Mancow gets Waterboarded!

[Coloradomtnman]

Id rather a terrorist be in pain than an innocent civilian be killed. If you can't say the same you are a coward in my opinion.

In my opinion, you are an idiot.

I'd rather that the US didn't compromise its principles out of fear. That's true cowardice.

Do those principles place a higher value on the rights of terrorists than Americans?

For if you had been in charge, the Library Tower in LA would have been attacked.

Americans would have died, losing their basic rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

And yet, somehow, that is unimportant to you?

I hear much talk about the "rights" of terrorists but little talk about the rights of those Americans who lost their lives on 9/11.

Something to keep in mind.

This is how my arguments and similar arguments are mischaracterized or misconstrued.

Let me just say it flat out: it isn't about the terrorists' rights. I don't give a rats ass about the terrorists' rights. But I do want to remind you that these men have yet to be convicted. Did the men who fought and died in every war to defend this country die fighting to protect American citizens or the American ideals? Did they die to protect you or to protect your rights to due process, your right to freedom, your rights as laid out in the Constitution of the United States? If you had served in the US military you'd know that US military service requires an oath to protect the Constitution of the United States from all enemies foreign and domestic, not to protect its citizens. So if we just throw out our principles because we fear a terrorist attack, the terrorists have won and we have compromised our princinples out of fear and we have demonstrated that the many thousands of men and women who died in the US Armed Forces died in vain! If we torture people, convicted, guilty, evil, mass murderers, etc. we are no better than those who commit torture on our citizens or murder them or do the same to our serving men and women.

And in the military we were instructed to never break the rules of war as laid out by the Geneva Convention. Not because we're sensitive nice soldiers, but for very practical, pragmatic reasons: killing or torturing POWs instills in the enemy a will to fight, a righteous cause to fight against the evil murderers and torturers. It helps recruit more enemy fighters. It turns a potentially friendly civilian population in whatever country we're deployed into unfriendly, unhelpful, civilians or enemies.

And where do we draw the line? When does it go from being illegal to waterboard, to being legal, to being something more than just waterboarding?

I didn't serve in the Marine Corps to protect a nation that tortures people. I served in the Marine Corps to protect a nation that treats even the most inhumane people humanely. I served to protect a nation that won't buckle out of fear. That isn't the America for which I put my life at risk.

 

[jreeves]

Red Dawn's got it exactly right.

The tools for Bush have zero respect for themselves.

This is exactly right. When Abu Ghraib happened, I was one of the staunchest defenders of the service personnel involved. Then I found out that they DID IT, and said they should be prosecuted. Now, we find out that their treatment of prisoners was probably condoned at the highest levels.

ENOUGH IS ENOUGH. When Abu Ghraib happened, most of us said, "Not us, our military doesn't DO THAT."

And now, there are all these people saying, "Oh, it's fine. Those people deserved it."

IT ISN'T FUCKING FINE.

The reasons we don't torture have NOTHING to do with whether KSM or others DESERVED to be tortured. The reasons we don't torture have nothing to do with THEM, at all. The reason we don't torture is because of what it would do to US, as a country.

You do realize there is a difference between Abu Ghraib and enhanced interrogations correct?

 

[Political Junky]

Did we consider it torture when the Japs did it to us? That is the only question I have.

Yes, we prosecuted the Japanese for waterboarding Americans in WW2.

 

[jreeves]

I don't think torture is effective overall, but I think KSM and Abu Z DID deserve to be tortured.

I hate them, too. But I don't think it means we should stoop to their level

When did we cut one of their heads off on the internet? That would be stooping to their level....

Waterboarding never caused any permanent damage to these animals. KSM is fine, don't worry..

 

[jreeves]

Did we consider it torture when the Japs did it to us? That is the only question I have.

Yes, we prosecuted the Japanese for waterboarding Americans in WW2.

So the charge was waterboarding?

 

[jreeves]

Hey, I bet we could "enhance" our interogation by using garden clippers to take off fingers inches at a time! And, shit, dude... terrorists only need ONE EYE! Let's take a hot poker and burn an eye socket! I mean, this is Jack Bauer land and everyone is one fucking excuse away from becoming exactly what they claim to hate!

pathetic.

Hmm...so now waterboarding doesn't quite cut being torture. So instead what we'll do is create strawmen, like the CIA was taking fingers off and burning people's eyes out. Lmao....waterboarding isn't even close to burning someone's eye out or clipping their fingers off. Losing an eye or losing a finger causes permanent damage while waterboarding causes no permanent physical damage.

 

[C-101]

Let me just say it flat out: it isn't about the terrorists' rights. I don't give a rats ass about the terrorists' rights. But I do want to remind you that these men have yet to be convicted. Did the men who fought and died in every war to defend this country die fighting to protect American citizens or the American ideals? Did they die to protect you or to protect your rights to due process, your right to freedom, your rights as laid out in the Constitution of the United States? If you had served in the US military you'd know that US military service requires an oath to protect the Constitution of the United States from all enemies foreign and domestic, not to protect its citizens.

Seeing how our rights are not independent from our person, that makes no sense. If our soldiers protect our rights, which include life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, they are protecting us.

Remember, our nation was formed on the concept of inherent rights from a Creator, not external rights sanctioned by a governing authority. Thus, the Constitution's design is to limit government power, not establish it. In fact, many founders thought the Bill of Rights was unnecessary as they felt the original Constitution itself was sufficient enough protection of our inherent rights. Alas, the people still wanted assurance through supreme law that their rights were protected and the Bill of Rights was formed specifying those individual, inherent rights of man.

So if we just throw out our principles because we fear a terrorist attack, the terrorists have won and we have compromised our princinples out of fear and we have demonstrated that the many thousands of men and women who died in the US Armed Forces died in vain!

So we waterboard three hardline terrorists and that constitutes a disposal of our principles?

Fear is motivating factor for some, but for leaders such as Cheney I think it should be clear in anyone's mind that he is motivated by a sense of duty, not fear.

The same goes for other people. The folks at the CIA feel a sense of duty to protect our citizens from terrorist attacks, and will take all necessary and appropriate measures to do so.

So I think fear is exaggerated in the context of 9/11, as the unification and strong-willed nature of our nation on 9/12 proves that we would not let the terrorists make us afraid.

If we torture people, convicted, guilty, evil, mass murderers, etc. we are no better than those who commit torture on our citizens or murder them or do the same to our serving men and women.

Wrong. If we take any such measures to employ harsh interrogation, we do so in a minimal nature designed to secure information for the greater good of protecting innocent lives.

Terrorists commit torture and other atrocities because they lack a moral conscience and actually like to do such things. Not to mention that the people terrorists torture are innocent.

I'm sorry, but there's no moral equivalency between the beheading of an innocent reporter in Daniel Pearl and the waterboarding of a terrorist mastermind in Khalid Sheik Muhammad.

And in the military we were instructed to never break the rules of war as laid out by the Geneva Convention. Not because we're sensitive nice soldiers, but for very practical, pragmatic reasons: killing or torturing POWs instills in the enemy a will to fight, a righteous cause to fight against the evil murderers and torturers. It helps recruit more enemy fighters. It turns a potentially friendly civilian population in whatever country we're deployed into unfriendly, unhelpful, civilians or enemies.

No order was issued to kill or torture any prisoners in our possession.

What happened at Abu-Ghraib was unfortunate, but as in any war mistakes are to be expected and in this case, it was on the part of a select few soldiers.

I didn't serve in the Marine Corps to protect a nation that tortures people. I served in the Marine Corps to protect a nation that treats even the most inhumane people humanely. I served to protect a nation that won't buckle out of fear. That isn't the America for which I put my life at risk.

The gross exaggerations in this paragraph are priceless.

You make the United States sound like Nazi Germany with the phrase "a nation that tortures people".

Three questionable interrogations and suddenly we're a nation of torture that is unworthy of serving?

Give me a break.

 

[Shogun]

Hey, I bet we could "enhance" our interogation by using garden clippers to take off fingers inches at a time! And, shit, dude... terrorists only need ONE EYE! Let's take a hot poker and burn an eye socket! I mean, this is Jack Bauer land and everyone is one fucking excuse away from becoming exactly what they claim to hate!

pathetic.

Hmm...so now waterboarding doesn't quite cut being torture. So instead what we'll do is create strawmen, like the CIA was taking fingers off and burning people's eyes out. Lmao....waterboarding isn't even close to burning someone's eye out or clipping their fingers off. Losing an eye or losing a finger causes permanent damage while waterboarding causes no permanent physical damage.

Why NOT, motherfucker? It's just ENHANCED INTERROGATION, right? If you can stomach this when why not THAT? Are you telling me that you have a line that you wont cross even in the event of some retarded Jack Bauer fantasy? So, is the method of your differentiation weather or not something "leaves perm damage"? So, then, you DONT have a problem with Uday beating the soles of soccer players' feat then, eh? No perm damage there, buddy!

for real, you people make me sick. You should just move to fucking Saudi Arabia where you and your like minded fellows can compare notes.

 

[Shogun]

So we waterboard three hardline terrorists and that constitutes a disposal of our principles?

Fear is motivating factor for some,


Oh looky, the dialog of a terrorist... go figure. Yea, I guess FEAR IS a motivating factor, isn't it. Maybe we should fly a plane into the biggest skyscraper in the mideast...

 

[Shogun]

Do you really want to talk about the rights of dead people this far after the phantom WMDs invasion of iraq?


Tell me.. what else can we do to evil terrorists? Can we get a coupla hard, pipe-hittin' *******, who'll go to work on the homes here with a pair of pliers and a blow torch? Can we saw off fingers if YOU think Jack Bauer would approve? Be specific. Let's find out exactly where YOUR line stands. Genital smashing? Hot poker in the eyes? Vlad "Let the TERRORISTS slide down a giant fucking spike" tepes? Shall we bring back ye ole crucifixion? Come on, dude.. let us hear exactly how far your 24 mind will take us.

the fucking ghost of Uday is calling shenanigans.

I've actually never watched 24, so my opinion is my own.

But I pose an interesting question. Are the rights of those who were murdered unimportant?

I'll ask you the same question: are the rights of innocent iraqis who died because people like you were convinced Saddam had WMDs unimportant? Whose amount of "collateral damage" is greater? Theirs or ours? The Ends do not justify the means, nazi.

 

[Shogun]

You would say it was laughable yet still no prosecutions. As you know Sho I have no sympathy for our enemy we have had soldiers and civilians tortured and beheaded simple Shoot On Sight would be sufficient

Hey! why did you stop posting when I asked for the specific date and name of the guy who officially changed the definition of the word torture as to NOT include the very preactice that we charges some japs for? Come on, dude.. don't run away like that if you are going to stand adamant.

 

[Mr. President]

Waterboarding was not illegal when it happened. Prove it was illegal and we have a discussion. But you can't prove it was illegal because it was not. Congress was briefed as to its happenings. No prosecutions have or will come from it because it was not illegal. Unethical? Maybe. Illegal No. What was illegal was the submursion of ones head in water. Waterboarding was not a submursion thus technically legal.

 

[C-101]

Do you really want to talk about the rights of dead people this far after the phantom WMDs invasion of iraq?


Tell me.. what else can we do to evil terrorists? Can we get a coupla hard, pipe-hittin' *******, who'll go to work on the homes here with a pair of pliers and a blow torch? Can we saw off fingers if YOU think Jack Bauer would approve? Be specific. Let's find out exactly where YOUR line stands. Genital smashing? Hot poker in the eyes? Vlad "Let the TERRORISTS slide down a giant fucking spike" tepes? Shall we bring back ye ole crucifixion? Come on, dude.. let us hear exactly how far your 24 mind will take us.

the fucking ghost of Uday is calling shenanigans.

I've actually never watched 24, so my opinion is my own.

But I pose an interesting question. Are the rights of those who were murdered unimportant?

I'll ask you the same question: are the rights of innocent iraqis who died because people like you were convinced Saddam had WMDs unimportant? Whose amount of "collateral damage" is greater? Theirs or ours? The Ends do not justify the means, nazi.

Answer the question or we have nothing to discuss.

 

[sitarro]

Did we consider it torture when the Japs did it to us? That is the only question I have.

Yes, we prosecuted the Japanese for waterboarding Americans in WW2.

You might want to check out a little history about the Japanese and the torture they dreamed up. Their version of waterboarding was fatal a lot of the time, especially when they used salt water to pump into the stomach to the point of distention. They then punched the torturee in his giant water filled stomach, sometimes bursting it.......... that's torture and many times murder..

 

[Red Dawn]

Did we consider it torture when the Japs did it to us? That is the only question I have.

Yes, we prosecuted the Japanese for waterboarding Americans in WW2.

You might want to check out a little history about the Japanese and the torture they dreamed up. Their version of waterboarding was fatal a lot of the time, especially when they used salt water to pump into the stomach to the point of distention. They then punched the torturee in his giant water filled stomach, sometimes bursting it.......... that's torture and many times murder..

Agreed.

As long as our torture isn't as bad as the Japanese or Hitler, I'm all on board with you bush-loving, torture-excusing conservatives.

Waterboard away!

 

[Mr. President]

Red dawn

I could but hand cuffs on you just to restrain you or I could but them on so tight they cut through your skin and caused you to bleed out. Is that the same thing?

 

[Shogun]

Waterboarding was not illegal when it happened. Prove it was illegal and we have a discussion. But you can't prove it was illegal because it was not. Congress was briefed as to its happenings. No prosecutions have or will come from it because it was not illegal. Unethical? Maybe. Illegal No. What was illegal was the submursion of ones head in water. Waterboarding was not a submursion thus technically legal.

Listen, dude.. repeating the same old talking point bullshit won't suffice as evidence. It was illegal during ww2 and vietnam, YES? so then provide a source that even REMOTELY suggests that the definition of torture, and inclusion of waterboarding, magically *POOF* changed without having to name the very people who were busy dancing in bullshit shoes for Bushco. I don't care if YOU say it wasn't illegal. Show me your evidence because we ALL know it was illegal in ww2 and Vietnam.

Your tapdancing bullshit is exacly what diminished the moral highground that America used to enjoy in the world. Hey, guess what.. Torture wasn't ILLEGAL in Saddam's iraq either. hey, way to follow their example.

and, again, If I flog the soles of your fucking feat for a quicker, better scoring soccer team can I go ahead and use the fuzzy logic of your "well, someone told me it's not legal so it must not be even though we did, in fact, prosicute japs for the exact same shit in ww2"?

 

[Shogun]

I've actually never watched 24, so my opinion is my own.

But I pose an interesting question. Are the rights of those who were murdered unimportant?

I'll ask you the same question: are the rights of innocent iraqis who died because people like you were convinced Saddam had WMDs unimportant? Whose amount of "collateral damage" is greater? Theirs or ours? The Ends do not justify the means, nazi.

Answer the question or we have nothing to discuss.

yea, I kinda figured you'd balk if you had to walk a mile in shoes other than your martyrs of 9/11....


You want justice for 9/11 you'd better be ready for justice in the Iraq war. Their deaths are no less applicable to JUSTICE than ours are. Now go hide in the BUSHES some more, bitch.

 

[Shogun]

Yes, we prosecuted the Japanese for waterboarding Americans in WW2.

You might want to check out a little history about the Japanese and the torture they dreamed up. Their version of waterboarding was fatal a lot of the time, especially when they used salt water to pump into the stomach to the point of distention. They then punched the torturee in his giant water filled stomach, sometimes bursting it.......... that's torture and many times murder..

Agreed.

As long as our torture isn't as bad as the Japanese or Hitler, I'm all on board with you bush-loving, torture-excusing conservatives.

Waterboard away!

It makes me sick to know that I share a nationality with these abhorrent fucks.

I can see it now..


"it's not torture! THEY ARE SITTING DOWN! It's ENHANCED Leisure!"

 

[C-101]

I'll ask you the same question: are the rights of innocent iraqis who died because people like you were convinced Saddam had WMDs unimportant? Whose amount of "collateral damage" is greater? Theirs or ours? The Ends do not justify the means, nazi.

Answer the question or we have nothing to discuss.

yea, I kinda figured you'd balk if you had to walk a mile in shoes other than your martyrs of 9/11....


You want justice for 9/11 you'd better be ready for justice in the Iraq war. Their deaths are no less applicable to JUSTICE than ours are. Now go hide in the BUSHES some more, bitch.

Since you won't answer the question I'm going to assume you value the rights of terrorists above the rights of our citizens.