Conservative Radio Host Waterboarded- After 6 seconds cries Torture!

[Secretariat]

Who's next? Hannity? Rushbo? Cheney? JR?

The stupidity of these people who declare waterboarding is not torture are simply ill-informed and need to undergo the procedure themselves.

http://rawstory.com/blog/2009/05/conservative-radio-hosts-waterboarded/

Conservative radio hosts gets waterboarded, and lasts six seconds before saying its torture

Chicago radio host Erich "Mancow" Muller decided he'd get himself waterboarded to prove the technique wasn't torture.

It didn't turn out that way. "Mancow," in fact, lasted just six or seven seconds before crying foul. Apparently, the experience went pretty badly -- "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," according to NBC Chicago.

....

Mancow was set on a 7-foot long table with his legs elevated and his feet tied.

"I wanted to prove it wasn't torture," Mancow said. "They cut off our heads, we put water on their face...I got voted to do this but I really thought 'I'm going to laugh this off.' "

The upshot? "It is way worse than I thought it would be, and that's no joke," Mancow told listeners. "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."

[Tom]

No, it was not torture., Sorry, you just gave the reason it is a perfect method to use.

1. No injury
2. No permanent damage.
3. Over quickly
4. You cannot "resist" it.

Sec, be serious here......this guy took 7 seconds and walked away from it.
Do you honestly believe that what he endured for seconds is worse than maybe missing out on stopping a terrorist attack? Seriously, Sec.....what harm was done to this guy? Do you think is he were to be told he would have to go through it again if he did not reveal a secret that he would try to resist?

The guy was not harmed in any way.

He was not beheaded, he was not hung over a chipper, he was not forced to leap from a window 100 floors up to escape burning jet fuel, he was not blown to bit driving down a road, he was not burned up when a jet flew into his office, he was not gassed and left to die a horrible death in his home.

A guy got wet and scared out his shorts.

That is enough to allow the stuff above to go on?

Can you honestly say, the two are comparable?

[Lefty]

sec, i'm just plain sick of you and guys like you. We have an enemy that beheads and you don't want them made uncomfortable in anyway. You dreamers of utopia need to get in the frickin realworld and realize we are fighting an enemy that will kill maim and do real torture. Please stop your bleeding hearts from dripping all over the enemy and have some empathy for our troops and our citizens. And that goes fro Obama, too. I'm sick of him running down this country at every opportunity.

[delayjf]

I find it amazing that the police can use dogs to physically attack criminals, I saw a dog almost drag a suspect out of a car the other day here in LA, yet there are no cries of torture, but when the military uses dogs to intimidate terrorist - oh the horror.

We have used waterboarding as a training tool for years in the military SERE school and nobody says a word, but using waterboarding against the man who planned the death of over 3000 innocent civilians and again the outrage.

Cheney put it best when he said "so much contrived indignation and phony moralizing as the interrogation methods applied to a few captured terrorists."

[Marshall Bennett]

sec, i'm just plain sick of you and guys like you. We have an enemy that beheads and you don't want them made uncomfortable in anyway. You dreamers of utopia need to get in the frickin realworld and realize we are fighting an enemy that will kill maim and do real torture. Please stop your bleeding hearts from dripping all over the enemy and have some empathy for our troops and our citizens. And that goes fro Obama, too. I'm sick of him running down this country at every opportunity.
He'll probably spend this Memorial day burning a United States flag .

[jballscalls]

obviously waterboarding is torture and its dangerous for our gov't to torture because if they can do it to anyone, who's to say they wont do it to us.

but come on, it's not like they did this to a bunch of random dudes, it was like 3 guys who are known terrorists or have terrorist contacts. hasnt anyone ever heard of guilty by association.

[delayjf]

Who's next? Hannity? Rushbo? Cheney? JR?

How about if there are any captured American Military personnel in the future, we offer a prisonor exchange an send Obermann, Maddow, and Garofalo to take their place.

[Secretariat]

Tom, it's called torture, not murder. The fact the blowhard conservative radio host survived 6 seconds (even though most average 14 seconds) and called it "absolutely torture" means nothing to you. Even though he was totally on your political side of the aisle on this until he underwent the waterboarding. But to you, because he was "still alive afterwards" according to your definition, it was not torture. Thanks, cleared that up. :bang: :bang: :bang:

And Marshall, when I read posts like yours I realize why your kind of ilk should never be left in charge of anything. Somehow, I post an article about a conservative radio host who said waterbaording was not torture, underwent it, and then said it is absolutely torture, and somehow out of this, your post related to me burning an American flag. Unbeleivable. Even though I served my country, you don't care about that. To you, a skeptical conservative radio host declares waterboarding torture and after undergoing it, and now I am the flag burning unpatriotic disgrace. Frankly, sir, you are an idiot.

Delay, I've always thought some of your posts were well thought out, but anyone who is still quoting Cheney needs to get a life. The man is simply Mr. Potter in a It's a wonderful life.

And Lefty, are you saying that waterboarding is torture now, and that the ends justify the means? If so this is a shift for you as you've always sided with Cheney that waterboarding is not torture.

[DJofSD]

Who's next? Hannity? Rushbo? Cheney? JR?

The stupidity of these people who declare waterboarding is not torture are simply ill-informed and need to undergo the procedure themselves.

http://rawstory.com/blog/2009/05/conservative-radio-hosts-waterboarded/

Conservative radio hosts gets waterboarded, and lasts six seconds before saying its torture

Chicago radio host Erich "Mancow" Muller decided he'd get himself waterboarded to prove the technique wasn't torture.

It didn't turn out that way. "Mancow," in fact, lasted just six or seven seconds before crying foul. Apparently, the experience went pretty badly -- "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," according to NBC Chicago.

....

Mancow was set on a 7-foot long table with his legs elevated and his feet tied.

"I wanted to prove it wasn't torture," Mancow said. "They cut off our heads, we put water on their face...I got voted to do this but I really thought 'I'm going to laugh this off.' "

The upshot? "It is way worse than I thought it would be, and that's no joke," Mancow told listeners. "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."
Who the "f" cares about some talk show radio hosts experience?

Am I suppose to care about his opinion? Is he now is some vernerated position to now pass judgement upon all of military techniques? Is he now some authority on torture?

Sec, you post this as if you are going to change the opinion of those that disagree with you. What's the point? What are you trying to prove?

[Marshall Bennett]

And Marshall, when I read posts like yours I realize why your kind of ilk should never be left in charge of anything. Somehow, I post an article about a conservative radio host who said waterbaording was not torture, underwent it, and then said it is absolutely torture, and somehow out of this, your post related to me burning an American flag. Unbeleivable. Even though I served my country, you don't care about that. To you, a skeptical conservative radio host declares waterboarding torture and after undergoing it, and now I am the flag burning unpatriotic disgrace. Frankly, sir, you are an idiot.


My quote was more in regards to what I've gathered from reading your post , collectively , over the past couple years . As with many liberals that post here , not all , it's quite clear to me you have a intense dislike for not only your country , but those that serve as well . This , sir , doesn't make me an idiot , but even more proud to be an American , knowing the alternative.

[jballscalls]

authority on torture?

Sec, you post this as if you are going to change the opinion of those that disagree with you. What's the point? What are you trying to prove?

thats all 90% of the posts on off topic are, people trying to get their point across, prove they are "right" and trying to get people to think like them.

[Tom]

Sec, your reply in Post #8 was, pardon me, but pure BULLSH_T.
You addressed absolutely nothing, not on single point in favor of WB, You merely echoed the tired old line your have been parroting for years here. Do you not have mind of your own? Of courese what this guy said means notinng to me....why shouldit? He walked away from it unscathed, proving my point. Try replyingto my thread about what is aloowed, or answer Jeff here about the dogs. Your tired old "tape recorder" libs do nothing but mouth of theparty line and to once are any of you able to articulate an itellegnt reason for anytning. And youguys wonder why we have no respect for you, treat like idiots, and refuse to "work with you."

You guys are jokes.

[jballscalls]

Tom,

you have to admit the right almost always tows the party line as well. i mean it goes both ways in that department.

i think on 98% of all posts, if i see the name of the poster, i can pretty much guess what they are going to say, what side they will take, and what their point will be. My guess is you'd be able to guess 99% of what their post was going to be just by seeing the posters name

[ArlJim78]

more evidence (http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_L6pDyjqqsvY/ShbvL_Qc5fI/AAAAAAAAbqY/Nn3gvEMvgvw/s1600-h/pelosi+under+water.jpg) of that Pelosi waterboarding briefing has surfaced.

[jballscalls]

more evidence (http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_L6pDyjqqsvY/ShbvL_Qc5fI/AAAAAAAAbqY/Nn3gvEMvgvw/s1600-h/pelosi+under+water.jpg) of that Pelosi waterboarding briefing has surfaced.

I read in the local fishwrapper that they voted not to investigate her for lying about that whole deal. She is the worst

[ArlJim78]

yeah I don't get that either. isn't lying to congress supposed to be some big offense? oh well, nevermind. Nancy now says it was a distraction and we have to move on with the agenda. la ti da.

[dutchboy]

I wonder what Mancow would consider torture if he had been a guest of the Viet Cong at the Hanoi Hilton. Or had taken a little walk during the Bataan death march as a guest of the Japs.

Does he now need to return the skirt and pantyhose that Ms Pelosi loaned him for his shower?

[mostpost]

Sec,
You can't be serious. You can't believe that posting actual facts will get any of those guys to change their minds. They are impervious to truth. They are impervious to logic. They would rater believe Dick Cheney when he says unreleased documents prove waterboarding is effective, than believe an FBI Agent (ALi Soufan) who testified UNDER OATH that is is not.

We (the "evil" libs) have all posted articles and links to prove our points. Articles and links which do not necesarily come from biased sources. Frequently they are from a primary source; a congressional hearing, a government report, a tape or transcript of a speech or interview. How do they respond. Rarely, they respond with facts or figures of their own; usually the response is something like, "Well, you can't trust that guy, besides I know what s and what isn't"

More often than not, you're accused of Flag Burning or being a quisling or just hating your country for some unknown reason. You see it's not enough to love this country. You have to love it in exactly the same way as they do. If everyone of your opinions doesn't coincide with theirs, you are a socialist, a coward, or a terrorist sympathizer.

AND THEY ARE SO ANGRY

[JustRalph]

Who's next? Hannity? Rushbo? Cheney? JR?



Wow! What a great list to be on............ what a compliment Sec :lol:

Btw.........waterboarding with just "water" is babyshit.

In Mexico they pour Coca Cola in your nose............

Think about how that burns..........?

I was told by an old Mexican man once that it took 3 weeks for his "brain to stop burning"

[mostpost]

No, it was not torture., Sorry, you just gave the reason it is a perfect method to use.

1. No injury
2. No permanent damage.
3. Over quickly
4. You cannot "resist" it.

Sec, be serious here......this guy took 7 seconds and walked away from it.
Do you honestly believe that what he endured for seconds is worse than maybe missing out on stopping a terrorist attack? Seriously, Sec.....what harm was done to this guy? Do you think is he were to be told he would have to go through it again if he did not reveal a secret that he would try to resist?

The guy was not harmed in any way.

He was not beheaded, he was not hung over a chipper, he was not forced to leap from a window 100 floors up to escape burning jet fuel, he was not blown to bit driving down a road, he was not burned up when a jet flew into his office, he was not gassed and left to die a horrible death in his home.

A guy got wet and scared out his shorts.

That is enough to allow the stuff above to go on?

Can you honestly say, the two are comparable?

Here is why you are wrong.
I'll stipulate that there is no permanent injury. I'l stipulate that it is over quickly, unless you are waterboarded 183 times.
And it is indeed impossible to resist. OR IS IT. For isn't it possible that a person being waterboarded will lie to stop the waterboarding. What is the assurance that you will get worthwhile intelligence from these techniques.

Dick Cheney says we did and there are CIA memos to prove it. Yet the CIA refused to release those memos, citing pending litigation. This poses two questions. If Cheney knew these memos were needing in ongoing investigations and that their release would jeaprodize said investigations, then why did he call for their release. Is his personal reputation more important to him than the country? The second question is; if the memos do indeed prove waterboarding effective, why has no one in the CIA made such a statement?

Can you honestly say, the two are comparable?[/
The question is meaningless. Of course the two are not comparable, but the real question is could the one have prevented the other. There is no empirical evidence that it could have. Someone on another thread stated it was unfair to blame Bush for 9/11 since the threats were so vague. Given the vagueness of the threats who should we have wateboarded?

[DJofSD]

Sec,
You can't be serious. You can't believe that posting actual facts will get any of those guys to change their minds. They are impervious to truth. They are impervious to logic. They would rater believe Dick Cheney when he says unreleased documents prove waterboarding is effective, than believe an FBI Agent (ALi Soufan) who testified UNDER OATH that is is not.

We (the "evil" libs) have all posted articles and links to prove our points. Articles and links which do not necesarily come from biased sources. Frequently they are from a primary source; a congressional hearing, a government report, a tape or transcript of a speech or interview. How do they respond. Rarely, they respond with facts or figures of their own; usually the response is something like, "Well, you can't trust that guy, besides I know what s and what isn't"

More often than not, you're accused of Flag Burning or being a quisling or just hating your country for some unknown reason. You see it's not enough to love this country. You have to love it in exactly the same way as they do. If everyone of your opinions doesn't coincide with theirs, you are a socialist, a coward, or a terrorist sympathizer.

AND THEY ARE SO ANGRY
What a pile of horse pucky. You haven't even said what you are trying to prove or disprove.

What's the issue? What's your position on it?

[Tom]

Tom,

you have to admit the right almost always tows the party line as well. i mean it goes both ways in that department.

\

Not at all - many of here have disagreed with Bush, with the republican party, with Bush's policies on spending.......Most of us never supported McCain at all. I would say I have yet to read any lefties here ever not toe the moveon.org talking points - ever. Most cannot even address facts.

[Tom]

Nice shotgun reply, MP......skirt over the top over the top of a bevy of issues and never really address any of them, all the while skirting the topic at hand.
Should we not use heart paddles on patients because it doesn't always work? Just give up?

So what if we get a lie....what is lost?
We come back and teach the prisoner that lying is not in his best interest next time. :eek:

Given the vagueness of the threats who should we have wateboarded?

Duh?????? We only waterboarded THREE. I think we had a good idea what we were doing and when. It was NEVER a first course, it was ALWAYS a last resort. If was pointed to precise people who we were sure had good info. DUH? Nice dodge yet again.

So far, you have hit everything except the point.

[Secretariat]

Sec,
You can't be serious. You can't believe that posting actual facts will get any of those guys to change their minds. They are impervious to truth. They are impervious to logic. They would rater believe Dick Cheney when he says unreleased documents prove waterboarding is effective, than believe an FBI Agent (ALi Soufan) who testified UNDER OATH that is is not.

We (the "evil" libs) have all posted articles and links to prove our points. Articles and links which do not necesarily come from biased sources. Frequently they are from a primary source; a congressional hearing, a government report, a tape or transcript of a speech or interview. How do they respond. Rarely, they respond with facts or figures of their own; usually the response is something like, "Well, you can't trust that guy, besides I know what s and what isn't"

More often than not, you're accused of Flag Burning or being a quisling or just hating your country for some unknown reason. You see it's not enough to love this country. You have to love it in exactly the same way as they do. If everyone of your opinions doesn't coincide with theirs, you are a socialist, a coward, or a terrorist sympathizer.

AND THEY ARE SO ANGRY

lol...Yeah, I know. I've grown weary of the right's dittohead philosophy and the worship of Cheney. But I thought this news was so reflective of the ideology of the far right on the board, that perhaps they'd see their own blindness through one of their own. I should have known better.

And I guess since I served my country in time of war (despite having my own boil on my butt), but don't agree with "torturing" people that I am a socialist, coward and terrorist sympathizer. THanks, you're right. I should have known better, the dittoheads know all. :bang: :bang: :bang:

[Lefty]

sec, firstly, thanks for your service. That said, I guess you and mosty are saying that we torture our own troops?
JB, they behead and torture anybody they catch anyway, if we didn't waterboard, that would't stop THEM from Actually torturing and killing.
I notice nobody answered my post about
: if it would save a loved one, would you then condone waterboarding? C'mon libs and moderates, step up to the plate with an honest answer.
BTW, sec, no I don't think waterboarding is torture, Myself, i'd stick a hot poker up a terrorist's ass, if it would save american lives.
We waterboarded 3 guys. Each time a physician was present. Some torture. Btw, we did get info that saved american lives.

[Tom]

So Sec, are you as outraged over the repeated murdering of innocent Pakistanis by Obama? I think getting blasted by a drone might be a tad more severe than a wet head.

[46zilzal]

AND THEY ARE SO ANGRY

BINGO

[DJofSD]

Just another hit and run.

[Tom]

That is all he is - a paid political commercial.

[mostpost]

Nice shotgun reply, MP......skirt over the top over the top of a bevy of issues and never really address any of them, all the while skirting the topic at hand.
Should we not use heart paddles on patients because it doesn't always work? Just give up?

So what if we get a lie....what is lost?
We come back and teach the prisoner that lying is not in his best interest next time. :eek:



Duh?????? We only waterboarded THREE. I think we had a good idea what we were doing and when. It was NEVER a first course, it was ALWAYS a last resort. If was pointed to precise people who we were sure had good info. DUH? Nice dodge yet again.

So far, you have hit everything except the point.

I will try to be more specific, although you really never gave me anything to be specific about. Just a lot of "They should be grateful we didn't put 'em through a woodchipper.

The issues with waterboarding can be boiled down to these questions:
Is it legal?
Is it torture?
Is it effective? (Does it obtain information that could not have been obtained by more traditional methods? and does it obtain it in a more timely manner?)

Here is a passage summarizing the CIA Inspector General's report
The 2004 Inspector General's report, known as a "special review," was tens of thousands of pages long and as thick as two Manhattan phone books. It contained information, according to one source, that was simply "sickening." The behavior it described, another knowledgeable source said, raised concerns not just about the detainees but also about the Americans who had inflicted the abuse, one of whom seemed to have become frighteningly dehumanized. The source said, "You couldn't read the documents without wondering, "Why didn't someone say, 'Stop!'"

Goldsmith was required to review the report in order to settle a sharp dispute that its findings had provoked between the Inspector General, Helgerson, who was not a lawyer, and the CIA's General Counsel, Scott Muller, who was. After spending months investigating the Agency's interrogation practices, the special review had concluded that the CIA's techniques constituted cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment, in violation of the international Convention Against Torture. But Muller insisted that every single action taken by the CIA toward its detainees had been declared legal by John Yoo. With Yoo gone, it fell to Goldsmith to figure out exactly what the OLC had given the CIA a green light to do and what, in fact, the CIA had done.

As Goldsmith absorbed the details, the report transformed the antiseptic list of authorized interrogation techniques, which he had previously seen, into a Technicolor horror show. Goldsmith declined to be interviewed about the classified report for legal reasons, but according to those who dealt with him, the report caused him to question the whole program. The CIA interrogations seemed very different when described by participants than they had when approved on a simple menu of options. Goldsmith had been comfortable with the military's approach, but he wasn't at all sure whether the CIA's tactics were legal. Waterboarding, in particular, sounded quick and relatively harmless in theory. But according to someone familiar with the report, the way it had been actually used was "horrible
This is taken from
http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/04/17/the-cia-ig-report-and-the-bradbury-memos/
There are other important findings from the report such as the fact that waterboarding as practiced by the CIA was very different from what was used in SERE training.
•CIA interrogators were not performing waterboarding as it had been approved in the August 2002 Bybee Memo; in particular, they were repeating the process more frequently (83 times for AZ and 183 for KSM) and using much more water than described in the Bybee Memo
•By CIA's own admission, they used waterboarding with Abu Zubaydah at a time when he was already completely compliant with interrogators.
So we see that by the opinion of the CIA's own Inspector General waterboarding did indeed rise to and beyond the level of torture.
Was it legal? Torture is illegal both by US code, and by international treaties to which the United States is signatory.

Question three: Is it effective? Proponents cite two cases where information was allegedly obtained through waterboarding. One was the plot to attack the Library Tower in Los Angeles. Supposedly, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed gave up this plot after being waterboarded. However, this plot was broken up in the spring of 2002 while KSM was not captured until 2003. (This information has been posted here before, and someone said, "Well, they must have been refering to a different Plot". First of all, What different plot. Secondly, Pres. Bush clearly stated the Library Tower and KSM. If it was a different plot why did he not say so.?)
The other case cited is that of Abu Zubaydah in which it is claimed that Mr Zubaydah resisted interogation attempts until he was waterboarded. Here is a quote from the Christain Science monitor in which a former CIA Agent seems to verify that claim.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0420/p99s01-duts.html
That version of events is starkly different than the one reported by ABC News in December 2007, when former CIA officer John Kiriakou, who was involved in the interrogation of Mr. Zubaydah, claimed he had only been waterboarded once for 35 seconds.
That version of events is starkly different than the one reported by ABC News in December 2007, when former CIA officer John Kiriakou, who was involved in the interrogation of Mr. Zubaydah, claimed he had only been waterboarded once for 35 seconds.

"The next day, he told his interrogators that Allah had visited him in his cell during the night and told him to cooperate," said Kiriakou in an interview...

"From that day on, he answered every question," Kiriakou said. "The threat information he provided disrupted a number of attacks, maybe dozens of attacks
However, if you read further in the story, and if you read the transcript of the ABC interview, you find that Mr. Kiriakou was only briefly involved in the interrogation of Mr. Zubaydah, was never trained in waterboarding techniques
(he declined to take the training), received his information from second hand sources and was wrong by a matter of 82 in the number of times Zubaydah was waterboarded.
Finally two words Ali Soufan. Two more words FBI Agent. Two more words Sworn Testimony. Look it up. I'm tired of posting it!!

[Tom]

Same old same old.
Nonsense.

[lsbets]

most - is it safe to assume that you think what you posted are facts?

[Marshall Bennett]

Not to mention how laboring it had to be to type all that shit .

[Tom]

Maybe it was "provided." ;)

[Lefty]

most, you don't have to love the country the same way I do. Just stop worrying about how terrorists are treated and worry more about our troops and innocent civilians. That's all I ask. And it seems to be too much, even the pres worries more about the world than he does the USA.

[mostpost]

Same old same old.
Nonsense.
I have seen nothing from you that disproves anything I've said.

[mostpost]

most - is it safe to assume that you think what you posted are facts?

I would consider the report from the CIA IG as a fact. I would consider sworn testimony before a Senate subcommitte as a fact. (And, yes I heard it myself)

I would not consider statements made in a TV interview as a fact, especially when I learn it was hearsay. I would not consider statements we stopped an attack in 2002 which we earned about in 2003 as fact.

Can you tell me the CIA IG did not issue a report which condemned the CIA's methods. Can you tell me that ALi Soufan did not testify before a Senate subcommittee as I have described.

[newtothegame]

I will try to be more specific, although you really never gave me anything to be specific about. Just a lot of "They should be grateful we didn't put 'em through a woodchipper.

The issues with waterboarding can be boiled down to these questions:
Is it legal?
Is it torture?
Is it effective? (Does it obtain information that could not have been obtained by more traditional methods? and does it obtain it in a more timely manner?)



Hmmm let me take a stab at theses questions and potential answers.....

Is it legal?
Well you done a pretty good job of showing whether its legal or not so , I say grab Pelosi and the rest who were briefed and "approved it" and place their butts in jail immediately.

Is it torture? Depends on your definition of torture...By the true definition..(websters) I would say you can make a case saying it is!!! But once you do, I would suggest you can now open a whole other can of worms..I know many people in prison get regular "body" searches. Does this not cause mental anguish? TORTURE! I have seen cops as another poster here mentioned used dogs...Does this not inflict intense pain?? TORTURE...having to watch Obama on a regular basis use his words to consistently apologize for what HE feels is a mistake by this country is causes me anguish regularly...put his azz in jail!!! TORTURE...you get the point here??? ALMOST ANYTHING can be deemed torture if you try hard enough.....

And thirdly...Is it effective?? Well, you can not possibly know the effectiveness of anything until AFTER the fact. Did it save lives??? I would suggest the answer is most reasonably YES. And if you reply NO, tell me what form of interrogation is effective?? Bright shining lights??? TORTURE...Sleep deperavation? TORTURE....
Wow, seems you left with take the perpertrator out to ruth chris steak house, invite him over for drinks and hope he tells ya what your looking for....Course...that might be TORTURE as well :lol:

[The Judge]

Was a well known dis-jockey in the San Francisco Bay Area a number of years ago. He was on a hip-hop young station he was their #1 guy everybody knew him. He was known for pulling wild stunts.

The one that got him fired was stopping traffic during rush hour on the Bay Bridge while he got a hair-cut. It was in some sort of protest because Clinton held up a flight because he was getting a hair-cut.

This guy will do anything to get his name in the paper or on T.V and he will put his body on the line for a headline. Rush won't do that but "Mancow will risk law suits and injury for a spot on the news.

[mostpost]

Not to mention how laboring it had to be to type all that shit .

I went back annd read about thirty if your posts in Off Topic. You should quit trying to play with the big boys :rolleyes:

[newtothegame]

I really am surprised at some point...the left here hasn't called the war in Iraq and Afganistan TORTURE based on the fact that the US military has a much greater advantage in technology. After all it must be TORTURE sitting there in a tank waiting for an M1 Abrams to blow your butt away and you can't even fire back because of the distance....:bang:

[mostpost]

Maybe it was "provided." ;)

"provided" by who? OK I confess, before I post anything I call Barack :rolleyes:

I don't think I've looked at MoveOn.Org five times in my life. Same with media matters.

When you say something silly (happens a lot) I google the pertinent info. I look for articles that support my position and those that oppose it, (Of course I don't mention those in my reply) I also look for links to primary sources; things like government reports, firsthand interview, sworn testimony. I try to find more than one source before I post.

[Marshall Bennett]

I went back annd read about thirty if your posts in Off Topic. :rolleyes:
Never imagined you would be that interested . I wouldn't waste a minute reading yours again . Its painful enough the first time .

[PaceAdvantage]

Sec,
You can't be serious. You can't believe that posting actual facts will get any of those guys to change their minds. They are impervious to truth. They are impervious to logic. They would rater believe Dick Cheney when he says unreleased documents prove waterboarding is effective, than believe an FBI Agent (ALi Soufan) who testified UNDER OATH that is is not.

We (the "evil" libs) have all posted articles and links to prove our points. Articles and links which do not necesarily come from biased sources. Frequently they are from a primary source; a congressional hearing, a government report, a tape or transcript of a speech or interview. How do they respond. Rarely, they respond with facts or figures of their own; usually the response is something like, "Well, you can't trust that guy, besides I know what s and what isn't"

More often than not, you're accused of Flag Burning or being a quisling or just hating your country for some unknown reason. You see it's not enough to love this country. You have to love it in exactly the same way as they do. If everyone of your opinions doesn't coincide with theirs, you are a socialist, a coward, or a terrorist sympathizer.

AND THEY ARE SO ANGRYSo then why do you bother here?

[PaceAdvantage]

BINGOAnd yet, you repeatedly asked me to be allowed back on this board. Why? If we're all such a lost cause...if we're all so dense and dumb and thick headed...if we're only 20% now...why bother?

[mostpost]

most, you don't have to love the country the same way I do. Just stop worrying about how terrorists are treated and worry more about our troops and innocent civilians. That's all I ask. And it seems to be too much, even the pres worries more about the world than he does the USA.

I am not worried about the terrorists. I'm worried about us. Engaging in the methods described here changes a person, and not for the better. One of the articles I read talked about concern for an interrogator who had became "Dehumanized". You can not treat another human being badly without losing something of yourself. Even the concentration camp guards in Nazi Germany suffered from alcoholism and suicides. I'm not defending them, they got what they deserved, but did they begin the way they ended. And I'm not comparing our interrogators or their methods with those of the Nazis.
But once you start down that path, the next step becomes easier to take.

It would be easy for me to say go ahead find the information anyway you can. I want to be safe. I don't want any one to be killed, especially not my countrymen. I choose to do the hard thing. To subject myself to accusations that are untrue, because I feel it is right.

If I criticize the policies of the country, it's because I see the country going to a place it doesn't belong. I see expedience overruling propriety and justice.

And all this is in addition to the fact that torture is not effective and none of you have provided one bit of proof that it is. At least none that I haven't refuted several times.

I don't want to speak for you, but it seems TO ME that conservatives look at their country as a wise father. In fact a country is more like a spoiled child which sometimes requires a loving corrective hand.

[mostpost]

Is it legal?
Well you done a pretty good job of showing whether its legal or not so , I say grab Pelosi and the rest who were briefed and "approved it" and place

You want me to defend Nancy Pelosi? Come on..be fair. Next you'll ask me to say something nice about Harry Reid. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
BTW what is ruth chris steak house?

[Lefty]

most, I asked this question earlier. Did you see it? Answer it and answer honestly.
Your child or wife is kidnapped by 2 or more men. We catch one and there's a good chance you can save your loved one's life by having the perp waterboarded. What would be your decision? Would you let the child or wife die, and hang on to your so-called principles?

[mostpost]

most, I asked this question earlier. Did you see it? Answer it and answer honestly.
Your child or wife is kidnapped by 2 or more men. We catch one and there's a good chance you can save your loved one's life by having the perp waterboarded. What would be your decision? Would you let the child or wife die, and hang on to your so-called principles?

Waterboard the Ba----d. But, in real life I wouldn't get to make that decision.
For the same reason that if someone did harm to your wife and you saw that person on the street, you could not shoot him. We have laws for a reason. To take the emotion out of our decisions.

Besides, your question reminds me of one one of my classmates asked when I was in elementary school. You're in a shipwreck and you are in a small lifeboat with room for only one person. You're mother and you're wife are in the water. Who do you pull into the lifeboat? There were a lot of arguments about that and it was only much later when I realized the correct answer was you get out of the life boat and help them both in.

[mostpost]

Quote:
Originally Posted by 46zilzal

BINGO

And yet, you repeatedly asked me to be allowed back on this board. Why? If we're all such a lost cause...if we're all so dense and dumb and thick headed...if we're only 20% now...why bother?

Hey, if he wants to play BINGO who are you to say he can't. You conservatives are supposed to be all about individual freedom. SHEESH

[dav4463]

We should all try to understand the terrorists motives. Forget that they want to kill us just because they are fighting a Holy War. They are just people like us. Let's get together with them and try to figure out our differences. Heck, let's just all become Moslems so they won't hate us too much.

While we are at it; let's just release all the criminals on death row. They are just misunderstood. Take one in and let him live at your house and maybe he will turn out to be a good citizen.

Also, if you work in a convenience store and you get robbed. Try to reason with the robber. He obviously has some problem nagging at him to rob you at gunpoint. Talk to him first. Then if he doesn't shoot you, maybe you can get along and be friends.

As a world, we need to be understanding. There is no evil in the world. We are the ones who are out of line with all our "knowing the difference between right and wrong and all that crap". Let's get with it and accept our terrorist brothers.

[newtothegame]

You want me to defend Nancy Pelosi? Come on..be fair. Next you'll ask me to say something nice about Harry Reid. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
BTW what is ruth chris steak house?

www.ruthschris.com (http://www.ruthschris.com)

[lsbets]

I would consider the report from the CIA IG as a fact. I would consider sworn testimony before a Senate subcommitte as a fact. (And, yes I heard it myself)

I would not consider statements made in a TV interview as a fact, especially when I learn it was hearsay. I would not consider statements we stopped an attack in 2002 which we earned about in 2003 as fact.

Can you tell me the CIA IG did not issue a report which condemned the CIA's methods. Can you tell me that ALi Soufan did not testify before a Senate subcommittee as I have described.

You did not post the CIA IG's report - you posted an opinion piece based on hearsay from unidentified sources about the CIA's IG report.

Yes, it is a fact that in sworn testimony Ali Soufan gave his opinion.

Opinions can either be accepted, disregarded, or looked at with skepticism. It seems that when an opinion backs up what you want to believe, you accept it without thinking. Take the FBI agent's testimony - enhanced interrogation didn't work - everytime they took him away from me and tortured he clammed up, and when he came back to me he started talking again. Someone who wants to believe enhanced interrogation did not accomplish anything will accept that without thinking about it. Someone who wants to believe it did work can easily view it as enhanced good cop/bad cop, and no matter what the good cop thinks, it was the bad cop methods that got him to keep talking. Skepticism might lead one to think that human nature leads people to see things in a certain way, and Soufan might not have liked the methods to begin with and wants to believe that his methods were solely responsible for any good to come out of the interrogation, so in his mind things went a certain way, yet the truth probably lies somewhere in between.

You assail the "right" for not posting facts, yet you seem to believe that opinions are facts. Please don't try to claim that you back up your opinions with facts anymore, when all you do is back them up with opinions you agree with.

[JustRalph]

Was a well known dis-jockey in the San Francisco Bay Area a number of years ago. He was on a hip-hop young station he was their #1 guy everybody knew him. He was known for pulling wild stunts.

The one that got him fired was stopping traffic during rush hour on the Bay Bridge while he got a hair-cut. It was in some sort of protest because Clinton held up a flight because he was getting a hair-cut.

This guy will do anything to get his name in the paper or on T.V and he will put his body on the line for a headline. Rush won't do that but "Mancow will risk law suits and injury for a spot on the news.

how can you be so mistaken..............

Rush doesn't have to do that............he has talent and listeners..........

[Tom]

You want me to defend Nancy Pelosi? Come on..be fair. Next you'll ask me to say something nice about Harry Reid. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
BTW what is ruth chris steak house?

Ruth Chris is real torture.....

[mostpost]

You did not post the CIA IG's report - you posted an opinion piece based on hearsay from unidentified sources about the CIA's IG report

Indeed, the IG's report has not yet been declasssified. So I was incorrect in stating that. So where did those passages quoted in the article come from?
They did not come from unidentified sources. They are footnotes in Steven Bradbury's May 10, 2005 memo on torture.
http://luxmedia.vo.llnwd.net/o10/clients/aclu/olc_05102005_bradbury46pg.pdf

As stated in the original article, pertinent footnotes can be found at pages 6, 13, 29, 35,41 and 42
Particular notice should be paid to footnote 51. on page 41 especially the passage beginning with "Consequently ......ending with "Medically safe." Note the word NO before "a priori".

[mostpost]

Yes, it is a fact that in sworn testimony Ali Soufan gave his opinion.

Opinions can either be accepted, disregarded, or looked at with skepticism. It seems that when an opinion backs up what you want to believe, you accept it without thinking. Take the FBI agent's testimony - enhanced interrogation didn't work - everytime they took him away from me and tortured he clammed up, and when he came back to me he started talking again. Someone who wants to believe enhanced interrogation did not accomplish anything will accept that without thinking about it. Someone who wants to believe it did work can easily view it as enhanced good cop/bad cop, and no matter what the good cop thinks, it was the bad cop methods that got him to keep talking. Skepticism might lead one to think that human nature leads people to see things in a certain way, and Soufan might not have liked the methods to begin with and wants to believe that his methods were solely responsible for any good to come out of the interrogation, so in his mind things went a certain way, yet the truth probably lies somewhere in between.

I'm sure that was his opinion. An opinion backed by years of experience as an FBI Agent and interrogator. But there were also facts in his testimony. The fact that Zubaydah was cooperating before the CIA and private contractors arrived. The fact that valuable information was gleaned during the first phase. The fact that Z "shut down" when under duress. The fact that he opened up when returned to Soufan.

You argue that the "Good Cop, Bad Cop routine was responsible and I thought of that myself. Here is why I decided that wasn't the case. (You can listen to the testimony itself. I found it at CSPAN.org I don't know how long they keep things.) Soufan stated that each time Z was returned to him, he found it more difficult to reestablish trust. Finally, he could no longer connect.

We also need to ask the question; why was the Bush adminstration so keen on the use of torture. The techniques they used were similar to those used by the Chineese and North Koreans during the Korean War. The purpose then was to obtain flse confessions for propaganda purposes. It is well known that Cheney frequently summoned CIA officials to his office and pressured them to find a link between Al Qaeda and Iraq. It has also been reported that Cheney tried to halt the IG's investigation.

[Tom]

We also need to ask the question; why was the Bush adminstration so keen on the use of torture.

I reject your foolish premise.

[lsbets]

You argue that the "Good Cop, Bad Cop routine was responsible and I thought of that myself. Here is why I decided that wasn't the case. (You can listen to the testimony itself. I found it at CSPAN.org I don't know how long they keep things.) Soufan stated that each time Z was returned to him, he found it more difficult to reestablish trust. Finally, he could no longer connect.



I find it interesting that I never said where I come down on the issue, yet you somehow state that I argued the good cop/bad cop worked. I presented no such argument. I did present three ways to view the opinion which you presented as fact. I would argue however, that your perception is so clouded by the way you want things to be, you are not able to think critically about this issue.

And if you're curious - I view almost everything with skepticism. I think the truth probably lies somewhere in between.

[riskman]

AND THEY ARE SO ANGRY

And your not---just a pretentious inflated rant. Oh well, time to get back and read some torture memos on this great Memorial Day weekend.

[mostpost]

I reject your foolish premise.
No more foolish than "Obama's not an American" or "Obama is murdering Pakistanis" or Obama's a Muslim" (Which are contradictory by the way) or "Obama is building reeducation camps" I could go on; all statements posted here though not all by you.

[fast4522]

I agree with 90% of the statements in the last post, but would modify one and say he is building revisionist camps.

[mostpost]

I agree with 90% of the statements in the last post, but would modify one and say he is building revisionist camps.
So you agree that all the statements in post 61 which begin with the word OBAMA are foolish.

And we thought they couldn't learn :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :lol:

[fast4522]

"Obama's not an American" or "Obama is murdering Pakistanis" or Obama's a Muslim" (Which are contradictory by the way) or "Obama is building revisionist camps"