It's a bad day to be an American

From "7 Key Points From the C.I.A. Torture Report" in the NYTimes:

1. The C.I.A.’s interrogation techniques were more brutal and employed more extensively than the agency portrayed. The report describes extensive waterboarding as a “series of near drownings” and suggests that more prisoners were subjected to waterboarding than the three prisoners the C.I.A. has acknowledged in the past.

I know there are assh*les out there who are all about the torture. They are upset that this report came out at all and that it seems to indicate that torture doesn't work. They are the same sadists who won't even acknowledge that most of this is torture. They call it a "taste of their own medicine."
But when we reduce our interactions with fellow human beings to the level of 5-year-olds on a playground, we dishonor ourselves more than the victims.

Sorry, Nashville.

I will forever associate Nashville, Tenn, with uncontrollable vomiting. Unfortunately not because of a massive night of binge-drinking and partying, but because the day after returning, I got one of the nastiest stomach flues I can remember.

Bosom quest

Does anyone actually enjoy bra shopping? Is finding a comfortable bra that fits and supports at a reasonable price a level of Nirvana? Because the actual search is a Circle of Hell.

Taxman

I'd like to use today's post to thank Washington D.C. for celebrating Emancipation Day, thereby providing me with two extra days to get my @#$%*^ local taxes done. And thank you to the local tax agency for honoring the April 17 due date set by the IRS.
By the way, Regional Income Tax Authority, this is the only time you will ever get a thank you from me.

Secure

It's interesting to me that Americans sighed a collective "ho-hum" at the thought of prisoners of war and accused foreign-nationals being physically abused to the point of torture.
There was hardly a murmur when the government started tapping private phone calls without a warrant.
But if an employee from the Department of Homeland Security touches their ball sack, the government has CROSSED THE LINE.

Simple cause and effect

Look, I've posted enough times on torture for my regular readers to know where I stand on the issue. (If you're not quite sure, check my previous posts.) In light of the memos that have been officially released (and somehow, in some nebulous fantasyworld compromise our security by detailing techniques that have existed since the Spanish Inquisition), the administration is calling for "looking forward." Congress is calling for an investigation. Left-wing bloggers are calling for arrests.
Okay, this left-wing blogger would like to see some arrests.
We know that detainees (I just love the ambiguity of that term) were tortured. There is no dispute over the tactics used. The dispute comes from the terminology. The previous administration would have you believe that slapping, slamming into walls, forced nudity, confinement in a very small area with a stinging insect, and --of course-- waterboarding are "enhanced interrogation tactics." Humanity, on the other hand, recognizes these as forms of torture, which is defined as

(1) “torture” means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control;
(2) “severe mental pain or suffering” means the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from—

(A) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering;
(B) the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality;
(C) the threat of imminent death; or
(D) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality... .

That is from the U.S. Code. Our national law. They broke it by torturing. People who break the law should be arrested. Just sayin'.

Speak out

It's time to stop the "collective yawn" and be outraged by the United States of America participating in war crimes. Waterboarding is torture. The Bush administration insituted it as an "enhanced interrogation technique." We are as guilty as they are for not raising our voices in protest of the torture of another human being, no matter how reprehensible that person's actions were or are. Our silence is damning.

If nothing else, send an email to your Representative and Senators. Think of it as your Christmas present to humanity.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Never forget

Twisted logic

Our soon-to-be-unemployed president vetoed a ban on torture saying it “would take away one of the most valuable tools on the war on terror.” Because nothing diminishes the hatred of radical dissidents better than thumbscrews and waterboarding.

AG nominee

"I believe the questions he's [Mukasey] been asked are unfair," Bush said in an Oval Office session with reporters. "He's been asked to give opinions on a program - or techniques of a program - on which he has not been briefed."

Uh. No. He's being asked if, under his understanding of the law (specifically international laws on torture), waterboarding is considered "torture". And we all know the reason he's hemming and hawing isn't based on his understanding of the law as much as his understanding of the term "cover your ass" as impressed on him by the administration.

Tortured definition

Wikipedia has a list of "forms of torture" which, in accordance with our vice president, does not included waterboarding.
But if you look up "waterboarding," the very first sentence is:

Waterboarding is a type of torture used in coercive interrogations or for punishment.

Also check out Wiki's info on the Spanish Inquisition (kinda infamous for their torture as I recall from history class):

The methods of torture most used by the Inquisition were garrucha, toca and the potro.... The toca, also called tortura del agua, consisted of introducing a cloth into the mouth of the victim, and forcing them to ingest water spilled from a jar so that they had impression of drowning.

This obscenely corrupt government uses waterboarding, (which the veep has now confirmed) during interrogations. Cheney still had the audacity to claim, after nonchalantly acknowledging the waterboarding that "We don't torture."
I guess he tortures definitions as much as human beings.


Update: The White House now says that Cheney didn't mean waterboarding when he gave his verbal 'thumbs up' to "dunk[ing] in water" during interrogation.
Possibly the CIA has been allowing breaks for baths to suspects?

Awareness

I was trying to describe waterboarding to my teenager this weekend after a dinner discussion on the atrocities of Congress (not to mention the Bush administration).
After watching her reaction, I'm convinced that Bush and/or any of his wogs should be forced to explicitly describe waterboarding and explain how it is not torture. Step by step. And every American should be forced to watch the entire explanation prior to being allowed to vote use an ATM machine.

Who let the thugs out

The House has approved and the Senate is likely to follow suit on the so-called "anti-terror" bill that will allow interrogation "techniques" that, in my opinion, fall under the category of cruel and unusual punishment. As inappropriate as this law is, it is being supported in our vaunted halls of government by our representatives. It is entirely possible that they believe it will help in the imaginary "War On Terror." They are at a definite remove from the situation.
It would be nice to believe that we will have a dearth of interrogators who would be willing to put the bill into practice, but according to a number of studies (most notably, Stanley Milgram's in the 1960s) we won't be wanting for someone --several someones-- who are willing to follow orders, no matter how heinous.
According to the results of his work, no less than 32% of the average public is willing to inflict indescribable pain on another human being at the command of someone in authority. If there are 10 people in your office, 3 of them are potential torturers. Today we'll have the law that gives them the go-ahead. Without protest.

Have your cake and eat it too

In this post at Sadly, No! kc points out in the comments that the Republicans want it both ways.
But it can't work. We can't let it.
According to the GOP-led House Intelligence Committee, the terror threat facing the United States is "more alarming than the threat that existed prior to Sept. 11, 2001." Yet they try to convince us that they are keeping us safe. Which is it boys? You can't tell us that you're stronger against terror and then tell us that terror has gotten stronger on your watch. One of those just doesn't work with the other.
Either you're doing a good job, and you're lying about the level of threat; or you're doing a crappy job, and the terrorists really are getting more dangerous. Pick one. You can't have it both ways.

Throw us a bone

This whole "interrogation technique" debate in Congress (when it's not making me nauseous to actually contemplate that our President needs to have something as fundamental as 'human dignity' defined) depresses me beyond words. The White House has created such a culture of fear that any opposition to the authorization to torture (because, let's face it, that's what this bill is for) will be derided as 'appeasing the terrorists' or 'un-concerned for America's safety' even 'unpatriotic'.
Why can't the White House throw us a bone? Tell me ONE TIME, just one time, that these dubious "interrogation techniques" prevented a terror attack. ONE TIME. I know there are security concerns; I don't need names or anything. I just want one example of torture --which is what this is-- working to undermine a concrete, credible threat.
I find it impossible to believe that this has happened despite what our President says. And here's why: these terrorists, the really serious ones who would have the information, are willing to die for their cause. What makes us think that making them suffer first doesn't have them dreaming of a greater paradise for their sacrifice. And it's not like we've convinced them to confess anything for our benefit. Forced nudity and simulated drownings will not endear them to us more.

Stunned and sickened

Holy sh*t! We heard the stories about these "overseas prisons" that were top secret and God knows what goes on there but I had NO idea the scope of this. 14,000 detainees. Held without knowing where they are, without knowing what is happening to them or what is going to happen, their families don't even know if they're still alive. They have no contact with the outside world. Even if the bastards in charge of this program aren't using waterboarding which has been alleged, the psychological effect of this, to me, is tanamount to torture. Where the hell does this administration get off doing this crap? Not with my permission! And last I checked, they worked for me. Although if I had anything to say about it, they'd be fired for incompetence.
If they are terrorists, you'd think we could come up with some valid charges. If they just happened to have the wrong skin color and a copy of the Quran, you'd think we could let them get on with their lives. Many of these 14,000 have been held for over 4 years. If we can't charge them after four years, it's time to fold.

Can you imagine what would happen if anyone captured 14,000 Americans suspected of hating Islam (and don't doubt that we've got 'em) and held them in secret locations? Like that wouldn't bring the bombers out. Hmmmmm, so do we really believe "they hate us for our freedom"?

Amnesty National

President Bush is trying to push through a law that would provide amnesty for administration-endorsed torturers while at the same time maintaining that the U.S. has not used any practices outlawed by the Geneva Convention. If no "outrages upon personal dignity" occurred (outside of the anomoly of Abu Grahib at which they were caught on film), then why bother with a law that would protect the government employees who supposedly don't do this stuff?

Blasphemer

A bit of history first. (Don't roll your eyes) Remember learning about Torquemada and the Inquisition in school? Do you recall how long that attack on blasphemy and heretics lasted? Over 300 years.
I love my freedom of speech and freedom of the press.
But at the same time I can understand why the Mohammed cartoons that started in Denmark and are making their rounds through Europe are pissing the Moslems off. I am not fond of pissed off Moslems. I'm not fond of pissed off people in general, and certainly not religious fanatics of any stripe. (Just reading about Torquemada gives me goosebumps.)
So that brings us to blasphemy. The Moslem world in general (at least its most vocal parts) are accusing Denmark --and now Norway, Germany, France, etc.-- of blasphemy. Technically they are right. They also got an apology. When was the last time a Jew got an apology from someone mocking the Torah? Or a Christian got an apology from someone painting a Dali-esque moustache on a crucifix? Also, on another technicality, there is no law against blasphemy in any of those countries. (Bless their enlightened legislators.) This is freedom. It is unpleasant sometimes, but so well worth it.
It took over 300 years of torture and killing (assuming that sort of thing doesn't go on anymore...) for Christians to move on from their battle with blasphemy in defeat. Are we looking at the beginning of another Inquisition staged at a global level for the cause of Islam? How long before they give up?

"If a dog barks at the sun, will it affect the sun? If anyone blasphemes at [deity of your choice], will it affect [deity of your choice]?"

Update: U.S. Calls Muhammad Drawings 'Offensive' Yeah, they are offensive to Muslims. And yeah, tolerance would be a wonderful thing. ON BOTH SIDES OF THIS ISSUE.

Oxymoron

Can someone explain to me how the torture of someone who is willing to kill himself to further his "cause," will yield any information of use whatsoever?

Am I missing something?

So the senate has passed a law that will "ban 'cruel, inhuman or degrading' treatment of anyone in U.S. custody." And the White House doesn't like it. But here's Rummy to the rescue explaining again that "the president from the outset has said that he required that there be humane treatment."

I know there's been a lot said on this topic recently, but I keep coming to the point that confuses me: If we don't torture people as the administration and the CIA claim, then why are they against a ban on the activities which they say they do not use?