America tortured.....those of us who thought the worst of Mr. Bush and company appear to be right..
April 24th 2009 02:06
Some of us never trusted Bush and company - some of us would listen to his twisted logic or hear the groanings of Cheney and knew. Yes, deep down, we knew they were bad. President Bush called the soldiers charged after the Abu Gharib debacle "a few bad apples." Truth is, the whole damn tree was rotten from the top.
Various torture techniques described in memos are more detailed and were far more prevalent in use than most Americans dared to imagine. Still, the diehards who would follow Bush off the proverbial cliff like good lemmings find excuses. They call the techniques "not torture." And in another twist of right wing logic, they claim the ends justify the means. If it isn't torture, what would it matter? Of course the end would justify the means, if the means were merely interrogation.
Of course that doesn't make sense. Because it IS torture, as defined by every sensible judge, jury, or government. Funny, our government had no problem calling waterboarding torture when trying Japanese who had performed it on Americans.
Personally, I would consider waterboarding a despicable torture. I love water, but I am not a very good swimmer, and have had to be rescued from near drowning twice in my life. I couldn't imagine going through that 186 times in a month. But my feelings aside, the consensus among civilized individuals and organizations is that waterboarding is indeed torture. Not to mention the other "enhanced" tactics.
And now it looks like those tactics were introduced early and often. Even before the memos of legal opinion (or schill lawyers issuing a blanket justification for something everyone knew was wrong) were written, all the higher-ups of import in the Bush Administration had already jumped aboard the torture train. And for real, actionable information?
No. It looks like, especially in light of the timing of the extraordinary use of waterboarding, that they were looking for someone to tell them Iraq and Al Qaeda were involved with each other. Any expert on torture will tell you that eventually the person being tortured will tell you what they think you want to hear. And that, sadly enough, is what evidence as pointing to as the reason for the torture in the first place.
It's easy for cowards like Sean Hannity or Mark Levin to rant about how it's comparable to fraternity pranks. Let me tell you, as someone who has nearly drowned, just how damn frightening it is. What this is has done is to draw a fairly clear line. Either you are for torture, or you or not.
There is little gray area here, little room for semantics. Yes, or no. Torture, or interrogation. I can understand Mr. Obama's decision to not go after those who carried out actions they were told were legal, at least to the degree that to pursue them would undermine current intelligence efforts.
That doesn't let them off the hook, mind you. The FBI said early and often the "enhanced" methods were illegal and told their agents to not take part. What did the FBI know that apparently the military and CIA couldn't figure out? That torture is illegal.
So take your side, Americans. For the "rule of law" or the "law of the jungle." For civilized behavior, or not. Against torture, or for it. This is a decision we can tell our children we were part of. And we could be proud, or we can hang our heads.
Various torture techniques described in memos are more detailed and were far more prevalent in use than most Americans dared to imagine. Still, the diehards who would follow Bush off the proverbial cliff like good lemmings find excuses. They call the techniques "not torture." And in another twist of right wing logic, they claim the ends justify the means. If it isn't torture, what would it matter? Of course the end would justify the means, if the means were merely interrogation.
Of course that doesn't make sense. Because it IS torture, as defined by every sensible judge, jury, or government. Funny, our government had no problem calling waterboarding torture when trying Japanese who had performed it on Americans.
Personally, I would consider waterboarding a despicable torture. I love water, but I am not a very good swimmer, and have had to be rescued from near drowning twice in my life. I couldn't imagine going through that 186 times in a month. But my feelings aside, the consensus among civilized individuals and organizations is that waterboarding is indeed torture. Not to mention the other "enhanced" tactics.
And now it looks like those tactics were introduced early and often. Even before the memos of legal opinion (or schill lawyers issuing a blanket justification for something everyone knew was wrong) were written, all the higher-ups of import in the Bush Administration had already jumped aboard the torture train. And for real, actionable information?
No. It looks like, especially in light of the timing of the extraordinary use of waterboarding, that they were looking for someone to tell them Iraq and Al Qaeda were involved with each other. Any expert on torture will tell you that eventually the person being tortured will tell you what they think you want to hear. And that, sadly enough, is what evidence as pointing to as the reason for the torture in the first place.
It's easy for cowards like Sean Hannity or Mark Levin to rant about how it's comparable to fraternity pranks. Let me tell you, as someone who has nearly drowned, just how damn frightening it is. What this is has done is to draw a fairly clear line. Either you are for torture, or you or not.
There is little gray area here, little room for semantics. Yes, or no. Torture, or interrogation. I can understand Mr. Obama's decision to not go after those who carried out actions they were told were legal, at least to the degree that to pursue them would undermine current intelligence efforts.
That doesn't let them off the hook, mind you. The FBI said early and often the "enhanced" methods were illegal and told their agents to not take part. What did the FBI know that apparently the military and CIA couldn't figure out? That torture is illegal.
So take your side, Americans. For the "rule of law" or the "law of the jungle." For civilized behavior, or not. Against torture, or for it. This is a decision we can tell our children we were part of. And we could be proud, or we can hang our heads.
| 32 |
| Vote |
Subscribe to this blog
Comment by RubySoho
Music Zone
Thought Zone
Comment by Jeff Musall
Secular Humanity