More props to Shepard Smith - On the use of torture

[Raziaar]

Contains an expletive, if you're at work.

I don't know Shepard Smith, but sometimes he speaks wisely, even though he's on Fox News.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aEtFMj6ZiHM

In April 2009, in response to the widespread debate of whether torture can be an effective tool in fighting terrorism in the wake of the Obama administration's decision to release memos detailing the widespread practice of water-boarding, Smith declared in a censored FOX NEWS segment, "I don't give a rat's ass if [torture] helps. We are America! We do not ****ing torture!"[9] His comments came at a time when most news channels refused to weigh in on the morality and historical import of the US's decision to use enhanced interrogation methods on enemy combatants.

 

[No Limit]

I never watched him since I don't watch fox "news" but props to him.

 

[Eejit]

Someone displays a backbone shock.

 

[CptStern]

"in response to the widespread debate of whether torture can be an effective tool"

for some reason this bothers me more than it should. it's a way people dismiss the severity of the charge of using torture. "americans dont use torture, the evil people do" so when that's proven wrong they try to justify it by saying "they cut people's heads off!!!" or "it's effective and necessary. dont forget 9/11" or "it's not really that bad, it's not really torture"


this last one is pretty much widespread. in a memo from 2001 on the legality of the use of torture Donald Rumsfeld handwrites a comment showing his disdain for stress positions being considered torture. he wrote:

"I stand 8-10 hours a day. Why is standing limited to 4 hours?"


http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB127/

I think in many ways americans dont want to face the fact that they're not really the good guys they've always protrayed themselves to be.

 

[Raziaar]

We don't even torture our murderers, serial killers, rapists, serial rapists or anything. We put them in jail, and occasionally put them to death in a humane way.

 

[15357]

I don't think you could really justify the use of torture on human beings. Even if it did get the job done, it would still be against the principles of the free world.


Then again, you wouldn't really need to justify anything the public doesn't know.

There are ideals, and then there is reality. If you had to choose, so that the rest of us, the rest of the free world, could still stick to our democratic and humanitarian ideals, then perhaps it could be viewed.... in different ways.

We could never condone torture. That doesn't mean that it's not an option.


edit: damn it, I'm ranting again. I need to start being coherent.

 

[The Monkey]

I'm not sure he should be given props for saying what any sane person would.

 

[Raziaar]

I'm not sure he should be given props for saying what any sane person would.

Well... he is in the sea of Fox.

 

[Shakermaker]

Well... he is in the sea of Fox.

Shep went rogue a couple of months ago. Didn't the Daily Show do an item on that? I am surprised he is still working for FOX. Unless he's the token liberal ofc.

 

[Dog--]

We don't even torture our murderers, serial killers, rapists, serial rapists or anything. We put them in jail, and occasionally put them to death in a humane way.

How is jail not torture?

Also I probably shouldn't say this because it'll start shit, but I am for torture. Only very selectively and only if it ends up helping more then 1 person (or however many people were tortured, you gotta break even +1 for it to have been worth while).

 

[Vegeta897]

How is it?

 

[Dog--]

Brings a guy away from his family, his job, his life and puts him in a little cell for 18 hours a day. How is that not torture? Sure it's usually dickweeds that it happens to, but it's still torture.

 

[Vegeta897]

It's a form of punishment that doubles as keeping a danger out of society.

Might as well call any form of punishment torture, by your apparent definition.

 

[Dog--]

Might as well.

 

[Vegeta897]

*glances at guy holding score card*

Yeah, I think I've won this one.

*walks away*

 

[Raziaar]

How is jail not torture?

Also I probably shouldn't say this because it'll start shit, but I am for torture. Only very selectively and only if it ends up helping more then 1 person (or however many people were tortured, you gotta break even +1 for it to have been worth while).

That is their punishment, locked away from society where they would do it further harm, or spending their time for punishment. Obviously prison is an entirely different subject with lots of talking points. However, I think it's foolish to say imprisonment is torture, unless the style of imprisonment is torturous. And that's obviously not the case in most countries prisons.

 

[Jintor]

I don't think you could really justify the use of torture on human beings. Even if it did get the job done, it would still be against the principles of the free world.


Then again, you wouldn't really need to justify anything the public doesn't know.

There are ideals, and then there is reality. If you had to choose, so that the rest of us, the rest of the free world, could still stick to our democratic and humanitarian ideals, then perhaps it could be viewed.... in different ways.

We could never condone torture. That doesn't mean that it's not an option.


edit: damn it, I'm ranting again. I need to start being coherent.

...I'm actually a little frightened by that, partially because it makes... at least a bit of sense.

 

[Warped]

lets say you smoke weed in California 3 times and are convicted 3 times. you go into the slammer for life, why the hell is that fair?? imo thats about as bad as it gets

 

[Raziaar]

lets say you smoke weed in California 3 times and are convicted 3 times. you go into the slammer for life, why the hell is that fair?? imo thats about as bad as it gets

It's a terrible law that needs to be eliminated. It makes it seem as if we treat drugs more critically than murder... since many of our murderers get less than life sentences.

It's not fair at all... for one, drugs that do no harm really like marijuana, and two, for drugs that have people addicted and going back for more. Those people need help to break those addictions of those powerful and dangerous drugs. Marijuana of course isn't one of those dangerous drugs.

 

[15357]

...I'm actually a little frightened by that, partially because it makes... at least a bit of sense.

What I mean, is that if you need to put 250V into a man so that people won't let go of their humanitarian ideals, then yes, you should get the generator out.


If a terrorist attack was to succeed, an attack so terrible and horrifying that the citizens of the nation would actually start condoning torture to prevent further attacks, you've failed. The principles of the free world no longer can apply, and a vital part of the collective national soul has been lost.

I believe that torture should be used, albeit with great thought and care, lest the majority of citizens actually view it as acceptable. It may sound contradictory, but, think about it.


The people at intelligence agencies make the sacrifice so that we don't know about it, and can keep living on our happy-happy lives till the end of days.

 

[Raziaar]

What I mean, is that if you need to put 250V into a man so that people won't let go of their humanitarian ideals, then yes, you should get the generator out.


If a terrorist attack was to succeed, an attack so terrible and horrifying that the citizens of the nation would actually start condoning torture to prevent further attacks, you've failed. The principles of the free world no longer can apply, and a vital part of the collective national soul has been lost.

I believe that torture should be used, albeit with great thought and care, lest the majority of citizens actually view it as acceptable. It may sound contradictory, but, think about it.


The people at intelligence agencies make the sacrifice so that we don't know about it, and can keep living on our happy-happy lives till the end of days.

People at intelligence agencies aren't soulless automatons. Many of them had issue with the waterboarding and stuff, at least from stuff I've read.

 

[15357]

People at intelligence agencies aren't soulless automatons. Many of them had issue with the waterboarding and stuff, at least from stuff I've read.

That's why I said sacrifice.

 

[CptStern]

If a terrorist attack was to succeed, an attack so terrible and horrifying that the citizens of the nation would actually start condoning torture to prevent further attacks, you've failed. The principles of the free world no longer can apply, and a vital part of the collective national soul has been lost.

the scenario where a terrorist has key information that will kill tens of thousands of innocents in if it's not extracted scenario absolutely positively never comes up. This life or death at the balance thing is meant to justify the use of torture but holds no water as justification for legitimate use of torture. if that were the case, the courts would be petitioned for it's use on a regular basis. just think of all the money they could recoup if they just tortured suspected bankrobbers. or hell why not speed up the court process by waterboarding a criminal into a confession? who the hell needs due process anyways?

it's funny how easily Numbers slips into oppressive totalitarianism wherever the opportunity to do so presents itself





btw:

The C.I.A. officers used waterboarding at least 83 times in August 2002 against Abu Zubaydah, according to a 2005 Justice Department legal memorandum. Abu Zubaydah has been described as a Qaeda operative.

A former C.I.A. officer, John Kiriakou, told ABC News and other news media organizations in 2007 that Abu Zubaydah had undergone waterboarding for only 35 seconds before agreeing to tell everything he knew.

wow talk about bullshit. anyone still thinks it works?

The 2005 memo also says that the C.I.A. used waterboarding 183 times in March 2003 against Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the self-described planner of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

The New York Times reported in 2007 that Mr. Mohammed had been barraged more than 100 times with harsh interrogation methods, causing C.I.A. officers to worry that they might have crossed legal limits and to halt his questioning.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/20/world/20detain.html

 

[No Limit]

The 2005 memo also says that the C.I.A. used waterboarding 183 times in March 2003 against Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the self-described planner of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

March 2003? hmm...I'm trying to remember what was so special about that month.

Oh, that's right. Bush was looking for justification to invade Iraq; one of the justifications he wanted to use was a link between Saddam and Al Queda. And as far as obtaining false confessions torture works like a charm.

 

[CptStern]

also using drunken habitual liars to provide you with the key bit of evidence that launches the invasion of iraq

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curveball_(informant)