April 29 at 12:16AM
Jon Stewart's Extended Interview with Cliff May
On last night's Daily Show, Jon Stewart's interview with The Foundation for Defense of Democracies President Cliff May turned to the subject of torture. Things got so intense and involved that the segment had to be edited for time, but here now is the complete discussion.
I don't know a lot about waterboarding, but my knowledge of general science and basic comprehension tells me it's probably a warmer version of snowboarding, and snowboarding has never produced an ounce of useful intelligence, so I'm going to have to side with Jon on this.
The Daily Show airs Monday through Thursday at 11pm / 10c.
PERMALINK:
RSS
I am glad that Jon Stewart has indicated his disapproval of the treatment of POWs by Japan in WWII. Will he use that to denounce the torture and murder of Terri Schiavo? Or is starvation to death acceptable where "waterboarding" crosses the line?
(And anyone who believes you can consent to being starved to death misses the whole point of the Stanley Milgram experiment.)
In a perfect world you don't fight fire with fire, but alas this is not a perfect world. Jon does best when he interviews people about issues he not so black and white about. The tone of his show is starting to feel like nightly msnbc.
Segments of the population believe waterboarding is not torture just like there is a segment of people that believe Jesus is not the son of God. There r people who believe homosexuality is wrong because if we were all homosexual that be the end of humanity. Be funny that is your legacy.
A quick reflection on the language being used in the dialogue:
What struck me was that Cliff May kept using the term discomfort. To me, discomfort describes a lumpy mattress or having indigestion or gas (maybe I've jsut become accustomed to the term being used in Pepto Bismo commercials or the like). Discomfort in my opinion, does not include someone else doing something to you so that your heart races, makes you sweat or begin to feel particularly nervous or worried about your safety or dignity.
I feel that Cliff was using the term discomfort inappropriately; as a method of justifying torture by making it just seem like a little bit of gas that will pass in a few hours. Perhaps he could have used other terms more reflective of what "getting tough" with terrorists actually means. I would have taken his question "Are you saying that we cannot inflict distress on terrorists under any circumstance?" more seriosuly than "Are you saying we can never inflict discomfort under any circumstances?"
Maybe I'm being too picky with the lingo but political language is important
The fallacy in Mr May's argument is that we "know" the person being tortured has some needed information. His entire argument is based on this false premise. It has never been the case that we know there is some imminent danger.
You can say that we "think" or "guess" or something weaker but you can't say the it is known. That is the lip of the slippery slope that will allow torture to be used for any purpose that the torturer wants.
Combine that with the fact that terrorism is so loosely defined that all kinds of ordinary criminal behavior are now being called torture and America has abandoned its principals and its legacy.
Game over.
I saw the interview and agree completely with Jon. The guy seems to be trying to defend the undefendable.
The 'rules' in the torture memos are eerily similar to the rules of interrogation of the Third Reich. The rules were pointed to by the Nazis as proving their adherence to the rule of law back then, as May does here. But look where that behavior took them
People react to comparisons to the Nazis at the end of their road, instead of looking at the beginning steps for how they got there. The beginning steps resembled many of the actions of this administration. In themselves they do not equal Buchenwald, but they are preambles that set a nation in that direction.
I understand John's position of we-are-better-than-this. I just think bringing up Geneva Convention here brings up whole other point. The point is that is Al Qaeda a terrorist organaization or freedom fighters against US where US is the invading or occupying force there. The Convention doesn't apply to the terrorists, but it does apply to the freedom fighters.
Also Geneva Convention is an agreement not a guide line. The opponent have to honor the Convention to be applicable to the treatment according to the Convention. So the people who cut off the heads of POW in front of video camera is not applicable. Nor people who openly state they will target civilian and do it.
John should just use the laws and regulations about treatment of criminal prisoner in US.
I agree with 90% of what Jon Stewart says here, but did he have to shout down Cliff May so much to get his point across? That's a technique I'd expect more from Bill O'Reilly or Sean Hannity than my favorite political TV host. I guess I can forgive that though, considering how this interview was probably far more substantial than anything I could have gotten on CNN, Fox News, or MSNBC.
it makes no sence, i heard bush doing it to in reguards to american citizens only having constitutional rights.Geniva convention,though mentioning pow rights, is not limited to only soldiers. its guidlines for how you treat people and thier rights. if terrorists have no rights than we make then right in a way. rights are for everyone and thats what makes what we are spreading right.i dont like terriests and if i had my way I would probly torture 1 to find out where my friend was being held at too, but that dont make it legal, and a moral imperitave should be inplace so that power cannot be issued in misuse. torture will happen reguardless of its legality, and a price must be levied for it. All people have inalienable rights and we reconize this even if they dont. or at least we should.
and btw declaring that you wont do it any more is the same as admiting that it was wrong. Pride it is a fickle thing!
ugg australia, women's ugg boots, ugg bailey buttons, ugg online hot sale, ugg uk store, ugg cardy boots, ugg sandal, ugg's boots,ugg classic cardy boots, ugg classic tall boots, ugg classic short boots,timbeland 6 inch boots,timberland custom boots,timberland roll-top boots,women's timberland boots, ugg amelie suede, ugg crochet boots, ugg chestnut boots, ugg mini boots,ugg gypsy sandal,men's roll-top timberland boots,discount timberland boots, ugg halendi sandal, ugg hammond slipper, ugg layback slipper, ugg slippers, ugg matala sandal, ugg napoule sandal, ugg nightfall boots, ugg skimmers, ugg tasmina, ugg sundance boots, ugg ultra short boots, ugg ultra tall boots, ugg sale, sale ugg boots,ugg new boots,ugg classic tall romantic,timberland boots,timberland waterproof boots,timberland classic boots,timberland 3-eye shoes,men's timberland chukka boots