News Conservative talk show host waterboarded

  • Thread starter Thread starter brainy kevin
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
Conservative talk show host Mancow underwent waterboarding to demonstrate that it is not torture, but he only lasted six seconds before declaring it absolutely torturous. The discussion highlights the difference between voluntary participation in such an act and the real conditions faced by detainees, who often endure it under extreme duress and without the option to stop. Participants debate the ethical implications of torture, questioning the definitions and boundaries of acceptable interrogation techniques. Some argue that the practice should be legally defined and that those who implement it should be held accountable. Others express skepticism about the motivations behind public demonstrations of waterboarding, suggesting they are often for publicity rather than genuine understanding. The conversation also touches on the broader implications of torture on national honor and the moral responsibilities of society, emphasizing that the treatment of prisoners should reflect humane values rather than fear-driven policies.
  • #91
seycyrus said:
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.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #92
seycyrus said:
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". :rolleyes:
 
  • #93
lisab said:
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.
 
  • #94
BoomBoom said:
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.
BoomBoom said:
By contrast Bush/Cheney had a policy of torture...talking of "absurd". :rolleyes:

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!
 
  • #96
turbo-1 said:
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!

turbo-1 said:
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".
 
  • #97
seycyrus said:
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".
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #98
seycyrus said:
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.
 
Last edited:
  • #99
seycyrus said:
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.
 
  • #100
seycyrus said:
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".
 
  • #101
DaveC426913 said:
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.

DaveC426913 said:
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?

DaveC426913 said:
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."
 
  • #102
turbo-1 said:
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.

turbo-1 said:
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.
 
  • #103
BoomBoom said:
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.
 
  • #104
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #105
seycyrus said:
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.


seycyrus said:
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.)

seycyrus said:
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.
 
  • #106
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #107
DaveC426913 said:
: shakes head : ... uh, because we know they're publicity whores and don't wish to feed them?

the soldiers??
 
  • #109
DaveC426913 said:
As lisab eloquently put it: To allow terrorists to re-calibrate your ethics and morals is absurd.

Not exactly. Torture has been used often through out history, including by our own government, and even relatively recently. I would say that standard ethics have been recalibrated by people who look at what terrorists and tyrants have done and are ashamed to see something similar in themselves and their own government.
Its not so absurd really even the other way. A terrorist may push one to act outside of their ethics and it may be unavoidable. I don't see the US government being pushed here though. I see them perhaps being baited.

Saying "We are the good guys because we are not as bad as they are" is really just a disingenuous moral arguement. One is trying to make themselves look better than their enemies rather than actually argue the morality of their actions. Its a deflection and doesn't really deserve great effort in refuting it.
 
  • #110
TheStatutoryApe said:
Not exactly. Torture has been used often through out history, including by our own government, and even relatively recently. I would say that standard ethics have been recalibrated by people who look at what terrorists and tyrants have done and are ashamed to see something similar in themselves and their own government.
Recalibrated by people who are against torture? That would suggest that torture is on the wane.

Oh. I see what you mean. You're saying that, historically, the default has been to torture, and we're trying to change that.

TheStatutoryApe said:
Its not so absurd really even the other way. A terrorist may push one to act outside of their ethics and it may be unavoidable.
Terrorists by definition target innocent people to scare or force a government into action. By definition they have no ethics about causing suffering on innocent lives. (Except, I suppose the Irish, who still love their Queen.)

TheStatutoryApe said:
Saying "We are the good guys because we are not as bad as they are" is really just a disingenuous moral arguement.
I don't think anyone is really saying that, the operative word in your phrase being "because".

I think the core argument is: "We think torture of any sort is immoral. As we are dragged deeper into a nasty war, we must use harsher and harsher techniques to defend the lives of our people." The crux of the issue is that "harsher techniques" is a slippery slope.
 
  • #111
DaveC426913 said:
Recalibrated by people who are against torture? That would suggest that torture is on the wane.

Oh. I see what you mean. You're saying that, historically, the default has been to torture, and we're trying to change that.
Yes, I don't think it would have even been in question not that long ago though we apparently still have many citizens who support torture of terrorists.

Dave said:
I don't think anyone is really saying that, the operative word in your phrase being "because".

I think the core argument is: "We think torture of any sort is immoral. As we are dragged deeper into a nasty war, we must use harsher and harsher techniques to defend the lives of our people." The crux of the issue is that "harsher techniques" is a slippery slope.
seycyrus said:
"We're the good guys. We might as a last resort, waterboard, but we won't electrocute, burn, or maim you."
Seycyrus continually refers to what terrorists do. That is his argument. I was referring to that.
 
  • #112
Ivan Seeking said:
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?
I would assume everyone on this board has the minimum level of intelligence to see the obvious fundamental difference here. In domestic law enforcement, there is a fundamental underlying assumption that the identity of the "actual perpetrator" is unknown until after conviction (ie, suspects are legally innocent pre-conviction).

This has never been an underlying assumption in war.
 
  • #113
Carl Levin said:
Now Mr. Cheney claimed last week that President Obama’s decisions have made us less secure and that abusive interrogation techniques worked. Mr. Cheney has said that the use of abusive techniques “prevented the violent death of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of innocent lives.” Mr. Cheney’s claims are directly contrary to the judgment of our FBI Director, Robert Mueller, that no attacks on America were disrupted due to intelligence obtained through the use of those techniques.

Mr. Cheney has also claimed that the release of classified documents would prove his view that the techniques worked. But those classified documents say nothing about numbers of lives saved, nor do the documents connect acquisition of valuable intelligence to the use of the abusive techniques. I hope that the documents are declassified so that people can judge for themselves what is fact and what is fiction.

http://www.isria.com/pages/29_May_2009_12.htm

Senator Carl Levin, Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, has reviewed the classified documents that Cheney claims prove that our use of torture saved US lives. Levin's response is that Cheney is lying and that the documents should be declassified so that everyone can see for themselves what the truth is. As long as they are classified, Cheney can say anything he wants about them and continue his charade.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #114
Al68 said:
I would assume everyone on this board has the minimum level of intelligence to see the obvious fundamental difference here. In domestic law enforcement, there is a fundamental underlying assumption that the identity of the "actual perpetrator" is unknown until after conviction (ie, suspects are legally innocent pre-conviction).

This has never been an underlying assumption in war.
Also anyone on this board probably has the minimal level of intelligence to realize that when the US offers bounties for "terrorists" a lot of innocent men are going to get fingered 1) for the money 2) to settle scores between rival factions and 3) to pursue personal grudges held against the "terrorist" or his family. If a guy is caught building bombs or trying to employ one or some other terrorist act, that's one thing. If he is detained and tortured on hearsay "evidence", that is quite another thing.

And before we get too far down the road about an "underlying assumption in war", please consider that one of the key claims of the neo-cons was that the Geneva conventions do not apply to the people we captured and tortured because there was no war and they were not soldiers, but "enemy combatants" who have NO rights.
 
  • #115
turbo-1 said:
http://www.isria.com/pages/29_May_2009_12.htm

Senator Carl Levin, Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, has reviewed the classified documents
Levin does not say he reviewed them, he makes claims about them.
that Cheney claims prove that our use of torture saved US lives. Levin's response is that Cheney is lying and that the documents should be declassified so that everyone can see for themselves what the truth is. As long as they are classified, Cheney can say anything he wants about them and continue his charade.
As can Levin.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #116
mheslep said:
Levin does not say he reviewed them, he makes claims about them.
As can Levin.
Levin and his committee recently concluded an 18-month study on prisoner abuse, so it's pretty nit-picking to say that he didn't "review" the classified records, when it is quite evident that he did, and that he knows that Cheney is lying. As Chairman of the Armed Services Committee, he certainly has security clearance to have reviewed any records that the CIA had not destroyed.

Robert Mueller presumably has a pretty inclusive security clearance, since he is the director of the FBI, and he, too, claims that no attacks on the US were prevented by the information gained through the use of torture. Maybe Cheney has access to rare "double top-secret" documents that only he has seen?

Recently, General Petraeus told FOX News that our treatment of prisoners violated the Geneva Convention and that such violations of human rights gives our enemies tools to demean the US. Maybe Petraeus is turning into a pinko lefty, or maybe he knows what he's talking about.

http://s183.photobucket.com/albums/...&current=TLD-Petraus-Gitmo-torture-052909.flv
 
Last edited:
  • #117
mheslep said:
As can Levin.
This would make no sense though. Why would Levin move to have documents made public that would prove him a liar?
 
  • #118
mheslep said:
Levin does not say he reviewed them, he makes claims about them.

You think that the Committee Report would embrace this conclusion?:
http://armed-services.senate.gov/Publications/EXEC%20SUMMARY-CONCLUSIONS_For%20Release_12%20December%202008.pdf" Senior officials in the United States government solicited information on how to use aggressive techniques, redefined the law to create the appearance of legality, and authorized their use against detainees. Those efforts damaged our ability to collect accurate intelligence that could save lives, strengthened the hand of our enemies, and compromised our moral authority. ”
Yet they would fail to offer comment on the mitigating evidence contained by these "Secret" memos showing benefit? Given that Levin has access to those memos and he is categorically saying that they do not support Cheney's allegation that there was demonstrable benefit from resorting to torture techniques, I will have to think that the preponderance of appearances is that the alleged benefits of this Executive Branch sanctioned torture are about as believable as Cheney's once strident claims about Saddam building weapons of mass destruction.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #119
turbo-1 said:
And before we get too far down the road about an "underlying assumption in war", please consider that one of the key claims of the neo-cons was that the Geneva conventions do not apply to the people we captured and tortured because there was no war and they were not soldiers, but "enemy combatants" who have NO rights.
In that case the "neocons" are obviously and provably correct. Everyone is endowed with inalienable rights, but the Geneva Conventions simply don't prohibit torturing in this case.

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm

Even if a terrorist group were considered soldiers in a war, they are not a party to the convention, and the convention's prohibition on torture only applies to an enemy who "accepts and applies the provisions thereof". This is clearly not the case.

That doesn't mean torture should be used, but we are not talking about an enemy who is a party to the Geneva Conventions. Why are so many people under the impression that we are talking about parties to the Geneva Conventions? Why do so many people falsely believe that they apply to this?

The "unlawful combatant" issue is ironically a result of added protection (by Bush) for POW's who are not covered by Geneva, to treat them as such anyway unless and until a tribunal determines they are an "unlawful combatant".
 
  • #120
Al68 said:
In that case the "neocons" are obviously and provably correct. Everyone is endowed with inalienable rights, but the Geneva Conventions simply don't prohibit torturing in this case.

Actually I think you will find that a consequence of http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/pdf/03-6696P.ZO" is that the detainees are as a principle of Law covered by the Geneva Convention, regardless of the designation of combatant status. Not only did the Supreme Court find Hamdan was entitled to a habeas hearing, (and found that the Military Commissions were deficient in this regard), but found so on the basis of the Government's own published regulations concerning detainees, in which it asserts that the Geneva Conventions are controlling.
Army Regulation 190–8
1–1. Purpose
a. This regulation provides policy, procedures, and responsibilities for the administration, treatment, employment, and compensation of enemy prisoners of war (EPW), retained personnel (RP), civilian internees (CI) and other detainees (OD) in the custody of U.S. Armed Forces. This regulation also establishes procedures for transfer of custody from the United States to another detaining power.
b. This regulation implements international law, both customary and codified, relating to EPW, RP, CI, and ODs which includes those persons held during military operations other than war. The principal treaties relevant to this regulation are:
... (4) The 1949 Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War (GC), and In the event of conflicts or discrepancies between this regulation and the Geneva Conventions, the provisions of the Geneva Conventions take precedence.
http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/law/ar190-8.pdf

I'd say this Neocon justification to deny something already codified from something published at least since 1997 and recognized by the Supreme Court as controlling, is really just a smokescreen in which they would hope to conceal Bush Cheney from war crime exposure, and has no substantive basis.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Similar threads

Defending Science Against Ongoing Threats: Why the Scientific Method Matters
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
News Why is right-wing radio declining and independent voices gaining popularity?
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
6K
News Shows how much of a laughing stock the UK's justice system is
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
4K
News Does 'pack journalism' shape the science news we read?
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
Is it okay to tolerate racism and sexism in a relationship?
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
6K
News Is Recording Police Interactions a Felony?
  • · Replies 116 ·
4
Replies
116
Views
21K
News New Twist on Obama Unemployment Prediction
  • · Replies 34 ·
2
Replies
34
Views
8K
News Obama on Al Arabia: A Case for Mutual Respect
  • · Replies 34 ·
2
Replies
34
Views
6K
News Love for Ann Coulter - My Experience at Barnes & Nobles
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
4K
News The Dangerous Influence of Far-Right Talk Radio on American Politics
  • · Replies 142 ·
5
Replies
142
Views
21K