Nice clip, imho. The talk show host is... mystified, let's say. :D
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSra-McRZEc&feature=player_embedded
why are you watching The View? ;)
good for Jesse. an honest politician.
Executive summary?
torture is torture; advanced interrogation is torture. we only torture muslims. we should hold ourselves to a higher standard. we created our own Hanoi Hilton in Gitmo. torture is unreliable. if I waterboarded Cheney for an hour I'd have him confessing to the Sharon Tate murders.
He's an idiot, clearly.
Quote from: Berkut on May 20, 2009, 09:43:27 AM
Executive summary?
Elizabeth Hasselback needs to sit on my penis.
Quote from: saskganesh on May 20, 2009, 09:47:42 AM
torture is torture;
O RLY?
Quoteadvanced interrogation is torture.
Is primitive interrogation torture?
Quote
we only torture muslims.
Only Muslims have been a problem lately. Kind of mixing up cause and effect here. Would he be ok with torture if we practiced affirmative torture action?
Quote
we should hold ourselves to a higher standard.
Absolutely. Of course, we do hold ourselves to a higher standard.
Quote
we created our own Hanoi Hilton in Gitmo.
Wow, that is a stunningly stupid thing to say. Everyone knows that Gitmo is a moden gulag, not the Hanoi hilton.
Quote
torture is unreliable.
I am sure it can be.
Quote
if I waterboarded Cheney for an hour I'd have him confessing to the Sharon Tate murders.
So?
Sigh, another fine example of trotting out all the stupid reasons to hold a position, while ignoring the good ones.
Quote from: saskganesh on May 20, 2009, 09:38:04 AM
why are you watching The View? ;)
good for Jesse. an honest politician.
It was on a lefitst blog I read daily. I've no idea what's the show.
Quote from: Berkut on May 20, 2009, 09:54:10 AM
Only Muslims have been a problem lately. Kind of mixing up cause and effect here. Would he be ok with torture if we practiced affirmative torture action?
his point is that McVeigh wasn't tortured to give information about his 'cell'. Dangerous criminals are not tortured to obtain information about their gang. He makes the point that if torture is really that efficient, than it should be applied to everyone who commits a crime to get a confession. In a way, he's probably right, it would cost less to torture a mafia member than pay him a million dollar a year for the rest of his life in exchange for his testimony.
Quote from: viper37 on May 20, 2009, 11:41:15 AM
Quote from: Berkut on May 20, 2009, 09:54:10 AM
Only Muslims have been a problem lately. Kind of mixing up cause and effect here. Would he be ok with torture if we practiced affirmative torture action?
his point is that McVeigh wasn't tortured to give information about his 'cell'.
Probably because there wasn't one, and he was not a threat. I can assure you, however, that he was interrogated.
Quote
Dangerous criminals are not tortured to obtain information about their gang.
Of course they are. We threaten to lock them up in nasty prison for decades unless they spill their guts.
I bet sometimes they even used advanced interrogation techniques, like good cop, bad cop. I am pretty sure that is against the Geneva Convention.
Quote
He makes the point that if torture is really that efficient, than it should be applied to everyone who commits a crime to get a confession.
What if it isn't that efficient? What if it isn't even torture? What if it sometimes works, and sometimes it doesn't? Just like every other process in everything we do?
Quote
In a way, he's probably right, it would cost less to torture a mafia member than pay him a million dollar a year for the rest of his life in exchange for his testimony.
See above. I don't think we pay mafia members a million dollars a year either.
Oh him? That's Crazy Old Man Berkut, son. They say that the day he stops advocating torture is the day he'll keel over for good. Keeps him alive, the rage does. Or so they say. Who knows? All I know is that he was always like this. Yessir.
:lol:
He didn't use the phrase 'advanced interrogation techniques'. He used the phrase 'enhanced interrogation techniques' which is how the Bush administration described and named torture. I'm glad you noticed how preposterous that is, linguistically speaking.
Is that guy really defending the enemies of the United States?
Does he knows what happens to our guys that get captured by the enemy?
I don't like torture, and I certainly don't trust the intell obtained under torture, but as long as they are doing it just on muslims, I got no problem with it.
Now, if they start torturing non-muslim american citizens, then I would have a problem with it.
God, Siege, there's no way you should be a member of the US Armed Forces. :bleeding:
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 20, 2009, 05:43:16 PM
God, Siege, there's no way you should be a member of the US Armed Forces. :bleeding:
[Obama] Unlike the people who, you know, torture and shit. [/Obama]
Quote from: Siege on May 20, 2009, 05:01:28 PM
Is that guy really defending the enemies of the United States?
Does he knows what happens to our guys that get captured by the enemy?
I don't like torture, and I certainly don't trust the intell obtained under torture, but as long as they are doing it just on muslims, I got no problem with it.
Now, if they start torturing non-muslim american citizens, then I would have a problem with it.
Siege, your willingness to bend over to totalitarianism because it's "what my government tells me to do," your blatant racism, and your inability to tell the difference between an effective op and a psychopathic murder spree are a real credit to the uniform, dude. Pass along my compliments to your CO.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on May 20, 2009, 08:06:18 PM
Quote from: Siege on May 20, 2009, 05:01:28 PM
Is that guy really defending the enemies of the United States?
Does he knows what happens to our guys that get captured by the enemy?
I don't like torture, and I certainly don't trust the intell obtained under torture, but as long as they are doing it just on muslims, I got no problem with it.
Now, if they start torturing non-muslim american citizens, then I would have a problem with it.
Siege, your willingness to bend over to totalitarianism because it's "what my government tells me to do," your blatant racism, and your inability to tell the difference between an effective op and a psychopathic murder spree are a real credit to the uniform, dude. Pass along my compliments to your CO.
I have a new CO.
My old CO retired, to be a literature teacher in some college.
He is writing a book about our part in Teh Surge.
Apearenly I'm gonna be one of the main characters.
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 20, 2009, 04:29:33 PM
He didn't use the phrase 'advanced interrogation techniques'. He used the phrase 'enhanced interrogation techniques' which is how the Bush administration described and named torture. I'm glad you noticed how preposterous that is, linguistically speaking.
It is preposterous if it is being used as a euphemism for torture, of course. But then, the debate is always really about what is torture - although the ZOMGHITLER side as successfully chanted "torturetorturetorture" enough that now anything beyond a polite question is "torture".
Quote from: Berkut on May 20, 2009, 08:17:21 PM
now anything beyond a polite question is "torture".
Sure it is.
Quote from: Berkut on May 20, 2009, 08:17:21 PMBut then, the debate is always really about what is torture - although the ZOMGHITLER side as successfully chanted "torturetorturetorture" enough that now anything beyond a polite question is "torture".
But that's a debate you and I and others have had several times over the past 3-4 years. I think that, in terms of public opinion, the debate was on the side that argued that the techniques used weren't torture for the first 2-3 years and that's now shifted.
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 21, 2009, 04:24:38 AM
Quote from: Berkut on May 20, 2009, 08:17:21 PMBut then, the debate is always really about what is torture - although the ZOMGHITLER side as successfully chanted "torturetorturetorture" enough that now anything beyond a polite question is "torture".
But that's a debate you and I and others have had several times over the past 3-4 years. I think that, in terms of public opinion, the debate was on the side that argued that the techniques used weren't torture for the first 2-3 years and that's now shifted.
What is this "public opinion" you cite? I doubt the opinions of the Bushitler crowd are hardly representative of the norm, which Obama found out the hard way. The first time it becomes public that Obama authorized enhanced interrogation techniques that same chattering class will somehow decide that that isn't torture anymore.
Btw, the majority of the public supports outright torture of terrorists.
Quote from: Hansmeister on May 21, 2009, 06:32:51 AM
What is this "public opinion" you cite? I doubt the opinions of the Bushitler crowd are hardly representative of the norm, which Obama found out the hard way. The first time it becomes public that Obama authorized enhanced interrogation techniques that same chattering class will somehow decide that that isn't torture anymore.
Btw, the majority of the public supports outright torture of terrorists.
Well Gallup's done a few polls on it and opinion's changed over time. Now admittedly this one's perhaps a bit useless because they don't define torture but I don't think the majority of the public supports outright torture:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia.gallup.com%2FGPTB%2FgoverPubli%2F20050301b_3.gif&hash=db2c0b4c59859c2432caaaad6b48a537d718b2b9)
http://www.gallup.com/poll/15073/Would-Americans-Fight-Terrorism-Any-Means-Necessary.aspx
I think it's to America's credit that even in October 2001 the majority of the public didn't support that.
On particular techniques the US used, when they became known, most Americans thought they were 'wrong':
http://www.gallup.com/poll/15160/Americans-Frown-Interrogation-Techniques.aspx
Though, admittedly, this wasn't long after Abu Ghraib so they could just have been particularly concerned.
It jibes with the first (which allows the repondent to imagine what they mean by 'torture') that only a slim majority of 9% want them ended now:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/118006/Slim-Majority-Wants-Bush-Era-Interrogations-Investigated.aspx
Though, I believe, many of these techniques were ended after Abu Ghraib in 2004, so ending them is something Bush himself did.
I've no doubt that some people may have less issue with them if Obama ordered them than Bush. But I think many are opposed to them out of principle (ideology, in fact). That's certainly the case with me. I think this is the single biggest mistake the US has made in the war on terror. I think it's wrong. I also think extraordinary rendition (which was Clinton's error) was wrong and undercuts everything the US says to Arabs about wanting more observation of human rights in the Arab world. The emerging details of British figures who knowingly participated in this have severely damaged my impressions of them - including Blair and Jack Straw, both of whom I quite like.
Edit: Having said all that my view is that torture can be justified. There are circumstances when I think it's acceptable. In those cases I think that the authorisation for it should go as high as possible (ideally to the President) and that all involved should be willing to face potential repurcussions because there was, literally, a ticking time bomb. I don't trust any branch of government enough to build emergency procedures into a normal institutional framework because all too often what's meant for an emergency will be used too often because everything that looks like an emergency justifies its use.
I think it's better not to give institutions potential powers only to use in an emergency because those institutions will always try and push the boundaries of what an emergency is, rather I think that if such things are illegal and have possibly sever consequences then they will only be used in very real emergencies.
Edit: And I can't believe I'm making that argument to a sort-of libertarianish independent and a conservative.
Actually, I agree with pretty much everything you just posted.