Olbermann Offers $1000/sec For Hannity Waterboarding
tags:
Stumble ThisKeith Olbermann puts his money where Hannity's mouth is. Is Hannity full of hot air? I think we already know the answer.
X Greetings! You are not currently logged in, but please don't let that stop you from voting up any videos you like. :)
Alternately, I don't think he'll last as long as the Playboy guy did.
If you have the CHOICE to say when they should STOP doing it to you, then you AREN'T experiencing it the way the detainees at Gitmo are and have no bearing on whether or not it is torture. If Hannity and all the other asshats who are lining up to be water-boarded to make their point want to make their points VALID, then they should be water-boarded like the Gitmo folks are being: repeatedly and with NO FUCKING SAY AS TO WHEN IT STOPS.
Sorry for the profanity, but I'm sick of these damned media fuckheads and their "I'm going to experience something" bullshit which is nothing like the real thing. It's like stupid college students who write their senior thesis on the "experience of being homeless" because they camped out on the street for a few weeks. Yeah, you experienced something, but you were NOT put into the REAL situation and have only a fraction of an idea of what it REALLY feels like to be in that scenario.
Would love to get Hannity to do this but when he taps... just keep going.. 1 or 2 more seconds... or 10... minutes...
Christopher Hitchens is the most dramatic example; beforehand he was defending the idea that it was not torture, afterwards he became very, very clear that it was.
I'll be curious to see what happens. I supsect Hannity will weasel out of it, but if he does it, I'll be fascinated to hear how he characterizes the experience.
There was one the other day which was kind of equivocal. He didn't exactly say torture, but he didn't deny it either... I think it is more the constant defense of it that has me in such a prickly mood.
In the months that followed, Administration attorneys translated their president’s otherwise unlawful orders into U.S. policy into three controversial, neo-conservative legal doctrines:
(1.) the president is above the law,
(2.) torture is legally acceptable,
(3.) the US Navy base at Guantanamo Bay is not US territory."
source:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=MCC20061207&articleId=4066
And now, EIGHT fucking years later, US television says its OK to start talking about it, and so the internets are suddenly awash with all this waterboarding stuff.
I actually find it insulting to watch ANY of these American TV pundits talking about this, when none of them said a damn thing when it was going on for EIGHT YEARS.
Shame on them, and shame on the American television media.
When prisoners are captured, it is unrealistic to expect that NO pressure of any kind will ever be applied to get information out of them. Involuntary confinement, lousy food, no talking, 'mean face' interrogations, bright lights, handcuffs, shackles, shouting, loud music, irregular sleep times... All these things are forms of pressure... TORTURE. No one seems to be upset about it. Why is that?
It is my observation that Waterboarding as a topic is almost entirely political. A bunch of radicals on 'one side' want to prosecute political opponents on the 'other side' for something - anything. Detainee abuses became a political vehicle to that end. This despite the factual reality that this kind of torture (and far worse) has gone on for decades. No one had a problem with prisoner treatment under Clinton, Bush 1, Reagan, Carter, Ford, Nixon, Johnson, Kennedy, Eisenhower, Truman, FDR, et al.
Selective outrage makes me suspicious. When a person really believe in something then they believe it at all times for ALL people - not just when they have a political axe to grind. I don't see 'thinking' when it comes to this issue. I see people reactionism, groupspeak, talking points, and a LOT of people who are rather too willing to let someone else do thier thinking for them.
I fully expect a lot of snap-reaction to this comment. That's fine. But ask yourself... "Why do I object to waterboarding, but not to interrogations, imprisonment, and all other forms of torture?"
He also says he's going to make this offer every single night on his show until Hannity responds.
I actually find it insulting to watch ANY of these American TV pundits talking about this, when none of them said a damn thing when it was going on for EIGHT YEARS.
Shame on them, and shame on the American television media.
Amen to that.
Olbermann was still a sportscaster back then though, and he's been beating the drum about torture prosecutions for as long as I've been watching him (nearly 3 years now).
When did the US become filled with so many pussies? Seriously, they are enemy combatants why do sissy left wing twats want to give them a room at the Hilton and a spa treatment?
Oh, yeah, you're a real tough guy, advocating torture.
So we now torture all enemies? That's the America you want?
Fucking disgusting.
When did the US become filled with so many pussies? Seriously, they are enemy combatants why do sissy left wing twats want to give them a room at the Hilton and a spa treatment?
What kind of sadist authoritarian believes violence best represents us? Is this what our generation's legacy should be? One where we tolerated violence administered by our government and thinly veiled in the flag of patriotism, freedom and national security?
I don't care if these people are "enemy combatants". They're not my enemy, and they're not combating me, and this war doesn't represent me even if I'm forced to help pay for it. If they're your enemies, archchef, maybe you should fly down to Gitmo and "combat" them. Just leave the rest of us out of it.
When did the US become filled with so many pussies? Seriously, they are enemy combatants why do sissy left wing twats want to give them a room at the Hilton and a spa treatment?
Cause we're better then that. We that aren't ignorant and heartless can empathize and realize that inflicting excessive pointless panic or pain is WRONG. Morally.
Aren't Conservative republicans all about morality and faith and what jesus would do? Did Jesus water-board his enemy combatants?
Think about the hundreds of innocent people picked up of the streets of Iraq or caught in the wrong place.
If you were:
mistaken for an enemy.
profiled cause of your pigment and religion.
detained indefinitely without trial.
and subjected to near drowning multiple times a day.
Wouldn't you want think that's a bit unfair?
If some other country were doing this to Americans. What would your comment be then?
..twat
Think about the hundreds of innocent people picked up of the streets of Iraq or caught in the wrong place.
I think you might have forgotten to mention that this shit was done to our own citizens, and citizens of our allied nations as well, who were wrongly reported as terrorists.
How's the saying go, "I'd rather see a hundred guilty men go free than to have a single innocent man wrongly punished?"
That being said, I truly hope that Hannity has the testicular fortitude to go through with it. But like others I say keep going after he's dropped the weight, only when these fools see their talking head idols thrashing around and screaming in terror will they finally accept that this is an unacceptable procedure.
And yet, we prosecuted Germans for torture, and waterboarding was a prime example. They also had plenty of documented legal opinions explaining why it was legal to do so, but we clearly judged the acts indefensible. Remember the Nuremberg trials, and the famous statement that "following orders is no excuse"?
Selective outrage makes me suspicious. When a person really believe in something then they believe it at all times for ALL people - not just when they have a political axe to grind. I don't see 'thinking' when it comes to this issue. I see people reactionism, groupspeak, talking points, and a LOT of people who are rather too willing to let someone else do thier thinking for them.
Taking you at your word, unless you're also going to object to the Nuremberg trials, I suggest you should be pushing -for- investigation and prosecution.
So if an American citizen or two is captured abroad (say, just for example, by North Korea), and it comes out that they were subjected to waterboarding in order to get information out of them... Since waterboarding isn't considered torture, it must be ok for them to be interrogated that way.
In fact, I don't think any pundit is actual news anyways, ever. Pretty entertaining sometimes though.
No one had a problem with prisoner treatment under Clinton, Bush 1, Reagan, Carter, Ford, Nixon, Johnson, Kennedy, Eisenhower, Truman, FDR, et al.
And yet, we prosecuted Germans for torture, and waterboarding was a prime example. They also had plenty of documented legal opinions explaining why it was legal to do so, but we clearly judged the acts indefensible. Remember the Nuremberg trials, and the famous statement that "following orders is no excuse"?
Selective outrage makes me suspicious. When a person really believe in something then they believe it at all times for ALL people - not just when they have a political axe to grind. I don't see 'thinking' when it comes to this issue. I see people reactionism, groupspeak, talking points, and a LOT of people who are rather too willing to let someone else do thier thinking for them.
Taking you at your word, unless you're also going to object to the Nuremberg trials, I suggest you should be pushing -for- investigation and prosecution.
Why has Nuremberg got anything to do with the person you are quoting? I'm sure he was disgusted by the torture in nazi germany too. I don't necessarily agree with everything he said, but a lot of it was pretty much pinpointing a bit of an inconvenient question.
The question he's asking is why are we suddenly shouting about it now? And why aren't we shouting about all forms of torture? Unfortunately, he goes on to hint that confinement and restraint is torture and therefore also should be a target of outrage, and this i completely disagree on. In that case, prisons would have to shut down. But other than that it's a pretty good point.
And the answer you're giving him is "But we found the nazi's guilty of torture!"
The answer does not seem to relate to the question.
If you were too caught up in the jingoistic ferver of the last 8 years to notice, that is your problem.
I came of age in the 80s, and was led to believe by my leaders, including Reagan, that torture, picking folks off the streets, and having secret gulags were things that "they" did.
That's why people from the soviet bloc were constantly defecting to our nation. If we are now a torturing regime, and anything is permissable, what separates us from the old soviets and the commies right wingers are so quick to decry?
" And now, EIGHT fucking years later, US television says its OK to start talking about it, and so the internets are suddenly awash with all this waterboarding stuff.
I actually find it insulting to watch ANY of these American TV pundits talking about this, when none of them said a damn thing when it was going on for EIGHT YEARS.
Shame on them, and shame on the American television media.
Are you insane? Have you been living under a rock? We've been YELLING AND SCREAMING about this for the last eight years, but because the damned whitehouse was controlled by white, right-winged, religious NUTS we couldn't get a review of what was going on...
Not exactly, but close. The question I asked (1st paragraph) is "What level of torture do you find acceptable?" A lot of people are squawking about waterboarding, but are pretty quiet about other stuff. Conveniently quiet...
Any act performed on an unwilling subject is torture. The question that has to be answered (which few people seem to want to tackle) is "what level of torture is OK to apply to unwilling, uncooperative detainees in order to obtain intelligence?" I'm assuming the pressure is being applied for intelligence gathering, and not just to be cruel for its own sake.
"Otherwise prisons would have to be shut down" is not a valid defense for torture according to those who strike a purist stance. So the question comes again, "What IS acceptable and WHY?"