EDITOR’S NOTE: While diving into my archives, I came across a piece I wrote and published seven years ago this week. Because direct links to a newspaper report and a public opinion survey cited in the article were “dead,” I replaced them with Wayback Machine links. Considering recent terror events such as the ones in Paris last month and the one in San Bernadino, Calif., yesterday, I think the article remains worth sharing. See if you agree.
After reading a British newspaper report about plans law enforcement officials in Mumbai have to use truth serum on the only Islamic terrorist captured following last week’s attacks, I couldn’t help but think this “narcoanalysis” might come in handy as a tool for cleaning up the mess being being made of this country by our elected officials in Washington, D.C.
Though the use of truth serum is, according to the TimesOnline report, banned in most democracies, I think most Americans would approve an exception as long as it is applied in a bipartisan fashion as follows:
• First in line to have truth serum administered would be President-elect Barack Obama. He would, of course, set the example for others to follow as he answered questions that required him to tell the truth about where he was born, about his core beliefs and about the plans he has for this country.
• Next up, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.). They would be asked a series of questions aimed at determining, once and for all, whether either is truly smarter than a fifth grader.
• Finally, the other 433 members of Congress — who, as a group, garner an approval rating of only 19 percent — would be given the opportunity to come clean about any skeletons they might have in their closets. Members who disclose illegal and/or unethical behavior would be given two options: resign or face prosecution.
For those who think the use of truth serum constitutes a step too radical for the planet’s longest-lasting constitutional republic, I offer a final thought for your consideration:
What’s more damaging to the nation’s long-term interests: An attack by radical Islamic terrorists from some distant land that does millions of dollars in damage and kills a few hundred or a few thousand lives OR the seemingly-endless assault on American citizens — let’s call it “domestic terrorism” — by elected officials who, with each passing year, drift further away from the intent of the nation’s founding fathers? I say the latter.
Now how do we get this ball rolling? Ideas?
ENDNOTE: At the time I wrote the piece above, I had not yet begun the four-year investigation of the federal government’s use of so-called “credibility assessment technologies” that would result in the publication of my second nonfiction book, The Clapper Memo. If you’re interested in learning about a painless and touch-free tool that has already been used with great success to interrogate detainees at Guantanamo Bay, members of Saddam Hussein’s “Deck of Cards” and members of both al-Qaeda and the Taliban, you should order a copy of the book. Likewise, if you’re interested in learning why the Department of Defense banned the same tool from use by our warfighters, you need to order a copy of the book.
For links to other articles of interest as well as photos and commentary, join me on Facebook and Twitter. Please show your support by buying my books and encouraging your friends and loved ones to do the same. Thanks in advance!