• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Conservative radio host gets waterboarded, and lasts six seconds before.....

You know what's really amusing about this comment? The New York Times STILL won't even use the term TORTURE.

But, don't let that distract you from your paradigms.

What did you say, the New York Times won’t even use the term torture? Are they being fooled by Bush too? :rofl

Paradigms? What a trite and farcical comment coming from someone who cannot even support their notions about torture with any facts.

I posted the United Nations definition of torture which mirrors the Geneva Conventions (which don't even apply to terrorists) and have YET to see ANYONE who makes the false claim that water boarding is torture provide any analysis that suggests what we did amounts to "torture."

Hey, I have an idea, why don't you give it whirl? :cool:
 
Your lying Dan. If it was about a Liberal talk show host doing it, you wouldn’t have bothered. Why you may ask? Because we already know pretty much where Liberals stand on this patently partisan emotionally hysterical issue don’t we?

But you selected a story about a “CONSERVATIVE” in a desperate effort to suggest that it supports YOUR misguided views about what actually constitutes torture.


Here it is again Dan, because you keep IGNORING it for some profound reason that is beyond me:

...any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him, or a third person, information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in, or incidental to, lawful sanctions.

—UN Convention Against Torture[1]

Torture - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia




How asinine and offensive to the good men and women who are trying to protect this nation by comparing what they did to three select prisoners to the Japanese, Viet Cong, Gestapo and Kmer Rouge. Is it willful denial that you left out the KGB and their gulags?

But again, you willfully ignore the definition of torture so here it is again Dan, because you keep IGNORING it for some profound reason that is beyond me:

...any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him, or a third person, information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in, or incidental to, lawful sanctions.

—UN Convention Against Torture[1]


Torture - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Now please share with me in a coherent fashion how our methods and reasons for water boarding even comes close to the above definition and stop deliberately avoiding my questions?



I gave you my take; you have a talk show host who tried it and discovered it is a very EFFECTIVE technique that doesn’t cause any severe harm or damage to it’s subjects.

Why should ANYONE care what HE thinks torture is Dan? I gave you the United Nations definition which mirrors the Geneva Conventions; please share with me how the CIA’s handling of these confessed terrorists was even close to the definition.

While you’re at it, please support your asinine assertions that it was anything like the torture conducted by the Japanese, the Nazi’s, the Vietcong, the Khmer Rouge or the professional torturers of all time, the KGB?

Carry on Dan, your desperate assertions in a vacuum of reality and the facts and SELECTIVE outrage have been noted.

1) That is not what he said at all. He said it was torture. If he thought it was an effective psychological technique, he would have said so. He ardently supported waterboarding, and agreed to be waterboarded so he could show his fans that it was OK to do. He came out of it with the opposite opininon.


2) Nothing but a personal attack and name calling here.

3) You keep mentioning this part of the UN code "
It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in, or incidental to, lawful sanctions." However, waterboarding is not arising from, inherent in, or incidental to any lawful sanctions. As a matter of fact, waterboarding is illegal under the following sanctions:

* Title 18, Part I, Chapter 113C of the U.S. Code:

*
Article 7 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights Ratified By Senate 1992:

*
United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment Ratified By Senate 1994:

*
Common Article 3 of the Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War Ratified by Congress 1955:

* The 8th Amendment to the Constitution - You might argue that this only applies to American citizens, but the Founding Fathers clearly specified that these rights were inalienable, and given by God, not by government.

4) No substance, just another personal attack. Ignored.

 
1) That is not what he said at all. He said it was torture. If he thought it was an effective psychological technique, he would have said so. He ardently supported waterboarding, and agreed to be waterboarded so he could show his fans that it was OK to do. He came out of it with the opposite opininon.


2) Nothing but a personal attack and name calling here.

3) You keep mentioning this part of the UN code "
It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in, or incidental to, lawful sanctions." However, waterboarding is not arising from, inherent in, or incidental to any lawful sanctions. As a matter of fact, waterboarding is illegal under the following sanctions:

* Title 18, Part I, Chapter 113C of the U.S. Code:

*
Article 7 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights Ratified By Senate 1992:

*
United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment Ratified By Senate 1994:

*
Common Article 3 of the Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War Ratified by Congress 1955:

* The 8th Amendment to the Constitution - You might argue that this only applies to American citizens, but the Founding Fathers clearly specified that these rights were inalienable, and given by God, not by government.

4) No substance, just another personal attack. Ignored.


There you go again Dan, when you are called on your patently asinine and offensive assertions comparing what the good men and women of our Government did to the Nazi's and Vietcong, you just ignore.

Bravo Dan. By the way, if what they did was OBVIOUSLY illegal according to your citations (which you probably pulled from a Left wing blog), why then is the Democrat led Congress and White House not prosecuting?

By Dan; I admit that I do enjoy shoving your whiney, trite and offensive little tirades back in your uninformed face.

But hey, you go on ignoring the REAL definition and keep citing codes you obviously are clueless about and compare the men and women fighting to keep you safe no better than Communists, Nazi’s and thugs.
 
I'm sorry, let me be more clear. They have yet to refer to U.S. actions towards enemy combatants as "torture."

Because Hellhound is such a hardass, let me clarify AGAIN.

The New York Times has yet to REPORT, IN A NEWS STORY (versus opinion piece or quote of a political figure) on the actions taken against unlawful combatants as "torture." They will not use the term to describe U.S. actions in news reporting, with the goal being "objectivity."

So, when they talk about waterboarding, Times reporters scrupulously avoid calling it "torture," although they might quote political figures who call it that.
 
Bravo Dan. By the way, if what they did was OBVIOUSLY illegal according to your citations (which you probably pulled from a Left wing blog), why then is the Democrat led Congress and White House not prosecuting?

I cannot speak for congress or the WH, but this leftist democrat opposes prosecutions because I don't feel it would be good for the country. Kinda like Nixon getting pardoned was good for the country.
 


You do realize that most of these are in the OPINION page and not contained in their regular news however. The articles talking about torture are direct quotes of the subjects in the articles. But the implication is clear none-the-less.

The New York Times is usually careful about separating the TRUTH from the FICTION of their OPINION pieces.
 
Because Hellhound is such a hardass, let me clarify AGAIN.

The New York Times has yet to REPORT, IN A NEWS STORY (versus opinion piece or quote of a political figure) on the actions taken against unlawful combatants as "torture." They will not use the term to describe U.S. actions in news reporting, with the goal being "objectivity."

So, when they talk about waterboarding, Times reporters scrupulously avoid calling it "torture," although they might quote political figures who call it that.

He can be a pain, but he is mostly a good guy.
 
I cannot speak for congress or the WH, but this leftist democrat opposes prosecutions because I don't feel it would be good for the country. Kinda like Nixon getting pardoned was good for the country.

I appreciate your honesty, but why bother having the public debate about what is torture if nothing is going to be done? Could it be that Liberal Democrats merely want to prosecute their political opponents in the court of public opinion? Hmmmmm.....very interesting is it not? :cool:
 
Because Hellhound is such a hardass, let me clarify AGAIN.

The New York Times has yet to REPORT, IN A NEWS STORY (versus opinion piece or quote of a political figure) on the actions taken against unlawful combatants as "torture." They will not use the term to describe U.S. actions in news reporting, with the goal being "objectivity."

So, when they talk about waterboarding, Times reporters scrupulously avoid calling it "torture," although they might quote political figures who call it that.

Is it too much for you to simply admit that you were wrong?
 

What does that have to do with this thread? This is about a Conservative radio host getting waterboarded. If you want to start a thread discussing the Bush Administration feel free to, but try not to derail this thread further with your personal qualms against previous administrations.
 
Because Hellhound is such a hardass, let me clarify AGAIN.

The New York Times has yet to REPORT, IN A NEWS STORY (versus opinion piece or quote of a political figure) on the actions taken against unlawful combatants as "torture." They will not use the term to describe U.S. actions in news reporting, with the goal being "objectivity."

So, when they talk about waterboarding, Times reporters scrupulously avoid calling it "torture," although they might quote political figures who call it that.

:rofl now this is funny. The Rev, you gotta love him. :cool:
 
I appreciate your honesty, but why bother having the public debate about what is torture if nothing is going to be done? Could it be that Liberal Democrats merely want to prosecute their political opponents in the court of public opinion? Hmmmmm.....very interesting is it not? :cool:

I think that there are two reasons to have this debate publicly. First, to make it explicitly clear that these acts are in violation of U.S. Law, our history as a nation, and our national ethics.

Secondly, to ensure that we don't repeat this mistake.

I'm not opposed to trials, but it strikes me that there will be just as many dems prosecuted as Republicans.

Of course, I'm totally okay with Nancy Pelosi being incarcerated. I've never liked her.
 
I appreciate your honesty, but why bother having the public debate about what is torture if nothing is going to be done? Could it be that Liberal Democrats merely want to prosecute their political opponents in the court of public opinion? Hmmmmm.....very interesting is it not? :cool:

There is a difference between prosecution, and doing nothing. I feel we should find out what happened, what was done, how well it worked as best we can tell, gather all the information available, and then look at setting a long term policy. I might or might not agree with the policy, but I think that we owe it to the ones who will implement any such policy to have it be as clear as can be. Clear is obviously not how I would describe things the last few years in this regard.
 
Is it too much for you to simply admit that you were wrong?

If I were wrong, I would totally admit it. I'm a stand-up girl. I will be wrong, in the future, and I will acknowledge it. Wording something poorly does not necessarily equate, however, to being wrong.
 
What does that have to do with this thread? This is about a Conservative radio host getting waterboarded. If you want to start a thread discussing the Bush Administration feel free to, but try not to derail this thread further with your personal qualms against previous administrations.

Wow, you are just now getting this? Why he started this back at post#17.

Even the innocent one's?

Oh I forgot Cheney and his cohorts only tortured three people. Right?


I guess in all of your and Dan's selective outrage, you missed that part. :doh
 
Well I can say that I certainly do not; my love for him is purely in a manly way...."how about them Bears?" ;)

You like bears?

Well, whatever floats your boat, dude.

IMG_0447.JPG


:2razz:
 
Wow, you are just now getting this? Why he started this back at post#17.




I guess in all of your and Dan's selective outrage, you missed that part. :doh

I didn't see that post. And I also didn't see it in your absurd rant earlier because I tend to stop reading your posts when the personal insults start coming. Your posts typically consist of 95% insults 5% substance. And to be quite honest, I'd rather skim over most of your nonsense than try to find a needle in a haystack.
 
What does that have to do with this thread? This is about a Conservative radio host getting waterboarded. If you want to start a thread discussing the Bush Administration feel free to, but try not to derail this thread further with your personal qualms against previous administrations.


My qualm is not with the Previous administration because it is clear as a bell that they are guilty as hell.

My qualm is with people who are choosing to ignore and deny the reality of things and are flapping their gums about the "THREE PEOPLE THAT WERE TORTURED". It's an assine argument and I really don't see many credible links that prove that only three were tortured. But that doesn't keep a pack of numbnuts from running around and claiming such a thing. Does it?
 
Carry on; it is obvious you didn't come in here to debate but rather troll and bait. :rofl

No, it's called "counter-trolling." Don't think for a second that just because you type voluminous amounts of bull**** that you are actually contributing intelligent commentary to this forum. Quite the opposite.
 
Back
Top Bottom