Fox & Friends hosts, Beck cite fictional congressional testimony by 24's "Jack Bauer" in defense of torture
SUMMARY: Fox & Friends' Brian Kilmeade falsely suggested that only "people at the U.N." want to close Guantánamo, while co-hosts Steve Doocy and Gretchen Carlson, as well as Glenn Beck, used TV drama 24 as a justification for the use of torture. In fact, Sen. John McCain, Defense Secretary Robert Gates, and five former secretaries of state are among those who have said that Guantánamo should be closed.
During the January 13 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends, co-host Brian Kilmeade falsely suggested that only "people at the U.N. [United Nations]" want to close the U.S. military-run detention facility at Guantánamo Bay. Discussing torture in Fox Broadcasting Co.'s TV drama 24, Kilmeade asked Fox News' Glenn Beck: "Do you think anybody talks about Gitmo except these people at the U.N., who think it's the worst thing that's ever happened?" While Kilmeade was speaking, Beck answered, "No." In fact, Sen. John McCain, Defense Secretary Robert Gates, and former Secretaries of State Henry Kissinger, James Baker, Warren Christopher, Madeleine Albright, and Colin Powell are among those who have said that Guantánamo should be closed.
Beck and the Fox & Friends hosts also invoked 24 as a justification for the use of torture. Referring to the show's recent season premiere, in which protagonist Jack Bauer, a former member of the fictional "Counter Terrorist Unit," defends his use of torture during a hearing before Congress, Beck said: "[I]t's going to take somebody who sits in front of Congress who is not afraid of them anymore and does what Jack Bauer did. And that is, 'Yes, I did torture, and I'm proud of it.' And it's time for these things to come out of the closet." Introducing an excerpt from 24, in which Bauer is seen answering questions from a congressional committee about torture, Kilmeade stated: "Let's listen to what happened in the fictional series 24 and see if this helps build your argument."
After the clip, co-host Steve Doocy said: "In particular, in that clip, you know, the guy [fictional Sen. Blaine Mayer] goes, 'You tortured them.' And he [Bauer] goes, 'Well, it probably was torture under your definition. But ask the people whose lives I saved whether or not it was worth me going over the edge' -- they would probably -- you ask the average person, 'Is it OK to do something, rough somebody up, to save lives?' You ask the person on the street, they'd say, 'Yeah, why not?' "
During the segment, on-screen text read: "What Americans Need to Hear; Beck Applauds Jack Bauer's Honesty":
Media Matters for America has noted that conservatives -- including Beck -- frequently look to 24 as a justification for hawkish policies such as torture.
While Kilmeade suggested that only "people at the U.N." think the United States should close the detention facility at Guantánamo, prominent Republicans and current and former Cabinet members have said the facility should be closed.
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported in a March 27, 2008, article:
Five former U.S. secretaries of State said Thursday the next president should move quickly to close the military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
That single act would improve America's dismal reputation in the world immediately, agreed Henry Kissinger, James Baker, Warren Christopher, Madeleine Albright and Colin Powell.
The five former secretaries, who served under Presidents Nixon, Ford, George H.W. Bush, Clinton and George W. Bush, were at the University of Georgia for a roundtable discussion billed as "The 16th Report of the Secretaries of State," which offered "bipartisan advice to the next administration." Kissinger, Baker and Powell all served Republican presidents. Albright and Christopher served Clinton, a Democrat.
During a September 20, 2008, CNN event with the former secretaries of state, co-host Frank Sesno asked what are "some tangible things that the next administration, the next president can do to change policy or send a signal that will address these issues [of international respect]." Baker replied: "Close Guantanamo. We were on a panel together several months ago, and we all agreed, one of the best things that could happen would be to close Guantanamo, which is a very serious blot upon our reputation."
During the December 17, 2008, edition of PBS' Charlie Rose, Gates -- who will hold the same office in the Obama administration -- said of Guantánamo: "I would like to see it closed. And I think it will be a high priority for the new administration."
McCain, the 2008 Republican presidential nominee, said in a March 2008 speech: "I believe we should close Guantanamo and work with our allies ... to forge a new international understanding on the disposition of dangerous detainees under our control."
From the January 13 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends:
GRETCHEN CARLSON (co-host): All right, as long as we're talking doom and gloom, let's move on to the show 24. Don't tell me what happened the last two nights, because I DVR'd it, but I know you have to spill the beans a little bit, because Jack Bauer apparently in the show testifies before Congress.
BECK: Yeah.
CARLSON: And you talked about this on your radio show yesterday. All he does is tell the truth.
BECK: The truth. There's two things. And I said on the radio show yesterday, I think we're headed for another McCarthy era. I think we're headed for -- and not, you know, "Are you a communist?" But do you disagree with what our government is doing on both sides of the aisle, these extremes on both sides? Do you disagree? Well, yes, I do.
And it's going to take somebody who sits in front of Congress who is not afraid of them anymore and does what Jack Bauer did. And that is, "Yes, I did torture, and I'm proud of it." And it's time for these things to come out of the closet. We're talking about getting rid of Guantánamo. Well, we still have rendition. That was a Clinton-era nightmare.
DOOCY: Yeah, sure.
KILMEADE: I am pro-rendition, pro-waterboarding.
BECK: No, you know what? Then, good --
KILMEADE: There should be a Congress meeting that --
BECK: Then all you have to do is say that.
KILMEADE: Let's listen to what happened in the fictional series 24 and see if this helps build your argument. Let's listen. Soon.
BECK: It's good so far.
DOOCY: Today sometime.
[begin video clip]
SEN. BLAINE MAYER (played by Kurtwood Smith): Did you torture Mr. Haddad?
BAUER (played by Kiefer Sutherland): According to the definitions set forth by the Geneva Convention, yes, I did. ... Ibrahim Haddad had targeted a bus carrying 45 people, 10 of which were children. The truth, Senator, is I stopped that attack from happening.
MAYER: Even if it means breaking the law?
[...]
BAUER: In answer to your question, am I above the law? No, sir. I am more than willing to be judged by the people you claim to represent. I will let them decide what price I should pay. And please, do not sit there with that smug look on your face and expect me to regret the decisions that I have made. Because, sir, the truth is, I don't.
[end video clip]
BECK: OK. Here's the thing. Rendition: It is immoral for us to go and grab people off the street and send them over to Egypt to be tortured. If we believe the information is worthy of getting any way, then we should do it. We're doing the same thing with interrogation that we're doing with oil. Oh, we don't want, we're -- no, no, no, we don't want to destroy the Earth. Get it out of the ground over in Saudi Arabia. It's either right, or it's wrong. Stand up and say it. Choose.
DOOCY: Right. In particular, in that clip, you know, the guy goes, "You tortured them." And he goes, "Well, it probably was torture under your definition. But ask the people whose lives I saved whether or not it was worth me going over the edge" --
BECK: Right.
DOOCY: -- they would probably -- you ask the average person, "Is it OK to do something, rough somebody up, to save lives?"
BECK: Yes.
DOOCY: You ask the person on the street, they'd say, "Yeah, why not?"
BECK: Yeah.
CARLSON: And --
KILMEADE: Gitmo? Do you think anybody talks about Gitmo except these people --
BECK: No.
KILMEADE: -- at the U.N., who think it's the worst thing that's ever happened?
BECK: Everybody's -- they're talking about an executive order the first day of the Obama administration getting rid of Gitmo. The question is --
KILMEADE: Where do you put these people?
BECK: -- who's -- what country is going to take them back? No country wants them. And if they go through our court system, 200 of these cases, it's said, 200 of these cases will shut down the American justice system. That -- that's --
KILMEADE: They have 241 of them.
BECK: -- that's staggering.
DOOCY: Terrific.
CARLSON: And no other prison around the U.S. probably wants them either.
BECK: Oh, no, no.
CARLSON: No. All right, Glenn --
BECK: Thanks, guys.
CARLSON: -- we're looking forward to your show.
Limbaugh shilled cited 24 as well to justify torture. Who needs reality when fiction provides all the preprogrammed answers you need?
Jack Bauer is the new Murphy Brown.
George W Bush is SpongeBob.
Easy what did poor Spongebob ever do to you to be insulted like that? Granted Spongebob is pretty dumb but he makes Bush look like Einstein. Besides my son loves Spongebob and I've raised him to be a good dem.
Reverse that Bush makes Spongebob look like Einstein. OOOOOPS!
hey, SpongeBob is lot cleverer than most of us. George W bush is not.
Are they really that stupid? A friggin' TV show? God, their audience has got to be the biggest bunch of dimwits ever born!
Are they really that stupid? A friggin' TV show?
They applaud Jack Bauers "honesty". I applaud Spidermans ability to walk up walls. I think it's great. They think 24 represents real life. They believe it. The show is (was) constructed to make it believable. But, things are not so good in la-la land. It has been reported that neocons are concerned about a change in scripts for the FICTIONAL series. They complain the plots have been infiltrated with liberal notions due to the election results. They fear it will degrade the public acceptance for torture and degrade out security. Those damn liberal hollywood types.
Let's see, last night on 24, Jack Bauer:
-Assaulted two high-ranking FBI officers and a police officer who were detaining a suspected terrorist
-Broke the suspected terrorist out of FBI headquarters
-Aided a terrorist plot to kidnap the Prime Minister of a sovereign nation, killing several of that Prime Minister's bodyguards in the process
Granted, he did these things to maintain a cover, but I don't think he's exactly the shining example of how we do things in America. He has a tendency to go 'dark' at any moment, and while his motives appear just, he is a strongly idealized fictional character. Allowing current U.S. operatives to adhere to 'Bauer' rules would be disastrous. There's a reason we discourage vigilantism in this country.
Rush is good friends with Joel Surnow, who is the creator and executive producer of "24", and who is a conservative. He even interviewed the cast for panel discussion a couple of years ago with a person who appropriately was from the Heritage Foundation sitting on the panel as well. They were trying to legitimize the ludicrous nature of what take's place on 24. He's giving free plugs to the show, because it's ridiculous plots play to the simplistic neanderthals who allow rush to laugh all the way to the bank with his new $50 million dollar a year contract. It's amazing that there are that many suckers out there. Not surprising, but still amazing.
THANK YOU.
njguy93@yahoo.com
Hey! Maybe Beck could be a Supreme Court justice. Didn't Scalia sight Jack Bauer last year?
Once again, the conservative fantasy world rears its ugly head.
During the segment, on-screen text read: "What Americans Need to Hear; Beck Applauds Jack Bauer's Honesty"
This is a new low. Even for Fox News.
I understand the point of this place, but none of you even take a critical eye to the stories posted here.
The actual point of Mr. Beck is in the transcript if anyone would bother to read it.
"BECK: OK. Here's the thing. Rendition: It is immoral for us to go and grab people off the street and send them over to Egypt to be tortured. If we believe the information is worthy of getting any way, then we should do it. We're doing the same thing with interrogation that we're doing with oil. Oh, we don't want, we're -- no, no, no, we don't want to destroy the Earth. Get it out of the ground over in Saudi Arabia. It's either right, or it's wrong. Stand up and say it. Choose."
He is not saying that we should torture people. He's saying that we need to take a stance one way or another. Rather than pretend to be moral while inside our country and then act in a completely different matter when outside.
And your opinion is based on how large a sample of our collective blindness?
Uniform opinion is not one of the things we do here. Various regulars give us hell if we seem to be edging that way.
And I think Beck is arguing for torture:
"He is not saying that we should torture people. He's saying that we need to take a stance one way or another"
No he is not...
DOOCY: Right. In particular, in that clip, you know, the guy goes, "You tortured them." And he goes, "Well, it probably was torture under your definition. But ask the people whose lives I saved whether or not it was worth me going over the edge" --
BECK: Right.
DOOCY: -- they would probably -- you ask the average person, "Is it OK to do something, rough somebody up, to save lives?"
BECK: Yes.
Taking responsibility and following the law have no place in this discussion.
That seems to be the conservative perspective anyway.
I think the Troglodytes are going to win this debate, at least in the arena of Public Opinion. Reality doesn't stand a chance against decades of Hollywood fantasies from Dirty Harry to Jack Bauer.
Add to this the real political danger that if we have any kind of attack after closing Guantanamo, it will be a blow from which the Obama presidency will never recover.
There is no real evidence that Bush's policies have kept us "safe" since 9/11, but Republican Talk Radio Toadies have done a masterful job of peddling that logical fallacy to the public.
But this not a debate, this is just Fox promoting one of it's TV shows. It's laughable. They may get more people to watch what I think happen to think is a great show, but they're not going to convert a single law maker with their shameless self-promotion.
...but, but, Bush HAS kept us safe from terrorism since 9/11. He has also:
-Kept hurricanes from destroying our cities since Katrina
-Kept us from engaging in any unnecessary wars since Iraq
-Kept us out of financial disasters since the October 2008 crisis
-Kept our government free from scandal since the last government scandal
What a guy!
(hat tip to blogger Jon Swift)
And no major pretzel attacks since W went mano a mano with his twisted & salty nemesis.
And he's kept a bunch of us from being gainfully employed. I for one am thankful I no longer have that weekly headache of cashing my check, paying my bills and balancing my budget.
Well, Snoop, the Repubs are always talking about lowering taxes. Looks like Bush has helped you into that elite 50% of American lucky stiffs who get out of paying any taxes at all.
Seriously, though, I hope things come around for you soon. It's a tough time to be looking for a new gig, but hopefully things will be straight with you before you know it.
You know it. I tried to register for unemployment insurance today so we could at least be covered and the nearest appointment date is Feb 20th. Unemployment is way up so texas chooses to deal with it by understaffing. Maybe it's more of that compassionate conservatism I keep hearing about.
It's the Wal-Mart business model. You know, the philosophy of having 54 checkout lanes with no more than three open at any given time, and only two open during peak hours.
Snoopy, I was just in New Orleans, many of the local restaurants are hiring bus boys paying 12.00 per hour. I say pack up your bags, quit your whining and get a new job.
Typical conservative @sshat. Tell you what, how about you quit your current job and join me making that $12 an hour job?
sniff sniff I smell bulls**t! You have no clue how much they pay busboys. No busboy makes 12 dollars an hour, even in NYC. But hey, let's assume they do, how much money would it take to move to a new city, get a place to live (which you need to get a job), get your kids set up in a new school system all just to get a job that pays a mere 12 dollars an hour?
That must be more of the "compassionate conservatism" we've seen so much of in the last eight years.
I for one am thankful I no longer have that weekly headache of cashing my check, paying my bills and balancing my budget.
Does that mean more cartoons for the rest of us?
Not to mention that he has kept us safe from comets. To my knowledge, not one comet has struck the Earth during Bush's term. That's pretty remarkable.
But he really dropped the ball on tornadoes. He's proven to have been rather incompetant in this field, in fact we saw a significant spike in TMD's during his term.
http://www.hprcc.unl.edu/nebraska/USTORNADOTOTALMAPS.html
Those were a delayed result of the Clinton administration, of course.
Perhaps Beck was only defending fictional torture. ;>)
SAR%CASM turned on ------maybe Beck is back to the bottle celebrating his new gig at FOX ?
What the hell is going on with Fox? Torture works on 24 because that's the way the writers write it, and Jack Bauer gets to mouth off to the "Senate" because they are ACTORS, people. What is it with this fascination with a fictional TV show? We're using that to justify torture? Who's minding the store at Faux News?
I wish just one person that sits in front of a Senate hearing would mouth off; those are the biggest pompous individuals I have ever seen. (Both sides of the isle) I have seen so many of those hearings; all they are is an opportunity for a sound bite, or pony show. I think if you’re going to swear in the individual that is going to be questioned, the Senator should held to the same standard.
I wish just one person that sits in front of a Senate hearing would mouth off
Sure, let's just turn the hearing room into a Springer episode. That'll accomplish alot!
Whatever happened to respect your elders? Can rightwing republicans even pronounce that word?
OOhh NNooos!!
And this after, as County Faire has been documenting a new consite bewailing the liberal bias of Hollywood.
Does any part of a wingnut brain know what another part is doing?
Thanks for the info Col. I'd heard Jack Bauer was the new Jane Fonda. I'm glad that got clarified.
Defense of torture is based on fantasy to begin with. "If there was a ticking time bomb and you had the one person who knew where it was and how to diffuse it in captivity, would you torture them?" Well, if you knew with 100% certainty that you had the right person in captivity, then I guess you would. Time is incredibly important, people are in great danger. That doesn't necessarily lend itself to any random terrorism suspect that's locked up, though.
Something that jumps out at me is that the bad guys on 24 are very well-established as bad guys. If there was a question of prosecuting them, there would be no problem there. Meanwhile, we seem awfully skittish about bringing many of our captives to trial. That difference should speak volumes as to the difference between the situations depicted on 24 and what happens in real life.
How do you know the bomb exists if you don't know the location to begin with? Do you assume it exists?
Assumedly you would be basing it off of some threat from an organization which you know the terrorist in question works for. That's a good point, though, it's another level of uncertainty in a scenario that requires absolute certainty.
I just don't see how that scenario can happen in real life.
Neither do I, that's why I said defense of torture is based on a fantasy to begin with.
Yes, but situations in the show 24 often mirror real life. Don't you remember the last time U.S. agents thwarted 7 large-scale terrorist attacks on the same day? If I recall correctly, they had some unexpected resistance as well as some shocking revelations (about every 15 minutes) but they seemed to get through the day alright. Also, they did all of this without once using the restroom.
I never really understood the ticking time bomb scenario. Has that ever happened before?
I think it almost happened once, but turns out the ticking was actually a senator toe tapping in the airport rest room....
I think he needs to make a repeat performance. Now that the novelty has worn off the airport isn't making as much money anymore.
Modern bombs don't tick.
I prefer the Frank Drebbin response to the ticking timebomb. After it sucks in your suit jacket and speeds up after you try to turn it off using the owners manual, you accidentally unplug it as you're running out the door.
It's interesting.... the Bushies swear up and down that waterboarding produced "actionable" intelligence, and saved lives. Has anyone outside the intelligence community seen this "actionable" intelligence? Do we have any evidence that it saved lives, other than the word of the Bush Administration?
Khalid Sheikh Mohammad confessed to plots to kill the pope, Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter and plots to blow up Big Ben, the Empire State Building, the Panama Canal, the New York Stock Exchange, the Sears Tower, Sesame Street and Mr. Rogers' Neighborhood. How are we suppose to know these plots were real or anything he planned to go through with?
The head of the FBI almost said no once. No intelligence professional has anything good to say about using it.
OT, In the background R Maddow has been deconstructing Shrub's last press conference. Someone should ask Helen Thomas what question she wanted to ask him.
As long as we are citing fiction shouldn't agents all have a shoe phone and a cone of silence?
And you people wonder why the lines between reality and fantasy are being blurred
playfulness and humor are good indicators of sanity.
Perhaps tomorrow on Fox & Friends, they'll call on the U.S. government to do something to save those poor lost cruise ship souls from Gilligan's Island?
Why not? aren't these some of the same people who think The Flintstones follows an accurate timeline for humans and dinosaurs coexisting?
And not questioning the fact the human characters spoke almost perfect English (at least in the US).
Perhaps tomorrow on Fox & Friends, they'll call on the U.S. government to do something to save those poor lost cruise ship souls from Gilligan's Island?
I just want to say I applaud the professor for his ability to keep hands off of those two young ladies on that island. I think it represents the great character of the American spirit. As smart and good looking as he is, it would be easy.
I always had a crush on Mary Ann.
Ahh Fox and Friends. Hard hitting news show!
I liked this show better when it first came out, when it was called "The Today Show". Equally as insipid, but Matt Lauer is way cuter than Brian Kilmeade...
"BECK: -- who's -- what country is going to take them back? No country wants them. And if they go through our court system, 200 of these cases, it's said, 200 of these cases will shut down the American justice system. That -- that's --"
I'm not sure who Beck is referencing (it's said"), but the notion that 200 court cases will "shut down the American justice system," is simply inane. By the way, since we're pinning our hopes on fictional characters as a way to fix real problems, I'd like to cast my vote for Superman turning back time and erasing the past eight years.
Former Gitmo prosecutor rips military trials, calling interrogators' practices 'despicable'
Speaking of the man he was once tasked to prosecute, Vandeveld said prisoner Mohamed Jawad's continued detention is "something beyond a travesty," and urged that Jawad be released given a "lack of any credible evidence."
Some of this information was revealed in September 2008, after Vandeveld resigned as a prosecutor, complaining that "potentially exculpatory evidence" had "not been provided" to Jawad's defense team, and that his accidental discovery of information relating to Jawad's abuse helped convert him from a "true believer to someone who felt truly deceived."
Vandeveld's declaration today constitutes the most sustained criticism of the Bush administration's trial system for terror suspects since Col. Morris Davis, the Commission's former Chief Prosecutor, resigned in 2007. Col. Davis said he'd quit because of the politicization of the trial system, attempts to endorse the use of evidence obtained through torture, and the refusal of Pentagon chief counsel William J. Haynes II to accept that any planned trials could end in acquittals.
Boy, immagine that. Fixing trials around politics.
We fix a war around politics. Why should a trial be any problem?
"In a declaration submitted to a Washington D.C. District Court Tuesday, Lt. Col. , a former prosecutor in the Military Commission trial system, delivered perhaps the most blistering attack on the US military's detention program by a former member of the Pentagon's team to date."
Yeah, but i bet this Darrel Vandeveld guy never single handedly saved LA from a nuclear bomb in a little less than twenty four hours.
I actually get some of my views on torture from another TV show: The Daily Show.
One of the reporters was imitating a Fox News reporter who had undergone waterboarding. Except the reporter (I think Rob Riggle) was doing the waterboarding. He asked his "prisoner" what the capital of Maryland was. He said he didn't know. Then he tortured the man and asked the same question. The man answered, "Baltimore". The reporter said, "See, torture works." But as John Stewart pointed out, the prisoner gave him the only answer he could think of in order to stop the torture.
Now that's worth citing.
See, the problem is that the Troglodytes assume that all these guys are guilty. They made the same assumption years ago, before the Bush Administration had to release a bunch of the "worst of the worst".
We don't know what evidence they have against these "terrorists", because there have been no trials or hearings. For all we know, many of them could have been turned in by neighbors who just didn't like them. The notion that they were "rounded up on the battlefield" is probably another Talk Radio fantasy.
We don't know what evidence they have against these "terrorists", because there have been no trials or hearings. For all we know, many of them could have been turned in by neighbors who just didn't like them. The notion that they were "rounded up on the battlefield" is probably another Talk Radio fantasy.
There is plenty of evidence of what caused the initial detention of these guys. We know where they came from and where they were captured.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Guantanamo_Bay_detainees
I'm not surprised in the least by Glenn Beck citing a fictional source to justify torture...the man is a buffoon and has the IQ of a turnip.
I looked at the link, but I noticed that the circumstances of capture is not listed for most of them. I think most Republicans envision a bunch of Al Qaeda combatants in the middle of a fire fight running out of ammo, throwing down their AK-47's and being marched off to Guantanamo with their hands in the air. I doubt that many of them were caught that way, but do we really know?
For example, I noticed that one was arrested while on a business trip. How many were caught red handed, and how many were just snitched out by anonymous informants? How many of these guys have been locked up for six years on suspicion alone?
Sure, I don't deny that the conventional wisdom of many Republicans would envision the scenario you mentioned above. The point, as I see it, is that: at the time it was necessary to detain these people no matter how they came to be detained. Look, we're talking about around 700+ people here. It's not as if we randomly captured or took thousands of capatives from other nations. There was, as I believe, legitimate cause for detaining these people at the time. Now I won't argue that certain aspects of the detainment was botched. It is well known that some of these men were detained even after nothing extraordinary was found which would legitimize further detainments. According to the article in Wikipedia (which I tend to trust due to the extensive sourcing) "Since October 7, 2001, when the current war in Afghanistan began, 775 detainees have been brought to Guantánamo. Of these, approximately 420 have been released without charge. As of May 2008, approximately 270 detainees remain.[8] More than a fifth are cleared for release but must nevertheless remain indefinitely because countries are reluctant to accept them."
It is definitely unfortunate that many of these men were ultimately detained and later found to merit no charges. That being said, I still believe that at the time, it was probably the best thing to do. These men were detained for what appeared to be, at the time, legitimate reasons. We simply could not afford to take chances. Can you imagine the outcry if some of these men actually turned out to be participants in another attack and then it was found out that we knew of their associations and had the chance to detain them but didn't?
Also, it was not entirely a worthless enterprise. Some of those men were bad news intent on killing you and your family if given the chance. Unfortunately, it is reported that a few of the ones released returned home and did in fact engage in terrorist attacks. That is truly sad to know that we had dangerous people, let them go, and they return and engage in terrorist attacks. So, again, the bad things about this are certainly unfortunate, but at the time, I believe it was the best course of action considering we were viciously attacked and over 2,000 Americans lost their lives.
Perhaps the most important thing now is that we have a President who is certainly more lucid and measured. Gitmo is likely to be closed in the near future and hopefully President Obama can find new and better ways to keep us safe. I hope and pray that he does.
the time it was necessary to detain these people no matter how they came to be detained
Wow. That is the most un-American statement I've heard in a while. Don't you realize that the detainees were SOLD to us by warlords wanting to get rid of their enemies.
Can't wait till they come to get you. Then I bet you'll be crying out for your due process and civil liberties and asking where is the Geneva Convention.
hope we didn't over pay
Seems to me that the Pro-Torture Troglodytes need to go back and read a little history. Why do they think our Constitution has all those pesky Rights of the Accused in there? Torture and arbitrary imprisonment were common practices in Europe, and they figured that it would be a good thing to live in a country where the Government was not allowed to do such things.
European Witch Trials were perfect examples of how these techniques get out of control. The mere accusation of Witchcraft was as good as a death sentence. The accused was tortured until she confessed or died. To make the torture stop, the accused would freely implicate others as witches who in turn were tortured until they did the same.
The problem with torture is that an innocent person is likely to make stuff up or give a false confession just to stop the torture. Even in the Jack Bauer ticking time bomb scenario where you know the person is guilty, he could just give you any location, and by the time you find out.... it's too late.
I asked them what they would do if they had a terrorist in their custody, somebody captured fighting Americans while a terrorists' house was raided. In this house, bomb materials and maps of US cities where confiscated. I asked them- now that you have this terrorist, what do you do with him? kenny g
Well such a scenario has not happened and is not likely to happen so the question is pointless.
I love that people here take the easy way out- mock and criticize without offering any alternative solution. I ask the same question here- you capture a terrorist with bomb making materials and maps of the US- what do you do with him? Kenny g
I would want to follow people who know what they are talking about when it comes to obtaining actionable intelligence. Such as the fellow that wrote this book...
http://www.terroristbreaker.com/
And NOT listen to FICTIONAL characters such as Jack Bauer.
Judging by the responses he cites from his "liberal friends," I suspect they are even more fictional than Jack Bauer.
You are correct sir.
When George Bush was espousing the benefits of torture (though he didn't like calling it that) on one of the recent Sunday morning talky shows, and in another similar interview with Dick Cheney, both said it was these "enhanced interrogation" (or whatever they called it) techniques that got the informatoin they wanted from one high-ranking Al Quaida member, and that it had saved lives. I don't dispute that. However, I kept waiting for the follow up question that never got asked: "...and Mr. Bush/Cheney, you are convinced that this was the ONLY way to gain the desired information." Even if their answer was "yes" (to which I would follow up with "why?" because I would be genuinely curious), I wish the question had been asked.
The issue is more complicated than that especially in terms of Iraq of which Bush invaded illegally.
Prosecute him.
But only if he survives the interregation. :>)
"I ask the same question here- you capture a terrorist with bomb making materials and maps of the US- what do you do with him?" - KennyG
Threaten to make him the whisky bearer on a moose hunting trip with Sarah Palin and Dick Cheney. He'll spill his guts quick.
Now in reality, you say you've captured him with his bomb making materials and his maps? That was some good police work. Now that he and his materials have been removed from circulation you want to torture him? Don't be a sadist. It's already game over for Mr. Terrorist.
you capture a terrorist with bomb making materials and maps of the US- what do you do with him?
I would give him a stern talking to and upon seeing how he learned the error of his ways we would hug it out before I apologized for having to get so rough with him before letting him go after seeing the error of his ways.
There, now that you've gotten the ridiculous answer you were expecting can you go back to spanking it over 24 and get the hell off of the internet you delusional freak?
Is that all? If it was me, I'd gay-marry him.
Then I'd bring him into the country illegally. After that, I'm not sure if I would get a hard-working American fired so my new husband could take his job, or just sign him up for welfare. Decisions...
I had a conversation with my reichwing friends, and asked the same question - with the exception that the person in custody was not arrested, had no materials in his house, and didn't even live in the same neighborhood as the terrorist straw man you created. Their answers?
.
.
.
Kill them all, let God sort them out.
Dumb@ss.
None of you have an actual answer to his question. If I was convinced it was save even one American life, I would torture someone to save that life. On the other hand if I had no evidence whatsoever of any wrongdoing on the person's part, I'd release them after the standard amount of time allowed.
And you are known to be infallible on calls like that.
A rant is not a question.
You would torture them, knowing that you are less likely to get a correct answer than if you do not torture them? Why? TORTURE DOES NOT GIVE ACCURATE RESULTS. PEOPLE WILL SAY ANYTHING THEY THINK WILL STOP THE PAIN.
If you are going to torture this individual, wouldn't you have to know, to a moral certainty, that they had the answers you were seeking?
If they insist that they don't know what targets iare going to be hit or when, how long do you torture them before you decide that they really don't know?
If they tell you about attacks on 2 of the 3 cities they had maps for, do you continue to torture them to death when they can't tell you about the 3rd?
What of the possibility that this person actually doesn't have any actionable information but, makes something up to stop the pain. Now you are going to be deploying your counter-terrorism assets to halt an attack that isn't really coming.
Plus, how do you know he won't hold out until it's too late, or simply lie? If he tells you they plan to plant a bomb on the Brooklyn Bridge, his buddies could blow up the Golden Gate Bridge while you've got the Brooklyn Bridge staked out. Then what? Can you prove that he really lied, or did they change their plans when they found out he was captured?
Since the Right Wingers are basing their views on fiction, haven't they ever watched a John Wayne war movie? Everybody knows that the Military planners changed their plans if somebody got captured, in case the Krauts tortured him and made him talk. Wouldn't terrorists do the same?
Yes they would- but only if they were afraid that the captured terrorist would talk. If we simply rounded people up and put them in a cell, we would never find out anything and the plans would not need to be changed. Most police detectives will tell you that when questioning a suspect they start with information that they can verify before they jump into the unknown. You can't avoid asking just because they might lie. And if the terrorist would not afraid that we would find out somehow, they would never change their plans.
I'm not saying "torture." Believe it or not, I agree with most of the people here that we need to establish boundaries and work within them- and interrogation methods need to be established. Honestly, after awhile a suspect's value decreases. I don't think that somebody who has been in custody for 4 years has a lot of relevant information.
The problem with this hypothetical is that the conditions for applying torture rapidly deteriorate. For one thing, having "maps of cities of the US" is a terrible prerequisite. From a Bayesian standpoint, 99.999% of the people you find with "maps of cities of the US" are not "terrorists". Many of them drive trucks!
As for "bomb-making materials", does that include large loads of fertilizer?
Congratulations, KennyG, you've just tortured a guy driving a long-haul truck for a fertilizer company. Brilliant!
I really have to wonder at the value of "plans" taken from somebody captured who really was a terrorist. Do you really think terrorists are too stupid to change their plans after one of their number has been taken by police? The "ticking time bomb" scenario is a made-for-TV creation that has no relation whatsoever to anything that has ever happened in real life.
Wasn't there one suspect who supposedly filled out an application to join Al Qaeda? Now, really.... does Al Qaeda have an application form?
I never wanted the guy to be tortured- I only asked what you thought should happen to the guy. Everybody automatically assumes that every suspect is brutally tortured.
My saying that the suspect had bomb parts and plans was only to make it seem that the guy was not just a farmer pulled in during a raid. I realized that organized terrorists are just that- 'organized." We are not talking about guys like Richard Reid who tried to blow up a plane with explosives in his shoes, but rather planners who could get more than a dozen guys into place and on 4 plays simultaneously. That sort of attack takes time to plan and involves lots of people. Getting that info is important, and rarely is some suspect gonna say, "By the way, my friends are planning something on September 11th that I think you should know about..." Everyone knocks the CIA for allowing something like 9/11 to happen, but then the critics don't like the way that those same people try to prevent a repeat attack.
Hey saxman - here's something to remember:
TORTURE IS ILLEGAL. In all circumstances.
And another thing:
TORTURE DOESN'T WORK. Even if a little torture does make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside that your fearless leader is keeping you "safe". Don't you realize that we are now LESS safe than after 9/11.
I got almost exactly what I expected by posting this last night- a bunch of nonsense. Old Benjamin and Loonz were perhaps the only ones who even made an attempt to answer the question, Loonz said he would prosecute the terrorist, which in reality is about all you could really do. Why is it that everyone assumes the worst about my post?
At no time in my original post did I say I would torture the guy- which was just one of the points I was trying to make. Everyone thinks that every terror suspect that is apprehended is automatically tortured. I had already said in my post that I was opposed to senseless torture. Most people had answers that were even dumber than I expected. VictorLaszlo takes the prize for most idiotic with his comment that he would gay marry the guy and then bring him into the country illegally. Nicely done.
There seems to be a lot of people on this site full of witty (not) comments about what others say and do- but very few intelligent comments or original ideas. The automatic assumption is that nobody else knows what they are doing and everyone with a different view is an idiot. I browse this site from time to time to get other opinions on issues- but I may rethink that move since this side of the aisle is not nearly intelligent as I had previously thought.
If you want intelligent responses you first need to offer an intelligent post. Yours was not. It offered some vague, silly scenario about a potential terrorist and followed with fanciful, unbelievable responses from your "liberal friends." It deserved every bit of ridicule it received.
And Moonbat and Victor provided the best humor in the thread. I don't see you as the best judge of what posts qualify as "idiotic."
How was it a "vague, silly scenario?" US troops routinely capture suspects while raiding houses and buildings. That is not vague- it was very specific. And the answer from my friend about "earning their trust" and trying to talk the guy about any future plans was accurate. Its funny that very few people anywhere post comments about what they would do or what they think the US should do. Nobody has any solutions, only criticism and ridiculous comments about gay marriage. Bill, what specifically would you do with these guys?
"I asked them what they would do if they had a terrorist in their custody, somebody captured fighting Americans while a terrorists' house was raided. In this house, bomb materials and maps of US cities where confiscated."
Yes, that's very vague. There are hundreds of relevant details omitted that would influence how the case should be handled. And no, I don't believe that you received the responses that you claim to have. I've had many conversations over the past 7+ years with many people of varying political persuasions. I've never heard a liberal suggest the approach your "friends" suggested. I've read many discussion boards over that same time frame and haven't seen liberals suggest such an approach anywhere. It doesn't ring true. I suspect that either your conversations didn't actually take place or that you remember them differently from how they actually occurred. I suppose there is a third possibility in that you possibly select friends who aren't really very bright.
As for how I believe we should handle the suspect, we should operate within the law. nerzog gave a good summary. If he was captured in the US (only one of the relevant details omitted) he should be held and prosecuted under US law. Outside the US, Geneva Convention rules should apply. My rule of thumb with regard to interrogation techniques is simple. If you would be angered or outraged if an American soldier were subjected to those methods, then we shouldn't be doing it to our captives. I understand that there will be disagreement on what would outrage us, but I believe a consensus could be reached and put into policy. I would be outraged if American soldiers were waterboarded or forced into naked dogpiles. Therefore, those are techniques we shouldn't use.
There's only one solution, follow the law of the land and adhere to the Geneva Conventions. Anyone who doesn't is a disgrace to their country and their uniform.
We don't become our enemies.
Love the vague, fictitious scenarios. Nonsense, that I expect from Beck, Doocy and the guy who's not Doocy. But they speak for people who would shame this country but never serve under it's flag.
"I got almost exactly what I expected by posting this last night- a bunch of nonsense."
That's what usually happens here when you post a bunch of nonsense.
As for the answer to your question. I would interrogate the man within the limits of the law, then prosecute him. If he was really caught "fighting Americans", a case can be made for detaining him. There are probably laws against possession of bomb-making materials, as well. Prosecute him for that, too.
What you're overlooking is that many of these "worst of the worst" are being held on the basis of "intelligence" that the government is afraid to expose in a trial. That being the case, we cannot hold them indefinitely without a trial and still claim to be "above their level", now, can we?
Your comment about interrogating the man within the limits of the law is excellent. The problem appears to be that most Americans didn't know what those limits were.
I agree that we can't hold guys indefinately. We have released a lot of people already, once the determination was made that they posed no risk. I also know that there is a war going on in Afghanistan and that a lot of these guys were captured there. As much as we like to complain and criticize, at some point we have to allow the people with access to the information to make decisions that the rest of us might not fully understand.
Tsk tsk - you didn't follow the link I provided. It shows how the exact opposite of what you suggested in your original post worked-
But do I think it is OK to make life uncomfortable for them, maybe scare them with a dog, insult their customs, humiliate them and get them a bit emotional? Definately.
If you HAD followed the link you could have found that...
Alexander, the pseudonym of
an Air Force officer, and collaborator Bruning
(House to House) follow a group of interrogators
who employ the tools of "respect, rapport, hope,
cunning and deception" to coax a group of
detainees to lead them to al Qaida in Iraq head
Abu Musab Al Zarqawi. (emphasis added)
...
Although the new "soft" methods were resisted
by a cadre of "old guard" interrogators wedded
to the traditional tools of "fear and control,"
Alexander set out to prove that the new
techniques worked.
....
Alexander methodically worked to develop
rapport and trust. His approach finally paid off
when one of the five gave him the name of Sheikh
Abu 'Abd al Rahman, "Zarqawi's personal
spiritual advisor."
....
So, to summerize, the exact opposite approach to that which you suggested in your original post WORKED. Why do you insist on this nonsense when it's shown to you treating prisoners with some respect gets the job done as well as or better than your scare tactics.
Why is it that everyone assumes the worst about my post?
Because you come flying in here with a completely contrived story and an attitude filled with condescension and insult.
I had a conversation with my liberal friends....Their answers frightened me....I wish I could say that I didn't laugh out loud at the stupid answers. It is so easy to sit back in our comfy little houses with a head full of fluffy ideas....Where do you people live? I supposed that the guys flying the planes into the towers were just misunderstood guys who needed a hug and some understanding. ....I love that people here take the easy way out- mock and criticize
I am very willing to have reasonable discussions with people who differ from me. I am not willing to put up with a**holes who make crap up and insult and then suddenly want to be civil when they get the same treatment right back at them.
You want a straight answer? Ask a straight question.
As for your original silly hypothetical- Turn him over to the authorities, try and convict him and use conventional interrogation techniques while he is in jail.
Now take your attitude and go Cheney yourself.
Here's a thing you might want to learn.
It's called a paragragh break.
You can use a tab like this.
Or just give one line space to represent a change of thought.
When I typed the original, I hit enter once and it had breaks- but when it posted, it came out as one long paragraph. You'll see that my next post was seperated properly. Thanks the for suggestions.
skatscan -
The formatting on this message board is very flaky. The formatting usually works for a reply post. A non-reply post will sometimes offer the formatting menu, but if it's absent a post doesn't respond to most efforts to put in paragraphs, bolding, italics or other formatting. It's a pain and we complain about it a lot.
These idiots actually think torture works! Hey, it is hollywood...it is a MOVIE, A T.V. Program....it is not actual reallity! All experts in this ara state that info gathered this way is almost always useless!
That is just laughable. Time and again Kiefer Sutherland confronts men who tower 6 inches over him and weigh 40 pounds more than he does, and they act like scared babies, no matter what kind of criminal filth we are supposed to take them for.
Pure drivel. If this is what the right wing wurlitzer now has to resort to, our side must be winning.
Can I use "Jack and the Beanstalk" as justification for selling Ma's cow for this bag of nifty "magic beans"?
What happens when four morons decide to tackle complex issues, ie. ticking time bombs / torture? A: F&F with Glenn Beck as "expert"
Actually my plan would involve the surreptitious implantation of tracking devices just under the skin of suspected bad guys who would lead me directly to the aforementioned ticking time bomb which I would disarm in the nick of time but not before taking out bad guys and therefore become an instant hero, the new Jack Bauer and friend of Glenn Beck.
PS - I'd take an acerbic tone, become snarky and blantantly disrespectful to congress; I might even rant a little, in fact I wouldn't bother to put on a tie. Self-righteous indignation is a virtue - so there.
This isn't surprising, considering the dim bulb audience who actually takes FOX NEWS CHANNEL seriously. They play to the knuckledraggers. In their limited mental world, the show "24" is realistic and deep, and everything is cut and dried--just torture the bad guys and we get all the information we need. People like this need some hero to look up to so they can be in some fantasy world. I remember Brian Kilmeade was once saying that Rudy Giuliani was "fearless" because he prosecuted the New York Mafia back in the 1980's when he was U.S. Attorney. He had this schoolboy look on his face like the way an 8-year-old boy talks about his favorite superhero. It reflects the childish mentality and shallow nature of people like Glenn Beck and the neanderthals who take him seriously.
THANK YOU.
njguy93@yahoo.com
Much of Conservative thinking can be attributed to their tendency to view the World in Black and White. It also explains why most hyper-religious people also tend to lean to the political Right. Conservative Religions do not encourage critical thinking.
The 9-year-old me praised the Lone Ranger. That suggests Fox & Friends' mental age.
Jerry Elsea
This is like using Murray the Cop from the TV series The Odd Couple to explain the trials and tribulations of being a beat cop.
It seems to me the prision are full of men and women who took it upon themselves to be vigilantesnand and by not adhere to the law.
Fox & Friends ratings are going down so they will use and say anything.
Whatever happened to Beck's tvs how . It is no longer on here in GA?