Ventura: If waterboarding is fine, why don't the cops do it?

Former Minnesota Governor Jesse Ventura, making a guest appearance on ABC’s The View, gave co-host Elisabeth Hasselbeck a lesson or two about the torture technique known as waterboarding.

Ventura, who underwent a barrage of torture techniques at the military Survival, Evade, Resist and Escape (SERE) school, confirmed for Hasselbeck that waterboarding is torture and not just an “enhanced interrogation technique.”

“If waterboarding is okay, why don’t we let our police do it to suspects to learn what they know?” he asked to a chorus of applause.

“That’s an interesting question,” Hasselbeck said. “I understand that question.”

“If waterboarding is okay, why didn’t we waterboard [Timothy] McVeigh and [Terry] Nichols, the Oklahoma City bombers, to find out if there were more people involved? What’s your answer to that?” he asked. “We only seem to waterboard Muslims.”

“That’s an extremist statement,” said Hasselbeck.

“Aha!” cheered Ventura. “Have we waterboarded anybody else? Name me someone else we’ve waterboarded.”

She could not, instead shifting focus to Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) who has been criticized by Republicans for a seeming contradiction in disclosing what she knew about then-President Bush’s torture program, and when.

“They want her out because she lied?” asked Ventura. “Why didn’t they ask for Bush and Cheney to go out when they lied about why we went into Iraq?”

http://rawstory.com/08/news/2009/05/...ls-hasselbeck/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jesse The Body Ventura

“They want her out because she lied?” asked Ventura. “Why didn’t they ask for Bush and Cheney to go out when they lied about why we went into Iraq?”

---

Hasselbeck is a dumb bitch. :lol

Quote:

---

“That’s an extremist statement,” said Hasselbeck, modelling the latest in rhetorical white flags conservatives find fashionable these days.

---

Truth is extremism?

We've truly gone through the looking glass.

Have they waterboarded United States citizens?

if not that's the difference.

If they have, well, that's just wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cry Havoc

“If waterboarding is okay, why don’t we let our police do it to suspects to learn what they know?”

---

Don't give em ideas...

Some of you fools have a problem with cops searching cars. Giving the cops the right to waterboard, holy shit, won't happen. Wish they would let the CIA waterboard Casey Anthony.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jack sommerset

Some of you fools have a problem with cops searching cars. Giving the cops the right to waterboard, holy shit, won't happen. Wish they would let the CIA waterboard Casey Anthony.

---

Forgive us us, Jack, for sticking up for our rights. You're free to give yours away for nothing, but you shouldn't be surprised if the whole world doesn't agree with you.

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...7&postcount=63

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jack sommerset

Some of you fools have a problem with cops searching cars. Giving the cops the right to waterboard, holy shit, won't happen. Wish they would let the CIA waterboard Casey Anthony.

---

What are you afraid of? If you have nothing to hide, then no problem, right?

If you catch a killer,no question period about he/she killing people and u have lots of reasons to believe he/she killed others, I say waterboard his/her ass. I think most people would agree especially the families of those missing that ran across the murderer. Give them justice.

When Jesse Ventura is the voice of sanity, something is terribly wrong.

He beat down that moron Elizabeth Hasselbeck like she was Tito Santana and finished off with one hell of Body Breaker.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jack sommerset

If you catch a killer,no question period about he/she killing people and u have lots of reasons to believe he/she killed others, I say waterboard his/her ass. I think most people would agree especially the families of those missing that ran across the murderer. Give them justice.

---

That would be unconstitutional:

The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution protects witnesses from being forced to incriminate themselves. To "plead the Fifth" is a refusal to answer a question because the response could form self incriminating evidence. Historically, the legal protection against self-incrimination is directly related to the question of torture for extracting information and confessions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jack sommerset

If you catch a killer,no question period about he/she killing people and u have lots of reasons to believe he/she killed others, I say waterboard his/her ass. I think most people would agree especially the families of those missing that ran across the murderer. Give them justice.

---

Have you ever even READ the constitution? You're making a strong argument for being the most uninformed non-troll poster on Spurstalk.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cry Havoc

You're making a strong argument for being the most uninformed non-troll poster on Spurstalk.

---

Don't knock it. It's his forte.

Because we do it to TERRORISTS

we don't do it for stealing a pack of condoms.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MiamiHeat

Because we do it to TERRORISTS

we don't do it for stealing a pack of condoms.

---

How about stealing billions of dollars of American taxpayer money?

How about organized crime designed to instill fear in certain neighborhoods?

How about gang violence and abuse of random civilians?

How about raping women?

None of those count as terrorism?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FromWayDowntown

Truth is extremism?

We've truly gone through the looking glass.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheProfessor

When Jesse Ventura is the voice of sanity, something is terribly wrong.

---

It's all so very scary.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MiamiHeat

Because we do it to TERRORISTS

we don't do it for stealing a pack of condoms.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cry Havoc

How about stealing billions of dollars of American taxpayer money?

How about organized crime designed to instill fear in certain neighborhoods?

How about gang violence and abuse of random civilians?

How about raping women?

None of those count as terrorism?

---

Get some more water. I'm ready to start counting them when you are

Dexter operates outside the law and gets shit done!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cry Havoc

How about stealing billions of dollars of American taxpayer money?

How about organized crime

---

LOL! If that were the case, most of the politicians would be imitating goldfish.

The damage that the faux conservative president and his political advisers have done to conservatism is staggering. Again and again, it is apparent that the American electorate is trending towards a desire for greater individual liberty. Instead of grasping this and moving on to reviving an actual alternative to further sodomy by the state, 'conservatives' continue to seek to debate the past. Doing so only continues to define conservatism as the neo-progressive militarist movement that was the last Bush presidency. Of course, I'm assuming that those 'conservatives' are acutally desirous of limited government and greater liberty. That is not the case.

If Obama is really the "Anti-Christ," as I've seen some 'conservatives' claim (I always thought the true Anti-Christ would be Jerry Buss, but what do I know?) then Bush paved the way for him. How long is it going to take you idiots to figure that out?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jack sommerset

Giving the cops the right to waterboard, holy shit, won't happen..

---

Cops don't have to waterboard they use steel toe boot interrogation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cry Havoc

Have you ever even READ the constitution? You're making a strong argument for being the most uninformed non-troll poster on Spurstalk.

---

You pussy. You are defending murderers. If ur big brain thinks about it for a minute you are defending serial killers. That's the scenario I described. A known killer that knows where other dead people are. You being the fag u are bring up the constitution.

I know the police will never be allowed to waterboard. They can't let a guy go see his dying mother 100 feet away because they think writting a ticket is more important. They can't pull a pastor out of a car without beating his ass after all is safe. I get that. But for you to think that we shouldn't waterboard or torture a known killer to find out more information about what this freak has done is stupid.

If a guy kidnaps a kid and the FBI picks this kidnapper up at the 7-11, again we know for a fact he is the one who kidnapped the kid, chain his ass up and start doing whatever you can do to try to save the kid. There is no "what ifs", he did it, this is my scene. We know he did it and the kid is still out there. What would you do to find out if you can save the kid? I say do anything. You say it's not constitutional. :lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jack sommerset

You pussy. You are defending murderers. If ur big brain thinks about it for a minute you are defending serial killers. That's the scenario I described. A known killer that knows where other dead people are. You being the fag u are bring up the constitution.

I know the police will never be allowed to waterboard. They can't let a guy go see his dying mother 100 feet away because they think writting a ticket is more important. They can't pull a pastor out of a car without beating his ass after all is safe. I get that. But for you to think that we shouldn't waterboard or torture a known killer to find out more information about what this freak has done is stupid.

If a guy kidnaps a kid and the FBI picks this kidnapper up at the 7-11, again we know for a fact he is the one who kidnapped the kid, chain his ass up and start doing whatever you can do to try to save the kid. There is no "what ifs", he did it, this is my scene. We know he did it and the kid is still out there. What would you do to find out if you can save the kid? I say do anything. You say it's not constitutional. :lol

---

Welcome to my sig.

It's funny: I remember hearing that the point of the war on terror was that terrorists hated our way of life and that we must stand up to them to protect our way of life.

Eroding the protection of civil liberties in the name of security and engaging in acts that are justified as being protective against perceived threats through conduct that has some sort of moral equivalence with what the enemy might do to us sure strike me as pillars of the American way of life. I, for one, am glad that we haven't at all strayed from first principles in fighting this war.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cry Havoc

Welcome to my sig.

---

:lol That's it. You should work for Olberman as his editor. Let the people hear what they want them to hear without any explanation. Nice going fag. You sure showed me. :sleep

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jack sommerset

You pussy. You are defending murderers. If ur big brain thinks about it for a minute you are defending serial killers. That's the scenario I described. A known killer that knows where other dead people are. You being the fag u are bring up the constitution.

I know the police will never be allowed to waterboard. They can't let a guy go see his dying mother 100 feet away because they think writting a ticket is more important. They can't pull a pastor out of a car without beating his ass after all is safe. I get that. But for you to think that we shouldn't waterboard or torture a known killer to find out more information about what this freak has done is stupid.

If a guy kidnaps a kid and the FBI picks this kidnapper up at the 7-11, again we know for a fact he is the one who kidnapped the kid, chain his ass up and start doing whatever you can do to try to save the kid. There is no "what ifs", he did it, this is my scene. We know he did it and the kid is still out there. What would you do to find out if you can save the kid? I say do anything. You say it's not constitutional. :lol

---

Even better, let's put a bullet in the back of the skull of anyone who cannot provide for themselves. It's time we remove that drag on our public resources. And hey, it would be good for the environment to get rid of some excess CO2 emitting humans. Most of them are old anyways. Nobody cares about old people except for when Hallmark makes us feel guilty about them around certain holidays.

Our government would be more efficient without such nuisances as dissent protected by free speech and trifling matters such as votes. Constitution? :lol Who the fuck believes in that anymore?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FromWayDowntown

It's funny: I remember hearing that the point of the war on terror was that terrorists hated our way of life and that we must stand up to them to protect our way of life.

Eroding the protection of civil liberties in the name of security and engaging in acts that are justified as being protective against perceived threats through conduct that has some sort of moral equivalence with what the enemy might do to us sure strike me as pillars of the American way of life. I, for one, am glad that we haven't at all strayed from first principles in fighting this war.

---

Could you please tell me what's wrong with torturing a person we KNOW has killed people and has information to save lives. It's that simple. We know 100 percent that if we get this person to talk it will save lives plus he is a killer. No questions about if we have the right guy. He is it. What's wrong with beating this prick, pouring acid on his cock, peeling back his finger nails in order to prevent a death.

What happens when the state takes the ol' acid on the genitals routine and applies it to those who haven't killed anyone?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jack sommerset

Could you please tell me what's wrong with torturing a person we KNOW has killed people and has information to save lives. It's that simple. We know 100 percent that if we get this person to talk it will save lives plus he is a killer. No questions about if we have the right guy. He is it. What's wrong with beating this prick, pouring acid on his cock, peeling back his finger nails in order to prevent a death.

---

First of all this is counterfactual. It hasn't been proven this is the case, in fact our intel says it's doubtful.

Second of all, if expedience makes torture okay for terrorists, who's next?

Thirdly, we do know that torture policy has damaged American prestige, perhaps irreversibly, and is basically an Al Qaeda recruitment poster by now. Torture makes enemies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marcus Bryant

What happens when the state takes the ol' acid on the genitals routine and applies it to those who haven't killed anyone?

---

That's not what I am asking. We know we have the right guy. What's wrong with torturing him to save lives?

The ultimate thug is the state. Why the fuck do we want to expand its power?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

First of all this is counterfactual. It hasn't been proven this is the case, in fact our intel says it's doubtful.

Second of all, if expedience makes torture okay for terrorists, who's next?

Thirdly, we do know that torture policy has damaged American prestige, perhaps irreversibly, and is basically an Al Qaeda recruitment poster by now. Torture makes enemies.

---

Altogether now. Click your heels and say "they hate us because we're us" three times.

And worship at the altar of state power. That's what *reel conservatives* do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jack sommerset

Could you please tell me what's wrong with torturing a person we KNOW has killed people and has information to save lives. It's that simple. We know 100 percent that if we get this person to talk it will save lives plus he is a killer. No questions about if we have the right guy. He is it. What's wrong with beating this prick, pouring acid on his cock, peeling back his finger nails in order to prevent a death.

---

Far be it of me to actually believe you'll listen to rationality at this point, but here goes: You're a murderer on the run from the cops. You've killed six people to this point (the cops only know of 3 of the murders), there's good evidence you'll be found guilty, and you have a compulsion that makes you want to kill again.

You walk into a situation where there are a lot of civilians around, and it's at this point that a few cops spot you, and recognize your face as the one that's similar to the sketch they have of the guy who's making himself known as a serial murderer.

Would you be more likely to surrender peaceably, knowing you still have basic human rights like the right to trial? What's the mindset of a man who knows he's going to be tortured in every possible way when there are 400 people around and just a few cops? Do you really think he's going to surrender willingly knowing he's going to be tortured for information?

^^^The same goes for the battlefield. Torture needlessly endangers our troops.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jack sommerset

Could you please tell me what's wrong with torturing a person we KNOW has killed people and has information to save lives.

---

You mean other than: (1) our treaties prohibiting the use of torture; and (2) our constitutional guarantees against such things?

Yeah, other than that, nothing, I guess.

I know the answer already. You don't have to answer. You think u will lose ur cred. You guys would tear apart another human being if you thought you could save a loved ones life. Cry Havoc would tear another man's asshole apart for any reason.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cry Havoc

Far be it of me to actually believe you'll listen to rationality at this point, but here goes: You're a murderer on the run from the cops. You've killed six people to this point (the cops only know of 3 of the murders), there's good evidence you'll be found guilty, and you have a compulsion that makes you want to kill again.

You walk into a situation where there are a lot of civilians around, and it's at this point that a few cops spot you, and recognize your face as the one that's similar to the sketch they have of the guy who's making himself known as a serial murderer.

Would you be more likely to surrender peaceably, knowing you still have basic human rights like the right to trial? What's the mindset of a man who knows he's going to be tortured in every possible way when there are 400 people around and just a few cops? Do you really think he's going to surrender willingly knowing he's going to be tortured for information?

---

Or suppose that instead of jacksommerset who had undertaken those murders, it was his identical twin brother (who jacksommerset doesn't know to be the killer), but the police apprehended the completely-innocent jacksommerset instead.

I'm sure jacksommerset would be down with being tortured because, after all, we reserve that treatment only for those who have already killed.

^^^Your attachment to the rule of law is a quaint, pre-9/11 vestige of Americanism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lawrence Wilkerson

...no torture or harsh interrogation techniques were employed by any U.S. interrogator for the entire second term of Cheney-Bush, 2005-2009. So, if we are to believe the protestations of Dick Cheney, that Obama's having shut down the "Cheney interrogation methods" will endanger the nation, what are we to say to Dick Cheney for having endangered the nation for the last four years of his vice presidency?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cry Havoc

Far be it of me to actually believe you'll listen to rationality at this point, but here goes: You're a murderer on the run from the cops. You've killed six people to this point (the cops only know of 3 of the murders), there's good evidence you'll be found guilty, and you have a compulsion that makes you want to kill again.

You walk into a situation where there are a lot of civilians around, and it's at this point that a few cops spot you, and recognize your face as the one that's similar to the sketch they have of the guy who's making himself known as a serial murderer.

Would you be more likely to surrender peaceably, knowing you still have basic human rights like the right to trial? What's the mindset of a man who knows he's going to be tortured in every possible way when there are 400 people around and just a few cops? Do you really think he's going to surrender willingly knowing he's going to be tortured for information?

---

:lol Alright. I am officailly bailing out of this conversation today. Surrender? Shot? Stabbed? Tasered? Whatever.... We have the guy. Like I said earlier. you guys will fuck the bad guy up.

^^^A wise choice. You had no ammo to start with.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FromWayDowntown

You mean other than: (1) our treaties prohibiting the use of torture; and (2) our constitutional guarantees against such things?

Yeah, other than that, nothing, I guess.

---

We can change the constitution. It's our country. Isn't there slavery laws in the constitution? You kill thousand of our people, you throw out the treaties.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

^^^A wise choice. You had no ammo to start with.

---

That's not true. I am dealing with irrational people.

Remarkable . You do it without responding to a single rational objection. There have been many. Your batting average so far is .000.

Tell me Jack, if torture is so necessary to our safety, why did GWB forgo it completely from 2005-2009? By your argument, he endangered us all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jack sommerset

We can change the constitution. It's our country. Isn't there slavery laws in the constitution? You kill thousand of our people, you throw out the treaties.

---

Then change the Constitution legally to embrace torture as an acceptable mode of interrogation. Then get out of treaties that prohibit that sort of conduct. But don't just decide that it's expedient in a particular moment to ignore it and treaties.

Amend the Constitution and repeal treaties. You can't just set them aside willy-nilly, if you care about our form of government.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

Tell me Jack, if torture is so necessary to our safety, why did GWB forgo it completely from 2005-2009? By your argument, he endangered us all.

---

Bush never tortured durning his presidency.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FromWayDowntown

Then change the Constitution legally to embrace torture as an acceptable mode of interrogation. Then get out of treaties that prohibit that sort of conduct. But don't just decide that it's expedient in a particular moment to ignore it and treaties.

---

Noone has been tortured. I am saying we should!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jack sommerset

Noone has been tortured. I am saying we should!

---

Of course. This is entirely academic because nobody has actually been tortured. Nevertheless, we should torture even if the Constitution and treaties prohibit it; we can just ignore those things whenever we feel like it, eh?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jack sommerset

Bush never tortured durning his presidency.

---

Quote:

---

According to a classified report prepared by the CIA Inspector General John Helgerson and issued in 2004, the techniques "appeared to constitute cruel, and degrading treatment under the (Geneva) convention," the New York Times reported on Nov. 9, 2005.

---

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/Investigat...ory?id=1322866

There were criminal referrals to DOJ. Cheney quashed them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/Investigat...ory?id=1322866

---

That's not torture.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FromWayDowntown

Of course. This is entirely academic because nobody has actually been tortured. Nevertheless, we should torture even if the Constitution and treaties prohibit it; we can just ignore those things whenever we feel like it, eh?

---

From Ex Parte Milligan:

Quote:

---

When peace prevails, and the authority of the government is undisputed, {124} there is no difficulty of preserving the safeguards of liberty, for the ordinary modes of trial are never neglected, and no one wishes it otherwise; but if society is disturbed by civil commotion — if the passions of men are aroused and the restraints of law weakened, if not disregarded — these safeguards need, and should receive, the watchful care of those intrusted with the guardianship of the Constitution and laws. In no other way can we transmit to posterity unimpaired the blessings of liberty, consecrated by the sacrifices of the Revolution.

---

Quote:

---

But we shall be answered that the judgment under consideration was pronounced in time of war, and it is, therefore, at least, morally excusable. There may, or there may not, be something in that. I admit that the merits or demerits of any particular act, whether it involve a violation of the Constitution or not, depend upon the motives that prompted it, the time, the occasion, and all the attending circumstances. When the people of this country come to decide upon the acts of their rulers, they will take all these things into consideration. But that presents the political aspect of the case, with which we have nothing to do here. I would only say, in order to prevent misapprehension, that I think it is precisely in a time of war and civil commotion that we should double the guards upon the Constitution. In peaceable and quiet times, our legal rights are in little danger of being overborne; but when the wave of power [71 U.S. 2, 76] lashes itself into violence and rage, and goes surging up against the barriers which were made to confine it, then we need the whole strength of an unbroken Constitution to save us from destruction.

---

Arbitrary application of law is exactly what the Constitution of this country was created to address and eliminate (as much as possible, anyway).

It is the proverbial "take the good with the bad".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jack sommerset

That's not torture.

---

The CIA's IG thought so. So does the Red Cross. The FBI pulled its agents from the program because they thought so too. Recent declassifications strongly suggest it, and the trend of anecdotal evidence isn't pretty.

What do you base your opinion on?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

What do you base your opinion on?

---

The inconvenience of dealing with the possibility that it might be torture.

To borrow a phrase from CD, he uses his ignorance like a shield.

Since none of them thar Muslims will tell us what we know they know, let's round 'em all up, confine them, and put 'em in ovens and gas chambers. They're all threats, after all. And they hate us because we're us. That kind of hate jest won't go away. And they might steal our precious bodily fluids too.

jack, don't you just feel their beady little eyes on you right now?