Sean Hannity Should be Waterboarded
Posted by Jake G. on 05.01.2009
Hannity to get in the dunk tank for Olbermann?
For years Sean Hannity has defended some of the more controversial issues of the Bush Administration and has openly defended waterboarding and other forms of torture as safe methods of learning information from suspected terrorists. Hannity has went so far as to claim that waterboarding is in fact not torture and that it's just enhanced interrogation, basically useable to any extent.
I make no bones in my opinion that Sean Hannity is a blowhard loudmouth idiot who spews nothing but vitriolic comments and opinions, lies and propaganda in order to motivate the most uneducated members of the Republican party. This coming from a man who is a HUGE fan of Bill O'Reilly. Hannity couldn't lace O'Reilly's boots. For years Hannity has claimed to be an expert in waterboarding, thinking that just because he's taken a bath, somehow he knows about waterboarding. It's akin to me having flown in a plane, now claiming I can fly one.
However while I normally try to ignore anything out of Hannity's mouth, I think it's time we hold Hannity to the standard he's chosen. Last week Sean Hannity said he'd agree to be waterboarded for charity because he doesn't think waterboarding is that big of a deal. Of course this story was picked up by liberal blowhard, Keith Olbermann. Now Olbermann is willing to put up $1,000 for every second that Hannity can take the torture. All the proceeds would go to charity to prove that the method of waterboarding either is or isn't torture.
To me, this is a good idea. Hannity has a chance to prove he's right and that he's every bit the Ronald Reagan badass he claims to be. Sean can march in, take the waterboarding and get up and smile shaking it off and saying, "This was nothing". All the while bleeding thousands of dollars from liberal elite media talking head Keith Olbermann. It's a win-win for Hannity. Presuming that he can indeed withstand the torture, err, day spa.
Or perhaps Hannity will learn his lesson, admit that this is torture and prove Keith Olbermann right.
Either way it makes for good television. Listen, I don't think we should trivialize torture, but it already is. When torture is "debatable" it's not longer taken serious. Hannity has a golden opportunity to shut the critics up and prove himself not only as a man, but as a great American. Olbermann has the same opportunity. By the two coming together in this contest of wills, we'll see who really can put their money where their mouth is.
In fact I came up with a brilliant idea. I bet people would donate to charity to see Hannity waterboarded. It's all for the families of the Armed services, so why not? Conservatives could donate money because they want to prove that Hannity and Bush were right. Liberals want to prove that Hannity and Bush were wrong and would donate money. Apparently I wasn't the only one with the idea, as waterboardseanhannityforcharity.com already exists with thousands of people pledging to pay to see Hannity waterboarded.
We all know this story will blow over and Hannity won't really do what he said he would. But he honestly has nothing to lose. He could prove his integrity by going through with this challenge. Furthermore if he's afraid that Olbermann won't live up to his word, he'll have the ultimate power to use against him. He has Olbermann's word and millions of people who can verify the claim. It's mano e mano, liberal blowhard versus conservative blowhard and we the people in the middle will benefit by both men living up to their grandstanding. So go ahead Sean, take the PLUNGE!
Great idea! I'd love to shut them both up. Everyone knows Rush is the only conservative worth listening to anyway. My only stipulation would be if Hannity can take the torture for 5 minutes, Dick Cheney gets to shoot Olbermann in the face for 45 seconds. Or I'll do it.
Posted By: Dingleberry bush (Guest) on April 30, 2009 at 10:51 PM
Waterboarding Hannity won't do anything. He can't get water in his airways because there's a constant flow of hot air coming from it.
Posted By: Guest#7396 (Guest) on April 30, 2009 at 11:18 PM
Brilliant. And how much money would you pay TO waterboard Sean Hannity? It'd be a bucket line around the block...
Posted By: Andrew Tobolowsky (Registered) on April 30, 2009 at 11:52 PM
Waterboarding was used to get valuable information from known terrorists. Do you understand that they were TERRORISTS. I see, we are supposed to play nicey nice while they decide how to kill thousands of us. BUT NO NO, do not use possible harsh tactics against them. I hope your loved ones never get attacked. And if they do, do not blame anybody but yourself. Sean, if he does it, good for him, however... lets save it for the bad people in the world, not the ones trying to prove a point. However, you would disapprove of that too right. Since it is torture and all. Keep in mind also, that when stuck in a room with a bug, that was considered torture to. It isn't that it is a debated issue. Somebody has decided to define it. Listening to the national media clamor on about Obama is torture to me, so why hasn't it ended? Just a thougt. Please have a nice day.
Posted By: Chris (Guest) on May 01, 2009 at 12:01 AM
So are you saying people in the US Military should sue the government for being tortured? What? You didn't know that some get waterboarded in their training?
Liberalism is a mental disorder. Keith Oderman has no ratings. He's a joke.
Posted By: Michael (Guest) on May 01, 2009 at 01:11 AM
Liberals always forget that true torture is what people like Daniel Pearl went through before their deaths at the hands of islamoterrorists. For some reason, liberals like this pathetic author of this blog, think that if they kiss up to terrorists, they won't hate them. Terrorists don't care if you're a republican or democrat.
Posted By: Michael (Guest) on May 01, 2009 at 01:13 AM
"Waterboarding was used to get valuable information from known terrorists. Do you understand that they were TERRORISTS. I see, we are supposed to play nicey nice while they decide how to kill thousands of us. BUT NO NO, do not use possible harsh tactics against them. I hope your loved ones never get attacked. And if they do, do not blame anybody but yourself. Sean, if he does it, good for him, however... lets save it for the bad people in the world, not the ones trying to prove a point. However, you would disapprove of that too right. Since it is torture and all. Keep in mind also, that when stuck in a room with a bug, that was considered torture to. It isn't that it is a debated issue. Somebody has decided to define it. Listening to the national media clamor on about Obama is torture to me, so why hasn't it ended? Just a thougt. Please have a nice day."
I really want to have a nice day, but observing that I share a country with individuals that must either think it's still World War II, or that real life is like 24, is quite disheartening. I know it's comforting to think of us as the good guys doing what we can to preserve freedom, whatever it takes, but this notion is just a fantasy. For this country to continue reach its potential, in impacting the world as a whole, we must set an example.
Posted By: Truth (Guest) on May 01, 2009 at 01:26 AM
He will probably still be able to do his show while being waterboarded. God knows he has been doing it with George W. Bush's balls in his mouth for damn near a decade so this shouldn't slow him down a bit!
Posted By: Sick Burn (Guest) on May 01, 2009 at 01:28 AM
Hey defenders of waterboarding everywhere!!! It was among the torture techniques used by the Japanese during WW2. Hmmm didn't we charge those guys with war crimes, and even execute a few? You have no leg to stand on defending this crap.
Posted By: Bavitz (Guest) on May 01, 2009 at 01:31 AM
Okay, Chris... let's get something straight.
THIS IS THE FUCKING UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
That means that we DO NOT TORTURE people because they might have information. EVEN IF it might save lives. Because if we do that to someone we're damn sure has information, we'll eventually do it to someone we're kind of confident, and it's only a matter of time we do it to someone who's innocent.
In the words of, of all people, Terry Pratchett, once you take that kind of shortcut for a good reason, you'll do it for a bad reason.
Posted By: MadmanJack (Registered) on May 01, 2009 at 01:49 AM
Hey Chris, Do you have any stat on how many of these peopel waterboarded, in Guantanamo etc. have actually in a court of law been convicted of being terrorists? I'd have thought that news would be trumpeted pretty loudly, but all I ever see is 'suspected terrorist' or 'men accused of terrorism released'. While there are undoubtedly terrorists in the world, if open courts of law aren't convicting the people hauled in, how can they ever be 'known' terrorists?
Posted By: Robin (Guest) on May 01, 2009 at 02:07 AM
oh for fuck's sake. you can waterboard ME for charity. i can hold my breath for 2 minutes. that's 120 grand already. let me do my drug of choice first (for this--alcohol and psilocibin) and i might make it past 180 G's.
actually, that's a good point. if it's to be fair then he should have to spend a few weeks in a holding cell or whatever to get him good and drug free and sleep-deprived.
Posted By: 6d6 (Guest) on May 01, 2009 at 04:19 AM
So let me get this straight...
Waterboarding is torture.
Torture is NEVER an acceptable method of extracting an information or admission from someone.
You want to waterboard Hannity to make him admit that waterboarding is torture.
This is why I can't take you guys seriously.
Posted By: Guest#1749 (Guest) on May 01, 2009 at 07:15 AM
I agree with Chris. Didn't we water board only 3 see 3!!!!, people one was the guy behind 9-11 the other was planning the L.A. attack!!! You hard left clowns are acting if we were going through villages pillaging and doing this to poor families. I know how you can get info now, just have obama at a table and the suspected terrorist will just look into his beautiful eyes and the terrorist will talk. These are the people that a supposed to protect us?
Posted By: danman (Guest) on May 01, 2009 at 07:31 AM
Just like moronic Liberals,you idiots rally against waterboarding unless is to someone YOU either dont LIKE or AGREE WITH. If Hannity should be waterboarded, then Janine Garafolo, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and Michael Moore need to be waterboarded RIGHT NEXT TO HIM. Fair IS Fair.
Posted By: CM Wolf (Guest) on May 01, 2009 at 08:03 AM
as long as all the sheep think that the torture has stopped i'm happy. Just remember all those secret prisons and country's we ship people off to. And i'm sure the torture that goes unknown to the masses is far worse than a little bug or kiddie pool of water.
Posted By: Happy to Torture (Guest) on May 01, 2009 at 08:24 AM
“He has Olbermann's word and millions of people who can verify the claim.”
I think you may have exaggerated the number of viewers that watch Uberdouche.
Posted By: anti-messiah (Guest) on May 01, 2009 at 08:48 AM
"I make no bones in my opinion that Sean Hannity is a blowhard loudmouth idiot who spews nothing but vitriolic comments and opinions"
you could just as easily substitute "Sean Hannity" with the majority of the so call reporters on this site. Really why do you even bother to have a political column when it's basically a bunch of liberal rants with no sembalance of objectivity?
Posted By: dan (Guest) on May 01, 2009 at 10:36 AM
Hey idiot liberal, the Japanese were executed for war crimes; NOT waterboarding.
And to the other liberal, you'd rather not save lives in order to treat terrorists humanely? You are truly why liberalism is a mental disorder. You do realize terrorists hate democrats too, right?
Posted By: Michael (Guest) on May 01, 2009 at 10:38 AM
Let me get this straight...
Liberals now don't want to torture Al Queda operatives- just people who disagrees with them about torturing terrorists?
Oh, what a slippery slope we ride:
Water boarding is conducted on interrogators the same way that police officers and border patrol get maced and tazered.
US military all have to go through a gas chamber to prove to them that their gas mask works.
3 people, all being high ranking terrorists get water boarded, and liberals freak out- not because it's wrong, but because "republicans" did it or allowed it.
I'm not saying I agree with torture- or even water boarding- but I understand that sometimes we have to do things that nobody is proud of.
Today, right now, the Taliban is trying to take over a country with nukes.
Liberals have handcuffed the military, the CIA, the FBI and anyone else who could have stopped this.
Let us win this war- please...stop making everything so political.
Democrats knew this was going on and did nothing.
New Yorkers a few days ago showed that the US is still fearful of another attack.
Muslim organizations in this very country are holding flag burnings and calling for our downfall using our own rights of Freedom of Speech against us.
England, France, and Spain- and nearly every other European country- are being held hostage by communities of Islamic fundamentalist that are seeking to self govern in their own boarders.
Radical Islam is relying on liberals in all western countries to support them- by playing to your political views.
We are at war people. Bad things happen.
In WWII, FDR, locked up a bunch of Japanese Americans- at the time, when the whole country was afraid, we did terrible things.
This is no different- but calling for the torture, or water boarding of US citizens who disagree with you politically is no better- if not worse- than actually conducting the act against known terrorist.
Stop pandering to this idea that you are more moral or more ethical- you're not...you're seeking revenge against people who have different views.
The Military is comprised of a huge conservative base- while liberals are the ones who protest wars...and this is a good thing, because it keeps everyone in check...
But don't start prosecuting those who protect you if you’re not willing to do it yourselves.
9/11 was planned during the Clinton administration, and after two attacks had been conducted...the USS Cole, our embassies in Africa, etc.
That's what happens when you don't get your hands dirty...don't let it yourselves be played by politicans seeking power at the expense of your security.
A governments sole purpose is to protect it's people- the rights of many overide the rights of the few sometimes.
Posted By: The Spook (Guest) on May 01, 2009 at 11:28 AM
and to prove that torture turns out information that the person doing the waterboarding wants to hear, the question presented to Hannity before the waterboarding should be..
Does Keith Olbermann have the best show on TV?? What do you pro-torture people think his response would be????
If his answer is yes, I guess it proves that torture does not work..If it is no, I guess that torture does not work either..My guess is that Hannity will say that Keith Olbermann has the greatest show that was ever on TV..
Posted By: alan w (Guest) on May 01, 2009 at 11:30 AM
Guest#1749,
You make an excellent point, but I have a point of contention. Are you saying that even if this fellow *wants* and *volunteers* to be waterboarded, explicitly to the benefit of troops' families, that we should not grant his request?
Purely a hypothetical question - must like the author pointed out, no chance he actually goes through with this, and even if he actually did want to, I can see some real issues with it being broadcast.
Posted By: Scotty H (Guest) on May 01, 2009 at 11:48 AM
Who is Sean Hannitty?
Anyway, I think the more appropriate question for discussion concerns where do we draw the line between interrogation and torture. Both extremes, murder or freedom, do not yield any information. At the very least, criminals (foreign and domestic) must be incarcerated for interrogation. Authorities use a very real threat of life in prison to compel the target to "talk". Is incarcerating someone against their will a form of torture?
Due to circumstance, Bush Administration Officials were forced to draw a line between discomfort and torture. They choose to put waterboarding on the discomfort side. Many partisans disagree with the decision and would go as far as to say being forced to listen to Smashmouth for a week would be torture.
So between discomfort, threat of death and death, where do you draw the line?
Posted By: AdmChesterMynutz (Guest) on May 01, 2009 at 11:53 AM
I love reading morons trying to defend the use of torture. (people like Chris) Please have some valid thoughtful arguements please!.
Posted By: Guest#8081 (Guest) on May 01, 2009 at 12:20 PM
Wow, some of you are morons:
1) Hannity volunteered to do this. That's why it's not just "torturing someone you don't agree with", HE made the statement that he can take it and prove it's not torture!
2) "But we only use it on TERRORISTS" is not acceptable. Interrogation techniques should apply to everyone or no one. And what makes a terrorist? Should PETA extremists be waterboarded? By the definition of the word, when they attack whaling boats or fur factories, that's terrorism.
3) What state are you waterboard-supporters from? I am guessing you all have something in common.
And to the people just blindly calling Jake a liberal, perhaps you missed the part about him loving O'Reilly. He's right though: Hannity is and always has been a blowhard. And without Combs to keep him in check, he's really gone off the deep end (and Combs sucks, geezus God...)
Posted By: Jimbo (Guest) on May 01, 2009 at 12:40 PM
"Just like moronic Liberals,you idiots rally against waterboarding unless is to someone YOU either dont LIKE or AGREE WITH. If Hannity should be waterboarded, then Janine Garafolo, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and Michael Moore need to be waterboarded RIGHT NEXT TO HIM. Fair IS Fair. " This is just stupid and makes no sence. For one, Hannity offered to be waterboarded. Two, he is for waterboarding and your liberal list is against it. How is it fair to waterboard someone who doesn't want to be waterboarded?
Posted By: Guest#9767 (Guest) on May 01, 2009 at 01:11 PM
"Just like moronic Liberals,you idiots rally against waterboarding unless is to someone YOU either dont LIKE or AGREE WITH. If Hannity should be waterboarded, then Janine Garafolo, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and Michael Moore need to be waterboarded RIGHT NEXT TO HIM. Fair IS Fair."
The reason Sean Hannity's name came up is because he opened his big mouth up and said he would be waterboarded for charity. Of course he renegged on it. All those liberals you mentioned never volunteered for it. Sean did. So no "Its not what's fair is fair" He deserves the ridicule after opening his stupid mouth.
Posted By: MydniteSon (Guest) on May 01, 2009 at 01:19 PM
"Hey idiot liberal, the Japanese were executed for war crimes; NOT waterboarding."
Waterboarding IS a warcrime...douche-fag.
Posted By: MydniteSon (Guest) on May 01, 2009 at 01:20 PM
"...if Hannity can take the torture for 5 minutes, Dick Cheney gets to shoot Olbermann in the face for 45 seconds."
LMAO.
When are we going to just admit that, in 2009, America cares more about how the rest of the world (including our sworn enemies) views us than we do about protecting our own citizens?
Posted By: Alan Kay (Guest) on May 01, 2009 at 01:22 PM
"Hey idiot liberal, the Japanese were executed for war crimes; NOT waterboarding."
War crimes were a combination of mass killing, use of chemical weapons but also for TORTURE of POW's...which is what waterboarding is classifies as under International Law/the geneva convention
Might want to get your facts straight before you speak next time.
Posted By: glen (Guest) on May 01, 2009 at 01:47 PM
"Waterboarding was used to get valuable information from known terrorists. Do you understand that they were TERRORISTS. I see, we are supposed to play nicey nice while they decide how to kill thousands of us."
This is America, no matter how inbred and stupid you are... they are only suspected terrorists until it is PROVEN IN COURT. Law Enforcement on all levels needs to start realizing that arrest/detainment does NOT mean those arrested are guilty. Only a jury can decide that.
Posted By: M:-X (Guest) on May 01, 2009 at 01:55 PM
Chris: Please be next in line after Hannity. Only a moron takes the government's word for who the bad guys are and empowers them to do things we would never allow on our soil. Jon Stewart hit every major point the other night.
Michael, I see your "liberal" Tourette's syndrome is back in full effect:
"Hey idiot liberal, the Japanese were executed for war crimes; NOT waterboarding."
Waterboarding IS a war crime, try paying attention. Or should I just type "neo-con" in every sentence rather than actually making sense?
Posted By: Shockmaster (Guest) on May 01, 2009 at 02:03 PM
Guest 1749, Hannity himself has said it'd be no big deal and that he'd do it for charity.....not the writer of this column. Are you stupid? Unable to read? Or just able to omit facts where it suits your arguments?
Someone mentioned the valuable info gained through torture....evidence please? Isn't it just as likely the person being tortured will say ANYTHING remotely credible sounding in order to stop the torture? How can 'intelligence' gleaned in this manner be considered reliable?
Come now people, just think, and I don't mean within the tightly defined lines of democrat and republican, just fucking consider issues and think rationally. You cannot decry others for torturing captives on the world stage while doing it yourselves, it rather makes a mockery of the stance. Oh, and "he started it" only cuts it on the playground.
Posted By: dennett316 (Guest) on May 01, 2009 at 02:08 PM
This is ALL. FUCKING. POLITICS.
Clinton and every president before him 'outsourced' the torture. FAR WORSE TORTURE. Dems KNEW about this water boarding shit since 2002. And now all of a sudden, its "OMG we are the USA we don not torture! How immoralz!1" Open your goddamn eyes. They are giving you DEMONS to throw stones at while they do whatever the fuck they want with a smile.
Posted By: C (Guest) on May 01, 2009 at 02:10 PM
Can anyone make a complaint without relying on that old crutch and using the term liberal every 7 words? Just curious.
Hannity has up and down argued that its not torture, and has volunteered to find out first hand. Fine by me.
On the other hand, someone whining about fair and tlaking about Liberal leaders should be waterboarded too is ridiculous. I don't recall any of them volunteering.
All of you....I dunbnno...maybe try to argue somethign on logic instead of thinking wiht your voter registration cards.
Posted By: AdamS (Guest) on May 01, 2009 at 02:44 PM
I don't think everyone quite understands the situation, it's not that the point is "we should waterboard Hannity because he disagrees with us", but that Hannity, who doesn't believe that waterboarding is torture, is willing to actually subject himself to it to prove a point and help a charity.
Olbermann supports this idea, again, not simply because he and Hannity disagree but because he believes that the result will be like it was for Christopher Hitchens, who volunteered to be waterboarded because he didn't think it was quite torture, and afterward quicky changed his stance to "if waterboarding does not constitute torture, then there is no such thing as torture."
Posted By: Shane O Mac (Guest) on May 01, 2009 at 02:44 PM
1) Your own president has yet to admit that waterboarding doesn't work.
2) Your own president said, in the most recent "press conference", we should be more like Britain in the sense of torture... perhaps you should google their interrogation techniques.
3) You're an idiot Jake.
Posted By: Rehab (Guest) on May 01, 2009 at 03:02 PM
"New Yorkers a few days ago showed that the US is still fearful of another attack."
New Yorkers showed that NEW YORKERS where fearful of another attack...and unless you were hear during 9/11 (I've lived here all my life and was) you have NO IDEA
Posted By: karl (Guest) on May 01, 2009 at 03:26 PM
Waterboarding is not a crime when applied to terrorists SINCE THEY DO NOT FALL UNDER THE GENEVA CONVENTION. LIBERALISM IS A MENTAL DISORDER!
How does it feel liberals? How does it feel to know that your Democrat controlled Congress is the most unpopular ever? How does it feel to know that Obama has been a massive failure? How does it feel to know that in 2010, Democrats are getting voted out? How does it feel to know that Obama will be voted out in 2012?
Posted By: Michael (Guest) on May 01, 2009 at 03:35 PM
Waterboarding was used to get valuable information from known terrorists. Do you understand that they were TERRORISTS. I see, we are supposed to play nicey nice while they decide how to kill thousands of us. BUT NO NO, do not use possible harsh tactics against them. I hope your loved ones never get attacked. And if they do, do not blame anybody but yourself. Sean, if he does it, good for him, however... lets save it for the bad people in the world, not the ones trying to prove a point. However, you would disapprove of that too right. Since it is torture and all. Keep in mind also, that when stuck in a room with a bug, that was considered torture to. It isn't that it is a debated issue. Somebody has decided to define it. Listening to the national media clamor on about Obama is torture to me, so why hasn't it ended? Just a thougt. Please have a nice day.
Dear Chris, they were only "SUSPECTED" "TERRORISTS" first of all because they were never "CONVICTED" in a court of law. And do not forget, they were suspected by the same people who thought it was a "SLAM DUNK" on findings certain things in Iraq or have you forgoten about it already?
Posted By: who cares (Guest) on May 01, 2009 at 03:43 PM
So are you saying people in the US Military should sue the government for being tortured? What? You didn't know that some get waterboarded in their training?
Liberalism is a mental disorder. Keith Oderman has no ratings. He's a joke.
Posted By: Michael (Guest) on May 01, 2009 at 01:11 AM
They got waterboarded due to their choice, dumbass. There is a difference.
Posted By: who cares (Guest) on May 01, 2009 at 03:45 PM
From the Third Geneva Convention, Article 17:
No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to any unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind.
From Article 2:
Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof.
The United States has violated the Geneva Conventions, to which it is a signatory. If a treaty can be ignored by its participants it becomes meaningless. The Geneva Conventions were forged by those who witnessed or directly experienced the horrors of war and inhumane treatment. They agreed that certain behavior is unacceptable even during war. George Bush, Alberto Gonzalez, Mitt Romney, Sean Hannity etc. etc. have no authority to disregard the Conventions. The line was drawn by people who know better than them what they were talking about. The world community agreed to a set of rules. Because those agreed upon rules were tossed aside we now have a far lower standing in the eyes of the world. That's what happens when you lie and use semantics to justify that which you would never accept from others. Tell me you wouldn't be irate to find out our troops were waterboarded for information. You cannot expect others to act better than you. Barbarism begets barbarism.
Posted By: Shockmaster (Guest) on May 01, 2009 at 03:56 PM
In the same article where Christopher Hitchens agrees that it is torture, he also says this "When contrasted to actual torture, waterboarding is more like foreplay. No thumbscrew, no pincers, no electrodes, no rack. Can one say this of those who have been captured by the tormentors and murderers of (say) Daniel Pearl? On this analysis, any call to indict the United States for torture is therefore a lame and diseased attempt to arrive at a moral equivalence between those who defend civilization and those who exploit its freedoms to hollow it out, and ultimately to bring it down. I myself do not trust anybody who does not clearly understand this viewpoint."
Give us the full story next time. I wish we didn't waterboard either, at this point. But I don't agree in prosecuting people who disagree, for political gain.
Posted By: C (Guest) on May 01, 2009 at 04:11 PM
Scotty H (and to a lesser extent Jimbo) -
I am saying that, if the contention is that torture is so morally reprehensible that it should never be used under any circumstances, then it doesn't matter whether someone wants or volunteers for it. If you believe that torture is wrong in all circumstances, then it would be wrong to administer it to someone, even if they themselves do not believe it is torture. Furthermore, the party or parties involved in administering the torture technique would then have participated in torture, regardless of
the willingness of the participant.
Let me offer two illustrative examples:
1.) If someone believes the death penalty is morally and ethically wrong, especially if he or she believes so on the grounds that the state should not have the right to take a citizen's life, should they then endorse the execution of a convicted felon who has requested the death penalty?
2.) If Hannity did not believe that dismemberment (or genital mutilation, orfinger nail extraction, or another violent, physically scarring procedure) was torture, would you be comfortable having one of these procedures performed on him if he volunteered? (If you can comfortably answer yes to that question you're either a sadist, or a fascist. You pick.)
If you believe that waterboarding is torture, and that torture is wrong all the time, then it is wrong all the time. Furthermore, if you believe that waterboarding is horrifying and inhumane, then you must also believe that Hannity can't possibly know what he has volunteered for. Thus, you are advocating the correction of ignorance through a violent, inhumane act. Even if you think you are just calling a bluff, YOU are still advocating the implementation of a torture technique. Still further, if you believe that there are exceptions, and that allowing a political pundit to be tortured to prove a point is one, but extracting life-saving information from terrorists is not, then you probably need to reevaluate your status as a member of the human race.
(And in case it wasn't obvious, I'm Guest#1749. I guess I forgot to put my tag on the name line. I should probably start logging in to post...heh.)
Posted By: lol (Guest) on May 01, 2009 at 04:12 PM
"Land of the free?" ha ha not a chance.
Posted By: who cares (Guest) on May 01, 2009 at 04:14 PM
Wow this country is embarassing.
Probably the worst ever.
Posted By: Kent Baker (Guest) on May 01, 2009 at 04:59 PM
I would like to waterboard the guys from the Scary Movie franchise. It is for this pipe dream that i continue to support waterboarding as a form of torture. If it wasn't torture, i wouldn't want to do it to them.
Posted By: the dude (Guest) on May 01, 2009 at 05:13 PM
Didn't Sean-baby VOLUNTEER for this??? Now he is taking it back because of what exactly? He's afraid? He opened his mouth before his brain started working? If you know tell us.
Posted By: caligirl (Guest) on May 01, 2009 at 05:46 PM
Shockmaster...
You left out this part in your cherry picking:
"It is a violation of the laws of war to engage in combat without meeting certain requirements, among them the wearing of a distinctive uniform or other distinctive signs visible at a distance, and the carrying of weapons openly. Impersonating soldiers of the other side by wearing the enemy's uniform is allowed, though fighting in that uniform, like fighting under a white flag, is perfidy which is forbidden, as is the taking of hostages."
I know that my time fighting terrorist which is going on over eight years of direct combat in Iraq and Afghanistan- and over fifteen in the bigger scheme...
These terrorist don't follow the rules of warfare laid out by the same conventions you put forth.
They are not protected.
They do not fight for a country, or a flag...
They are terrorist, not enemy soldiers captured during battle...
They are terrorists who conduct bombings on civilians, take hostages, torture for revenge...
I had an interpreter who was kidnapped and burned- not for information, but because he was a Shia, and helping US/Iraqi forces work together...
Then they shot him in the face and left his body on the street...
They kidnap girls who are the daughters of Iraqi soldiers and rape them- then kill them...
Don't cite rules of war that we should follow without citing all the rules.
These assholes are not uniformed combatants...they represent no sovereign country.
They have no rights under any rules of war cited in the Geneva Convention that the United States is a signatory.
All this torture talk is political, and will be used to prosecute Americans that have a different political leaning than the President and his administration.
Thats the facts.
Stop this cherry picking and debating- people have to make hard choices.
You don't have to like them- I don't- and we should always keep a moral conscience...
But remember who we are fighting...they don't follow the rules of combat and the rules of combat should not be applied to anyone who slams planes of innocent people into buildings full of innocent people.
For God's sake they blow up market places full of their own people on a daily basis...and just in Iraq.
Hotels in India, buses in England, trains in Spain, office building in the US, riots in France...
What more do we have to endure for the west to wake the fuck up...
Do not let politicians punish the people who made hard choices in keeping us safe- understand why our leaders did what they had to do...
Next time there is a terrorist attack ask "did we do everything we could to prevent it"?
Don't let the politics cloud the issue...even the side of angels has to fight in the dirt to win.
Posted By: The Spook (Guest) on May 01, 2009 at 06:09 PM
And this whole subject is political...
If Obama said he wanted to prosecute miltiary or intelligence members who actually committed waterboarding- the whole country would turn on him, except the extreme left...
Obama wants to attack the policy makers- those with political clout, but not those who actually committed the deed.
He is playing you.
I'll give it to Obama, he's about as much of snake that one would find.
He's so worried about his own power and image that he would go after those who sacrificed their souls for this countries security.
The economy is not going well- taking some criticism, I'll just cherry pick some intelligence documents and release them to the public.
I won't just do it- I'll say that I'm thinking about putting out "sensitive torture documents" that BUSH authorized.
Then I'll give only three, the three very best ones- and call them torture memos.
Not all the facts at once though- just some, enough to get the masses to argue.
Then I'll share the facts that the only people tortured were Al Qaeda, and the method used was a legal method...
That the people who conducted the waterboarding all had been waterboarded in the past during training...but of course by the time those facts get released the masses will be all pissy with each other.
It's fucking dirty Chicago politics...
You wanted them, you got them...and get used to it.
Every time Obama is having a hard time he will deflect our attention with something Bush "did"...or a new law that says we can't say something or do something...
Or flat out deny anyone in his administration even said "it" in the first place- Like Biden and his swine flu suggestions.
He will do whatever he can to win elections and hold power- I'm glad he's President that means we only have to endure seven years and 9 months of this bullshit...
If he does not get impeached for doing something so corrupt that even you liberal idiots cannot support him.
I'm am looking forward to the next Presidential race...I really am- just to see and hear Obama lie his ass off about shit he did or did not do...
It's going to be amazing.
And at this point I don't even care if wins or loses...I just want to tell my kids that this is the rock bottom of American politics.
Why don't we just get it over with and split the country now into east America and West America?
Let's just do it...then we can make fun of each other and call each other names without the hassle of political correctness...
This is getting past tiresome and into downright comedy- when Americans are arguing over if Americans should be prosecuted for torturing terrorist who caused 9/11...and doing it for politics.
Posted By: The Spook (Guest) on May 01, 2009 at 06:34 PM
Where in the Geneva Convention does it say terrorists are covered? It doesn't. How does that feel liberals? You use the same fucking defense with your pathetic "the constitution is a living breathing document" bullshit to push your liberal agenda no one wants.
Posted By: Michael (Guest) on May 01, 2009 at 09:17 PM
Well, I guess I upset some of you. maybe I wasn't as clear as I would like to have been half asleep at 12:00 a.m. or so.
If somebody disagrees with torture, or something that you only consider torture. Make sure that if somebody ever tried to hurt you, a family member, a loved one, or even a friend. That if you defend yourself, whatever you do, please do not hurt the attacker! My heavens. What would your fellow americans or the rest of the world think if you tied up an assailant, with say hemp rope, and they were allergic to hemp. God the torture you would put them through is just hideous! How could you all. Listen, my point is, torture may not be right, but you need to be sure about what you are considering torture!!! How do you or anybody decide on what is and isn't. Like I said, I want all of you to be safe. If a terrorist says "I know where the next attack is going too be and when" and he refuses to tell you, what are we supposed to do. Play monopoly with him, the game of life? If he is going to cry wolf, he may need to suffer the consequences of that. I do not want him tortured, just get the info out of him. If you think and fell waterboarding is torture, than that is your opinion and you are entitled to it. Problem is, you socialist, not even the libs so much, were okay with it when it suited you. Now that it may not suit you, you have turned the other way, or changed your mind. Once again, sorry for the outrage. Please enjoy your spring and summer to come. and Have a nice day.
Posted By: chris (Guest) on May 01, 2009 at 09:46 PM
Sean Hannity is right. Waterboarding is not torture. He should know, he's been torturing us for years.
As for Keith Olberman, if you want to torture him tie him down and force him to listen to Ann Coulter for thirty days and thirty nights.
Now, if someone who was known to have plans on blowing up an elementary school in this country refused to talk about said plans, wouldn't it be acceptable to extract that information anyway possible? I don't think this person would give up information if we bought him a box of chocolates and asked really nice. However, if we were to cut his eyelids off and por saltwater in the wound, he'd likely talk...
and I'd be fine with it.
Posted By: Guest#6445 (Guest) on May 01, 2009 at 10:04 PM
If they actually agreed to this - it would win an Emmy. this dumb debate about whether drowning someone temporarily is torture will be over once and for all!
Posted By: Alexey Bogatiryov (Guest) on May 01, 2009 at 10:42 PM
Waterboarding is NOT torture. In fact, it is part of Basic Training for some of our military. Torture is what the terrorists do to our prisoners. We've treated these scum and vermin with more respect and hospitality than they deserve. You don't treat truly evil people with kid gloves. Yelling at somebody is NOT torture. Depriving somebody of sleep is NOT torture. Making the room too hot or too cold is NOT torture. Putting an caterpillar in close proximity to a terrorist is NOT torture. What's the matter with you morons? Have you gone soft? Oh and don't forget...waterboarding WORKED!
Posted By: starsandstripesforever (Guest) on May 01, 2009 at 11:27 PM
"...if Hannity can take the torture for 5 minutes, Dick Cheney gets to shoot Olbermann in the face for 45 seconds."
LMAO.
When are we going to just admit that, in 2009, America cares more about how the rest of the world (including our sworn enemies) views us than we do about protecting our own citizens?
_________
How the rest of the world views us ( especially our sworn enemies has a lot to do with the saftey of our people, shit head.
Posted By: fuck you (Guest) on May 02, 2009 at 12:35 AM
Yes, Olbermann is a complete liberal in every way, but talking head? I don't think anyone comes up with his opinions for him, and even though I hate Hannity with a passion, I don't think he's a talking head either. Just an idiot and a hate monger.
But I would pay dearly to see him waterboarded. DEARLY.
Posted By: James (Registered) (Guest) on May 02, 2009 at 12:36 AM
What the spook here cant seem to get through his fucking head..is that maybe JUST MAYBE..some people would like to uphold the principles of this country and not EVERYTHING is political.
Furthermore you have NO FUCKING IDEA what you are talking about...you are just an angry right wing nutjob who doesnt like the fact a black guy is president and that this black guy happens to be a democrat. If this guy was a republican you would probably be kissing his ass and telling us all what a wonderful job he is doing.
All you do on these comment boards is bitch and moan and whine and complain when the other side tries to anything then you open you fucking piehole and say the word liberal like somehow you are demining someone.
The fact of that matter is you dont know SHIT...you come to this sight and spew your bullshit, have limited sources to back up your bullshit, then when challenged change the topic onto something else or talk about how no one gave bush a fair shake.
Grow the fuck up, all you seem to know is how to bully someone around and have no fucking idea what the hell diplomacy is about or what holding america's moral compass to a higher standard than everyone else.
I bet if it was up to you most of the middle east would have been nuked back to the stone age...because after all, all you keep saying is they cant be reasoned with. Of course you dont have the SLIGHTEST IDEA WHAT THE FUCK YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT...because the idea is to get other governments on our side...not to get the terrorists on our side...but that point just seems to go right over you head for some reason.
Go ahead and say liberal this and liberal that and i hate my life because of liberals, and Obama is going to run the country into the ground because he not a republican....seriously get the tin foil hat off your head and PLEASE FOR FUCK SAKE join the rest of us in reality...
you seem to want to live in a constant state of fear and anger..anyone who doesn't agree with your view of the world pisses you off...and you seem to be afraid of all the "bogeymen" out there targeting Americans. Seriously take a class on world politics, get acquainted to what is going on in the world...and get out of that rock you seem to be living in, because its one thing to have a different political ideology and another thing to be FUCKING paranoid and sound like your out of touch with reality.
so go ahead and reply with your liberal scum and your Obama is ruining the country links to nonsense you like to post...I dont expect you to even understand what im saying as its probably going right over your head...wait thats right you have your magic tin foil hat to stop the government from spying on you dont you..so of course you wont get what im saying...your one of the "special" people aren't you?
Posted By: spook is a loser (Guest) on May 02, 2009 at 12:40 AM
"Liberalism is a mental disorder."
Keep telling yourself that. I assume that you are a stupid person. You are the type of person that John Stuart Mill said would be attracted by conservatism.
Posted By: David (Guest) on May 02, 2009 at 01:29 AM
These people that are waterboarded want to kill you. They want to kill your children. They want to kill every American you know. And you want to feel sorry for them for being caught or interrogated?
Reality check liberals! They don't think anything more of you for protesting their torture. In fact, they think LESS of you because now they know that they have infected America and made us weak while we are fighting a war. These killers and murders are exploiting the American people so leaders in Iran and North Korea feel like they can do whatever they want because Americans are too soft to step up and use necessary tactics to protect its own people.
Waterboarding saved and saves American lives. I frankly don't give a fuck about what the world thinks of America, because no matter what we do, they will NEVER like us. NEVER. So why conform?
Posted By: Rehab (Guest) on May 02, 2009 at 02:41 AM
I don't think anyone actually wants Hannity to be waterboarded. They want him to admit that he wouldn't be willing to subject himself to it.
Posted By: Justin (Guest) on May 02, 2009 at 03:09 AM
Spook,
I'm only going to choose to dissect the part of what you said that I can turn into comedy. The rest of what you said already is.
Divide the country into East and West America? They would both be the Democrats! East coast is democrats, west coast is democrats. The only part that is republican is the part that is geographically shut off from the rest of the world. Just the way you like it.
Posted By: James (Registered) (Guest) on May 02, 2009 at 05:48 AM
Keep telling yourself that. I assume that you are a stupid person. You are the type of person that John Stuart Mill said would be attracted by conservatism.
Posted By: David (Guest) on May 02, 2009 at 01:29 AM
So following your line of reasoning, you're the type of person who would be attracted to glory holes.
Posted By: Christ, David Sucks! (Guest) on May 02, 2009 at 07:57 AM
"Liberalism is a mental disorder."
That's true, sort of. Technically, it's called Narcissistic Personality Disorder, with associated Persecution Complex and Violent Paranoia. But that's quite a mouthful, so Liberal works, too. You're welcome.
Posted By: Psychiatrist (Guest) on May 02, 2009 at 08:04 AM
"This is ALL. FUCKING. POLITICS.
Clinton and every president before him 'outsourced' the torture. FAR WORSE TORTURE. Dems KNEW about this water boarding shit since 2002. And now all of a sudden, its "OMG we are the USA we don not torture! How immoralz!1" Open your goddamn eyes. They are giving you DEMONS to throw stones at while they do whatever the fuck they want with a smile.
Posted By: C (Guest) on May 01, 2009 at 02:10 PM"
And THAT is how you do it. If I am going to live under an evil empire, I want to live under an EFFECTIVE evil empire. I don't think this needs to be a discussion.
We agreed to the Geneva Convention, so I say we make sure that all public appearances say that we are following it. Beyond appearances, though... that's where you get into the tough decisions that a President has to make.
Posted By: J. Alexander Mitchell (Registered) on May 02, 2009 at 08:35 AM
A couple of notes.
I think we have already established that waterboarding is considered torture by the Geneva Conventions.
The US legally treats terrorists as prisoners of war subject to the Geneva Conventions. This was established in 2006 via Supreme Court Ruling (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/11/AR200 6071100094.html).
The CIA memos date as early as 2002 and, from what I've seen, as late as 2005. Obviously, this pre-dates the legal establishment of terrorists as POWs for the purposes of torture.
As such... torturing the detainees was a "mistake", not a crime. This also explains the utter and total lack of desire by the Obama administration to prosecute anyone involved with the torture - they'd have no case.
So, let's review: Yes, waterboarding is torture. Yes, the terrorists were tortured. Yes, terrorists are now considered POWs and as such can not be tortured. No, we did not establish this during the time frame discussed in the memos. No, there was no crime committed by any of the people torturing the terrorists.
I agree with one thing said - Obama probably DID cherry pick the memos released. However, I would guess that the memos were picked to ensure that nothing revealed actually broke any laws. Do we really believe the torture stopped in 2005, after all?
Posted By: J. Alexander Mitchell (Registered) on May 02, 2009 at 09:03 AM
Involuntary waterboarding is torture and immoral.
Voluntary waterboarding isn't.
In general we live in a free country and people should be allowed to do with themselves whatever they please, including being waterboarded in their spare time. And if you are foolish enough to get yourself recorded saying "ain't no thing" and volunteering for it on TV, I have real trouble feeling sorry for you.
And yeah, Olberman is just as much a blowhard as Hannity and O'Reilly.
Posted By: Pat Shepard (Guest) on May 02, 2009 at 09:55 AM
We tried the "let's be considerate of terrorists" rights during the Clinton Administration and it lead to 9/11.
Remember, terrorists hate democrats as much as they hate republicans.
Also, Obama is not a black man. His father was black, his mom white. It makes him mixed.
Posted By: Michael (Guest) on May 02, 2009 at 10:40 AM
> When torture is "debatable" it's not longer taken serious.
That's not necessarily true. (When I think of "torture" I think of electric shocks, having strips of skin ripped off, jabbing things under your fingernails, gouging out eyes, etc.) Just because we debate what we consider torture doesn't mean we're not taking it seriously. On the contrary, I would take such debate very seriously.
>nothing but vitriolic comments and opinions, lies and propaganda
Wouldn't you consider calling him a "blowhard loudmouth idiot" to be a vitriolic comment?
Posted By: King Barack I (Guest) on May 02, 2009 at 12:10 PM
Spook:
For argument's sake say I concede the point about terrorist suspects not being covered by the Geneva Conventions. The spirit in which they were signed was that if we agree not to do certain things to the enemy they agree not to do them to us. Thnk about it, most countries in the world have signed on. How often do so many agree about anything? It's a rare sign that most of us share certain fundamental values. If we demonstrate that our adherence to accepted values is conditional, it makes us look scary to much of the world, not just those we may WANT to be afraid of us. It's why the European Union was formed, it's at least partly why certain rogue states are seeking nukes. The more we LOOK like the schoolyard bully the more of a target we become. Some will want to destroy us, others will help them or at least look the other way. Over time it will make us far less safe. And meanwhile the door will be opened to say torture is acceptable in certain circumstances. If someone here is suspected of kidnapping, can he be denied legal counsel and waterboarded until he talks? Either we draw the line by assuming certain people are guilty, or we draw it based on their nation of origin. Either way it empowers a government to selectively honor human and civil rights. Even working in downtown Chicago every day, a pretty ripe target, I'm not willing to trade those rights away for the illusion of safety. If we move that line and say torture is okay in certain cases, the line will be moved again and again until we're all an accusation away from being locked away and tortured without recourse. I would rather take my chances with the terrorists. At least if I'm wrong I would likely bare the consequences, as opposed to those who want to violate the rights of others in order to protect themselves. Yes they're terrorist civilian murdering psychopaths, but we can beat them without becoming them. Because killing terrorists only breeds more of them, our goal has to focus on curing the group insanity that spawns them to begin with. An individual can be stopped by force, but the masses only by propaganda. We better start acting like the good guys or we will be forever scrambling to prevent the next attack.
Posted By: Shockmaster (Guest) on May 02, 2009 at 12:39 PM
This needs to be repeated I think:
""When contrasted to actual torture, waterboarding is more like foreplay. No thumbscrew, no pincers, no electrodes, no rack. Can one say this of those who have been captured by the tormentors and murderers of (say) Daniel Pearl? On this analysis, any call to indict the United States for torture is therefore a lame and diseased attempt to arrive at a moral equivalence between those who defend civilization and those who exploit its freedoms to hollow it out, and ultimately to bring it down. I myself do not trust anybody who does not clearly understand this viewpoint." - Christopher Hitchens, who was waterboarded and admitted that it was torture. That quote sums EVERYTHING up. Prosecuting anyone on this is fucking bullshit, and I won't support anyone behind it.
Posted By: C (Guest) on May 02, 2009 at 01:36 PM
Well, I guess I upset some of you. maybe I wasn't as clear as I would like to have been half asleep at 12:00 a.m. or so.
If somebody disagrees with torture, or something that you only consider torture. Make sure that if somebody ever tried to hurt you, a family member, a loved one, or even a friend. That if you defend yourself, whatever you do, please do not hurt the attacker! My heavens. What would your fellow americans or the rest of the world think if you tied up an assailant, with say hemp rope, and they were allergic to hemp. God the torture you would put them through is just hideous! How could you all. Listen, my point is, torture may not be right, but you need to be sure about what you are considering torture!!! How do you or anybody decide on what is and isn't. Like I said, I want all of you to be safe. If a terrorist says "I know where the next attack is going too be and when" and he refuses to tell you, what are we supposed to do. Play monopoly with him, the game of life? If he is going to cry wolf, he may need to suffer the consequences of that. I do not want him tortured, just get the info out of him. If you think and fell waterboarding is torture, than that is your opinion and you are entitled to it. Problem is, you socialist, not even the libs so much, were okay with it when it suited you. Now that it may not suit you, you have turned the other way, or changed your mind. Once again, sorry for the outrage. Please enjoy your spring and summer to come. and Have a nice day.
Posted By: chris (Guest) on May 01, 2009 at 09:46 PM
You can't torture the truth out of someone. They'll just tell you anything to make the pain stop. And if these terrorists were raised on the idea that America is evil we are just reinforcing that fact by torturing them, therefore they will be less likely to tell us the truth.
Posted By: Anthony (Guest) on May 02, 2009 at 02:51 PM
I think most people on the conservative side are missing the point here. Obama isn't prosecuting anyone. He's letting Eric Holder decide if they should be. There is a difference. Obama knows he has more important things to worry about right now. What does Holder have to be doing?
Posted By: James (Registered) (Guest) on May 02, 2009 at 04:13 PM
Shockmaster,
My God man...
We are talking about radical Islamic terrorist- not school yard bullies.
If we are bullies, then these guys are school shooters...
They blame bullies for having a shit life and kill a bunch of innocent people for attention.
There is no moral high ground for them- they blow up buildings with airplanes full of innocent people.
They blow up trains, buses, schools, cafes...anything, everything.
I'm not saying torture is moral, its not- but your civil rights are not being threatened, and these God damned terrorists don't have any rights!
They are not US citizens...they are not POWs...they are terror suspects who kill innocent people...When the fuck are you going to get it through your head? They don’t care about you...
I don't understand how Liberals defend these people on a daily basis?!
They are homophobic, religious zealots who want to place the world under Shaira law- that means no freedom of speech, no gay rights, no woman’s rights, no civil rights, no welfare, social cast systems...
Everything that you liberals fight for and you defend the people that WILL take those things away...
Not American conservatives- who make up damn near the entire military...
Not American libertarians...
Muslim fucking terrorists...they want to kill you...
Not all Muslims, but the just the ones that want to kill you- like the ones who got WATERBOARDED!
They planned 9/11!
Who gives flying shit if they get water boarded!?
I swear to God, liberals do things just to piss everyone else off...you take side’s automatically against your own people.
Some conservative says "This guys a terrorist, he planned 9/11, let's fuck em up..."
Then some liberal says "Well if you hate him...and I hate you...well that must mean this terrorist is my friend." And then you fight for his "rights" to get released because of any number of bullshit excuses- just to stick it in the ass of your own people...
FOR POLTICAL REASONS!
It makes no sense!
These guys are fucking terrorist?! They blew the world trade towers, killed 3000 people...
And you’re worried about water being poured on their faces?!
Why?! Because of our "morals"?!
Liberals kill babies in the name of science and civil rights- and you want to play the "morals" card...
Hey Shockmaster while you’re up there in Chicago- have the Chicago Teachers Union actually pass some of your inner city school kids...
I hate fucking town- it’s the most corrupt city in the world...
You got cops killing each other for money, a dirty mayor, a joke school system...
You want to see why Obama acts like he does, look at Chicago politics...
We all are fucked unless you liberals get your heads on straight and start paying attention.
Posted By: The Spook (Guest) on May 02, 2009 at 07:03 PM
"When are we going to just admit that, in 2009, America cares more about how the rest of the world (including our sworn enemies) views us than we do about protecting our own citizens?" -
Alan Kay
I have a weird feeling that if America were looked at as a country to work with rather than against there would be a drop in people wanting to attack it or plot its demise.
Posted By: Zingy (Guest) on May 02, 2009 at 10:46 PM
Spook,
I'm not going to spend a ton of time on this because we fundamentally disagree, but liberals don't need to screw their heads on straight. Having a different point of view is neither a character flaw, nor a sign of mental illness.
It's clear from your posts that you consider 'terrorists' as unworthy of legal or ethical consideration. You have a different standard for what makes a person eligible for such consideration than a liberal would.
Consider this though; when you consent to allowing for aggressively dehumanizing and degrading interrogations, or 'torture' as some would argue, you are behaving as the 'terrorists' behave. In essence, you are allowing the 'terrorists' to set the rules of engagement. They can then point to our response as proof that we are the greater evil. It feeds this 'we are the great oppressed and offended' psyche that underscores their internal justification for their own atrocities. We lose any moral high ground we would otherwise enjoy.
So what? Well, that moral authority is what impedes the flow of new candidates to radical Islam. These young people have an easier time owning the radical horsesh*t that gets fed to them when they see us behaving in ways consistent with what their mullahs have taught them that we would.
We (both sides) are in a war we (both sides) can't win the way it's being fought. You can't kill an idea, you can't torture it away. If we reclaim the moral high ground, we will win.
These jihadists have no future. Their vision is bankrupt. Their quest for purity will end in obscurity. Unless we legitimize them by playing by their rules.
Posted By: The Omen (Guest) on May 02, 2009 at 11:41 PM
You americans are hilliarious. Your reasons and desires for hate, punishment and murder are unrivaled on this planet.
Some guy here even justified what happened to japanese americans in wwii.
Muslim? Kill him.
Mexican? Ship him back or kill him.
Gay? Kill him.
Black? Kill him, oops thats ok over there now till 2012, kill him in 2013.
No wonder so many people on this planet hate your guts.
They only people you guys aren't opposed to killing are some white men. Only some though, the others might know some minorities, speak another language, have immigrants in their family history or practice a non evangelical christian faith.
Death to all Catholics!!!!!
You guys remind me more and more of Rome every day, I'm just waiting for your barbarian invasion and eventual fall
Posted By: Canada Guy (Guest) on May 02, 2009 at 11:44 PM
Spook,
"If we are bullies, then these guys are school shooters..."
The ironic part of this statement that I don't think you realize, is that most school shooters shoot up the schools because they are bullied into a psychotic mindset. Meaning the U.S. by using the techniques we use, and I'm NOT talking about waterboarding, are creating these people. The techniques I'm talking about are the ones where we kill their innocent on a repeated basis and occupying their country. Yes, our soldiers for the most part treat innocents with respect, but the F1 bombers and shit justify killing innocents with the fact that they kill insurgents at the same time. And that is fucked.
Posted By: James (Registered) (Guest) on May 03, 2009 at 12:26 AM
"I'm not saying torture is moral, its not- but your civil rights are not being threatened, and these God damned terrorists don't have any rights!"
Posted By: The Spook (Guest) on May 02, 2009 at 07:03 PM
I am not going to argue whether or not terrorists SHOULD have rights, but the bottom line is that this line of thinking is invalid, because they DO have rights. I am not citing international law - I am citing Supreme Court decision (and a Conservative court, I might add: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/11/AR200
6071100094.html).
Whether we agree to it or not, as of this moment, Terrorists do have rights under US law.
Posted By: J. Alexander Mitchell (Registered) on May 03, 2009 at 09:40 AM
Spook,
>>There is no moral high ground for them- they blow up buildings with airplanes full of innocent people. They blow up trains, buses, schools, cafes...anything, everything.
True. But what? Just because we don't go to the same exact levels, we get to traipse around and claim not just moral superiority, but also moral clarity? When did we steal the monopoly on that? If I swindle you out of your house, but you swindle me out of my life savings, am I better than you because I swindled to a lesser degree?
What you are suggesting actually, is that the terrorists and the US both jump into the deep end of the pool, except that the US can arbitrarily say "we are only going to jump in up to our waist. Therefore, we are less wet." In theory, this may soothe some people's minds so they can sleep at night; but in practice, we can never be any less wet once we decide to jump.
I'll leave you (on this topic) with this thought: it's not just "liberals" who feel this way. When Bush declared war on Iraq, the families of the 9/11 victims wrote him countless letters with one simple request: do not spread our pain.
Taking your reasoning, the families of 9/11 victims are all mentally diseased people who hate this country and want our troops to die.
>>I swear to God, liberals do things just to piss everyone else off...you take side’s automatically against your own people.
Wow, if that's not some oversimplified straw man argument...I need to copy and paste this comment and save it so I can show my Critical Thinking students the best example of oversimplification and straw man out there.
But let's ignore that glaring fact for a moment and humor your comment for now. I suppose when people stood up against slavery, they were being liberals; when people stood up against racism and pushed for civil rights, they were being liberals; when people stood up against sexism and advocated equal rights, they were being liberal. When people stood up anti-miscegenation laws and stoop up for interracial marriage, they were being liberal.
In your eyes, every one of these civil advancements were liberals going against their own people. If that's the case, I'm damn proud to be a liberal. The accusation isn't why am I liberal; the question is why aren't you?
It's so easy to grasp for cliche and say liberalism is a mental disorder. But really, isn't conservatism the real mental disorder? First, conservatives have an irrational fear of change and progress as if it were a spider or a bee. What was that famous mantra to capture conservatism? Oh yes... "we stand afore history and shout HALT!"
And then of course, there's the part of the mental disorder where conservatives lack "the gland" that secretes sympathy and empathy. Explain: "COMPASSIONATE conservative."
Posted By: Crow21 (Guest) on May 03, 2009 at 02:09 PM
"We tried the "let's be considerate of terrorists" rights during the Clinton Administration and it lead to 9/11."
Actually Michael, Clinton personally told Bush that bin Laden should be a top priority. Also, it could be argued that Clinton left office having given terrorism more attention than any president before him.
Clinton is responsible for finding, trying, convicting, and imprisoning Ramzi Yousef, Abdul Hakim Murad, and Wali Khan Amin Shahm, who were involved in the 1993 attack of the World Trade Center.
Additionally, after the embassy bombings, Clinton issued a presidential directive authorizing the assassination of Osama bin Laden. He's the guy who orchestrated the attack on the World Trade Center in 2001 while Bush was asleep at the wheel and doing jack shit about terrorism. I guess when one of your Presidential Daily Briefings even says "Bin Laden Determined to Strike At U.S." you can afford to loaf around and not think about it too seriously. Unless of course bin Laden does strike at the U.S., kills thousands of people, and then you can find some imaginary connection between Osama and Saddam to fool people into supporting a phony war.
9/11 happened because Osama bin Laden is a worthless piece of flesh and because Bush was too goddamn stupid to do his homework. You must have a terrible perception of time. 9/11 happened on Bush's watch, not Clinton's. Get your head out of your ass.
Posted By: Zingy (Guest) on May 03, 2009 at 04:17 PM
Michael, Chris, are we going through these idiotic arguments again? Really?
Once again, let me just repeat what I said THE LAST TIME we went through this argument.
1) Yes, Japanese were executed for war crimes. WATERBOARDING WAS ONE OF THE WAR CRIMES!
2) Yes, Daniel Pearl was tortured. Just because he was tortured doesn't suddenly make waterboarding not torture. That would be akin to saying that because my neighbour drunk a keg of beer before he drove, that I'm not drink driving because I only drank a six pack.
3) Not everyone who is in Gitmo or Ghraib is a terrorist. The majority of detainees have no connection to terrorism at all.
4) Not everyone who was waterboarded is known to be a terrorist. The one conviction for wrongful death resulting from waterboarding was done on a member of Hussein's military. There are 42 other wrongful death cases related to the use of torture by the United States. Only a small percentage are liable to see the light of day due to the usual measures the US military have put in place to prevent fair trials.
5) Waterboarding is not even the worst method used.
Will you guys stop peddling the same arguments after we show you the evidence against the argument. At least come up with new bloody arguments.
As for Sean Hannity... doesn't he carry enough water for the Republican Party without forcing him to swallow more.
Posted By: Ray Church (Guest) on May 04, 2009 at 04:01 AM
sounds great to me Im all for it
Posted By: no name (Guest) on May 04, 2009 at 11:44 PM
There is no moral high ground for them- they blow up buildings with airplanes full of innocent people. They blow up trains, buses, schools, cafes...anything, everything.
Posted By: Kody (Guest) on May 05, 2009 at 10:00 AM
Do you have a method to get info and save lives? I would love to hear it you idiot.
Posted By: guest (Guest) on May 05, 2009 at 03:29 PM
Dear "guest"
before you call someone an idiot, check your own ignorance. The success of torture in retrieving viable information is debated amongst the intelligence networks. Information retrieved under torture is normally unreliable, as people will literally say anything to stop the pain, whether they know anything or not.
Your government had all the information about the planned 9/11 attacks before 9/11. The information was received through their traditional methods, such as informants, trading information with friendly governments and good old fashioned police work.
In terms of interrogation, rather than being "uncooperative", Ali Soufan, one of the FBI agents involved with the interrogation of prisoners at Gitmo, claims that Abu Zubaydah was extremely cooperative before waterboarding. you can check out his op-ed here: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/23/opinion/23soufan.html?_r=2
He managed to obtain confessions from Salim Hamden and Ali al-Bahlul without coercive measures.
And while you're torturing your prisoners, you shut down those volunteer informants, because there is no way they would do favours for a government which shows the same lack of respect for the law and despotic attitude towards human rights as the people they are trying to stop.
And Kody. You're right, there is no moral high ground for terrorists. The moral high ground should be for us; Western Pluralist Societies. The problems is, by torturing people, you are destroying that moral high ground.
(You may want to look up what this word means before you use it next time).
Your arguments are arguments from ignorance. Just because you can't think of a better solution doesn't mean there isn't one.
Posted By: Ray Church (Guest) on May 05, 2009 at 11:02 PM
Olbermann has simply lost his mind
Posted By: Brian (Guest) on May 22, 2009 at 04:37 PM
STAY CURRENT