Conservative talk show host waterboarded

[DaveC426913]

I find the Mancow story interesting from a purely political point of view. I don't think it sheds any additional light on the debate of whether waterboarding is torture.

Mancow seems to be converted before going into the test. Presumably, if he thought he were going to ace it, he would have had more smugness and less nervousness.

Is it possible this is a stunt by torture opponents rather than proponents?

 

[DaveC426913]

The US should never torture captives because we don't want our enemies to feel justified in doing the same to our troops.

Well sure but the idea was to not publicize it. Then it's a win-win situation. The people are happy in their bliss, the enemy doesn't see us being brutal, we don't "ruin" these techniques for future interrogation-hopefuls, AND the Americans get their intelligence.

 

[ExactlySolved]

Well sure but the idea was to not publicize it. Then it's a win-win situation. The people are happy in their bliss, the enemy doesn't see us being brutal, we don't "ruin" these techniques for future interrogation-hopefuls, AND the Americans get their intelligence.

I don't go to church, but I have heard these people use the simple saying that 'integrity is what you do when no one is looking.'

 

[Phrak]

Ah, I misunderstood. Sorry about that.

I used to allow myself to be brainwashed, primarily on other topics, and when I did some reading and found I had been duped I became far more skeptical. Funny enough it was a determination to avoid what I "ought to" believe that got me brain washed.

Now I understand your avitar a bit better. I've been curious.

 

[Al68]

Well, if you torture them yourself, and don't get the people you are saving involved, you only sacrifice your humanity for the good of *it doesn't matter how many*. And it's not for your own death, it's for the death of *others*.

How about murder? Would it have been wrong to murder Hitler? Or is murder less monstrous than torture?

Killing Hitler would not have been murder. Killing an enemy in war does not meet any historical definition of murder, even if it's considered morally wrong.

 

[DaveC426913]

I don't go to church, but I have heard these people use the simple saying that 'integrity is what you do when no one is looking.'

Absolutely. I think the issue is that those who have been charged with protecting the country and its innocent inhabitants are willing to sacrifice themselves to do so. They commit unspeakably immoral acts so the rest of us can live in bliss.

I am not condoning it, or agreeing with it or even saying they have any business acting immorally on behalf of us.

Then again, if terrorism struck at thte heart of the country, and we feel they didn't do enough, we would likely burn them at the stake. So now, they're caught between a rock and a hard place:
Commit immoral acts, "save" the country but be villified.
Eschew immoral acts, do not "save" the country and still be villified.

 

[seycyrus]

How many people were waterboarded? Three. Check out the stats on those guys.

Waterboarding is not a technique that is used as a first measure, but rather as a last.

Russ is exactly right, we are redefining the word torture from what it has historically meant.

Ask any person whether they would rather be waterboarded by the US, or be subject to other more historical forms of torture by your standard extremist.

Care to guess how many people would CHOOSE to end up with wet hair?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

How many people were waterboarded? Three. Check out the stats on those guys.

What I saw was that one person was waterboarded 183 times in about one month. That would be once every four hours for a month! Show me the evidence that this was a last measure and that useful information was obtained that saved, what did Cheney say, millions of lives? Recall that is same guy who said that Saddam had WMDs.

Waterboarding is not a technique that is used as a first measure, but rather as a last.

Prove it. Beyond that it doesn't matter. Would it be okay to hook high voltage to someone's genitals if it was a last meaure? Would it be okay to burn a person with cigarettes as a last measure? How about just cutting off their limbs one by one, or gassing them as a last measure? The order of events is irrelevant. What matters is if you are willing to stoop to the level of those whom we consider to be the bad guys. Are you better than the terrorists, or not?

Russ is exactly right, we are redefining the word torture from what it has historically meant.

Except that the evidence says otherwise.

Water boarding was designated as illegal by U.S. generals in Vietnam 40 years ago. A photograph that appeared in The Washington Post of a U.S. soldier involved in water boarding a North Vietnamese prisoner in 1968 led to that soldier's severe punishment. The soldier who participated in water torture in January 1968 was court-martialed within one month after the photos appeared in The Washington Post, and he was drummed out of the Army," recounted Darius Rejali, a political science professor at Reed College.

Earlier in 1901, the United States had taken a similar stand against water boarding during the Spanish-American War when an Army major was sentenced to 10 years of hard labor for water boarding an insurgent in the Philippines...

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/Investigation/story?id=1356870

Ask any person whether they would rather be waterboarded by the US, or be subject to other more historical forms of torture by your standard islamic extremist.

That isn't even an argument. We are supposed to be the good guys, remember? You are only arguing that there are people worse than Dick Cheney.

 

[seycyrus]

What I saw was that one person was waterboarded 183 times in about one month. That would be once every four hours for a month!

And the magnitude of that number did not raise an eyebrow? No wonder people so blindly believe the palestinians/Georgians when they inflate the number of casualties by a factor of 100.

KSM was not waterboarded 183 times. As he himself stated he was wb'd 5 times. 183 times is the numebr you arrive at if you count every trickle of water. The redcross memo explicitly states that no more than 2 sessions occurred in a single day.

Show me the evidence that this was a last measure and that useful information was obtained that saved, what did Cheney say, millions of lives? Recall that is same guy who said that Saddam had WMDs

None of the accounts indicated that it was used as a first course measure. KSM himself indicated that he talked only after waterboarding.

...Would it be okay to hook high voltage to someone's genitals if it was a last meaure? Would it be okay to burn a person with cigarettes as a last measure? How about just cutting off their limbs...

I see that you are fully capable of realizing that waterboarding is a rather tame method of interrogation compared to others that are practiced by our enemies.

The order of events is irrelevant. What matters is if you are willing to stoop to the level of those whom we consider to be the bad guys. Are you better than the terrorists, or not?

As you seem to indicate above, you inherently realize the difference between waterboarding and the other atrocities you mentioned. There was no stooping. Your question does not apply.

 

[seycyrus]

...
That isn't even an argument. We are supposed to be the good guys, remember? You are only arguing that there are people worse than Dick Cheney.

It directly adddresses the central theme of my argument, which is that waterboarding is a mere annoyance compared to the torture methods used by our enemies. This theme was apparent. Do you ever discuss things in good faith?

 

[lisab]

It directly adddresses the central theme of my argument, which is that waterboarding is a mere annoyance compared to the torture methods used by our enemies. This theme was apparent. Do you ever discuss things in good faith?

That's because they're the bad guys. We must not let the inhumane things they they do define what is right and wrong for us.

 

[seycyrus]

That's because they're the bad guys. We must not let the inhumane things they they do define what is right and wrong for us.

To pretend that there is not a difference between waterboarding and electrocution, amputation,impalement, disembowlment etc. etc. is disingenuous.

There is. We know it, and they know it.

Ever wonder why the terrorists don't waterboard their hostages? they just chop off bodyparts.

Do you think they would bother with "simulated" drowning? Or would they just hold a guys head underwater for 5 minutes over and over again?

Is there a difference? Bet they think so. it's time we stopped pretending otherwise.

 

[turbo]

Has anybody else read the Telegraph today? According to Major General Antonio Taguba, who headed up the Abu Ghraib detainee abuse investigation, the photos that Obama blocked from public release include sexual abuse and rape, including the rape of an Iraqi woman by a male soldier and pictures of an Eqyptian translator sodomizing an Iraqi teenager. Just "softening them up" before moving on to harsh treatment, I suppose.

Maj Gen Taguba, who retired in January 2007, said he supported the President’s decision, adding: “These pictures show torture, abuse, rape and every indecency.
“I am not sure what purpose their release would serve other than a legal one and the consequence would be to imperil our troops, the only protectors of our foreign policy, when we most need them, and British troops who are trying to build security in Afghanistan.
“The mere description of these pictures is horrendous enough, take my word for it.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...395830/Abu-Ghraib-abuse-photos-show-rape.html

The nit-picking regarding "is waterboarding torture" is pretty small potatoes in light of the atrocities that were committed at Abu Ghraib. We may never know what happened in other prisons unless we are willing to listen to what the detainees say about their treatment. The only reason that we know about the Abu Ghraib atrocities is that staff discipline and security were woefully inadequate, and the staff were allowed to photograph the abuse for their own entertainment.

 

[lisab]

To pretend that there is not a difference between waterboarding and electrocution, amputation,impalement, disembowlment etc. etc. is disingenuous.

There is. We know it, and they know it.

Ever wonder why the terrorists don't waterboard their hostages? they just chop off bodyparts.

Do you think they would bother with "simulated" drowning? Or would they just hold a guys head underwater for 5 minutes over and over again?

Is there a difference? Bet they think so. it's time we stopped pretending otherwise.

You missed my point. Just because they do worse doesn't mean it's right for us to do wrong.

You could post all day about the horrible things they do...it's irrelevant.

 

[DaveC426913]

To pretend that there is not a difference between waterboarding and electrocution, amputation,impalement, disembowlment etc. etc. is disingenuous.

There is. We know it, and they know it.

Ever wonder why the terrorists don't waterboard their hostages? they just chop off bodyparts.

Do you think they would bother with "simulated" drowning? Or would they just hold a guys head underwater for 5 minutes over and over again?

Is there a difference? Bet they think so. it's time we stopped pretending otherwise.

Can you point to any examples of terrorists electrocuting, amputating or disemboweling their hostages?

 

[BoomBoom]

To pretend that there is not a difference between waterboarding and electrocution, amputation,impalement, disembowlment etc. etc. is disingenuous.

There is. We know it, and they know it.

Ever wonder why the terrorists don't waterboard their hostages? they just chop off bodyparts.

I think generally speaking, torture is something done to get information or a confession out of someone. AFAIK, terrorists have no reason to "extract information", therefore I do not believe they really practice torture as you seem to claim they do. They just like to kill random people in spectacular fashion to get media attention.

The only chopping off of bodyparts I've heard of them doing is someone's head...and that would result in death so I'm not sure it could be classified as torture.

In the end though, even if they did practice torture (which they don't), then it is still a moot point because WE DO NOT! WE are better than that...

 

[seycyrus]

You missed my point. Just because they do worse doesn't mean it's right for us to do wrong.

You could post all day about the horrible things they do...it's irrelevant.

No it is not. It sheds light on the relative level of "harshness", if you will.

To say that if we waterboard, we will be no better thanthose who do far worse, is absurd.

 

[seycyrus]

Can you point to any examples of terrorists electrocuting, amputating or disemboweling their hostages?

I admit that I brought up those practices in response to Ivan bringing them up without a specific citable example in mind. I also believe that turbo's post highlights the existence tactics of a similar nature.

Are you stating that you don't believe that our enemies use such tactics? I believe there is footage available online, for example, of Saddaam's sons inflicting torture on captives.

 

[seycyrus]

...

In the end though, even if they did practice torture (which they don't), then it is still a moot point because WE DO NOT! WE are better than that...

Pearl was tortured before he had his head chopped off.

You are claiming that our enemies don't torture? Absurd. They torture, then kill.

 

[lisab]

No it is not. It sheds light on the relative level of "harshness", if you will.

To say that if we waterboard, we will be no better thanthose who do far worse, is absurd.

To allow terrorists to re-calibrate your ethics and morals is absurd.

 

[turbo]

I admit that I brought up those practices in response to Ivan bringing them up without a specific citable example in mind. I also believe that turbo's post highlights the existence tactics of a similar nature.

My post highlighted torture, rape and other abuses of detainees' human rights while in US custody, as reported by the general who headed up the Abu Ghraib abuse probe. Abusing and torturing prisoners gains us nothing, while empowering radicals who already hold anti US views.

Want more of our soldiers killed or wounded in suicide bombings? Keep abusing detainees, keep them locked up without evidence or charges, and offer them no access to legal protections. Best of all, have the Cheney/Limbaugh torture-cheerleading play out in public. The right-wing just doesn't get it.

 

[BoomBoom]

You are claiming that our enemies don't torture? Absurd. They torture, then kill.

Yes, that is exactly what I am claiming.

You were asked to cite examples of the multitude of torture techniques that you claim terrorists use, and you couldn't. You may be able to dig up one or two isolated examples, but this would not be the norm, it would be an exception.

By contrast Bush/Cheney had a policy of torture...talking of "absurd".

 

[seycyrus]

To allow terrorists to re-calibrate your ethics and morals is absurd.

My morals and ethics have not been recalibrated. I have always known that waterboarding and the other forms of torture we have discussed are NOT equivalent.

 

[seycyrus]

Yes, that is exactly what I am claiming.
You were asked to cite examples of the multitude of torture techniques that you claim terrorists use, and you couldn't. You may be able to dig up one or two isolated examples, but this would not be the norm, it would be an exception.

You know very well that the US enemies would not be in the practice of providing evidence of their torture.

By contrast Bush/Cheney had a policy of torture...talking of "absurd".

Waterboarding was used on 3 guys.

You claim that if i came up with "one or two" examples, they would be isolated incidents and not indicative of anything?

So, 3 - 2 = *1* is what you use as your differentiator?

Ridiculous!

 

[seycyrus]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/20/AR2006062000242.html

http://www.westernresistance.com/blog/archives/002540.html

http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/20060620_kidnapped_soldiers_tortured_killed/

http://www.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=34730

 

[seycyrus]

My post highlighted torture, rape and other abuses of detainees' human rights while in US custody, as reported by the general who headed up the Abu Ghraib abuse probe. Abusing and torturing prisoners gains us nothing, while empowering radicals who already hold anti US views.

This is pure poppycock that is being repeated ad nauseum by the liberals. Newsflash: The US wasn't popular in the muslim world EVER. 911 happened before abu grahib!

Want more of our soldiers killed or wounded in suicide bombings? Keep abusing detainees, keep them locked up without evidence or charges, and offer them no access to legal protections. Best of all, have the Cheney/Limbaugh torture-cheerleading play out in public. The right-wing just doesn't get it.

Better check out Obama's plans for "preventative detention".

 

[DaveC426913]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/20/AR2006062000242.html

http://www.westernresistance.com/blog/archives/002540.html

http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/20060620_kidnapped_soldiers_tortured_killed/

http://www.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=34730

Well, 3 of these articles are about the same two soldiers, and I didn't find reference to the forms of torture used. What if they were "merely" waterboarded?

The fourth article also mentions torture but not what kind. (I may have missed something.)


If you're going to take a stance that "their torture" is worse than "our torture", you're going to have to demonstrate that it is so. Until then, the argument doesn't fly.

Which means we're back to "we're the good guys so let's not torture".

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I admit that I brought up those practices in response to Ivan bringing them up without a specific citable example in mind.

I brought them up because you were indicating that using something as a last resort makes it okay. So I was asking what else is okay to use as a last resort.

Doesn't the ticking time bomb argument justify the more extreme forms of torture mentioned? By that logic, isn't it justified to use any form of torture necessary if we can "save a million lives", or even one life? Why should we draw the line at waterboarding?

What's more, shouldn't we waterboard kidnappers in order to find a child? Or, shouldn't we be willing to dismember a person who is hiding information about a serial killer - say the killer's mother? Why draw the torture line with terrorists? Why not apply it anytime another innocent life is in jeopardy?

Are you stating that you don't believe that our enemies use such tactics? I believe there is footage available online, for example, of Saddaam's sons inflicting torture on captives.

For the record, Saddam's sons were tyrants, not terrorists.

 

[turbo]

This is pure poppycock that is being repeated ad nauseum by the liberals. Newsflash: The US wasn't popular in the muslim world EVER. 911 happened before abu grahib!

Liberals like FBI and Air Force interrogators? If they think that our use of torture helps recruit terrorists, then they must be "liberals"?

In fact, military and FBI interrogators have stated that terrorists have employed the United States' use of torture and harsh interrogation techniques as a recruiting device. For instance, using the pseudonym Matthew Alexander, an Air Force senior interrogator who was in Iraq in 2006 wrote: "I learned in Iraq that the No. 1 reason foreign fighters flocked there to fight were the abuses carried out at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo. Our policy of torture was directly and swiftly recruiting fighters for al-Qaeda in Iraq."

Alexander further wrote in his November 30, 2008, Washington Post op-ed that "t's no exaggeration to say that at least half of our losses and casualties in that country have come at the hands of foreigners who joined the fray because of our program of detainee abuse."

I learned in Iraq that the No. 1 reason foreign fighters flocked there to fight were the abuses carried out at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo. Our policy of torture was directly and swiftly recruiting fighters for al-Qaeda in Iraq. The large majority of suicide bombings in Iraq are still carried out by these foreigners. They are also involved in most of the attacks on U.S. and coalition forces in Iraq. It's no exaggeration to say that at least half of our losses and casualties in that country have come at the hands of foreigners who joined the fray because of our program of detainee abuse. The number of U.S. soldiers who have died because of our torture policy will never be definitively known, but it is fair to say that it is close to the number of lives lost on Sept. 11, 2001. How anyone can say that torture keeps Americans safe is beyond me -- unless you don't count American soldiers as Americans.

Torture degrades our image abroad and complicates our working relationships with foreign law enforcement and intelligence agencies. If I were the director of marketing for al Qaeda and intent on replenishing the ranks of jihadists. I know what my first piece of marketing collateral would be. It would be a blast e-mail with an attachment. The attachment would contain a picture of Private England (sp) pointing at the stacked, naked bodies of the detainees at Abu Ghraib. The picture screams out for revenge and the day of reckoning will come. The consequences of coercive intelligence gathering will not evaporate with time.

http://mediamatters.org/research/200904200002

News flash! Not everyone who wants to stop using torture is a "liberal" - the people quoted above are experienced agents and military officers with first-hand knowledge of the damage being done, and the increased risks our military personnel face as a result. I have younger relatives in military service (as is common in this rural state) and it DOES matter to me if our treatment of prisoners makes foreign deployments more hazardous. For the record, my cousin's daughter, with whom we are very close, was prepared for deployment to Iraq when she found out that she was pregnant. She was a lieutenant in the National Guard outfit that was sent to take over Abu Ghraib after the abuses by the previous soldiers came to light.

 

[BoomBoom]

You know very well that the US enemies would not be in the practice of providing evidence of their torture.

Quite the contrary, any torture that was engaged in by terrorists would be widely publicized. Their main mission is to get media attention to spread fear, so of course they would want us to know all about their "torturous ways".

You know very well that terror groups are "publicity whores".

 

[seycyrus]

Well, 3 of these articles are about the same two soldiers, and I didn't find reference to the forms of torture used. What if they were "merely" waterboarded?"

The fourth article also mentions torture but not what kind. (I may have missed something.)

The soldiers showed physical indications that they were tortured. Indications that were evident to casual observation. I do not believe that waterboarding leaves the same telltale signs.

If you're going to take a stance that "their torture" is worse than "our torture", you're going to have to demonstrate that it is so. Until then, the argument doesn't fly.

So, you are also going on the record as claiming that you believe that terrorists don't use methods that are more extreme than waterboarding?

Which means we're back to "we're the good guys so let's not torture".

Nah, not even close. I'm arguing "We're the good guys. We might as a last resort, waterboard, but we won't electrocute, burn, or maim you."

 

[seycyrus]

Liberals like FBI and Air Force interrogators? If they think that our use of torture helps recruit terrorists, then they must be "liberals"?

Oh certainly not. I merely stated that this talking point was being touted by liberals who spout it out while keeping a blind eye to the fact that the US has never been popular in the muslim world.

A point which you do not address.

News flash! Not everyone who wants to stop using torture is a "liberal" - the people quoted above are experienced agents and military officers with first-hand knowledge of the damage being done, and the increased risks our military personnel face as a result. I have younger relatives in military service (as is common in this rural state) and it DOES matter to me if our treatment of prisoners makes foreign deployments more hazardous. For the record, my cousin's daughter, with whom we are very close, was prepared for deployment to Iraq when she found out that she was pregnant. She was a lieutenant in the National Guard outfit that was sent to take over Abu Ghraib after the abuses by the previous soldiers came to light.

News flash!

I was not defending the abuses at abu grahib. I was defending the waterboarding of the 3 terrorists.

The fact that you (and your quotedsources) find it imperative to mix the two arguments is a further indication that there *is* a difference between waterboarding KSM and the other 2 guys, and the abuses at abu grahib.

 

[seycyrus]

Quite the contrary, any torture that was engaged in by terrorists would be widely publicized. Their main mission is to get media attention to spread fear, so of course they would want us to know all about their "torturous ways".

You know very well that terror groups are "publicity whores".

Unfortunately for them, the terror groups do not directly control the media.

Indeed, one might wonder why the atrocities committed on our soldiers is virtually ignored, while any abuses by our soldiers is highlighted, but that is perhaps a topic for another thread.

 

[seycyrus]

http://video.google.com/videosearch?hl=en&rls=com.microsoft:en-us&q=al+qaeda+torture&revid=2107304607&ei=_uIeSpWmM5bflQfL--DPBQ&resnum=0&um=1&ie=UTF-8&ei=DOQeSpzhE8velQfYvozDBQ&sa=X&oi=video_result_group&resnum=4&ct=title#


http://www.nysun.com/opinion/school-of-torture/72245/

http://sweetness-light.com/archive/al-qaeda-torture-chamber-found-in-iraq

http://www.mediaresearch.org/press/2007/press20070531.asp



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQpj2bFM7s0&NR=1

 

[DaveC426913]

The soldiers showed physical indications that they were tortured. Indications that were evident to casual observation. I do not believe that waterboarding leaves the same telltale signs.

Granted. But there's cigarette burns and then there's amputation. I just don't know.

So, you are also going on the record as claiming that you believe that terrorists don't use methods that are more extreme than waterboarding?

No. The onus is on you to back up your claims that their tortures are worse than ours. I'm merely saying you haven't convinced me.
(And then, if you can back that up, to demonstrate that that then justifies how we behave. But one thing at a time.)

Nah, not even close. I'm arguing "We're the good guys. We might as a last resort, waterboard, but we won't electrocute, burn, or maim you."

I know you are. But you haven't made your case convincingly.

And frankly, I'm not comfortable with a moral equivalent of "we're slightly better than the lowest common denominator." If they step up their torture methods, does that mean we can step ours up?

As lisab eloquently put it: To allow terrorists to re-calibrate your ethics and morals is absurd.