It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Conservative radio hosts gets waterboarded, and lasts six seconds before saying its torture

page: 9
40
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 22 2009 @ 10:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by ldyserenity
HAHAHA WHAT A WIMP!!!! And they say we are Daffodils? I could last more than 6 seconds. And I am a woman!!! Of course to be fair,I was on a swim team so.


Thank goodness for the free, easy to use ATS media portal then... and the abundance of cameras in our day to day lives.

Can't wait to see the video.

Because you obviously are so awesomely tough you will do it just to save face, right?




posted on May, 22 2009 @ 10:47 PM
link   
Remember folks, what Mancow went through was not a full blown waterboarding session, it was not even close to SERE's training version. As there are several degree's of intensity with waterboarding; I do know and I have been subjected to it, I have seen a couple posters talking about SERE's version to teach our young soldiers what it is like. Sere's version is done in a very controlled fashion to impact the inductee in the least amount of trauma and still impress on them just how it can be an effective tool in helping to change an individuals mind about talking or not talking.

My conclusion on waterboarding is it is a form of torture(note; form of torture)and can be very effective when applied appropriately to assist in loosening tongues. As what has been told to us by MSM and other commentaters, it does seem that this type of torture may have been used excessively, unfortunately for the people that had been arrested and detained under the guise of "terrorist activity/connections" they (militant orginazation)not the countries in which they claimed citizenship in had not signed the Geneva Convention prior to the escalation of military actions or 9/11, and as there were no official declarations of War from any country(key here is country; not militant group) invovled, the Geneva Convention declaration does not apply, but we do have a few members of Government wise enough to say that we should apply no matter the circumstances,

Any who think waterboarding is not so bad, think again; and if you wish to try it, please have someone who has been trained and willing to give you the full treatment give you a go at it. I guaruntee you will change your mind on how bad it really can be, and how effective it can be to change someone's mind. However just loosening someones tongue with any form of torture does not guaruntee that the information obtained will be the whole truth; therfore the reasoning behind multible treatments of waterboarding.

I understand this does not answer the question "Is it wrong to waterboard, and did the information obtained really prevent anything from happening?"
but hopefully many who think that it is not so bad will reconsider and understand most of what you have seen of waterboarding in only a tiny fraction of what is really done in a waterboarding treatment.



[edit on 22/5/2009 by Pappa_Bear]



posted on May, 22 2009 @ 10:49 PM
link   
reply to post by rapinbatsisaltherage
 


Huffingtonpost? Try something a little less biased.

As for the torture and death of the individual what did he have to do with the Yellow Cake purchases in Africa?
What did he have to do with the ties to German chemical manufacturing contracts with Saddam?
What did he have to do with the contacts with Syria and the stogage of chemical biological weapons?
What did he have to do with the deaths of thousands of Kurds that Saddam caused with chemical weapons?
What did he have to do with the photos and itel that caused Collin Powel to brief and convince not only republicans but dems as well?

Granted, not everything is clear cut. But to automatically voicing the liberal line is just as bad as voicing just the conservative side as well.



posted on May, 22 2009 @ 10:50 PM
link   
it does not matter if the law says something is ok

you must determine if something is Right or Wrong , Good or Evil

you can make the law say anything is legal but that does Not make it right



posted on May, 22 2009 @ 10:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by jerico65
You think if we picked up and left right now, they would stop?


I guarantee you 90% of it would stop once there are no more tanks, bombers, check points, all that stuff that just drills it into those peoples' heads on a daily basis that they are living in a war zone courtesy of the USA. Remember we still have domestic violence even here at home, but not a war zone. Granted we don't strap bombs on as many things, but if there were a war zone here, again, there would be tons more domestic violence here, too, I'm sure.


The insurgents are going to get pissed off at anything we do; it just doesn't matter.


Anything you and like-minded people would do, I can agree with that.

Even if just theoretically, do you think what happened to Germany, Italy and Japan circa the 1930's, and as a result of economic depression, could ever happen to the USA?



posted on May, 22 2009 @ 10:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by WhatTheory
We did NOT break any rules.
The Geneva Conventions does not apply to terrorists.
Also, please show me where the Taliban and Al Quaida signed the Conventions.


The Japanese were not party to the Geneva Conventions either - yet at the end of the war, there were people tried, imprisoned and executed for war crimes.

The basis for the trials - and the crimes committed - was violations of other existing laws, both international and domestic (Japanese).

The Geneva Conventions may not apply to terrorists and insurgents, but that does NOT mean that there is no law governing their treatment by default. How they are treated in captivity is dictated by (a) American law dealing with foreign nationals (b) treaties with captive's home countries and (c) international agreements to which the US is party.

In other words - something not directly prohibited by the Geneva Conventions does not become permitted by it's omission.

It becomes a matter of international law and convention by default. This was codified (albeit somewhat ambiguously) and ratified by the USA in the Martens Clause of the 2nd Hague Conventions, revisited in 1907, and - most importantly - applied judicially by the USA in 1948 (USA vs Krupp).

The USA may not have broken laws under the Geneva Conventions - but that's a far cry from saying no laws were broken, and a farther cry from saying no laws apply.



posted on May, 22 2009 @ 10:53 PM
link   
reply to post by mikerussellus
 



Huffingtonpost? Try something a little less biased.

The first article I gave you was not the Huffington post. Just search his name, all media has covered this, but I'm not surprised that you didn't know that, considering you were unaware of his false confession.

Now, kindly show me where the Huffington post article is incorrect and spreading false information, since that is the weight of your accusation.



posted on May, 22 2009 @ 10:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by grover
Yeah all those who are cavalier about torture obviously haven't had it happen to them... think about it though... waterboarding simulates drowning... having come close to drowning a couple of times in my life and I can say without equivocation that it is a terrifying experience and even if you know that you aren't drowning... your body doesn't and will react like it does... with panic.


Of course no one wants to be Water Boarded, you would be out of your mind to wish for it, but look at the reality here, how many of us in this discussion are Terrorists and Insurgent Bombers?

If Water Boarding was even a rare occurrence within our State or Federal systems of Justice, yes, I would be outraged, as I hold firm to the Constitutional Protections afforded to us as American Citizens, and/or Common Criminals. However, the individuals in question are NOT Americans, they are NOT Common Criminals, and they in fact laugh at our basic everyday "Harsh Interrogation" techniques.

People need to stop approaching these War Criminals as if they were of a Common Criminal stature; they are on an entirely different level, and they need to be treated accordingly.



posted on May, 22 2009 @ 10:56 PM
link   
reply to post by mikerussellus
 


I'll address all of the following when you provide a link showing how the Bush admin used this to go to war. Then I'll fully address the topic, but your questions are not covering the full scope, so please:

As for the torture and death of the individual what did he have to do with the Yellow Cake purchases in Africa?

LINK

What did he have to do with the ties to German chemical manufacturing contracts with Saddam?

LINK

What did he have to do with the contacts with Syria and the stogage of chemical biological weapons?

LINK

What did he have to do with the deaths of thousands of Kurds that Saddam caused with chemical weapons?
What did he have to do with the photos and itel that caused Collin Powel to brief and convince not only republicans but dems as well?


LINK

[edit on 22-5-2009 by rapinbatsisaltherage]



posted on May, 22 2009 @ 10:57 PM
link   
never mind

[edit on 5/22/09 by RedDragon]



posted on May, 22 2009 @ 10:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheAgentNineteen
People need to stop approaching these War Criminals as if they were of a Common Criminal stature; they are on an entirely different level, and they need to be treated accordingly.


Fine.

Show us proof that those being waterboarded are war criminals and the situation may change.

Thing is, your country locks up and tortures people without a trial and with about as much transparency as a brick wall.

The stupid, unwavering public simply follow along because they is what they have been groomed to do.

Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty? Oh, right. America doesn't have to follow that... they are America. They can do what they want.



posted on May, 22 2009 @ 10:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by jerico65
You think if we picked up and left right now, they would stop?


I guarantee you 90% of it would stop once there are no more tanks, bombers, check points, all that stuff that just drills it into those peoples' heads on a daily basis that they are living in a war zone courtesy of the USA. Remember we still have domestic violence even here at home, but not a war zone. Granted we don't strap bombs on as many things, but if there were a war zone here, again, there would be tons more domestic violence here, too, I'm sure.



If your theory is being put forth as a guarantee, then I would have to ask, do you also offer a Money Back promise with that? If so, I can guarantee that you will go broke and be placed into debt faster than you can formulate a retraction towards such.



posted on May, 22 2009 @ 11:01 PM
link   
reply to post by fooffstarr
 


It's water not battery acid.



posted on May, 22 2009 @ 11:04 PM
link   
reply to post by ldyserenity
 


Then you should have no trouble at all then.

You said you could last longer than six seconds. Prove it.

I'm sick and tired of these people who talk about waterboarding like it is nothing, and yet refuse to experience it themselves.



posted on May, 22 2009 @ 11:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by rapinbatsisaltherage
reply to post by mikerussellus
 



Huffingtonpost? Try something a little less biased.

The first article I gave you was not the Huffington post. Just search his name, all media has covered this, but I'm not surprised that you didn't know that, considering you were unaware of his false confession.

Now, kindly show me where the Huffington post article is incorrect and spreading false information, since that is the weight of your accusation.



I did read the article. Convincing? Not really. One has to assume that first, the Egyptians obtained false information from their torture, second, that declaration of war was based on ONLY that information, third, there was no other information that would negate his allegations.



posted on May, 22 2009 @ 11:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by fooffstarr

Originally posted by TheAgentNineteen
People need to stop approaching these War Criminals as if they were of a Common Criminal stature; they are on an entirely different level, and they need to be treated accordingly.


Fine.

Show us proof that those being waterboarded are war criminals and the situation may change.

Thing is, your country locks up and tortures people without a trial and with about as much transparency as a brick wall.

The stupid, unwavering public simply follow along because they is what they have been groomed to do.

Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty? Oh, right. America doesn't have to follow that... they are America. They can do what they want.



Never in the history of Warfare have "War Criminals" been afforded the rights of Habeas Corpus, i.e., the right to challenge their detention in court. War Criminals, by definition of their status, are ALWAYS held until the cessation of related hostilities. Study some History, and you might just be surprised at what you find (Hint: What we are currently doing has been common Warfare practice for Centuries).

On a similar note, Water Boarding is an interrogation technique, it is NOT some daily treatment administered to detainees. Those detainees whom are not being interrogated, are not Water Boarded, and therein lies the fact which strongly denotes such acts as not being representative of "Torture".

We can parse hairs all day long on our personally held definitions of "Torture", but the fact remains that we are lawfully holding these individuals as Prisoners of War.

War Criminal = Anyone taking part with Al-Qaeda, their Associates, or likewise groups who have been evidenced as Promoting, Planning, or Carrying out Terrorist attacks against the United States, its Allies, or its Interests.


[edit on 5-22-2009 by TheAgentNineteen]



posted on May, 22 2009 @ 11:11 PM
link   
Since when is Mancow a conservative talk show host? I've heard some of his Bits and they don't seem conservative to me. Infact back in the day him and Howard Stern were always going at it and were infact competitors for the same market share. What I'm saying is he is more like howard Stern then say Grandy and Andy.



posted on May, 22 2009 @ 11:14 PM
link   
reply to post by mikerussellus
 



I did read the article. Convincing? Not really. One has to assume that first, the Egyptians obtained false information from their torture.


How do you explain that every claim turned out to be false and went against the other intelligence that was obtained?


, second, that declaration of war was based on ONLY that information,

Article never claims that.


third, there was no other information that would negate his allegations


Like what for instance?

Still waiting for those links so we can continue discussing what drove us into war.

[edit on 22-5-2009 by rapinbatsisaltherage]

[edit on 22-5-2009 by rapinbatsisaltherage]



posted on May, 22 2009 @ 11:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by rapinbatsisaltherage
reply to post by mikerussellus
 


I'll address all of the following when you provide a link showing how the Bush admin used this to go to war. Then I'll fully address the topic, but your questions are not covering the full scope, so please:

As for the torture and death of the individual what did he have to do with the Yellow Cake purchases in Africa?

LINK

What did he have to do with the ties to German chemical manufacturing contracts with Saddam?

LINK

What did he have to do with the contacts with Syria and the stogage of chemical biological weapons?

LINK

What did he have to do with the deaths of thousands of Kurds that Saddam caused with chemical weapons?
What did he have to do with the photos and itel that caused Collin Powel to brief and convince not only republicans but dems as well?


LINK

[edit on 22-5-2009 by rapinbatsisaltherage]


Some of this information was obtained AFTER the war had started. It only reinforced the allegations that Saddam was in the terror business. But to get back to the main point of the thread, IF and I will allow that IF the information obtained through torture was false, then I would hold suspect all iniformation obtained through torture until verified.
But to disallow the positive information obtained simply because one case MAY have been suspect doesn't hold water.
Verified, positive information has been obtained. That is a fact you can't dispute.
Perhaps harsher measures should have been used to insure that information was true.



posted on May, 22 2009 @ 11:16 PM
link   
reply to post by mikerussellus
 



Some of this information was obtained AFTER the war had started. It only reinforced the allegations that Saddam was in the terror business. But to get back to the main point of the thread, IF and I will allow that IF the information obtained through torture was false, then I would hold suspect all iniformation obtained through torture until verified.
But to disallow the positive information obtained simply because one case MAY have been suspect doesn't hold water.
Verified, positive information has been obtained. That is a fact you can't dispute.
Perhaps harsher measures should have been used to insure that information was true.


I'm not disputing anything, I'm asking for SOURCES for your claims, like you asked for sources for mine, remember? Or am I the only one in this debate that it capable of actually getting them?

Edit to add: How is information after a war started relevant? You need solid information to go there in the first place. There was no solid information, only false intelligence.

[edit on 22-5-2009 by rapinbatsisaltherage]




top topics



 
40
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join