"It was instantaneous... and I don't want to say this: absolutely torture."
He's neither man nor cow, but despite Mancow has distinguishable characteristics of each, he spoke the truth, today, (and then, staying true to his 'man' side... he milked it for all it was worth).
Conservative Chicago radio icon Mancow (real name, Erich Muller) has made his share of right-wing crotch-jock remarks over the years in order to spit in the eye of political correctness, raise his ratings and compensate for his presumably tiny member.
But to his credit, the fat-mouthed lout allowed himself to be waterboarded last week and now says: YES, IT'S TORTURE! But by putting water where his mouth is, he's raised himself in the estimation of the world, and distinguished himself from the other cowardly, but strutting broadcast hawks who give such a trial only lip service.
He lasted 6 seconds.
He later told Huffpo's Rachel Weiner: "It is way worse than I thought it'd be, and that's no joke," Mancow said. "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."
Sean Hannity?
Mancow is no punk in the mean miniverse of 2nd tier talk hosts -- he often attends Fox News fair 'n'-balance fests to say things like Howard Dean is "bloodthirsty," "vile," "evil," "ought to be kicked out of America" and "tried for treason."
6 whole seconds? I bet Manly Sean Hannity could last for 10..
Posted by: sparky | May 22, 2009 at 08:52 PM
of course it's torture. so is keeping someone awake or even keeping them in a 5 by 7 cell.
but it it is a high value target with important information i am glad that they will have to go through it.
it will not cause perm damage. it isn't like what the Japanese did during WW2 using salt water and doing it not to get information rather doing it to inflict pain for the sake of inflicting pain on the enemy.
Posted by: PugetSound | May 22, 2009 at 09:00 PM
Oh I see, it's torture with a heart!
Posted by: Mark C. | May 22, 2009 at 09:27 PM
no, its something we use on our own people.
was the information it gleaned worth it?
mark c., would you rather not have been able to stop a terrorist attack like the second one planned for LA?
will you answer that, mark c?
yes, the person will say many things and yes some of it -all of it may be false- so your professionals will have to run it down. for KSM we got important information.
who out there is willing to forego a non lethal - non perm technique to extract important information on targets of high value?
Posted by: PugetSound | May 22, 2009 at 09:33 PM
Charles Krauthammer
"Torture is an impermissible evil. Except under two circumstances. The first is the ticking time bomb. An innocent’s life is at stake. The bad guy you have captured possesses information that could save this life. He refuses to divulge. In such a case, the choice is easy. Even John McCain, the most admirable and estimable torture opponent, says openly that in such circumstances, “You do what you have to do.” And then take the responsibility.
Some people, however, believe you never torture. Ever. They are akin to conscientious objectors who will never fight in any war under any circumstances, and for whom we correctly show respect by exempting them from war duty. But we would never make one of them Centcom commander. Private principles are fine, but you don’t entrust such a person with the military decisions upon which hinges the safety of the nation. It is similarly imprudent to have a person who would abjure torture in all circumstances making national security decisions upon which depends the protection of 300 million countrymen.
The second exception to the no-torture rule is the extraction of information from a high-value enemy in possession of high-value information likely to save lives. This case lacks the black-and-white clarity of the ticking time bomb scenario. We know less about the length of the fuse or the nature of the next attack. But we do know the danger is great. We know we must act but have no idea where or how — and we can’t know that until we have information. Catch-22.
Under those circumstances, you do what you have to do. And that includes waterboarding."
Okay, Sparky, Mark C., Coiler, anyone want to say in either of those two situations you would not use a non lethal technique to gain important information to save the lives of innocents?
Ah, but then you'll say it won't work.
Please read a little more from Charles Krauthammer:
"Did it work? The current evidence is fairly compelling. George Tenet said that the “enhanced interrogation” program alone yielded more information than everything gotten from “the FBI, the Central Intelligence Agency and the National Security Agency put together.”
Michael Hayden, CIA director after waterboarding had been discontinued, writes (with former Attorney General Michael Mukasey) that “as late as 2006 ... fully half of the government’s knowledge about the structure and activities of al-Qaeda came from those interrogations.” Even Dennis Blair, Obama’s director of national intelligence, concurs that these interrogations yielded “high value information.” So much for the lazy, mindless assertion that torture never works.
Asserts Blair’s predecessor, Mike McConnell, “We have people walking around in this country that are alive today because this process happened.” Of course, the morality of torture hinges on whether at the time the information was important enough, the danger great enough and our blindness about the enemy’s plans severe enough to justify an exception to the moral injunction against torture."
Posted by: PugetSound | May 22, 2009 at 09:45 PM
Puts, you watch wayyyyyy too much
"24."
Posted by: sparky | May 22, 2009 at 09:55 PM
Charles Krauthammer, lol psst, the info from KSM was after the Library Tower was already averted, ok?
"that plot was foiled in 2002. But Sheikh Mohammed wasn't captured until March 2003."
BTW Puts, we executed Japanese officers who took part in waterboarding.
"I forgot to mention last night that following World War II war crime trials were convened. The Japanese were tried and convicted and hung for war crimes committed against American POWs. Among those charges for which they were convicted was waterboarding," [McCain] told reporters at a campaign event.
"If the United States is in another conflict ... and we have allowed that kind of torture to be inflicted upon people we hold captive, then there is nothing to prevent that enemy from also torturing American prisoners."
McCain is referencing the Tokyo Trials, officially known as the International Military Tribunal for the Far East. After World War II, an international coalition convened to prosecute Japanese soldiers charged with torture. At the top of the list of techniques was water-based interrogation, known variously then as "water cure," "water torture" and "waterboarding," according to the charging documents. It simulates drowning.
Posted by: Coiler | May 22, 2009 at 09:55 PM
Maybe it would just be better accross the board if those shitweasels in sandals would just decide to quit attacking Americans, American interests, American allies and just get back to killing and maiming each other like in the good old days.
We certainly would not need to use our inhanced interview techniques under those circumstances. That would make you, me and every other peace loving American happy.
Posted by: chucks | May 22, 2009 at 09:59 PM
actually, coiler there was a second attack planned and that is the one we averted.
i mentioned the WW2 and noted the difference. the Japanese were actually killing people with this. we don't kill people.
so why pull the Dodge? I asked you in the post above would you be willing to use a non lethal method to gain information in order to save the lives of innocent people?
Posted by: PugetSound | May 22, 2009 at 10:03 PM
Puts, you watch wayyyyyy too much
"24."
Posted by: sparky | May 22, 2009 at 09:55 PM
i've never watched an episode of 24 in my life. seriously.
how come you guys pull the Dodge on this issue?
Candidate Obama use to throw out crap like this until HE became President and then had to act like an adult.
All of suddent THEN the Bush policies became acceptable. Oh he'll play with 'em at the margins to make the case he improved them but they remain the same.
Close Gitmo...ah, not so fast.
End Military Tribunals...ah, not so fast
Withdraw from Afghanistan...ah, not so fast
Out of Iraq now!...ah, not so fast
Begin the Bush Impeachment...ah, not so fast.
End the USAPATRIOT Act...ah, not so fast.
The Far Left Dims....ah, evidently they are not so fast.
Posted by: PugetSound | May 22, 2009 at 10:07 PM
just read the krauthammer article above and tell me how you would act.
try it. he's a paraplegic. he can't hurt you. but he can make you think a bit.
Randi fans, don't try that at home...it would be such an unnatural act that you probably would go into seizure.
Posted by: PugetSound | May 22, 2009 at 10:11 PM
McCain has said he is against it, Churchill too. Why read some armchair columnist when others in battle have said it's wrong.
Posted by: Coiler | May 22, 2009 at 10:49 PM
Way to go, Mancow... Now it's Olberfurher's turn to put his money where his piehole is. Doubtful if he will do it.
The liberal progressives loudmouths are all talk, flatulence and gutless. Case and point - they berate Krauthammer for being a paraplegic - nice cheap shot - dickweeds. Nothing substantive, just a cheap shot.
Reminds me of the TV show - "The View" 3 left wing hags and a token conservative of modest intelligence to bash. I'd rather watch Jerry Springer. Ph(J)oanie and Sparky seem to like to emulate Joy Behar, Babwa Wawa and Whippi Goldberg.
"McCain has said he is against it, Churchill too."
Ward Churchill ? I can believe that. McCain spent too much time as a POW - courageous, but misguided. Seems like Bush and Obama are on the same page here - Cheney is the outlier (not out liar for the benefit of the liberal progressives with limited reading comprehension).
Posted by: KS | May 22, 2009 at 11:10 PM
I think I missed something here. Where was the torture? I went through worse in crossing the equator becoming a shellback. All I seen here was a guy get some water poured over his face. Try plucking a cherry or piece of squid from a fat guys belly thats greased up, was that torture.
And this was nothing like what Hitchens went through and he did it three time and on his best try he lasted 19 seconds. The only things that they both had in common is water and a board.
Posted by: nevets | May 22, 2009 at 11:26 PM
if you consider abu ghrabe (?) and the idea that this was done to some guy eight times a day you get the sense maybe it was more for the lulz than the secret al quieda (?) info
Posted by: AuthenticAndrew | May 23, 2009 at 12:33 AM
McCain has said he is against it, Churchill too. Why read some armchair columnist when others in battle have said it's wrong.
Posted by: Coiler | May 22, 2009 at 10:49 PM
McCain stated that in the two examples cited by the 'armchair' columnist that he would indeed use waterboarding.
C'mon, what would you do. Easy to pontificate what you wouldn't do but lets hear what you would do in the two scenarios. BTW, these are not '24' scenarios that will never happen. At least one of them did with Khalid Sheik Mohammed. AND we got important information that foiled the second planned attack on LA.
Coiler, Sparky, Highlander, Drew, Andrew, lets hear what you WOULD do in the two scenarios cited. Other techniques failed. Khalid Sheik Mohammed had said 'you'll find out' when asked about other planned attacks.
The fact that you can't answer is the reason why the far left won't be trusted with the tough decisions of being Commander in Chief.
And if you are referring to Winston Churchill, i hate to break it to you but Churchill was a tough ol sob. Read some history and you will find that that quote of Pres Obama was way off target. (he needs someone to vet his material better prior to putting it on the prompter).
Posted by: PugetSound | May 23, 2009 at 05:39 AM
"President Obama has used his declassification authority to reveal what happens in the interrogation of terrorists.
Now let him use that same power to show Americans what did not happen thanks to the good work of our intelligence officials."
Why would Pres Obama want to hide that important info from the American people?
Hmmm...but hey, why did Sandy Scissorhand Berger (the Nat Security Advisor to Bill Clinton) literally steal original documents out of the National Archives before the 911 Commission...but I digress.
Anyone want to know what we found out via waterboarding?
Posted by: PugetSound | May 23, 2009 at 06:34 AM
PS you didn't really expect 'the crew' to give you an answer did you. Once again confounded by the facts they remain.
Posted by: HoChiMinh | May 23, 2009 at 08:06 AM
Yep Ho.
My question was so basic.
It's kind of funny, they want to be taken seriously. When they get a chance to sit at the grown ups table all they can do is go for a ride in Sparky's Dodge.
Maybe they'll take a ride up to the treatment center and visit ph(J)oanie....
Posted by: Puget Sound | May 23, 2009 at 09:02 AM
I do think that the RNC went a little far in this ad on Pelosi
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0509/22882.html
Posted by: Puget Sound | May 23, 2009 at 09:05 AM
omg..you guys think "armchair columnist" means a slam against paraplegics???
And steven says..."Try plucking a cherry or piece of squid from a fat guys belly thats greased up, was that torture." wtf???????????????????????????????
omg....you guys are going to pull a muscle with all this reaching..
Puts, you're in charge....have a great weekend sitting in front of your computer waiting for someone, ANYONE, to talk to you guys, I am packing the car and am off to have some fun, er..cower in my corner, because, as Duffman put it, I am confounded by your collective greatness..in fact, I am blinded by the greatness of it. I could never hope to being able to measure up in my weak and ill-informed responses!!
Enjoy!
Posted by: sparky | May 23, 2009 at 09:13 AM
Forgive them for they know not WTF they are saying. They all seem to have duffmanitis?
Posted by: HoChiMinh | May 23, 2009 at 09:15 AM
ha ha sparky, actually it takes seconds and then I go.
but why not answer the question in good faith?
it's why the hosts on msnbc won't bring on guests that disagree with 'em. hell, even bill oreilly brings on guests that disagree with him.
i am agreeing with you that waterboarding is torture but then saying it is acceptable to use it when:
we do not perm injure or kill and it is selectively used on a limited basis to gain important information. it saved the lives of innocent people.
do you want to go the other route and use drones to fly into Pakistan and fire missles into homes that contain suspected terrorists AND children? Pres Obama is doing that right now. you and the left have no problem with that but god forbid that Khalid Sheik Mohammed gets some water in his nose.
make sure you fill up the tank as I feel you'll be driving that Dodge for a long time.
and why are they so worried about Duff?
good question Ho.
Posted by: Puget Sound | May 23, 2009 at 09:27 AM
"omg..you guys think "armchair columnist" means a slam against paraplegics???"
"And steven says..."Try plucking a cherry or piece of squid from a fat guys belly thats greased up, was that torture." wtf???????????????????????????????"
Sparky - WTF ? You are not so reckless with your words like your comrade Ph(J)oanie, but you and her are of a similar misguided mind set, based on dysfunction.
What in the hell are trying to
say other than you condone the way Krauthammer was slammed ? Besides cowardice, it showed no class. If they disagree with him, go at it on its merits no by citing his handicap, which has little or nothing to do with the guy's comments.
That's one more reason why a simple majority of Americans including a number of us on this leftist feigning entertainment blog are pissed off at the liberal progressives.
Posted by: KS | May 23, 2009 at 12:28 PM
Wow. There is a lot of dysfunction here. Torture is for ignorant bullies who, lacking any intellectual tools, lash out like children and try to force square pegs into round holes and think they can beat the answers they want out of people. Like trying to make Abu Zubaydah confess to an Iraq-al Qaida connection that didn't exist. Water boarding is simulated drowning; the suffocation is not simulated. Some of these people must have skipped the biology or first aid courses that explained the brain damage caused by oxygen deprivation. Mancow probably didn't suffer much damage after 6 seconds (insert your guess for his derangement here), but one suspects our detainees were not allowed to stop the torture when it became too much.
No, we don't intentionally kill people that are not armed and shooting at us. But we've been hiding detainees from the UN and the Red Cross for 7 years. So we don't really know the answer to that, nor do we know the extent of damage detainees have suffered. It took the aftermath of the Church Committee investigations of 1975 to make assassination and murder stop happening institutionally. Perhaps the current investigations will remind some of those people what they are really fighting for.
We are the United States of America. We hold ourselves to a higher standard. We don't pull the wings off of flies. Our pride doesn't come from taking the easy way out or bullying our way to the top of the food chain. We hold certain truths to be self-evident; one of which is that all men are created equal with unalienable rights (regardless of whether they are citizens of this country or not). And that whenever any form of our Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the American people to alter it. If you think there is a time and place for torture, and you think that our judicial and penal systems are inadequate to the task of protecting our people while respecting basic rights and freedoms, there are still a handful of countries out there that lack respect for human rights and institutionalize sadism. Maybe you should go to one of them and start your master race.
Why anyone would trust Charles Krauthammer's opinion is beyond me. Has he ever been accurate?
Posted by: LucasFoxx | May 23, 2009 at 03:36 PM
All of your blather is real sweet on paper Lucas, but when my children, wife or parents are at risk of harm and Abba dabba Desert rodent has the information as to where that harm is comming from, by whom and how. Well, fuck your twentieth century rules and girly treaty's, I am getting that information out of him. If his sorry ass lies to me, I will come at him harder.
You don't get to hurt my loved ones and just expect me to watch and mourn. You don't get to kill my countrymen and think that I am just going to wait and see how you did it.
We expect that kind of coward talk out of the women on this blog. They are women.
Where the fuck all of these pussyfied men come from shocks the crap out of me. Man up and handle they enemy and quit talking and acting like pussy's.
Posted by: Buzzard Barf | May 23, 2009 at 04:43 PM
So Buzzard Barf,lets reverse this scenario that you envisage.
If you were captured would it be OK to torture you?
Would it be OK to torture your wife, children and parents in front of you?
And if not, why not ?
And if torture works so well why don't we use it all the time for murder / rape suspects etc? Sure seems like it would save a lot of time.
A logical thought out answer would suffice.
Posted by: ExPatBrit | May 23, 2009 at 05:43 PM
It is unlikely that BB would be captured in a position to harm women and children, or any other non-combat involved citizen. BB is not that kind of low life scumball.
Torture is generally unacceptable, however on rare occasion a valuable tool in extracting information. We can debate until the next blue moon as to whether water boarding is torture. It is a valuable investigative tool to be used under limited circumstances. It has been used under extremely limited circumstances by our protector class.
Who's wife and children have been tortured? None, that is a non issue. Three ass holes were aggressively questioned by the CIA. The CIA got what we needed from the clowns that had the information. Good job CIA.
Maybe Gary Ridgway should have been waterboarded when he first came up as a suspect. Maybe there would be 20 or 30 less dead hookers. Maybe some of those women would have gone on to happy productive lives. But they were just whores to many of you and perhaps not worth saving.
Posted by: Buzzard Barf | May 23, 2009 at 06:09 PM
And if torture works so well why don't we use it all the time for murder / rape suspects etc? Sure seems like it would save a lot of time.
A logical thought out answer would suffice.
Posted by: ExPatBrit | May 23, 2009 at 05:43 PM
why don't you tell us if you would allow for waterboarding in the two scenarios laid out by Charles Krauthammer.
1) Torture is an impermissible evil. Except under two circumstances. The first is the ticking time bomb. An innocent’s life is at stake. The bad guy you have captured possesses information that could save this life. He refuses to divulge. In such a case, the choice is easy. Even John McCain, the most admirable and estimable torture opponent, says openly that in such circumstances, “You do what you have to do.” And then take the responsibility.
2) The second exception to the no-torture rule is the extraction of information from a high-value enemy in possession of high-value information likely to save lives. This case lacks the black-and-white clarity of the ticking time bomb scenario. We know less about the length of the fuse or the nature of the next attack. But we do know the danger is great. We know we must act but have no idea where or how — and we can’t know that until we have information. Catch-22."
So, Ex Pat Brit are you telling us in those two circumstances you would not use waterboarding? Just curious if your views would be the same if instead of the second LA Attack it had been an attack up in your neck of the woods.
We await an answer, Ex Pat Brit.
Posted by: Puget Sound | May 23, 2009 at 07:34 PM
You see Sparky, the Navy was a different world before tailhook and women were allowed on real ships. Making the transition from being a Wog to becoming a shellback was a rite of passage for sailors in those days. The last time my ship went across the equator it was just another ordinary day. A few hoses, a song or two and you were a shellback.
Gone was the crawling from the fantail all the way to the focsle and back on bare knees over non-skid getting your ass pelted by shelielies made up of 2-1/2" firehoses and having eggs (both raw and hard boiled) broken over all parts of your body because you refuse to answer simple questions. Then after crawling through 2-3 week old collected scraps from the galley you got to meet the fat guy with his belly greased up to the gills and either a cherry or piece of squid sticking out of the folds of fat of his belly. If after retrieving this tasty treat and you refused to answer what you were, you were either placed in the stockades or forced to go through the whole course again. Yes it was supposed to be fun for all, but even then there were those who went overboard and eyes were averted. But afterwards, there was a steelbeach picnic and all was forgotten.
And then there was the Chief initiation which was even more abusive but that is a story that cant be told. Let be just say it involved a box with a hole where your head was able to stick out of.
So Sparky, what this Mancow went through was nothing compared to what I ever went through. It was for show and as B'lam likes to point out, for ratings. You need to get over your hate for those who protected you the last 7-1/2 years.
Now what I am confused about here is why aren't you and the rest of libs here calling for the prosecution of those who waterboarded both Hitchens and mancow. In your eyes were thier waterboarding less of a crime then those conducted on terrorist?
Posted by: nevets | May 23, 2009 at 08:29 PM
Is it OK for Sean Hannity to be waterboarded ? If you say yes because he volunteered for it, you have a strong case of a rectal-cranial inversion along with being a hypocrite.
In the case of where it could potentially mean the lives of many fellow Americans and the terrorist is not willing to speak, I see no humanitarian reason why not to waterboard this venomous subhuman in the attempt to extract vital information from him. If all other means are unsuccessful, go with it, but use that option judiciously or another option that may get him to talk. What about sleep deprivation, etc. and other methods used ? It seems to me that it has mostly to do with the fact that Cheney (Darth Vader) favors it above everything else. Your tired rhetoric speaks for itself, whether you deny this ad nauseum or not.
Posted by: KS | May 23, 2009 at 09:05 PM
Why is it that they -the hollier than thou types- refuse to take the consequences for their action.
Oh wait, they'll let others take the hits like the folks in LA slated for an Al Queda redux.
Just wish one of them would answer Charles Krauthammer.
The fact that they won't is telling.
Scoop Jackson, they ain't!
Oh, I just had an awful thought as to why Coiler has been so quiet. You don't think this reptile was out sunning himself on Sparky's driveway when she was backing out the Dodge...yikes!
Posted by: Puget Sound | May 23, 2009 at 09:23 PM
From the sissified crap Drew has posted over and over again, I just assumed Drew was a woman. LOL, just another Pat.
I can see that shit out of ph(J)oanie and Sparky, they are women elementary school teachers. Is coiler a Pat (or Sally)to?
Posted by: Buzzard Barf | May 23, 2009 at 09:47 PM
Waterboarding in torture and it is exactly what 99% of Americans want done to Islamic terrorist suspects. One innocent American life is worth more than one hundred thousand terrorist lives. If torture of those savages saves the life of even one American; it is well worth it.
Posted by: mrogi | May 23, 2009 at 11:03 PM
So, Ex Pat Brit are you telling us in those two circumstances you would not use waterboarding? Just curious if your views would be the same if instead of the second LA Attack it had been an attack up in your neck of the woods.
We await an answer, Ex Pat Brit.
Posted by: Puget Sound | May 23, 2009 at 07:34 PM
I would not use torture for anything, as I don't believe it's effective.
You can construct any number of scenarios where torture could potentially save the world some of which could really be "out there".
So answer this question.
This terrorist knows where the bomb is. Would you torture his 5 year old daughter in front of him "to save the world"?
It's potentially entirely justifiable.
Posted by: ExPatBrit | May 24, 2009 at 08:23 AM
So now the Libs are claimng we are torturing the terrorist children to get information from them. Where would they get that from? ExPat did you get that info from Randi or did you make it up yourself?
Posted by: nevets | May 24, 2009 at 09:00 AM
Did you speed read the post steven? He said scenario, ok?
Posted by: Coiler | May 24, 2009 at 09:16 AM
In reality, the terrorist' were hiding behind their women and children when they were captured. The kids probably got killed in the cross-fire so the scenario the Brit proposed is bull shit anyway.
Why do the rules of war only apply to the American military and not to the desert dwelling pukes?
Posted by: Buzzard Barf | May 24, 2009 at 11:33 AM
Nevets, Puget Sound, I am asking how far you would go?
I am just painting fictitious scenarios just like Krauthammer did.
Lets say the world will end in 1 hour due to a nuclear bomb that's planted somewhere. You torture this guy for 45 minutes and get nothing.
But there is his 5 year old daughter sitting there whimpering in the next room.
You have 15 minutes left, what do you do?
............
Posted by: ExPatBrit | May 24, 2009 at 12:15 PM
So, the real life event that actually happened with getting important information from Khalid Sheik Mohammed and the other top members via waterboarding didn't work?
Interesting Dodge, my friend. Just deny the facts and assert it couldn't happen.
"Dennis Blair, the Director of National Intelligence, pointed out that most of what we know about al-Qaeda came from using those techniques on Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Abu Zubaydah, countering leaks last week from the Obama administration that claimed the methods produced no data:
President Obama’s national intelligence director told colleagues in a private memo last week that the harsh interrogation techniques banned by the White House did produce significant information that helped the nation in its struggle with terrorists.
“High value information came from interrogations in which those methods were used and provided a deeper understanding of the al Qa’ida organization that was attacking this country,” Adm. Dennis C. Blair, the intelligence director, wrote in a memo to his staff last Thursday.
Admiral Blair sent his memo on the same day the administration publicly released secret Bush administration legal memos authorizing the use of interrogation methods that the Obama White House has deemed to be illegal torture. Among other things, the Bush administration memos revealed that two captured Qaeda operatives were subjected to a form of near-drowning known as waterboarding a total of 266 times."
Ex Pat Brit, are you serious?
In your scenario, you don't have to torture the child. You just have to make the person believe that it has happened to get the information you need. If the individual is so cold that he could allow his child to possibly be hurt then to actually hurt the child wouldn't serve any useful purpose.
So no, you don't torture the child as it would serve no useful purpose and it would be evil to harm an innocent in your scenario.
I will point out that Pres Obama has regularly targeted in Pakistan Drones and bombs to target homes in which innocent civilians will likely be killed in order to nail suspected terrorists. What would you do, Ex Pat Brit? Do you follow the examples -real life- of Pres Obama and shoot up a house with innocents inside in order to nail a terrorist?
Is that consistent with 'American Values?' Is that better than waterboarding?
Now, given that we know waterboarding works what do you do when a Khalid Sheik Mohammed proves resistent to other questions and will only tell you that 'you'll find out soon' the information needed to stop the second attack on LA. I am very pleased that the CIA was able to get the information that saved the lives of innocents AND didn't cause any lasting harm to the suspect.
So, Ex Pat Brit, which city in your mind is expendable? Seattle, Redmond, Portland, San Francisco...or maybe Sheffield or Bristol in your former home country? Which one are you willing to let be blown up or attacked?
Now, don't pull a 'seattle' on us. Lets hear what you have to say...
Posted by: puget sound | May 24, 2009 at 01:21 PM
The sheer # of people and the ferocity with which they insist that we should degrade the USA and wipe their asses with the Constitution will NEVER cease to amaze me.
"torture someone else Americans will die?"
Nevermind that the argument that torture has saved _anyone_ is complete and total BS - are you seriously suggesting you're not willing to die for your freedom? That you're such a pussy that you're willing to invalidate the United States Constitution and the laws and international agreements we've signed-onto in order to become a tyrranical police state?
Make no mistake, folks - those are the things they're arguing for.
and it's NOT the United States of America for which they argue.
It's nearly Memorial Day, and they spit on those who have sacrificed so we as a Nation can live free - they argue that we lessen the greatness of our nation for BS perceived "safety".
Literally, they are unworthy of debate - but instead must fiercely be opposed by those who truly love this country and the freedoms it is still _trying_ desperately to provide.
Do not let them win, of the US will be gone. We won't have to wait for an enemy attack - the terrorists will win if those who support torture / waterboarding in any way become the predominant voice in this country.
If we give in to that, we will have already surrendered to the terrorists, and dishonored those who have sacrificed their lives for this country.
Posted by: TJ | May 24, 2009 at 02:55 PM
Oh Indeed, the right-wing in this country is pure evil.
Posted by: Ed Murrow | May 24, 2009 at 03:26 PM
I agree, TJ and that is why I think Obama was wrong not to show the latest pictures of torture. It is easy to sit back and be an armchair general ( oh oh KS, I just made fun of paraplegics again) without knowing what really goes on. Right now polls have the American public about half and half for or against torture. Too many TV and movies glorify violence for people who will never have to face it.
(No steven, I did not just advocate for Tv and movies to be censored.)
Posted by: sparky | May 24, 2009 at 03:45 PM
It's going to take some time before we really know what we learned and when with Zubaydah. We know that he was first handled by the ISI, then the FBI in cooperation with the CIA; until the FBI objected to the new "techniques" for special detainees.
Blair is relying on documentation provided by high level Bush CIA appointees. He is also following our Commander in Chief's order to draw the blinds and move forward. He did concede that "I like to think I would not have approved those methods", and that there were other ways to get that intel.
The matter is finally being investigated from several angles: Congress, the Courts and the Attorney General's office. That's how this country works. That's what we are fighting for.
The problem seems to be that the terrorist have already defeated THEM. Osama bin Laden got exactly what he wanted out of them. They are all panicked and afraid, and they've forgotten what freedom means and what makes this country great.
Posted by: LucasFoxx | May 24, 2009 at 03:54 PM
Torture is unAmerican. That I will concede to the lady's. Waterboarding is just fine.
Posted by: Buzzard Barf | May 24, 2009 at 04:49 PM
"Torture is unAmerican. That I will concede to the lady's. Waterboarding is just fine."
That Buzz is what the libs like TJ dont understand. They still think waterboarding is torture but how can that be when they are not calling for the arrest and conviction of those who waterboarded both Hitchens and mancow.
And Puts...
"x Pat Brit, are you serious?"
I couldnt have said it any better.
Posted by: nevets | May 24, 2009 at 05:25 PM
So why should the people who waterboarded Hitchens and Mancow it be prosecuted.I am sure both of them signed a release.
They volunteered to be waterboarded as an experiment. And let's face it these guys knew that they weren't gonna die so actually the circumstances are not the same as the Iraqi / Afghan prisoners.
You are just mad that afterward they announced to the world it was torture.
Waterboarding is torture according to the Geneva conventions which the US signed.
We executed Japanese perpetrators of this technique after WWII.
This is international law.
You ask if I'm serious.I am deliberately upping the ante on the absurdity of your theoretical scenarios.
Torture is a slippery slope, I am just trying to see how far down that slope you want the US slide.
I have no doubt that all of you macho guys would torture the 5 year old in front of her father.
Several other contributors seem to feel that these citizens of other countries deserve everything they get from the US.
Basically "kill them all and let God sort them out".
The end justifies the means after all.
Posted by: ExPatBrit | May 24, 2009 at 06:41 PM
Does anybody know if and when Al Quaida or the Talliban have signed the Geneva Conventions? Besides the occasional beheading, dismemberment,disembowlment, or attack on civilians and schools,have they honored the terms of the Conventions?
Or are we the morons that generally follow the rules while the enemy kills and maims at will?
Posted by: Buzzard Barf | May 24, 2009 at 07:38 PM
All confessed liberal progressives need to either submit to waterboarding as Mancow did or politely STFU about it. Otherwise, the rest of us know that they are talking out of their collective a-holes !
Posted by: KS | May 24, 2009 at 08:24 PM
Mancow said you're wrong, King Shit
Posted by: Edward R Murrow | May 24, 2009 at 08:55 PM