Mancow Does What Hannity Reneged On: Gets Waterboarded

[quote name='rickonker']Are you suggesting you don't have a rigid ideology? Are there circumstances under which you think torture is acceptable?[/QUOTE]

To throw a wrench in the works (even though this question wasn't aimed at me)... Are there circumstanced under which I think torture is acceptable. No.

Are there circumstances under which I could see myself torturing someone to try and get information? Yes.

It doesn't mean I'm not a good person or that I'm for torture. It means that I recognize my humanity - both its weaknesses and its strong points.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']To throw a wrench in the works (even though this question wasn't aimed at me)... Are there circumstanced under which I think torture is acceptable. No.

Are there circumstances under which I could see myself torturing someone to try and get information? Yes.

It doesn't mean I'm not a good person or that I'm for torture. It means that I recognize my humanity - both its weaknesses and its strong points.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, good post. Seriously, I appreciate that you can make that admission. I'm sure there are people who would torture in extreme circumstances but would never admit it.
 
Not to stir up the hornet's nest, but once I saw the name Mancow, I kept on walking. He used to be good way back in the day, but once he left 103.5, hit syndication and became a Fox News lackey, he lost all credibility and respect. But of course that's just my opinion.
 
[quote name='HowStern']You just helped validate Ventura's point as to why WBing doesn't work.

>Who's to say the detainee actually knows Osama's location?
Who's to say Osama didn't move the *second* the detainee was captured?[/QUOTE]

Depends on what you mean by "work", torture certainly works to get the answer you want to hear. Apparently the point was always to get false confessions just to have something to justify all the garbage that was presented as evidence and rammed through in the run up to the war and afterwards.
 
[quote name='rickonker']Yeah, good post. Seriously, I appreciate that you can make that admission. I'm sure there are people who would torture in extreme circumstances but would never admit it.[/QUOTE]

Sadly, there are those who would condemn me for that statement and not understand my point. But so is life...
 
[quote name='HowStern']^are you in the military or did you just have it done out of curiosity? or...are...you...a...terrorist??!

Also, going by his previous posts on the site, I don't think bmulligan was being sarcastic. :/[/QUOTE]

I was being facetious, not sarcastic. Look it up.

And I am not currently in the military. I do think, however, that their may be extreme situations where this form of "simulated" drowning can be justified. They are very rare, and few and far between. Certainly where time and threat level are of great importance, this method may be useful given certain circumstances.

One single act, on it's own, can be justified if it is used to get information. But any act done for the sake of revenge, or pleasure, or done when it's known that valuable information cannot be reliably obtained is torture. There is always a context, which is something that the Left glaringly glazes over and wishes to focus on the act itself instead of the intent. The Right also like to glamorize the act and pretend the context is always for a good purpose. I think we all know that neither of these situations are absolute truth.

But to repeatedly do this to someone in custody at a facility over months or years is just sadistic form of torture, IMO. Someone who's been in custody for over two years isn't going to give you any information on the positions of a nomadic enemy.
 
[quote name='rickonker']Are you suggesting you don't have a rigid ideology? Are there circumstances under which you think torture is acceptable?[/QUOTE]

Are there circumstances where you think having detainees watch episodes of "Banana Splits" is acceptable?

Acceptable is one part of the equation. Useful and informative is more important.

I think it's acceptable to let detainees watch "Banana Splits," but I don't think we'll get any information out of such an action. Waterboarding/torture is the same way.

The only time I've seen torture work is when I didn't push the "X" button fast enough in Metal Gear Solid.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']The only time I've seen torture work is when I didn't push the "X" button fast enough in Metal Gear Solid.[/QUOTE]

To be fair, now, how many high level military detainees have you seen tortured?

Just because you've never walked on the moon doesn't mean it didn't happen (did it?).

I like to think I've made my position clear, but I keep finding myself having to point out bad statements. When we're dealing with high level military intelligence and such, I'm sure there's a lot going on that we don't know about. To make a statement along the lines of Ventura's earlier statement that ticked me off: "If torture doesn't work, why haven't there been any 9/11 scale attacks since 9/11?"

I'm not saying it does or doesn't always work. I'm not saying it is or isn't justified. But for those who say it doesn't work, how long do you think you could sit, chained up, with someone pulling your finger/toenails out before you'd tell them where your credit cards are stashed?

I'm sure there are cases where torture would get useful results.
 
I'd probably admit to killing jimmy hoffa if it meant them stopping the torture. That's the point, what wouldn't you say to get them to stop?
 
[quote name='JolietJake']I'd probably admit to killing jimmy hoffa if it meant them stopping the torture. That's the point, what wouldn't you say to get them to stop?[/QUOTE]

But would you tell me where your credit cards are?

If you have real information that is useful to me, could I get it out of you by torturing you?
 
Me personally, probably. Then again, i'm not a fiercely convicted fundamentalist either.

Think of it as trying to make Pat Robertson declare that there is no god, he may say it, but do you think he really believes that or is just saying it to make you stop?
 
But the idea isn't to get the detainee to renounce their god. It's to get them to give us useful information. Getting Robertson to declare there is no God wouldn't be helpful to anyone.
 
Put yourself in the suspect's position -- I'm a crazy murderer, let's say I'm torturing you and asking where your mom/dad/sibling/loved one is, you know I want to find them and kill them, that's what I do, you don't want me to know where they are, you DO know where they're hiding, so when I torture you what are you going to say?


Yeah, you get people to talk, but you're not gonna learn what people aren't gonna say.
 
[quote name='Koggit']Put yourself in the suspect's position -- I'm a crazy murderer, let's say I'm torturing you and asking where your mom/dad/sibling/loved one is, you know I want to find them and kill them, that's what I do, you don't want me to know where they are, you DO know where they're hiding, so when I torture you what are you going to say?


Yeah, you get people to talk, but you're not gonna learn what people aren't gonna say.[/QUOTE]

But you never know what someone is not going to say until they don't say it.

Let's say I'm the crazy murderer. You know I'm going to kill you anyway. Now, if you tell me where your credit cards are, I can kill you quickly. If you don't, I'm going to torture you until either you do tell me or you die. Are you going to tell me?
 
[quote name='mykevermin']If you die either way, who gives a fuck about your credit score?

What a positively fucking stupid hypothetical.[/QUOTE]

To be fair, your spouse could be on the same account. That'd be a crappy way to leave her.

You are correct - it is stupid - because the torture isn't designed to ultimately kill the detainee. So it's a hard comparison to make.

Let's say I'm a crazy robber and I've broken into your home, tied you up and trashed the home looking for valuables that I think you might have. Am I more likely to get them by staring at you or by beating the crap out of you until you tell me? Of course, you might not have any valuables in the home - so either way, I could completely be wasting my time. But if you did....
 
You are correct. Arguing hypothetical situations is like banging your head against the wall.
[quote name='mykevermin']I think it's acceptable to let detainees watch "Banana Splits," but I don't think we'll get any information out of such an action. Waterboarding/torture is the same way.[/QUOTE]
 
To summarize my viewpoints (since they tend to get lost...).

If you're going to argue that torture is immoral, I agree.
If you're going to argue that torture is unjustifiable in the long term, I agree.

If you're going to argue that torture absolutely, positively could never, ever provide useful information, then I think you're crazy.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']But the idea isn't to get the detainee to renounce their god. It's to get them to give us useful information. Getting Robertson to declare there is no God wouldn't be helpful to anyone.[/QUOTE]
......I think you've missed my point, but i'm not in the mood to try and explain it further.
 
At least the Mancow got a real waterboarding. Although they poured it on quite thick from what I saw. He would have lasted longer if they hadn't poured so much liquid so fast into his mouth. Very bad technique. It must have been a liberal jugman.
 
BLOOMBERG: "One percent of the households that file in this city pay something like 50% of the taxes," explained the Mayor. "In the city, that's something like 40,000 people. If a handful left, any raise would make it revenue neutral. The question is what's fair. If 1% are paying 50% of the taxes, you want to make it even more?"
 
[quote name='Koggit']translation of tivo's logic: "torture them, they'll say something and it might end up being true."

a low bar. by that standard, if all we want is for them to talk, we should instead drug the fuck out of them. if the guvvamint doesn't wanna get their hands dirty with the good stuff (i think E would be perfect for such a task) they can just get em drunk. really drunk.[/QUOTE]


Only problem with getting "them" drunk is that most muslim authorities dictate that alcohol is akin to sin so "we" would be doing something quite wrong in that way which the ACLU would piss their pants about.
 
The treaty applies to uniformed millitary men of another country.
The Geneva convention does not apply to terrorists.


[quote name='elprincipe']What you are advocating is illegal. Our government signed treaties prohibiting torture and they were duly ratified, making them the law of the land. But even if that law didn't exist, it's still morally wrong to torture anyone for any purpose. The ends do not justify the means.[/QUOTE]
 
And by the way, we don't know if waterboarding works, because the Obama Admin won't relaease the records. They will only releasethe records that supports their side.
 
[quote name='gmsisko1']The treaty applies to uniformed millitary men of another country.
The Geneva convention does not apply to terrorists.[/QUOTE]

That's cute.

So how do we prove every person detained, and to be waterboarded, is a terrorist?
 
[quote name='HowStern']That's cute.

So how do we prove every person detained, and to be waterboarded, is a terrorist?[/QUOTE]

duh.

uniforms.

We should report gmsisko1 to the FBI, since he/she is probably not wearing a uniform right now?

Me? In order to avoid detection as a possible terrorist, I wear my Cobra Kai gi everywhere I go now.

kaipic.jpg


I can sweep the leg and I'm still protected by Geneva Conventions.
 
[quote name='HowStern']That's cute.

So how do we prove every person detained, and to be waterboarded, is a terrorist?[/QUOTE]

If you find them in a terrorist training camp, If you find explosives in their home, if they've killed anyone, etc. I'm not saying everyone in gitmo is a terrorist (as numerous people are released w/o charge), but common, shit like THIS is happening and some of those prisoners ARE GUILTY.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']duh.

uniforms.

We should report gmsisko1 to the FBI, since he/she is probably not wearing a uniform right now?

Me? In order to avoid detection as a possible terrorist, I wear my Cobra Kai gi everywhere I go now.

kaipic.jpg


I can sweep the leg and I'm still protected by Geneva Conventions.[/QUOTE]

haha!

In honor of the upcoming ghostbusters game I have my Venkman
ghostbustersuniformtshirt.jpg
uniform. I should be safe.
 
I don't have to admit that the sky is blue, do I?

Then I don't have to admit the inherent, god-given truth that those uniforms are still soopa bad-ass, a quarter century (!!!) later.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top