joni’s got a gun

Posted on January 16, 2015 by greg

Next Tuesday Barack Obama, President of These United States, will deliver the annual State of the Union address. Traditionally, following the SOTU speech, the opposition party is given the opportunity to respond. This year the Republican response will be given by Senator Joni Ernst.

Who, you are asking, the hell is Joni Ernst? Let me answer that. She’s the newly elected Senator from Iowa. Seriously, she was just sworn into office a few days ago. But who IS she? She’s Sarah Palin Lite. She’s Palin without Palin’s intellect and gravitas. She’s Palin, corn-fed and less coherent. She’s Palin on mood stabilizers. She’s Palin castrating swine instead of shooting at elk. And yeah, that castrating swine bit? I’m not even joking. That’s actually how she got elected..

This was probably the most effective advert run by a Republican in the last election cycle. It put Joni Ernst on the map, and got the attention of the Old White Guys with Deep Pockets. They bought her a bunch of political advisers and media consultants, who managed to tone down her Crazy Quotient enough to get her elected. (And dude, Ernst scores HIGH on the Crazy Quotient — which I’ll get back to in just a bit.) Once the OWGwDP began to groom her, Joni stopped talking about policy and focused her campaign on the fact that she was an Iowa country mom who wore a uniform, rode a motorcycle, loved guns, and spent her childhood lopping the balls off pigs.

After she was elected, Senator Lindsey Graham gave her a plaque with a pig castration tool mounted on it, inscribed Make ‘Em Squeal, Joni.

Ernst’s other major claim to legitimacy is her military service. She’s a lieutenant colonel in the Iowa Army National Guard, the commander of the 185th Combat Sustainment Support Battalion. That’s the one thing I really truly actually respect about Ernst. She put on the uniform and she served. And don’t knock the logistics folks; a military unit is only as good as its equipment and supplies.

But Joni doesn’t get a free pass just because of her military service — for a couple of reasons. First, her media handlers often refer to her as a ‘combat veteran’ because her unit served in Operation Iraqi Freedom in 2003-2004. Which sounds cool. Except that her support unit was stationed in Kuwait, and while her unit did run convoys into southern Iraq, I feel safe in suggesting that as the company commander, Joni never got behind the wheel of one of those convoy vehicles. She isn’t a combat veteran.

Second, despite her long military career, Joni seems unaware of Article 88 of the Uniformed Code of Military Justice.

Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Transportation, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

That’s right, it’s a court martial offense insult the president. But just a year ago, Joni said “He (Obama) has become a dictator.” She’s also flirted with violations of UCMJ Article 94, which states that anybody subject to the UCMJ who advocates “revolt, violence, or other disturbance against that authority” is guilty of sedition. In a speech to the NRA, she said:

“I do believe in the right to carry, and I believe in the right to defend myself and my family — whether it’s from an intruder, or whether it’s from a government, should they decide that my rights are no longer important.”

When she joined the Iowa National Guard, Joni swore an oath that she would “obey the orders of the President of the United States and the Governor of the State.” Which, you know, actually IS the government she’s toting a handgun to defend herself from. So she can either be a good soldier or she can be somebody who is arming herself against her own government — but she can’t be both.

But wait…that’s the low end of Joni Ernst’s score on the Crazy Quotient. At the high end? Agenda 21. She believes this is some United Nations conspiracy to usurp democracy in order to deprive US citizens of their property rights in order to…well, that bit isn’t clear. But dammit, foreigners want to kill family farms and take away our golf courses. At a candidate forum, Joni claimed United Nations agents have begun

“moving people off of their agricultural land and consolidating them into city centers and then telling them that you don’t have property rights anymore.”

Joni is also an advocate of nullification — the completely discredited notion that state rights can trump federal law. In a candidate questionnaire she said as a Senator she’d support:

“…legislation to nullify ObamaCare and authorize state and local law enforcement to arrest federal officials attempting to implement (it).”

That’s right — Joni not only believes in a crackpot legal theory, she also thinks it’s okay to arrest and prosecute Federal personnel who are following Federal law. I suppose we should be grateful she doesn’t advocate castrating them.

And let me remind you once again — this woman is a Senator in the United States Congress. Elected right here in Iowa, the heartland and all that (and really, I apologize for all of Iowa). And even though she’s only been in office for less than two weeks, she’s the person chosen to give the Republican Party’s official response to the president’s State of the Union address.

My country, I love it dearly…but we are so fucked.

excited to actively announce and all

Posted on January 13, 2015 by greg

Jeb Bush. The ‘smart’ one. Seriously, they actually call him that in news articles. The smart brother in the Bush family. He’s running to be the President of These United States. Sort of.

I am excited to announce that I will actively explore the possibility of running for president of the United States.

That single sentence by itself should be enough to disqualify Jeb Bush from ever becoming president. No human being wrote that sentence. It could have been produced by an Announcement Generator app. More likely, though, it was sweated over by a cadre of highly paid public relation monkeys who’d been instructed to come up with something that would convey the aura of enthusiasm without actually committing Jeb Bush to follow through on the announcement. You know, in case it turns out absolutely nobody on the fucking planet actually wants him to be the President of These United States of America. It’s a pissy-pants statement if I’ve ever heard one (and I have).

Let’s unpack this turd burrito, shall we?

I am excited to announce…

Excited, right. C’mon Jeb, you’d probably be more excited looking in the refrigerator late at night and finding there’s still some lasagna leftover. You’re not really excited by this, and neither is anybody else. This isn’t even a real announcement. An announcement is a public notice that somebody is doing something — getting married, having a baby, starting a new job. Nobody ever announced they were exploring the possibility of looking for a different job. “Dear friends, I’m excited to announce I’m actively exploring the possibility of seeking employment.” Jeebus in the freezer, really?

…that I will actively explore the possibility…

See, one of the first things they teach you in the Acme Writing Academy is to avoid passive language. It’s important to use words that suggest excitement and activity. Words like ‘excited’ and ‘actively’. But what this really means is you’re going to have your staff start calling the guys with deep pockets. You’re going to try to find out if any of them might be willing piss away some of their big bucks in an attempt to insert another member of the Bush family into a political position from which he can help the guys with deep pockets get deeper pockets. There’s no ‘exploration’ here; you’re just going back to the well.

…of running for president of the United States.

Yeah, That sounds much nicer than the subtext — which is this: who else are the guys with deep pockets gonna turn to? Mitt Romney, the human blancmange, again? C’mon. Chris Christie? Sure, he’s the guy you’d call if you want to close the bridge from Newark to Tel Aviv, but nobody takes him seriously. Who else have the Republicans got? Jindal, that pencil-necked geek from Louisiana? Rick ‘Oops’ Perry? Ted Fucking Cruz?

I have had it up to HERE with your bullshit — it’s MY turn, dammit.

What Jeb Bush is actually saying is this:

Get on board, bitches — it’s my turn. You ran my brother (who, can I just say this, is so goddamn stupid he couldn’t pour piss out of a boot if the instructions were written on the bottom); you ran crazy ass John McCain, whose only accomplishment was to get shot down in Vietnam; and then you ran Romney. Mitt Dancing Horses Romney, for fuck’s sake. It’s my turn and I’m probably the least embarrassing rich white guy you got (and yeah, we all know it’s going to be a rich white guy, so shut up).

Oh, the 2016 election is most certainly going to be the stupidest election ever. I can hardly wait.

what did they expect?

Posted on January 10, 2015 by greg

“What did they expect?” I don’t know how many times I’ve heard this comment made about the massacre at Charlie Hebdo. “What the fuck did they expect?”

The implication is that since the editors and cartoonists knew that images of the Prophet Mohammed offended Muslim extremists, they should have expected a violent reaction from them. Because they knew Muslim extremists were capable of massive acts of immoderate and irrational violence, they should have expected to be firebombed or stabbed or shot. Because they knew something like this might happen, they shouldn’t publish cartoons of the Prophet.

In other words, Charlie Hebdo should let extremists decide what they ought to publish.

But let me actually answer the question. What did the editors and cartoonists and support staff of Charlie Hebdo expect? They expected people who were offended by their magazine would choose not to read their magazine. It’s that simple.

If you’re offended by rap music, don’t listen to rap music. If you’re offended by South Park, don’t watch South Park. If you’re offended by Sarah Palin, don’t listen to Sarah Palin. If you’re offended by photographs of naked people, don’t go to exhibits that show photos of naked people. If you’re offended by Charlie Hebdo, don’t buy or read Charlie Hebdo.

So let’s turn that question to the Muslim extremists? What the fuck did they expect? If they knew Charlie Hebdo published outrageous cartoons of the Prophet, they should have expected to be offended. So let’s consider their options.

Option 1 — Don’t buy or read Charlie Hebdo.

Option 2 — Gear up and slaughter as many people who work at Charlie Hebdo as they possibly can.

This is not a difficult decision. I don’t think it was unreasonable for the staff of Charlie Hebdo to expect folks to choose Option 1.

je suis toujours charlie

Posted on January 9, 2015 by greg

First, let me make a request. If you have something to say about anything I’ve written here, I’d prefer you say it in the comments rather than send me an email. That way your point of view will be most accurately represented.

I received some email (well, a few emails…okay, three…I received three emails) that I think deserve a response. Two of them essentially suggested Stéphane Charbonnier and his compatriots at Charlie Hebdo were at least marginally complicit in their own murders. Neither writer actually said that directly, but it seemed implicit. I should also say both writers were firm in stating that there was absolutely no justification for the murder of the twelve people killed in the attack. Both were explicit in stating they were passionate supporters of free expression. However, both took the “don’t poke a stick at a mad dog” approach.

Charbonnier was an egotistical narcissist. He knew he was provoking a group who responded to insults with violence, yet he insisted on doing it — and now there are twelve families who’ve lost loved one. All because Charb wanted to be a bad boy.

And this:

They knew those offensive cartoons of Muhommed [sic] would be insulting, they didn’t have to publish them, but they did anyways. What did they expect? That the terrorists would write a strongly-worded letter to the editor?

Were the editorial staff of Charlie Hebdo being reckless? Yeah, probably. But that’s the thing about free expression, isn’t it. If you limit it to ‘reasonable’ speech, then it’s no longer free expression. If free expression doesn’t protect the extremes, then it’s worthless.

“I am the Prophet, fool!”

The third email misinterpreted my point entirely. Or maybe I simply wasn’t as clear as I’d hoped to be. Here’s the meat of his email:

It’s long past time people started saying fuck you to Muslim terrorists. They should republish every comic that insults Mohammed.

I wasn’t saying ‘fuck you’ to Muslim terrorists. Well, yeah, okay, I was saying that, but not JUST to Muslim terrorists. I was saying ‘fuck you’ to ALL extremists who think violence is an acceptable way to express disagreement or to silence those who disagree with them. That same ‘fuck you’ applies to Christians who shoot abortion providers, to Sovereign Citizens who shoot law enforcement officers, to environmentalists who set traps that hurt or kill loggers, even to that woman in Vancouver who put logs and rocks on mountain bike trails.

Let me also say this: if anybody is using the attack on Charlie Hebdo to justify their hatred of Islam, then that ‘fuck you’ applies to them too.

Little Jesus

Finally, there’s this — a comment addressed to me on Facebook that was unfortunately removed before I could respond:

Greg, respectfully, if someone firebombs Westboro Baptist Church, are you going to change your avatar to ‘Je Suis GodHatesFags” by the same rationale? They operate under the same freedoms and would have been attacked by the same type of motives.

It’s a tragedy that this all happened; to pretend it was an attack on free speech is naive. It was an attack by twisted people against deliberate antagonism and provocation. I’m not excusing anything; the murderers were wrong in the worst of ways. But nobody gains anything by cartoons showing Muslim women with burkas shoved up their asses, or someone else’s prophet being born out of a man’s asshole, or posing in a pornographic film, or whatever, unless bigotry and dehumanizing people for the sake of doing so is your thing. It’s not for me.

That’s a perfectly valid response, and those are valid opinions. Would I change my avatar to Je suis GodHatesFags? No, of course not. But I would defend (and have defended) the right of the Westboro Baptist Church to express their ugly opinions. Here’s the difference between the WBS and Charlie Hebdo: the WBC is claiming only one viewpoint (theirs, of course) is valid and deserving of respect, whereas Charlie Hebdo has been saying no viewpoint is deserving of unqualified respect.

Nobody gains anything from the Charlie Hebdo cartoons? I disagree. Yes, many of them are offensive. Deliberately offensive. Intended to offend. But Charlie Hebdo has been an equal opportunity offender; they offended everybody with equal enthusiasm. I’d argue that society at large gains from that approach, if only because it expands the range of acceptable opinions.

Is this offensive? Yes, totally.

Here’s a true thing: the writers and cartoonists at Charlie Hebdo did nothing to elevate the marketplace of ideas. But they certainly contributed to it. They actively participated in the marketplace of ideas. They took the position that nothing is so important that it can’t be mocked. They said the more important a person or an idea is, the more that person or idea needs to be mocked. Nothing is sacred.

Yes, a lot of their cartoons are offensive and childish and mocking and unfair — and bless them for it. Are some of their cartoons racist? Yes…and no. They certainly used racial and ethnic stereotypes, but from what I’ve seen they used them to mock racial and ethnic stereotypes (which, by the way, is the same approach used by R. Crumb). Are some of the cartoons cruel? Yes. Do they make a point? Yes. We may not all agree with their point or the way they make it, but it’s hard to argue that the cartoons are…well, pointless.

Is THIS racist? Well, yeah, it is.

One way to look at Charlie Hebdo is through the lens of that Hans Christian Anderson tale of the Emperor’s New Clothes. Charlie Hebdo is the crude, irritating, badly-behaved child along the parade route who makes farting noises and points and laughs and makes fun of the Emperor’s bare ass.

Are there better ways to point out the Emperor’s bare ass? Yes, absolutely. But if we’re to protect free expression, we have to defend the right of publications like Charlie Hebdo to be offensive. It’s not necessary to approve of Charlie Hebdo. But it is important to support them — especially now.

je suis charlie

Posted on January 7, 2015 by greg

I’m only vaguely familiar with Charlie Hebdo, the French satirical magazine — and I’m only familiar with it at all because it’s so often been involved in controversy. I became aware of the magazine in 2011 when the magazine’s office was firebombed for publishing an edition with this cover:

100 lashes if you are not dying of laughter.

It’s a cheezy cartoon, but a great line. One hundred lashes if you’re not dying of laughter.

Today at least twelve people died — were killed, to be exact — in another attack on the magazine, Three more were wounded and are in critical condition. Two of the dead are police officers — one who was detailed to protect the magazine office, and another who apparently responded to the scene on a bicycle. The rest of the dead were employees of the magazine — the editor, cartoonists, writers, support staff.

They were killed by two or three masked men armed with Kalashnikov rifles. Killed for publishing cartoons and articles that offended some Muslim extremists. The operative term there is extremists. It’s always the fucking extremists who engage in this sort of cowardly bullshit. And it IS cowardly, and it IS bullshit.

Stéphane Charbonnier, one of today’s dead, outside the firebombed office of Charlie Hebdo in 2011.

It’s cowardly because this is the act of people who are afraid. If you’re confident in your faith, then an insult to it can’t hurt you. Be offended by the insult, certainly, but to silence the people who made the insult — to silence them by killing them, to hope to silence others by the killing — is effectively saying your faith and your religion are too weak to withstand mockery. And it’s bullshit because all this does is heap more scorn and loathing on the religion these jackasses are trying to ‘protect’.

Charlie Hebdo attackers killing a police officer as he’s defenseless on the ground.

People will talk about finding an ‘appropriate’ response to this attack. There IS NO APPROPRIATE RESPONSE to extremists killing people over cartoons and caricatures. There is only a range of inappropriate responses. Here’s my personal inappropriate response:

Fuck you.

Fuck you, if you think this is going to help your cause. Fuck you for being so stupid and hateful and afraid. Fuck you if you think this will stop people from mocking Islam or the Prophet Mohammed. Fuck you, because I’m going to buy a subscription to Charlie Hebdo, even though I don’t read French. Fuck you with a passion for thinking you can silence people who disagree with you. Fuck you for thinking you have the right to shut people up. Fuck you and your pathetic guns, and fuck you and your stupid masks, and fuck you for shitting on Paris and on France and on the world. Fuck you, you gutless jerkwads, you deserve any ridicule that’s directed at you. Fuck you in the neck.

You think you did something brave? You think you struck a blow for Islam? Well, fuck you. You made Charlie Hebdo famous. You made people all over the world stand up and say “Je suis Charlie.”

And when I say “I am Charlie” what I’m really saying is this: fuck you. I hope you and every other extremist in every cause and in every religion is listening. Fuck you. All of you. Fuck. You.

you’re looking in the wrong direction

Posted on December 31, 2014 by greg

You know what’s fucked up? Well, okay — a lot of things are fucked up. But one of the fucked uppedest things is network news reporting.

Yesterday evening I watched NBC Nightly News attempt to cover the recent report on law enforcement fatalities. The coverage resembled an actual news broadcast: great graphics, dramatic and energetic voices, engaging video, concerned frowns on the earnest faces of the reporters. But basically the report was a shit sandwich. The ‘reporting’ was accurate, but misleading. Here are some of the claims made:

“…an enormous jump from last year in the number of police killed in shooting incidents.”

“…a 56% increase in the number of police officers killed by gunfire in the last year.”

“…a growing anti-government sentiment may be triggering the attacks.”

Following that last comment, the report shifted to video of the recent protests over the number of police shooting incidents involving unarmed black men. The suggestion was pretty clear: anger at the police in the African-American community was responsible for the increase in police officer fatalities.

And right there, that’s the shit in the shit sandwich.

Combination image shows mourning bands placed over different police badges at the funeral of slain NYPD officer Rafael Ramos at Christ Tabernacle Church in the Queens borough of New York

126 law enforcement officers died while on duty in 2014

First, let me point out that the anti-police protests really aren’t anti-police protests; they’re anti-police-shooting-unarmed-black-folks protests. I think that needs to be stated pretty clearly. You can support the police and still be pissed off at them for killing folks who aren’t a threat.

Now, the meat of the story. Yesterday the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund released its preliminary annual report on officer fatalities. The data are reliable. One hundred twenty-six LEOs were killed while on duty this year. Fifty of them were killed by gunfire this year. That’s not in dispute.

But is that an ‘enormous jump’, as the news report claims? Well, yes and no. Last year 32 officers were killed by gunfire. So yeah — fifty is a big jump compared to thirty-two. But guess what. The average number of LEO deaths by gunfire over the last ten years is fifty-three. So no, it’s not really an enormous jump at all. It’s actually a wee bit below average. That got left out. So the news ‘report’ was accurate, but misleading.

The news ‘report’ also stressed that fifteen of the fifty LEOs who died by gunfire were killed in ‘ambush attacks.’ Although the term isn’t actually defined in the report, it appears they’re talking about incidents in which LEOs are murdered 1) simply because they’re law enforcement officers and 2) shot while they were unaware they were being targeted. And yeah, that’s pretty fucking alarming.

Ismaaiyl Brinsley – fuckwit, cop killer

But here’s the problem: the ‘news’ account conflates ambush attacks with the protests against police violence. Why? On account of Ismaaiyl Brinsley. He’s the jackass who gut-shot his girlfriend in Baltimore, stole her cellphone, hopped on a bus to NYC, where he shot and killed two NYPD officers. Brinsley left messages on social media saying he was going to ‘put wings on pigs’ as some sort of idiotic revenge for the deaths of two unarmed black men killed by police officers in two different states. Yeah, maybe — but it seems more likely Brinsley just wanted to do something ‘big’ before he killed himself (he’d attempted suicide at least once before).

But based on that one ambush attack, the ‘news report’ hinted that anti-police anger is responsible for all fifteen officers who were killed in ambush attacks. That suggestion is absolute bullshit.

The reporters got one thing right, though. They cited the reports concern that “a growing anti-government sentiment may be triggering the attacks.” And that, folks, is a fact. Yes, it surely is.

Eric Frein – sovereign citizen, cop killer

But the ‘news report’ focused on black anti-government anger. The biggest threat to LEOs today doesn’t come from young black men who are pissed off because so many young black men are killed by police. The real threat to LEOs comes from white, well-armed, angry, right-wing, anti-government, sovereign citizen extremists who are pissed off because — well, they have a lot of irrational reasons for being pissed off. Something to do with the 14th Amendment, banking, taxes, and (I swear I’m not making this up) an amendment to the US Constitution proposed in 1810 dealing with (seriously, NOT making this up) titles of nobility.

I’m talking about people like Eric Frein, who set up an ambush outside a Pennsylvania State Police barracks, then murdered Cpl. Bryon Dickson as he walked out the door. He also seriously wounded another Trooper and fired on others as they tried to rescue Dickson. I’m talking about Curtis Holley, who set fire to the house he was renting, waited for the first responders to arrive, then opened fire. He killed Deputy Christopher L. Smith of the Leon County, Florida Sheriff’s Department. I’m talking about Jared and Amanda Miller. These two fuckwits actually strolled around the city of Las Vegas with a shopping cart full of weapons without drawing any police attention — at least not until they ambushed and killed two LVPD officers who were having lunch. Then they entered a nearby Wal-Mart and waited for more police to arrive.

Curtis Wade Holley – sovereign citizen, cop killer

And it’s not just ambush attacks. These sovereign citizens are also the biggest threat when it comes to traffic stops (eight of 2014’s line-of-duty fatalities occurred during traffic stops). Because they don’t believe they’re required to have license tags on their vehicles, sovereign citizens get stopped a lot. And because they also believe they have an absolute right to carry a firearm at all times, they’re generally well-armed — and know how to use their weapons. And because sovereign citizens are almost exclusively white, they’re less likely to be confronted for openly carrying weapons.

These guys are a serious threat. That’s not me talking; that’s the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism. In their 2014 report they identified sovereign citizens as “law enforcement’s top concern.” Islamic extremists? Number two. In fact, four of the five top concerns were occupied by right-wing extremist groups. The FBI has labeled sovereign citizens as a domestic terror group.

Jared and Amanda Miller – sovereign citizens, cop killers

So when you read or hear news reports about how anti-police protesters are a threat to the police, ignore that shit. When you read or hear news reports claiming anti-police protesters are stirring up anti-government sentiment, look at the people who are actively attacking the government. When you read or hear news reports how anti-police protesters have blood on their hands, look at who owns the guns and who’s doing the shooting.

The black kid playing with a toy gun in the park isn’t a threat. The black guy selling loose cigarettes on the street isn’t a threat. That white guy driving a pick-up without a proper license tag and a gun rack in the back? He’s the threat.

without unnecessary conversation

Posted on December 11, 2014 by greg

Over the last couple of days I’ve been looking over the summary of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence’s report on the CIA’s ‘Detention and Interrogation Program’. It’s pretty appalling. It’s hard to single out the most reprehensible fact, but this certainly comes pretty close:

According to CIA records, interrogators began using the CIA’s enhanced interrogation techniques at DETENTION SITE COBALT a “few minutes” after the questioning of KSM began. KSM was subjected to facial and abdominal slaps, the facial grab, stress positions, standing sleep deprivation (with his hands at or above head level), nudity, and water dousing.” Chief of Interrogations [name redacted] also ordered the rectal rehydration of KSM without a determination of medical need, a procedure that the chief of interrogations would later characterize as illustrative of the interrogator’s “total control over the detainee.”

KSM is Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. And rectal rehydration — what, exactly, is that?

[T]he medical officer who subjected KSM to rectal rehydration, the officer wrote that, “w]hat I infer is that you get a tube up as far as you can, then open the IV wide. No need to squeeze the bag – let gravity do the work… [W]e used the largest Ewal [sic] tube we had.” The “lunch tray” consisted of “hummus, pasta with sauce, nuts, and raisins” which was pureed and “rectally infused.”

Again, there was no medical reason for this. It was simply used as part of the program to break Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. At least five detainees were subjected to rectal rehydration. Other detainees were subjected to rectal exams that, according to the report, were conducted with “excessive force.” Still more were threatened with rectal rehydration.

Some CIA defenders have suggested the rectal rehydration was medically necessary as a response to a hunger strike. That’s bullshit. Hunger strikes have certainly taken place (and, I believe, continue to take place) in Guantanamo, but there are ways of dealing with them that don’t require jamming a large-bore plastic tube up some guy’s ass. The Senate report describes how medical personnel “implemented various techniques to provide fluids and nutrients, including the use of a nasogastric tube and the provision of intravenous fluids” to insure hunger strikers received nourishment. In fact, one hunger striker, Majid Khan, even cooperated with that practice.

CIA records indicate that Majid Khan cooperated with the feedings and was permitted to infuse the fluids and nutrients himself. After approximately three weeks, the CIA developed a more aggressive treatment regimen “without unnecessary conversation.” Majid Khan was then subjected to involuntary rectal feeding and rectal hydration.

Without unnecessary conversation. Lawdy. Then again, I suppose if you’ve decided to torture and sexually humiliate somebody, what’s the point of chatting about it first?

But here’s the thing — under most state laws, what the CIA called ‘rectal rehydration’ would be considered rape. Federal law at the time these horrors took place still defined rape as “carnal knowledge of a female forcibly and against her will.” Under federal law, it was impossible to rape a man. Since then, the Department of Justice has changed the law to include men is victims. The law now includes the following in the definition of rape:

The penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim. (emphasis added)

These men were raped. These men, while in U.S. custody, were deliberately raped as part of a program designed to break their spirit. They were raped by U.S. operatives in a conscious effort to sexually humiliate them. They were raped purely as a means to assert control over them, to demonstrate the ability of the United States to do whatever the hell we wanted, to impose our will on them in any way we wanted.

Rape, of course, is a crime. Systematic rape as a tactic in war is included by the International Criminal Court as a crime against humanity. The authorization of systematic rape is also a war crime.

And the Bush administration’s justification for this? We were afraid. The U.S. had been attacked on 9/11/2001 and we were afraid. We were afraid, so we tortured people and sexually humiliated them. We were — and still are — so afraid of terrorists that we allowed them to terrorize us into betraying ourselves.

A year and a half ago I said we’d become a nation of fear-biters. Not much has changed.

but… but… what if…?

Posted on December 10, 2014 by greg

That ‘ticking time bomb’ scenario? Total bullshit. There’s absolute no evidence that such a scenario has ever taken place. No evidence at all. Yet it keeps coming up in almost every discussion about torture.

“But what if we knew with absolute and perfect certainty that this guy has detailed knowledge of a bomb that’s going to detonate, and we knew with absolute and perfect certainty that it would detonate in a couple of hours, and we knew with absolute and perfect certainty that hundreds or thousands of innocent people would die — and what if this guy totally refused to talk. Would you still say torture was wrong in that situation?”

Well, yeah. It would still be wrong. The exigency of the situation doesn’t magically turn a wrong thing into a right thing.

Former CIA Director Michael Hayden, coward.

“But what if we knew with absolute and perfect certainty that the victims included your family or friends? What if some of those victims were people you loved? Would you still say torture was wrong?”

Yeah, it’s still wrong. The identities of the potential victims aren’t materially relevant to whether or not it’s wrong to torture people. If it’s not okay to torture somebody to save a stranger, why would it be okay to torture somebody to save a person you know? Besides, there’s no way to be certain the torture would elicit reliable intelligence.

Former Vice President Richard Cheney, coward.

“But what if we knew with absolute and perfect certainty that torture did work, and that by using it we’d be able to save thousands of lives. Would you still be opposed to torture?”

Yeah. Torture would still be wrong. It’s not a question of effectiveness. It’s a question of national morality. It’s a question of who we are as a nation.

“So let me get this straight. You’re saying that if we knew with absolute and perfect certainty that torture worked, and we knew with absolute and perfect certainty that using torture would provide information that would save thousands of lives — if we knew all that, are you saying you wouldn’t use torture against one person to save the lives of thousands?”

No, I’m not saying that. I’m saying first and foremost that torture is inherently wrong and should be punishable as a crime. I’m saying torture doesn’t really work, that it isn’t an effective way to get information. But if I knew with absolute and perfect certainty that I could save a thousand lives by torturing one person, I’d do it. I’d torture the hell out of him. And I’d expect to go to prison for doing it. I’d be okay with serving a long prison sentence — or even a life sentence, or possibly a death sentence — in exchange for saving thousands of innocent lives.

Former President of the United States George W. Bush, coward.

What these jackasses in the CIA and in the Bush administration want is the power to torture suspects without any consequence. Fuck that, and fuck them. If they believe so strongly that torture is necessary, then let them pay the price for doing it. We see soldiers and police officers and firefighters routinely risk their lives to save people. We see ordinary folks all over the world risking injury or possible death by protesting against policies they believe are wrong. They know the risks and they’re willing to suffer the consequences of their actions.

If the CIA and members of the Bush administration really believed torture worked, if they really thought it was effective, if they truly thought it saved lives, then they should also be willing to accept the consequences. I don’t care if their intentions were good. If they’re not willing to own up to what they did and pay the price, then they’re just fucking cowards.

gregfallis.com

it's this or get a real job

Category Archives: politics