Sean Hannity offers to be waterboarded for charity

[tsig]

I admit, that is a fair point, and well made.

But at the same time, I mean reputable people of intellect. Doctors learned long ago that leeches didn't do anything useful and stopped using them (I am aware, however, of the recent comeback of them in terms of promoting blood flow to reconnected tissue).

Sure there are many nuts that do things over and over that don't work.
Sure there a probably nut jobs in medicine who still use leeches.

But at least there this provable, scientific data to show that such techiques don't work. I'm holding that there is not equivlant, undenialbe evidence that torture doesn't ever work, ever.




You are bringing up extreme examples of where torture was completely uncalled for and hurtful, and uncessary. The worst case scenario and strongest admonition of torture.

I don't think it's fair to keep going to that side of the argument, anymore so than I was when I was chastised for suggesting that torturing someone who knows the location of a bomb if valid. Someone screemed at me "there is no bomb, stop making that argument!". I think this cuts both ways. I see people on both sides who are painting with too broad of a brush. It's completely black and white thinking on a subject that definately has some gray area. Some see it as wrong, period, and can't even seem to admit it's ever been effective. And others seem reluctant to admonish stuff that is heinous and should be. I don't understand why this is so polarizing.

Well if you believe in witches you might make a good case for torture producing truth.

The basic flaw in all the the torture arguments is that the tortured will tell the truth if enough pain is administered.

 

[Whiplash]

Is witchcraft being employed by any government or intelligence agency, currently, as a means of investigating or divining information about things they need to know? If not, I don't think it's a fair argument or analogy.

Witchcraft may still hold sway with woo types, but in terms of educated and rational people, it's long since met it's match and is worthless. If torture really was also so obviously ineffective, I think that rational and educated people (ie many people who make up government and intelligence agencies) would also stop employing it. The same way they stopped trying nonsense like remote viewing and mind control. I'm sure there have been other flawed "truth" gathering techniques throughout the centuries that have not continued to be employed.

Of course people will say whatever they need to to stop the torture. That doesn't mean that every time someone is under torture, they are innocent, and lying to end the pain. They could maybe be the person who knows what you need to know. They could be guilty as hell. And they may have been forced to give this info under torture.

Again, I'm just taking issue with the claim that it never works, ever, and never has. As well as the seemingly strong belief amongst some that every torture victim ever was some poor innocent soul that did nothing, and was the victim of psychopaths and sadists. I don't believe that to be true in every single case. Maybe alot, maybe even most. But not always.

It also bothers me that some people can seem to believe that Cheney and Bush were so evil that they wanted to have torture simply for their own enjoyment or feeling of revenge. That's pretty sad if you think that lowly of these people. At worst I would say they were naive about the truth about torture, but their intentions were to get information, not to get their rocks off.

 

[Tricky]

Numerous bickering and off-topic posts moved to AAH. You know who you are. Cut it out.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Tricky

 

[volatile]

So... did anyone waterboard Hannity yet?

 

[CapelDodger]

And, isn't everyone engaging in a teeny bit of self-justification?

No.

Didn't every intelligence agency, including those from Jordan and Egypt, all confirm WMD?

No.

Didn't Saddam Hussein use WMD on the Kurds?

Yes, before he was disarmed of them. The US (and UK) didn't make a fuss about it at the time, and in fact referred to the use as "alleged" right up to the moment that Kuwait was invaded. After that, of course, they made a very big thing of it and there was no more use of "alleged".

These are the sort of people you trust implicitly. They say what suits them at the time, quite blatantly.

I have a thing about Islamofascist psychopaths.

You referred to Muslims as very violent people. So I ask again (more in hope than expectation) : do you have a thing about Muslims? I'm just trying to get an idea of where your mind's at.

 

[CapelDodger]

Rice was out of the loop. Nice lady, but, way over her head.

Sweet unintentional irony ...

 

[King of the Americas]

What is the latest info on Hannity's claim that he'd be waterboarded for charity?

Has he made any further mention of how much it will take to what charity, to get him to take a go at water up the nose?

Keith Olberman pledged $1000 a second...I don't think this is enough.

Someone should set up a site (maybe one already exists) to collect money to waterboard ANYONE who doesn't believe its torture.

 

[Upchurch]

What is the latest info on Hannity's claim that he'd be waterboarded for charity?

Hannity still refuses to address the issue seriously.

Someone should set up a site (maybe one already exists) to collect money to waterboard ANYONE who doesn't believe its torture.

Good idea.

 

[King of the Americas]

Hannity still refuses to address the issue seriously.



Good idea.

This is the last post from the Hannity forum, regarding waterboarding:


I think to shut up this whole conversation, Sean should get on that waterboard and show us that it is not torture.

I know there is the "legal" definition of torture and then there is the "personal" definition, which tends to be more subjective. That's the definition that we fight against today, more than anything. Anybody can say they feel tortured by an act and nobody can really argue against it.

I think people like Sean and Mark and Rush and many others need to get on that warterboard and make all of the nay sayers look like idiots.

I don't know anything about this Mancow, but he probably has some kind of hidden liberal tendancies...he has managed to undermine many of the those who fight so hard on the Republican side, and he is legitimizing this whole argument that waterboarding is torture.

Hannity needs to shut them all up and get on that waterboard, then they'll see...

---

I couldn't find anything from Hannity himself, on the matter.

 

[Upchurch]

I couldn't find anything from Hannity himself, on the matter.

I doubt you will. I think that, actually, says quite a bit.

 

[King of the Americas]

After posting a link to: http://www.waterboardhannityforcharity.com/ over on Hannity's Forum, I received this message when I tried to log on today:

"Message

You have been banned for the following reason:
Contempt of Host

Date the ban will be lifted: Never"

---



I've been banned from Ann Coulter's forum too. Does Rush have one?

'I' have a forum, and no was have EVER been banned for holding me in contempt...

 

[six7s]

Of course people will say whatever they need to to stop the torture. That doesn't mean that every time someone is under torture, they are innocent, and lying to end the pain. They could maybe be the person who knows what you need to know. They could be guilty as hell. And they may have been forced to give this info under torture.

Try re-reading your first sentence and see if the last sentence still makes sense... I think not

Again, I'm just taking issue with the claim that it never works, ever, and never has.

Why?

Seriously, why? What relevance does that have?

As well as the seemingly strong belief amongst some that every torture victim ever was some poor innocent soul that did nothing, and was the victim of psychopaths and sadists.

Imagine that you are guilty and you have a mother who is innocent; how do you think she would feel if she knew that you were being tortured?

It also bothers me that some people can seem to believe that Cheney and Bush were so evil that they wanted to have torture simply for their own enjoyment or feeling of revenge.

It's good that you are bothered by this... Hopefully you will one day acknowledge that Bush is widely regarded as an incompetent buffoon; he had the very best education opportunities, the very best connections, the biggest budget and the very best advisors that the world's superpower could muster and, despite all this, he made what were perhaps the biggest and most damaging blunders possible

 

[Whiplash]

Try re-reading your first sentence and see if the last sentence still makes sense... I think not

Maybe it's a question of terms here. If we are refering to "admit you are a witch!" type of thing, then ya, that is something that can never be verified. It would just be forcing the person to give in to your desires.

I'm speaking more about a situation where someone has critical information needed to stop something bad, whatever it may be. If he cracks under torture, and gives the info, and the info is then verified and does indeed save lives, then I would say that it worked.

I would still think it was wrong to have done it. I've only just been picking nits with people on this because I feel that some are going too far in painting it as completely ineffective 100% black and white. I can envision situations where it could have worked. That's all I'm saying.

Why?

Seriously, why? What relevance does that have?

I've been asking myself the same thing. To be honest, I don't want to be in this debate anymore, because it makes me feel too slimy.

I'm very much an anal and pedantic type person. My ire on this subject was driven only by what I felt was a few people being intellectually dishonest about the subject. I never wanted to defend torture, I wanted to get them to admit they were painting with too broad of a brush. That's it.

Imagine that you are guilty and you have a mother who is innocent; how do you think she would feel if she knew that you were being tortured?

I have to commend you here for a very good question. It does open up some new avenues in my own internal thinking on this subject, so I thank you. I would not want my mother or any mother to suffer that, obviously. Again, I am not trying to defend torture, and I wish I had never taken up this cause.

It's good that you are bothered by this... Hopefully you will one day acknowledge that Bush is widely regarded as an incompetent buffoon; he had the very best education opportunities, the very best connections, the biggest budget and the very best advisors that the world's superpower could muster and, despite all this, he made what were perhaps the biggest and most damaging blunders possible

I won't disagree it was blunderous, and there were many blunders. But I was saying I was bothered that people think Bush and Cheney were so evil that they ordered torture with glee or something. I'm inclined to believe that they had the best intentions and thought they were doing the right thing. But that they were absolutely wrong in thinking that.

I think Bush was more a fool than an evil person.

Any of the fools and jackasses that were torturing people for fun, taking those awful pictures.. they are all scum to me too. They should have known better. I realize it was an emotional and patriotic time, but that's going way too far. I don't have any tolerance for that.

 

[thaiboxerken]

I'm thinking Bush and Cheney get wood when thinking about torturing "terrists".

 

[Whiplash]

I'm doubting that will surprise anyone, given your avatar.

 

[quadraginta]

<snip>

I think Bush was more a fool than an evil person.

<snip>

Synchronicity in action?

I was scanning a new thread discussing good and evil, and then popped over to catch up here.

I now find myself pondering the question of whether or not foolishness can be evil.

I'm thinking Bush might be an argument in the yes column.

 

[six7s]

I'm speaking more about a situation where someone has critical information needed to stop something bad, whatever it may be. If he cracks under torture, and gives the info, and the info is then verified and does indeed save lives, then I would say that it worked.

To me, the if is highly significant...

Of the little I have read on torture, the most memorable and, for me, persuasive account is the Statement Of FBI Agent Ali Soufan At Torture Hearings (The whole statement is quite long (I have snipped a lot!)... but its very easy to read and I recommend a quick skim of what I have quoted in the spoiler (merely to save scrolling) and following the link

Statement of Ali Soufan

Mr. Chairman, Committee members, thank you for inviting me to appear before you today. I know that each one of you cares deeply about our nation's security. It was always a comfort to me during the most dangerous of situations that I faced, from going undercover as an al Qaeda operative, to unraveling terrorist cells, to tracking down the killers of the 17 U.S. sailors murdered in the USS Cole bombing, that those of us on the frontline had your support and the backing of the American people. So I thank you.

The issue that I am here to discuss today – interrogation methods used to question terrorists – is not, and should not be, a partisan matter. We all share a commitment to using the best interrogation method possible that serves our national security interests and fits squarely within the framework of our nation's principles.

From my experience – and I speak as someone who has personally interrogated many terrorists and elicited important actionable intelligence– I strongly believe that it is a mistake to use what has become known as the "enhanced interrogation techniques," a position shared by many professional operatives, including the CIA officers who were present at the initial phases of the Abu Zubaydah interrogation.

<SNIP/>

And my focus is on the future. I wish to do my part to ensure that we never again use these harmful, slow, ineffective, and unreliable techniques instead of the tried, tested, and successful ones – the ones that are also in sync with our values and moral character. Only by doing this will we defeat the terrorists as effectively and quickly as possible.

<SNIP/>

In my capacity as a FBI Agent, I investigated and supervised highly sensitive and complex international terrorism cases, including the East Africa bombings, the USS Cole bombing, and the events surrounding the attacks of 9/11. I also coordinated both domestic and international counter-terrorism operations on the Joint Terrorist Task Force, FBI New York Office.

I personally interrogated many terrorists we have in our custody and elsewhere, and gained confessions, identified terror operatives, their funding, details of potential plots, and information on how al Qaeda operates, along with other actionable intelligence. Because of these successes, I was the government's main witness in both of the trials we have had so far in Guantanamo Bay – the trial of Salim Ahmed Hamdan, a driver and bodyguard for Osama Bin Laden, and Ali Hamza Al Bahlul, Bin Laden's propagandist. In addition I am currently helping the prosecution prepare for upcoming trials of other detainees held in Guantanamo Bay.

There are many examples of successful interrogations of terrorists that have taken place before and after 9/11. Many of them are classified, but one that is already public and mirrors the other cases, is the interrogation of al Qaeda terrorist Nasser Ahmad Nasser al-Bahri, known as Abu Jandal. In the immediate aftermath of 9/11, together with my partner Special Agent Robert McFadden, a first-class intelligence operative from the Naval Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS), (which, from my experience, is one of the classiest agencies I encountered in the intelligence community), I interrogated Abu Jandal.
<SNIP/>

The approach used in these successful interrogations can be called the Informed Interrogation Approach. Until the introduction of the "enhanced" technique, it was the sole approach used by our military, intelligence, and law enforcement community.

It is an approach rooted in experiences and lessons learned during World War II and from our Counter-insurgency experience in Vietnam – experiences and lessons that generated the Army Field Manual. This was then refined over the decades to include how to interrogate terrorism suspects specifically <SNIP/>


For the last seven years, it was not easy objecting to these methods when they had powerful backers. I stood up then for the same reason I'm willing to take on critics now, because I took an oath swearing to protect this great nation. I could not stand by quietly while our country's safety was endangered and our moral standing damaged.
I know you are motivated by the same considerations, and I hope you help ensure that these grave mistakes are never made again.
<snip/>

Source: http://judiciary.senate.gov/hearings/testimony.cfm?id=3842&wit_id=7906

I've only just been picking nits with people on this because I feel that some are going too far in painting it as completely ineffective 100% black and white. I can envision situations where it could have worked. That's all I'm saying.

I've been asking myself the same thing. To be honest, I don't want to be in this debate anymore, because it makes me feel too slimy.

I have to commend you here for a very good question. It does open up some new avenues in my own internal thinking on this subject, so I thank you.

You're welcome!

And, hey, you started this thinking stuff, not me!

I'm sincere when I say I hope you'll remember that you have much to offer this discussion, forget feeling slimy, and continue with the debate

I think Bush was more a fool than an evil person.

I agree

However, I don't subscribe to the concept of 'evil'

I think it was the entire (please excuse the broad brush here) Bush administration that was stoopid; and it would be doubly stoopid to persist with techniques that are both horrible (a subjective statement, I admit) and (both more pertinently and objectively) inefficient