Hannity agrees to be Waterboarded - Page 3

I know Muslims like this too! But what about Hamas, what I simply cannot wrap my head around is how can an entire community elect them to lead their country...
Like I said it's nothing against Islam, I don't know enough about it to blame it but some communities are just so radical and there are way too many of them to just say they are the exception to how peaceful regular muslims live. I mean, I know people from Egypt I think it's pretty civilized there. But what about the Kurdish? Are they not uncivilized? To me they are.

Most excellent counterpoints!

If you played Liberace at full volume and turned down the thermostat to below freezing, yes, I would consider that torture!

But seriously - the thread topic is waterboarding.

The US does not condone torture. The CIA used a harsh interrogation method which yielded crucial information from 3 high-value terrorists.

As far as "opening up yourself to having yourself tortured in return" - is there any one out there who truly thinks that terrorists are honorable? Do people understand that al Qaeda has been using torture long before there was even a debate about CIA methods? Does any one believe that now that al Qaeda will be informed as to what methods the US will use and the limits we've imposed on ourselves that they will proceed to put their knives and drills away?

The different terminology does indeed refer to different methods. What the Japanese did to our soldiers was not the method we refer to as "waterboarding". Tubes were places in a prisoner's nostrils and mouth. Water, often salt water, was pumped in. Sometimes the torturers would jump on the prisoner's stomach after it had been filled with water. This is not the method the CIA has used.


This isn't a logical argument because the US does not condone the practices you listed above. Those would in fact be considered forms of torture. The CIA used an undoubtedly harsh method of interrogation on 3 specific terrorists, but it is not torture. Only trained agents may utilize the method, and only then with the permission of the CIA director. It is closely monitored, with every step of the interrogation timed to the second. A doctor is present as well.


This comparison doesn't make sense. How can you compare a local police department using waterboarding on a (presumed) innocent civilian to what the CIA did with known high-level terrorists??? The CIA used a tough interrogation technique because al Qaeda terrorists are trying to kill us and we need to prevent them from carrying out their next attack.

The method used has to be suited to the situation, and it would have to be legal. Until recently, the method, waterboarding, was considered suitable and legal in very specific cases.

What do you mean it doesn't matter what al Qaeda is doing? As far as torture? It sure does matter to the extremely unfortunate civilians and soldiers who fall into their hands. As to being "jerks" - you are far too kind. Al Qaeda is much more than that. They are murderous barbarians with a 12th century mindset and the intelligence and ability to use 21st century technology to carry out their mission of annihilating western civilization.


Again, the method was not used on all al Qaeda prisoners, only on high-value terrorists, those who were at the top of the al Qaeda organization. Some would call them the masterminds. It is certainly acceptable for the CIA to interrogate these specific terrorists in order to safeguard the citizens of the US. The highest obligation and most important function of our government is to ensure the safety of our country to the best of its ability.




When I wrote about my grandfather it was to make a point in response to PookieBoy's quote about the terrorist Abu Zabaydah. The quote described how Zabaydah had fragments of bullets in his stomach, leg and groin, and was now being subjected to loud music while nude in a cold room. Supposedly an FBI agent was horrified at this "rough and unorthodox" treatment. I only brought up my grandfather's wounds (which I'll wager were a lot more serious than Zabaydah's - grandpa was in a hospital for a year due to his injuries) in order to point out that the terrorist's wounds were in all likelihood not life-threatening and he wasn't in such terrible shape.

So, on the other topic of my grandfather being an armed combatant - he was recognizable as being a US Marine because of his uniform. It was clear who he was, and for whom he fought. Al Qaeda terrorists wear no uniform, and fight for no country.

If in fact, my grandfather had been captured, he would have been a prisoner and certainly at the mercy of his captors.

There's a big difference between shooting a prisoner and interrogating him.

Do you really believe the CIA only tortured three people? That they only used "sanctioned harsh interogation methods"? And how are you sure? The CIA destroyed at least two of the torture tapes they made. And those are only the ones we know about. If everything was truly sanctioned there is no reason to destroy the evidence that could have used at a trial. For years they have denied the use of torture on detainees or torture memos and now we are supposed to take their word on anything as information comes out that they have been lying all along.

As for only doing torture on Al Queda you can quanitify or qualify the actions any way you want but the bottom line is that in doing so you make America a country that tortures. And once you start making exceptions where does it end. It is not about how bad Al Queda is, we know they are bad, it is how do we define America. Yes I know that Al Queda uses torture and I deplore them for it. But just because they torture does it make it right to make it our policy as well. I heard North Korea tortures, does that give us the right to torture a North Korean or an Iranian or any other nationality if the occasion arose.

And aside from the moral implications, which if I am honest with myself I could overlook on some of the terrorists as I have no love of people who murder indiscriminately, is the very real opinion of many members of the intelligence community who says torture does not work. That someone under torture will tell you whatever you want to hear under torture. Or they will give you wrong information just to stop the torture. That it makes Americans especially for our military personel overseas less safe.

In TV land I cheer when Jack Bauer defeats the bad guy even when he uses questionable methods. But that is TV land and even there the official policy is the US does not torture and Jack has to go against policy. In the real world, IMO, to have legal santions for torture, even in limited cases which is a slippery slope, is wrong. I am not saying I have rose colored glasses on that thinks if we don't torture that no one else will but the best leadership always leads by example not by exceptions.

Actually, Liberace played quite well when he wanted to, IMO. To me, torture would be playing Lawrence Welk's acordian music at full volume with him announsing....... anaone!, anatwo! at every song and turning down the thermostat to below freezing. Now THAT'S torture!

It is. Here's the original L.A. Times article:
Memos shed light on CIA use of sleep deprivation

This is a really interesting point in another aspect as well; that when we hear of other countries engaging in torture, it's pretty standard fare to make a blanket assessment on that fact alone (i.e., torture = bad). We don't really examine context, nor are we likely ever going to be fully aware of what actions precipitated another nation's decision to use torture, when the situation involves two foreign combatants.

It makes me wonder if those that condone (or, perhaps more accurately, don't oppose) torture within the confines of this particular discussion, could ever find a justification in another nation using torture, or if it's just one of those things that's good for "us", but not for anyone else, due to the U.S.'s (presumed) moral superiority.

It's been 3 weeks since Hannity agreed to be water boarded for charity. Has he officially chickened out?

Well, we're finally getting to hear testimony from people that were actually there, instead of the opinions of everyone's "experts".

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/...JE0iAD985FTHG4

Interesting. From the article:

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., asked whether "we would have this hearing if we were attacked this afternoon."

Graham called the hearing a "political stunt," and said Democrats were trying to judge officials who — soon after the Sept. 11, 2001 terror attacks — "woke up one morning like most Americans and said, 'Oh my God, what's coming next.' "

You know, I might actually agree with this if the people who ordered and conducted the investigations showed any sense of remorse. I think people could relate if the previous administration's policy had been that the torture was regrettable but necessary. People DO remember what it was like right after 9-11 and I think there would be some degree of understanding if they had just come out and admitted, "Look, we know it's not right, but we thought it was in the best interest of the country to use these techniques under the circumstances." That never happened though. Instead, they simply dug their heels into the ground and declared that there was absolutely nothing wrong with what they did and even as late as 2007 they opposed legislation outlawing the techniques.

.....but Mancow Muller, a conservative radio host in Chicago, decided to do it. He stated that he didn't want to say it, but it was torture.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/l...5701765.column

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9TzGGsVt60

And Ohlberman donated $10000 to his charity ($2000 for each of the 5 seconds he lasted).

Good on him! Anyone who says it isn't torture should definitely put their money where their mouth is.

You know what worries me though? That school bullies are going to try it on their victims.

They've got to be kidding. Isolation tanks are cool! You have no idea what kind of groovy little thoughts live inside your head until you've spent time in sensory deprivation.

are you willing to give up by not waterboarding a terrorist? If someone knew of a plan to set off a nuke in Chicago, they darn well better be waterboarded to get the info. Don't forget, its the terrorists choice to be tortured. Just tell the truth, and they won't be waterboarded. Any means is ok with me to save innocent American lives. I don't know how there can be a debate.

Unless the truth is that they in fact don't know anything of consequence. So if they're then waterboarded anyway, with the assumption being that their lack of knowledge is a lie, then the choice was pretty much taken out of their hands, methinks.

Just saying, that's a likely scenario, since neither a hardened terrorist nor an innocent civillian is going to admit to inpropriety of their own volition, but for different reasons (the civillian has nothing to say, and the terrorist just isn't going to freely say it...and it's possible no one will realize which category the accused fits into even after drastic measures are administered).

So, you could say the end justifies the means - and perhaps rightfully so, if, say, you have a 100% success rate...but there's really no end-game scenario here, is there. Is someone that still has nothing to say even after waterboarding, considered a terrorist who just "wouldn't talk"? Is someone who squeals after waterboarding always a terrorist, instead of someone that will say anything to avoid more waterboarding?

Just sayin'.

From everything I've been hearing, you don't get the truth from someone who is being tortured. A lot of these people were cooperating and telling the truth, until the torture started. If you are being tortured, it stands to reason you'll say anything you think your torturer wants to hear to get them to stop. I know I would.

As far as saving innocent American lives - I'm all for doing that, but not when what we're doing becomes a recruitment tool for gathering even more people who want to do us harm. And even beyond that, how can we tell others to take the moral high ground if we aren't taking it?