a statement makes Bill Clinton an international criminal, worse than Hitler. There's no room in new American "soft power" for people like Bill Clinton these days. Bubba was all about hard power, with an emphasis on the word "hard," to which a certain White House intern (and many others) can attest. But that's a different story.
We no longer allow President's like Bill Clinton to get their hard on. Now we're for limp power, because it's nicer and less threatening. When it comes to interrogating top-level Al Qaeda operatives like Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, it's now a national imperative that we salt peter our aggressiveness into submission, regardless of the circumstances or consequences. As our new President has told us, there are other ways to get terrorists to talk. Our new President has banned all harsh interrogation techniques. For your edification, I thought I'd reveal some of the new "soft" interrogation techniques, which will undoubtedly be very effective. Here are the new "effective" techniques, according to a reliable unnamed source who knows someone who's cousin lived next door to Barack Obama's half-sister:
- After a terrorist refuses to divulge an imminent terrorist plot, the interrogator may threaten to "give the terrorist such a pinch." The interrogator may not under any circumstances follow through on the threat, because that would be torture.
- The interrogator may threaten to withhold the terrorist's milk and cookie nighttime snack, though deprivation of an entire meal is disallowed as cruel and unusual.
- The terrorist may be forced to stand on one leg for up to 20 seconds, unless the terrorist doesn't really want to. He may not be physically forced to do it. We're not barbarians, you know.
- The terrorist may be made to listen to an entire Barry Manilow album, but only at a moderate volume.
- The interrogator may appeal to the terrorist's moral sense by asking "what would Jesus do ?," as long as the interrogator also asks "what would Allah, Buddha, Shiva, Moses, and Elron Hubbard do ?," so as not to engage in religious discrimination. The name Mohammed must not be uttered ever by the interrogator, because the interrogator is an infidel.
- The interrogator may apologize for America. This can be done in an unqualified manner.
- The terrorist may be sleep deprived for up to 16 hours, after which he must get his required 8 hours of sleep.
- The interrogator may engage the terrorist in a vigorous game of Fish, and may laugh derisively (but not excessively) after telling the terrorist to "go fish."
- The terrorist's cell temperature may be dropped to 64 degrees Fahrenheit until the terrorist complains that he's getting a little chilly.
- Terrorists may be made to wear a funny hat and/or a Groucho Marx mask for up to one hour on "casual friday" at Guantanamo Bay.
- The interrogator may blow cigar smoke in a terrorist's face for 5 seconds, provided the interrogation is taking place in a designated smoking section outdoors, at least 10 feet from the prison building.
- The interrogator may tell the terrorist his coffee came from Starbuck's, but after the terrorist drinks it, the interrogator may reveal, "Ha ! It's really from McDonald's !"
- While the terrorist is asleep, the interrogator may put shaving cream on the terrorist's hand, and then tickle the terrorist's nose with a feather, causing the terrorist embarassment when he smears shaving cream all over his face in an effort to stop the tickling. This method is to be used only on the very top Al Qaeda operatives, due to the irreparable psychological trauma it might inflict.
- Terrorists may be made to do the Chicken Dance for up to 5 minutes, but only during a wedding reception.
- If all else fails, the interrogator may threaten to reinstall George W. Bush as the American president.
Update – The Obama Office of Legal Counsel has informed me that last technique is banned, because though it might actually work, it will cause undue mental stress for terrorists.
P.S. – House Speaker Nancy Pelosi knows absolutely nothing about these new interrogation techniques, unless they prove to be politically popular, in which case she had significant input into designing them.
{ 34 comments… read them below or add one }
waterboarding is torture. do you disagree? we EXECUTED japanese soldiers who waterboarded americans in WW II. do you think that was wrong? do you think the japanese soldiers who did that should not have been prosecuted? are you so delusional to think that a (relatively) small, loose confederacy of terrorists poses a bigger threat to us that the combined axis powers of WW II? because that is obviously what you think if you think we should now commit torture. see, unlike you conservative cultists, i don't care if EVERY democrat in america said what clinton said in the quote you have at the beginning of your idiotic post. they would be wrong. and i would say so.
i love how you conservative cultists claim to love the military and supposedly honor our past. you clearly don't if you support bush & cheney's torture regime. because "the greatest generation" OPPOSED those things you now laud. were they wrong? was nuremberg wrong? the geneva conventions? do you think the "greatest generation" were naive? or maybe you think they were stupid?
and do you think you know more about torture than the FBI? because they CATEGORICALLY say it does not work. but, hey, you've watched "24" so you CLEARLY know more than some namby-pamby FBI agent, right?
looking forward to your answers to these questions….
oh and very salient point about nancy pelosi. now, of course, it would have been COMPLETELY ILLEGAL for her to say one word about whatever she may or may not have been briefed on. but i guess you were just ignorant of that fact. i mean, there's no way anyone who actually knew that fact would try to be so intellectually dishonest as to try and blame her for not doing something illegal, right?
KJ – Watch drinking the Lib cool-aid. It makes you sound like you didn't do your own research on the subject and you just listened to and decided to spread what the Dems and ACLU liars programed you to say. The Japanese soldiers were not executed for waterboarding. Here read the real story. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_war_crimes You will find that you were lied to again by your party. Waterboarding was the least of the prisoners worry.
Bush and Cheny won't be charged with crimes because 1. what they did wasn't illegal or against a law. They trying to protect your family. 2. they will have to then investigate everyone and the democrats have too much to hide as they are big, lying hypocrits. But they will feed the BS to their drones like you to keep you pissed off and loyal "to the cause."
Oh ,and no it wouldn't have been illegal for Pelosi to speak out. She had to choose to go along with the flow or hurt her political career. She chose to turn her head and ignor what was happening, why? Because it wasn't illegal. It would have cost her, her "in" with the power crowd. It should cost her, her house position. What conspiracy theory websites are you reading? WHy are you so mad? It's tough to talk like that and be totally wrong.
It's ugly to use the idea of torture to grind partisan axes, kj. I know Obama and Pelosi do it too, but it's very disrespectful to the real victims of actual torture.
kj, it is nice that you turned up as one of the 65% that still are fooled by the blame Bush bunch that are in control of our national government. Is there a chance that you really do believe what they tell you on a daily basis about torture and what it entails? I'll bet there is at least one chance and you take it.
averagejoe5,
So Bush and Cheney are innocent yet the Democrats have to fear the disclosure of their own involvement?
Once again the two sides are coming from two different starting points. Those that defend the actions believe that the US faces a real ongoing threat from people that are intent on commiting acts of violence against us on our soil. Many libs such as Connie Schultz of the PD believe that anyone who believes we are in danger from an imminent attack is not dealing in reality. Since those that disagaree with the libs are not based in reality any objection to their line of reasoning is automaticaly of no value. I agree with many of their assertions on a purely academic and/or liberal interepetation of existing laws. However I would like to think that the next time we are the victim of a well financed and well organized act of terror that many of these people will modify their views
larry d.,
But, larry, it wasn't torture, remember? So your concern for any "victims" is misplaced. We don't torture, that would be illegal and since we are the good guys, we simply use "enhanced techniques".
wow, average joe. a wikipedia article? classic rebuttal…
try this, instead: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2007/dec/18/john-mccain/history-supports-mccains-stance-on-waterboarding/
look to the far right (ha! irony) of the page and you'll see they site THREE sources. game, set & match, wingnut…
and yes, it would have been ILLEGAL for pelosi or anyone briefed on things that were classified to come and talk about it publicly.
larry d., you show by your comment that you didn't read my post at all. or at least not thoroughly. i said "i don't care if EVERY democrat in america said what clinton said in the quote you have at the beginning of your idiotic post. they would be wrong. and i would say so." so, actually when it comes to this FUNDAMENTAL issue i am utterly non-partisan. if any dem, repub, indy, whig, greenparty or whatever is for torture, then i am against them.
btw, i find it funny but not surprising how none of the commenters here have deigned to comment on the findings of the FBI that torture doesn't work or have the courage of their convictions to say that the men in power during the "greatest generation" were wrong to sign the geneva conventions and prosecute waterboarders. come on, step up. tell your father's and grandfather's they were WRONG. do you have the guts?
No Frank, Why open a can of worms when it's better to leave it on the shelf.
KJ-Why is pelosi lying about not knowing what happened? Typical lying lib. Why didn't she tell someone about it? She didn't because it would have ruined her career. She could have done many things, resigned from the position, leaked the info to the press to bring it to our attention. She had every opportunity but she decided to let it go and ignor the fact. So it was worth it to her to let a murderer get waterboarded? It would not have been illegal because apparently the govt was breaking the law.
Also I didn't say they didn't waterboard. However, there were much worse things done to the prisoners than waterboarding. Read the article. But you will believe the lib spin, drone.
Oh and thanks for the links. Couldn't you quote something or someone better than conspiracy theorists or someone selling a book? How about doing some real investigating and coming to a decision instead of just going along with what they tell you to believe.
Do you think it was worse to waterboard? or to do some of these things? Electrocution, beheading, amputation, starving, not providing clothes, drowning, pulling off fingernails, starving and not giving water, scalping, firing squads, burying injured prisoners alive, pullling bones out of their sockets and breaking bones. Do you think some of those other thinks may have carried more weight than waterboarding?
I love it when a commenter like kj steps in and does most of my work for me.
And good work he, or she, did. Bravo.
King was trying to provoke….and he was successful. King isn't really for torture…..he's simply trying to make the torture that Bush ordered seem trivial, you know, like Rush did when he said it was like frat-boy hazing.
The reason King trivialized torturing other human beings is because he knows what will happen to the conservative movement if torture is treated as the national and international crime that it is. Hell might freeze over before we had another GOP president.
If other countries ordered the torture of our American soldiers, then King would want them all hung. And therein lies the problem.
Don't forget, the modern American conservative movement, unlike at any other time, not only believes that if the president does something, by definition it's never illegal…..but also, if America does ANYTHING,….arbitrarily invade sovereign nations, wiretap American citizens, kidnap innocent people, be the only industrialized nation that doesn't offer it's citizens health care, whatever you might think of…..it's not only the right thing to do, it's the most exceptional thing that can be done.
It's the damnest thing.
Today's conservatives only know two things. Taxes need cut….and….America, alone, is exceptional.
One of kj's links was to what John McCain, most likely a total RINO, said about torturers and what we did to them…..but see?….the torturers weren't Americans. Makes all the difference in the world. It is that kind of thinking that created the f*cked up mess we're in right now.
I said 'real victims' and 'real torture,' frank.
kj, you are right I missed the disclaimer. On every other point you are just as confused as frank is, however.
kj,
The world you describe never existed. Nazi prisoners were badly mistreated during WWII. Many were literally starved to death in camps across Europe. I think you'd call that torture, but then again, maybe you wouldn't. As I recall, most liberals were strongly in favor of Terry Schiavo being starved and dehydrated to death. I don't think we got any actionable intelligence from Miss Schiavo either.
Churchill tortured Nazis too.
http://hnn.us/roundup/entries/80642.html
And how about the tens of thousands of Japanese who died slowly from radiation poisoning following Hiroshima and Nagasaki ? They suffered far more than any terrorists at Gitmo ever will. It's war. It's ugly.
We didn't execute the Japanese for waterboarding either. Waterboarding was among the least of their offenses. At the Tokyo war crimes trials, there were about 57 counts against the Japanese commanders. None specifically mentioned waterboarding, and the charges were mostly for engaging in crimes against humanity for attacking other countries and waging war. Saying we executed the Japanese for waterboarding is like saying we executed Timothy McVeigh for parking illegally.
And the last four CIA chiefs ALL admit we got high-value intelligence from the enhanced interrogation techniques. George Tenet even said those techniques yielded more intelligence that all our other efforts combined. Obama's National Intelligence Director, Dennis Blair, said we gained valuable intelligence, and Obama himself has even said it in so many words.
http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/1016083/Ex-CIA-head-says-waterboarding–works-
But thanks for all that "wingnut" and "cult" talk. I always enjoy that. I didn't know the Reverend gave lessons.
Rev says, "If other countries ordered the torture of our American soldiers, then King would want them all hung"
What do you mean IF other countries tortured American soldiers ? Name me a country or group that HASN'T tortured American soldiers while at war against us.
Rev says, "Today's conservatives only know two things. Taxes need cut….and….America, alone, is exceptional."
Untrue. Conservatives also know that federal spending needs to be reduced.
Liberals, by contrast, know that prosperity is achieved by taxing and spending until the citizens have hardly anything left and the prices of everything are through the roof. It's a mental disorder, really. I call it LDD, Liberal Dissociative Disorder.
I'm also wondering how it's possible to look at the 20th century and then conclude America isn't exceptional. I guess with LDD, anything is possible.
I don't really want to step in when King is so thoroughly beating down multiple people… but did KJ say that the greatest generation signed the Geneva Conventions? I always thought those were signed around the 1860s.
pdt – you are right the conventions were started in the late 1800's and have had ammendments added since.
larry d.,
Oh, you mean real victims and real torture. I thought you were talking about the fake ones. You know, the 100 or so "detainees" who have died in custody. Because, the Army only wants to prosecute 35 or so as murders and manslaughter. Or the people who were "detained" and renditioned to all those oversea prisons, just to avoid the overcrowding in our jails, not to be tortured. Now, as far as using torture for grinding political axes, you might note that Obama and Pelosi fervently hope that this issue will just go away. You might also note Bush and Cheney ordered these measures to obtain political cover for their crimes.
average joe5,
While I suspect Pelosi of covering her butt, surely you can recognize the dissonance to insist that Bush and Cheney have nothing to hide, but Pelosi does. If you feel that Bush and Cheney's methods were warranted, then you should praise Pelosi for not preventing them and ensuring that they were not impeached.
Mr. King,
You seem to be repeating a lot from O'Reilly. Are you sure you want to use him as a source?
The concept of American exceptionalism has nothing to do with accomplishments. It is the concept that, for America, the rules don't apply, because either it's God's will, or because the glory of "spreading democracy" justifies whatever actions we take. It is this hypocrisy that fuels the anger of our enemies. As long as we, as a country, show the inability to put ourselves in other people's shoes to judge the actions taken in our name by our government, we will remain a target of terrorists.
kj,
Welcome to the Blog of Cognitive Dissonance.
Why would I praise her. If she would have stood up and said something at the time I would give her some respect. What she is doing is lying by not saying she knew anything about the waterboarding, just so she doesn't look bad. I would like to see what she would say under oath, Bush and Cheney and Reid and all of the other washington characters also.
She has lambasted the Bush Administration for 6 years about the war. Today she praised the war effort and what it is going to do for the fine people of Iraq. Hasn't Bush been saying the same thing? Or does it only count when a Socialist says it? Why is she there? Photo ops? The Dems are falling apart and more and more of their hypocrisy is showing.
Ordered what measures, frank? You seem a little unstrung here.
I know torture is a 'feel good' issue for you, but I won't be able to follow unless you take a more rational approach.
larry d.,
The measures we have been discussing here are torture (enhanced techniques), larry. Please pay better attention. Opposing our government's use of torture doesn't make me "feel good". It simply amazes me that people are so scared that torture, even against American citizens, is deemed to be not only acceptable, but a source of humor. How do I take a "more rational approach"? What makes me seem "a little unstrung"? Do you dispute anything I wrote, or is this just another two sentence snark to make yourself feel clever?
averagejoe5,
I'm only suggesting that Pelosi's lack of action on the torture issue enabled Bush and Cheney. Since you seem to support their actions, you should feel that Pelosi did the right thing on this issue. For what it's worth, IMHO, the Democratic Leadership Council, Pelosi included, are nearly as bad as the Republicans.
I want to add just one more thought to frank and kj's stellar work.
Pelosi knew, even if she knew Bush was torturing outright, that she couldn't do anything about it. If she had blown the whistle, she would have been arrested by the Bush administration….is there any doubt about that?
She wanted to impeach…BUT….she knew she didn't have enough votes in the Senate to get it done. The spectacle that would have ensued would have made the whole ordeal pointless.
What American citizens were tortured, frank? For that matter what foreign agents were? Just because you say it's so doesn't make it true.
It is a feel good issue for you and the Reverend. Your love object president is flushing our children's future down the toilet and you're grasping at straws to make it seem like things have changed for the better. It's ugly and a open fingered slap to the face of real torture victims the world over. Shame.
Defending Pelosi is a joke, Reverend. If they didn't need her support they wouldn't have briefed her.
larry d.,
How about John Walker Lindh? The government engineered a plea deal to hide the fact that he was tortured. How about Jose Padilla? Despite torturing him, the government never found any co conspirators to his dirty bomb "plot". Apparently, his brain is mush. I don't know if there are more. I doubt that the government would disclose who they hold and/or torture unless they had propaganda value.
I am far less tolerant of Pelosi and the cowardly Democratic leadership than the Rev. A real patriot would risk his or her career and even jail to have prevented these crimes. She deserves to pay the price, along with Bush and Cheney.
If you think that Obama is my "love object president", you haven't been paying attention. His campaign and his governmence so far has been centrist. The hopes of progressives and the fears of conservatives combined to give him an image much farther to the left than he deserved. So far, he has tried to evade his duty to hold Bush, Cheney, or anyone accountable for their actions, which are clearly illegal under US law, the UN charter, and various treaties we have signed. He has failed to address the causes of the failure of the financial system, relying on the same hacks whose policies resulted in the problem. His plan to leave Iraq has devolved to the point of being near to Bush's. So, although he is far better than Bush, he's far from being my "love object". In fact, I think his acceptance of the status quo in many instances to be his weakness.
I'd be interested in seeing some links establishing that the government tortured Lindh or Padilla. I'm sure some of your progressive hate sites will assume those two terrorists were tortured, but do you have any links from more reliable sources?
I'd be interested to know which of the ten enhanced interrogation techniques are considered torture by frank, kj, and the Rev. Is it just waterboarding, or others as well ?
frank says, "As long as we, as a country, show the inability to put ourselves in other people's shoes to judge the actions taken in our name by our government, we will remain a target of terrorists."
frank, you can't possibly believe that the terrorists are attacking us because of what happened at Gitmo. You know better than that, especially since there were so many terrorist attacks launched against us and many other countries before we were even holding terrorists at Gitmo. You're putting the cart before the horse.
We will be a target of terrorists until we do three things – 1) Stop supporting Israel, 2) remove all troops and military bases from the Middle East, and 3) become an Islamic caliphate. Those three conditions don't come from me, they come from Al Qaeda.
And about the Rev's contention that Pelosi would have been put in jail if she talked about the enhanced interrogation techniques…
There were tons of unauthorized disclosures of classified information during the Bush era. Name even one person who was put in jail over them. There weren't any.
Pelosi never even complained about waterboarding. She was on board with it, because the post 9/11 climate was that we'd do what it took to prevent another attack. Now, of course, the political climate is different, thus, so is Pelosi. She has no principles. Just another lying political hack looking for a partisan axe to grind.
As far as putting ourselves in others' shoes, I'd wager Islamic fundamentalists and terrorist groups hate us far more for the kind of navel-gazing, guilt-ridden narcissism this issue reflects than they ever would for torture.
They torture all the time and do what it takes to promote their self-interest. Pretending we are above the fray and insisting our moral code is universal are the worst kinds of exceptionalism and I'd guess foreigners of all stripes see right through it.
larry d.,
Why would you be interested in looking at any links when you've already rejected them as "hate" sites?
Mr King,
I don't recall Al Qaeda demanding that we become an Islamic caliphate. I could get by with the other two. And Bush complied with removing troops from Saudi Arabia.
I didn't say that terrorists are attacking us because of what happened at Gitmo. As you say, the attacks predate the torture. But the torture that occurred at Gitmo, Abu Gahraib, Afghanistan, and the "rendition" sites undoubtedly has been used as a motivation for recruitment an to maintain their anger.
But you missed my point entirely. What I am saying is that we routinely have done things like overthrow governments, democratic and otherwise. We presume the right to do to others things which we would find intolerable if we were on the receiving end. Is it any wonder that we continually have enemies? This is why we need to lose the concept of American exceptionalism. The whole world knows we were wrong to invade Iraq. The
whole world knows we were wrong to torture. Sometimes it seems that the only people in the world unable to recognize our government's duplicity is the American people.
frank,
Al Qaeda wants the whole world to become an Islamic caliphate. They say their religion demands it. Infidels must either be converted, killed, or enslaved. Which is exactly why Al Qaeda must be destroyed.
I was against the Iraq War, but I have a hard time saying we were wrong to overthrow Saddam Hussein, who wasn't known as The Butcher Of Baghdad for nothing. He was as bad as they come.
I was against the Iraq war for two reasons – 1) We were already fighting in Afghanistan and didn't need a diversion from the Al Qaeda target, and 2) the 'you break it, you own it' thinking of Colin Powell. I was afraid we'd create as many problems as we solved by taking down Saddam and become involved in a situation that it would be difficult to extricate ourselves from.
You seem to be advocating a protectionist, isolationist type of foreign policy. While I'm sympathetic with that position and wish it could be so, I don't really believe it can be, not in a nuclear world, not in a globalized world. The cold reality is that if America doesn't act against tyrants, nobody will act against tyrants, and if nobody acts, tyranny expands. Do we just stand by idly while the religious extremists in Iran gets nuclear weapons ? Do we stand by idly while Al Qaeda kills thousands and thousand of people ? Do we stand by idly if the Taliban overruns nuclear Pakistan ? Do we stand by idly if terrorists acquire nuclear weapons ? It just isn't possible nor responsible to do that.
Mr. King,
Yes, I would like to see us move closer to those sort of policies. Government's main duty is the defense of its people. I don't think all threats are military in nature. Our very existence is now threatened by economic policies.
I guess I would answer no to most if not all the scenarios that you described, but we don't need our military maintaining golf courses in Okinawa to deal with these threats.