Watch Christopher Hitchens Get Waterboarded

[Virulent]

The Video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LPubUCJv58)


You may have read by now the official lie about this treatment, which is that it "simulates" the feeling of drowning. This is not the case. You feel that you are drowning because you are drowning--or, rather, being drowned, albeit slowly and under controlled conditions and at the mercy (or otherwise) of those who are applying the pressure. The "board" is the instrument, not the method. You are not being boarded. You are being watered. This was very rapidly brought home to me when, on top of the hood, which still admitted a few flashes of random and worrying strobe light to my vision, three layers of enveloping towel were added. In this pregnant darkness, head downward, I waited for a while until I abruptly felt a slow cascade of water going up my nose. Determined to resist if only for the honor of my navy ancestors who had so often been in peril on the sea, I held my breath for a while and then had to exhale and--as you might expect--inhale in turn. The inhalation brought the damp cloths tight against my nostrils, as if a huge, wet paw had been suddenly and annihilatingly clamped over my face. Unable to determine whether I was breathing in or out, and flooded more with sheer panic than with mere water, I triggered the pre-arranged signal and felt the unbelievable relief of being pulled upright and having the soaking and stifling layers pulled off me. I find I don't want to tell you how little time I lasted.

I apply the Abraham Lincoln test for moral casuistry: "If slavery is not wrong, nothing is wrong." Well, then, if waterboarding does not constitute torture, then there is no such thing as torture.

For anyone who hasn't seen a video of authentic torture, I think you'll find it fascinating how much it mirrors a BDSM experience.

I need to find someone to waterboard me; I want to see if I can beat Hitchens' time now. :)

[Alex Bragi]

Interesting, however, while this experiment might certainly simulate some forms of bdsm games, the reality and the terrible truth is that water-boarding was not created for thrill seeing kinksters.

[rora]

You are right Alex, and if it saves the life of one of thr troops, then I am for it.

[Alex Bragi]

You are right Alex, and if it saves the life of one of thr troops, then I am for it.

Well, I think whether or not it's justifiable is a matter of opinion. I'm not going to reiterate my thoughts on this since they're already well documented on this forum. You may read mine and a few others, and possibly want to add your own here. (http://www.bdsmlibrary.com/forums/showthread.php?t=14593&highlight=waterboarding)

:)

[TomOfSweden]

It was a long sequence setting it up, but the part where the actual waterboarding was done I thought was too quick to get a sense of. If he'd been naked it would have been much more educational. I couldn't read stress in his body other than those metal things dropping.

[Logic1]

You are right Alex, and if it saves the life of one of thr troops, then I am for it.

to turn that statement completely around then. Would you condone it done to YOU if it would save another country´s troops at war with the US.?? Remember here that you have no idea if you are going to survive it or not.

[rora]

We were attacked in our homeland on 9-11. People seem to forget that. It wasn't something I asked for, nor was this war something I asked for. No one asked my opinion, before either event.

War is not fun. It is not pleasant. It is not a picnic. How do you begin to fight someone who would strap a suicide vest on a child? What kind of mentality is that? What kind of cowards hide in a Mosque, and fire on troops when they know they won't shoot back? Or hide in a school full of children...or a hospital? Nothing seems to be beneath them.

I lived thru the Nam era. My brother and several good friends were . We lost several friends. Family friends...one was in the Bataan Death March. My Dad fought in WWII. His father was a soldier before him. My list of family soldiers goes on and on...including my hubby and a son.

War is horrible. I KNOW this.

I am not a debater. I never learned the 'art'. To me it is like fighting or arguing, and I hate that. I always have.

All I can say is...if water boarding saves lives, then I am for it.

God Bless America and our troops.

Have a Happy and safe 4th everyone.

This ole hide (as my cuz lovingly calls me) is off to pedal her ass. (that's what my hubby calls riding my bike).

[Logic1]

I dont think anybody can forget those attacks on US soil. I also remember terrorist attacks in the UK and Spain and many other countries. The US one was the worst one as of yet and we all wish it never happened and yet terrorist attacks happens all over the planet due to some fanatics that doesnt have the same opinion as other people does.
I understand fully with it being the 4th of July this not being the best of days to tell you that but the question remains.
Would it be okay if waterboarding was done by some other state against US troops to gain info about some american attack to save that countrys soldiers and I truely hope your answer is yes, cause any other answer would be...
Personally I cant tolerate state sponsored or any other form of torture at all, no matter what.

Happy 4th guys and hopefully it is a great one :)

[Warbaby1943]

WOW he didn't last long.

[Snark]

Would I like to be waterboarded if it meant some other country's troops were saved? No. Then again I wouldn't like to have my head sawed off with a dull knife; which our opponents seem to take great glee in. We protest some actions that are hardly uncomfortable as well as some that are deliberately cruel. But they do horrific things and their supporters cheer them on and dance in the streets. Waterboarding is cruel. It is also survivable. Slow beheading is many orders of magnitude worse...and not just supported by "opinion" but by "religious" mandate. It's also not survivable. Sweden is now about 5% muslim. By now you probably have enclaves (ghettos) where the occupants are solely muslim and either are practicing sharia law to the exclusion of national law or are protesting for the right to do so. I suspect that halal food is available and there is insistence that halal "rights" are being being demanded. Let us know when they impose the jizya or "infidel tax". Of course, by then you won't have access to this forum unless you have moved to another country.

the Snark

[Logic1]

Not sure where you got the dull knife part from Skark, but nobody wants that now do they?

Sweden 5% Muslim, well I hardly think that number is correct since the 2nd biggest immigrant group in Sweden is Finns who are about 2% of the population but even if that were to be true. Would it matter?
Yes, We got enclaves in some of the bigger cities with mostly immigrants and some of them are of pretty bad reputation for sure but so has any other country.
Yes you could buy some form of halal meat here in Sweden but it is not exactly done in the "correct" halal way because our laws prohibits that.
Would the US allow those jizya or infidel tax to be put on US citizens and if so, why. And why would Sweden do that? There is no reason for it whatsoever.
plus I´d like to add that Muslims as a whole arent worse people than those of any other religion. Those who cause problems are fundamentalists of any religion no matter what religion that is although I can hardly see any fundamentalist Buddhist causing a problem for any other religion :p.

[rora]

Logic,

In answer to Your question...

Sorry to disappoint You, but my answer would have to be no. I AM after all an American. I wouldn't want it done to our troops. I want them to win. "cause any other answer would be... " What would it be? I am answering You honestly. Answer me, please.


I know exactly where Snark got the dull knife from. I saw it too. I watched the whole thing. It sickened me.

[John56{vg}]

This is one thing I never get from The conservative stance that torture is ok if it is done to people that are different from us. When the horrible events of 9/11 happened one of things that Bin Laden and Al Qaeda wanted was to change the way the U.S. dealt in the world. They succeeded if they scared us.

One of the most un-American things I think of is torture. MY Father and Grandfather and Uncles and Cousins fought to make sure we stayed FREE and AMERICAN.

Bush and the Republican Party has served the terrorists by increasing that fear and doing VERY unAmerican things. We are LESS free than we have been in years. Habeas Corpus, until re-supplied by the Supreme Court (Which the Republicans STILL are against), was completely taken away.

My relatives didn't fight for this country to become a land that tortures and hates. But Bush has made it that way.

SO why is Bush FOR the terrorists agenda. BE AFRAID and let's take away those things that people around the world have loved about us.

Torture does not HELP our troops, it puts them more at risk, Torture does NOT work, you cannot trust the info you get from it. THESE are facts. But the people that want to scare us into voting for them deny these facts.

[cadence]

The Video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LPubUCJv58)



For anyone who hasn't seen a video of authentic torture, I think you'll find it fascinating how much it mirrors a BDSM experience.

I need to find someone to waterboard me; I want to see if I can beat Hitchens' time now. :)

Honestly I think Hitchen's was a bit overdramatic with the whole experience, he knew what was coming, and anticipated it at first. But then again try pouring water up your nose, you'll stop rather rapidly.

As I said before, I do know of a few people who have been waterboarded in a BDSM context, for whatever it's worth, if you enjoy puking and gagging, then it's for you.

[Kevin100]

The sad truth is: torturing suspects is more likely to cause the death of our troops rather than save their lives.
Kevin 100

[Logic1]

Logic,

In answer to Your question...

Sorry to disappoint You, but my answer would have to be no. I AM after all an American. I wouldn't want it done to our troops. I want them to win. "cause any other answer would be... " What would it be? I am answering You honestly. Answer me, please.


I know exactly where Snark got the dull knife from. I saw it too. I watched the whole thing. It sickened me.

So you are basically saying that torture is okay as long as it is done by the American government and if somebody else did it it would be horrible and repugnant and he would stand trial for crimes against the Geneva commity(sp). That is hypocricy if I ever saw it.

Personally I cant find anything less american than torture either just like John said and that saying NO to state sponsored torture wont make you any less patriotic and for me it would actually make you more patriotic cause that just isnt the american way. The land of equal liberties and freedoms just dont go around torturing people.

Wanting your troops to win is a given yes naturally but at what cost? Winning by loosing other peoples faith in the US as a fair and just country? I honestly dont think that is a price anybody wants it´s country to pay and that is most likely the price it will cost.
Torture just shouldn´t be happening anywhere on this planet and especially not in the western part of the world.

[Snark]

Logic 1

Yes, it would matter. As countries become more mulsim they will insist upon more control until they control the whole country. Not all countries have sharia controlled enclaves, but the ones with larger muslim populations do. For those who haven't studied the q'uran I invite them to. Yes, only 5% (out of 1 billion that's about 50 million) are actively trying to take over the world. But the other 95% won't - and theologically CAN'T - make any objection and continues to fund the 5%. They are commanded to take over the world by ANY means neccessary. If you think that having a democratic government will protect you, once the population reaches 51% the country is doomed. A democracy is two wolves and a sheep discussing what's for lunch.
Is waterboarding any more dispicable than burning down a schoolhouse full of children? The insurgents fighting in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, ****lia, and the rest of them are doing so not because the hate America, or that they are made at George Bush. They do it because their religious beliefs command it. They are fighting to install anoter caliphate, this time over the entire world, not just north Africa nd the middle east.

[rora]

torture just shouldn't be happening anywhere on this planet....I agree with that 100% but I also know that you can't stop it. I don't care what you do, or what anyone else does...how many laws you pass against it...it IS going to happen. I am old enough to realize that.

"My relatives didn't fight for this country to become a land that tortures and hates. But Bush has made it that way." Well, neither did mine. But I don't think they planned on getting beheaded or tortured, either.

We don't live in a perfect world. If we did there would be peace.

Don't worry. No one in authority is going to ask my opinion or advice. *smiles*

I am out of here, this is TOO much like fighting for me

have a great day.

[Logic1]

Snark, to me that just sounds like paranoia. Being that scared of muslims is just not healthy. I know a few people who happens to be muslim and they sure are nice enough people. Religion per say doesnt make you violent or hostile or prone to terrorism. Fanatism and not enough chances and education and other factors like those are though.

rora if nobody speaks up then ofcourse torture will continue and if the people of one country knows that their government is doing this and keep voting for the people in power then the people of that country are infact sponsoring torture.
That sure isnt the U.S to me, but if you say it is, then perhaps I should rethink my standpoint of what the "american way" really is.
No rora, the people in authority isnt gonna ask you but you should ask them.. they after all are answering to you(the people) and not the other way around. That is what we have a democracy for.
No, we dont have a perfect world, we all know that but if we work together and people of every origin work together then we CAN make a difference.

I sure arent fighting you rora, and I hope you dont feel that. I just think that discussions with other people is a place to learn things. *hug*

[AdrianaAurora]

On topic, I am really trying to be non judgmental, but I have to say that what you are asking I find disturbing and scary.

But this thread has got sidetracked in a rather pointless debate - weather water boarding is justified or not? If it weren't so pathetic and sad, it would be freaking hilarious. Water boarding doesn't work, and this fact renders all debate, justified or not, pointless. But then when was the last time Bushie zealots cared for logic, reason, intelligence, proof, or pretty much anything America stands for?


We were attacked in our homeland on 9-11. People seem to forget that. It wasn't something I asked for, nor was this war something I asked for. No one asked my opinion, before either event.

War is not fun. It is not pleasant. It is not a picnic. How do you begin to fight someone who would strap a suicide vest on a child? What kind of mentality is that? What kind of cowards hide in a Mosque, and fire on troops when they know they won't shoot back? Or hide in a school full of children...or a hospital? Nothing seems to be beneath them.


I agree, but you discard few very important facts. 1) American careless and arrogant foreign policy enabled this to happen;
2) That policy, at the detriment of American people, made some very (in)competent and evil people, who support or are part of US government very rich;
And my favorite, 3) people tortured by American soldiers are innocent. People they water board have no connection with September 11.
99.99% of those water boarded had no connection to any terrorist activity. No useful information has been gained by it. And Bush isnt and never was a competent politician. Dont play a victim, World offered their sympathy and support after 9/11 and what did US do? They attacked a country who had nothing to do with it.

And here is the disconnect and utter irony, Patriot Act, pro-war trigger-happy supporters have more in common with core values of Islamic fundamentalist then with those of the Founding Fathers.

How do you fight these people? You start by not becoming like them.

Rather let the crime of the guilty go unpunished than condemn the innocent. Justinian I, Law Code, A.D. 535

They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security.
Benjamin Franklin

[Snark]

Logic

Paranoid? Hardly. Muslims ruled all of north Africa for over 600 years and Spain for several hundred as well. It wasn't until Charles "The Hammer" Martell defeated them that Europe was saved. The calipate ruled until Mustapha Attaturk (founder of Turkey) helped to bring down the Byzantine Empire, then the tide turned. History is a bitch for those who don't study it. Yes, there are many nice, friendly, peaceable mulims. That's not the point. Muslim theocracy forbids negotiation unless they are at a disadvantage. Compassion is regarded as weakness - who contributed more to the tsunami victims - muslims or non-muslims (infidels.) Religion per se doesn't make one dangerous...but if the religion teaches it, it can. The gang that conducted 911 weren't poor, deprived people. Neither were the ones who blew up the London underground. These are well educated, well financed supporters of a very dangerous group of individuals who happen to have a tremendous amount of wealth. The most dangerous weapon of mass distruction is unlimited wealth under the control of a mad man. The dangerous issue is that the group happens to number in the multiple of millions.

[John56{vg}]

Logic

The most dangerous weapon of mass distruction is unlimited wealth under the control of a mad man. The dangerous issue is that the group happens to number in the multiple of millions.

Actually (and I would add unlimited wealth AND POWER to the quote), this sounds like Bush and crew. He is using the office of the Presidency to attempt to build a dictatorship. And he has been a weapon of mass destruction to this nation.

But Snark your post brings up another thing that I find despicable about the way conservatives and fundamentalists have USED the events on 9/11. The effort to paint ALL members of a particular religion with the terrorist brush.

It is an opinion lacking in any sort of REAL back-up. And YES, the fundamentalists in this country start to look a lot like the fundamentalists in other countries.
****

Adriana, Thank you for a well-thought out and lucid post.

[Logic1]

Logic

Paranoid? Hardly. Muslims ruled all of north Africa for over 600 years and Spain for several hundred as well. It wasn't until Charles "The Hammer" Martell defeated them that Europe was saved. The calipate ruled until Mustapha Attaturk (founder of Turkey) helped to bring down the Byzantine Empire, then the tide turned. History is a bitch for those who don't study it. Yes, there are many nice, friendly, peaceable mulims. That's not the point. Muslim theocracy forbids negotiation unless they are at a disadvantage. Compassion is regarded as weakness - who contributed more to the tsunami victims - muslims or non-muslims (infidels.) Religion per se doesn't make one dangerous...but if the religion teaches it, it can. The gang that conducted 911 weren't poor, deprived people. Neither were the ones who blew up the London underground. These are well educated, well financed supporters of a very dangerous group of individuals who happen to have a tremendous amount of wealth. The most dangerous weapon of mass distruction is unlimited wealth under the control of a mad man. The dangerous issue is that the group happens to number in the multiple of millions.

There have always been different rulers over different territories. Before the immigrants came to the americas the Indians ruled the land. Sweden was a superpower and ruled over Sweden, Finland, Norway the Baltic states and half of todays Germany and Poland. Not even sure what that has to do with much when it comes to today. Sure the muslims influenced the south of Spain and you can still see the remains of that in the old buildings and I am sure you can see more signs if you look closely but you have to remind yourself that that was a very long time ago.
Islam doesnt teach that they should invade the rest of the world and any muslim would tell you that if you dared to actually ask my friend.
You can however find fanatics in most religions including the christian faith.
Do you honestly believe that there are multiple millions of fanatic muslims(not even mentioning that they have to be of unlimited wealth? That is just paranoia and crazy talk imho.
I think you need to get out more and perhaps start to read some non biased newspapers or internet news that actually can tell you about the world. and no FOX news isnt that just to name one example.

(sorry for the delay in my reply. Havent had time to actually write something longer than a few lines for the past two days).

[claire]

For a non-corporate media slant to the news - yes read liberal. Even if that is a dirty word to you, it is good to hear the opposite perspective to get a broader view of the issues.

I highly recommend www.democracynow.org

[John56{vg}]

I am a journalist, an old-style journalist, which means I remain objective in my stories. The media in this country has become decidedly more corporate and, thus, more conservative in the 34 years since good journalism toppled a corrupt President (Nixon).

That is when conservative forces and yes, The Republican party started the whole "Liberal Media Bias" Hoax. The following is a list of English Language, honest and objective News Organizations that might help some see the REAL news in the U.S. It is by no means complete.

Television News:

BBC News -- Probably the least biased News Org. In Britain, they are still following the tenets of good objective Journalism. You will get the facts from the BBC, MOST of the the time.

NPR -- National Public Radio is beholden to no corporation or special interest, the best News Organization in the Country.

The Network News has become decidedly bias toward corporate interests. I would say the best of the three is NBC -- Brian Williams seems to WANT to get it right, but there are still a lot of important stories going uncovered.

Fox News is NOT NEWS. It is fiction, hyperbole and COnservative Partisanship. The "facts" are mostly made up. Murdoch and especially Ailes makes sure FOX is totally a flack for the government currently, Republicans and Neo-cons especially. ANY program on FOX is slanted, biased and probably fiction. Hannity and O'Reilly are the worst.

Most Newspapers in the country have a bias, but Newspapers are still one of the best sources for News, as long as you are not reading just USA Today or The New York Post or NOW the Wall Street Journal. Murdoch has made the once venerable Financial Newspaper a conservative Rag.

I have seen bias in the headlines and stories from Associated Press and UP. Reuters is doing a good job though.

Radio News is a joke mainly, UNLESS you are listening to NPR or the BBC.

Now if you are getting ALL your news from FOX or the 700 club or O'Reilly, you are NOT getting facts, you are hearing "news" made to keep you scared or angry. There are little facts on these programs.

[AdrianaAurora]

This is an extract from an email that a Muslim friend had sent me regarding a similar debate:

"One of the hadis in Quran says that you are not a true Muslim if your neighbour does not feel safe. No religion teaches a man to be bad:"

[John56{vg}]

Adriana, another valuable post, thanks.

A story that I covered for the Southern California neighborhood that I work for. A Christmas Tree stood in the local park and the Jewish members of the community, with overwhelming community support, put up a large Menorah as well.

One night some idiots cut down the metal menorah and vandalized it. The story received major play in the local and major media. The Hannukah event that year had more attendees that ever before.

Everybody was pleased that such a hateful event spawned such support. The terrible act backfired on the idiots who perpetuated it.

Anyway, While I was interviewing people I ran across a Muslim couple and their family and interviewed them.

They were there they said to express that hate has no place in ANY religion. And they wanted to express their support for their neighborhood and neighbors.

I have traveled a lot. We have people from all over the world on this board. One thing you realize pretty quickly that people are the same ALL over the world. Everybody just wants to be allowed to live and love and be as happy as they can be.

But there are people who crave power that want to incite people to hate. These fanatics, whether they are the Christian fundamentalists that want you to hate gays and muslims or the Muslims that want to convince troubled young Muslims to kill themselves, want power and money on the backs of others.

[denuseri]

as for the water boarding,, we allready had a mile long thread on that topic in this section of the forums i dont mind thread drift myself paticularly when the original topic is covering well trod ground

as for journalisim: as they will teach you in any journalisim class ...all news period, regardless of source is ussually "tainted" by the people that write it if in no other way than on a subconsious level,,, even the "christian science monitor" whose reputation throughout its history in jouralisim is based on impartiality has news stories that present one sided views

the liberal biasised media , tree hugger left wing so******t comunist contention of the conservative side of politics is no less false than the liberal contention that conservatives are all big business right wing religious fanatics out to shoot everyone

the fact is that all political agendas are indeed fostered by the media as they report the news inadvertantly in some cases and directly in others

as for religion and politics
my mother was a lebanonese jew my father a lutheran

i am of the bahai faith, its considered an off shoot of islam, ive studied many religions and i havent found one yet whose rehtoric condons the violence and hate perpetrated in thier names against those that do not share the same faith

politicians throughout all known human history have allways used religion to thier own personal advantage just like they have used fear and any other manipulation tactic to sway we the massess to do thier bidding

the media (and randolf herst is a good example of bad media) alltough supposably expousing high standards ,
has its own agenda as well, often fixating on whatever gets them the most ratings or subscribers,(or if state controlled on whatever propoganda the state wants) which sometimes coincides and sometimes opposes individual politicians and or thier parties despite the best efforts of a handful of honest people that want to provide a truely impartial truth to the people

in effect the sophists that socrates claimed to not be a member of were in some ways right, at least when it came to observations of human behavior

like most people i dont follow my own political parties dogma to the core, i pick and choose my views based on my own feeling about the issues, for instance, i am a registered republican, and alltough an avid fan of my 2nd amendment rights: i am pro abortion and pro gay rights including gay marrige, I also think the war in iraq is wrong, but i see alot of things wrong with the other parties practice of its dogma so i stay where i am to have a vote in the primaries as opposed to going libertarian or something

unfortunately the media is used as much as it uses, like some kind of reactionary format, where it manipulates opinion as much as opinion manipulates it, which is why most people have no real idea what any individual politician is really about until they are actually in office

actions allways speak louder than words

[Virulent]

i am pro abortion

Me too; I hope "they" make it mandatory.

I don't have much affinity for politics personally. In America in particular, citizens have the luxury of choosing between any of the candidates that the capitalist politburo decides to field. Now available in multiple hues!

There is a reason why Ann Coulter and Dianne Feinstein are so hilarious - because they're in the entertainment business.

By the way John - both of your favorite news outlets are owned by governments and paid for by compulsory taxation?

[John56{vg}]

Me too; I hope "they" make it mandatory.

By the way John - both of your favorite news outlets are owned by governments and paid for by compulsory taxation?

The BBC IS owned by the government of the U.K. That does not change the fact that its reporting is objective and that its news deals in the truth. And paid for with taxes, what is inherently wrong with that?

And you talk about "favorite" news outlets. They ARE my favorite, yes, but because they are the most objective, deal in facts and tell the whole story. When THAT is the case, who cares who owns them or how they are funded?

[Virulent]

I am a journalist


When THAT is the case, who cares who owns them or how they are funded?

To be clear John, I'm sure you know an awful lot about journalism that I don't. Truth be told, arguments from authority are meaningless to me though - so please help me follow your logic.

Obviously the BBC and NPR do not cover 100% of news-worthy stories. Therefore, they must utilize a metric to determine which ones not to cover.

Is it completely irrelevant that they are funded by a government? Would it be irrelevant if they were funded by a corporation or church?

I always thought Noam Chomsky had it right, when he said that BBC anchors don't self-censor; they believe every word they're told to say... else, they wouldn't be BBC anchors.

[John56{vg}]

I have studied Journalism for years. If a corporate news entity uses objectivity and telling the truth to the public, I have no problem with them. Therefor I give the same metrics to those owned by a government entity.

Our government has been suppressing the truth and objectivity for almost 8 years now. Corporations have been forcing the News oreganizations to "entertain" us for longer than that. A lot of Newspapers, owned by corporations, still do a passable job of keeping as objective as possible. (True objectivity is difficult at best. The reporter and the editorial board are always having to leave something out, etc. But nowadays there are not many News organizations in this country even attempting objectivity. They slant the news, skew it terribly in the direction of the administration or the corporations interests.

Again I do NOT consider Fox a news entity. It is an arm of the administration and not only skewed, facts are made up.

Where do you get your news and how do you determine who is telling the truth or not?

I research and study and look at what is really happening and how it is covered. I make my determination from that, not from who owns who or how it is funded.

The Christian Science Monitor has been an objective news source for years. A VERY good Newspaper. I am not a CHristian Scientist and do not believe in what they believe in. But, the newspaper was (and perhaps still is) an objective News source.

[denuseri]

This is so much fun....really

I would just like to thank everyone involved in this intellegent debate.


That said; I am a proud subscriber to the Christian Science Monitor. I am not, as previously stated, a proponent of thier church. All I was saying is that even the most unbiased of news sources is not 100% without its (the individual journalist's) opinion and or that of his or hers publisher's.

[Virulent]

If a corporate news entity uses objectivity and telling the truth to the public, I have no problem with them. Therefor I give the same metrics to those owned by a government entity.

Ok... but how do you determine if they are objective and tell the truth? Further, how are you certain what the truth is? If you know what is true, why do you even need the news in the first place?


I research and study and look at what is really happening and how it is covered. I make my determination from that, not from who owns who or how it is funded.

If you can look at what is really happening, why do you need any news at all (since, by definition, news is a filter)?

I'm suspicious that what you really do is you trust. You have faith in institutions like the BBC and NPR. Is it possible that could be accurate?


Where do you get your news and how do you determine who is telling the truth or not?

I wasn't sure if this was rhetorical or directed at me, but in case it was directed at me, I get my news from first-person accounts and video. When I want to know what is going on in Fallujah, or Ramallah, or wherever, I look for a blog of someone there. In my experience, amateurs who are merely chronicling their quotidian lives wear their biases on their sleeves, rather than trying to hide them like professional journalists.

I'm a huge fan and occasional participant in Jello Biafra's Camcorder Truth Jihad, an organization that flash-mobs events where State power might be used in an embarrassing way, and documents it with commentary-free video. One of my favorite incidents was during the '99 WTO conference in Seattle. Despite early reports by both NPR and the BBC reporting that the police were not using tear-gas, the CCTJ had 31 video-clips proving otherwise. Despite the New York Times claiming that a molotov cocktail was thrown at the police cordon, the CCTJ 24-hour multiple-camera coverage of the cordon demonstrated that this inexplicably false.

The objective truth is, most media outlets print exactly what their primary sources tell them to print... and more often than not, their primary sources are members of the entrenched establishment; police, government agents, statist propagandists. When you believe what they print, you're practicing second-hand gullibility.

[John56{vg}]

You may believe what you want. I look at many sources for my news. But I don't trust everything I see on video and I rarely trust a blog. I have many sources to get to what the truth is and what is objective or not.

I was providing info for those that get their news from the major news outlets or, God forbid, Fox News.

You may get your news where you like. Your cynicism may make you feel COOL and IN but I am NOT gullible. I research everything I have said. You may not agree with me, I don't really care.

Your agenda is not to believe ANYTHING but what you WANT to believe in. That is fine, but it doesn't make your "truth" any more believable than mine.

Generalizing: All police are bad, All Government is bad, All Media is bad, is more gullible and sad than doing research and is not ANYWHERE near the truth either. The truth IS ellusive, the truth is not always pure and unadulterated. But it is too easy to be cynical and negative about everything. I refuse to play that game.

You MAY take exception to what I have posted. But there just may be those that will appreciate it. It was, in fact, written for those people, not for you. You seem to have all the answers, don't you?

[Logic1]

I have BBC as the startup page on my browser and I do consider them to be the least biased news that you can find and they have been called that for years. Just because those news happens to be payed for by the taxes paid by the Brittish population doesnt make it tilted as such. That all depends on how the government dictates the newsagencies rules of conduct as such.
Sweden also has state owned tv channels and radio stations and they criticise and investigate both government and everything. I find them pretty unbiased and trustworty too but for me the BBC wins for non domestic news.
I truely feel that tax paid news is better than company owned cause they arent as dependant on what news that sells and what doesnt. They also dont have to sell advertizing that makes them even more dependant on others.
As for blogs, sure they can have a part in news and I do check out a few just to get another view on things.

I never heard of the "christian science monitor" though but it sure doesnt sound unbiased but I might be wrong there. Perhaps it is this country having so little religiosity that makes me think that.
Ill take a look at it.

debates are good denuseri :)

[claire]

Believe it or not the "Christian Science Monitor" is a very good news source. Despite its religious connections it is not a fundamentalist or religiously biased news organization. I rated it up there with the BBC, which is also one of my preferred news sources.

[John56{vg}]

Yes, claire is right. The CHristian Science Monitor has been at the top of the heap of great Newspapers for YEARS.

[Logic1]

Never too late to learn something new
thank you guys :)

[John56{vg}]

Logic,

I know I was surprised when I got into Journalism school way back when and found out about the Monitor. It doesn't SOUND like a respected paper, does it? LOL.

I have added thank you to your posts but never formerly thanked you. Good info about the BBC and other things. Thanks my friend.

[Logic1]

Logic,

I know I was surprised when I got into Journalism school way back when and found out about the Monitor. It doesn't SOUND like a respected paper, does it? LOL.

lol that was my point too :p. Well surprises like those arent bad at all.

Thank you too John!

[Virulent]

Your agenda is not to believe ANYTHING but what you WANT to believe in.

I try to be open-minded, I just seem to disagree with you on some things. Believe me, I am very happy to continue this discussion; I do have a specific question for you about the BBC:

Do you remember when the BBC reported that Tony Blair's statement that Iraq could have WMDs ready in 45 minutes was exaggerated? Do you remember how Tony Blair got really angry, and then the chairman and director general of the BBC both resigned, and its vice-chairman publicly apologized?

Why were they sorry? Was it in fact true that Iraq could have WMDs ready in 45 minutes? If a news source made a factual criticism (and, as we all know, a massively understated one), and then people got angry... and members of the staff were fired... doesn't that demonstrate that the angry people have some sort of executive oversight?

I really don't know how to interpret the above, recent example except by concluding that people at the BBC should be afraid of losing their livelihoods if they challenge the government line.


Generalizing: All police are bad, All Government is bad, All Media is bad, is more gullible and sad than doing research and is not ANYWHERE near the truth either.

That is indeed a generalization. I will agree with the "all government is bad" part though, if by government you mean compulsory statist authority and by bad you mean unethical.


You MAY take exception to what I have posted.

Not at all! You're welcome to your opinion, I'm welcome to mine, and (I believe) we're welcome to criticize each other's. No-one need ever worry about offending me; I've got very thick skin.


It was, in fact, written for those people, not for you.

I think you were actually talking to me if you look back. I asked: "Is it completely irrelevant that they are funded by a government?" and you said "I make my determination from that, not from who owns who or how it is funded." I was the first person in the thread to bring up funding's influence. Or maybe your post was a complete non sequitur?


You seem to have all the answers, don't you?

That is kind of a thought-terminating cliche, not really a question. Put another way, maybe you meant "you're very opinionated". Indeed, I am! You are too.

[denuseri]

way back in the day, or so my favorite american history professor would say, the Monitor used to report the news like this:

So and so on the following date at the following place and time said this: "whatever speach etc it was in its orriginal entirety" , no editorial comments no explanations that was it, the speakers words, no sumations , no "spin" etc,,,,,,,

that is why it originally achieved its stunning reputation as an unbiased news source

today the Monitor has a single page ussually dedicated to airing its own views on an issue, with a light religious overtone, if yu dont want to read it yu just skip to the next article,, i havent seen them use the "quote alone style" in thier reporting recently but that doesnt mean they have completely abandoned it eaither

i have seen them allow more reporters to editorialize pieces though, and they dont allways try to balance the piece with an opposing view point,

as far as political leanings i havent noticed the Monitor take a stance one way or the other (alltough the individual contributors sometimes do) and in that respect i think its one of the best newspapers out there and as non-partisan as it can be without resorting to thier old format (which my professor said was frankly a little lengthy and boreing as they didnt edit the reports)

i love the bbc and npr as well as colours television , pbs and link, all of which i get on satilite i also have several news blogs on my email page and i am an avid reader of a variety of books and information sources (though i will argue wikipedia is hardly a credible source as any tom dick and harry can amend whats in it) though wiki is trying to change that,,

of course an individuals perspective is dependent on a wide variety of things from the way they were raised to peer pressure ,to thier intelectual capacity etc etc, all parts of the whole,, i really dont believe any one person should be catagorized simply based on a single belief in a single topic or generalization,,, which is why it may sound like i snub ya if yu call me a radical, and i call ya one back (thats to anyone not any one)

the only way a news source could be completely "free" is if it was completely economically, culturally, politically and socially independent,

it would also have to be held to the highest ethical standards

these are things many claim (because who would claim not too) yet few approach

i have seen blatent bias in every majior news channel on tv even from cnn to fox, from msn to (my beloved) dailey show even cctv and yes on occasion bbc and npr (yes i find news on the dailey show sometimes more accurate than the regular channels)

the ultimate judge on your news is you,, take it or leave it, with or without the grain of salt

[John56{vg}]

i have seen them allow more reporters to editorialize pieces though, and they dont allways try to balance the piece with an opposing view point,


The Monitor received its reputation by doing great stories not just by regurgitating quotes. They have been a great newspaper for over 40 years.

Also, editorializing on the editorial page is perfectly legitimate and there is no need to have opposing viewpoints to editorials and opinion pieces.

And this brings up one of the MANY problems with FOX. They pride their lies and half-truths on the fact that they are "Fair and balanced." Meaning, to them it seems, that if you have some Liberal on you can say anything because you have an opposing viewpoint.

Objectivity is NOT balanced and not even fair a good part of the time. It is telling the truth of the situation as close to impartial as possible.

The way it was explained to me in J-school. If a serial killer is murdering people and he is discovered and tried and found guilty. His "side' of that issue is moot. Being fair would be him given voice to say how he lovede killing so he is not really at fault for anything.

Yes, the reporter may give us insight into why the man did it, but we do not have to give him voice to all his crazy "reasons."

And even though FOX news claims it is fair and balanced it is neither. Fox News is total fiction 99 per cent of the time.





the only way a news source could be completely "free" is if it was completely economically, culturally, politically and socially independent,


And even then personal bias would be at work. Don't get me wrong. Objectivity is almost impossible to achieve. But it is worth striving for and their ARE news organizations out there that are striving for that.





the ultimate judge on your news is you,, take it or leave it, with or without the grain of salt

I take exception to this because a person may look at the 700 club as their news source or FOX as their news source.

Any journalist can tell you those two are not valid news sources. An expert can help people refine their choices to include TRUTHFUL sources.

[Thorne]

a person may look at the 700 club as their news source or FOX as their news source.

Any journalist can tell you those two are not valid news sources. An expert can help people refine their choices to include TRUTHFUL sources.

It seems to me that ANY news source which happens to coincide, most of the time, with a person's own beliefs will always be considered valid by that person! Those news sources which tend toward the conservative side, such as FOX, are considered reliable and trustworthy by conservatives because they say what those conservatives want to hear. Those news sources which tend to be liberal are considered equally valid and reliable by liberals.

Claiming that FOX News "makes up 99%" of their stories is both irresponsible and unjustified. They would not hold on to their audience if that were true. What they MAY do, however, is only tell those parts of a story which focus on their own prejudices and agendas. This is true of ANY news media.

I'm often struck when reading articles in a newspaper or magazine by the fact that, whenever something particularly nasty and "juicy" occurs, reporters frequently claim that "so-and-so did not immediately return calls made to confirm or deny this story" or something to that effect. This tells me that the reporter or editor didn't want to print any dissenting views so they called after business hours, or at a time when no one was likely to answer and didn't wait for any return call. It's far more important to them to get the story out there, first, before someone comes along and tells the truth. Whether this is so or not I can't say, but that's what I feel when I see that, and I immediately suspect whatever story they are trying to sell me.

The only way you can hope to get the true story is to get it from many sources, both pro and con, and bet on the fact that the truth is somewhere in the middle.

[John56{vg}]

Of course they would hold their audience. COmpletely because, to their base they ARE telling them exactly what they want to hear.

AND there are a lot of news sources that focus on objectivity and not their own prejudices.

You are welcome to believe that FOX is telling the truth. A lot of misled people do believe this. But Roger Ailes is biased and the facts they DO cover ARE colored by their own prejudices.

But my point is that what FOX does is NOT news. There are few REAL journalists over there. And most experts will bear this out.

And to generalize that ALL news sources do what FOX does is irresponsible and totally unjustified.

And yes, that is the problem today. Many News organizations, are more concerned with getting the story out there quickly and beat the non-News orgs to the story. There was a time when Network News organizations were not messed with. But now they have to make a profit. Therefore most news orgs sensationalize and comment on the news like FOX does.

But to generalize and say everybody does it is wrong and unjustified. BBC does not, NPR is still fairly good at getting it right. But even they have responed to the false claims of a Liberal Bias and have backed off of stories to not leave that impression.

But Fox news is NOT to be trusted. It IS by a lot of people, but that doesn't mean that it is worth being trusted.

[denuseri]

this reminds me of mien kamf where hitler keeps repeating the same statement over and over in different ways every few paragraphs to make sure the propaganda sinks in

what i am saying is every single journalist out there regardless of the type of media he or she uses for comunication is not perfect and not being perfect does in fact weather inadvertantly or overtly taint the information they are reporting with a slant of some kind

even when they think they are not, and btw i wasnt talking about the editorial page which is purely an opinion piece earlier, i was talking about editorialized news stories, which is what editing is: when you change and report anything else than just the facts, reduce a statement considered news worthy or change in anyway the details even by omission of events occured, even routine sumarizations for space are a form of editoral use

now i get it you hate fox news,lol,, but i agree with Thorne on this one and i dont even watch fox news, the few times i did see it it was just like cnn or msnbc, same sheet different day,

and as far as a made up liberal slant for npr,,pfft, i dont care what one party or the other says about it, they are like a juicey version of pbs, except i can allways call in on a saterday morning to find out what is wrong with my car

[John56{vg}]

So the Hitler references come out. classic.

I only repeat myself when what I am saying is misinterpreted. You are welcome to believe what you want. ANd since you bring out propaganda and hitler references, just like with Virulent I will stop wasting my breath.

This all came about because I gave my expert opinion about valid News Sources. And I don't trust Fox News and never will. But not because I simply hate them. I have my reasons and it has to do with my profession. FOX has sullied the reputation of good strong journalists.

Roger Ailes and Rupert Murdoch have a major agenda. You belittle those that don't agree with you, I get it. But whether you believe it or not I know what I am talking about.

BUt why I am a wasting my breath. You are well-entrenched in your opinion and you WANT me to be wrong.

[John56{vg}]

I am so sorry everybody for giving my opinion of valid News Sources.

Evidently it doesn't matter where you get your news. As long as they are telling you what YOU want to believe in, then it is a good news source.

An expert opinion will just get you into trouble because they might say some things that don't meet your view of how things are.

Truth and objectivity don't matter, only that they can give you what YOU want to hear.

[Thorne]

I am so sorry everybody for giving my opinion of valid News Sources.

Evidently it doesn't matter where you get your news. As long as they are telling you what YOU want to believe in, then it is a good news source.

An expert opinion will just get you into trouble because they might say some things that don't meet your view of how things are.

Truth and objectivity don't matter, only that they can give you what YOU want to hear.
John, I wasn't disagreeing with you about Fox. In fact, I do agree, though perhaps not as vehemently as you would like. Their straight news programs are relatively truthful even though they are biased and slanted towards the conservative viewpoint. Those other programs, such as Hannity's, are NOT news programs. They are, without apology, politically motivated.

What I was trying to say, and thought I had said, is that, to one degree or another, ALL news sources are biased, at least somewhat. Some are more-so than others, true, but they are all guilty of the same thing. That's why I said people should get their news from many sources, and not depend on just one or two which feel comfortable.

And, while you may be an expert witness in this issue, it is obvious that you bring your own prejudices into this discussion. There's nothing wrong with that, we all do it. It's natural. Just try to understand that other's don't necessarily see things in the exact same light. That doesn't make them wrong, just different.

[Logic1]

Personally I like to get as unbiased and in depth news as possible. I dont care much for the 2 minute news and then jump to another topic.
Also there is a HUGE difference between different news sources in how biased and trustworthy they in fact are.
BBC has great news and so does Swedish tax paid news but there are some not so great news sources in both Britain and Sweden alike just like there are in the US.
I used to get Fox news (as a mistake by the cable company :p) for about 6 months and to me those news were a joke.
CNN is decent compared to that but still were talking about 2 minute stints about something and then jump to something different and no real in depth information about anything really.
I dont really care if the news isnt to my liking opinionwise but as long as it is solid news, trustworthy and to the point.
Every news is going to be slanted somewhat but as I said, there is a huge difference between the different news agencies, newspapers and tv news.

What I find kinda funny is how little of international news you get in the US when you look through some US newspapers. The news is pretty much US only. Isn´t the american people interested in news that isnt domestic?

gotto love a good discussion. Kinda strange though that a discussion that started off at waterboarding continued on to be about what is news and not :p

[claire]

Logic1, you are right, as far as American news sources go, the rest of the world doesn't exist or at least rarely and you can totally forget about the southern hemisphere. Again another reason why I like the BBC.

All good conversations drift from their original topic.

[Logic1]

Logic1, you are right, as far as American news sources go, the rest of the world doesn't exist or at least rarely and you can totally forget about the southern hemisphere. Again another reason why I like the BBC.

All good conversations drift from their original topic.

Why is that?. I mean I know you will find news from Iraq or Afghanistan since you have an interest there so to speak but the rest of the world?
Isnt the american populace interested in what is happening or is the domestic news "enough".
I know that it would be simple enough to just write about what happens in this town only, that has less than 300k inhabitants and still make a decent enough newspaper but people here actually wants to hear/read/know what happens around them.

Drifting further away happily ^^

[claire]

Why is that?. I mean I know you will find news from Iraq or Afghanistan since you have an interest there so to speak but the rest of the world?
Isnt the american populace interested in what is happening or is the domestic news "enough".
I know that it would be simple enough to just write about what happens in this town only, that has less than 300k inhabitants and still make a decent enough newspaper but people here actually wants to hear/read/know what happens around them.

Drifting further away happily ^^

I don't think there is a simple answer to that question. I think you are partially right about there being enough domestic news. Europe and the USA are very roughly the same size - about 10,000,000 km2 (4,000,000 sq mi). Our largest state, Texas, is about the same size as the largest country in western Europe - France at roughly 700,000 km2 (260,000 sq mi). We are so used to being surrounded by people who are more or less of the same culture and speak the same language, that we forget about what else is out there. Also I think Europeans got used to having interests in the rest of the globe during the colonial period and that interest and awareness has stuck.

Hopefully the elections this fall will give us an administration that will be willing to work with the rest of the world, rather than the spoiled brat, self centered approach we've had for the last 8 years. Then perhaps we and our news media will realize that there are other people out there and that they matter very very much. Whether we like it or not we are going to have to learn to share and get along.

[denuseri]

sorry you feel that way John the hitler reference wasnt "aimed" at you specifically so much as i was making a observation about everyones tendency to say the same things over and over again in a very emotional manner, if i wanted to bring such an allegation to your doorstep i would do so with verve and put your name on it, i will say however that it seems you only seem to want to state your opinion and then jump on anyone that disagrees, which is a typical human response,

well as far as international news i have seen a tendencey in smaller countires to kind of, hold a few sources for themselve and then just adopt a larger countires majior news for thier own outlets like in japan you got three channels in japanese and one in english at least when i lived there,

i also have noticed most countries ussually have news channels and or papers in thier own language and not much to offer in any tounge forgien to thier own , which is quite natural
the news sources available to americans are actually pretty broad, i can get information in a very wide variety of languages and from a wide variety of countries, especially on sattelite dish, not to mention the internet,, and if i could read arabic or russian i am sure i could find publications if i wanted too from those areas, you just have to look for them because they are not right up in your face like cnn or fox

main stream media in every country has a tendency to cater to thier audience,, i dont go to japan expecting to see stories on the usa all the time etc,

though i do agree with claire in that i think the majority of americans dont pay attention to any news other than what the big mainstream media scources are presenting them,
which is ussually the case in everycountires population to some degree which may indeed be changeing as populations become more cosmopolitain and people expand thier intrests outside thier own boarders more often

which brings us to eurocentric thinking and how america has adopted this tendency by proxy as scions of their european forefathers,

hows that for a possible thread drift?

[John56{vg}]

I promised myself I wouldn't post but I won't let this stand. Reading back over the thread it becomes VERY obvious where the Hitler reference was aimed.

[Virulent]

I promised myself I wouldn't post but I won't let this stand. Reading back over the thread it becomes VERY obvious where the Hitler reference was aimed.

If you think its obvious, then you must see the reasoning behind it; you do repeat your claims quite a bit. I don't understand why the correlation seems to concern you so much. The fact that Hitler was repetitious has nothing to do with why he is vilified.

I'm a non-smoking white male vegetarian of north European extraction; so was Hitler. Ergo, it is perfectly accurate to say that I have an awful lot in common with Hitler! Despite that, I am not a genocidal fascist.


just like with Virulent I will stop wasting my breath.

I don't understand this either. I think I've been pretty civil; further, I'm not making esoteric claims, but rather asking concrete, refutable questions. I do appreciate that you won't answer them though, and I respect your choice. For what it's worth, I am sorry that I've offended you, it was never my intention.

[denuseri]

pauses on my way out to whipe the mud off my legs

i am sorry if you feel like it was aimed at you John,, mabey you identify with it too much for some reason idk (i have heard of stranger fetishes)but it wasnt directed at any one individual just because it was the intro to the post i made with it or that that post came in line right after your own, doesnt mean it was a respomse to something specific you or anyone else said, and you have of course reineforced the observation i made in the pervious post, so thanks for jumping on it and asssuming again, it simply goes to prove the points i made about knee jerk human responses

wouldnt you rather discuss the issues instead of focusing on personal aminosity?

or should the thread drift to a disscussion on mud slinging?

which is an interesting political tradition started back in the early days of the U.S. congress, the captial building in those days had wooden stairs underwhich the oposition party would hide and sling mud on to the backs of the other sides legs after they adjourned from a successful vote

[Virulent]

which is an interesting political tradition started back in the early days of the U.S. congress, the captial building in those days had wooden stairs underwhich the oposition party would hide and sling mud on to the backs of the other sides legs after they adjourned from a successful vote

How sad it is that we've fallen so far.

On a related note, I read a hilarious anecdote the other day... Zimbabwe is now 28 years old, and is indeed having some problems. When the United States was 28 years old, the vice president challenged the secretary of the treasury to a duel, and blew him away.

[Kuskovian]

LOL. Excellent point Virulent.

I do believe that Mr Burr went on to attempt the formation of a seperate country in the west after a debachle over the election of Jefferson over him for President.

Well one might say appointment as the actual vote was so close congress had to choose one cantidate over the other.

Not the first time an election was controvesial.

I have said too much about water boarding in another thread.

I will say this about journalists though, they are sophists by any other name.

[John56{vg}]

If you think its obvious, then you must see the reasoning behind it; you do repeat your claims quite a bit. I don't understand why the correlation seems to concern you so much. The fact that Hitler was repetitious has nothing to do with why he is vilified.

I'm a non-smoking white male vegetarian of north European extraction; so was Hitler. Ergo, it is perfectly accurate to say that I have an awful lot in common with Hitler! Despite that, I am not a genocidal fascist.



I don't understand this either. I think I've been pretty civil; further, I'm not making esoteric claims, but rather asking concrete, refutable questions. I do appreciate that you won't answer them though, and I respect your choice. For what it's worth, I am sorry that I've offended you, it was never my intention.

Again I find it necessary to respond. I have answered eveything you have asked. I explained why the BBC and NPR are two good news sources. You not accepting those answers is not the question. So your assumption is wrong IMHO.

And if I repeat myself it is because what I have said has been misinterpreted and misrepresented because of the prejudices of the posters. I have written THIS before. I DO have strong opinions and I don't like repeating myself. But if I am misrepresented I will answer that charge even if it means repeating myself.

[denuseri]

dejavu is a sign that they have altered somthing with the matrix

[Virulent]

I have answered eveything you have asked

One, in particular you did not answer that I was wondering how you explained is below; I think this came after you started giving me the silent treatment.


Do you remember when the BBC reported that Tony Blair's statement that Iraq could have WMDs ready in 45 minutes was exaggerated? Do you remember how Tony Blair got really angry, and then the chairman and director general of the BBC both resigned, and its vice-chairman publicly apologized?

Why were they sorry? Was it in fact true that Iraq could have WMDs ready in 45 minutes? If a news source made a factual criticism (and, as we all know, a massively understated one), and then people got angry... and members of the staff were fired... doesn't that demonstrate that the angry people have some sort of executive oversight?

I really don't know how to interpret the above, recent example except by concluding that people at the BBC should be afraid of losing their livelihoods if they challenge the government line.

[mkemse]

Me too; I hope "they" make it mandatory.

I don't have much affinity for politics personally. In America in particular, citizens have the luxury of choosing between any of the candidates that the capitalist politburo decides to field. Now available in multiple hues!

There is a reason why Ann Coulter and Dianne Feinstein are so hilarious - because they're in the entertainment business.

By the way John - both of your favorite news outlets are owned by governments and paid for by compulsory taxation?

I beg to differ, Anyone over the Age of 35, that is a Natural Citizen of The United States, by that it simply means any person Born in the United States and is born as a citizen and not Naturalized, can run for President which is 1 reason the Gov Of California could never run unlress the Constitution was changed , it is the American Electorae through Primaries that ultimately Decide which 2, 3 or 4 Perosn's actualy run in the gneral election, the Politcal Parties are simply an affiliation and do not dictate who runs in for thier Party, The Republican had countless Candidates which dwindeled down to a few as the Primary season continued, The Democrats the same scenrio, Neither Party dictated who would run, who could run or who could not run, this was decided by the Individuals and the Americna People utlimately decided who they wanted to run in each Party, so the Field of Contenders is based on who wants to Run andwho the American People decide to vote for, Neither the Repulican or Democratic Party make this decison til after the Coventions when the "Nonine In Waiting" is made offical, also if they can get enough support we have had many election with a Third Party Candidate not dictated by either Major Party
but you offer great comments

[mkemse]

The Main Problem with WAterboarding is even if those subjected to it say things how is anyone to know what they say is true and they aren't just saying it to save thir own lives??

[Alex Bragi]

While everyone here is entitled to express their opinions within the guidelines of this forum no one is, or should ever feel, obliged to respond to questions put them directly.

Anyone not wishing to respond to questions put to them, directly, should be respected and not goaded into responding.

I think portions of this thread have gone way past thread drift, so let's move back to the original topic, please.

[mkemse]

thank you

[gagged_Louise]

Great clip and essay. I heard about this a week ago and have watched it at VF's website a few times. It's especially valid that Hitchens is the one doing the demonstration because no one could suspect him of wishing to exonerate the prisoners at Gitmo who have to face that method. "If this isn't torture, then nothing is" - damn right.

[Virulent]

While everyone here is entitled to express their opinions within the guidelines of this forum no one is, or should ever feel, obliged to respond to questions put them directly.

Absolutely! John56, if you thought I was attempting to pressure you to respond to my question above, I apologize for that misconception. By no means would I want to compel you to do anything. I was just pointing out that you hadn't, since you noted that you had answered all of my questions, in case you wanted to answer that one, for your own purposes.

[John56{vg}]

Absolutely! John56, if you thought I was attempting to pressure you to respond to my question above, I apologize for that misconception. By no means would I want to compel you to do anything. I was just pointing out that you hadn't, since you noted that you had answered all of my questions, in case you wanted to answer that one, for your own purposes.

LOL, I guess the goading never stops. And I never posted anything about your goading me, the quote you referenced was from Alex.

I didn't answer every single posting of yours because you have your opinion and you are not going to change it so really, why continue to argue.

Oh look, I have to repeat myself again, I am liable to hear about THAT again I guess, Oh my, whatever will I do.

I DID answer your questions, saying that the BBC and NPR are too of the BEST not the perfect News entities. And the single incident you expressed happened because of the same problem that has hobbled CORPORATE news entities in this country.

Politics was allowed to grasp control of the Media outlets and use its influence. Same thing has happened here, Respected and objective News Anchor Dan Rather was ousted as scapegoat by a COrporately owned media outlet. Why, because of a political party influencing a story.

Happens a lot in little dictatorships around the world. But letting it happen in countries like the U.K and THe U.S. is scary.

But it DOES NOT change the fact that the BBC attempts to stand fast against those forces attempting to change it. Is it PERFECT, Not at all, but it still works. Or do you think we should throw out anything that is not perfect and doesn't make mistakes?

(That was rhetorical, I don't need an answer. :-) )

Now, just to let you know will be the last question I answer about this. Just so there won't be any misunderstandings.

[denuseri]

lol, dan rather screwed up on national tv and it wasnt the first time of course he wasnt president at the time and able to squirm out of it like a certian former gov from arkansas

frankly i was shocked anything happened at all,

he needed to retire years ago,, but really who's fault was it that he didnt get his scources checked? i mean a big tv station like that one yu would think they have a whole staff to check scources, of course the push to get anything remotely controvesial out for the rateings ussually outwieghs most facts now days especially
with television

as for the waterboarding, we filled up a whole threads worth of posts on it in the is waterboarding torture thread, i am against and allways will be period, and so is my husband too, the usa should not condone torture of any kind and as my owner said in a previous post on the other thread, the survival instructors (which he was one) when teaching resistence techniques to our piolts dont mince words when they talk about waterboarding they call it what it is, ....torture

[John56{vg}]

Dan Rather was scapegoated by the network. He was a good reporter. And if he "needed" to retire, what does that say about John McCain. It may be your opinion that he should have retired, but many who believed in honest journalism did not.

The facts were correct, the documents MAY have been falsified, but the facts of Bush's "service" were well known by those he served under and with.

And Mr. Rather has NOT retired he is still a respected TV journalist, he just went to a different network. But he WAS scapegoated. And the facts were irrefutable, might do a little a research. Research is always a good thing to do on any story one hears. So very easy to get your facts wrong.

[denuseri]

oooo a conspirisy

smh lol, muhahahahaha

but really what has this or that got to do with toutrue and waterboarding (you know the threads topic)

or is it tourture to type so much back and forth

a little berevity to lighten things up it was like three card monty with no money card in here,,,

unless the point is to express by thread drift some kind of corolation between the governmemts propencity to try and dominate the media into doing its will /to the fact that we even know this trajic stuff involving waterboarding and other tourtures has occured/ to the media mabey having gainned ground in the struggle recently vs the gov. for our first amendment rights, which is a bipartisan effort on both sides and alltough may also be political in its nature (the struggle) doesnt change the fact that they are still torturing people

[Virulent]

the point is to express by thread drift some kind of corolation between the governmemts propencity to try and dominate the media into doing its will/to the fact that we even know this trajic stuff involving waterboarding and other tourtures has occured

Thread drift is a metaphor for government disinformation? So would this then be Driftgate? ;)

[John56{vg}]

A little levity now for the obfuscation. Make a unsupportable statement and then call foul because the response to the off-topic unsupportable statement was not on topic.

Brilliant three card monte play.

[Logic1]

The US prosecuted their soldiers and officers during Vietnam for waterboarding their prisoners. Why was it outlawed then and a good tactic now?

[mkemse]

The US prosecuted their soldiers and officers during Vietnam for waterboarding their prisoners. Why was it outlawed then and a good tactic now?

I agree with you

At the current time, there appears to be 2 sets of Rules and Regulations, International Laws and The Geneva Convention,, then we have the Bush Laws which apparently allows ANYTHING regardlss of the previous 2
My best assumption is that now, our current leaders set their own rules and regulations, with no regard to Laws or the Geneva Covention, it seems to me no matter what they do, it is ALWAYS done as they put it, in the "Interest Of National Security"
Not sure if this is relevent to this or not, but even Carl Rove House again, refused to Testify by Subpoena before Congress, Bush said he refeses to let Rove testify citing executive Privledge "In The Intrest Of National Security"
It will be intersting to see if Congress holds Rove in contempt or not or if the White House again, invokes uses it's "Executive Privledge" to get around this, keeping in mind now that Rove is not even an employee of the Goverment anymore or the White House in any event

But this is just my opinion

[mkemse]

Also, if I am not mistaken, Bush has invoked "Excective Privledge" or "In The Interest Of National Security" to skirt issues, more then any other Presdient in US History,ect please correct me if I am wrong on this

[Kuskovian]

You might be right there mkemse.

Though its possible he is a close second to Jefferson and mabey even Wilson in that department. Those two went outside the letter of the law every chance they got. It was called implied powers back then, of course with out Jeffersons many improprietes, the Surpreme Court's function to determine Constitutionality wouldn't exist.

Speaking of which the courts are allready getting into Bush's little indescritions conserning constitutional law and implied powers so we may see some more landmark decissions soon.

One thing that never changes:

I haven't heard a single well supported or reaserched statement from the co called experts of obsfucation (the journalists) since they came on the scene.
Thier idea of reaserch is to spout out thier prefered party's dogma like so much gibberish and then act offended if anyone says anything to the contrary dems and republicans alike.
They keep resonding like a yo yo, reactionist and lacking any real vision or understanding, one retort after another.

Look at one of the most famous journalists: William Randolph Herst

Herst told his reporters to give him a story any story weather true or not and he would make the war with cuba happen. Sad thing was he did he set the bar high for his posterity in weaving crapola to the poor ignorant massess.

Just goes to show that sophism is alive and well today, with every thing every journalist ever does.

Thier attempts to control the massess know no boundaries. If they can't win one way they resort to any means they can find. Especially character deformation, they specialize in that one, it's thier favorite.

Lucky us though if we ever have another revolution they will be the first to the fireing squads , just like the lawyers.

[mkemse]

You might be right there mkemse.

Though its possible he is a close second to Jefferson and mabey even Wilson in that department. Those two went outside the letter of the law every chance they got. It was called implied powers back then, of course with out Jeffersons many improprietes, the Surpreme Court's function to determine Constitutionality wouldn't exist.

Speaking of which the courts are allready getting into Bush's little indescritions conserning constitutional law and implied powers so we may see some more landmark decissions soon.

One thing that never changes:

I haven't heard a single well supported or reaserched statement from the co called experts of obsfucation (the journalists) since they came on the scene.
Thier idea of reaserch is to spout out thier prefered party's dogma like so much gibberish and then act offended if anyone says anything to the contrary dems and republicans alike.
They keep resonding like a yo yo, reactionist and lacking any real vision or understanding, one retort after another.

Look at one of the most famous journalists: William Randolph Herst

Herst told his reporters to give him a story any story weather true or not and he would make the war with cuba happen. Sad thing was he did he set the bar high for his posterity in weaving crapola to the poor ignorant massess.

Just goes to show that sophism is alive and well today, with every thing every journalist ever does.

Thier attempts to control the massess know no boundaries. If they can't win one way they resort to any means they can find. Especially character deformation, they specialize in that one, it's thier favorite.

Lucky us though if we ever have another revolution they will be the first to the fireing squads , just like the lawyers.

The other issue also is that when ask about Waterboarding or anything else "illegal" in context, if Bush does not use "Executive Pridlege" to skirt the issue he will say he can't discuss in the Name of National Security, it is or seems with his to almost always be 1 or the other, as i mentioned above, right now wehave 3 sets of Laws, The Constitution, The Geneva Convention and what ever Bush feels suits him best

[mkemse]

I also love the fact that, Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac are in Trouble, forclosure are at historic highs we had another bank close, gas is $4+ a gallon, GM is is serious trouble, the stock market is under 11,000 for the frist time in 2 maybe 3 years and Bush says "Our Economy is sound" if it is, i would like to know what sector he is speaking of

[mkemse]

also least we forget he also invoked "Excutive Priveldge" when Harriet Meyes was asked to appear before Congress to answer question and refused "In The Name Of National Security" to allow her to testify

And I apologize i am straying badly from the theme of the thread

[John56{vg}]

FIrst of all William Randolph Hearst (that is the correct spelling) was not a journalist, he was a publisher. Sort of the Rupert Murdoch of his time. He made the news and forced the "jounalists" to write what HE wanted. He created, singlehandedly, the Spanish_American War. Again, his papers INVENTED Yellow Journalism. But not a journalist, again, research would tell you this.

I won't take my time to find references unless I am sure someone has the open-minded to actually read the research.

But the opinion expressed here by some has been that ALL journalists are liars. And back-up goes both ways. If you can prove the wild claims made then please do so. But wild claims and prejudicial generalizations will get you nothing and nowhere.

But the silliness is wildly entertaining.

[mkemse]

FIrst of all William Randolph Hearst (that is the correct spelling) was not a journalist, he was a publisher. Sort of the Rupert Murdoch of his time. He made the news and forced the "jounalists" to write what HE wanted. He created, singlehandedly, the Spanish_American War. Again, his papers INVENTED Yellow Journalism. But not a journalist, again, research would tell you this.

I won't take my time to find references unless I am sure someone has the open-minded to actually read the research.

But the opinion expressed here by some has been that ALL journalists are liars. And back-up goes both ways. If you can prove the wild claims made then please do so. But wild claims and prejudicial generalizations will get you nothing and nowhere.

But the silliness is wildly entertaining.


actualy he was a journalst and publisher both

Read complete books and articles on: William Randolph Hearst
Hearst, William Randolph - 1863–1951, American journalist and publisher, b. San Francisco. A flamboyant, highly controversial figure, Hearst was nonetheless an intelligent and extremely competent newspaperman. During his lifetime he established a vast publishing empire that included 18 newspapers in 12 cities and 9 successful magazines. Although he sometimes manipulated the news, Hearst

unless this person listed above is different from your refernece

[Virulent]

Lucky us though if we ever have another revolution they will be the first to the fireing squads , just like the lawyers.

I will continue drinking to that! But don't stop there by any means...

[denuseri]

reaserch reaserch reaserch, pow pow pow ,like ducks in a barrel

thanku mkemse for that referenced post for the doubters

well worth the laugh lining that one up



it allways pays to know what you speak of before you speak

sad thing is the so called journalists and the media empire they both work for and helped build, (the richest of which reap incredible benifits there of ,to rival any multi hundred million dollar over earning ceo); will probably let (quite on purpose) trivial issues such as the cartoon in the new yorker, overshadow the fact that all Americans are loosing something of great value every single time another person is tortured by our hands

but for them the issue of torture is just another way to make more ratings, to earn another buck or two

the next time it will be a story on paris hilton or some other celeb that will catch thier eye like fish to a lure

[mkemse]

reaserch reaserch reaserch, pow pow pow ,like ducks in a barrel

thanku mkemse for that referenced post for the doubters

well worth the laugh lining that one up



it allways pays to know what you speak of before you speak

sad thing is the so called journalists and the media empire they both work for and helped build, (the richest of which reap incredible benifits there of ,to rival any multi hundred million dollar over earning ceo); will probably let (quite on purpose) trivial issues such as the cartoon in the new yorker, overshadow the fact that all Americans are loosing something of great value every single time another person is tortured by our hands

but for them the issue of torture is just another way to make more ratings, to earn another buck or two

the next time it will be a story on paris hilton or some other celeb that will catch thier eye like fish to a lure

Oh man, i was hoping to go all of 2008 and beyond without ANY reference to Paris Hilton,

btw did you know it is so hard to get into the Paris Hilton... so i went to the local Ramada Inn instead :)

[thedominthehat]

It does not matter what the enemy does. We are fighting a few thousand illiterate thugs and a handful of rich brats of oil barons that have fashioned themselves as religious fanatics. Just as they believe that it is acceptable to bomb a school, to murder a child, to torture and steal and rape in order to further their political goals, we must be even more determined in our belief that none of those crimes is acceptable. We must be more determined in our pursuit of justice than our enemy is to implement injustice, more determined to practice liberty than our enemy is to implement tyranny.

To torture, to target innocents, to stoop to their level will not bring victory because it is surrender. The Constitution is not an acceptable loss in this war. The moral highground cannot be surrendered, no matter the cost. We cannot win this war with bombs and bullets and waterboarding but rather with strength of will, with the courage of our convictions, by honoring the ideas that made us strong. Our soldiers knew what they were signing on for. They volunteered to risk their lives. That cannot be said for the completely innocent man, Maher Arar, on his way back to Canada, seized at a stopover in NYC, and sent to Syria to be tortured for a year. Even his interrogators concluded he knew nothing. He was as innocent as any of the people in the twin towers. If we allow ourselves to dismiss his suffering as mere collateral damage in some great campaign, then what is left of us? We will have become all that we despise.

[VaAugusta]

I don't have the time to read through everyone's post, so sorry if it was already mentioned, but waterboarding can lead to severe mental problems in the future. People have claimed to wake up with the feeling of suffocation and similar experiences from waterboarding. I say this since some people seemed interested in having it done to them when it isn't a one time torture situation but can become a future problem as well.