The 'Torture' Fraud of the Left

The American Thinker ^ | 05 November 2007 | J.R. Dunn

[davidosborne]

The 'Torture' Fraud of the Left By J.R. Dunn

"Torture" is one of many current topics of significance that have been abandoned to the left. Leftist commentators have been allowed to set the terms, make the definitions, and generally run the argument without much in the way of serious opposition or debate.

No small number of elements of the War on Terror have suffered the same treatment. An offhand list would include profiling, wiretapping, border security, and rendition. All have been hijacked and turned into battering rams to support a particular left-wing interpretation of the War on Terror. The GOP has been unable to respond for a number of reasons: they've been blindsided, have been busy fending off corruption investigations, or simply couldn't or wouldn't defend certain obvious positions. As a result, the left has been able to peddle its version of events with near impunity.

"Torture" is probably the most egregious of these cases. That's the explanation for the sneer quotes. Because, quite simply, in much of the debate over "torture", we're not talking about actual torture at all. We're talking about rough treatment, harshness, or coercion.

The American left has defined these upward until they mean the same thing as torture, all as a part of their efforts to undermine the War on Terror in general. The core of this stance is the assertion that a slap on the head, several days without sleep, or hearing Rage Against the Machine played at full volume is fully the equivalent of torture in the classic sense. (Well... maybe we should reconsider that last....)

Of course, it's no such thing. Torture is easily defined as physical assault carried out over a prolonged period against a victim under complete control and holding the possibility of permanent physical or psychic damage. Official legal terminology contains the proviso that torture consists of acts that "revolt the conscience" We can also add, by way of Dashiell Hammett, that such actions must have "threat of death behind them". If they contain these elements, they are torture. If not, they're something less. Not necessarily something justifiable or commendable, but not torture either. (Another method of judging these actions is to ask whether the activity would excite an individual like Mengele or Yezhov.)

The left has succeeded, through a relentless media campaign (is there any other kind?) in obscuring this distinction. According to the latest criteria, torture is anything unpleasant that occurs to a prisoner while in American custody. (Overseas it's different. It's very, very difficult -- almost impossible, in fact -- for any developing or left-of-center regime to commit torture, no matter what they do to their prisoners. Unless, as in the rendition uproar, the U.S. is somehow involved.)

This campaign had its start with Abu Ghraib. According to the media narrative, the prisoners abused were "tortured". In truth, they suffered no such thing -- they were humiliated, which is something completely different. The backwoods types overseeing them did exactly what backwoods types will do when under inadequate supervision. (The commanding officer, Brig. Gen. Janis Karpinski, was said never to have set foot in the actual prison). This might well have progressed to something resembling actual torture over time, as they grew bored and sought more excitement. But they were discovered before that could happen.

A full-fledged conspiracy theory was worked up insisting that torture was carried out on orders of higher-ups reaching into the Pentagon and even the White House. It's difficult to follow the logic here - why this particular group of prisoners, most of whom were street-corner toughs, would interest these nebulous "higher-ups", and why, once targeted, they were subject to such lame procedures -- the nude pyramid, for instance - when far more effective techniques were easily available. But logic and consistency were beside the point, which was simply to make an impact and move on.

Abu Ghraib changed the public perception of torture. This new understanding was then applied to all levels of terror operations, most notoriously involving Guantanamo Bay. Much of what came out of Gitmo was rumor of the Koran-in-the-toilet variety, and no small amount of that conditioned by the Al-Queda practice of claiming torture under all circumstances when in custody, demonstrating that the Jihadis have a clearer understanding of the media than most members of our own government. The rumors were taken as true under the corollary, if Abu Ghraib, why not Gitmo, and served as the basis for calling for the closure of Camp X-Ray and its successors

Gitmo cemented the torture narrative. Torture became one of the central elements of the War on Terror, something brought up any time the media felt like flogging the U.S. or the Bush administration. The administration itself reacted with bewilderment, conceding most of the argument before it even began, allowing the opposition to set definitions and grounds, operating solely on the defensive. One of the few officials to take the offensive - legal advisor John Yoo, was responding to attacks on the so-called "torture memo", a document outlining the circumstances under which harsh treatment of terrorists would be allowed. No other acting official dared join Yoo.

The most recent uproar concerns waterboarding, a practice that has become a media favorite because it is the only activity approaching torture known to have been carried out under official auspices. Waterboarding has played a large part in Judge Michael Mukasey's bid to become attorney general when he refused to define it as "torture". A number of Democrats, including the party's entire presidential slate, have declined to support Mukasey for this reason.

Waterboarding may be brutal, it may be nasty, it may even be uncalled for. But it's not torture. It does not inflict physical pain or damage. It does not destroy the victim. Its sole purpose is to create a sense of terror by arousing deep instinctive reactions against drowning, instincts shared not only by almost all mammals, but almost all vertebrates who don't happen to be fish. It is effective, it is quick, it leaves no scars and should revolt no one's conscience.

The sole person other than US pilot trainees we know to have been waterboarded is Khalid Sheik Muhhamed. Khalid broke within minutes (the practice involves wrapping the face in towels and then pouring on large quantities of water.) He was waterboarded for one reason alone: he was involved in the 9/11 attack, both preparation and execution, and authorities needed to know if any other such attacks were in store.

Involved in 9/11. What that means, precisely, is that KSM (as he's known in intelligence circles) was partly responsible for the murder of close to 3,000 people. That being the case, it would please me to learn that he was being waterboarded at least once every day of his life, and I'm sure I'm not alone. But what is being overlooked is that Khalid's case matches the one exception to the "no torture" rule almost universally granted by critics, including several of those same Democratic candidates: an emergency where the possibility exists that many lives may be threatened by terrorist action. Such a possibility existed in the case of KSM. As a result he suffered a short, nasty interlude, and the possibility was laid to rest.

The administration missed a serious opportunity with KSM. An opportunity to put him before the cameras, display him to the public, and say, here is your victim. Here is a man who was "tortured". The killer of your friends and neighbors. A dangerous individual. A man who has earned the most terrifying treatment allowed to the law: execution for murder. Here he is - who cares to defend him?

But that, of course, didn't happen, and now we have a reigning myth, one that can be dragged out and shaken in the faces of the public every time the administration, the military, or the intelligence community needs a beating. One that can be used as the basis for films like Rendition. One that will become a historical marker of the War on Terror.

There was a similar myth in Vietnam, one that everyone has heard at one time or another -- the helicopter story. A communist soldier is taken up in a Huey and threatened with being thrown out until he talks. After he does, he's thrown out anyway. The story is commonly featured in movies, "recollections" of the John Kerry type, and war "histories" of a certain slant.

What actually happened was this: two PAVN officers were captured by U.S. troops. They were from a unit supposed to be nowhere in the vicinity, and Army intelligence suspected an upcoming assault. But neither officer would talk. Then someone had a brainstorm: a Vietcong infiltrator had been shot the night before and was awaiting burial. Returning to the interrogation room, they dragged out one of the officers with suitable bellowing and threats. Once out of sight they removed his uniform jacket and cap, put them on the corpse and loaded it aboard a helicopter. With the chopper in the air, they returned for the other officer and hustled him out. Pointing to the Huey, they said, "Now see what happens to your pal."

At that moment, the corpse was thrown out, just far enough away so no details were apparent. It was an impressive drop, with the cap flying off halfway down. The second officer considered his interests and told the GIs exactly what they wanted to know. At which point his jacketless, capless companion was brought out of hiding for a good laugh all around.

Somebody told the story to a reporter a short time later. Knowing a great yarn when he heard one, the reporter wrote it up and sent it in. But an editor at his wire service thought it worked better with the officer actually being thrown to his death. So that's how it was rewritten, and published across the U.S. (Including in the home paper of one of the soldiers mentioned in the story -- the reporter had to be pulled out for his own safety.)

That's how "torture" will be treated in the annals of the War on Terror. Not as a procedure used on a sparing basis against the worst of the worst. Not the final measure of protection against terrorist action. But as a commonplace activity of degenerates and trash among U.S. forces. This impression may well last as long as the helicopter slander, and do a similar amount of harm.

Needless to say, none of the foregoing must be taken as approval of torture or any other kind of brutality. But that's just the point: the left has drawn a vicious cartoon in which every individual involved in fighting the Jihadis from the Oval office on down is being portrayed as the equivalent of the Abu Ghraib guards: halfwit knuckle-draggers capable of going out of control without warning. This can endanger us in any number of ways - encouraging officials to back off when they should bear down, to hesitate when they should strike. As Judge Mukasey stated in his letter answering the Congressional imputations:

"I would not want any statement of mine to provide our enemies with a window into the limits or contours of any interrogation program we may have in place and thereby assist them in training to resist the techniques we actually may use."

It's no news that the Bush Administration has done a horrible job of selling itself and its policies. Bush, being a Texan, evidently believes that accomplishments speak for themselves. But the great world, unfortunately, is not Texas. If you don't create your own narrative, lay down your own version of events, someone else is going to do it for you. And you probably will not like the results.

J.R. Dunn is consulting editor of American Thinker. Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/11/the_torture_fraud_of_the_left.html at November 05, 2007 - 03:40:43 AM EST

[davidosborne]

This article was e-mailed to me by a very good FRiend, I thought FReepers would appreciate reading it... please pass it on..

[Beckwith]

Our own Special Operations Forces and pilots undergo water boarding as part of their training.

It’s not torture - - end of story.

[davidosborne]

If it really was the “end of story” we would not be reading this article my FRiend.. the “end of the story” has not yet been written.. it will be written when the GOP electorate goes to the ballot box and decides to vote for the only REAL conservative in the race who “get’s it” and that is DUNCAN HUNTER.... period.. if we fail to do this the “end of the story” will not be pretty... IMHO

[Beckwith]

For you to jump from a comment on waterboarding to Duncan Hunter you must be wearing your electric Reebok's this AM.

[Beckwith]

http://www.bobeinstein.com/

[Coldwater Creek]

Duncan Hunter is a wonderful and honorable man, but just not presidential material. Few even know who he is.

[muawiyah]

The American Left helped the NVA drown half a million people in the South China Sea. The American Left connived with the Khmer Rouge to murder two million Cambodians. The American Left supports abortion on demand for millions of the unborn.

The American Left is so thoroughly corrupt their opinion should not count.

[Loud Mime]

The American Left is so thoroughly corrupt their opinion should not count.

Their opinion counts toward the power of mass-murderers, that's the danger.

This torture issue is being promoted because the libs want attorneys involved in lawsuits against the government and the soldiers.....as do the terrorists.

[Petronius]

There are problems with trying to legitimize waterboarding: If it isn't torture, why can't the police use it?

(I'm not opposed to it for suspected terrorists, btw.)

[davidosborne]

Coldwater Creek,

With all due respect.. DO YOU know who he is? If so you have no basis for making such a claim.. If you don’t I invite you to take a closer look at the man.. and when you do I think you will agree that is BY FAR the MOST qualified to be POTUS in 2008...

TOWARD VICTORY..

[indylindy]

Duncan Hunter is a wonderful and honorable man, but just not presidential material. Few even know who he is.

Please explain why Hunter is not "presidential material".

I believe he is far more presidential than a liberal cross dressing ex mayor who has no national experience.

[davidosborne]

I am still working on my top 10 “excuses” list... but it looks like we have just found another #1 EXCUSE posted by my good FRiend Coldwater Creek.....

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1918806/posts

Coldwater Creek — I suggest you read this thread before posting left wing rhetoric my FRiend,

TOWARD VICTORY

[WildcatClan]

Few even know who he is.

Few even know who is the current president, can name their state governor nor can they name their two state senators. You seem to be making a case that the electorate isn't very knowledgeable. Judging by who the so-called front-runners are, you may have a point. Even so, let's educate them instead of confusing them by equating name-recognition and popularity with having the knowledge, credibility and leadership abilities to be president.

[E.G.C.]

BTTT

[freekitty]

You are always one of the first the post these statements on the forum. Why? You know, it’s people like you that are the reason we end up with people like Arnold.

It’s so easy to take the line of least resistance(or it looks so easy)of voting for the one that can win. The one that can win is usually some bought and paid for Rino or worse that if the truth be known we wouldn’t have for President. And unfortunately, the result is we are getting closer to a Hillary type of government because we have bought who to vote for.

It’s so much easier to go with the flow; or is it?

[davidosborne]

freekitty —— I hereby change your name to freeTIGER.. I don’t think I have ever seen you post something so agressive...

:)

TOWARD VICTORY

[WildcatClan]

When they turn the pages of history When these days have passed long ago Will they read of us with sadness For the seeds that we let grow We turned our gaze From the castles in the distance Eyes cast down On the path of least resistance--- Rush (A Farewell to Kings)

[davidosborne]

I was actually responding to your “end of story” comment not your waterboarding comment.. :)

TOWARD VICTORY

[angkor]

Not to be too contentious this hour of morning, but many of those guys DO think waterboarding is a form of torture.

I've personally seen the torture devices and paintings at the former Khmer Rouge "S-21" interrogation prison in Phnom Penh's Tuol Sleng neighborhood (eerily, it was 10 minutes walk from my house when I was working in Phnom Penh). There's no question that Tuol Sleng's single purpose was torture. The place was hastily abandoned in 1979 under Vietnamese attack, and the files, the photos, the torture devices, and even some bodies were left in place as the KR dropped everything including ongoing torture sessions to escape Phnom Penh.

And in one of those abandoned schoolrooms (S-21 had once been a neighborhood middle-schoool) is one of many gruesome paintings showing a poor victim being waterboarded.

Then you notice that the unexceptional and lone piece of furniture in the room - a rectangular table with some odd-looking implements on it - resembles the waterboarding table in the painting. But looking more carefully, you soon recognize that this table in the painting *is* the table sitting no more than 5 feet away from you.

It's all part of the S-21/Choeung Ek (Killing Fields) reality tour, and it's almost too horrible for any human being to emotionally process. The electrified bedframe in one room *is* the electrified bedframe upon which thousands were tortured. That set of crude and rusting pliers *is* the set used for more unspeakable horrors. That human molar and fragment of tibia you accidentally kick-up on the paths around Choeung Ek *are* the last remains of some unknown and fortunate visitor to S-21.

So that seals it up for me.

Waterboarding is an interrogation technique that crosses the line from physical coercion to torture.

[StarCMC]

Excellent article - thanks David! BTTT and a ping.

[Hegewisch Dupa]

ping for later (and thanks for posting this)

[davidosborne]

If it isn't torture, why can't the police use it?

Petronius,

You have missed the point of the article my FRiend.

The point is that is may NOT be a lefitimate interview tactic for the kid I arrested at walmart for stealing a candbar... that does not mean it IS torture.. just an inapropriate aplication of a legitimate tactic/technique or procedure...

The main point of the article is that just becuase its a tactic that is not appropriate for ALL suspects, does not mean that its TORTURE either..

[arthurus]

Torture is anything that might possibly elicit information from a captive. It id the obtaining of information that is anathema. Remember, the liberals who cry about torture are protecting their own side’s secrets.

[davidosborne]

Waterboarding is an interrogation technique that crosses the line from physical coercion to torture.

Your opinion is duly noted... I disagree with you, and so do many others.. but your opinion is not fact either.. again.. main point of the article is some techniques are TORTURE, and some are something LESS than torture.. we can debate each technique on its own merits, but we should not allow the LEFT to define the word.. THAT is the point

[freekitty]

I really wish people would stop doing this. It seems so much easier to take this path; but it’s a path or road uphill and much harder than if you decided yourself.

Seriously, I hope people will vote change for the better. Please don’t end up voting for someone because like Hillary; she is a woman and we need a woman President. No, we don’t need a woman President like Hillary. Remember, that’s how we got Carter and Clinton and Arnie. No thanks.

If you were to really look at the candidates; you would see that Duncan Hunter is the best qualified to be President of the US.

[Coldwater Creek]

Ya know! I don’t ever remember posting anything about Duncan Hunter.

BTW, you have no idea where I stand on the candidates. Because, I no clue myself who I am going to support.

So before you attack me, get your facts straight.

[Coldwater Creek]

I know who Duncan Hunter is. I stand by my statements!

[Coldwater Creek]

I have never said one word about Duncan Hunter until this post.

Just so that ya’ll are clear about where I stand. I don’t oppose Hunter, I just don’t think that he has a chance to win.

Don’t ever call me a leftist again, because that is a lie. I will give you the benefit of doubt this time.

[freekitty]

Giggle. You are just now noticing? I figure it this way, if I may be so bold. Why vote for 3 minutes of excitement(the candidate who can win) to get years of blah or worse(the candidate who can win)?

If people will get the gear shift in their brains which is stuck in neutral and shift that gear into go vote for the best candidate; not the candidate who can win; they will vote for Duncan Hunter.

[davidosborne]

You said “few people know who he is...” that is a FALSE statement.. since YOU know who he is and I know who he is.. and I think there are more than a “few” others who know who he is.. granted MANY MORE folks WILL learn who he is as the campaign moves forward.. in the meantime, all I ask is that you stop being a HildaBeast enabler by making assertions like “few people know who he is”.. that is the kind of rhetoric that we should ALL be fighting. no matter who you support in the PRIMARY.... it is a TECHNIQUE (that just might qualify as “torture”)... that the LEFT uses to keep the media away from Duncan Hunter.. unfortunately many CONSERVATIVES who support ANY other candidate in the Primary use this TECHNIQUE for the same purpose....

[angkor]

I disagree with you, and so do many others.. but your opinion is not fact either.. we can debate each technique on its own merits, but we should not allow the LEFT to define the word..

Well then, get to it.

You're not going to make any headway at all until you establish a baseline as to what is and what is not "torture". It's disingenuous to continue in the realm of ambiguity, "maybe it is, maybe it isn't".

It's precisely this failure to come to a decision that allows the left to define everything including loud music and air conditioning as torture. You have LET THEM establish those benchmarks.

So I'd say it is incumbent on YOU to clearly articulate by reason and example what torture is, and isn't. I notice you didn't do either in critiqueing my post, you merely said (in essence), "Sorry, that's not it."

Nonetheless, here's my rationale (like it or don't): (a) I've personally heard lots of military pilots assert that the waterboarding they received in E&E training is, yes, "torture"; and (b) if one of the most evil communist regimes of the 20th century used it, it is (IMO) de facto torture.

[freekitty]

I apologize if you have never said anything about Duncan before. My mistake and no one called you a leftist. If I had called you a leftist; I would have called you a leftist. I don’t play that kind of politics.

“Just so that ya’ll are clear about where I stand. I don’t oppose Hunter, I just don’t think that he has a chance to win.”

That is not the point. The point is Hunter is the best candidate for President. He is the real thing. He is a real conservative who has America and it’s people as his first concern. He doesn’t just say what we want to hear; he does it.

[Seruzawa]

LOL! I wonder what all these vicious yahoos would do if they were being water boarded because a child had disappeared in their neighborhood and some cop suspected them. Three guesses.

[davidosborne]

sorry my FRiend.. I am NOT the dictionary police .. :)

I think this is a healthy debate to have, I agree with the article to the extent that we have ALLOWED the left to define "torture" which they obviously view as far more broad than most conservatives do.... With this understanding the debate goes on.. and on.. and on.. which is fine as long as we don't lose our resolve to fight the enemy in the process.. TOWARD VICTORY

[angkor]

The main point of the article is that just becuase its a tactic that is not appropriate for ALL suspects, does not mean that its TORTURE either..

OK, I see what's going on here: 99 percent of these "torture" discussions conflate two entirely different questions, and you're doing the exactly the same thing here, IMO.

The first question is, "What is torture?"

The second is "When (if ever) should torture be used?"

Those are completely separate questions.

[G Larry]

Offering and then withholding M&M’s is considered “torture” when perpetrated by the U.S., acording to leftests and the liberal media. But I repeat myself....

[angkor]

sorry my FRiend.. I am NOT the dictionary police .. :)

You don't have to be the dictionary police to decide what attributes constitute "torture".

In fact you will not be able to come to any convincing argument that "this is torture, and this is not" until you decide what "torture" actually is.

This is such an essential point that I cannot believe that you continue to push it aside.

So now I'll assert what I've been hesitating to say:

The reluctance to clearly define what "torture" is and is not, is actually a failure of will and of courage. Because the real question is "Having decided what "torture" is, shall we use it, or not?"

I assert that waterboarding is torture, and I have several reasons for saying that. Yet I also believe that this form of torture SHOULD be used against vermin like Sheik Mohammad of al Qaeda, without hesitation.

And on this last point I want to be clear. If we DO employ torture, who decides?

It seems to me that the only people who can reliably make these decisions are the handful of known professional interrogators who are actually engaged in the field. The average Joe on the street, or politican, or spook, or military officer generally has no experience with the issue, and we can expect all kinds of irrelevant biases and concerns to obsfucate the core questions.

[angkor]

Torture is anything that might possibly elicit information from a captive.

You don't recall the Gitmo detainee who charged that "loud music, flashing lights, and excessive air conditioning" constituted torture?

Heck, I thought he was describing an evening at a Jakarta techno club.

[davidosborne]

ahhhhhh my FRiend, I think you are asking the wrong two quesstions....

neither of which I have an answer for by the way..... but here are the correct TWO qestions

FIRST QUESTION.. If "Interview technique" "A" is not torture, than what IS it called?; Harsh?; uncomfortable?; a bit painful?; something else?

SECOND QUESTION.. What type of detaineess qualify for the use of technique "A"? ---- I think we agree that the kid who shoplifted the candybar at walmart would not qualify for the use of technique "A" correct?

[davidosborne]

I think our thought processes reach the same conclusion.. just taking a different path my friend.. the problem we have we saying that "yes this IS torture --- and we WILL use it" -- is that it opens the door to ANY type of tortue.. that the United States would NEVER approve of.. -- therefore it is my conclusion that we use some other term for harsh techniques that are something short of "torture".. and remain TRUE to our American values of NOT using "torture" -- this is a much safer route on the "political" path my FRiend... The problem is this term has not yet been coined.. So I guess for sake of this debate we can use the term (SLTT)= Something Less Than Torture...Now we can start evaluating "techniques" and the appropriate authority (The President of the United States/Commander in Chief) can make the FINAL decision as to what techineques are torture and which techniques are SLTT.

for the record IMHO waterboarding = SLTT

[Christian4Bush]

bump

[Christian4Bush]

I saw a cartoon in the Daily Breeze editorial yesterday...in it, Senator Kennedy said to AG nominee Mukasey, “Making detainees think they’re going to drown is unacceptable!”

To which Mukasey responded, “Then we should keep them out of your car, Senator Kennedy.”

[Steve_Seattle]

I recently read the book “The Terror Presidency,” written by a former attorney for the DOJ who was involved in vetting policies relating to prisoners of war and interrogation. If I remember correctly, the DOJ lawyers provided the administration with a list of various interrogation techniques that were considered legally permissible. I think waterboarding was one of those, but perhaps the one that pushed the envelope a bit.

[FreedomPoster]

Radigan’s Raiders ping.

This is an interesting commentary on a subject that has been used for an ongoing political assault by the Left.

[StarCMC]

If I can ever manage to remember that I should ping you it will be a minor miracle! LOL!!!

[StarCMC]

ROFLMBO!! That’s perfect!

[Cailleach]

"It seems to me that the only people who can reliably make these decisions are the handful of known professional interrogators who are actually engaged in the field. The average Joe on the street, or politican, or spook, or military officer generally has no experience with the issue, and we can expect all kinds of irrelevant biases and concerns to obsfucate the core questions."

Thank you! My husband is a Human Intelligence Collector (AKA Interrogator). As a result, I probably know a bit more than Average Joe does, but by no means would I consider myself qualified to offer opinions on what techniques should or should not be used for HUMINT collection.
I leave that to my dear hubby and his colleagues

[archy]

Remember, the liberals who cry about torture are protecting their own side’s secrets.

There's another component to their fears: they're also particularly concerned that it might be applied to them, especially in the aftermath of a widespread backlash resulting from another terrorist 9/11-type atrocity, for which many such are secretly hoping.

For the same reason, there's great concern on their part on the reemergence of the rope noose in the public spotlight, a usual end to traitors when the public has tired of treasonous antics.

Similar concerns were expressed about previously-banned bayonet lugs on civilian-owned *assault weapons.* During the Finnish Civil War, Finnish Loyalists frequently introduced young recruits to the realitries of their war by detailing them to bayonet Red prisoners. American gun owners generally had no understanding of the genesis of those concerns by those pushing that law, there having been no great exhibitions of cop-stabbing or drive-by bayonettings. But America's collegiate Leftists know, and they not only remember, they're worried about a repeat.

[arthurus]

Store ammo. Keep your guns in good order and practice- practice a lot. Stash nonperishable food. When you hear that there is a nationwide roundup of suspected jihadis, chances are we will hit Iran within days or hours. Only a tiny fraction of the domestic terrorists will be caught and the rest will hit the malls and schools and power plants. And you don’t know which side the police, local, state, or fed will be on, at least at first.