Tuesday, January 20, 2009

Hayden's insistence that EI "worked" indicates Dick Torquemada's desperation

It's times like these that I wish I could write as well as Chris Floyd or Justin Raimondo. But I can't, and it's futile to try, so I'll try to keep the torture brief.

Gen. Michael Hayden of the NSA and CIA continues to insist that "enhanced interrogation" is a "high end [55 = 5x11] interrogation technique," despite all the evidence to the contrary. But not only DOESN'T it work for this purpose - it was never INTENDED to work, as anyone who cares to consider its actual fruits in light of my SRA/Satanism hypothesis will realize. Candid reports of such "interrogations" include instances in which Muslim prisoners who couldn't possibly know what the interrogators supposedly wanted, with their Puritan-like sexual morality, were confronted with a male guard having sex with a female guard (a continuation of the sort of activity - orgiastic, loveless abandonment to sexual impulses - which is used to prepare Satanists for SRA), asked nonsense questions or no questions at all, insulted by trashing copies of the Koran, smeared with feces, exposed to loud "music" (including the Barney the Dinosaur theme) for extended periods of time, etc. What do you think their reaction to this would be?

Compare this to the supposed justification - the fictional world of Jack Bauer, who isn't a terrorist himself, who actually wants to prevent terrorism, who almost always gets the person with the desired information, and who dives right into forms of excruciating torture which give the target no time to fabricate false stories, but panic them into blurting out the truth, faced with unbearable pain or losing valuable appendages or their life, and someone who can easily see through any lies intended to stop the torture.

But I am not advocating torturing terrorists; Cheney, for example, should just be thrown in prison to protect us. Besides, he is both the head terrorist and head torturer (torture is a form of terrorism). If he wants to torture someone, he could torture himself, and not by pulling a muscle by moving boxes of his torture-snuff films out of his bunker

One of the best examples of how EI "backfired" is the decision to invade Iraq, which was (supposedly) based on false intelligence chalked up to "enhanced interrogation." Another example is the recent decision to drop charges against Mohammed al-Qahtani, the "20th hijacker" in the virtual-reality version of 9/11. This entire episode was a joke from soup to nuts. The purpose of admitting torture was to prevent us from having access to evidence that it has nothing to do with obtaining useful information. This was probably planned from the start - note that it occurred only when Bush had one foot out the door and Obama had made his deal with the devils at the CIA - they get a license to torture in secrecy, and we are spared nuclear terrorism, or something like that. I've got a million these, whereas the proponents of EI have no evidence to support their claims - just the claims.

But the fact that Michael Hayden - with access to the biggest secrets and such an honest face that even I trusted him for a while - would insist that this war crime is an effective means of obtaining useful information quickly, just shows how desperate they are to give it some credibility. They rely on the Big Lie technique of simply repeating lies until they are uncritically accepted as truth, and Hayden was one of their aces in the hole.