Fox News greets alleged torture with antics
Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.
SUMMARY: Many on Fox News have greeted the release of Justice Department memos authorizing the CIA's use of harsh interrogation techniques with antics that mock the notion that these practices constitute torture.
Many on Fox News have greeted the release of several previously classified Department of Justice memos authorizing the CIA's use of "enhanced interrogation" techniques with antics that mock the notion that these practices constitute torture. Glenn Beck faked tears to ridicule the notion of waterboarding as torture; host Bill O'Reilly told columnist Ellis Henican that "I would have dunked that guy in the water a thousand times to save your life"; and host Sean Hannity slammed a football down on the desk in front of him while saying, "[I]magine this is Khalid Shaikh Mohammed's head. Dunk it in water so we can save American lives."
As Media Matters for America has previously noted, Allen S. Keller, M.D., director of the Bellevue Hospital Center/New York University Program for Survivors of Torture, submitted written testimony to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence that stated that waterboarding can cause "[l]ong term effects includ[ing] panic attacks, depression and PTSD [post-traumatic stress disorder]," and said it poses a "real risk of death."
- On the April 22 edition of his Fox News program, Glenn Beck gave mock sobs after noting that "[c]ritics of the Bush-approved [interrogation] methods have called them torture." Later in the program, Beck played a clip from the current season of 24, in which Jack Bauer defends his use of torture in a congressional hearing, to support his argument that "the people who actually fight the wars need to be left alone to do their job and supported to do their job, and then stand by what they've done, no matter what the consequences are." As Media Matters has noted, Beck, as well as Fox & Friends hosts Kilmeade and Steve Doocy, have previously cited the same 24 scene to defend torture.
- While discussing potential torture prosecutions on the April 22 edition of The O'Reilly Factor, O'Reilly told Fox News contributor and Newsday columnist Ellis Henican: "I would have dunked that guy in the water a thousand times to save your life." He later repeated: "To save your life, I would have dunked the guy in the water." After Henican asked O'Reilly, "You're coming out for torture now?" O'Reilly responded: "All right, Ellis, calm down."
- On the April 22 edition of Hannity, during a discussion of torture with guest Charles Grodin, Hannity said: "I don't believe that waterboarding is torture." Grodin subsequently asked Hannity: "[W]ould you consent to be waterboarded?" Hannity replied: "Yes." When Grodin asked the question again, Hannity repeatedly reaffirmed that he would do so, telling Grodin: "I'll do it for charity. I'll let you do it. I'll do it for the troops' families." As Media Matters has noted, in 2006, Fox News correspondent Steve Harrigan was waterboarded on-air, and concluded that the technique was "a pretty efficient mechanism to get someone to talk and then still have them alive and healthy within minutes."
- During the "Great American Panel" discussion on the April 22 edition of Hannity, Hannity held up a football and then slammed it down on the desk in front of him, saying: "You know what? I'm -- this is -- imagine this is Khalid Shaikh Mohammed's head. Dunk it in water so we can save American lives. You bet."
- On the April 20 edition of Fox & Friends, co-host Brian Kilmeade said of reports that Mohammed was waterboarded 183 times: "Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, I understand, was waterboarded 183 times. Did anyone care about that? Does anyone in America walk around going, 'I'm really upset that the mastermind of 9-11 was waterboarded 183 times?' " Kilmeade added: "That makes me feel better." After co-host Gretchen Carlson, playing "devil's advocate," stated that some might consider the treatment of Mohammed to be torture, Kilmeade said: "It's unbelievable that people care more about Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, his health, than they would about future attacks that are being hatched on our country."
From the April 22 edition of Fox News' Glenn Beck:
BECK: And the national intelligence director, Dennis Blair, says tough interrogation tactics yielded, quote, "high-value information." Critics of the Bush-approved methods have called them torture. And President Obama says that those tactics won't be used on his watch.
But here is the one thing that people on both sides of the torture debate don't seem to understand. This really isn't about uncooperative suspects. This is about uncooperative politicians. Let's look at the politicians for a while.
From the April 22 edition of Fox News' Hannity:
HANNITY: All right. Let me ask you -- I'm never going to --
GRODIN: Well, you're for torture, right?
HANNITY: I am for enhanced interrogation. I don't believe that waterboarding is torture.
GRODIN: You're not -- but you don't believe it's torture. Have you ever been waterboarded?
HANNITY: No, but Ollie North has, and I talked to him about it.
GRODIN: And how -- would you consent to be waterboarded --
HANNITY: Yes.
GRODIN: -- so we could get the truth out of you?
HANNITY: Yeah. Sure.
GRODIN: We can waterboard you?
HANNITY: Sure.
GRODIN: Are you busy on Sunday?
HANNITY: I'll do it for charity. I'll let you do it.
GRODIN: I wouldn't to do it.
HANNITY: I'll do it for the troops' families.
GRODIN: I wouldn't do it. I'll hand you a towel when you come out of the shower.
HANNITY: When I come out of the shower.
How about a Water Board Torture day? WBT day? Maybe a march to Fox News with free water boarding for all Fox employees? Voluntary of course but they say it is not too big a deal so I am sure many will step up.
I'd like to see them pass boot camp , let's say marine corps ,San Diego ?
Paris Island, in August. That is a lot tougher than San Diego due to the heat, humidity, and the amount of bugs.
Been there, done that...
Absolutely. Their positions on just about EVERYTHING comre from fear, and little else.
Perhaps they are doing so because putting the safety and welfare of terrorists ahead of Americans is a joke. These techniques have worked, do work, and they will still be used under the Obama admin as much as those on the left hate to admit it. They may call them something else, or they may ship the suspects somewhere else to have it done, but it will be done to protect Americans.
Torture doesn't work but continue with that lie so all of America can see you in your repug glory of self-denial.
Blair said it did. Your argument is with him, not me.
No, your fallacy is with yourself.
Actually, MMfA has debunked the lie that Blair said anything of the sort.
But you just keep on lying, little fella, we know you can do nothing else or else you won't receive your posting pittance from your GOP masters.
"These techniques have worked, do work..."
And you have conclusive proof that they work? Firsthand knowledge? Or an e-mail that you received?
POV found that torture works when he attended that repug workshop titled, "Let's believe torture works otherwise that makes us Nazis".
When you discover that we are killing babies and nurdering people by the millions than come talk to me about what the nazis did. Until then, shut up until you have something useful to say.
Your repug sensibilities aside, behavior can be Nazi like, it doesn't mean that millions need to be killed to be Nazi like. As far as the 3rd grade like shut up...please hold your breath too because I'm not going to shut up.
And you have conclusive proof that torture works? Firsthand knowledge? Or an e-mail that you received?
You parrot "killing babies" as if you had some high moral ground. You don't. I had a "spontaneous abortion." Do you think God killed my "baby"? Fact is, you folks don't really believe in eternal life, you think it's all physical. That's obvious from how all those infantile people wanted to keep Terri Schiavo "alive." You don't really KNOW when the soul enters the body, yet you'd like to claim that you do, based upon some obscure interpretation of the bible.
Of course you can't reconcile your enthusiasm for torture with the Gospel, so you HAVE to switch the subject.
That is what the numbers in Iraq are showing we are starting to do pointofview.
The British magazine Lancet estimated several years ago that close to a million Iraqis had lost their lives in the war. In the intervening years, that number has definitely grown larger. And many of them were innocent children and, yes, babies. So, Mr pointlessofview, we are doing precisely what you claim we are not.
If you were to shut up until you had something useful to say, none of your posts would ever have appeared on this site.
Recommended Reading.
No matter how many real-life experts you cite who repeat the same facts, the Troglodytes prefer to believe Jack Bauer. That way, they can go on pretending that President Numbnuts "kept us safe".
How many terrorists have we treated this way? And how many innocents? Your argument can be made and discussed (even though I vehemently oppose it), but we need to stop calling every person arrested on sand a "daggum raghead turist who DESERVES it!"
Where is your evidence that we've only treated the guilty with these techniques? Don't bother trying to find it, by the way. It doesn't exist.
I agree with almost everything you said. It can and should be discussed. We still should not take options off the table to use against those who would strap bombs on themselves and kill innocent people. The Constitution does not protect terrorists. It protects American Citizens. If and when we deal with an American terrorist that is a different conversation.
Jose Padilla. There, I said it, an american terrorist...
And you would be wrong because your interpretation of what the constitution protects. It protects the rule of law. It does not protect denying the rule of law to those who are considered terrorists. Everyone regardless of nationality will receive due justice under our constitution.
"The Constitution does not protect terrorists."
Nor does it condemn them to gulags and torture without trial.
The 11th amendment, among other things, clarifies judicial powers over foreign nationals. Only a strict constitutionalist (one who denies the bill of rights) would make a claim like that...
Hey....um... POV...
"The Constitution does not protect terrorists. It protects American Citizens."
No, you are absolutely WRONG!.... it protects ALL people by outlining the RULE OF LAW we are meant to live by... or did you forget to pay attention in class when you were taught the Constitution in civics class? ...
General George Washington gave an explicit order to not treat British soldiers in any inhuman way, including torture or shooting them dead upon their surrender... because he knew that if he allowed that to take place that any of his men could well be treated the same... skip 230 years later and president Bush and his merry band of right-wing lunatics go and spit upon the founders graves and you want to defend that?
Back to the Constitution... it does not specify ANY one group of people it protects... not just Americans... not slaves (of the day), not Asians, not Indians... All the Constitution does is outline the structure of how this country is to present itself to its own people and the world, however imperfect it may be...
AS A NATION OF MEN'S LAWS... NOT GOD'S LAWS!!!
As for the protection of American's you think exists in any document...perhaps you are referring to the Declaration of Independence...
"We hold these truths to be self evident, that ALL MEN are created equal, that they are endowed by THEIR creator..."
At no point anywhere in this or any document created by the founding fathers does it explicitly say... only American's are to be protected! Trust me... I know... I carry a pocket Declaration and Constitution in my pocket and have read them both... more than once! I'm a history/civics major in college.
The rules set forth by our founders were meant to keep us from ever doing to others as was being done to us by the King of England... learn your countries history before you try and use it as a defense to something that is illegal...
Every so often POV you may come up with something that sounds right... but in this case... you are completely WRONG! Unless you are hoping to work at Fox News someday?
The Constitution protects everyone, including accused terrorists. Once they're convicted in a court of law, their rights change. But even then, the Constitution protects them from things like cruel and unusual punishment.
Please refrain from posting until you possess even a slight inkling of where the clues are located, because to call you clueless is to give you the benefit of the doubt.
You are of course WRONG. You never know what you are talking about. Our constitutional protections apply everyone our justice system is used against and it LIMITS what our government can do. Not ONLY to American citizens but to anyone. The ONLY place our constitution says citizens is when it talks about voting. The rest of the time the term used is PERSONS. You just KEEP calling them terrorists though I have asked you over and over to cough up your proof ONLY terrorists are being torture dand in fact I have SHOWN that is false. You dont CARE what is false because you are a propaganda parrot who is going to repeat what you were told to think over and over and over even AFTER it has been PROVEN false. We HAVE dealt with American terrorists. Timothy McVeigh, and Jose Padilla. McVeigh was given his constitutional rights, Padilla was NOT.
One more thing...
"putting the safety and welfare of terrorists ahead of Americans is a joke."
Is the torture of a captured American something to laugh about as well?
It's not about the safety and welfare of terrorists, it's about the safety and welfare of captured Americans in enemy hands. When we become what we detest, we no longer have a moral standing or a pedestal upon which to dictate to the rest of the world about the treatment of prisoners.
Our moral stance has done so well in preventing our troops from being totured in the past. Give me a break.
You'd rather not have the moral stance to speak out against our enemies when one of our own is tortured.
That speaks volumes.
Become what you hate. So, voting liberal next election?
Our moral stance has done so well in preventing our troops from being totured in the past. Give me a break.
That's your justification? They do it, so we should? What other things have our enemies done? Should we have done the same, or do the same now?
C'mon, you can do better than that.
Hmmm, your view smacks a little of Wrath, not very religious myself but as a deadly sin, mightn't be a great thing if you are.
I think one arguement being made for the uses of waterboarding and other "torture" techniques was, and I think O Reilly used this reasoning, would you use these measures to protect your own child?
Which is a good point, personally if I had to, I'd do just that, and a lot worse if I could think of some things, to protect my own family as I'm sure if needs be, most people would.
BUT theres one thing wrong with the arguement.
The Army, Gov't, President, all of them can't act like any of us, any civilians would. They have to kinda act professional.
Simple example, why can't the president just say "f**k off" to his doubters on T.V?, cause thats not professional right?, he has to take all the criticism, just and unjust with humility, but do I, or any of us take criticism that well? (Even Bush takes the level of abuse well)
Now a more direct example, North Korea look dangerous right?, so maybe theres some backing of an idea to just "go in" and get that crazy dictater out of there, I'm sure there was some panic about that missile they launched right?
But could any leader of any country even, prematurely react and cause a war or severe tension?, no, there has to be level heads.
Not using waterboarding doesn't mean not using any methods, if you say you can use it because other countries have done it to your fellow countrymen, could Obama bring in a monarch with the arguement that England does it?
If waterboarding works, why not crucifixion?, I mean it it can kill Jesus, and if anyone complains we can look at some culture somewhere that probably still uses it right?
I think one arguement being made for the uses of waterboarding and other "torture" techniques was, and I think O Reilly used this reasoning, would you use these measures to protect your own child?
Which is a good point, personally if I had to, I'd do just that, and a lot worse if I could think of some things, to protect my own family as I'm sure if needs be, most people would.
BUT theres one thing wrong with the arguement.
The Army, Gov't, President, all of them can't act like any of us, any civilians would. They have to kinda act professional.
The expectation that "they" need to have a higher morality than "we" is the type of logical fallacy that failed in defense at the Nuremburg trials - "just following orders", "didn't know what really was happening to them". Torture is torture is torture. It is wrong. It is criminal. We prosecuted the Japanese for waterboarding after WWII. Those who perform torture or authorize its performance are criminals. Those who condone it, apologize for it or seek to avoid prosecuting those who did it are cowards.
If I were to choose to torture someone to extract information to protect my family (or anyone else for that matter), I would do so with the knowledge and expectation that I would be prosecuted and face imprisonment or execution because of it.
This was done in OUR name. The rule of law requires investigation and prosecution.
"Our moral stance has done so well in preventing our troops from being totured in the past. Give me a break. "
Our moral standing has absolutely prevented torture and it has also helped win wars at a far less cost in lives on both sides.
During Operation Desert Storm, thousands of Iraqi soldiers threw down their arms and surrendered to American forces because they knew that the Americans would treat them humanely, even more humanely than Saddam Hussein did. Having this moral standing in the world literally saved Hundreds of American soldiers’ lives.
That statement really says it all. You are scared and weak and willing to throw out all that has made American the beacon for the rest of the world because you think it will make you feel safe. It will not. You will never be 100% safe in a truly free society. That is the price we are willing to pay to be free.
G-Dub used to love to say "they hate us for our freedom, they hate us for our freedom". Maybe, just maybe, it's not the terrorists who hate us for our freedom. Freedom can be a frightening thing and you have to be a strong people to stand up on your principles when they are threatened. That is when your principles matter most. Ironically, the soldiers you pretend to want to protect are exactly the ones who kill and die to keep us free.
We will fight civilized countries again. When we do we will have NO argument as to why they should not torture our people to save the lives of THEIR people.
1. Few people are concerned of the welfare of terrorists. I am not. I am concerned about living in a country ruled by a government that practices torture.
2. The idea that torture protects Americans is a fantasy with zero evidence or basis in reality.
2. These techniques have indeed worked, just not the way you mean. They have always been used, they have always been called torture, and they have always been effective in elliciting confessions and information. However, that information has always been unreliable and completely useless, because everyone in history who has practiced torture know that the information is given in order to stop the torture, and this will be given whether the person being tortured knows something or not. The only thing torture is good for is when you want ANY confession or ANY information, and you don't care whether it's the truth or not. In fact, it has usually been used in order to get information you KNOW is false. So yes, it does work if the object is to get someone to talk. It does not work if the object is to get someone to tell the truth.
Read what Blair said in his report.....the part you want to ignore......the part where he said it produced intel we could use.
The whole quote has been up recently. Surprise! It doesn't support you.
Well, he did say that they got high value information from the interrogrations (who knows if it's true or not, but anyway). But yes, Blair also said it had done more harm than good, but I doubt pointofview can understand how one person could say both these things.
Of course, whether it works or not is besides the point anyway, but it's the second to last step in pointofview's and his brethren's arguing:
1. We don't torture.
2. Well, it's like torture, but it's really not.
3. OK, it's torture, but it works.
4. OK, maybe it doesn't work reliably but these guys deserve to suffer for what they did on 9/11!
He also said he doesn't know if we could have gotten the info some other way than torture!
Right, that's a good point.
I am suprised to read that it produced "high value informantion" does not support my claim that he said it worked. Care to explian to me how high value info is not a successful result? Cant wait to hear this.
Where did I say it didn't work? I agree, it DID work in the sense that they got information. But can you find a court or intelligence office who believes that information received from torture is actually reliable?
It might be true, it might be not. If it was real info, great.
But it's all besides the point anyway, whether it works or not is irrelevant for the legality of it.
In addition to the illegality of torture, we also have new-school interrogators who are having success without resorting to torture at all. They're proving that we can do it without becoming what we detest.
We also have the old-school interrogators who said they got more information from captured soldiers by playing chess with them and playing to their homesickness than they ever could have by reminding them that they were captured prisoners before a ruthless enemy, which is what torture promotes in their minds.
Torture increases resistance, and produces information that may or may not be correct or useful. But when a prisoner swears under torture that the names of the conspirators they are looking for are an Al Qaeda cell or the names of the Pittsburgh Steelers (as John McCain averred under torture, although the exact team he said he used varied depending upon which city he was campaigning in), how do you use that information?
Do you go out and arrest the Pittsburgh Steelers and begin torturing them?
Yes your right and I think we could take it a step further and say that because we've tortured these individuals ,which is illegal, the information we got cannot be used in a court of law which then makes it harder to prosecute them. That's the conudrum we face with closing GITMO!
because he also said it wasnt worth it. If YOU robbed a bank then spent the money but got caught and were sent to prison for ten years would you say it WORKED? I mean you GOT the money yet it really wasnt worth it was it? So I guess that depends on what you mean by worked.
He said it produced high value information about al Qaida. How do we know if this information was true or not? It might be, and then again, it might not. With torture, you never know.
Checkout this article by Robert Parry tilted "How Bush's Torture helped Al-Qaeda"
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/04/23-9
Even if I give you that. Even if it works. So does murder, so does theft. They WORK. They are also WRONG. What else would you condone that destroys any semblance hat we are a decent people. Would you rape their wives and children in front of them? Torture their wives and children in front of them? US nuclear weapons against their people? All those MIGHT make them talk, they MIGHT work. Does that mean we should do them? IS there NO moral part to this equation? Is what works the ONLY thing that matters in your scared little world?
Perhaps they are doing so because putting the safety and welfare of terrorists ahead of Americans is a joke.
Allowing a government to torture is no joke. Who decides who's a terrorist? Would you get your day in court if the DHS ID'd YOU as a terrorist? Not under the system you're supporting.
These techniques have worked, do work, and they will still be used under the Obama admin as much as those on the left hate to admit it.
There's no ecidence to support this. As much as those on the right hate to admit it.
They may call them something else, or they may ship the suspects somewhere else to have it done, but it will be done to protect Americans.
Protecting American's by destroying America and all it stands for. The Contitution protects Americans, and it does so by limiting the actions that can be taken by our government. To allow the torture 'of terrorists' is to allow torture. To say it's OK 'because, those people are bad' assumes that WE are good, and have moral authority. Your support of torture, in and of itself, undermines that position.
There's a word for those that woudl betray their couontries foudning principles, and their own principles, in order to 'feel better' and 'feel safe' and 'save [themselves]'. That word is COWARD.
NGE,
I whole heartedly agree with your reply to POV...
Only one thing... as I replied to POV above... the Constitution does not just protect American's... it protects EVERYONE! Even our enemies!
As I said above... General washington did give an explicit order to his troops that under no circumstances were they to harm in any inhumane way, including that of torture or killing a surrendering British soldier, as he knew that if we lowered ourselves to that level, then we would have no moral standing to the fact that some of the British officers were inflicting inhumane treatment upon some American's that had surrendered...
While the movie "The Patriot" with Mel Gibson took many liberties, it was not far off in its dipiction of that Colonel that was vicious toward American soldiers...
It of course is sad to note that once the war was over, we did not follow suite officially when it came to how we ultimately treated native American Indians.
Always with the baseless assertion completely unsupportable. Do you KNOW only terrorists were tortured? In fact you CANT know that since I pointed out to you before that we KNOW Maher Arar was tortured and no one even accused him of terrorism or el Masri who was just a guy with a similar name to someone we wanted to torture. So you just say it again anyway. You just SAY we torture terrorists because you are a pantywaist and you are scared shivering under your mommys bed. You dont CARE about American values. You dont CARE if it is true or real you only want to push propaganda even if it is a LIE. You cannot show torture is necessary to keep Americans safe, you DO not know Obama will continue to torture he SAYS he wont. YOU have no information that is not correct nor can you read his mind. Your post is as worthless as your posts usually are.
Does Beck or any of the other Fox honks understand that 24 is just a TV show (and not a documentary, either)?
Good to see Hannity volunteer to be waterboarded. Now, let's set him up in his own cell, no contact with the outside world, and then waterboard him 183 times over the next 30 days. He says it's for charity, so it should be fine.
but we know he is never telling the truth and how can we tell the difference ?
Maybe if we TORTURE HIM we'll get him to tell the truth?
No?
PROOF THAT TORTURE DOESN'T WORK!!!
He and Rush need to have a waterboarding contest. See who can last the longest between the two of them. And instead of charity , one rich guy can give the other rich guy the money to help make up for their terrible tax cuts.
Hannity might last a few seconds, but Rush would never make it to the contest. He'd throw in the towel, and donate a million bucks to Hannity's america.
There's a saying here in Texas that would apply to Rush: all hat, no cattle.
That's why the loser should have to give $1MIL to MMFA, Code Pink, Greenpeace, PETA, the ACLU, Planned Parenthood, (pick your fav. misc. pinko-commie-liberal non-profit organization). Then they'd actually try and stick it out. Include O'Rielly, Beck and Savage in that, and you'd have one hell of a pay-per-view, no? (All proceed to be donated to a pinko-commie-liberal charity, of course!)
Oh my that would be the one time this year that I would actually watch those guys, lol.
So, that perennial putz, Glenn Beck, has no problem with his country using torture to "keep us safe", but he blubbers like a halfwit at the prospect of using his tax dollars to give healthcare to poor people? What an a$$hole.
Just wait, once the FBI catches a would-be McVeigh I'm pretty sure Beck would oppose torture to get him to talk.
I guess Fox only hires the true badasses.
Give me a break. Isn't Beck the guy who whimpers at the drop of a hat? He, Hannity and O'Reilly all know what they'd do if they had the chance.
They're quick to tell us how tough they'd be, yet fail to mention that they are all had the chance but I guess they all had "other priorities".
No wonder Hannity worships that pantload Ted Nugent.
Remember, Rush's bad ass got him out of the Army.
It's becoming obvious that Bush/Cheney approved torture to get false confessions about a link between Sadam Hussein and Al Quaida.
The history of torturers show that they do it mostly to intimidate, not to get any useful information. What a great bargain...gain a phony confession, lose your soul.
Exactly!
I am afraid to say that you are probably correct. This is precisely why the Japanese and Chinese used torture - to get captured soldiers to say things they could use publicly against their enemies.
Sean said in front of millions of viewers Wednesday that he is willing to be waterboard for charity. I will contribute money to this very, very worthy cause. Come on Sean, let's see if you are man enough to take this torture.
Keith Olbermann offered $1000 for every second that Sean gets waterboarded to a charity that helps pay for returning soldiers....
Hell... I'll make this my legal declaration that if Sean puts his nose where his mouth is and actually goes through with this... I'm not rich to offer much... but I'd be willing to send $10 per second that sean handles it... and an additional $20 if he does not actually admit to a false statement while being tortured.
Or was Sean just being his usual moronic self and he's to much of a pu$$y to actually go through with it??
I just watched that online and I was particularly impressed with the subsequent conversation with Lawrence O'Donnell, who completely dissected and exposed the right-wing's macho-man stance on torture for what it is.
I saw the challenge from Keith Olbermann. You know at $1000 per minute if this idiot can endure it for 17 minutes and it would cost Olbermann a cool $1 million dollars. It could backfire on Olbermann if that smug POS is able to go the distance.
If Hannity is taken up on his offer, I hope they do it realistically. He should not be allowed to prepare. He should be taken from whereever he is, almost like a simulated kidnapping, and waterboarded without warning. Of course, if there is a doctor there, he won't think its torture, right? If he is taken up on his offer, it would be a shame if he was allowed to psyche himself up for it.
Hannity is clueless. The SERE training isn't simply a few seconds under a towel with water.
It includes nudity, exposure to cold, isolation in small, dark spaces, mind numbing noise which might be a tonedeaf meuzzin's call to prayer, loud yelling, conflicting demands from captors which can't be fulfilled, and a denial of control over even bodily functions,....as well as waterboarding. SERE training is usually a couple days or more.
Torture technique as used by our communist enemies has been to demand the subject make a statement that satisfies the captors, or the torture continues. The statement may be stated overtly, making it easy for the prisoner to comply after being broken; or the statement may be hidden, requiring the prisoner to guess at what the captors want. The latter technique is actually harder on the captive because no matter what is said the captor will keep saying, "I don't believe you" and continue the torture. This escalates the stress.
Note that this is not an interrogation technique, this is purely torture. Interrogators could never trust the results of such behavior which is why interrogators don't use torture.
I suggest people propose the statements Hannity has agree upon before the torture stops. That's closest to a real world test. How long until he complies?
I hope Hannity is held to his offer to be waterboarded for charity. I like Olbermann's offer @$1,000 for every second.
Exactly! The fact that we DON'T torture, and that we HAVE these constitutinal protections is what MAKES us GREAT! It's what MAKES US WORTH SAVING! These people want to save us as the cost of what makes us worth saving! They want to claim that we're 'better' and use that to justify an activity that makes us JUST AS BAD AS "THEM" - NO BETTER!
Yeah. About as funny as getting a arrow through the neck, and then finding there's a gas bill attacehd to it.
The troops at Fox News have to do the dirty work. I blame the leader; e.g. Hussein,Stalin, Hilter, you know. The King of Fox signs the checks. If you have a job, that payes for your soul, will you do it? Of course, you will. The ration of salt makes you rich. Who apportions the salt? Public contention favors, he who pulls the string.
Favor yields to the winner, not Justice. I favor Justice.
Objectively; if there is nothing to hide, why lie? The subjects, in our modern trajedy, are at both ends of the whip. Who will stike, whom will cry. The land of the whip does not stop the cry. Is it a cry for Justice, or joy, when stopped.
Will the whip be continued, as it is today, or will the cry be heard?
(C) Ronin Kannushi.
ATTENTION: FREE TO SHARE, NOT TO BUY.