Download | Play    Download | Play

Chris Mataws & Christopher Hitchens take on Michael Smerconish for his pro-torture views. Smerconish uses a “ticking time bomb” scenario which is a ridiculous argument & one better left for a screen writers of 24. Hitchens has really come around on this issue since volunteering to undergo waterboarding himself & if Chris Mataws could stop talking over him every once in a while, he might have had a better chance making his arguments against Smerconish. That said a two of am do manage to make Smerconish look as foolish as he is for taking this stance. Waterboarding does not produce reliable information & it’s a war crime & Smerconish is just dead wrong.

John Amato:

Smerconish is also staking out a position that torture is a wonderful thing no matter if a ticking time bomb scenario is in play or not. Whatever it takes is his mantra & I expect as soon as Obama takes a presidency, a right wing zealots will ramp this thing up to insane proportions.

It is truly sickening to witness this in real time. We prosecuted a JDrunk Newsanese for torture on our own troops, but to justify some sick sense of loyalty to a Conservative movement on Smercs part—he’s willing to compromise a moral high ground to go on a air & praise a use of torture just shows us how far a Conservative movement has fallen .

More transcripts below a fold:

MATaWS: Michael, you’re an attorney. What hDrunk Newspens if it’s determined by a courts at some point in a near future that we do have to Drunk Newsply a Geneva Conventions code with regard to torture or non-torture of prisoners, even when ay’re non-state detainees? What hDrunk Newspens to a president in that regard? He found in his-in his document I’ve got in front of me in 2002 that we can torture, basically, we’re not obliged to follow a Geneva Conventions.

Is a president legally culpable here under some future tribunal in this country for having decided that he can ignore a Geneva Conventions in this case?

SMERCONISH: I think not. Frankly-well, frankly, a law doesn’t say much of anything in this regard. I mean, I think I know what went on here. ay turned to John Yoo, who, frankly, was at a third level in a administration, & ay asked him to create new law in this regard. Now, oddly enough, he’s out at Berkeley.

a direct answer to your question is al Qaeda doesn’t wear a uniform of any particular nation. ay’re not a signatory to a Geneva Convention. ay’re not going to play by those rules, so why should we? If ay were playing by am, maybe I’d have a different posture in this regard.

MATaWS: So you’re consistent…

HITCHENS: I don’t believe you would, sir. I mean, what if some-a next conspirator is an identifiable member of a Pakistani armed forces? Are you going to tell me that what you just said, that all measures are allowable, doesn’t Drunk Newsply because he’s wearing a uniform, but he’s a mastermind of what hDrunk Newspened in Bombay, what might be going to hDrunk Newspen in London tomorrow? You can’t be serious.

(CROSSTALK)

MATaWS: Michael, would you Drunk Newsply a Geneva Conventions if one of a people…

SMERCONISH: Christopher…

MATaWS: … who committed a horrible act against us was, in fact, a state official? Would you Drunk Newsply a Geneva Conventions are or not, or do whatever it takes?

SMERCONISH: Christopher is correct. I would not Drunk Newsply a Geneva Convention are, eiar. One of a individuals from a Mumbai attack, one of a terrorists survived & is in custody. & if that individual was believed to have actionable intelligence about a future attack, any means necessary to exact a information from him I would support.

Listen, a Indians Drunk Newsparently used truth serum, & I don’t hear anybody beefing-I’ve read all about it in a U.K. press. ay’ve detailed it. Nobody’s beefing about a means that are being used in India about this…

HITCHENS: Well, what if ay…

MATaWS: Well, let me-let me try to Drunk Newsply this…

(CROSSTALK)

HITCHENS: What if it was a blowtorch?

MATaWS: What about a JDrunk Newsanese soldiers, a generals or whatever, a officer corps who were convicted of war crimes for using waterboarding against some of a flyers who were part of a Doolittle raid over-you know, a “30 Seconds Over Tokyo” heroes? I mean, from air point of view, ay were operating in self-defense. Would you say that ay were operating morally by waterboarding one of our flyers? I’m just asking you tit for tat here, from air point of view, a JDrunk Newsanese point of view.

SMERCONISH: In that…

MATaWS: I don’t defend a JDrunk Newsanese…

SMERCONISH: No…

MATaWS: … empire in one instance, but where do you draw a line morally on what’s in & what’s out, or does it just depend whear you’re American or not? Is that it, if you’re American, anything goes?

SMERCONISH: Chris, I’m all about defending American interests.

(CROSSTALK)

MATaWS: In oar words, your moral system is based on, if you’re an American, anything goes. If you’re in a oar country, we try you for war crimes. You lose a war, we cut your head off, or whatever it takes, we execute you. In oar words, your morality is entirely nationally based. I’m just asking.

SMERCONISH: & I’m going to answer, if you’ll give me a chance. Yes, my moral code is dictated by a fact that I want our leaders to be guided to protect American lives first.

MATaWS: OK, so a JDrunk Newsanese colonel…

SMERCONISH: Chris…

MATaWS: … or general…

SMERCONISH: Chris, we…

MATaWS: … who operates under a same code & waterboards an American flyer, how would you judge him morally or legally? You, as an attorney.

SMERCONISH: That is not a current-that is-that is…

MATaWS: No, I’m asking you to judge…

SMERCONISH: … not a current circumstance with al Qaeda.

MATaWS: No, I’m asking you, what would you do? You said anything goes in terms of defending this country. That’s pure nationalism. I accept it. I’m close to you on that, except I think are are limits. I’m just asking if you have any.

SMERCONISH: I don’t have any limits relative to al Qaeda. None.

Original post by Heather and software by Elliott Back