Watch Christopher Hitchens Get Waterboarded

[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.