Leftys Waterboard Man In Public
Public Waterboarding

Maybe I'm a little dense but doesn't this prove that waterboarding is not so bad? I mean if the anti-waterboarders would do it to one of their own how bad can it be?

You can read the full story at Philly.com. Let me excerpt a little. The question is will the Obama regime take on the previous Bush administration and indict them for war crimes?

Tonight I had an opportunity to ask Barack Obama a question that is on the minds of many Americans, yet rarely rises to the surface in the great ruckus of the 2008 presidential race -- and that is whether an Obama administration would seek to prosecute officials of a former Bush administration on the revelations that they greenlighted torture, or for other potential crimes that took place in the White House.

Obama said that as president he would indeed ask his new Attorney General and his deputies to "immediately review the information that's already there" and determine if an inquiry is warranted -- but he also tread carefully on the issue, in line with his reputation for seeking to bridge the partisan divide. He worried that such a probe could be spun as "a partisan witch hunt." However, he said that equation changes if there was willful criminality, because "nobody is above the law."

The question was inspired by a recent report by ABC News, confirmed by the Associated Press, that high-level officials including Vice President Dick Cheney and former Cabinet secretaries Colin Powell, John Ashcroft and Donald Rumsfeld, among others, met in the White House and discussed the use of waterboarding and other torture techniques on terrorism suspects.

Let me see if I get this. Waterboarding is torture. It is wrong. But leftys would do it to one of their own to score political points.

It seems to me that if there are going to be any war crimes trials those two mopes holding the poor guy down should be the first in the dock.

Further: Colin Powell, John Ashcroft and Donald Rumsfeld, discussed waterboarding and these guys actually practice it. Are they angling for jobs with the CIA?

HT Just One Minute

posted by Simon on 04.15.08 at 09:18 PM


Yeah, I don't believe anyone has ever volunteered for the rack and thumbscrews to score political points.

Donna V.   ·  April 15, 2008 9:55 PM

The thought of Bush & Co. always looking over their shoulders while traveling abroad after their sorry administration comes to an end warms my heart.

Slobo's cell will always be waiting...

alphie   ·  April 16, 2008 12:52 AM

Does that mean we are going to have to invade Belgium again alphie? Darn.

Fortunately we already have an Army stationed in Germany for the purpose. That is handy.

M. Simon   ·  April 16, 2008 1:35 AM

Our military will be too weak to invade Belgium after Bush slinks home to his "ranch." M.

The bitter bumpkin chickenhawks would have to try free their Messiah on their own dime.

Sounds like a Peter Sellers movie.

First act...they discover the ICC is located in The Netherlands, not Belgium.

alphie   ·  April 16, 2008 3:41 AM


I see. Weakening the Military is another plank of the Democratic platform.

Nice to know.

Do you think that will garner many votes?


Alphie alpie alphie. The last time some one tried to pull one of those stunts it was in Belgium.

You really need to keep up.

BTW the US signed on in Dec of 2000 (Clinton) but the treaty was never ratified, so it is not in effect. Which means that if they grab a US citizen they could be regarded as a hostile power. I suppose we could do what Clinton did to Yugoslavia. Bomb them into submission.

Or we could do what Jefferson did to the Bey of Tripoli. Send in the Marines.

That would be some fun. The US hasn't invaded Europe for a while. I think they are due.


As to invading on our own dime that is a novel thought. I think we could round up a battalion or two to do the job. Or subcontract it to the Mossad. Plenty of idle resources available.


Did I mention that first you have to win the election in Nov? The Way the Clinton and Obama factions are shredding each other I don't think there will be much of a party left come September.

And you know what I am so looking forward to? The Lefty riots at the D and R conventions by bitter Democrats. I love bitter Democrats. Mo bitter is Mo better. Don't cha think?


I do love your bitterness alphie. Music to my ears.

Y'all come back now y'heah.

M. Simon   ·  April 16, 2008 5:08 AM

How many years has it been since we waterboarded the third and final detainee? And why is this even an issue among the radical left, if they truly have any desire for honest discussion?

Joseph Sixpack   ·  April 16, 2008 10:15 AM

Leftism is an inherently dishonest enterprise. They are incapable of an honest discussion. In fact, they have no interest in an honest discussion. They want to win. Their sole motivation is a will to power, power to re-shape the world, including people. They have but one principle: the ends justify the means.

Lovernios   ·  April 16, 2008 11:11 AM

Simon, you raise an interesting question that maybe one of the lawyers here can answer. To some degree, you can consent to have a "crime" committed against you. For instance, you can consent to have your doctor cut you open on the operating table and boxers consent to be punched by the other boxer in the ring (these are formal consents, involving paperwork and whatnot). But some things you cannot give consent for. For instance, you cannot consent to be murdered.

So where does torture fall here? If waterboarding is torture and torture is classified as beyond consent (I don't know the answer to either of these questions), then those lefties are in a heap of trouble.

tim maguire   ·  April 16, 2008 11:52 AM

They're doing this with good intentions, to prevent anyone from being waterboarded in the future, so it's ok.

Lovernios   ·  April 16, 2008 2:55 PM


If torture is beyond consent then a lot of folks into S&M are in trouble.

Of course in S&M play the play is supposed to end when consent stops.

My point in posting this is that waterboarding is not as extreme as some leftys make out. As some one pointed out in some previous comments.

BTW I have heard (not verified) that only three people have been waterboarded in the current conflict.

In any case the prisoners do have control over it. They give truthful answers (verified on the spot or at a later time) and the waterboarding stops.

The value of torture is not the pain itself. It is fear. It is a mental game more than a physical one.

M. Simon   ·  April 17, 2008 1:35 AM

If the "truthful answer" is verified later, why would the waterboarding stop at that point? Wouldn't the incentive be to give answers that the torturer (or his controller) thinks _sound_ true?

In any event, that's a misuse of language: there's a big difference between the knowledge that there's some sort of answer out there that might make the person doing it to you stop, and having a "safe word" (or gesture, or grunt-pattern) that someone whom you trust will take as a sign that he must stop now, and that you won't have to do it again without your consent...to say nothing of the fundamental fact that if someone you trust, someone with whom you have relatively social equality and will have to deal with you later is doing it, that's very different from an hostile party who (at least notionally) would like to see you dead is doing it.

That makes the mental condition different, and makes this not torture; it does, however, act a bit like a fence-law, saying that if this and so is so physically unpleasant as to approach torture when it is consented-to, how much more likely that it is in fact torture when forced on someone.

To put it in black-and-white terms:
Good Guys don't torture. Some people take this to mean that since we are irrevocably the Good Guys, nothing we do is torture. I take it to mean that if we make torture a matter of policy, we will rapidly not be the Good Guys, and will in fact become more Bad Guys (probably not the worst, but very, very, powerful, so our slight evil will go a long way). We lose tens of thousands of people each year to pointless deaths; I'm willing to be one of (say) ten thousand extra deaths a year if that's the price of our not being a nation worthy of the hate of the decent people of this world.

(But that's so un-butch...how can that be _tough_? Well, they're not the same, and can in fact be at cross-purposes: butchness is looking tough, which takes energy away from being tough just as paranoia is a waste of good fear. None of the martial arts masters I've had the privilege to know has been a swaggerer....)

Darby Clash   ·  April 18, 2008 4:02 PM

If the "truthful answer" is verified later, why would the waterboarding stop at that point? Wouldn't the incentive be to give answers that the torturer (or his controller) thinks _sound_ true?

Because it only temporarily stops the torture which then resumes at a later time.

As to whether torture is wrong - depends on the cost benefit.

Also if the enemy doesn't want its prisoners tortured it should be a signatory to the Geneva conventions and act accordingly including good treatment for the prisoners of ours it holds. Call it the incentive plan.

Tit for tat is a good strategy in game theory and real life.

M. Simon   ·  April 19, 2008 10:10 AM

Post a comment

April 2011
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
          1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30


Search the Site


Classics To Go

Classical Values PDA Link


Recent Entries


Site Credits