More Evidence of the Media's Liberal Bias

All of this convoluted logic.

Back to the topic. That reporter should be ashamed to even call himself a "reporter".

That was simply pitiful, even the President knew it, from the look on his face.

The Obama team must have high-fived after that Q&A !

The CNN reporter Dan Lothian's bio.........his Wikipedia info already makes a joke of him............. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Lothian

Dan Lothian

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Dan Lothian is CNN's White House Correspondent.
Some of the major events that he has covered while Boston Bureau Chief with CNN included the funeral of Rosa Parks, Hurricane Katrina and the 50th anniversary of the Supreme Court's historic decision in Brown v. Board of Education case.
Lothian earned a bachelor's degree from Tennessee Temple University and a master's degree from American University in Washington, D.C.

On November 11 he showed bias and unprofessionalism when he asked President Barrack Obama the following question: ""Last night at the Republican debate, some of the hopefuls, they hope to get your job, they defended the practice of waterboarding which is a practice you banned in 2009. Herman Cain said, quote, 'I don't see that as torture.' Michele Bachmann said that it's, quote, 'very effective.' So I'm wondering if you think that they're uninformed, out of touch, or irresponsible?"
[edit] External links



http://www.bernardgoldberg.com/the-dumbest-media-question-ive-ever-heard/

• Dan Lothian profile at CNN.com

TheLoop21.com's interview with Dan Lothian
PersondataNameLothian, DanAlternative namesShort descriptionDate of birthPlace of birthDate of deathPlace of death

Ever go hunting? would you say there is a difference between a bad shot and letting the wounded animal run off and suffer for hours till maybe it died versus a good shot that killed it instantly?

In the former would you track down the critter and end the suffering or just let it die slow.

I mean, dead is dead right? whats the difference?

If the alternatives are no information or questionable information, obtained by stressfull interrogation, I would choose questionable information in certain cases. Water boarding can be called torture but it causes no permanent physical damage so it has its legitimate uses.

We do it to our SEALS in their traning.

If the alternatives are no information or questionable information, obtained by stressfull interrogation, I would choose questionable information in certain cases. Water boarding can be called torture but it causes no permanent physical damage so it has its legitimate uses. Originally Posted by Laz

Wrong again, it does premanent brain damage through oxygen deprivation, and generally for a prisoner especially one who is considered a terrorist or possible terrorist they do it to the the extreme, where the prisoner(s) were often, perhaps usually, unconscious when the water stopped. Extraordinary measures to get the victim's lungs cleared enough to get his motor started again included a tube inserted to suck out water and mucous and often beating on him to aid in the clearing.

We do it to our SEALS in their traning. Originally Posted by TheDaliLama

With Navy Seal training I am pretty sure they are not subjected to it till unconsciousness or it is done to them over and over in excess of 100 times. Chime in if there are any Navy Seals here.. I am interested in hearing what actually transpires with the waterboarding technique. I think the training is meant more to teach them not to panic.

There again I still stand by my belief that it is torture. I don't believe in such archaic practices and do believe there are much more effective ways of interrogation and getting more reliable information.

Water boarding is torture. Originally Posted by Guilty Pleasures

No it's not. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

It was until George Bush became President. I would think a libertarian would be against torture. Government over-reach and all. Tsk tsk.

EDIT: Oh, i forgot. Obama says it's torture, so you have to disagree with him. I get it now.

The problem is, if someone had my child, and there was another person who knew where my child was, I would use any technique I could to get the information. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

And if someone had my child, and there was another person who knew where my child was but wouldn't tell me, i'd torture them too. I can come up with a scenario where killing someone is justified. Just because you can come up with a scenario where torturing someone might be justified, that doesn't mean it's not torture.

Ok, it's torture. And should be allowed in certain, limited circumstances. As a policy, it's not a good idea. And you're right, I'm generally against torture, but I can see where it could be necessary.

I can also see where information obtained using torture could be excluded from any trial or military tribunal, and I would support that. In the case of my child, I want my child more than I want justice.

I still don't understand why it is ok to kill foreign (or domestic) terrorists, but not ok to torture them.

And while I am generally a Libertarian, I don't tow the party line on every issue. I think for myself.

So, my firm opinion is that torture should be banned, except sometimes.



See, I didn't even call you a name!

I still don't understand why it is ok to kill foreign (or domestic) terrorists, but not ok to torture them. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Then by that logic, it would follow that you don't understand why we can't just put a bullet in their head when they're in custody since we can do that when they're not in custody. Correct?

PolitiFact.com on Ron Paul's Torture comments

Is torture illegal under U.S. law?

Yes, under several different portions of the law.

• A provision of U.S. law (18 U.S.C. 2340) that took effect in 1994 makes torture a crime.

The law defines torture as "an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control."

• A different provision on war crimes addresses torture as well (18 U.S.C. 2441).

The provision reads, "Whoever, whether inside or outside the United States, commits a war crime … shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for life or any term of years, or both, and if death results to the victim, shall also be subject to the penalty of death. … As used in this section, the term ‘war crime’ (includes) … torture ..."

• Finally, as we noted here, two days after taking office, Obama issued a detailed executive order on torture and related issues.

The executive order said that prisoners "shall in all circumstances be treated humanely and shall not be subjected to violence to life and person (including murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment, and torture), nor to outrages upon personal dignity (including humiliating and degrading treatment)." It also specifically nullifies interpretations of federal law on interrogations "issued by the Department of Justice between September 11, 2001, and January 20, 2009" under President George W. Bush.

The executive order brings the CIA into line with U.S. Army Field Manual on Interrogation, said said Tom Malinowski, Washington director for Human Rights Watch. This limits interrogators to humane techniques, a standard that already applies as a matter of law to the U.S. military, he said.

Is torture illegal under international law?

This is also a correct statement.

• The Convention Against Torture and Other Forms of Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment of Punishment (the Torture Convention) was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on Dec. 10, 1984 and entered into force on June 26, 1987, after it had been ratified by 20 states. The United States ratified the convention on Oct. 21, 1994.

It defines torture as "any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity."

• The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. This United Nations agreement -- approved on Dec. 16, 1966, and entered into force on March 23, 1976 -- says in part that "no one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment." The United States ratified it in June 8, 1992.

• The Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War. This convention entered into force on Oct. 21, 1950, and the United States ratified it on Feb. 8, 1955. It bars "at any time and in any place whatsoever" all "violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture" of "persons taking no active part in … hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause."

• Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. This convention, This convention was entered into force on Oct. 21, 1950, and the United States ratified it on Feb. 8, 1955 and is virtually identical to the separate Geneva convention above.

• Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This declaration, drafted by a committee that included former First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt, is not technically a treaty, but it does carry some weight in international law. It was ratified by the United Nations General Assembly on Dec. 10, 1948, by a vote of 48-0 with eight abstentions. The United States was one of the nations voting in favor of the declaration, which says that "no one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment."

What constitutes torture?

So Paul is on solid ground when he says that "torture is illegal … by our laws. It's illegal by international laws." But as we indicated, there’s a significant caveat -- not everyone agrees on what constitutes torture.

"No one will dispute Rep. Paul’s statement," said Steven Groves, a fellow at the Heritage Foundation. "What is in dispute is whether certain interrogation techniques are considered ‘torture’ under either the U.S. or international definition of that term."

This is an especially important point given that Paul’s comment came in the context of a discussion of waterboarding. Many legal experts believe that waterboarding qualifies as torture under many if not all of the legal definitions cited above. But the Bush administration and its supporters strongly disagreed, calling waterboarding an "enhanced interrogation technique" and thus falling outside of the definition of torture.

An Aug. 1, 2002, memo by Assistant Attorney General Jay Bybee and another memo dated the same day by Deputy Assistant Attorney General John Yoo sought to "set a very high threshold as to what constitutes severe ‘pain or suffering,’" said Anthony Clark Arend, professor of government and foreign service at Georgetown University.

These interpretations were overturned by Obama’s Jan. 22, 2009, executive order. But the controversy rages on -- as the Republican debate in South Carolina demonstrates.

We won’t seek to referee this question here, but we do think it’s important to note that some -- though by no means all -- observers would consider Paul’s comment to be a non-sequitur because of their position that waterboarding is not torture.

Our ruling

Paul's comment came immediately after a discussion of waterboarding, and we’ll note that there is not a consensus that waterboarding constitutes torture. That said, Paul’s statement is 100 percent correct: There is no question that torture is barred in both U.S. and international law. We rate Paul’s statement True.

Then by that logic, it would follow that you don't understand why we can't just put a bullet in their head when they're in custody since we can do that when they're not in custody. Correct? Originally Posted by Doove

Doove, what the hell are you talking about?

I still don't understand why it is ok to kill foreign (or domestic) terrorists, but not ok to torture them. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Then by that logic, it would follow that you don't understand why we can't just put a bullet in their head when they're in custody since we can do that when they're not in custody. Correct? Originally Posted by Doove

Doove, what the hell are you talking about Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Your first quote above shows you clearly don't know the distinction between having an "enemy" in custody, and not. So i pointed out the logical conclusion to that. Simple.

I guess when you can't think of something intelligent, or in the alternative - funny, to say, you'll just ask me to repeat myself, hold your hand and read to you. Ok, i'm game.

Oh, ok. I get it now. Thanks.

waterboarding is not torture the way it was administered upon the 3 terrorists, Originally Posted by Marshall

What the hell is this even supposed to mean?

They did it differently to the 3 terrorists compared to the way it's normally done? Is that it? Somehow?

What the hell is this even supposed to mean?

They did it differently to the 3 terrorists compared to the way it's normally done? Is that it? Somehow?

DOOFUS, IF I PINCHED YOUR NOSE FOR 10 SECONDS AND YOU COULDN'T BREATHE, I DIDN'T TORTURE YOU.......IF I PINCHED YOUR NOSE FOR 10 MINUTES AND YOU COULDN'T BREATHE, I DID TORTURE YOU.....WHEN THE US WATERBOARDS SOMEBODY, THERE IS A DOCTOR, IF NOT 2, PRESENT TO MONITOR THE SITUATION AND ADVISE ACCORDINGLY........MANY PEOPLE SPENT A LOT OF TIME DEVELOPING OUR WATERBOARDING PROCEDURE TO ENSURE IT DID NOT MEET THE INTERNATIONAL DEFINITION OF TORTURE........