would you be in favor of waterboarding karl rove to get to the bottom...

[Gato Moteado]

..of the valeria plame scandal and to find out exactly who authorized the leaks? or how about waterboarding bob novak to see who his source really was?

or how about waterboarding tom delay to get the truth about his shady dealings?

or how about the waterboarding of the executives at dieboldt and es&s to find the truth about the bizarre election results in 2000, 2002 and 2004?

what about the waterboarding of rupert murdoch, sean hannity, tony snow, brit hume, bill o'reilly, roger ailles, ann coulter and everyone else at fox news to get them to admit that fox is not "fair and balanced" but is in fact a propoganda tool of the republican party?

what about the waterboarding of rush limbaugh to get him to admit to the crimes he committed in acquiring drugs, and to find out what he did with all that viagra in the dominican republic and to get him to admit he is a propoganda tool for the republican party?

according to the white house and all the supporters of the clowns in the white house, waterboarding is not torture and good information can be extracted from enemy combatants thru the use of such means of interrogation. therefore, if, in the instances above, waterboarding were used to coerce confessions from these people (who could arguably be considered enemy combatants) to back up what we all believe (i.e. rove was complicit in the valerie plame outing and dieboldt has been fixing elections and destroying democracy) and what we know is true (fox news is a mouthpiece for the repukes and tom delay and rush limbaugh are criminals) then the right wingers that support waterboarding would be forced to accept the truth and we could get democracy back on track in the USA. hell, according to rush limbaugh, this kind of stuff is just like a fraternity prank, so surely he wouldn't object to being subjected to a harmless prank.

[Tyler Durden]

1. Bush may have abandoned "the moral high ground"...

I never did.

[Waya]

2. Grrrr.........

....not a fair question.....:evilgrin:

[Gato Moteado]

9. tough question eh?

it's easy to say you're against it...and in all but some very extreme situations, most normal people are against this type of interrogation.

but just like dealing with known terrorists that may have information about where al qaeda cells might be or when a future attack is planned, you almost have to consider dieboldt an enemy combatant that could potentially be controlling our elections. and because the election results were altered in the past few elections we ended up with 9-11, illegal wars, destruction of the environment and our economy and the end of our democracy and the beginnings of facism. and then you have to think: what's the simple waterboarding of a corrupt dieboldt exec or two to potentially save our democracy and possibly offset future illegal wars that could lead to even more dead civilians, US military personnel, and which could possibly trigger a nuclear holocaust? you have to stop and think about that stuff before you do a kneejerk vote of no, don't you?

and the outing of valerie plame is a big issue as well...anyone that would leak that information is on the side of the terrorists.

[Waya]

21. I voted 'NO'......

.....because waterboarding shouldn't be done by anyone to anyone, period, no matter what the reason.

However, the thought of Rove, Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld et al being waterboarded, hell it has a mighty appeal.....:P

[Gato Moteado]

25. i wasn't talking about waterboarding for waterboarding's sake....

i was talking about using a method of interrogation on people that approve of it, in order to save democracy and prevent future election fraud, impending facism and illegal wars and possible nuclear conflicts.

[Ian David]

26. Give me an hour alone with Karl Rove, and he'll confess to killing JFK

But for all we know, it might be true.

[Waya]

41. I know what you meant......

...and I still wanna say 'no', it wouldn't be justified.....it wouldn't make us any better than they are. We would become what we hate. There has to be a better way....and a more effective one.

Even tho, my lesser nature still thinks the idea has great appeal.

[Gato Moteado]

42. so far, all other methods of obtaining information....

...regarding plamegate and dieboldtgate have failed. do you think we'll ever get to the truth?

[Swamp Rat]

3. No

Anyway, his terrible fate already awaits him.

[Ian David]

4. Show me how it's done, and where to sign-up.

It's precisely because I would waterboard Karl Rove, that I also think it needs to be illegal for me to do so.

If it wasn't illegal, I would do it.

So, we need to ban waterboarding for the same reason the anti-gay people want to ban gay marriage-- to protect them from the urges they themselves feel.

[Critters2]

19. Good point

I'd like to, but I shouldn't. Just like running stop signs when I'm in a hurry.

So, yes, I'd like to waterboard Karl Rove....but no, I shouldn't. Dammit.

[Ian David]

23. But it should be legal to put light-sticks in the assholes of Republicans

Any Republican.

As a sort of "Tag-and-Release" program.

Imagine the joy on our faces as Republicans are all running around the neighborhood with light-sticks protruding from their asses.

It should be a law that all Republicans are required to have light-sticks in their asses at all time.

Because for one thing, you can't trust Republicans in the dark.

I mean... think of the children.

[Critters2]

45. Actually, that would be fun

I'm going to hell.

But I won't be lonely!

[Gato Moteado]

46. going to hell for wanting to put nazis in their place?

i think not.

[Ian David]

53. But that's exactly what Repukes think about us.

Which is why we need laws to keep us from doing to the Repukes all the things we really really want to do to them.

[Gato Moteado]

20. but denying the supporters of waterboarding the opportunity to be...

waterboarded is almost as bad as denying gay people the right to get married.

ok, i know that's a bit of a stretch, but, my point is that these very people do not consider waterboarding to be torture. hell, most of our servicemen are subjected to it during their training just so they know what it is like. they aren't complaining or suing the government over it. do you think the executives of dieboldt or the valerie plame leakers are somehow better than our US service men and women?

[Virginia Dare]

5. Tarring and feathering is a fine old American tradition....

[warrens]

6. I'd waterboard the fucker just for the hell of it

I doubt it would get any accurate information, but I bet I could get him to confess to the Lindburgh kidnapping. And the Judge Crater disappearance. But mainly, I just want to have fun waterboarding the nazi thug.

[Gato Moteado]

16. but would it matter if the information was accurate?

the whitehouse and the freepers would have to accept it.

[Warpy]

7. You are missing a couple of important points

First, torture doesn't work, period.

Second, we don't torture because of who we are, not because of who they are.

[Gato Moteado]

12. true....but remember that these people don't consider it torture

limbaugh himself likened it to a fraternity prank.

so if the recipients of the interrogation are on record saying they don't believe it's torture, then why would you be against it?

[Ian David]

30. The Milgram experiment

The Milgram experiment
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Milgram experiment was a famous scientific experiment of social psychology, intended to measure the willingness of a participant to obey an authority who instructs the participant to do something that may conflict with the participant's personal conscience.

The experiment was first described in 1963 by Stanley Milgram, a psychologist at Yale University,<1> and later discussed in his 1974 book, Obedience to Authority: An Experimental View.<2>

The experiments began in July 1961, three months after the start of the trial of Adolf Eichmann in Jerusalem. Milgram devised the experiment to answer the question "Could it be that Eichmann and his million accomplices in the Holocaust were just following orders? Could we call them all accomplices?"<3>

Milgram summed up in the article "The Perils of Obedience" writing:

The legal and philosophic aspects of obedience are of enormous importance, but they say very little about how most people behave in concrete situations. I set up a simple experiment at Yale University to test how much pain an ordinary citizen would inflict on another person simply because he was ordered to by an experimental scientist. Stark authority was pitted against the subjects' strongest moral imperatives against hurting others, and, with the subjects' ears ringing with the screams of the victims, authority won more often than not. The extreme willingness of adults to go to almost any lengths on the command of an authority constitutes the chief finding of the study and the fact most urgently demanding explanation. <4>


More:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment

[Gato Moteado]

31. an incredible experiment with chilling results

i saw the film footage of the experiments in a freshman psych class in college. it was frightening. as for my poll and waterboarding, i'm not sure if that experiment is relevant in this context.

some consider waterboarding torture while others don't. some don't care and feel torture is acceptible if it can stop a future terrorist attack while others feel torture will not yield any accurate information but rather the one tortured will just say what the torturer wants to hear. i don't claim to be an expert in the field so i don't know what constitutes torture in every case and what doesn't. i also don't know for sure if torture ever works or not. i do, however, personally feel that torture is barbaric and i could never be made by someone else to torture anyone. i am also against the US getting into the torture business and the photos from abu grehb certainly looked like torture to me. that said, as i replied in another thread, if the life of a loved one is at stake and the perpetrator is in my control, all bets are off.

this poll is interesting to me because the people being waterboarded in the scenario are people that have always supported the white house in every decision they make or have directly come out in the record stating that waterboarding is not torture. so, if they don't feel it is torture, and it is used on them to gain information that could potentially save democracy and thousands of human lives, then why the objection? some people think that self mutilation, tattoos and body piercings are pleasant...i certainly don't think so but who am i to decide for those people what they should or shouldn't do to their body?

and, for all the people that voted "yes" in this poll...i'd love to know now if they could be against the waterboarding of known terrorists (i'm not talking about random muslims picked up in the dragnet from all over the place...i'm talking about known terrorists and al qaeda leaders) if it meant we could potentially gain information allowing us to destroy al qaeda cells and stifle potential future attacks.

[Richard Steele]

8. I must respectfully refuse to answer...

[tularetom]

10. This is like the "outing gay republicans" debate

and my response is the same - I would support the waterboarding of anybody who has publicly advocated the use of waterboarding as an interrogation technique, just as I would support the outing of any gay republican who has voted against equal rights for gays.

[rhiannon55]

11. No, but I'd be mightily tempted

fair's fair:evilgrin:

[Stand and Fight]

13. nope n/t

[Ganja Ninja]

14. Why don't we just save ourselves a lot of trouble and ...

pack up the whole Bush cabal and drop them off in Baghdad to pay for their crimes. Let the Iraqi's investigate them or whatever.

[SammyWinstonJack]

24. Great idea!

[mtnester]

15. Hey, if it is OK with Blivet...

KIDDING

maybe not

Nope, nope...kidding

[originalpckelly]

17. 8 people on DU should be ashamed of themselves. (nt)

[SpreadItAround]

18. Torture is always wrong...

...even for a turd blossom like Rove.

[SammyWinstonJack]

22. I think karma will be torture enough for turd blossom.

[Gato Moteado]

29. nobody who voted yes in this poll approves torturing rove....

...all they are supporting is using an interrogation method on people who approve it, support it and DON'T consider it torture. so nobody here is approving of torture.

[Zhade]

27. What, and become a hypocrite?

No, of course not - one cannot oppose torture in only SOME cases and not others without being hypocritical.

[murray hill farm]

28. All those mentioned piggies would squeel if...

you just put them in a cell and yelled "BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO"...no waterboarding required.

[Democrat 4 Ever]

33. I'm not in favor of any type of torture but would be willing, in the

interest of science, have all of the neocons who call it nothing but "fraternity pranks" go through the "hazing" (you call it hazing, I call it torture, potato, pawtatoe) and report back. Since we know they are all "manly men" they should be willing to put their asses on the line for their country. Prove us wrong, asswipes, prove us wrong.

Until Lush Limpballs, Insanity Hannity, Billo O'Lielly, KKKarl, Chucklenuts, Dead Eye and the rest of the cabal have a little on the job experience in this area they need to STFU.

Not for tortures' sake but for science...and the children. Always for the children.

[kcass1954]

32. NO! There are certain things that are wrong. And no matter who you are or

what the circumstances, they are always wrong. Torture is one of those things.

My basis for determining what does or does not constitute torture is this: If I'm okay for something to be done to either my mother or my child, then it's not torture.

[Gato Moteado]

34. your definition of torture is hard for me to grasp....

for example, you wouldn't want your mom or child to be incarcerated. does that mean it's torture and that rapists and murderers should not be apprehended and put in jail?

[misternormal]

35. I do not approve of torture under any circumstances... n/t

[proud patriot]

36. nope

torture of bad people is wrong wrong wrong .

[Avalux]

37. No. There are others ways to get the information.

Torture doesn't produce the desired results.

[walldude]

38. I never thought I'd say this but I'm for waterboarding anyone

who is in favor of waterboarding. Eh.. not really but sometimes I wish I could be as big an asshole as they are.

[rulvy]

39. Waterboard them, then send them to Gitmo, and try them in NK

It's interesting to see that DUers wouldn't waterboard Rove. I'm sure freepers would love to waterboard and use the rack on any democrat, and even any republican who would question Bush. The DUers who wouldn't torture these enemies to freedom are, of course right. However, they go overboard when they become self righteous. They should realize that it's a joke used for illustration. I would guess that no person who believes in the fundamental rights of man would want to waterboard or otherwise torture anyone. However, it makes an interesting picture when you hold the people who would support inhumanity in the name of their principles to the same standard for when they violate our principals.

It is like outing gay republicans; we know it's wrong, but is done for the sheer exercise in exposing hypocrisy, while in reality, most of us would never want to become the monster we loathe in an effort to get rid of that monster. We know it's wrong to make fun of a person's sexuality, especially because it legitimates thinking that being gay is somehow "wrong." Similarly, we would never torture someone because we hated them or because they were loathsome felons who are destroying America because it would give credence to using torture.

But I get the illustration. If they love torture so much, they should bear the brunt of it. Especially because they represent the biggest threat to America as we know it. They are a much bigger threat to American freedom and quality of life then any caveman terrorist with a box-cutter and a bag of gun powder.

[Gato Moteado]

43. great post!

you've explained it best (why torture is unacceptable), while still understanding the basis of my original post and seeing the conflict.

[BrewAz]

40. I know there has been alot of talk about waterboarding...

but it has been around a long time...going through it was part of our preparation for Viet Nam era military training. I am not saying it was fun...but when I think of torture it is more of the humiliating/maiming/degradation variety.

That said, it would be good to see Rove and the rest of the Shrubites go to the waterboard...if for no other reason then to show them what REAL soldiers have to endure.

BrewAz

[Gato Moteado]

44. limbaugh needs to try it out too

it's just a harmless college prank to him.

[niyad]

47. no, it isn't a tough question. if one truly practices what one preaches,

in this case, that waterboarding is torture, and torture is illegal, immoral and unethical, then it doesn't matter who or what the situation, the answer is NO.

that isn't to say, however, that one is not permitted to indulge in the fantasies for a few minutes. the difference is, we don't act on them. (actually, my fantasies go a lot further than waterboarding, to wit: that the whole miserable, lying, corrupt bunch of them, all the cabinet secretaries included (and possibly the top gop'ers in the house and senate) are confined to one large, communal cell (and yes, including condi, cannot separate her from her husband) with one toilet, absolutely NO privacy, where they are watched 24/7, and where, at random intervals throughout the day and night, they are bombarded with the sounds and pictures of the dead and dying of afghanistan, irag, and the gulf states. )

[Drops_not_Dope]

56. Self Delete

DU software must have screwed up, I was posting to a different thread. As far as waterboarding goes though, yes I would use it on them. If you'd have asked this in 2000 I'd have said no way. Never, not on anyone. War changes people though.

[William Bloode]

48. I personally would just love to beat the living daylights out of him.

I would not support a government sanctioned beating, or water boarding. If i done it i would be at the mercy of the law, and rightly so. The government.....not so much.

I would gladly do a bit of time to beat his punk ass down though.

[Jack Rabbit]

49. No, not even Karl Rove

But I must admit, that's a tough call.

[Auntie Bush]

50. My index finger voted NO...but my heart said YES! YES! YES!

It would be a beautiful sight to see bush* underwater and sputtering out the truth.

[Thor_MN]

51. Moot point... No amount of lead could get his fat ass under water...

It would be pointless, his fat fleshy head would keep bobbling to the surface. Weebles wobble, but they just won't drown...

[ComerPerro]

52. Yes, I am all for using torture tactics on all RW pundits and policy maker

Now, I know some of you might call me a hypocrite, for condoning torture but then advocating it toward political foes.

But, you see, these RWers don't consider these activities to be torture.

So its not like I would be doing anything cruel or inhumane to them.

Its just hazing, a fraternity prank

[bklyncowgirl]

54. You'd have to get a special doublewide waterboard--expensive.

But then again that wouldn't be a waste of taxpayer's money--it could also be used to find out what Hastert knew about the page scandal and when he knew it.

Also we could show it on pay-per-view. I'm sure plenty of people would pony up to watch that!

[magellan]

55. Nope

Although I might be tempted to watch the video if someone else were vicious enough to do it to him.

[mnhtnbb]

57. I'll settle for Conyers as Chair of the House Judiciary committee