Olbermann to Hannity: put up or shut up

[MiamiHeat]

Make a club.

Still irrelevant to what I said.

[ChumpDumper]

No, it clearly says I think the question is irrelevant. Not anything about fear.

[MiamiHeat]

[ChumpDumper]

Hey, you're the one afraid to answer a simple question.

[MiamiHeat]

Who said anything about being afraid?

[ChumpDumper]

It's ok to be afraid. I just don't know why you are in this case -- especially after claiming to be such a tough guy.

[MiamiHeat]

When did I say anything about being afraid?

[ChumpDumper]

You don't have to say anything.

We can all tell how afraid you are.

[MiamiHeat]

You are afraid to admit you are wrong, that's for sure

[ChumpDumper]

I've been wrong plenty of times.

This isn't one of them.

Your refusal to answer and your cowardly attempts to weasel out of it confirm it.

How many times have you been waterboarded?

[sabar]

Remember, it's only wrong if it does not help further your agenda!

The United States has long considered waterboarding to be torture and a war crime. As early as 1901, a US court martial convicted Major Edwin Glenn of subjecting a suspected insurgent in the Philippines to the “water cure.” After World War II, U.S. military commissions successfully prosecuted as war criminals several Japanese soldiers who subjected American prisoners to waterboarding. A U.S. army officer was court-martialed in February 1968 for helping to waterboard a prisoner in Vietnam. The U.S. Congress recently adopted the Military Commissions Act, which criminalized under all cir stances treatment of prisoners that causes serious physical or mental pain or suffering.

The legislation explicitly states that such suffering need not be “prolonged” for the treatment to cons ute a war crime, a rebuke to past Bush administration legal opinions that reportedly permitted waterboarding on the questionable grounds that the terror it induces does not have a prolonged impact on its victims. Two of the chief sponsors of the legislation, Senators John McCain and John Warner, have said that it criminalizes waterboarding.

In April 2006, in a letter to Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez, more than 100 U.S. law professors stated unequivocally that waterboarding is torture, and is a criminal felony punishable under the U.S. federal criminal code.
“Vice President Cheney needs to get a better lawyer, someone who will tell him not to endorse criminal activities over the airwaves,” said Malinowski.
On September 6, the Pentagon issued a new Field Manual on Intelligence Interrogation that explicitly forbids the use of waterboarding in any interrogation.

General Jeff Kimmons, the Senior Intelligence officer in the U.S. Army, explained when these new rules were released: “No good intelligence is going to come from abusive practices. I think history tells us that. I think the empirical evidence of the last five years, hard years, tell us that.” The U.S. Army’s new counterinsurgency manual states that “torture and cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment is never a morally permissible option, even in situations where lives depend on gaining information.” It concludes that those who “lose moral legitimacy” by employing such methods “lose the war.”

So since water-boarding is a-ok, we wouldn't have any problems with other states using it against our soldiers/civilians.

And of course, people that think they are dying would never give false information just to get out of the torture. The government uses water-boarding extracted confessions just like a DA uses plea bargains on a desperate suspected criminal. Even if the confession is false, they get their job done at any cost.

[MiamiHeat]

Your explanation of why you asked that question proves you are wrong.

I already debunked you. Point proven. Game over. You were wrong and your cowardly attempts to weasel out of admitting it is sad.

[smeagol]

How many time have you been waterboarded?

Zero.

We don't waterboard people here in Argentina.

We are a civil nation . . .

[Blake]

You are afraid to admit you are wrong, that's for sure

acting like an expert with no experience is a fail.

bragging that you can take it with no experience is a fail.

everytime you fail to say "zero" it is a fail becasue we all know it's a "zero".

you lose.

[ChumpDumper]

Zero.

We don't waterboard people here in Argentina.

We are a civil nation . . .

You are no coward.

[clambake]

Zero.

We don't waterboard people here in Argentina.

We are a civil nation . . .

:boom

[smeagol]

I've been wrong plenty of times.

Every time we have an argument in these internets, you are wrong.

I'm a living witness to your wrongness . . .

[smeagol]

You are no coward.

I'm not like MH.

[smeagol]

I already debunked you.

You are awesome at debunking.

I remember when you debunked Chrstianity.

of a job, son

[Jacob1983]

Why doesn't Olbermann just stop his ing about FOX News and have a four way with Glenn Beck, Hannity, and O'Reilly? Olbermann definitely would love to get O'Reilly in bed. I seriously think that Olbermann has a crush on O'Reilly. He should just come out and admit that he has a thing for Bill-O.

[ChumpDumper]

You're projecting.

[Cry Havoc]

Chump, Heat, you're both idiots in this instance.

Heat, you chose your initial phrasing about waterboarding EXTREMELY poorly, making it sound like it was not a devastating method of torture, when in fact you were arguing the opposite postion; Hannity being waterboarded would not have the same psychological effect because he's not in a tortured scenario.

Chump is simply pissed because he misunderstood you (so did everyone else for that matter) and now is clinging to the idea that you were actually arguing directly with him, because that's easier to do, and frankly, it's annoying when someone seemingly takes one position on the subject and then needs to explain later on how completely jacked up their initial statements were.

I'd like to see Hannity waterboarded. Not because I approve of torture, as some might pathetically suggest in this thread, but because he acted like a big tough guy and said he'd do it. I'd like to see if he could withstand it. My impression is that even though you are partly correct -- the psychological factor in play would help him a great deal -- I still think it would be a horrible situation for him to experience unless they toned it down and made it into a hand-holding exercise in, "Oh are you ok? Here's a drop of water.. I hope it's not too much!" and so forth. I think it would still be damaging enough to frighten the out of him, if they actually went the full monty on the waterboard.

Stop bickering, guys. It's cloggin' up mah internets.

[ChumpDumper]

Chump is simply pissed because he misunderstood you

I understood him perfectly from the start. He made a claim about something he could do easily.

[velik_m]

Waterboarding sound awful to me, but maybe it's because i'm partial to breathing.

And although we're not as civili nation as Argentinians i haven't been waterboarded either.

[Cry Havoc]

I understood him perfectly from the start. He made a claim about something he could do easily.

I think he was referring to the comparison of waterboarding in a public, national setting where people who cared about the person were in abundance vs. a dank cell with no friendly human contact to speak of. In that situation, his analogy is quite a bit more apt, although not entirely accurate. Waterboarding still sucks, but you have to admit, it would suck a lot more to be subjected to it under P.O.W. conditions, as opposed to a nationally televised media stunt for charity.