Waterboarding Works

And it isn’t torture. From Deroy Murdock at the Washington Times:

While the White House must beware not to inform our enemies what to expect if captured, today’s clueless anti-waterboarding rhetoric merits this tactic’s vigorous defense. Waterboarding is something of which every American should be proud.

Waterboarding makes tight-lipped terrorists talk. At least three major al Qaeda leaders reportedly have been waterboarded, most notably Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.

What is waterboarding? The Week explains waterboarding:

A subject bound to an inclined board — with his feet raised and head lowered — while his face is covered with a piece of cloth. The interrogator then pours water over the prisoner’s face in a steady stream, causing the wet material to cling to his mouth and nostrils. As the water pours down, some of it does penetrate the cloth and the nostrils and trickles down into the lungs, and the panicky prisoner bucks and gasps for air. Few people can hold out for very long. CIA personnel who have undergone the experience as part of their training have lasted an average of only 14 seconds before pleading for it to stop. One CIA agent said: “When you’re waterboarded, you’re inverted, so it exacerbates the fear. It’s not painful, but it scares the shit out of you.”

So let me get this straight: we waterboard our own CIA trainees, but doing it those who wish to destroy our country is improper? The Week also asked: Does waterboarding do any lasting damage? In reply: “If you include psychological damage, it does.” Psychological damage? Big fucking deal.
Here is torture:

Let’s see: waterboarding or beheadings? I suppose, because it isn’t administered by the United States, these things aren’t torture? Nick Berg? Daniel Pearl? Paul Johnson? Hello? Anyone with a memory? The Fallujah hangings?

Please read the entire above article by Deroy Murdock — something you thought you’d never see in mainstream print, eh?

BZ

Your Worst Movie Nightmare





Of course, something even remotely nightmarish like this only occurs in film; “The Poseidon Adventure,” “Poseidon,” “A Night To Remember,” “Titanic,” “Open Water” and “Open Water 2,” et al.

The last passenger ship to actually sink due to an iceberg strike was the RMS Titanic on April 14th of 1912 with a loss of 1,595 souls. Other than that sole event, things like that simply don’t occur. Right?

Wrong. A ship sank Friday in frigid Antarctic waters after striking a submerged iceberg, though all 154 passengers and crew were sucessfully evacuated prior to the sinking:

The ship took on water quickly,” (passenger Paola Palavecino) was quoted by the Argentine news agency Diarios y Noticias as saying in a call from the (rescue ship) NordNorge (a Norwegian liner).

The 75-metre-long Explorer was carrying 91 passengers, nine expedition staff members and a crew of 54. It was completing an ecological tour of Antarctica when the accident took place around midnight Eastern time Friday, about 850 kilometres southeast of Ushuaia, the southernmost Argentine city.

“The ship ran into some ice. It was submerged ice and the result was a hole about the size of a fist in the side of the hull so it began taking on water. . .but quite slowly,” Hayes said.

Hours after the incident, the Chilean navy confirmed that the cruise ship had sunk.

G.A.P. Adventures, a Toronto-based company (and owner of the Explorer, a Liberian-registered ship) offered tourists a unique 10-day trip which departed November 11th from Ushuaia, Argentina, then wound through the Drake Passage to the Antarctic Peninsula and South Shetland Islands. The cost was $4,895 per passenger. Frankly, it sounds like a trip I’d love to have taken myself, assuming I’d stay dry and the ship completely vertical throughout its voyage.

“Experience a voyage of a lifetime to a land where penguins rub shoulders with seals and orcas and whales are often seen plying the icy waters,” G.A.P. says on its Web site. The newest G.A.P. company update is here, regarding Explorer. Inquiries for American passengers are to be made via kiraz@gap.ca.

So imagine this scenario:

You’re on the M/S Explorer, a 246-foot passenger ship (built in 1969, and possessing, you are told, a reinforced hull to protect against ice penetration) engaged in a summer cruise of Antarctica, near Bransfield Strait off King George Island.

During nighttime hours, your small ship encounters pack ice and then very dense ice, 60 miles off the Antarctic coast. Your fellow passengers consist of 12 Canadians, 17 Dutch, 10 Australians, 24 Britons and 13 Americans (excluding yourself). You are awakened from your sleep, told to gather a minimal amount of belongings (if any) and report immediately to your lifeboat station with your vest. The call to abandon ship is given 90 minutes after the first call.

You dress quickly, your mind racing: what to bring? Will my (wife/husband) be okay? How much time do I have? Will my clothes be warm enough? If I wear heavy clothes and I fall in the ocean, will I sink? Is the ocean actually freezing? Will I watch the ship sink? Will I even survive? How fast is fast? How much time do I really have?

Twelve lifeboats hit the frigid water. Every passenger and crew member leaves the ship alive. The seas were calm and ambient temperatures at freezing. The waters grew choppy and the skies overcast. The occupants spend up to six hours in their lifeboats whilst awaiting rescue. Not unlike the RMS Titanic sinking, those persons had that amount of time in which to ponder their fates. And immersed in freezing water, the average human has 90 seconds to exist prior to hypothermia. In two minutes the body has completely abandoned its extremities in order for the core to survive. One’s ability to kick legs, move arms, is gone. The only relatively-warm portion remaining is the chest; if the head and/or neck are immersed, rational thinking is halted. Finally, a minute or two later, autonomic reflexes are impacted. It is said that death in freezing water is almost euphoric. I’d rather not find out, thank you.

Unaware of my readers’ proclivities, I readily admit that I swim poorly; I suggest that I sink much better — moreso in freezing waters. In my youth I spent much more time in watery conditions, at lakes, in the ocean, snorkeling off Hawaii. These days, if fish swim in it, I avoid it. It’s that simple. At my advanced age I’ve already been corrupted by “Jaws,” “Titanic,” and the submarine death scene from the beginning of the movie “Abyss,” which I find to be horrendously frightening — but that’s just me.

Are icebergs still a threat? The quick answer: yes. But due to advanced technology, maritime and otherwise, the chances of abrupt loss of life are minimal.

But still, as cavalier as we were in 1912 about “unsinkable ships” — are we finding ourselves likewise as cavalier about technology in 2007?

You tell me.

These waters are still as frigid.

BZ

November 22nd, 1963




And most people have forgotten.

For me, I shall never forget. I was in gradeschool, and the teacher entered the class, announced his death, and sent us all home. I was amazed that the buses were already lined up, ready to take us all back to our homes.

I also can recall, watching on our ancient square black metal cubed RCA TV (the kind that, when shut off, the screen went blank and then shrank down to a small little point for a number of minutes!), the procession down Washington, the caisson rolling down Pennsylvania Avenue, the riderless horse, the sole boot in the stirrups. And then the diminutive John Jr. saluting his father’s casket as it rolled by.

Yesterday, Thanksgiving, was the 44th anniversary of JFK’s death.

Perennial questions:

  • Was the Warren Commission correct?
  • Was Lee Harvey Oswald the sole shooter?
  • Why did Jack Ruby shoot Oswald?
  • Can the best sniper pull off shots from that yardage with a Mannlicher-Carcano rifle?
  • Why the conflicting evidence?
  • Why the botched autopsy?
  • Why are all records sealed?

Will we ever know?

BZ

A CRITICAL Case:

The United States Supreme Court will finally make a decision about an individual citizen’s right to carry a firearm as it relates to the Second Amendment.

The justices will review a lower court decision that struck down Washington’s ban and said the Second Amendment protects individuals against unreasonable restrictions on their right to own firearms. The decision marked the first time a federal appeals court had ever voided a law on Second Amendment grounds.

Either way SCOTUS decides, this will be certifiably ground-breaking, and will have absolutely massive repercussions.

BZ