Call It What It Is -- Bush Wants to Torture People

Tougher interrogations, my ass. Bush wants to torture people. Every single person writing those stories knows what this is really about. They are so queasy about writing the word down on paper, but they're perfectly willing to have a legitimate debate on whether we should actually do it. That makes no sense. I wish the late Sam Kinison was around now to shout at the reporters, "Say it!!! Just say it!!!!" It's torture.

It's so annoying to read mainstream press articles where they dance around what the real issue is on "terror suspect interrogations." They use every euphemism in the book. Bush seeks "clarity" on interrogations. Bush wants "wider leeway" in interrogations. Bush wants "tougher interrogations."  

Tougher interrogations, my ass. Bush wants to torture people. Every single person writing those stories knows what this is really about. They are so queasy about writing the word down on paper, but they're perfectly willing to have a legitimate debate on whether we should actually do it. That makes no sense. I wish the late Sam Kinison was around now to shout at the reporters, "Say it!!! Just say it!!!!" It's torture.

Tougher interrogations that violate the Geneva Conventions? Come on! I want one reporter to tell me what that is if it isn't torture. You wonder why the American people continue to be misinformed when the media goes out of its way to protect this administration. Tell the American people what this administration actually wants to do. Then if the population buys into, that's fine. Of course, I would be revolted if the American people backed torture, but at least we would have the "clarity" Bush claims he wants.

The worst case scenario is that the media continues to obscure the issue, they continue to allow the administration to trot out their talking points, never challenge them on what they are saying -- and the American people are misled into supporting something they would actually find abhorrent.

How many times does Bush have to fight tooth and nail for torture before we get the message? Remember how hard the Bush administration fought against the original McCain amendment against torture. Then when they lost, Bush signed a "signing statement" saying they could torture detainees anyway. Then the Supreme Court told him that he must abide by the Geneva Conventions -- which is the law of the land (this land!).

Now, he's back at it again. Challenging the Senate to allow him to continue torturing people despite the Senate's earlier bill and the Supreme Court decision. Man, this guy just loves torture. He can't get enough of it. Now, normally someone would be embarrassed to lobby so hard in public for something so clearly despicable. But Bush doesn't have to worry about that, because he has the press to cover his ass. Shhh, don't mention what we're really talking about, let people think Bush is "trying to protect them" with "tougher interrogations."

I know that the detainee interrogation bill is also about other issues, such as secret prisons and secret trials. The existence of these other issues does not justify the obfuscation of the critical torture issue. In fact, it makes it worse. I remember when I was a kid growing in America, we used to be enraged at third world countries that ran secret prisons and held secret trials. We thought it was barbaric. Has America changed so much?

I don't think so. But I do think we have barbaric leadership that the press is trying very hard to normalize (as usual -- for fear that they will be called liberal if they say the emperor has no clothes).  If we're comfortable with what we used to abhor, then let's come out and say it. America is for torture, secret prisons and secret courts.

If people will sign off on that, then we can at least know we lost the debate in a functioning democracy. But if people sign off on that while they think they're supporting something else, then once again -- for what seems the one billionth time in this administration -- the press will have failed us. For the love of God, inform people, tell people what's really happening -- do your job!

< Big Brother Bill | Young Turks Will Answer All Questions Immediately Following the First Show >
 Display:
Out of Watergate one thing was learned within the political structure: (no not that breaking the law is bad) to control the media you threaten to cut off their access.  It's just that simple.  Without access to the system of power the media loses their ability to make money and they die.  Play nice everybody or we will kill you off.

by nfc on 09/16/2006 01:54:06 AM EST

Good, because there's plenty more where this comes from!
thirsty

During WWII, America achieved victory through the application of brutality and murder and torture.

We firebombed Dresdin, Germany. We nuked Horoshima and Nagasaki. The targets were innocent civilians, and we killed them by the millions. We intentionally murdered children.

Now you guys want to tie the hands of CIA interrogators, so they can't even subject the terrorists to discomfort.

This is a good debate to have prior to the election. 

by KenTX on 09/16/2006 05:59:02 AM EST

I say, whatever the Bush administration wants to let the CIA do, they must undergo FIRST. Let's see how much water-boarding Cheney can take before he calls it torture. Find out if electrodes to the testicles makes Bush think twice about "alternative interrogation."

You want to argue against basic human morality and the United States leading the world in respect or such morals - go ahead.

We are supposed to have LEARNED from our mistakes, not entrench them in our "rules."

by MedfordTim on 09/16/2006 11:15:18 AM EST

[ Parent ]

This is a good discussion to have, Ken.

Who should we firebomb?  Who should we nuke?

Which countries do we need to drive to the brink of destruction to win this Global War on Terror?

Waziristan?  Pakistan?  Saudi Arabia?  Iran?  Canada?  Cuba?  Venezuela?

Which nation is the modern equivalent of Imperial Japan, now an ally, that we need to bomb back to the stone age?

And will you sign up to help defeat the latest Nazi army?

Perhaps you have some information about the terrorists.  Are you thirsty?  After all, if you've nothing to hide, you've nothing to fear.  Maybe you should surrender yourself to the Ministry of Love to give your report.  Room 101 is ready. 

by Richard 23 on 09/16/2006 01:54:14 PM EST

[ Parent ]

Who did we torture as part of official U.S. policy during World War II?  The history of torture as an American virtue was somehow left out of my civics classes.

Please include links to back up your assertions. 

by Richard 23 on 09/16/2006 01:58:58 PM EST

[ Parent ]
What we should do is continue to allow these interrogations because they've prevented 8 attacks, but we should not allow the media and certain politicians know about it. They're trying to divide us internally to win the war against the war.

by acroso on 09/16/2006 02:08:45 PM EST

[ Parent ]

Great.  Prove it.  I'd like links to stories that state clearly how torture has prevented eight attacks.  For your information nobody's against interrogation.  But there are some people who have a problem with torture.  I know it may seem silly to the 101st fighting keyboardists, but it's true.

So we should not let the media know about the prevented attacks or about "interrogations?"  

I look forward to your proof about those eight thwarted attacks.  I could use some good news on a lazy saturday.

Keep on fighting that war against the war against the war or whatever it is you think you're "fighting."  Maybe you can even win the war against your personal demons.  Good luck with that.

by Richard 23 on 09/16/2006 02:17:55 PM EST

[ Parent ]

I'd like links to stories that state clearly how torture has prevented eight attacks.  So we should not let the media know about the prevented attacks or about "interrogations?"

Links like this one and this one are the closest you’re going to get, because the interrogation techniques are classified, and the information derived is classified. But you have President Bush openly admitting that we’ve been using coercive techniques to extract valuable information from dangerous terrorists.

For your information nobody's against interrogation. 

Well great, because that’s all we’re asking for. Now all we need to do is establish a definition of the word interrogation.  

Keep on fighting that war against the war against the war or whatever it is you think you're "fighting."

I have to admit that issues were much less complex in the 1990s. We didn’t have a war on terrorism. Sure, we were attacked by terrorists on a routine basis in those days, but we didn’t worry about it. In fact, if you saw the ABC miniseries “Path to 9/11”, you know that the Clinton Administration didn’t do a goddam thing on the subject of terrorism. In fact, if I asked you to enumerate what Bill Clinton accomplished during eight years in office, you might be embarrassed.

Who did we torture as part of official U.S. policy during World War II?  The history of torture as an American virtue was somehow left out of my civics classes.

We tortured millions of innocent people like this little girl.
torture

We intentionally dropped a bomb on her house, knowing that her father and brothers were away fighting the war, and she was the only one home. America openly conducted brutal, barbaric, vicious, terrorist acts in an effort to shorten the war. What we did in secrecy, under the cover of classified security, was probably much worse.

Welcome to the real world Richard23. Now go out and buy yourself a fukkinn clue.

by KenTX on 09/16/2006 05:21:36 PM EST

[ Parent ]

In fact, if you saw the ABC miniseries “Path to 9/11”, you know that the Clinton Administration didn’t do a goddam thing on the subject of terrorism.

Did you happen to know that that piece of pablum was fiction?  I realized while watching that steaming pile of make believe that it would only be a matter of time (days even) before sick little authoritarians like you would be citing it as fact, which it is not, so I am not surprised.  There were so many pathetic references to the rule of law and the Constitution and civil liberties getting in the way of winning the future war on terra that I cannot believe even you would give that garbage credence.

Who did we torture as part of official U.S. policy during World War II?  The history of torture as an American virtue was somehow left out of my civics classes.

We tortured millions of innocent people like this little girl.

And what did torturing that little girl and millions of others yield us in the way of actionable intel, Kenny boy?  Hmmmm?

How many little girls and others do you want to torture this time around you sick little monkey?  I thought America was better than that.  I thought that's what made us strong.  Shame on you, you pathetic little bedwetter.  America was strong before captain codpiece took over.  Shame on you.  You sicken me.  Gather your balls and be a human being for Christ's sake.

by Richard 23 on 09/16/2006 07:39:48 PM EST

[ Parent ]
“I realized while watching that steaming pile of make believe..”
I’m willing to bet you never watched the movie. Are you willing to take a quiz? I will ask the questions while you are live and online.

“And what did torturing that little girl and millions of others yield us in the way of actionable intel?”
Zero. America was guilty of millions of cruel and depraved acts, and the only objective was to bring the war to an end. You liberals like to point to WWII as a “good war”, a war worth fighting, and a war well fought. You wring your hands over collateral casualties and detainee abuse in today’s conflict. Man, you just don’t know your history.

“I thought that's what made us strong.” 
That’s what you get for thinkin’ Chester. What makes us strong is a strong desire to be number one in everything we do, especially in the making of war.

by KenTX on 09/17/2006 02:17:04 AM EST

[ Parent ]
"America openly conducted brutal, barbaric, vicious, terrorist acts in an effort to shorten the war. What we did in secrecy, under the cover of classified security, was probably much worse."

1) Are you stating we performed terrorist acts during WWII?
2) Do you think it was the right thing to do so?
3) If need be, do you think we should do it again?
4) If it is okay for America to perpatrate acts of terrorism, what seperates us from the terrorists?

terrorist: noun. One that engages in acts or an act of terrorism

by Buddha Bubba on 09/18/2006 04:24:30 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Just think what would happen if we added an extra 900k poor babies a year to the population.  You can bet their welfare draining asses will be voting democratic in just 18 short years.

Acroso, the kid has a point. The only factors limiting the growth of democrat voters are abortions, drive-by shootings, homosexuality, AIDS, and extremely long prison sentences.

1)  Are you stating we performed terrorist acts during WWII?
Without question.
2) Do you think it was the right thing to do so?
Yes. We were engaged in a fundamental struggle for survival.
3) If need be, do you think we should do it again?
Anytime America is threatened with widespread loss of life, complete loss of freedom, and absolute loss of sovereignty, we should do whatever is necessary to prevail.
4) If it is okay for America to perpetrate acts of terrorism, what separates us from the terrorists?
Just one thing. We win while they lose.
Now it’s your turn. Try answering your own questions.

What were our forefathers thinking when they passed the totally unamerican 14th amendment with its equal protections clause

Our forefathers never even considered the issue. This bastardization of the constitution occurred during Reconstruction America, when Northern states ratified an amendment designed to eliminate states’ rights.

There is nothing in the fourteenth amendment that guarantees constitutional rights to non-uniformed saboteurs who have never set foot in America. In fact, it is difficult to find Geneva Convention protection for non-uniformed saboteurs.

by KenTX on 09/18/2006 08:34:45 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Is that the reason you make up silly things like this "struggle for survival?" 

Maybe you're correct. Maybe World War II was not a struggle for survival? Maybe it was like a party, complete with tea and crumpets? Maybe those millions and millions of victims died accidently? Maybe they slipped on banana peels?

World War III might be fun also. I want to be there to see the expression on Jesse's face when he receives his draft notice. The discipline will be good for him.

by KenTX on 09/18/2006 09:26:39 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I am at the end of the "baby boomer", ken was a cusp baby.

You skipped over a whole generation by putting "Xers" in their 40. Maybe the first one or two, but they're still in the 30's range for the most part.

You forgot about the "ME Generation," which Ken was on the leading edge of. Coming of age between '75 and '85, free of draft or war worries, binging at college was still being encouraged, MADD had 2 members, Disco was King, and Gordon Gekko types started springing up like maggots through a rotting corpse.

All "generations" overlap a bit, of course...

by MedfordTim on 09/19/2006 01:00:44 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Are you telling me that it's not all about ME?

by KenTX on 09/19/2006 01:13:08 PM EST

[ Parent ]
"Our forefathers never even considered the issue. This bastardization of the constitution occurred during Reconstruction America, when Northern states ratified an amendment designed to eliminate states’ rights.

So only americans in 1776 knew anything about rights?  The 14th amendement just put into law the american ideal of "all men are created equal" and applied all amendments to the constitution to the state level as well.  Do you not believe in equal rights for all american citizens?

by alphasigmookie on 09/18/2006 10:23:04 PM EST

[ Parent ]

This subject essentially comes down to how ''decent'' and moral our country is going to be. How far away from being barbaric and ''caveman-like'' are we going to be? How are we going to progress, in our philosophy, as our country goes through its history... from 1776 through the present onward into the future?
The only decent, moral, non-barbaric, intelligent and classy way that we should be is to move away from even the HINT of torture. There should be no ''splitting of hairs''; we should be treating all prisoners with decency, without inflicting pain upon them. Locking up a person is punishment enough. And the amount of time that a person is imprisoned, of course, should be dependent upon a speedy, legal, objectively truthful trial.

by nr16020 on 09/18/2006 10:23:41 AM EST

What we need is John Paul Stevens or RBG to retire so we can get this show on the road.

by acroso on 09/18/2006 02:09:13 PM EST

[ Parent ]

Your reply was non responsive and asserts facts not in evidence.  What entails getting the show on the road?  Why are you in such a hurry?  What do you expect to accomplish with a Bush appointed activist court?

Why are authoritarians so goddamned greedy?  You have the White House, the House, the Senate, and arguably the Supreme Court (already).

And what have you accomplished with all that?

Yet you must have more power for some reason.  It's just never enough for you.  How pathetic. 

by Richard 23 on 09/18/2006 02:18:55 PM EST

[ Parent ]
We plan to stop liberals from activism such as annulling Hawaii's statehood claim, guaranteeing illegal immigrants the right to education, giving terrorist rights, and guaranteeing woman a right to have partial birth abortions.

I think once Roe is gone, we’ll know we finally control the court after 70 years of effort.

The question is why are you libs so greedy? You’ve controlled the court for 70 years and used it to dictate policies that the legislature couldn’t pass. We’re trying to restore the court back to its proper role.


by acroso on 09/18/2006 03:00:50 PM EST

[ Parent ]
"giving terrorist rights"

How dare the activist suppreme court uphold the constitution and ratified international treaties.  Those dirty liberal commie bastards!  What were our forefathers thinking when they passed the totally unamerican 14th amendment with its equal protections clause

by alphasigmookie on 09/18/2006 03:23:28 PM EST

[ Parent ]
It was a 5-4 decision that surprised everyone but elated libs. If you can't win support for a terrorist bill of rights via political support from the American people, use the courts.

This is what you did with partial birth abortion rights

by acroso on 09/18/2006 03:28:21 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Please stay on topic.  You already posted your drivel about brain suction abortions along with a cute picture of a baby and a straw elsewhere.  Please have a conversation with yourself in there.

by Richard 23 on 09/18/2006 03:35:21 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Fucking constitutional democracy, always protecting the rights of the minority from the tyrany of the majority. 

by alphasigmookie on 09/18/2006 03:37:15 PM EST

[ Parent ]
The minority being the aborted feti or the foreign terrorists trying to destroy us?

by acroso on 09/18/2006 03:40:40 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Both the suspected "terrorist" who has yet to be convicted of any crime and the woman who is unable to addiquatly support and raise a child who dicides to end her pregnancy instead of forcing the rest of us to pay for it through wellfare and other social programs which you righties hate so much. 

by alphasigmookie on 09/18/2006 03:46:45 PM EST

[ Parent ]
well fetus's can't vote so that means they are the minority.

by acroso on 09/18/2006 03:51:25 PM EST

[ Parent ]
come to think of it i can't believe you're actually for banning abortion.  Just think what would happen if we added an extra 900k poor babies a year to the population.  You can bet their wellfare draining asses will be voting democratic in just 18 short years.  Before you know it Mezkins and Wellfare babies will take over the entire country!

by alphasigmookie on 09/18/2006 03:55:50 PM EST

[ Parent ]
The only good thing about this is that senator McCain continues to burn bridges. There is a small but growing threat he could actually win the GOP primary.

The voters need to know just how far left McCain is in order to reject him and select someone good like Romney

by acroso on 09/18/2006 03:47:46 PM EST

[ Parent ]

Why for the love of God can't you stay on the topic of this thread?

Since you've already queered the discussion,

Who here likes pudding?

Chocolate or Butterscotch?

by Richard 23 on 09/18/2006 03:55:19 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I don't really care for pudding, but jello, that's the stuff!  Sweet sweet jiggly goodness!

by alphasigmookie on 09/18/2006 03:57:52 PM EST

[ Parent ]
 Display: