Good. Now let's move past waterboarding. Which of these right wing celebrities wants to under go a regimen of sleep deprivation, slapping, slamming against the wall, just enough tasteless food for survival, stress positions and blaring "Born in the USA" for a few days. Until then, Cheney cannot thank Obama for withholding thousands of abuse photos while claiming EIT were only used on a few people.

Yes, it's torture. Maybe Limbaugh should be next...

I was on my way to work once, flipping stations, and landed on Mancow's show. I was familiar with his buffoonery so when he said a plane crashed into one of the World Trade Center towers, my first reaction was, "Yeah, right, whatever jackass."

Then I changed the station again and everything changed.

Looks like it's time for Sean Hannity to step up and make good on his promise to be waterboarded for charity.

Wow, I was reading the messageboard at that Mancow link and, wow. These guys still seem to think that Iraq attacked us and that every one of the guys we grabbed had decapitated Daniel Pearl. And so while they agree that waterboarding is torture, they insist that that's a good thing, as they all deserve to be tortured. Well, except for the guy who thought we should decapitate them all, who clearly thought that waterboarding was too good for them.

I find it quite disconcerting how many folks imagine that they're the "good" guys, which is what makes it perfectly acceptable for us to behave in the way our worst enemies do. It's bad enough when people justify torture as a necessary evil, but it's far worse when they insist that it's a necessary good. Evil is as evil does, no matter what nationality you are.

If it wasn't torture, why did we execute Japanese for doing it to US soldiers? Can someone answer me that?

Sad fact is this is still like tickling yourself. It was a controlled experiment. Not a real integrogation by insame maniacs.

Yeah, how about 80 times you pussy or would more than twice be enough to make you tell everything you knew.

Psychopaths in the WH thought nothing of killing people for political power and how don't care how many times they run about on news shows trying to create "reasonable doubt" they should be prosecuted and thrown in prison or no one should ever be prosecuted for murder in this country again.

Do we really still have a government by, for and of the people any more or just occasionally depending on who is enforcing the law. More and more it is growing into the People vs Washington as lobbyists write or our laws and guarantee protections.

Just wait... within a very short time Mancow/Muller will be publicly derided by the usual gang of torture-loving nutters. Limbaugh will call him a coward, Hannity will dismissingly mock him as a weakling, and Malkin will call him a terrorist-loving traitor. Coulter may even call him the worst thing of all, a "liberal."

Mancow/Muller will rue the day he ever decided to test one of the right-wing's most sacred assertions. His corporate sponsors and advertisers may even seek to have him fired.

as a chicagoan, i can attest to the fact that mancow (aka "i wanna be just like howard stern") is a fucking idiot.

I commend mr mancow-lightly- for going through with his experiment. I wonder if sean hannity will do the same, or admit to his cowardness.

I suggest that dick cheyney (mr five deferments I had other priorities) volunteer to. . .

Oh, wait: he has a bad heart, and therefore should be excused from the experience.

"if this wasn't torture, we wouldn't have done it."

Exactly. That's the whole point of it. How sad so many hate driven Orwellian proles lack that simple insight today.

"...so when he said a plane crashed into one of the World Trade Center towers, my first reaction was, "Yeah, right, whatever jackass."..."-doubtful

Same thing on my birthday, April 19th, when the Oklahoma City bombings "changed everything". But thank God we didn't invade another country over it huh?

Did you hear...the private ins. companies won't allow Single Payer.

The whole argument about whether this technique or that technique really is "torture" is pursued by the right wing solely as a distraction. As long as they get people arguing over what actions qualify to be called "torture," they avoid the central, vital point: America should never torture. Period.

While I find Keith Olbermann's nightly mocking of Hannity a little annoying at this point, I do think that anyone who thinks waterboarding is no big deal ought to step up and get a taste. Plus a little of the no-big-deal shoving and lack of sleep.

What's the harm? it's just enhanced.

Exactly.

My next question for the Torture Denyers: If we have American Airmen/Soldiers who are captured by enemy forces and that enemy waterboards these Americans for informaton, IS IT TORTURE?

NO? OK, so now it's acceptable to use these 'Enhanced Interrogation Techniques' on Americans as much as needed. Great. We're setting the precident for future interrogations on Americans.

As a member of the US Military, an American who believes in American founding principles, I am deeply ashamed that we have Americans who think this is OK and who will not have to ever bear directly the consequences of such pathetic, unprincipled, un-American effort to 'spin' this technique into something that will become an excuse to allow torture of Americans serving abroad.

Think about the consequences of claiming this is not torture beyond your pathetic, un-American life.

These guys still seem to think that Iraq attacked us and that every one of the guys we grabbed had decapitated Daniel Pearl.

Dr. Biobrain - Wasn't it Kalid Sheik Mohammed that killed Pearl? Or am I missing your point?

Dr. Biobrain - never mind. I missed the word "every". Tired today...

So if what happened to Mancow was torture, then aren't those who waterboarded him guilty of war crimes and subject to prosecution by the Obama Justice Department?

Mancow is a dumbass who has been fired several times for various offenses. He's also a vapid, ignorant, bigoted jackass who proves our nation is NOT a meritocracy.

My only wish is that they would have ignored his "safe cow" and kept doing it to him.

Say, 183 times over the course of a month. Maybe then he'd get it.

Look up "voluntary" Chicounsel. And stop taking stupid pills.

Oh yeah - good point Mark D. If they HAD ignored the safety signal it would have been aggravated assault at a minimum.

Please do Dick Cheney next, then GW, Condi, Rumsfeld, Gonzales, Boehner, Bachman, Coulter, etc.

Hitchens lasted 15 seconds. What was interesting to me was that they don’t dump cascading sheets of water over your head. All they do is put a towel over your face and splash your face with water. It doesn’t look much like torture at all until they take the towel off.

Good to see that that idiot Mancow actually did something useful in his life.

The real news story in the link article is that someone actually had the clarity to refer to Hitchens as a "conservative writer" without any dithering.

Did you hear...the private ins. companies won't allow Single Payer. - bjobotts @ 3:46

They need a level playing field. You can't compete against something that works.
Oh Please, tell us again how you get to choose your own Dr.

Same thing on my birthday, April 19th, when the Oklahoma City bombings "changed everything". But thank God we didn't invade another country over it huh?

We kinda did, actually -- Crazy Laurie Mylroie managed to convince many neocons that Saddam Hussein was behind that bombing, not Tim McVeigh and Terry Nichols. She had to wait until the Republicans were back in power to get her way, but apparently one of her biggest cheerleaders was -- you guessed it -- Dick Cheney.

So if what happened to Mancow was torture, then aren't those who waterboarded him guilty of war crimes and subject to prosecution by the Obama Justice Department?

The same reason your dl boyfriend isn't subject to prosecution for raping you -- because it's mutually agreed upon and all activity stops when the safe-word is uttered.

Doctor Biobrain,

It's even worse than that they think the are the "good guys" it's that they think a darker, poorer, life is less than their life and should be wiped out.

More absurd and disconcerting is the catcalls and repeated noisemaking without a shred of irony from these very same people that Obama is a "garden variety fascist".

Yeah, certainly sounds like an unpleasant experience, but you still need to put me in the camp of this not being 'torture'.

Left unsaid above is that Hitchens went back a for a second try - TO TRY AND IMPROVE HIS TIME! If he seriously thought this was some sort of debilitating practice or had any chance of long term harm, he wouldn't have done that.

If it wasn't torture, why did we execute Japanese for doing it to US soldiers? Can someone answer me that?

Because their skin was a different shade than ours and they had funny looking eyes.

I forgot. The Japanese soldiers also had the audacity to not be Christains.

Everything is fine when your white skinned and doing it for God.

bjobotts,

Perhaps I'm being overly sensitive, but have I offended you in some way? I perceived a bit of a condescension directed at me in your comment at 3:46 PM, as well as one comment earlier this week.

Again, it's entirely possible I'm reading too much into it; I just wanted to clear the air if I've wronged you.

"I suggest that dick cheyney (mr five deferments I had other priorities) volunteer to. . .

Oh, wait: he has a bad heart, and therefore should be excused from the experience."
Posted by: DAY

On the contrary, DAY, that is exactly the reason why he should be strapped down.

Seven seconds, huh? Because he wanted to help out the United States federal government?

That's probably the record for right wingers doing something for their country.

"If it wasn't torture, why did we execute Japanese for doing it to US soldiers? Can someone answer me that?"

Well, according to Liz Cheney, the people we prosecuted for waterboarding also "did other bad things."

Of course it's bullshit, but they do manage to come up with rationalizations against every anti-torture argument we advance. It's kind of impressive, except for the fact it's destroying our country.

This should be our response to Dick Cheney, Lynn Cheney, Rush, Hannity, etc. etc.: Are you willing to be waterboarded? If not then shut the fuck up!

What's more, also note the circumstances/context here.

True. The context also worked against him. Mancow was not prepared to die, to leave his children (oh how I hope he doesn't have children) fatherless, just to prove a stupid point. If I were in that position, I'd let them drown me. I think. That's the kind of hubris that gets you waterboarded on your own show.

Er, I should say, if I were a detainee in that position, if I had given up hope of seeing justice, if I had accepted that my life ended when I was captured... such a person could endure drowning much longer, I figure, than someone who doesn't want to be harmed.

These people who brag that they could tough out torture crack me up.

I doubt I would last four seconds. I would tell you anything you wanted to know. As little as 0 percent of it could be true.

Just telling you now.

I'm perfectly willing to let trained professionals waterboard every single person who ignorantly claims that this is not torture. Cheney needs to go first, then Bush, Limbaugh and the rest of the lying fools. I'm sure Jesse Ventura could fit this into his schedule.

If Dick can't undergo waterboarding because of his heart, will Liz volunteer to be his surrogate?

"If it wasn't torture, why did we execute Japanese for doing it to US soldiers? Can someone answer me that?"

That was different.

The waterboardings we have seen performed on TV Personalities do not treat their "victims" the way prisoners are treated.
They are not bound and shackled and forcably held down. They have not been sleep deprived, half frozen, beaten, and starved, and they certainly are not among friends.
The TV "victims" have their panic signal, do prisoners? Or does the water just keep comming until the torturer decides to stop.

I have read no explaination of how the torturer determins the end point of this torture on our captives.

"Oh yeah - good point Mark D. If they HAD ignored the safety signal it would have been aggravated assault at a minimum."

Did the 'terrorists' have a safety signal?

I suppose they could have made it stop by confirming that Saddam Hussein trained the Saudis who flew the airiplanes on 9/11.

A response from a Republican friend:

He us a jackass. And then something about Nancy Pelosi.

I want to volunteer to waterboard shortstop. It's the least I can do. She says 4 seconds, I will cut it to one half of one second.

After our waterboarding session I will confess that I was a dick to her during the Obama vs. Hillary primary and ask for her forgiveness because I was wrong. Things worked out better the way shortstop said it would.

But I will continue being a grade AAA asshole. It's the only thing I'm an expert at...

The media, as usual is complicit in helping the right muddy the waters. Dick Cheney could say, the moon is made of green cheese and they would still act as stenographers, instead of just saying, oh, just stop already.

If the media stopped deferring to the alternate bizarro world view of the right wing of the Republican party in the interest of "impartiality" and fair and balanced neutral journalism, the disengenuous term "enhanced interrogation techniques" would simply vanish from this debate. Because the truth is just so obvious, so simple, so commonsensical that it cannot be denied

The interview to end the debate goes like this: 1. Name one person who has been waterboarded who says it is not torture. 2. Tell us why we should believe someone who has NOT been waterboarded vs. someone who HAS been waterboarded to define whether or not it is torture: That is, why should I believe Hannity or Ann Coulter or Liz Cheney as to whether it is torture vs. Jesse Ventura or Christopher Hitchens or this Madcow guy. 3. Why doesn't every single solitary proponent of the notion that waterboarding is no biggie volunteer to demonstrate that to the American people. What could be more patriotic than to prove to the American people that America never tortured?

Can't the msm at least dispatch with this as an issue? Just say, okay, we know that torture was employed. Now, let's move on to whether a. it worked and b. whether it matters or not whether it worked. c. if it's against the law, what do we do? At least that would take us out of the stupidest of the stupid and into the meatier and more difficult issues at hand.

KSM knew his life wasn't being threatened. He knew he wasn't going to die, or suffer any real harm. They made a point of telling him, for the very reason that not doing so would cross the line into torture.

And he knew he could stop it at any time: By telling us what he knew about an impending attack on a U.S. city.

And it worked.

That was different. Posted by: Standard Republican Answer on May 22, 2009 at 8:20 PM

You don't think pumping gallons of water down a prisoner's throat and then stomping on his stomach until it bursts is different than what the CIA did to Khalid Sheikh Mohammed? Only slightly different, I suppose. After all, they both involve water.

Oh, and sorry to question Mancow's credibility, but it might just be possible that he's calling waterboarding torture for the same reason he used to have a sidekick named Turd: to get people talking. It worked, but that doesn't mean I have to take him seriously.

I'm glad KSM and his 2 buddies were waterboarded, and info obtained to help us understand and thwart al Qaeda. Mancow's stupid stunt is meaningless.

I think Mancow should let us film him leaping 100 stories to his death from a burning skyscraper, and then we can all debate whether waterboarding 3 murderers to prevent that happening to more Americans would be justified.

My husband has been drowned by the military, and brought back to life since "dying requires too much paperwork" He has been put in a gas chamber and removed his mask. He has been put through physical and psychological tests than many of you would wimp out on.
My husband is an American Citizen.
He is also a United State Navy Sailor.
None of you care what happens in training. Maybe its because we should feel sorry for terrorists and hate the military. That is your mantra, right?

Mancow couldn't handle waterboarding....given. I also bet he couldn't handle killing 3,000 people and spending his entire life training people to hate and kill heroes like my husband. Obviously, he does not have the constitution (sorry to use that word, I know how much you hate it) to be a hero or a terrorist.

Maybe instead of saving American lives we should just tell people where to bomb to specifically hit the Vice President in his "secret bunker". Oh we already did?

Maybe instead of speaking the only language the terrorists understand which is fear, we should apologize for our actions and be ashamed of protecting our great Nation. Oh we already did that too?

Maybe instead of all you speaking about things you yourself would never have the guts to stop in the first place by placing your life on the line for America, we should instead ask Iran nicely to please not use nuclear weapons on us or our allies. Oh we did that as well?

I'm going to go to bed. Alone. Heartbroken and sad because my husband is away from me protecting people like you from the scum terrorists that you feel sorry for. Difference between you and me? I will sacrifice today, tomorrow, and every day after that because I believe YOUR American life is worth protecting.

When is Sean Hannity going to keep his promise to get waterbaqorded?

To all of those people who bitch about "waterboarding is torture waaaah!": which American city are you willing to see thousands die just you can smugly sit back and say, "at least we don't 'torture' people?"

I love how you all hyperventilate over this, like every single detainee gets waterboarded, instead of THE THREE IN SEVEN YEARS that actually were!! It's called perspective, people, look it up.

Ol Doc. Biobrain says, "I find it quite disconcerting how many folks imagine that they're the "good" guys, which is what makes it perfectly acceptable for us to behave in the way our worst enemies do." Our "worst enemies" have only waterboarded three US soldiers? Wow, our "worst enemies" sure are nice. I would think our "worst enemies" would torture (actual torture, involving beatings and whatnot) and behead on camera, but thank God it's only waterboarding!

Danp gets all teary eyed about "sleep deprivation, slapping, slamming against the wall, just enough tasteless food for survival, stress positions and blaring "Born in the USA" for a few days." He just described basic training, minus the slapping. Replace the slapping with large angry men screaming in your face. But that would probably make Danp cry.

To all of those people who say, "everyone who says waterboarding isn't torture should have to go through it then!": where does this ridiculous "chickenhawk"-based argument stop? How many of you bitched about the abuse in AbU Gharaib? Have any of you ever served in the military as an MP in a military prison? How many of you bitch about sports teams, yet don't play sports? Run a business? Run the country? Better not offer an opinion unless you have or are willing to whatever it is you want to talk about!

I gotta admit, I'm torn on this.

Torture's horrendous, but damn if the animal in me wouldn't see some justice in Osama bin Laden being waterboarded, oh, say 3000 times.

But then I remember that I'm not an animal, I'm an American, and I'm supposed to be better than that.

And he knew he could stop it at any time: By telling us what he knew about an impending attack on a U.S. city.

Bzzt - FAIL.

What stops torture is telling the interrogators what they want to hear. It's got nothing to do with whether it's true or not.
The interrogators DON'T KNOW what's true or not, or they wouldn't be asking. And frequently they don't have any way to tell whether the victim is telling the truth or not either, so they get led by the nose up a whole load of blind alleys.

You and the torture apologists blindly assume that if you hurt someone enough, they'll tell the truth. Psychologists will tell you until they're blue in the face that that's bulldust, but you won't listen.

Torturers have been frequently documented
(a) continuing to torture after they've been told the truth, because they don't believe it
(b) torturing people who were previously cooperative, stopping the flow of information that was produced by normal interrogation methods
(c) torturing people who know nothing of interest until they make shit up that interests the torturer.

And about KSM specifically? Apparently the first things they asked him about were about Al-Qaeda cooperating with Iraq. Doesn't sound like it's to do with imminent attacks on US cities. The waterboarding started a bit later - so it can't have been done for the purpose of thwarting imminent attacks either.

jen004, tell your husband thanks for his service. We really do appreciate his sacrifice and hope he gets home soon.

You'll find living without him less stressful if you turn off FOX News and go to bed earlier...and soberer.

Just as no one needs to take you seriou
And he knew he could stop it at any time: By telling us what he knew about an impending attack on a U.S. city.

And it worked.

Dick Cheney said so. And we know we can believe anything Dick Cheney says.

Better not offer an opinion unless you have or are willing to whatever it is you want to talk about!

Me thinks you missed the point of the argument. It's not a "you haven't tried it therefore you can't have an opinion" argument as you allege.

Those who have been through it (especially at hostile hands) insist that it is torture. 100+ years of US legal precedent uses the same word to describe it. Furthermore, it's being applied to people who are said to be the "worst of the worst", utterly committed to dying for their cause - in order to get them to betray that cause, and therefore MUST be intended to be horrific. In other words, the preponderance evidence is on the side of it being torture.

Given this evidence, it's those who insist that it's NOT, with no evidence to back it up, who need to show why anyone should believe their assertion.

And if it's really "no big deal", then perhaps the easiest way to prove it is to put your money where your mouth is and undergo it, right?

KSM knew his life wasn't being threatened.

Don't be stupid. Saying "we told him we weren't going to kill him in order to avoid crossing the line into torture" is just ignoring reality.

People die and get brain damage and all sorts of other medical and psychological issues from waterboarding.

Being told you won't die doesn't stop you undergoing the drowning process. You may know in your head that they plan to stop before you die, but
(a) some torturers really get into applying the torture and forget to even ask questions. There's a definite risk of going too far (witness an expert at a Congressional hearing recently who said "If the subject dies you're doing it wrong" - and that was JUST regarding "sleep deprivation". Oxygen deprivation can get very serious very suddenly with no warning signs), and
(b) your body and brain take over when you start drowning and all that "you're not going to die" stuff goes out the window.

Don't be stupid. Saying "we told him we weren't going to kill him in order to avoid crossing the line into torture" is just ignoring reality.

Then why haven't there been any arrests in the Mancow waterboarding?

Bzzt - FAIL.

What stops torture is telling the interrogators what they want to hear. It's got nothing to do with whether it's true or not.

But it was true. It stopped another attack. You can type "FAIL" all you want, but it's not going to kill all the people who would have died if we hadn't waterboarded KSM.

Dick Cheney said so. And we know we can believe anything Dick Cheney says.

A thing can be true even if it's said by someone you dislike.

You'll find living without him less stressful if you turn off FOX News and go to bed earlier...and soberer.

Way to take the high road.

Then why haven't there been any arrests in the Mancow waterboarding?

Start out by pondering the fact that it was voluntary.

It stopped another attack.

Which attack? How do you know?

And at what cost?

Would the claimed attack have been stopped if traditional interrogation methods had been continued - at which time KSM was co-operating - instead of switching to waterboarding when he clammed up?

What are the chances that the massive amounts of time wasted on chasing false leads generated by waterboarding "confessions" put the country at greater risk, maybe even failing to stop an actual attack in the works?

And have you considered the propaganda victory waterboarding and other abusive treatment gives to the terrorists, who use it to recruit even more people to attempt future attacks - including a bunch of very successful deadly attacks on US forces in Iraq and Afghanistan?

A thing can be true even if it's said by someone you dislike.

Of course. But that wasn't the point.

Dick Cheney *can* tell the truth, and possibly even the whole truth. But I wouldn't bet on it when he has some skin in the game. His record is pretty poor in that area.

Cheney argues that hundreds of thousands of lives were saved by waterboarding etc., but his claims are hard to prove.

Maybe the only way to reach this number is to argue that it stopped Al-Qaeda getting a loose nuke (for which there is no evidence yet) - and in which case, you might think that the Bush admin's lack of funds for and attention to the program for securing loose nukes in the former USSR was a far safer bet.

Er, that didn't come out right.

If Cheney was credibly concerned about Al-Qaeda getting hold of a nuke, then he would also have been concerned about financing and accelerating the program for securing loosely protected radioactive material in the former USSR. Instead the Bush administration underfinanced and effectively nobbled the program.

Start out by pondering the fact that it was voluntary.

If you volunteer to let me stick bamboo shoots under your fingernails or inflict the bastinado on you in public, how would that be handled by the authorities? Waterboarding seems to be the only form of "torture" you can do to somebody at an anti-war rally without getting in trouble.

Which attack? How do you know?

I follow current events.

If 9/11 could have been prevented by waterboarding somebody, would it have been worth it to you?

"Mancow" is a publicity grabbing douchebag with a shitty, unfunny radio show. I remember hearing him play a bunch of voicemails from Chris Farley soon after he died. The voicemails, in which Farley was clearly very inebriated, were all about how much he loved "Mancow". It was so inappropriate on so many levels.

If you volunteer to let me stick bamboo shoots under your fingernails or inflict the bastinado on you in public, how would that be handled by the authorities?

At the point they became aware that it was voluntary they would lose all interest.

I can't see how this is helping your argument, but keep swinging.

I follow current events.

Ah, the art of the evasive non-answer. Very convincing.

If 9/11 could have been prevented by waterboarding somebody, would it have been worth it to you?

Ah, the art of the false dichotomy.

If paying Superman $1 billion could have prevented 9/11, would it have been worth it to you? Of course, I don't have any evidence to suggest this question is based on any realistic scenario - and clearly paying Superman isn't the only course of action that may lead to the desirable result.

So do you have any evidence that something like 9/11 might be prevented by waterboarding, AND that it could not be prevented by traditional police work and interrogation methods? Because the professionals say that the traditional methods work much better, and that the strategic (long term) cost of waterboarding isn't worth it.

Those people that claim torture does not gain proper information are seriously delusional. As a former SERE instructor I will tell you from first hand experience, you are flat out wrong.

Do you people not think the CIA had an idea about what they were trying to get answers to?

Asking someone a question during an interrogation is not an interview. The interrogator has alot of information already, they are trying to fill in some holes or confirm information.

KSM didn't know if he would live or not? A guy that was as famous as him in American custody and we would kill him? That's really thinking it through.

I think if the people being waterboarded were suspected of killing abortion providers this wouldn't be an issue with the left.

People die or get brain damage from waterboarding.

This really needs some citation. In the 4 years I was involved in SERE, I never once heard of a single case of either.

\KSM didn't know if he would live or not? A guy that was as famous as him in American custody and we would kill him? That's really thinking it through.

Zarqawi was pretty famous, too. How's he doing? Uday? Qusay?

Thought so.

The reality is that Muslim prisoners were tortured to death at American hands, in Afghanistan and Abu Ghraib. While your rumination about what KSM must have thought is an interesting peek into your own perceived ability to read minds, that's all that it is.

I think if the people being waterboarded were suspected of killing abortion providers this wouldn't be an issue with the left.

Doesn't this remark just reveal you to be the unserious boob.

Those people that claim torture does not gain proper information are seriously delusional. As a former SERE instructor I will tell you from first hand experience, you are flat out wrong.

People who ACTUALLY tortured and were tortured in dictatorial regimes and didn't just engage in pretend torture will tell you from REAL first hand experience that you are actually wrong. Just the tiniest bit of googling will show you that. People can and do say anything, and confessions are littered with half-truths and untruths to keep investigators busy with wild goose chases.

Funny thing is, your own example trips you up: KSM confessed to all sorts of ridiculous bullshit under torture, which is why they HAD TO KEEP THROWING WATER ON HIS FACE OVER A HUNDRED TIMES.

Idiot.

jen004, tell your husband thanks for his service. We really do appreciate his sacrifice and hope he gets home soon.

You'll find living without him less stressful if you turn off FOX News and go to bed earlier...and soberer.
---------------------------------------------------
If you googled the term "insincere appreciation" this post should show up in bold type.

You know what would make my life less stressful? Knowing that if my husband got captured by those terrorist monsters that all they would do is waterboard him. But that is not the case. They'd cut of his genitals, eyelids, burn his body with blow torches, and eventually kill him.

Side note: Some of us don't need to drink to solve our problems. Some of us still believe in God. He makes me life less stressful. Just because Teddy Kennedy has to drink to sleep at night, doesn't mean we all do.

Thanks for posting that anonymously as well. It proves the type of people that say those things.

Jen, your husband's in the Navy. Afghanistan's landlocked. Iraq is (virtually) landlocked. Unless he's a marine corpsman or a SEAL or something, he's not going to be anywhere near a terrorist. He's going to be sitting on a nice safe warship, eating freshly made icecream, hundreds if not thousands of miles away from anyone who's actually fighting.
But, you know, we're all grateful for his service, because otherwise that Choc Chip would just sit there and melt.

Those people that claim torture does not gain proper information are seriously delusional. As a former SERE instructor I will tell you from first hand experience, you are flat out wrong.

"Those people" include professional interrogators steeped in the art and experience of information extraction.

As a former SERE instructor, you would know that:
- SERE was NOT designed to elicit information, it was designed to show what might happen at the hands of a brutal enemy - and how to resist to the best of one's abilities;
- that SERE instructor training did NOT include interrogation training, so unless you received such training elsewhere you do not have it;
- that SERE training was based on documented treatment at the hands of enemies who used those techniques to elicit **false** confessions;
- that some of the techniques used in SERE had the potential to be very dangerous, especially if things went a little further than planned. (You really mean to say you were trained to drown someone in a "controlled fashion" without any training in the possible medical effects? They never taught you about "anoxia" or "oxygen deprivation"? That's grossly negligent.)

Given the lack of interrogation training, you might not have learned the difference between "compliance" - which waterboarding quickly produces - and "truth telling", which is not necessarily an outcome it produces.

You might even have noted with interest KSM's comment to interrogators that "their methods" were stupid and counter-productive, and that he made a lot of sh*t up to try and stop the waterboarding, and that sh*t caused massive amounts of resources to be wasted.

And you might have noted interrogators "trying to fill in the blanks" as you say by asking for evidence of (non-existent) co-operation between Al-Qaeda and Iraq. Given that waterboarding rapidly produces compliance, it's not surprising that some confessed to such links - which isn't exactly eliciting accurate information, is it?

A guy that was as famous as him in American custody and we would kill him?

Given that you're a SERE instructor, you would have experienced waterboarding. Therefore, you know that - even though you knew in one part of your brain that they weren't trying to kill you - your body and most of your brain experienced it as drowning (because you were). So are you really arguing that it's somehow OK to make someone **experience** dying at enemy hands because you've told him you won't actually finish the deed...?

And given that you're a SERE instructor, not trained in the art and history of interrogation, you might not be aware that hostile torturers are not infrequently documented as getting so much into the application of torture that they blow right past intended limits and sometimes even forget to ask questions.

The interrogator has alot of information already, they are trying to fill in some holes or confirm information.

And here's the crux of the problem.

IF the torturing interrogator is trying to "confirm" something or "fill in holes", then he doesn't *know* the truth already - or he wouldn't be asking. (Trying to manufacture false confessions is another matter entirely - and much easier.)

He assumes that by inflicting enough pain and horror he'll get truth. Interrogators and psychologists who study these things say it doesn't work - you might get lucky and get some truth, but you might equally well dismiss the truth and believe a falsehood. And torturers can't tell you just how much they need to inflict to "get the truth". (180 waterboardings are not going to be enough, but we'll get it on 183 for sure!)

The other problem is "confirmation bias" - humans tend to believe evidence/claims that confirm their preconceptions and dismiss those that don't. See the problem with torturing? See why victims will "say what the torturer wants to hear"? There are documented cases of interrogators using harsh methods being told the truth and dismissing it because they didn't believe it.

In fact, torture makes the job of getting to the truth harder because it destroys all the little body language cues that an experienced interrogator can use to figure out when someone isn't being particularly truthful.

Ajay~ You're right, the only people that come in contact with a terrorist are in Iraq and Afghanistan. Oh, well, unless you count those three thousand people that encountered a terrorist in New York. Or in a field in Pennsylvania. Or in the Pentagon. Or off the coast of Somalia. Or in Pearl Harbor. Or in the waters of North Korea. Or in Kuwait. Or if you're a British sailor off the coast of Iran. Or if you happened to be on the USS Cole, off the coast of Yemen. Or in Oklahoma City. Or if you happen to walk into the wrong store in Bahrain. Or off the coast of India. Or in Glasgow Airport in Britain. Or in Israel.

But I mean, no one counts those things right? The only place you will encounter a terrorist is in Iraq or Afghanistan.

And we waterboarded three terrorists and stopped people in Los Angeles from running into a terrorist. But they wouldn't really attack us, since terrorists are only in Iraq or Afghanistan. Oh and those people we sold fake bomb materials to, who were American citizens, who wanted to blow up a synagogue in New York. Thank God that wasn't real since you'll never encounter a terrorist outside of Iraq and Afghanistan.

And those silly sailors in the Navy. All of them except for medics and SEALs are safe on a ship. I mean, besides those guys who operate the Navy fighter jets. And the sailors who choose to go IA to Iraq and serve on the front lines. And those sailors who are on Riverine units. And those sailors who are Divers. And those sailors who operate those Navy helicopters. I mean its not like the Navy has more aircraft than the Air Force and the Army has more ships than the Navy. Oh wait....yes they do.

So, if you think you're safe here in America, in your house, eating "choc chip" ice cream, you have nothing to worry about. Just like the Navy. Terrorists only attack soldiers and Marines in Iraq and Afghanistan.

And we waterboarded three terrorists and stopped people in Los Angeles from running into a terrorist.

You've been conned.

The plot was broken up in 2002, before KSM was captured. And if it wasn't broken up, it wouldn't have worked - cockpit doors had been strengthened, and passengers (mostly with cellphones) were definitely in no mood to let anyone hijack an airliner they were on any more. (Remember people tackling the shoe bomber?) So waterboarding did not stop this terrorist plot against LA.

And if this is the best evidence waterboarding afficionados can come up with that it "saves lives", it's not looking very good, is it?

I'd bet good money you've been conned over the NY synagogue bombing plot too.

I'd guess that just like other high profile announcements of big terror plots being broken up over the last few years, it will be quietly reworded later when fewer people are paying attention. It will be shown that whilst there may have been desire to do harm, there would have been no viable plot without the FBI informant stoking things up and providing money and weapons, and the charges will be reduced to something much lighter or will fail in court.

We've seen this pattern used several times.

And if this is the best evidence waterboarding afficionados can come up with that it "saves lives", it's not looking very good, is it?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Seems like a pretty good reason to me. Call me crazy, but preventing death still seems like good thing.

How about this? If a terrorist kills you and your family, I'll personally send him a fruit basket and ask for his forgiveness. Afterall, its not his fault he's a murdering nutjob.

jen004-
if that ever happens I'll cover half for the basket.
But since you're just blowing smoke I won't set aside the $ now.

Call me crazy, but preventing death still seems like good thing.

Jen, perhaps you have a comprehension problem.

There was no viable plot against the Library Tower in LA that was disrupted by waterboarding someone, despite administration officials lying that there was. That means that there were no LA deaths prevented by waterboarding. The potential deaths were prevented by traditional non-torture methods.

If you think getting information on plots that have already been disrupted and that can't work anyway is a good enough reason to waterboard people, there's little point talking. You're not assessing the best course of action in the real world, you're talking about a sadistic fantasy. And yes, that's getting close to the definition of "crazy".

And if you won't consider whether we DID or COULD HAVE got information that disrupted plots through regular means, then there's little point talking. You're still willing to endorse sadism, and you're prejudiced towards waterboarding as a truth extraction technique. This, despite all the evidence that it's WORSE at getting the truth (far less accurate, generally much slower, wastes time and investigative resources, shuts down information channels, corrupts interrogation capabilities) than traditional smart interrogation methods. Worse still, you're failing to assess all the costs involved (including powerfully increasing the motivation for certain groups of people to attack and even torture US military personnel overseas, let alone the slow corruption of the rule of law and the values that America is supposed to stand for).

If a terrorist kills you and your family, I'll personally send him a fruit basket and ask for his forgiveness. Afterall, its not his fault he's a murdering nutjob.

How exactly do you think lying about my attitudes towards terrorists helps your argument? Do you think if you ignore it or slander it, that it will conveniently go away? Or do you see the world only in extremes, and thus can ONLY imagine that if I don't endorse your idea of how to deal with terrorists, it can ONLY be because I'm secretly on the side of terrorists - rather than being because I think it's a flawed and sub-optimal way to counter terrorists?

There you have it. It took a couple posts but you've branded the Conservative Christian Military Spouse Republican as EXTREME, PREJUDICED, CRAZY, and UNABLE TO COMPREHEND.

Janet Napolitano, is that you?

jen004, knock off the hysterical self-dramatizing. You're all over the fucking map with your personal spite. There isn't anything intellectually cohesive holding together your rants. It's all random vitriol, all based on winger talking points, some 40 years old, for heaven's sake.

May I remind you that this thread is about waterboarding? Do we really have to explain that it's possible to point out the clear wrongness of waterboarding without "hating the military"? Only in your sadly binary thinking does asking our country to uphold its own principles, international treaties, constitution and basic humanity translate into being "anti-military." I don't share your apparent view that honoring military service is the sole franchise of my own people, but if I did, I might point out that believing that your husband and his colleagues can't serve their country without acting in direct contradiction to its principles isn't exactly a vote of confidence.

If you act extreme, prejudiced, crazy and dense, people are quite naturally going to think you are. Don't make yourself feel better -- and ramp up the rage and loathing that apparently fuel your every breath -- by bellowing that we hate all Christians, Republicans or military wives. It's your behavior here that's being commented upon.

It took a couple posts but you've branded the Conservative Christian Military Spouse Republican as EXTREME, PREJUDICED, CRAZY, and UNABLE TO COMPREHEND.

There you go, taking on a false victim stance and attributing it to your religion, gender, husband's occupation and what not. (Conveniently, doing so helps avoid certain lines of argument...)

Trouble is, your victimhood is all false. What I wrote relates to your **positions**, not **who** you are or what your husband does.

You still don't seem to understand why I said perhaps you have a comprehension problem with what I said *here*. (Which you don't seem to understand is different from saying you CAN'T comprehend AT ALL).

The LA Library Tower plot is frequently cited by waterboarding proponents as the best example of the hypothesis that waterboarding saved lives. (It was the first one you cited, unless you were referring to something else.)

My comment pointed out that the claim about the Library Tower was false - and therefore that if the **best** evidence is clearly false, then the idea that waterboarding saved lives may not be supported by any solid evidence at all.

In response, you misinterpreted that comment to say that you were in favor of saving lives and implied that I was not. That misinterpretation is the comprehension problem I was referring to.

The rest of the things you think I called you I haven't called you yet. I've said that those labels would be justified **if** you take the positions I outlined.

And if you can't handle people judging your arguments on their apparent merits or lack of them without taking it as a personal attack...then what are you doing on a political blog?

So there was this bus filled with schoolchildren traveling merrily along a single lane road. An alert pedestrian ahead of the bus noted a huge hole in the road just around a corner, and saw that due to the conditions that the bus driver would probably not see it in time. He judged that rapid decisive action was necessary to avert a catastrophe, so he pulled out his trusty handgun and shot the tyres out of the bus. It careened along screeching for many yards before it fell heavily on its side, stopping short of the fatal corner in a shower of shards of glass and metal.

As the ambulances took away several girls with suspected broken limbs or head injuries, the bus driver verbally assailed the pedestrian. "What did you go and do that for?" The pedestrian replied, somewhat sanctimoniously "I did it to save lives!" The bus driver responded, "I'm sure you saved lives, but why didn't you just step out into the road and hold your hand up to get me to stop safely?"