It is to applaud.
|
|||||
Hot MicBloggers in Arms
BlogrollContinuous WavePaid to BlogReciprocating EnginesSmarter'n MeWingmen
OmakaseAmazon Search |
Liz Cheney on MSNBCBy lex, on April 26th, 2009
44 comments to Liz Cheney on MSNBC |
Targets of Opportunityblog advertising is good for you Credo"Sign on, young man, and sail with me. The stature of our homeland is no more than the measure of ourselves. Our job is to keep her free. Our will is to keep the torch of freedom burning for all. To this solemn purpose we call on the young, the brave, the strong, and the free. Heed my call, Come to the sea. Come Sail with me." -- John Paul Jones "Pardon him, Theodotus; he is a barbarian, and thinks that the customs of his tribe and island are the laws of nature" --George Bernard Shaw, "Caesar and Cleopatra" "And those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music."--Friedrich Nietzsche "A kind Providence has placed in our breasts a hatred of the unjust and cruel, in order that we may preserve ourselves from cruelty and injustice. They who bear cruelty, are accomplices in it. The pretended gentleness which excludes that charitable rancour, produces an indifference which is half an approbation. They never will love where they ought to love, who do not hate where they ought to hate."--Edmund Burke “You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours.”--General Sir Charles Napier "Μολὼν λαβέ" -- Leonidas "Blogito Ergo Sum" -- Neptunus Lex Amazon AssociateFor the Effort!Winnar! Subscribe CategoriesPagesTagsacademy
afghanistan
Araby
Blogging
buffoonery
culture
Defense Industry
economy
Flying
Friday Musings
geopol
Gratuitous slap
GWOT
Headlines
health care
History
iran
iraq
issues
libya
Media
Memory Lane
Military
Navy
norks
Oz
pakistan
piracy
politicians
politics
Politics and Culture
prc
pundits
science
sea stories
silliness
Small Stuff
SoCal
Tech Lust
technology
UAVs
UK
usaf
usmc
weapons
|
|||
|
Copyright © 2013 Neptunus Lex - All Rights Reserved |
|||||
A remarkable job by Miss Cheney. I keep wondering how the Democrats and media types would react if one were to ask them, Now, you are in charge of questioning Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, and we have intelligence that proves that he knows where the bomb is that is going to kill your children in ten minutes. The ONLY way to save your children is to get him to talk. How far would you be willing to go in questioning him?
And, now, it is my children that are in danger. Would you go as far to protect my children? If not, why not? Are my children somehow less valuable than your children? And what about everyone else’s children?
It won’t work, Marine6, because until they are actually put in that situation, they’ll tell you that they would take the moral high road and offer the prisoner cookies and milk in exchange for information.
and if that doesn’t work maybe they’ll offer a steak instead.
anything to avoid being lumped in with those of us who would gladly put a boot to the head to save lives.
Palin / Cheney – 2012… you heard it here first!
Liz looked damn cool under fire, and she seems to have the ability to make even liberal talking heads listen to that once-familiar voice that they have been trying so hard to run away from – reality.
Cheney was impressive, but as in most of these cases, it’s apparent that these two argue from very different premises. One of them has diligently sought the truth and one of them apparently doesn’t care to let the facts get in the way of a good story/agenda. It’s unfortunate that this malaise seems to penetrate all the way up.
That was my thought exactly, Tom. Cheney is speaking factually about events and premises surrounding the event(s), whereas O’Donnell just can’t seem to escape the need for tabloidism. “But, but, AG Holder said!…” “Yes, and here are the facts…”
The one point that impressed me most during the interview, aside from emphasis on the absolute need for the interrogation, was coverage on judicial review by the Bush administration prior to starting the interrogations.
Maybe we should start sending the Tangos to Hell Week at BUDS. “No, an’ there ain’t no ringin’ of the bell, there, sweet pea…” Waterboarding, as prescribed under the ROE, seems lame by comparison.
Cheney is a breath of fresh air and common sense. Quite a contrast to the breathless emotionalism of the “headline reader”. Thanks, Lex.
Cheney needs to appear on more programs. that was an excellent interview and a perfect example of how the media has an agenda. The news reader didn’t want to let the facts educate her
“A breath of fresh air” indeed, Miss Birdlegs. If only the Bush administration had had more such articulate spokesmen out front and center in the public eye explaining the context that surrounded the Bush agenda so effectively public dissatisfaction with the entire Bush Presidency would perhaps have not been so widespread nor intense and today we would be talking about a McCain Presidency instead–let alone squabbling about the advisability of establishing “truth commissions.”
I love how Cheney kept pointing out that O’Donnell was “reading from AP headlines”. Subtle…like a club.
Brilliant all around. Not that it will change the minds of anyone convinced of America’s villainy.
Liz did an awesome job (great name, too…love using the words ‘awesome’ and Liz in the same sentence). I’m not sure it was an interview, though…looked more like an interrogation. I thought the journalists were supposed to ask the questions and permit the interviewee to answer? I think the interviewer spent more time “asking” than Liz did answering. When did journalists stop reporting and start proselytizing?
Liz, in the case of Nora, it’s when she got her MA in Poli-Sci and figured she knew more than the Liz Cheney’s of this world–except the pay is better at MSNBC.
I think that, if we wish to counteract the sloppy thinking of the liberal media, we have to keep asking them to define terms. They apparently don’t know the difference between ‘coercive’ measures and real ‘torture.’
As most of you who have undergone it know, waterboarding is a coercive measure producing physical discomfort and fear, but not, let’s emphasize, any permanent damage to the body of the person being interrogated. Thousands of you have undergone waterboarding as part of SERE training. It wasn’t pleasant, but you endured it with your usual courage. Torture, on the other hand, involves excruciating pain and permanent damage to the body of the one being tortured. Letting the media and the politicians get away with equating the two is where the trouble starts.
Liz Cheney makes this very clear in her interview. She makes the interviewer look both doctrinaire and foolish. It’s up to all of us who resent this willful misunderstanding by the media to oppose it every time we hear it repeated.
Liz Cheney did a sterling job. Let’s back her up every chance we get.
Marianne
well said. well said.
“It wasn’t pleasant, but you endured it with your usual courage.”
Actually, I would have screamed like a little girl if I had been able to breath…
Indeed, Pogue, while it’s not quite like being tazered it does mess with the mind. The mind tells me I’m drowning and life is so precious, so to be savored, I’ll tell them anything to stay alive.
Unlike just pulling out the fingernails or breaking the fingers, which merely produce pain. Pain can be endured, can be prepared for.
What torques me is that they bring up the Geneva Conventions. There were four Geneva Conventions. The United States is a signatory to most of them. Al Quaida is not. Al Quaida breaks the rules of armed conflict as a matter of tactics and expects to be held in a POW camp with three hots and a cot?
As I understand the conventions and international law, they are irregular combatants without chain of command, without uniform, without the benefit of only targeting combatants.
We could simply take them to a nearby swamp, shoot them in the head (or saw it off if that is their preference, they seem to have a tendency towards that end for their captives), and be perfectly legal and within our rights.
Once again we’re applying law to folks who do not abide by it. It’s sort of like saying we won’t kill murderers because, since they’ve killed people in cold blood, it would only lessen us to do the same.
I don’t buy that. I don’t buy that we lessen ourselves by stooping to their level. Rather, I think we encourage others to rise to our level when we adhere to our standards when they’re upheld by our enemies. And I think we encourage others to abide by our rules when we abide by them ourselves through example.
Soldiers need to know they’ve no fear of mistreatment if they uphold themselves honorably and are captured on the field of battle by us.
Terrorists need to know that they’re not covered by those laws. That if they live through whatever plot they’re scheming, we’re not going to kill them outright for revenge.
The killing would give us no satisfaction.
The part up until the killing? Well, that we might just enjoy.
There’s an old saying that one must lead by example. If you lead by bad example, should that not have consequences?
– Max
We’re SUPPOSED to apply law to those who don’t abide by it, Max. That’s what makes us a nation of laws, not men.
We didn’t sign the Geneva Conventions with an out that said, “unless the other side doesn’t abide by them.”
If you want to be on the side of good, you can’t do evil.
The other side didn’t sign the Geneva Conventions, and acknowledges no civilized constraints. I happen to think they’ve been dealt with more than fairly, considering the circumstances.
O’Donnell epitomizes what passes as journalism today. The talking heads and print heads quote each other and the headline creators’ shorthand rather than investigate the facts. This has been building for a long time.
The appearance of Liz Cheney on MSNBC is akin to opening the window of a foul stinking room to let in the fresh spring air. I doubt that network will make that mistake again.
Yes, Edward, how in the H DID she get on at MSNBC–do we have a mole over there or something?
In the fall of 2007 I took a class in seminary titled “The Ethics of War.” I wrote a paper for that class on the ethics of torture, which I then presented at the Evangelical Theological Society’s annual conference. From a Christian perspective, it seems clear that torture is in every case immoral & unethical, regardless of the ultimate results – in other words, the ends don’t justify the means.
But before one can argue the relative merits of “torture” as such, the boundaries of this term must be delineated and agreed to by all parties – only then can a legitimate debate take place. And therein lies the problem.
The United Nations General Assembly declared in its “Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment” the following definition of torture:
This of course is problematic, as it does not further illustrate what constitutes “other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.” For instance, when does an act cross the line into severe pain & suffering?
In his article on torture in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (7 Feb. 2006) Seumas Miller provides what I consider to be a reasonable definition:
Again, however, we’re faced with the question of what defines extreme suffering or substantial curtailment of autonomy. This is where I think that Liz Cheney’s argument is the strongest; she points out that we conduct waterboarding on our own troops as part of survival training, and since we don’t torture our own folks, such a technique has legitimate application when applied to other detainees. She also points out another important fact: by exposing what our limits are in regards to interrogation, we show our hand to al-Qaeda and others by telling them exactly how far we will go. So now they only have to train to endure that, knowing that we can’t/won’t go any further.
Well put Maj.H. There are too many qualifiers to determine what is and what is not “torture”. I can’t say that I enjoyed my “waterboarding” in SERE school but it certainly was not physical suffering in any sense. I suppose that I can claim lack of mental suffering because that pre-supposes some form of mental prowness, which I still lack. Boss
MajHarvey,
The damage may go deeper than that. By revealing the limits of what we are willing to do to exact information from prisoners, it not only allows them to train to counteract/resist such methods, but the may also increase the reluctance of our forces to take ANY prisoners, other than very high-value ones.
Certainly a case may be made that terrorists are, like pirates, outside the pale of law and convention.
Having said that, however, it does give one pause for consideration of just what our policy should be towards those same combatants. Should we, in fact, be taking any prisoners, given the reciprocal treatment that THEY show towards their captives, and in light of the fact that future interogaters and their JAG advisers might well be held to account by a new administration for what were previously allowable methods of handling.
The current administration out to pause to well and truly understand the precedent they set if they continue with these absurd show trials and threats.
AW1Tim/
You truly are one deluded fool if you think Obama and his minions give a rat’s a*s about precedent. Narcissist personalities never think anything bad will EVER happen to them. Besides which, Obama’s actions so far leave no doubt in this little pea brain of mine that he fully believes he can play out his string–all eight years–before anything bad will really happen, while at the same time reaping the adulation of all leftists and third-worlders and multi-culti types world wide–as this is the sole constituency that he truly cares about.
(Besides which, they haven’t demonstrated the intelligence or the ability so far to indicate that they are even capable–collectively or individually– of thinking ahead in any kind of systematic and thoughtful manner)
As I start this comment, I don’t expect everybody to accept this comment, but let the verifiable history be the honest judge. In my view, both of these people were sincere in their statements, but equally sincerely wrong in their statements or views. I have heard and read the eloquent debate revolving around the “SERE Training Program.” First, I respect the people who have gone through this training. We need to separate the respect from the debate. As we continue, in the “SERE Training”, what is the longest amount of time, in years, a SERE’s trainee has been put in the “POW role”? Everyday being treated with the “Enhanced Interrogation Techniques.” Are we talking, say, 5, 10, 20 or 25 years? What do they do to survive? This is important, they lie. Good grief, the politicians on both sides already know this and practice it so well. As a Nation, we need to get the real verifiable answers on the table, so that we don’t create even more terrorists.
PS- I am not suggesting a change in “SERE” Training. But, I am suggesting a strategy change for this debate.
THANK YOU!
I’ve been kind of wishy-washy on the issue of waterboarding. (Yeah, I know. That’s bad. But in my defence it wasn’t entirely intentional.) I tend to lean towards considering waterboarding as torture. So let me ask this – when it comes to the argument that it is used in SERE training, how long do you guys have to undergo it? As opposed to how long would the CIA (or whoever) expose someone to it? For me, that’s where the difference (assuming there is one) would come in.
The point you raise is valid. In SERE school, I knew that whatever we endured would eventually end. Not so for Vietnam POWs, which makes them even more admirable for their ability to resist, despite the unknown of when, or if, it would ever end.
I realize that this is a topic that is passed and opening but I think that there are several very mistaken assumptions here. I did not go through SERE but I have read about Vietnam et al. Please feel free to flame spray me if my position is in error.
Everybody that was tortured in Vietnam “broke.” They had no choice. What made Admiral Stockdale and the rest heroic was that they gave nothing away. He and they learned that there are indeed limits to human suffering and that outside martyrdom one cannot really win in some situations. The Code does not demand resistance unto death since the survivors of the Hanoi Hilton came home and convinced all the rest of us that this is simply impossible. What we try to instill is that we give away nothing. Kind of silly isn’t it?
We insist that our people bear up under torture and train them to accept that some things cannot be born for long and why do we do that? Understanding one’s self and learning the limits of endurance is something useful to those who might go to the very limit of human endurance and beyond. It probably helps them to understand what the limits are and the simple fact that anybody can be driven beyond them and accept that at the outset but also to uphold the standards that Admiral Stockdale and all those that were with him held so high. In short, there is no dishonor in being tortured into telling one’s torturers what they want to hear but don’t give it away.
I didn’t say that as well as I wanted to.
While Liz Cheney’s arguments are appealing to many, she is hardly qualified to speak authoritatively on the subject. Indeed her expressed opinions reflect a political and emotional position, rather than an analytical or more accurate one.
I think most would agree that torture is against the law and the UCMJ. And the interrogation experts tell us that torture is ineffective and often counterproductive. But some want to believe that “enhanced interrogation” methods do not qualify as “torture” because we use those techniques at SERE on our own people. And they believe they are effective.
Well the techniques used at SERE are admittedly torture techniques that our enemies had used in the past and that SERE adapted for our training. They weren’t our methods; they were our enemies methods.
They – including waterboarding – are applied singularly in a brief 24-hour period, in a completely controlled environment, and designed to not cause any lasting or permanent physical or mental harm. It is important to note that the CIA Inspector General report noted that waterboarding on their detainees “was significantly different from that used in the SERE program,” most notably, ” much larger volumes of water.”
While one may quibble about whether a one-time waterboarding is torture or not, being waterboarded 183 times in the case of KSM or 83 times with Abu Zubaydah in a short period of time tends to settle the question. And if we hadn’t gotten actionable intelligence after the 20th waterboarding along with the other “enhanced” techniques, why would anyone think the 21st or 51st would yield anything new except more false leads. There is a point of diminishing returns early on. One can imagine how many in the Inquisition finally admitted to any falsehood they were accused of, just to make the pain stop, even though they knew they would then be put to death for their lie.
What has hurt us many times more than revealing our interrogation techniques to the enemy, is the loss of respect as a standard setter in the world of what is right and just. No longer are we a beacon, a shining city on the hill. We have not only shamed ourselves, but we have provided fodder for increased terrorist recruitment worldwide.
Liz Cheney is not an authority, but Ali Soufan certainly qualifies. He was a former FBI special agent and “perhaps the most successful U.S. interrogator of al-Qaeda operatives.”
Read his Time storey here: link
I guess I don’t really care if the SOB died during the 184th time or not. Did he give up valid information? Yes, he did. So, yes, less than savory methods CAN work.
And as far as the UN’s definition of torture is, I don’t give a rodent’s behind of what those hypocritical alimentary openings think.
Regarding the Geneva Convention and the handling of prisoners: In the last 70 years or so since it was signed the only enemy we have had that remotely played by those rules was the Germans during the Second World War.
But I guess we can feel smug and self-righteous about our treatment of enemy prisoners. That’s about the only “good” thing I see that’s come out of it.
And Fliterman,
I don’t feel ashamed at all about the waterboarding of three people were would not even by afforded the protection of the Geneva Convention if it were a Court of Law. They were and are unlawful combatants and not subject to it. As far as not being a beacon of light on a shining hill, I suspect that the people who thought we were before this probably haven’t changed their minds, likewise the folks who thought we were not probably haven’t changed theirs either.
Regarding the terrorist recruitment issue, that’s bullcrap and you know better. I doubt very seriously that Abdul the Would-Be Terrorist is sitting there in his apartment, debating the pros and cons of becoming a terrorist, looks over at the headline of his local newspaper and decides to join Al Queda because we waterboarded three people in the last 8 years.
Gimme a break.
So fliterman & yak-
My questions to you both are twofold:
1) What is your definition of torture?
2) Assuming torture (however you define it) to be immoral/unethical, what measures do you propose to interrogate our enemies for the purpose of gaining information?
MajHarvey,
1.) I liked your post #11 above. I’m not sure I have an exact definition of torture per se, but I think that it would have to include actual physical damage to the recipient. I do not hold waterboarding to be in that category.
I think that “torture” is one of the words our society bandies about way too much, “Hearing Roseanne Barr singing the National Anthem was pure torture.”
Sort of like “fascist” in other words.
2.) I have no problems with the current procedures – as long as there is a previously reviewed process in place. Having said that, if I were President and we knew that someone had the information we needed to prevent an imminent WMD attack, I would want that information – regardless of the interrogation methods. No brainer: millions of lives saved vs. a harsh lessoned learned for a Really Bad Person(tm).
#18 Maj. H.
1. My definition of torture is irrelevant, as are most others’ opposing definitions equally irrelevant.
The only definition that really counts is the legal definition – one that the past administration tried over and over to influence and stretch for their own purposes – even though ‘enhanced interrogation methods’ are known to not work effectively, and can often lead to repeated false alarms and wild goose chases. (ie, if you keep asking me when the next attack is going to occur, you can bet I will make up some phony story just to stop the pain.)
Further, there are indeed legal precedents. This country has prosecuted in the past some of our enemies in war crimes cases for using waterboarding. There should not ever be a double, legal standard if we are to be considered a country of laws and justice.
2. I propose interrogation methods that are known to be far more effective, and are recommended by the experts in the field. (And it ain’t waterboarding. ) Interrogation methods that are of, at the very least of questionable legality, and especially that are known by experts to be counterproductive should be prohibited.
I want actionable intelligence, rather than vindictive revenge that makes some people “feel good.” There is a “right” way to gain that intel, and it isn’t what we have been doing.
This isn’t rocket science. Cut the emotional crap and the politics. Do what the experts say works and do it within the law. Is that so much to ask? Sheesh!
…even though ‘enhanced interrogation methods’ are known to not work effectively…
And yet, there are many reports out that enhanced interrogation did yield positive results.
2. I propose interrogation methods that are known to be far more effective, and are recommended by the experts in the field.
It would certainly appear that your unspecified interrogation methods were insufficient, or the experts in the field would not have asked to use other methods.
And is waterboarding within the law? That was the whole point of asking the OLC to clarify what was and wasn’t legal. Personally, given the definition of torture under US code and the relevant treaties, I think it is. I also think it is right up against the ragged edge. But given that the legal definition uses subjective language, there’s room to argue on both sides. Why is it that you presume anyone who doesn’t think it amounts to torture needs to …Cut the emotional crap and the politics… instead of, perhaps, you re-examining your certitude that you are right. As for the politics, who’s starting the witch hunt here? Republicans or Democrats?
What a discussion? XBradTC #20.1, lets start with the last two lines of your comment. “As for politics, who’s starting the witch hunt here? Republicans or Democrats?” I don’t think either party wants to really deal with some of these issues, including the Military. The only way we will have any hope of *Real National Security* is to actually resolve them.
Brad, you raise *a central* question, if not *the central question*. “Is waterboarding within the law?” You rightfully speak of the clarification by the OLC. Now, you come to the conclusion, that it is on the ragged edge of acceptance. I’m going to put you into the most critical spot of the debate, you are our representative for the “boots on the ground”. Now you are given some orders to do “XYZ”. As a good soldier, you try to follow your orders to do “XYZ”. You have since left the Military, the leaders come to conclusion, “XYZ” is and has always been unlawful. Now is the time, you find out that you were always the “authority”. Not the President, SECDEF nor any other member of the “Chain of Command”, but it is you are the one who gets hanged.
To sum up, first go to #13, there is a reason they do not follow that suggestion, it is lethal. In fact, most of the “Enhanced Interrogation Techniques” are lethal if done correctly. What is the purpose of “Interrogation”? I believe we could say, “To gather as much intelligence as possible from the detainee’s mind.” But if we apply these “Techniques”, the detainee’s mind shuts off, not down. Lastly, killing them gives more power to be used by others as martyrs
PS #21
The important thing to understand about waterboarding is this, it does *not simulate drowning*. In fact, it is *controlled drowning*. Many times people actually have water in their lungs or drowning.
That’s not true in the techniques used in this context, Grumpy. No water enters the lungs, the effect is purely psychological.
Waterboarding as described in the memos is lethal?
An open handed slap is lethal?
A fuzzy caterpillar in a box is lethal?
Please, Grumpy. If you don’t think we should undertake enhanced interrogations, that’s fine. But don’t tell me these are lethal techniques.
The clearest signal to me that the entire point of the program was to ensure they didn’t cross over the legal line into torture was the incredible attention they paid to detail. If they weren’t concerned about that, they would have been far more vague and left a lot more grey area. A lot of people went to a lot of work to ensure that the interrogations did not inflict permanent physical or psychological damage. They went so far as to tell the terrorists being waterboarded that it would NOT kill them.
There’s plenty of room to disagree on whether we should do this, but very little to argue that the authors of the OLC memos were advocating torture.
Lex, Would you bet your life on it? When other nations were doing waterboarding, their victims were found to have water in their lungs. This is the reason other nations described this as torture, including the UNITED STATES.
Here’s the language from the (until recently) Top Secret memo. Which is now, of course, part of the terrorist resistance training manual:
All of this would be a whole lot easier to understand if people would read what the memos actually read, rather than what the media said they read.
We are not “other nations.”
Lex, I respect your view, read “Top Secret Memo” previously, but I read it again, out of respect to you. I don’t use the media very much. I knew a POW from Nam and talked with him about it. He took a completely different tact on the issue. We’ve known each for more than 50 years. He said, “You’ve been around information for about 50 years, you know fact from fiction. You could debate for hours, but I’m asking you to drop it. This is Lex’s ‘home’. He is serving this Country, respect him and just let it drop. You don’t agree, you can disagree, without being disagreeable.” I agree with him, I’ll always be here and even comment. But, there is a time to just drop it, this is such a time.
As always,
Grumpy
Technically, it all depends upon the angle of the board, volume of water, and length of application.
If as in the standard SERE procedure, the board is angled high enough to keep the lungs above the “water line”, water cannot and does not enter the lungs. But it still does enter the subject’s mouth, nose, sinuses, larynx, pharynx, and trachea, if not the lungs.
However, if the incline of the board is reduced so the lungs are equal to, or below the “water line”, then water may indeed enter the lungs.
The results are dependent upon the specific waterboard techniques involved, and can vary significantly.
Oh Flit where has thy reason fled? You just boldly declared that the US water boards US service personnel without raising the canard that the US is torturing its own personnel. Do we have to produce OLC memos that declare that it is perfectly legal for US service personnel to torture US service personnel? Hold on~! Brilliant Thought. We have those we want/need water boarded sent to SERE and let professional SERE instructors water board them since that is all legal and above board.
There is one question that hasn’t been raised. Could this possibly be intentional, a feint, a means of diverting the resources of our enemies towards shoring up defenses they won’t need in order to hit them in the soft underbelly at some later date?
I mean, the thought of thousands of Mahmoud Ibn Purplehazi’s being educated in terrorist techniques is, in itself, no minor undertaking. In addition to the standard courses such as how to release a detonator, how to drink in strip clubs to appear as westerners, and how to pilot airlines for up to 30 minutes, now they have a waterboarding class to go to.
Whereupon over the course of, say, a year, they’ll learn to endure up to 30 minutes of breathing through a very wet rag over their face (1).
Which takes them out of the subway tunnels and airliners and such for a year, at which point when captured they discover we’re a culture of cop shows and have trained actors that will get them angry during the interview and make them confess within 40 minutes, with 20 additional minutes allowed for commercial time. So all that time in waterboarding class is wasted.
Could this all be some subtle, cunning plan by the administration?
Pondering….
In the immortal words of Steve Martin, “Nahhhhhhhh…..”
Eh, it was worth a second or two to ponder.
(1) When I was in college I had to take a PE credit, and swimming 101 was the only thing that fit the schedule. Which, midwesterners and particularly rural midwesterners spend a lot of time in water juring the months of July and August. Swimming pool, cow pond, fishing hole, water trough, even running through the sprinkler on the front laws we know all about the ability of the latent heat of vaporization to cool us down when the temps are in the triple digits.
Education in how to swim was traditionally given by older siblings, and consisted of a push followed by much laughing and maybe a reluctant rescue. I had the dog-paddling part mastered early, but getting out of the burlap sack was a real chore.
In college I met folks from India, Pakistan, Iran, Egypt, who’d *never* swam. The idea of being in water deeper than found in a bathtub was completely alien to them, and actually playing in it for recreation? Unheard of.
Likewise, in the upper midwest we have dustbowl days, where the soil is dry and the wind harsh. Dust, little particles in the air, is a nuisance. A hankerchief is whetted and tied around the face, sort of like bandits in those cowboy movies, to act as a filter. Regular re-hydration is required as these tend to be hot days. It’s most often employed when throwing hay bales or working in the grain bins.
Makes me wonder if waterboarding was chosen because it’s a technique that our enemies would be completely unused to, and if our SERE folks find it perhaps less injurious because we’re more used to the aquatic.
We’ll probably never know, and it really makes little difference, it’s just kind of interesting to ponder how different life is across the planet and what might be considered insufferable by one would be considered afternoon weather by another.
Oh, and I got my older brother back for the burlap sack. The fishing hole holds walleye, muskie, catfish, carp, and of course bluegill. The ’82 Chevy Camaro has a number of body panels capable of concealing one of these fine specimens. In fact, if cut up for eating later the portions one might generally throw back into the water could also be thrown down the defroster vents. If one were so inclined.
Which, so far as he and any of you know, I wasn’t.
But it is an interesting thing to ponder, isn’t it?
– Max