thedrifter
01-05-06, 07:45 AM
Why Don’t We Torture?
Written by Matthew Holmes
Thursday, January 05, 2006
President Bush will not stand for it. Condoleezza Rice says we don’t do it. The U.S. military launches investigation after investigation anytime it is alleged and punishes anyone suspected of it. And no, it is not cutting taxes.
“We do not torture,” President Bush says.
Secretary of State Rice adds, “As policy, [The United Nations Convention Against Torture] extends to U.S. personnel wherever they are, whether they are in the U.S. or outside the U.S.”
Not torturing terrorists “is existing policy,” says White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan.
Meanwhile, a recent poll by AP-Ipsos found that a majority of Americans and most people in Britain, South Korea, and even France believe torturing suspected terrorists is sometimes justified. Which begs my question: Why don’t we “torture” terrorists?
“Because it doesn’t work,” whine liberals everywhere. Let me answer that argument in a language all leftist surrender monkeys can understand—Au Contraire, suckers.
In reality, “torture” can be quite effective. And, unlike most theories posed by liberals (gun control and global warming to name a couple), you don’t have to take my word for it, because there is evidence that proves me right.
Ask Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM) about how effective “torture” is. At last count, Mohammed—the Al Qaeda mastermind behind the 9/11 attacks—had provided hundreds of footnoted revelations with regard to Al Qaeda’s tactics, targets, and goals, all thanks to “torture” techniques like waterboarding (an interrogation tactic that gives the sensation of drowning).
“Information obtained through aggressive interrogation is not reliable,” liberals say, apparently unaware that over one-hundred of Mohammed’s statements were deemed solid enough to be included in the report submitted by the 9/11 Commission.
Among other things, KSM admitted that Al Qaeda supported and abetted Zacarias Moussaoui, the so-called “20th hijacker,” who was arrested in Minnesota three weeks before September 11 and later pleaded guilty to planning to fly a hijacked airplane into the White House.
So while liberals and the United Nations cry gigantic crocodile tears over “cruel and unusual interrogation torture methods” like waterboarding, let me pose the argument in a different way.
If we could travel back in time to three weeks before September 11, 2001, and by torturing Moussaoui learn something that could have prevented the 9/11 plot, would you support it?
I don’t think we need a Gallup poll to predict that the vote would be nearly unanimous in favor of putting the screws to Moussaoui. Suddenly, this blanket philosophy of “We do not torture” doesn’t sound so noble when put in the midst of a real scenario, does it?
But if we have to satisfy liberals, perhaps we should simply begin modeling our treatment of terrorists after the way liberals treat people they hate.
Granted, waterboarding is no picnic, but imagine if we treated terrorists the way liberals deal with unborn babies. Imagine the amount of intelligence that could be gleaned from lowlifes like Khalid Sheik Mohammed if the alternative to squealing on his Al Qaeda brethren was to have a fork stabbed through his head that would suck out whatever bits of brain matter it could find.
Or, if waterboarding must be banned, we could achieve the same sensation of drowning by sending terrorists for a ride in the car through Chappaquiddick with Ted Kennedy. When compared to a Sunday drive in the Oldsmobile with Uncle Teddy and his best friend Jim Beam, sleep deprivation suddenly doesn’t sound so brutal and inhumane, does it?
Of course, the other problem with blanket statements like, “We do not torture,” is that it is impossible to quantify. What exactly is torture?
All too often, one man’s idea of torture is another man’s bliss. One man’s unbearable suffering is another man’s John Kerry campaign speech. One man’s waterboard is another’s prized Richard Simmons DVD collection.
And let’s face it; no interrogation tactic employed by the evil CIA rivals the Al Qaeda version of justice--namely, American civilians that wind up mysteriously missing their heads.
But, Holmes, how do you respond to the stories of abuse being told by enemy combatants at Guantanamo Bay?
Please forgive me if I don’t believe allegations of torture from a bunch of misfits hanging out on brand-new prayer mats at Club Gitmo, eating catered, Islam-specific meals in between soccer games and exercise, all courtesy of the American taxpayers that they would gladly decapitate if it weren’t for the inconvenience of being in prison.
So until they start piping Air America radio into the cell blocks at Guantanamo or forcing detainees to listen to marathons of Ashlee Simpson, the residents at Club Gitmo should stop crying and eat their honey-glazed fish before it gets cold.
Torture, Shmorture.
About the Writer: Matthew Holmes is a North Carolina-based columnist. His articles have been featured in the North Carolina Conservative, ChronWatch, World Net Daily, NewsMax, Opinion Editorials, and other media outlets. He can be reached at blade729@msn.com or on the web at Wildfire Politics www.wildfirepolitics.com.
Ellie
Written by Matthew Holmes
Thursday, January 05, 2006
President Bush will not stand for it. Condoleezza Rice says we don’t do it. The U.S. military launches investigation after investigation anytime it is alleged and punishes anyone suspected of it. And no, it is not cutting taxes.
“We do not torture,” President Bush says.
Secretary of State Rice adds, “As policy, [The United Nations Convention Against Torture] extends to U.S. personnel wherever they are, whether they are in the U.S. or outside the U.S.”
Not torturing terrorists “is existing policy,” says White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan.
Meanwhile, a recent poll by AP-Ipsos found that a majority of Americans and most people in Britain, South Korea, and even France believe torturing suspected terrorists is sometimes justified. Which begs my question: Why don’t we “torture” terrorists?
“Because it doesn’t work,” whine liberals everywhere. Let me answer that argument in a language all leftist surrender monkeys can understand—Au Contraire, suckers.
In reality, “torture” can be quite effective. And, unlike most theories posed by liberals (gun control and global warming to name a couple), you don’t have to take my word for it, because there is evidence that proves me right.
Ask Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM) about how effective “torture” is. At last count, Mohammed—the Al Qaeda mastermind behind the 9/11 attacks—had provided hundreds of footnoted revelations with regard to Al Qaeda’s tactics, targets, and goals, all thanks to “torture” techniques like waterboarding (an interrogation tactic that gives the sensation of drowning).
“Information obtained through aggressive interrogation is not reliable,” liberals say, apparently unaware that over one-hundred of Mohammed’s statements were deemed solid enough to be included in the report submitted by the 9/11 Commission.
Among other things, KSM admitted that Al Qaeda supported and abetted Zacarias Moussaoui, the so-called “20th hijacker,” who was arrested in Minnesota three weeks before September 11 and later pleaded guilty to planning to fly a hijacked airplane into the White House.
So while liberals and the United Nations cry gigantic crocodile tears over “cruel and unusual interrogation torture methods” like waterboarding, let me pose the argument in a different way.
If we could travel back in time to three weeks before September 11, 2001, and by torturing Moussaoui learn something that could have prevented the 9/11 plot, would you support it?
I don’t think we need a Gallup poll to predict that the vote would be nearly unanimous in favor of putting the screws to Moussaoui. Suddenly, this blanket philosophy of “We do not torture” doesn’t sound so noble when put in the midst of a real scenario, does it?
But if we have to satisfy liberals, perhaps we should simply begin modeling our treatment of terrorists after the way liberals treat people they hate.
Granted, waterboarding is no picnic, but imagine if we treated terrorists the way liberals deal with unborn babies. Imagine the amount of intelligence that could be gleaned from lowlifes like Khalid Sheik Mohammed if the alternative to squealing on his Al Qaeda brethren was to have a fork stabbed through his head that would suck out whatever bits of brain matter it could find.
Or, if waterboarding must be banned, we could achieve the same sensation of drowning by sending terrorists for a ride in the car through Chappaquiddick with Ted Kennedy. When compared to a Sunday drive in the Oldsmobile with Uncle Teddy and his best friend Jim Beam, sleep deprivation suddenly doesn’t sound so brutal and inhumane, does it?
Of course, the other problem with blanket statements like, “We do not torture,” is that it is impossible to quantify. What exactly is torture?
All too often, one man’s idea of torture is another man’s bliss. One man’s unbearable suffering is another man’s John Kerry campaign speech. One man’s waterboard is another’s prized Richard Simmons DVD collection.
And let’s face it; no interrogation tactic employed by the evil CIA rivals the Al Qaeda version of justice--namely, American civilians that wind up mysteriously missing their heads.
But, Holmes, how do you respond to the stories of abuse being told by enemy combatants at Guantanamo Bay?
Please forgive me if I don’t believe allegations of torture from a bunch of misfits hanging out on brand-new prayer mats at Club Gitmo, eating catered, Islam-specific meals in between soccer games and exercise, all courtesy of the American taxpayers that they would gladly decapitate if it weren’t for the inconvenience of being in prison.
So until they start piping Air America radio into the cell blocks at Guantanamo or forcing detainees to listen to marathons of Ashlee Simpson, the residents at Club Gitmo should stop crying and eat their honey-glazed fish before it gets cold.
Torture, Shmorture.
About the Writer: Matthew Holmes is a North Carolina-based columnist. His articles have been featured in the North Carolina Conservative, ChronWatch, World Net Daily, NewsMax, Opinion Editorials, and other media outlets. He can be reached at blade729@msn.com or on the web at Wildfire Politics www.wildfirepolitics.com.
Ellie