I’m finding it hard to sleep these days. Every time I manage to calm down for a few minutes, another GOP liar is barbecuing some irrational chickenshit into a piece of gourmet southern-fried that gets published as an "Op Ed" in some respectable newspaper or is hashing out such unbelievable bushwa on a TV show that I want to hurl socks at the set. And meanwhile, in America, someone is actually accepting this stuff as though it was a gift wrapped treat in a pretty little blue box from Tiffany’s. You buy, we deliver.
I know I’m incensed when I’m mixing metaphors into oblivion. But, bejebus.
First, Liz Cheney. (Thank you to diarist kat68 for this excellent diary).
Yay, Daddy! But Liz was her usual insufferable, arrogant, interrupting self today. And the Liz talking point take-away: "We did this to our soldiers and we don’t torture, so how could these 'techniques' be torture?" (So nicely said with well blown-dry hair.)
Are you kidding me? WE did not TORTURE our soldiers, Liz. The United States teaches its soldiers how to resist and escape from the torture techniques that were developed by the Russians and the Chinese during, say, World War II and the Cold War. Our smart military people studied what they learned about these techniques from, amongst others, American soldiers who had been tortured ~ in order to develop training methods to help our soldiers in the event they were captured and tortured. NOT so we could use these "techniques" on others. Of COURSE we didn’t "torture our soldiers." But to say that, in using these methods against others means we didn’t torture them is flat out insane. OK?
Are you familiar with the Geneva Conventions?
Army Spc. Alyssa Peterson sure was.
Do you mention her, Ms. Cheney? Of course not.
Second, Sean Hannity. I ask for forgiveness for forgetting the identity of the poster on some wonderous place somewhere today on the Internetz, where Mr. Hannity’s interview of Mr. Cheney was referred to as "Igor interviewing Frankenstein." But there you have it. With apologies to both Igor and Frankenstein, because they deserve better.
The amazing super-hero Sean Hannity has now agreed to be water boarded for charity. Yes, Sean is a man’s man and he knows what it means to stand up. I have searched everywhere I can think of, but I can find no evidence that Sean Hannity (or Liz or Dick Cheney, just saying) ever served in the military. But I’ll just leave that alone and move on to this: (1) this is a disgraceful and disgusting stunt that denigrates the real torture some of our actual American military have endured, (2) the whole reason the United States of America has actually prosecuted people who engaged in waterboarding is that this country has recognized it as "torture" since 1898, and (3) being "water-boarded" as a TV host is beyond revolting.
Get this, Mr. Hannity: The people who are actually water-boarded as a form of torture don’t get to put their finger up and say "enough." The people who are actually water-boarded as a form of torture do not know whether they will actually die while being water-boarded. To make a joke about this -- to be willing to "undergo waterboarding for charity" is sick and disgusting. You would never be undergoing this in some prison a gazillion miles away from your home. You would never be undergoing this in some dank basement, surrounded by hooded people whose identities you were not sure of. You would never be undergoing this with any real knowledge that they wouldn’t kill you. Your "water boarding," Mr. Hannity, should you ever actually live up to this despicable "promise" would in no way duplicate anything any real tortured person had undergone. The day Faux News allowed you to soil yourself or pass out on camera . . . Well, we know that will never happen. So stop, please.
Third, torture apologists. Please listen the words of Col. Steven Kleinman.
Col. Kleinman is an experienced interrogator. He actually conducted interrogations that provided useful information. He does NOT believe in torture, not only because he is an actual member of the military who has actually served in war, but because he knows, from his experience as an actual interrogator in actual wars that torture does not produce actionable (read: useful) intelligence.
And these harsh interrogation methods had been used by the Soviets and the Chinese to get people to say things that weren't true?
That's true. And it's not just harsh physically, but I think the element that was more persuasive was their ability to induce what is known as debility, depression and dread through emotional and psychological techniques that profoundly altered somebody's ability to answer questions truthfully even if they wanted to. It truly undermined their ability to recall, so therefore it would call into question its efficacy in an intelligence-based interrogation.
I want you to describe the interrogation that's included in the Senate report. You witnessed an Iraqi detainee in a room that has been completely darkened?
Yes, I walked into this room, and it was a small room with the walls painted black. There was an interrogator sitting in a chair. To his left was an interpreter. The detainee was kneeling with his wrists handcuffed behind his back before the interrogator. Standing behind the interrogator was a guard carrying a — I don't recall now if it was wood or iron rod — and it was almost stereotypical, being patted into his hand like it was some B movie, gangster movie, if you will.
And the questions were posed to the detainee, interpreted. The detainee would answer, the answer was interpreted, and upon that interpretation, the interrogator would slap him across the face. For those who have read the report, they talk about in survival training, an "insult slap." It's very important to understand that those are affected in a very careful fashion, and to truly shock someone rather than hurt them. And this type of slap was much more forceful. The other difference is, it was being delivered systematically, and when I walked in, I asked how long it had been going on, and I was told "30 minutes." So this individual had been slapped continuously while he was on his knees for 30 minutes.
What did you make of that interrogation?
In my mind, that was no longer an interrogation. You don't obtain information of any value that way. It was punitive, precisely, so I quickly brought that to a stop.
I pulled the interrogator out and I explained why that was against the law. I tried to explain why it wasn't operationally useful. He followed orders, because he had to, because I was a senior officer, but you could tell he didn't buy into my rationale by any stretch.
Source ~ NPR. (I urge you to read or listen to the entire interview).
The Bush Administration: Sadistic law breakers.
I was married to a pathological liar. The only cure for this is a tough lawyer, and a court of law, and consequences you cannot escape from by telling more lies.