There are several wretches currently spewing abominable lies, which like all the best lies are strategic deployments to advance the cause of the mendacious scum utilising them.
Gee shucks waterboarding is torture, but it works. Beautiful, by admitting it’s torture you open the feeble minded to hearing your lies, hmmm seems like a reasonable patriotic guy, he hated to do it but hey turns out it worked. One small problem the only, the only people saying it worked are the criminals who perpetrated the torture and one more thing, the man they tortured was mentally ill, that ain’t getting much play.
Abu Zubaydah, his captors discovered, turned out to be mentally ill and nothing like the pivotal figure they supposed him to be. CIA and FBI analysts, poring over a diary he kept for more than a decade, found entries “in the voice of three people: Hani 1, Hani 2, and Hani 3” — a boy, a young man and a middle-aged alter ego. All three recorded in numbing detail “what people ate, or wore, or trifling things they said.” Dan Coleman, then the FBI’s top al-Qaeda analyst, told a senior bureau official, “This guy is insane, certifiable, split personality.”
Abu Zubaydah also appeared to know nothing about terrorist operations; rather, he was al-Qaeda’s go-to guy for minor logistics — travel for wives and children and the like. That judgment was “echoed at the top of CIA and was, of course, briefed to the President and Vice President,” Suskind writes. And yet somehow, in a speech delivered two weeks later, President Bush portrayed Abu Zubaydah as “one of the top operatives plotting and planning death and destruction on the United States.” And over the months to come, under White House and Justice Department direction, the CIA would make him its first test subject for harsh interrogation techniques.
Torture is a terror tactic to intimidate both your enemy and domestic dissenters while simultaneously it creates the information that confirms the torturer’s world view. Thus the hideous practices are justified in a circular reinforcing logic. But added to that here is a criminal trying to avoid war crimes prosecution by claiming the actions saved lives, a claim that of course we will never be allowed to verify, because it is false. And the other thing being fogotten- a regime that tortures has no legitimacy and all good people must unite to destroy it, no exceptions, no excuses. You do this, you are over.
PS. This torture promoting ingenue now works in the private sector most recently he worked for Viacom on The Kite Runner. I’m sure they’ll follow that up with a movie about coalition atrocities.
PPS. It is not simulated drowning, your lungs are filled with water, it is actual drowning, that’s the point- you fear for your life. Jeebus first ‘enhanced interrogation’ now ‘simulated’. The underground whirring from Sutton Courtenay must be deafening.
President Bush on Tuesday called on Iran to explain why it had a secretive nuclear weapons program, and warned that any such efforts must not be allowed to flourish “for the sake of world peace.”
“Iran is dangerous,” Bush said after an Oval Office meeting with Italian President Giorgio Napolitano. “We believe Iran had a secret military weapons program, and Iran must explain to the world why they had a program.”
Okay, here we go shit for brains-
Name a country’s nuclear program that is not ‘secretive’, civilian power stations (let alone any military facilities) have armed guards in this country as they do in yours you fucking imbecile. Oh yeah and…Israel. But lets face it you are obliquely referring to the war pimps promotion of the ‘laptop of death’ fantasy.
A false accusation is a potent weapon, it puts the burden of proof on the target removing their ability to engage in a discourse not dictated by the attacker. To the enfeebled they assume simply because an accusation is made that the accuser simply wouldn’t lie from out of the blue, the ignorant ‘there’s no smoke without fire’ approach to small minded idiocy. And , umm when he says they had a program, that would also be your people saying that, not for example the IAEA-
it would be worthwhile to remember that despite the clandestine importation of centrifuges from Pakistan, Iran’s plan to develop the uranium enrichment process was hardly a secret. For example, Iran had invited IAEA inspectors to visit Iran’s uranium mines in 1996. There is no use for uranium ore except to be enriched – or, I guess, to be made into paperweights. In fact, 10 years prior to that, the discovery of uranium deposits and plans to mine uranium were all discussed on Iranian national radio with a director of Iran’s Atomic Energy Agency. Iran and the IAEA had even drawn up plans whereby the IAEA was to provide technical assistance to Iran’s enrichment program – but that as well as subsequent Iranian contracts with other foreign governments to build enrichment facilities in Iran fell through under US pressure (thus forcing the Iranians to go to Pakistani sources to obtain the centrifuge technology that they were fully legally entitled to have in the first place.)
What sort of a “secret nuclear weapons program” invites IAEA inspectors and announces its existence on the radio? On what basis should we simply accept the NIE’s recent version of history regarding Iran’s nuclear program? Why should we believe that Iran EVER had a nuclear weapons program when there is absolutely no evidence for it?
Of course Bush has been sent out there to continue to push the idea Iran is a threat and if enough stupid people buy that then they get their attack and suffer no consequences. Yes, despite the mutiny of the establishment via the NIE the cabal of war criminals are unsurprsisngly…undeterred. We know they have psychopathic levels of shamelessness, he must of really chuckled giving the WWIII speech even as he knew what the NIE said.
The Democratic politicians briefed on the torture program were so bound by secrecy oaths they could not speak up. Errr…NO.
The Speech and Debate clause has been interpreted to extend beyond floor speeches, e.g. to committee statements, but it unquestionably applies to floor statements. Thus, it would have been possible for Rep. Harman, or Senator Rockefeller, or the others allegedly briefed to go to the floor, either during the times when members may speak on topics of their choice, or under one of the extraordinary mechanism for privileged statements, and denounce the Bush administration’s determinate to torture helpless captives in secret offshore detention facilities.
Not really much more to say to that, no. That is a lie, therefore for reasons of cowardice, submission or approval you kept schtum. Just one teesny weensiest problemissimo with that- YOU ARE THE FUCKING OPPOSITION. Consequently we may conclude there is no effective opposition to the descent into an end stage metastasised fascist imperium.
We need 42 day detention without charge and parliament’s oversight will be an effective check on that. First of all lets say six weeks, as that is the time they propose, it’s just 42 days sounds shorter. No, six weeks where you are completely at the mercy of the police. No, what six weeks is for brings us back to our merry torturer friend, it means the suspicions of the authorities may be imprinted on an individual who can be worn down so they reflect those suspicions. It will simply lead to another stream of wrongful convictions, we did it with even less detention time to numerous Irish people, this time I’m guessing the main beneficiaries of Her Majesty’s pleasures will be of a darker hue and rarely catholic.
The current time of 28 days/ four weeks is already an outrage, anti terrorist laws are routinely used as a means of public control and numerous peaceful protesters have been detained under them which goes toward demonstrating that whatever this government claims, the reality of how it uses the law is provably radically different. So no, they should not be trusted with locking people up for six weeks of interrogation. No one should. They even knew that in 1215 which I would say is reasonably long enough ago to be sufficiently embedded in our history and culture so that even an Oxford graduate would be aware of it, huh Jacqui? (look I’ve even provided a link, I know you ex-economics teachers aren’t so clever with the ‘finding out information off your own initiative’ thing, too much like thinking, eh?)