Olbermann Rescinds Charity Offer For Cowardly Hannity, Donates $10K For Mancow’s Waterboarding
Olbermann Rescinds Charity Offer For Cowardly Hannity, Donates $10K For Mancow’s Waterboarding
Last month on his Fox News show, torture enthusiast Sean Hannity claimed he would agree to be waterboarded “for charity…for the troops’s families.” MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann immediately took up Hannity’s pledge, offering $1,000 to charity for every second Hannity withstood waterboarding.
Over the next 30 days, Hannity went completely silent on his pledge, opting not to go anywhere near the subject of waterboarding again. Olbermann repeatedly reminded Hannity of his pledge to donate to charity in his name, but to no avail.
Last night on Countdown, Olbermann announced that he was rescinding the offer to Hannity, and instead giving $10,000 to charity following radio host Erich “Mancow” Muller’s waterboarding attempt. Olbermann promised to donate to the charity Veterans of Valor, founded by Sgt. Klay South, who administered the waterboarding to Muller. Olbermann revealed that Mancow’s publicist had contacted Olbermann’s show yesterday to see whether Olbermann would make a similar offer to Mancow as he did for Hannity:
OLBERMANN: Mancow Muller had the guts to put his mouth where his mouth was, and the guts to admit he was dead wrong. As you saw, he not only said it is torture, but that he had nearly drowned as a boy, and it is drowning, and that he would have admitted to anything to make it stop.
So the offer to the coward Hannity — a thousand dollars a second he lasted on the waterboard — is withdrawn.
And to Mr. Muller, whose station’s publicity person contacted us yesterday saying she’d heard I’d offered ten thousand dollars to anybody who would do what he did –
You got it. Ten thousand dollars to the military-families charity of the man who did the waterboarding, Veterans Of Valor. [...]
As to Hannity, you are now unnecessary.
Watch it:
Olbermann also announced that Mancow will appear on his show next week.
Transcript:
This is where I normally remind Sean Hannity that it is so many days since I took him up on his offer to be waterboarded for charity, without any reply from him.
But with today’s development, the point is moot.
“Mancow Muller” had the guts to put his mouth where his mouth was, and the guts to admit he was dead wrong. As you saw, he not only said it is torture, but that he had nearly drowned as a boy, and it is drowning, and that he would have admitted to anything to make it stop.
So the offer to the coward Hannity — a thousand dollars a second he lasted on the waterboard — is withdrawn.
And to Mr. Muller, whose station’s publicity person contacted us yesterday saying she’d heard I’d offered ten thousand dollars to anybody who would do what he did…
You got it. Ten thousand dollars to the military-families charity of the man who did the waterboarding, “Veterans Of Valor.”
Mr. Muller will join us on this news hour next week. As to Hannity… you are now unnecessary.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Olbermann is right–Hannity is “unnecessary.”
May 23rd, 2009 at 8:49 amKeith Olbermann and Mancow Muller on the same show. Wow! Look out home and garden television network, your ratings lead on mslsd is in serious jeopardy!
May 23rd, 2009 at 8:51 amYeah, Keith Olbermann and Mancow Muller on the same show… Mancow is more necessary than Hannity. He proved it. The only waterboarding Hannity participated in was wetting tbe bench he was sitting on.
May 23rd, 2009 at 8:57 amAnd also, once again, rating prove nothing. People tune in to watch a train wreck happen.
May 23rd, 2009 at 8:59 amMancow can be an insufferable wingnut, but actually going thru with this stunt shows he either has some major cojones or he was really deluded about torture. Let’s see how he broaches the subject going forward.
This episode should be a STFU lesson to all the other wingnut bloviators. They now find themselves stuck in the put up or shut up corral.
May 23rd, 2009 at 9:01 amSo the offer to the coward Hannity — a thousand dollars a second he lasted on the waterboard — is withdrawn.
I think it’s generally true that right wing stooges like Hannity, Limbaugh, and Coulter are cowards at their core.
May 23rd, 2009 at 9:07 amYeah, Hannity is missing his scrotum and Olberman made the right decision.
May 23rd, 2009 at 9:07 amDel at #6. I couldn’t agree more, generally cowards hand stones to others to throw.
May 23rd, 2009 at 9:09 am“your ratings lead on mslsd is in serious jeopardy!”
Mark Levin would squeal like a pig if water went up his nose.
May 23rd, 2009 at 9:22 amSpeaking of torture…..why was Mark Swanner never charged with the murder of Jamadi (who walked in talking and was found 45 minutes later hanging crucifix style with a plasic bag over his head – suffocated.
This torture (and homocide) of prisoners is even more damaging to all involved (Tenet, McNulty, Bush, Cheney) than the 3 individuals who were waterboarded.
Spread this everywhere you go online today. This needs to be made public.
May 23rd, 2009 at 9:27 amhttp://www.truthout.org/052209R
johnson44 Says:
Keith Olbermann and Mancow Muller on the same show. Wow! Look out home and garden television network, your ratings lead on mslsd is in serious jeopardy!
Hey, that 6th grade education has really paid off for you.
May 23rd, 2009 at 9:28 amVery clever and you really have a way with words.
You should have your own column!
The Bush Cabal and all of it’s accomplices will go down for this.
Even The Dick’s special “Cover My Sorry A$$ Tour” isn’t going to protect him against this ultimate form of abuse – homicide.
May 23rd, 2009 at 9:28 amAs to Hannity, you are now unnecessary.
– - He never was.
May 23rd, 2009 at 9:29 amOld Goat Says:
And also, once again, rating prove nothing. People tune in to watch a train wreck happen.
what christian madrassa were you ejemucated at? and also…
this is what happens when your mommy thinks she can home school you…
May 23rd, 2009 at 9:31 amAs to Hannity… you are now unnecessary.
Oh, snap! Hannity pwned.
May 23rd, 2009 at 9:33 amI have to wonder if Hannity was ever serious about being willing to be waterboarded for charity. Or was he just saying that to try to convince Charles Grodin that he wasn’t afraid to do it? He could have set up a site for people to pledge money, and he could have raised way more than $1000 per second, maybe even tens of thousands of dollars per second. I don’t have Olbermann’s salary, but I would have donated $10 per second to see him do it, and I am sure that there are thousands of liberals like me willing to do the same, maybe even pay more. Now they’ll get nothing for his bravado.
May 23rd, 2009 at 9:33 amThe next question is will we see any coverage by the right wing media about the Mancow waterboarding? I think we know the answer, no they will not cover Mancow’s declaration that waterboarding absolutely is torture. At least he had the courage to say his previously stated beliefs were wrong.If they do cover it he will be trashed as a traitor and a wimp. But of course we know who the real wimp is, Hannity.
May 23rd, 2009 at 9:41 amBiobwurst,
I think you meant johnson44. Old Goat was simply pointing out the stupidity of the ratings argument that the trolls still continue to post here, despite the numerous times we’ve explained why it’s meaningless and indicative of nothing.
May 23rd, 2009 at 9:43 am#7 Cats r flyfishn
What a way to start out Saturday morning!! ROTFLMAO!!
May 23rd, 2009 at 9:52 amYou all misinterpret Hannity’s reluctance…
He’s just afraid it might make his mascara run on national TV…
He… feeeels… prettttttty… oh so prettttttttty…
May 23rd, 2009 at 9:53 amA huge thank you to Keith for putting HIS money where his mouth is: into the hands of a worthy charity, Veterans of Valor, whose members actually served their country (unlike Mancow or Hannity). Well done, Keith! I don’t look for Hannity ever to refer to being voluntarily waterboarded again. He might not even refer to waterboarding or the torture issue again, period.
May 23rd, 2009 at 9:56 amI will make a point to see Keith’s show with Mancow Muller, (unless the Penguins are playing that night. Go PENS!!).
And that radio host had the luxury of calling it quits at any time as opposed to his “torturers” saying when it would be over.
May 23rd, 2009 at 9:59 amNot that we needed any more, but, this episode is more proof that right wingers are ignorant cowards.
May 23rd, 2009 at 10:00 am“As to Hannity, you are now unnecessary.”
he never was neccessary or relevent. however, i am sure come monday he and the rest of the fixed news pussboy crew will be starting their smear campaign of mancow muller
May 23rd, 2009 at 10:01 amNat brings up the point that few defenders of torture mention — when SERE training is employed, and when these celebrities submit to waterboarding for whatever their reasons, they always know that the trainers will not let them die (and they still are overwhelmed by the terror and physiological reflex).
May 23rd, 2009 at 10:19 amNo one subjected to torture by his captors would ever have the reassurance that the procedure will be stopped before they die.
Just searched CNN, abcnews, cbsnews, foxnews, for “mancow” and got absolutely NOTHING regarding the waterboarding
It seems as though the right wing corporate controlled “news” media is going to ignore this one.
Even nbc (msnbc) only has one mention of it, and it’s the clip from Olbermann’s show.
May 23rd, 2009 at 10:20 amThe rightwing loudmouths of the media are all cowards – all leading coddled lives of the rich and famous today, all of them talk and no action.
May 23rd, 2009 at 10:21 amBest they should just keep their yaps shut – but then again, how would they earn their living if not for bloviating?
Well, Marie, so far they ARE keeping their mouths shut about the Mancow stunt.
May 23rd, 2009 at 10:23 amHannity was never serious about being waterboarded. He`s just a big pussy hiding out safe and secure in his studio. Just like Billdo and Limpdick.
May 23rd, 2009 at 10:29 amRantingTommy Says:
Just searched CNN, abcnews, cbsnews, foxnews, for “mancow” and got absolutely NOTHING regarding the waterboarding
It seems as though the right wing corporate controlled “news” media is going to ignore this one.
Even nbc (msnbc) only has one mention of it, and it’s the clip from Olbermann’s show.
I saw MSNBC reporting the Mancow story this morning. That’s one, do we have a second? :)
May 23rd, 2009 at 10:32 amPennsylvanianne Says:
——————————————————————————–
I don’t look for Hannity ever to refer to being voluntarily waterboarded again. He might not even refer to waterboarding or the torture issue again, period.
I will make a point to see Keith’s show with Mancow Muller, (unless the Penguins are playing that night. Go PENS!!).
He already mentioned waterboarding on his radio show on Friday. He described those who oppose waterboarding as “moral fools”
http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200905220015
May 23rd, 2009 at 10:33 amWell, Wayne, that’s a start.
May 23rd, 2009 at 10:36 amty man niceeee
dizi izle
May 23rd, 2009 at 10:39 amMr. Wurst, if you misfired… no problem… but please, I only dropped one letter… lol.
Ratings do NOT matter, high ratings can be the result of people tuning in to watch a “train wreck” happen. Say, a d bag of a “host” claiming to want to be waterboarded to prove that it’s not torture, and then following through. People want to see if the idiot will actually DO it.
Usually the uptight rights espouse ratings as a show of a “host”’s success. It is essentially phallus-wagging nonsense. I agree with Wayne though, it’s really a pointless argument.
Anyhow… moving on.
May 23rd, 2009 at 10:52 amty man niceeee is misspelled. There are only 3 e’s in niceee
May 23rd, 2009 at 10:54 amNote to Keith: Sean has allways been “Unnecessary”.
May 23rd, 2009 at 10:59 amI believe he means that now, Hannity is unnecessary to prove waterboarding is torture.
May 23rd, 2009 at 11:06 amMy apologies to you, Old Goat Sir. And let this be a lesson to you: never go bird hunting with me :)
May 23rd, 2009 at 11:11 amSean “Pussy” Hannity is not worth commenting on. The control freaks who run this nation’s State Media are. We must break up the media monopolies or kiss this democracy goodbye, the way Obama has become repugnant lite, I guess it’s all over. I hate being negative but it feels that way.
May 23rd, 2009 at 11:22 amMosaic, it has taken over 40 years of right wing rule to get things this messed up.
It can’t be fixed overnight.
May 23rd, 2009 at 11:29 amGood point. I guess at this point patience is a virtue for Dems who feel betrayed by a president who talks to bush.
May 23rd, 2009 at 11:36 amMosaic, I would be extremely concerned if the current president had not talked to the previous president.
May 23rd, 2009 at 11:42 amHey, Obama was criticized in the campaign for his willingness to talk to the enemies of this nation. Now you’re upset because he’s keeping that promise?
May 23rd, 2009 at 11:42 amExcellent, because you Mr. Olbermann were giving that coward to much publicity, as for Mr. Muller, he will now be attacked by all of the Right Winged Pussies for admitting what I and all who have had this done to already knew, this shit is torture. I can only respect him for that even though I disagree with him on just about everything he believes in.
Good job Mr. Olbermann, and you too Mr. Muller.
Common sense, taking hold of dumbasses one day at a time.
RIP
May 23rd, 2009 at 11:43 amSGT Stephen R. Sherman
C CO 1-5 IN (STRYKER)
KIA 3 Feb 2005
Mosul, Iraq
Remember all those times you had to speak to your dumbass father-in-law? You really didn’t want to put up with his pompous ill informed world view but you sort of had to because you cared about his daughter. It is sort of like that but the father-in-law is the former pres and the daughter is the citizenry
May 23rd, 2009 at 11:45 amCan anyone explain the nickname “Mancow”?
Am I the only one who realizes that it’s as much an oxymoron as “ConservativeForProgress”?
May 23rd, 2009 at 11:47 amwell, ralph, many right wingers seem to be “oxy morons”, so maybe they embrace it
May 23rd, 2009 at 11:52 amRantingTommy Says:
well, ralph, many right wingers seem to be “oxy morons”, so maybe they embrace it
And they also embrace oxycotin.
May 23rd, 2009 at 11:58 amIn the parallel universe where Al Gore was President, they hardly talk about torture at all.
Da Banksta
May 23rd, 2009 at 12:03 pmFrankly I can’t imagine a European nation where the citizens would have allowed the presidency to be stolen from the legitimate winner the way Americans let Gore get robbed. I wonder if he expected us to rise up to support him and we all just did nothing.
If we had all taken to the streets in 2000 look at the grief we could have saved ourselves. Never again.
May 23rd, 2009 at 12:11 pmOlberman frequently saeems to have fallen terminally in love with the sound of his won voice, but he can occasionally hit just the right note: “As for Hannity…you are now unnecessary.”
Nuff said…
May 23rd, 2009 at 12:13 pmralph the wonder locust Says:
Can anyone explain the nickname “Mancow”?
It’s a South Park reference, I think. In the show, Al Gore fights the evil ManBearPig (or pretends to).
May 23rd, 2009 at 12:13 pmThe Chicago-area newspapers, at least, have covered the Mancow story. I can see how it would not get much attention outside the area in the MSM.
May 23rd, 2009 at 12:15 pmI wonder if he expected us to rise up to support him and we all just did nothing.
He did just the opposite. He urged caution, and tolerance, and respect for the rule of law.
I was there, i was one of those who was ready to load the truck with tar and pitchforks and head for the Beltway…It was soooo farouking transparent.
Gore didn’t want any part of a serious, popular challenge. I’ve always sorta held it against him…
May 23rd, 2009 at 12:16 pmblistex11 Says:
Speaking of torture…..why was Mark Swanner never charged with the murder of Jamadi (who walked in talking and was found 45 minutes later hanging crucifix style with a plasic bag over his head – suffocated.
I really wonder how many people died in our hands while being tortured. The right loves to bring up the fact that our enemies decapitate their prisoners. Well, I find that a lot more humane than being tortured to death.
May 23rd, 2009 at 12:26 pmI *love* Keith Olbermann!
There. I said it.
I feel better now. ;o)
May 23rd, 2009 at 12:34 pmI did a Google search of the news for “mancow torture” and got 48 hits, most of them blogs like this one.
Now just think what would have happened if “Mancow” had said that what he experienced was not torture?
May 23rd, 2009 at 12:35 pmI’ve held it against him too. But really, the decision wasn’t his to make. I suspect we were manipulated by the media to do nothing. In fact I never saw the protests of Bush’s inauguration until Michael Moore show the scenes. If more of us had known they were going on I think we would have participated in like rebellions.
May 23rd, 2009 at 12:42 pmHannity is not made for ‘waterboarding’.
He probably will faint when the first drop of water falls on his face.
He is all talk,and a nice fit for Fox network,and nothing else where he can run his mouth all day attacking others.
He said he’ll do waterboarding for charity almost a month ago.!!
But Olbermann is still waiting.
May 23rd, 2009 at 12:46 pmMe too…
ABSOLUTELY. And my guess is anybody who had any actual information to give up would do so before they died. Which means the dead are the most innocent.
May 23rd, 2009 at 12:46 pmHannity waterboarded? His pancake makeup would form a mud puddle. I’d pay money just to see him without that makeup and see what he’s hiding.
May 23rd, 2009 at 12:48 pmOh dear, Shayne!! It would, like…mess up his purty HAIR!!!
:o/
May 23rd, 2009 at 12:50 pmDespite the riveting nickname, I fear the “librul media” will ignore him while FAUX and Reichradio will just call him a “librul reporter who can’t even hold his breath for ten seconds“.
May 23rd, 2009 at 12:51 pmwas hannity ever necessary…?
May 23rd, 2009 at 1:16 pmI can picture Hannity having a major hissy fit after seeing Keith’s segment, and it makes me smile.
May 23rd, 2009 at 1:31 pmThere you have it, for all the right-wingers who have been so adamant about how torture works so well and saves American lives. All poppycock and pure unalderated bullshit. Any police officer or detective or special agent with any experience at all in the art of interviewing and interrogating suspects will tell you the following regarding torture: it is illegal; it is ineffective; it would produce false confessions; and it is contrary to the ideals and principals upon which our country and Constitution was founded.
May 23rd, 2009 at 1:47 pmMay 23rd, 2009 at 2:04 pm
Let’s try that again.
May 23rd, 2009 at 2:04 pmHere’s where you need to go:
http://www.waterboardseanhannity.com/
I’m not big on Mancow but at least he had the balls to go through with it and then admit he was wrong. He does deserve credit for that and I’m glad Keith made the donation. I’m curious to see him on Olbermann.
May 23rd, 2009 at 2:17 pmSo, let me get this straight: ONE conservative commentator goes through a “waterboarding” episode, and changes his OPINION to match yours, so NOW his opinion is irrefutable proof of your side? Wonderful logic there. How about the 26,000 SERE trained officers making a collective statement? I’m sure you wouldn’t want that however, as they undoubtably would say hell yeah, do it to the bad guys TOO. I also find it disturbing all the lefties WANT to SEE someone get waterboarded: so how can you possibly think it’s so bad since you want to see fellow Americans, whose only opposition to you happens to be political, having this done?? Ridiculous. KSM and others established themselves as information sources early on, they knew full well they were not going to be killed.
May 23rd, 2009 at 2:30 pmJonW,
How does it feel to be a torture apologist? Aw hell, forget that. How does it feel to be too stupid to breathe?
May 23rd, 2009 at 2:33 pmJonW, I notice you threw “irrefutable” in there, even though no one really made the case that this episode serves as “irrefutable” proof of our position.
Why is that? Did you feel the need to build up the apparent claims of the side you’re attacking in order to increase its vulnerability to the argument you were preparing?
It’s a risk, though. I suppose if one doesn’t notice your sly little addition, it might serve your purpose. But if your disingenuousness is discovered, it weakens your entire position, because it lays bare your willingness to lie in order to make your point.
Unfortunately for you, the latter scenario has occurred. If your argument that followed this embarrassing faux pas had included more compelling evidence and argumentation, you might have been able to recover from the damage. But as it is, it was just a the first crack in a very fragile retaining wall.
But thanks for sharing.
May 23rd, 2009 at 2:48 pmJonW, why not come out and just say that the reason you and the like can’t admit it’s torture because then that would poke the biggest hole yet in the tattered remains of the once all power GOP and the Neocon manifesto.
It’s torture. Whether you want to wrap your head around that or not will not change the fact that it’s torture.
This country is a nation of laws. Not guided by fear.
May 23rd, 2009 at 2:49 pmIt feels great that I would do what it takes to protect my country, just as I did in 8 years of service. If it involves interrogation methods deemed legal, in the full sense of the US Code (read it), and that happens to bother you Zooey, I could give exactly two squats. I forgot where I showed was “too stupid to breathe”, but like most liberals without any REAL ideas or discussions, you resorted to being vicious and insulting. I’ll go ahead and say “not suprised”. I’m not apologizing for anyone or anything, it wasn’t torture, and isn’t torture.
May 23rd, 2009 at 2:50 pmRalph: Excellent attempt, however, it was most of the posters here who seemed to take this incident as “the end” of the debate. Mancow says it now, so it MUST be true. Try to follow along here. My argument is both simple and ultimately persuasive. READ the US code on torture, the waterboarding performed by the CIA does NOT meet it. If you can’t make the connection… well, you can lead a horse to water…
Hell: I am not a GOP’er, or a “neocon”, or connected/affiliated with any party. I merely look at the facts dispassionately, and don’t let emotion play a part in my decision making process. Supposedly, according to Obama, this is what the left is better at than the right, but it appears not. Again I say, show me the “long-term” suffering that Mancow (or other waterboarded persons) will undergo. It’s NOT torture, because it clearly doesn’t fit the definition. I don’t need to wrap my head around your OPINION, as it means absolutely nothing in the context of truth, law, and justice. Sorry.
May 23rd, 2009 at 2:56 pmThank you for your service JonW.
you are wrong. it is torture.
May 23rd, 2009 at 2:56 pmHell:
I appreciate the sentiment, and you are welcome.
I’m still waiting to see a REAL reason why it’s torture. Simply stating I’m wrong doesn’t make it true, even if you do repeat it over and over and over. It may work with the MSM and the general population… but not me or anyone grounded in reality. Why? Becuase Obama says it is? Olbermann? Mancow? KSM and other American-hating prisoners? READ the code on what is torture, then READ the memos describing in explicit detail the EXACT method used, then apply the method to the code.
May 23rd, 2009 at 3:01 pmAsk and ye shall receive. Read well JonW.
Torture is prohibited by federal law in Title 18 of the United States Code, Part I, Chapter 113C, § 2340A. Torture:
(a) Offense.— Whoever outside the United States commits or attempts to commit torture shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both, and if death results to any person from conduct prohibited by this subsection, shall be punished by death or imprisoned for any term of years or for life. (b) Jurisdiction.— There is jurisdiction over the activity prohibited in subsection (a) if—
(1) the alleged offender is a national of the United States; or
(2) the alleged offender is present in the United States, irrespective of the nationality of the victim or alleged offender.
Torture is defined in Title 18, Part I, Chapter 113C, § 2340. Definitions:
“torture” means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control….
A war crime is defined in Title 18, Part I, Chapter 118, § 2441. War crimes (c):
(c) Definition.— As used in this section the term “war crime” means any conduct—
(1) defined as a grave breach in any of the international conventions signed at Geneva 12 August 1949, or any protocol to such convention to which the United States is a party;
(2) prohibited by Article 23, 25, 27, or 28 of the Annex to the Hague Convention IV, Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land, signed 18 October 1907;
(3) which constitutes a grave breach of common Article 3 (as defined in subsection (d)) when committed in the context of and in association with an armed conflict not of an international character; or
(4) of a person who, in relation to an armed conflict and contrary to the provisions of the Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Mines, Booby-Traps and Other Devices as amended at Geneva on 3 May 1996 (Protocol II as amended on 3 May 1996), when the United States is a party to such Protocol, willfully kills or causes serious injury to civilians.
(d) Common Article 3 Violations.—
May 23rd, 2009 at 3:11 pm(1) Prohibited conduct.— In subsection (c)(3), the term “grave breach of common Article 3” means any conduct (such conduct constituting a grave breach of common Article 3 of the international conventions done at Geneva August 12, 1949), as follows:
(A) Torture.— The act of a person who commits, or conspires or attempts to commit, an act specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control for the purpose of obtaining information or a confession, punishment, intimidation, coercion, or any reason based on discrimination of any kind.
(B) Cruel or inhuman treatment.— The act of a person who commits, or conspires or attempts to commit, an act intended to inflict severe or serious physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions), including serious physical abuse, upon another within his custody or control...
(D) Murder.— The act of a person who intentionally kills, or conspires or attempts to kill, or kills whether intentionally or unintentionally in the course of committing any other offense under this subsection, one or more persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including those placed out of combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause…
(G) Rape.— The act of a person who forcibly or with coercion or threat of force wrongfully invades, or conspires or attempts to invade, the body of a person by penetrating, however slightly, the anal or genital opening of the victim with any part of the body of the accused, or with any foreign object.
So because some guy that most people have never heard of couldn’t handle waterboarding that now makes it 100% official that it is torture? I wonder how he would have handled bamboo up the fingernails? I bet this guy would have cried if he got a titty twister and quit within 3 seconds.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5_wUObzb4U
I wonder if this actress would have been able to handle some real torture?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disfigurement
May 23rd, 2009 at 3:13 pmThere was no “ticking time bomb” scenario JonW. 83 seperate acts of waterboarding over a period of a month doesn’t lend itself to some immanent threat that has to be stopped. There has yet to be one shred of evidence to support the idea that actionable intelligence was gathered.
I also served this country and proudly stand behind the principles that this country was founded on. “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness…”
May 23rd, 2009 at 3:17 pmbraxton Says:
So because some guy that most people have never heard of couldn’t handle waterboarding that now makes it 100% official that it is torture?
__________
Sorry, Toni, but this is just too silly for words.
Try again.
May 23rd, 2009 at 3:17 pmJonW Says:
____________
Earth to John… Earth to John… denial is NOT a river in Egypt…
May 23rd, 2009 at 3:19 pmThe Republic of Hymenoptera Stupidity Says:
——————————————————————————–
braxton Says:
So because some guy that most people have never heard of couldn’t handle waterboarding that now makes it 100% official that it is torture?
__________
Sorry, Toni, but this is just too silly for words.
I agree, this guy not liking waterboarding changes nothing.
May 23rd, 2009 at 3:21 pmHell: You didn’t go to the full code (note the …). It further explains the situations under which “severe” suffering is determined. Specifically used, the short duration of the waterboarding along with the immediate reversal of all “unpleasantness” deems it physically not severe suffering, and the absence of ALL long-term mental issues does not meet the definition of severe mental suffering. I appreciate you actually looking some of it up, but put it ALL there, not the ambiguous summary that fits your bill.
Dr. Matt: Have you actually read what they DID. They’re waterboarding was DRASTICALLY different than ours. Most significantly, it commonly consisted of FILLING the stomach with water until distended, and then driving the water BACK up using a BOARD or violent blows to the midsection. Me = not pwned. But thanks for trying.
May 23rd, 2009 at 3:22 pmbraxton Says:
_____________
Actually, your discounting of his comments changes nothing.
May 23rd, 2009 at 3:23 pmMan…
The trolls are in Overdrive HissyFit this morning…
Defend Torture!!! Defend Torture!!!
Kind of astonishing, actually…
May 23rd, 2009 at 3:24 pmThat is your interpretation, and no one that I know has stated that this one incident is, as you claimed “irrefutable proof” of our position. You apparently have a different standard of linguistic accuracy than I do, which could become a problem in a debate.
This is your opinion, and I dare say, a deliberate distortion of what you read here. This distortion is exactly my point. If you need to exaggerate the other side’s position to this extent, it makes you look like you don’t have much in your own arsenal and cannot deal effectively with the other side’s actual argument.
Would I be responding with this level of detail if I weren’t “following along”? But your condescension is noted.
That’s really not up to you, is it? I mean, sure, your argument is persuasive to YOU, but then you’re not your target audience, are you? (If you are, then you’re setting the bar pretty low — trying to convince someone (yourself) who’s already convinced doesn’t take much persuasion.)
No, basically, you only get to say that your argument is “persuasive” when it actually persuades someone else of its correctness. Again, that “accuracy of language” thing.
This is a standard tactic we see quite often here from those with otherwise unconvincing arguments; demand that others research the supporting details of your argument, and then blame them for not doing the work you should be doing in order to build a compelling case.
Besides that, the US is signatory to several international treaties which bar torture, waterboarding has been prosecuted as a war crime and an act of torture, and properly executed and approved international treaties are the law of the land.
I eagerly await your well-researched and argued response.
May 23rd, 2009 at 3:26 pmJonW Says:
Hell:
I appreciate the sentiment, and you are welcome.
I’m still waiting to see a REAL reason why it’s torture. Simply stating I’m wrong doesn’t make it true, even if you do repeat it over and over and over.
You should read, or have read to you, the NPR segment here, which includes this:
Or read this, written by a former JAG, which includes:
and this:
May 23rd, 2009 at 3:26 pm
JonW Says:
Dr. Matt: Have you actually read what they DID. They’re waterboarding was DRASTICALLY different than ours. Most significantly, it commonly consisted of FILLING the stomach with water until distended, and then driving the water BACK up using a BOARD or violent blows to the midsection. Me = not pwned. But thanks for trying.
Read the links I provided. A clear distinction is made about which “water cure” was being used. The Japanese convicted and executed did not fill bellies with water, but used exactly the technique we’re currently referring to. Your “research” appears to be non-existent.
May 23rd, 2009 at 3:28 pmHell: try to put partisanship aside, and grasp that while “certain” memos were released, those depicting the INFORMATION GAINED were denied to be released on the supposition that they did not “rule out” the possibility that the information could have been gleaned using other methods. You can never rule that out, and the only reason to not release THOSE memos at this point is to not discredit your very argument: there’s no “evidence”. Evidence or not, if it wasn’t illegal, then it doesn’t matter. As for the number, that is ANOTHER point of hot debate. Reading the memos gave me this understanding: the high numbers reflected the fact that the procedure was done for a MAXIMUM of 40 seconds at a time, with several minutes pause between repetitions, with a MAXIMUM of 20 minutes. I’m sure you can see that individual “pourings” if you will added up are a high number, where as some reports of KSM’s recollections are that he remembers approximately 5 times.
I also hold to those unalienable truths. I also believe that murderers go to jail (a revocation of their right to liberty), and other such removals of rights based on your actions. Hopefully you do to. Again, I do not condone torture, and in OTHER circumstances there are recorded cases of REAL US torture (that included us handing back a surrendered Iraqi general’s beaten and swollen body).
May 23rd, 2009 at 3:29 pmWell JonW maybe you should have read further because in plain view is this under the definitions:
Ask anyone who thought they were drowing, or someone lucky enough to survive drowning (such as Mancow). It’s immanent death.
As for the differences in waterboarding “techniques”. The SERE training methods were not the same as what the Bush administration authorized. So if you are arguing that what the japanese did isn’t the same then you’ll have to acknowledge that what was done in our name was different than what is done in SERE training.
May 23rd, 2009 at 3:33 pmGlum: An NPR story? And if I pointed you to a Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh story you’d say what?
Specifics my friend, specifics. EXACTLY how was it done? For how long? What were the long term effects of those water-cure, waterboarding, etc techniques? These things matter. I have read other sites (I don’t play the cherry-pick, bold, link game)with more details on the torture procedures that others were accused and convicted of by the US. “One of several” methods was the water-cure, what were the others, and were they more severe and the basis for the prosection. More cherry-picked information.
The CIA procedures did NOT involve the ingestion of water, the drowning sensation was caused due to both the water on the HEAD, and the lack of release of CO2.
May 23rd, 2009 at 3:36 pmJonW, please link to the memos. I’d like to see if this is what was done, or just what the guide lines laid out.
May 23rd, 2009 at 3:38 pmTurds like hannity, o’reilly, limbaugh and others of a similar ugliness are all unnecessary to any any civilized, dignified and intelligent society. That’s why they are so popular and rich in America! AT least a percentage of our population is quite retarded. These are slaves to any loud mouthed and obnoxious public figures like the above. They are also the ones who voted for bush/cheney and still listen to cheney’s desperate attempts to absolve himself of the crimes he has committed.
May 23rd, 2009 at 3:40 pmHell: yes, THAT is exactly the misunderstanding that the “torture” opponents have. You misread the code. You highlight subsection D (but should have more appropriately highlighted C), but didn’t read 2) above it, specifically “PROLONGED mental harm”.
The procedures were spelled out and were either equal or MORE limited than SERE procedures. An SERE trained officer also oversaw the waterboardings.
May 23rd, 2009 at 3:40 pmJonW Says:
Glum: An NPR story? And if I pointed you to a Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh story you’d say what?
NPR is a reputable network; I’m sorry you can’t see the distinction. And I can safely assume you didn’t bother to read either article, because all of your objections are thoroughly answered in one or the other.
Waterboarding is either torture or it isn’t. Answer one simple question, without any more of this nonsense about knowing that the CIA only waterboarded for a few seconds at a time: If waterboarding is not torture, why did the United States try, convict and sentence to 15 years of hard labor, Yukio Asano, for waterboarding a US civilian?
May 23rd, 2009 at 3:41 pmJonW. NPR is very factual in it’s news reporting. You may not want to hear “Car Talk” or “Wait, Wait don’t tell me” but the reporting is detailed, backed by evidence and widely respected in the news reporting world.
5 people died at Gitmo. How and why?
May 23rd, 2009 at 3:41 pmHell: that is my one hangup in this entire mess: the memos merely authorized those specific procedures that were outlined to the DoJ. There is no evidence other than the admissions of the CIA that it was even done, much less proof such as video or other documentary evidence of HOW and if it adhered to the guidelines. But that hasn’t been the point the MSM seems to be getting at, just a blatant “it’s torture because we say it is”. We DID torture people (people get a little wacky after being shot at for years, but that DOESN’T excuse it), but if the procedures were used as described on KSM and the other 2 terrorists, we did NOT torture them. I don’t have a link to the memo’s any handier than if you searched for them yourself. I believe the wiki has a link to the most important one of them (the “2nd” memo).
May 23rd, 2009 at 3:44 pmJonW, you are selectively snipping out what supports your side but ignoring the entire law.
It’s not for you or me to decide this. We have laws that must be upheld. It’s now being reported that the request to crank up the EIM’s came from Cheney’s office hoping for a link between Al Qiada and Iraq. That’s fishing for something that didn’t exist. That’s torture.
May 23rd, 2009 at 3:45 pmvideos were destroyed. That in itself is obstruction of justice and that is something the Bush administration has already been found guilty of. Remember Libby.
May 23rd, 2009 at 3:46 pmThe problem with exposing bias is that it’s usually not apparant or a blind eye will be turned to it when it is shown. If someone’s evidentary truth is based in something, it’s rare to be able to discredit that source. That being said, the NPR story linked actually is pretty factual, and agrees that details are(or were) not available concerning the specifics of most techniques. It highlights one of the methods, in which the recipient passed out severals times, and had the fluid forceably pushed out of this stomach.
May 23rd, 2009 at 3:50 pmYes, JonW, we have no idea if the CIA followed the guidelines because they destroyed 92 Interrogation tapes when Jay Rockefeller started sniffing around.
May 23rd, 2009 at 3:54 pmHey, Jon – just answer ONE simple question:
If waterboarding is not torture and it’s perfectly legal as you have so aggressively asserted, then why did we prosecute and execute a Japanese soldier for waterboarding American prisoners after WWII…?
Just answer that one question, ok, big fella?
May 23rd, 2009 at 3:57 pmHell: I’m not selecting snippets, that the way the code works. A subsection is an extension of a heading. The threat of imminent death MUST cause prolong mental suffereing be deemed torture.
As for destroying evidence, it was not at the time (and I contend should not) be our method to divulge all of our information to the public, else there would be no need for classifications at all. If the tape was merely made for review by a senior official, and said official reviewed and found it to be in conformance, why not destroy it? Or should we keep vaults upon vaults of every piece of information ever obtained. Being in the military, I’m sure you’ve experience the way documents (or evidence) is handled, and after a certain period of time just about everything is destroyed.
The link between Al-Qaida and Iraq is there, has been there, and will be there for all time. Because the MSM and top official say it isn’t, hasn’t and won’t be doesn’t make it true. I’m sure no credence will be given to this tidbit, but I have a personal friend who was a ground intelligence officer in Iraq for 2 tours. To sum up his words, the link between Al-Qaida and Iraq was so obvious, there was no need to obtain any evidence. Flyers strewn everywhere, recruiters all over the place, etc. If you’d like to hear it from the horse’s mouth, wait for a book entitled: Iraq: A Just War by Michael G. Pratt. Should be out in a few months. You can find a few of his writings online I believe, as he wrote some columns for some newspapers. I would also have you know that we argued the very same “torture” argument, with him feeling that what was done was torture. After going through the specific code, and the specifics laid out in the memos, he has since changed his opinion. I also believe has a small website, ajustwar.com or something like that.
May 23rd, 2009 at 3:58 pmWhy would the CIA destroy 92 tapes if they didn’t torture?
May 23rd, 2009 at 3:58 pmIf you think Olbermann is relevant I know why this country is headed right down the toilet. Just be thankful you have Hannity,Bush,Rove,Limbaugh,etc. to blame when you are all unemployed and destitute relying on the government who will have spent all our resources for decades to come. You all will get what you want. Them darn Republicans and conservatives! LOL
May 23rd, 2009 at 4:00 pmAnnie, I’ve already answered that one. The answer is also simple: it was a different procedure, under different conditions. Plain and simple. Look at it this way: if a brother holds his sister underwater for 10 seconds against his will, most reasonable people would call this horseplay. If he did so until she lost consciousness, or died, then it would at best be “wrong” and worst be a crime (murder/homicide). That’s two very different looks at the SAME procedure. Not at the fact that the Japanese methods were different, your not even talking apple to oranges, your talking apples to monkeys.
May 23rd, 2009 at 4:00 pmAnd your lame assertion that it was a “different” kind of waterboarding is complete BS and not an acceptable answer.
May 23rd, 2009 at 4:00 pmUnderaverageJoe: We have your heroes to thank for the mess we’re currently in, but you’re too stupid to figure that out.
May 23rd, 2009 at 4:01 pmI’m sorry you find it unacceptable, but that is the answer. I don’t accept your answer that anything called waterboarding will be torture. If I laid you on a table, and poured water on your feet, and deemed it waterboarding, should I go to prison for torture? I think not.
May 23rd, 2009 at 4:01 pmIt’s too nice a day to be sitting inside. I’m off to attack the lawn.
JonW, once again thank you for your service and for an insult free debate.
I think there is a strong argument that waterboarding is torture. I believe that the destruction evidence by the CIA is obstruction of justice and needs to be investigated.
Happy debating all.
May 23rd, 2009 at 4:02 pmJust read your post at 109 JonW.
Any link between AQ and Iraq came after our invasion. Not before like the Bush administration was claiming.
May 23rd, 2009 at 4:04 pmHell: enjoy the lawn, I would do the same if I wasn’t watching my son while my wife sleeps. I also thank you for the lack of insults.
I agree that there is a strong argument, just that in THIS case, IF the procedures were followed specifically, it falls short of the definition. The destruction of documentation, which at the time was not evidence, I also don’t think constitutes a crime. An inconvenience surely, as it could exonerate (or also incriminate) those involved.
May 23rd, 2009 at 4:04 pmWe should believe you JonW because you have a friend who says the link is so obvious?
That is the dumbest thing I’ve ever read.
May 23rd, 2009 at 4:04 pmJack, I’m sure you’ve read dumber, but I appreciate the earnest attempt at civil conversation (hopefully sarcasm detected)
I gave a name, let you know he has a website (feel free to search for it), and a book coming out. I clearly expect you to “denounce” my source, as it clearly would suit you. But personally, I’d rather have my information from someone who has seen things with his own eyes, than what a news channel or internet site feeds me. I suppose if Olbermann said there was some connection, you’d buy it, but not “some guys friend who happens to have been a ground intelligence officer there”.
May 23rd, 2009 at 4:06 pmJonW Says:
I’m sorry you find it unacceptable, but that is the answer. I don’t accept your answer that anything called waterboarding will be torture. If I laid you on a table, and poured water on your feet, and deemed it waterboarding, should I go to prison for torture? I think not.
So, Mr. Moron, do YOU breathe through your friggin’ FEET?
Idiot. Try a real argument – not a statement that is pathetically STOOPID, ok???
May 23rd, 2009 at 4:08 pmJonW Says:
Annie, I’ve already answered that one. The answer is also simple: it was a different procedure, under different conditions.
BULLSH*T.
May 23rd, 2009 at 4:09 pmProduce one link JonW where an expert says that waterboarding is not torture.
May 23rd, 2009 at 4:09 pmGive me one SERE instructor who says it’s not torture, JonW.
May 23rd, 2009 at 4:10 pmAnd your friend in Iraq doesn’t count as a source.
May 23rd, 2009 at 4:11 pm…if a brother holds his sister underwater for 10 seconds against his will, most reasonable people would call this horseplay….
More stupid.
Let’s try a more realistically applicable scenario, jonboy: sister has been kidnapped by foreign nationals. She doesn’t speak their language. She has no idea what they want from her – are they going to rape her? Kill her? Cut her with knives?
Now, let’s try that holding her head underwater scenario, Jonny – if that was you, would’t you be stark terrified that they were going to drown you?
Would you consider that “horseplay”?
Tell the truth – if you can. (which I doubt)
May 23rd, 2009 at 4:13 pmI’ll give you one who says it is: Jesse Ventura.
You go.
May 23rd, 2009 at 4:13 pmMancow isn’t the only media personality who attempted this. Christopher Hitchens did too and said it was torture.
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/08/hitchens200808
May 23rd, 2009 at 4:15 pmJonW Says:
So, let me get this straight: ONE conservative commentator goes through a “waterboarding” episode, and changes his OPINION to match yours, so NOW his opinion is irrefutable proof of your side? Wonderful logic there. How about the 26,000 SERE trained officers making a collective statement? I’m sure you wouldn’t want that however, as they undoubtably would say hell yeah, do it to the bad guys TOO. I also find it disturbing all the lefties WANT to SEE someone get waterboarded: so how can you possibly think it’s so bad since you want to see fellow Americans, whose only opposition to you happens to be political, having this done?? Ridiculous. KSM and others established themselves as information sources early on, they knew full well they were not going to be killed.
Unlike you on the right, we do not get off on torture. Maybe some of us want to see the conservatives on the right walk the walk after talking the talk about how they would want to get waterboarded to show it’s nothing more than a more intense shower. It doesn’t mean we’re getting all hot and bothered about it like you wingnuts do.
I’m surprised that you did not dismiss him as a faux conservative, a liberal in conservative’s clothing, a Trojan horse planted by the vast left-wing conspiracy to discredit the right-wing movement at exactly the right time.
May 23rd, 2009 at 4:17 pmAssuming for the sake of argument that JonW has a valid point — that the “water treatment” for which Japanese officers were convicted after WW2 was performed differently than the waterboarding that JonW defends, does that mean that it is less effective than the method that earned its practitioner 15 years at hard labor? If so, why would the folks at Guantanamo put American lives at risk by using a lesser method of tort– er, “enhanced interrogation” when there was a ticking time bomb in someone’s imagination for gosh sakes?
And if it is just as effective, why would a Japanese officer risk prison time by employing torture when a similar, equally effective but non-torture method was available to him?
Very puzzling.
May 23rd, 2009 at 4:19 pmJonW, please provide proof that KSM knew that he wasn’t going to be killed. That’s absurd.
May 23rd, 2009 at 4:19 pmIf I laid you on a table, and poured water on your feet, and deemed it waterboarding, should I go to prison for torture? I think not.
Indeed, because it would be nothing more than a FOOTBATH…You’re comparing apples and oranges, way to make a false analogy here. Waterboarding is stimulated drowning, not an intense shower for you wingers’ pleasure.
May 23rd, 2009 at 4:19 pmJonW you are defending torture and you decry my lack of civility?
May 23rd, 2009 at 4:22 pmJonW Says:
Look at it this way: if a brother holds his sister underwater for 10 seconds against his will, most reasonable people would call this horseplay.
Do you think your parents would have thought it mere horseplay if you held your sibling underwater for 10 seconds against his will? Would they have said, “Oh Jon, I know you were horsing around, but let’s not do it anymore?” Face it, torture apologist, you are straining the analogies here.
May 23rd, 2009 at 4:25 pmIt’s all horseplay and college pranks to JonW. 100 detainees have died from goofing around. Oh well.
May 23rd, 2009 at 4:26 pmExperts don’t make law Jack, the law is already written, and should be enforced as such. It requires no special interpretation to see that NO long term mental or physical suffering would be induced by 20 seconds of drowning (simulated). Was it a happy time for KSM and others? Of course not? Did you WANT it to be?
Annie, I would hope that you know I don’t breathe through my feet, but for your edification, no I do not. My argument was patently real, please try to reread it. To summarize, stating that “all waterboarding is torture” is tantamount to “all girls smell good” and “all fruit tastes good”. It’s a generalization. In law, specifics are REQUIRED, not desired, and they do indeed make or break a case (we should hope).
So far, I see that I’m “STOOPID”, I my potentially breathe through my feet, I’ve said the dumbest thing that Jack has EVER read (there are tons of fun sites out there for you in that case Jack!!), I’m lame, and full of BS. Is it necessary to demonize me in order to reject my logic?
Ralph: You probably won’t get this, but I apologize for missing your posting, and will answer thusly:
Several comments were made along the lines of: all the people saying it’s not torture have to be quiet now. I’ll not copy and paste as it’s easily available to you, if you merely scroll up and read. I guess you could say I’m “lazy” like that. That is my basis for shooting it down as “irrefutable proof”. As a headline, I might tone it down to “another person thinks it was torture”, or as it were, irrelevant to the question of whether it was torture or not.
The Mancow statement was not an exaggeration, but a sarcastic rendering of what may be percieved as TP reader’s general attitude. AKA, “if he agrees with me, NOW he’s right/truthful/etc”.
My argument IS simple, so hopefully no refutation there. Read the code, read the memos about what was done, compare the 2, and therefore come to the conclusion it’s not torture. I’m sorry that I cannot persuade YOU, or even anyone else on this forum. I call it ultimately persuasive as ultimately, I’ve persuaded multiple people, some even hard-core liberals, of my point. I make no promises of what I presume to be an already biased reader-base’s abilities to accept my reasoning.
Me actually requiring other people to do their OWN research is my method of ensuring it is accurate. As shown above, multiple postings of relevant (and yet unsupportive) information were posted, highlighted/bolded. I could do the same thing, but this removes content, and provides for the possibility that I “doctored” it, etc. I’m not blaming anyone, and I’ve already done the research. Perhaps that is why I hold true to my convictions, it’s not based entirely off someone else’s searching?
I agree that the US has signed treaties barring torture, as well as people have been convicted of torturing using methods called waterboarding. If you read above you should see how calling something waterboarding does not inherently give it all characteristics of any waterboarding ever done.
May 23rd, 2009 at 4:27 pmHey Jack, do you remember how Rush was saying Abu Ghirab was all frat boy humor? It’s funny how JonW is dismissing it as horseplay and trivial but would he volunteer to be waterboarded? It’s easy to say that it’s not torture, when you know that you’ll never have to go through it. Now, Jon, if you’re reading it, I don’t WANT you to go through it. It is torture and no one should have to experience it, but I’m expressing my sincere doubts that you would want to go through it, even though you think it’s just a heavier shower.
May 23rd, 2009 at 4:29 pmMe actually requiring other people to do their OWN research is my method of ensuring it is accurate.
For someone who insists on objectively looking at waterboarding, you seem to have come up with the conclusion beforehand and then found sources to back up your proof, no offense. One question: why do the torture apologists when THEY get waterboarded change their tune? Christopher Hitchens and now Mancow? Would you be willing to conduct your research firsthand? Not that I’m saying you should.
May 23rd, 2009 at 4:31 pmJonny – you’ve missed one very essential point here:
The very fact that you defend and/or advocate torture means that you do not deserve my courtesy.
Deal with it, sadist. Or not. I don’t give a damn.
May 23rd, 2009 at 4:34 pmAnd Jon? You’re the one who equated pouring water over a prisoner’s nose and mouth (through which he breathes) with pouring water on his feet – not I.
May 23rd, 2009 at 4:35 pmJon, you wrote at 74:
So, let me get this straight: ONE conservative commentator goes through a “waterboarding” episode, and changes his OPINION to match yours, so NOW his opinion is irrefutable proof of your side? Wonderful logic there. How about the 26,000 SERE trained officers making a collective statement? I’m sure you wouldn’t want that however, as they undoubtably would say hell yeah, do it to the bad guys TOO. I also find it disturbing all the lefties WANT to SEE someone get waterboarded: so how can you possibly think it’s so bad since you want to see fellow Americans, whose only opposition to you happens to be political, having this done?? Ridiculous. KSM and others established themselves as information sources early on, they knew full well they were not going to be killed.
Not one of the 26,000 SERE officers have come forward to say HELL YEAH!
They have undoubtedly not come forward as of yet, Jon. What are they waiting for?
May 23rd, 2009 at 4:40 pmSigh…JonW seems to believe that he is the only one that has actually done independent research, read the memos, looked at the law and reached a conclusion. He is wrong. Many of us have done likewise (as evidenced by some of the links and excerpts provided in the above postings), and reached the conclusion that what the US engaged in was torture, was a violation of law, and should be properly investigated and prosecuted. Sorry Jon, but your argument really isn’t that persuasive…just you misinterpreting the facts and trying to twist things to match your preconceived notion that torture is justified (or, as you put it, not torture at all). Of course you will just claim the same about us…that we are just biased and mixing and matching info to back our own beliefs. I’m just glad that I am on the side that has the moral high ground. It must be depressing to be associated with the party of torture and morally eroding to be such a vocal torture apologist.
May 23rd, 2009 at 4:43 pmHe must have thought looking at GOP talking points was all the research he needed…
May 23rd, 2009 at 4:43 pmJack: I’d like to see the point of view of a majority of the SERE instructors. NOT ONE, but a majority. They’ve done it for years and have the best view of it possible. How many do you see on MSM decrying it? As for proof KSM knew he wouldn’t be drowned, give me a break here. How about you give me proof he knew he would be drowned? That would be impossible, and you know it.
UCSB Kitty: I don’t get off on torture, or even waterboarding. I don’t want ANYONE to have to go through it, much less our military members, as I’m sure it’s a horrible experience. But that’s NOT the point, it’s whether it’s legal or not. I do not dismiss Mancow as I don’t know him or actually even OF him. What I do know is that he went through a bad experience, and called it torture. I’m sure there’s hundreds of experiences I could go through, and say it’s torture. Again, this doesn’t make it so. We have a LEGAL definition of torture. As so many have said, this is a land with the rule of law. If you uphold that, then the waterboarding that was specifically outlined in CIA memos is not torture as it doesn’t not meet the definition. It doesn’t matter if Obama, Bush, Cheney, Pelosi, Moses, Olbermann, or whomever you choose gets up in front of the world and declares it, per the letter of the law it is not. The footbath example was not intended to say that’s the same as the procedure used by the CIA, in fact that was exactly the point. If you called a footbath waterboarding, that doesn’t make it torture. These two words do NOT have an inherent relationship. Calling it waterboarding, as there are cases of waterboarding in which it was deemed torture, should merely raise the questions “is it?”. Then a direct comparison with the specific circumstances/method and the definition of torture is required to call it so.
As a child, I DID wrestle around with my sister in the swimming pool, and on occasion DID hold her briefly underwater. And yes, on occasion I was told I needed to settle down and stop (which I did). It wasn’t malicious, of course, and neither is interogation inherently malicious. I think that’s part of the problem. So many people get this image of Bush and Cheney with evil smiles pouring gallons of water directly down KSM’s throat while cackling wildly. THIS IS NOT REALITY. I find it difficult to swallow that so many Americans believe the leader of our country (AND his second) were so evil (as well, by Proxy, that Obama is so very good).
Death and true tortue should not be condoned. Personally I don’t think we should be in Iraq/Afghanistan at all (shows you just how radical “right-wing” I am). I say let them all go OVER THERE, and bring our boys home. I’m a normal, decent guy, with a wife and kids, who believes in America and that there is good in almost everyone. I would hope the same for everyone.
May 23rd, 2009 at 4:43 pmJonW Says:
The link between Al-Qaida and Iraq is there, has been there, and will be there for all time. Because the MSM and top official say it isn’t, hasn’t and won’t be doesn’t make it true.
______________
Apparently all it takes to Make It True™ is YOUR insistence…
Remarkable…
Astonishing verbal gymnastics there, BTW…
May 23rd, 2009 at 4:45 pmAnd we know know the name of at least one torturer (link at C&L’s Mike’s Blog roundup):
[regarding the inspector general's report, regarding the "enhanced interrogation techniques, sanctioned by the Bush administration:
"[...] After being removed from his house, Jamadi was manhandled by several of the SEALs, who gave him a black eye and a cut on his face; he was then transferred to CIA custody, for interrogation at Abu Ghraib. According to witnesses, Jamadi was walking and speaking when he arrived at the prison. He was taken to a shower room for interrogation. Some forty-five minutes later, he was dead.”
At the time of his death, Jamadi’s head was covered with a plastic bag, he was shackled in a crucifixion-like pose that inhibited his ability to breathe and according to forensic pathologists who have examined the case, he suffocated.
The CIA interrogator implicated in his death was Mark Swanner, who was never charged with a crime despite a recommendation by investigators working for Helgerson that the Justice Department launch a criminal investigation into the matter.
Just as we had the Rogue’s Deck of Saddam’s henchmen, so too should we have an acknowledged roll of the men who chose to ignore the law, and bow to political expedience, instead of standing up for American ideals and traditions.
Mark Swanner (if that’s his real name), now heads the Torturer’s List of Bush-era war criminals.
May 23rd, 2009 at 4:53 pmThat’s my point, Jon! I would never make the statement that KSM knew he was going to be killed–it’s absurd—sooooo you can’t assert with certainty the opposite. You are guessing, friend.
May 23rd, 2009 at 4:54 pmJonW, I am a bit more reassured of how you paint yourself, and I understand your concern about protecting your family, especially in times like these, and if I accused you of getting off on torture, well I apologize, but to the wingers I do not, because I think they are stuck in a 24-based worldview, one that skewers reality. But, I really hope that you realize that there are other ways in getting our info from these terror suspects and that in many ways, torture only works if you want them to say what you want to say, mainly the link between Saddam and Al Qaeda. If you look at the history, people have confessed after undergoing torture to everything from being a witch to Saddam abetting and aiding Al Qaeda. It does not work. What Mancow went through, how do you know that it is not torture? What expert sources have you read that would lead you to the belief that it is not torture and that we must have given him the easy treatment? I would think that the loudest voices when it comes to torture do not know what the hell they are talking about.
I would confess to being a witch, JFK’s assassin, or the 20th hijacker if I knew that that’s what they WANTED to hear…Do you not see how many times interrogators ask leading questions, especially while torturing? You NEVER ask leading questions because that influences the one being questioned to follow the lead. It does not work when it comes to counseling our students in our schools and it does not work when it comes to interrogation and torture. Torture works if you want to get false confessions, just ask the Chinese during the Korean War. WHAT we did in getting that false link between Saddam and Al Qaeda is no better than what we decried the Chinese for doing.
None of us are saying that Obama is inherently good as if we approve of all of his positions. That is a false conclusion here. We do not have any qualms criticizing him for his positions if they do not adhere to our own standards and ideals. But I find it just as disturbing that Obama is seeming to cover up for the last administration when it comes to torture.
May 23rd, 2009 at 4:55 pmKitty: I have said nothing about Abu Ghraid, please leave your assumptions at the door. What happened there was unacceptable, and was clearly not “foolig around”. It is NOT RELATED to the topic I’m discussing, which is: was the waterboarding that was conducted on KSM and 2 others legally torture. Plain and simple. Yes, I WOULD be willing to undergo waterboarding under two conditions: it would empower our CIA to continue it’s use in certain situations, and further revelations of our countries intelligence gathering be suspended. Would I like it? Of COURSE not. Will I call it torture afterwards? NO. Because I have read the legal definition of such, and it does not meet it. I had no foregone conclusion, I merely saw all the debate, and did research on my own. There IS waterboarding that is torture (and the US HAS committed it!!!). Just not in this case.
Annie: Your self-justification of viciousness is uncanny. I’m curious, are you pro-choice? If so, should I open myself up to such things as calling you a murdering, unsympathetic baby-killer? Why, that wouldn’t be civil, and so I choose not to do so. If my argument were taken such that the waterboarding is not torture, then you have tossed civility out the window for naught. I just as soon write you off as a nasty-spirited person who doesn’t want anyone who disagrees speaking up. Fortunately for me and others, this is a society in which I am allowed to have a different opinion from you. I have tried rationally to show you my point of view, but you seem so obstinate as to not even bothering to understand the situations that I pose. Try less hate, more understanding, and while you still might not agree with me, at least some will think of you on better terms.
Grick: “Sigh” as well. I have answered each post to the best of my ability, and have maintained the stance of: show me the long-term aka prolonged severe mental or physical effects from the waterboarding that was performed on KSM, as the US Code clearly calls out as being required to satisfy the definition of torture. No one has done so. They have posted other’s opinions, or newspaper articles of past “waterboardings”, none of which show how the CIA’s waterboarding meets the definition. I ask this: if the CIA had dubbed it “showering”, with no direct connotation to prior “waterboarding” convictions, how then would you draw your conclusion? I would hope it would be based on the specifics of the situation, and the true meaning of the word torture as defined by our laws. If not, how would you like to be on the wrong side of a judge’s verdict of “sympathy”?
May 23rd, 2009 at 4:56 pmIf the administration had enough information about a link between Iraq and Al Queda (before the invasion) to capture someone who would spill the beans, didn’t the administration, then, have enough information without using torture?
May 23rd, 2009 at 4:57 pmIt is my opinion that the SERE officers are patriotic Americans and at least ONE of the 26,000 would have come forward by now to defend Cheney and the Interrogation Policy of the US if they believed it were just.
May 23rd, 2009 at 4:57 pmI don’t want ANYONE to have to go through it, much less our military members, as I’m sure it’s a horrible experience. But that’s NOT the point, it’s whether it’s legal or not.
It’s not, and the fact that we have done it removes any bit of trust that we won’t do it again, under certain circumstances. That puts us on par with Communist China, Russia, and any African dictator who happens to capture one of our soldiers in coming conflicts, and use the precedent we set, to try to extract intel for him/her. We have no moral authority to protest, now that we have sunk to this level.
May 23rd, 2009 at 4:58 pmJonW Says:
They’ve done it for years and have the best view of it possible. How many do you see on MSM decrying it?
____________
Of course… on the other hand, none of them are DEFENDING it either.
And those who HAVE BEEN water boarded all call it torture.
No wonder poor, little Sean Hannity is so afraid to back up his own Wingnut Tough Talk™…
What an amazing coincidence…
Know what else is amazing here?
The degree to which George is remaining silent on all of this, letting his old BBF fight the good fight all by hisself.
‘Course, rumor has it that Cheney was the one who went rogue and ordered that water boarding, trying to prove a non-existent Iraq-al Qaeda connection, and that George really wasn’t part of THAT particular bit of shite after all.
Which could explain why G is staying so quiet. It’s almost like G likes seeing BiggusDickus dangling at the end of that rope, huh? But hey… yer talking a dude who’s reputed to have entertained hisself as a little boy by blowing up frogs w/ fire crackers and then giggled about sending people to their deaths in Texas when he was governor.
What goes around… comes around. Ouch…
Cheny’s prolly the biggest frog Li’l George will ever get to stick a lit fire cracker in, huh?
May 23rd, 2009 at 5:01 pmIt is NOT RELATED to the topic I’m discussing,
Yes it is, because both policies were instituted at Gitmo, and tranferred to the wider theater of conflict.
May 23rd, 2009 at 5:01 pmJon, even ceding your premise that there are acceptible limits on waterboarding there is no evidence as to exactly how the CIA waterboarded. The tapes were destroyed. You are arguing on the legal memos–but there’s no evidence that the agents strictly adhered to those guidelines. And the fact that the tapes were destroyed is grounds for doubting the veracity of the CIA.
May 23rd, 2009 at 5:05 pmI’m sure there’s hundreds of experiences I could go through, and say it’s torture.
Nice, and non-judgemental. Except the prisoners didn’t “go through” these sessions — they were subjected to them, under duress. Name one experience you could go through and rationally claim to have been tortured.
May 23rd, 2009 at 5:06 pmRepublic: Have you ever played the game “telephone”? How’d that turn out for you? When information is passed from source to intermediary X many times, there is clearly a chance it has lost something. When I’m told by someone who has seen with his own eyes, so much evidence of AQ-Iraq connections it didn’t even warrant gathering evidence, I’m more inclined to believe that side of the story. The MSM posts retractions, etc on a daily basis.
Barfly: In such a case, clearly some criminal prosecution is warranted. Again however, THIS discussion is not that case.
Jack: I would argue that it could easily be called either way. On one hand, KSM could have been fearful of his life. On the other, maybe he was so smug in his usefulness he felt. It really doesn’t matter, as I think the POINT is for the person to think they are going to die, and therefore divulge information. I would say however, that after x number of performances, and having lived through them, he didn’t truly think he was going to die. It also doesn’t matter towards the definition of torture. I would HOPE his stay was not a pleasant one.
Kitty: I’m not interested in an “expert’s” position, as both sides of this argument have many. Increasingly, it seems airtime is given to those who support the general attitude of the MSM (which in most cases seems to lean left/Democrat). My information comes from the CIA memos that were released, which detail the procedure to be used EXACTLY. It also includes it’s own, very lengthy discussion of the definition of torture, and exactly how it does not meet the code and is therefore not torture. The memo is not my basis, my own comparison of the methods used, and the US code on torture are. Upon hearing of the arguments of prior convictions, I also researched these for mitigating factors to my position, and while initially thinking the Japanese Officers would change me, upon further research I saw the two situations were drastically different. The other problem I see often is the implication that they wanted a confession out of him. Ok, sure, perhaps (no facts here) that was part of it, but more importantly they wanted information leading to the capture of MORE of his kind and the interference in other plots that could take American lives. This information could be made up as well, certainly, but it also could be CHECKED OUT, and provide leads. The White House will not release the memo’s detailing the information received from KSM, which to me seems indicative that they say what the White House doesn’t want known: that perhaps these methods DID save thousands of lives in Los Angeles or prevent Jose Padilla from killing even more. If it WAS truly torture, I don’t care what it could have prevented, it would be illegal. But the letter of the law is that it wasn’t.
May 23rd, 2009 at 5:10 pmJust one, Jon.
May 23rd, 2009 at 5:10 pmBarfly: In such a case, clearly some criminal prosecution is warranted. Again however, THIS discussion is not that case.
Says who? Weren’t you just berating someone for attemtping to limit debate?
May 23rd, 2009 at 5:11 pmHow is it not an exaggeration? It is an exaggeration in support of sarcasm, but it is STILL an exaggeration. To make the claim that it is NOT an exaggeration, because it is a “sarcastic rendering” is absurd, and reveals an important clue into the way you shape your arguments.
Yeah, that’s simple, all right. Easy too. No actual argumentation listed there, just your interpretation of what the Code contains, and an easy dismissal of anyone who might interpret it differently. Simple.
Ultimately, not very persuasive, but I agree that it is simple.
You seem rather defeatist about this. Sure, you haven’t had much success convincing anyone here, but then, you haven’t really mounted an argument intended to persuade. You’ve simply expressed your opinion, and expected THAT to persuade us. The fact that you’ve ignored most other points offered in response doesn’t really work in your favor, either.
You have little idea what my biases are or are not, other than that I am biased in favor of precise language and biased against sloppy argumentation. The fact that you’re already setting up my alleged biases as an excuse for your failure to mount a convincing argument says quite a bit about your patience and your level of respect for your intended audience.
Interesting. MY preferred method of ensuring that my research is accurate is to NOT depend on others to do it. I research, decide if the information is credible, decide if the intended audience has reason to find it credible, and then I present it as clearly and fairly as I can. I choose to give my audience the fewest possible reasons to reject the source and the information. Most still reject it, of course, but at least I comfort myself with knowing that I’ve done the best I could to present the most compelling case.
Your concern for removing the possibility that you have “doctored” evidence is admirable, but I find it misguided. I simply don’t seek to “doctor” evidence. If someone catches me misrepresenting the information or cherry-picking to dishonestly leave a different impression than the original, in context, provides, they have every right to discredit my arguments. So I try not to do it.
In short, I take the responsibility for building the best case I can in a debate. I trust the other side to consider responsibly the argument I present. In a forum like this, they very, very seldom keep that end of the bargain, and so I often wind up making sophomoric jokes at their expense. But if their comments seem to warrant it, I will let them prove their disinterest in honest debate first.
May 23rd, 2009 at 5:12 pmI would HOPE his stay was not a pleasant one.
But you don’t particularly care if we broke any international treaties, because of it?
May 23rd, 2009 at 5:14 pmI’ve persuaded multiple people, some even hard-core liberals, of my point. I make no promises of what I presume to be an already biased reader-base’s abilities to accept my reasoning.
Where, in an elevator? In the dentists office? Some of your co-workers?
I don’t think it was persuasion…
May 23rd, 2009 at 5:16 pmWhere did you get the legal definition if I might ask? Did you look at John Yoo’s memos? Just because he wrote the memo to rewrite the definition of waterboarding does not mean that what the CIA did was legal. Did you read international law and what it says about it instead of some exercise in semantics to stretch the legal boundaries of our action?
Here is the Office of Legal Counsel’s 2002 memo, which I believe you might have used…
As we understand it, when the waterboard is used, the subject’s body responds as if the subject were drowning—even though the subject may be well aware that he is in fact not drowning. You have informed us that this procedure does not inflict actual physical harm. Thus, although the subject may experience the fear or panic associated with the feeling of drowning, the waterboard does not inflict physical pain. as we explained in the Section 2340A Memorandum, “pain and suffering” as used in Section 2340 is best understood as a single concept, not distinct concepts of “pain” as distinguished from “suffering”… The waterboard, which inflicts no pain or actual harm whatsoever, does not, in our view, inflict “severe pain and suffering”. Even if one were to parse the stature more “finely” to attempt to treat suffering as a distinct concept, the waterboard could not be said to inflict severe suffering. The waterboard is simply a controlled acute episode, lacking the connotation of a protracted period of time generally given to suffering… We find the use of the waterboard constitutes a threat of imminent death… Although the procedure will be monitored by personnel with medical training and extensive SERE school experience with this procedure who will ensure the subject’s mental and physical safety, the subject is not aware of any of these precautions. From the vantage point of any reasonable person undergoing this procedure in such circumstances, he would feel as if he is drowning at the very moment of the procedure due to the uncontrollable physiological sensation he is experiencing. Thus, this procedure cannot be viewed as too uncertain to satisfy the imminence requirement. Accordingly, it constitutes a threat of imminent death and fulfills the predicate act requirement under the statute. Although the waterboard constitutes the real threat of imminent death, prolonged mental harm must nonetheless result to violate the statutory prohibition on infliction of severe mental pain or suffering… We have previously concluded that prolonged mental harm is mental harm of some lasting duration, e.g., mental harm lasting months or years. Based on your research into the use of these methods at the SERE school and consultation with others with expertise in the field of psychology and interrogation, you do not anticipate that any prolonged mental harm would result from the use of the waterboard… In the absence of prolonged mental harm,no severe mental pain or suffering would have been inflicted, and the use of these procedures would not constitute torture within the meaning of the statute.
The flaw I see in this reasoning is that the trainees at SERE knew that they were not going to face imminent death so they were reassured that they had at least some sense of control over the situation. Yes, Mancow had reassurance that he would not be tortured to death, but what about the detainees at Guantanamo? Part of the definition of torture includes psychological pain and suffering, right? Did these detainees know that the CIA would have not gone past the line when it came to their waterboarding? When you do not have a sense of control, you are more apt to panic and suffer tremendous emotional and psychological pain. Hitchers later reported to suffer from nightmares, a symptom of PTSD. How do you know that Mancow won’t suffer the same? What about the SERE trainees? Has there been any research into any possible PTSD when it came to waterboarding?
If our waterboarding of KSM was legal, why did the CIA refuse to provide the documentation to Senator Rockefeller when he requested it? What did they have to hide? If by the memos the interrogation and waterboarding were legal, why not provide it? What did they have to hide?
May 23rd, 2009 at 5:17 pmIt’s a clear-cut case: Waterboarding can without any reservation be labeled as torture. It fulfils all of the four central criteria that according to the United Nations Convention Against Torture (UNCAT) defines an act of torture. First, when water is forced into your lungs in this fashion, in addition to the pain you are likely to experience an immediate and extreme fear of death. You may even suffer a heart attack from the stress or damage to the lungs and brain from inhalation of water and oxygen deprivation. In other words there is no doubt that waterboarding causes severe physical and/or mental suffering – one central element in the UNCAT’s definition of torture. In addition the CIA’s waterboarding clearly fulfills the three additional definition criteria stated in the Convention for a deed to be labeled torture, since it is 1) done intentionally, 2) for a specific purpose and 3) by a representative of a state – in this case the US.
May 23rd, 2009 at 5:20 pmwiley: Why did they use waterboarding? Was it to prove an AQ-Iraq link? Get KSM to admit to 9/11? I think not: it was to gain information that could prevent another attack. Some say it worked, but we won’t know unless the results are released (which has been denied).
Jack: With the goings-on in Washington, would you want to be the individual (who very well may still be subject to the administration)to call them on their position? In addition, military members are not permitted to take part in political issues unless fully released by their command. I also believe that the SERE trainees are forbidden to speak about it. Have you been in the military? Evidence is one thing, documentation is another. It is routine practice to purge files that are no longer useful in almost ALL government agencies. The fact that is possible it could exonerate or incriminate persons after the fact does not make it criminal or even suspect; unless it was done intentionally to hide. With what evidence there IS, it is legal, and yet many fight tooth and nail to say it’s not. With NO evidence. Is this a country where we are innocent until PROVEN guilty, or guilty if not politically correct?
Republic: So you’re saying you’d more believe rumors that the ex-vice president is actually an evil person at heart who wanted detainees to suffer regardless of what came of it? Are you one of those that denounce the fight to have Obama’s birth certificate revealed(personally, I don’t care) as “conspiracy theorists”? Verbal gymnastics…
Barfly: so if I can go through an experience, and it cannot classify it as torture, then Mancow’s declaration is equally meaningless. He did it to himself right?
Hows this: On my submarine, the command decided to put the entire ship in a situation where a vast majority felt our lives were in danger. I had trouble sleeping for weeks following this. While I enlisted voluntarily, I did NOT volunteer for submarine duty, and while I raised my objections to the operations, they were “duly noted” and ignored. The operation was successful, but for ~6 minutes I truly felt a strong possibility I and 140 shipmates were going to die. Was this torture? I could SAY it was… but it doesn’t make it so. The point is not what I have or haven’t gone through, it’s that “saying” something doesn’t make it a fact. If I “said” a dandelion was a rose… it’s still a dandelion by the definition. You could have experts call the dandelion a rose: it’s still a dandelion. You could point out the similarities between a dandelion and a rose, but it is STILL a dandelion.
May 23rd, 2009 at 5:23 pmThe flaw I see in this reasoning is that the trainees at SERE knew that they were not going to face imminent death so they were reassured that they had at least some sense of control over the situation. Yes, Mancow had reassurance that he would not be tortured to death, but what about the detainees at Guantanamo?
And the flaw is the prop employed in Mancow’s session. I don’t believe the detainees were given something to hold, so that they could drop it to signal their wish to end the session. In SERE training, are they given such fail-safe items?
May 23rd, 2009 at 5:24 pmBarfly: so if I can go through an experience, and it cannot classify it as torture, then Mancow’s declaration is equally meaningless. He did it to himself right?
Read my last post, about the props.
May 23rd, 2009 at 5:24 pmKitty: water did not/does not enter the lungs in the CIA’s version. PLEASE… READ the memos.
I had no allusions I would convince anyone, but I had to join the festivities. I thank those who debated rationally and civilly with me, but alas it is finally time for me to enjoy the weekend.
JonW
May 23rd, 2009 at 5:25 pmand while I raised my objections to the operations, they were “duly noted” and ignored. Was this torture? I could SAY it was… but it doesn’t make it so.
That was an absurd exercise, for many reasons. You could have refused at any time to participate. These detainees didn’t have that option.
May 23rd, 2009 at 5:28 pmMy information comes from the CIA memos that were released, which detail the procedure to be used EXACTLY. It also includes it’s own, very lengthy discussion of the definition of torture, and exactly how it does not meet the code and is therefore not torture. The memo is not my basis, my own comparison of the methods used, and the US code on torture are. Upon hearing of the arguments of prior convictions
You say you do not rely on experts, but how do you know that the CIA memos are credible and not just an exercise in self-justification? How do you know what they wrote in the memo is exactly the same method they have used in waterboarding? While it is commendable that you sought to compare the CIA memo to the law, I have to question the memo itself as a credible source. I admit I am afraid to undergo waterboarding so I could not experience it firsthand so I am forced to rely on experts. However, international law trumps a CIA memo any day of the week…because perhaps it is my distrust of the CIA speaking here.
May 23rd, 2009 at 5:28 pmRalph: Perhaps I’m merely slow, but are you suggesting that I’m wrong because I don’t provide the argument in a manner that you like??
I would like to continue the discussion at a later time with any with an open mind (again, I initially felt it was torture as well). You may email me at maxhptuner@yahoo. com Good day all.
May 23rd, 2009 at 5:29 pmWell said, UCSBKitty…I had just written something similar, highlighting the UN Convention Against Torture, but refreshed the page to see that you had beaten me to it! Of course, JonW will probably respond with something intelligent, like ‘I don’t care what the UN or International law says…just dodgy legal opinions from Yoo.’ Since he seems to like to pick and choose the things that re-enforce his torture fetish while ignoring law and morality.
May 23rd, 2009 at 5:30 pmJonW Says:
Kitty: water did not/does not enter the lungs in the CIA’s version. PLEASE… READ the memos.
And if that doesn’t convince you, view the tapes. Oh, forgot, no tapes…
May 23rd, 2009 at 5:30 pmIs JOnW seriously basing his argument on the DoJ memos?
Is that what’s going on here? Looking to John Yoo and David Addington as legal authorities on what constitutes torture?
It would explain a lot.
May 23rd, 2009 at 5:31 pmJonW Says:
Kitty: water did not/does not enter the lungs in the CIA’s version. PLEASE… READ the memos.
The CIA has not shown me any proof of its bona fides…They destroyed the tapes…how can I be persuaded that they did not write a memo as an exercise in self-justification?
May 23rd, 2009 at 5:32 pmThanks Jon, for ducking my point about the use of props. I guess it must have been too hard to rebut.
May 23rd, 2009 at 5:33 pmI would like to continue the discussion at a later time with any with an open mind (again, I initially felt it was torture as well).
Nice attempts at accomodation and acceptance, but your rebuttal is weak.
May 23rd, 2009 at 5:35 pmNo, I’m suggesting , as I said, that your argument is unpersuasive because you don”t seem inclined to do the heavy lifting that might make it more convincing. You might be right, you might be wrong. Right now I think you’re wrong, and for the reasons I mentioned, you have failed to change my mind.
You can misrepresent what I said so that you find it easier to ridicule if you like; you seem adept at that maneuver. But then you won’t get what I’m saying… not that you seem particularly interested in it to begin with.
May 23rd, 2009 at 5:36 pmAh, I see. JonW was talking about the CIA memos, not the DoJ. My bad.
CIA. Yeah. they’re much more trustworthy.
May 23rd, 2009 at 5:37 pmBut to anyone else, I’d still like to know if the military personnel who undergo SERE training are given fail-safe articles, to signal acute distress, and were the detainees also give these items? That question is what distinguishes the two acts (waterboarding vs SERE training) in this debate, and I have yet to hear anyone in the media ask it.
May 23rd, 2009 at 5:41 pmMay 23rd, 2009 at 5:44 pm
They may not breathe in water, nevertheless, not breathing in water means not breathing.
And that’s torture, by any definition.
May 23rd, 2009 at 5:47 pmbarfly Says:
The flaw I see in this reasoning is that the trainees at SERE knew that they were not going to face imminent death so they were reassured that they had at least some sense of control over the situation. Yes, Mancow had reassurance that he would not be tortured to death, but what about the detainees at Guantanamo?
And the flaw is the prop employed in Mancow’s session. I don’t believe the detainees were given something to hold, so that they could drop it to signal their wish to end the session. In SERE training, are they given such fail-safe items?
I understood that the SERE trainees were not told of the precautions that were prepared to ensure that they were not harmed or scarred, but even then, one can assume that the SERE trainees were assured that the military they belonged to would not subject them to a threat of imminent death. I’m not sure about the prop for SERE trainees, but I would wager that even if they were not told, they knew that they would not be forced over the line.
May 23rd, 2009 at 5:53 pmFrom the article I posted:
At the time of his death, Jamadi’s head was covered with a plastic bag, he was shackled in a crucifixion-like pose that inhibited his ability to breathe and according to forensic pathologists who have examined the case, he suffocated.
They seem to prefer these methods, because the victims don’t outwardly show signs of torture; but you know those tapes must have contained some of the most god-awful, amateur tortue experimentation since the nazi-documented and perpetrated experiments on the Jews, but with the added ticking-time-bomb urgent threat imperative, forcing them into committing ever-more gruesome and ferocious acts.
May 23rd, 2009 at 5:58 pmbarfly, which is why I question the use of a CIA memo as a credible source in which to compare the definition of torture with established law. Those tapes were destroyed, not because of some accident, but intentionally. Why? We could have used those tapes to establish what was going on, and Jon could have used them to see if the CIA was stopping short of torture.
May 23rd, 2009 at 6:00 pmWe could have used those tapes to establish what was going on, and Jon could have used them to see if the CIA was stopping short of torture.
At that point, another rationale would emerge, I’m convinced. Too much violence in the media has given some a taste for the extremist menu.
May 23rd, 2009 at 6:05 pmI guess “too much” is a personal perspective.
I should have said “violence in the media has given some a taste for the extremist menu.”
May 23rd, 2009 at 6:07 pmKitty: water did not/does not enter the lungs in the CIA’s version. PLEASE… READ the memos.
How do you know that John? Were you there? They had to have doctors there to perform emergency trachiotomies (sp?). Why else would that be necessary unless their breathing was obstructed?
May 23rd, 2009 at 6:21 pmJon,
How about former SERE members? They are free to speak as they please–witness Jesse Ventura. The point is is that no with first-hand experience with waterboarding has come forward to testify for it’s use. No one.
The 92 tapes were destroyed at the same time that Jay Rockefeller started asking questions. Since you feel free to leap to the conclusion that KSM felt safe in interrogation why don’t you take the short hop to the logical spot that the CIA didn’t want Rockefeller viewing their waterboard technique.
May 23rd, 2009 at 6:23 pmA $1000 an hour for JonW to be waterboarded. It seems to be the only way to shut up a right wing torture apologists!
In terms of the CIA’s rules 6 sessions 5 days a month of waterboarding are allowed. That is 30 times in a month. KSM was waterboarded 183 times in one month. Was that just over-exuberance?
Waterboarding aside – Obama’s real problem is that some of the footage the ACLU has “secured” is so shocking that it’s actually problematic. Video footage of Iraqi and American soldiers raping little boys in the presence of their mothers? It’s a matter of time and it will come out… and JonW will be here embracing the Yoo/Bush philosophy and defending torture.
May 23rd, 2009 at 6:29 pmJon: you have consistently refused to address a single one of the points I made.
Instead you respond by calling me “vicious”.
And yes I am pro-choice. I’ve been called a “baby-killer” by more reichwingnuts than I could shake a stick at.
That’s irrelevant; and simply another strawman argument. I’m not even going to bother addressing that irrelevancy.
The vast weight of the evidence is on MY side about waterboarding – in ANY form – being torture. CIA interrogators. SERE trainers. JAG attorneys. Texas sheriffs. Psychologists. Army interrogators from the last umpteen wars. George Washington. (I could go on.)
All you have to justify your point of view are the opinions of a gaggle of sadists, Nazis, neocons and the scriptwriters of “24.”
May 23rd, 2009 at 6:40 pmLeftside Annie Says:
Jon: you have consistently refused to address a single one of the points I made.
Not to take it personally; he’s consistently refused to address anyone else’s points. Instead, he simply repeats his own opinion over and over as though he was an oracle, refuses to read any information that clearly refutes the repetitive opinion and dismisses others as irrational. It’s an entirely too-familiar pattern here among our visitors.
May 23rd, 2009 at 6:59 pmDoes anyone remember the Church Committee Hearings? Or hear of Gary Webb?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Webb
Pulitzer Prize winning investigative reporter Webb’s death was ruled a suicide even though there were two gunshots to the head.
The CIA is immoral and corrupt and anyone who gives them the benefit of the doubt is an idiot.
May 23rd, 2009 at 7:19 pmWow.. leave you guys alone and clear answers to your points are reduced to apparent drivel.
Annie, I answered you a multitude of times. Each of your posts basically consisted of a worn out point, and an insult. My 8 year old has already learned that “name-calling” proves nothing but immaturity. Your evidence, which is merely a list of people, is effectively worthless. If there were 100 people on TV claiming it wasn’t torture, and no one refuting it, would you believe it simply because they said so??? Again, my basis is looking at the facts surrounding the circumstances, and whether or not they violated the US code. They didn’t.
Gumble: I don’t even have the words. I addressed each persons points with reasoned arguments. The most basic of which is that “experts”, past references to “waterboarding” that is different from the methods employed, and declarations of even conservative talk show hosts to not define torture. The US CODE does so for our immediate citizens, and defines our position relative to the treaties we have signed (by defining severe mental and/or physical suffering – the prerequisite to torture). Merely fearing for ones death while in the custody of a US representative does NOT mean you were tortured, as this seems to be your point Kitty. If so, each and every detainee could claim such, as I’m sure I would be afraid for my life if captured by an enemy country.
I don’t believe the CIA or DoJ because they wrote the memos, the memos are the only evidence that we have of what happened. I would say that it is “fairly” accurate, as one side (aka Democrat/Obama) released the documents intending them to be damning, and the other side (aka GOP)has not refuted the facts contained within (in fact has asked that additional memos be released). However, to generically say that the CIA, DoJ, etc are corrupt is for lack of a better term: wrong. To have zero trust in government/government agencies while supporting an expansion of government is an interesting proposition indeed.
What all this amounts to is exactly what I expected: a group of people who are stuck in their line of thinking, which in many cases happens to just be a party line of thinking. In law, we apply a specific case to the laws that are written about them, and in doing so you find a clear definition of torture. Use the specifics against that definition. KSM, if interogated following those guidelines was not tortured. Further to the point, and what bothers me MOST about this debate, is that US troops DID use torture, and nobody, even on this board, has seemed to give 2 s**ts about an ACTUAL torture case(not one question on more information about it from you guys.. who care SOOOO much about torture). Why is that? Is it because it doesn’t condemn the “Bush-Cheney” administration? Because it was an individual who was in the middle of the war? One of our NCO’s brutally TRULY TORTURED and killed an Iraqi general after his unconditional surrender. We handed back his body bruised, disfigured and bloated from a very DIFFERENT waterboarding and beating execution. Many in the intelligence community feel it was this act that extended the Iraqi war and turned defeated and demoralized enemies towards other terrorist organizations. The NCO in question was fined some money and put on house arrest for 2 months. Is this satisfactory? NO. But since it doesn’t take down any political enemies, we’ll leave it in the dark, right?
May 23rd, 2009 at 7:40 pmWe could argue that you are also stuck in your thinking John.
May 23rd, 2009 at 7:47 pmYou could make that argument certainly. However, as I said, I originally held the belief that we had tortured these guys. Then it became a controversy, so I looked up the information for myself. Then I changed my mind. I’m sure someone will just say I’m lying and I started out a stalwart “defender of torture”, but that’s simply not true. And several people who I have talked to started as I, and when looking at the legal definitions, have come to the conclusion it was not torture. That’s called being open-minded.
I’m neither right-wing, nor left; Democrat or Republican. I evaluate things based on the evidence at hand. I dismiss evidence that has been either proven wrong or is not relevant to the case at hand. In this case, the only information we have is a memo outlining a request for a very specific procedure. That’s it. The procedure, as outlined, is not torture, although it carries a name with it that in the past (recent and distant)HAS been torture, but was a different procedure. It is a fine distinction, but there nonetheless. I’m not even “interpreting” the Code, it’s right there in black and white, without the usually “lawyer” talk to confuse people.
May 23rd, 2009 at 8:00 pmSpare me, Jon. You’re a Republican. I’ve been around enough of them to know. I hate to break it to you.
It’s real simple. If the CIA acted legally they would keep the videotapes of the Interrogations as proof and security against any accusation or prosecution.
May 23rd, 2009 at 8:10 pmOtherwise why did they videotape the sessions?
May 23rd, 2009 at 8:12 pmJack: In this country I have the ability to be whatever I want, regardless of what you want to label me. I straddle the line in many areas, but I am not a Republican.
The taping could very well have been for later review by a superior, and after being reviewed to ensure it met with the guidelines imposed, it was destroyed as there was no more use for it. The idea that anything that someone could eventually “feel” might be illegal in the future imposing a requirement to keep all items that could be considered evidence is a burdensome idea indeed. Do you keep EVERY tax return, receipt, etc you ever had/give/submitted? I doubt it.
May 23rd, 2009 at 8:18 pmJon, this was the interrogation of high-level Al Qaeda–you want to compare it to a random tax receipt?!
May 23rd, 2009 at 8:20 pmDon’t you think an interrogation of the 9/11 mastermind should be perserved?
May 23rd, 2009 at 8:24 pmJohn McCain feels as we do–do you lump him in with this dreaded groupthink too?
May 23rd, 2009 at 8:26 pmEx-Sen Bob Graham has already caught the CIA in lies about their briefings to Congress.
The CIA lies.
May 23rd, 2009 at 8:29 pmHannity and the rest of the rethugs are an irrelevant bunch of criminal clowns. Whoever believes one single word they say, and that includes Dick Cheney with his arrogant lies, needs to get a mental evaluation.
Enough said.
You all have a nice holiday weekend and forget racism and hate for a couple of days.
May 23rd, 2009 at 8:29 pmSo the only time in history, going back to the Spanish Inquisition, where waterboarding prisoners wasn’t considered torture, was the CIA waterboarding Al Qaeda.
Wow.
American Exceptionalism.
May 23rd, 2009 at 8:36 pmWell, I’m out. Goodnite & Happy Memorial Day, Jon.
May 23rd, 2009 at 8:43 pmJack: Yes, I think John McCain can be incorrect. Again, it doesn’t matter who’s OPINION you ask, that doesn’t change the legal facts. Is this confusing in any way? Someone’s OPINION has no bearing on the law. It is what it is. Should a tape of interrogation of a high-level operative be kept, perhaps, thats not my call to make. I can certainly see how they may fear the video being edited and then used against them, so certainly there’s reason to get rid of it. The CIA may certainly in the past, present, and future have may false statements. I suppose we should just disband the entire thing because of it, or replace them all? And yes, in this case, as the waterboarding did not meet the legal definition of torture, it is the only time in recorded history that it wasn’t.
Dr. Matt: I thank you for your assertion that I am a pathetic loser. I come and go, as I’m on the computer I occasionally check this forum. I attempt(ed) to respond to those with specifics to discuss. I suppose by proxy, as you have posted along the same timeframes, that you are also an inbred hick? Seriously, the childish games should be a thing of the past. If you can’t convince someone using logic, reason, etc; walk away, don’t devolve into your 3rd grade self.
May 23rd, 2009 at 8:52 pmWow…
JonW has been spinning like a top for hrs…
Faaaaabulous performance…
***ecstatic applause…***
This one is ready defintiely for The TP Troll Hall of Fame™!!!
May 23rd, 2009 at 8:57 pmThank you Republic, I wasn’t aware that arguing the apparently popular ideology on this board was “trolling”. I’m terribly sorry to have afflicted you so. I have been at my home, with my son for most of the morning, and after some yardwork, returned inside. I frequent the internet, and love a good discussion, which some have provided me here. I nominate you, and others who have also been “spinning for hours” the “Defenders of Terrorism and Western Hate” award!
May 23rd, 2009 at 9:00 pmJonW Says:
____________
All you’ve done is talk in circles for hrs.
Again… an amazing performance.
May 23rd, 2009 at 9:08 pmhahaha, Hannity is a bum. I never would have agreed to be waterboarded, but Hannity said he would and did not, therefore he’s a chicken. No guts at all. Good thing Olbermann did for the charity.
May 23rd, 2009 at 9:10 pmMerely fearing for ones death while in the custody of a US representative does NOT mean you were tortured, as this seems to be your point Kitty.
You missed the point where I tied it with waterboarding, a technique which we have used to prosecute…
May 23rd, 2009 at 9:27 pmthe Japanese for using…
May 23rd, 2009 at 9:27 pmand what makes you think JonW that our stance against torture is politically motivated? How do you know that we weren’t advocating prosecution in the case of the Iraqi general? Don’t assume things while telling others not to assume things about you…
May 23rd, 2009 at 9:28 pmOh get a grip. Even detaining someone is torture depending on your point of view.
These criminals pretended to be civilians or helped other criminals target and kill thousands of people while pretending to be civilians. The Geneva convention should’nt even apply to them. The simple act of associating that closely with a mass murdering group of terrorists should carry with it the expectation of some rough treatment.
Sure I believe in the articles of the United States that you wish to quote. I have even defended it in my day. I maybe a minority on this blog site but I bet my views still are more in focus with the still (slightly) majority Christian, Independant, slightly right of center population of the U.S.
I am betting like me most people feel there are still acts that can be commited that render that creature somewhere below “Human Rights” and that a little gray area fudging during interrogation isn’t gonna test our limits.
I also highly doubt if push comes to shove that the majority of Americans are going to allow any other American to be punished for going a bit overboard with three mass murderers. Even if a wide leftist leaning group of activists manage to get it investigated or tried by pressuring political “yes-men”, it won’t really go anywhere and will be forgotten.
I would be as angry as any of you if an innocent person was beat by police or waterboarded, but I just cannot raise any empathy for someone who helped plan and /or execute what happened on 9/11. I remember the fear and the horror of that time and I think it shows some merit to the Busch administration that these criminals are still alive today.
May 23rd, 2009 at 9:30 pmIt is always interesting to me to hear the arguments of liberals trying to claim the moral high-ground on their
May 23rd, 2009 at 9:31 pm“enlightened” stance on waterboarding, while standing for the true torture and death of innocent unborn babies so that woman won’t have to take responsibilty for her sexual behaviour.
You guys are so self-decieved.
There is NO moral equivalence between the imposition of temporary, transient discomfort, and the death sentence you goys are willing to impose on the innocent.
Keep on drinking that Coolaid so you can sleep at night !
If you’re going to use our sayings, say them in full context instead of distorting them. I never said that fearing for one’s life is the SOLE criteria for torture, but you know that. You instead distorted my position to make it seem ridiculous and easily shot down…Note I was talking about waterboarding and the process and how the prisoners did not know whether their lives were in danger while the CIA was waterboarding them.
May 23rd, 2009 at 9:32 pmheliman Says:
It is always interesting to me to hear the arguments of liberals trying to claim the moral high-ground on their
“enlightened” stance on waterboarding, while standing for the true torture and death of innocent unborn babies so that woman won’t have to take responsibilty for her sexual behaviour.
Your insistence that you have the higher moral ground in the abortion issue would be more convincing if the people who are against abortion would be more apt to take care of everyone who came out of the womb…
and yes, the whole responsibility for her sexual behavior argument. Where is your condemnation of the male who got the female pregnant? What about women who have been raped? Should she have taken “responsibility for her sexual behavior?” The whole issue is grayer than you think it is…It’s not just “irresponsible teens who want to fit into their prom dresses” as the myth goes…
You distort our position to suggest we welcome abortion and that we want to see more abortions. That is not the case. No one is pro-abortion, but rather the people here know that it is a decision that should be made by the individual. We may not like abortion, unlike the caricature you paint of liberals but we realize that it is a private matter and not to be government-dictated.
May 23rd, 2009 at 9:38 pmI agree that the man has responsibilty in the issue, but it is you guys who always insist it is a ” Woman’s rights issue” I douibt that you would defend the father’s right to not have his child terminated.
May 23rd, 2009 at 9:49 pmAs for the rape issue, which is always brought up as a justification. There are 2 completely innocent persons in a rape impregnation. if you must give the death penalty to someone, why not make it the rapist, and not the child.
And it isn’t a private issue to the baby. As a former fetus, I can assure you that the majority of babies would chose to be born, and not terminated.
This seems to be a persuit of happiness issue for the woman, and if I remember correctly, the constitution states first the right to LIFE, then Liberty, and then the pursuit of happiness.
Abortion deprive the baby of all three.
Then why not come out outright and say that instead of the bloodthirsty liberal sacrificing a fetus on the altar of “women’s rights” as the political caricature you paint suggests?
May 23rd, 2009 at 9:54 pmUSCBKitty,
May 23rd, 2009 at 9:58 pmpoint out why that isn’t the case please.
Thanks
Heliman
the question is are fetuses defined by law to be people?
May 23rd, 2009 at 10:01 pmheliman, there is no debating someone who has automatically convinced himself that the other side lusts for more abortions unless you’re talking about the Constitutional protection for the fetus.
May 23rd, 2009 at 10:02 pmI don’t think you are necessarily lusting for more abortions, the thousands a day that have been terminated over the last few decades should be enough. If it is the taking of innocent human life, then it is not a matter of numbers but of right or wrong.
May 23rd, 2009 at 10:07 pmAnd all other class of humans have Constitutional protection, why not the most defensless among us ?
Kitty, I didn’t misrepresent you. I simply compared the situation to another to show that simply believing you were tortured does not make it so. You tried to use, instead of US Code, the international code, which is much more ambiguous, and does not define severe mental/physical suffering. We use OUR US Code to define our stance on what constitutes severe mental/physical suffering. If it doesn’t meet that definition, then it wasn’t torture. Just as above, you are using the fact that the laws don’t define “life” before birth, such is exactly the same case in the KSM waterboarding/torture debate. It doesn’t fit the definition, therefore it’s not torture.
May 23rd, 2009 at 10:08 pmand answer me this…you assume everyone at Guantanamo is a terrorist. How do you know that the people tortured there were not innocent? Many of them were picked up by bounty hunters who knew that we were paying a bounty. Do you think that many personal scores could have been settled by turning one’s enemy over to the United States and claiming they were terrorists? How can someone who has the moral high ground support torture if there are innocents involved too?
May 23rd, 2009 at 10:09 pmTRoHS, as the self-appointed curator of the Troll Hall of Fame™, I appreciate your nomination, but I’m afraid JonW has done nothing this afternoon to separate himself and his performance from hundreds of others just like it. Yes, his longevity is impressive, but Troll jay has clocked many more hours on a single thread.
If JonW is still spinning, say, tomorrow morning, then he’ll warrant consideration. Especially if he’s still insisting that he’s right and everyone else is wrong.
Don’t let this discourage you, JonW. You definitely show potential.
May 23rd, 2009 at 10:10 pmI hate to see a good torture discussion turn into an abortion discussion.
Still I might have more empathy with women demanding the right to choose if they also supported men having the same choices.
Until they do I have the luxury of not needing to think about my own religious or moral issues to be anti-abortion :)
May 23rd, 2009 at 10:11 pmyou know heilman, it is a question that I have agonized for as well…226…It is not an easy question to answer, having grown up as a Catholic as well. However, knowing a few victims of rape has provided me with another perspective as well, besides what the Church taught.
May 23rd, 2009 at 10:13 pmJonW Says:
Kitty, I didn’t misrepresent you.
___________
Ah yes… more of the same endless spinning.
Jesse Ventura HAS been thru SERE training and says water boarding is torture…
BUT… JonW knows better.
Man-cow and Chris Hitchens undergo water boarding voluntarily and BOTh come back saying, No doubt about it… it’s torture…
BUT… JonW knows better.
Ever since the Spanish Inquisition invented the damned procedure, everyone has considers it torture, including the US, who prosecuted both japanese and Germans after WW ll for doing it to US soldiers…
BUT… JonW knows better.
The Geneva Conventions definitely consider it torture…
BUT… JonW knows better.
Jon, yer DEFINITELY ready for the TP Troll Hall of Fame™!!!
May 23rd, 2009 at 10:13 pmWell, connor, I fully support the same right to choose for any man capable of carrying a fetus to full term within his womb.
Does that work for you?
May 23rd, 2009 at 10:14 pmYou must admit that John works harder than most of the regular trolls.
May 23rd, 2009 at 10:15 pmGumble: I don’t even have the words. I addressed each persons points with reasoned arguments. The most basic of which is that “experts”, past references to “waterboarding” that is different from the methods employed, and declarations of even conservative talk show hosts to not define torture. The US CODE does so for our immediate citizens, and defines our position relative to the treaties we have signed (by defining severe mental and/or physical suffering – the prerequisite to torture). Merely fearing for ones death while in the custody of a US representative does NOT mean you were tortured, as this seems to be your point Kitty. If so, each and every detainee could claim such, as I’m sure I would be afraid for my life if captured by an enemy country.
Sorry, Jon, I saw a caricature of my position presented as my argument which then you then “struck down…”
We are a signatory of the United Nations Convention Against Torture…therefore my use of international law. We cannot change the US code to justify our use of torture when we have signed on to international law…
May 23rd, 2009 at 10:17 pmSorry conner, but abortion is a torture issue.
May 23rd, 2009 at 10:18 pmMy point was the way folks can get wrapped around the axle about a procedure that as JonW says does not rise to the definition of torture by imposing sever lasting effects, and not see that their stance on abortion falls far closer to the definition if you happen to be the “Abortee”
heliman Says:
This seems to be a persuit of happiness issue for the woman, and if I remember correctly, the constitution states first the right to LIFE, then Liberty, and then the pursuit of happiness.
Abortion deprive the baby of all three.
With all due respect, your credibility takes a serious hit on lefty blogs when you quote the Constitution as saying we have a “right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” That line is from the Declaration of Independence, which is not the basis of our laws.
So, in other words, you do not remember correctly.
And while it may not be worth the effort to educate you, I will try anyway. We who support the right of a woman to determine for herself if she wishes to carry a just-impregnated cell to full term. We are not talking about “killing babies.” The vast majority of us wish that the need for an abortion never arose. What people who disagree with us fail to comprehend that it is the very right of the woman to choose for herself which option to pursue, not that we want to see babies killed. When our opponents brag about making the “choice” to have a baby, it was never really a “choice” in their minds at all, so it’s rather disingenuous of them to say it that way. We wish to protect the right to an actual choice. I wish you could understand that.
It’s also a matter of privacy for the woman, not “the pursuit of happiness” (which is mentioned nowhere in the actual Constitution itself). The government should have no say in what a woman and her physician decide to do.
Perhaps you are too young to remember Clarence Thomas’s confirmation hearings. He agreed that a fetus has no rights under the Constitution. It only applies to people who have actually been born.
As for what we would support in your own personal case should you (if you are female) or someone you love should get pregnant is the right to have a choice at all on whether or not bringing a new baby into the world is the right thing to do. And we won’t force you to abort it, no matter what anyone tells you. (Unless you’re the Octomom, or some other irresponsible woman who shouldn’t be allowed near babies, let alone having more beyond her first fourteen, which she is trying to do as I write this.) If you wish to have it, more power to you. Just remember that you had a choice. That you would never personally consider any alternative is your right, just leave that same right to others.
I’ll go away now.
May 23rd, 2009 at 10:24 pmNo, sorry wonder locust it doesn’t work for me since women’s rights activists seem to feel biological differences between the sexes are of no importance. Unless it benefits the women anyway.
But back on topic I would never torture a women even a raving pro-femnazi mass murdering one :)
May 23rd, 2009 at 10:24 pmAh, I see. You’re prepared to allow “women’s rights activists” to determine the standards by which you judge all issues, even though you clearly have little or no respect for them.
I’ll try to keep this in mind. Thanks.
May 23rd, 2009 at 10:27 pm236. Personally, I would commend you if you chose to keep your baby (OMG an abortionist not for an abortion?) but I would realize that ultimately it would be her decision and I have no right to stand in her way.
Thank you Wayne, you could not have stated the position better…They want to paint us as wanting to force abortions on pregnant women, but that is as far from the case as one can get…
May 23rd, 2009 at 10:29 pmAny issues that contain such clearly biased, hypocritical, double standards as most “women’s rights” issues seem to have moved into over the last 10 years, yes.
But if you would like to debate those issues name another thread and I will take it there please lets not spoil this one anymore (And I know I am more at fault then you are).
May 23rd, 2009 at 10:33 pmheliman, I hope you learn from our discussions here that people who support a woman’s right to choose do not want to see abortions. It is not all black-and white, good and evil as the people on the Religious Right might want to suggest.
Where do we draw the line when it comes to personhood? You know embryos are discarded in fertility clinics everyday. Should they be charged with a crime for discarding life? Where do you draw the line? If a woman needed a medical procedure that might risk the fetus, do we take the fetus into account if the woman’s life was in danger?
There are many questions to ask as it is not just pro-life high moral-grounders vs. Satanic baby-killers.
May 23rd, 2009 at 10:38 pmUCSBKitty,
May 23rd, 2009 at 10:40 pmI appreciate your struggle with the abortion/rape issue, beleive me, as a father of two beautiful girls, I have diced around with that myself. But by far the vast majorities of abortions are not done in the case of rape, and just getting rid of the baby does not automatically difuse the issue for the mother. It may provide a temporary sense of releif, but in at least a couple of cases I am familiar with, the young lady now has an additional personal emotional burden to deal with of the loss of an infant, that no matter how unfortunately it was conceived, still had implanted itself in the deep heart and emotions of it’s mother.
I can’t prove this, but knowing the tender heart of my children’s mother towards her girls, I imagine that most women by far would never regret carrying a baby to term and giving it a chance at life, even if they decided not to keep it.
Well I am glad you kept your daughters but I hope you realize that you had a choice there and you made a wonderful one that must have been easy. However, I wish that all women had that easy choice that you had, but sadly it is not so. There may be various reasons why they may feel like they have to make that choice. Some are born out of utmost horror such as a violent rape. Some are born out of necessity, through the pain of the household’s economics. I hope that you are not thinking that it is either rape or abortion just for the hell of it.
yOUR First comments threw us off guard, as it seemed more of the hellfire rhetoric that we are used to hearing.
May 23rd, 2009 at 10:46 pmDear Wayne Schneider,
May 23rd, 2009 at 10:52 pmI stand corrected, it’s been a long night, I was quoting the Declaration, but I consider that a founding document, so my position remains. I always come back to challenging your ” ProChoice” position. Choice should envolve all concerned, especially the one who will be sacrificing his/her life.
ANd trying to obsure the argument by telling mr that abortion only effecte the “Just impregnated cell is spurious. most women do not seek abortions within hours of impregnation, and the abortion lobby want the procedure available up until birth.
Again, the privacy, is usually so that she will not have the consequences of her sexual behavior imposed on her.
JonW: Can you provide links to any research or studies of waterboarding that definitively say it does not cause severe mental/physical suffering?
Thanks
May 23rd, 2009 at 10:57 pmRepublic: Thanks for completely ignoring anything I actually say, and focusing on the fact that I disagree with your perspective. This truly proves that I am wrong.
Jesse Ventura, Mancow, and others do NOT define US Law. It’s written down. It’s not a “tribal knowledge” kind of thing. If they said that going 35 in a 30 wasn’t breaking the speed limit, they would be wrong, because it is. They can say whatever they want until they’re blue in the face, the fact is it’s their opinion that it “should” be torture, but it does not meet the already written Code’s requirements. Sorry.
The Spanish inquisition, the Japanese, and other instances of “waterboarding” were DIFFERENT. Every murder is different, and must be evaluated on it’s merit alone, not other murder cases. This is a fundamental problem when you compare the Japanese convictions and the waterboarding the CIA used. The Japanese actually killed people using their techniques (which INCLUDED waterboarding among OTHER things).
The Geneva conventions A) Don’t apply, and B) do not “consider it torture”. The countries who signed the international treaties intentionally left those treaties ambiguous, so that the individual countries could then specifically delineate their own positions (such as the US, which specifically calls out the definition of torture, AND prolong mental/physical suffering).
I don’t expect you to change your mind, but I’m certainly not presenting this as “because I said so” which seems to be how you mean to discredit me. I say because the acts which were described did not meet the legal definition of torture (just as abortion protagonists state that abortion isn’t murder because it doesn’t meet the legal definition)
May 23rd, 2009 at 11:03 pmGrey:
The memo (2nd) is linked on the Wiki waterboarding page. It cites numerous studies done on the over 26,000 SERE graduates and their long term mental and physical well being. There are some data supplied directly in the memo, but not all of the study, but I do believe it directly cites it. A lack of evidence to exonerate does not prove a crime, a lack of evidence to incriminate DOES prove innocence. At least in this country I hope that’s how it works.
May 23rd, 2009 at 11:10 pmRalph: So if I can keep to my convictions for a total of 24 hours, I will have won your disapproval and labeling as a troll? How quaint! The definition of torture will be the same in the US code as it is today… so most likely, if other keep arguing, I’ll stop in tomorrow morning to say some more. Of course, I’m not seeing many new arguments as to why it IS torture, just a lot of “so and so says it is”.
May 23rd, 2009 at 11:12 pmThanks for the link, JonW… I’ll get to it after the Lakers/Nuggets game is over.
May 23rd, 2009 at 11:14 pmNo, JonW, you misunderstand — perhaps intentionally, as I’ve noticed that propensity in your other comments.
It’s not a matter of conviction, as much as you would like it to be.
It’s a matter of an ability to debate honestly. And that necessarily includes considering and responding to all legitimate rebuttal points addressed to you. Now, I recognize that it’s probably a tall order for you, in that there are a number of progressives addressing you and your arguments. But even taking that into consideration, you have developed a reputation — and not undeserved, I might add — for picking and choosing what you’re going to respond to, and most of the time the things you choose to ignore seem like pretty sound arguments that might give you trouble.
You’ve also displayed a pattern of misrepresenting the arguments of others (including the instance I pointed out in this post) to benefit your own position — i. e., restating them in the most absurd manner you could, so as to make them appear more ridiculous than they actually are. This reveals an unwillingness to actually try to understand what people are saying to you. Instead you seem to analyze the statements of others simply for the purpose of determining where they can most usefully be attacked.
You may want to make the same charge of us, but let’s face it, JOnW, you haven’t advanced a new argument for hours. It’s basically been several hours of insisting that your interpretation of the US Code is the correct one, and dismissing our obligations under international treaty. Over and over.
That’s another hallmark of a troll, BTW.
May 23rd, 2009 at 11:25 pmconner you havent got a single clue what you are talking about. About half of those at Gitmo were SOLD to us by the warlords for bounty. There isnt a single LICK of evidence they killed ANY civilians much less tens of thousands. Turn off Hateradio. STop letting screechmonkeys do your thinking for you and try to let a bit of reality into your life. As of now you are spewing nonsense
May 23rd, 2009 at 11:31 pmIt is torture. I am not seeing any sense in your argument explain the mechanism by which you can pour water over an already drenched rag on someones face and water NOT get in their lungs. It is ludicrous I dont care WHAT the CIA is saying in CYA memos. We imprisoned Japanese for doing the EXACT same kind of watertorture during WW2. I have half a dozen times posted the DESCRIPTION of what they were imprisoned for and it is EXACTLY what we were doing. That isnt the only torture. We have had several deaths while in detention at least two were called homocides and death by blunt force trauma at Bagram Air Force base. It is ludicrous to even CLAIM we didnt torture people and that is besides those we sent to BE tortured including Maher Arar who we didnt even SUSPECT of being a terrorist. If you are just going to make appologies no matter what the facts are I wont waste my time with you but if you REALLY think you are making points you are deluding yourself.
May 23rd, 2009 at 11:37 pmI agree that the man has responsibilty in the issue, but it is you guys who always insist it is a ” Woman’s rights issue” I douibt that you would defend the father’s right to not have his child terminated.
As for the rape issue, which is always brought up as a justification. There are 2 completely innocent persons in a rape impregnation. if you must give the death penalty to someone, why not make it the rapist, and not the child.
And it isn’t a private issue to the baby. As a former fetus, I can assure you that the majority of babies would chose to be born, and not terminated.
This seems to be a persuit of happiness issue for the woman, and if I remember correctly, the constitution states first the right to LIFE, then Liberty, and then the pursuit of happiness.
Abortion deprive the baby of all three.
Okay Idk how this turned into abortion but I feel the need to reply as a surviving rape victim. Unless you have experienced it yourself you cannot possibly understand how it feels and then to find out you’re pregnant? Don’t presume to know anything of the situation until you’ve had to experience it. Trust me, you think you know how you’d respond but it’s an entirely different issue when you’re in the shower trying to scrub his smell off of you until you bleed.
May 23rd, 2009 at 11:45 pmEugeneDebs Says:
——————————————————————————–
conner you havent got a single clue what you are talking about. About half of those at Gitmo were SOLD to us by the warlords for bounty. There isnt a single LICK of evidence they killed ANY civilians much less tens of thousands. Turn off Hateradio. STop letting screechmonkeys do your thinking for you and try to let a bit of reality into your life. As of now you are spewing nonsense
I believe you need the reality check.
I never once said how we got any detainees, nor do I really care. My opinions are about the 3 who were waterboarded as any of the other so called torture is laughable. If there are leftwing radicals saying there were more than the three prisoners waterboarded then maybe I have missed that but I havent heard any numbers from Maddow and friends and I have tuned in to hear opinions from that area and other more left leaning media.
I still stand by my claim that the majority of the people in the U.S. are not going to care enough about it to go along with convictions period.
The more left leaners press the issue the more the right will grow.
May 23rd, 2009 at 11:47 pmRalph, I’ve attempted to respond to all those with a point against me, you and others merely ignore it. Apparently postings of mine are in another language to you.
Please elucidate a posting I haven’t responded to, especially those that are “more likely to cause me problems”. I will discuss whatever you’d like (most likely again).
The biggest things seem to be these:
Joe Schmoe (insert name there) says it isn’t torture. This argument is not relevant whatsoever. The law is written, it is in words, and no amount of “opinion” will change this until the law is re-written or deleted. Also, there are plenty of people who say it ISN’T torture, meaning you just give credence to those sources you choose. Either way (for or against it being torture) the opinions do not matter.
Japanese, etc were convicted of torture for “waterboarding”. I reject this argument as well, as each individual case must be evaluated for its worthiness of actually commiting the crime. A point could be thus: homicide versus murder. If you unintentionally dropped a chainsaw on your neighbor, should you face murder charges, as the last few guys who killed someone with a chainsaw did? No, the situation should be taken at it’s own merits, not hastily judged (and in NAME only)from past situations.
International Law/Geneva Conventions: International law is ambiguous as to what extreme mental/physical suffering is. That leaves the definition up to the country involved. The US has set that definition in it’s Code, clearly and definitively (it is posted above). Geneva conventions are also ambiguous, as well as not applying to un-uniformed operatives not affiliated with a specific government/country.
I’m sorry I don’t cut/paste/quote people, and realize that leaves me open to the charge of “misrepresentation”. Likewise to your charge that I have not answered people, when clearly I have… is this misrepresentation or misunderstanding? I’ll leave you to decide, although I’m sure “it’s different”.
May 23rd, 2009 at 11:47 pmActually I don’t care if it is torture if it saves American lives. Would any of you bleeding hearts care if a perp was tortured to reveal the location of your child if it were buried alive by the lowlife?
May 23rd, 2009 at 11:49 pmmordick Says:
——————————————————————————–
Actually I don’t care if it is torture if it saves American lives. Would any of you bleeding hearts care if a perp was tortured to reveal the location of your child if it were buried alive by the lowlife?
Exactly my point Mordick…
Had I been the one in a position to find out info about up coming planned attacks I cannot honestly say I wouldn’t reach for the battery cables. Therefore I cannot condemn others who may have got a bit rough.
May 23rd, 2009 at 11:54 pmHad I been the one in a position to find out info about up coming planned attacks I cannot honestly say I wouldn’t reach for the battery cables. Therefore I cannot condemn others who may have got a bit rough.
A bit rough? Really? So when are you getting waterboarded then tough guy? If it’s only a bit rough you should be fine!
There is no excuse for torture. There was no “ticking time bomb” scenario that Cheney keeps lying about. The torture was used to prove a link that wasn’t there to justify an illegal war. Don’t act like it was some grand act on behalf of the American people.
May 24th, 2009 at 12:03 amEugene: It is not torture by the definition of torture by the US Code. You can CALL it torture all you want, but it is not criminal torture unless it meets that definition.
The human body is a wonderful thinkg, but lungs were intended to draw air, and have a hard time drawing water in this situation for two reasons. One there’s a flap of skin that prevents foreign entry into the lungs except under extreme circumstances, and two the waterboardee’s were head down with feet elevated, meaning the water would have to go “uphill” as it were to get into the lungs. In history, the waterboardees experienced distention of the STOMACH, not filling of the lungs. This is one of the major differences: KSM and others were not ingesting the water, nor was the water forced back up out of the GI system (as it was with the Japanese torturers in WW2 and others). You should know this if you’d researched those incidences.
I agree we have absolutely tortured Iraqi’s (have said it several times). We’ve killed unarmed prisoners. However, giving all evidence of what was done to KSM and others, and the approved memos, those directly involved with THOSE INCIDENCES were not torturing, and commited no crime.
May 24th, 2009 at 12:07 amkdgamergirl
You didn’t address my post:
“Actually I don’t care if it is torture if it saves American lives. Would any of you bleeding hearts care if a perp was tortured to reveal the location of your child if it were buried alive by the lowlife?”
May 24th, 2009 at 12:08 amkdga: The waterboarding wasn’t used to get a confession or prove a connection. It was not the reason we went to war in Iraq (I personally don’t feel any reason is good enough to go over there besides a direct US attack). I would agree that waterboarding would force either of those “revelations”, as would even most of the supporters of the procedure. What it was used for was to gain information to prevent another attack, and the memo that Obama will NOT release contains the information that was gathered.
May 24th, 2009 at 12:12 amI have been waterboarded… personally I feel some other hazing incidents I went through in college were actually worse although I will concede I never felt like the hazers or trainers would have let me die.
I have never denied it would feel like torture, I will not argue law.
I am saying simply I don’t care if the number 2 guy or even the bottom rung guy of a terrorist group that killed thousands of people was tortured. Had they cut off fingers or something then ya OK throw a fit… but waterboarding for someone like that who cares.
Or are you saying now they waterboarded just 3 random guys they bought and that had no contact with AQ?
I will still bet that the majority of Americans won’t care either. Even if it is torture under law it is still not far enough over the line IMO.
May 24th, 2009 at 12:14 amconner. You started out talking about detainees. What about those beaten to death is THAT not torture? What about those Taguba said had electric shocks to their genitals isnt THAT torture? What about the ones we SENT to be tortured. Two of which at least were guilt of NOTHING. Maher Arar wasnt even SUSEPECTED of anything more than perhaps KNOWING something, which it turns out he didnt and Masri was the wrong guy. So your tirade about only those guilty of killing tens of thousands or conspiring to kill tens of thousands of innocents is just dumb. It is YOU that needs a reality check since there isnt any whatsoever in your posts.
May 24th, 2009 at 12:15 amIsn’t torture a perception of how we should treat people. What’s wrong with RAPE people have sex all the time. So those Soldier that had sex with the 14 year old girl then killed her could have just said that they were just doing “enhance integration” to find hidden weapons, they didn’t need to kill her.
May 24th, 2009 at 12:16 amWhat if I hit you until your face is cut and bleeding, kick you in the ribs so they are cracked or broken, then choked you out. You could call this torture but the UFC (Ultimate Fighting Championship) would call it “all in a days work”.
WHAT!!….Sinister Hannity the “stupid college drop-out bully” lied to and mislead the family’s of our troops!!!
Mockery at it’s best. “Wimpy” Hannity when will you have Gen. Colin Powell and/or United States Army Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson former chief of staff on your show? Certainly, you would not “Mock” these two respected war veterans?
Hannity, you owe the families of our troops a SINCERE APOLOGY!!!
May 24th, 2009 at 12:20 amEugeneDebs
I am not talking about anyone but the three that from all I have read or heard either left or right were waterboarded. In general my opinion may also touch on the other Gitmo detainees but if any more than the three have been waterboarded I am unaware of it. If I am wrong and it is even rumored to have been done to others besides the three then perhaps I will change my mind. I will not speak on the things done at other military camps as I do not feel I know enough about those instances.
I will even admit here I am not even 100% sure other than the guy they say was the number 2 man in AQ who the other two guys were. I am accepting it at face value that they are proven AQ terrorists.
If they weren’t AQ then I would be properly angry, but if they were or are then I cannot shead a tear for them, they got better treatment then they deserved.
May 24th, 2009 at 12:25 amJon actually I DID research it enough to find the DESCRIPTION of the waterboarding. A cloth was put over their faces and water was poured over them. Sounds pretty much like the waterboarding WE are doing to me. I took a lot of biology and it is a FACT that people DO drown. A drenched rag is on your face. MORE water is poured ON your face AS you try to breathe in. Water absolutly CAN go uphill if pulled with in with air or a siphoning effect that is FACT. Whether or not torrents of water made it into lungs enough to distend them I still find it hard to believe and nothing you have said shows NO water gets into the lungs. Jesse Ventura was a Navy Seal. He was waterboarded in SERE training he says directly it is torture.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/04/AR2006100402005.html
Twenty-one years earlier, in 1947, the United States charged a Japanese officer, Yukio Asano, with war crimes for carrying out another form of waterboarding on a U.S. civilian. The subject was strapped on a stretcher that was tilted so that his feet were in the air and head near the floor, and small amounts of water were poured over his face, leaving him gasping for air until he agreed to talk.
So what exactly is the difference between THIS description and the waterboarding we are talking about?
May 24th, 2009 at 12:26 ammordick
By that argument the Germans or North Vietnamese would have been RIGHT to torture OUR soldiers. I mean they would only have been trying to save the lives of THEIR countrymen RIGHT?
May 24th, 2009 at 12:29 amYou write as though the law is unambiguous. In fact legal “opinion” is a vital part of our system of laws — so vital, in fact, that an entire third branch of the government is devoted to its adjudication. And epic battles are waged in the US Senate in order to nudge that process toward one side of the political spectrum or the other.
Yet you base your entire argument on the belief that the US Code can only be interpreted the way you interpret it.
You ignore the fact that international treaties also become the law of the land, and several of these — including the the 1949 Geneva Convention on Torture — ban waterboarding.
Your insistence that the CIA “did it differently” and so skirted the limits of the statutes seems to be based entirely on the good word of the CIA, and you comfortably dismissed the lack of hard evidence in the form of destroyed videotapes by suggesting that “maybe they had outlived their usefulness”. That this excuse did not strike you as absurd is puzzling, unless one reaches the conclusion that the only arguments you are willing to entertain are those that support your position, not those that undermine it.
And this — and little else — has been the basis of your argument lo these several hours. “The US Code can only be interpreted the way I read it” and “the CIA did it differently, and they would not lie”. You cling to these pillars of your position with admirable tenacity, but you seem to think that if you just phrase it differently, we will all “get it”. In fact, we do get what you’re saying, and most of us find it no more convincing now than when you first spoke up in this thread eight hours ago:
So, let me get this straight: ONE conservative commentator goes through a “waterboarding” episode, and changes his OPINION to match yours, so NOW his opinion is irrefutable proof of your side?
Seems a strange way to spend eight hours.
May 24th, 2009 at 12:29 amEDebs
The difference is that our soldiers were in uniform and a part of our military. Any soldier falls rightfully under the Geneva convention.
Terrorists do not.
Militant fighters is debateable. I highly doubt any country but the US would grant them convention status. All others would torture and execute at will IMO.
May 24th, 2009 at 12:32 amSeems strange that Cheney did not have this magic memo declassified when he had the authority to do so, if it was going to provide him with any cover at all — even if that cover was restricted to the “ends justifies the means” crowd.
May 24th, 2009 at 12:33 amJonW
Are you SURE? Because the FBI said Zubaydah WAS co-operating so if they were only waterboarding him to get infomation when they ALREADY WERE getting information that would seem redundant. The fact is you DONT know exactly WHY they were waterboarded. Would it be ok with you if OUR soldiers were waterboardes say during WW2 so the GERMANS could stop attacks on THEIR people? That argument can be used at ANY time there are hostilities between countries. It is an excuse not a reason. IF we are going to accept it then we are accepting that it is a reasonable policy. I dont. We sent the Japanese to prison for it and now WE want to say its ok when WE want to use it. I dont buy it
May 24th, 2009 at 12:34 amconnor Says:
EDebs
The difference is that our soldiers were in uniform and a part of our military. Any soldier falls rightfully under the Geneva convention.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
NOW you are changing the argument. By YOUR logic they would have been justified. NOW you are saying it is ok because they are bad people. Not good enough. They are only ACCUSED til that is shown in a court of law. EITHER you treat them as POWS or you ESTABLISH they are criminals THEN treat them like they are criminals. An accusation is NOT good enough for punishment if you want to be a civilized people.
May 24th, 2009 at 12:37 amJonW: I’ve read the OLC memo released Aug 1 2002, I hope this was the one you were referring to. It does mention that very few, if any, SERE trainees suffered long term effects from their training, However, SERE school lasts a matter of weeks, with the applicable Resist training only lasting a matter of days. I fail to see where this is directly applicable to the years that detainees have been in our prison system and the weeks to months they have been subjected to our enhanced interrogation techniques, or torture, as I define it.
The rest of the memo itself is merely legal opinion, that, in my opinion, misrepresents and construes the meaning of the law. Granted we are all entitled to our own opinion on the matter, but Bybee/Woo/Levin and the OLC under Bush are only interpreting the law, not defining it. What may not constitute “severe” to you or them may constitute “severe” in other circles.
The only way to settle this is to investigate and if needed try those responsible under the law. Getting this to SCOTUS will be the only way to settle the argument.
May 24th, 2009 at 12:42 am“Actually I don’t care if it is torture if it saves American lives. Would any of you bleeding hearts care if a perp was tortured to reveal the location of your child if it were buried alive by the lowlife?”
No I would not want someone tortured. I said there was no excuse for it and I meant it. If we have to stoop to their level then who are the terrorists now?
You chickenhawks crack me up.
John, I’m afraid I’ll have to respectfully disagree with you. I see we are both on opposite sides and I doubt either one of us will budge so I’ll leave it at that with you.
May 24th, 2009 at 12:54 amAnd conner ty for the honest response. I appreciate it.
May 24th, 2009 at 12:55 amJonW “In law, we apply a specific case to the laws that are written about them, and in doing so you find a clear definition of torture. Use the specifics against that definition.”
You are obviously not legally trained. I am. Spent my time at law school.. passed.. have worked as a lawyer. Your opinion and spirirted defence are amusing. You are obviously not unintelligent, but I am wondering, if you are one of these “government bloggers” shouldn’t you tell us as much up front?
“Bradbury’s convenient revisionism is too little, too late, the critics cry. I disagree. At least he took the time to get the OLC on the historical record as having conceded some of its mistakes in judgment and legal reasoning. This is a lot more than you can say about a lot of other people who helped craft these policies.” (and those who would defend them)
I read some way up that you are willing to be waterboarded – under certain conditions. What is that? The point of waterboarding is that it is involuntary. If you can just tell them to stop then it’s “simulated waterboarding”. If you are just wanting the feeling don’t waste our time. Next time you are in the shower tilt your head at the shower head and breathe in… Feel that water go up your nose… That is how it starts off feeling… and you can’t do it to yourself voluntarily for more than like 5 seconds?
If you really don’t consider waterboarding to be torture then it should be good enough for the police to use? Not on you… your parents…. let me waterboard your parents for an hour in your presence and see if you are willing to change your mind?
I am far more interested in the rest of the torture regime than the waterboarding uncovers. There have been 98 deaths in custody…. so you can get off the “one Iraqi general” story now. That is the ONLY case there has been action… the rest are a huge bump in the carpet in Dick Cheney’s old office.
The CIA didn’t stick to their OWN GUIDELINES… A person may be waterboarded 6 times a day 5 days a month, but KSM was waterboarded 183 times. At which stage does it become torture? You didn’t seem to have an objection to me waterboarding your parents (it’s good enough for them… it’s good enough for me..) so how about I do it to your mother, day in and day out for a month… perhaps so she can reveal the real secrets of marblecake and the Illuminati. Tell me when it IS torture and we can work our way back from there….
May 24th, 2009 at 2:30 amJon – You are nothing more than a bootlicking apologist for sadists. You have NOT responded to my points; as several others have pointed out to you here, you have merely repeated the same stale talking points over and over again, while ignoring what you cannot refute.
I have no respect for you. You and those like you are a blight on this nation’s honor, and you shame all of us.
May 24th, 2009 at 3:00 amInteresting that the site works great until I log in, then won’t allow typing any faster than a snail’s pace(even this post took 8 mins to write). I’ll leave you people to convincing yourselves that opinions supersede law definitions, as long as, of course, that opinion matches yours. One word: karma
May 24th, 2009 at 3:19 amKarma? What are you on about? You have been arguing madly that waterboarding does not constitute torture under United States law. Where does karma fit into it now? Opinion is UNANIMOUS on this website and AROUND the world that waterboarding is torture. It is wrong and immoral. Your karma might backfire on you? If it’s not torture why does the United States not use it to extract information from their civilians… rather than having to go to the police station and speak to the detective in the presence of your lawyer.
You are full of it JonW. If waterboarding really isn’t torture you would have no problem if I came over and waterboarded your nearest family for a couple of hours. It’s not a question of “torture” necessarily being done by the state – if you read the law anyone can be doing it – so you would have no problem if I came around… say at 6 tonight? I was an Infantry Ops Medic in the 80’s so while my skills at not actually drowning anyone might be a bit rusty you’re in better hands than the average member of the public.
You might not have noticed that this site is THINK PROGRESS.. not ThinkMedieval.org or Thinkdarkages.com?
May 24th, 2009 at 3:55 amBilbo Hussein Baggins Says:
——————————————————————————–
I did a Google search of the news for “mancow torture” and got 48 hits, most of them blogs like this one.
Now just think what would have happened if “Mancow” had said that what he experienced was not torture?
Really? Because I got 26,000.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=mancow+torture&aq=f&oq=&aqi=
Not to mention all the news articles:
http://news.google.com/news?um=1&ned=us&hl=en&q=mancow+torture&cf=all&scoring=d
May 24th, 2009 at 6:13 amChanging one mind is the first step towards changing others.
Waterboarding is TORTURE, no matter how you massage the technique. It is still the act of inflicting pain and the illusion of death on people to obtain information. As Americans, we are meant to set examples. WE DO NOT TORTURE.
May 24th, 2009 at 7:23 amI’ll leave you people to convincing yourselves that opinions supersede law definitions, as long as, of course, that opinion matches yours.
Law definitions that trashed the Geneva Conventions, and made us a pariah? Sorry, but your opinion is worthless, since it doesn’t acknowledge obvious wrongdoing by the Bush administration. You’re a friend to torturers. We get that.
May 24th, 2009 at 11:51 amJonW Says:
Kitty, I didn’t misrepresent you. I simply compared the situation to another to show that simply believing you were tortured does not make it so. You tried to use, instead of US Code, the international code, which is much more ambiguous, and does not define severe mental/physical suffering.
Not more ambiguous, more all-encompassing. You torture apologists are trying to redefine acceptable government behavior, to give cover to war criminals, and it’s pretty transparent.
May 24th, 2009 at 12:05 pmYeah, TP is obviously targeting you.
Perhaps you ought to let the Justices of the US Supreme Court know that their opinions fail to “supersede law definitions”. They’ll be very interested to learn this, I’m sure.
May 24th, 2009 at 12:20 pmJust because Olbermann left Hannity off the hook, doesn’t mean we have to. We have over $300,000 pledged for a 30 second “dip in the water” – let’s keep up the pressure:
http://www.waterboardhannityforcharity.com/
May 24th, 2009 at 1:37 pmmordick Says:
Actually I don’t care if it is torture if it saves American lives. Would any of you bleeding hearts care if a perp was tortured to reveal the location of your child if it were buried alive by the lowlife?
But would you torture the perp’s child to get him to reveal the location? If so, you’re no better than a terrorist.
May 24th, 2009 at 2:06 pmJonW Says:
Kitty, I didn’t misrepresent you. I simply compared the situation to another to show that simply believing you were tortured does not make it so. You tried to use, instead of US Code, the international code, which is much more ambiguous, and does not define severe mental/physical suffering.
I’m sorry I don’t cut/paste/quote people, and realize that leaves me open to the charge of “misrepresentation”. Likewise to your charge that I have not answered people, when clearly I have… is this misrepresentation or misunderstanding? I’ll leave you to decide, although I’m sure “it’s different”.
It’s not about cutting and pasting as you think Jon. It’s about representing people’s differing opinions in a truthful and honest way so you can counter them honestly and truthfully. What you do is post a caricature, easily knocked down by your arguments. Why do so? Do you lack the confidence to go toe to toe with us? Why not represent the other side of the debate without having to resort to twisting their arguments to make them look ridiculous? It makes you look like a troll instead of someone who wants a debate.
May 24th, 2009 at 3:57 pmI have no problem with waterboarding and regret the topic is getting any attention at all. As a guest on Fox News said a few days ago a US soldier goes thru the same waterboarding technique during their training. The difference is when captured, a US soldier does not know how they will be treated or if they will be killed. A prisoner captured by the US knows they will not be killed. If this makes me no better than a terrorist then so be it but i believe we should protect our people at all costs. These terrorists do not play by our rules and they are using our rules to their advantage. Additionally I dont care what happened at Guantanamo and its too bad anything that occured there was disclosed to the public. I regret our soldiers that were following their orders faced the possibility of criminal charges. The worst that should have happened is whoever encouraged this behavior got a private slap on the wrist but no public disclosure. I feel the prisionsers at Guantanamo should be quite happy to be alive and thats far more than they deserve.
May 24th, 2009 at 3:59 pm290, there is a difference between SERE Training and the CIA’s version of waterboarding which you may not recognized. SERE training is like innoculation where you are given a mild version of the disease in order to immunize you from the real thing. The CIA version was the real thing, where the flow of water is not controlled like in the SERE version.
May 24th, 2009 at 4:06 pmwhateverittakesforamerica Says:
Perhaps you should consider moving to a country more in line with your worldview. Like Communist China.
May 24th, 2009 at 4:57 pmThe difference is when captured, a US soldier does not know how they will be treated or if they will be killed.
Even more so now, since the rest of the world knows we’ve tortured prisoners in the past, and could do so again, with a republican at the helm. We have no moral authority to protest, if our captured soldiers are subjected to it.
Why can’t guys like this see beyond their own immediate desires, like the desire for retribution? It’s sick.
May 24th, 2009 at 5:04 pmbarfly,
Your inability to see waterboarding captured terrorists as anything except retribution is almost laughable. I hope you are also voicing your outrage over President Obama ordering that 3 pirates be shot through the head, in order to save the life of the ship captain a while back, right?
If we were waterboarding left and right, any prisoner then MAYBE I could see your point. But thats not what we did. Just 3 high value terrorists were waterboarded,
May 24th, 2009 at 6:17 pmand guess what, a lot of innocent American lives were saved. Maybe even yours.
Right, Cheney ordered the waterboarding done to those three suspects in order to get his beloved Al-Qaida/Saddam link, which has proven to be false…and that info that you claim saved lives was taken from Abu Zubaydah from traditional interrogation methods. What was missing from Zubaydah? Oh yes, the link…which could then be used and is still being used to justify the Iraq war…
May 24th, 2009 at 6:26 pmTraditional interrogation methods not involving torture saved many lives as you suggest, maybe even yours. But tell me how many lives were saved by going into Iraq?
May 24th, 2009 at 6:43 pmRomartin thinks that because he says so, that makes it true. Ro is highly silly.
But we already knew that.
May 24th, 2009 at 8:08 pmRomartin16985 Says:
——————————————————————————–
barfly,
Your inability to see waterboarding captured terrorists as anything except retribution is almost laughable. I hope you are also voicing your outrage over President Obama ordering that 3 pirates be shot through the head, in order to save the life of the ship captain a while back, right?
Huh? I may have sucked at my SAT, but even I can tell the ratio’s not equal here. The USA is the perp in the “waterboarding captured terrorists” situation, just like the pirates are the perps in the “save the life of the ship captain” situation.
So Romanmartin, I’m guessing you believe it was okay to shoot the pirates. In that case, you should also believe that it’s okay to shoot the US people responsible for waterboarding. They’re both the perps after all.
At least Barfly’s being consistent. You, Romanmartin, are not.
May 24th, 2009 at 8:59 pmHA! Now some liberals are saying the valuable information that saved lives was gotten from traditional methods, we didn’t really need to waterboard, those evil Republicans! You really need to get your stories straight.
I certainly don’t take your word for anything either locust as YOU have shown yourself to be a complete nit wit.
This all started when the White House decided to declassify only certain portions of CIA memos relating to waterboarding 3 terrorists. They left out the part about what was learned by doing this.
Gee, I wonder why the Obama administration would do that? Certainly not to cast the Bush administration in a bad light, maybe even try to criminalize their behavior, and certainly not to slander and ruin the careers of Bush attorney’s who gave legal opinions. And certainly not to demonize all Republicans, with guilt by association. That would be politicizing our national security.
May 24th, 2009 at 9:18 pmYou, bluesunflower, are completely uninformed if you believe the United States the perpetrator of a crime by waterboarding 3 captured terrorists.
According to international treaties, no crime was committed. The waterboarding was perfectly legal, justified, and saved innocent American lives.
Comparing the criminal activity of those pirates to the CIA interrogators legally doing their jobs, and saving lives to boot – well, lets just say maybe you should have paid more attention in high school……
May 24th, 2009 at 9:30 pmWhat do you say we try and close the loop by actually showing whose lives were saved and how.
May 24th, 2009 at 9:43 pmRomartin16985 Says:
HA! Now some liberals are saying the valuable information that saved lives was gotten from traditional methods, we didn’t really need to waterboard, those evil Republicans! You really need to get your stories straight.
This isn’t a partisan joke, Romartin…The Washington Post had reported that the information gotten from Waterboarding led to wild-goose chases. i have written in posts above about torture and leading questions. If leading questions are asked whether to a student or to a detainee, it may influence their answers (I’m not comparing the two, but only to illustrate the point about leading questions). Now add torture to that equation, and you can see how detainees who might want the torture to stop would say what they think their torturers WANT to hear.
Cheney’s office most likely ordered the waterboarding in order to prove that Al Qaida had links to Iraq…not to save lives…and thanks to the fact that you actually BELIEVE in it, right? you can see that TORTURE WORKS, right?! /snark
May 24th, 2009 at 10:09 pmSomehow I think torture wasn’t used to try to save American lives, that was secondary to providing a faux justification of invading Iraq, something made easier by the true believers who still to this day persist in making that link…
May 24th, 2009 at 10:17 pmFalse confessions were obtained by the Communist Chinese and the North Koreans in the Korean War and by the North Vietnamese during the Vietnam War. What makes our action different? The cognitive dissonance you might suffer you don’t because you persuade yourself that there WAS a link between Al Qaida and Iraq because Cheney said so 1,000 times…
May 24th, 2009 at 10:18 pmI’m afraid I don’t necessarily believe the Washington Post, as they are not what you’d call unbiased. Believe whatever you want about Al Qaida and Iraq, I don’t care.
We’re talking about the waterboarding of 3 specific captured terrorists during our war with Iraq. Please leave the Chinese, the North Koreans and justifications for the war out of it for now.
Dick Cheney says the memos show that valuable information was gotten, lives were saved. President Obama redacted that part.
I believe Dick Cheney until/unless the memos tell a different story. So far President Obama doesn’t feel we need to know that part of the story.
May 24th, 2009 at 10:55 pmI believe Dick Cheney until/unless the memos tell a different story. So far President Obama doesn’t feel we need to know that part of the story.
Thanks, that’s all I needed to know…
May 24th, 2009 at 10:58 pmabout you…I mean…
May 24th, 2009 at 10:59 pmThey were waterboarded BEFORE the war in addition and what they “confessed” served as the justification. Sorry, those two keys are related to each other.
May 24th, 2009 at 11:01 pmAnd you show yourself as a moral lightweight, willing to condemn what was done when you really don’t have all of the facts, as the CIA memos had portions that were redacted.
If waterboarding those 3 murderous terrorists gave us information that helped prevent another 9/11 type attack, then your obvious bias against all things Bush may have to be reviewed.
May 24th, 2009 at 11:18 pmMoral lightweight? I don’t think so…How do you know the CIA memos are legit and not an exercise in self-justification? Yes, I admit to bias, I am biased against the CIA and do not see them as trustworthy, seeing as they refuse to hand over the evidence and the tapes to Congress. What do they have to worry about?
Do you swallow everything that’s in the memos? Yes, accuse me of swallowing the WaPo, but you seem to swallow what Cheney tells you. Admit it, you’re as biased as I am.
May 24th, 2009 at 11:20 pmand if you don’t care that the link between Al Qaida and Iraq is FALSE, then does this mean that you don’t care that OUR TROOPS were sent to war on false pretenses? Doesn’t this make you just as much as a moral lightweight as I am?
Perhaps I dismiss the CIA memo off because of my bias, but this is no different from you dismissing the WaPo, because you think it is biased. From the prior administration’s pattern of behavior in trying desperately to prove a link between the two to justify our war, I am inclined not to believe you or Cheney, especially in the light of knowing that torture works when it comes to false confessions.
May 24th, 2009 at 11:35 pmHow do you know the ticking time-bomb is failproof? Do you think Al Qaeda operatives would divulge where the bomb would go off? Who is to say that they won’t give you a false lead? Or who is to say that they wouldn’t resist even to the death? They are fanatics, right? The deal is how do you know that the terrorist is not trained to provide false information or information that the United States already has? The ticking time-bomb scenario is not as foolproof as you may think it is. How do you know that the information that the 3 gave us was a goldmine of intelligence?
May 24th, 2009 at 11:42 pmRomartin16985 Says:
And you show yourself as a moral lightweight, willing to condemn what was done when you really don’t have all of the facts, as the CIA memos had portions that were redacted.
If waterboarding those 3 murderous terrorists gave us information that helped prevent another 9/11 type attack, then your obvious bias against all things Bush may have to be reviewed.
Except you’ll never be able to prove your assertion. Moral lightweight? Coming from a urine-stained conservative, that should be considered a high honor.
May 25th, 2009 at 12:04 amRomartin16985 Says:
——————————————————————————–
You, bluesunflower, are completely uninformed…
And yet, I seem to know more than you. Curious.
May 25th, 2009 at 12:06 amYou, bluesunflower, are completely uninformed if you believe the United States the perpetrator of a crime by waterboarding 3 captured terrorists.
According to international treaties, no crime was committed. The waterboarding was perfectly legal, justified, and saved innocent American lives.
Notice he doesn’t post the relevant sections of the conventions, just asserts it as fact.
Dismissed.
May 25th, 2009 at 12:09 amRomartin16985 Says:
If waterboarding those 3 murderous terrorists gave us information that helped prevent another 9/11 type attack, then your obvious bias against all things Bush may have to be reviewed.
Why? Leaving aside the fact that Bush did many things one could disagree with, how does it follow that if torture yielded a crumb of useful information one must review Bush’s accomplishments or lack thereof? You miss the point, if we become like the terrorists than they win.
May 25th, 2009 at 12:16 amRomartin16985 Says:
barfly,
Your inability to see waterboarding captured terrorists as anything except retribution is almost laughable. I hope you are also voicing your outrage over President Obama ordering that 3 pirates be shot through the head, in order to save the life of the ship captain a while back, right?
Why should I do that? You make no sense. 183 trips in a month to the waterboard wasn’t retribution? It certainly wasn’t information gathering.
May 25th, 2009 at 12:16 ambarfly Says:
Notice he doesn’t post the relevant sections of the conventions, just asserts it as fact.
Dismissed.
Romartin is the arbiter of international law? Who knew?
May 25th, 2009 at 12:17 amYou nit wits, President Obama has reserved for himself the right to use waterboarding. Even he sees that we are not just like the terrorists when we protect ourselves.
May 25th, 2009 at 12:16 pmRomartin16985 Says:
You nit wits, President Obama has reserved for himself the right to use waterboarding. Even he sees that we are not just like the terrorists when we protect ourselves.
Proof? None? I thought so… And yes, when we violate long-accepted treaties regarding torture, we are just like the terrorists. Apparently, that’s fine with this Anti-American clown.
May 25th, 2009 at 12:29 pmYou nit wits, President Obama has reserved for himself the right to use waterboarding. Even he sees that we are not just like the terrorists when we protect ourselves.
You seem to suggest that we’re only in favor of waterboarding if Obama would do it. That is not the case, we are not like you so-principled conservatives who think torture is bad only if they can get Nancy Pelosi to take the fall for it.
May 25th, 2009 at 2:28 pmYou really are dense, I’m not in favor of waterboarding just because Obama and Pelosi are. I’m in favor of it when circumstances require harsh treatment of terrorists who have knowledge of another attack, and we need to protect ourselves from that attack.
Thank God you were not in charge of our country when hard decisions had to be made. Thats why you are a moral lightweight. You believe you are somehow morally superior to those who had information that you don’t have, and made decisions that did in fact keep us safe.
I bet you’d be screaming loudest to condemn President Bush if another attack HAD occurred.
May 25th, 2009 at 6:59 pmYou really are dense, I’m not in favor of waterboarding just because Obama and Pelosi are. I’m in favor of it when circumstances require harsh treatment of terrorists who have knowledge of another attack, and we need to protect ourselves from that attack.
Thank God you were not in charge of our country when hard decisions had to be made. Thats why you are a moral lightweight. You believe you are somehow morally superior to those who had information that you don’t have, and made decisions that did in fact keep us safe.
I bet you’d be screaming loudest to condemn President Bush if another attack HAD occurred.
A moral lightweight, I consider that to be a compliment coming from a conservative who thinks torture gets us real intelligence, when it is clear that the intelligence comes from traditional intelligence gathering means. You obviously have not read up on the history which shows that TORTURE DOES NOT WORK except for getting false confessions. I am not a moral lightweight, but I don’t mind being called that from someone who swallows the justifications for torture and lives in the fantasy 24 world where torture works and Jack Bauer saves everyone after kicking some ass. I bet it makes you feel all strong and manly, doesn’t it? Oh look at me! I’m some libertarian or independent or whatever who supports torture because it protects us all!
The way I took your last post which I had quoted was that you thought we were not condemning Obama for reserving the right to waterboard, THUS suggesting that this is all political expediency from us. Don’t take my words out of context. I was not suggesting you support it because Obama and Pelosi were. I was suggesting that you thought our insistence of being against torture was just because Bush did it. That is not the case. Torture is immoral, it does NOTHING to protect our country, because the ticking time bomb scenario is deeply flawed and it assumes that the terrorists would NOT provide false information. It is immoral no matter if Obama were to do it, or Bush was.
May 25th, 2009 at 8:50 pmI bet you’d be screaming loudest to condemn President Bush if another attack HAD occurred.
and I bet you were screaming loudest to condemn President Clinton for 9/11 which happened under BUSH’S watch.
May 25th, 2009 at 8:51 pmThat is not the case, we are not like you so-principled conservatives who think torture is bad only if they can get Nancy Pelosi to take the fall for it.
Read it carefully, before calling someone dense and resorting to personal attacks. The Republicans wanted it both ways. They wanted to insist that torture was not done and that what we did was waterboarding, which they loudly proclaimed not to be torture. But they wanted Nancy Pelosi to take the fall for waterboarding by claiming she lied to Congress about the CIA briefing. They don’t want an investigation into whether we tortured or not, but would rather have the light focus on Pelosi. There are differing accounts here, the CIA or Pelosi who has been supported by Senator Graham from Florida…WHOSE notes indicate that the CIA made up two of the briefings. It depends on whom you trust, and it is clear that your bias as well as mine suggest whom we would trust.
It’s not about feeling morally superior, don’t try that ad hominem attack on me, but the deal is, do we resort to the tactics of the terrorists? If so, then have we proven ourselves to be better? We are America, we’re not some country which resorts to torture. American exceptionalism should mean that we rise above other nations when it comes to torture and other moral issues, not that it’s only okay if we do it.
If you believe that torture works, you must believe that the people tortured in SALEM, Massachusetts were actually witches, you must believe that those tortured in the European witch trials were actually in league with Satan. You must believe the false confessions our troops were forced to make in the Korean and Vietnam War. You must believe that there WAS a link between Al Qaida and Iraq, all which were obtained through torture and false confessions. If so, well that does explain how you insist in believing that there WAS a link and we did go to war in Iraq with bona fides…
May 25th, 2009 at 9:01 pmAll your sputtering is ridiculous, now you’re talking about Salem witches!
I’m not biased, I’m waiting for President Obama to declassify the information which Dick Cheney says shows that in these 3 cases, harsh interrogation techniques worked and saved American lives.
I wonder why the White House doesn’t want us to know – I’d think if they could show that not only did the Bush administration break the law, supposedly trash our reputation in the world, but also that it was all for nothing, that’d have no problem doing that.
Of course, you wouldn’t necessarily believe the redacted parts of the memos if they support what Cheney says. (although you have no problem accepting the part that makes Republicans look bad).
May 25th, 2009 at 11:56 pm“And also, once again, rating prove nothing. People tune in to watch a train wreck happen.” Stay tuned then for the upcoming election cycles. The democratic party is fast becoming that train wreck. While Obama (for the time) remains steady, there isn’t a top dem out there that isn’t sliding in the polls. Bye Bye Reid, Bye Bye Pelosi, Bye bye Franks, Bye bye Dodd.
“Even The Dick’s special “Cover My Sorry A$$ Tour” isn’t going to protect him against this ultimate form of abuse – homicide.”
May 26th, 2009 at 12:08 amAnd yet as the “big dick vs. the little pussy” battle rages on Big Dick’s ratings are soaring. Go figure
I think all the talk about torture or not is all blah, blah, blah. I would love to ask ANY person out there, including Obama to consider the following scenario and deny the need for “enhanced interrogation”. Q- If a terrorist (bad guy, Mexican drug Lord, whatever) kidnapped (happens every day) YOUR Kids (wife, Mother) and told you that they would be killed in 2 hours (4 hours, 6 hours)and that they knew where they were and you could save them by getting this person to talk…you would do anything in your power to get them to talk. To say otherwise makes you quite a bit less than human. This was the frame of mind after 9/11 for the people looking after this country and to diss them for it will open up the CERTAINTY that anyone working for Obama will face the same for their help in trashing this country. George W. sucked but lets move on
May 26th, 2009 at 12:26 amIf “enhanced interrogation” didn’t work and Obama wants to release all the damning evidence. Why not just do what Cheney asked and release the things that proved it DID work? Let’s not let “fair and balanced” be a Fox talking point let’s put it out there and prove/disprove it so everyone can really see once and for all…NEVER going to happen
May 26th, 2009 at 12:30 amI’m sure there’s hundreds of experiences I could go through, and say it’s torture.
Nice, and non-judgemental. Except the prisoners didn’t “go through” these sessions — they were subjected to them, under duress. Name one experience you could go through and rationally claim to have been tortured.
Childbirth?
May 26th, 2009 at 12:55 amRomartin16985 Says:
Of course, you wouldn’t necessarily believe the redacted parts of the memos if they support what Cheney says. (although you have no problem accepting the part that makes Republicans look bad).
You assume that I am a partisan who believes that torture is only bad when the Republicans have done it. That is not the case…and I have a huge problem with the administration not showing us the redacted parts of the memo as well.
May 26th, 2009 at 2:59 amand your projection that I would only accept anything that would make the previous administration look bad belies the point that should be made. This is not a partisan issue. It is the Republicans who are trying to make it such. Ask any of us here. Torture is immoral no matter WHO DOES IT…no matter if it works or not. YOu base your conclusions on the false premise that it DOES work and does what it intends to, except you miss the point where people have used it to obtain false confessions. This is not irrelevant with due respect when it comes to the possibility the Bush administration used torture to create a faux link between Al Qaida and Iraq. You refuse to admit your bias as well as you cling on to these myths because they support your worldview. How does this make me different?
May 26th, 2009 at 3:02 amI love how the torture apologists want to make it into an issue where those who want us to stop torturing are the immoral ones at fault here.
May 26th, 2009 at 3:03 amand if the Obama administration is seeking to cover up for the last administration, then we better raise bloody hell…
May 26th, 2009 at 3:20 amWhy? The NEXT administration will surely have to cover for this one! I just believe that anything (right or wrong) done in good faith to protect this country should be left alone. No one but George W. had to sit there after 9/11 and make the decisions he had to make just like no one is holding a gun to Obama’s head as he takes over the largest industries in America and sends this country towards bankruptcy. If we start sending our presidents to jail for doing what they think is right, no one will work for the government OR run for president and all the ones still living will be in jail.
May 26th, 2009 at 6:07 amWith all due respect though, what does your argument do to the rule of law?
May 26th, 2009 at 7:14 am@UCSBKitty – I think he means to say that torture is cool and that you should leave Republicans to break the law and walk free, BECAUSE they thought that it was the right thing to do. It was the wrong thing to do, simply because torture does not work.
The full story will come out. The US has waterboarded many more than the 3 it currently admits to. The CIA even had a special waterboard designed and manufactured for it… one which allows you to be righted quickly in case you start drowning. All this still has to see the light of day.
May 26th, 2009 at 8:43 amTorture or enhanced interrogation isn’t “cool” but it doesn’t leave me queazy either. I tend to personalize things to see how I would really feel and would love Obama to do the same. I am the father of three girls and would do anything (including giving a shower to a terrorist) to protect the well being (current or future) of my daughters. For any parent to say otherwise is ludicrous. In this case Bush was in the parent role and he did what he thought was right. I would agree with you that it didn’t work if Obama would release the evidence supporting that. He won’t because he knows it did work. Would something else have worked? Maybe. I just don’t care! I felt safe after 9/11 and I don’t now. Dictators are typically small minded pukes that don’t respect diplomacy. They respect a big stick. Obama has no big stick…only a teleprompter.
May 26th, 2009 at 8:58 am339, I realize that your concerns about your family are tantamount to your opinion on this issue, but it has been shown throughout the past that torture will NOT protect us from any possible attacks. I base my statement on the countless examples of history where torture has been used to obtain false confessions from the Spanish Inquisition to today, where torture was used to justify the Iraq War. Bush and Cheney were not thinking of the country’s safety when they needed that Al Qaida-Iraq link but couldn’t get it except without torture. The war did not make us safe, and it cost us the lives of countless soldiers and civilians, instead inflaming world opinion against us.
May 26th, 2009 at 3:07 pmJon W. Beyond all the statutes, laws and other stuff that you are using to defend your stance on the matter of torture,the point is that it effects both the waterboarder and the waterboardee. Maybe this story will help you understand what I mean. I had a customer in my shoe store a few weeks back. He was a Navy Seal who was fighting in Iraq. I first thanked him for his service and then asked him if he was both physically and mentally OK. He said “Thank you” and proceeded to tell me that no one had asked him about his physical and mental health before. He said that there was only one thing that freaked him out. He was present at a waterboarding. He said that it would be with him the rest of his life. He said he was concerned that the prisoner would die. I’m thankful to this man for his honesty and I’m glad he’s both mentally and physically well. Jon, I would be apt to maybe agree with you if it worked, but it also would not be effecting our guys. I would also like to say I never listened to Mancow but this is the second time the guy has stepped up to do something with heart.
May 26th, 2009 at 8:33 pm