A good interview on torture from the daily show

[snowpunk]

title says it all. 3 parts and I felt it was worth watching...

 

 

http://www.thedailyshow.com/

[JasonH]

I like Jon Stewart, he's funny.

 

But he has a specific bias. He talks for 75% of the interview. He agreed that the Geneva convention criteria was "silly", but then argued that we should stick to it.

 

It's very easy to hold someone else accountable when they made the difficult decision, but not be willing to make those decisions yourself.

 

And he demonstrated several times that his facts were incorrect.

 

I'm not saying that Steward is wrong, or that opinion is wrong. But at least have your facts right, and be willing to say what you would do in the same situation and don't just deflect those questions and then make a different point.

 

It's a difficult discussion, and like he does most of the time, I don't find his form of debate to be intellectually honest.

 

It was a good interview, thanks for posting.

[snowpunk]

I like Jon Stewart, he's funny.

 

But he has a specific bias. He talks for 75% of the interview. He agreed that the Geneva convention criteria was "silly", but then argued that we should stick to it.

 

It's very easy to hold someone else accountable when they made the difficult decision, but not be willing to make those decisions yourself.

 

And he demonstrated several times that his facts were incorrect.

 

I'm not saying that Steward is wrong, or that opinion is wrong. But at least have your facts right, and be willing to say what you would do in the same situation and don't just deflect those questions and then make a different point.

 

It's a difficult discussion, and like he does most of the time, I don't find his form of debate to be intellectually honest.

 

It was a good interview, thanks for posting.

 

unfortunately you are right, I love the show and enjoy the interviews but it's his show and that shows through in the interviews. He has the audience eating from the palm of his hand already and he tends to run with it. I personally fall more on Cliffs side of the interview. They are not prisoners of war, they are terrorists. They want to kill us any way possible. In war usually their is some sort of agreement that both sides are after. Their is no reasoning with a terrorist so to protect our country against them, sometimes some extreme measures must be taken. I don't agree with torture but if we are to inflict pain on one, who wants to inflict pain and death onto us, then I am less against it to save thousands and possible millions of innocent people. It is easy to say I would do this if it was me. It is a lot harder to make those decisions when you are the one they will question later if thousands lose their lives...

[JasonH]

Yeah, I'm in the middle somewhere, too.

 

My problem with the Jon Stewarts of the world is they say things (as Jon did) like, "we will find other ways to get the information." But they don't say how.

 

When asked if he agreed with the Geneva convention that says you can ask name, rank, and serial number - and then politely place them back in a comfortable cell when they refuse, he said, "no, that's silly."

 

He said that "some discomfort" is fine with him. So who get's to decide what is acceptable. There are people out there who would call him a torturer. Stewart believes that something is torture because he declares it to be so, but there are other people who would draw a different line.

 

And when asked point blank what he would do if he felt that he had a terrorist suspect that wouldn't talk when asked nicely. He deflected the question and talked about finding different ways. Great, he should find those ways and tell the CIA about them.

 

He likes to make the argument that we prosecuted Japanese soldiers for waterboarding our troops, but left out that just because it is called the same thing (waterboarding) that there were many significant differences in the actual process. The Japanese process was basically just drowning people.

 

Again, I'm not saying definitively that waterboarding is right, but I am saying that until I'm in the position of having to make that decision on behalf on the countries safety - I'm going to give some benefit of the doubt to the people that are making those decisions.

 

just my long-winded 2 cents.

[snowpunk]

Yeah, I'm in the middle somewhere, too.

 

My problem with the Jon Stewarts of the world is they say things (as Jon did) like, "we will find other ways to get the information." But they don't say how.

 

When asked if he agreed with the Geneva convention that says you can ask name, rank, and serial number - and then politely place them back in a comfortable cell when they refuse, he said, "no, that's silly."

 

He said that "some discomfort" is fine with him. So who get's to decide what is acceptable. There are people out there who would call him a torturer. Stewart believes that something is torture because he declares it to be so, but there are other people who would draw a different line.

 

And when asked point blank what he would do if he felt that he had a terrorist suspect that wouldn't talk when asked nicely. He deflected the question and talked about finding different ways. Great, he should find those ways and tell the CIA about them.

 

He likes to make the argument that we prosecuted Japanese soldiers for waterboarding our troops, but left out that just because it is called the same thing (waterboarding) that there were many significant differences in the actual process. The Japanese process was basically just drowning people.

 

Again, I'm not saying definitively that waterboarding is right, but I am saying that until I'm in the position of having to make that decision on behalf on the countries safety - I'm going to give some benefit of the doubt to the people that are making those decisions.

 

just my long-winded 2 cents.

 

Well that sums up how I feel too. Wanna talk about Colbert now?(naughty)

Just kidding(laugh)(laugh)