TimDanahey's picture

    The U.S. Should Privatize and Subsidize Torture

    As the U.S. Congress debates a four-year extension of the Patriot Act and political figures such as Dick Cheney, Karl Rove, and Peter King (R-NY) clamor to take credit for the effectiveness of enhanced interrogation techniques (torture) in the finding and killing of Osama bin Laden, perhaps this is a good opportunity for the United States to examine its torture options.

    Military interrogators and former torture victim John McCain (R-AZ) disagree with Cheney and others on the effectiveness of torture.  They say torture is ineffective and the quality of information obtained under torture is poor.  The interrogators do, however, universally agree that torture of terrorists is a superlative recruiting tool to create more terrorists.  More terrorists - more torture.

    Torture is a growth industry and it is self-perpetuating.

    We need to make it a permanent part of the American way of life.  This could be the economic boon that replaces our lost manufacturing and high technology jobs that have been shipped overseas by multi-national corporations.

    America would also benefit because we could declare anyone an enemy combatant and dispense with our tired old criminal justice system.  We could streamline the justice system bypassing the quaint notions of probable cause, evidence, Miranda rights, the right to trial, the right to an attorney, and witnesses.  Instead, we could torture individuals, get them to confess to anything, and detain them indefinitely.

    Think of the growth in the prison industry which is already being privatized, has lobbyists for prison corporations and prison guard unions influencing legislators for mandatory sentencing laws ("Three Strikes and You're Out"), and underpaid judges receiving bribes to pronounce heavier sentences for citizens guilty of petty offenses.

    Think of the growth in the demand for interrogators.  Ethical paragons like Harvard Business School and Liberty University could start the John Su Schools of Torture and endow a Guantanamo Bay Chair.

    Think of the savings from not wasting money and time on due process and trials.

    And since private industry is so much more efficient than the government, we should privatize torture and turn it over to free-enterprise no-bid contracts like Halliburton or Blackwater (Xe).    They could interrogate citizens for comparable or higher costs to taxpaying Americans and dispense of burdensome labor laws and public accountability.  Since these corporations are people, too, we can protect their torture with the Bill of Rights and keep OSHA the EPA, and the entire U.S. Government at bay because we can't infringe upon the corporations' rights to be secure in their homes and unreasonable search and seizure.

    Let me explain, if torture is privatized, the private corporations could avoid expensive public pensions, collective bargaining, the Freedom of Information Act, and work rules that would otherwise hamper government operations.  Of course, it would be advantageous for torture corporations to locate in right-to-work states.

    Private corporations could pay minimum wage for its interrogators (until we finally get rid of this government intrusion into free commerce) and realize profits whereas government torture is simply a drain on public resources.  The wealthy shareholders would benefit and re-invest their profits into American growth industries such as surveillance, prisons, armaments, lobbying, and campaign contributions.  Think of the jobs that will trickle down to America.

    It's a win-win proposition.

    We should then eliminate Federal income taxes for torture corporations because of the inherent risks in their industry.  And to mitigate the risk, we can exempt the directors and officers of the torture corporations from liability from their decisions and deaths.

    Think Massey Energy for the enhanced interrogation industry.

    In order to assure the solvency of America's newest growth industry, we should supplement the tax breaks and indemnification from their actions with subsidies to protect them from foreign competition.  We need to protect the torture corporations from competitors in China, Iran, Somalia, Myanmar, and other low-cost torture countries.   We need to keep the jobs in America, so let's heed the words of future torture lobbyists and subsidize the operations of torture corporations.  This will assure the flow of funds from torture corporations to American political campaigns.

    You win, we win, America wins.

    Now, I know the liberal progressive socialist Soros-financed readers amongst you are concerned about torture and the U.S. Constitution -- specifically, the Bill of Rights.

    Nonsense, I say.  We go to war without the approval of Congress.  We already detain people without a speedy trial, access to a lawyer, and without habeus corpus in general.  We have a death warrant on an American citizen without a trial or military hearing.  We wiretap without warrants. We can now use the U.S. military against U.S. citizens on U.S. soil.

    Don't let the Constitution and Bill of Rights stand in the way of corporate profits from torture.  Corporations are people, too.  They have rights and lawyers to prove it.

    Support corporate torture -- there's money to be made.  And that's good for America.

    Tim Danahey is the host of "The Tim Danahey Show" on www.CastleRockRadio.com and can be contacted on the nascent www.TheTimDanaheyShow.com web page

    Comments

    John Su? do you man 'Torture Yoo', Harvard educated torture enabler. I suppose if a Harvard grad says its OK its legal.

    Of course the Japanese used water torture, just as touted by GWB and backed by the hypocrites and stooges of the GOP. First hand account ot water torture of US servicemen captured at Wake Island, 1941, and held at Kiangwan POW prison camp in China during WW2. The torture by Japanese interrogators was judged to be a war crime by postwar tribunals. I guess the Japs could have used a Harvard lawyer or a Republican legal firm to beat the rap.

     


    Long story short. Not only was water boarding considered a war crime, several low ranking Japanese Officers were hung by the neck for it.

    Luckily we are moral enough to determine the exact amount of time beyond which it goes fron "enhanced interrogation" to Torture.


    Your point may be right, but I'm not a fan of sarcasm, especially at this length.  And I'd hope that given your interest, the US has outsourced torture for years, not only to dark prisons in other nations, but given contract organizations the jobs of running interrogations and Gitmo and Abu Ghraib. 

    There are some concerns that prisoners are still being tortured at Bagram Prison today.


    It's not sarcasm. It's satire.

    And in my opinion, it's friggin' brilliant--cleverly highlighting not only the obvious insanity of torture but also the complex web of Republican hypocrisy over privatization, corporate subsidies, taxes, deregulation, and due process.


    Each to his own, I guess.  Satire usually makes you chuckle at the absurd twist; this sure didn't me.  And again, to me, the Republicans are merely worse about privaitzation, corporate subsidies, deregulation, subsidies.


    I didn't say it was funny. Absurdist humor is only one type of satire--the Daily Show variety that everyone is so familiar with these days. That's a perfectly good form, but it certainly isn't the only one.

    If you have never read Swift's Modest Proposal, I highly recommend it. Many consider it to be the archetype of English-language satire, but it probably won't make you chuckle either.

    PS "Republicans" was my insertion. The author doesn't specify.


    "Artistic form in which human or individual vices, folly, abuses, or shortcomings are held up to censure by means of ridicule, derision, burlesque, irony, or other methods, sometimes with an intent to bring about improvement. Literature and drama are its chief vehicles, but it is also found in such mediums as film, the visual arts (e.g., caricatures), and political cartoons. Though present in Greek literature, notably in the works of Aristophanes, satire generally follows the example of either of two Romans, Horace or Juvenal. To Horace the satirist is an urbane man of the world who sees folly everywhere but is moved to gentle laughter rather than to rage. Juvenal's satirist is an upright man who is horrified and angered by corruption. Their different perspectives produced the subgenres of satire identified by John Dryden as comic satire and tragic satire."

    Old school I likely am, but I was weaned on Aristophanes; I don't even see this as an example in th Juvenal style.  Sorry.  It's fine wit me that you do; each blogger should expect comments as they come.  IMO, of course.  Suggesting I read Swift is a bit ...well, never mind.


    Now, now, good man.  I believe he was suggesting you read "swiftly," which will get you to the good parts faster and save you from the drudgery of facts, figures and argument.


    "Fifty Yard Dash to the Bath House by Willie Makeit, illustrated be Betty Wont."  LOL!


    Britannica is a bit stuffy for satire, no? I prefer Ambrose Bierce's definition:

    SATIRE, n. An obsolete kind of literary composition in which the vices and follies of the author's enemies were expounded with imperfect tenderness. In this country satire never had more than a sickly and uncertain existence, for the soul of it is wit, wherein we are dolefully deficient, the humor that we mistake for it, like all humor, being tolerant and sympathetic. Moreover, although Americans are "endowed by their Creator" with abundant vice and folly, it is not generally known that these are reprehensible qualities, wherefore the satirist is popularly regarded as a soul-spirited knave, and his ever victim's outcry for codefendants evokes a national assent.


    I cannot split the hairs of satire and sarcasm.  The intent of the article was to illustrate the twisted logic which seems to be accepted by wide swaths of the American electorate.  If it brings humor to some, wonderful.  My mood when writing the article was incredulity.  The incredulity is heightened because one political party advocates it while the other tolerates it.  To those who wrote kind comments about the article: thank you.  To those who do not appreciate my intent: you've honed my style and thank you.


    Latest Comments