LEGAL DISCLAIMER: To avoid what could be federal charges I would just like to state that I am in no way shape or form advocating that non-government entities or persons should kidnap or detain and then waterboard ANYONE. Now...if the CIA wanted to do it to the below mentioned people...who am I to argue with the heroes that keep us safe?
I've been thinking about this for a few weeks now, and while I oppose torture in almost all circumstances, there is one that seems like a reasonable, and appropriate use of such techniques as waterboarding and other "harsh interrogation procedures," that being, to waterboard all of the DOJ lawyers and Dick Cheney until such time as they admit that it is torture.
This would be a victory on two fronts and really is the only win-win situation ever devised with regards to the use of torture. As I see it, waterboarding these sorry sacks of shit provides two possible outcomes, both of which would be agreeable to me.
The first outcome, which is the most likely outcome in my opinion, is that they cop to waterboarding and other "harsh methods" as being torture. This proves that they lied in their memos and legal opinions, and, assuming we use the same legal standards that they have imposed on the detainees, would be sufficient evidence of their wrong doing. Also, if they later appear on television or in interviews arguing that they only said it was torture because they were being tortured, it further adds to the fact that information obtained through torture is unreliable.
The second outcome, and, I doubt that any of them have the Jack Bauer ability to resist torture for all that long, is that they don't give in and we get to waterboard Dick Cheney until the end of days (when he gets scooped up in the rapture). While this wouldn't be as fulfilling to the country's soul as the former, it's still a lot of fun to know that those who enacted these awful policies would be on the receiving end of them.
Showing posts with label dick cheney. Show all posts
Showing posts with label dick cheney. Show all posts
Thursday, May 21, 2009
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
Close Guantanamo...Yesterday!
Now that the spineless democrats have joined with their colleagues across the aisle in opposing the immediate closure of Camp X-ray at Guantanamo Bay, it is time for us all to snap out of this political theatrical event and realize that we must close it, and we must close it now. I decided to do my best to sum up some of the arguments against closing Gitmo immediately, coupled with my counter-arguments.
1. They're terrorists!
* Unfortunately for the proponents of this argument, and more unfortunately for many of the captives themselves, they are not all terrorists. For those of you who, unforgivably don't follow the news, there was a messy period during and after the invasion of Afghanistan when the American military was offering cash money for Al Queda or Taliban members (just like Ed McMahon does for gold). Given the extreme poverty found across much of Afghanistan, the presence of corruption, and the disinterest the American military had for fact checking, dozens, if not hundreds of people were literally sold to the invading army and labeled as terrorists. While a good number of them have since been released (some after spending over 6 years in detention without any charges) some of the remaining 250 could well fall into this category. As recently as May 2008, a journalist was finally released after being held since December of 2001. That's right, it took 6 and a half years for the American military to realize that he was not a terrorist.
2. I don't want them in my state!
* Look, let's be reasonable. The men at Gitmo are people who had AK-47s in some patch of scrub land in Afghanistan. That's what got them classified as terrorists, or, "the worst of the worst." They are not super villains with laser beams that shoot from their eyes, or possess super human strength to bend the bars of a pitiful American prison. They are no more likely to escape from an American prison than was Timothy McVeigh or Ted Kaczynski (the unibomber for those of you living in the United States of Amnesia). This fabricated notion that by putting them in American prisons, they'll somehow manage to escape and immediately blow up your precious Wal-Mart is laughable at best, and sad at its worst.
3. Well, maybe they weren't terrorists then but they are now.
* This is by far the most offensive argument made to continue to hold people at camp X-ray. The argument is essentially that we, through our over-zealous policies, have created brand spankin' new terrorists by torturing them and solidifying their hatred of the West, and specifically America. This is where we get to set an example to the future administrations that this will not be tolerated. We have had to eat so many piles of steamy, smelly shit from the previous administrations actions and it is time to say ENOUGH. We cannot continue to cement the position that even though you are warned not to do something due to the possible ramifications, and you do it anyway, that we must then absolve you of the responsibility of ownership of that mess. I believe the old adage must apply to these situations, from the invasion of Iraq to the clustf@#k that has become the detainee situation, and that is "you break it? You buy it." Instead of continuing to hold these people who were not Al Queda or Taliban or any other "terrorist" group member until the day when they will certainly want to seek revenge, we should work with programs like those of the Saudis and try to rehabilitate these young men. If successful, they would become extremely powerful voices on America's behalf in the Islamic world.
1. They're terrorists!
* Unfortunately for the proponents of this argument, and more unfortunately for many of the captives themselves, they are not all terrorists. For those of you who, unforgivably don't follow the news, there was a messy period during and after the invasion of Afghanistan when the American military was offering cash money for Al Queda or Taliban members (just like Ed McMahon does for gold). Given the extreme poverty found across much of Afghanistan, the presence of corruption, and the disinterest the American military had for fact checking, dozens, if not hundreds of people were literally sold to the invading army and labeled as terrorists. While a good number of them have since been released (some after spending over 6 years in detention without any charges) some of the remaining 250 could well fall into this category. As recently as May 2008, a journalist was finally released after being held since December of 2001. That's right, it took 6 and a half years for the American military to realize that he was not a terrorist.
2. I don't want them in my state!
* Look, let's be reasonable. The men at Gitmo are people who had AK-47s in some patch of scrub land in Afghanistan. That's what got them classified as terrorists, or, "the worst of the worst." They are not super villains with laser beams that shoot from their eyes, or possess super human strength to bend the bars of a pitiful American prison. They are no more likely to escape from an American prison than was Timothy McVeigh or Ted Kaczynski (the unibomber for those of you living in the United States of Amnesia). This fabricated notion that by putting them in American prisons, they'll somehow manage to escape and immediately blow up your precious Wal-Mart is laughable at best, and sad at its worst.
3. Well, maybe they weren't terrorists then but they are now.
* This is by far the most offensive argument made to continue to hold people at camp X-ray. The argument is essentially that we, through our over-zealous policies, have created brand spankin' new terrorists by torturing them and solidifying their hatred of the West, and specifically America. This is where we get to set an example to the future administrations that this will not be tolerated. We have had to eat so many piles of steamy, smelly shit from the previous administrations actions and it is time to say ENOUGH. We cannot continue to cement the position that even though you are warned not to do something due to the possible ramifications, and you do it anyway, that we must then absolve you of the responsibility of ownership of that mess. I believe the old adage must apply to these situations, from the invasion of Iraq to the clustf@#k that has become the detainee situation, and that is "you break it? You buy it." Instead of continuing to hold these people who were not Al Queda or Taliban or any other "terrorist" group member until the day when they will certainly want to seek revenge, we should work with programs like those of the Saudis and try to rehabilitate these young men. If successful, they would become extremely powerful voices on America's behalf in the Islamic world.
Sunday, March 15, 2009
Cheney says...oh wait who cares?
In a recent interview with CNN former Vice President Dick "the dick" Cheney asserts that President Obama has made America more vulnerable to a terrorist attack because he's treating the war on terror as a law enforcement issue. Whether or not the very minor changes President Obama has enacted are actually making us more vulnerable or not, let us ask the more important question. What really makes us more likely to be hit by a terrorist attack? Not torturing people with little to no actionable intelligence, or creating tons more terrorists by inciting anger in the muslim world?
Throughout the Bush II administration terrorist recruiting has been handed a number of boons from the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, to the revelation of torture of detainees. These specific and enumerable acts have contributed far more to recruitment of potential terrorists than anything President Obama has done in his 60 in office. Not only that, but Vice President Cheney's office also hampered the CIA (supposedly one of our frontlines against terrorists) by reveling Valerie Plame to the world as a CIA agent.
Now, the even more important question is why is CNN interview Cheney and giving him a mouthpiece to spew his unpleasantness? After the damage the Bush administration did the country both financially and in regards to our image throughout the world, nothing Bush or Cheney have to say should be given any attention. We've suffered through their moronic idealogy and actions for the past eight years and we should be spared any further injury that their words can cause.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)