Sunday, July 25, 2004

Mojowire for 06/05/04 PART II

S9 Greetings from the inky black depths of space, citizens. We know it's been an awfully long time since you've heard from us -- our communications subsystem has been in a level nine diagnostic loop for the last several weeks running -- and a lot of weirdness has gone down
without any of it being subjected to our patented S9 station analysis methodology. There is much worth talking about. At the moment, however, we're still managing a Jupiter-sized gut-rumbler over the so-called liberal media coverage of the Abu Ghraib prison torture scandal.

The first thing you will notice is that we are refusing to be polite and refer to the scandalous behavior as 'abuse' -- oh no, we have heard quite enough from the likes of the Oxycontin Whorehopper, Rush Limbaugh, about how the worst of the abuse was when they forced some of
the prisoners to wear women's underwear on their heads. When we use the word torture, we mean torture -- as in, the sort of abuse that the U.S. Uniform Code of Military Justice clearly regards as torture.

And would the pinheads in Congress -- like Steve King from the 5th District in Iowa for example -- who think that even 'abuse' is too strong a word for what happened, who prefer to use the word 'hazing' instead, would those pinheads please kindly shut the fsck up. I'm this close
to deciding that the whole idea of having a Congress was bad, because of people like him.

Let's be clear: forcing some of the prisoners to wear women's underwear on their heads was probably the least problematic of the interrogation tactics that are the heart of the scandal. The bigger issue is the homicide investigations.

Apparently, the Department of Defense would like to know how some of the prisoners died in custody and why the medical examiners are declaring so many of the deaths to be homicide. As of two weeks ago, the Pentagon was telling us that 37 people have died in U.S. custody at various prison and interrogation facilities in Iraq, Afghanistan and other undisclosed locations. Of those, it says ten of them are likely homicides of detainees by interrogators or U.S. soldiers. Yet, strangely -- while some of the cases date as far back as December 2002 (a year and a half ago), nobody has been charged with murder or assault yet.

According to NBC News, the latest report circulating the halls of power in Washington, D.C. goes to some extent in explaining the stress and duress techniques used by our peerless interrogation teams for extracting information out of terrorists (who as we have explained elsewhere are obviously terrorists or they wouldn't be in an interrogation facility).

Our heroic, valiant fighting men and women have been holding prisoners underwater and making them believe they would be killed. Other leaders of the America of tomorrow have been wrapping prisoners up in sleeping bag and smothering them, just to show they can do it.

But what really gets up my craw? The Pentagon is now investigating reports that prisoners were kept hooded for cruel lengths of time and forced to take doses of unknown mild-altering drugs. That's the part that has me extremely piffed out. It would be easier to dismiss if it weren't for the fact that absolutely no one on the medical staff at Abu Ghraib, or any of these other interrogation facilities is at all, is on record trying to raise the visibility of the problem. Those people swear out a hippocratic oath, don't they? What happened to that?

Oh wait. Somebody had to be administering the drugs to the prisoners that would soften them up for interrogation. It would naturally have been the doctors.

This is were my threshold of tolerance is just about reached. Because let's try to remember how drug torture works. I know I've explained this on the show before, but it's been awhile -- so let's go over the basics.

They way you use mind-altering drugs in interrogation is as a way to amplify the fear in the subject's mind. Some of the more powerful psychotomimetic drugs can do this in very small amounts. In large amounts they can cause lasting psychological damage. Have another good
long look at those pictures that the Washington Post ran last month and put some time into studying the facial expressions on the poor devil standing there naked in the jail and being terrorized by dogs on leashes. If he looks like he might be tripping on 1200 micrograms of
Uncle Sydney's world famous bicycle oil, then you wouldn't be the first to notice it.

LSD is not exactly the best drug for use in torturing information out of prisoners. There are newer ones that probably work better: paralyzers and more powerful hallucinogens. The whole goal of this tactic is to scare the living daylights out of you, so you'll talk, and all the Acid does is make you more bitter and twisted about surviving the whatever else your captors are planning to do.

Perhaps the most horrific tactic in the drug torture bag is to get your prisoner hooked on heroin, then cut off his supply to make him suffer withdrawal. Tell us what we want to know and the rest of the speedball is yours.

When NBC News is telling us that prisoners are routinely drugged and abused in American interrogation facilities, this is what I understand them to mean.

I don't know what Congressmen King is thinking, but something tells me the extent of his thinking on the matter is that the prisoners must have been given too much vicodin for the bus ride to the new facility... those damned hippies, giving away free drugs.

J. A strange thing happened to me and some friends on our way to adulthood. After wearing the uniform of our country and performing what service we could, we came home and were summarily dubbed the noblest of all creatures what walks God's Green Earth -- the Great American Veteran

Feted with BBQs, Federal Holidays, Flags on Cars and our own line of fully posable action figures, it started to occur to some of us... "Hey...can't we just go home and be lawn care specialists or lawyers or roofers? Are we going to have to spend the rest of our lives up here?"

Yeah, there are the occaisional moments of bliss, like laying the pimp-hand smack-down on some pasty-faced bullet head on the quad of your favorite campus trying to sell you God-Mom-And-Apple-Pie Barry Goldwater style, but without the stones necessary to step up when his number is called.

Yeah...those are some good times...

But those moments are fleeting, and these days, not even the exhalted status of Red-Blooded-American-Fighting-Man is enough to save one from the slings and arrows of outrageous political fortune.

You know, there was a time when a politician's veteran status was just another consideration, people took it for what it was worth, and it was just out there. But these days, that dynamic has changed. Now a person finds they must actually defend their veteran record.

Hard to say when this started...perhaps when the Republicans wanted to make a big deal out of Bill Clinton not serving in Viet Nam, or when the Dems tried to make it turn about for bagging on George the Younger for not serving in Viet Nam, but only pretending.

And therein lies the heart of the issue. In past, it was simply considered that a man who would claim a veteran's past would not lie about such things, it was simply not done, so heinous was the punishment and public disgrace for lying about so sublime a thing, therefore there was no need to question it.

And on the odd occasion someone was outed for gilding the lilly, their public life stopped on a dime, and they spent the rest of eternity in wood-paneled trailers hawking used cars or air conditioning -- such is the ring of burning Hades reserved for those people.

But our current administration has taken this whole beatification of veterans to a new extreme, which of course leads to the other extreme. What happens when the robots decide their makers are not their betters? Well in the case of the Bush Administration, their records of service are dragged through the mud, usually by people who lacked the initial character themselves to sack-up and stand a post.

Then there are those who spend a good deal of time fobbing off on those who decide not to serve, for whatever reason, and that there is something morally weak about those who don't go. Last time I checked, there is nothing in the Constitution, U.S. Code, Code of Federal Regulations, any law anywhere in the United States that confers citizenship status based on military service.

Put down the VC Skull Bong and step away from the Starship Troopers.

But the only thing we find more reprehensible than those who beat up on non-veterans, are those who denigrate veterans' service because their politics don't line up with their preconceived notions of what "a veteran ought to believe."

Instead of just being allowed to put their uniform away, veterans are now being put in a place where right wing political forces (because, honestly, how many lefties out there are beating up on vets... seriously, who, name one, I dare you, I double-freekin'-dog dare you) have decided that there is no depth too low too which they will not go to retain political power.

S. The hack jobs done on Max Cleland of Georgia and the presumptive Democratic Presidential Nominee, John Kerry, should be enough to convince just about anyone without tinfoil wrapped around their head in tens of thousands of micrometer sized coils, that the Bush administration has about as much real use for "veterans" as they do for crotch rot.

Max Cleland, who's personal road in life ran through the picturesque little hamlet of Khe San in the very far away land of Viet Nam, has been the subject of these kinds of abuses. Why? Well, apparently, after his service to his country in Viet Nam, he decided that he simply wanted to prevent his country from doing something that stoopid again, so he decided to become a Congressman.

As a fairly liberal Democrat, though, he had a certain amount of respect in certain circle given his service. That is, until the Bush Lie Machine cranked up. Ann Coulter crawled out from under her rock for long enough to write scurilous lies about Cleland publicly, part of which were used in the horrible smear campaign that resulted in Cleland's recent defeat.

And while we're on the subject, why do we even care what Ann Coulter has to say... about anything I mean. Why on earth is she even given the time of day. She is a dirtbag, hack lawyer, borderline sociopath, Mayberry-machivellian wannabee who thinks she's William Buckley. THE TRUTH IS NOT IN HER! Why on earth do you conservatives listen; we can argue your rhetoric better than she can, give us a call sometime, the first shot's always free.

But besides the minor league ball of Ann Coulter's, there is the truly monstrous punkery emitting from the Political Office in the West Wing, where some half-bright speech writers have cooked up the delightful little "Swfit Boat Liars Against John Kerry."

As you might know, JK was a river boat sailor during Viet Nam, served with distinction, honor and valor and then left the service to perform an even more heroic act: standing up to his own government to end our involvement in South East Asia, uttering the famous words to the U.S. Senate: "Who wants to be the last man to die for a mistake."

Well, Karl and Rovians couldn't have that just careening around the country, threatening to send them all back to their respective fast food fry-a-lators. So in the past few months, they have spent considerable energy and resources trying to denigrate JK's military service with a series of straw-man proxies.

We can question our public sevants, including those in uniform, on how they do -- or did -- their jobs. It is not only allowed in our society, it is required. But that is not what is happening with these people.

Look, what these horrible exercises should be telling you is that a.) vets service, while a good and honrable thing, really shouldn't be used as some sort of litmus test. We appreciate what they do, but the best thing we could do for vets as citizens is just let them get on with being citizens themselves after their service.

And b.) That no one, and we mean no one has a lock on patriotism, either due to service or lack thereof. And the Bush administration is clearly the example of this particular little character quirk. Of course, the quick exception to all this is when vets turn on other vets for political gain. There is a lack of character that goes with that makes me wonder why some people were ever allowed to wear the uniform.

Really, this is very simple. Turning vets into media roadkill for your own personal political gain, while draping yourself in the flag our country is an act so unAmerican, there are some in this administration who should be shown the door. No, not on the White House, but on America. Get the hell out, never darken our door again.

Most vets would just like a little respect for the job they did and were underpaid for; decent job benefits like anyone else in this country who works in a tough profession. They don't need people expropriating them for cheap political theater, or running down their service because they lack the proper political flavor of the week.

All most vets really want is just a little respect and a little time off from being a "veteran." That's all. Well... that and a drink on the house on Veterans' Day.

J. So our patriotic thought for the day: Veterans disagreeing with the President means the terrorists win, or as John Ashcroft says... “Warning...Monster Island reports Monster Attack Imminent, seek Monster Shelter Immediately!”

S. And that’s all for this week, tune in again soon for another exciting installment, until, of course, we are declared enemies of the state.

And remember, you can now email the Mojowire at, that’s Email, us hippies!

J. And now you can check out the Mojowire online at; you can read the entire archive along with our general ramblings...

This has been the Mojowire, brought to you by Mojohaus...Mojohaus-fine journalism, afflicting the comfortable since 1988, and produced by our super funky fly producer Mike Payne and the Darkling Eclectica, here on KUCI, 88.9...

No comments: