Torture what it really is
By: Carolyn Hileman
The word torture can be defined in many ways, how ever our Supreme Court along with the liberals in this country has chosen to define it in this way. Hypothermia; forcing suspects to stand for prolonged periods; sleep deprivation; a technique called “the attention grab” where a suspect’s shirt is forcefully seized; the “attention slap” or open hand slapping that hurts but does not lead to physical damage; the “belly slap”; and sound and light manipulation. To be honest most children in middle school on up have managed to deal with this on a daily basis and have yet to file a law suit, one is left to believe that perhaps the battle seasoned, sworn enemy of the United States cannot handle this. It seems just a bit miniscule compared to the torture our people went through on 9/11 and to the headless people that we were privy to see beg for their lives, but that is not the topic of discussion for today.
It would seem that the liberals have suddenly lost their taste for torture since they seemed to be quite hungry for it early in the Clinton administration. How many of you remember Waco? While I am by no means saying what the Branch Davidians did was right but of course we never really will know will we. Since evidence was burned and removed from the spot and all we have is testimony from the people who did it, not very reliable one would assume. Still the fact remains that they were very gung-ho at that time using tactics such as cutting off power, harassing the Branch Davidians with bright lights and loud music, destroying property, it does not say it in the official records but since I watched it on TV, I remember that they cut off food except milk for the babies. Makes one wonder what the world thought of us that day doesnâ€™t it.
The FBI consulted its own behavioral scientists, whose specialty was applying psychology to law enforcement situations, but ignored their recommendations. Pete Smerick and Mark Young recommended in several March 5th to 9th memos that this was not a typical hostage situation since the Branch Davidians insisted on staying with their leader. They wrote that “tactical presence . . . if carried to excess, could eventually be counter productive and could result in loss of life.” They advised, “If the followers could be made to see that the government had no intention of engaging them in an apocalyptic final battle, then perhaps they would begin to question the validity of Koresh’s predictions about the inevitability of such a battle.”
Smerick and Young recommended that the FBI “establish some trust with Koresh” and even suggested “moving back from the compound, not to show law enforcement weakness, but to sap from Koresh the source of his powerful hold over his followers–his prediction that the government was about to start a war against them. They concluded by saying that the FBI could “always resort to tactical pressure, but it should be the absolute last option we should consider.”
These people were so anxious to make a statement that they refused to allow family members and others to try and talk them out, while some may still believe that the fire was an accident or staged by the Davidians, for those of us who were watching it and heard the sound of gun shots which would later be called limbs breaking, etc. we know in our hearts those people never had any chance of making it out alive. Now one could bring up Ruby Ridge in August of 1992 as an example of brutality of the conservative nature and there is no doubt that mistakes were made in that instance as well, however it ended very differently as An armed reconnaissance team crept up to the cabin. When one of the dogs noticed them it began barking, so they shot it. By this time, the two boys in the household were already outside. Sammy Weaver shot at the camoflauged intruders. One of the men returned fire and killed Sammy. Then Kevin Harris shot back at the commandos, killing U.S. Marshal William Degan. Suddenly, the firefight ended and both sides retreated. Kevin returned to the cabin and the surviving Marshals carried their comrade’s body back to base camp. Both groups would later claim they had acted in self-defense, and that the other was first to inflict death. In other words someone was left to dispute the claims.
The agents in Waco were reminded of this incidence and went forward with their plans anyway, whether it was because they did not want anyone left to dispute the claims or they thought they had it under control it still ended in mass deaths. One looks at this, and has to wonder why now; many years later are they are suddenly against what they did at that time. Perhaps it is their kind nature wishing to save President Bush from the embarrassment they suffered, but one would seriously doubt it since they have spent millions of their money and our tax dollars trying to embarrass him. Could it be that they are to worried about backlash from the terrorists to think clearly, could it be that they are afraid we might not measure up to world standards? Or could it simply be that in the hearts of the liberals they truly believe that torture such as this should only be used on US citizens? With these questions unanswered I would be hesitant to want one running the country.
The Voice http://www.thevoice.name/