Wednesday, May 16, 2007

YAY! TORTURE!

Think Progress » Audience Applauds As Giuliani, Tancredo Endorse Waterboarding Torture



This video's pretty disturbing, although it's been clear for a while that the US does enjoy a spot of prisoner torture.

GIULIANI: I would tell the people who had to do the interrogation to use every method they can think of. Shouldn’t be torture, but every method they can think of.

HUME: Water boarding?

GIULIANI: I would say every method they could think of, and I would support them in doing that


The US State has declared waterboarding as torture, yet he says "I wouldn't torture them, but I would use waterboarding". How the fuck does that make sense.



Probably the gayest part though is Tancredo at the end, this is disgusting:

we are the last best hope of Western Civilization. So all of the theories that go behind our activities, subsequent to these nuclear attacks going off in the United States, they go out the window. When we go under, western civilization goes under. So you better take that into account and you better do every single thing you can as President of the United States to make sure, number one, it doesn’t happen, that’s right. But, number two, you better respond in a way that makes them fearful of you, because, otherwise, you guarantee something like this will happen.
Three things very wrong with this:



  • The US Is the last hope for western civilization? Shit! What would we do without them? Britain wouldn't exist if it wasn't for America would it. Without Coca-Cola and shit rap music and consumerism and powerful multi-national corporations, we'd all just go mad and kill ourselves.
  • As a consqequence of this self-imposed importance: "all of the theories that go behind our activities, subsequent to these nuclear attacks going off in the United States, they go out the window". When he says "theories" he means "all that moral ethical nonsense". Since the USA is the last hope for the West, this end justifies any means, no methods are off the table.
  • "But, number two, you better respond in a way that makes them fearful of you, because, otherwise, you guarantee something like this will happen." That's pretty much the wrong way round. I'm fairly sure that 9/11 was a result of decades of US opression in the middle-east, and these people got angry, and FEARED for their security (not that word) and so lashed out at their enemy. If you make people fearful of you, they're more likely to attack. Why would they need to if they had nothing to fear, if they knew America was going to stay out of its borders and cultural and political life?


Man, the US Presidential elections are going to be great aren't they?



Technorati Tags: , , , , ,

No comments: