Jon Stewart and Cliff May on Torture
John Stewart and Cliff May duke it out on the torture issue. I got to say, whatever your position may be on the issue, this is the best conversation about torture I’ve ever heard.
Here’s the link:
http://blog.indecisionforever.com/2009/04/29/jon-stewarts-extended-interview-with-cliff-may/
Great stuff, seriously! Even May says himself, “Literally, this is the best conversation I have had on this subject anywhere.”
Jon Stewart would have been demolished in this debate, but he managed to hog the mike and throw a hissy fit for long enough to give the impression that he won.
Cliff May is absolutely correct: waterboarding can be, but is not always, torture. When done recklessly and for extended lengths of time, yes, waterboarding can indeed inflict severe amounts of physical and mental pain. But when done for a very limited amount of time with strict medical supervision, it does not necessarily break the threshold of discomfort.
May was attempting to claim that there is a line between pain and discomfort, which is perfectly legal, and torture. Stewart didn’t seem to comprehend this concept. If sleep depriving someone for one or two nights is torturous, every GW dean would be arrested during final exams. Slapping someone in the stomach with fingers spread to a specificed level may cause discomfort, but it is not torture.
The bottom line: all waterboarding (or any enhanced interrogation technique for that matter) is not created equal, but the only way Stewart’s argument can stand on its own is if we allow ourselves to simplify the debate so egregiously.
Alex, I think waterboarding someone 183 times is quite a many time and I believe will break the threshold of discomfort for anyone…
I still think you don’t understand mine, Jin Woo’s, or for that matter Jon Stewart’s stance. You promote the legality of the waterboarding too much. The point is that when we stand by these rules, and would prosecute other nations for waterboarding our own soldiers for not following the International code of conduct. And now you will say, ‘well Al-Qaeda is not a nation, and thus does not abide by the Geneva Convention,’ and although that is the case, that is not what we are debating.
We are debating, on how torture reflects on America’s own values. When we preach moral superiority and don’t abide by it, it reflects extremely poorly on us as a society. And sure the captured members of Al-Qaeda are not subject to the Geneva convention, but we are subject to our own convention. If someone did this to an American soldier we would want to rip that nation or militia apart, so I think we best be careful on how far we trudge along the torture path.
On a side note about waterboarding, I don’t think if it matters if you experience simulated drowning for a minute, or 30 seconds, it still feels like drowning, and thus would break the threshold of discomfort for anyone.
First, on your side note, that is a respectable opinion but I respectfully disagree with it.
Second, on our own moral superiority, YOU might think that enhanced interrogation techniques tarnish our image, but I do not. Why? Because I do not believe that any of the approved techniques constitute torture. You believe they do constitute torture, so your conclusion that those techniques tarnish our image is obvious. The disagreement is not over whether torture tarnishes our national image, but what constitutes torture in the first place. So don’t try to move the goal posts.
And your point about wanting to seek vengeance on those who waterbaord us is illogical. Of course we would respond to terrorists who waterboard us, just as we would respond to any other, “Geneva approved” act of war.
And again, you bring up the issue of prosecuting other nations who waterboard. We went after the Japanese for much more egregious waterboarding techniques, not for the techniques specified in the memos, so your point is invalid.
We will never agree on this issue because of our irreconcilable differences on the definition of torture.