Tuesday, May 19, 2009

The Torture Con

The torture con is out at last!

As our great and glorious Speaker of the House lies about what she knew and when she knew it on waterboarding, ALL liberals' sanctimonious outrage over the Bush admininstration's use of enhanced interrogation techniques is looking more and more like what it really is: an Academy Award level performance.

Leftists continuously bleat that they're opposed to "torture", especially waterboarding, of terror suspects at Gitmo and elsewhere. They claim that such tactics are a violation of international law and America's values, not to mention unacceptably brutal. And they are against them, they tell us, against them! But that is a big, fat con! Don't think so? Then consider this.

The United States Armed Forces waterboards some of its soldiers as part of their training. I have not heard a word against this practice from the "anti-torture" liberals. Yet, if waterboarding is as atrocious and inhumane as liberals say it is, you'd think that the last people they'd want waterboarded are our troops. But there's only deafening silence from liberals on this issue. The very people who are so aggrieved over the "torture" of three Muslim nutjobs have nothing to say against the same "torture" being used on American soldiers by the American military. What does this mean? Either liberals know that waterboarding isn't torture and are saying it is just for political gain OR liberals just don't give a damn about American soldiers. I think it's answer number two. What say you?

And I have a couple of more questions about this "torture" stuff.

Some lefties have claimed that, in addition to waterboarding, Gitmo detainees were tortured with sleep deprivation and/or loud music. During the Branch Davidian standoff in Waco in 1993, the government subjected the Davidians to what it called "psychological warfare". That warfare included bombarding the Davidians' compound with floodlights and loud noise in order to deprive them of sleep. So, if disrupting a terrorist's sleep is torture why wasn't it torture to disrupt the sleep of dozens of innocent American men, women, and children? Why aren't the anti-torture liberals demanding truth commissions for all the government officials involved in the seige against David Koresh and his followers? Could it be because the Davidian seige occurred during a liberal Democrat's presidency? Uh...yeah!

And then there's Terri Schiavo. If you recall, Terri Schiavo was the comatose woman who, after a long legal battle between her husband and parents, was disconnected from her feeding tube and died per her husband's wishes. Many of the left-wing types who are now so apoplectic about torture supported the killing of Miss Schiavo. In their bizarro world, Muslim fanatics must feel no physical discomfort whatsoever, but a disabled woman can be denied sustenance until she dies. That's not torture in the liberals' book, especially if the woman is White, American, and/or Jewish or Christian.

I think the three cases above illustrate that liberals don't really care about torture. Their push to punish Bush administration officials is about undermining America from within. Many liberals believe that America is the real problem in the world and has no moral right to self-defense. Fighting "torture" is a way for the fifth column Left to sabotage that defense and aid and abet our enemies. That's what this whole "torture" thing is really about, and it's DESPICABLE!

28 comments:

Roadhouse said...

Seanne Anna,
Great article...chock full of great points. We must have been on the same wave length, I wrote about this too.

Skunkfeathers said...

I wonder how long it'll be before "Jane" surfaces to defend Bela Pelosi's lies?

Unless "Jane" has added a fourth brain cell, the one that tells her that lying isn't a good thing, even for a political party.

Give 'em Hell, Seane-Anna; you do it accurately, articulately, and well!

Jane said...

Skunkfeathers,

I don't blame you, you are a product of your echo chamber. No, I do not support Pelosi, of course she is a liar and a con and when I heard about how she tried to save her own ass I felt disgust. That isn't a conservative thing. These "liberals" that SA talks about incessantly make up a very slim margin of the US population. You wouldn't know this because you believe all the propaganda the right wing tarts feed you.

Most of SA's articles are completely one sided and simplistic yet all you do is comment on how wonderful they are. Why exactly are they so great Skunky? Because they help enforce some of your most ridiculous beliefs and no questions need be asked.

SA,

terrorists or suspected terrorists should not be waterboarded. Oh no I said it! Why is this different than supposed waterboarding of US troops BY the US? For one very big reason. The US holds by the motto of Justice, Freedom, Liberty and Democracy. So when it uses these methods it is a part of the US Judicial decisions, that doesn't bode so well for the nation that calls itself the pinnacle of human rights. There is a very big difference between waterboarding troops and using it as a torture technic against terrorists and suspected terrorists. The troops know they aren't going to die or be injured. The fear factor. It's the exact same thing with police and tasers. Policemen are mandated to be tasered, do you find anythign wrong with that? What about when a policeman is careless and uses his taser repeatedly on a woman who was speeding? Its the same concept. It is NOT justice and it doesn't fit in with OUR constitution.

Seane-Anna said...

You got your answer, Skunky. Jane showed up.

Jane! Jane! Jane!

If my blog is such an echo chamber why do you bother coming here? Oh yeah, I invited you so I could chew you up and spit you out on my own territory rather than Jean's. Glad you stopped by for some more ass kickin'!

Jane, you say waterboarding of US troops by the US military is ok because the troops know they're not going to die, where as the terrorists don't know that. And your point?

Liberals' sanctimonious "anti-torture" outcry centers on waterboarding's supposed cruelty. My point was that if liberals REALLY believed waterboarding was soooooooo inhumane they wouldn't want it used on ANYONE, least of all our troops, no matter the context. Obviously, that isn't the case, ergo liberals must have an ulterior motive for opposing "torture". In my post I posited that that ulterior motive is the desire to undermine America's ability to defend herself. Sounds good to me.

Jane, I know you disagree with my view, therefore it's incumbent upon you to inform me and my readers just how America should interrogate terrorists and what she should do when the wimpy tactics I'm sure you'll advocate don't work. We're waiting to hear from you, especially Skunky. Hee, hee.

Jane said...

SA,

your simplistic comment proved everything I thought about conservatives. Is your mind that superficial that you can't comprehend what I said or are you just that stubborn that you refuse to recognize what I actually said. Like I said this is an echo chamber, why are rewriting the same load of b.s. you wrote in the inital post?

P.S. Its very telling how you always use the terms "ass kicking" and "chew you up and spit you". Your brain is that of a child's, can't you come up with something else than your imaginary "ass kickin" game?

My god this place is fun. I get to disrupt this conservative "think tank" at the invitation of you! such a kind soul!

Jane said...

SA,

if you are going to stand by your views you must stop calling the US a land of justice and human rights. If you advocate those methods of interrogation you forfeit your right to say you are about "Justice for All"....and that statement wasn't made to exclude anyone, not even terrorists. you know why? Because it's about OUR decency and honor, and reputation, and to be able to live up to our morals and values. You should be ashamed of yourself.

P.S. I love how you conservatives talk as if the "liberals" have hijacked this country from the blessed long reign of conservatives. This country was founded by progressives, if this were the 1780s you'd be griping about those damned liberal founding fathers. completely ridiculous.

Skunkfeathers said...

jane,

Simpleton that you are, I appreciate your simplistic notions about my being a product of an echo chamber. Your ignorance is abysmal, and simply (see what I just did there?) reinforces my opinions of your liberal/progressive orthodoxy.

And if you think your simple-minded, meandering diatribes are disrupting Seane-Anna's blog, you really do need to upgrade the junk you snort between posts. It's undercutting whatever intellect you have left. And a mind's a terrible thing to waste.

elwoodin said...

Great post Seane Anna. I agree with what you put. It is sad that people like Jane are so full of hate for this country that they cannot see what is destroying her. I am glad that I can and you can too. We are a growing number my friend, though now, we have to learn how to put our message out, instead of cowering everytime a liberal confronts us.

Jane said...

Skunky,

Yep, you are a product of your echo chamber, you have proved this countless times. You're also very arrogant in your opinions, and just because you use insults and wit doesn't make you right ;)

And yes I am disrupting this place. Before I came along you were all basically congratulating yourself on your superior political beliefs, now you have an actual critic.

Take care Skunky, I will enjoy "kickin' yo ass" as SA puts it later.

Jane said...

elwoodin,

why is it conservatives say that liberals are so full of hate? I don't hate my country, I love this country and I don't like it being slandered and abused by people such as yourself whose simple grasps on life and carelessness contributed to the vast mess it is in today, not only domestically but internationaly.

Seane-Anna said...

Jane, Jane, Jane! I was hoping you'd developed some ability to actually debate and discuss issues rationally, but I was wrong. Just like at Jean's blog, you resort to calling me a "child" instead of responding intelligently to my opinions.

For the record, I did comprehend your initial comments but, like a true liberal, you confuse comprehending with agreeing. However, I won't give up on you and will try to make my case in a way that even you can understand, and I hope you'll give a rational, even if contrary, response.

Jane, you claim that the issue of waterboarding is about our decency. And that's just it. If liberals REALLY believed that waterboarding was so heinous then their commitment to "our values" would cause them to oppose its use on ANYONE, period. In fact, they'd be MORE outraged over its use on our own troops than they would be over its use on our enemies. Look at it this way, Jane.

Your position is like saying that it's horrible for a teacher to molest one of her students, but it's ok if she molests one of her OWN children. What kind of sense would that make? If child molestation is a horrible crime it's a horrible crime regardless of the child's relation to the perp. In fact, most people would consider it MORE evil for a teacher to molest her own children because we expect parents to protect their offspring. Ditto with waterboarding our own troopds. Can you see where I'm coming from now, Jane? I'm not asking you to agree, I'm just asking if you understand.

If you do understand, Jane, and yet disagree please respond with an intelligent rebuttal. No name calling.

And as for your concern over the physical comfort of terrorists I remind you that German POWs held on American soil during WWII didn't get any Constitutional rights. Did that make America a human rights violator? When we dropped the atom bomb on Japan did that mean we'd betrayed our values and morals?

All this talk about "our values" is just a smokescreen for the progressives' real objective: undermining America's war effort against the terrorists. That's my opinion; that's how I see it. If you disagree, Jane, that's ok; just say so intelligently. Please.

Roadhouse said...

Jane,
Let me get this straight, you're bothered by the fact that we "scare" terrorists in order to save the lives of our troops and citizens?
You think that Jefferson, Washington, Adams, Franklin, or any of the other founding fathers would have granted OUR constitutional rights to terrorists picked up on the battlefield in a foreign land, knowing full well that these people are trying to do nothing more than destroy this country AND our constitution? Really?

If the scope of your definition of torture includes making a someone wet and uncomfortable, or even going as far as scaring them, then I should assume that you would have the folks at Six Flags brought up on charges of torture as well.

Let's talk to Daniel Pearl of Nick Burgh about what THEY consider torture compared to the coddeling that Gitmo terrorist receive. Maybe we could ask some of the people who jumped from the World Trade center in hopes of getting just one last breath of air before being splashed upon the street whether they are offended by the splashing of water on those who vow to do similar attcks.

Echo chamber or not, you better come up with a viable alternative for getting the information needed to save lives, otherwise your opinions are pretty pointless and naieve.

Skunkfeathers said...

Jane, you make me LOL with your smug, completely lockstep liberal clinging to "all fluff, no substance" talking points.

Seane-Anna and others here have answered your embarrassingly simplistic claims with reason, fact and logic. You respond with hyperbole and utter nonsense.

Folks that know me consider me many things, and arrogant isn't one of them. But I am amused to be so branded by one so incapable of rational thought and reason.

I am happy to have you consider me arrogant ;)

Seane-Anna, I love how Jane thinks she's disrupting your blog. Feeling disrupted are you? Suddenly because one dissident voice has cracked the seal of smug arrogance herein, the blog has been disrupted. Hmmmmm...seems to me that you've had other dissident voices appear herein. Didn't change your views one iota. Didn't throw you off your pace. Didn't stop your supportive commenters from doing so. Hmmmm.

But I'll return to the role of a well-mannered visitor, and stop baiting your "disruptor". She's doing a better job of tearing down and undermining her own arguments, all on her own.

Jane said...

SA,

"For the record, I did comprehend your initial comments but, like a true liberal, you confuse comprehending with agreeing. However, I won't give up on you and will try to make my case in a way that even you can understand, and I hope you'll give a rational, even if contrary, response.

Jane, you claim that the issue of waterboarding is about our decency. And that's just it. If liberals REALLY believed that waterboarding was so heinous then their commitment to "our values" would cause them to oppose its use on ANYONE, period. In fact, they'd be MORE outraged over its use on our own troops than they would be over its use on our enemies. Look at it this way, Jane."

This completely proves to me that you did NOT comprehend what I wrote. So what is the point? This is obviously not some reasonable debate, this is you trying to get the upperhand no matter how you get to it, ie ignoring, confusing, etc.

It would be quite pointless to repost what I wrote if its to difficult for you to understand. So like I said before, if you support these wonderful methods you can stop calling the US a land of "Justice for all".

P.S. If you don't want to be called a child you should stop acting like one.

Jane said...

Skunky,

You can't just use stereotypes and hope they will somehow magically come true.

"Seane-Anna and others here have answered your embarrassingly simplistic claims with reason, fact and logic. You respond with hyperbole and utter nonsense."

Now this is LOL worthy. You claim SA and others used logic and reason. HAHA....umm no. There was no reason, or logic, only simplistic answers that clearly came from a mind that either refused to comprehend what I wrote or was not able to.

PS, for the love god would you look up the deffiniton of disrupt? Please so you can stop with your faux intelligent mouth garbage.

"To interrupt or impede the progress, movement, or procedure of"

Straight from free dictionary. Is this to hard to comprehend or are you going to garble it up for the sake of argument?

Jane said...

This is really funny.

"A right-wing radio loudmouth in Chicago named “Erich ‘Mancow’ Muller” (hey Chicago readers: explain) thought that the “waterboarding is torture” argument was just a bunch of MoveOn.org poppycock and, as many drink-soaked former Trotskyite popinjays have done before him, submitted himself to the process to prove it — and this time, live on his show. Ha ha ha. Whoops!

With a Chicago Fire Department paramedic on hand, Mancow was placed on a 7-foot long table, his legs were elevated, and his feet were tied up.

Turns out the stunt wasn’t so funny. Witnesses said Muller thrashed on the table, and even instantly threw the toy cow he was holding as his emergency tool to signify when he wanted the experiment to stop. He only lasted 6 or 7 seconds.

“It is way worse than I thought it would be, and that’s no joke,”Mancow said, likening it to a time when he nearly drowned as a child. “It is such an odd feeling to have water poured down your nose with your head back…It was instantaneous…and I don’t want to say this: absolutely torture.”

WRONG ANSWER, do it again and again and again until he confesses that it’s “absolutely an Enhanced Interrogation Technique” and that he knows Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden who are best friends with bombs."

Roadhouse said...

Jane,
Hey, what am I? Chopped liver? I'm a right wing zealot too, yet you cruised right by my comments.

You look to "Mancow" as an authority on torture? Really?
He WAS able to comment after the waterboarding...right?
Again, what were Danial Pearl's comments after HIS "ordeal"? Oh, that's right, he died after having to see his head removed from his body. It is said that the human head can survive without the body for as much as six to ten minutes after decapitation.
Imagine being able to see your bleeding body from across the room while not being able to talk, breath, or even beg for mercy, all the while knowing that you are going to die in a matter of minutes.

That is torture.

"Mancow" lived to talk about his experience and has not so much as a scar to brag about after the fact. He also inadvertantly proved that waterboarding would work if someone were trying to get life-saving information from him.
Would he be willing to have his legs broken for the sake of ratings? His toes smashed with a hammer? His finger nails pulled out? His body lit on fire? His genitals mutilated? I doubt it. The fact that he was willing to do it all speaks for itself.

Not torture.

Seane-Anna said...

Roadie and Skunky, as you can see, Jane can be quite a handful; so thanks a bunch for your kind words of support.

Jane, when we were debating on Jean's site I thought that your imperviousness to reason was partly an act, now I see it's the real you. Damn! But I'm going to try one more time to reach you.

I'll say AGAIN. I DID comprehend your initial comment. You wrote that waterboarding US troops was ok because the soldiers knew they weren't going to die. The terrorists, though, did NOT know that; therefore, waterboarding them was torture. That's what I understand you to be saying. If I'm misunderstanding you then by all means correct me. But don't call me a child just for disagreeing with you.

I won't repeat my points here because now I see it's useless with you. Instead, I'll respond to yours, which is probably also uselss.

First, your Mancow moment. Actually, that proves that waterboarding is NOT torture because, by having a paramedic near by, Mancow knew he wasn't going to die, and according to you, Jane, that means the waterboarding Mancow endured wasn't torture. And as for Mancow saying it was torture? Well, when all the US troops who've been waterboarded by the US military say they were tortured I might rethink my opinion. Until then waterboarding is A-Ok with me.

Second, since you don't believe in "torturing" terrorists, Jane, what would you do to extract information from them? That's not a rhetorical question. Just what do you propose we do to get potentially life saving information out of captured terrorists, Jane?

Can we flush Korans down the toilet in front of them, or would that be mental torture in your book?

Can we force them to watch Britney Spears videos, or would that be too harsh for their Islamic sensibilities?

C'mon, Jane. What can we do?

Unfortunately, I'm starting to get sleepy after my 10 hour day at work, so I'll be back tomorrow to get your answer, Jane. I can't wait to see how you'd handle the nice folks who are hell bent on killing the likes of you and me.

Mike said...

Seane-Anna, good luck wasting time trying to "reach" a liberal who is mired in the broken miasma of a failed ideology. She's convinced she has disrupted your site, answered all questions (she's answered nothing), and cites a comedic talk show host as an authority on torture.

She's funnily pathetic.

Stay true to your beliefs, Seane-Anna, and ignore the chaff and idle, vacuous chatter of this Moron.org talking-point bot.

Jane said...

SA,

you are NOT comprehending what I said, you are simplifying what I wrote to fit your needs. How dare you say you use reason and logic to debate me. You just keep chanting your same bizarre statements that don't make any sense in the real world.

Waterboarding has been considered torture for over a century, and is supposed to be illegal. The US military is not allowed to do it yet the CIA gets away with it and you support these illegal acts. Here is a US advisor who also describes it as torture, its been done on him. And for the record I said there was a big difference in waterboarding troops or a stupid conservatard radio host on air because its stops when they want it to stop it is WORLDS APART from using this as an interrogation technique.

You're all just so stubborn you refuse to believe it is torture. I would love for all of you knucke heads to be waterboarded, see if your opinion remains unchanged. In fact I'd love to see you strapped down in some terrorist's hideout and waterboarded with no idea when it is going to stop or if you are going to die, when you have no control over the situation.

It utterly sickens me that people can so stubbornly take this position.

Jane said...

You're all so primitive that when I gave you an example of one of your conservatard breathen being waterboarded and describing it as "absolute torture" you go on to say 1) who is Mancow to be the authority on torture? or 2) what other methods would you use?

Um...how about legal techniques that have been used for years and are much more reliable than torture. Even if waterboarding was more reliable I wouldn't advocate it, it's against what my country stands for.

Jane said...

"First, your Mancow moment. Actually, that proves that waterboarding is NOT torture because, by having a paramedic near by, Mancow knew he wasn't going to die, and according to you, Jane, that means the waterboarding Mancow endured wasn't torture. And as for Mancow saying it was torture? Well, when all the US troops who've been waterboarded by the US military say they were tortured I might rethink my opinion. Until then waterboarding is A-Ok with me."

Yes, Mancow described it as "absolute torture" with his little squeezy cow safety toy and the paramedics. Imagine how much more fucking tortuous it would be if he was strapped into a chair having no control over the situation. God, are you really that brainless? You'll say anything for the sake of argument.

JMK said...

"...terrorists or suspected terrorists should not be waterboarded. Oh no I said it! Why is this different than supposed waterboarding of US troops BY the US? For one very big reason. The US holds by the motto of Justice, Freedom, Liberty and Democracy. So when it uses these methods it is a part of the US Judicial decisions, that doesn't bode so well for the nation that calls itself the pinnacle of human rights." (Jane)
<
<
Waterboarding is NOT torture.

Torture is the inflicting of extreme pain and lasting, permanent disability upon a subject.

John McCain (beaten into unconsciousness, his broken limbs pumped like a the arm of a water pump) delivered extreme agony AND permanent disability.

Keeping a suspect awake for 72, even 96 hours, the use of loud noises, bright lights, extremes of heat and cold are NOT "torture."

Criminal suspects are subjected to all of those things, as well as both LIES and THREATS. Cops have found that nothing loosens a suspect's lips like the threat of being thrown into a cell with an over-sized, over-sexed cretinous inmate.

Only second to that, is the LIE, "Your partner's already given you up. He's saying you were the one with the gun...that YOU did the shootings. We think he's lying, but you're gonna defend the guy who's already thrown you under the bus? Because that's what your silence is doing."ALL of that is perfectly LEGAL and in accordance with our Constitution.

So are stings, in which an "informant" (often a former criminal) befriends some fellow criminals, listens approvingly of their plans and eagerly agrees to help them, when asked, turning them to an FBI undercover posing as a weapons dealer, drug dealer, etc., setting them up for prosecution.

That's ALL completely OK under the U.S. Constitution.

Those who claim otherwise, either haven't read that document, OR didn't fully comprehend what they initially read.
<
<
<
<
"These "liberals" that SA talks about incessantly make up a very slim margin of the US population." (Jane)
<
<
Now THAT is very true.

Only the "far-Left fringe", less than 2% of the nation engage in anti-American hatred and root for our enemies.

But Seane-Anna's also right that that group, which includes many in the media (the Sulzbergers of the NY Times and its editorial board, the folks at MSNBC, etc) constitutes an "enemy within" that is every bit as nefarious and dangerous to America as the jihadists.
<
<
<
<
"Most of SA's articles are completely one sided and simplistic..." (Jane)
<
<
Now that's unwarranted.

You may well disagree with Seane-Anna, but that doesn't make her arguments specious or simplistic.

They may well be one-sided BUT what commentator doesn't deliver one-sided arguments?

Liberal commentators deliver routinely Liberal arguments and Conservative ones tend to deliver consistently Conservative ones.

Nothing surprising nor wrong there.

Roadhouse said...

Jane,
There is a difference between outright dismissal of an opposing point, and having a better one of your own.

You would do well to learn about the typical radical Islamic terrorist and how they think. You need to understand the mentality of this particular enemy and how loosely grounded in reality they are. We're talking about people who think nothing of strapping bomb vests on thier five year olds to send them into crowds of other children and detonate them.
We're talking about people who know nothing but violence, both culturally and traditionally.
They know no reason and do not negotiate unless it results in an upper hand for them to kill more of us. They follow no organized uniformed army and belong to no particular nation state. They are beholden to no government and are loyal to no one but Allah.

Maybe in your "rainbows and fuzzy bunnies" world where setting a morally superior example is enough to change thousands of years of religous and cultural mind control you can win this debate, but here in the real world, evil exists and sometimes you need to throw water on it, or blow it's head off with a few 50-cal rounds...depending on the situation.

If your assertions about our founding fathers held any water at all, there would have been no revolutionary war, rather meetings, debates, conflict resolution groups and successful negotiation with England.
Also keep in mind that THEY were sophisticated, God fearing Englishmen, not insane radical Muslims.

Seane-Anna said...

Jane, I'll tell you what is really sickening. It's how aggrieved you are over the physical discomfort of three--count 'em, three--Muslim fanatics while caring NOTHING about the lives of fellow Americans.

You say you wish I would be waterboarded. Well, I wish you would be decapitated with a butcher knife like Nicholas Berg. Maybe, in the last agonizing minutes of your pathetic life, you'd get a clue about the nature of the enemy we face and your "rainbows and fuzzy bunnies" mentality will gush out of your body along with your blood. But I doubt it.

WomanHonorThyself said...

exactly! Blessed Memorial day my friend!:)

Jane said...

"Jane, I'll tell you what is really sickening. It's how aggrieved you are over the physical discomfort of three--count 'em, three--Muslim fanatics while caring NOTHING about the lives of fellow Americans.

You say you wish I would be waterboarded. Well, I wish you would be decapitated with a butcher knife like Nicholas Berg. Maybe, in the last agonizing minutes of your pathetic life, you'd get a clue about the nature of the enemy we face and your "rainbows and fuzzy bunnies" mentality will gush out of your body along with your blood. But I doubt it."

Absolutely ridiculous comment as usual.

Seane-Anna said...

"Absolutely ridiculous comment as usual."

Back at cha, girlie!