Let’s be clear about one thing. There is one reason -and only one reason- why a person tortures an animal: pure sadism.
Sure the redneck who tapes fishhooks and razor blades to the feet of a rooster to give him a leg up at the cockfights will earnestly insist that the chicken who is about to be torn to pieces in the cockpit has it much better than the ones who are cut up and served for dinner. The inbred peckerwoods who feed ground glass to pit bulls at the dogfights to make them more ferocious are no different when they claim that since the dog enjoys fighting and was going to be put down anyway, there was no harm done. Both who revel in the torture of animals might, in an unguarded, candid moment (usually brought on by grain alcohol), admit that they do it as a way to come up with some tax-free cash to pay for that double-wide they’ve had their eyes on. But the main reason people throw roosters, dogs and other animals into a pit to kill and maim (or be killed and maimed) is because of the sadistic joy they get out of watching and/ or taking part in pain, mutilation and death.
This perverted thrill at suffering is no different among those who condone or take part in the torture of two-legged animals, and I’m not referring to male chickens. First a little background:
I’ve lived in Texas for many years. Every public official I can remember supports the execution of certain criminals. George W. Bush stood out from the standard-issue needle-happy Texas politician in that as Governor, he openly gloated and yukked it up over the record number of freak show executions carried out at Huntsville, even laughing at and mimicking the pleas for mercy from retards and juveniles. When born-again convict Karla Faye Tucker was about to be sent to the gibbet, Bush’s orgasmic enthusiasm was so brazen that even fundies like Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell were decidedly turned off by the overt sadism. The fact that they got over it, were hypocrites who only cried over Tucker because she was a bible-thumper doesn’t detract from their brief moment of conscience.
When asked about his fondness for putting people to death during the 2000 primaries, the Texacutioner smirked as if to say “Oh hell, yeah!”. That grin looked very familiar: It’s the same smirk Jeffrey Dahmer had when he was on trial for killing, raping and eating teenage boys. For the record, I’m generally opposed to the death penalty except in the most extreme cases, but Bush’s demented love of sending people to their deaths is sickening. He is quite simply the most depraved man to ever sit in the Oval Office.
So it’s no surprise that he is the first President in the history of our Republic to officially condone torture. I saw it coming whe he started winning primaries six years ago and the Supreme Court hijacked the election in 2000, installing the little psychopath into the White House.
His henchmen are just as demented. Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez tried, in Orwellian fashion, to change the definition of torture to in effect legalize anything short of actually killing or dismembering a person, or causing permanent organ failure. Anal rape, for example, would be just fine, a message the American guards at Abu Ghraib took to heart. As Major General Antonio Taguba’s report on the atrocities committed in that hellhole shows, at least one child was anally raped by an American interpreter:
“I saw [name of US interrogator blacked out
], who was wearing the military uniform, putting his dick in the little kid’s ass,”
Of course like their boss, Bush’s thugs are cowards who are quite happy to throw low level henchmen under the bus, so a barely literate Private Lynddie England straight out of White Trash Central Casting gets to serve time in prison while Alberto Gonzalez gets promoted from presidential attorney to Attorney General, where he can work on the inside to try to keep himself and his employer from facing the consequences of their war crimes and crimes against humanity.
That’s right -WAR CRIMES. Back in 1996, members of Congress reacted to the atrocities committed against American prisoners by the Vietnamese, including torture, by passing the War Cimes Act. It was also the age when numerous “truth commissions” in other countries put out detailed reports of countless acts of torture, rape and murder committed by various governments, as well as the fact that so many of those who commit crimes against humanity were never brought to justice. The War Crimes Act makes it a crime under U.S. law to violate the Geneva Conventions and other treaties pertaining to human rights. If a victim should die, the perpetrator is eligible for the death penalty even if the crime did not take place on American soil, or was not committed by or against an American citizen.
The Bush Junta, knowing its members could face trial for torture and murder wants to nullify (”clarify”) the Act to give themselves immunity from prosecution. No doubt Roman Polanski would like to see U.S. laws against drugging and sodomizing little girls “clarified” so he can’t be made to serve time behind bars, too. After some hollow posturing by Senators Graham, Warner and McCain, they agreed in principle to give the Coward-In-Chief and his thugs immunity from prosecution.
If Congress, including the gutless Democrats, wasn’t afflicted with moral leprosy they would see Bush’s demand for immunity for what it is: A free and open confession that he and his sadistic henchmen have committed capital crimes and should be impeached, removed, tried and sentenced as soon as humanly possible. They would also point out that Bush is acting in the yellowbellied tradition of fascist thugs like Pinochet and the various Generalissimos of Argentina who also had people “disappeared” and took the coward’s way out by granting themselves immunity. Of course the Democrats are also behaving in typical lilly-livered fashion. At least liberal-minded politicians in Chile, Argentina and elsewhere in South America had to be jailed, tortured, exiled and assassinated (sometimes all of the above) before they knuckled under. What’s Harry Reid’s excuse? Or Nancy Pelosi’s? Or Howard Dean’s? Is it to win the next election? If they manage that, it will be in spite of being the party of Torture Lite, not because of it. If anything, being silent might cost them the upcoming elections. I for one would give them more credit if they said they didn’t really care to assume the leadership of a country that embraced torture and murder and the GOP can have the government.
For many years, we in the land of the not-so-free and the home of the not-so-brave have rather smugly belittled the Good Germans and their counterparts living under other despots who laid down like sheep while the governments they lived under committed all kinds of vile acts. The fatuous hacks of the news media think the fact that Bush isn’t Hitler means that they and the other three estates shouldn’t make an effort to call Bush to account. Actually, it’s the other way around: the fact that Bush isn’t Hitler only makes their craven, compliant behavior more disgraceful.
I will not vote for any member of Congress who votes to give immunity to torturers. I will also not vote for any member of the Senate who does not filibuster this abomination of a bill. I’m not someone who expects elected officials to agree with me on every point, but there are dealbreakers and torture is one of them. If that means the Republitards hold onto Congress until the Democrats grow a pair, so be it. What’s the point of voting for Democrats who lack the spine or morals to oppose something that is inherently vile and un-American? One of the founding principles of the Republic is that “cruel and unusual” punishment is forbidden. There’s a reason the Eighth Amendment bans torture. If the Democrats can’t work up the nerve to oppose “cruel and unusual” treatment now, when Bush is about as popular as head lice, they never will and I say to hell with them if they don’t.