SubscribeACLU: CIA’s “Tortures” Honed In US Prisons
From our friends at CNS News:
Torture Tactics Refined In US Prisons, ACLU Says
By Nathan Burchfiel
September 28, 2006(CNSNews.com) - The director of the American Civil Liberties Union’s National Prisoner Project Wednesday accused U.S. governments past and present of honing torture tactics in American prisons before they were allegedly implemented in terrorist detention centers in Afghanistan, Iraq and Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
"If you look at the iconic pictures from Abu Ghraib," Elizabeth Alexander told reporters at the U.S. Capitol Wednesday, "you can match up these photos with the same abuses at American prisons, each one of them."
Alexander said the infamous torture tactics uncovered at Abu Ghraib were first used in American prisons, but without cameras. "The photo from Abu Ghraib showing a mock execution matches events in Sacramento, California, in which guards staged mock executions of prisoners," she said.
The images of dogs being used to intimidate prisoners portray similar events that occurred in a Texas jail, according to Alexander, who added that the sexual humiliation that occurred in Abu Ghraib is similar to sexual abuse in women’s prisons in the United States.
She said the ACLU knows and has proven that the torture tactics have been used in American prisons, but lacks the photographic evidence found at Abu Ghraib because "you could never get a camera into an American prison."
Alexander made the accusations at a panel discussion on the "history, experimentation, techniques, training, exporting and use of torture by [the] U.S. government," sponsored by outgoing U.S. Rep. Cynthia McKinney (D-Ga.).
McKinney was not at the event, which was moderated by her Special Project Assistant, John Judge. Calls placed to McKinney’s Washington, D.C., office were unanswered Wednesday.
In a written statement submitted by University of Wisconsin Professor Alfred McCoy and read by Judge at Wednesday’s event, McCoy asserted that the tactics used at Abu Ghraib were "not the sadism of a few creeps but instead [are] the two key trademarks of the CIA’s psychological torture."
McCoy wrote that psychological torture has been developed over the "past half century" in the U.S. intelligence community into a "distinctively American interrogation technique."
McCoy, who recently published a book entitled "A Question of Torture: CIA Interrogation from the Cold War to the War on Terror," argued that the CIA has been testing and implementing various forms of psychological torture since the 1950s.
He called psychological torture "a central, if clandestine facet of American foreign policy."
James Carafano, a senior research fellow for national security at the conservative Heritage Foundation, said if there is evidence of abuse in American prisons, it should be given to authorities.
"If somebody made this assertion I would hope they have evidence to support it," he told Cybercast News Service, "and if they have evidence to support it they should give it to the authorities and people should be tried for crimes because torture is illegal. It’s illegal whether you do it inside or outside the United States." …
What would we ever do without the ACLU looking our for our liberties?
Lest we forget, here are some of the Torture devices used by Saddam Hussein’s son Uday on members of Iraq’s Olympic team as tools of punishment for bad performance:
But never mind all that.
The ACLU has its priorities.
Related Articles:
31 Responses to “ACLU: CIA’s “Tortures” Honed In US Prisons”
Leave a Reply
You must be registered and logged in to post a comment.
September 28th, 2006 at 2:58 pm
I just watched the episode of Criminal Minds from last night in which a pedofile is offering up at auction a child he has imprisoned somewhere over the net. The Feds are trying to track him down and carefully playing by “the rules” so as not to queer the investigation or subsequent prosecution.
I got to thinking about how these “rules” came about and who could possibly support anything remotely like this. Then I came here and read about more of the same from the ACLU and found my answer. I wonder how much longer this is going to happen. The “bad guys” in the TV show cried about their rights and I can’t imagine anyone for the life of me caring one iota about the rights of somebody who is auctioning off a child online or people who only exist to facilitate the relationships between young boys and grown men or those planning on flying planes into high rise buildings full of civilians. But I see this is the charter for the ACLU. This is the purpose of their existence. Plain and simple.
I wonder when enough of us will say enough is enough?
September 28th, 2006 at 2:59 pm
Hey, what’s the big pot helmet with the birdbeak for?
September 28th, 2006 at 3:12 pm
Speaking of the ACLU, here is some more of their handywork. (Remember this “judge” is an ACLU lackey.)
From the Detroit News:
September 28th, 2006 at 3:14 pm
The ACLU’s priorities remind me of wet plywood–warped.
September 28th, 2006 at 8:15 pm
When you hide your lust for torture behind a contempt for the ACLU, you’re only fooling yourselves. If you endorse the suspension of habeas corpus and the torture of detainees in the quest for information, then be prepared, be very prepared, for one hundred and ninety-four other nations on Earth to figure they can adopt a few techniques themselves. Didn’t this ever occur to you? Hasn’t it occured to you that bad guys read the crap you write on this scummy blog? You actually believe the Bush administration has kept you safe from this? Not for long. So long, boys, and good luck.
September 28th, 2006 at 8:36 pm
I would reply to each of your assertions “1ord” but I don’t believe it’s worth my time or effort to do so. Have a nice day. :)
September 28th, 2006 at 8:48 pm
Oh, come on. I thought Gila Monsters eat rats ;)
September 28th, 2006 at 8:56 pm
They do fluffy and believe me, I was “lusting” for that one. I suppose “proper blog decorum” got the better of me….LOL :)
September 28th, 2006 at 10:06 pm
The ignorance of 1ord is stunning to say the least. First of all, these terrorists that have been captured on the F-ING battlefield have no rights. They fight for jihad and not under the flag for any country, therefore warrant no consideration for any Geneva Convention protections. This point has been skillfully put to bed by my fellow posters on S&L. But, I would like to make two main points:
1. I am sick and tired of hearing these loonie liberals talking about how we have to take the so-called moral high ground regarding the treatment of the terrorists that we capure. They have no idea what morality is in the first place. These terrorists do not deserve any quarter when they are captured. Who the F-K cares what the world, espeically the stupid arab street, thinks about our morality. Truly, the moral thing to do is to protect the citizens of the US. I hate moral relativism, there is evil in this world, just look into the eyes of a jihadist… it is clear as day. I will draw no comfort knowing that a terrorist attack could have been avoided had we used harsh measures to gain information on a pending attack, as the innocent dead and wounded are carted away, knowing well at least we have the “moral high ground”. I am sure the families of the victims will be comforted that at least we are morally superior in the eyes of the loony left (NOT).
Most of the jihadist a-holes, IMHO, joined the fight for some romantic notion of fighting jihad against the infadel, and have no idea what they are getting themselves into, much less what would happen when they are captured. Look how fast the 14 qaida leaders and operatives broke after they were water boarded. The intel gained from that was able to stop 12 planned terrorist attacks targeted at the US and our interests. And that was us that was interrogating them, not the pakis or the Iraqis. Their methods are a bit more harsh, to put it mildly. Which brings me to my second point.
2. The notion of using torture or harsh questioning yields mostly false information is, IMHO, patently false. Everybody has a breaking point, and these unsophisticated jihadist asshats, have a very low breaking point. If it is made clear that first of all, nobody knows where they are, and that it only gets worse for them from here on out, but muliply that by 10x if they lie. I believe they will spill the beans, just ask the 14 qaida d-ckweeds that were waterboarded. One of them broke within seconds! Or better yet, make it clear that if they lie that they will be turned over to the Iraqis or the Mossad… the truth will flow. It works and it saves innocent lives.
So 1ord… feel morally superior… close your eyes to reality, its your right… and let the adults do their job keeping us safe, because they truly understand what is at risk, they don’t need your morality lecture, because they are the ones that know morality.
September 28th, 2006 at 10:11 pm
“If you endorse the suspension of habeas corpus and the torture of detainees in the quest for information, then be prepared, be very prepared, for one hundred and ninety-four other nations on Earth to figure they can adopt a few techniques themselves.”
You mean they might give our soldiers belly slaps instead of dragging our behind trucks and setting them on fire? Or beheading them?
Do you even know what the right of habeas corpus is? And that it is a right of citizens, which these are not? And that even Lincoln suspended that right for US citizens during a time of war?
And that up until very recently, US citizens charged of crimes while in the US military had no such right? In fact, it’s still up for debate.
(Just kidding, I know you don’t know these minor details.)
September 28th, 2006 at 10:57 pm
Lord dee! Scummy blog eh? That means he is worried that we exist…..because we can shoot down all of his bullshit without blinking an eye. So long boys, and good luck? Yeah, you will need it when it comes down to bullets. Oh, and you will envy the dead.
September 28th, 2006 at 11:50 pm
Yes, there will be hell to pay when we find that the bad guys finally put down their copies of “People” and “Good Housekeeping” and turned to S&L for their education in all things sadistic.
You know all I hear from bad guys these days is “We were gonna give those captured soldiers and kidnapped civilans three hots and a cot, but, boy, now that I’ve read this I’m gonna get medieval on their collective ass.”
Frankly, if I were a “bad guy” my primary purpose for reading this blog would be to figure out where SJ, 1st, and DW live (among others)–and then never, ever go there.
September 29th, 2006 at 12:49 am
It has occurred to me that the problem liberals have with so-called “torture” (if Abu Ghraib was “torture” then what is the word for what I went through pledging my fraternity in college???) all comes back to the whole “law enforcement action” concept that the libs think the GWOT is.
In their naive minds it is a law enforcement action - meaning that if you capture a terrorist and beat him bloody until he tells you where his accomplices are this is bad because you can’t use that evidence against him in court.
In my mind who the hell cares what you do to him if you stop the terrorists from doing what they were planning.
In other words - would it have been better to capture Mohammed Atta on 9/10 and beat the crap out of him to get him to give up the other 18 and prevent 9/11 attacks but lose the ability to prosecute him in the process—- or give him a public defender and a nice trial, and let 3000 die???
F the terrorist and stop the loss of life.
And if we are nice to them they will only cut off an arm instead of your head?
Stupid libs.
September 29th, 2006 at 12:50 am
Oki:
“Hey, what’s the big pot helmet with the birdbeak for? ”
1ord.
September 29th, 2006 at 4:16 am
“…then be prepared, be very prepared, for one hundred and ninety-four other nations on Earth to figure they can adopt a few techniques themselves. ”
They already have. Name one war in which captured American soldiers were NOT tortured by their captors. Anyone? And it’s really not the “nations” that we’re at war with.
As Ann Coulter put it, “The belief that we can impress the enemy with our magnanimity is an idea that just won’t die…But being nice to enemies is an idea that has never worked, no matter how many times liberals make us do it. It didn’t work with the Soviet Union, Imperial Japan, Hitler or the North Vietnamese — enemies notable for being more civilized than the Islamic savages we are at war with today. By the way, how did the Geneva Conventions work out for McCain at the Hanoi Hilton?”
http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-.....rticle=148
But seriously, we’d better start treating Mohammed and his friends nicely after we capture them in the act of trying to kill us, or they might get mad and try to kill us.
September 29th, 2006 at 4:17 am
“Hasn’t it occured to you that bad guys read the crap you write on this scummy blog?”
Well, not until you posted here…
September 29th, 2006 at 4:22 am
“The notion of using torture or harsh questioning yields mostly false information is, IMHO, patently false.”
You’re absolutely right, SinCity. We’re not talking about rounding up random Iraqis and torturing them until they inform on their parents. We’re talking about REAL enemies captured on the battlefield who have REAL information to give up.
September 29th, 2006 at 7:36 am
Hasn’t it occured to you that bad guys read the crap you write on this scummy blog? You actually believe the Bush administration has kept you safe from this? Not for long. So long, boys, and good luck.
Does anyone else get the impression that this was written from inside a tinfoil bunker deep in the basement of a middle-class house? As imaginary black helicopters roar overhead and white vans with darkened windows and “FOX NEWS” painted on the sides, prowl the streets. Maybe even the odd machine from “War of the Worlds” tromps by……
…he stands up from his computer…his 40 year old visage set in a grim expression as he plugs a cigar into his mouth and lights it…he pauses to wonder what that white plastic thing is on the end of the cigar and why is it melting instead of lighting? …
…in disgust he throws the cigar away and looks one last time at the computer….“So long boys. And good luck” he says and then begins to arm himself for the final battle…
From seemingly far away, a voice penetrates his lair…he listens carefully, his head cocked to one side…it’s his mother’s voice…”come up for supper” the voice says.
He sighs and begins to unstrap his paintball gun, his Lord of the Rings sword and his cape. As he doffs his tinfoil helmet, the voice continues: …”and your father wants to know when you’re going to try to find a job instead of sitting there in the basement all day and night…”
September 29th, 2006 at 8:26 am
Good one DW. I bet SJ will put on his thinking cap. Watch out everyone :)
September 29th, 2006 at 8:44 am
DW….Monitor covered with morning mouth goo….”what that white plastic thing is on the end of the cigar and why is it melting instead of lighting?” …oh damn!
September 29th, 2006 at 8:49 am
Hey loser lord,
Did you ever read the “Interview with a POW from WWII”?
http://www.glynn.k12.ga.us/~pw...../home.html
Did you ever read the story about Hill 303 during the Korean War?
http://www.lipan.net/~royator/massacre.htm
As mentioned above, the Hanoi Hilton during Vietnam?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanoi_Hilton
Of course these are just the tip of the iceberg when it came to how our soliders have been treated since the so-called “Geneva Conventions” were amended in 1929 to cover the treatment of wounded and POW’s. Why is it with liberals, world history seems to have started on Jan 20, 2001 when W got into office? Anything that happened before that is the product of a right-wing imagination in their eyes.
September 29th, 2006 at 9:30 am
lord
First I take offense as I concur with all the that is written on this site (and other rational, thinking sites I visit) and I am not a GUY.
Second, someone who does not have morals (you can’t be liberal and support abortion, euthanasia, gay marriage etc etc and have morals) should not even begin to try to take the moral high road.
America is a soverign country which has been a becon for freedom, propsperity and opportunities for hundreds of years - we must never, ever run our country by any other countries standards, laws or rules. Consider participation (yeah, look at that stellar example of World ‘diplomacy’ the UN) and interaction and discussion with allies - I am all for. But to design policy and the actual running of the country.
What happens in Abu Ghraib and Gitmo are not torture - using ‘talking points’ and emotional hot button words might grab headlines and incite the ’stupid masses’ into rising anti-Bush poll numbers but reality is much more than headlines and poll numbers. That way of running America and American policies is actually the worst ‘legacy’ of the Clinton administration.
Thank God President Bush has morals, a desire to protect America from her enemies and the lack of concern to run this country by other countries rules, laws, and poll numbers. America has survived and will as long as that continues.
And DW hit the nail on the head about lord’s status.
September 29th, 2006 at 9:35 am
SinCity said: “2. The notion of using torture or harsh questioning yields mostly false information is, IMHO, patently false. Everybody has a breaking point, and these unsophisticated jihadist asshats, have a very low breaking point. If it is made clear that first of all, nobody knows where they are, and that it only gets worse for them from here on out, but muliply that by 10x if they lie. I believe they will spill the beans, just ask the 14 qaida d-ckweeds that were waterboarded. One of them broke within seconds! Or better yet, make it clear that if they lie that they will be turned over to the Iraqis or the Mossad… the truth will flow. It works and it saves innocent lives.”
I wonder if they break so easily because they know what THEY would do to prisoners if they caught one of US. They know they wouldn’t stop until their captives beg for death and therefore they give in almost immediately like the cowards they are.
Another way of saying that is, “They don’t let others do unto them what THEY would do unto others.” (Paraphrased sorta from Matthew 7:120)
I was going to include a nice counter-quote from Quran about what the Quran says to do to their enemies but I would have required too much space.
September 29th, 2006 at 10:32 am
“be very prepared, for one hundred and ninety-four other nations on Earth to figure they can adopt a few techniques themselves”
Most of them have adopted far worse. Witness the bodies found in Baghdad and elsewhere bearing marks of real torture…not loud music, belly slaps, and shirt grabs.
As is typical for those like ‘lord’, accusations are spewed and moral high ground asserted and then…and then…the inevitable order for that most French of military maneuvers…”Run away!”
“even Lincoln suspended that right for US citizens during a time of war”
SG - Lincoln’s doing so is not something we should exemplify as one of his “great” accomplishments in a war solely fought to force sovereign states (that had lawfully left the Union) to submit to centralized power.
September 29th, 2006 at 10:59 am
What happened to the proposed law to stop government funding of the ACLU? Anyone know?
This law needs to be passed and fast!
September 29th, 2006 at 11:02 am
Awww crap. I didn’t know that. Why would the ACLU get funding from the government? (yes, I was wearing blinders until maybe a year ago. )
September 29th, 2006 at 11:13 am
Well, like many things (PETA, civil rights laws, etc.), the ACLU was provided funds to defend true civil liberty cases. After winning many $$$, the ACLU began to see a real money making adventure.
As more people found out that the Government was giving money to the ACLU (sort of), a bill was written.
Just saw this from a blog as my own followup:
Just as this is being written, the House of Representatives has just passed H.R. 2679, the “Public Expression of Religion Act of 2005”. The bill would bar the recovery of attorneys’ fees to citizens who file lawsuits asserting their civil rights in cases brought under the First Amendment. We need the Senate to follow through and also pass this act to end this abuse by the ACLU, who is fighting this bill.
September 29th, 2006 at 11:55 am
That explains why I have seen the ACLU landing on alternating sides of arguments and such. Money coming in on both sides of the cases?
September 29th, 2006 at 12:28 pm
but the “tortures” were honed by the AP releases and Reuters reporting, for example it’s pure torture to listen and read the AP about Jimmy (the president who disgraced our nation with his “leadership”):
Ex-Prez Carter: Bush has brought U.S. “international disgrace”
http://www.kesq.com/Global/story.asp?S=5473638
RENO, Nev. Former President Carter is urging northern Nevadans to elect his son, Jack, to the Senate to help combat a Bush administration he says has brought “international disgrace” to the country.
The former president told a crowd of about 300 on the campus of the University of Nevada, Reno today that the nation is more sharply divided that it has ever been as a result of Bush’s policies.
The winner of the Nobel Peace Prize in 2002, he says he’s deeply embarrassed that the American government now stands convicted around the world as one of the greatest abusers of civil rights. He continued the theme in a dinner speech to 700 at a Democratic fundraiser tonight, saying every past president has been a supporter of human rights, until this one.
Jack Carter is bidding to unseat Republican Senator John Ensign. Both father and son said Ensign must go because he has voted 96 percent of the time with the Bush administration. They say that in addition to bungling foreign policy, Bush has cut taxes for the rich to the detriment of working Americans.
The former president say that Bush’s policies have been a radical departure from what all previous presidents have done, including Republicans like Bush’s own father, Ronald Reagan, Richard Nixon and Dwight Eisenhower.
He says never before has the United States had a policy of pre-emptive war, as was the case in what he called an “ill-advised invasion” of Iraq.
September 29th, 2006 at 12:37 pm
I will post this once again for anyone who missed it.
‘AMERICA CAN’T DO A THING’
by Amir Taheri
New York Post
November 2, 2004
November 2, 2004 — AMERICANS will certainly have 9/11 in mind when they vote today. But they should keep another date in mind, too — one almost exactly a quarter-century ago: Nov. 4, 1979. A clear path runs to 9/11 from the day of the raid on the U.S. embassy in Tehran and the seizure of American hostages.
The 1979 embassy attack came at a time when the administration of President Jimmy Carter was trying to prop up the new Khomeinist regime in Tehran.
Carter had decided to support Khomeini in the context of the so-called “Green Belt” strategy developed by National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski. That strategy was based on the assumption that the United States and its allies were unable to contain the Soviet Union, then expanding its zone of influence into Africa, the Indian Ocean region and, through left-leaning regimes, in Latin America. To counter that expanding threat, Brzezinski envisaged the creation of a string of Islamic allies that, for religious and political reasons, would prefer the United States against the “godless” Soviet empire.
The second stage in Brzezinski’s grand strategy was to incite the Muslim peoples of the Soviet Union to revolt against Moscow and thus frustrate its global schemes.
The Bzrezinski strategy had been partly inspired by Helene Carrere d’Encausse, who, in her book “The Fragmented Empire,” predicted the disintegration of the Soviet Union as a result of revolts by Muslim minorities.
When the Islamic revolution started in Iran, the Carter administration saw it as the confirmation of its assumption that only Islamists could muster enough popular support to provide an alternative to both the existing regime and the pro-Soviet leftist movements.
The Carter administration went out of its way to support the new regime in Tehran. A ban imposed on the sale of arms and materiel to Iran, imposed in 1978, was lifted, and a 1954 presidential “finding” by Dwight Eisenhower was dusted off to reaffirm Washington’s commitment to defending Iran against Soviet or other threats.
Also to symbolize support for the mullahs, President Carter initially rejected a visa application for the exiled shah to travel to New York for medical treatment.
Just weeks after the mullahs’ regime was formed, Brzezinski traveled to Morocco to meet Mehdi Bazargan, Ayatollah Khomeini’s first prime minister. At the meeting, Brzezinski invited the new Iranian regime to enter into a strategic partnership with the United States. Bazargan, concerned that the Iranian left might bid for power against the still wobbly regime of the mullahs, was “ecstatic” about the American offer.
The embassy raid came just days after the Brzezinski-Bazargan meeting in Morocco and, by all accounts, took Khomeini by surprise. It is now clear that leftist groups opposed to rapprochement with the United States had inspired the raid.
Khomeini saw it as a leftist ploy to undermine his authority. He was also concerned about the possibility of the United States taking strong military and political action against his still fragile regime.
Deciding to hedge his bets, the ayatollah played a double game for several days, waiting to gauge the American reaction.
According to his late son Ahmad, who had been asked to coordinate with the embassy-raiders, the ayatollah feared “thunder and lightning” from Washington. But what came, instead, was a series of bland statements by Carter and his aides pleading for the release of the hostages on humanitarian grounds.
Carter’s envoy to the United Nations, a certain Andrew Young, described Khomeini as “a 20th-century saint,” and begged the ayatollah to show “magnanimity and compassion.”
Carter went further by sending a letter to Khomeini.
Written in longhand, it was an appeal from “one believer to a man of God.”
Carter’s syrupy prose must have amused Khomeini, who preferred a minimalist style with such phrases as “we shall cut off America’s hands.”
As days passed, with the U.S. diplomats paraded in front of TV cameras blindfolded and threatened with execution, it became increasingly clear that there would be no “thunder and lightning” from Washington. By the end of the first week of the drama (which was to last for 444 days, ending as Ronald Reagan entered the White House), Khomeini’s view of America had changed.
Ahmad Khomeini’s memoirs echo the surprise that his father, the ayatollah, showed, as the Carter administration behaved “like a headless chicken.”
What especially surprised Khomeini was that Cater and his aides, notably Secretary of State Cyrus Vance, rather than condemning the seizure and the treatment of the hostages as a barbarous act, appeared apologetic for unspecified mistakes supposedly committed by the United States and asked for forgiveness and magnanimity.
Once he had concluded that America would not take any meaningful action against his regime, Khomeini took over control of the hostage enterprise and used it to prop up his “anti-imperialist” credentials while outflanking the left.
The surprising show of weakness from Washington also encouraged the mullahs and the hostage-holders to come up with a fresh demand each day. Started as a revolutionary gesture, the episode soon led to a demand for the United States to capture and hand over the shah for trial. When signals came that Washington might actually consider doing so, other demands were advanced. The United States was asked to apologize to Muslim peoples everywhere and, in effect, change its foreign policy to please the ayatollah.
Matters worsened when a military mission to rescue the hostages ended in tragedy in the Iranian desert. The force dispatched by Carter fled under the cover of night, leaving behind the charred bodies of eight of their comrades.
In his memoirs, Ahmad nicely captures the mood of his father, who had expected the Americans to do “something serious,” such as threatening to block Iran’s oil exports or even firing a few missiles at the ayatollah’s neighborhood.
But not only did none of that happen, the Carter administration was plunged into internal feuds as Vance resigned in protest of the rescue attempt.
It was then that Khomeini coined his notorious phrase, “America cannot do a damn thing.”
He also ordered that the slogan “Death to America” be inscribed in all official buildings and vehicles. The U.S. flag was to be painted at the entrance of airports, railway stations, ministries, factories, schools, hotels and bazaars so that the faithful could trample it under their feet every day.
The slogan “America cannot do a damn thing” became the basis of all strategies worked out by Islamist militant groups, including those opposed to Khomeini.
That slogan was tested and proved right for almost a quarter of a century. Between Nov. 4, 1979, and 9/11, a total of 671 Americans were held hostage for varying lengths of time in several Muslim countries. Nearly 1,000 Americans were killed, including 241 Marines blown up while sleeping in Beirut in 1983.
For 22 years the United States, under presidents from both parties, behaved in exactly the way that Khomeini predicted. It took countless successive blows, including the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center in New York, without decisive retaliation. That attitude invited, indeed encouraged, more attacks.
The 9/11 tragedy was the denouement of the Nov. 4 attack on the U.S. embassy in Tehran.
E-mail: amirtaheri@benadorassociates.com
September 29th, 2006 at 6:12 pm
Where’d he go??? Damn, I didn’t even get to reply before his dad pulled the plug and has him out at the business end of the lawnmower.
Let’s take a look at it piece by piece….just in case you can get your mom to intervene on your behalf and you get back on the computer before you are eligible for Social Security.
“When you hide your lust for torture behind contempt for the ACLU, you’re only fooling yourselves.”
No, yes and not even close. No, I lust not for war or torture, but when laid at my doorstep, I don’t cower in fear or run and hide. Yes, I have nothing but utter and complete contempt for anyone or any organization who aids and abets the people who have sworn an oath to kill me and my family at any and all opportunities, supports an adult male’s RIGHT to have sex with pre-adolescent males or fights hammer and tong for lunatic fringe groups to spew filth at families burying brave soldiers killed upholding the precepts set out by our founding fathers. Their transgressions to my sensibilities go on ad nasuem. And not even close to fooling myself because I hide neither.
“If you endorse the suspension of habeas corpus and the torture of detainees in the quest for information, then be prepared; be very prepared, for one hundred and ninety-four other nations on Earth to figure they can adopt a few techniques themselves.”
Can you tell me of a country where I as an enemy combatant would be extended the right of habeas corpus? Since when do prisoners of war not wearing a uniform in combat receive anything but a bullet for being a spy? As others here have stated…….when did our enemies begin to NOT torture our people? Within the last month a report out of Iraq stated that 2 captured soldiers were tortured, executed, set on fire and dragged through the streets. But I guess that is what panties on your head earn you in your bizarro world of moral equivalence.
“Didn’t this ever occur to you?” What?? That if we don’t roll over and stick our ass in the air and beg for them not to stick it in too far, that this will in some way prevent my family from burying a headless corpse. Unlike you, I see this situation with incredible clarity. I am not foolishly and in a quest for political power, making statements equating the treatment of murderous psychopaths and religious fanatics bent on our destruction and world domination with how our law enforcement community treats criminals apprehended on the streets of the cities of this country. It is one thing to extend rights to US citizens within the framework of the Bill of Rights or Constitution, but quite another to do the same to the individuals currently held at Gitmo.
“Hasn’t it occurred to you that bad guys read the crap you write on this scummy blog?” I take you as living proof as to the veracity of this statement. And while I could care less as to your assessment of my writing prowess, I take umbrage with your juvenile remark about this site. I have been here for quite some time…..back when the Witch in the Ditch was breaking news and have to say two things. One, I don’t really think of this as a blog as much as a message board or chat endeavor. While SG does interject his opinions on the topics here, it isn’t his prose we examine insomuch as it is commentary on articles provided by the various outlets of mostly disinformation flooding out of Moonbatizstan. And two, it was far from scummy and will return to same once you are gone for good.
“You actually believe the Bush administration has kept you safe from this? Not for long. So long, boys, and good luck.” Yes, maybe, good bye and thanks. Yes, I can easily look at how many times, foreign and domestic, WE were attacked by these terrorists in non-combat situations prior to Feb. 2001 and how many times since and while I profess a proficiency in mathematics, I will put it plainly enough so that even you can understand why I feel safer. 4-1. World Trade Center part I, Khobar Towers, the 2 embassies in Africa. I would add the Cole, but at least they attacked servicemen and not civilians. But, I can’t fathom for the life of me how after UBL declared war on us, Clinton and his military advisors don’t have these men on high alert while in port in the Middle East. How these maniacs managed to sidle up to one of our ships without being riddled with 50 cal fire is beyond belief. But I think that is what you get when you treat this as a police action and not a war. The police react to crimes and go and investigate…exactly what happened in Yemen. In war, you kill the enemy anytime you get him in your gun sights. And had the Dem’s not poured body and soul into stealing the 2000 election and hampered the efforts of Bush to transition into office and implement his policies; coupled with the dickhead Jim Jeffords defection to the middle thus handing control of the Senate to the Dem’s, we might not have left idiots like George Tennet in place to further the hand wringing and lack of action exercise. Maybe you are right when you say not for long, but no one knows for sure, not even a pillar of insight like yourself. Although, I do like the odds a lot better now than under the child molesting serial rapist…..err I mean our 42nd President. Good bye and sorry to see you go……I enjoy it when you lob them up for me to knock them out of the park like this. And thanks for the best wishes, however insincere they might have been.