Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

This is the only sane response I've seen to this hullabaloo so far.

Can someone please waterboard that "woman" at the end? Please?

The best way for America to protect its image is to take the moral high ground and condemn the act and those who did it. I am tired of our government not following through on accountability for wrong doings. I am fine with protecting president Bush from prosecution (although not right either but former presidents often did this), but we should go after Gonzales, Rove, and other masterminds of the CIA torture strategy.

At least prosecute them and then give them a presidential pardon. It would make Obama look bad of course. But we should do something that speaks to the world and to future generations that you cannot break our fundamental laws and principles. Obama just condemning the act then saying we need to move on is inadequate.

^ Discouraging prosecution is probably safer than encouraging it and then getting no convictions. It is highly unlikely anyone would be found guilty after being assured that it was legal by the Justice Department.

I think the best we're going to get from this is some transparency on what happened and a definite declaration on the illegality of such acts from here forward. I don't have a very high opinion of the people involved in the original "torture legality" decisions, but I doubt prosecuting them would be successful.

So this means I can go out and waterboard my neighbor, right? I mean, I suspect that he stole my lawnmower, and that's worthy of torture. It's just good to know that if I do torture him, I won't be penalized for it. God bless America.

>> ^thinker247:
So this means I can go out and waterboard my neighbor, right? I mean, I suspect that he stole my lawnmower, and that's worthy of torture. It's just good to know that if I do torture him, I won't be penalized for it.


Only if you have documentation showing that the US Department of Justice specifically advised you that waterboarding your neighbor under that particular situation is legal.

If you have that then I say go for it.

>> ^gwiz665:
Can someone please waterboard that "woman" at the end? Please?


What, Karl Rove? Oh, you mean the very end...

I hope that by not prosecuting the intelligence officers who were "only following orders", the administration is leaving the way open to prosecute those that actually gave the orders. Cheney, for example.

"I was just following orders" should not excuse wrongdoing.

If an officer in the Marines ordered a corporal to shoot the person to his left in his head, the defense of "I was just following orders" would not hold water, both parties would share some of the blame.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/rss/-/2/hi/americas/8011077.stm
This story came out today:
US President Barack Obama has left open the possibility of prosecuting officials who wrote CIA memos allowing harsh interrogation techniques.

I would like to see Bush/Cheney hanged but hey it's somethin...

^ If they think they can get a conviction then that's fine with me. I just don't want to see them spend lots of money on a trail that ends up being a waste of time.

Maybe we'll get to see how far "I was only following Justice Department legal advice" will take someone in court.

*blocked

Canada! http://watch.thecomedynetwork.ca/#clip163184

This video has been flagged as having an embed that is Region Blocked to not function in certain geographical locations - declared blocked by calvados.

Good point - ignorance is bliss

"After 91 waterboards isn't he thinking "you're not really drowning me"

fuck you Stewart. I'd like to see you get waterboarded on the daily show. 91 times in a row.

>> ^imstellar28:
"After 91 waterboards isn't he thinking "you're not really drowning me"
fuck you Stewart. I'd like to see you get waterboarded on the daily show. 91 times in a row.


Pent up rage FTL. Are you mad at Jon Stewart for ridiculing the idea of waterboarding someone 183 times?

^Do you not see the hypocrisy in criticizing waterboarding as a form of torture, and then going on to ridicule the seriousness of it?

Stewart is a comedian, so he has to make fun of things...but why is torture a funny subject to him? Should he make jokes about pouring scalding acid into peoples eyes as well? One form of torture used very commonly is raping a captives family. Do you think after someone raping your wife or daughter 183 times in front of you, you would "get used to it" after the 91st time? Would it be a funny to you if Stewart tried to make fun of raping someone 183 times because you would eventually get used to it?

Did this just take an unfunny turn? If so, this conversation is finally where it should have been in the first place.

I agree he made an error in judgement there. The real joke was to think that after the first 90 waterboardings that there would be any useful information to get after a few more times. Either the guy has broken and spilled everything, or he's not going to. It's pretty obvious to me the people doing it were just enjoying the act. That's worth prosecuting in my book, seriously.

^Thats exactly what I am getting at. If you are going to make a joke about torture it should target the captors, not the victims.

Which is what it did.

"You're not really drowning me." ='s "You guys (captors) just aren't getting it.. this isn't working."

He's making fun of the ridiculousness of torturing someone that much, as in it was so much the victim actually got used to it. If there was anything useful to gain from it, it would have happened about 150 or so waterboardings ago. I found nothing derogatory towards the victim in that joke, and I'm not pro-waterboarding to begin with.

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by critical_d.