Sean Hannity offers to be waterboarded for charity

[corplinx]

Yeah. If I were arguing your position, I wouldn't want to face what the men who interrogated Nazis in WWII said either. Knowing that they were able to extract usable information from a much worse enemy than we face now without betraying our principles would make me want to crawl under a rock in shame.

Who would want that when ignorance is bliss and depravity is easier?

Did you really think I didn't read your link just because I gave you mono syllabic responses that mocked your own? Yes, I read it. I'm not sure why you think it makes an amazing point.

A. Waterboarding was not a standard practice at Guantanamo.
B. The article mentions Hess. Hess was not interrogated there. The quote was included to confusingly hammer home the point that a gentleman like Khaleid Sheikh Mohammed might respond better to playing board games than waterboarding. (i know, i know, strawman, but the journo had it coming for that deception)
C. The axis powers had battle lines and movements. They were a conventional army. By the time someone was in P.O. Box 1142, they no longer had timely/actionable intelligence about where the submarines were off US coasts. It is an unfair comparison.

Again, none of this assumes that waterboarding KSM was right or wrong. But bad evidence to support a position is bad even if the position is right.

 

[Slayhamlet]

Yeah. If I were arguing your position, I wouldn't want to face what the men who interrogated Nazis in WWII said either. Knowing that they were able to extract usable information from a much worse enemy than we face now without betraying our principles would make me want to crawl under a rock in shame.

Who would want that when ignorance is bliss and depravity is easier?

Much worse enemy in what sense? I assume you mean the individuals who were interrogated, and not the overall threat posed by Nazism vs Al-Qaeda? Because not all the Nazis captured by non-Russian Allies were treated with kid gloves. Rudolf Höß, the commandant of Auschwitz, was nearly beaten to death by the British capture party who apprehended him while disguised amongst farmers, his whereabouts having been discovered from information his wife provided British interrogators only after they threatened to hand her young son over to the Russians.

 

[Cicero]

Yeah. If I were arguing your position, I wouldn't want to face what the men who interrogated Nazis in WWII said either. Knowing that they were able to extract usable information from a much worse enemy than we face now without betraying our principles would make me want to crawl under a rock in shame.

Who would want that when ignorance is bliss and depravity is easier?

What did you do to promote your myth of how Americans and their Allies waged polite war in WWII before the Washington Post's Fort Hunt article? But it seems that Ret. Maj. Arnold Kohn, a Fort Hunt interrogator, didn't spill all his beans to the "Post."



"The information we were able to get from prisoners was certainly not – as far as I know – because any of them were tortured or even mistreated. Unless the little practical joke that Captain Iwanowski liked to play on them could be called mistreatment,” Kohn writes.

“Iwanowski had been born and raised in Ohio and knew only the few words of Russian he had learned from his parents, but he sure looked Russian. (Especially when he wore the uniform of a Russian officer.) His ‘office,’ when the occasion called for it, was deep underground in what had been the ammunition bunkers. ‘Uncooperative’ German prisoners were told that the Americans were giving up on them and were turning them over to the Russians: one glance at Ivanowski’s ugly Mongolian face, lit-up with a theatrical colored spot light, waiting at the bottom of the steep, wet, moss-covered, concrete stairs, slapping his riding crop against his boots, with the recorded sound effects of groans and screams of agony, was usually all it took for a prisoner to want to talk to the ‘nice Americans.’ ”

 

[Cobalt]

Eh...if he does it, and raises money for a good cause, good for him. Other than that, I'm not seeing what he'll gain.

Seems like no matter what it'll just be more fuel on an ages old fire.

 

[Upchurch]

Did you really think I didn't read your link just because I gave you mono syllabic responses that mocked your own?

Let's check:

You need to read this, too, corp.

No.

So, by your monosyllabic "no", what you really meant was "yes, I will read it."

You're right. I don't know how I could have made that mistake.

B. The article mentions Hess. Hess was not interrogated there.

What does it matter where Hess was interrogated? The point of interest here was how.

C. The axis powers had battle lines and movements. They were a conventional army. By the time someone was in P.O. Box 1142, they no longer had timely/actionable intelligence about where the submarines were off US coasts. It is an unfair comparison.

Whereas a higher-up in a mostly decentralized organization spread throughout several countries would have timely/actionable intelligence that could only be obtained through torture? Upon learning of his capture, wouldn't KSM's information be immediately obsolete? News travels much more quickly these days.

Both men had limited value in terms of immediate plans and were more useful in learning long term goals.

Again, none of this assumes that waterboarding KSM was right or wrong. But bad evidence to support a position is bad even if the position is right.

These were US interrogators who faced Nazis and was able to do it without resorting to enemy tactics. How could that not be relevant?

 

[Upchurch]

Much worse enemy in what sense?

Worse in the fact that the Nazis and their allies presented a genuine existential threat to the US. Al-Qaeda is a small irritation, by comparison.

Do you have any fear that Al-Qaeda could actually conquer the US, or that it is even their goal?

Because not all the Nazis captured by non-Russian Allies were treated with kid gloves.

Nor did I claim that they were.

 

[Upchurch]

What did you do to promote your myth of how Americans and their Allies waged polite war in WWII before the Washington Post's Fort Hunt article?

I'm still waiting for you to back your claims from the other thread. Put up or shut up.

 

[themusicteacher]

If Hannity volunteered to do it, especially as a charity fund-raiser for the troops, then he will do it. He might take some time to set it up to make it a big event and raise as much $$$ as possible, but he wouldn't back out on it. Even if he turned chicken, the credibility cost would be WAY too high.

Regardless of his politics, he is consistent, and generally willing to put his money where his big mouth is. Personally, I can't stand Olbermann, and would love for Hannity to go for a couple hours to totally drain Olbermann's finances -- but KO would probably weasel out after about five minutes.

I seriously doubt Hannity has the huevos to man up and take a real waterboarding like KSM took all 84 of his. He'll rig the thing to make it look harmless. If I'm Olbermann, I add the caveat that it must be done EXACTLY the way it was done to all detainees. No going soft on old loud mouth. He gets drubbed, comes up for two seconds, then goes again, and again, and again and again until he's sure he's going to die.

 

[I Ratant]

Much worse enemy in what sense? I assume you mean the individuals who were interrogated, and not the overall threat posed by Nazism vs Al-Qaeda? Because not all the Nazis captured by non-Russian Allies were treated with kid gloves. Rudolf Höß, the commandant of Auschwitz, was nearly beaten to death by the British capture party who apprehended him while disguised amongst farmers, his whereabouts having been discovered from information his wife provided British interrogators only after they threatened to hand her young son over to the Russians.

.
Ze guys zat wrote ze rules for ze torture of ze Arabs vere merely writing ze orders. Zurely zat iz not a crime.

 

[I Ratant]

I seriously doubt Hannity has the huevos to man up and take a real waterboarding like KSM took all 84 of his. He'll rig the thing to make it look harmless. If I'm Olbermann, I add the caveat that it must be done EXACTLY the way it was done to all detainees. No going soft on old loud mouth. He gets drubbed, comes up for two seconds, then goes again, and again, and again and again until he's sure he's going to die.

.
Have Olberman do the pouring on Hannity.

 

[Upchurch]

.
Have Olberman do the pouring on Hannity.

Bad idea. You should stop occasionally.

 

[Cicero]

I'm still waiting for you to back your claims from the other thread. Put up or shut up.

I think we can simultaneously dissect your favorite example of chivalrous behavior by the Fort Hood interrogators. Henry Kolm, 90, an MIT physicist, recollects that he was assigned to play chess with Rudolph Hess in Germany and was able to obtain information over games of chess. I assumed he meant this was some pre war meeting with with Hess in Germany. Naturally, had Kolm attempted to actually interrogate Hess in Nazi Germany, Kolm would be a guest of a labor camp.

Kolm is describing a meeting that could only be post VE Day, or more likely post VJ Day. Hess was a prisoner of the British since May of 1941. Hess was transferred back to Germany to await trial at Nuremberg. Is Kolm recounting a meeting with Hess at the Palace of Justice Prison in Nuremberg, or at Spandau Prison in then West Berlin where Hess was serving his sentence? It doesn't really matter as there would have been no way to do anything more to Hess than play chess with him. But exactly what information was Kolm after from Hess when the war was already over and Hess was a mental defective?


You gotta love Ret. Maj. Arnold Kohn's idea of a "practical joke" while interrogating German POW's at Ford Hood. The uncooperative German prisoner is threatened with all kinds of unimaginable torture at the hands of a Russian officer. This was "usually" all it took to break the prisoner, but what methods that were used when this failed, Kohn does not say. But then Kohn says he doesn't know about all the techniques used by interrogators at Fort Hood when they had to up the ante on getting info from POW's. Of course the aristocratic Prussian officers were already fairly communicative and cooperative. They knew the war was lost and just as soon play ball.

 

[corplinx]

These were US interrogators who faced Nazis and was able to do it without resorting to enemy tactics. How could that not be relevant?

There were FBI interrogators who interrogated the folks in Guantanamo without resorting to water boarding. I haven't heard of KSM waterboarding Daniel Pearl before he beheaded him, so I'm not sure if that is an "enemy tactic" or if you are just trying to be clever and missing the mark. The only group to use water boarding against US forces post-Vietnam that I can find is the US military itself.

To me, the whole water boarding issue is kind of retarded since if the Bush admin had opened their history books, they would have found that we court-martialed troops in Vietnam for using it. However one feels about the usefulness of simulated drowning in 'breaking' down Khaleid Sheik Mohammed, it is still inconsistent with US precedent.

However, shrill emotional appeals, painting the tactic as anything more than an exception, and comparisons between interrogating people with no intelligence of timely value versus the guy who was involved with every long term terror plot do not hold much ground with me. Nor should they with any critical thinker.

 

[Upchurch]

However, shrill emotional appeals, painting the tactic as anything more than an exception, and comparisons between interrogating people with no intelligence of timely value versus the guy who was involved with every long term terror plot do not hold much ground with me. Nor should they with any critical thinker.

I agree. I wish Cheney would also get the hint and stop defending it like it was the only patriotic thing to do.

What I don't understand is why you said this:

KSM was water boarded 183 times. Now, if you are an American citizen, you should wish that he was water boarded about 1917 more times at a minimum.

Why on Earth should we wish someone tortured a minimum 2100 times? Revenge? Wouldn't that just be another shrill emotional appeal?

 

[corplinx]

Why on Earth should we wish someone tortured a minimum 2100 times? Revenge? Wouldn't that just be another shrill emotional appeal?

Sorry, I meant to make it add up 3000 but I was trying to research some stock plays while composing that post.


....


Crap, I better stop those stock buys too then if that was the quality of that post.

 

[Upchurch]

Dammit, corp. You're much easier to snipe at when you aren't being funny.

 

[maddog]

Ok. I was mistaken. Hannity seems to have backed out, or at least failed to respond to having his bluff called. I confess to being surprised. At least I have the stones to admit that I was wrong.

 

[Slayhamlet]

Worse in the fact that the Nazis and their allies presented a genuine existential threat to the US. Al-Qaeda is a small irritation, by comparison.

Okay. I misread you. Thank you for clarifying.

Do you have any fear that Al-Qaeda could actually conquer the US, or that it is even their goal?

Why did you snip out the part of my post which would have made this silly question unnecessary? Viz.:

I assume you mean the individuals who were interrogated, and not the overall threat posed by Nazism vs Al-Qaeda?

Nor did I claim that they were.

I don't see your point, then.

In what way are the POW interrogations at Fort Hunt a good measure of the relative decency of interrogation techniques used then as compared to now? The interrogations there did not resemble all or even most of the sort of interrogation tactics used by Americans and Brits throughout WWII, as they were more specifically aimed at recruitment for spy activities and technological know-how than gathering actionable intelligence. As far as I am aware no major war criminals were interrogated there either.

Allied interrogations were generally not done in accordance with the Geneva conventions, and of course there was a reason for that. As a consequence abuses certainly occurred, many of which we will probably never know about. Perhaps not as many, and it's true that they were more commensurate to the threat than what is happening now. But the history is not as snow-white as many are today portraying it to be. The London Cage is one such counter-example. The descriptions of what went on there sound very much like the allegations we hear concerning detainees at Gitmo and other American detention facilities.

See, I'm not particularly outraged that KSM suffered through being water-boarded, just as I don't have much concern over Höß's mistreatment by his capturers. Both men were/are mass-murderers. I'm more disconcerted by the fact that my government authorized the use of water-boarding, which is clearly torture, at all, and for a whole host of reasons: it's hypocritical, horrible for our image, contrary to our principles and frankly rather barbaric, and I'm far from convinced that it is an efficacious enough method of extracting actionable intelligence to be anywhere near justified. Yet I'm far more appalled that likely innocents have suffered other sorts of torture at the hands of CIA and other American interrogators, and that this continues to happen today, unlike water-boarding which ended in 2003 and was not widely used.

 

[Slayhamlet]

.
Ze guys zat wrote ze rules for ze torture of ze Arabs vere merely writing ze orders. Zurely zat iz not a crime.

Don'ts you haf zat backvards?

 

[Upchurch]

Why did you snip out the part of my post which would have made this silly question unnecessary? Viz.:

I assume you mean the individuals who were interrogated, and not the overall threat posed by Nazism vs Al-Qaeda?

I'll be honest with you: I didn't understand what you are saying there and there was enough other things to going on that I just let it drop.

I meant that the overall threat posed by the Nazis was greater than that posed by Al-Qaeda. As to the threat posed by the individuals who were interrogated, I don't have any way to judge that.

In what way are the POW interrogations at Fort Hunt a good measure of the relative decency of interrogation techniques used then as compared to now? The interrogations there did not resemble all or even most of the sort of interrogation tactics used by Americans and Brits throughout WWII, as they were more specifically aimed at recruitment for spy activities and technological know-how than gathering actionable intelligence.

There are a number of issues here that probably ought to be unpacked and discussed, but my main point here is that this is, in fact, representative of US interrogations during WWII. (In that torture was not used. Chess, I assume, was optional.) Cicero called me on this, but was unable to produce any documentation of US interrogators using torture on POWs. The best he could do were rumors of a Chinese national, Dai Li, who had been known to torture in the past.

If you can provide better examples, I'd be willing to concede that Fort Hunt may not have been typical. It still stands as an example of a group of interrogators who were up against a much worse enemy that were successful without resorting to torture.