President Obama Addresses CIA & FBI Employees

Muslims: 'We do that on first dates'

picture of extremely painful waterboarding

from World Net Daily
by Ann Coulter
Posted: April 29, 2009

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.

But the New York Times is populated with people who can't believe they live in a country where people would put a caterpillar in a terrorist's cell.
Click to read the rest of the article and the comments

So You Think The US Tortures Prisoners? - No, this is what real torture is

Obama Administration Silent On Real Torture In UAE

April 28, 2009
from the website Pirate's Cove

If anything shows that the whole torture case is a political debate, meant simply to go after Bush, mostly because the Left is deranged and cannot MoveOn, this does

Following an ABC News investigation last night that showed a Royal Sheikh from the United Arab Emirates mercilessly torturing a man with whips, electric cattle prods and wooden planks with protruding nails, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is being urged to initiate and carry out an investigation into the sadistic torture tape. (WT: clicking that link will launch the video)

This story is from April 23rd. I’ve been waiting to see if Hillary, or someone high in the administration, would say something. So far, nothing

The co-chairman of the House Human Rights Commission, Rep. James McGovern (D-MA), said in a letter to Clinton that the tape “shocks the conscience” and demanded she “express the outrage of our nation regarding these acts, and call for an end to the impunity that has provided Sheikh Issa the freedom and license to carry out such heinous acts without the fear of legal reprisal or consequences.”

McGovern also requests that a temporary hold be placed on U.S. expenditures of “funds, training, sales or transfers of equipment or technology, including nuclear” to the UAE until an investigation is completed, since the UAE Ministry of Interior – led by one of the Sheikh’s brother’s – reviewed the allegations and found “all rules, policies and procedures were followed correctly by the Police Department.”

Good thing we aren’t doing anything like looking to sell the UAE, not exactly a bastion of human rights, a nuclear reactor. Oh, wait, we are

In a fiery letter on Thursday, the commission’s Co-Chairman, James McGovern, said “After viewing that tape I’m uncomfortable doing any business with them quite frankly, never mind entering into some sort of nuclear cooperative agreement.”

McGovern’s comment refers to a pending nuclear agreement between the US and the UAE under which Washington agreed to transfer nuclear items to Abu Dhabi - an emirate in the UAE.

Remember, Hillary doesn’t think that the issue of China’s human rights violations should interfere with working on other issues, such as global climate change. And you would be hard pressed to find any other Democrats who gave a fig about the UAE issue other then McGovern.

Playing the hypothetical game, imagine if it had been President Gore when the Al Qaeda little darlings were being waterboarded. Think Democrats and liberals/progressives would have cared? Would Andrew Sullivan and Glenn Greenwald have provided daily screetch-fests on the subject? Would Republicans have gone off the reservation in denouncing the “torture?” No, no, and no. Ever hear about the large amounts of people tortured by Saddam and his henchmen, or the violence and torture by the Taliban, from the Left? Only when they try and compare the USA to brutal regimes past and present. Because it is a political game. I doubt if most really care. Except to gain political power and tear other people down.
Click to read the article and the comments

Gallup: 55% support harsh interrogations of terrorists - Hey Democrats, it's called get a clue time!!!

posted at 9:30 pm on April 28, 2009
by Allahpundit
from Hot Air.com

Further evidence that, like the AIG bonus tax, the Democrats are going to make this subject go bye-bye very soon, and very quietly. The more people know about this subject, the more comfortable with it they seem to be: Whereas 55 percent overall approve of harsh interrogation, 61 percent who are following the story “very closely” do. Likewise, while 51 percent overall support a government investigation of interrogations, 58 percent who are following the story very closely oppose it — a finding that jibes with a new NYT/CBS poll out tonight. Think this will find its way onto Pelosi’s desk tomorrow?

According to the poll, sixty-two percent of Americans do not think Congress should hold hearings to investigate the administration’s treatment of detainees. Only a third of Americans thinks Congress should investigate. That’s the same proportion as thought so in February.

Republicans overwhelming oppose Congress holding such hearings, and sixty percent of independents agree. Democrats - much like Democratic representatives in Congress — are more divided. Forty-six percent say Congress should hold hearings, while fifty-one percent say they are not necessary.

Interestingly, the NYT poll has a 46/37 plurality saying that waterboarding is never justified, which may mean, per the Gallup results, that Americans are okay with most other forms of harsh interrogation but turn squeamish at that one in particular. I wonder what percentage of them have the wrong idea of what it means:

A U.S. official with knowledge of the interrogation program told FOX News that the much-cited figure represents the number of times water was poured onto Mohammed’s face — not the number of times the CIA applied the simulated-drowning technique on the terror suspect. According to a 2007 Red Cross report, he was subjected a total of “five sessions of ill-treatment.” [Oh No! - that naughty 'ill treatment' scenario - my comment]

“The water was poured 183 times — there were 183 pours,” the official explained, adding that “each pour was a matter of seconds.”…

The memos did not note that the sessions would be made up of a number of short pours — the ones the U.S. official said lasted “a matter of seconds” — and that created the huge numbers quoted by the New York Times: 183 on Mohamed, 83 on Zubaydah.

Pours, not waterboards.

Exit question: How many seconds’ worth of water poured on the face of the guy who destroyed the World Trade Center is “inhumane”?
Click to read the article and comments

Barry Honey, Can We Talk about Torture?

from American Thinker
April 28, 2009
By Kyle-Anne Shiver

My dear Mr. President, I've just finished reading the formerly top-secret, classified CIA memos detailing interrogation techniques used in the aftermath of 9/11. And frankly, Barry honey, I'm shocked.

Positively shocked that any President of the U.S.A. would make such documents public knowledge.

As a mother, who has invested blood, sweat, tears and every last vestige of my natural hair color into raising my children, I am appalled at the apparent casualness with which you are handling your #1 duty, protecting the lives of American citizens.

At this very minute, I'm considering forming a new organization, Mothers Against Wimpy Defense.

Before I start organizing millions of mothers with strollers and grade-schoolers in tow to march on the White House, perhaps I could attempt a bit of verbal negotiation.

Not only have you given terrorists enough comedy at America's expense to fuel Al Jazeera for the entire time span of your presidency, you've told their plotters and leaders exactly how to train for the wimpy Americans and their host of morally-confused psychologists, who equate the real torture of gouging of human eyes with a forceful, closed-handed slap across the face and the real torture of removing every finger and toe with the temporary, psychological perception of the sensation of drowning.

Now the silliest thing in all of this -- for a mother who has fought hand-to-hand combat with a teenaged son twice her size -- is that these same arbiters of what could be justified to save the lives of countless innocent Americans, would most likely condemn the parental disciplinary methods used in this Country with terrific success for the past 2-1/3 centuries.

How many among prior generations of Americans got through childhood without a single trip to the woodshed with an angry, had-it-up-to-here father? How many American children (except Bill Maher and Rachel Maddow) escaped childhood without a single mouth-washing with bitter soap? How many of our little ones thought messing with Mom was a good idea?

In other words, Barry Honey, now that I've read the stringent limits under which our CIA folks were forced to operate in the aftermath of 9/11, I'm actually quite stunned that there was such a degree of restraint. The memos actually serve to demonstrate America's exemplary high standards in the realm of dealings with our attackers, not the reverse, as has been put forward by Democrats for the past 8 years.

Unlike our Islamic terrorist enemies, we were not amputating fingers or extracting fingernails. We were not gouging eyes from their sockets. We were not applying high-amp electrical shocks to the genitalia of enemy combatants in our custody. In fact, we were so darned civilized that the only shock in any of this is the degree of rancor with which our CIA protectors are now apparently regarded by a namby-pamby press and the Democrats in Congress seeking show trials and witch burnings.

Which brings us to the matter, Barry Honey, of your politicizing the role of Commander in Chief. It is one thing -- and an altogether expected thing -- to politicize the presidency in domestic policy matters. It is certainly also expectable that during an election campaign, candidates will agree or disagree with important foreign policy decisions of the current president. But in making these classified-for-USA-protection documents public, you, dear Sir, have stepped over the line into banana-republic domain.

In this, you are behaving like a man, having just stormed the palace gates with armed guerillas, having imprisoned the former occupant and ransacked the place, puts on full public display whatever he can find that may justify his coup. Bringing these documents to light to the full accompaniment of Party clamors for blood, is quite akin to the banana-republic dictator beaming in the wake of his successful coup and declaring that all evil deeds will now be punished.

All I can say is that your actions in politicizing the role of Commander in Chief, not only disgrace you, Barry Honey, they disgrace this Nation and sadly may have consequences for generations to come. Every enemy we have now knows that you disdain America more than you disdain them and that you have no qualms about sacrificing our defense personnel on the altar of politics.

Could you possibly be more inept?

With every move you make as Commander in Chief, you give more than ample proof to my old voters' axiom: Never, ever put a man in charge of your military defense who has not at the very, very least, successfully done battle with his own teenagers.

Parents, who have made it to the successful end of preparing children for upstanding adult lives understand that in the face of one's children, as in the face of one's enemies, the adults stick together. Bickering over tactics is absolutely, positively, every single time conducted behind closed doors and out of earshot. This is the only way to run a healthy family in the best interests of children, and it is the only way to run a healthy foreign policy in the best interests of this Nation and our defense.

God help you when your girls are teens.

Until then, God help America.

I remain, Barry Honey, your faithful dissenting constituent. Daily, however, my faith in you shrinks as my dissent grows more fitful.

Kyle-Anne Shiver is a frequent contributor to American Thinker. She welcomes your comments at commonsenseregained.com
Click to read the article and comments

Should We Have A Torture "Truth Commission?" - Why and Why Not

Conservatives Torn on Interrogation ‘Truth Commission’
Visions of Nancy Pelosi on the stand dance in Republicans' heads.
April 26, 2009
by Jennifer Rubin

As the facts now dribble out, conservatives may have the upper hand. Former Bush administration advisor and speechwriter Marc Thiessen points out that by huge margins Americans favor actual torture, not just rough interrogation, to get information that would save lives. And there’s plenty to suggest the the Bush team’s utilization of harsh tactics did save lives. Thiessen writes:

In numerous subsequent speeches, President Bush said that the West Coast plot was disrupted because of the CIA program. Each of those speeches was carefully reviewed by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence — and each time the DNI provided the White House with a classified memo stating that the contents of the speech was accurate and did not compromise sources and methods. So the Director of National Intelligence has repeatedly affirmed the accuracy of the statement that the West Coast plot was disrupted because of the CIA program.

We can add to that the growing body of information that enhanced interrogation techniques assisted in disrupting plots by Jose Padilla, the strike on U.S. Marines at Camp Lemonier in Djibouti, the planned explosion of British airliners over the Atlantic, and anthrax attacks in the U.S. One senses a torrent of information is about to pour out into the public domain.
Click to read the rest of the article