If “torture” by the military in the war on terror is “illegal”, radical monopods that suffer a severe indigestion of freedom and liberty should go to the high court and strike down as unconstitutional the Patriot Act, as amended, instead of chasing former President George W. Bush in his retirement with hammer and tong as if catching him is a priceless trophy in President Obama’s hunting safari.
This failure for barking at the wrong tree or the temerity to pick on the wrong grain, plus the absence of a functional gray matter for calling this military “torture” of terrorists “illegal” when it was approved by Congress, reminds me of headless chicken jumping all around that to know what they are doing need their heads back so badly!
Monopods are those whose mind stands only on one leg when it is attempting to digest or understand the word “torture”. It cannot distinguish between military “torture” of Islamic terrorists caught by the long arms of the law who had taken many American lives, bombed and destroyed our buildings, and a civilian “torture” of a pickpocket caught stealing who is abused by rogue policemen or subjected to “waterboarding” by sadistic agents of the law.
The first version of “torture” in the military saved millions of American lives, the second version is a disgrace to our law enforcement forces in fighting crimes.
This “torture-is-bad” mentality is a monologue of clowns incapable of understanding what is good or bad, or even worse, what is right or wrong, even for laughs.
For, there is such a mountain of difference between these two versions of “torture” the size of it is much larger than the United States of America, or even larger than life itself!
Do monopods see this huge difference? Not at all … and here there is no more room for doubt: How can they when they attack military “torture” of captured Islamic assassins that bombed and killed Americans, like headless chicken?
I am writing in this column a constructive – not destructive – response to Chuck Adkins’ report on Eric Holder written by Paleo Pat that appeared on FP.com on 07-12-2009.
For better understanding, let’s do a little background introduction: Enlightened Libertarian writers and I have the same ideological commitments to and passion for freedom and liberty. Eric Holder is Obama’s hatchet man who wants to prosecute those responsible for the “torture” of terrorists under the previous Bush administration. Author Pat has a nightmare if Holder’s delusion of grandeur will come to pass. Pat was attacked by torture monopods.
If by reporting this NewsWeek-sourced editorial Adkins subscribes to the truth Pat has written about “torture” then my response to Chuck is also my response to Pat rolled into one. Both were targets of monopod attacks acting like headless chicken. It is difficult for me to standby with arms akimbo without intervening in their defense to expose a deleterious lie about “torture”.
To Chuck: we cross swords on many issues … you know that, and many readers knew this. But if you believed what Pat has written on terrorism, then this is the first time that our minds met in a cafeteria of thoughts to celebrate a homonym on terror.
We could have the same word in mind that describes the reactions of your monopod critics and mine -- “ungrateful”.
The term “ingrate” might be a strong word to use here. However, to use other words or to resort to the niceties of euphemism, we take the risk of being misinterpreted or misunderstood. We have projected the idea of what “torture” means that these “champions” of “full of $#it” vocabulary [you haven’t seen yet the worst of this gutter language] should be grateful they are not six feet below the ground right now [my line]. What they understand about your line and Pat’s line is that Bush had saved a lot of ingrates in this war on terror. Since they hated Bush more than they hated their mothers-in-law, the truth you projected hurt them and the wound you inflicted was as painful as when a deranged dentist used a monkey wrench to pull off an abscess tooth.
Aside from what I have written in my columns online and in print [newspapers], surf the Net and my editorials on Patriot Act, as amended -- e.g. the requirement of a Military Tribunal that dispenses justice to cold-blooded killers in a savage war they started outside the declared principles of the Vienna Convention and beyond the ambit of International Law; the necessity of knowing the plans and deadly activities of Islamic terrorists before they can detonate their dirty bombs and blow us up to kingdom come;
the critical need for a military interrogation technique [i.e. waterboarding] fit for incarcerated terrorists and their accomplices which terrorist protectors called “torture” that saved millions of American lives, etc. – inundate almost all major Websites that hit millions of readership!
All these infrastructures for national security the nation have constructed that I have written about to enlighten the American public – and it does not matter under whose politics it is or whose political administration it is – was meant only first thing and foremost … for national SURVIVAL! Any philosopher undeserving of my attention and time may interpret their cents worth biases around it or against it, and the dead that terrorists had entered in their demonic ledger, won’t give a damn.
The eloquence of those pundits to destroy these security infrastructures had dropped from the sky to which we ought to be thankful about, but it got caught in the branches of the tree that to the families of those killed by terrorists just hang there like toilet papers.
The writing you reported anchored the author’s interpretation of “torture” as follows: "The point I am trying to make is this, that the so-called “torture”, which was approved by Congress, prevented attacks on Los Angeles and various cities around the country. It also saves lives and gets people to talk. It is also used to train our Military as well."
These are all mentioned in several of my editorial reports on terror that I am talking about. By restating it here, I just want to be sure that what you have endorsed for reading on this subject is inspiring to those who want to discover a long standing lie denying how we stopped Al Qaeda dead on its track like a cold cucumber. These assassins from hell were unable to attack us since 9/11/2001.
This truth that we are comparatively safe from harm with the necessary security system installed, is the target of the lie campaign waged by monopods that argue heedlessly like chicken whose heads were chopped off for a lavish “adobo” dinner! “Adobo” is a delicious oriental gastronomy of chicken after the Iron Chef uses an inch-thick cleaver to cut the head of the fowl just to dramatize the skill of butchery in the kitchen.
I cannot help but notice the fact that your critics and mine are showing evidence of a learning curve that runs slower than the 6:00 o’clock traffic in downtown Chicago .
For example, they are still blaming Bush on “torture” when they should blame Congress that approved it because “torture” in the military in a war that has no moral boundary stands on different pods of meaning as seen by the mind of Congress …it is not the kind of “torture” that bucket kickers think it is!
I must repeat this distinction for fear of being misunderstood or deliberate omission by any innocent reader … which means that if I have to restate it over and over again, I would: Torture of civilian prisoners outside of this nameless war on terror, is not the same as “torture” of captured Islamic terrorists in Guantanamo that saved millions of American lives. Do cynics know that? No, they don’t. Torturing an Islamic terrorist – the enemy of the States – who had already killed many Americans and still wanting to kill us all, is to them the same as if a pickpocket was tortured by the military to make the culprit cough out where the stolen item was hidden! They should get out of this delusion while they still can. The cost of healthcare is rising so fast that to get an ambulance or to don a white straitjacket is getting more expensive than buying a round-trip ticket to the Moon.
I recommend that readers surf the Web. It is easy to find many studies of the moral justification of “torture” of the enemy by the military in a war not only for that critical necessity to win the war but for the survival of a nation at war. Monopods are quite slow in learning about this, but they can catch up.
But here is the irritating part of it all: To headless monopods, “torture” is illegal. No not this kind of “torture” approved by Congress. They lie miserably, like this kid with a sweet tooth caught pocketing a chocolate bar in a candy store.
In the monopods’ way of thinking, “torture” violates our moral code in the world of political idealism. No it does not when it saves the lives of those who said so in the world of reality. The flame of idealism against torture blazes when you have a life to light it up first before terrorists take it away… there is not even an iota of a Chinaman’s chance for idealism if terrorists consigned you first six feet below the ground!
This should give a clear idea as to what should come first – your bright prospects for life and enjoy going to the Super Bowl, have a dinner and see a movie, and a good chance to march down the street for liberty, or your fatal idealism that monopods ingest hook, line and sinker, only to suffer an indigestion of too much freedom and liberty as food for thought!
We are all Americans and we don’t like torture more than we abhor the enemy of liberty and freedom. But we have to use our brain to know why we don’t like it, not just dislike it because the word “torture” is unlikable!
Even fluttering chicken destined for dinner need their heads to know what they are doing, even though not necessarily to know where they are heeding! #
© Copyright Edwin A. Sumcad. Access FP.com, July 16, 2009.
The writer is an award-winning journalist. Know more about the author by reading his published editorials and feature articles or you may e-mail your comment to firstname.lastname@example.org.