If you rob a person with a fake gun you get as much prison time as if you use a real one, because the victims fear is just as real if the gun is fake or not.
so using a "fake stinging insect" is just as worng as useing a real one.
and Fox News are totally in the wrong by saying "the threat of a caterpillar"
Just because something is not physically harmful to a person does not mean that it is not psychologically harmful. A person might suffer from such a thought for the remainder of their life. This person might never be able to sit fearing there's a caterpillar in his chair or bed. Besides, what if the person is innocent? Everyone has a phobia. Mine is queers.
The MSNBC was more graphic, O'Reilly mentioned more than just one of the techniques but made them seem harmless. So MSNBC was more fair.
you people have to grow a pair honestly i feel like a broken record repeating my self. IRAGI'S METHODS ARE SIMILAR TO THIS......... GETTING TIED TO THE BACK OF A CAR, LIT ON FIRE, BEATEN BRUTALLY, then being HUNG.
SO WHY THE FUCK ARE YOU LIBERAL PUSSIES CRYING OVER A RAT IN A F----ING CAGE!?!?! your a bunch of mindless zombies you have no idea what your talking about and you need to look at the whole picture, YES TORTURE is bad but compare our methods to Iraqi's......
@madfighter56 Exactly cos I thought America is supposed to be better than that. You morons simply don't care at all about what your country is founded on eh ?
I thought the constitution meant something but apparently people don't give a shit about principles then.
Have to give it to the MSNBC. They took the quotes directly from the memos and Fox News used bits and pieces to mislead the quotes to mean something else. But thats nothing new they always do it.
no wonder everybody thinks Obama is an idiot. Look at the 12/25/09 terrorist attempt. INstead of turning the matter over to the military, who know how to handle such an individual - he turns the terrorist over to america's court system. Terrorist gets ... a lawyer to protect his story and media coverage to make him an even bigger hero 4 our enemy. What a recruiting tool this will be 4 Alquida. Oh well, I guess Obama was just "learning on the job" again.
@jamesfire78 Except they handled the shoe bomber just fine with out the military under bush. The conservitives did not seem to have a problem with it then ... there are different standards for different administrations for your type ..
Because Al Qaeda needs a recruiting tool right? I think it would be worse for us to simply take him into a room and lock him up/shoot him. By giving him a trial and giving him basic HUMAN rights, we can at least be better than the terrorists and perhaps change our image as a nation. Foreigners are but dumb, and in most cases are probably smarter than you.
Why do you intro this show with a little kids voice... creep
Anyways, Bill O'Reilly who has said from the beginning that he doesn't believe that this information should be heavily released as it would provoke a terrorist revolt in the US. And NO I am not saying it is right to scare terrorists (oxymoron much?) but I do think it is important to keep our country safe since these jihad-ers are so unstable already
If your against torturing terrorists then you should eat shit and fucking die. They killed thousands of innocent people and you feel bad for them you fucking retards. I should mention I am a democrat.
No matter what someone does to you or anyone else, you must always be better than your enemy. If you use torture methods you are no better than your person you arrested. We have arrested terrorists in the past, but we did not torture them. We give people a fair trial, that is what we stand for in America.
In addition, The U.S. government Democrat or Republican has supported repressive dictatorships in countries like Iran, Iraq, El Salvador, Ni, Guatemala, Chile, and Nicaragua. Those regimes killed millions of civilians using our funding and our weapons and military training. Our own government gave weapons to Saddam AND Osama Bin Laden.
"1) the term international terrorism means terrorism involving citizens or the territory of more than 1 country;
(2) the term terrorism means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents;"
If we were to follow these guidelines, the United States would be one of the largest supporters of terrorism.
So I can assume that you think none of those massacres happened, none of the civilian deaths in Iraq are the U.S.'s fault, we have never staged coups in countries and installed dictators that killed their own power and we have never given money, weapons or combat training to people like Bin Laden or Saddam?
The definition you gave is "violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets." The U.S. has never intentionally targeted noncombatants. (unless you can prove otherwise) Al Qaeda slaughters innocent men, women and children on purpose. You see the difference? I know you can if you try hard enough.
In response to your other questions, no I do not listen to Alex Jones, NPR, Air America or any other conspiracy theorist/far-left garbage.
All of the examples of massacre I gave are examples of the U.S. military committing "violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets." I'm pretty sure I proved my point. Maybe if Reagan didn't give Al Qaeda weapons, money and combat training and stayed the hell out of the middle east we wouldn't have the problems that started with 911. Dodging the question eh? You would make a good politician.
Dude, these talking points are all standard anti-American/Michael Moore/al-Qaeda sympathizer rhetoric. You sound like you're reading from a script, lol.
I didn't read your list of "examples", since you posted like 10 posts in a row attacking America, and I didn't even bother reading those. However, they were all examples of one or more rogue soldiers acting independent of the government. Said soldiers were punished accordingly, as this is NOT U.S. policy. 9/11 was NOT the U.S.'s fault.
I am not Anti-American in the slightest and I take offense to that accusation nor do I sympathize with terrorism at all. I love my country and the people who make it worthwhile. Questioning the government whether it be left or right is NOT anti-American at all. And yes, Indian genocide was a U.S. policy, and yes civilian extermination was a policy in Vietnam. If 9/11 was not the U.S.'s fault then why did they attack us after we gave them all that money and weapons?
I didn't say questioning the government was anti-American. That's more Michael Moore leftist trash. What IS anti-American is saying that the U.S. government is a bigger terrorist organization than al-Qaeda.
Indian genocide and Vietnam atrocities were NOT U.S. policy. Just because a rogue general or military unit commits a heinous act does not make it "policy".
Islamic fundamentalists attacked us on 9/11 because they think they'll get to drill 1,000 virgins in the afterlife if they do so.
i personaly think the fox news coverage was more fair because they talked about sleep deprivation and low temparature rooms as opposed to showing a fictionalized film trying to scare the viewer into agreeing with the matter. MSNBC and Fox News are exactly the same except that MSNBC is far-left and Fox News is far-right and Fox News gets better ratings lol.
If you want to critize MSNBC. Critize Kieth on his opinion of vaccines. Bobby Kennedy Jr has been on Scarbough saying the exact same thing as Jennifer McCarthy only more on the leglisation. Yet Kieth says the connection between Autism and vaccines is made up. Recently Bobby Jr said that he did get Vaccinated for the flu but asked for a needle without mecrury in it. The nuse said she would get a different needle. HMM. I wonder why the nurse got a different needle? Was mecrury in the first?
You cant expect Far Right FOX News to give you anything less than what was displayed on BIll´s show. Personally interrogations around the world arent meant to be pleasant or a walk in the park. They are made to get answers. So whether MSNBC overly dramatized the issue by playing a clip from "1984" who knows how bad it got. Its the government making the statements, not the men who were being interrogated using these severe methods of torture. Torture IS Torture, and its meant to be cruel.
Particular fears, from my experience, are used on people to either A: torture them, or B. Help them conquer their fear. Why help terrorists conquer their fears? I believe this type of action is referred to as malevolence.
Fox is definitely the worst. They are pretty clear cut propaganda. MSNBC may not quite be propaganda, but they are slanted and the 1984 clip was a cheap trick. My agreeing with MSNBC's liberal point of view does not take away from how lame they are though. I don't like slant. I just like the news. Of course CNN is quite pathetic too. They don't know what to think, other than ask some idiot on twitter. I might watch BBC, but usually I go to a news site. I prefer journalism to spin.
1: Some men can be bought, this option should be explored and exploited whenever possible.
2: Most men will divulge secrets under the right chemically induced states, especially is made dissociative.
3: Many men can be tricked into divulging information, especially in proper states of chemically induced intoxication.
4: Psychological weakening through constant sensory assault, particularly audio-visual assault, can make information extraction easy for most trained professionals.
Getting more into the realm of psychological torture...
5: Blue Box reconditioning and extreme sensory depravation are powerful brain washing tools, as some of our own POWs learned in past wars. Identities can even be replaced.
6: Phobia Torture often gets bad information, and should never be used for information extraction, but may be useful for psychological weakening.
7: The right chemically induced states can cause hallucinations, which can also be used in psychological weakening.
You know liberal I do not see it that way what I see is obvious polar opposites backing there side of an argument. I in no way condone torture on anyone. However the only fair way is to show the reactions when a liberal is up on a charge and how both parties report that. besides that I find this inconclusive and strays far away from the unbaised I assumed you were going for.
I say ANYONE who approves torture, or "enhanced interrogation", must first be forced to endure the same torture to the same degree that it will be used on the victim.
ok so what your saying is to ask the terrorists nicely where the bomb is??not going to work.if they know that nothing bad or horrible is going to happen to them then they wont say anything and the information they know could save 1000s of lives..so basically one mans well being is more important to you than 1000s of inoccent lives..torture is cruel but so are the people getting tortured.they are the ones that tryed or succeed in killing inoccent people and deserve everything they get..
No, I'm not saying ask them nicely, I'm saying pathetic cowards shouldn't be able to sign off on torture they're not willing to endure.
Here's a thought, what if you torture someone who doesn't really know anything? What if because of the pain he eventually tells you whatever you want to hear, putting you at a disadvantage? If they know something horrible will happen they'll say anything.
Schla, screw universal empathy, I'm fine with torture so long as the person supporting it endures it.
By the way this "fear box" thing isn't the type of torture I'm fighting against. It's when the subject will say anything to make it stop that you have a problem. Physical torture gets bad information, and phobia torture also gets bad information...
Neuro-linguistic programming, interrogation under chemically induced intoxication, and the exploitation of metal shortcomings have all been proven to work. Some techniques that tred the line of mind torture also work but I won't discuss them here.
fiar enough..i agree with that..didnt see it in that sort of light before..but more than likely the goverment will have the right person..you pleaded your case well
I think that to make a man face his deepest and darkest fears without love and compasion is a truly horrific practice. I imagine if my wife (who is terrified of caterpillers) were faced with that, she would break instantly. It would destroy her in a way I can't imagine. And to be honest, to impose upon my worst enemy that which would destroy the one I love would be a horrific sin. Yet my sense of universal empathy gets me ridiculed for some strange reason.
Their both biased, MSNBC is biased by giving too much of a horrible description of the phobia box by giving that movie clip, which made it sound really horrible, so the bush admin. seemed evil, and Fox gave a biased description, by explainin that the bush admin did nothing wrong "like the caterpillar statement" to seem like the bush admin again, didn't do anything wrong. in todays world you cant find unbiased news, you really can't, and that is wat is sad about the world today
Both Fox and MSNBC stated their concepts of the story they were telling and each went to make a different point. MSNBC was trying to portray how America's use of torture is that of a totalitarian government like in "1984". Fox was vague purposely in their coverage to imply that those being interrogated weren't in any harm. The emphasis on the caterpillar was made to make their viewers see the outrage over torture methods as a joke. Both gave their own view and both left out the whole story.
yeah yourr actually right, blowing out of proportion like giving that movie clip from MSNBC is actually more biased, where as fox simply put the true statement in the end
Novel. Its a novel. The movie is a poor adaptation of the book.
As for Bill O the clown (my favorite term for him), he is just for entertainment, the people that watch him will not be swayed by anything. They are already part of the system.
None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free.
i think both reports were overly biased and over the top. what is wrong with just reporting the truth? just say "the US allowed the CIA to torture prisoners by any means necessary, but the CIA decided to make threats and follow through with much softer punishments." that to me sounds the least biased and you could even word it differently to suite urself, so long as u keep the basic facts there. nothing should b excluded in news.
Before anyone asks what I mean by limited on domestic issues one example is telling people that gay marriage is a constitutional right, this is false and misleading.
BTW, nobody is BANNING gay marriage, some states are just allowing it.
Sorry, I needed to go off topic here to make a certain point.
I see the problem here, you're a member of the ACLU. The ACLU has no business in foreign affairs and should be limited in domestic ones. These documents should remain sealed, neither you or I need to know about it.
Why do you need to know? Even if there is a 'slight possibility' that it could do more harm than good to our troops or our country, you still want to know even though it will not affect your personal life one iota.
That's a lot of assumptions there bucko. I don't care one wit either way, however I am giving you the reason some people want. And that reason is the search for the truth.
And the silly idea that it will hurt our troops is just... well... silly. Terrorists already have a bucket full of 'reasons' to hate anyone not them, this will hardly add to the already mountainous hatred they have.
They hardly have an issue with recruiting, and they wont run out of reasons to kill.
Because America claims it has and is supposed to uphold a higher standard than that of the rest of the world. Not to mention America is supposed to be a nation of laws and there are laws in America that prohibit harmful torture techniques.
I take offense to this statement, you might as well be say that you rather torture my mother, then us traditional irrigation methods.
that is the way of thinking that gives terrorists like Osama bin laden so much political power, as he can say "See! the Americans don't care about you, they want to hurt you and your family for there own gain, join me and we can stop them!" and that's the truth.
Would you subject your own mother to her deepest most horrific fears for 3 days to save your fellow american? Would you rape your mother and then kill her to save 10,000 innocent american lives? Bullshit arguments like this allow you to justify horrific acts towards your fellow man that you would never commit against someone you love... Open your eyes and understand that we are all simply human beings and some people that we've tortured might also be people you would fight and die for...
haha. u fool. they never raped anybody..thtas outof the question. the torture methods used only lasted for 40 seconds, and on only a select few. and yes, how come these terrorist can kill, and behead people, but we cant even touch them. now the terrorist know they wont get tortured, they'll commit even more crimes. and yes, if my mother was going to commit some terrorist act to kill 10,000 US citizens, sadly i would act against her to try and stoppit
'only lasted 40seconds, and only on a select few'. just cos a news channel says so, it is so? you don't stop to think that mabye an external force might have influenced that statement? unless you have evidence ofcourse....
no i dont like to "commit those acts towards my fellow man" but if my "fellow man" was ttrying to hurt me or take my life, or the life of an innocent person, i would act against him.
This is a straw man, just as in death penalty discussions one always talks about whether or not it is "effective".
The reason for torture, like the reason for the death penalty, is to GIVE POWER TO THE STATE of life and death.
Why would we ever want to give the State more power? Torture, the death penalty, suspension of habeas corpus, invariably these are the earmarks of authoritarian regimes. Left, right, center -- those terms are not helpful in this matter.
true..im christian..and its not like i LOVe the death penalty torturing.
but answer me this, if a man new that his punishment for murdr, was the loss of his life. he would most likely NOT commit that crime, but if he knew that if he murdered someone, and he would just go to prison for life, he'd probably still do it. and u'd b suprised, in states that have the death penalty, the murder rate is down.
Hi, brchr17, and thank you for taking the time to reply to my remark.
First, from my reading over the years -- I am not sure of this, but confident -- I have found that the statistics do NOT support that claim at all.
Second, even if they did, consider this: When Reinhard Heydrich was assasinated, all men and boys in a neighboring village -- about 600 -- were murdered by the SS in a reprisal. The purpose was to "discourage" further "terrorism".
tick, tock, tick, tock, you have 24 hours to find out where the nuke is hidden!
Necessary is a word people use to justify something that they know is wrong. The main problem here is not that if it was Necessary to do it but that there was know better ways of getting information that was also legal.
it is a sadistic way of thinking to favor torturing people for information, then using traditional methods to get the same info.
Freedom, Equality, Habeas Corpus, Human Rights and Ethics have all become optional in the United States of America. To protect yourselves from terrorists, you sold out what made your country great.
rachel maddow is such a moron, the use of the movie 1984 was used to make terrorists look like scared, scrawny white businessmen, when in fact they are hardened criminals who have killed thousands of innocent people, does the man in the movie look like someone who hijacked a plane and took out the twin towers? use your heads people!
The man in the movie and is look is completly irrelevant. Its not about what he looks like, but what is being done to him.
Even the most hardened criminal can be scared. Heck, he can be terrified to the extreme. Terrorists bleed like anyone and cry like everyone. The fact that they are ideologically backrupt killers does not change this fact.
In the end, the carricatural representation that some people have of their enemy in the war on terror might explain why its such a pathetic failure.
i realize that, but as you can see in day to day news, there are a lot of very gullible people who take that movie as the literal representation of torture on al queda operatives, have you considered that the terrorists who were tortured most likely deserved what happened to them? i mean, no long-lasting mental trauma was inflicted was it?
The main problem with this idea is that since the Bush administration dumped the Habeas Corpus, we have no idea weather or not they did or did not deserve it. We got no way to know, since it was not deemed important.
But the main issue here is that Americans seems to now be convinced that it is okay to let go of their principles when these are threatened. The problem is, if you let go of your principles at the first sight of difficulty like the USA are, those are not principles, their hobbies
How many people theses days actually read books. Most americans prefer to see the movie (lazy minded bastards!!) so it was probably the best way to convey the message to a large audience. Where is our revolution?
Thank God for '1984' it was a message about the future that will happen if we dont stand up against these bastards. Fuck Bush! .. I would kill that murdering scum if I could get the chance
Yeah, but the clip was from the movie, I probably would have preferred she just said "hey, remember 1984?" or something, though. It makes her look like she thinks her audience is illiterate when she says it the way she did.
Re: epeedy04- What is it, opposite day? I want to play too!... Wait... I DON'T want to play opposite day... Damn, you're a clever one. Or perhaps not?
It's unfortunate that torture has been so badly defined;for me ,torture is listening to Keith Olbermann.I'm pretty sure ALL the detainees would have talked if forced to watch his show;leave the tv on for Maddow,and the mass suicides would have saves taxpayers millions..
Which description was more fair?it's,respectfully,a ridiculous question;both shows are unabashedly partisan ;they both frame the issue to support their own position.Oreilly may soften the brutality of playing on fear,but at the same time,Maddow never brings up the difference between interrogating a dissenter or a terrorist responsible for the death of thousands.
Spot on Mrb... The media really blows. This is the way I frame the issue. What would you do to someone who knew where a bomb was that could potentially kill thousands of people? Would you try to apply the Constitution or would you sacrifice your morals to save innocent people? If you leave the politics out of it, that is the real question...
False dichotomy. You can still apply the constitution and get accurate information. Torture isn't necessarily going to provide the correct data. Using your example lets say you throw out your morals get the information then realize he lied after the bomb exploded in another city.
I think the "ticking time bomb "question is 100% valid;in that scenario,whatever works;I think torture LONG TERM is the wrong way to go;but I'm not convinced 'softer techniques ' would work quickly enough in that scenario;and I really think the "never torture" crowd would be at the head of the line demanding it if they knew there was a nuke that was going to kill them and their family.
But there was no imminent dangers that you are talking about, and CIA reports stated that...they also stated it couldn't be confirmed that the information gathered garnered anything to prevent imminent attacks. Time and time again you hear FBI and CIA interrogaors talking about the quality intel they gathered through conventional means. These scumbag terrorist being tortured only creates a justification for other scumbags to kill because the US. is 'evil'. You torture and you have no defence.
Waterboarding saves American lives. Would you waterboard someone to save your childs life? Of course you would. Well the Bush administration waterboarded murderers that would not talk in conventional ways and in the process they saved your life and mine.
The hypothetical that you use pushes the 'ticking bomb' argument. How about this one...cops capture a guy who has kidnapped two kids and he has killed one and the other is locked away someone and will die if they don't get the info. Do we torture him to get the info? By your standard he is already a murderer so it's a green light. because it will save a life.
Or perhaps this one: a soldier in Iraq is captured, he is believed to have knowledge of bombing targets that could kill civilians, he is waterboarded by Iraqi insurgents to get the info 183 times, the attack never happens, insurgents say they were justified doing it...would you accept this scenario?
The first scenario can't happen because the kidnapper is probably a US Citizen and the constitution doesn't allow waterboarding of US Citizens. The second scenario I absolutely approve of. I don't care if he is a murderer or not. If he is believed to have crucial information then waterboarding is the least we should do. Answer my question, Would you waterboard someone to save your childs life?
So you would accept a US soldier being waterboarded if he had information that Iraqi insurgents believed they could save lives with...wow...I don't know what to say to that...I'm sure those fighting for you would love to hear how much you think of them. So torture is OK as long as it's not to US citizens? Can you not see from that statement why some people see Americans as evil?
Answer my question, Would you waterboard someone to save your childs life? Your dodging my question. My brother in Iraq fighting for the USA believes the same thing as me.
Ask the families of the 350 firefighters that are dead from 9/11 what they think of torture. You have forgotten about 9/11 and you have forgotten who the real enemy is. The enemy is radical islam who wants you dead. Waterboard is too wimpy for them to do. They would rather cut your head off.
Uh, there was no-one tortured to get intel about 9/11, though there was information that wasn't acted on that was obtained through conventional means. It was ignored and subsequently 9/11 happened. Do you really think that I could have forgotten such an horrific event...but that separates us from those scumbag killers, we don't act savagely to other humans no matter how horrible, sadistic and mental they are...until now...
I commend your brother for his service, I will never demean those in the military who put their lives on the line for their country. I just don't think that they should do it for a cause that is tainted by politicos who don't give a shit about them.
Would you shoot someone's mother if it could save your child? Would you chop your arm off to save your child? Would you kill six thousand children to save your child's life? I pray to God I'm never put in that situation...I don't know what I would do, I would hope that I would stay rational, but I don't know...and the debate is to as whether it is torture and is it wrong. You are making claims that torture is right.
We don't plot evil terrorist bombings against other nations. Radical Islam does that, and the people that live over there understand that they plot against us whether they are with it or not. Our job as a nation is to protect our brothers and sisters in the USA. And if that means torturing somebody to get information about a Brooklyn Bridge bombing that would have killed thousands of American lives (true story) than I am 100% for torturing the enemy.
Yet in the past we have created animosity through foreign policy, overthrowing shahs, elected leaders, funding and arming those we now deem terrorists. The job is to protect your own citizens, but to do it without breaking your own morals and beliefs that can make you righteous. The BB plot was to cut cables on the bridge, but was seen as impractical and the plotter gave himself up after Sheik Mohammed was detained.
The plot is very practical and when one of the plotters apartment was raided all the tools and diagrams to destroy the bridge were found, therefore showing an example of waterboarding saving lives.
And as far as waterboarding is concerned, there is no physical abuse and doctors present. Are there doctors present when our enemy rips our fingernails out and shoves poles into certain holes of our body. Waterboarding does 0 bodily harm. It is not torture. Torture is something that leave permanent body damage.
There is no physical abuse? Then why would you need a doctor present if there was no physical abuse? Why would SERE instructors say these techniques should not be used as they are 1) Torture and 2) Physically dangerous? Watch Mancow talks to Olbermann...he was feeling the effects two days after and he only did it once...imagine what 183 times will do to you. Are there doctors present when they rip fingernails off? Who cares? It's torture and it's wrong!!!
Why is that a disappointment? I enjoy watching them and like to keep informed of the new stuff that they upload. I don't necessarily agree with everything that they say, but they make some sound points. What does that have to do with what we are discussing?
I don't think the phobia box is torture on the level of waterboarding.
A major problem with these techniques is that that the subject will probably talk on matter whether he actually knows something or not. If he makes something up and we get bad information. It seems to be an excellent way to get people to tell investigators what they want to hear. This is not a path to truth.
I hear that argument a lot. Assuming that %100 of the information obtained using these "advanced interrogation techniques" was truthful, would you then approve of them?
The phobia box, maybe But I don't think you can ever assume that 100% of the info you will get from any kind of interrogation will be truthful. You can't even know for certain if the subject/victim actually knows anything useful.
Funny how the CIA destroyed all the tapes of these sessions, and how the government is unable to provide any details on the information obtained, and how that information was used to prevent attacks.
The bias of Fox News is blatant! The way Bill O'Reilly scoffs at and plays down the fact of a "caterpillar" being used gravely diminishes the true effect that would be accomplished in causing terror to a person frightened of insects.
ic237: duh!!! O'Reilly IS a conservative OPINION JOURNALIST!!! HE IS NOT A REPORTER!!!!! Get it straight: Fox reports main news from the AP (Associated Press!)
O'Reilly IS NOT A REPORTER!!!!!!!
PS: I guess then Olberdum and Mannow offset O'Reilly and Hannity then..geez...so leftist you are blind!
yeah i agree...i get really sick of oreilly and olbermann drives me up the wall...he is just so smug and annoying. i feel like you know someone at college who is an "olbermann" and you just wanna kick their face in every time they open their mouth. for some reason i didnt mind glen beck when he was on hln. he clearly is peddling his own opinion but he used to sound well rounded and logical even though he clearly leaned to the right. his goal wasnt to get off on what the democrats did wrong today
I agree. In fact I think we need to extend that to the US justice system. We should just give the police the power to perform summary executions. I mean why do we go through all this red tape of 'trials' and 'due legal process?' Who cares about giving criminals a fair trial? They're crimminals for chrissakes! They don't deserve trials. If they're not criminals then why did the police arrest them, huh?
In this country we are innocent until proven guilty! Everyone deserves a fair trial. Also, ever hear of framing?...ya... What if that was you? or a family member? or a friend? .....I'm wondering...just out of curiosity...are you from Texas? lol
I forget sometimes that my sarcasm doesn't always come through in writing.
For the record, I was responding to Licentious Slut's comment that these were all terrorists and criminals so who cares if they were tortured or something to that effect. (I don't have it right in front of me. Sorry if I'm misquoting.)
I was being sarcastic. I'm totally against torturing people or holding them indeffinitely without trial. The reason we don't do those things to our own citizens is because they are bad things to do to anyone! So I say it shouldn't be done to anyone.
I think that it is Fox news as the big winner here. Oh well. As we know, now it was just a catterpillar. Is a catterpillar a form of tourture? I thought that tourture was cutting off fingers and fingernails and beheading, and things of that nature? Thank you Cheney and Bush for keeping Americans safe by this so called tourture. Your boy Obama has decided to keep the pics away from the public, decided to have military tribunals, THANK YOU OBAMA FOR DOING THIS. First move I agree with. Thanks
Torture is "extreme anguish of body or mind; agony." Torture is making someone so utterly afraid of you that you will tell them absolutely anything in order for them just to stop. Phobia is an extreme irrational fear of something.
Forcing someone to experience their worst phobia, lying to them in order to scare them so horribly that they'll talk, is definitely torture. It doesn't matter that no permanent harm was threatened, psychological torture is still torture.
"Jail should be a deterrent not a place for criminals to get better"
With a system like that absolutely nothing is accomplished. rehabilitation where possible is key to healing offenders' mindsets and society as a whole.
Both were biased and unfair and the liberalviewer knows it. I personally think that msnbc and fox news are completely biased, each to their own sides. Fox news understates the issue because they are owned by a conservative and msnbc dramatically overstates it because they are owned by a liberal. The real issue is whether the liberalviewer is biased for msnbc? Ofcourse he is LOL.
while neither channels are fair, or unbiased, MSNBC delivers more of the story then Fox News ever does.
Coramelimane 1 month ago in playlist Fox News Bias
1984 is my absolute favourite book! i read it once every year and i had NO idea it was even made into the film. how the hell did that happen?
Frog869 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Obama's vision for Mideast peace: Israel, Palestine based on 1967 borders with land swaps. OBAMA NEEDS TO STAY OUT OF ISRAELS BUSINESS
dewerbylhserf 9 months ago
NEITHER!
ppods 1 year ago
I don't know how it is in America, but in Norway;
If you rob a person with a fake gun you get as much prison time as if you use a real one, because the victims fear is just as real if the gun is fake or not.
so using a "fake stinging insect" is just as worng as useing a real one.
and Fox News are totally in the wrong by saying "the threat of a caterpillar"
ImperiousViking 1 year ago 3
Can't believe intelligent people are crediting the movie rather than the original book.
filmzo 1 year ago
Just because something is not physically harmful to a person does not mean that it is not psychologically harmful. A person might suffer from such a thought for the remainder of their life. This person might never be able to sit fearing there's a caterpillar in his chair or bed. Besides, what if the person is innocent? Everyone has a phobia. Mine is queers.
The MSNBC was more graphic, O'Reilly mentioned more than just one of the techniques but made them seem harmless. So MSNBC was more fair.
Spartan404 1 year ago
Ask the victims of 9/11 how terrible a caterpillar is.
SangriaStud28 1 year ago
@SangriaStud28
I didn't know the ends justify the means. I can think of another group that believes the ends justify the means.
IRHari 1 year ago
the ones who should be tortured are the liberal niggerloving morons THEY ARE THE REAL TERRORISTS
bobby21349 1 year ago
@bobby21349 Look, a conservative showing his true colors.
moreoreos123 1 year ago
you people have to grow a pair honestly i feel like a broken record repeating my self. IRAGI'S METHODS ARE SIMILAR TO THIS......... GETTING TIED TO THE BACK OF A CAR, LIT ON FIRE, BEATEN BRUTALLY, then being HUNG.
SO WHY THE FUCK ARE YOU LIBERAL PUSSIES CRYING OVER A RAT IN A F----ING CAGE!?!?! your a bunch of mindless zombies you have no idea what your talking about and you need to look at the whole picture, YES TORTURE is bad but compare our methods to Iraqi's......
madfighter56 1 year ago
@madfighter56 Exactly cos I thought America is supposed to be better than that. You morons simply don't care at all about what your country is founded on eh ?
I thought the constitution meant something but apparently people don't give a shit about principles then.
uchihaangelus 1 year ago
MSNBC gave better coverage, but what does it matter? In the end it was just a caterpillar and the guy was a terrorist.
kevin15776 1 year ago
Have to give it to the MSNBC. They took the quotes directly from the memos and Fox News used bits and pieces to mislead the quotes to mean something else. But thats nothing new they always do it.
specialjr11 2 years ago
impeach SCOTUS
davisfleetwood 2 years ago
no wonder everybody thinks Obama is an idiot. Look at the 12/25/09 terrorist attempt. INstead of turning the matter over to the military, who know how to handle such an individual - he turns the terrorist over to america's court system. Terrorist gets ... a lawyer to protect his story and media coverage to make him an even bigger hero 4 our enemy. What a recruiting tool this will be 4 Alquida. Oh well, I guess Obama was just "learning on the job" again.
jamesfire78 2 years ago
@jamesfire78 Except they handled the shoe bomber just fine with out the military under bush. The conservitives did not seem to have a problem with it then ... there are different standards for different administrations for your type ..
csharp44 2 years ago
@jamesfire78
Because Al Qaeda needs a recruiting tool right? I think it would be worse for us to simply take him into a room and lock him up/shoot him. By giving him a trial and giving him basic HUMAN rights, we can at least be better than the terrorists and perhaps change our image as a nation. Foreigners are but dumb, and in most cases are probably smarter than you.
DthScythe01 2 years ago
but liberal viewer, this was not about the phobia box, this report on fox news , was for the torture and realsing them in public.
ive been watching your vids.
very off weighted and one sided, like how you falsy accuesed them on reporting but then agian that wasnt the subject they reporting on.
FigthForFreedom 2 years ago
U.S. is sinking
TheBoxerDogs 2 years ago
Why do you intro this show with a little kids voice... creep
Anyways, Bill O'Reilly who has said from the beginning that he doesn't believe that this information should be heavily released as it would provoke a terrorist revolt in the US. And NO I am not saying it is right to scare terrorists (oxymoron much?) but I do think it is important to keep our country safe since these jihad-ers are so unstable already
retownsend 2 years ago
1984 is Obama...how about moving the trials to NYC.
tubaboy71 2 years ago
Propaganda twists the truth, Fox news is propaganda. It has a taste of the truth, but it leaves an aftertaste.
batourey 2 years ago
I tried to list the corporations that advertise with FOX news, but I found out you tube will block you.
Is this Fair?
topthickproducer 2 years ago
If your against torturing terrorists then you should eat shit and fucking die. They killed thousands of innocent people and you feel bad for them you fucking retards. I should mention I am a democrat.
grkpektis 2 years ago
No matter what someone does to you or anyone else, you must always be better than your enemy. If you use torture methods you are no better than your person you arrested. We have arrested terrorists in the past, but we did not torture them. We give people a fair trial, that is what we stand for in America.
terribletrench 2 years ago
I'm pretty sure our own government has killed more innocent people than all the terrorist attacks combined. Where is your outrage for that?
NoiseAnn0ys 2 years ago 15
Oh, you're pretty sure, huh? Let's see some facts to back up such an outrageous statement, hmm?
vladimirhorowitz 2 years ago
Examples: My Lai Massacre- 347 to 504 noncombat civilians killed.
Wounded Knee- over 200 Indian refugees killed in cold blood by federal troops.
Balangiga massacre- Retaliation killings by US troops who killed 2000-3000 people. The vast majority of them noncombatants.
Moro Crater massacre- killed 600 mostly unarmed villagers.
Iraq War- from 2003 to 2005 the U.S. military was credited for 37% of the 24,865 Iraqi civilian deaths. God knows how many now.
NoiseAnn0ys 2 years ago
In addition, The U.S. government Democrat or Republican has supported repressive dictatorships in countries like Iran, Iraq, El Salvador, Ni, Guatemala, Chile, and Nicaragua. Those regimes killed millions of civilians using our funding and our weapons and military training. Our own government gave weapons to Saddam AND Osama Bin Laden.
NoiseAnn0ys 2 years ago
The U.S. government defines terrorism as such-
"1) the term international terrorism means terrorism involving citizens or the territory of more than 1 country;
(2) the term terrorism means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents;"
If we were to follow these guidelines, the United States would be one of the largest supporters of terrorism.
NoiseAnn0ys 2 years ago
Nope, sorry buddy. The U.S. doesn't target noncombatants. Go back to moveon,org and try again.
vladimirhorowitz 2 years ago
So I can assume that you think none of those massacres happened, none of the civilian deaths in Iraq are the U.S.'s fault, we have never staged coups in countries and installed dictators that killed their own power and we have never given money, weapons or combat training to people like Bin Laden or Saddam?
NoiseAnn0ys 2 years ago 7
The definition you gave is "violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets." The U.S. has never intentionally targeted noncombatants. (unless you can prove otherwise) Al Qaeda slaughters innocent men, women and children on purpose. You see the difference? I know you can if you try hard enough.
In response to your other questions, no I do not listen to Alex Jones, NPR, Air America or any other conspiracy theorist/far-left garbage.
vladimirhorowitz 2 years ago
All of the examples of massacre I gave are examples of the U.S. military committing "violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets." I'm pretty sure I proved my point. Maybe if Reagan didn't give Al Qaeda weapons, money and combat training and stayed the hell out of the middle east we wouldn't have the problems that started with 911. Dodging the question eh? You would make a good politician.
NoiseAnn0ys 2 years ago
Dude, these talking points are all standard anti-American/Michael Moore/al-Qaeda sympathizer rhetoric. You sound like you're reading from a script, lol.
I didn't read your list of "examples", since you posted like 10 posts in a row attacking America, and I didn't even bother reading those. However, they were all examples of one or more rogue soldiers acting independent of the government. Said soldiers were punished accordingly, as this is NOT U.S. policy. 9/11 was NOT the U.S.'s fault.
vladimirhorowitz 2 years ago
I am not Anti-American in the slightest and I take offense to that accusation nor do I sympathize with terrorism at all. I love my country and the people who make it worthwhile. Questioning the government whether it be left or right is NOT anti-American at all. And yes, Indian genocide was a U.S. policy, and yes civilian extermination was a policy in Vietnam. If 9/11 was not the U.S.'s fault then why did they attack us after we gave them all that money and weapons?
NoiseAnn0ys 2 years ago
I didn't say questioning the government was anti-American. That's more Michael Moore leftist trash. What IS anti-American is saying that the U.S. government is a bigger terrorist organization than al-Qaeda.
Indian genocide and Vietnam atrocities were NOT U.S. policy. Just because a rogue general or military unit commits a heinous act does not make it "policy".
Islamic fundamentalists attacked us on 9/11 because they think they'll get to drill 1,000 virgins in the afterlife if they do so.
vladimirhorowitz 2 years ago
spelling error. "power" is supposed to say people.
NoiseAnn0ys 2 years ago
I should mention you're an idiot.
nafet 2 years ago
That's a shame about that democrat thing, man. ;) You sounded pretty smart up until there.
jk, it's refreshing to hear a voice of reason coming from the left. Those who defend terrorists are severely ignorant people.
vladimirhorowitz 2 years ago
i personaly think the fox news coverage was more fair because they talked about sleep deprivation and low temparature rooms as opposed to showing a fictionalized film trying to scare the viewer into agreeing with the matter. MSNBC and Fox News are exactly the same except that MSNBC is far-left and Fox News is far-right and Fox News gets better ratings lol.
ebakalli 2 years ago
If you want to critize MSNBC. Critize Kieth on his opinion of vaccines. Bobby Kennedy Jr has been on Scarbough saying the exact same thing as Jennifer McCarthy only more on the leglisation. Yet Kieth says the connection between Autism and vaccines is made up. Recently Bobby Jr said that he did get Vaccinated for the flu but asked for a needle without mecrury in it. The nuse said she would get a different needle. HMM. I wonder why the nurse got a different needle? Was mecrury in the first?
imaginepeace63 2 years ago
We are treating muslims like Nazis treated the Jews. Gitmo and Bagram are Nazi concentration camps
imaginepeace63 2 years ago
You cant expect Far Right FOX News to give you anything less than what was displayed on BIll´s show. Personally interrogations around the world arent meant to be pleasant or a walk in the park. They are made to get answers. So whether MSNBC overly dramatized the issue by playing a clip from "1984" who knows how bad it got. Its the government making the statements, not the men who were being interrogated using these severe methods of torture. Torture IS Torture, and its meant to be cruel.
rachaelleeflores23 2 years ago
Particular fears, from my experience, are used on people to either A: torture them, or B. Help them conquer their fear. Why help terrorists conquer their fears? I believe this type of action is referred to as malevolence.
cheezis 2 years ago
Welcome to 1984 !!
TEMPESTSPARK 2 years ago
Fox is definitely the worst. They are pretty clear cut propaganda. MSNBC may not quite be propaganda, but they are slanted and the 1984 clip was a cheap trick. My agreeing with MSNBC's liberal point of view does not take away from how lame they are though. I don't like slant. I just like the news. Of course CNN is quite pathetic too. They don't know what to think, other than ask some idiot on twitter. I might watch BBC, but usually I go to a news site. I prefer journalism to spin.
sonnygll 2 years ago 2
Maybe you should apply for a position in the Obama administration. You seem to be an expert.
joe85043 2 years ago
1: Some men can be bought, this option should be explored and exploited whenever possible.
2: Most men will divulge secrets under the right chemically induced states, especially is made dissociative.
3: Many men can be tricked into divulging information, especially in proper states of chemically induced intoxication.
4: Psychological weakening through constant sensory assault, particularly audio-visual assault, can make information extraction easy for most trained professionals.
Atheistx82 2 years ago
Getting more into the realm of psychological torture...
5: Blue Box reconditioning and extreme sensory depravation are powerful brain washing tools, as some of our own POWs learned in past wars. Identities can even be replaced.
6: Phobia Torture often gets bad information, and should never be used for information extraction, but may be useful for psychological weakening.
7: The right chemically induced states can cause hallucinations, which can also be used in psychological weakening.
Atheistx82 2 years ago
It's also quite unpleasant
FollicleMiracle 2 years ago
You know liberal I do not see it that way what I see is obvious polar opposites backing there side of an argument. I in no way condone torture on anyone. However the only fair way is to show the reactions when a liberal is up on a charge and how both parties report that. besides that I find this inconclusive and strays far away from the unbaised I assumed you were going for.
jsh78mang 2 years ago
I say ANYONE who approves torture, or "enhanced interrogation", must first be forced to endure the same torture to the same degree that it will be used on the victim.
Atheistx82 2 years ago
ok so what your saying is to ask the terrorists nicely where the bomb is??not going to work.if they know that nothing bad or horrible is going to happen to them then they wont say anything and the information they know could save 1000s of lives..so basically one mans well being is more important to you than 1000s of inoccent lives..torture is cruel but so are the people getting tortured.they are the ones that tryed or succeed in killing inoccent people and deserve everything they get..
bendover91210 2 years ago
No, I'm not saying ask them nicely, I'm saying pathetic cowards shouldn't be able to sign off on torture they're not willing to endure.
Here's a thought, what if you torture someone who doesn't really know anything? What if because of the pain he eventually tells you whatever you want to hear, putting you at a disadvantage? If they know something horrible will happen they'll say anything.
Schla, screw universal empathy, I'm fine with torture so long as the person supporting it endures it.
Atheistx82 2 years ago
By the way this "fear box" thing isn't the type of torture I'm fighting against. It's when the subject will say anything to make it stop that you have a problem. Physical torture gets bad information, and phobia torture also gets bad information...
Neuro-linguistic programming, interrogation under chemically induced intoxication, and the exploitation of metal shortcomings have all been proven to work. Some techniques that tred the line of mind torture also work but I won't discuss them here.
Atheistx82 2 years ago
fiar enough..i agree with that..didnt see it in that sort of light before..but more than likely the goverment will have the right person..you pleaded your case well
bendover91210 2 years ago
I think that to make a man face his deepest and darkest fears without love and compasion is a truly horrific practice. I imagine if my wife (who is terrified of caterpillers) were faced with that, she would break instantly. It would destroy her in a way I can't imagine. And to be honest, to impose upon my worst enemy that which would destroy the one I love would be a horrific sin. Yet my sense of universal empathy gets me ridiculed for some strange reason.
schlaflys 2 years ago
neither was fair, both omitted important bits of information
Sentinen 2 years ago
Their both biased, MSNBC is biased by giving too much of a horrible description of the phobia box by giving that movie clip, which made it sound really horrible, so the bush admin. seemed evil, and Fox gave a biased description, by explainin that the bush admin did nothing wrong "like the caterpillar statement" to seem like the bush admin again, didn't do anything wrong. in todays world you cant find unbiased news, you really can't, and that is wat is sad about the world today
jophuf2 2 years ago 2
I agree, but try telling that to a die hard dem or repub and watch out. Hell have no furry like a idiot scorned.
jsh78mang 2 years ago
I HAVE 3 TIPS FOR FOX & MSNBC VIEWER...............
1) convert to muslim
2)travel around the world without money
3)start smoking weed
BELIVE ME ITS WORK
01017400 2 years ago
um, Islam you mean?
Seeber420 2 years ago
lol
passenger9411 2 years ago
From someone with a severe wasp phobia: MSNBC = More fair
queensgirl8 2 years ago
Both Fox and MSNBC stated their concepts of the story they were telling and each went to make a different point. MSNBC was trying to portray how America's use of torture is that of a totalitarian government like in "1984". Fox was vague purposely in their coverage to imply that those being interrogated weren't in any harm. The emphasis on the caterpillar was made to make their viewers see the outrage over torture methods as a joke. Both gave their own view and both left out the whole story.
MrDarkApache 2 years ago
Since Fox reported on what actually happened. I would say that Fox News was the more accurate of the two networks here.
tackman06 2 years ago
yeah yourr actually right, blowing out of proportion like giving that movie clip from MSNBC is actually more biased, where as fox simply put the true statement in the end
jophuf2 2 years ago
fox did more than "simply put the true statement in the end".
GstateBALLER925 2 years ago
wow...only lasted 40 sec........... it must be really bad.
InFromTheVoid 2 years ago
I wish old people would use the internet........
InFromTheVoid 2 years ago
Why do you keep calling it "The Movie" 1984?
Novel. Its a novel. The movie is a poor adaptation of the book.
As for Bill O the clown (my favorite term for him), he is just for entertainment, the people that watch him will not be swayed by anything. They are already part of the system.
None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free.
sauros86 2 years ago 2
I like to cal him "Oh REALLY? O'reilley"
InFromTheVoid 2 years ago
no, no, no
her name is bitch o' really
damn promiscuous woman
joker0187 2 years ago
i think both reports were overly biased and over the top. what is wrong with just reporting the truth? just say "the US allowed the CIA to torture prisoners by any means necessary, but the CIA decided to make threats and follow through with much softer punishments." that to me sounds the least biased and you could even word it differently to suite urself, so long as u keep the basic facts there. nothing should b excluded in news.
deadsektiondw1 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
if you like poerty you will like this poem search" Is the cross Christian" It will blow your mind!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
TheTruthUnderTheHood 2 years ago
1984, no.
007dings007 2 years ago
Before anyone asks what I mean by limited on domestic issues one example is telling people that gay marriage is a constitutional right, this is false and misleading.
BTW, nobody is BANNING gay marriage, some states are just allowing it.
Sorry, I needed to go off topic here to make a certain point.
ZepMan63 2 years ago
I see the problem here, you're a member of the ACLU. The ACLU has no business in foreign affairs and should be limited in domestic ones. These documents should remain sealed, neither you or I need to know about it.
What exactly does anyone gain from it?
ZepMan63 2 years ago
The truth.
Otokogoroshi 2 years ago
Why do you need to know? Even if there is a 'slight possibility' that it could do more harm than good to our troops or our country, you still want to know even though it will not affect your personal life one iota.
ZepMan63 2 years ago
That's a lot of assumptions there bucko. I don't care one wit either way, however I am giving you the reason some people want. And that reason is the search for the truth.
And the silly idea that it will hurt our troops is just... well... silly. Terrorists already have a bucket full of 'reasons' to hate anyone not them, this will hardly add to the already mountainous hatred they have.
They hardly have an issue with recruiting, and they wont run out of reasons to kill.
Otokogoroshi 2 years ago 2
How come these terrorist can go cut off peoples heads, and plot attacks to kill 3000 people. but we cant threaten a terrorist wit ha catepillar?
btchr17 2 years ago
Because America claims it has and is supposed to uphold a higher standard than that of the rest of the world. Not to mention America is supposed to be a nation of laws and there are laws in America that prohibit harmful torture techniques.
Er1ktr0n 2 years ago 2
i would rather torutre a non american to save 3000 lives, then save a terrorist and have 3000 americans dead.
btchr17 2 years ago
I take offense to this statement, you might as well be say that you rather torture my mother, then us traditional irrigation methods.
that is the way of thinking that gives terrorists like Osama bin laden so much political power, as he can say "See! the Americans don't care about you, they want to hurt you and your family for there own gain, join me and we can stop them!" and that's the truth.
DiceWarwick 2 years ago
Would you subject your own mother to her deepest most horrific fears for 3 days to save your fellow american? Would you rape your mother and then kill her to save 10,000 innocent american lives? Bullshit arguments like this allow you to justify horrific acts towards your fellow man that you would never commit against someone you love... Open your eyes and understand that we are all simply human beings and some people that we've tortured might also be people you would fight and die for...
rvwatch 2 years ago
haha. u fool. they never raped anybody..thtas outof the question. the torture methods used only lasted for 40 seconds, and on only a select few. and yes, how come these terrorist can kill, and behead people, but we cant even touch them. now the terrorist know they wont get tortured, they'll commit even more crimes. and yes, if my mother was going to commit some terrorist act to kill 10,000 US citizens, sadly i would act against her to try and stoppit
btchr17 2 years ago
'only lasted 40seconds, and only on a select few'. just cos a news channel says so, it is so? you don't stop to think that mabye an external force might have influenced that statement? unless you have evidence ofcourse....
bottlecapsandgorilla 2 years ago
yes, the memo. if u read it..which u probably didnt. but obama failed to publish the results(which foiled many attempts)
btchr17 2 years ago
wow... you are just too retarded to even get my point... Just do us all a favor and don't join the military or attempt to become a police officer...
rvwatch 2 years ago
no i dont like to "commit those acts towards my fellow man" but if my "fellow man" was ttrying to hurt me or take my life, or the life of an innocent person, i would act against him.
btchr17 2 years ago
This is a straw man, just as in death penalty discussions one always talks about whether or not it is "effective".
The reason for torture, like the reason for the death penalty, is to GIVE POWER TO THE STATE of life and death.
Why would we ever want to give the State more power? Torture, the death penalty, suspension of habeas corpus, invariably these are the earmarks of authoritarian regimes. Left, right, center -- those terms are not helpful in this matter.
mwoldin 2 years ago
true..im christian..and its not like i LOVe the death penalty torturing.
but answer me this, if a man new that his punishment for murdr, was the loss of his life. he would most likely NOT commit that crime, but if he knew that if he murdered someone, and he would just go to prison for life, he'd probably still do it. and u'd b suprised, in states that have the death penalty, the murder rate is down.
btchr17 2 years ago
Hi, brchr17, and thank you for taking the time to reply to my remark.
First, from my reading over the years -- I am not sure of this, but confident -- I have found that the statistics do NOT support that claim at all.
Second, even if they did, consider this: When Reinhard Heydrich was assasinated, all men and boys in a neighboring village -- about 600 -- were murdered by the SS in a reprisal. The purpose was to "discourage" further "terrorism".
Question: Are reprisals "effective"?
mwoldin 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
if you like poerty you will like this poem search" Is the cross Christian" It will blow your mind!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
TheTruthUnderTheHood 2 years ago
so if they dont tell you what they know...what should we do, just sit and do nothing since they dont feel like telling us?
AsianInvasionCrew 2 years ago
i mean..ya its bad. but some things are nesecrary to save lives
btchr17 2 years ago
tick, tock, tick, tock, you have 24 hours to find out where the nuke is hidden!
Necessary is a word people use to justify something that they know is wrong. The main problem here is not that if it was Necessary to do it but that there was know better ways of getting information that was also legal.
it is a sadistic way of thinking to favor torturing people for information, then using traditional methods to get the same info.
DiceWarwick 2 years ago
Because we are American. If you don't understand why, then you are a part of the problem.
ampere11 2 years ago
Ok. True we are.
then how come we can murder innocent babies why their still in their mothers womb?
tell me which is worse.
killing an INNOCENT baby. or torutring a mass murderer, who intends to do us harm.
btchr17 2 years ago
MSMBC is not in love with Hussin Obama there afraid of him as NYT an main strim meida
Blackeyedpeas1937 2 years ago
Freedom, Equality, Habeas Corpus, Human Rights and Ethics have all become optional in the United States of America. To protect yourselves from terrorists, you sold out what made your country great.
Antiochus2 2 years ago
rachel maddow is such a moron, the use of the movie 1984 was used to make terrorists look like scared, scrawny white businessmen, when in fact they are hardened criminals who have killed thousands of innocent people, does the man in the movie look like someone who hijacked a plane and took out the twin towers? use your heads people!
AeroZero21 2 years ago
The man in the movie and is look is completly irrelevant. Its not about what he looks like, but what is being done to him.
Even the most hardened criminal can be scared. Heck, he can be terrified to the extreme. Terrorists bleed like anyone and cry like everyone. The fact that they are ideologically backrupt killers does not change this fact.
In the end, the carricatural representation that some people have of their enemy in the war on terror might explain why its such a pathetic failure.
Antiochus2 2 years ago
i realize that, but as you can see in day to day news, there are a lot of very gullible people who take that movie as the literal representation of torture on al queda operatives, have you considered that the terrorists who were tortured most likely deserved what happened to them? i mean, no long-lasting mental trauma was inflicted was it?
AeroZero21 2 years ago
The main problem with this idea is that since the Bush administration dumped the Habeas Corpus, we have no idea weather or not they did or did not deserve it. We got no way to know, since it was not deemed important.
But the main issue here is that Americans seems to now be convinced that it is okay to let go of their principles when these are threatened. The problem is, if you let go of your principles at the first sight of difficulty like the USA are, those are not principles, their hobbies
Antiochus2 2 years ago
Sound to me like the SPANISH INQUESITION
danielkabuto 2 years ago
How many people theses days actually read books. Most americans prefer to see the movie (lazy minded bastards!!) so it was probably the best way to convey the message to a large audience. Where is our revolution?
PheloniusPhunk 2 years ago
Thank God for '1984' it was a message about the future that will happen if we dont stand up against these bastards. Fuck Bush! .. I would kill that murdering scum if I could get the chance
dumalucky 2 years ago 2
have you seen that "movie" ?lol come on, this is one of the most important books of the 20th century
jefferyklassen 2 years ago
Yeah, but the clip was from the movie, I probably would have preferred she just said "hey, remember 1984?" or something, though. It makes her look like she thinks her audience is illiterate when she says it the way she did.
number154 2 years ago
Good job MSNBC! You spoiled 1984! :P
ilikemonkeysblogcom 2 years ago
The ACLU is damaging our nation and making the USA a much weaker nation and making us more vulnerable to attack.
epeedy04 2 years ago
Re: epeedy04- What is it, opposite day? I want to play too!... Wait... I DON'T want to play opposite day... Damn, you're a clever one. Or perhaps not?
dirkson 2 years ago
OMG....You a member of the ACLU. Enough said.
Ninefingers1010 2 years ago
It's unfortunate that torture has been so badly defined;for me ,torture is listening to Keith Olbermann.I'm pretty sure ALL the detainees would have talked if forced to watch his show;leave the tv on for Maddow,and the mass suicides would have saves taxpayers millions..
mrbriscoe2001 2 years ago
MSNBC is way more fair
daguy1234 2 years ago 2
Which description was more fair?it's,respectfully,a ridiculous question;both shows are unabashedly partisan ;they both frame the issue to support their own position.Oreilly may soften the brutality of playing on fear,but at the same time,Maddow never brings up the difference between interrogating a dissenter or a terrorist responsible for the death of thousands.
mrbriscoe2001 2 years ago
Spot on Mrb... The media really blows. This is the way I frame the issue. What would you do to someone who knew where a bomb was that could potentially kill thousands of people? Would you try to apply the Constitution or would you sacrifice your morals to save innocent people? If you leave the politics out of it, that is the real question...
livetofish703 2 years ago
False dichotomy. You can still apply the constitution and get accurate information. Torture isn't necessarily going to provide the correct data. Using your example lets say you throw out your morals get the information then realize he lied after the bomb exploded in another city.
killerfurball 2 years ago
I think the "ticking time bomb "question is 100% valid;in that scenario,whatever works;I think torture LONG TERM is the wrong way to go;but I'm not convinced 'softer techniques ' would work quickly enough in that scenario;and I really think the "never torture" crowd would be at the head of the line demanding it if they knew there was a nuke that was going to kill them and their family.
mrbriscoe2001 2 years ago
But there was no imminent dangers that you are talking about, and CIA reports stated that...they also stated it couldn't be confirmed that the information gathered garnered anything to prevent imminent attacks. Time and time again you hear FBI and CIA interrogaors talking about the quality intel they gathered through conventional means. These scumbag terrorist being tortured only creates a justification for other scumbags to kill because the US. is 'evil'. You torture and you have no defence.
ambrosesams 2 years ago
Waterboarding saves American lives. Would you waterboard someone to save your childs life? Of course you would. Well the Bush administration waterboarded murderers that would not talk in conventional ways and in the process they saved your life and mine.
epeedy04 2 years ago
The hypothetical that you use pushes the 'ticking bomb' argument. How about this one...cops capture a guy who has kidnapped two kids and he has killed one and the other is locked away someone and will die if they don't get the info. Do we torture him to get the info? By your standard he is already a murderer so it's a green light. because it will save a life.
ambrosesams 2 years ago
Or perhaps this one: a soldier in Iraq is captured, he is believed to have knowledge of bombing targets that could kill civilians, he is waterboarded by Iraqi insurgents to get the info 183 times, the attack never happens, insurgents say they were justified doing it...would you accept this scenario?
ambrosesams 2 years ago
The first scenario can't happen because the kidnapper is probably a US Citizen and the constitution doesn't allow waterboarding of US Citizens. The second scenario I absolutely approve of. I don't care if he is a murderer or not. If he is believed to have crucial information then waterboarding is the least we should do. Answer my question, Would you waterboard someone to save your childs life?
epeedy04 2 years ago
So you would accept a US soldier being waterboarded if he had information that Iraqi insurgents believed they could save lives with...wow...I don't know what to say to that...I'm sure those fighting for you would love to hear how much you think of them. So torture is OK as long as it's not to US citizens? Can you not see from that statement why some people see Americans as evil?
ambrosesams 2 years ago
Answer my question, Would you waterboard someone to save your childs life? Your dodging my question. My brother in Iraq fighting for the USA believes the same thing as me.
epeedy04 2 years ago
Ask the families of the 350 firefighters that are dead from 9/11 what they think of torture. You have forgotten about 9/11 and you have forgotten who the real enemy is. The enemy is radical islam who wants you dead. Waterboard is too wimpy for them to do. They would rather cut your head off.
epeedy04 2 years ago
Uh, there was no-one tortured to get intel about 9/11, though there was information that wasn't acted on that was obtained through conventional means. It was ignored and subsequently 9/11 happened. Do you really think that I could have forgotten such an horrific event...but that separates us from those scumbag killers, we don't act savagely to other humans no matter how horrible, sadistic and mental they are...until now...
ambrosesams 2 years ago
I commend your brother for his service, I will never demean those in the military who put their lives on the line for their country. I just don't think that they should do it for a cause that is tainted by politicos who don't give a shit about them.
ambrosesams 2 years ago
Would you shoot someone's mother if it could save your child? Would you chop your arm off to save your child? Would you kill six thousand children to save your child's life? I pray to God I'm never put in that situation...I don't know what I would do, I would hope that I would stay rational, but I don't know...and the debate is to as whether it is torture and is it wrong. You are making claims that torture is right.
ambrosesams 2 years ago
We don't plot evil terrorist bombings against other nations. Radical Islam does that, and the people that live over there understand that they plot against us whether they are with it or not. Our job as a nation is to protect our brothers and sisters in the USA. And if that means torturing somebody to get information about a Brooklyn Bridge bombing that would have killed thousands of American lives (true story) than I am 100% for torturing the enemy.
epeedy04 2 years ago
Yet in the past we have created animosity through foreign policy, overthrowing shahs, elected leaders, funding and arming those we now deem terrorists. The job is to protect your own citizens, but to do it without breaking your own morals and beliefs that can make you righteous. The BB plot was to cut cables on the bridge, but was seen as impractical and the plotter gave himself up after Sheik Mohammed was detained.
ambrosesams 2 years ago
The plot is very practical and when one of the plotters apartment was raided all the tools and diagrams to destroy the bridge were found, therefore showing an example of waterboarding saving lives.
epeedy04 2 years ago
And as far as waterboarding is concerned, there is no physical abuse and doctors present. Are there doctors present when our enemy rips our fingernails out and shoves poles into certain holes of our body. Waterboarding does 0 bodily harm. It is not torture. Torture is something that leave permanent body damage.
epeedy04 2 years ago
There is no physical abuse? Then why would you need a doctor present if there was no physical abuse? Why would SERE instructors say these techniques should not be used as they are 1) Torture and 2) Physically dangerous? Watch Mancow talks to Olbermann...he was feeling the effects two days after and he only did it once...imagine what 183 times will do to you. Are there doctors present when they rip fingernails off? Who cares? It's torture and it's wrong!!!
ambrosesams 2 years ago
You subscribe to theyungturks, that is a disappointment. The ACLU and theyungturks are all damaging this nation and I hope you wiseup someday.
epeedy04 2 years ago
Why is that a disappointment? I enjoy watching them and like to keep informed of the new stuff that they upload. I don't necessarily agree with everything that they say, but they make some sound points. What does that have to do with what we are discussing?
ambrosesams 2 years ago
Its easy to say that, message me and explain that with specific examples please!
shaicapone 2 years ago
Yay! You sound just like Dick Cheney! :)
Oldskoolkammy 2 years ago
I don't think the phobia box is torture on the level of waterboarding.
A major problem with these techniques is that that the subject will probably talk on matter whether he actually knows something or not. If he makes something up and we get bad information. It seems to be an excellent way to get people to tell investigators what they want to hear. This is not a path to truth.
dlhitch2007 2 years ago
I hear that argument a lot. Assuming that %100 of the information obtained using these "advanced interrogation techniques" was truthful, would you then approve of them?
kaje01 2 years ago
"...would you then approve of them?"
The phobia box, maybe But I don't think you can ever assume that 100% of the info you will get from any kind of interrogation will be truthful. You can't even know for certain if the subject/victim actually knows anything useful.
Funny how the CIA destroyed all the tapes of these sessions, and how the government is unable to provide any details on the information obtained, and how that information was used to prevent attacks.
dlhitch2007 2 years ago
The bias of Fox News is blatant! The way Bill O'Reilly scoffs at and plays down the fact of a "caterpillar" being used gravely diminishes the true effect that would be accomplished in causing terror to a person frightened of insects.
lc237 2 years ago
ic237: duh!!! O'Reilly IS a conservative OPINION JOURNALIST!!! HE IS NOT A REPORTER!!!!! Get it straight: Fox reports main news from the AP (Associated Press!)
O'Reilly IS NOT A REPORTER!!!!!!!
PS: I guess then Olberdum and Mannow offset O'Reilly and Hannity then..geez...so leftist you are blind!
pmango1000 2 years ago
yeah i agree...i get really sick of oreilly and olbermann drives me up the wall...he is just so smug and annoying. i feel like you know someone at college who is an "olbermann" and you just wanna kick their face in every time they open their mouth. for some reason i didnt mind glen beck when he was on hln. he clearly is peddling his own opinion but he used to sound well rounded and logical even though he clearly leaned to the right. his goal wasnt to get off on what the democrats did wrong today
lloe1 2 years ago
Now there saying "okay, we tortured, but it wasn't THAT bad"
xXfainarufantajiXx 2 years ago
If the torture we did was bad, punish Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Rice/Wolfowitz etc.
If the non-torture we did was okay, leave Pelosi alone.
allawayjared 2 years ago
how can we expect the world to not retaliate when we torture and lock poeple up with no charges. this will come back to haunt us.
mtsEnrique 2 years ago 2
Speaking of torture, do you think the babies that lay dying in the soiled linen rooms in Illinois, thought they were being tortured?
Foghorned 2 years ago
they were equal in m mind
godtomen 2 years ago
The "war on drugs" is pathetic and obviously doesn't work, because there is a large drug trade inside of prisons.
monkeyman660 2 years ago
I agree. In fact I think we need to extend that to the US justice system. We should just give the police the power to perform summary executions. I mean why do we go through all this red tape of 'trials' and 'due legal process?' Who cares about giving criminals a fair trial? They're crimminals for chrissakes! They don't deserve trials. If they're not criminals then why did the police arrest them, huh?
Guitcad1 2 years ago
Wow... Just, wow.
monkeyman660 2 years ago
In this country we are innocent until proven guilty! Everyone deserves a fair trial. Also, ever hear of framing?...ya... What if that was you? or a family member? or a friend? .....I'm wondering...just out of curiosity...are you from Texas? lol
sunshine4358 2 years ago
alright, how 'bout I frame you for a murder, that alright?
Now in the real world, you'd have a pretty good chance of clearing your name.
In your world, you're dead.
harlexWTF 2 years ago
I forget sometimes that my sarcasm doesn't always come through in writing.
For the record, I was responding to Licentious Slut's comment that these were all terrorists and criminals so who cares if they were tortured or something to that effect. (I don't have it right in front of me. Sorry if I'm misquoting.)
Guitcad1 2 years ago
I was being sarcastic. I'm totally against torturing people or holding them indeffinitely without trial. The reason we don't do those things to our own citizens is because they are bad things to do to anyone! So I say it shouldn't be done to anyone.
Guitcad1 2 years ago
I think that it is Fox news as the big winner here. Oh well. As we know, now it was just a catterpillar. Is a catterpillar a form of tourture? I thought that tourture was cutting off fingers and fingernails and beheading, and things of that nature? Thank you Cheney and Bush for keeping Americans safe by this so called tourture. Your boy Obama has decided to keep the pics away from the public, decided to have military tribunals, THANK YOU OBAMA FOR DOING THIS. First move I agree with. Thanks
loubayou 2 years ago
Torture is "extreme anguish of body or mind; agony." Torture is making someone so utterly afraid of you that you will tell them absolutely anything in order for them just to stop. Phobia is an extreme irrational fear of something.
Forcing someone to experience their worst phobia, lying to them in order to scare them so horribly that they'll talk, is definitely torture. It doesn't matter that no permanent harm was threatened, psychological torture is still torture.
Chirox82 2 years ago
MSNBC did the right thing.
035577 2 years ago
"Jail should be a deterrent not a place for criminals to get better"
With a system like that absolutely nothing is accomplished. rehabilitation where possible is key to healing offenders' mindsets and society as a whole.
ransomdave 2 years ago
Both were biased and unfair and the liberalviewer knows it. I personally think that msnbc and fox news are completely biased, each to their own sides. Fox news understates the issue because they are owned by a conservative and msnbc dramatically overstates it because they are owned by a liberal. The real issue is whether the liberalviewer is biased for msnbc? Ofcourse he is LOL.
getyourfishonloomis 2 years ago