posted April 30, 2009 07:58 PM         

Without any pretense of an argument, which liberals are neurologically incapable of, the mainstream media are now asserting that our wussy interrogation techniques at Guantanamo constituted "torture" and have irreparably harmed America's image abroad.

Only the second of those alleged facts is true: The president's release of the Department of Justice interrogation memos undoubtedly hurt America's image abroad, as we are snickered at in capitals around the world, where they know what real torture is. The Arabs surely view these memos as a pack of lies. What about the pills Americans have to turn us gay?

The techniques used against the most stalwart al-Qaida members, such as Abu Zubaydah, included one terrifying procedure referred to as "the attention grasp." As described in horrifying detail in the Justice Department memo, the "attention grasp" consisted of:

"(G)rasping the individual with both hands, one hand on each side of the collar opening, in a controlled and quick motion. In the same motion as the grasp, the individual is drawn toward the interrogator."

The end.

There are rumors that Dick "Darth Vader" Cheney wanted to take away the interrogators' Altoids before they administered "the grasp," but Department of Justice lawyers deemed this too cruel.

And that's not all! As the torments were gradually increased, next up the interrogation ladder came "walling." This involves pushing the terrorist against a flexible wall, during which his "head and neck are supported with a rolled hood or towel that provides a C-collar effect to prevent whiplash."

People pay to have a lot rougher stuff done to them at Six Flags Great Adventure. Indeed, with plastic walls and soft neck collars, "walling" may be the world's first method of "torture" in which all the implements were made by Fisher-Price.

As the memo darkly notes, walling doesn't cause any pain, but is supposed to induce terror by making a "loud noise": "(T)he false wall is in part constructed to create a loud sound when the individual hits it, which will further shock and surprise." (!!!)

If you need a few minutes to compose yourself after being subjected to that horror, feel free to take a break from reading now. Sometimes a cold compress on the forehead is helpful, but don't let it drip or you might end up waterboarding yourself.

The CIA's interrogation techniques couldn't be more ridiculous if they were out of Monty Python's Spanish Inquisition sketch:

Cardinal! Poke her with the soft cushions! ...
Hmm! She is made of harder stuff! Cardinal Fang! Fetch ... THE COMFY CHAIR!

So you think you are strong because you can survive the soft cushions. Well, we shall see. Biggles! Put her in the Comfy Chair! ...

Now -- you will stay in the Comfy Chair until lunchtime, with only a cup of coffee at 11.

Further up the torture ladder -- from Guantanamo, not Monty Python -- comes the "insult slap," which is designed to be virtually painless, but involves the interrogator invading "the individual's personal space."

If that doesn't work, the interrogator shows up the next day wearing the same outfit as the terrorist. (Awkward.)

I will spare you the gruesome details of the CIA's other comical interrogation techniques and leap directly to the penultimate "torture" in their arsenal: the caterpillar.

In this unspeakable brutality, a harmless caterpillar is placed in the terrorist's cell. Justice Department lawyers expressly denied the interrogators' request to trick the terrorist into believing the caterpillar was a "stinging insect."

Human rights groups have variously described being trapped in a cell with a live caterpillar as "brutal," "soul-wrenching" and, of course, "adorable."

If the terrorist manages to survive the non-stinging caterpillar maneuver -- the most fiendish method of torture ever devised by the human mind that didn't involve being forced to watch "The View" -- CIA interrogators had another sadistic trick up their sleeves.

I am not at liberty to divulge the details, except to mention the procedure's terror-inducing name: "the ladybug."

Finally, the most savage interrogation technique at Guantanamo was "waterboarding," which is only slightly rougher than the Comfy Chair.

Thousands of our troops are waterboarded every year as part of their training, but not until it was done to Khalid Sheikh Mohammed -- mastermind of the 9/11 attack on America -- were liberal consciences shocked.

I think they were mostly shocked because they couldn't figure out how Joey Buttafuoco ended up in Guantanamo.

As non-uniformed combatants, all of the detainees at Guantanamo could have been summarily shot on the battlefield under the Laws of War.

Instead, we gave them comfy chairs, free lawyers, better food than is served in Afghani caves, prayer rugs, recreational activities and top-flight medical care -- including one terrorist who was released, whereupon he rejoined the jihad against America, after being fitted for an expensive artificial leg at Guantanamo, courtesy of the U.S. taxpayer.

Only three terrorists -- who could have been shot -- were waterboarded. This is not nearly as bad as "snowboarding," which is known to cause massive buttocks pain and results in approximately 10 deaths per year.

Normal human beings -- especially those who grew up with my older brother, Jimmy -- can't read the interrogation memos without laughing.

At Al-Jazeera, they don't believe these interrogation memos are for real. Muslims look at them and say: THIS IS ALL THEY'RE DOING? We do that for practice. We do that to our friends.

posted May 01, 2009 03:28 PM         

absolutely nuthin.

posted May 01, 2009 11:51 PM         

They're laughing plenty hard enough at demoscat attempts to throw the war, O'Bombers insanity in releasing the interrogations methods, threatening government attorneys with prosecution....for merely giving a legal opinion....and the O'Bomber plan to release some of them into the United States, put them on welfare and take care of them.

They sure as hell don't need Ann Coulter to give them a hearty laugh. They know it's O'Bomber who is the Clown Prince.

posted May 02, 2009 05:59 AM         

The rest of the techniques? I can't but laugh at the idea that those things are torture. Otherwise we'll have to charge Nature herself with torture. I swear, the caterpillars in my yard are now invading my house. Can we send Nature to jail now?

We'll see how far the Milk and Cookies for Terrorists interrogation methods go. And may our citizens never have to learn what real torture is. You know, the kind of stuff they do to our troops when they're captured? Oh, wait. They don't talk about that in the MSM and so it must not exist.

Seriously, some people are so far removed from the idea that there are people in this world who hate us all and want us dead just because; no real reason other than we're not them. And heaven forbid we get attacked again, I doubt any of these people will stand up and take responsibility. They've decreased the ability of the CIA to do their job, they've decreased the implied force of our servicemembers, and they've destroyed the idea that our government will put our lives and our safety first and foremost.

Can you imagine?

"Thousands are newly dead and they've taken hostages, Mr. President."

"Oh. Damn. Well, go capture somebody and find out what's going on."

later ...

"So, Sheik Whateverthehell, what do you plan to do with these hostages? Who was behind this? Are there any imminent threats to our nation?"

"Haha. I'm not talking."

"Mr. President, we asked him nicely. He won't talk."

"Oh, well. I'll have another press conference and tell the American people we did the best we could. And I'll make sure to apologize to the terr, er, enemy combatants for how it's our fault this happened in the first place."

posted May 02, 2009 01:06 PM         

it's called leading by example. anyone who has raised a child knows that what you do has more effect than what you say when it comes to instilling character and habits...

well, the quote below probably is just political posturing but all of a sudden some of our "allies" are admitting that torture might not be such a good thing.

"On Wednesday, an Abu Dhabi government agency issued a statement deploring the video and promising a full investigation.

"The Government of Abu Dhabi unequivocally condemns the actions depicted on the video and will conduct a comprehensive review of the matter immediately," said the statement issued by the Judicial Department's Human Rights Office, which promised to make its findings public." http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/04/29/uae.nuke.deal/index.html?eref=rss_topstories

until we took the first step in saying we would not break international law about torture - and backed it up by holding up an important treaty - the UAE was denying that this incident was torture OR wrong...

posted May 02, 2009 03:15 PM         

Oh, and not to be forgotten is the fact the dufus, Eric Holder was also the one who hand walked the presidential pardon for Marc Rich..who fled the US in a flight from prosecution...through the system in Kommander Korruption's regime and over objections of the FBI and Justice Dept. Of course, Rich was willing to pay for that presidential pardon and did pay. He paid the Clinton's...Kommander Korruption as well as the Democrat National Committee and he paid millions for that pardon.

Just so you know who Eric Holder really is. He should be wearing an orange jumpsuit in a maximum security federal prison instead of warming the chair in the office of the Attorney General of the United States.

May 01, 2009
1993 World Trade Prosecutor Calls Out Eric Holder
Lee Cary

Today, this letter from Andrew McCarthy to Eric Holder was posted on National Review and then mentioned on Rush Limbaugh’s show and posted to his site. McCarthy wrote Willful Blindness: Memoir of the Jihad. He was the lead prosecutor in the investigation of Blind Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman and others involved in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.

(By email to the Counterterrorism Division and by regular mail)

The Honorable Eric H. Holder, Jr.
Attorney General of the United States
United States Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C. 20530-0001

Dear Attorney General Holder:

This letter is respectfully submitted to inform you that I must decline the invitation to participate in the May 4 roundtable meeting the President’s Task Force on Detention Policy is convening with current and former prosecutors involved in international terrorism cases. An invitation was extended to me by trial lawyers from the Counterterrorism Section, who are members of the Task Force, which you are leading.

The invitation email (of April 14) indicates that the meeting is part of an ongoing effort to identify lawful policies on the detention and disposition of alien enemy combatants—or what the Department now calls “individuals captured or apprehended in connection with armed conflicts and counterterrorism operations.” I admire the lawyers of the Counterterrorism Division, and I do not question their good faith. Nevertheless, it is quite clear—most recently, from your provocative remarks on Wednesday in Germany—that the Obama administration has already settled on a policy of releasing trained jihadists (including releasing some of them into the United States). Whatever the good intentions of the organizers, the meeting will obviously be used by the administration to claim that its policy was arrived at in consultation with current and former government officials experienced in terrorism cases and national security issues. I deeply disagree with this policy, which I believe is a violation of federal law and a betrayal of the president’s first obligation to protect the American people. Under the circumstances, I think the better course is to register my dissent, rather than be used as a prop.
Moreover, in light of public statements by both you and the President, it is dismayingly clear that, under your leadership, the Justice Department takes the position that a lawyer who in good faith offers legal advice to government policy makers—like the government lawyers who offered good faith advice on interrogation policy—may be subject to investigation and prosecution for the content of that advice, in addition to empty but professionally damaging accusations of ethical misconduct. Given that stance, any prudent lawyer would have to hesitate before offering advice to the government.
Beyond that, as elucidated in my writing (including my proposal for a new national security court, which I understand the Task Force has perused), I believe alien enemy combatants should be detained at Guantanamo Bay (or a facility like it) until the conclusion of hostilities. This national defense measure is deeply rooted in the venerable laws of war and was reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in the 2004 Hamdi case. Yet, as recently as Wednesday, you asserted that, in your considered judgment, such notions violate America’s “commitment to the rule of law.” Indeed, you elaborated, “Nothing symbolizes our [adminstration’s] new course more than our decision to close the prison at Guantanamo Bay…. President Obama believes, and I strongly agree, that Guantanamo has come to represent a time and an approach that we want to put behind us: a disregard for our centuries-long respect for the rule of law[.]” (Emphasis added.)
Given your policy of conducting ruinous criminal and ethics investigations of lawyers over the advice they offer the government, and your specific position that the wartime detention I would endorse is tantamount to a violation of law, it makes little sense for me to attend the Task Force meeting. After all, my choice would be to remain silent or risk jeopardizing myself.
For what it may be worth, I will say this much. For eight years, we have had a robust debate in the United States about how to handle alien terrorists captured during a defensive war authorized by Congress after nearly 3000 of our fellow Americans were annihilated. Essentially, there have been two camps. One calls for prosecution in the civilian criminal justice system, the strategy used throughout the 1990s. The other calls for a military justice approach of combatant detention and war-crimes prosecutions by military commission. Because each theory has its downsides, many commentators, myself included, have proposed a third way: a hybrid system, designed for the realities of modern international terrorism—a new system that would address the needs to protect our classified defense secrets and to assure Americans, as well as our allies, that we are detaining the right people.
There are differences in these various proposals. But their proponents, and adherents to both the military and civilian justice approaches, have all agreed on at least one thing: Foreign terrorists trained to execute mass-murder attacks cannot simply be released while the war ensues and Americans are still being targeted. We have already released too many jihadists who, as night follows day, have resumed plotting to kill Americans. Indeed, according to recent reports, a released Guantanamo detainee is now leading Taliban combat operations in Afghanistan, where President Obama has just sent additional American forces.
The Obama campaign smeared Guantanamo Bay as a human rights blight. Consistent with that hyperbolic rhetoric, the President began his administration by promising to close the detention camp within a year. The President did this even though he and you (a) agree Gitmo is a top-flight prison facility, (b) acknowledge that our nation is still at war, and (c) concede that many Gitmo detainees are extremely dangerous terrorists who cannot be tried under civilian court rules. Patently, the commitment to close Guantanamo Bay within a year was made without a plan for what to do with these detainees who cannot be tried. Consequently, the Detention Policy Task Force is not an effort to arrive at the best policy. It is an effort to justify a bad policy that has already been adopted: to wit, the Obama administration policy to release trained terrorists outright if that’s what it takes to close Gitmo by January.
Obviously, I am powerless to stop the administration from releasing top al Qaeda operatives who planned mass-murder attacks against American cities—like Binyam Mohammed (the accomplice of “Dirty Bomber” Jose Padilla) whom the administration recently transferred to Britain, where he is now at liberty and living on public assistance. I am similarly powerless to stop the administration from admitting into the United States such alien jihadists as the 17 remaining Uighur detainees. According to National Intelligence Director Dennis Blair, the Uighurs will apparently live freely, on American taxpayer assistance, despite the facts that they are affiliated with a terrorist organization and have received terrorist paramilitary training. Under federal immigration law (the 2005 REAL ID Act), those facts render them excludable from the United States. The Uighurs’ impending release is thus a remarkable development given the Obama administration’s propensity to deride its predecessor’s purported insensitivity to the rule of law.
I am, in addition, powerless to stop the President, as he takes these reckless steps, from touting his Detention Policy Task Force as a demonstration of his national security seriousness. But I can decline to participate in the charade.
Finally, let me repeat that I respect and admire the dedication of Justice Department lawyers, whom I have tirelessly defended since I retired in 2003 as a chief assistant U.S. attorney in the Southern District of New York. It was a unique honor to serve for nearly twenty years as a federal prosecutor, under administrations of both parties. It was as proud a day as I have ever had when the trial team I led was awarded the Attorney General’s Exceptional Service Award in 1996, after we secured the convictions of Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman and his underlings for waging a terrorist war against the United States. I particularly appreciated receiving the award from Attorney General Reno—as I recounted in Willful Blindness, my book about the case, without her steadfastness against opposition from short-sighted government officials who wanted to release him, the “blind sheikh” would never have been indicted, much less convicted and so deservedly sentenced to life-imprisonment. In any event, I’ve always believed defending our nation is a duty of citizenship, not ideology. Thus, my conservative political views aside, I’ve made myself available to liberal and conservative groups, to Democrats and Republicans, who’ve thought tapping my experience would be beneficial. It pains me to decline your invitation, but the attendant circumstances leave no other option.
Very truly yours,
/S/ Andrew C. McCarthy

posted May 02, 2009 03:32 PM         

Now, if waterboarding is torture, then Kommander Korruption should be charged, indicted, hauled into a federal court, convicted and imprisoned for 20 years to life in a maximum security federal prison. As Commander in Chief of US military forces, it's no good attempting to deny he knew US military personnel were undergoing waterboarding as part of their training.

posted May 06, 2009 07:00 PM         

It seems MSNBC is unaware of the "Peter Principle" which says people rise to the level of their incompetence in corporations and business.

Both Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews are at least 3 levels beyond their level of incompetence. Simple extrapolation suggests the management of MSNBC...those who hired Olbermann and Matthews are well beyond the level of their own incompetence. Perhaps it's the "new math".

WATCHING MSNBC IS TORTURE
May 6, 2009

Ann Coulter

The media wail about "torture," but are noticeably short on facts.

Liberals try to disguise the utter wussification of our interrogation techniques by constantly prattling on about "the banality of evil."

Um, no. In this case, it's actually the banality of the banal.

Start with the fact that the average Gitmo detainee has gained 20 pounds in captivity. There's even a medical term for it now: "the Gitmo gut." Some prisoners have been heard whispering, "If you think Allah is great, you should try these dinner rolls."

In terms of "torture," there was "the attention grasp," which you have seen in every department store you have ever been where a mother was trying to get her misbehaving child's attention. If "the attention grasp" doesn't work, the interrogators issue a stern warning: "Don't make me pull this car over."

Farther up the parade of horribles was "walling," which I will not describe except to say Elliot Spitzer paid extra for it.

And for the most hardened terrorists, CIA interrogators had "the caterpillar." Evidently, the terrorists have gotten so fat on the food at Guantanamo, now they can't even outrun a caterpillar.

Contrary to MSNBC hosts who are afraid of bugs, water and their own shadows, waterboarding was most definitely not a "war crime" for which the Japanese were prosecuted after World War II -- no matter how many times Mrs. Jonathan Turley, professor of cooking at George Washington University, says so.

All MSNBC hosts and guests were apparently reading "Little Women" rather than military books as children and therefore can be easily fooled about Japanese war crimes. (MSNBC: The Official Drama Queen Network of the 2012 Olympics.)

Given what the Japanese did to prisoners, waterboarding would be a reward for good behavior.

It might be: waterboarding PLUS amputating the prisoner's healthy arm, or waterboarding PLUS killing the prisoner. But waterboarding on the order of what we did at Guantanamo would be a reward in a Japanese POW camp.

To claim that the Japanese -- architects of the Bataan Death March -- were prosecuted for "waterboarding" would be like saying Ted Bundy was executed for engaging in sexual harassment.

What the Japanese did to their POWs made even the Nazis blanch. The Japanese routinely beheaded and bayoneted prisoners; forced prisoners to dig their own graves and then buried them alive; amputated prisoners' healthy arms and legs, one by one, for sport; force-fed prisoners dry rice and then filled their stomachs with water until their bowels exploded; and injected them with chemical weapons in order to observe, time and record their death throes before dumping them in mass graves.

While only 4 percent of British and American troops captured by German or Italian forces died in captivity, 27 percent of British and American POWs captured by the Japanese died in captivity. Japanese war crimes were so atrocious that even rape was treated as only a secondary war crime in the Tokyo trial, similar to what happens during an R. Kelly trial.

The Japanese "water cure" was to "waterboarding" as practiced at Guantanamo what rape at knifepoint is to calling your secretary "honey."

The Japanese version of "waterboarding" was to fill the prisoner's stomach with water until his stomach was distended -- and then pound on his stomach, causing the prisoner to vomit.

Or they would jam a stick into the prisoner's nose so he could breathe only through his mouth and then pour water in his mouth so he would choke to death.

Or they would "waterboard" the prisoner with saltwater, which would kill him.

Meanwhile, the alleged "torture" under the Bush administration consists of things like:

-- "failing to respect a Serbian national holiday"; or

-- "forgetting to wear plastic gloves while handling a Quran."

Finding out who started the tall tale about "waterboarding" being treated as a war crime after World War II would take the talents of a forensic historian, someone like Christina Hoff Sommers.

After years of hearing the feminist "fact" that emergency room admissions for women beaten by their husbands soared by 40 percent on Super Bowl Sundays, Sommers traced it back to an unsubstantiated rumination erupting from a feminist rap session.

But the lunatic claim was passed around with increasing credibility until it ended up being cited as hard fact in The New York Times, The Boston Globe and on "Good Morning America."

One of the earliest entries in the "waterboarding as war crimes" myth must be this October 2006 article in The Washington Post, citing a case raised by Sen. Teddy Kennedy -- and heaven knows Kennedy understands the horrors of a near-drowning:

"Twenty-one years earlier, in 1947, the United States charged a Japanese officer, Yukio Asano, with war crimes for carrying out another form of waterboarding on a U.S. civilian. The subject was strapped on a stretcher that was tilted so that his feet were in the air and head near the floor, and small amounts of water were poured over his face, leaving him gasping for air until he agreed to talk."

Even if that description of what Asano did were true -- and it isn't -- the only relevant word in the entire paragraph is "civilian."

Any mistreatment of a civilian is a war crime. So every other part of that paragraph is utterly irrelevant to the treatment of prisoners of war, much less non-uniformed enemy combatants at Guantanamo, who could have been shot on sight under the laws of war.

posted May 07, 2009 07:52 PM         

This decibel level wasn't heard at Gitmo when terrorists were alleged to have been tortured.

Perhaps we should send Coulter to Gitmo to interrogate the terrorists who are the ideological soul mates of the leftist set.

posted May 07, 2009 10:37 PM         

quote:

---

Even if that description of what Asano did were true -- and it isn't -- the only relevant word in the entire paragraph is "civilian."

---

I guess facts are just inconvenient. We're not waterboarding civilians. That would be a war crime. These people have formed themselves into a kind of army ... no matter how people want to argue that it's not "state sponsored". It's certainly funded and tolerated.

I don't think waterboarding should be routine. But I do think it is justifiable in extreme circumstances. You know ... how Obama and other presidents before him can justify bombing villages full of innocent women and children? In EXTREME circumstances? Do I like it? No. Do I wish it wasn't needed even as a last resort? Yup. But I'm not going to pretend that the world is perfectly divided into black and white in order to keep any illusions of having such a high moral standard no matter how many innocent people die.

That said, I think Coulter brings up a good point. What do these terrorists have to fear from us now? Do you know the kinds of miserable conditions most of these people live in? So they attack the US. Big whoop. Comparatively speaking they're going to get a nice, warm place to sleep, plenty of food, clothes, medical treatment, free time and activities including religion, etc.

Sounds like a perfect recruitment pitch for terrorists. "Those Americans? They won't even yell at you for killing their people! You'll have everything you need and more ... things your own country denies you ... and it won't cost you a thing! What do you have to lose?"

The answer would be nothing. They have nothing to lose, and don't even have the hypothetical fear of losing their lives or being injured, and everything to gain from attacking us.

posted May 08, 2009 12:08 AM         

Sounds like a perfect recruitment pitch for terrorists. "Those Americans? They won't even yell at you for killing their people! You'll have everything you need and more ... things your own country denies you ... and it won't cost you a thing! What do you have to lose?"

Exactly Eleanore

And now, O'Bomber is floating a trial balloon. He's contemplating releasing prisoners held at Gitmo into the United States. I said releasing, not imprisoning. Apparently, since they have no particular skills...except for terrorist training they received in an al-Qaeda training camp, it's also planned to put them on welfare and take care of them.

Such a deal. O'Bomber and his merry band of Marxist Socialists are clinically insane.

My plan for these trained terrorist would be somewhat different. I would arm them and incorporate them into O'Bomber's security staff, the Security Staff of the Supreme Court, the Security Staff of the House of Representatives and the Security Staff of the US Senate. In about 2 seconds flat, all talk of releasing these trained terrorists into the United States would evaporate into thin air.

posted May 08, 2009 01:55 PM         

Is it hearsay when the Attorney General of the United States says it?

Is it hearsay when other members of the failed O'Bomber administration say it?

Is it hearsay when Reuters reports what Attorney General Eric Holder said...and puts his own words inside quotation marks?

Or, does hearsay only apply to what YOU don't know?

posted May 08, 2009 05:52 PM         

What I say is hearsay but what you say..with no attribution whatsoever is to be taken as the gospel truth.

I believe any search will reveal that in general, I post the sources of what I say and generally, there's an attendant article which backs up what I say.