Oh, geeze:
That a sitting United States congressman can go on TV and state that it’s OK to torture people if national security personnel thinks it’s possible they might know something speaks volumes about the sickness that permeates this country.
 |
About Peoria Pundit
Billy Dennis is a former reporter and editor at small daily and weekly newspapers in Illinois and Missouri. He comments on media, news and politics. He also owns and operates The Blog Peoria Project, which promotes community-based citizen journalism in his hometown, Peoria IL. Call me at (309) 863-5748 and leave a message. Or email me.
Aaron Schock Bauer
Okay, I am hardly a Schock apologist. As a matter of fact, I didn’t vote for him in the primary. But, this was a pathetic attempt by Matthews to ambush Schock on torture in an interview that was supposed to be about Gitmo and Thomson which are completely unrelated.
The question of torture in this interview is a semantic one. And Billy, I know that you are opposed to water boarding and believe it to be torture. But the point is that each individual is going to define torture in a different way based on their own personal experiences and tolerances. To use the term torture as if it has some highly refined and agreed upon definition is completely ignorant.
Matthews should challenge Schock to be waterboarded on TV.
If your husband, son or daughter was going to be killed unless you waterboarded someone I’d bet you would think twice about your opinion on it.
O.K. I’ll answer this one. If my spouse, son or daughter was going to be killed and someone had information that could save them, I would not torture them. Why? Because torture doesn’t work! If you really want information there are other more effective ways of getting it. See
http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/media/etn/2008/alert/313/
The only reason to torture someone is if you have a pyschological pathology that causes you to derive pleasure from inflicting pain upon someone. Look it up.
Oh, goody, another FauxNews viewer educated by the fantasies of 24.
Why is it that these torture-apologists always fall in lock step with the same talking points over and over again. And then, to do nothing more than win an argument, pull out the “husband, son or daughter” foolishness.
Read up on controlled drowning because THAT is what “water boarding” is – it is not some idiotic dribbling of water or splashing of water droplets on a face – it is controlled drowning.
Okay Scott, then please tell me you would avoid using “torture” (however you personally define it) if the life of your loved one was in imminent danger and an individual had knowledge that would allow you to stop that threat. Then I will believe it is foolishness.
And please, you’re opening is just plain stupid. No other way to describe it.
Hm…quite funny that you used a crafted talking point developed from those who watch FauxNews and crap like 24.
EVERY credible source on torture states the same thing – it does not work. This comes from people who have been tortured to those that have tortured.
And I’m not going to play your infantile 24 games, because that is what they are – just another game by those never in harms way to bloat out their chest like a Cheney.
I’ll give Schock credit. Unlike Cheney and the ilk, he isn’t afraid to use the word “torture.” But is anyone REALLY surprised? This is a young man who advocated giving nukes to Taiwan and has flirted with the “birther” movement. He looks good in a photo shoot, but he’s not any more thoughtful than Sarah Palin.
What’s up with all all the pudgy old farts trying to bring him down lately? Good luck to them with that.
Typical liberal journalist. Terrorists are not covered under the Geneva Convention. Another phony question.
Torture doesn’t work. Should we start cutting off heads on national TV too? And anyone who logs onto here with the name of “Jack Bauer” is really pathetic. If that’s your real name, I apologize, but I’m sure it’s not. Quit living in a fantasy world, “Jack.” And as far as the “loved one’s” argument, if you had a “loved one” tortured by an enemy of this country to get critical information for their side, would that be okay?
With a name like Marty Wombacher it is understandable you might feel a little bit of envy of someone named Jack Bauer.
“Torture,” however it’s defined, might not work but waterboarding does.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/apr/25/waterboarding-saved-la/
This report has been debunked many times. Try again…..
No, Scott, you’ve been debunked many times.
I think Schock’s position is consistent with Alan Dershowitz’s essay: Should we fight terror with torture?
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/alan-dershowitz-should-we-fight-terror-with-torture-406412.html
@pffft: The word “pathetic” doesn’t mean “envious.” And I’m proud enough of my name to use it when I’m making an online comment. I don’t have hide behind a pseudonym. Oh, and pseudonym means, fake name.
The part about this quote that really gets me is where he says, “or quite frankly any other alternative torture technique.” All I could think was, “He did not really just say that, did he?” I had to watch it again and transcribe it. Yep, he sure did. Think about the implications of that statement for a minute. Here’s a list of torture techniques — read over that while you’re thinking about it.
I hope to heaven he doesn’t really believe that and recants it like he did his infamous nukes-to-Taiwan idea. Yikes!
Jack Bauer is right, terrorists are not covered under the Geneva Convention.
I listened to the video, and Hirner conveniently left off Schock saying “But I don’t think it should be standard practice.”
I think it is clear that Schock meant only in extreme situations such as when a “ticking time bomb” is about to go off.
Schock wasn’t on the show to advocate torture. Chris Matthews asked him his general opinion about ruling out torture. While Matthews and Hare was talking over him, Schock didn’t want to rule out whatever intelligence professionals felt necessary in the most extreme situations such as when a “ticking time bomb” is about to go off.
Senator Chuck Schumer has said our nation needs a national coversation about this. His example was if one of the small “suitcase nukes” was stolen in Russia and smuggled into New York City. If our government caught one of the key operatives but didn’t know where in the city the bomb was, of course we wouldn’t say “Sir would you like another cup of tea and by the way please tell us where the nuke is.”
We need to sort out the extreme situations where enhanced interrogation is permitted and exaclty how it is permitted to be done. Those situations are rare.
Waterboarding certainly was appropriate for Khalid Sheikh Mohammad the Number 3 Al-Qaeda operative behind Osama bin Laden and THE person who conceived of and planned the 9-11 attacks. That waterboarding led him to divuluge info that save many lives.
Al-Qaeda certainly had follow on plans to the 9-11 attacks to cause more mass murder in the U.S. We were not kept safe her in the homeland since by accident.
Most torture doesn’t work but some does. In extreme situations when an attack is imminent requires timely action. I don’t think people who categorically rule out torture ever, would allow a nuke to go off in the U.S. when we have one of the plotters in custody who won’t talk under normal interrogation.
Torture should be banned for regular military prisoners of war but terrorists are a different matter and even then only in extreme situations.
The first duty of U.S. officials is to protect our people. That responsibility does not justify anything goes, but it requires being clear headed about the evil that wishes us harm.
What information was gained from Khalid Sheikh Mohammad that saved many lives and was a direct result of waterboarding? Also, if we advocate torture for “extreme situations,” aren’t we then saying it’s okay for our enemies to do the same?
If we shoot an enemy are we saying it’s alright to shoot us? Don’t think so. And we’re not talking about purse snatchers here. These are people that are already a part of a group that is torturing and killing people. Whatever interrogation methods the US uses is not going to change what they do. The only question I see is if it is effective or not. If not don’t use it.
If you shoot at an enemy, they will shoot back. If we torture people, we’re saying that it’s an effective way to garner information, which it’s not. You torture someone long enough, they’ll give you misinformation which is worse than no information at all.
That’s ridiculous, Marty…
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YWQyMDUzNjk4ZjFmMzhkZGJjZGI3OTRjOGYzMDQxMjQ=
David, just saying something is ridiculous and then posting an article from the National Review isn’t much of an argument. For every article you find saying waterboarding and torture works, I can find one that says it doesn’t.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-04-20/torture-doesnt-work/
How about answering my question of if you think it’s okay for other countries to torture Americans to gather information they may think vital for their country.
Marty,
I cited an article that named members of terrorist cells who were arrested as a result of information obtained from KSM after he was waterboarded. The arrests likely prevented an attack on Los Angeles’ Library Tower.
How about answering my question of if you think it’s okay for other countries to torture Americans to gather information they may think vital for their country.
Nationality is irrelevant. We’re talking about terrorists, not lawful combatants. I don’t think it’s justified to torture legitimate POW’s to extract information on the enemy’s next battle plan. That would most certainly violate the Geneva Convention, but as far as terrorists who target civilians, they’re fair game.
I don’t mean that we cut off their toes, fingers, put out their eyes, etc., I’m referring to ways of making them uncomfortable (sleep deprivation, etc.), and if necessary, waterboarding, if we know they have information that can be used to prevent a terrorist attack.
Somehow we did get info from KSM that prevented attacks in the works.
Enhanced interrogation should only be a last resort, only after the best regular interrogation is done, and only on terrorists. Interrogators are pretty good at discerning false information.