Bush Administration Approved The Use Of Insects During Al Qaeda Interrogation

The Bush Administration approved the use of “insects placed in a confinement box” during the interrogation of top Al Qaeda official Abu Zubaydah, according to a 2002 document that President Obama declassified for release Thursday.

The legal memorandum for the CIA, prepared by Assistant Attorney General Jay Bybee, reviewed 10 enhanced techniques for interrogating Zubaydah, and determined that none of them constituted torture under U.S. criminal law. The techniques were: attention grasp, walling (hitting a detainee against a flexible wall), facial hold, facial slap, cramped confinement, wall standing, stress positions, sleep deprivation, insects placed in a confinement box, and waterboarding.

The CIA desire to use insects during interrogations has not previously been disclosed, according to two civil liberties experts contacted by TIME. The Bybee memorandum described the CIA’s plans for using insects this way:

You [the CIA] would like to place Zubaydah in a cramped confinement box with an insect. You have informed us [the Department of Justice] that he appears to have a fear of insects. In particular, you would like to tell Zubaydah that you intend to place a stinging insect into the box with him. You would, however, place a harmless insect in the box. You have orally informed us that you would in fact place a harmless insect such as a caterpillar in the box with him.

An additional sentence at the end of this paragraph is redacted in the copy made public Thursday. Later in the same memo, Bybee concludes that “an individual placed in a box, even an individual with a fear of insects, would not reasonably feel threatened with severe physical pain or suffering if a caterpillar was placed in the box.” Bybee adds, however, that the interrogators should not tell Zubaydah that the insect sting “would produce death or severe pain.”

The memo, which was written on August 1, 2002, does not describe what techniques were eventually used on Zubaydah. Former Vice President Dick Cheney has admitted that U.S. interrogators used waterboarding on three detainees, including Zubaydah.

The Bybee legal guidance is no longer in effect. Under an executive order President Obama signed during his first week in office, all CIA interrogators must now follow the rules laid out in the Army Field Manual.

The August 1, 2002 memo, along with three other recently declassified documents, can be downloaded here.

UPDATE: A footnote in a second memo released Thursday notes that the insect option was never employed by the CIA. “We understand that–for reasons unrelated to any concerns that it might violate the [criminal] statute–the CIA never used the technique and has removed it from the list of authorized interrogation techniques,” wrote Steven Bradbury, a principal deputy assistant attorney general, on May 10, 2005.

This memo can also be found at the above link.

Related Topics: Uncategorized
  • Latest on Swampland

    Jim Bourg / Reuters

    At CPAC, Romney Stresses Conservative Credentials

    Three days after a trifecta of losses underlined lingering questions about his ability to win over the Republican Party’s base, Mitt Romney arrived at CPAC to allay skeptics’ fears. Throughout his second bid for the GOP nomination, Romney has made his business bona fides the centerpiece of his candidacy. But on Friday, before a packed room at the annual conservative confab, he sought to emphasize the record he compiled in Massachusetts. “I was a severely conservative governor,” he told the crowd. “I know conservatism, because I have lived conservatism.” 

    Romney: I Was A 'Severely Conservative' GovernorHuffPost Politics

    Pablo Martinez Monsivais / AP

    Mired in the Sticky Politics of Health and Faith, Obama Shifts on Contraception

    In the face of mounting pressure from Catholic leaders and politicians, the White House on Friday tweaked its position on contraception coverage mandates in the Affordable Care Act. Rather than require large religious institutions like Catholic colleges and hospitals to provide employees with free health insurance coverage for contraception, insurance companies themselves will have to pick up the tab.

  • alaskanturkey

    Not at all the same, but the first that flashed into my mind was room 101.
    .
    From wikipedia – “Winston, who has a primal fear of rats, is shown a wire cage filled with starving rats and told that it will be fitted over his head like a mask, so that when the cage door is opened, the rats will bore into his face until it is stripped to the bone. Just as the cage brushes his cheek, he shouts frantically: “Do it to Julia!” The torture ends and Winston is returned to society, brainwashed to accept Party doctrine.”

  • http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2009/04/16/obama-to-release-cia-interrogation-memos-defends-state-secrets/ Obama To Release CIA Interrogation Memos, Defends State Secrets :: Swampland – TIME.com

    [...] Bush Administration Approved The Use Of Insects During Al Qaeda Interrogations [...]

  • http://phd9.blogspot.com Paul Dirks

    While we’re reading the memo’s it might be handy to have this open in anotheer window for reference:
    .
    http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/cat.htm
    .
    For the purposes of this Convention, the term “torture” means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.
    .
    Of course every document put out by the Bush OLC pointedly ignore the word “mental”. It’s pretty easy to ascertain why.

  • http://travellingatalanta.wordpress.com/ travellingatalanta

    Fantastic. So not only did we apply “counter-torture” techniques learned from the Germans and Vietnamese, but we actually cracked open 1984 and REPRODUCED “Room 101″.

    There were some tweaks made, of course; a box around the whole body instead of just the head, and actual access for the insect rather than the threat of rats. But I’ll bet Zubaydah told us all about Julia.

    Awful. It’s insane how far down that hole the CIA must have been not to see that as a parallel.

  • http://www.simonvinkenoog.nl/beeld/Yogi%20-%20Annelies%20Rigter.jpg yogi

    hmm, room 101 is way more disturbing than my thought of a bunch of CIA guys singing “itsy bitsy spider” around the prisoners…

  • queencersei

    So since Cheney doesn’t consider any of the above to be torture, we can happily submit him or perhaps his grandkids to these…techniques? Who here would volunteer for it?

  • Dee in Columbia MD

    As someone who has relinquished my car to a bee while on the road, clearly I think the use of creepy crawlers is crossing a line. But again I blame leadership for going down this road not the operators.

  • michaelscherer

    Paul Dirks, Funny you should bring up that convention. According to another 2005 memo, also released today, Steven Bradbury, the special deputy assistant AG, concluded that the UN Convention Against Torture does not apply to any of the CIA interrogations, since the Article 16 limits the reach of the convention to “territory under [United States] jurisdiction” and the CIA did their interrogations in third party countries where the U.S. has no “de facto authority as a government.”

  • http://www.ordinary-gentlemen.com/2009/04/the-torture-memos/ The Torture Memos | The League of Ordinary Gentlemen

    [...] Michael Scherer: The legal memorandum for the CIA, prepared by Assistant Attorney General Jay Bybee, reviewed 10 enhanced techniques for interrogating Zubaydah, and determined that none of them constituted torture under U.S. criminal law. The techniques were: attention grasp, walling (hitting a detainee against a flexible wall), facial hold, facial slap, cramped confinement, wall standing, stress positions, sleep deprivation, insects placed in a confinement box, and waterboarding. [...]

  • stuartzechman

    Dee:
    .
    What if the “operators” are told to crush the testicles of an interrogation suspect’s child, and given instructions specifying the legality of doing so?

    On December 1, 2005 Yoo appeared in a debate in Chicago with Notre Dame professor Doug Cassel, a long time human rights legal scholar. During the debate Cassel asked Yoo “If the president deems that he’s got to torture somebody, including by crushing the testicles of the person’s child, there is no law that can stop him?” to which Yoo replied “No treaty.” Cassel followed up with ” Also no law by Congress — that is what you wrote in the August 2002 memo…” to which Yoo replied “I think it depends on why the President thinks he needs to do that.”[26][27]

    Don’t you see?
    .
    Someone who accepts the work of torture is guilty of torture. It doesn’t matter whether lawyers like Yoo told the President who told the CIA director who told the Deputy who told the operators that they were allowed crush a kid’s testicles or to flood a cell with mock flesh-eating insects.
    .
    The end of it is torture. Don’t you see where it ends?
    .
    Your point is that these people thought that they were keeping us safe, so they shouldn’t be judged as if they didn’t have that duty.
    .
    Their duty not to torture is higher than their duty to keep us safe, Dee. We as a country need to remember that.

  • http://smoothlikeremy.blogspot.com/ sgwhiteinfla

    I want to make another observation for the people who are saying those carrying out the torture should be absolved. If you read through the memos you will find that whomever was requesting guidance on torturing these prisoners evidently provided a mountain of evidence to push their case that it wasn’t torture. Included in that is assertations from SERE teachers that waterboarding doesn’t produce long term mental health problems. Assertations that Zubadah was fine mentally at that point. All kinds of background information indicating that stress positions weren’t really painful etc etc etc.
    .
    Now I still want to go after the people ordering the torture in the first place but it ought to give everyone pause that these torture memos were written in concert with the torturers not completely outside of them.

  • bitterpill8

    MS: well, it is so easy to look for a way to continue the work outside US jurisdiction. The person at the other end of the treatment did not suffer less pain because it was inflicted in Poland and not the US. Bradbury just tells me how the US legal beagles were adept at manipulating laws and conventions as, for example, the government of Nigeria. Well are fully fledged members of banana republics of this world. I forgot that we are a nation of laws…..

  • http://www.sluniverse.com/php/vb/politics-religion-society/28217-bush-torture-memos-released.html#post660040 Bush Torture Memos Released – SLUniverse Forums

    [...] Bush Administration Approved The Use Of Insects During Al Qaeda Interrogation :: Swampland – TIME.co… [...]

  • http://www.inworldstudios.com jayackroyd

    I just saw a stage production of 1984. And it reminded me that the way they broke Winston was by exploiting his terror of rats. The interrogator says Everyone has something they cannot stand. In your case, it is rats. So rats it will be.
    .
    Of course, the goal wasn’t to learn anything from Winston. It was to break him, make him compliant, say what they wanted.
    .
    I am so ashamed. But, you know, they aren’t. They just want to keep their position among the special, privileged people.

  • http://www.inworldstudios.com jayackroyd

    my apologies alaskanturkey. I shoulda read the thread first.

  • rose83

    <i.”We understand that–for reasons unrelated to any concerns that it might violate the [criminal] statute–the CIA never used the technique and has removed it from the list of authorized interrogation techniques,” wrote Steven Bradbury, a principal deputy assistant attorney general, on May 10, 2005.
    .
    Besides the immorality and illegality, it was tactically flawed. There are some people – I’m one of them – who just don’t mind insects. Also, I suspect that detainees from warm weather developing countries are more likely to be among those people who are fine with insects.
    .
    An incapacitating fear of insects is an unaffordable luxury for most of the world.

  • http://smoothlikeremy.blogspot.com/ sgwhiteinfla

    Scherer
    .
    I think you misread the memo. Bradbury talks in the memo about the fact of how a specific provision of the Convention of Torture specifically applies to Zubadah because the torture happened outside the US when the party was in our custody. I read it 3 times to make sure so you might want to reread again unless there is a memo other than the pdf that you linked to above.

  • http://smoothlikeremy.blogspot.com/ sgwhiteinfla

    rose83
    .
    If your read the memo Zubaydah was deathly afraid of insects which is precisely why the wanted to employ that particular form of torture. It wasn’t pulled from the sky.

  • stuartzechman

    Thank you so much for your clarifying response to commentary, Michael Scherer.

  • michaelscherer

    sg. i think there is. look at the may 30, 2005 memo linked off the aclu page. the discussion of this is in the second paragraph, beginning on the first page.

  • qualityreality

    And Bybee is on the 9th circuit. Others in CA have been disbarred for far less than this man has done.

  • incandenzah

    All sorts of unhinged (yet excruciatingly sanitized and euphemized) excuses for lawbreaking — and you focus on the caterpillars, Michael? Of course, you do.

  • http://www.inworldstudios.com jayackroyd

    MS-
    .
    Can I take a moment to note the accuracy of your update? You did NOT say that this technique was not employed, but rather the footnote says so. Would that more reporters were as careful to distinguish what the government said happened and what may have happened.

  • http://smoothlikeremy.blogspot.com/ sgwhiteinfla

    Scherer
    .
    Well doesn’t that mean that Bradbury clearly contradicted himself in the diferent memos?

  • http://time.postdown.com/2009/04/16/obama-to-release-cia-interrogation-memos-defends-state-secrets/ Time » Blog Archive » Obama To Release CIA Interrogation Memos, Defends State Secrets

    [...] UPDATE AGAIN: The Bush Administration approved the use of insects in interrogation. See here. [...]

  • Dee in Columbia MD

    SZ — you may be right about the operators but their initiation of these tactics would need to be proven. I’m just concerned that leadership may have convinced their followers that they were doing the right thing and therefore felt compelled to conduct these acts. Nearly every crime on our books considers intent in order to determine culpability and I just think it ought to be considered her as well. I’m don’t think I want blanket immunity, circumstances matter. However, I’m afraid al we will end up with is another Abu Graib where the little guys to jail and the leaders go to lunch.

  • formerlyjames

    Let’s see…given a choice, I would choose the box with insects over waterboarding. But I would do a Briar Rabbit…”please massa, don’t throw me in that briar patch…”.
    .
    And what is the problem, anyway? In the Bush administration, any technique short of causing death was ok. If death did result, it was just an unfortunate accident.
    .
    I disagree with Obama on this. Issue indictments, go to trial. That is much more than they accorded their victims, some of whom may or may not have been guilty of anything and in any event whose due process denial obviated any trial. The government can do at least as much as they are doing for the 90 year old Nazi who is fighting deportation.

  • formerlyjames

    And don’t tell me shutting down Gitmo is too complicated. Shut it down. In our massive prison culture, 200 prisoners is nothing. Get on with it.

  • rose83

    SG, thanks. I’ll definitely mention my tolerance of insects if I end up applying for a job with Al Qaeda! (yes, I’m joking…)
    .
    Life must be uncomfortable if you’re afraid of insects and working as a terrorist in developing countries. However, apparently he has spent much of his life in developed-world conditions. He was born in Saudi Arabia.

  • http://www.mypowermall.com/Biz/Home/6897 owlwowly

    At which point in history did:

    a.the Executive Branch tell us, Post Facto, that criminals would not be prosecuted? I am aware of the Executive having “pardon” power, but I am unaware of the Executive Branch having any power of retarding investigations by the DOJ.

    b.The Executive Branch start dictating international war crimes law? As far as I know, the rules of war, and the rules of engagement, such as spying, interrogation, etc., are CLEARLY spelled out both domestically and internationally, as ratified by congress and the senate, and I’m confused as to where the Executive Branch plays a role in that…in fact, I’m pretty sure IT DOESN’T.

    c. Since when has “following orders” been an excuse for committing war crimes? In that case, Lt. Calley should not have been prosecuted either, since he was “following orders.” In fact, if “legality” is the issue, at which point is ANYONE other then a lawyer, going to be held responsible for committing a state sanctioned crime? They can just claim they didn’t have the “legal knowledge” to refute a legal decision. So, in that case, Germans who did what they did “because the courts said it was ok,” are OFF THE HOOK?

    Frankly, this is the most disappointing thing I have ever heard: the President, talking not as a citizen, but as the Office of the President, announcing that WAR CRIMINALS WILL NOT BE PROSECUTED BEFORE THE FACTS ARE KNOWN. This is the most disgusting thing I have ever seen come out of the Executive, and I’M A LIBERAL.

  • palininatowel

    Cheney is the sickest, most vile, most mentally deranged person ever to occupy a rime position in the Executive branch. Nixon was nuts, but Cheney is a sick, sick m*****f*****.

  • http://theruthlesstruth.com/wordpress/?p=297 Bush-era interrogation memo: No torture without ’severe pain’ intent « The Ruthless Truth blog

    [...] Time: Bush officials OK’d interrogation with insects [...]

  • spob

    Guys, torture this ain’t. If it is, then we need a new definition of real torture, like the stuff suffered by the guy for whom I won a political asylum case.
    .
    Wow, there are a lot of women who have committed torture if a face slap is now deemed to be torture . . . .
    .
    And sleep deprivation . . . . I guess hell week for SEALs is now torture.
    .
    Get a grip, people.

  • stuartzechman

    spob:
    .
    So you wouldn’t be outraged if one of our guys or girls was put in a coffin with what they believed to be flesh-eating insects during the course of their interrogations? You wouldn’t have a real problem if the Iranians waterboarded our kids?

  • Commenter 2B named later

    I’m sure he’d be outraged if the Iranians took one of our people out for tea and crumpets, if they were being held against their will. So I don’t think that’s a good test in his case (or the general case).

  • spob

    SZ, your question presupposes that our kids would be terrorists. If they are not, then yes, I would be outraged.

  • http://policingwingnutwelfare.blogspot.com/ JJ
  • stuartzechman

    spob:
    .
    OK, I finally understand your point:
    .
    When they do it, it’s torture. When we do it, it’s something else.
    .
    I just didn’t know how into moral relativism you are, spob. I didn’t know that you had such an anthropological view of good and evil.

  • spob

    SZ, the point is that terrorists have less protection than either civilians or soldiers. They shouldn’t be subject to maltreatment.
    .
    I don’t see this as torture.

  • spob

    “civilians or soldiers” is the antecedent of “They”

  • stuartzechman

    OK, spob.
    .
    I make a big deal sometimes about other people trying to score political points by being (hopefully) deliberately obtuse when confronted by my arguments.
    .
    Just so that you understand that I’m not deliberately misreading your point, let me explain:
    .
    …your question presupposes that our kids would be terrorists…If they are not, then yes, I would be outraged.
    .
    Your framing presupposes that everyone we torture is a terrorist, and therefore probably deserving of torture, whilst our kids are certainly not terrorists, because, even if they do bad things that require punishment, they aren’t seeking the destruction of the United States or its brave servicepeople, or its innocent civilian population.
    .
    So the outcome, as you have framed it, is that our kids would never deserve torture, whilst everyone else we whom actually torture do deserve it. You’ve separated the world into our people (innocent, our kids, torture) and their people (guilty, terrorists, just reward).
    .
    Therefore, when we do it to them (terrorists) it’s just reward, because by definition “they”, i.e. the people we’re tormenting, aren’t us, i.e. aren’t innocent.
    .
    Hence “When they do it, it’s torture. When we do it, it’s something else.
    .
    Since I am not a moral relativist, and don’t approach questions of good and evil as if I were an anthropologist above such cultural notions, I know that torture is torture, whether we do it, or they do it. I also know that torture is evil, even if the goal of its use was worthy (“protect my innocent family from harm”).
    .
    I know these things because I’ve given them honest thought.
    .
    I’ve asked myself:
    .
    What if my mother could have been saved from cancer, if we could have tortured the cure for cancer out of somebody who was withholding that information from us? Would I want to legalize the torture of whomever we could sweep up into custody, in case we could get the cure for cancer out of them? Would that policy be evil? Would the risk that we were torturing somebody who actually knew nothing about medicine –but whom we suspected of knowing the cure, or knowing somebody who knew the cure– mean that we were risking the almost certain torture of innocents, since no system is perfect? Isn’t that the definition of terrorism in the first place: the acceptance of necessary harm and pain to innocents for other ends? How would I face God if I knowingly allowed this for even my mother’s sake?
    .
    Torture is torture, spob, and America is good. Therefore, we can’t ever allow its institutionalization, even if it could have saved lives. How is it that this doesn’t make sense to you? Where did you grow up? Have you always had these ideas?

  • spob

    Well, SZ, just because I don’t think that putting a terrorist in box with a bug in it is torture doesn’t mean that I think it ought to be done willy-nilly to anyone who may have information. Just to terrorists. Not to honorable combatants, civilians or others.
    .
    Is that really so hard to comprehend? Honestly, the outrage over this mild stuff is beyond parody.

  • stuartzechman

    spob:
    .
    …I don’t think that putting a terrorist in box with a bug in it is torture…
    .
    What is it, then? I really do honestly fail to see how you’re making any sense.
    .
    How can treatment when applied to one person (“civilian”) be different when applied to another (“terrorist”)?
    .
    Do you not understand that “cruel and unusual punishments” as defined by the Eighth Amendment of our Constitution are cruel and unusual no matter the crime committed?

    In Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238 (1972), Justice Brennan wrote, “There are, then, four principles by which we may determine whether a particular punishment is ‘cruel and unusual’.”
    .
    * The “essential predicate” is “that a punishment must not by its severity be degrading to human dignity,” especially torture.
    * “A severe punishment that is obviously inflicted in wholly arbitrary fashion.”
    * “A severe punishment that is clearly and totally rejected throughout society.”
    * “A severe punishment that is patently unnecessary.”
    .
    Continuing, he wrote that he expected that no state would pass a law obviously violating any one of these principles, so court decisions regarding the Eighth Amendment would involve a “cumulative” analysis of the implication of each of the four principles.

    If the object of putting someone suspected of having information we need to prevent a terrorist attack (make no mistake, it is not merely a self-acknowledged terrorist to whom this regime applies) in a coffin with an insect of which they’re pathologically afraid isn’t to terrorize that person into coerced confession, then what is the point, spob? Terrorizing a captive into confession is torture, whether it’s by telling them that their mothers will be killed, or leaving them alone in a tiny box with their phobia, or sleep-depriving them for three days, or water-torturing them. These are all the methods of the Inquisition, spob. This isn’t hyperbole.
    .
    And since when have you, as a conservative, been so lamb-like in your trust of the angelic nature of the agencies of the Federal Government?
    .
    When the IRS says “You owe us X“, it’s time to man the barricades, but when the NSA or the CIA says “we’re doing this to a terrorist, but you don’t need to know how we’re confident of that” it’s A-OK with you? If Chief Bureaucrat Smith says somebody’s a terrorist, that’s good enough for you…a conservative?
    .
    You can’t see any problem with just taking the government’s word for something as morally important as what is done in our good American names, spob?

  • spob

    “How can treatment when applied to one person (“civilian”) be different when applied to another (“terrorist”)?”
    .
    You can execute a killer, but not an innocent person. Same here. It’s illegal to grab me and put me in a box with a bug. I don’t think it’s torture to do that to a suspected terrorist, and hence not illegal. Torture is more severe than a slap on the face or having a bug put on you or telling them that their mommy is going to be killed.
    .
    As a practical matter, you cannot do this to too many guys. But a select few, I have no issues with it.
    .

    You are an old woman.

  • spob
  • stuartzechman

    It’s illegal to grab me and put me in a box with a bug.
    .
    No, dumb-ass, that’s the point. It’s not illegal if Bureaucrat Bob says it isn’t.

  • spob

    “dumb-ass”?, well let me tell you something, genius, there are two issues here–the first is whether this, as interrogation methods go, mild treatment is torture, and the second is who decides when we get to do it and on what basis.
    .
    Like I have said before, after 8 years of screaming that Bush lacks “nuance” etc., it’s amazing to me that most of you clowns cannot even see all the discrete issues in a particular problem.
    .
    The two issues I have mentioned are completely separate. Get that right. If the government is going to restrict my freedom (let alone put me in a box) on bureaucrat bob’s say-so (or how about Janet the Dept Head), then we have bigger problems than whether the bugbox treatment is torture.
    .
    Funny, though, you guys, who act like old women about some rough treatment of a few terrorists, are willing to countenance massive government intervention into our daily lives over CO2 emissions. I’d say the latter has a lot more opportunity for tyranny. (Ooops, I better watch what I say, Janet is watching, and by the way, Janet, if you are reading this, “Go play in traffic, you ugly harpy.”)

  • davedrc

    I suspected my dog of doing a very bad thing. Knowing that he is deathly afraid of insects I locked him in a box with a large insect. He howled. Next I tied him down, put a towel on his face and poured cold water on him. He thought he was drowning and struggled like mad. And for good measure I threw him into the wall several times. He cried.

    No, I didn’t really do these things to my dog but if I had I’d be arrested for cruelty to animals. So, if we are not allowed to do this to a dog how can we can do it to a prisoner (of war)?

  • spob

    torture now equals what would constitute cruelty to animals, ok gotcha . . .

  • spongebob63

    Torture??? Trying to find information to prevent atrocities and attacks on innocent people before it happens is better then sitting on ones hands and not doing anything.

    How many children lost a parent (or became orphaned) on Sept 11th? These people went to work, like they do everyday, to afford food on their family plates and roof over their family’s head… for this they where slaughtered so a fundamentalist could make a statement. Lets not forget recent attacks in Pakistan and India as well…this group are not going away and they are not inviting anyone to tea to “discuss” differences. They are happy to attack innocents.

    And now we take the righteous road and condemn those who try to protect our country from a repeat of Sept 11th!?! Shameful!!! Will you also spit on the veterans of this Iraq War?

    I read in an earlier post about tearing the testicles of a suspect’s child to get the suspect to speak… terrible idea.

    What would you personally do, and how far would you go, to protect the welfare of your child if you where to see someone wanting to harm your son or daughter with deadly intent? Would you ask them to stop, or would you physically intervene?

    Davedrc – if I saw my Dog one day start stalking my 3 year old with teeth barring… I wouldnt wait to remove one from the immediate environment nor would I wait for the bite to occur.

    Go hug your child, parent, spouse and/or sibling tonight. And before you go to sleep, pray for world peace. If you don’t believe in prayer, do something that helps a stranger tomorrow, give to charity, or volunteer to your community or someone else’s community that needs help. Start changing the world so we don’t need to fight or torture others to prevent an atrocity from occuring.

    I am a Vet of Desert Storm; I have children; I love my family; I work to put food on a plate and a roof over my families head; and I have lived for 15 years in SE Asia. I have close friends who are Budhists, Hindi, Muslim; Hebrew and Christian. We all get together and have dinners together and our children play together.

blog comments powered by Disqus