2 + 2 = 6

[originalpckelly]

2 = 3

"As we understand it, when the waterboard is used, the subject's body responds as if the subject were drowning -- even though the subject may be well aware that he is in fact not drowning. You have informed us that this procedure does not inflict actual physical harm. Thus, although the subject may experience the fear or panic associated with the feeling of drowning, the waterboard does not inflict physical pain. as we explained in the Section 2340A Memorandum, "pain and suffering" as used in Section 2340 is best understood as a single concept, not distinct concepts of "pain" as distinguished from "suffering".... The waterboard, which inflicts no pain or actual harm whatsoever, does not, in our view, inflict "severe pain and suffering". Even if one were to parse the stature more "finely" to attempt to treat suffering as a distinct concept, the waterboard could not be said to inflict severe suffering. The waterboard is simply a controlled acute episode, lacking the connotation of a protracted period of time generally given to suffering."

The problem with these monsters is that they think you can define pain and suffering in words and that you can redefine them with other words. Pain and suffering are not defined by words, the words are just symbols for the experiences, for the real definition. Pain and suffering is the thing we feel, in itself.

Just like the value of 2 is not equal to 3, because 2 is 2 in and of itself. That's how irrational, how absurd what these people are saying. It's easy to redefine pain and suffering when you're not the one suffering the pain. It's also easy when you're always convinced you're right. Unchecked power is equal to arrogant power. "IF ONLY WE COULD DO AWAY WITH THESE LAWS, DEBATES AND THE PROCESS OF COMPROMISE, THEN WE COULD HAVE REAL MEN MAKE REAL DECISIONS!"

The problem with that line of thinking, is that real decision making is holding debates and the process of compromise, and it is reliant upon laws to restrain the decisions made. It takes a mighty arrogant man to think he is the law or that he's so smart he needs not to debate, or that he's the only real person in the world so he needs not to compromise.

I say man, because to this young man, it looks like we've had more than our fair share of these people. However, I sincerely doubt we have a monopoly on this, and the revelations about Condi Rice authorizing torture prove this.

There is no appeasing, no dealing with people like this. The people who died at Normandy and all the other battles against the Nazis in WWII know exactly why that is. People who think they're so right they will torture someone because they know torture is not torture, must feel all of the normal processes of decision making are just opportunities to advance their quest for absolute power, so they can prove to everyone, just exactly how right they are, so they can finally make "real" decisions. Not with these wishy washy debates or compromises! They are the law!

Allowing unchecked power is an attempted crime against humanity or war crime if done in the context of hostilities.

It's comparable to someone who plays Russian roulette with another person's life. I hope they would be charged, tried and convicted of attempted murder even if the gun doesn't shoot. If you load a revolver with less than it's full capacity, spin the cylinder containing the bullets, push it into place to fire, point the gun at someone's head, and pull the trigger, and the person is not killed, it was just luck. If the bullet is there, then it's too late to find out when the trigger is pulled.

There are no people good enough to have unchecked authority, and if there are, we cannot know who they are without creating a situation with irreversible and terrible consequences.

You don't gamble with the lives of human beings like that, and you don't gamble with people who'd do it.

This is the only undebatable thing, because it's a matter of experience worldwide. Just like pain and suffering is defined not by words, but by the thing itself. Words cannot express the human suffering and pain that was experienced at Normandy, and those of us who didn't experience it will never be able to define it. I'm willing to take their word.

Prosecute the monsters, or they bring us with them to the dark side of humanity, the side that can redefine torture as "a controlled acute episode, lacking the connotation of a protracted period of time generally given to suffering."

There is no debate, there is no appeasement. Doing that is only an empowerment of them, they will only use it to get closer to absolute power yet again.

There is probably no coincidence that Dick Cheney did not move back to Wymoning or Texas (where he really lived before the election, but had to move from in order to get into power.)

I hope we don't find out it's not a coincidence before it's too late to do something about it.

[originalpckelly]

1. Edited to fix an error in the last sentence.