Worst Person in The World analysis March 31st 2009

[therrydicule]

Everybody know that forcing people to go in rehab don't work, because the persons do not see they have a problem. You cannot fix something you don't know it's broke.

But on number 2, I think O'Reilly made it easy to make fun of himself... The question I ask is...Why Bill-o say he will not go in Spain? This does not make anything ;) I think he should have say that he did not agree with this choice...

[johnedwards1968]

I'd like to thank you for the polite discourse. It's obvious we have different viewpoints on these things, but at least you've been respectful. I hope I haven't said anything too offensive.

[gamingeagle19]

No you haven't said anything too bad. At first I thought it would turn sour but it didn't so that's good.

[gamingeagle19]

He never saw anything out of the ordinary. It looked like a prison. Basketball court, food, tv, books. They just had the obvious extra rooms for interrogation. But they didn't do it to everyone. Only the few that were determined to be part of Al-queda.

[johnedwards1968]

Fair enough! I don't really think that someone in that situation would be shown 'enhanced interrogation' techniques or equipment, but whatever.

Bill O'Reilly has consistently defended those techniques, and much worse, and so he can hardly be relied upon as an independant examiner.

My final point on this whole thing, is that the intelligence agencies determined any information they got from those techniques was LESS than useless(from Khalid Sheik Mohammed). It lead to false leads.

[ObamaWatch1212]

He makes $7.5 million to be #3 in cable news at 8 PM.

[jp3711nc1]

Let me guess republican republicans republicans not the democrats who spent trillions of your children money. So Democrats are the pure white as snow in his book and republicans are the evil devil ya right.

[johnedwards1968]

If terrorists have caused you to change your morals, then the terrorists have already won.

[gamingeagle19]

Well actually I think they've won if we go easy on them. I'm not 100 percent sure about the whole "torture" thing. I don't know enough.

[johnedwards1968]

That's just the kind of response a corrupt government wants you to have.

Think about it. If someone strapped you to a board, and dunked you in water to make you think you were drowning, would you think you were being tortured?

It's not complicated! It's torture and it's illegal under US laws.

[gamingeagle19]

corrupt government huh. Okay pal. And the difference between me and the people you want us to play kissy with aren't American, have killed countless civilians including women and children, and also shot at and killed our troops and everyone elses. Sorry if I don't pity them more.

[johnedwards1968]

That's a lame arguement dude.

Never once did I say that they were good guys, or that anyone should play kissy with them. You're missing the point.

I want Americans to be the GOOD GUYS! And torturing doesn't allow that. I mean really! North Korea uses Guantanimo as a justification for the way they treat their prisoners now. What does that tell you about the kind of behaviour you're endorsing. Or are North Korea the good guys too now?

[johnedwards1968]

If you really believe any of that, put them in court, and show the evidence. Bush released a bunch of people from gitmo, so obviously they're not all guilty of the crimes you're describing.

America is at it's strongest when it follows it's own rules. When it doesn't, it's no longer America!

[gamingeagle19]

Yeah, they investigate them and if nothing is wrong then they are let go. I don't think they do anything to people until they know they are a part of something. Other than that it's just a normal prison.

[johnedwards1968]

The distinction is, it takes 7 YEARS to let them go.

Now look, I fully get that you don't see these detainees as "people" because they're not American. That's the only reason you could possibly justify torture and unproven incarceration! Try to put yourself in their shoes.

[melowar78]

I don't think Keith really believes people like O'Reilly are the "worst people in the world" I thinks its prob a little exaggeration like a joke. Alot of people (like me) find it laughable that O'Reilly thinks anyone in Spain gives a shit if he geos there or not. Yeah he showed them! Maybe Olbermann should change the title of the segment to "worst people in America".

[johnedwards1968]

Of course Olberman doesn't believe O'Reilly is the worst person in the world. It's generally a light hearted joking around segment, making fun of some stupid comment or another.

[gamingeagle19]

Actually I think he does. He seems to despise O'Reilly. I also think it's because O'Reilly comes on at his timeslot. So he tries everything he can in order to ruin O'Reilly's character even resulting to distorting comments, or taking them out of context. He ignores anything good that Bill does and even turns it into something bad like I pointed in my 3/30/09 analysis.

[johnedwards1968]

Some of what Olbermann is doing is just for ratings.

It's part of the game, and O'Reilly is definitely not an innocent here. He used to pull the same shit with Al Franken, just not as succesfully.

O'Reilly is constantly pulling stuff Obama says out of context, and I don't see you slamming him for it. I saw him cut excerpts out of a speech Obama made in Europe, to make it look like he was running down America.

The full speech showed nothing like that.

Blitzkrieg journalism! lol

[gamingeagle19]

O'Reilly doesn't go after Obama. He just thinks that Obama is trying to hard to make America look weak so he will get more support. He showed the same clips that most others used. He just interpreted them differently. He doesn't hate Obama and doesn't go after him much.

As for the detainees, I brought up the American part because people think they have a right to our civilian courts for trials. Thats for Americans not for terrorists. They get military tribunals. Let them live with that.

[johnedwards1968]

No No NO! You don't get off that easy. O'Reilly deliberately cut out the criticism of Europe to make it SOUND as if Obama was running down America. I respect you having a different opinion, but at least BE HONEST!

If they get military tribunals, then they are prisoners of war, and must be treated as such.  I'm not trying to beat a dead horse here, just showing you the problems with a military action, which is outside of a formal declaration of war.

[johnedwards1968]

The other point I would bring up is this. If a foreigner commits a crime in the United States, where do they stand trial??? Of course the US courts are not just for US citizens. That's a laughable proposition.

[gamingeagle19]

Look, I haven't heard the entire speech that Obama made. Bill said he some great moments in the speech and showed those but he didn't like how he massaged Europe's ego in an attempt to get their support but he didn't bash Obama for it. As for your last point, if a foreigner commits a crime here they get extradicted back to that country. If a mexican illegal immigrant gets caught they have a hearing to determine what happens to them but they don't get a trial.

[johnedwards1968]

I didn't know that. I just assumed the US had the same rules as Canada!

Here we prosecute for internal crimes, no matter what the origin of the criminal. If an American committed murder in Canada, he would stand trial here. We only use extradition to get rid of criminals who commit crimes in their own/other countries!

Are you sure your justice system is different?

[gamingeagle19]

actually I think I got it mixed up.

"We only use extradition to get rid of criminals who commit crimes in their own/other countries!"

I think that's what I'm thinking of.

I think another reason that people like Gitmo is because if some of the terrorists were to escape while on American soil then they could do damage. Every person that has actually visited Gitmo hasn't reported any misconduct. O'Reilly has been a few times and took an extensive tour.>>>

[melowar78]

Olbermann is just exposing the arrogance, ignorance and the blind hypocrisy of these people. I don't know if you consider yourself a christian or not but I'm sure you'll say your a proud American right? Well if America wants to be the "leaders of the free world" and the "beacon of hope" we better start setting the example don't you think? Under no circumstance is it morally justified for any gov to permit torture or to hold people prisoner without trial. Its UNAMERICAN!

[gamingeagle19]

Regardless these people are dangerous and could have valuable information and aren't just going to give it up. We have to do something. Water boarding is one of the tamest forms of coerce interrogation and rarely results in physical injury. If we are deprived of that we have nothing left at all. The UN even considers playing loud music torture.

[johnedwards1968]

Water boarding was considered torture when the Japanese did it to US soldiers!

If it was torture then, then it's torture now.

This arguement is ridiculous.

[dodochipmunk]

Great video as usual, good analysis. One thing I wanted to point out though. I don't think I agree on the mandatory rehabilitation centers. First off, in order for rehabilitation to work, the people must be truly determined and focused on fixing their addiction problem. Otherwise, it's just a waste of time. Also making it mandatory would increase taxes because someone would have to pay for the more people enrolled in these centers. So I don't think they should be made mandatory.

[hossdsc]

So you want to take people's rights away from them.

Whaaaa. Why did Bill say it at all?? Who cares were he goes, and why is it news??

How much did u donate? You should get the exact # by the way.

The thing he wants him to do is to keep his beleafs out of the govenment.... it's the separation thing in the constitution.

[gamingeagle19]

I will find the exact number later. I'm busy today.

[highway234]

according to the arguments i'm reading on this board, as long as the victims aren't wearing military uniforms apparently you can torture anyone you want. so go nuts.

it's happy hour for torture! whee!

i can't wait to hear what you guys come up with to justify wholesale rape.

[fallstoofar]

Don't tell us tell Obama this is his Att. General speaking.

[stayhard44]

what if i was a Iraq citizen....and i took Dick Cheney and "waterboarded" him coz i felt like he started a unnecessary war in my country. dont u think that Bush would have been screaming torture?

[fallstoofar]

staysoft44 go away this is an intelligent discussion. You would easily be left behind. Go play with your friends before it is time for bed. tsk tsk.

[stayhard44]

fallstooface ill go to bed with ur mom very soon....but for now ...i think u dont read the Geneva Convention just Bush didnt

[stayhard44]

they broke international laws...PEROID! American signed a treaty...

the U.S. cant save u from the Geneva Convention

[gamingeagle19]

Umm...okay?

[thisabclovesmetal]

He said 6 people because in his mind that included both Bush and Cheney. And yea, he was never aware that the guy in charge was in prison for helping terrorists.

Honestly, I'd rather see him fall on his face with a fail joke about Beck or Rush than about his personal vendetta against Bill. Also he should hug a tree when he's going "In the Woooooorld! it's hot..."

[gamingeagle19]

Ah look someone gave me a 1. *sad face* Probably some Olbermann addict that thinks he is god or something.

[highway234]

guilty as charged.

[gamingeagle19]

Ah that was mean.

[highway234]

don't take it too hard. you don't wanna just get five-stars all the time, means you're not edgy enough.

haha, now i feel sorta guilty. you actually made a pretty decent point about the singapore thing, i'll give you that one.

[gamingeagle19]

thank you kind sir.

[highway234]

i think i can help on why the spain thing gets bill-o worst person. the question is whether bush et al. committed torture, but i think it's pretty obvious they did. otherwise why do we keep hearing "ticking-time-bomb" arguments and conservatives argue that torture works? they wouldn't need to if the administration hadn't done it.

thing is, you can argue whether it's justified but it's against international law. period. so billo is mad at spain for trying to enforce the law. hence: worlds worst.

[gamingeagle19]

Well not everyone calls it torture and Spain has no reason to go after Bush. People are already trying here. It's pointless and stupid. Whether it's justified or not it's still a rather dull reason for WPITW. There are so many worse things he could put on that list. He just likes going after Bill.

[highway234]

not everyone calls it torture, but that's not my point. why are the republicans arguing that torture works and hyping the ticking-time-bomb question if the administration didn't engage in torture? even the people who are trying to defend the administration are tacitly admitting what they did was torture, by defending torture rather than denying he engaged in it.

anyway, the evidence is definitely enough to investigate whether the admin engaged in torture. spain totally did the right thing.

[gamingeagle19]

enough evidence. Sure. But I think they have tried to indict them before several times and it hasn't worked so obviously something isn't holding it back. There is probably more to it. As for Spain, they need to stay out of our affairs. It doesn't concern them.

[fallstoofar]

I never in my life have heard one Republican say "torture works" I have heard Republicans/Conservatives say things such as coerced interrogations such as water boarding work (and this has been the opinion of many interrogators as well) but many people (I am one of them) do not believe this is torture. Sounds like you are putting words in peoples mouths.

[highway234]

the japanese were prosecuted and executed for practicing waterboarding after world war ii. waterboarding is mock execution, and mock execution is most definitely torture according to international law. the US believed this along with the rest of the world until the bush administration came to power.

of course the right doesn't actually use the word "torture" but because their definition only includes things that cause organ failure, i think we can safely assume their definition isn't credible.

[fallstoofar]

"anyway, the evidence is definitely enough to investigate whether the admin engaged in torture. spain totally did the right thing."

According to who? You? Who the fuck are you? BTW Spain will not do a thing this is all just political theater if you can't see this you are rather simple minded.

[highway234]

according to international law. if dry-clicking revolvers at prisoners' temples, "deer-hunter" style, is torture, waterboarding is actually much more severe.

i don't think for a minute spain will actually be able to indict a bush administration official because the US is much more powerful than spain, so in a sense you're right, it's "just political theater." but i think it sends a powerful message. the right is definitely on the wrong side of history on this one.

[fallstoofar]

Again that is your opinion no where in any law does it say that "waterboarding is torture" . The Geneva Conventions do not apply to just anyone as the left would like, there is certain criteria involved that the common terrorist falls short so your truth statement of the "right being on the wrong side of history" isn't truth because others disagree w/ you... and as your are no ones authority figure to make such a claim.

[highway234]

mock execution is torture according to the geneva conventions. doesn't matter who you do it to. this is not my opinion, this is fact. and there is legal precedent for successful prosecution of the japanese for war crimes for conducting waterboarding. precedent is the foundation of law.

so you keep saying that it's my opinion, but each time you say it, you continue to be wrong. sorry.

[fallstoofar]

It is your opinion but you are wrong because terrorists are not uniformed soldiers. Geneva conventions do not apply. I am right. You are wrong. Deal with it.

[highway234]

*sigh.*

no, you've misunderstood the right-wing talking points. the bush administration used the uniformed soldier argument to justify indefinite detention at guantanamo, not to justify torture. for that they used john yoo memos that unilaterally redefined torture as agony approximating organ failure. geneva conventions regarding torture apply to everyone, not just to uniformed soldiers.

[fallstoofar]

dbl *sigh*

Geneva Conventions apply only to uniformed soldiers. I never mentioned once how the Bush admin. justified anything. You keep talking about the Bush admin. not me. I am just stating facts. Something you have trouble comprehending. We can do this all day if you would like but you are becoming rather boring. Maybe you should move along to another thought pattern. If you are able.

[highway234]

again. you keep saying geneva conventions apply only to uniformed soldiers. this is not right. some conventions apply only to uniformed soldiers, some apply to everyone subject to the ravages of war. not being tortured is a human right. i can't legally torture anyone i want according to the geneva conventions just because they're not wearing uniforms. that would mean i could rape women and torture children just because they're not in uniform. the argument is ridiculous. you're not getting it.

[gamingeagle19]

Let me see if I can put a stop to this just for right now. How about both of you actually go look up the Geneva Convention guidelines and see what they say. Now...break.

[highway234]

i know what they say, broadly speaking. your friend is misapplying them. certain conventions apply to combatants, certain ones apply to civilians. this is why we say "conventions," plural, rather than "convention," singular. i know what fallstoofar is trying to argue but he's not doing it right, the most radical conservative would never use geneva to justify torture or waterboarding, they use it to justify indefinite detainment. for torture they use executive orders and justice dept memos.

[gamingeagle19]

Maybe I should look it up and see for myself.

[fallstoofar]

The Democrats have bleated for years about the detention of illegal combatants at Guantanamo, while the Left and the "international community" have demanded that captured terrorists be treated as prisoners of war. We read in the November 22-23 Wall Street Journal (page A13) that Barack Obama's selected Attorney General, Eric Holder, agrees with us that terrorists are not uniformed combatants who are entitled to the protections of the Geneva Convention. Per an interview on CNN in January 2002,

[highway234]

it's an incredibly complex collection of legal documents that have evolved over decades. going by relatively reliable secondary sources is probably a good alternative to reading the whole thing first-hand. it would befuddle anyone who doesn't have a law degree.

[fallstoofar]

...It seems to me that given the way in which they have conducted themselves, however, that they are not, in fact, people entitled to the protection of the Geneva Convention. They are not prisoners of war. If, for instance, Mohammed Atta had survived the attack on the World Trade Center, would we now be calling him a prisoner of war? I think not. Should Zacarias Moussaoui be called a prisoner of war? Again, I think not."

Eric Holders own words. BTW he does have a law degree. You were saying..

[fallstoofar]

" One of the things we clearly want to do with these prisoners is to have an ability to interrogate them and find out what their future plans might be, where other cells are located; under the Geneva Convention that you are really limited in the amount of information that you can elicit from people........

[highway234]

falls2far: ok, now i really am confused, because a second ago you were arguing that the geneva conventions didn't have an opinion on the use of torture as long as the people being tortured weren't in uniform. now you're quoting conservative sources arguing that the conventions should be dismissed because they prevent torture in all cases.

do the conventions LET you torture people? or do you think you should be allowed to torture people despite them? you need to pick a lane.

[fallstoofar]

typical response. this interview that DID happen by Eric Holder. Obama's (your savior I am sure) Att. General gave giving you the seem point of view I have after your smug comment about how "it would befuddle anyone who doesn't have a law degree " (your words) he has a degree. Once I give a very non Repub. source ( by this I mean Eric Holder) and you do what was expected from people such as you and attack the site that reported it as "conservative" therefor deeming it to be not legit........

[highway234]

falls2far: geneva befuddles me, and i don't have a law degree. but in your quote holder's talking about indefinite detainment, not torture. his quote totally jibes with what i'm saying. and i agree with him, Moussaoui shouldn't be considered a prisoner of war, because in his, Holder's, opinion legally the 911 attacks were closer to a criminal act than an act of war.

look, im sorry to be smug but i really think this stuff actually is a bit over your paygrade. but hats off for tryin'.

[fallstoofar]

My pay grade (2 words not one) is light years ahead of yours. It is clear Holder was making the case for coerce interrogations. I understand if you are too slow to follow. Read slowly.

"One of the things we clearly want to do with these prisoners is to have an ability to interrogate them and find out what their future plans might be, where other cells are located; under the Geneva Convention that you are really limited in the amount of information that you can elicit from people."

[fallstoofar]

When trying to label someone is uneducated, please at least make an attempt to spell your insults correctly as to not present yourself as the dumb ass that you are.

[highway234]

and in what version of the english language is "coerce interrogations" spelled correctly? fox news'?

[fallstoofar]

Huge difference between a typo than not knowing the joining of two words that are separate as a grammatical error. Nice try.

[fallstoofar]

Fox news? Who said anything about fox news and how did that comment "and in what version of the english language is "coerce interrogations" spelled correctly? fox news'? " make any sense to you? Fox news is a version of the English language? You are trying way too hard. You may want to quit while you are BEHIND!!!!!!! BTW you misspelled English. It is spelled with a capital E.

[fallstoofar]

his quote totally jibes with what i'm saying. and i agree with him

"It seems to me that given the way in which they have conducted themselves, however, that they are not, in fact, people entitled to the protection of the Geneva Convention."

Actually no they don't jibe because he is in fact saying that Geneva does not apply when everyone here see's that you believe they do.

[highway234]

he's talking specifically about the aspects of the geneva conventions regarding detainment, not regarding the protections against torture. everyone is protected against torture. everyone. you can't be a civilized nation and deliberately torture people as a matter of policy. it's very simple.

and the pay grade, paygrade thing smacks of desperation.

[fallstoofar]

He says specifically

"One of the things we clearly want to do with these prisoners is to have an ability to interrogate them and find out what their future plans might be, where other cells are located; under the Geneva Convention that you are really limited in the amount of information that you can elicit from people."

You are going to tell this is in regards to detainment? The word detainment has no context here what so ever. Are you a retard?

[highway234]

i'm not sure what he means there, but if he's trying to justify waterboarding or torture, then he is wrong. torture is not permitted under international law.that includes techniques like waterboarding, israeli hanging, stress positions, and temperature extremes.

as many times as you keep trying to say torture is okay, i'll keep saying it's not. you may be able to stay up later than me, but even if you get the last word, torture will continue to be repulsive to america's ideals and the world's.

[fallstoofar]

OK I apologize for insults. We will agree to disagree. Good night.

[fallstoofar]

......Huge logical fallacy of which you have made many in this discussion. This is a educated mans opinion of the Geneva Conventions as it applies to enemy combatants. He has the same opinion as I have so I don't know what you were trying to say in your last comment. His statement is 100% consistent to my view I have put forth but nice try.

[gamingeagle19]

Well many lawmakers and psychiatrists do consider it torture but like you said they don't fall under the Geneva Convention rules. It only applies to "uniformed soldiers" so it's a bit of a gray area with waterboarding which is probably why they haven't been able to indict Bush and his employees.

[highway234]

no, it's not. the geneva conventions have rules that apply to uniformed soldiers and rules that apply to anyone subject to violence in war. you cannot torture anyone, uniformed or not, during military action. the right not to be tortured is a basic human right unrelated to how particular people are defined.

they haven't been able to indict because bush et al have wisely not gone to certain countries that vociferously enforce these laws. kissinger's been able to dodge the law in the same way.

[fallstoofar]

no, it's not. the geneva conventions have rules that apply to uniformed soldiers and rules that apply to anyone subject to violence in war.

No they do not you are misinformed. You are wrong.

[jp3711nc1]

do you think terrorist well stop if we do ask yourself that question.

[gamingeagle19]

Oh by the way I try to do these videos daily so if you want to stay tuned you can.