torture

Friends,What I wanna propose is the next step in teabagging protests! As you know, my friends, the Dems wanna make us believe that waterboarding is torture. You know, as well as I do, that that is complete nonsense. It's just a little uncomfortable. Real men, like you and I would NEVER succumb under this. But that sheik was a coward, so he sang like a bird. He had a lot to tell, so we did it 183 times. In a months time this is once every four hours, so really not that much.So, let's show these bastards that it is NOT torture! Organize your very OWN Torture Teaparty!!! Let your self be waterboarded by a friend or friends, make a video of this and upload it to youtube or any site! That will show them cowardly Dems that waterboarding is nothing like torture!! Bronden

By Bill Smith / Ozark Guru: Nancy Pelosi knows what torture is because she has been practicing it for years. You might be saying, wait a minute, isn't she the the "Speaker" against torture at least with respect to what allegedly was used against the enemy combatants who brutally attacked and killed Americans and sought to destroy our American way of life. Don't be distracted by her pathological ability to adjust the truth to something that it is not or to shield the truth from shinning forth.

Let's define of the word torture using the Merriam-Webster Dictionary:

Noun: 1 a: anguish of body or mind : agony b: something that causes agony or pain 2: the infliction of intense pain (as from burning, crushing, or wounding) to punish, coerce, or afford sadistic pleasure 3: distortion or over refinement of a meaning or an argument: straining

For this discussion, let's forget the extreme view that would tear down the fabric of America while claiming self-righteous indignation in seeking the truth about a physical torture of people that had planned, aided or assisted in either potential attacks or the 9-11 attack our country which and killed almost 3000 people. Have we forgotten the deaths would have been far more if the planes had hit the World Trade towers an hour later, or if the planes had hit the center of the Pentagon or had hit another locations in D.C.? Also, let's forget the extreme fringe that believes that their own government is behind everything bad in our country and blew up the World Trade Towers instead of terrorists flying the airplanes that many of us observed hitting the buildings.

Let's focus on Nancy Pelosi. First, note her recent episode of pathological adjustment of truth, wherein she attempts to divert attention from herself by boldly claiming she knew nothing about the use of enhanced interrogation techniques and then buffets her claim by stating that she could not recall being told that the the enhanced interrogation techniques were or would be used. Well, most of us know this is not the truth.

Consider the following article by The Women On the Web which addresses this situation and the reaction of at least one person who was present with Nancy Pelosi in 2002 during briefings by the CIA :

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi appears to be on the defensive over what exactly she knew — and when she knew it — about the Bush administration’s "enhanced interrogation" techniques. The California Democrat befuddled some reporters, Republicans and others last week when she gave what Politico says were some "convoluted answers" to reporters about the interrogations. Now Republicans have jumped at the chance to pummel Pelosi’s insistence that she didn’t know what was going on. CIA Chief Porter Goss said she must be suffering from "amnesia" — since he was with her in 2002 when they were briefed by the CIA on the techniques. Goss wrote over the weekend: "I am slack-jawed to read that members claim to have not understood that the techniques on which they were briefed were to actually be employed; or that specific techniques such as ‘waterboarding’ were never mentioned. It must be hard for most Americans of common sense to imagine how a member of Congress can forget being told about the interrogations of Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammed. In that case, though, perhaps it is not amnesia but political expedience." . . .

Now back to Nancy Pelosi and her use of torture. Note the definition of the word "torture" included "anguish of body or mind: agony" and "distortion or over refinement of a meaning or an argument: straining." While Pelosi may not as yet be pulling out fingernails in the basement of Congress, she has become a master in the use of these other two definitions of the word torture. Her extreme actions, her ridiculous self-proclamations, her bullying of the members of her own party, her tyrannical exclusion of the elected members of the minority party, and her constant declarations of lies as truth and distortion of truth. All of these bring anguish to the mind and hearts of Americans and definitely distorts and "over refines" the meaning of any argument. Pelosi has been wielding the whip of torture via her tongue and via the authority of her position as Speaker of the House. A gracious women she is NOT. She is not even a voice of propaganda for the liberal cause because even liberals know she cannot be trusted. In deeds, words, and actions, Nancy Pelosi is the Queen of Torture.

While it may not matter what Republicans think of Pelosi, it does matter that American voters do not trust her. One month ago, Rasmussen Reports that "60% of U.S. voters now have an unfavorable opinion of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, including 42% Very Unfavorable and that a growing number of her doubters seem to be fellow Democrats." Abuse and torture yield these kind of results from free-thinking people. And these results are presently polar opposite of the ratings for President Obama.

There is a growing dissent with Pelosi not only among Democrats in general but more importantly among House Democrats who have been forced to endure Pelosi's torturous ways. Bowing and scrapping by once joyous party members to the Queen Speaker does not bode well for future favorable support of the Obama administration. She has outworn her welcome as Speaker of the House by her lack of graciousness and her torturous ways. For the good of the country, it is time for a favorably nod to a more "enlightened" and sanguine" person to be the Speaker. It is time for Nancy Pelosi, the Queen of Torture, to be removed as Speaker of the people's House.

 America is abuzz on the issue of torture, and everyone is talking past one another.  The left blanketedly admonishes that torture is never appropriate and always ineffective. The right is reactionary, arguing that torture may have prevented mass American deaths and that the left is therefore wrong when it claims torture is never justified. 

These arguments miss the appropriate issue, which is whether it is appropriate for the American government to sanction torture.  The answer is no.  But it is dishonest to claim that under no circumstance could torture be justified. Certainly, torture is justified if one has in possession someone who knows the whereabouts of a villain with the capability of destroying all of mankind, would one not? Torture is justified under less dire circumstances too, and it is dishonest to argue that such circumstances can happen only on television.

So, under some circumstances torture is justified.  But, that does not mean that the American government should ever sanction it.  When the government sanctions torture, as it seems to have done under the Bush Administration, it absolves the individual torturer from responsibility for his or her actions.  The responsibility is spread out amongst the many layers of bureaucracy, executive opinions, legal memos, etc.   Everyone can point a finger at someone else and nobody is to blame. Stated eloquently by the protagonist in Ayn Rand’s The Foutainhead: “Who permitted them to do it?  No particular man among the dozens in authority.  No one cared to permit it or stop it.  No one was responsible.  No one can be held to account. Such is the nature of all collective action.”  If nobody is to blame for torture, then you will generate instances of torture that are unnecessary--under the cover of your American flag.

So, how do we reconcile the suggestion that America should not sanction torture and the truism that torture may be justified sometimes? I believe that we must criminalize torture and prosecute anyone who engages in it.  If the circumstances are so dire that the government agent honestly believes that breaking the spirit of another human being through physical force (i.e. torture) is the only mans to prevent the doomsday event, then that agent should be willing to sacrifice his or her own liberty to prevent the doomsday event.  It is much greater sacrifice to put one’s own liberty at risk to save other human lives, than it is to trample another person’s human rights. This higher threshold will reduce instances of torture and better ensure that it will be used only when absolutely necessary. As a safety valve, the President has the power of pardon if the criminality is unjust under the totality of the circumstances. 

Greetings from New York City (and yes, I was at THAT YANKEE GAME yesterday) .

Sooo...I'm walking back to my parents' place this afternoon minding my own business.  All of a sudden, out of nowhere, I stumble upon a leftist protest urging President Obama to prosecute 43 and his advisors.  One of the leftists tried to hand me some literature.

I made direct eye contact and spit in his face.

It was one of the most emotionally satisfying things I've ever done.

I hope this helps.

That is all.

Cahnman out.

I don't always agree with her, but this time Peggy Noonan offers the best version I have seen of the questions facing President Obama et al. regarding terrorists, detention, and interrogation:

The question for the Obama administration: Do they think Mr. Cheney is essentially correct, that bad men are coming with evil and deadly intent, but that America can afford to, must for moral reasons, change its stance regarding interrogation and detention of terrorists? Or, deep down, do the president and those around him think Mr. Cheney is wrong, that people who make such warnings are hyping the threat for political purposes? And, therefore, that interrogation techniques, etc., can of course be relaxed? I don't know the precise answer to this question. Do they know exactly what they think? Or are they reading raw threat files each day trying to figure out what they think?

 Crossposted at Right Minds