O'Reilly claimed "Fox News turns down blatantly anti-American ads," but that's not the reason Fox gave for rejecting CCR ad
SUMMARY: On The O'Reilly Factor, Bill O'Reilly stated, "Fox News turns down blatantly anti-American ads. We just turned one down recently." Fox News recently refused to air an advertisement produced by the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) that claims the Bush administration is "destroying the Constitution" through its use of renditions, torture, and other tactics. However, in an email provided to Media Matters by CCR, a Fox News account executive told CCR that Fox would not run the ad "with it being [narrator] Danny Glover's opinion that the Bush Administration is destroying the Constitution. If you have documentation that it is indeed being destroyed, we can look at that."
On the December 7 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, host Bill O'Reilly stated, "Fox News turns down blatantly anti-American ads. We just turned one down recently. I understand that." As Media Matters for America documented , Fox News recently refused to air an advertisement produced by the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) that claims the Bush administration is "destroying the Constitution" through its use of renditions, torture, and other tactics. However, in an email provided to Media Matters by CCR, Fox account executive Erin Kelly told Owen Henkel, CCR's e-communications manager, that Fox News would not run the ad "with it being [narrator] Danny Glover's opinion that the Bush Administration is destroying the Constitution. If you have documentation that it is indeed being destroyed, we can look at that." The ad, "Rescue the Constitution," which is narrated by actor Danny Glover, can be viewed here.
The blog Think Progress has also noted O'Reilly's comments about Fox News' ad policy.
A December 7 Associated Press article reported that "Fox senior vice president for advertising, Paul Rittenberg, said the network asked the group to provide backup information from news accounts or legal scholars supporting Glover's claim that acts by the Bush administration threatened the Constitution." The article added: " 'In this case, saying the president is destroying the Constitution frankly sounds like a claim that is fairly extreme,' Rittenberg said. 'Who else thinks this? Of course Danny Glover can say that, but does anyone else say that?' " The AP article did not quote anyone from Fox News saying that the ad was anti-American.
O'Reilly was discussing advertisements from the group Freedom's Watch, which NBC had refused to air. The same December 7 AP article reported that NBC "said it declined the ad, not because of its message, but because it invites viewers to go to Freedom's Watch's Web site, which advocates support for the war. NBC has a policy against airing controversial issue ads." NBC subsequently decided to air the Freedom's Watch advertisement, as the AP reported on December 8.
During the discussion with Bradley A. Blakeman, president and CEO of Freedom's Watch, O'Reilly also asserted, "Our reporting on NBC indicates that they are, you know, certainly not supporting the U.S. military. That's for sure." This is not the first time that O'Reilly has suggested that NBC does not support U.S. troops or the military, as Media Matters has documented here and here.
From the December 7 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:
O'REILLY: In addition to CNN and Fox News, Freedom's Watch ads will be placed in The Washington Post, The New York Times -- actually today we saw that on page A-19 -- and USA Today, among others. So, when you -- NBC rejected the ad, what did they tell you, Mr. Blakeman, about why they did it?
BLAKEMAN: Well, Bill, they said they liked the content, but we couldn't put our Web address because somehow that would be political.
In fact, our Web address is integral to the ad itself because it directs the American people to nonprofit sites, 20 of which, where they can go and thank the troops in their own way. We, in addition, Freedom's Watch, if they click on that will send a holiday card to the troops. So our Web ad is not political. We're a 501(c)4, a nonprofit under the tax law. And we must be bipartisan. And we are.
O'REILLY: But you are a conservative website that takes conservative positions. And I guess NBC is saying that if you're an ideological website of any kind, we're not going to accept your advertising. I don't know if that's historically what they've done, but I guess that's their position.
BLAKEMAN: Well, it's a position that's flawed because I think any viewer who saw the ad that you just played would come away with the fact that Freedom's Watch is doing nothing more than thanking those men and women who keep us safe and are in harm's way and who protect America.
O'REILLY: Have you -- are you aware of any ad that NBC did accept that had a website attached to it?
BLAKEMAN: I am aware of sites that -- that have had websites attached to it. Certainly the Web rules the day today. And it was -- it would be unusual.
O'REILLY: Can you point us to one? Or did you -- because we haven't researched this as thoroughly as we will, but can you point us to a --
BLAKEMAN: Well -
O'REILLY: Go ahead.
BLAKEMAN: Bill, when they rejected our first set of ads, we pointed out that there were issue ads that they did run. And that I'm sure that those ads contained websites. You know, they didn't give us this excuse the first time they refused to air our ads when we were trying to support General [David] Petraeus this fall.
O'REILLY: All right, so you wanted to take out an ad supporting General Petraeus and the surge after the MoveOn situation, I assume?
BLAKEMAN: That's correct.
O'REILLY: And they wouldn't take your ad and they said what?
BLAKEMAN: They said that they don't take political ads. And again, a fair reading of that ad comes away with the fact that we gave ordinary Americans a voice to tell the American people as to why the surge would -- should at least give the benefit of the doubt.
O'REILLY: Yes, but I understand why -- Fox News turns down blatantly anti-American ads. We just turned one down recently. I understand that. If -- but we have to do a little bit more research to find out if NBC has taken any website advertising that has a point of view. And then we'll report back next week. I think it's a fine ad, Mr. Blakeman.
BLAKEMAN: Thank you.
O'REILLY: I applaud what you did. Our reporting on NBC indicates that they are, you know, certainly not supporting the U.S. military. That's for sure. Thank you, Mr. Blakeman.
Recent Faith-flap Bungles Separation Doctrine, also a form of "attack" and "anti-Americanism"The issue of separation in the U.S. Constitution is still lost on the political caste (in this case Romney's raising the issue of his faith) it is a distinction between the political authority of Old World religions and that of the emerging states from the enlightenment. That means it also cans the Church of England as a recognizable institution of statehood headed up by the monarchy–in case you were wondering.It is made explicit not for the gratis personal liberty to practice faith inlaid in this democracy's foundations, it is re-emphasized in the founding charter of the United States as a heads up to the hold heels, and that's usually where clauses must be inserted to remind on points of the function and admissible review of the institutions of state. Its says: and in the best interest of the former tyranny it is hereby reminded the freedom to practice religion will not extend to any extension of the Church of England or its titular heads of the monarchy of England, were they to attempt to import their authority by that ploy, and expect the Congress and the office of the President to acknowledge that in any official capacity. It is a subtle added protection against monarchy’s charlatanism of divine right and their secession from Catholicism (again, note the imperial themes in the Huckabee pulpit photo, front page NYT). Separation of monarchial tyranny in whatever guise, waving around theology or not, and the American State. Oh, and people can practice their faith (within the lawfully reason constraints protecting them and others) however they please, it’s not a diplomatic issue like the former oppressions of tyranny.When you think about it, look at the Declaration and the laundry list of offenses, it’s only natural they would head off the hedonists of England trying to subvert us with their brand of regal worship. Any monarchial trappings trying to wheedle divine selection to assume their power structure’s leadership posts, such as in the recent docudrama that won that actress an Oscar and their national title of honor for women making an explicit drama-narrative line to that effect. But they are still subverting with these hollow headed evangelicals playing up not only the monotheism, they are also repackaging it with monarchist symbolism, crowns, swords, knights templar–that whole thing.Source:Look at the front page of the New York Times, with Huckabee at the podium, Thursday, December 6th 2007, national edition, photo credit: Brandon Thibodeaux, Dallas Morning News. Notice the symbolisms of monarchy in the stained glass and the podium. The cross is converted for a sword, and the central focus is an enormous crown. For a lengthy essay on the recent faith-flap see:
www.freewebs.com/writingindependence/FaithIssue.pdf
“Recent Faith-flap Bungles Separation Doctrine, also a form of "attack" and "anti-Americanism"The issue of separation in the U.S. Constitution is still lost on the political caste (in this case Romney's raising the issue of his faith) it is a distinction between the political authority of Old World religions and that of the emerging states from the enlightenment. That means it also cans the Church of England as a recognizable institution of statehood headed up by the monarchy–in case you were wondering.”---WI
I can dig that. The GOP, along with a lot of Americans they pander to, doesn’t respect the constitution as far as the separation of church and state.
“It is made explicit not for the gratis personal liberty to practice faith inlaid in this democracy's foundations, it is re-emphasized in the founding charter of the United States as a heads up to the hold heels, and that's usually where clauses must be inserted to remind on points of the function and admissible review of the institutions of state. Its says: and in the best interest of the former tyranny it is hereby reminded the freedom to practice religion will not extend to any extension of the Church of England or its titular heads of the monarchy of England, were they to attempt to import their authority by that ploy, and expect the Congress and the office of the President to acknowledge that in any official capacity. It is a subtle added protection against monarchy’s charlatanism of divine right and their secession from Catholicism (again, note the imperial themes in the Huckabee pulpit photo, front page NYT). Separation of monarchial tyranny in whatever guise, waving around theology or not, and the American State.”--WI
If what you’re saying is that freedom of religion was put into the constitution as a barrier to treason from native born monarchists, I would say I don’t know, but it sounds like a good idea.
“Oh, and people can practice their faith (within the lawfully reason constraints protecting them and others) however they please, it’s not a diplomatic issue like the former oppressions of tyranny.When you think about it, look at the Declaration and the laundry list of offenses, it’s only natural they would head off the hedonists of England trying to subvert us with their brand of regal worship. Any monarchial trappings trying to wheedle divine selection to assume their power structure’s leadership posts, such as in the recent docudrama that won that actress an Oscar and their national title of honor for women making an explicit drama-narrative line to that effect. But they are still subverting with these hollow headed evangelicals playing up not only the monotheism, they are also repackaging it with monarchist symbolism, crowns, swords, knights templar–that whole thing.Source:Look at the front page of the New York Times, with Huckabee at the podium, Thursday, December 6th 2007, national edition, photo credit: Brandon Thibodeaux, Dallas Morning News. Noti"--WI
So we should be careful not only of people who put on monarchial airs directly, but also indirectly by all this God talk. Sounds like something to consider.So...... O'Reilly believes that an ad that points out that the Bush regime's use of torture, pre-emptive war, no warrant wire-tapping, inprisonment without charges is un-American.......
Billy seems to think that America stands for torture, pre-emptive war, no warrant wiretapping, and inprisonment......
Someone explain to me how I, as a liberal, in the mind of a right-winger, that I'm the un-American one here, when we liberals believe in the Constitution, the Rule of Law (for ALL), Habeas Corpus (for ALL), and the Bill of Rights (for ALL)?
I also wonder, now that FOX has shown its true colors in a most glaring and painfully obvious way.....
How many of you Bush/FOX defenders want to be the brave souls that try and defend this one?
As far as I could tell the ad was blatantly anti-Bush. O'Reilly isn't the first rightwinger to make the claim that the country and the President are the same thing. Bush himself gets confused on this point.
But Bill's not telling us something new. We all unsderstood Fox declined to run the ad for partisan purposes.
No one made O'Reilly the arbiter of what is and what isnt American. Those ads were NOT anti American. O'Reilly can TRY to wrap himself in the flag and arrogantly tell us all that to disagree with him and with Bush is Anti American it just shows what an insecure weasel he is. He is NOT more American than liberals. The only way for the right to think that way is with arrogant stupidity.
O'Reilly can TRY to wrap himself in the flag...
He tried to wrap himself in a falafel, but it fell apart.
:-)
"Our reporting on NBC indicates that they are, you know, certainly not supporting the U.S. military."
This implies that Bill and Fox are supporting the military.
How much longer and how many more people have to have their lives destroyed so that Bill and Pox News can pound their chests with pride as they hide behind the flag?
Come on, don't you know that leaving the troops in Iraq without the gear they need to stay alive is truly what the Right means by "supporting them?"
Troops in theater and dying in a foreign country's civil war is support. Troops home and safe is treason.
Give BillO a break. He was only off by 6 letters."Fox News turns down blatantly anti-REPUBLican ads."
Apparently the Constitution is now anti-American. These regressive-rightists are amazing.
I was just surprised to learn that Creedence Clearwater Revival was back together, and anti-American.
The rightwing suits at the pro-GOP Fox News Channel will never run an ad that is "anti-Bush." Bossman Ailes won't allow it on "his" channel. The staffers have their orders. Also, any negative news stories about King George and his court jesters won't be considered.
This so-called "Fair and Balance" news organization is nothing but a joke. Bill is nothing but an overpaid conservative mouthpiece for Bossman Ailes.
MARK MY WORD IF A DEMOCRATE WIN IN 08 FOX NEWS WILL BE ALL OVER THAT WHITEHOUSE AND THEY WILL RUN ANY AD THAT MAKE A DEMOCRATE PRESIDENT LOOK BAD. JUST LOOK AT THE LOVE OBAMA IS GETTING FROM FOX NEWS AND THE REST OF THE RIGHT-WING MEDIA NOW BECAUSE THEY DON'T LIKE HILLARY BUT JUST WAITE IF OBAMA DO WIN PEOPLE LIKE MATTHEWS AND FOX NEWS WILL BE PUTTING OUT ALL KINDS OF DIRT ON OBAMA THAT THEY WILL BE GETTING FROM THE REPUBLICAN PARTY, THE SAME KIND OF DIRT THAT THEY ARE GETTING ON HILLARY ABOUT. HEY OPRAH YOU BETTER LOOK OUT TOO BECAUSE NOW THE RIGHT-WING MEDIA ARE TALKING ABOUT HOW YOU WILL HELP OBAMA BUT IF HE WIN THEY WILL GO AFTER YOU FOR BEING FROM LIBERAL HOLLYWOOD.
I know. I hope these shows are flooded by progressives calling in asking "Why do you hate america so much?"
Come on guys... Free speech is only "american" if you're kissing republiucan @$$! Everyone know that! ;)
Keep talkin', Bill-O. More and more Americans will begin to realize what you people really stand for. (And fewer and fewer will stand for it!)
Pompous bafoon.
Don't you folks on this board find it a bit absurd to run a TV ad for the protection of constitutional right with Danny Glover as the spokesman. This is the guy who obsequiously worships the DICTATORS in Venezuela and Cuba. Yet now he bemoans that your democratically elected president is shredding our individual rights. Mediamatters should take a breath, and examine the transparency of its hypocrisy
Thanks for the advice. I would now recomend that you try to seperate the message from the messenger and offer up a critique based on that premise.
Open your eyes slowly, the light causes a slight discomort at first...
Damn that Danny Glover! Being more concerned with his own elected leaders than those in other countries! He's never cut it in the GOP, where all sins are absolved by pointing to somebody else.
Very clever! When your argument is otherwise indefensible, resort to sarcasm. On the one hand Glover decries how our Constitution is being shredded, yet in his support of Chavez et al. he ignores the very principles underlying the document. Is that your profoundly well-thought position as well?
Is Glover a citizen of Venezuala? No, so what Chavez does to HIS people is THEIR problem. Did they ELECT HIM TWICE? Yes they did so when THEY dont like him anymore he can lose the next election. He just lost the election about term limits on the presidency. Get back to us when you have an ACTUAL argument your sillyness about Chavez being a dictator or Glove worshipping him arent arguments they are stupid talking points.
They're not talking points SOLOn and when are you going to mature to the point where you stop calling other people names?
How about Clinton running ads on fidelity? Maybe some Bush ads on how to be a good fighter pilot? The messenger doesn't matter? Maybe in la-la land but if you want your message to be taken seriously the messenger is just a wee bit important.
What Chavez does to his people doesn't matter? Is that your position on your neighbors behavior towards their wives and children as well? If your neighbors beating his wife and kids I guess you don't step in because, "they're his kids and wife." After all, she married him....
It would appear that your ethics and values stop at our borders.
You're missing the point...probably because you want to. Even if you accept all of the Glover ad's premises(which I don't), you don't run the ad, which would be shown internationally, for a lot of good reasons. It's bad mouthing the country for no good reason or gain to be had. Yes. Saying these things is bad mouthing the country.
Bush isn't America? That's true but is that the perceptioin worldwide? Or does our president, the figurehead of our governement and the most powerful man in the world, represent more then just himself? Whom does the Glover ad help and give aid too? Does it help you and me? I haven't noticed any of my rights curtailed. All my rights seem to be intact. And for my fellow posters I'd like to hear from just one of you how your rights have been adversely affected by this administration...take your time...and dig real deep. Nothing? But we already knew that.
Does it make you anti-american to protest against Bush or this administratioin or it's policies, no matter what those polices are? No. Protest all you want.
But maybe running TV ads with the dictatorial loving Glover isn't the best way to get that protest across and it's certainly no way to be taken seriously. What's next? Lessons on fiscal responsibility from Michael Jackson?
Dont YOU find it absurd to spout such obvious stupidity? Glover WORSHIPS dictators? You need to take a breath then go looking for a few brain cells. Chavez for instance is NOT a dictator he was ELECTED and STOOD for elections. Dictators dont do that he put his constitutional changes UP FOR A VOTE, dictators dont do that. Here is a clue you desperately need. Spewing the stupid talking points your hivemind master told you to believe is NOT making a point. Its just a way to make a fool out of yourself.
Is shutting down all opposing media outlets the mark of a dictator? In other words, is monopolizing the media the mark of a dictator? Is unleashing his storm troopers on peaceful protesters the mark of a dictator? Is unilaterally determining whether and when to confiscate private property and convert it to state property the mark of a dictator? Is fixing elections so that an opposition party is deprived of access to media outlets the mark of a dictator. Exceedingly willing to believe in Chavez, aren't ya? It's tiring to have a battle of wits with someone so sorely unarmed.
More propaganda parrot talking points without merit. Is Hugo democratic enough for ME? No, does that make him a dictator? NO, he was elected and re-elected the elections were MONITERED there was no fixing or fraud that is an outright LIE. One that is only told to hiveminders who dont care about facts or reality so they believe what they are TOLD to believe. As for shutting down the media, I wouldnt do it but those guys were involved in the coup against him so its hard to claim that makes him a dictator. If CBS was involved in a coup against Bush I doubt you would throw a fit if they lost THEIR license. There is NO evidence that the people who attacked the protesters were sent by Chavez, you are just spewing propaganda. As for the siezing of private property that was in the resolution SENT TO THE ELECTORATE and it failed. Unless you are talking about nationalizing the oil resources which is what the rightwing REALLY has against Chavez that he is cutting into US corporate profits. The bottom line is this is the definition of dictator.
A tyrant; a despot.
This does not define someone who puts himself up for elections and puts the constitutional changes he WANTS up for electoral approval. The day may come Chavez can rightly be called a dictator, I dont trust him all that much but that day has not come as yet. Judged by the standards of Central and South American countries the Venezualans are still a pretty free people.
You miss the point entirely. Glover's enduring defense of tyrannical dictators belies anything he has to say regarding individual freedoms. That the message comes from him deprives it of all credibility.
Fine. Bush's embrace of torture, imperialism and domestic spying absolutely negates his credibility on all matters of American values.
See how it works, homey?
I can further extend such an argument to all Republicans, thereby making all Republican opinion worthless.
But I won't.
How 'bout you affer a critique of the substance of the actual ad? Or is it just easier on you to ignore it because you THINK Glover isn't American enough for you?
But Roundhouse, Hugo Chavez isn't defending our Constitution ! Har!
I'm so glad you post here, HBL!
By torture I presume you mean waterboarding, which many of your fellow elected democrats had signed off on. Furthermore, who defines torture, you? Tell me where waterboarding is specifically designated as torture? Also, I am opposed to this ill-begotten war, but have you conveniently forgotten that your democrats likewise disregarded their Constitutional duties by permitting Bush to take us to war in the first. War needs congressional approval, but ALL of congress seemed to have fallen asleep on that one. Furthermore, some of the most outspoken critics of the war were Republicans, or at least conservatives. Recall that people like Pat Buchanan and Robert Novak were outspoken opponents of the war from the outset, while your cherished Clintons, Kerrys, and Edwards were putting on their war paint.
And as for electronic eavesdropping. I have absolutely no problem with the gov't intercepting calls into and out of the U.S. where one of the speakers is associated with Islamic fundamentalists. It's a slippery slope, but all governmental power is a slippery slope no matter what party's in the white house
By torture I mean torture and those bs semantics of yours proves only that you have no respect for humanity and no grasp of the meaning of cruel and unusual punishmnet. Nor do you any faith in our justice system to mete out appropriate punishmnet for terrorist criminals.
As for Congressional support of the invasion of Iraq, Please. A minority of Dems signed on and only after secret, massaged intel was presented. Meanwhile, 100% of Repubs supported Bush. Not to mention, freakin' Novak and Buchanon are not even elected officials. They had no vote on the matter. So don't try to rewrite history on me pal by saying conservatives opposed Bush from go. They were his b*tches.
Again critique the ad. Please critique the ad I need a giggle before I head off to work today.
My respect for humanity consists of allowing our CIA agents to learn valuable information from Islamic terrorists that have saved a multitude of lives throughout the globe. Ask Michael Scheur whether waterboarding had that result. Is the subjection of innocent civilians to murderous bombers cruel and unusual punishment in your book?
When speaking of massaged intel, are you referring to the intel that convinced the Clinton administration that Saddam possessed WMDs? Or would you like to re-write history? A bit naive to believe that kerry, biden, clinton, edwards and the rest of the warmongers allowed bush to lead them by the nose. They were as blood thirsty as anyone.
As for the ad, again, it's like listening to a thief propound on the virtues of honesty. Glover's lack of credibility in terms of standing up for individual rights robs the ad of any credence. Explain his apparent hypocrisy in that regard and maybe then his ad will be worth a hearing.
It is YOU trying to rewrite history. Once the inspectors were in Iraq new intelligence was coming in. Dems were wrong about WMDs in Iraq what they DIDNT do was tell specific and flat out LIES about Iraq WMDs like the Bush administration did. Like they did when Bush himself made up an IAEA report that never existed in his joint press conference with Tony Blair Sept 7, 2000. The one the IAEA themselves said never existed. OR the Aluminum tubes that they kept saying could ONLY be used for gas centrifuges AFTER our scientific experts in the field said were unlikely to be used that way at ALL much less could ONLY be used that way. Condalizzard Rice went so far as to say that the anodyzed coating PROVED they were for gas centrifuges even though according to experts in the field that coating would have to be removed if they were to be used for that purpose. There is no QUESTION the Bush administration lied and misled about Iraq, none whatsoever. I am with you on blaming the Dems for not having more backbone about Iraq. I knew Bush was an outright liar giving him the benifit of the doubt was sheer stupidity, they deserve some blame but not anywhere NEAR as much as the dishonest Bush administration.
I don't quibble with you on the point that our nation went to war on cherry-picked intelligence. Contrary to everyone on this board, however, I do think that the administration actually was convinced that WMDs would be uncovered. The blame for this war crosses both parties. There was no real opposition to this war, and scarcely any of the leaders in the democratic party were willing to listen to, much less advocate, and anti-war position. Only when it became popular did your "courageous" leaders in the democratic party become enlightened that the war was built on erroneous intelligence. Had things turned out well in Iraq (and it still may), your beloved representatives would now be boasting of their forsight and support for the war. The "politicians" that they are, and their gullible base, allows them to willy-nilly switch their stance when the outcome looks precarious.
As for wiretapping and waterboarding, your willingness to side with wanna-be suicide bombers and deride all things to do with the U.S. fight agains terrorism, is alarmingly curious. It leaves me to ponder whether your present position was the same when "rendition" and waterboarding was utilized under the glory days of the Clinton administration.
If you want to blame Democrats go ahead. I dont care I am not a Democrat. The deserve some blame. Then you veer off into hivemind ignorance. Not wanting MY COUNTRY to be associated with torture doesnt put me on the side of terrorists. Only the really ignorant and the really desperate even try that level of stupidity. This is MY country and we are most responsible for what WE do. I do not WANT us to be the kind of country that tortures people. Being a good country comes at a cost. If it were easy it wouldnt mean much. When it is easy to do the right thing there is no test only when there is a COST for doing what is right, when it is the HARD thing is it tested. I want us to pass that test. When we claim to be a good people I want it to mean something not be the empty rhetoric that you stupid, heartless souless automata would make it. That we demand to be SEEN as being good no matter whether we ACT that way. Only ignorance of a galactic level would lead a moron like you to make the jump from me not wanting MY GOOD country to torture people to mean I am siding with terrorists. I see you are one of the Marching Moron Brigade. I dont want to join. Rights are funny things. If anyone is denied them NO ONE HAS THEM. They are not priveleges. I have no problem whatsoever with wiretapping JUST GET THE DARN WARRANT like was done from the beggining. What is so hard about that? IF all they are doing is wiretapping those they have good reason to believe are engaged in criminal or terrorist activities and IF they are American citizens then GET THE DAMN WARRANT.
Think back, a short while ago. If you didn't side with Bush, you were siding with the terrorists. This is the rock that the democrats were placed behind when prompted to vote either for use of force in Iraq, or not. They were branded, and figuratively tarred and feathered if they dared to speak out again war, and yet, plenty did, and plenty voted against the resolution, just not enough. I suggest you go back, and check the voting records.
Because we are against torture and adherence to, you know, national and international laws, does not make us side with the terrorists. You're not going to find anyone on here with empathy, or sympathy for terrorists, and you have conveniently done what the Bush administration has been doing for years. If you disagree, you're FOR the terrorists, which is honestly, completely and totally ludicrous, and highly offensive. To suggest that fellow countrymen of yours, are siding with the terrorists because we don't want people tortured is ridiculous, and as aforementioned, highly offensive. I'm pretty sure that if you said that to many people here, in front of them, or to their face, blows would be exchanged.
It's not that you're "for the terroists." That is ludicrous and I don't believe it for a second(Jane Fonda can disregard the above). But you are willing to put hypothertical principle before lives in all situations. I take that to mean that if your kid was going to have his/her head CUT OFF by Al Queda in 10 hours, and you could waterboard a suspect to sabe your child's life, you would rather stand on principle then do that waterboarding. And you extend this principle to a million lives, a billion lives, heck, I guess to the whole planet? At what point does the worth of the lives surpass the "rights" of the terrorist? For me, it begins and ends with one.
My apologies for saying that you "side" with terrorists. You are right, that was a dumb thing to say. My point is that blow-hard partisans like you seem to opportunistically hit on the issue of the day without regard for right or wrong. So again genius, are you as appalled by the rendition and waterboarding that occurred under Clinton as much as you are now, under bush?
I can only speak for myself, but in finding out that this happened under Clinton (rendition did, not waterboarding by Americans), I can say that I don't agree that he did it either. See that's the thing with a lot of liberals. If our people do something wrong, and we see it as wrong, we call them out on it as well. The biggest problems I see with a lot of (not all, but a lot) conservatives is that when their guys are wrong, they loudly and proudly defend them to the nth degree, even when they're, well, wrong, sort of like you guys are on waterboarding.
It's funny that you hack away at someone's so called partisanship, but then you are so partisan yourself that you have to bring up Clinton? Really? When was he President again? Oh right, 2007. Doesn't make what he did right, but if you don't have a problem with what Bush is doing now, I assume you don't have a problem with what Clinton did. I do, but I'm certain that you don't. Another right winger supporting Clinton. You guys love him SOOOO much!
While hivemind morons like YOU just repeat whatever you are TOLD to believe. Yes I was alarmed about Clintons rendition practice. What they SAID is that those renditioned were still protected by international law which prohibits torture. Do you have any EVIDENCE that people were waterboarded under Clintons policies? Do you KNOW that he sent them to regimes that would torture them? We KNOW that people have been tortured under Bush.
Here is what Lindsey Graham a Republican Senator said about the photos WE have never seen but he has
"The American public needs to understand we're talking about rape and murder here. We're not just talking about giving people a humiliating experience," Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina told reporters
Here is what Rumsfeld had to say
Rumsfeld told Congress the unrevealed photos and videos contain acts "that can only be described as blatantly sadistic, cruel and inhuman."
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/05/07/iraq.abuse.main/index.html
It is time to STOP pretending torture didnt happen. That ship sailed long ago.
You mean that you do have faith in our justice system to deal with terrorists? I wonder if you've thought that through and all of the implications that go along with it.
I also assume that that means to you, these terroists are merely criminals and as such, should be dealt with by the police, FBI, etc. Law enforcement agencies.
Maybe that would be okay if these terrorists were Timothy Mccveigh's...loners(more or less) aacting without broad networks or financial and material support, not just from individuals but from states. Such is not the case.
If you're Al Queda, we catch you, and all you get's a bit of waterboarding well you got off easy. I'm pretty sure that after they're waterboarded, their head will still be attached.
Oh yeah. Evesdropping. Get a court order. Because unlike you I have a problem with goovernment secrecy when it comes to my privacy rights.
Waterboarding, unwarrented eavesdropping. And you're attacking Danny Glover! You've now encompassed the two biggest right-wing tactics: attack the messenger and projection. Congratulations.
Waterboarding has been torture since it was used during the inquisitions and if it was being used on Americans no one would quibble about whether or not it was torture. Since you have no problem with the shredding of our fourth amendment you really dont have much credibility on the whole civil rights issue.
Being the constitutional scholar that you are, tell me again how the protections provided under the 4th amendment applies to the waterboarding of foreign terrorists like Kalid Sheik?
Love your support of torture there. I mean, disregarding interrogation experts, who almost unilaterally agree that confessions, and or information obtained under duress (ie, torture) is usually not very good intel at all. There have been NO cases so far where intel gained by waterboarding or other coercive techniques have stopped some imminent attack ala 24 (the TV show) style. There is no Jack Bauer.
Go back, read what the interrogators from WWII talked about, and how they obtained their best information. It was from befriending their prisoners, playing chess with them, getting them to talk, to open up. They tried the other way, and it didn't work.
Waterboarding has been prosecuted as a war crime and as torture by the United States over the years. Look at the guy who is most against waterboarding, John McCain, and it makes sense. Why? Because HE was tortured.
We are supposed to be the shining beacon aren't we? Aren't we supposed to be the "good guys"? When we waterboard a prisoner, regardless of who they are, detain them without trial for indefinite periods of time, don't charge them with crimes, we cease the moral high ground, and we become that which we have fought against in the past, and in the present.
Also, the more people we waterboard, or torture, or make disappear (rendition), the more bad press we're going to get in the Arab and Persian world, because mostly, this is happening to Muslim extremists. So on one side of our mouth, we're saying, hey, we're here to free you. On the other side of our mouths, we're saying, lay down on that board, and here comes the water.
Try waterboarding for yourself, see how you stand up for say, oh, 5 minutes. I'm betting you crack sooner rather than later.
Although I take issue with your assertion that I support torture, your post honestly is well-thought, even if not entirely accurate. Have you read Michael Sheur's (sp) "Imperial Hubris?" It's difficult to argue that this ex-CIA fellow is anything but a consummate professional in his field. Repeatedly he has maintained that through "rendition" and strenuous interrogation techniques, valuable intelligence in fact has been uncovered. His experience, along with the accounts of other professionals, renders your categorical claim that waterboarding and rendition do not yield valuable results is a bit specious.
Furthermore, neither I, nor anyone else, would like to be waterboarded, and I give myself much less than 5 minutes before I'd be spilling my guts. But if I was, or collaborated with people and/groups that were hell-bent on committing acts of terrorism, I would expect to be treated much worse.
Despite how it appears in these posts, I do not believe waterboarding should be trivialized. It is a delicate balance where all sides should be heard, and among the considerations should be balancing the need to briskly uncover terrorist plots against using lighter but more time-consuming means of interrogation. In light of the fanaticism of muslim extremists, I simply am unconvinced that the waterboarding is not entirely necessary.
Well, I can say that I don't know if you support torture or not, but from your arguings before, and during this thread itself, it appears that you do support waterboarding, which is, like it or not, torture. Has been deemed as such by international bodies the world over, and as others have mentioned, it has been considered torture since the time of the Spanish Inquisitions. Not normally a time that one wants to be associated with. Yes? No?
I have not read Imperial Hubris, but I shall look it up. I need to finish Woodwards latest tome before I can move on to another book though. Don't like to multitask when reading. Looking at the synopsis of the book though, it appears scathing in its critique of the Bush administration. I don't see anything within the confines of the synopsis about strenuous interrogation techniques, or rendition, but as I said, I'll have to read it. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. If one account says that strenuous interrogation works, this does not mean that it is waterboarding, there are other psychological ways of interrogating someone that borders on psychological torture instead of the physical. And as far as I'm concerned, there is really only one reason to take someone into rendition, and that is to use interrogation methods not legally available to the US. Why else would you send someone to Eastern Europe, or say, Saudi Arabia where the laws on how you question someone are, shall we say, somewhat lacking?
If radical terrorists are being tortured, it's not that I don't think that they "mind" it, but if they are as radical as we think they are, there is a chance that they would die rather than give anything up, or they could just as easily give false information to stop the torture, this is why physical coercion of information doesn't work a lot of the times. I'm not saying it doesn't work sometimes, but again, the things that I've read, from experienced interrogators say that torture doesn't provide consistent good intelligence. Going back to Imperial Hubris, the man who wrote it was NOT an interrogation specialist, or expert. He was chief of station in getting Bin Laden, this isn't to say that he didn't know a thing or 2 about questioning suspects, but they do have people trained for such things, and he doesn't appear to be one of them.
See, there shouldn't be "sides" in discussion of a technique that is considered illegal around the world, and considered to be torture, and against the Geneva Conventions. I fall back to my first stated position that the US, are supposed to be the "good guys". Pure and simple, good guys don't torture, even if our guys are. Why you might ask? Well, we're the good guys remember? There are some out there who seem to have forgotten this important piece of information, including many Republicans, and our own President.
According to several terroism experts the waterboarding of an Al Queda operative led to the capture and arrest of other HVT's in Al Queda. One of the foremost people in the Afghanistan theatre has also stated that valuable intel has been gained from stresful interrogation techniques(torture to you).
I'd "crack" but it doesn't work? Interesting.
Magnolia, if your still perusing around on here, attached is an interesting article. It addresses the utility of waterboarding from the account of a professional
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071211/ap_on_go_co/cia_videotapes
That would fall under cruel and unusual punishment. I was citing you saying you had no problem with warrantless wiretapping when I mentioned the fourth amendment. I thought that would be easy enough for a reasonably bright ten year old to understand. I will be clearer now I see how challenged you are. Again waterboarding has been seen as torture since it was used in the Spanish inquisitions and if it were Americans being waterboarded no one would be questioning whether or not it was torture.
I'm not sure it's that we don't think or agree that it's torture(although pretty mild on the torture scale and yes, there are degrees). I'd be willing to conced that under the guidlines of international law it probaly fits into the torutre category. I just don't care if we waterboard terrorists.
Al Queda terrorists are not afforded our constitutional protections nor do they fall under the Geneva convention.
As a side note, it just occurred to me that SOLON"S apathy toawrds those in Venezuela and the abridgement of their rights is contradictory to his support of rights for Al Queda. Why have a problem with rendition SOLON? After all, it's not in our country with our people?
I'll await your usual glib response.
Let me offer a critique by posing the same challenge I posed in an earlier post. Find me one American citizen who's had his rights trampled upon by this administration. Show me one poster on this site whose rights have been affected.
How about a consensus amongst lawyers, judges and legal scholars that the constitution is being shredded?
Your opinions are that the constitution is being shredded but that is not the majority opinion and it is certainly not a "fact."
All that aside,, none of you will have any solutioins regarding how to handle high value Al Queda targets when captured if we don't use a little renditioin or waterboarding. Some of you would let people die on "principle" so you don't become that which you desired to stop. It's a great theoretical argument but if it comes down to a bad guy and your kids or mom, wife etc you'll change your tune real quick. At least, I would hope so.
I'll tell you this...if someone had SOLON's child hostage or any other poster kid hostage and I could waterboard a terrorist to find that kid that terrorist is getting waterboarded and SOLON or whoever can call for my arrest as they hug their loved one.
I don't think I'm the one missing the point. I'm not familiar with Glover's "worship" or "defense" of dictators, I just am curious as to why many conservatives are more concerned with the actions of other countries' leaders than their own.
You dont HAVE A POINT. Your stupid propaganda about Chavez being a dictator is an ignorant meme not a point. He was ELECTED, he does NOT wield absolute power. Try having some dim idea what you are talking about instead of regurgitating these hivemind talking points without merit
I have to say that I like a good, strong argument as much as the next person, but the level of vitriolic energy leveled against Thomps.Steve9098 seems a bit over the top.
We all accept that people who haven't sensed the real, absolute buffoonery of the Bush Amin. and still agree with anything he and his gang are doing are extreme disappointments. And I think Bush supporters, or apologists as they have become, are pissed, too. They are wearing this guy as clothing and he shows no signs whatsoever of ceasing to embarass his flock at every turn..
But Thomps.Steve9098 didn't torture anyone and that same deep love of country that we all feel makes people want to believe that it's not happening because it is so wrong.
Steve is one of those guys who wants desperately to believe that we are always the good guys. And we're just not. I'm not an America-hater, but we've royally screwed up on this whole thing in Iraq.
If you want to get upset with someone about Americans turning their heads away from something awful we're doing, it's creatures like Rush Limbaugh and his listeners who blast their bile over the public airwaves about how holding people against their will without due process is really grounds for jokes and even merchandise for a place called Club Gitmo. Or stacking naked, blinfolded Iraqi men to humiiate them is akin to a "frat prank." Those people are the hideous leeches who make money making fun of the wrong things we do thinking we're the good guys.
I must say that Steve has been at least polite, for the most part. And even I understood what he was saying about Danny Glover. As much as I admire much of what he says and does, Chavez is a poor example of someone to nuzzle with while you're shaking your fist at George Bush.
Well, I've had a couple of good exchanges with the guy here on this thread. I liked them, but there were other exchanges where he threw out some bile and venom, and some pretty well discredited talking points, but after he chilled a bit, he started writing well, debating well, and arguing well. I think possibly just the heat and or passion takes many of us sometimes, because we do feel passionate about certain things.
I think on the topic of Chavez, the US press has basically taken what the Bush administration has said about Chavez and reported it as fact. The man is NOT a dictator, was popularly elected by his people, twice, and was shot down here a couple of weeks ago about trying to consolidate more power, the people voted it down. He did close down a TV station or 2, but not all of them, and the ones that were closed down, were brought back up a short while later, something the press failed to mention, but were very fast in reporting that he had stiffled freedom of the press and all.
Chavez does not hate America. Not at all. He hates George W. Bush. People make the mistake of equating Bush with America, and hence why left wingers such as myself, for years now, have been called America haters because I like very little of what Bush has done while in office, and looking at polling numbers, I'm not even close to being in the minority anymore about that. This is what the press does with Chavez v. Bush. Hugo hates Bush, not the country, there is a big difference. Chavez does generous things for citizens of this country, such as he donates heating oil to regions of the NE where people can't afford it in the winter. This isn't to say that everything he does is great, and or grand, I'm sure there are bad things that he does as well, but according to polling in his own country, the people are pretty darn happy with their President, and isn't that what really matters?
What Chavez does, or doesn't do in his own country, most of the time, does not affect the US at all. He could cut the flow of oil to the US, but he's not going to do that, they make too much money off of us for him to do that.
I like your posts Magnolia but you're ebing easy on Chavez. He doesn't hate America? Just Bush? Hmmm...
Take a look at his bed fellows magnolia. I don't need to tell you who they are. You're a bright guy/girl. Listen to hgis rhetoric. look at his policies and political positions. How could he like America? He stands against almost everything that we stand for.
And he's not a dictator? Splitting hairs a bit aren't we? If it walks like a duck...
He wasn't able to finalize his dictorship but he was clearly a dictator in the making. Hope you don't shop at Citgo.
"Being the constitutional scholar that you are, tell me again how the protections provided under the 4th amendment applies to the waterboarding of foreign terrorists like Kalid Sheik?" -- thomp.steveInteresting argument and I forego the 4th Amendment, if you'll agree to section six as a general rule of our government."This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."Why is this important? Well, because we signed the first Geneva Convention in 1882 and all the following treaties. Which bring us to Art. 3 of the Geneva Conventions.Art. 3. In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions: (1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria. To this end, the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons: (a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture; (b) taking of hostages; (c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment; (d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples. (2) The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for. An impartial humanitarian body, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross, may offer its services to the Parties to the conflict.That put the Bush administration at odds with the "supreme Law of the Land", as set forth in Section 6. Forget international law, if we apply Section 6 Bush and the administration is in violation of the Constitution and their oath of office “to uphold and protect the Constitution. Add funny thing we can’t opt out because one of the following articles does not allow the “redefining” of the treaty to suit a political or personal agenda. While it is arguable – although debatable -- that the Bill of Rights was mean only to protect citizens. It is Bush’s status and actions, not the terrorists that are called into question by these documents. So, he and the administration are without a shield on these issues. Should the “terrorists” be held responsible for their action? Certainly. However, again legally we can’t because of our actions and the fact we will not allow them to be tried openly.
heck yeah.. the bill of rights are for citizens of the usa! do you want al queda to have the protection of the 2nd? they are, after all, a well regulated militia!
all in all this has been a fun thread... i notice that no one has answered lolo's challenge to name one citizen whose rights have been trampled on. seems you are too busy defending chavez.
if you want to see some trampling of the constitution- why don't you check out the liberties that lincoln took with executive privilege during the civil war. especially with the freedom of the press.
It's going to take them a while and by a while I mean forever(I guess you could make a point about padilla but that's it).
Also, these terrorists do NOT fall under the Geneva convention
Fortunately or unfortunately, yes they are. Almost everyone is when you read down in the articles pass the "Uniformed" articles. The other problem with this supposition is that you are only torturing or rendering "terrorists" several people have been released from Gitmo -- therefore, it is reasonable to say they must not have been terrorists. If that is the case and any of them were tortured as at least one render person has alleged -- you have broken the Geneva Convention anyway by torturing civilians, Congrats.
And as for "defending" Chavez, I am saying clear the timber from you own eye before you start pointing out the mote in the eyes of others. Who said Lincoln (although the uniqueness of his position probably makes his moves more understanable) or Wilson were correct in using executive power to squash civil rights during their respective conflicts -- and no I am not arguing against the merits of the conflicts themselves.
The American citizen question -- no as far as anyone knows no US citizen has been rendered although Padilla is a good point for both -- however, with the Pres. ability to suspend Habeas and certain rights of residents I think it is easy enough to figure it could happen despite Constitution guaranteess and we would not have to know. I can't prove one and you can't prove the other -- although I'd like to believe we are not that far down the path yet.
Lastly, while legal arguments could be made that the Constitution does not specifically outline the rights of noncitizens, it is fair to say that the core belief is that people have certain rights "endowed by their creator" and that as responsible citizens we should be corncerned with our governments recent and I still say given the authority of the Constitution, the Supremacy Clause, and related treaties that we enacted illegal actions. And I'll say it yes the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and their related beliefs are more important than a person, a group of people, a city, a state, and even the country otherwise why would we put one life on the line in a military action, why a National Guard unit, why have we become invloved in either WW and put the very continuation of the country in doubt should we have failed to achieve victory. Because there is a greater ideal -- greater than us that we as the US are suppose to embody and protect. If you don;t believe this I can't help you.
well put and hear-felt! i agree with your sentiments, but unfortunately, i will always be more haunted by the sound of daniel pearl's screams than the idea that khalid sheikh mohammed had water poured over him. guess i'm just built that way- sue me.
Waterboarding is not having water poured on your head it is drowning and done one time too many you're as dead as if you lost your headed. And I am sure there is screaming and begging plenty to offend or delighted depending on how you swing.
Would I prefer that the Khaled Sheik Mohammed was dead rather than Pearl or the thousands on 9/11 of course. And had we the magical ability to determine who was guilty 100% of the time I'd could understand rendition and the related horrors. However, we don't and that is the reason for the Conventions. Which we have violated.
If you want Khaled Sheik Mohammed to pay, put him on trial, and execute him if that is the decision. Of course, we won't because we want what he has -- information and his is probably too valuable to silence. However, after 3 to 4 years of questioning and torture how much valuable and timely info could he have? If any stone has been unfound it just proves the lack on torture -- or harsh interrogation techinques as I believe the administration is phrasing it. If he is done then his excution should be demanded by Con-logic and I be fair most persons beliefs. So either way holding him without trial has no purpose -- other than to endanger foreign travellers who could be held ransom for his freedom so that he could be released to cause more horror.
you are right that waterboarding is not a good thing. but i'm glad that it was helpful in this instance. i hope they tried to wine and dine him first, though. hey i heard that nancy pelosi was given a virtual tour of cia methods of information extraction. if this is true does that mean she was using 'con-logic' when she didn't immediately object to it's use?
On November 5, 2007, The Wall Street Journal reported that its "sources confirm... that the CIA has only used this interrogation method against three terrorist detainees and not since 2003.""Waterboarding works," a former CIA officer said. "Drowning is a baseline fear. So is falling. People dream about it. It’s human nature. Suffocation is a very scary thing. When you’re waterboarded, you’re inverted, so it exacerbates the fear. It’s not painful, but it scares the sh*t out of you." (The former officer was waterboarded himself in a training course.) Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, he claimed, "didn’t resist. He sang right away. He cracked real quick." He said, "A lot of them want to talk. Their egos are unimaginable. (He) was just a little doughboy. He couldn't stand toe to toe and fight it out." After being subjected to waterboarding, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed claimed involvement in thirty-one terrorist plots. He is said to have helped point the way to the capture of Hambali, the Indonesian terrorist responsible for the 2002 bombings of night clubs in Bali. According to the Bush Administration, he also provided information on an Al Qaeda leader in England.