In reply to this comment by NetRunner:
@volumptuous, yes that makes you a leftist. Implying that morality dictates being humane to people is now a "partisan" political issue, and for some reason is considered some sort of slimy dirty trick.

That's why I propose we just waterboard conservatives until they confess to secretly being concerned about the well being of people who aren't themselves.

Seems the whole movement would collapse once they realized that not everyone in it is as macho as they like to pretend they are.

Way to turn a video about blind political excesses into more blind political excesses.

Torturing innocent people to death is an exaggeration? As in, we didn't do it?

I can find no credible source documenting the U.S. military 'torturing people to death'. Rhetoric such as 'murdering innocent people', 'going to war over false pretenses', 'sycophantic neocon ideas', 'purposefully plunging the economy'... These are the biased terms of left wing blogs. Speaking out against the Iraq War, or Bush, or whatever doesn't make you a kook. The WAY you speak out against them is what makes a kook like Olbermann.

That's why I propose we just waterboard conservatives until they confess to secretly being concerned about the well being of people who aren't themselves.

A fruitless endeavor, because conservatives are by natural proclivity concerned about others. They'd 'admit' it with a smile, and prove it with actions. The liberal approach to addressing the needs of others is to hand out a stringy, stinky government fish once a month. The conservative approach to helping the needy is to encourage them to create a fishing concern so they can make millions of dollars selling fish after they feed themselves like kings.

You are obviously OBVIOUSLY biased towards the other side of the isle

I am a strict fiscal conservative with strong constitutional constructionist leanings and a decidedly libertarian philosophy. Freedom is where I plant my flag. You can know in advance very clearly where I stand on any issue based on my guiding political philosophies of limited government power, and increased human freedom. I am not guided by 'party' politics. I'm guided by over-arching principles. Show me a liberal who fights for the consitution as it was written, fiscal responsibility, and personal freedom and I vote for them. But since the progressive liberal movement is decidedly anti-choice, anti-freedom, anti-fiscal responsibility, and anti-consitution they frequently get the stinkeye.

We need better health care. At least in the hands of the government it can be held somewhat accountable.

It is comments like this that cause me to - as you put it - 'shout'. If you really believe what you just said then I don't know what to say. You have the evidence of DECADES of solid, inarguable proof that the government being in charge of medical issues is never held accountable for tremendous waste, mismanagement, and outright misappropriation & graft. How anyone can look at programs like Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security and still think that putting government in charge of such matters is a good idea is beyond me. The proper solution is more freedom - not less. Medical care has been a government mis-managed fiasco in the US ever since Ted Kennedy's stupid HMO bill screwed up the relationship between buyers and providers.

@volumptuous, yes that makes you a leftist. Implying that morality dictates being humane to people is now a "partisan" political issue, and for some reason is considered some sort of slimy dirty trick.

That's why I propose we just waterboard conservatives until they confess to secretly being concerned about the well being of people who aren't themselves.

Seems the whole movement would collapse once they realized that not everyone in it is as macho as they like to pretend they are.

(I think this is my longest post ever, and I really hate long posts, and now I'm just making it longer. But read this one. It's pretty good)

The Constitution is a document that, like a lyric poem, is ultimately a flawed representation of the understandings and intentions of those who wrote it. Differences in the interpretation of the words, clauses, punctuation, and structure of the document can and do mean vast differences in the meaning and application of the rules of the nation. This principle of interpretation is as elementary as it is meaningful.

The Geneva Convention is likewise a document, or series of documents, that poses a similar jurisprudential problem. What Yoo presents in this interview is an indirect, yet unimpeachable explanation of the process by which such documents are examined and applied. There is what is called a "bright line rule" in the Geneva Convention regarding "torture"--i.e. it is a violation of the agreement. However, unlike in local and national statutes where definitions of terms often constitute thousands of pages, the Geneva Convention does not enumerate torturous acts. The term is left largely undefined. What Yoo explains here is that he was tasked with coming up with a legal definition of that term.



The problem many have with this task is that Yoo was directed to define the term as strictly as possible to allow his client (the Office of the Executive) as much leeway as possible. As it turns out, as Yoo tries to explain, there is a dearth of constitutional and legal precedent regarding the legal definition of "torture" (not that such precedent is nonexistent, however, as D_J points out above). Compounding this (for us liberals) is the correct determination that Yoo made regarding the broad powers that the Constitution, the legal precedent and indeed the framers themselves intend the Executive to hold in times of crisis. (For a more in-depth understanding of these claims, read about Lucius Quinctius Cincinnatus, and about the Society of the Cincinatti). Applying this broad-power tenet to the analysis of the legal definition of "torture" yields a hairy result: the Executive actually has a right and a duty to define the ambiguous term in a way that will most effectively protect the national interest. This is the conclusion that Yoo, and any other lawyer or legal scholar, would come to.

Now, my problem with the recommendation enumerating interrogation techniques that are and are not torture is not that the DoJ or the Bush Administration bent the rule. There was no way to implement the rule without bending it: without an established legal definition, any implementation requires interpretation. There could be no alteration of interrogation techniques ever without interpreting or reinterpreting the term "torture." My problem (and I suppose that this is the problem I am trying to convince you to have as well) is that they did not include enough factors in their calculation of the national interest.



Yoo argues (believes?) that the majority of American citizens support/supported waterboarding, but this is irrelevant. It is not the job of the Executive, and certainly not of the DoJ, to do the will of the people. This is a Republican democracy where (ideally) we elect people not because we think or hope they will execute our will in government, but because we believe them to be more capable of making the analyses and decisions of government. Therefore, a popular mandate does not justify public policy nor excuse elected officials from accountability. It cannot be right only because the people wanted it. This principle is written into the Constitution (which decentralizes power like you wouldn't believe, including the power of the people) in numerable ways, and has been upheld in many aspects by the Supreme Court of the US.

It is the duty of the Executive Office to calculate the national interest in every way multiple times a day. I think what Stewart was trying to get at (in an uncharacteristically poor way) is that the people involved in this decision made a potentially catastrophic failure in their calculation, because they didn't weigh the repercussions (both foreign and domestic) of using waterboarding and other questionable techniques in interrogations. He spends too much time trying to debate the constitutionality of the process and trying to enforce his perception that water boarding is obviously torture (and here the perception of the masses might be relevant, as it might mean that it is not obviously torture, although there is a strong argument that the public perception might truly be that water boarding is torture, but that we're cool with it). Stewart doesn't focus on the policy issues of using questionable techniques. What Yoo says in this interview about the process he used to interpret the not-so bright-line rule "No Torture" is not and should not be the issue. Even though I come down on the "yes it is" side, whether waterboarding is torture under the Geneva Convention is, I'm sorry to say, truly a matter of legal opinion. The issue we should have is that it doesn't matter whether you can legally define "torture" to include or exclude waterboarding, but that waterboarding should not be used regardless of definition.

I find it disappointing that Stewart didn't press him further on the issue of torture as a war crime that America had prosecuted in the past, because there was at least one case where a Japanese prison camp officer was convicted of war crimes and torture because he waterboarded American personnel.

So, Bush didn't have a terrorism attack during his eight years, and Obama did? Which USA is this guy living in? Its not the one from planet Earth.

Let see, if I were to hold you, in a country that is proud of....right to a speedy trial, access to a lawyer, no cruel or unusual punishment given before, during, or after sentencing, right to cross examine, to see ALL information directed towards you, and question witnesses fairly....and then did the following to you:

A) Kept you in a prison without seeing anyone, including a lawyer.
B) Never put you on a trial for charges that landed you in prison in the first place.
C) Waterboarded, treating you as sub-human, electric shock, and other 'approved enhanced interrorgation treatements' that are not considered torture, unless the person doing it, thinks it torture. And then make sure, since your black, that person is a Grand Wizard of the KKK.
D) You are not allowed to see any of the evidence, regardless of how flimsy it is, because its 'national security secrets', 'classified', and 'top secret'. Nor are you allowed to test the authenticity of such evidence.
E) You can only defend yourself within a very limited, and structed enviroment. Your judges (since there are 1-3 of them), are hand picked by the people who captured you originally, and have been torturing you...for months, with impunity.
F) You never get to see the witnesses who say you actually did something wrong, much less, hear their words.
G) You are designated something new, because, P.O.W. would mean you were human.
H) The whole concept, this nation, to which you living in a hellish existance, prides itself on the humane treatment of other human beings. But you have yet, to see once example of human dignity.

Yeah, I can't imagine what would drive someone that saw our country as the evil, satan, after going through that crap for years. And yes, that would give the person, ALOT, of motivation to get some pay back on such nation. Its absurd that those in the conservative end of the spectrum (read: extremist thought), do not understand, that they have just made America MORE of a target, then less.

In recent news, our President is taking responsiblity for things that happen on his watch. When did Mr. Bush, or his minions, take real responsiblity for things they did?

Listed three 'gentleman' (I use that term loosy regarding whom we are talking about), whom are the most irresponsible individuals. Then again, one trait that I find extremely typical in republicans these days, is irresponsiblity. Or, the wanting/craving of not being held accountable for their actions/words.

Even after any of these three persons are found to be wrong. Even after the truth and facts are reported and verified. These three will contiune to speak like none of the truth and facts, saw the light of day.

More so, none of these three ever have to face being accountantible for their words and actions. I think we are all still waiting on Mr. Hannity's waterboarding stunt from a few months ago. Or for Mr. Beck to arrive at some rational conclusion based entirely on facts. I doubt we will ever see Mr. Limbaugh hold himself to his own standard (you know, the ones he rails Democrats on, on a daily basis).

Funny how, if the elected person in office doesn't do as we want, we have the option of voting them out, and getting someone else. Or, if the person reports to an elected offical, we can hold the offical accountible until correct action is taken. But Mr. Beck, Hannity, and Limbaugh, exist out of being held responible for their actions. But do not often hold republicans (or each other for that matter), to the same degree? Can you say 'Double Standard'? I know you can.

Link to the article

This guy should be taken off the street and waterboarded. Advocating a coup against the United States----are they admitting that they are forever marginalized and can't win elections anymore? The only way to win is to pull the ultimate cheat?

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.

Let's assume the following:
- That really was the reason behind 9-11, and Sheik Mohammed didn't just say anything to get his interrogators to stop waterboarding him.
- No one in the US government had any part in the attacks, directly or indirectly (meaning, no one knew the attacks were going to happen and didn't stop them, no one diverted air defenses away from the NYC area for a drill, no one planted explosives in the WTC to make sure they collapse, etc).

With that said, even if he was just a guy who woke up one morning, chatted with Osama about how bad it is that the US and Israel are committing atrocities in the Palestinian territories, and decided to take down the WTC as a result, Isn't reporting his interrogation statements and his reasoning for the attacks promoting his agenda?

Isn't this exactly what he wanted to accomplish?

I don't condone or approve of any press manipulation for or against any interest group, but this seems to me like the press not rewarding terrorism with free advertising.

This is old but having re-read it I think this must be said.

SPEVEO said:
maybe he'll let himself be invaded and occupied by the U.S Military, using their 'Shocker and Awe' doctrine, and maybe then he will revise his views yet again.


Actually, Hitchens already did exactly that. You may remember before the first gulf war when Hitchens was as prominent as he is now, only then he was opposing the war. He then backed up what he said by going to live with the Kurdish people in northern Iraq for a time, much like he recently allowed himself to be waterboarded. It was the act of going to Iraq and living with the Kurds that changed his mind and he came back STILL condemning Bush Sr. for the war, but this time for not going far enough and removing Saddam outright.

>> ^quantumushroom:
1) USA is not a democracy.


Correct. It is a constitutional republic.


2) Torture is illegal against American citizens and uniform-wearing soldiers of other nations' armed forces.


Wrong. The Bill of Rights does not differentiate between citizens and non-citizens. It only speaks of 'persons'. It embodies certain essential rights common to all men (and women) regardless of race, creed, gender, sexual orientation, or nationality. True, it only pertains to actions taken within US borders, and against US citizens outside of the US. However, as signatories to the UN Convention against Torture, we have agreed that agents of the US shall not torture.


3) Terrorists fit neither description of #2, therefore legal protections do not apply no matter how badly the ACLU wants them to. The same legal charade was attempted by leftists during WW2, scrambling to give German saboteurs the protection of the American legal process. It failed and the Germs were rightly executed (people had way more common sense + balls back then).



Funny story about them saboteurs--you must be talking about Operation Pastoreus, which gives us the rich legacy of secret military tribunals. The thing is that we would have known NOTHING about the plan, if not for the fact that its leader, intent on betraying the Nazis from the start, turned himself in to the FBI and told them everything they needed to know (he actually had to travel from NYC to Washington, DC to do this, as the FBI Office in NYC hung up on him, thinking him a crank). For this essential service, the leader who had turned on his own people and spared countless American lives was thrown in a cell with the other seven, and sentenced to die. Hoover, director of the FBI, felt that the stroke of luck that had benefitted them in this case didn't play as well in the media as a tireless army of FBI agents, knocking down doors. The leader had been tried separately, and the military judges had been informed about his vital role in breaking the case, and STILL he was sentenced to die. It was only after the details of the case were released that his sentence was commuted. Instead of being treated as a hero, he and another German 'spy' who had turned on their Nazi masters were deported back to Germany, where they were treated as traitors.

So, you know, try another one.


4) While rich in history, most of the rest of the world is quite lame...unstable, squalid, rife with tribal hatreds going back centuries. Other governments' depths of corruption make the USA's look like a school play about tooth decay. Europe is graying and its traditions and culture dying. It would be better off mummified than Muslimfied.


"To save the village, we had to destroy the village." How well did that mentality work in Vietnam?


5) Obama is a laughingstock to America's sworn enemies and is played like a harp by all manner of sociopathic dictators around the globe. He's made America seem as weak as a legless kitten.


Yawn.



6) The USA will never get proper credit or respect for the good it does in the world (at least, not from American liberals). Part of being The Big Dog is being challenged. When China eventually takes over as Big Dog, the rest of the world will long for the good old days.


You know, this is what's so funny about 'free market' ideologues. Their belief that the free market will right all wrongs seems to falter when the market starts favoring an outcome that's much less favorable to them, whether it be the speaking of Spanish, or the growth of non-Christian faiths, or hegemony under a different overlord. Once that happens, the free market must be ignored, and nations toppled.


7) Peanut-head Eric Holder already tried to raise a legal stink about torture and was rebuked. Navy SEALS are waterboarded as part of their training and only 3 of the terrorists were waterboarded, for the purpose of gaining intel, not torture for torture's sake.


Democracies AND constitutional republics do not believe that torture is permissible, regardless of outcome. The ends do NOT justify the means.



Since torture "doesn't work" the logical alternative is to kill all terrorists/insurgents on the battlefield without mercy. Yet this approach is also poo-pooed.


How is this logical? I know--I shouldn't feed the troll here, but I've got some time on my hands.


9) Liberal logic eats its own tail. Dependent on moral relativism to exist, it cannot by its own definition ever claim a lasting moral high ground.


Capitalism eats its own tail. It begets inequities that yield monopolies, and once we have monopolies, capitalism collapses. Communism eats its own tail. In fact, every ideological concept, when taken to its purest form, contains the seeds of its own destruction. The thing about liberalism is that, unlike conservativism, it is endlessly questioning its own relevance and truthfulness. You would, of course, see this as weakness, but like steel, tempering drives out impurities and leads to a stronger material.

1) USA is not a democracy.

2) Torture is illegal against American citizens and uniform-wearing soldiers of other nations' armed forces.

3) Terrorists fit neither description of #2, therefore legal protections do not apply no matter how badly the ACLU wants them to. The same legal charade was attempted by leftists during WW2, scrambling to give German saboteurs the protection of the American legal process. It failed and the Germs were rightly executed (people had way more common sense + balls back then).

4) While rich in history, most of the rest of the world is quite lame...unstable, squalid, rife with tribal hatreds going back centuries. Other governments' depths of corruption make the USA's look like a school play about tooth decay. Europe is graying and its traditions and culture dying. It would be better off mummified than Muslimfied.

5) Obama is a laughingstock to America's sworn enemies and is played like a harp by all manner of sociopathic dictators around the globe. He's made America seem as weak as a legless kitten.

6) The USA will never get proper credit or respect for the good it does in the world (at least, not from American liberals). Part of being The Big Dog is being challenged. When China eventually takes over as Big Dog, the rest of the world will long for the good old days.

7) Peanut-head Eric Holder already tried to raise a legal stink about torture and was rebuked. Navy SEALS are waterboarded as part of their training and only 3 of the terrorists were waterboarded, for the purpose of gaining intel, not torture for torture's sake.

Since torture "doesn't work" the logical alternative is to kill all terrorists/insurgents on the battlefield without mercy. Yet this approach is also poo-pooed.

9) Liberal logic eats its own tail. Dependent on moral relativism to exist, it cannot by its own definition ever claim a lasting moral high ground.

Hey, I got Bingo just watching this clip for 2 minutes.

Seriously, Mr. O'Reilly is a product of his own ego. Fox News is about as corrupt a new company as it gets. Being the 'mouth piece of the Bush White House' according to members of said White House that disagreed with Mr. Bush and his cultish followers, its hard to take Fox News seriously. Over time, Fox News has had many instances of falifying information, or hacking up the facts to fit in with their own view point of the world.

Take this as a good example of what Fox News does on a regular basis:

http://www.videosift.com/video/Fox-News-Video-Cropping-Shenanigans

For Mr. O'Reilly to complain that only liberals and Democrats distort the facts, but not the company he works for, is being a hippocrit. Yes, sometimes liberals and Democrats distort things. But for every one time they do, conservatives and Republicans distort things 19 times as often.

I'm still waiting on Mr. O'Reiling, Hannity, and Beck, to be waterboarded for two hours, and then say, its not torture, even with the threat that if they didnt admit it, they would endure two more hours.

I really hate the press's insistence on saying that waterboarding "simulates" drowning. It does not. It is drowning! It simply stops before death...usually.