Wednesday, November 30, 2005

maybe torture would be appropriate...

Under certain circumstances. For instance, I'd support using torture on every member of the current Administration when we finally start really looking into things. How many people wouldnt experience a little frisson at the thought of Dick Cheney on the rack... s-t-r-e-t-c-h-i-n-g.
ahhh.
Imagine what he might confess to, finally. I'll bet he would even clear ol' Bill Clinton, given enough "persuasion". ("Yes, yes, I'll confess, it was me, I stained the dress").
Where does this thought come from? Why from Republicans, of course. Well, not directly, but they seem to think so much of the technique for gathering information, how could they possibly object if it was used on them. So much simpler, so much faster. Isnt that a common Conservative gripe, the "coddling of criminals"?

Listen to this:
Sen. John McCain is leading the charge against so-called "torture" techniques allegedly used by U.S. interrogators, insisting that practices like sleep deprivation and withholding medical attention are not only brutal - they simply don't work to persuade terrorist suspects to give accurate information.

Nearly forty years ago, however - when McCain was held captive in a North Vietnamese prison camp - some of the same techniques were used on him. And - as McCain has publicly admitted at least twice - the torture worked!
What further proof could one have of the effectiveness of torture, especially on Republicans?

Okay, okay, not really. Oh, the above quote is real, coming from NewsMax.com. I got this from Rude Pundit, and he seemed pretty incensed by it, but maybe it was just a joke. I confess to not being familiar with the blog, and there were a lot of ads about fighting, viagra, and picking up women.
Personally speaking though, I figure Torture to be an evil "highlight" for BushCo, on a long list of very bad things. Still, I might be less averse to it if, perhaps, an amendment was attached to any Pro-torture bill which said that all those who voted in favor of the bill would themselves assent to torture should they be suspected of criminal activity.
It's too bad someone didnt think of this years ago, when the go-ahead for torture was first given. This whole Tom DeLay thing, for instance, would have been a lot less messy (well, except for in whatever room Tom's twitching corpse {oops, too much} lay). Talk about your deterent.

I'm going to have to send this idea to someone in the Legislature. Kennedy, maybe. If he's grateful enough, maybe he'll finally give me my rovin'-eye Jesus.

4 comments:

Omnipotent Poobah said...

I'm not so sure that "torture Republicans" idea is such a good idea. Some of them seem to be mighty attached to the nipple clips and cat-o-nine tails.

Kidding aside, I think the problem here is that torture is actually a "conceptual" sort of thing. One person's pain is another person's pleasure. The torture I'd break under would be much different than yours I'm sure. In fact, I'd also say that claiming it doesn't work and does work are both true statements based on who was the torturer and the torturee.

In the end, I think it's bad juju and shouldn't be done, but the thought does sometimes cross my mind that I'd like to do a little Chinese Water torture on some people.

daveawayfromhome said...

Torture is bad juju, and whatever I say about torturing BushCo members, I dont really mean it.
much.

There's an essay by Kurt Vonnegut called "Torture and Blubber" from his book Wampeters, Foma and Granfalloons (which I dont remember clearly, and will have to re-read) where he discusses the fascination of young boys with torture. Maybe those in the White House never grew up?

rev. billy bob gisher ©2008 said...

You really want that damn rovin eye jesus don't you? does this involve some sort of sexual kink?

daveawayfromhome said...

no kink, just a sad excuse to link up to one of my "better" posts