>> ^swampgirl:
aww, now this has been here before. I can't find it though. Still funny Oh come on..it's just water!


might be just water, but it's more like waterboarding for cats.

>> ^quantumushroom:
"As a matter of law, CIA waterboarding — like the same waterboarding actions featured in Navy SEALs training — cannot be torture because there is no intention to inflict severe mental or physical pain; the exercise is done for a different purpose.

Jesus Christ this is dumb. Of course there is intent: those guys didn't accidentally get waterboarded...
Unless your interpretation is "inflicting severe mental or physical pain is legal as long as you intend well," in which case...
Jesus Christ this is evil.

>> ^quantumushroom:
For all you libs that still think "waterboarding is torture", Attorney General Eric "Peanut-head" Holder tried his best to make that equation work and failed.
"As a matter of law, CIA waterboarding — like the same waterboarding actions featured in Navy SEALs training — cannot be torture because there is no intention to inflict severe mental or physical pain; the exercise is done for a different purpose. When Rep. (Louie) Gohmert’s questioning made it crystal clear that Holder’s simplistic "waterboarding is torture" pronouncement was wrong, the attorney general — rather than admitting error — tried to change the legal definition of torture in a manner that contradicted a position the Justice Department had just urged on the federal courts. It seems that, for this attorney general, there is one torture standard for Bush administration officials, and another one for everybody else."

Navy SEALS are waterboarded as part of their training, not to inflict harm and suffering. Waterboarding Sheikh Kalid was not done to inflict harm and suffering, but to extract information.
Remember libs, out of 500 Gitmo jumpsuit vacationers, only 3 were waterboarded for the sole purpose of gaining intel.
Some of you said it yourselves: Mancow (and now Olbyloon) embraced waterboarding as a rating stunt. The inevitable suffering--but no permanent harm--from being waterboarded was not the point, the media circus and ratings were.


Umm so its not torture if the intent is not to cause suffering?

Like I really need to say this again, but you're an idiot.

Torture
Main Entry:
1tor·ture
Pronunciation:
\ˈtȯr-chər\
Function:
noun
Etymology:
Middle French, from Old French, from Late Latin tortura, from Latin tortus, past participle of torquēre to twist; probably akin to Old High German drāhsil turner, Greek atraktos spindle
Date:
1540
1 a: anguish of body or mind : agony b: something that causes agony or pain
2: the infliction of intense pain (as from burning, crushing, or wounding) to punish, coerce, or afford sadistic pleasure
3: distortion or overrefinement of a meaning or an argument : straining

From: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/torture

Waterboarding is torture, by its very definition. Waterboarding is an act that causes agony to acquire information.

I can only hope that if the US does not prosecute the former administration for war crimes, that another country does.

For all you libs that still think "waterboarding is torture", Attorney General Eric "Peanut-head" Holder tried his best to make that equation work and failed.

"As a matter of law, CIA waterboarding — like the same waterboarding actions featured in Navy SEALs training — cannot be torture because there is no intention to inflict severe mental or physical pain; the exercise is done for a different purpose. When Rep. (Louie) Gohmert’s questioning made it crystal clear that Holder’s simplistic "waterboarding is torture" pronouncement was wrong, the attorney general — rather than admitting error — tried to change the legal definition of torture in a manner that contradicted a position the Justice Department had just urged on the federal courts. It seems that, for this attorney general, there is one torture standard for Bush administration officials, and another one for everybody else."


Navy SEALS are waterboarded as part of their training, not to inflict harm and suffering. Waterboarding Sheikh Kalid was not done to inflict harm and suffering, but to extract information.

Remember libs, out of 500 Gitmo jumpsuit vacationers, only 3 were waterboarded for the sole purpose of gaining intel.

Some of you said it yourselves: Mancow (and now Olbyloon) embraced waterboarding as a rating stunt. The inevitable suffering--but no permanent harm--from being waterboarded was not the point, the media circus and ratings were.

And also, as Keith brought up... what's the motivation?
I read the gawker article and still can't find an answer to that.
http://gawker.com/5272691/mancows-waterboarding-was-completely-fake
Yes, we know it was conceived as a publicity stunt. How are we being duped?

-Is the hoax that this "fake", unprofessionally-executed waterboarding is somehow WORSE than the real waterboarding carried out at the black sites?

-Is the hoax that Mancow was planning to defect to the liberal side on this anyway, and so planned a fake waterboarding and only ACTED like it was torture?

-Is the hoax that Mancow played Olbermann for a fool and tricked him into donating the money to HIS charity in exchange for a disingenuous conversion? <sarcasm> Ha ha, what a sucker! </sarcasm>

This article only raises a cloud of confusion around the issue and provides cover for the torture-advocates' denial. We are meant to come away from this with "Mancow - waterboarding - hoax" in our heads, and ignore what the stunt, genuine waterboarding or not, actually DOES show.

If conservatives think the waterboarding done here was not real enough to show anything, fine: satisfy your doubts by doing the experiment yourself! It would be very easy to prove us wrong.

^ Well, sure it was a publicity stunt. He admitted as much in the vid. The purpose of any publicity stunt, whether it works or not, is to get nationwide attention. This one worked. It also had the unexpected side-effect of changing his mind. What exactly are we naively buying into? We saw a man (not the first) get waterboarded and change his mind.
What's he gonna do, NOT bring along a microphone and camera?

>> ^dag:
I also hate how this guy deliberately takes off his glasses in both interviews shortly after they start. It's like he's at a casting call, showing the "looks" he can protray. Someone is noodling for an MSNBC show.


As Ive said from the beginning, this whole "Mancow gets waterboarded" thing was a staged publicity stunt to get him and his show some nationwide attention. And it's worked. Everyone is buying it hook, line and sinker.

such the old argument, is it moral to use research that was acquired in possibly cruel or inhumane ways to the benefit of others later?

one would argue that the damage is done, the information is now available and it would be a) a waste not to use valuable information to save lives, no matter how it was originally obtained and b) gives value to the person/animal so that their suffering was not in vain.

the other side is that to use information obtained illegally or through cruel/"evil" practices means the user of said information would "taint" his own work, that any subsequent work using this information is only condoning the actions previously taken.

and this plants us smack dab right into the argument about waterboarding oddly enough.

there are many shades of course, almost nothing is ever as black and white as that. personally im of a bit of both. the information is here, if we can save lives or improve them with what we now know, then so much the better. it IS however humanity's responsibility to prevent anything like this from happening, or if it is happening, to stop it. even if it's on the verge of making a phenomenal breakthrough, the moral cost is simply to high.

>> ^Duckman33:
Still think it was a staged publicity stunt regardless of his now changed opinion.


Of course it was a publicity stunt. That's what radio commentators do; it's how they get ratings. The point is that he was vehemently against the "waterboarding-is-torture" perspective before this and changed his mind afterwards. If he would've been waterboarded and kept the same stance, I'm sure he would've gotten just as much publicity among the neo-con ranks.

Publicity stunt or not, it's a good example of the ignorance held among these "pro-waterboarders."

It IS torture, and disregarding the morality factor, it doesn't work. He would've admitted to ANYTHING and said whatever the interrogators wanted him to say to make it stop.

I'll bet you anything they waterboarded more than three people.

I don't see how people can criticize waterboarding. Without it, we never would have known that Iraq had WMDs and was training Al Queda members.

Your video, Mancow Appears on Countdown to Discuss Waterboarding, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

>> ^demon_ix:
I'm actually pleased it wasn't Hannity after all.
It's so rare to see an actual discussion without the "You're wrong" "No, you're wrong" attitude.


And the great thing is we can have these kinds of discussions every night, on every newscast, as long as everyone gets waterboarded.

I've always kinda liked Mancow. I'm glad he changed his mind, and I hope it persuades others to do the same.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
Uh - that link rather clearly proves that Olberman has less than half of Hannity's ratings. I fail to see how that in any way is a repudiation of QM's point that Hannity is handily spanking both Olberman, Maddow, and pretty much every other Neo-lib propoganda platform. And Homlz - you definitely DON'T want to include internet, radio, or 'other'... It is not very pretty for the Neo-lib sides. Conservative shows are merely crushing liberal ones on TV, but on the Internet/Radio it is absolute butchery. The only place neo-libs get more traction are places that have no value, like this thread...


I know you get hissy when somebody knocks on your boyfriend, Winny, but that link shows that Hannity only has a narrow lead over Olberman and in the 35-64 demographic, they are nearly tied.

You're a pretty disgusting person, too, and I'm really tired of you referring to everybody on the left as "neo-libs" as if that were a balance to the self-named Neocons.

As with the Neocons, you and QM excel in avarice, dishonesty, and simple mean-spiritedness.

The mess we have now is all due to you and people like you.

None of it was caused by a liberal agenda. None of it.

Congratulations! Your comment has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.