As for who's more dangerous than Beck? Hell if I know, but he's definately not the most dangerous in history. Limbaugh, Hannity, Olberman, and the rest can't hold a candle to Beck - the boy is a natural on television.

Watched an episode where he wanted to make eye contact to his veiwers - had a split screen setup where his eyes were only showing on the left and the whole shot of himself. No, he wanted them to see his eyes - to make contact he has to see them too... it's all a gimick and he's good at it too.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ex695VSHmSs

 

Hmm...thats an interesting article. But the problem is that none of the previous cases are exactly the same as the current situation. The current war on terror is unique to history and a civil case does not prove anything about the actions of the CIA, except that they are controversial. And the problem is that people act like there shouldnt be controversy. They act like we were obviously wrong and the debate is already over, which it is not. They act like the CIA is compromising our safety when they are actually making us safer. I'm sorry, but wars are seldom won with idealogical symbolism. A soldier should know that. And that is why Oliver North has been waterboarded and still supports waterboarding terrorists. I honestly beleive that true morality is expressed by people who have the option to do whatever they want, and the wisdom to know what should be done. Otherwise, a computer will be far more moral than any person because they can most strictly adhere to protocol. What ideals are we talking about here? "No one should be waterboarded for any reason." Perhaps we should tell that to our own soldiers who are subjected to the treatment.

It is completely dishonest to say that waterboarding has only helped our opposition. Completely dishonest to say that waterboarding will prevent us from winning the idealogical war.

Consider the details for atleast one minute. The people who were waterboarded were chosen for their unique position of power and history of brutal actions. The information gathered prevented a suicide attack on innocent civilians in Los Angeles. This is not organized warfare. We are not waterboarding every soldier that we capture. We are attempting to save innocent American lives from people who want nothing more than to destroy our very way of life.

So I can say that waterboarding is an undesirable method. I can say that it does not make us more moral than we might otherwise claim to be. I can say that it causes panic and fear, and otherwise causes no long term harm.

And I can also say that at some points in time it may be wise to use to save lives and defeat terrorism. We should use it sparingly and prudently when all the details of the situation have been analyzed and discussed.

But maybe thats just me being naive

 

Okay, you're right and all of the JAGs of the US Armed Forces are incorrect - all are high ranking Generals and one Admiral - when they went on record, after the Bush Administration inquired about the use of waterboarding in interrogation techniques was legal, saying that it was a violation of the Geneva Conventions Article III.

"In 2006 the Senate Judiciary Committee held hearings on the authority to prosecute terrorists under the war crimes provisions of Title 18 of the U.S. Code. In connection with those hearings the sitting Judge Advocates General of the military services were asked to submit written responses to a series of questions regarding “the use of a wet towel and dripping water to induce the misperception of drowning (i.e., waterboarding) . . .” Major General Scott Black, U.S. Army Judge Advocate General, Major General Jack Rives, U.S. Air Force Judge Advocate General, Rear Admiral Bruce MacDonald, U.S. Navy Judge Advocate General, and Brigadier Gen. Kevin Sandkuhler, Staff Judge Advocate to the Commandant of the U.S. Marine Corps, unanimously and unambiguously agreed that such conduct is inhumane and illegal and would constitute a violation of international law, to include Common Article 3 of the 1949 Geneva Conventions."

Maybe you should play them Jeopardy, since you obviously know more than they do...

 

I dont pretend to know more than they do. A question of violating laws that were written in 1949 is one issue. I have already said that those laws do not account for the unique circumstances of the time. A question of how opinions in 2006 affect actions prior to 2006 is another question. Congress was aware of waterboarding in 2002 and there was not a single peep of protest at the time. I do not pretend that I am an expert on any of the issues regarding specific language of legal matters. But I do still beleive that the language is controversial and debatable. Many legal issues are a matter of interpretation.

I do not suggest that the legal standing of waterboarding is simple. I do not think that the consequences for those who authorized its use are obvious.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...oryId=15886834

Beyond the legal issues is the fact that waterboarding will no longer be an option for the intelligence community. You are quick to speak of the past but have offered few reasons why it should and must be prevented in the future.

"It is completely dishonest to say that waterboarding has only helped our opposition. Completely dishonest to say that waterboarding will prevent us from winning the idealogical war.

Consider the details for atleast one minute. The people who were waterboarded were chosen for their unique position of power and history of brutal actions. The information gathered prevented a suicide attack on innocent civilians in Los Angeles. This is not organized warfare. We are not waterboarding every soldier that we capture. We are attempting to save innocent American lives from people who want nothing more than to destroy our very way of life.

So I can say that waterboarding is an undesirable method. I can say that it does not make us more moral than we might otherwise claim to be. I can say that it causes panic and fear, and otherwise causes no long term harm.

And I can also say that at some points in time it may be wise to use to save lives and defeat terrorism. We should use it sparingly and prudently when all the details of the situation have been analyzed and discussed."

 

Curious.

Why is it that people think that there are "special" situations that allows you to break laws. That there is some seet of unknowns out there that allows you to circumvent the rules.

To this day we still hold strictly to documents written back in 1775/76. Sure warfare has changed - terrorism is just another form of warfare. Regardless of how you may see their acts and I'm not defending them in any way - killing civilians outright is wrong and that too is covered by the Geneva Convention. Even though they themselves do not act on behalf of another country - they are still considered combatants when captured by our military.

Now if the police catch them - they fall under civilian laws.

But, to answer your question once again, no matter how you justify it - it does not help our troops if we treat prisoners is this fashion.

Take a look back at WW II we treated the Germans with the proper amount of courtesy - even though the ****'s committed atrocities against the Jews and even our own troops (the afore mentioned massacre at Malmady). So good was their treatment alot stayed in the US.

But when you commit crimes in torture like at Abu Ghraib and waterboarding prisoners for info - then all you do is give them further cause and justification to commit even greater attrocities themselves - this eye for an eye policy the Isrealis practice with Palestine - and you see how good that's working for them.

You claim that we have to become heartless or unfeeling in this regard. That's incorrect. The laws are written to try and take in the best consideration of the situations and play it out from there.

But where as a cop cannot waterboard a criminal for a confession - neither can the CIA or the military do the same to extract information as well. There are other forms of coersion that are less subtle and as effective.

Then again you have study after study that proves that torture gets you very limited results. Under torture most will say anything to get you to stop. Then you go off with misinformation leading to only God knows what and you waste your time.

SERE training (as I got in the Army) is designed to subject you to the methods that other countries have used in the past. That way we better understand its intent and know how to accept it and not fear it as much.

Even Oliver North's waterboarding session is not entirely an excuse to the "it's ok" argument. Any SERE trainer will tell you that. When you are subjected to torture in a a controlled environment - the fear of death is removed and the whole nature of the torture method is subdued and can be more acceptable. So the full effect is never felt.

 

I agree with you to an extent on the philisophical implications. But the specifics are important here and in other controversial situations. The 3 men that I have read most about were all major al queda leaders. I do not compare them to generals in foriegn armies or kings of civilized societies. They do not sign contracts about proper conduct, they do not represent any government, or influence any civilized population. On this basis, I reject your arguments that make improper comparisons. How are the specifics accounted for by your view point??

To your point concerning Oliver North and SERE training. You say that the method is more acceptable under controlled conditions. It seems to be a contradiction to your idealistic approach. I have a hard time understanding how you justify the torture of our own soldiers for training purposes???

 

You don't get it do you?

You think because we're fighting the good fight that it's ok to bend the rules.

Let's lay out a different scenerio - since you're fond of those. Two high ranking Army Colonels get captured in Iraq - they are Brigade level officers and are privvy to information on planned attacks. The al Queda operatives waterboard them for information repeatedly to save their comrades from those attacks. Almost 3 or 4 times a day these men suffer through the "technique" finally one cracks and spills information that leads to not only foiling a planned attack, but now allows the enemy a chance at a critical pre-emptive strike against them - an ambush that now kills hundreds of our troops.

Using your logic, it's no different for them. Just because you are looking in from this side of the glass does not change the perspective on the opposite end. You're an "ends justifies the means" kinda guy and in the real world that gets you in trouble.

What stops most is the hanging or firing squad that may happen if they are caught commiting war crimes - this is for some.

Whoah! You are naive. You just say **** like that to be pissy, don't you.

Every member of the armed services gets gased with CS (a crowd control crystalized gas - very irritable, but non lethal) why??? So they have faith in their gas masks. People normally can't see a chemical attack and if they they think it isn't going to make a difference. So they march you into a shack that's full of it and besides the slight itching of the skin you feel fine - with the mask on - then they order you to remove it and state your name.

Instantly, your eyes tear up and you salivate and snot begins to run as your body reacts to the CS agent. You can't see due to the burning and it's hard to talk as you're coughing uncontrolably.

Ask any member - they'll tell you - they believe the mask makes a difference.

Police get tazed when they go through weapons training. Why? so they better understand the effects of the weapon - it's non lethal, so it can't kill, but damn it sure hurts removing the spikes sometimes.

SERE training is to show you what to expect if captured. SERE stands for Survival Evasion Resistance Escape - in that order.

You are behind enemy lines alone - survive and evade capture.
You get caught - resist torture/interrogation and plan escape.

It's going to happen during war and the only way to prepare are troops is to subject them to the grueling "techniques" they may encounter. It's called training.

It's only acceptable due to the nature of who's subjecting you to it. Since you know it's a training exercise you can relax - yet I saw a 250 lb linebacker of a sergeant freak out like a little girl within seconds - even in that controlled environment.

 

I quote myself because you didnt address this question in the last response. I am not arguing for the sake of it. I really want to know how your viewpoint responds to certain questions that concern me.

You bring up two examples that are more helpful to my arguments than to your own. Crowd control gas and tazers are both legal and acceptable forms of force. And we would expect people in authority to be familar with the effects of both. Waterboarding by some accounts is torture and unacceptable for any reason. So we are in essence torturing our own soldiers. Unless knowing that its for training makes it a lesser form of torture?? Somehow being relaxed makes it more acceptable?? If somehow we could relax the terrorists before we waterboard them, then everything would be ok??

 

lol... ok now you're just being obstinate.

Perhaps I forgot to mention that this is training and volunteered participation?

 

Its not really obstinance if I am supporting my opinion with reasons. You stubbornly refuse to answer the question.

Let me add that becoming a terrorist is itself volunteered participation.