Boy oh boy. The torture issue is most likely the biggest issue about now until everyone in Washington packs up to get ready for the elections. Two days ago I missed it, but The Guardian has a list of what techniques the CIA wants to use on people.

The techniques sought by the CIA are: induced hypothermia; forcing suspects to stand for prolonged periods; sleep deprivation; a technique called “the attention grab” where a suspect’s shirt is forcefully seized; the “attention slap” or open hand slapping that hurts but does not lead to physical damage; the “belly slap”; and sound and light manipulation.

Now, I first off am rather dubious that this could possibly be the full list. After all, the Guardian reported that same damn day about our Canadian friend sent out to Syria:

He spent nearly a year in prison in Syria and made detailed allegations after his release in 2003 about extensive interrogation, beatings and whippings with electrical cables.

Not to mention the coffin-sized cage he was held in for 10 months. So when you add up secret prisons and actual stories of what’s going on, this list sounds like it’s not telling the whole story, but of course, we’ve got groups like “Stop the ACLU” who have their own interesting take on the matter.

Oh the horrors! This is the stuff that nightmares are made of! I can’t believe they didn’t leak the other techniques of noogies, titty twisting, ear thumping, indian burns, swirlies (especially with Korans), wet willies, and wedgies. For real, my big brother did worse than most of these techniques to me just for fun. I almost had my crown and coke come out my nose I was laughing so hard at these “rough” techniques.

I think for this portion, I’m going to have to speak very slowly. Of course, this is via type, so you’ll just have to read it slowly. Ahem.

Folks, when you read sleep deprivation, hypothermia, belly slapping, and being forced to stand, chances are they are not talking about keeping you up until 5am, giving you a pink belly, or making you stand for an hour. Provided that these techniques ARE the full scale of what the CIA wants to use (which you can bet they aren’t), this isn’t fun-time joke level shit.

This means people are being kept awake for days, possibly weeks at a time. They’ll be forced to stand until their bodies can no longer support them, forced in the cold until they’re near death. You say it’s not that bad. If it wasn’t that bad, why would they want to use it? You say it’s something your brother did to you. Was that effective enough to get you to confess to major crimes? No? Well then chances are you’re completely misrepresenting the issue, you moron.

I’d expect that lunacy from a group called Stop the ACLU (which might as well be called the Americans Against Civil Liberties Union), but how about on Fox? Here’s video, plus Bill-O with his own little twist on the debate itself:

[youtube]q-i1YJ_ryjY[/youtube]

On Gibson, that’s the big problem. These people read the techniques and correlate them to how they’re used to them. To us, a belly slap is a pink belly, something you get in elementary school that lasts a few minutes and stings, but isn’t really that bad. Sleep deprivation means you don’t go to sleep that night and are kinda tired. They’re forgetting that sleep deprivation was a BIG technique used by the Gestapo and the Vietcong.

Sleep deprivation reduces a body’s tolerance for physical pain, causing deep aches first in the lower part of the body, followed by similar pains in the upper body. Sleep-deprived people are also highly suggestible (a condition not unlike drunkenness or hypnosis), making sleep deprivation ideal for inducing false confessions.

The Gestapo was the first to use sleep deprivation to gather information. In 1942, Gestapo chief Heinrich Mueller authorized “sharpened interrogation” for terrorists, approving sleep deprivation, starvation, exhaustion exercises, regulated beating and confinement in dark cells — but only to gather intelligence on those who had “plans hostile to the state,” not to get confessions of guilt.

They even talk about the sweatboxes, which sound pretty similar to the extreme temperatures and tiny cells that we’re hearing about in all of the prisons.

As for Bill-O, I don’t really think I need to explain but I will anyway. No, there aren’t any liberals saying the US wants to beat suspects for sport, no one has suggested that torture yields no good information, and I would hope it would be obvious that this is beyond “uncomfortable”.

A good analogy would be our own police force. Bill-O mentions later that “tough interrogation” works in the police department. Well then why aren’t we using these techniques at home? If they’re so soft, if they’re so tame, if they’re so effective, why are they limited to secret CIA prisons?

Now ignoring the obvious “well we’re doing a hell of a lot more than that” answer, the other answer is incredibly simple: reliability. Domestically, our legal system is set up to reject any techniques that could yield unreliable evidence. You would think that would be a hint to the redcoats and squawkboxes that if we don’t use it at home, then we shouldn’t use it elsewhere. If it was as non-damaging and fluffy as Gibson and the others say, we could use the techniques on anyone anywhere.

They don’t get it, folks. If this bill goes through, not only is our moral standing in the world in jeopardy, so are our troops. And they’re not going to get pink bellies and wedgies.

[tags]torture, fox news, media, politics, war, terrorism[/tags]

Sorry, been a bit of a busy day. Anyway, Bush was on CNN with Wolf Blitzer yesterday to talk about the curious fact that he and Ahmadinejad never actually talked to one another, as quite a number of people had been anticipating. Here’s just the beginning of the 18 minute interview, which is all you really need to see.

[youtube]K3t4psPF79A[/youtube]

That last bit is particularly important. “In order for there to be effective diplomacy, you can’t keep changing your word.” This is why we aren’t getting anywhere. We have two bullheaded leaders going up against each other, with ours thinking that “diplomacy” means two nations sit down and keep telling each other that they won’t budge on their demands.

There’s also an amusing bit much later in the interview where Bush reminds us that he takes things very seriously. When Iran says they’ll hit Israel, he takes that seriously. When al Qaeda says they’ll strike again, he takes that seriously. Now, when al Qaeda says they’ll strike the first time, or when he hears that a hurricane is coming, he won’t take that seriously. Naturally.

[tags]bush, video, cnn, media, iran, war[/tags]

Forgive my Cavuto in the title there, but I think that’s an actual question worth asking. Apparently there is a fair amount of anti-Maliki sentiment rumbling in Iraq, and I’d also like to highlight this:

For example, to bolster Iraqis’ confidence, American generals are spending money on quick reconstruction projects like trash pickup as the military goes through troubled neighborhoods of Baghdad.

Yes folks, our military is now picking… up… trash. Things are down in the dregs so far that our soldiers have to be the garbagemen, and that’s actually considered something that will bolster confidence. Amazing. Read on…

“There’s no security, no job opportunities, no services, nothing at all,” said Muhammad Jabar Abdul Ridha, 18, a construction worker walking through downtown Baghdad on Tuesday afternoon. “This government hasn’t done anything better than the previous one.”

Ouch. Of course, what else would you expect when people want Maliki to take action against militias led by al-Sadr, who himself controls 30 parliamentary seats and six ministries. One side of the country wants to start up a fight against another, and infighting amongst even the groups themselves.

White House officials are saying they have little confidence in Maliki. I wonder if things get bad enough, will we go back in and re-arrange again?

[tags]iraq, government, maliki, war[/tags]

Well damn. I was all excited to find out that a panel of the House of Representatives rejected Bush’s bill on “interrogations”, but then they had to go and change their damn minds.

But there’s more to it than that, take a look at just HOW they went about with the switcharoo:

About an hour earlier, the House Judiciary Committee rejected Bush’s plan, with three Republicans joining committee Democrats. Embarrassed Republicans then summoned absent members, called for another vote, and approved it 20-19.

Okay, that kinda sucks but it’s fair I believe. A vote that doesn’t have all of the members is all fine and dandy when it agrees with me, but I concede that it’s important to have the vote include everyone able to vote. Plus I’d be fairly peeved to find out that people weren’t voting on something like this, even if I’m not happy with HOW they vote.

But that’s not the problem, this is:

The House Judiciary Committee, in a surprise move, rejected the measure 20-17. The Republican-led panel had been widely expected to back the bill pushed by Bush while he battles with some key Republicans in the Senate for similar authority.

The vote went from 20-17 against to 20-19 for. At least one person switched sides. Thus, I think we need two important pieces of information: who was missing from the first vote and who flipped their position. The later article tells us that it was “embarrassed republicans” who went and called for the absent members. I think we can fairly assume a few things:

1. There weren’t any absent democrats
2. Both of the new guys voted for the plan
3. A republican was “convinced” to vote back with his party

I just want the names. If I get any, I’ll update this post. Of course, I’d also like to know exactly what methods Bush wants to know the Outrage Level of, but I’m going to take a wild guess that asking that means I’m helping the terrorists or something.

[tags]torture, house, congress, bill, politics, bush[/tags]