Love the interrogation of the offender at the end.

After the USS Cole bombing in Yemen the FBI investigators arrested one of the local planners of the attack and through treating him with kindness and respect made him realize that his world view was wrong. He cooperated fully and gave everything he knew to them. All that took only about a week. Are these Republicants saying they can get more out of a suspect who's being waterboarded and will resist giving answers as long as he can and lie as much as possible?

The old adage, "You catch more flies with honey than you do with vinegar.", is true. Even the CIA interrogators admit that torture has proven extremely unreliable as a means of intelligence gathering.

The irony of this is the Miranda laws were created initially to protect people who were non-english speaking and were potentially unaware of their rights while being tried in court.

Ernesto Miranda could barely speak english and was coerced by police to give a confession. The police never made it clear that he could have an attorney present during the interrogation. Later the charges levied against him were overturned because, the ACLU argued that his sixth amendment (below) rights were violated.

"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district where in the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense."

I hate to sound like a talking head for the left but the fact of the matter is Rachel is right, and these republicans (especially the LOATHSOME senator Bachman) are hypocrites.

(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.

If they are whaling in another nations waters, then by all means, that government should step in and raise hell. Are these anti whalers members of the navy? Are they official representatives of the government in question?

I did make a bit of an assumption while stating my opinion, in with that assumption, I did technically commit a logical fallacy. Since this seems to upset KnivesOut, I will attempt to correct the wording of said opinion.

Ahem:

"While I can not see the future, nor accurately predict the reactions of my fellow man, I propose the following: Had these anti whaling activists been of a different skin color,and nationality, and had they been harassing American fishing vessels, I believe the American government would consider them to be committing acts of terrorism and would take action accordingly."

I know I had a bit of a run-on sentence there, but I figure I can always correct my grammar later.

>> ^KnivesOut:
>> ^LordOderus:
I'm glad their ship got rammed. I don't care one way or the other if the Japanese kill whales. It is not my place to tell the Japanese what they can and can not hunt. That is a decision to be made by the Japanese government. The only reason I side with the Japanese in this case, is because what the folks from Whale Wars are doing would be considered terrorism if it were done to us.
Imagine if the crew of that ship wasn't white, and was harassing American crab fishermen or something of that nature. They would all be locked up in one of our lovely maximum security hotels and interrogated for information on their terror cell connections. It is a ridiculous double standard. If groups of Hindus (to whom cows are sacred) started racing around American cattle ranches on 1.5 million dollar ATVs and harassing farm hands, we would have a whole bunch of arrested (and probably dead) Hindu activists on our hands.
The crew of that little ship should consider themselves lucky that the Japanese aren't as trigger happy as we are in the "civilized west".

They're whaling in waters where they're not supposed to be. It's not up to the Japanese government because they're outside their legal jurisdiction. They're poaching animals in international waters, or in US waters.
Does that change your ridiculous logical fallacy at all?

>> ^LordOderus:
I'm glad their ship got rammed. I don't care one way or the other if the Japanese kill whales. It is not my place to tell the Japanese what they can and can not hunt. That is a decision to be made by the Japanese government. The only reason I side with the Japanese in this case, is because what the folks from Whale Wars are doing would be considered terrorism if it were done to us.
Imagine if the crew of that ship wasn't white, and was harassing American crab fishermen or something of that nature. They would all be locked up in one of our lovely maximum security hotels and interrogated for information on their terror cell connections. It is a ridiculous double standard. If groups of Hindus (to whom cows are sacred) started racing around American cattle ranches on 1.5 million dollar ATVs and harassing farm hands, we would have a whole bunch of arrested (and probably dead) Hindu activists on our hands.
The crew of that little ship should consider themselves lucky that the Japanese aren't as trigger happy as we are in the "civilized west".


They're whaling in waters where they're not supposed to be. It's not up to the Japanese government because they're outside their legal jurisdiction. They're poaching animals in international waters, or in US waters.

Does that change your ridiculous logical fallacy at all?

I'm glad their ship got rammed. I don't care one way or the other if the Japanese kill whales. It is not my place to tell the Japanese what they can and can not hunt. That is a decision to be made by the Japanese government. The only reason I side with the Japanese in this case, is because what the folks from Whale Wars are doing would be considered terrorism if it were done to us.

Imagine if the crew of that ship wasn't white, and was harassing American crab fishermen or something of that nature. They would all be locked up in one of our lovely maximum security hotels and interrogated for information on their terror cell connections. It is a ridiculous double standard. If groups of Hindus (to whom cows are sacred) started racing around American cattle ranches on 1.5 million dollar ATVs and harassing farm hands, we would have a whole bunch of arrested (and probably dead) Hindu activists on our hands.

The crew of that little ship should consider themselves lucky that the Japanese aren't as trigger happy as we are in the "civilized west".

This video has been declared a duplicate; transferring votes to the original video and killing this dupe - dupeof declared by MikesHL13.

*dupeof=http://www.videosift.com/video/Jack-Bauer-Interrogates-Santa-Claus

>> ^Krupo:
The title is flippant, but the dark moment from the history of the New Testament was meant to show the fear and pain associated with scourging and crucifixion - people talk about this aspect of religion but this "died for our sins" talk is just empty if you don't understand what kind of horrors it's associated with.


I know what you mean about the "flippant" comment but I was honestly trying to reveal nature of torture to the many pro-torture American conservatives here on the Sift.

Rome surely thought it was protecting itself and its interests with this kind of behavior.

>> ^deathcow:
wtf with the extreme end of the video???


That's Satan played excellently by Rosalinda Celentano.

>> ^nibiyabi:
Why do some cops feel such an urge to force someone to confess -- is it more important to convict anyone than it is to convict the guy who fucking did it?


Absolutely. The system makes far more money and in some states cops get paid more if they can get more arrests and tickets in a months time. On top of that cops are legally allowed a wide variety of crazy tactics to get confessions. From bullying to lying to out-right showing someone fake evidence.

I have friends who have spent 10 or 12 hours in a locked room with nothing to eat being pushed and lied to because they got caught with a half ounce of pot on them. That right there is simply wrong.

>> ^nibiyabi:
Why do some cops feel such an urge to force someone to confess -- is it more important to convict anyone than it is to convict the guy who fucking did it?


I'm going to take the worst kind of devils advocate role here, but make no mistake, this affair is a crime, a crime against the poor boy, who's mental state was coerced , but as with so many crimes, I think this one has more than one victim.

The interrogators where themselves victims of mental coercion, namely their own. They had led themselves (probably with the help of some leading clues) into a state of conviction that this boy was guilty, and they acted accordingly. As horrible and painful this situation is, it is interesting on so many levels, the boy giving a false confession is obvious, but it is also interesting how the interrogators minds where coerced into pushing him that far. Of course, in retrospect, it is trivial to note that they should have been more self-critical, but what I'm saying is its not as easy in the heat of the moment.

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.

>> ^EndAll:
I at least contributed more than an "Exactly." and offered my opinions and perspective in a respectable manner, while you go the route of mocking me with snarky sarcasm and evade any real response to what I said.


Because I don't generally see any point in debating empty rhetoric with anything other than snark. Otherwise I'd be on LGF all day trying to convince people that Obama isn't a secret muslim, and Soros doesn't control the media.

This flourish of "the worlds wealthiest and most powerful people" is either misinformed, or just empty rhetoric. It's so easy to be willfully ignorant of actual achievements people make when you already hate them.

Here's a few things Obama has done thus far, that I'm not sure how they benefit the "most powerful":

• $19billion for electronic medical records
• Stopped the anti-missile defense plan in Poland
• The Obama administration and Russia announced plans to begin talks on a new START treaty to reduce nuclear arsenals to approximately 1,500.
• Signed an executive order to close CIA secret prisons.
• Signed an executive order to ban torture and subject all interrogations to Army Field Manual Standards that conform to the Geneva Conventions.
• $2,500.00 tax credit for college students
• $2billion for advanced car battery R&D
• $2 billion for Byrne Grants, which funds anti-gang and anti-gun task forces.
• Public Land Management Act of 2009 has put under federal protection more than two million acres of wilderness, thousands of miles of river and a host of national trails and parks. The conservation effort - the largest in the last 15 years - came with the stroke of a pen
• Obama's meetings with Turkish and Armenian officials, Turkey and Armenia announced plans to normalize relations.
• Secretary of State Hillary Clinton attended Gaza aid conference, pledging $900 million in aid in order to "foster conditions in which a Palestinian state can be fully realized."


There's more, but it apparently doesn't matter to a lot of people. Unless he's ended both invasions/occupations of Afgh/Iraq, personally kidnapped and murdered those responsible for the economic clusterfuck, landed Bush/Cheney in the Hague for war crimes, and given everyone a beautiful pony, he hasn't done shit!