Conservative Radio Host Mancow Waterboarded

[THE MATRIX]

link

Shock jocks shock.

And so it went Friday morning when WLS radio host Erich "Mancow" Muller decided to subject himself to the controversial practice of waterboarding live on his show.

Mancow decided to tackle the divisive issue head on -- actually it was head down, while restrained and reclining.

"I want to find out if it's torture," Mancow told his listeners Friday morning, adding that he hoped his on-air test would help prove that waterboarding did not, in fact, constitute torture.

.

.

.

.

Turns out the stunt wasn't so funny. Witnesses said Muller thrashed on the table, and even instantly threw the toy cow he was holding as his emergency tool to signify when he wanted the experiment to stop. He only lasted 6 or 7 seconds.

"It is way worse than I thought it would be, and that's no joke,"Mancow said, likening it to a time when he nearly drowned as a child. "It is such an odd feeling to have water poured down your nose with your head back...It was instantaneous...and I don't want to say this: absolutely torture."

[Pseudo Intellectual]

In other words, a radio host can't handle simulated drowning. Why this is an argument against using the technique on terrorists to gain crucial information to save innocent lives is beyond me.

[Cradle of Fish]

In other words, a radio host can't handle simulated drowning. Why this is an argument against using the technique on terrorists to gain crucial information to save innocent lives is beyond me.

So if someone can handle electrodes on the testicles then doing that isn't torture?

And it isn't simulated drowning, it IS drowning.

[gabe]

This is pretty old news. There is a longer clip of it on youtube. I remember when it was posted on SA over a year ago, someone claimed that the republicans would just accuse him of being a coward and say that this didn't prove anything. Thanks for proving him right, Pseudo.

[Pseudo Intellectual]

No, my point was that of course it's not a pretty thing... That's why we used it on the terrorists. Nobody ever claimed water-boarding was all fun and games.

And no, it's not drowning; it's simulated drowning. It has the feel of drowning, which is the whole point, but you're not actually drowning.

[Sthenno]

In other words, a radio host can't handle simulated drowning. Why this is an argument against using the technique on terrorists to gain crucial information to save innocent lives is beyond me.

The test was to find out if waterboarding counted as torture, defined as when severe pain and suffering is intentionally caused for the purpose of extracting information. This certainly seems to cause a significant amount of stress, therefore it is torture. Torture is illegal. We can't go around 'bending' the laws as and when we see fit, and we'd be the first to criticise if another country did the same. Torture is illegal for a reason; it is inhuman and information is unreliable and often made up on the spot. This is all before we even get to the fact that waterboards were used at Guantanemo Bay where many innocent people are kept without trial. So, is it really worth breaking the law, potentially torturing an innocent person and reducing ourselves to medieval heathens to get a few scraps of unreliable information. I haven't yet heard of any terrorist plots that have been foiled by a last minute spot of waterboarding...

[gabe]

No, my point was that of course it's not a pretty thing... That's why we used it on the terrorists. Nobody ever claimed water-boarding was all fun and games.

And no, it's not drowning; it's simulated drowning. It has the feel of drowning, which is the whole point, but you're not actually drowning.

Oh wait, you support torture. Nevermind

[Pseudo Intellectual]

The test was to find out if waterboarding counted as torture, defined as when severe pain and suffering is intentionally caused for the purpose of extracting information. This certainly seems to cause a significant amount of stress, therefore it is torture. Torture is illegal. We can't go around 'bending' the laws as and when we see fit, and we'd be the first to criticise if another country did the same. Torture is illegal for a reason; it is inhuman and information is unreliable and often made up on the spot. This is all before we even get to the fact that waterboards were used at Guantanemo Bay where many innocent people are kept without trial. So, is it really worth breaking the law, potentially torturing an innocent person and reducing ourselves to medieval heathens to get a few scraps of unreliable information. I haven't yet heard of any terrorist plots that have been foiled by a last minute spot of waterboarding...

1) It wasn't against the law.

2) Water-boarding was used on 3 people only, all of whom are known al-Qaeda members.

3) Plots have been foiled thanks to water-boarding, such as the “Second Wave” attacks on Los Angeles.

Oh wait, you support torture. Nevermind

I support pouring water on a terrorist's head to make them cooperative and provide information that could save innocent lives.

[Sthenno]

1) It wasn't against the law.

2) Water-boarding was used on 3 people only, all of whom are known al-Qaeda members.

3) Plots have been foiled thanks to water-boarding, such as the “Second Wave” attacks on Los Angeles.

I support pouring water on a terrorist's head to make them cooperative and provide information that could save innocent lives.

1. Torture is against the law. What part of this isn't torture?

This is torture. Therefore it's illegal. Just because the government decide that this rule doesn't apply to them at this time, doesn't make it suddenly OK. If the government temporarily decided it was OK for them to start shooting people they didn't like, would you accept that that wasn't against the law?

2. That's the official line. There are countless reports from innocent men who report having been tortured, and Cheney himself admits having authorized 33 'enhanced interrogations'. We have no further information on these men - it is entirely possible they were completely innocent.

3. Again, so says the official line. There are others who say nothing was learned from torturing captives that couldn't have been gleaned from other sources.

Do you not see the minefield of problems that will be created if the government is allowed to carry on changing whichever laws it likes in the case of people who might be terrorists? Our justice system is based on the concept of innocent until proven guilty... and yet the government was allowed to lock up innocent people without trial.

Do you support torturing terrorists to the extent that you would be willing to risk ruining several innocent lives on the off chance that they might have some information about a terrorist plot?

The idea that we are torturing the bad guys to save the good guys is ridiculously naive. The world isn't that black and white - Western society has played a huge part in the complicated mesh of influences and conflict that ultimately caused these attacks. And that's before we even begin to consider the possibility that the US had some kind of involvement with the attacks or prior intention to invade Afghanistan and Iraq.

[Cradle of Fish]

No, my point was that of course it's not a pretty thing... That's why we used it on the terrorists. Nobody ever claimed water-boarding was all fun and games.

And no, it's not drowning; it's simulated drowning. It has the feel of drowning, which is the whole point, but you're not actually drowning.

So if we invented a simulated bamboo under the nails method of torture it'd cease to be wrong in your book?

[shaka5]

Pseudo Intellectual, your defending torture?...really?. However you try to spin the words, its still torture, i wonder if you felt the same way when it was happening to Americans

[shaka5]

but yea, i saw this a while back...it was crazy, just hearing about it seems like nothing, but i bet its horrible to go through it

[Pseudo Intellectual]

1. Torture is against the law. What part of this isn't torture?

This is torture. Therefore it's illegal.

Water-boarding isn't torture, and it was specifically allowed.

2. That's the official line. There are countless reports from innocent men who report having been tortured, and Cheney himself admits having authorized 33 'enhanced interrogations'. We have no further information on these men - it is entirely possible they were completely innocent.

3. Again, so says the official line. There are others who say nothing was learned from torturing captives that couldn't have been gleaned from other sources.

So, conspiracy theories?

Do you not see the minefield of problems that will be created if the government is allowed to carry on changing whichever laws it likes in the case of people who might be terrorists? Our justice system is based on the concept of innocent until proven guilty... and yet the government was allowed to lock up innocent people without trial.

Please stay on topic.

Do you support torturing terrorists to the extent that you would be willing to risk ruining several innocent lives on the off chance that they might have some information about a terrorist plot?

What does that mean?

The idea that we are torturing the bad guys to save the good guys is ridiculously naive. The world isn't that black and white - Western society has played a huge part in the complicated mesh of influences and conflict that ultimately caused these attacks.

It's pretty obvious to anyone morally-clear enough that we're the 'good guys' and terrorists are the 'bad guys.'

And that's before we even begin to consider the possibility that the US had some kind of involvement with the attacks or prior intention to invade Afghanistan and Iraq.

Take it to the conspiracy section, Truther.

[Pseudo Intellectual]

Pseudo Intellectual, your defending torture?...really?. However you try to spin the words, its still torture, i wonder if you felt the same way when it was happening to Americans

Oh dear God, how many times do I have to tell you I don't believe water-boarding is torture? And even if it was, I have no problem with pouring water on a terrorist's head to save innocent lives.

[shaka5]

Oh dear God, how many times do I have to tell you I don't believe water-boarding is torture? And even if it was, I have no problem with pouring water on a terrorist's head to save innocent lives.

i think thats the problem..your just seeing it as "pouring water on someone's head"...i think you have to go through it to see...the correct way, not getting a cup of water and doing it yourself

[TheResearcher]

Personally I don't condone nor condemn torture - I haven't been in situations where it is an option. However, regardless of the law, torture will still continue as it is a method of extracting information from the unwilling. I see nothing wrong in using torture techniques against enemies (obvious enemies of course, for example in Afghanistan if a patrol has been shot at and they catch a man with a bruised shoulder, an indicator of firing a weapon incorrectly, then torture is fair enough to gain information).

Torture is a nasty business, but I think it is extremely naive to think that it isn't useful in certain circumstances, or that it will not continue regardless.

[Pseudo Intellectual]

i think thats the problem..your just seeing it as "pouring water on someone's head"...i think you have to go through it to see...the correct way, not getting a cup of water and doing it yourself

I can't support doing something to a terrorist if I don't go through it too?

[shaka5]

I can't support doing something to a terrorist if I don't go through it too?

not what i meant...they way you say it is like its nothing...maybe you should volunteer to be waterboarded then decide whether its torture

[Pseudo Intellectual]

If it was nothing, why would I support using it on a terrorist?

[shaka5]

If it was nothing, why would I support using it on a terrorist?

because you said its not torture, i say you go through with it plenty of times then say what it is.

[AROCES]

Watching the Democrat transform the United States into their dream of a European Socialist type country is torture as well.

[Pseudo Intellectual]

It doesn't matter whether it is torture or not (although it's not). What I mean is that the government should not allow innocents to die by not water-boarding a terrorist. And there's a big difference between water-boarding someone, and raping them, or cutting off their limbs, or any 'technique' that is, without a doubt, torture.

None of us want to see terrorists water-boarded for fun. I only support it to save innocent lives.

[acidhead]

No, my point was that of course it's not a pretty thing... That's why we used it on the terrorists. Nobody ever claimed water-boarding was all fun and games.

And no, it's not drowning; it's simulated drowning. It has the feel of drowning, which is the whole point, but you're not actually drowning.

up is actually down and over there is really over here

*****

If waterboarding isnt torture why dont the pigs use it on suspected criminals in the state of Alabama?

Edited March 19, 2010 by acidhead

[acidhead]

[The Silver Thong]

Oh dear God, how many times do I have to tell you I don't believe water-boarding is torture? And even if it was, I have no problem with pouring water on a terrorist's head to save innocent lives.

It doesn't matter what you believe it is a form of torture and your government says so. Just because Dick changes the name to enhanced interrogation means nothing.

Oh and I lasted about 12 seconds LOL

Edited March 19, 2010 by The Silver Thong