It was pretty darn fun to watch feisty 5 foot 10 rooster Ellis Henican getting into the rhetorical grill of a snarling, 6 foot 4 Bill O'Reilly about torture. (Henican is against it). At one point, Henican, a Newsday columnist and local New York talk show host, provoked The Big Fat Head into rising up out of his chair. Spittle flowed from his snarling piehole taxing the capacities of his spittle catchers.
If it were a boxing match, it would have been stopped. Bill O'Reilly kept trying to clinch, interrupting nearly every sentence Fox News contributor Ellis Henican threw that wasn't going the way Bill wanted - which was pretty much every one of them. Bill O'Reilly was bloodied to the point he had to be bleeped - "torture, my ass." The only thing that saved Bill was the commercial bell.
"Stop, just answer my questions," Bill said as he stopped Henican from answering one of his questions.
Sweet.
"Stop, just answer my questions," Bill said as he stopped Henican from answering one of his questions.
Sweet.
That was an entertaining program. I agree with Henican that torture is wrong. Of course he is misguided in thinking that freshman hazing, aka waterboarding is torture. But he is a typical lib and that is one of the rules to be a lib.
The Director of the CIA at the time of the Al Quada hazing expressed how well the program worked. That the gumment got more information out of the bad guys under that program than all of the other sources (including the CIA, FBI etc) combined.
Our gumment stopped the attack on the Library Tower (aka US Bank building) in Los Angeles and the successful blocking of the destruction of the Brooklyn Bridge in New York by those shitweasels in sandals. NY has suffered enough.
How many lives were saved?
Posted by: chucks | April 23, 2009 at 04:31 PM
Sorry chuckster, but you're wrong. The US has never, ever, gleaned any usable intel from torture, including your favorite for hazing detainees, waterboarding. Even McSame said that. You'll just have to find another reason to lower America's standards all the way down to the level of the countries that you hate.
Posted by: Mack | April 23, 2009 at 05:16 PM
We don't know that to be fact.
The cell leader was arrested in 2002, which means the waterboarding was a wasted effort after the fact.
Any 'plot' was a dead letter.
The Library Tower? Is that the best that Bush's torture apologists can do?
How many have died during torture, 16? I guess when we have people overseas and they are tortured how many rethugs will cry foul?
Bushler called it the Liberty Tower, it's hard to believe anything he says, even when coached.
Posted by: Coiler | April 23, 2009 at 05:26 PM
Daniel Pearl......
Sgt Keith Matthew Maupin......
Posted by: chucks | April 23, 2009 at 07:36 PM
Pfc Joseph J Anzack......
Pvt Byron W Fouty......
Posted by: chucks | April 23, 2009 at 07:47 PM
PFC Kristian Manchaca.........
PFC Thomas L Tucker.........
Posted by: chucks | April 23, 2009 at 07:56 PM
Spc Alex R Jimenez.........
How far do I need to go?
Every one of these fine young men were provided at least 3 of the four treatments by our enemy's.
Tortured
Mutilated
Beheaded
Captured
Forgive me if I don't give a shit about waterboarding, which only frightens the enemy.
Posted by: chucks | April 23, 2009 at 08:03 PM
That confrontation was fun but even more fun is on the way. On May 11th, Randi Rhodes will debut on the Premiere Radio Network live from Washington, DC weekdays from Noon-3pm PT. Rejoice everyone. Your Goddess is back in full effect.
Posted by: mrogi | April 23, 2009 at 08:11 PM
Good. She will help us on our crusade to crush the nuts of the gop.
Posted by: Coiler | April 23, 2009 at 08:14 PM
Evidently chuck wasn't paying attention during the last administration, when it became apparent to everyone else that cowboy diplomacy is a total failure.
And Coiler, if the Bushites have any nuts, they're located between their pointy ears.
Posted by: Mack | April 23, 2009 at 09:33 PM
chucks, go online to the new york times, you dont have to buy it, and read the op ed contribution from the fbi agent in charge of interrogations for seven years (april 22) He was there with the worst of the terroists, according to him the best information we got from detainees was not from waterboarding, and the blowback from the CIA and the world will last for decades to come.
Posted by: dave (not dave ross) | April 23, 2009 at 09:47 PM
Anybody got a list of dead people from WWII? I wonder if chucks ever had a Mercedes in his garage...
I didn't know that beheading was considered torture. Is hanging considered torture? What about electrocution?
Capture is torture? I guess Ted Bundy got tortured, too. Wasn't he put to death?
America has a pretty serious record for torturing its own citizens.
Next idiot please?
Posted by: joanie | April 23, 2009 at 10:02 PM
"Waterboarding is a controlled drowning that, in the American model, occurs under the watch of a doctor, a psychologist, an interrogator and a trained strap-in/strap-out team. It does not simulate drowning, as the lungs are actually filling with water. There is no way to simulate that. The victim is drowning. How much the victim is to drown depends on the desired result (in the form of answers to questions shouted into the victim’s face) and the obstinacy of the subject. A team doctor watches the quantity of water that is ingested and for the physiological signs which show when the drowning effect goes from painful psychological experience, to horrific suffocating punishment to the final death spiral.
Waterboarding is slow motion suffocation with enough time to contemplate the inevitability of black out and expiration –usually the person goes into hysterics on the board. For the uninitiated, it is horrifying to watch and if it goes wrong, it can lead straight to terminal hypoxia. When done right it is controlled death. Its lack of physical scarring allows the victim to recover and be threaten with its use again and again."
"Torture advocates hide behind the argument that an open discussion about specific American interrogation techniques will aid the enemy. Yet, convicted Al Qaeda members and innocent captives who were released to their host nations have already debriefed the world through hundreds of interviews, movies and documentaries on exactly what methods they were subjected to and how they endured. In essence, our own missteps have created a cadre of highly experienced lecturers for Al Qaeda’s own virtual SERE school for terrorists."
By employing torture we have created our own demons who may come back to haunt us in the future, not because they were originally inclined to, but because we ourselves pushed them to."
Posted by: sparky | April 23, 2009 at 10:03 PM
Henican brings up some good points on occasion. However, he sounds like a girly man here. Let us be good and rise above them while the terrorists capture Americans or other prisoners and behead them.
Waterboarding and so called torture is similar to gays in the military - don't ask don't tell.
The jury is still out whether waterboarding is torture or not. OK, we can try it their way - without torture and see where it gets us. My prediction - Nowhere !
The enemy will know that we are toothless because we were so transparent in telegraphing it, in spite of what progressive/ regressives like Ph(J)oanie want to believe. Stupid is as stupid does - we are fighting a war against an enemy that wants to brutally kill us.
Posted by: KS | April 23, 2009 at 10:21 PM
"Capture is torture? I guess Ted Bundy got tortured, too. Wasn't he put to death?"
"Next idiot please?"
Can't wait til May 11th.
Posted by: nevets | April 23, 2009 at 10:23 PM
Sparky, why do you try so hard. I'm sure you're going to disappoint chucks again. He'd much rather believe his own drivel.
"Beliefs" don't depend on facts or truth.
And, Dave, (not Ross), the NY Times is an untrustworthy liberal paper that prints nothing but lies.
See, chucks, I saved you the time and effort of saying it yourself.
Posted by: joanie | April 23, 2009 at 10:24 PM
O'Reilly nearly shit a brick. It was funny, and Henican was all man. O'Reilly looked like a sputtering old fool.
Posted by: Marie F | April 23, 2009 at 10:26 PM
Maria F and other sympathizers - If we broadcast to the world that we will not torture, we are playing into the hands of the enemy. Much like the story about the scorpion and the frog, where we are the frog who like Jimmy Carter will trust the rogue nations that harbor terrorists and they (the rogue nations/Al Qaeda) would be the scorpion that would sting and kill the frog, because that is their nature.
Posted by: KS | April 23, 2009 at 10:37 PM
"Waterboarding and so called torture is similar to gays in the military"
really?
Posted by: Coiler | April 23, 2009 at 10:49 PM
Bamboo shoots under finger nails.
Having your fingers smashed with a hammer one by one.
Getting your teeth pulled out with pliers.
Placed in a cage and lowered into a rat infested Mekong river tributory.
Buried up to your neck in an ant hill.
Now those are torture. Having a doctor supervise a terrorists bath is not torture. Its a courtesy incase they hurt themself by slipping on a bar of soap.
Posted by: nevets | April 23, 2009 at 10:49 PM
Who knew what and when?
Nancy Pelosi, April 23, 2009:
"In that or any other briefing…we were not, and I repeat, we're not told that waterboarding or any of these other enhanced interrogation techniques were used"
The Washington Post, December 9, 2007:
"In September 2002, four members of Congress met in secret for a first look at a unique CIA program designed to wring vital information from reticent terrorism suspects in U.S. custody. For more than an hour, the bipartisan group, which included current House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), was given a virtual tour of the CIA's overseas detention sites and the harsh techniques interrogators had devised to try to make their prisoners talk."
"Among the techniques described, said two officials present, was waterboarding..."
Posted by: nevets | April 23, 2009 at 11:11 PM
See, Sparky, stupidity is irreversible. You just have to hope it dies out. I used to think it was a recessive gene. Now I'm not so sure.
Posted by: joanie | April 23, 2009 at 11:18 PM
I agree.
Hey KS, looks like Dickless Cheney wont have to send his daughter out anymore to help boost his version of the facts. He can just send you to try to justify what he and Condi and Rummy authorized.
Posted by: sparky | April 23, 2009 at 11:31 PM
It was hillairous when Clinton got one over on Roarabacher. She had the crowd laughing
Posted by: Coiler | April 23, 2009 at 11:36 PM
Soldier kills herself after refusing to take part in torture
Alyssa Peterson
Posted by: Coiler | April 24, 2009 at 06:05 PM
"Hey KS, looks like Dickless Cheney wont have to send his daughter out anymore to help boost his version of the facts. He can just send you to try to justify what he and Condi and Rummy authorized."
The comment is pointless and what they did I can agree with, but not the way they did it. And your point was ? Give Al Qaeda and other radical Islamists who would just as soon spit in your face and slit your throat a break ? WTF ? If Democrats had authorized this, I doubt if I would hear much from you and Ph(J)oanie, even if they didn't go thru the proper channels as Bush/Cheney didn't. Your comment still smacks of hyperpartisanism.
Since Obama has come out opposed to prosecting them for purported war crimes because he realized that the fallout would hurt his future as President, that ship has sailed.. There should be an investigation about this.
Posted by: KS | April 24, 2009 at 06:29 PM
Not to mention, below.. Why not impeach Speaker (Mussolini) Pelosi for lieing... Yeah, that would get about as far as the Bush/Cheney impeachment.
Pelosi briefed on waterboarding in '02 [UPDATED]
Nancy Pelosi denies knowing U.S. officials used waterboarding — but GOP operatives are pointing to a 2007 Washington Post story which describes an hour-long 2002 briefing in which Pelosi was told about enhanced interrogation techniques in graphic detail.
Two unnamed officials told the paper that Pelosi, then a member of the Democratic minority, didn't raise substantial objections.
Joby Warrick and Dan Eggen wrote:
In September 2002, four members of Congress met in secret for a first look at a unique CIA program designed to wring vital information from reticent terrorism suspects in U.S. custody. For more than an hour, the bipartisan group, which included current House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), was given a virtual tour of the CIA's overseas detention sites and the harsh techniques interrogators had devised to try to make their prisoners talk.
Among the techniques described, said two officials present, was waterboarding, a practice that years later would be condemned as torture by Democrats and some Republicans on Capitol Hill. But on that day, no objections were raised. Instead, at least two lawmakers in the room asked the CIA to push harder, two U.S. officials said.
UPDATE: A Pelosi spokesman passes along her response to the article when it first appeared, claiming that Pelosi's successor on the intel committee -- Yep, Jane Harman -- lodged a protest with the CIA when she learned waterboarding was in use.
"On one occasion, in the fall of 2002, I was briefed on interrogation techniques the Administration was considering using in the future. The Administration advised that legal counsel for the both the CIA and the Department of Justice had concluded that the techniques were legal.
Posted by: KS | April 24, 2009 at 06:53 PM
"The administration advised...the techniques were legal"... key words
meanwhile a soldier killed herself over this
Posted by: Coiler | April 24, 2009 at 07:14 PM
I would like to see both Pelosi and Reid gone so we could have real Democrats in those positions.
" If Democrats had authorized this, I doubt if I would hear much from you.." But that is the point, KS, we didn't. Pretty amusing that for you its either torture or giving them a break, as if there is nothing in between that can be done. It was against the law, period. Not just in the Geneva Convention, but in the Army Field Manual. The people who planned it, authorized it and didnt speak up against it, including Pelosi and Reid, should be held accountable. Why do Cons want to let the bad guys in the Middle East set the standard for us in how we treat prisoners? Why do we want to emulate them? I thought we were better?
Posted by: sparky | April 24, 2009 at 08:04 PM
Hartmann told the story of the taxi driver "Taxi to the Dark Side" again. That just eats me up. I just can't quite imagine such an ordeal for him or his family. It is an obscene event.
The guy who was charged got two months.
Fuck you, chucks. You ought to be with him. You stand for all the people who do that sort of thing.
Sorry, Dana. Can't help it when people like chucks even try to justify such things. Why don't the rest of you find this savage?
Posted by: joanie | April 24, 2009 at 08:31 PM
The Geneva Convention argument is bullcrap. That only applies to combatants that represent a country. What country does Al-Qaeda represent ? That is a liberal and technically wrong interpretation of the Geneva Convention. If you don't believe that, look it up.
"Why do Cons want to let the bad guys in the Middle East set the standard for us in how we treat prisoners?"
And what do you and the progressives propose ? to sound like Rodney King and exclaim - Why can't we just get along ? That would have an astounding effect - NOT ! BTW, the military never has and never will beheaded prisoners. Weak arguments..
Posted by: KS | April 24, 2009 at 09:17 PM
Sorry joanie, but if you want sex, it shall not be with me. I would not let that stinky thing of yours near me. You can just go fuck yourself.
So, this is where this is going. OK, I guess that I can play. But it really disturbs me that you can get so excited about PFC Manchanca being captured, tortured, mutilated and having his head decapitated, while he was still alive and then having his body dumped in the desert to rot.
You really are a moron. Kind of a foul old hag at that. Enjoy your lonely old life. You really do not have anything to post that I want to read. I really pity your very being. Kind of sad really. I really hate to see an old woman suffer. So, in your case, I will just close my eyes.
Posted by: chucks, not some liberal piss-ant | April 24, 2009 at 09:43 PM
Meanwhile ,a soldier killed herself over this...
Posted by: Coiler | April 24, 2009 at 09:43 PM
And that is sad, Coiler, very very sad.
Posted by: chucks, not some liberal piss-ant | April 24, 2009 at 09:52 PM
Good spleen venting, Chucks !
Posted by: KS | April 24, 2009 at 10:15 PM
KS is the Army Field Guide bullcrap? Apparently you don't understand that the Geneva Convention rulings were put in place to help all soldiers, even Americans? You think that is Bullcrap? Hey, support those troops, KS!
Why do you assume that when someone is against torture, it means they want to give the bad guys a hug?
Are you only capable of thinking in extremes?? And because we don't behead people that makes everything else we do ok? What about all the people who are actually in the military who think torture was a bad idea and should never ever happen again?
Even your Contract with America guy, Newtie G. said:
"There is no place for abuse in what must be considered the family of man. There is no place for torture and arbitrary detention. There is no place for forced confessions. The roots of American rule of law go back more than 700 years, to the signing of the Magna Carta. The foundation of American values, therefore, is not a passing priority or a temporary trend."
My argument is not weak just because you see everything in black and white.
Posted by: sparky | April 24, 2009 at 10:41 PM
Got that KS. Those terrorist that crashed those 4 planes on 9/11 were not suicidal hi-jacking terrorists. No, they were flight crews for an enemy without a country. Thus they get the protections of the Geneva Conventions. So says Sparky.
"Apparently you don't understand that the Geneva Convention rulings were put in place to help all soldiers"
Posted by: nevets | April 24, 2009 at 11:36 PM
Yknow Coiler, if you do a little digging instead of falling in line, you might find some inconsistencies in Alyssa Petersons death as told by Mr. Elston and Greg Mitchell.
A hint...M4
Posted by: nevets | April 25, 2009 at 12:09 AM
why don't you tell her folks that steven
Posted by: Coiler | April 25, 2009 at 12:47 AM
"Fuck you, chucks. You ought to be with him. You stand for all the people who do that sort of thing."
A terrible thing for you to say about chuck who has always seemed fair, straightforward and honest in his posts. I doubt sparky would agree with you. It almost seems like some sort of jealousy?
Posted by: interestedobserver | April 25, 2009 at 07:14 AM
I will when and if I ever see them Coiler. Now will you do dome digging or will you just pack your bags and go along for the ride again.
Posted by: nevets | April 25, 2009 at 07:41 AM
Steven, go back and read my comment about extremes and giving them a hug. You didn't get it the first time.
Posted by: sparky | April 25, 2009 at 09:11 AM
Perhaps nevets can enlighten us on his version of what happened to Spc4 Petersen. If he's eluding to a conspiracy theory, I can't find one with a reference to an infantry rifle.
Posted by: Mack | April 25, 2009 at 11:01 AM
Probably induced by Pills Limbaugh
Posted by: Coiler | April 25, 2009 at 05:22 PM
"It was hillairous when Clinton got one over on Roarabacher. She had the crowd laughing
Posted by: Coiler | April 23, 2009 at 11:36 PM"
Oh Coiler-Sparky, actually the crowd was laughing at a Clinton trying to demean the honesty/integrity of someone else.
When she did it I immediately thought about how She and Chelsea made the helicopter landing 'under fire' that turned out to be yet another Clinton fabrication.
So laughter, yeah.
Posted by: Puget Sound | April 25, 2009 at 06:30 PM
""Fuck you, chucks. You ought to be with him. You stand for all the people who do that sort of thing."
A terrible thing for you to say about chuck who has always seemed fair, straightforward and honest in his posts. I doubt sparky would agree with you. It almost seems like some sort of jealousy?
Posted by: interestedobserver | April 25, 2009 at 07:14 AM"
Spot On Interested Observer.
Chucks -agree or disagree with him- is straightforward and honest. He is willing to listen to a counter argument and change his mind on a topic. He's not close minded. I've seen him change his mind.
Ph(J)oanie is just that: Ph(J)oanie. She claims to be an open minded and compassionate person. In actuality Ph(J)oanie is close minded and not very compassionate. You'll never catch Ph(J)oanie giving up her teaching position in one of the 'white' neighborhood schools of Seattle to help out the less fortunate down in the Ranier Valley.
F'n Ph(J)oanie.
All Hail Chucks!
And for those newer posters who may think Chucks was a little harsh on Ph(J)oanie you should understand that when Chucks lost his job ol' PH(J)oanie wasted little time mocking him. When Chucks came back from a two week sojourn down in South America to help out people less fortunate ol' Ph(J)oanie wasted little time demeaning his efforts.
For Ph(J)oanie, all things are political.
Posted by: Puget Sound | April 25, 2009 at 06:42 PM
Oh, thank you Putz for what must be an obvious slight on Mrs Clinton's part of not knowing how fucking popular Dick Cheney must still be these days and the not observing the proper decorum of a shit weasel like said asshole.
Posted by: Coiler | April 25, 2009 at 07:25 PM
"Oh, thank you Putz for what must be an obvious slight on Mrs Clinton's part of not knowing how fucking popular Dick Cheney must still be these days and the not observing the proper decorum of a shit weasel like said asshole.
Posted by: Coiler | April 25, 2009 at 07:25 PM"
No problemo,
I didn't realize you were such a strong believer in Clinton Integrity.
Go ahead, defend that. ha ha ha.
Posted by: Puget Sound | April 25, 2009 at 07:36 PM
Say 'hi-ya' to Sparkles whilst slinking away, Coils!
Posted by: Puget Sound | April 25, 2009 at 07:44 PM
Oh I read your post Sparky. And I got it. You believe those responsible for 9/11 are soldiers and those who would do the same are granted protections under the Geneva Conventions. Its clear as day in there. look...
"Apparently you don't understand that the Geneva Convention rulings were put in place to help all soldiers"
What else could you imply with that statement?
Posted by: nevets | April 25, 2009 at 07:52 PM