September 8, 2006

The Torturer in Chief

Sorry to my SBC friends--I know that many of you have internalized the Bush mantra that any criticism of King George constitutes aiding the enemy, but you have to at sometime acknowledge that your "godly man" allowed, as approved policy, techniques that would make you sick. Now, thanks to the Military (certainly with no assistance from the real torturer, the Vice Torturer, as it were) our military will not do certain things:
"Extracting information from terrorists who may know about future attacks is vital to the security of the United States, said Bush. But the rules, at least on the battlefield, have changed.

To begin with, a number of interrogation techniques are no longer to be used. Among those are forcing detainees to strip naked, to perform sexual acts or pose in a sexual manner, said Lt. Gen. John F. Kimmons, the Army's deputy chief of staff for intelligence. These were techniques used in the now infamous Abu Ghraib prison in Baghdad.

Hoods or sacks, as were placed over the faces of the Abu Ghraib detainees, can no longer be placed over the heads of detainees. Nor can duct tape be strapped over their eyes. Prisoners may not be beaten, submitted to shock with electricity or threatened with mock executions.

Water boarding, which simulates the sensation of drowning, is also now forbidden, as is exposing detainees to extreme temperatures -- hot or cold. Prisoners may not be deprived of food, water and medical care, and dogs cannot be used in interrogations of suspects."

My most recent vocal critic said that what had been called torture, was actually not torture, but inconvenience. You know, like having to listen to Bill O'Reilly without the benefit of a mute button or remote. My SBC friend was convinced that liberals were manufacturing this all, because all that was happening to these evil terrorists were things like "sleep deprivation." You know, like having to listen to Rush Limbaugh, or reading Ann Coulter and then trying to sleep.

Yeah, as it turns out, our people were doing nice things like waterboarding, inducing hypothermia, witholding medical care, allowing inmates to die. These were not the hijinks of a few warped Army underlings, but the organized policy of an administration that thinks they are right, therefore anything to get them to right is ok. After all, if you are getting your orders from God, torturing a few terrorists (or potential terrorists--or innocent Muslims--who the hell can tell the difference, right?) is pretty small potatoes.

I am running out of "sighs."

1 comment:

Tony said...

I have been watching your blog for a while now, mainly to inform my own ignorance as to this whole torture issue. I have been waiting to form my own opinion and yet to have a clearly defined one. But I felt I needed to share several quotes with you from our local podunk newspaper (that we get only 3x a week :).

"'I cannot describe the specific methods used-I think you can understand why.' Bush said in the East Room, where families of some of those who died in the Sept. 11 attacks heartily applauded him when he promised to finally bring the perpertrators to justice." I want the terrorists brought to justice too, but the fact stands that the Bush admin has yet to prosecute a single terrorist.

"Bush denied that detainees were tortured but said the CIA had used 'tough' interrogation techniques to divulge intelligence." Is there really a difference?

"'This program has been and remians one of the most vital tools in our war against the terrorists,' Bush said." egad

"Bush insisted that detainees were not tortured." Were they or not?

"The Supreme Court ruled that prisoner protections spelled out by the Geneva Conventions should extend to members of al-Qaeda." So, al-Qaeda have reached human status?

"It's important to remember these defendants are not common criminals," said Senate majority Whip Mitch McConnell, "Rather, many are terrorists, sworn enemies of the United States." What if American soldiers were treated the way it is supposed the CIA and army have treated current detainees?

"But Democrates and GOP moderates warned that the plan would set a dangerous precedent." Senator Graham (R-SC) clarified, "Would I be comfortable with an American service member going to jail with evidence they never saw?"

"'We're not interrogating now because CIA officials feel like the rules are so vague that they cannot interrogate without being tried as war criminals, and that's irresponsible,' Bush said."Who, the CIA or the detainees?

I could go on and on, but none of this is new to you anyway. I'm just trying to make sense of it all. My head is spinning.