Thursday, March 09, 2006

Interrogation for Dummies

From the creators of Classroom Bias for Dummies and American Foreign Policy for Dummies!

by Attorney General Alberto Gonzales

Hola, future interrogators!

I am excited—so very excited—that you are interested in learning more about interrogation. Because the key to winning the War on Terror is information, and most of the time, the only way to get reliable information is to beat it out of someone.

However, as a society, we also follow certain rules and regulations. . . especially when the media are watching us! So to help make sure your next Q&A doesn’t venture into too much S&M, we present this handy guide. Read it, live it, and if necessary, rip the pages out and force feed them to an uncooperative prisoner.

Good luck!

Calibrating your compassion

It is imperative when conducting forceful interrogations to know where to draw the line. The following quick comparisons will help you understand what is considered acceptable behavior, and what is just barbaric.

Hooking a Sears Die Hard battery to a detainee’s scrotum—acceptable
Unhooking life support from a human vegetable—barbaric

Turning prisoners over to countries that practice torture—acceptable
Turning stem cells over to scientific researchers—barbaric

Ignoring the Geneva Conventions—acceptable
Ignoring the Ten Commandments—barbaric

Discarding the Fourth Amendment during a time of war—acceptable
Obeying the system of checks and balances in a time of war—barbaric

Smothering a detainee in a sleeping bagacceptable
Sharing a sleeping bag with a naked cowboy—barbaric

Beating prisoners with plastic cablesacceptable
Exposing children to plastic boobies on cablebarbaric

Forming naked detainee pyramids—acceptable
Publishing photos of naked detainee pyramids—barbaric

Lie detection checklist

You’ve been at it for hours with an interrogation and your subject still says he’s not Al Queda. Can you believe him? Before you accept his gurgling pleas as truth, follow this checklist.

Did you:

[ ] Attach electrified nipple clamps?
[ ] Let dogs gnaw on detainee’s appendages?
[ ] Rub fake menstrual blood on detainee?
[ ] Sodomize detainee with a glow stick?
[ ] Allow detainee to sit in a mound of his own feces?
[ ] Waterboard?
[ ] Cause sleep deprivation/suicidal tendencies by putting "Sister Christian" on repeat?

If you’ve done all these steps and still haven’t gotten a confession, congratulations, you’ve determined that your detainee is innocent. Pat him on the back and tell him he's free to walk away (or crawl back to freedom if his knees are broken).

Making your extraordinary renditions extraordinarily legal

One of the keys to good interrogation is knowing when to ask for help. That’s what extraordinary rendition is: asking a helpful partner in the War on Terror to see if they can extract information from a prisoner.

Due to the meddling of freedom-hating liberals, however, it is against the law to hand prisoners over to countries that practice “torture.” Here’s how you can make sure your rendition partner isn’t going to “torture” the subject.

1) Ask the representatives from the country if they torture prisoners
2) Check representatives for crossed fingers
3) Ask them again if they torture prisoners, and this time make them swear on the religious book of their choice
4) If yes, hand prisoner over

What to do if you are accused of torture

- Do not admit fault

- Do not discuss the incident with journalists, activists, tribunals, or anyone except your superior officer, the Attorney General, or the Secretary of Defense

- Ask accuser to define torture

- Acknowledge that said definition is only one of many definitions of torture

- Remind accuser that enemies regularly practice torture

- Ask accuser if he or she would like to see the world ruled by a pro-torture Islamic caliphate

- Deny that you are changing the subject

- Offer to show accuser just how humane waterboarding is

- Find the lowest-ranking person involved and blame everything on him or her


That's all the training you need to be a qualified interrogator. So grab your digital camera and billy club and get ready to embark on an exciting career in information extraction. And remember, your job isn't just to get people to talk, it's also to keep people from talking about what you're doing.


Grendel said...

Smothering a detainee in a sleeping bag—acceptable
Sharing a sleeping bag with a naked cowboy—barbaric

You got right to the heart of things there. Feckin brilliant, mate. Humor is a devastating weapon. I wish more people would use it to point out the monstrous hypocricies in public policy today.

Grendel said...


Chaining someone to the ceiling for purposes of interrogation -- acceptable

Chaining someone to the ceiling for purposes of copulation -- barbaric

Brando said...

Good one, Grendel. And I can't believe I didn't think of this:

Taking naked photos for the purposes of intimidation -- acceptable

Taking naked photos for the purposes of arousal -- barbaric

Anonymous said...

Tried this one with Blue Girl but she punted. Know your mode is satire but I am really wondering if anybody can come up with a viable Dem canditate. Anyway take a look.

Greetings from The Lone Star State. I'm trying to figure out, seriously, if the Democrats have any chance of winning a nationwide election. My sister is a big lib lawyer but doesn't want to give away trade secrets so looking for some input elsewhere.

Basic question is while Bush bashing appears fun for some, the lack of positive issues and lack of canditates for the Dems seems to make for losing elections.

Any input on positive issues that are out there and any canditates that have mainstream appeal?

Brando said...

My loaded question detector is going off, but I'll answer honestly...

In 2000, the Democrats did win the nationwide election. They lost the electoral college. I'm not trying to dredge up old news, and I accepted the ultimate result, but the VP from an administration that faced impeachment actually won more votes than Dubyah. That says something.

Then in 2004, despite a rabid smear campaign by a bunch of vets with grudges and a president conducting a war, the Democratic candidate put up a very tough challenge. Again, not a good sign. Compare how that election went to Clinton's 1996 decisive win over a well known and respected Dole and it looks even more concerning.

So the real question to me is, how are the Republicans not going to lose the White House when their last candidate squeaked in despite having a lot of advantages?

But handicapping candidates is pretty useless right now as well, for either side, especially since we haven't even hit the 2006 elections. Way too much can happen between now and then. I don't think Clinton or Bush were much on the president radar in 1990 and 1998 respectively. The only two candidates who seem somewhat likely are Hillary and McCain, and I'm not sure either will get a nomination.

teh l4m3 said...

Brilliant. I don't pop over here enough.

Okay, let me try:

Kidnapping a detainee's family to extort a confession - acceptable.

Kidnapping a middle-class white woman - barbaric.

teh l4m3 said...

OKay, that one didn't quite work. Which is why I'm not as funny.

Anonymous said...

The Dems need to seriously look at their demographics. For example, Liberman was a waste 2000. The majority of Jews will vote Dem, no matter who it is as long as it isn't Hitler. Clinton rocked the vote and did it very well. Don't waste resources on what won't work or what isn't needed. Also, don't go windsurfing and duck hunting. Neither set is likely to vote for you or take you seriously. A Southern Jimmy Carter like may be an optimal way to go. We got the Coasts tied up, get into the middle and deep south.

Audience, Audience, Audience is my advice at this point in time.

Anonymous said...

Excellent, Brando. You're one funny dude.