Friday, August 01, 2008

Making Sense of Torture Policy

I am having a hard time figuring out why the Bush regime would stick with its torture techniques in the face of public revulsion, potential criminal prosecution, loss of standing in the world, and total ineffectiveness of the techniques.

It's pretty common knowledge by now that toture is really only good for one thing and that's getting fake confessions for propaganda purposes. Information derived from torture is totally unreliable for any other use. And yet, we aren't hearing about any spectacular confessions from detainees. Propaganda isn't any good if you don't broadcast it, for crying out loud. It's like having a Doomsday device without telling the enemy that you have it. I suppose, in light of the ineptitude of the regime at everything else, that the torturers can't seem to get any useful confessions. Maybe the detainees are all admitting to kidnapping the Lindergh baby or killing Nicole Simpson or Jon Benet Ramsey.

Now the detainees have been in stir so long that any confessions or information would be stale. Sticking with torture must serve some other purpose. I reckon that there are a few possibilities:

1. If the US tortures long enough, the public will get used to it and desensitized and will forget about holding anyone accountable.
2. They're holding out in the forlorn hope that they'll get something they can use before they're out of power.
3. They are playing to a torture constituency. The sadist vote is key to the GOP?
4. They like to torture people. Bush and Cheney and the rest of the cabal get tapes of the sessions and masturbate to them in the situation room. It's a Neo-Con Cookie Party!

I'm going with number 4 as the default explanation.

No comments: