... and decides it's torture:

Quote :

"Turns out the stunt wasn't so funny. Witnesses said Muller thrashed on the table, and even instantly threw the toy cow he was holding as his emergency tool to signify when he wanted the experiment to stop. He only lasted 6 or 7 seconds. "It is way worse than I thought it would be, and that's no joke,"Mancow said, likening it to a time when he nearly drowned as a child. "It is such an odd feeling to have water poured down your nose with your head back...It was instantaneous...and I don't want to say this: absolutely torture.""

http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/Mancow-Takes-on-Waterboarding-and-Loses.html

So should we change our laws to make torture legal, since it's so useful, or should certain people stop trying to justify torture as official policy?

5/22/2009 3:42:55 PM

My respect for Mancow just went from -100 to 0.

5/22/2009 3:47:25 PM

as a side question... has a US soldier ever been beheaded during the war on terror? I remember some journalists and maybe some other civilians, but I can't recall any reports of a solider being beheaded, or tortured during the war in Iraq or Afghanistan.

5/22/2009 3:50:41 PM

Hitchens did the same thing. Waterboarding is undeniably torture. Anyone who says it isn't should volunteer to receive it themselves.


Should it be used? That is a different question.




^ Yes, at least two have been beheaded. Beheadings were stopped because AQ realized it was bad PR, not because they had a change of heart.

[Edited on May 22, 2009 at 3:56 PM. Reason : ^]

5/22/2009 3:51:33 PM

^ I thought that those two were just mutilated post mortem and that the beheading wasn't the cause of death. Regardless it's fucked up.

5/22/2009 3:56:17 PM

You could be right.

5/22/2009 3:56:37 PM

Come on guys it sounds better when we call it Enhanced Interrogation Techniques.

5/22/2009 3:57:02 PM

Quote :

"Waterboarding is undeniably torture. Anyone who says it isn't should volunteer to receive it themselves. Should it be used? That is a different question."

5/22/2009 4:04:41 PM

I think a better question is if the government should ever officially endorse it? I can't see how the answer is anything but an unquestionable "no."

5/22/2009 4:18:07 PM

Outside of human rights issues, the sheer lack of reliability with torture should be enough to not waste time doing it if your goal is to get usable information.

5/22/2009 4:44:10 PM

What does everyone think of the this mechanism of behavior: federal agents are given enough lack of oversight to allow them to torture, but enough oversight to know when they have, so they can be charged and imprisoned for 15 years for doing it.

Afterall, if I knew for sure it would save lives, I'd happily go to prison if I believed it would help. As such, torture is illegal, saving society from the illeffects of it, but torture is still committed, saving society from any illeffects of not having it. It has the benefit of making sure torture only occurs when it would help, afterall, while I would volunteer for prison for a sure thing, I wouldn't do so for a maybe.

5/22/2009 5:42:27 PM

that's how every law already is. you can break them, then go to trial for breaking them. you can even be found not guilty of those crimes through jury nullification if they deem your reasons for committing said crime were for the public good, etc.

5/22/2009 5:53:31 PM

Quote :

"I think a better question is if the government should ever officially endorse it? I can't see how the answer is anything but an unquestionable "no.""

I agree. I think the biggest problem with the Bush administration was the appearance of the, "yeah we torture, what now bitch?" attitude. There is no good reason our government shouldn't officially prohibit torture.


Comma however


Are there circumstances where water-boarding would be effective and appropriate? Perhaps. As the question was posed to me, if your mother was kidnapped, and you grabbed one of the kidnappers as the rest took her out the door, would you torture that guy to get the information? There aren't many people who can honestly answer that question with an unequivocal no. If you answer is even a tentative yes . . .

Besides, while water-boarding is a relatively short-term albeit intense experience, the long term psychological pressure of protracted interrogation can be as equally disturbing to the human mind.

5/22/2009 5:59:40 PM

I've always thought our society's moral standards were what made society worth saving.

5/22/2009 6:02:54 PM

Probably our ideals more than our practical morals. They have been questionable from day one.

5/22/2009 6:09:58 PM

Waterboarding is NOT torture.

And my name is eyedrb.

And I am a doctor.

5/22/2009 7:49:46 PM

a medical doctor?

5/22/2009 8:50:38 PM

Quote :

"Obama: We are indeed at war with al Qaeda and its affiliates. We do need to update our institutions to deal with this threat. But we must do so with an abiding confidence in the rule of law and due process; in checks and balances and accountability. "

Since when do you fight a war using the rule of law and due process to defeat the enemy?

"Checks and Balances"? ... that must send shudders through al Qaeda.

Quote :

" Obama: ..those who argued for these tactics were on the wrong side of the debate, and the wrong side of history. That's why we must leave these methods where they belong -- in the past. They are not who we are, and they are not America."

But didn't Obama exempt himself from the torture ban? He can still torture. And he also didn't ban the US from sending people to our friends in other countries who will be more than glad to torture them for us.

Quote :

"Obama: But if we continue to make decisions within a climate of fear, we will make more mistakes."

Isn't that his main schtick? Getting us all in a panic over some problem so we won't ask many questions about his "solution" while he quicklys rams it through?

5/22/2009 9:12:31 PM

Quote :

"Since when do you fight a war using the rule of law and due process to defeat the enemy? "

Since you're the United God-damned States of America.


Besides, you cannot defeat the enemy by abandoning the concept of rule of law, that is the defining characteristic of free nations everywhere. To do so, to appeal to the baser temptations of human nature, is to admit defeat.

5/22/2009 9:22:36 PM

Thanks for the shout out OEP

5/22/2009 11:39:00 PM

Quote :

"Faced with an uncertain threat, our government made a series of hasty decisions. And I believe that those decisions were motivated by a sincere desire to protect the American people. But I also believe that - too often - our government made decisions based upon fear rather than foresight, and all too often trimmed facts and evidence to fit ideological predispositions."

That epitomizes what happened on 22 January when Obama signed the E.O. to close Gitmo in one year.

Now that he and the rest of his admin. has looked at the issues with that decision, they aren't sure what to do.

5/23/2009 4:22:45 AM

i disagree. there's no reason that they can't close gitmo. it's just politically unsavory. but it is what they should do. they should move these prisoners into US supermax prisoners and put them on trial. if they can't charge them, then they should release them. it's as simple as that.

5/23/2009 9:10:04 AM

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/26/petraeus-endorses-obamas_n_207513.html

Quote :

"Petraeus Endorses Obama's Plans To Close GITMO, End Torture General David Petraeus said this past weekend that President Obama's decision to close down Gitmo and end harsh interrogation techniques would benefit the United States in the broader war on terror. In an appearance on Radio Free Europe on Sunday, the man hailed by conservatives as the preeminent military figure of his generation left little room for doubt about where he stands on some of Obama's most contentious policies. "I think, on balance, that those moves help [us]," said the chief of U.S. Central Command. "In fact, I have long been on record as having testified and also in helping write doctrine for interrogation techniques that are completely in line with the Geneva Convention. And as a division commander in Iraq in the early days, we put out guidance very early on to make sure that our soldiers, in fact, knew that we needed to stay within those guidelines. ... "

I guess Patreus doesn't care about the safety of the troops, that douchebag.

[Edited on May 26, 2009 at 1:07 PM. Reason : ]

5/26/2009 1:06:02 PM

Yeah, way to stand up there General. So daring, so courageous to agree with your boss. Where was he a year or two ago? Why wasn't he out saying these things then? Oh right, because generals are 90% politicians by the time they get to 4 Stars.

5/26/2009 1:50:07 PM

Quote :

""Waterboarding is undeniably torture. Anyone who says it isn't should volunteer to receive it themselves. Should it be used? That is a different question.""

I would agree it is torture. I would also say I think it should be used in certain situations. At the very least, it should be an option.

5/26/2009 4:18:01 PM

should it be an option against americans?

5/26/2009 4:21:10 PM

3

5/26/2009 4:23:04 PM

Quote :

"should it be an option against americans?"

realistically, do you honestly think we have a say so against this? bad guys are going to do whatever they want to Americans, no matter how nice we are to their POW's. what it does give them, however, is an excuse to do terrible things, which makes it debatable.

to me, if we have to waterboard someone and it saves American civillian lives, then it was worth it. nick berg had his head sawed off by the serrated edge of a rambo knife on youtube. I dont think US policy towards POW's had anything to do with it.

5/26/2009 4:35:56 PM

but many military leaders have said that after the release abu gharab (sp?) pictures, there was an increase in violence in iraq. our mistreatment of prisoners is a very easy recruiting tactic. even if torture could somehow theoretically save lives in the near term for a specific situation, it could easily cause far more damage down the line.

5/26/2009 4:40:53 PM

^^ weve already covered that in this post: http://brentroad.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=567036&page=1#12929540

It's like in Star Trek when Kirk would do stuff he knew would get him court martialed, but were the right thing to do at the time. He would do it, succeed, come back and face whatever punishment was coming to him.

Obviously we can't codify every single situation our military and intelligence guys are ever going to be in, but we also have to set high standards for ourselves, at least when others are looking. Admitting that we routinely torture, let alone putting it in to official procedure is not the right thing for the United States to do. I guess i can see why some on the right are acting like it is to save face, but I can't see how anyone can really argue against the Obama admin for setting us back on the right path, at least as far as the world is concerned.

I think it was Reagan who use to say we need to be like the shining city on the hill (or something like that), which is a good ideal in general, despite how we might actually keep our house.

[Edited on May 26, 2009 at 4:45 PM. Reason : ]

5/26/2009 4:41:27 PM

1) It it torture.
2) It should be illegal.
3) It is reasonable to assume the law will be broken, and it's probably worth it.
4) Violators should [still] be prosecuted.
5) They quite probably will be found not guilty somehow... perhaps insanity.

5/26/2009 4:43:53 PM

sarijoul, im curious what excuse was used prior to 9/11? No war, no waterboarding, no pictures.. they seemed to recruit just fine right.

it seems that al queda uses real torture on its own people. Does that help them in recruiting? Or just our waterboarding? Im just curious about your opinion.

5/26/2009 4:51:36 PM

let me get this straight. you're saying because they could recruit 10 years ago, that we can't increase their recruitment rates? or give them another argument for recruitment?

i'll give a little metaphor that may or may not help. . .

so we'll take teen smoking as our example. 20 years ago say teen smoking was at a rate of 30%. through various advertising programs and education, over the past thirty we've decreased that percentage to 15%. if we were to suddenly decrease the legal smoking age to 16, that might not increase the teen smoking rate back up to 30%, but it surely wouldn't help.

5/26/2009 4:56:02 PM

Quote :

"Beheadings were stopped because AQ realized it was bad PR, not because they had a change of heart."

I mean for all we know you are a member of AQ which is why you have such insight to what they are thinking etc...but in case you aren't...its assumptions like this that will keep us in this war for all of eternity or until one side is wiped off the face of the earth.

5/26/2009 5:00:56 PM

I get what you are saying. However, my question is has that made us "less safe" as they like to say? I mean, before we had any of these terrible reasons for thier hate, they had thier most success and were recruiting just fine. So, my question is, since you mentioned an increased violence in iraq, do you think the iraq war helped keep us safe?

5/26/2009 5:06:28 PM

^ How do you figure they had their "most success" before the past 8 years-ish?

They've clearly been MUCH more successful recently.

You have Iraq formerly a secular (although oppressive) gov., now with a religious-based leadership, the right-wing religious elements of Iran have gained power recently, and the Taliban are starting to muck things up in Pakistan now too, and our allies in western europe kind of give us dirty looks too.

Lowering the bar is what the terrorist want us to do, and our politicians at the direction of the right played handily in to that goal the past couple of years.

5/26/2009 5:12:18 PM

Quote :

"You have Iraq formerly a secular (although oppressive) gov"

This is why i never understood the

"Saddam be work with Osama Bin Ladens to attack Amurica on 9/11 cuz he hates our freedoms!"

Saddam working with Bin Laden would be like Tony Blair teaming up with Timothy McVeigh b.c they both hate France and want to blow it up.

5/26/2009 9:36:23 PM

Quote :

"Afterall, if I knew for sure it would save lives, I'd happily go to prison if I believed it would help. As such, torture is illegal, saving society from the illeffects of it, but torture is still committed, saving society from any illeffects of not having it."

During the Salem Witch Trials, women who were known by the judges to be witches were tortured until they confessed to it. Torture does not get you the truth, it just gets you what you want to hear. If a captured terrorist really didn't know any helpful information, but our government was so sure that he did that we kept on torturing him until he talked, we would get an answer eventually. However, that answer would be false, and only given because its what those doing the torturing want to hear.

5/26/2009 11:56:55 PM

I've been wondering how many of the interrogations have gone something like this:

- CIA picks up some chatter in their normal investigations (spying, infiltrating, etc) about an upcoming attack on LA. They relay info to Guantanamo and ask if their interrogators have heard anything about it

- Interrogators ask Terrorist Suspect 1 about it. He says "i don't know". Waterboard once. "i don't know". Waterboard again - "is there an attack planned for LA?" "YES, jesus, fuck - stop torturing me bro." waterboard 181 more times

- CIA calls the White House - "Mr. VP - we have just received information from a terrorist suspect through enhanced interrogation techniques that there will be an attack on LA"

5/27/2009 8:58:55 AM

unfortunately for your analogy, the system is a bit more sophisticated than that.

5/27/2009 9:16:12 AM

1. According to the best information we have, only three high-value detainees were waterboarded.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7229169.stm

2. Admiral Dennis C. Blair, Obama's own director of national intelligence, stated that--despite a redacted White House press release--the Bush administration's harsh interrogation techniques produced "high value information." Furthermore, the DNI stated that he does "not fault those who made the decisions at that time" and that he would "absolutely defend those who carried out the interrogations within the orders they were given."

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/22/us/politics/22blair.html

3. And for taking on Obama over EIT and other issues, Cheney--of all people--is on the rise:

Poll: Cheney's approval ratings rise

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0509/22838.html

Quote :

"Whether we bring our enemies to justice or bring justice to our enemies, justice will be done."

--George W. Bush

[Edited on May 27, 2009 at 9:26 AM. Reason : .]

5/27/2009 9:25:16 AM

Pointing to approval ratings as moral justification isn't the best idea. Out of the last 3 presidential elections, Republicans have only won the popular vote once . . . so, if anything, it hurts the George Bush apologist argument.

Quote :

"Whether we bring our enemies to justice or bring justice to our enemies, justice will be done."

I listened to a really good speech the other day by Raza Aslan on this kind of language in the international political field. Here it is FWIW:

5/27/2009 12:52:07 PM

^ I was hardly pointing to approval ratings as justification. I was simply pointing out that in this unprecedented debate between a sitting president and a former vice president, the unpopular Cheney is becoming more popular. Moreover, Obama is looking more and more like the demagogic neophyte he is--and Bush's policies are suddenly becoming more and more palatable.

And I've been curious about this for months but I held off. Now seems as good a time as any.

From a PM I sent:

Quote :

"Concerning the 'SEALS FTMFW' thread, it's now okay to dunk guys' (the pirates) heads in the water as long as you put bullets in them first? Really?! The justification for killing the pirates was that the captain's life--one life--was in 'imminent danger.' What if hundreds or thousands or millions of lives were in imminent danger (ticking-bomb scenario)? Wouldn't a less-than-lethal enhanced interrogation technique--such as waterboarding--be justified as I have maintained here?"

I await the answers.

[Edited on May 27, 2009 at 1:14 PM. Reason : PS: You conveniently overlooked points 1 and 2, yes? ]

5/27/2009 1:04:36 PM

Quote :

"the unpopular Cheney is becoming more popular slightly less unpopular"

fixed


your other points?
#1 - who gives a shit? WTF does it matter if we tortured 3 or 3000 detainees? It's wrong and illegal. The law doesn't saw "don't do it, unless you only do it once or twice"

#2 - well, that's his opinion and his right to stand up for it. we can still disagree with him (on the justification part. the part about what information was gained is still hearsay, no matter who says it, until proof comes out)

5/27/2009 1:11:15 PM

^ 1. Who gives a shit that you don't give a shit? Some are pretending that our intelligence gatherers waterboarded every brown person they came in contact with--and it just ain't the case.

2. You, some guy on the Internet, can disagree with Obama's own DNI--you know, the person who has access to all national intelligence--concerning the "high value information" gained from harsh interrogation techniques such as waterboarding? Really--with a straight face?!

Maybe Admiral Blair just made it all up--or maybe he's "confused." If this is the case, he should be removed from office for lying or mental incompetence, correct?

Any president who wouldn't do everything in his power to protect Americans from massive loss of life isn't fit to hold the office. Trust me, if faced with such a situation, Obama will dunk those heads--I think the man has a conscience and I don't think he or anyone else could live with the consequences.

[Edited on May 27, 2009 at 1:25 PM. Reason : .]

5/27/2009 1:24:06 PM

From your quoted article, hooksaw:

Quote :

"The assessment by Admiral Blair represents a shift for him since he took office. When he was nominated for the position and appeared before the Senate intelligence committee on Jan. 22, he said: “I believe strongly that torture is not moral, legal or effective.” But he declined to assess whether the interrogation program under Mr. Bush had worked."

So what changed his mind?

It boggles my mind that anyone would consider the information gleaned from torture useful in any way. I would need to see some actual proof of this, in terms of a ratio of counter-productive intel and actual useful intel. Not the flip-flopping of an admiral who provides hooksaw with a snippet to prove a point.

5/27/2009 2:02:51 PM

I wish Mancunt had drowned.

5/27/2009 2:05:21 PM

i have never even heard of this guy.

5/27/2009 2:07:53 PM

Quote :

"Any president who wouldn't do everything in his power to protect Americans from massive loss of life isn't fit to hold the office. Trust me, if faced with such a situation, Obama will dunk those heads--I think the man has a conscience and I don't think he or anyone else could live with the consequences."

That's pretty much completely irrelevant to the issue at hand. As has been stated MANY times earlier, people don't know what situations we'll be faced with.

But it is a poor decision from ANY angle to make something like torture official policy like you and Cheney seem to want to do, and it's even worse to look the other way when allegations of torture being used with no clear reason crop up.

People like you who try to rationalize brutality from the government are how societies slip down the slope of extremism. That the United States doesn't torture is all anyone needs to know.

5/27/2009 2:47:03 PM

^^The pinnacle of hack radio at its finest. He's a hypocritical has been shock jock turned conservative talker who appears on Fox News like he's some good Christian guy, bemoaning all the awful people and things said on the public airwaves; which he was doing up until about 2 years ago.

5/27/2009 3:04:35 PM