Fox News’ Passionate Shepard Smith Illustrates GOP Split Over Torture

Smith has shown such a tendency toward decency and journalistic integrity, it's surprising Fox lets him stay on.

Decency and journalistic integrity are sadly lacking in most of what is considered reporting. Fox News certainly has an agenda (to shill for Republicans in general and the Bush administration in particular... no matter what he did, or how wrong he may have been) while the likes of CNN and MSNBC do the same for Democrats and Obama.

I believe something needs to be stated up front; this issue may well redefine the usual political lines. Both Left and Right have to face the fact that as these events are disclosed, members of BOTH sides may well be found to lack the moral clarity we require of our leaders. If as it's been reported, Pelosi et al egged on the CIA to "do more" illegal acts when treating prisoners, then let the chips fall where they may. Protecting anybody who was in a position of power who advocated torture is morally wrong.

I have heard calls for a four member retired judge panel to run this investigation. If four people with a strong legal background can be found, I suggest this may be the best way to proceed. A non-partisan panel could follow the evidence and disclose just who issued orders, who was cheer leading, and who designed this despicable program. Not all may face legal proceedings, but compliant leaders should feel the wrath of the electorate for their lack of moral certitude.

Smith is an example of those on the Right who holds morality above partisan politics, and the Left must also adhere to that same ideal.

What makes you think Smith is a conservative?

Shep is a typical television “journalist” in the sense that he has little real information or intelligence and swings from issue to issue on his emotions.

Did you see this fool during Hurricane Katrina? He had no idea of what the role of FEMA was, who was in command of the National Guard or what the roles of federal, state or local governments were. Yes, he was very emotional about helping people, trouble was his mindless rants ended up hurting the very people he was so concerned about.

This is not the first time Smith has left the reservation. He has openly mocked Glen Beck, Bill O. and Hannitty. He also just got a big new contract. Keep in mind that Murdoch sees FOX as a money machine. As long as FOX panders to the lunatic fringe of the right, 10 - 20 percent of the country, Murdoch makes money. FOX at this point is probably hurting the Republican's chances for a comeback and Murdoch doesn't care as long as he sees the money. That's why you can expect to see a lot of Cheney on FOX.

@jwest What do you call the caricatures like Beck and Hannity? Billo is more 'independent' than these two clowns. Before you spout your R meme, I used to watch Beck when he was on CNN and his producers didn't allow him to immolate stage hands.

Murdock does chase the dollar, remember the family values shows Married with Children and The Simpsons.

Rudi,

Did I mention Beck or Hannity or anyone else?

Shep Smith said something incredibly stupid and I simply pointed out that he had done the same in the past.

jwest

I'm glad to see you've finally come around. If Smith saying "America does not f*cking torture," is stupid, then I guess that you now agree that the US DOES torture.

George Bush stated that the U.S. doesn’t torture people. He was telling the truth. Just because some people wish to consider waterboading as torture doesn’t make it so.

What if, back in the Clinton era, we conservatives decided that we consider someone under the age of 22 to be a child? Would we have been justified to call for the arrest of Clinton for child molestation?

jwest

"George Bush stated that the U.S. doesn’t torture people. He was telling the truth. Just because some people wish to consider waterboading as torture doesn’t make it so."

As much as you'd like to believe, George Bush is not "the decider" when it comes to torture.

The Geneva Convention, Federal Law, and our own SERE program label it so.

I'm curious why you have argued that water boarding isn't torture. The threat of imminent death is one of the legal definitions for torture, and water boarding certainly is designed to bring that fear to the subject's mind. Drowning is an experience of "imminent death" by definition. I don't get how you get around that.

That "imminent death" thing is exactly why forcing Russian roulette on someone is also torture. I'd really like to know how you navigate these facts.

jwest

If it's not torture now why was it torture at the end of WWII when we executed Japanese for water boarding. Oh, that's right - they were water boarding caucasians.

If you insist on considering waterboarding as torture, I surly won’t change your mind. Perhaps the debate should be changed to:

“Do we as a nation agree that mild torture should be used in extreme cases now that it has been proven to be highly effective at gathering actionable intelligence?”

jwest

You quote sources that only have their freedom to lose if any form of torture is kept illegal. We've yet to see any documents that collaborate things claims.

Also out yesterday were reports that the Bush Administration pushed for tortured confessions that there was a link between al qaeda and Saddam. Again, these reports are equally unsubstantiated as the actionable information ones.

The point then comes down to why someone tortures. SERE training found that trainees could be made to say anything. If these "mild" techniques could be used to create false confessions, what logic would you use to determine what is real and what is BS?

I'm not arguing against your desire to keep the US safe, I'm merely questioning if this tool is really effective. Isn't the reason you wish to protect the US because of what it stands for? People who were not terrorists were also tortured, where's America's moral right in that?

Lastly, if reports that political butts were trying to be covered by getting confessions about al qaeda, doesn't that piss you off that someone would torture, mildly, if you wish, but torture for political gain?

Unlike Jwest who, thank God, is of little relevance, just another denier screaming louder and louder as the truth becomes clearer and clearer, many senior officials within the administration recognised that what was happening was against the law and needed to be stopped (Zelikow, Taft IV, Powell, Goldsmith, Comey to name just some).

Their warnings fell on deaf ears and now what was always going to happen has begun- they did sanction torture, torture is against our laws and there will be consequences for those involved. That's why America works.

while the likes of CNN and MSNBC do the same for Democrats and Obama

Not so much. Olberman himself was highly critical of Obama for advocating the position of not prosecuting. So was Rachel Maddow.

as for jwest's question, these procedures are NOT proven highly effective, and no, we should not use any procedures on others we do not support for treatment of our own soldiers.

GD

I would like to give jwest the benefit of the doubt. Clearly, he is not someone who relishes the infliction of pain nor is he merely being a contrarian for purposes of debate. I sincerely think he's seeing these actions as a means to protect the country he loves.

Old men like us :) have seen how Administrations have led large numbers of people down terrible paths by means of over simplification. Viet Nam and Iran Contra are the obvious examples, but the Bay of Pigs certainly fits just as well. Viet Nam had the Domino theory and ironically, Reagan used that same logic for a newer generation with Central America years later. The Bay of Pigs led to the missile crisis and 50 years of pointless isolation for Cuba.

Viet Nam had its share of torture, and the Guatemalan death squads trained by us certainly demonstrated their learned proficiency. My point is that this generation's line in the sand may well be the issue of torture. jwest may or may not realize the historic position he is in.

You remember, "burn a village to save it," was accepted wisdom at one time.

"Torture to save American from attack," is this year's adage.

Americans have to keep learning the same things over and over; but that doesn't mean one should discount the latest crop.

true, HemmD. The only thing we learn from history is that we don't learn from history. That's why I keep pushing the golden rule argument.

The USA was THE leading voice in pushing for international standards of decency for treatment of prisoners. We want global standards for treatment of American service personnel who are captured, and we agreed to abide by these as well. When they were broken, we pushed hard for justice, against Japanese soldiers, against Nazi war criminals, against genocide in Serbia and Cambodia.

These are OUR values, not something forced upon us. We need to defend our values, not rationalize sacrificing them with "ticking bomb" fantasies.

In most cases we had no evidence that our prisoners were in possession of "actionable intelligence" about any ticking time bomb. In those cases in which torture proponents have asserted that we saved lives, the facts have contradicted their stories.