posted
Right wing radio tool Glen Beck has shown his sociopathic side quite a bit this year, calling hurricane Katrina survivors "scumbags" and wishing on air he could kill Michael Moore. You'd think that he couldn't sink any lower, wouldn't you? Think again...
Via the "assasins" at MediaMatters
After devoting a portion of the October 6 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show to discussing pending legislation that would prohibit "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment" of detainees held by the U.S. government, Glenn Beck interviewed a caller who claimed to have worked as an "intelligence officer" and to have "extracted intelligence" from U.S.-held prisoners by torturing them. The caller said his preferred methods of torture included burning the retinas of prisoners' eyes with high-powered halogen lamps and blowing out prisoners' eardrums with high-pressure water and air. He also claimed to have known "a contractor that did drilling on live teeth." After hearing the caller describe these torture techniques, Beck responded, "I've got to tell you, I appreciate your service." During the interview, Beck asked the caller if he ever had trouble sleeping at night. When the caller answered, "No," Beck responded, "Good for you." He later added, "[W]hen all is said and done, I'm glad people like you are on our side."
A transcript of the exchange BECK: And what would you -- like, what kind of tools would you use? What was your method and what worked the best?
"MITCH": Well, I had three or four that worked the best. I mean -- you've had your eyes dilated before?
BECK: Yeah.
"MITCH": Well, with simple masking tape or duct tape, you dilate the eyes, and they you use halogen lamps, and a person is placed in a rigid position where they cannot move. Their eyes are opened and the halogen lamps, you know, they're producing 40,000 watts. It's intense. And that breaks them down. High-pressure water -- I mean, you've heard the term "drinking from a fire hose." I wouldn't do that. That generally wouldn't extract what you want, and usually would drown somebody quickly. But you can use high-water pressure into one ear, and when that first ear drum is broken with, you know, 14 or 15 hundred pounds of water pressure going in, the don't -- they will talk before that second ear drum is broken.
[...]
BECK: Mitch, I've got to tell you I appreciate your service. I don't know your circumstances at all. I, you know, I have to assume that, because we wear the white hats that we're not doing this at the drop of a hat.
[...]
BECK: So in other words -- let me ask you this. So, you know, you always see, like, they'll come in with this, like, briefcase, and they'll open it up and there will be all these tools in there.
"MITCH": No.
BECK: That doesn't happen either?
"MITCH": No. No. I did know a contractor that did drilling on live teeth. You know, well teeth. And you've seen that before in different movies.
[...]
BECK: Did you ever accidentally kill somebody?
"MITCH": No. I made them wish they were dead. You know, when you have -- like I was saying the, the best -- my most successful use of any technique was high-pressure air. You just think of a small [high] velocity hose with 1,200 PSI [pounds per square inch] of air coming through it. I don't know if you've ever heard a hose with that much pressure go off, but once -- your ears immediately bleed. One ear blown completely out, and you don't have to do the other one.
BECK: Wow. Mitch?
"MITCH": It's like your head exploding inside is what we always thought --
BECK: Do you ever have a hard time sleeping at night?
"MITCH": No.
BECK: Good for you. Good for -- I mean, good for you. Is it because you did it for the country?
"MITCH": Yeah. I knew what we -- how important it was.
[...]
BECK: I've got to tell you, Mitch, it's -- you know, you tell one of these stories, you -- I don't know. If you're comfortable telling this kind of -- it's not something that when you first meet -- say, "Hey, by the way, for 30 years I tortured people." I mean, it's kind of an awkward, weird, kind of thing. But I have to tell you, when all is said and done, I'm glad people like you are on our side.
"MITCH": Well, I'm glad I was on my side, too. I -- but, you know...
I get a little quesy wondering if this caller was actually a torture specialist, "extracting intelligence" for 30 years. I can't believe that Beck abuses his right to free speech and membership in the human race to praise a person who claims to have done these terrible things.
Beck is syndicated by Premiere Radio Networks, an affiliate of Clear Channel from what I can find. ClearChannel contacts, via SaucyMonkey. Let them know how you feel about psychopathic Beck.
Lowry Mays Chairman of the Board *clearchannel.com
Mark Mays President and Chief Executive Officer *clearchannel.com
Randall Mays Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer *clearchannel.com
Andrew W. Levin Executive Vice President and Chief Legal Officer *clearchannel.com
Lisa Dollinger Senior Vice President, Chief Communications Officer *clearchannel.com
Bill Hamersly Senior Vice President, Human Resources *clearchannel.com
Herb Hill Senior Vice President, Chief Accounting Officer *clearchannel.com
Julie Hill Senior Vice President, Finance *clearchannel.com
Kathryn Johnson Senior Vice President, Corporate Relations *clearchannel.com
Jessica Marventano Senior Vice President, Government Affairs *clearchannel.com
Randy Palmer Senior Vice President, Investor Relations *clearchannel.com
John T. Tippit Senior Vice President, Strategic Development *clearchannel.com
posted
This is the very same guy RiescoDiQui cites as his example of a "funny" conservative. Can you believe that?
Posts: 3243 | From: California | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Having actually heard the live broadcast, I can say I just love how the left wing media takes everything out of context to support their agenda.
The broadcast was actually just re-broadcast last week as a "Best of Glenn" boradcast. I think that gives a good idea of where Clearchannel stands on Beck and this particular issue.
Posts: 559 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Do I find the topic of torture funny? No, that is a very serious subject and one which Glenn took very seriously.
Glenn spoke quite a bit on the issue of torture that day. He debated with his staff and his callers the pros and cons of torture. He in general is not in favor of it. He does however recognize as I do as well, that in some instances it does have merit. Those instances being serious threats to other people, including civilians and military personel.
The individual who he spoke with in the above article was a "pro". He did not identify his position for security reasons. As he said, he never killed anyone, nor did any interrogation last longer than a few hours. His words, "if the person doesn't talk in that time, he isn't going to talk". Anything beyond that is pointless. This "pro" also stated that humiliation such as Abu Grabe generally doesn't work.
As for the Katrina "scumbags", they would be the individuals that were stealing relief jars in Walmarts in Texas.
As for killing Michael Moore, that was said in jest. He says a lot of things about Moore, mostly fat jokes.
Posts: 559 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"It doesn't affect me so why do I care. Torture? Sure go ahead and use it on them, it will protect me. I'm sure they only toture people they KNOW have information, I mean no one who was innocent would be tortured right?"
I just quoted ignorance.
4art, NO, only we can toture because we are right everyone else is wrong... If they torture us it's against the geneva convention (and makes them even more evil).
Posts: 562 | From: NY | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
They already do torture our soldiers, for no other reason than to torture them. They also torture our civilians. You may recall another interesting video of a man getting his head cut off, while alive. Actually, there are several such videos.
To them, it is a way of life. To us it is distastefull, rarely used and generally ridiculed as being worthless. They see our position as weakness.
Posts: 559 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mark my words, Aragorn243, they are expressing similar sentiments about us.
In any case, I thought the whole "eye for an eye" thing was kicked to the curb in the New Testiment. As a matter of fact, I'm sure of it.
And another thing, torture is not effective. An innocent man will confess to anything if you torture him.
For example, you may just confess to being a Nazi if you were asked repeatedly about it while your fingers were being cut off, one at a time.
Posts: 3243 | From: California | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The sentiments they have against us are well known. We are the "Great Satan". We are fat, lazy, weak, corrupted and will eventually fall to their rule, Allah willing.
Posts: 559 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
What about the rest of my argument, Aragorn243?
I thought the whole "eye for an eye" thing was kicked to the curb in the New Testament. As a matter of fact, I'm sure of it.
And another thing, torture is not effective. An innocent man will confess to anything if you torture him.
For example, you may just confess to being a Nazi if you were asked repeatedly about it while your fingers were being cut off, one at a time.
Posts: 3243 | From: California | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The eye for an eye "thing" was kicked to the curb in the New Testiment.
The correct statement would be "torture is not always effective". The purpose of torture as recommended by the "pro" and in the end, Beck is not to gain confessions, but to gain information of an immediate nature to stop attacks.
Posts: 559 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by RiescoDiQui: there is no point to it... the illusion of torture can be quite usefull though... that's why our millitary does it.
posted
simulated torture as you posted a few days ago when you were on your "US tortures" kick. Remember that whole list you posted where everything was simulated with the exception of the flashlight incident...
-------------------- Spend Word For Word With Me And I Shall Make Your Wit Bankrupt. Posts: 1326 | From: Here | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually no, if you still think willie pete is a chemical weapon. That would make every tracer round we fire a chemical weapon. 5.56, 7.62, 9, .50 cal, 120....quick, better tell our guys to start using bows and spears.
-------------------- If it wasn't for bad luck I'd have no luck at all. Posts: 1529 | From: Tacoma WA | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wow that came out of left field! I was referring to DTW's assertion that our torture is merely simulated.
Posts: 3243 | From: California | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The military doesn't release interogation results with or without torture. That would compromise the interogation techniques.
Posts: 559 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
How convenient! It was a damn good thing that some were brave (and/or stupid) enough to use their digital cameras.
quote:Originally posted by Aragorn243: The military doesn't release interogation results with or without torture. That would compromise the interogation techniques.
quote:Originally posted by 4Art: How convenient! It was a damn good thing that some were brave (and/or stupid) enough to use their digital cameras.
quote:Originally posted by Aragorn243: The military doesn't release interogation results with or without torture. That would compromise the interogation techniques.
Yes I can see how you find endangering the lives of our service men and women is a good thing... because that's what happened when all this abu graib mess came out.
Good job sport...
-------------------- Spend Word For Word With Me And I Shall Make Your Wit Bankrupt. Posts: 1326 | From: Here | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Other than damaging the image of the USA almost universally, can you give me another example of a specific time when the illusion of torture has been effective?
Posts: 3243 | From: California | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
so you do find damaging the USA's image and endangering every US serviceman and woman's life as a good thing. I don't have the time or the desire to look up every recorded instance of torture or simulated torture...quite sincerely I just don't care about you or your wishes that much
-------------------- Spend Word For Word With Me And I Shall Make Your Wit Bankrupt. Posts: 1326 | From: Here | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
The terrible threats presented by terrorism have lead to a serious reconsideration of torture as a means of extracting information. While there is considerable debate regarding the legality of torture, this essay is focused on the morality of torture in the context of the fight against terror.
While most people regard torture as evil, there are reasonable moral arguments in its favor. The most common argument is a utilitarian one: the harm prevented by gathering information by torture can outweigh the moral harms inflicted by the practice of torture.
A favorite example used by torture proponents, such as Harvard's Alan Dershowitz, is the 1995 case of Abdul Hakim Murad. After being tortured for over a month by Philippine police, Murad revealed various terrorist plans, including a plot to kill the Pope. Because of cases like this, one might conclude that the evil of torture can be outweighed by its good consequences-such as preventing murder.
If the evil of using torture is outweighed by its potential good consequences, then the matter of its effectiveness needs to be resolved. If torture is not an effective means of gaining reliable information, then there will be no good consequences to outweigh the evil of engaging in torture. If this is the case, then torture cannot be justified in this manner.
While there is significant debate over the general effectiveness of torture, it appears that it is not a particularly effective means of acquiring accurate information.
First, consider the American and European witch trials. During these trials a significant number of people confessed, under brutal torture, to being witches. If torture is an effective means of acquiring truthful information, then these trials provided reasonable evidence for the existence of witches, magic, the Devil and, presumably, God. However, it seems rather odd that such metaphysical matters could be settled by the application of the rack, the iron maiden and the thumb screw. As such, the effectiveness of torture is rather questionable.
Second, extensive studies of torture show that it is largely ineffective as a means of gathering correct information. For example, the Gestapo's use of torture against the French resistance in the 1940s and the French use of torture against the Algerian resistance in the 1950s both proved largely ineffective. As another example, Diederik Lohman, a senior researcher for Human Rights Watch, found that the torture of suspected criminals typically yields information that is not accurate. A final, and rather famous example is that of Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi. Under torture, al-Libi claimed that Al Qaeda had significant links to Iraq . However, as he himself later admitted, there were no such links. Thus, the historical record seems to count against the effectiveness of torture.
Third, as history and basic human psychology show, most people will say almost anything to end terrible suffering. For example, a former prisoner from Abu Ghraib told the New York Times that, after being tortured, he confessed to being Osama Bin Laden to put and end to his mistreatment. Similar things occur in the context of domestic law enforcement in the United States : suspects subjected to threats and mistreatments have confessed to crimes they did not commit. As such, torture seems to be a rather dubious way of acquiring reliable intelligence.
Given that torture is not effective as a means of gathering reliable information, the utilitarian argument in its favor must be rejected. This is because torturing people is not likely to yield any good consequences.
Despite its ineffectiveness as a means of extracting information directly, torture does seem to be an effective means towards another end, namely that of intimidation. History has shown that authoritarian societies successfully employed torture as a means of political control and as a means of creating informers. Ironically, while actual torture rarely yields reliable information, the culture of fear created by the threat of torture often motivates people to bring information to those in power.
Given its effectiveness as a tool of coercion and intimidation, torture and the threat of torture could be used as weapons against terror. If the threat of torture is both credible and terrible enough, then the likelihood of terrorist activity could be reduced and the number of useful informants could increase significantly.
From a moral standpoint, if torture were to prove effective as a means of reducing terrorist activity then it could be argued that the use of torture is morally acceptable. The gist of the argument is that the moral harms of threatening and utilizing torture are outweighed by the moral consequences-namely a reduction in terrorist activity.
While this argument has a certain appeal, it faces three problems. First, it seems likely that adopting torture and the threat of torture as weapons would be morally harmful to the society in question. To see that this is likely, one needs to merely consider the nature of societies that have already embraced the use of torture. Second, the use of torture as a means of coercion and intimidation certainly seems to be a form of terrorism. As such, the reduction in one type of terrorism would be, ironically, offset by the increase in another. Third, terrorism is denounced as a moral evil and its alleged opponents, such as George Bush, seem to revel in claiming the moral high ground. However, a society that accepts the use of torture cannot claim the moral high ground-they are walking the same ground as the terrorists. Thus, it would seem that the use of torture is not morally acceptable.
Posts: 559 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The problem is your name calling, which results in you looking amateurish at best. Just argue the points with honesty and no spite... Relax... breathe
quote:Originally posted by RiescoDiQui: look up the word moron
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
