The other day, the President declassified documents pertaining to techniques used by the CIA to interrogate captured terrorists. Lefty bloggers called these techniques torture and named the documents "torture memos."
To these bloggers, the memos were clear and compelling evidence that crimes were committed by officials of the previous administration against the detainees. The case for their guilt looked like a slam dunk. The groundwork for the prosecution of these former officials was laid bare. Some were calling on the Attorney General to name a Special Prosecutor to go through what would be the legal formality of collecting evidence for trial. Others called for a Nuremberg-style inquiry. Others for a Truth Commission.
But in whichever form the path to justice would eventually take, they could look forward in a matter of months to celebrate an historic victory. Perhaps with a black Russian with ice cream on top.
That these former officials were guilty of torture was an article of faith to them. There was no need for discussion, no need for debate. There was no need to define what torture was. They knew it when they saw it, and this was it. And if others didn't see it that way there was something wrong with them.
And the loyal readers of these blogs shared and defended these iron-clad views. They would parry and thrust when their collective assumptions were questioned. A passerby who wondered aloud if forcing a detainee to stay awake over a number of hours really constituted torture was called an "enthusiastic supporter of torture." Another interloper who thought that pouring ice water on a subject didn't quite fit the definition of torture was called "inhuman scum." Another who didn't think it was such a big deal to force water down a persons nose for twenty seconds and certainly not a crime against humanity, was told he was a "sick immoral individual" and most probably a menace to his friends and relatives. Like enraged cats, arching their backs and hissing, the followers of these blogs attacked the humanity of those who, in their words, supported torture.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Is your dick REALLY as small as you keep saying it is on "Hullabaloo"?
Dear Jose,
Hate to comment here - afraid it might increase traffic to your site!
Have to admit two things:
1. You do know how to write, far better than I.
2. You seem morally bankrupt, or delusional.
As for #1, I'll give you props you can write and I'm not that good at it.
For #2, well, you seemed to imply, and perhaps I'm incorrect, that Torture has not been defined. In this, if you so believe, you are incorrect. The US, among other countries, has long held definitions/beliefs on what defines torture. These are spelled out in such documents as the Geneve Accord (which we are a signer/ratifier to and which makes it Federal Law her in the US) and in legal findings/proceedings over the course of decades. The US has prosecuted Japanese soldiers from WWII for 'water treatment' types of TORTURE and has imprisoned or executed those soldiers for such crimes. We have also prosecuted, from Vietnam, US soldiers who have participated in such actions. (Famous photos are available of such)
If you doubt the definition, you have only to look at the soldiers from Abu Graib (spelling I'm sure) that participated in interrogations and were prosecuted for mistreatment of prisoners/torture. Why were they left so "High and Dry" if these types of techniques were athorized and even ordered by the highest levels of the Bush Admin? If these were just 'Interrogation Techniques' why did we send our own soldiers to prison for such?
Post a Comment