I'm having a bad day. Edwards decides it's best to step aside dashing the hopes of millions, er a thousands, er a maybe just a gaggle of devout followers like me--I'm a little fuzzy here because I've knocked back quite a few unionmade Pabst tall boys since I heard the news. Working class way of licking my wounds I guess. Pretty? No. Effective? Yes. Another couple a sixpacks (of course tearing apart the plastic can connectors to protect the dump frequenting sea gulls) and I might even be ready to support one of the two very shiny "viable" contenders to the throne that Chimpy McCodpiece built.
Compounding my disillusionment, new Abu Gonzalez clone AG Mukasey gives another dissembling answer based on weak convoluted legal reasoning regarding what constitutes torture under the as yet to be identified or disclosed circumstances. "It's relative don't you know. Relative to the potential gain balanced against the degree to which the 'means of information extraction' (Orwellian euphemism for doing something physically and morally repellent to another human being), you know, shocks the conscience."
For all the shrieking about evil leechlike trial lawyers sucking America's lifeblood out of every conceivable legitimate wealth producing vein, I can't think of a single one, anywhere, that would stoop to defending torture.
So in a fit of pique I decided that we're getting nowhere by appealing to the innate goodness and reason that we're always claiming "teh Amerikan peeplo" possess in abundance. Maybe the peeplo really don't like the idea of torture. Maybe they do. Maybe they are indifferent until it happens to them. Maybe it's just those on the cocktail weenie circuit we elect to be our collective conscience who are closet sadists. Maybe it's the "non-activist" members of the bench keeping their legal powder dry for something more important like the "retroactive Telcom immunity brouhaha." Not really sure, but I don't remember there being millions of phone calls jamming the Congressional switchboards shouting down the hypocrisy and immorality of torture, so I'll presume it's some combination of all of the above.
Anyhow, enough "whining" as Hunter says and onto the limited substance of my diary.
My less than developed thoughts on the subject of torture.
- The factual and well-reasoned arguments failed miserably,
a) experts claim torture is unproductive and unreliable,
b) even if it worked ticking suitcase-sized nuclear time-bombs are
for all intents and purposes a fiction (strawman) thus torture
is pointless,
c) it is contrary to long established international and domestic
law.
- Appeals to morality failed miserably,
a) torture is not only morally repugnant, and sooo Middle Ages and
Third Reich, that it emotionally/physically damages the innocent
patriotic "torturer" as well,
b) it is incredibly inconsistent with our "values" as the
"civilized leaders of the free world."
So we're left with one simple truth--it's only torture if it shocks the conscience relative to the potential information gain. Raises two obvious brightline problems:
A) Whose conscience is the comparison point for determining what is shocking? A sadist's, a compuslive liar's, the ever popular legal fiction of "the reasonable person" or is it the province of the Codpiece du jour in his/her infinite "trust me" wisdom, or is it the politically compliant head of the DOJ as prosecutor in chief?
B) What is a valuable enough potential information gain to warrant torture? Ticking nuclear weapon, ticking conventional weapon, ticking biological weapon, undisclosed gunman seeking to kill a "very important or serious person(s)," undisclosed guman seeking to kill a single or multiple "unimportant poor person(s)", undisclosed potential "disrupters of property rights" who seek to cause pecuniary damage and if so what amounts trigger torture to prevent said speculative harm?
So my proposal, regarding what is torture (except rape and "permanent" maiming seem to be out-of-bounds though I can't for the life of me draw the principaled distinction--scarring the mind/soul and scarring the body all seem to be a part of the acceptable methods and no less shocking) and under what circumstances their use is acceptable to produce that oh so productive lifesaving intelligence, is a grass roots letter, phone, fax and email campaign. Not just to politicians but to every preacher, deacon, rabbi, priest and religious figure in America asking them, or rather telling them that unless they apply their much needed "moral authority," to this moral disgrace in a sustained and public manner through every media outlet at their disposal, all donations to their congregations will cease immediately and they should make no further claim to having any moral authority whatsoever. Because torture ain't a political or legal issue brother, it's a moral one.
A campaign which very seriously describes, in vivid technicolor detail, all the available non-rape non-permanent-maiming torture methodologies that should be used to extract lifesaving intelligence information. We should also seriously suggest not limiting these methodologies to "alleged" terrorists but should be equally applied to major "alleged" drug traffickers, gang members, murders, rapists, armed robbers, arsonists and those already incarcerated for the above offenses, any suspected members of PETA, ELF, the murder-by-spreadsheet health care industry executives and actuarials, and any as yet to be determined unknown "alleged" evil-doers who may or may not be but-for, though not necessarily proximate legal causes, of 10 times the people that "alleged" terrorists are on record as having actually killed. Because what's good and worthy treatment for one class of "alleged" evil-doers should be equally valid for all. And twice on Sunday for those actually convicted of being actual evil-doers.
These torture methods should include but not be limited to the following:
Strappado followed by Squassation,
Flogging,
Caneing,
Racking,
Thumbscrews (or application to any sensitive body part like testicles),
Head in the Vise Treatment,
Forced Feeding via Tube through Nostrils w/ 3X Daily Removal (oops that one is already used legally),
Chemical Suppositories Laden with Psychosis Inducing Psychotropic Drugs (my bad that one is standard practice as well),
Guns to the Heads of "Alleged" Terrorists' Loved Ones,
Being Forced to Listen to and Watch Karl Rove Rapping on 24/7 AV Loop,
Being Forced to Listen to and Watch C-Span on 24/7 AV Loop,
Being Forced to Listen to and Watch GOP Primary Debates on 24/7 AV Loop Complete w/ Custom Looped Edits of Each Candidate's Speech Impediments,
Being Forced to Listen to Readings of DKos Candidate Diaries and Comments on 24/7 Audio Loop,
Being Forced to Spend 1 Week Hunting with Mike Huckabee and/or Dick Cheney while Sharing a Tent and Sleepingbag with One or Both Every Night (I like to refer to this one as "forced spooning with the oily bible thumping antichrists"),
Being Forced to Marry Lindsay Lohan or Brittany Spears in a Shotgun Wedding Ceremony with Catering Service that is neither Halal, Kosher, or Consistent with the Requirements of Lent (I like to refer to this one as "torture by washed up celebrity" followed by the gratuitous "shitty meal" simply for the purpose of adding insult to actual injury),
All of the Above Methods Applied to the "Alleged" Terrorists' Family Members or Loved Ones.
Of course I'm a little buzzed and crabby like I said, so feel free to add any truly vicious, or viscose, torture methods I may have omitted. But it is truly time to embrace torture as the defining accomplishment of American culture post 9/11. If the remaining GOP candidates engage in a regular discussion of "who's the bigger badder torture of the bad guys" and nobody seems to respond other than with an uncomfortable wince or outright applause, then am I lying. Maybe embracing the merits of torture in a completely fervent over-the-top way, maybe could get somebody to listen. I doubt it. They'd just call us pansies or some other Jonah Goldberg inspired slur. But it might be worth a try.
In summation, I'm clearly no Hunter. And with all due respect, Chuck Schumer should be primaried along with a whole host of other DINO's who don't have the slightest clue what Hannah Arendt was talking about when describing the "banality of evil." Maybe if Stanley Milgram's experiments we're required reading in high school people might appreciate the danger of blindly submitting to perceived authority. If I was the praying type, I'd pray every day to have been born Norwegian or Finnish or Kiwi. Because being an American isn't really all it's cracked up to be.