When the "talking heads" report back to work on Monday, the topic of "enhanced interrogations" is sure to be on their minds, and the minds of many callers to the talk shows.

So, I thought that I would do one more post on this topic...



Mark Twain once said:

"..People who DO NOT read the newspaper are uninformed.."



(Mark Twain went on to say...)

"..People who DO read the newspaper are misinformed.."



Today, we have many more sources of news then Mark Twain had. Yet, with all these sources of news, we can still get information wrong.

I get information wrong..!!

It happens to all of us.

When we are making decision based on what we have been told, our decisions are only as good as the information that we have received.

The media is to blame for their: "selective reporting."

However, I primarily blame the current school system. Kids are NOT taught "history" anymore. History has morphed into "history lessons."

History Lessons- taking little slices of history, (out of context) and offering this piece of history in a way to prove a desired modern moral behavior. (IE- religion, global warming, etc.)

However, school can only give you so much, anyway. We are responsible for our continuing education. This is why I enjoy blogging. Because we are reading and learning. Sure; you might read some crappy "long winded" blog like mine. But, I might say something that causes you to research a new topic.

And we continue to learn..!!

So, let’s get into: "Torturing you silly pt 2"

(Note- these comments were not made by one person, they are a collaboration of several comments.)

"...Waterboarding was deemed illegal in the forties...."



President Truman and FDR didn’t make waterboarding illegal, nor "loud rock music", or cold rooms, or bugs in a prison cell, etc.

Both Truman and FDR decided NOT to use waterboarding. However, neither signed, nor asked congress to pass a bill making waterboarding illegal.

Just because one president decides not use "enhanced interrogation", doesn’t mean a future president ALSO cannot.

Using that logic: President Truman dropped atomic bombs on Japan; does that mean President Bush could have also used atomic weapons on Afghanistan..??

Just because one president "does something" one way, doesn’t mean that ALL president must also do it that way.

Until congress passes a law making that activity illegal, there is not much "legally" that can be done.

Yes, it is true that Truman and FDR didn’t use waterboarding. However, FDR rounded up Japanese, German, and Italian- Americans and locked them up during WW2. These people had committed no crime.

President Truman is the only leader in the history of the world to use nuclear weapons.

So I’m not really sure that FDR and Truman are great role models for democrats to use as examples of "presidential morality."

President Bush didn’t round up innocent Americans and jail them because they are of Arabic descent. And Bush didn’t use atomic weapons. However, Bush used enhanced interrogation.

All three men; FDR, Truman, and Bush, did what they thought was right, to save this country. I am not going to personally prosecute any of them. I will let history decide who was right.

Bush, Truman, and FDR used "tools" that were available to them, to keep America safe.

(Bush, Truman, and FDR: that would be two democrats and one republican; if you are keeping score..)

"..We prosecuted the Japanese for using waterboarding..."



We sure did..!!

However, you are looking at two different activities that share the same name.

Liberals believe that there are "rules for waterboarding" and everyone follows these rules. From 1940's era Japanese and Germans, to 2004 Americans; all followed the same "rules of waterboarding."

Wrong...

When the 1940's Japanese did waterboarding, they were not really worried if the prisoner survived. (Many Americans did die from it.) Some were deprived of oxygen for a long enough period to suffer brain damage.

The "waterboarding" that America prosecuted the Japanese for bears little resemblance to what America has done in the "war on terror." It shouldn’t really have the same name.

"...This trial will KILL our abilities to get information in the future.. ..The enemy will know how we get information and can train for it..."



Actually, that happened years ago when "60 Minutes" and "The New York Times" began to inform our enemies on all of our military secrets.

However, I am confidant that guys, dressed in lab coats, (with about 6 pens and pencils tucked in their front pocket) are currently finding NEW ways to get information from the enemy. Standing behind these "interrogation" researchers, are a team of lawyers who are trying to decide if placing a cricket in a prisoners room is torture..?? (Hey, crickets do make that "chirping" sound. It could be torture..?? Someone ask EKY if a cricket is torture, he is the expert on torture.)

"..We are supposed to become more civilized.. ..The British called us terrorists.."



I am not really sure that the term "terrorist" would have meant much in 1776..?? The British did call us "savages" because we hid behind rocks, trees, and we ambushed the British.

Some British claimed that we had lived too long with the Native population, and we were fighting like they did. We were "uncivilized" because we didn’t line up in columns and rows; we didn’t fight like gentlemen and meet the British "head on" in the field of battle.

We didn’t have the numbers and the training that the British had. George Washington did what he had to do to win the war.

President FDR did what he had to do to win a war. So did Truman and Bush. There is no difference here. It has nothing to do with being "more or less" civilized.



There is nothing "civilized" about training a man to kill someone in a war..!!

There is nothing "civilized" about flying jets into the World Trade Center and killing thousands of people; who’s only crime was that they showed up for work.

There is nothing civilized about war..!!

(But war happens.)

The only way that you can make war MORE civilized, is by ending war quicker. As quick as possible.

I believe that Washington, FDR, Truman, and Bush tried to end these wars as quick as they could. Hell, Bush stood on an aircraft carrier and claimed that it was over, years ago. (Wishful thinking..??)

Keep in mind that Bush didn’t have the luxury of an enemy that had a country of origin, and would wear uniforms to identify themselves on a battle field. (Like Washington, Truman, and FDR did with the British, Japan, and Germany.)

President Bush’s enemy blended in with the American population, and could be anywhere. After 9/11, WE HAD TO FIND OUT if there were more "sleeper cells" in America, and terminate them.



In my humble opinion; I believe that Washington would have interrogated prisoners, if faced with the same decision as Bush. I believe Truman would also have done the same. (Truman fought in WW1 and did some nasty little tricks to the enemy.)

"..The enemy is cutting our soldiers heads off and dragging their bodies through the streets.." (We are justified.)



We do not even need to go there.

That statement implies that waterboarding is illegal (or wrong), but it is OK because: "look at what the enemy is doing."

Hold your head up high..!! You have done nothing wrong. You have done what thousands of other Americans have done in the past. "You did what you believed you had to do; to keep America safe."



War is hell. The idea of war is to kill enough of your enemy so that they give up. Shooting someone in the head is less civilized than pouring water on their head. The left is not even thinking rationally, and do not fall to their level.

I understand the logic in that statement above.

Nothing makes me more angry than having an enemy that threatens more massive attacks on your people. We have this enemy in our prison, and the American left is "protecting" this enemy..??



But we MUST step back and try and educate the American left on history. Keep in mind, it isn’t their fault that they do not understand history. They were never taught actual history in school. If they do not open a "non-bias" history book, they will never learn from the past.

"..America MUST "stand behind" treaties that we have signed.. ..A treaty to not torture.."



Should we "stand behind" the 1824 treaty called: "The Russo- American treaty" which allowed Russians to settle in land we now call: Washington State..??

Should we stand behind the "Treaty of Tunis" which, (in 1797) increased bride payments to pirates in Tripoli..??

(We probably owe Tripoli a TON of money by now..??)

Would you like to go through all of the treaties that America has signed..??



Our first two presidents, (Washington and Adams) declared that America should NOT be involved in foreign wars. Yet, our third president (Jefferson) launched into our first foreign war. (Tripoli.) All three men were there during the forming of this country. So I must conclude that even the founding fathers knew that "tough times call for difficult and different measures.

America signed a treaty that we will not use torture.

That is correct..!!

However, America has never legally listed waterboarding as torture.

So, legally speaking, we have NOT broken that treaty.



Rules of the Geneva Convention have loopholes in them. As long as you do not cause death, permanent physical injury, or mental injury, well...

It is kind of left up to the states to decide.

Spain and Germany talked about launching an investigation, but decided not to. (Because Cheney and Bush got to them, right..!!) But no other counties are drafting up formal complaints.

If other countries are not worried about America "(sic) breaking the Geneva Convention rules", why are you..??

Other countries are not worried because we haven’t broken the rules.



"..Enhanced interrogation never works because people tell you anything to make the activity stop.."



This statement is so freaking wrong it is almost not worth exploring.



Interrogators first ask questions that they already know the answer to. The CIA already knows if a prisoner will spout out "anything" just to make the activity stop.

Interrogation works..!!

That is why every police force and military IN THE WORLD uses it.

(Some interrogations are harsher than others.)



The terrorist plot to fly a plain into the US Bank Tower in LA. (Formerly known as the Library Tower.) Was stopped by waterboarding. Liberals claim that this isn’t true. (Go figure.)

More will be revealed as the CIA documents are released.

Interrogations allowed the US military to learn about the enemies funding and whereabouts.

In conclusion...

I have no problem if President Obama doesn’t want to use waterboarding as a method of interrogation. He is the president, after all, and can make that choice.

However, President Obama cannot make it "retroactive."

If congress wants to pass a bill that makes waterboarding illegal, that is fine with me. But, congress cannot make it retroactive.



"From this point forward." If you, the American people, want to mandate that waterboarding is torture, I will go along with you.

But you cannot just call: "Waterboarding torture" and then throw Bush and Cheney in jail. Are you fucking nuts..??

We have legal ways of doing things.

What if I became president and I declared that homosexuality was illegal and I made it retroactive. That all homosexuals, past and present, had to go to jail..??

That is just plain nuts..!! Just because you "claim" something, doesn’t mean it is true. (Or legal.)

Democrats went after President Nixon.

After that, it almost seemed like we headed into normalcy. (For a short while.)

However, democrats went after President Reagan during the Iran / Contra hearings.

I think Republicans had finally had enough of all these "got you" type hearings and went after President Clinton. We impeached him.

So now, democrats feel they MUST go after President Bush.

And in return, we republicans will begin to hold hearings on President Obama as so as possable.

And so it goes...

Where is the "change" we had heard so much about..?? These are the same tactics that democrats have used since the 1970's. (Tax the people, spend money, and try and make republican political policy: illegal.)

President Obama is free to choose whatever method he deems "righteous" to fight these wars. The torch has been handed over.

I hope that Obama doesn’t have to decide whether he should use enhanced interrogations on a terrorist. I hope Obama isn’t confronted with a terrorists who knows of a "dirty" nuclear bomb hidden in an American city; that could kill thousands. I hope Obama never has to make that call..!!

(Because I am not really sure he knows what to do?)

Most of all...

I hope that you do not live in a city, where terrorists have hidden a nuclear bomb, and President Obama is unwilling to interrogate the terrorist who could stop it.

Maybe you will be "lucky" and it will not happen..!!