Right wing Radio host waterboarded, admits it's torture

[Wedgebuster]

Ok, so everybody agrees, Dick Cheney is a felon.

[bench]

put his money where his mouth was... earn one man card.

being willing to change your mind when evidence to the contrary emerges... earn one man card.

now... michael savage, dick cheney, sean hannity, et al... your turn.

it's amazing how everyone who has ever been through it says it's torture... maybe that's because it is.

THOUSANDS have been through it as part of training, TC. They are not all lining up to complain about it.

So you're saying that the waterboarding performed on our special forces in a controlled environment where they know they're not in imminent danger is exactly the same as what we used on a couple of jihadi assholes from Jackfuckistan? Didn't you read what the Distinguished Gentleman from North Jersey said earlier in the thread? Different circumstances, different intent...is any of this ringing a bell? Anything? No? Not even a titter?

[bench]

I've never had any doubt that waterboarding is torture. But I don't have any problem that notorious terrorists like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed were subjected to waterboarding, so long as their interrogators had reasonable grounds to believe that the suspects were aware of plans to launch an attack and conventional means of interrogation had not work.

If it had been my decision, I would have authorized the waterboarding under the circumstances outlined above, and not have lost a moment's sleep over it.

This bit of reasoning reminds me of a Ben Stone line from an ancient episode of Law & Order: "The Commandment says ‘Thou shalt not kill.’ It does not say ‘Thou shalt not kill nice people.’" Trading morality for expediency and a technique of dubious value...that's a pretty heavy trip, brother. Are you sure it weighs out?

[houndawg]

put his money where his mouth was... earn one man card.

being willing to change your mind when evidence to the contrary emerges... earn one man card.

now... michael savage, dick cheney, sean hannity, et al... your turn.

it's amazing how everyone who has ever been through it says it's torture... maybe that's because it is.

THOUSANDS have been through it as part of training, TC. They are not all lining up to complain about it.

What do they call it in training?

"Men, this is a form of enhanced interrogation you may receive if captured. It is not torture and is perfectly legit under the Geneva Convention, hell some of them rag-heads been 'boarded a couple hundred times, but we thought you should be aware of it so you won't be surprised if you get captured."

[JoltinJoe]

I've never had any doubt that waterboarding is torture. But I don't have any problem that notorious terrorists like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed were subjected to waterboarding, so long as their interrogators had reasonable grounds to believe that the suspects were aware of plans to launch an attack and conventional means of interrogation had not work.

If it had been my decision, I would have authorized the waterboarding under the circumstances outlined above, and not have lost a moment's sleep over it.

This bit of reasoning reminds me of a Ben Stone line from an ancient episode of Law & Order: "The Commandment says ‘Thou shalt not kill.’ It does not say ‘Thou shalt not kill nice people.’" Trading morality for expediency and a technique of dubious value...that's a pretty heavy trip, brother. Are you sure it weighs out?

So long as it is used on terror masterminds who have information about active plans to attack, and who have refused to respond to conventional methdods of interrogation; and it is utilized in the hopes of saving thousands of lives, yes.

For a fair amount of my working career, I sat in an office on the 84th Floor of Tower One of the World Trade Center. I knew some people who died that day at the WTC; and I know hundreds of people who barely escaped with their lives. I went to memorial services and saw distraught children with pain and grief that no one could help. So I don't blame anyone for waterboarding notorious terrorists, who want to do this all over again, if the goal is to get information to stop another catastrophic attack intended to kill thousands more people.

Waterboarding is a walk in the park compared to being on the top floors of a high-rise inferno with air temperatures exceeding 1000 degrees F, your lungs becoming more painfully singed with each breath. If you want to understand why people jumped over 100 stories to their deaths rather than stay and take another breath, take just one breath of hot air at over 1000 degrees. You will feel the pain in your lungs for weeks.

You say waterboarding is of "dubious value," but I gather that the reason Dick Cheney wants to have the relevant documents declassified and released to the public is that the technique proved effective in disrupting active terror plans and in apprehending other notorious terrorists.

We live in a world where sometimes rigid adherence to the "most moral" position proves to be an immoral abdication of responsibility; for example, pacifism in the face of Nazi attrocities. Not giving Khalid Sheikh Mohammed a dunk or two, because waterboarding is torture, when the consequence of that decision may be the loss of thousands more innocent lives is another example. Long explanation: if I reasonably believed that waterboarding some terror dirt bag would yield information which would potentially save thousands of lives, I would authorize it and sleep well at night.

[Wedgebuster]

[griz37]

I'm with Joltin Joe, I would sure as hell rather have terrorist from Syria subjected to five minutes of simulated drowning than have 5,000 American lives ended in the flash of a bomb.

[houndawg]

This bit of reasoning reminds me of a Ben Stone line from an ancient episode of Law & Order: "The Commandment says ‘Thou shalt not kill.’ It does not say ‘Thou shalt not kill nice people.’" Trading morality for expediency and a technique of dubious value...that's a pretty heavy trip, brother. Are you sure it weighs out?

So long as it is used on terror masterminds who have information about active plans to attack, and who have refused to respond to conventional methdods of interrogation; and it is utilized in the hopes of saving thousands of lives, yes.

For a fair amount of my working career, I sat in an office on the 84th Floor of Tower One of the World Trade Center. I knew some people who died that day at the WTC; and I know hundreds of people who barely escaped with their lives. I went to memorial services and saw distraught children with pain and grief that no one could help. So I don't blame anyone for waterboarding notorious terrorists, who want to do this all over again, if the goal is to get information to stop another catastrophic attack intended to kill thousands more people.

Waterboarding is a walk in the park compared to being on the top floors of a high-rise inferno with air temperatures exceeding 1000 degrees F, your lungs becoming more painfully singed with each breath. If you want to understand why people jumped over 100 stories to their deaths rather than stay and take another breath, take just one breath of hot air at over 1000 degrees. You will feel the pain in your lungs for weeks.

You say waterboarding is of "dubious value," but I gather that the reason Dick Cheney wants to have the relevant documents declassified and released to the public is that the technique proved effective in disrupting active terror plans and in apprehending other notorious terrorists.

We live in a world where sometimes rigid adherence to the "most moral" position proves to be an immoral abdication of responsibility; for example, pacifism in the face of Nazi attrocities. Not giving Khalid Sheikh Mohammed a dunk or two, because waterboarding is torture, when the consequence of that decision may be the loss of thousands more innocent lives is another example. Long explanation: if I reasonably believed that waterboarding some terror dirt bag would yield information which would potentially save thousands of lives, I would authorize it and sleep well at night.

Unfortunately those lives would probably be lost while you were doing your thing since some of those dirt bags apparently need 150+ waterboardings before they start loosening up. Must give our troops a warm and fuzzy feeling to know you don't have a problem with them being waterboarded if captured.

How you can believe a word that comes out of Dick Cheney's mouth...........SMFH

[houndawg]

I'm with Joltin Joe, I would sure as hell rather have terrorist from Syria subjected to five minutes of simulated drowning than have 5,000 American lives ended in the flash of a bomb.

Ah yes, the old mushroom cloud arguement, works every time.

[FargoBison]

Unfortunately those lives would probably be lost while you were doing your thing since some of those dirt bags apparently need 150+ waterboardings before they start loosening up. Must give our troops a warm and fuzzy feeling to know you don't have a problem with them being waterboarded if captured.
How you can believe a word that comes out of Dick Cheney's mouth...........SMFH

Did he say that? We are talking about terrorists here, not soldiers, huge difference. If any American has resumes like these a foreign nation can waterboard them a million times for all I care.

-Khalid Sheikh Mohammed helped finance 93' WTC attacks, co-conspirator on Operation Bojinka, according to the 9/11 Commission Report he was "the principal architect of the 9/11 attacks."
-Abu Zubaydah, Al Qaeda Operations Chief, involved in East Africa US Embassy bombings that killed 223, including a dozen Americans.
-Rahim Al-nashiri, mastermind of the USS Cole bombing, which killed 17 US sailors.

[dbackjon]

Unfortunately those lives would probably be lost while you were doing your thing since some of those dirt bags apparently need 150+ waterboardings before they start loosening up. Must give our troops a warm and fuzzy feeling to know you don't have a problem with them being waterboarded if captured.
How you can believe a word that comes out of Dick Cheney's mouth...........SMFH

Did he say that? We are talking about terrorists here, not soldiers, huge difference. If any American has resumes like these a foreign nation can waterboard them a million times for all I care.

-Khalid Sheikh Mohammed helped finance 93' WTC attacks, co-conspirator on Operation Bojinka, according to the 9/11 Commission Report he was "the principal architect of the 9/11 attacks."
-Abu Zubaydah, Al Qaeda Operations Chief, involved in East Africa US Embassy bombings that killed 223, including a dozen Americans.
-Rahim Al-nashiri, mastermind of the USS Cole bombing, which killed 17 US sailors.

The problem is that information obtained from torture has been found to be just as inaccurate as it is accurate, and we did not just waterboard those three mentioned - many others as well.

Either torture is wrong, and as Americans we do not torture, or any form of torture is acceptable.

No in betweens on this.

[JoltinJoe]

I'm with Joltin Joe, I would sure as hell rather have terrorist from Syria subjected to five minutes of simulated drowning than have 5,000 American lives ended in the flash of a bomb.

Ah yes, the old mushroom cloud arguement, works every time.

Certainly not every time ... but in some cases, yes ...

[JoltinJoe]

So long as it is used on terror masterminds who have information about active plans to attack, and who have refused to respond to conventional methdods of interrogation; and it is utilized in the hopes of saving thousands of lives, yes.

For a fair amount of my working career, I sat in an office on the 84th Floor of Tower One of the World Trade Center. I knew some people who died that day at the WTC; and I know hundreds of people who barely escaped with their lives. I went to memorial services and saw distraught children with pain and grief that no one could help. So I don't blame anyone for waterboarding notorious terrorists, who want to do this all over again, if the goal is to get information to stop another catastrophic attack intended to kill thousands more people.

Waterboarding is a walk in the park compared to being on the top floors of a high-rise inferno with air temperatures exceeding 1000 degrees F, your lungs becoming more painfully singed with each breath. If you want to understand why people jumped over 100 stories to their deaths rather than stay and take another breath, take just one breath of hot air at over 1000 degrees. You will feel the pain in your lungs for weeks.

You say waterboarding is of "dubious value," but I gather that the reason Dick Cheney wants to have the relevant documents declassified and released to the public is that the technique proved effective in disrupting active terror plans and in apprehending other notorious terrorists.

We live in a world where sometimes rigid adherence to the "most moral" position proves to be an immoral abdication of responsibility; for example, pacifism in the face of Nazi attrocities. Not giving Khalid Sheikh Mohammed a dunk or two, because waterboarding is torture, when the consequence of that decision may be the loss of thousands more innocent lives is another example. Long explanation: if I reasonably believed that waterboarding some terror dirt bag would yield information which would potentially save thousands of lives, I would authorize it and sleep well at night.

Unfortunately those lives would probably be lost while you were doing your thing since some of those dirt bags apparently need 150+ waterboardings before they start loosening up. Must give our troops a warm and fuzzy feeling to know you don't have a problem with them being waterboarded if captured.

How you can believe a word that comes out of Dick Cheney's mouth...........SMFH

Where did I say troops -- anyone's troops, ours or theirs -- should be waterboarded? Read more carefully, I said in some very narrow circumstances, when three very specific criteria are met, I can see the argument that waterboarding is justified.

[Col Hogan]

The shame of this argument is the fact that Dick Cheney is the only public official with the balls to speak out on the subject...I wish there was a different spokesman than that dirt bag, because on this he's correct...

Dawg, you take the easy way out attacking the messenger...it's just too easy...but joe is 100% correct on this one...

[JoltinJoe]

Did he say that? We are talking about terrorists here, not soldiers, huge difference. If any American has resumes like these a foreign nation can waterboard them a million times for all I care.

-Khalid Sheikh Mohammed helped finance 93' WTC attacks, co-conspirator on Operation Bojinka, according to the 9/11 Commission Report he was "the principal architect of the 9/11 attacks."
-Abu Zubaydah, Al Qaeda Operations Chief, involved in East Africa US Embassy bombings that killed 223, including a dozen Americans.
-Rahim Al-nashiri, mastermind of the USS Cole bombing, which killed 17 US sailors.

The problem is that information obtained from torture has been found to be just as inaccurate as it is accurate, and we did not just waterboard those three mentioned - many others as well.

Either torture is wrong, and as Americans we do not torture, or any form of torture is acceptable.

No in betweens on this.

Jon:

Most moral philosophers would disagree with you, and would hold that an act, otherwise immoral, may be justified if intended to prevent a greater wrong.

This moral philosophy is the underpinning of our recognition, in our criminal law, of the defenses of necessity, justification, and self-defense.

This notion in international law that torture is never permissible is rhapsodical, but in truth it is unprincipled, as it ignores widely accepted foundations of moral philosophy.

Let me ask you. You are the chief CIA interrogator of Khalid Sheik Mohammed. He has bragged to you that he is aware of plans of an imminent attack on US soil intended to kill more people than the 9/11 attacks. You have utilized all forms of conventional interrogation tactics, but he has not provided you with any information about the plans. All efforts to gather this information have failed.

Tell me you don't waterboard the bastard?

How would you feel if the attack happened? 5,000 people are now dead, but you're proud because you upheld your principles?

[FargoBison]

Did he say that? We are talking about terrorists here, not soldiers, huge difference. If any American has resumes like these a foreign nation can waterboard them a million times for all I care.

-Khalid Sheikh Mohammed helped finance 93' WTC attacks, co-conspirator on Operation Bojinka, according to the 9/11 Commission Report he was "the principal architect of the 9/11 attacks."
-Abu Zubaydah, Al Qaeda Operations Chief, involved in East Africa US Embassy bombings that killed 223, including a dozen Americans.
-Rahim Al-nashiri, mastermind of the USS Cole bombing, which killed 17 US sailors.

The problem is that information obtained from torture has been found to be just as inaccurate as it is accurate, and we did not just waterboard those three mentioned - many others as well.

Either torture is wrong, and as Americans we do not torture, or any form of torture is acceptable.

No in betweens on this.

I think there is an in between, I don't believe in torturing soldiers or people that may just have information, only those that have killed innocent people and no doubt are planning to do it again.

I only brought up those three because they were all reported of being waterboarded, and in their cases I support it each time. Waterboarding somebody that won't talk and has killed many innocent people and are no doubt part of plans to do it again is just common sense.

If I was in command and just one innocent life was lost because I didn't waterboard KSM, I would have a hard time living with myself.

[dbackjon]

The problem is that information obtained from torture has been found to be just as inaccurate as it is accurate, and we did not just waterboard those three mentioned - many others as well.

Either torture is wrong, and as Americans we do not torture, or any form of torture is acceptable.

No in betweens on this.

Jon:

Most moral philosophers would disagree with you, and would hold that an act, otherwise immoral, may be justified if intended to prevent a greater wrong.

This moral philosophy is the underpinning of our recognition, in our criminal law, of the defenses of necessity, justification, and self-defense.

This notion in international law that torture is never permissible is rhapsodical, but in truth it is unprincipled, as it ignores widely accepted foundations of moral philosophy.

Let me ask you. You are the chief CIA interrogator of Khalid Sheik Mohammed. He has bragged to you that he is aware of plans of an imminent attack on US soil intended to kill more people than the 9/11 attacks. You have utilized all forms of conventional interrogation tactics, but he has not provided you with any information about the plans. All efforts to gather this information have failed.

Tell me you don't waterboard the bastard?

How would you feel if the attack happened? 5,000 people are now dead, but you're proud because you upheld your principles?

And if waterboarding failed, do you bring out the rack, or the iron maiden? Where do you stop?

[TwinTownBisonFan]

Joe... torture someone long enough and you can get them to "confess" to being the Queen of England.

Fact is, you don't glean any additional information from torture than you can from a) having one interrogator build rapport with the detainee b) using legitimate interrogation techniques that don't involve torture.

Moreover... and to argue the broader point:

We cannot claim to be a moral authority and a force for right and good in the world if, in a moment of fear, we sacrifice everything we believe in for expediency. As Ben Franklin said, "those who would trade freedom for security deserve neither."

Fact is, we win this fight when we fight it on our terms. When we uphold the values we profess, even under extreme circumstances, we prove to the world that our way of doing things is the correct one.

You don't win a fight with global terrorists by behaving like them... where is the line then? How long before we justify capturing the terrorist families and shooting videos with axes held to their heads to get information? Put simply, if you make yourself as bad as your enemy, any victory is pyrrhic.

[JoltinJoe]

Jon:

Most moral philosophers would disagree with you, and would hold that an act, otherwise immoral, may be justified if intended to prevent a greater wrong.

This moral philosophy is the underpinning of our recognition, in our criminal law, of the defenses of necessity, justification, and self-defense.

This notion in international law that torture is never permissible is rhapsodical, but in truth it is unprincipled, as it ignores widely accepted foundations of moral philosophy.

Let me ask you. You are the chief CIA interrogator of Khalid Sheik Mohammed. He has bragged to you that he is aware of plans of an imminent attack on US soil intended to kill more people than the 9/11 attacks. You have utilized all forms of conventional interrogation tactics, but he has not provided you with any information about the plans. All efforts to gather this information have failed.

Tell me you don't waterboard the bastard?

How would you feel if the attack happened? 5,000 people are now dead, but you're proud because you upheld your principles?

And if waterboarding failed, do you bring out the rack, or the iron maiden? Where do you stop?

I'd have to think about that more when and if I reached that point. But waterboarding proved effective rather quickly in the cases of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Abu Zubaydah -- contrary to press reports that Sheikh Mohammed was waterboarded for 183 sessions, he was actually subjected to just five sessions during which water was applied for a matter of seconds a total of 183 times.

[dbackjon]

And if waterboarding failed, do you bring out the rack, or the iron maiden? Where do you stop?

I'd have to think about that more when and if I reached that point. But waterboarding proved effective rather quickly in the cases of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Abu Zubaydah -- contrary to press reports that Sheikh Mohammed was waterboarded for 183 sessions, he was actually subjected to just five sessions during which water was applied for a matter of seconds a total of 183 times.

What is the source for this? (in either case, actually )

[JoltinJoe]

Joe... torture someone long enough and you can get them to "confess" to being the Queen of England.

Fact is, you don't glean any additional information from torture than you can from a) having one interrogator build rapport with the detainee b) using legitimate interrogation techniques that don't involve torture.

Moreover... and to argue the broader point:

We cannot claim to be a moral authority and a force for right and good in the world if, in a moment of fear, we sacrifice everything we believe in for expediency. As Ben Franklin said, "those who would trade freedom for security deserve neither."

Fact is, we win this fight when we fight it on our terms. When we uphold the values we profess, even under extreme circumstances, we prove to the world that our way of doing things is the correct one.

You don't win a fight with global terrorists by behaving like them... where is the line then? How long before we justify capturing the terrorist families and shooting videos with axes held to their heads to get information? Put simply, if you make yourself as bad as your enemy, any victory is pyrrhic.

The Ben Franklin quote just doesn't work in a day and age when there is potential for a nuclear weapon concealed in a suitcase to blow up extensive sections of a city, in proximity to where hundreds of thousands work.

If you can raise Ben -- tell him about suitcase nukes, cities in which hundreds of thousands work, and other forms of potential mass destruction -- and then have him repeat that comment, then I'll listen.

As for the accuracy of information provided by the terrorists subjected to waterboarding, the key is to get them to talk. Whether what they say is true is subject to additional intelligence analysis. When a person in captivity talks, either the information is accurate or not accurate, and that remains true if you use conventional means of interrogation, or have to resort to other methods.

I reject the notion that we are as bad as the terrorists because three pretty notorious terrorists were waterboarded. They incinerated, in an horrifically mean and painful way, thousands of innocent husbands, wives, children, and parents on a day they just showed up for work. There is zero moral equivalence.

[dbackjon]

Yet the man responsible for 9/11 has never been captured...

[Col Hogan]

Yet the man responsible for 9/11 has never been captured...

True statement...

And it is relevant to this discussion how?????

[JoltinJoe]

I'd have to think about that more when and if I reached that point. But waterboarding proved effective rather quickly in the cases of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Abu Zubaydah -- contrary to press reports that Sheikh Mohammed was waterboarded for 183 sessions, he was actually subjected to just five sessions during which water was applied for a matter of seconds a total of 183 times.

What is the source for this? (in either case, actually )

In 2007, the Red Cross interviewed Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, and he said he was subjected to five waterboarding sessions (see page 11).

Red Cross Report

I know you hate Fox News, but it was the only media outlet which investigated the conflict between Sheikh Mohammed's own statement about how many times he was waterboarded, and the New Yorks Times' claim that it was "183 times." Sad for the old gray lady, but she blew it again (although its inaccuracy is still being widely reported).

Despite Reports, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed Was Not Waterboarded 183 Times

[Cleets Part 2]

Apparently this is a tricky one..
however it's against my personal policy for me to have an opinion on this

I am the son of a military man but I am no soldier - and I will not meddle in the affairs of these men of action. I believe the U.S. Military should be allowed to decide (essentially) on their own - what conduct is appropriate and or necessary

No one knows the consequences of their behavior more than a soldier - who pays with his own life

I talk... I get paid to talk
I am not a man of action and the consequences of my behavior are nil - I suffer no great danger - I sacrifice nothing for my coffee and muffin in the morning

For the above reasons - 5 time military draft dodger Cheney is the last human being on earth who should be lecturing anybody about "the military" and it's actions - he is a disgrace to this country and a sham of a human with no honor and no personal dignity...

beyond that - I will let the men who suffer the consequences of their actions make those decisions and trust all to them in that regard