10 (or more) Things I hate About You

[chequita guevara]

Just in case anyone questions the spying on Americans thing:

http://www.democracynow.org/2009/7/28/broadcast_exclusive_declassified_docs_reveal_military

[DaShi]

What I don't like about Obama:

Geithner

[-Jrabbit]

Another addition: failing to do a damn thing for New Orleans.

[Kuciwalker]

I used to think pretty much as you do. But the more I've read about what went on, the less calculating I've become (calculating as in "well, that's just a political cluster**** waiting to happen so we can't do it"). I've come 'round to the idea that a proper investigation is necessary, and that failure to conduct one means we condone what was done and, further, signal that we are just fine with such things being done again. To me "such things" is rather broad. It's not just the torture (though that's bad enough), but rather a pervasive "national security" mindset that allows for pushing aside things like civil liberties, international treaty obligations, or basic decency so that powerful people can have more control and "keep us safe." That scares me more than a little bit, and Obama has, so far, been disappointing on rolling it back.

-Arrian

I know where you're coming from. I occasionally try to actually care about it all, but each time I fail miserably. I can't convince myself it's a meaningful threat to civil liberties.

[Imran Siddiqui]

[Drake Tungsten]

They're dicking around now with a bull**** "investigation" that will only tag a few minor players and leave the actual decision-makers and assorted enablers free & clear. Holder needs to man up.

Please do this. It would destroy whatever remaining political capital this administration has left.

[ricketyclik]

I like the list too. But I'd like clarification on:

4) I'm skeptical about the strange bankrupcies of GM and Chrysler.

Didn't they go broke? What's to be skeptical about?

[Kuciwalker]

He means the way they were handled by the administration.

[ricketyclik]

Oh. What did they do wrong?

[EPW]

What didn't they do wrong?

[ricketyclik]

I don't know. It's a genuine question.

[zakubandit]

Arrian, while I agree with you on almost everything you said, let me stop you on the torture issue.

You guys who are anti-torture and want court charges filed for use of torture techniques need to realize a few things. The first and most important, what we do to them isn't nearly as bad as what they do to us. They physically beat soldiers that they have captured, they have down oil boarding (same concept as water but with oil), and when they have had their fill they chop heads off with rusty blades in hopes of growing fear in westerners. What do we do? We mind-**** them for information, house them on a nice island, and feed them 3 square meals a day, as well as provide medical personnel for them. So when you guys think about how bad these terrorists(mass murders, criminals) are being interogated for valuable information about key targets, possible attacks on us, locations of things, remember that for every one of them that we do this to is a thousand or more lives saved. For every terrorist that gives information is maybe 100 soldiers' lives saved in the war. So is the end worth the means. YES! A million times yes! They have no dignity or respect towards Westerners, but we give them respect enough to feed, cloth, and house them with out tax dollars. We don't use them for propaganda. We want our justice, and information as well.

And after that, there are just somethings the intelligence community has to do in order to ensure safety to US citizens. I don't want to know about their operations, I don't want to know how many other terrorists they are working with to keep us safe. The lesser of two evils may still be evil, but the enemy of my enemy is my friend. I would prefer to be alive and safe to raise my family in a safe country, than to let the terrorists win because everyone says its bad to get information from them.

Remember how bad they were to Nick Berg, cut his head off with a rusty blade on camera to show the world.

[loinburger]

Hypothetical Torture

"Everyone please take your seat so we can resume the hearing," Chairman Harlock yelled over the din of many separate conversations. "Come on folks, we've got a long afternoon ahead of us."

Albert O. Brandyfield, former Secretary of Interrogations, was being grilled by the senate subcommittee on national security. He had already taken his seat at the table, his shriveled frame flanked by highly-paid Washington lawyers. He seemed shrunken since leaving his post, withered by the media attention on his past "mistakes." Though otherwise weakened, Brandyfield's black, button eyes glinted with keen intelligence.

Some on the left accused Brandyfield of authorizing and encouraging the use of torture during the previous administration. Many on the right were sympathetic to Brandyfield and believed any torture was conducted as a necessary means to provide for national security.

Brandyfield's cantankerous performance during the morning's session had demonstrated that the senators on the committee could expect no mea culpa.

Chairman Harlock banged the gavel a few more times and the room finally fell silent.

"If we're ready, let's continue with the Senator from Idaho," Chairman Harlock said and pointed the handle of the gavel at the balding Republican. "Senator Kempt, go ahead."

Senator Kempt shuffled some papers and cleared his throat before speaking.

"Thank you, Mister Chairman."

Senator Kempt paused to adjust his microphone lower.

"Thank you also, Former Secretary Brandyfield, I know you have received a lot of guff from my esteemed colleagues today and you have been so very patient."

"I'm glad to answer questions," Brandyfield replied.

"Good. That's good, because I do have a question for you," Senator Kempt paused again to shuffle his papers. "Most of the questions today have been directed at whether or not you believe the US government tortured and what exactly your role was in shaping individual interrogations. I would like to broaden the scope of the questioning out into the general question of whether or not torture is ever okay. If a time bomb is ticking in a school full of babies and you have the guy who you know can tell you where the bomb is and how to disarm it, will you torture him?"

"That's an excellent question, Senator. First, I would like to reiterate that the United States does not, as a rule, torture. We have a variety of interrogation techniques available to us and we utilize these under normal circumstances. However, to answer your hypothetical, the United States would act in the best interests of national security to obtain time-sensitive information."

"So if there was a threat to America and the only way to get the information was torture, you would torture someone?"

"In order to protect America we would do anything in our power to get that information," Brandyfield answered. "All options are on the table in those situations."

"I yield the balance of my time," Senator Kempt noted.

"Ah, Senator Feinbaum," Chairman Harlock pointed to the Democrat from Rhode Island.

"Thank you, Mister Chairman," said Senator Feinbaum.

He took off his reading glasses before addressing Brandyfield.

"My colleague introduced a fascinating hypothetical about a...school full of babies with a ticking time bomb. You were good enough to answer that 'all options' are on the table in a scenario like that. Is that correct?"

"Yes," Brandyfield answered without hesitation. "We cannot allow squeamishness to obstruct the safety of our country. When the enemy adheres to no moral code then I believe in certain very specific circumstances we should explore every option available."

"Interesting, Mr. Brandyfield. If I might explore that hypothetical a little further, I was curious, in that exact scenario...ticking time bomb, babies in peril, one man knows the answer...would you be willing to be sodomized if it meant having the answer to that question?"

"I'm not sure I...ah...I don't..." Brandyfield was flummoxed.

"Would you take one for the team, Mister Brandyfield? Would you let a terrorist cornhole you? Hump your filthy ****pipe?"

"That's, I mean I can't imagine a scenario where..."

"No, this is the hypothetical. Terrorist dude is totally 100% immune to torture, but he agrees to give you the location of the bomb if he can just get a good ten minutes pounding the hell out of your saggy old man ass. So answer that question. Would you allow yourself to be sodomized if it meant getting the information to save a school full of babies from a bomb?"

"I don't...no, I can't do that," Brandyfield answered. "I think it's a ridiculous-"

"No, that's the hypothetical. And let the record note that Secretary Brandyfield believes ten minutes of tube in the stink is just too much to endure to save the lives of dozens of children."

"Now wait a minute, I-"

"Let the record reflect that!" Senator Feinbaum's voice squealed in the microphone.

"That's not fair, Senator, that situation would never arise," Brandyfield objected.

"It's just a hypothetical, but I can understand your reluctance. That is a very intimate act to share with someone you barely know. What about something a bit less intrusive? Would you, say, be willing to jerk off a terrorist who knows the location and means of disarming a ticking time bomb? Just give him a little tug?"

"I don't see how this is relevant to-"

"You can use a sock. Put some jelly on a sock and beat him off. You can even look away while you're doing it if it really bothers you that much."

"This is disgusting, I am a happily married man, Senator. I would never engage-"

"We're not talking about cheating for romance or lust, Mr. Brandyfield. You're cheating to save babies. School babies next to a bomb. It's in those little wooden nooks where the kindergarteners put their lunches. It will blow them all to pieces and all you have to do to save them is beat off one terrorist mastermind for like five minutes. Using a jellied jerk sock. You don't even have to touch it directly."

"I refuse to answer," Brandyfield replied.

"Let the record note that when confronted with a ticking time bomb Secretary Brandyfield refused to answer," Senator Feinbaum declared.

"Wait a second," Brandyfield was beginning to sound very agitated. "I will answer your damn hypothetical. No! The answer is no!"

"No need to shout, Mr. Brandyfield. Please amend the record to reflect that Senator Brandyfield will not jerk off a terrorist to save the lives of children."

"This is appalling," Brandyfield shook his head in disgust.

"My time is almost up, Mr. Brandyfield, but I want to give you one last opportunity to answer the hypothetical. Same scenario. School, babies, ticking bomb, terrorist with the answers. Hell, throw in extra answers. He knows where Bin Laden is and he can tell us where all the loose nukes are right now. This guy is the intelligence goldmine, but he's totally immune to torture. You've pulled all his nails, sliced up his genitals, so no jerking off, and you've cut out one of his eyes. He doesn't care. But he will give you all the answers if you just kiss him."

"Kiss him?"

"On the mouth. Just once, Mr. Brandyfield."

"Kiss him on the mouth?"

"Yeah, kiss a terrorist dude on the mouth. You know what, not even kiss him, just get your mouth really close to his and then you both stick out your tongues and touch the tip of your tongue to his for maybe two seconds."

"Touch tongues and that is it?"

"For only two seconds."

"And he will tell us how to stop the bomb and find Bin Laden and all about the loose nukes?"

"Yes, and anything else you can think of. He's the intelligence Rosetta Stone. All plots revealed."

"Wow, I, uh...I suppose I would do that then. I'd have to do that."

"Let the record reflect that Secretary Brandyfield is willing to touch tongues with a terrorist in a homosexual kissing scenario to save America."

"Now wait a minute-"

"Your time is up," announced Chairman Harlock. "Secretary Brandyfield, if you have further answers for that question you will have to submit them in writing. Uh, we have time for one more before a quick voting recess. Senator Burns from Wyoming."

The frog-faced Republican Senator from Wyoming turned on his microphone and leaned forward.

"I would like to begin by thanking Secretary Brandyfield for stopping by to answer our questions," began Senator Burns. "But I can't thank him. Because I am totally grossed out right now. I seriously feel like I might puke. I would like the record to reflect that I can support enhanced interrogations in some situations, but I do not support nor condone French kissing no terrorist."

Secretary Brandyfield hung his head in shame. Senator Burns pointed an accusatory finger at him.

"There are some lines that the US Government just cannot cross," Senator Burns admonished. "If we endorse that sort of behavior then are we really America anymore? Not the one I remember. We cannot sacrifice our most important qualities in pursuit of security. The United States of America does not gay tongue touch prisoners."

[Kuciwalker]

Albert O. Brandyfield, former Secretary of Interrogations, was being grilled by the senate subcommittee on national security.

I would pay good money to see this happen non-metaphorically.

[Thoth]

@Loinburger:

That is beautiful.