Tag Archives: Enhanced Interrogation

Bullets over Bubbles

Originally posted at American Thinker

The media is buzzing because for the first time in modern history a journalist actually demanded an answer from a liberal to a logical question.  Following the Navy SEAL hit on Osama bin Laden, Chris Wallace, host of Fox News Sunday, interviewed Tom Donilon, President Obama’s National Security Adviser, and broached the obvious inconsistency in the administration’s argument that water boarding is “over the line,” but “shooting an unarmed man in the face [is] legal and proper.”

Although Wallace’s audacious interview skills are commendable, it’s obvious that Mike Wallace’s son requires 60 minutes’ worth of a refresher course in basic liberal logic – which, by the way, is an oxymoron.

Nevertheless, Chris asked Mr. Donilon a valid question which could be paraphrased in the following way: “Why is putting a couple of bullets into the head of an unarmed man acceptable, but pouring water over an enemy combatant’s face ‘over the line?’”

The underlying principle on the left is that putting a wet cloth over someone’s face is cruel and unusual treatment but holding a head underwater until the bubbles stop is permissible, encouraged and, if successful, even applauded.

Tom, who at first glance seems like a sane man, spoke on behalf of the Obama White House, which is on par with speaking for every liberal on the planet, and said, “Because, well, our judgment is that [water boarding] is not consistent with our values, not consistent and not necessary in terms of getting the kind of intelligence that we need.”

According to Tom, obtaining intelligence through unacceptable means like facial holding, muscle fatigue, and being confined with a caterpillar in a small space is less tolerable than blowing a hole through the face of a person who nonetheless deserved it.  Life-saving intelligence-gathering deemed illegal and achieved through the cruel and inhuman practice of feigned drowning is, according to liberals, better left not attempted, even if the potential interrogation “victim” is planning to murder a few thousand Americans.

To normal people, i.e., those who think clearly, Donilon’s explanation is a bit peculiar, but to anyone who understands the skewed and illogical manner in which liberals think, the National Security Adviser’s response makes perfect sense.

For liberals, killing is an acceptable route, but discomfort on any level is never “consistent” with liberal values. If the prevention of uneasiness ends in death, then so be it.

Case in point: Abortion.  Think about it – for some women, carrying a child to term can be as uncomfortable as water boarding.  Just ask Planned Parenthood. Unplanned pregnancy is scary and problematic, not unlike enhanced interrogation.  However, if “gutsy” liberals are in charge, terminating a pregnancy is, more times than not, the preferred solution.

Donilon confirmed that liberal judgment dictates that the finality of violent death is consistent with liberal values, while inconvenience, irritation, and minimal emotional pain are objectionable to liberal sensibilities.  A suspected terrorist gasping for air for a few seconds is unconscionable, but a fetus bleeding out from a purposely inflicted mortal head wound is perfectly acceptable.

One thing is for sure: It’s a good thing Osama bin Laden met Allah instantly, because had he survived a botched attempt to jettison him into eternity the al-Qaeda leader would find out that giving medical attention to those who survive a murder attempt is also inconsistent with liberal values.  Obama would likely agree that to lend a hand to a dying terrorist would have “burdened the original decision” to deliver up a dead bin Laden.

In reality, Chris Wallace’s probing question was a scratch-your-head inquiry and an honest attempt to understand an illogical way of thinking. The Fox News Sunday host acknowledged that most would agree that shooting Osama dead was justifiable.  However, Wallace, as well as most right-thinking people, just couldn’t grasp the dichotomy between the unbridled elation associated with blowing a hole through the skull of a vicious murderer and the endless moral indignation expressed over holding the head of an equally monstrous beast under water for 35 seconds.

Wallace pressed on: “What I am second-guessing is, if that’s OK, why can’t you do water boarding?” In other words – what’s the rationale behind evading distress in favor of death?

Hey Chris, the answer is simple.  There is none.

Why wasn’t the relatively benign enhanced interrogation of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, “who was just as bad an operator” as the now-deceased Osama bin Laden, acceptable? It’s because death is always embraced by the left as ethically superior to placing an individual in a painful situation. If the opportunity presents itself, the benefit gained through character-building coercive means will always take a back seat to offing someone. If the revered right-to-choose is presented, the left will almost always side with sacrificing a life over depriving comfort.

If Chris Wallace needs to better understand the rationale behind crazy liberal policies, maybe someone should remind him that the same group who decries water boarding lobbies for, funds, and defends the killing of unborn babies. All the cable news network Sunday morning talk show host needs to do is revisit abortion statistics which show that 98% of all abortions, a procedure liberals heartily endorse, are for the sake of convenience, and done almost exclusively to circumvent the anxiety associated with accepting moral and physical responsibility for one’s own personal actions.

Abortion over adoption – a shot to the skull over enhanced interrogation – for liberals, the loss of abortion rights would be like subjecting America to an ongoing water boarding session.  To liberals, abortion on demand is similar to shooting bin Laden in the head: necessary, better than the alternative, and lauded on the left as “gutsy” and worthy of rationalization.

So when Chris Wallace attempts to make sense out of what seems senseless and asks reasoned, well thought-out questions, the left’s response exposes the foundational liberal principle that when given a choice, killing is preferred over avoidable discomfort and at all times will be vigorously justified by an ideology rooted in irrational absurdity.

American Thinker May 30, 2009: Morally Motivating the Mujahidin

Morally Motivating the Mujahidin

1_540854515l3

Raising the “White Towel” of Surrender

wtc-9-11

Torture is defined as “the infliction of intense pain from burning, crushing or wounding.” In what appears to be a political effort to criminalize Bush era policy the Obama Administration has sanctioned the declassification and release of top secret memos. The communiqués outline, in detail, enhanced interrogation techniques used on Abu Zubaydah “…high ranking member of al Qaeda” and terrorist operations chief, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.  The controversy is based on the premise that enhanced interrogation is tantamount to torture and futile in obtaining vital information. The new administration contends that Bush coercion policy caused enemy combatants undue anguish and only served to morally diminish our ethical standing in a world.

Reflecting on the events of September 11th, 2001 reminds us that the victims who died or were injured at the hands of fanatical jihad warriors were the ones who were tortured, not the perpetrators. After the attack, captured al Qaeda leaders, Sheikh Mohammed and Abu Zubaydah, continued to arrogantly, “…celebrate the destruction of the World Trade Center” and sneer, along with Osama Bin Laden, at the grisly types of death and injury thousands suffered at the hands of the Mujahedin brotherhood.

Official documents show that while incarcerated both Zubaydah and Sheikh Mohammed lived comfortably and were always treated respectfully and humanely by their American captors. The kindness extended them did nothing to change their level of dedication to slaughter. Calm and unrepentant Zubaydah steadfastly remained, “…devoted to jihad…expressing unabated desire to kill Americans and Jews.”

The statistical data from 9-11 exposes how far both men went in dedication to furthering their cause.  Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Abu Zubaydah actively assisted in plotting the death of 2,819 innocent people, of whom only 289 maimed bodies were found intact, rejoicing together that 19,858 body parts were strewn throughout 1,506,124 pounds of debris.  American jihad resulted in the dead suffering the disrespect of having their “…body parts…torsos and chunks of flesh” strewn in the streets together with “…airplane landing gear and car fires.

Throughout the Bush years, policy attempted to prevent a similar devastating hit and took whatever measures necessary to protect the American people from having to suffer a catastrophe of such magnitude again.  Enhanced interrogation was one of tools in the security cache that mined information from high value prisoners who were known to have key information that could save American lives.

The Bush Administration, in conjunction with CIA officials, believed that both Zubaydah and Sheikh Mohammed, “…had additional information they refused to divulge…regarding terrorist networks in the United States.”  In an effort to ascertain critical intelligence the CIA decided “increased pressure” would successfully weaken the high value detainee’s “strong resolve” and provide the government with crucial information.  It wasn’t until being subjected to enhanced interrogation that Abu Zubaydah gave up key details, which led to high profile terrorist Khalid Sheikh Mohammed’s eventual capture.

Like his cohort, Sheikh Mohammed refused to respond to inquiries about impending plots and sadistically warned his inquisitors that “Soon, they will know.”  Without enhancement interrogation methods the CIA would have been ineffective in convincing the obstinate Jihadist to confess to managing “a cell for the production of biological weapons, such as anthrax.” Mohammed’s stress induced collaboration disrupted the Padilla plan to detonate a “dirty bomb” on American soil and prevented a “second wave” plot to crash a hijacked airliner into Los Angeles.  Thanks to the forced cooperation of both Zubaydah and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, American lives were saved.

The types of enhanced interrogation declassified in the controversial memos include walling.  Walling pulls the detainee forward and then pushes them back so their shoulders bounce off a false, flexible wall creating a loud intimidating sound.  Unlike the explosion that shook the world when planes shattered through the World Trade Towers, walling is risk-free.

Through release of the memos mea culpas were offered for the use of confinement.  Cramped confinement subjects the suspect to a dark, restricted space with the suggestion of a buzzing insect that is really a harmless caterpillar.  Upon release, the captive is promptly attended to by a physician; a luxury those prematurely confined to their final resting place on 9-11 did not have the benefit of.

In comparison, terrorist detainee Khalid Sheikh Mohammed’s interrogation sessions were quite unlike the type of imprisonment Port Authority officers experienced when trapped thirty-feet beneath the rubble of the World Trade Center for twenty-two hours.  They were choked by dust and smoke and fire-balls tumbled into the hole that held their crushed bodies. Miraculously rescued from the fiery pile, one officer spent six-weeks in a medically induced coma, endured thirty surgeries and suffered extensive skin grafting to save his limbs.

Terrorists committed to Islam’s domination furthered their goal, on September 11th, by successfully torturing innocent victims who were dying of smoke inhalation, immolated or crushed under tons of cement. These sufferers endured so much pain that “…the skin on their bodies burnt off.”  If given the choice of being forcibly questioned or being singed to the bone by a huge meteor-like fireball flashing out from a freight elevator shaft, 9-11 victims would prefer enhanced interrogation over terror, for sure.

Any suggestion that induced muscle fatigue is either immoral or inhumane renders America impotent as compared to an enemy who casually decapitates innocent people in an attempt to portray potency and commitment to higher ideals. The President’s policy suggests that even if benign forms of intimidation have proven effective in preventing nuclear or biological weapons from being detonated in American cities, its use still remains criminal.

The most divisive of all techniques white towel, water boarding or simulated drowning, was used by our CIA because it worked, “…after just 35 seconds under water” Zubaydah submitted information, which aided our nation in the world-wide war on terror and subverted plots here in the United States.  The divisive memos stated that exposure to enhanced questioning worked to convince high value detainees to cooperate. “KSM and Zubaydah were pivotal sources because of their ability and willingness to provide … analysis and speculation about the capabilities, methodologies and mindsets of terrorists,” very possibly their aid was the primary reason Americans have not been attacked since September 11th.

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Zubaydah reveled in Americans suffering.  They praised Allah when desperate people chose to leap hundreds of floors to their deaths.  The decision to declare war on Bush’s policies, and to publicly condemn effective coercion techniques, suggests to the world that al Qaeda warriors’ comfort levels take precedence over protecting American lives.

The President appears to be desperate for an opportunity to appease a befuddled sense of right and wrong. Rather than quelling the storm he is planning to extend the torture debate by releasing additional photos of non-sanctioned prisoner abuse in Iraq and Afghanistan.  Obama’s torture policy makes him complicit in reaffirming antipathy toward America and jeopardizes eight years of successful national security.

Copyright 2009 Jeannieology. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

%d bloggers like this: