Chris Matthews Embraces "Ticking Time Bomb" Rhetoric After Calling Out Harold Ford For "Cheney Talk"
By Heather Thursday May 14, 2009 2:00pmYou can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!
DOWNLOADS: (1622)
PLAYS: (2160)
So which is it Chris Matthews? Are you for the rule of law or do you think it's okay to torture prisoners and violate our international treaties? You cannot call out a guest on your show one day for embracing Cheney's rhetoric and then turn around and embrace it yourself the next without rightfully being called either a complete hypocrite, or just psychotic. Matthews is a master of giving all of us a reason to never take him seriously when he does things like this. The man just has no filter.
He had on the ACLU's Anthony Romero in the previous segment and if anyone thinks him talking over Walsh in the clip I posted was bad he was worse with Romero. If Matthews just wants to hear himself talk I don't know why he bothers with guests at all.
Login or Register to post comments.
Personally I am against torture. Ever. I do understand what Matthews is saying but it is a straw man argument. That situation will never happen. If you allow it for certain circumstances than it will be abused. IT WILL BE ABUSED. Ok. I will say that if there was somebody who knows where a nuclear bomb is going to go off in 12 hours than I'm sure somebody will do anything to find out where what and who but we can deal with that when it comes up but that scenario will not happen. You can't say you can torture if this that and the other happens because it will be abused and they will soon be using it to find out where the kid hid the candy. Even Cheney's scenario could be used an excuse if torture was ever ok. The Cheney is the example of where being able to use it under certain circumstances it will be abused comes in. Get rid of the straw man argument and you will see that torture should never be used.
By the way, what does the rest of the world think about Cheney using torture and what do those feelings toward us do to our security?
Religious persons seem to have more hate in their heart then the persons they call non-religious. They love wars , torture and telling others what they can or can not do.
Through out history Israel has taken what they wanted and in the old testiment they attack and wiped out a whole city
That they largely misinterpret and take Matthew 10:34 out of context: "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword."
If the rest of the verses are read in context what Jesus is saying that His existence will cause people to fight against each other. It's not a call to arms.
It has to be taken also into context that Jesus said "turn the other cheek" (Matthew 5:38-42) to those that harm you.
If Christians were to believe that they are to take up arms, then they're going against Jesus' own commandment. He never said "kill the infidels." If he did, I would like to see that verse.
Isn't religious person an oxymoron, like George Carlin used in his monologues?
According to the ticking-Bomb Nuclear scenario.
It's a shame nobody ask why did Cheney Allowed (It's on Record) "a Plane" to hit the pentagon on 9-11.?
The Japanese near the end of WWII were facing a ticking time bomb scenario in a way that we did not face with Iraq (or Al Qaeda for that matter), but we still prosecuted them for torture.
More and more, it's simply a matter of the winner making the rules and not the rule of law. Obama started so strong in the area of restoring our reputation, but with his handling of the issue of torture, he is undoing much of the good he did.
WRT to Matthews, he blathers so much I find him insufferable. Between his excessive talking and interrupting and his lack of any core beliefs that he's willing to defend, I find his show to be pretty useless most of the time. I prefer Rachel Maddow.
sciguy I agree that it's become impossible to put up with his show. He's become the slightly more agreeable, slightly more "tolerant" version of Bill O'Reilly.
another Chris Wallace in my opinion. The few times I watched him, I always got the feeling that he was blowing in the wind.
changes colors to suit his environment...
Cannot watch him either.
How about this; My son has been kidnapped and I know he is in a box underground. He has 10 hour of air. I have the guy who did it. I would start chopping off his finger's and then move on from there to find out where my kid is. It is illegal. It should remain illegal. I know it but I saved my son's life. Let the chips fall where they may. If I go to jail for 20 years so be it. I saved my son's life. I assume/hope the judge would sentence me and hopefully suspend the sentence. If not so be it. This is what Cheney and his henchmen have to go through. He tortured. It is against the law. If the judge wants to suspend his sentence so be it. But the torture should never be made legal. Cheney and Bush and all the others have to prove to the judge that it was worth breaking the law. Cheney et al cannot say what they did was legal just because they changed some words and paid somebody to say it was legal. The thing is that Cheney et al know that this scenario will not get them a suspended sentence because the circumstances were not justifiable. That is why all his people are saying that torture is not torture.
Ticking time bomb, my ass. He reminds me of Mittens Romney - he was for it, before he was against it, before he was for it.
Murder works, but it's still illegal; robbery works, but it's illegal; rape works, but it's still illegal; even if torture DOES work, it's still ILLEGAL.
...I was going to say... "somebody please put this creepy albino sock puppet back in it's case". But tweety is a more civilized jab.
..I agree, this has been illegal forever(WWI I think?). American media has a very selective memory. And its citizens have the collective memory of a fruit-fly. It's an insult to America's international allies and friendly nations to pretend we just now "outlawed" torture. And then as an extra cherry on top with sprinkles, it doesn't work. Torture doesn't work. Not in the short run, bc it's unreliable for info gathering, and in the long run, it just generates a broad hatred for the torturers.
That is what all of these torture/war crimes defenders would be doing in less than a minute if they were subjected to what the detainees faced.
Oh and here is a quick lesson to all the religious conservatives out there, straight from the Constitution:
http://yellingatthemoon.com/2009/05/14/the-po...
Here's a scenario. A terrorist threatens the US with an attack (he already has attacked at least once on US soil). We get information about how and have a good idea where it will happen - same place, as it happens. We actually have all the information we need to stop it. Our top security people all warn us that it's imminent - plead with us to pay a wee bit of attention to it. We, however; are more concerned with toppling a dictator sitting on a pile of oil in a far flung country. The terrorist attack happens just like predicted.
How does torture fit into this scenario? How?!?
"Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent". - Salvor Hardin
An old saying says "an empty wagon makes the most noise". This suits Mathews to a tee. He continuously talks over his guests. In spite of his bad manners, this wouldn't be so bad if he had something intelligent to say.
filter, it's driven by ratings and cash
take firm control of the helm and run the country like it is in the 21st century not the mid-20th century.
Torture is against the law. It should be against the law. People who call for it, and the people who carry it out, should be prosecuted for breaking the law.
It is this simple. No "what ifs." It is against the law.
People who call for it, and the people who carry it out, should be prosecuted for breaking the law.
And then be tortured.
I seldom subject myself to Matthews any more. I feel about the same way about him as I do Scarborough. Both are ego crazy blow hards who want you to think they are experts in every field. They think if you listen to their opinion you will learn something. You won't.
He thinks contradicting himself makes him a reporter.
These people that make a living chattering about the news of the day. They really get on my nerves pretending to be know it alls on whatever the corporate media considers trendy for the day. The next day it's all new crap, pretending to know it all as they read their teleprompter. Makes me want to hurl.
I watched it live, and I was flabbergasted. Poor Joan--she sounded like she, too, was flabbergasted that these two ding-dongs could be making such ridiculous arguments! She was trying to get a word in edgewise and the other two were treating her so dismissively, that she finally ended up basically throwing up her hands in despair.
Under this logic local police be allowed allowed to torture domestically. People accused of domestic crimes be tortured into incrimimating themselves if it is beleived it will save a live. We should we be able to do even more than torture under the "It works" logic.
and ProfitMedia is all about manufacturing consensus.
"Smell the Aqua Velva, we're all neocons now!"
All the integrity of a seive.
Tweety is a loyal Republican suck up but he's trying hard to fool the public and the Obama Administration as he now an outside. He took pride in his support for every crime Bush/Cheney did over the 8 years. With Tweety's spreading the lies/spin during the Clinton years he earned he way up to working for NBC and then with pride became a Bush Administration insider. Even when proof was shown Bush/Cheney were openly lying Tweety fought back to protect his Masters. One show he was like a girl meeting Orlando Bloom when Bush invited him to the White House for lunch. He used his show to continue to spread the Bush/Cheney lies and even campaigned for John McCain. Now Tweety is left to try to pull of the biggest scam by faking support of the Obama Administration.
Hanging on soundbites and ignoring the context of the entire segment. The funny thing is that you didn't even bother to edit the clip, so all I can say is that you are losing it. He didn't adopt the "ticking time bomb" scenario. OMG, you really streched it this time.
I watched the whole segment at the time, and it was clear that Matthews did a complete 180 from his "Cheney talk" remarks the other day, and he did indeed adopt the "ticking time bomb" scenario. He used it as a valid example of when a President should ignore the law.
He didn't, he used the argument to say that regardless, it's illegal to torture.
Sheez, just find the whole tape and watch it. It couldn't be any more clear.
And then he said we should do it anyway. I'm with MC here, just my 2 cents.
I saw that segment and left shaking my head. Matthews confuses barbarianism with standing tough like his hero Winston Churchill. The problem is that most people can obey the law when it's easy to do so, but the the test of a real citizen and leader is to obey and enforce the law when it is less popular, or not as popular. Who would have stood up for civil rights during the '60's when it would have been easier to continue the old ways, than adopt the new laws if you followed Matthews' advice?
Torture is wrong and against the law. Those two standards do not always meet in the same place at the same time. The President is not above the law, even if it plays well on tv or in the movies. Richard Nixon's axiom that when the President does it is not illegal is as convoluted ethically as it is in syntax.
Rethink this one Chris, or go to confession.
is in the entertainment business. These shows are entertainment packaged as news. Like Oprah or Tyra or Ellen or Judge Judy but with a political spin. Most of them seriously believe their own hype. but let's face it - Matthews is a dumb downed Phil Donohue. Way down. He's not very bright. I think he may have ADD and learning issues. His interruptions and non-sequitors indicate that he's just not all there. We KNOW Bill O'Reilly and Glen Beck and Hannity are delusional psychopaths but Matthews is on the cusp. Nowadays I only watch to see Larry O'Donnell tear up Pat Buchanan. Strictly entertainment.
God damn, I hear that. It's all Pat Buchanan, twenty-four-seven. He was a joke thirty years ago. He's craptastic on a cosmic scale. One asks, why?
the hack is back!
Of course you're torturing the right guy, and he would never lie, and he would never say something just to get you to stop. Matthews makes Jesse Ventura look like a Rhodes Scholar.
Tweety's flip-flop is disappointing, but the much bigger issue is that which Deutsch raised: that Cheney and the Republicans are hoping for a terrorist attack during Obama's presidency! That, or a complete failure of our economic system, are the Republicans' only remote chances to get back to power in the near future. If a terrorist attack occurs, Cheney and the Republicans will say "see? I told you so" about torture. Of course, it's impossible to prove a negative (that not torturing people did not lead to the attack), and the media won't cover the obvious flaws with such an argument (torturing one person probably has zero to do with an attack by another person; the "ticking time bomb" scenario is a fantasy akin to Ronald Reagan's "welfare queen driving a Cadillac" designed to have the exception swallow the rule; Bush didn't keep us safe on 9/11 or during the anthrax attacks after 9/11, nor did he bring those reponsible for either to justice; etc.). I actually think this is a smart (but horrendously cynical) political move by the GOP.
The way to counter it is to list, as Deutsch indicates, all the times Bush's officials stated after 9/11 that we would be attacked again, that it was a question of when, not if; that these predictions were not premised on whether Obama, a Democrat, or a Republican was in the White House; and that they were made when detainees were being tortured, so therefore torture had nothing to do with the likelihood of us being attacked again.
But don't count on the media to do their job on this issue.
YouTube: Maddow Debunks The Ticking Time Bomb Scenario
Nah. Giant Douchbag.
If it's OK to break the law and torture, then it is OK to break the law and do anything and everything else.
OK to torture a suspect? Sure. Then, it's OK to torture the suspect's children to make the suspect talk. It turns out that using the logic of the ticking time bomb, there is no behavior that can't be excused. And if it's OK to torture the guy you know has information, wouldn't it be OK to torture the person who might have information? And if it's OK to torture the person who might have information, wouldn't it be OK to torture the person who knows someone who has information? And if it's OK to torture someone who knows someone who has information, wouldn't it be OK to torture someone who might know someone who might have information?
This kind of thinking utterly destroys the rule of law.
Let alone the fact that after the seven and half days required for sleep deprivation to seriously disorient a subject, and "ticking time bomb" has likely exploded.
Or if the person you're torturing really has no information about the "ticking time bomb" but gives false information just to stop the torture .. and the bomb explodes because you never got correct information ..
I mean .. if torture worked I'd like to think I'd still agree with all the "rule of law" and "moral highground" arguments .. but the point is TORTURE DOES NOT WORK ..
Matthews must get some sadistic pleasure from being so flighty and unpredictable. The reality is that he is an annoying pain in the ass. He ought to take a consistent stand instead of pulling these chameleon like stunts that degrade his reputation and our public political discourse in general.
Take it easy on Matthews. He works very hard at maintaining his image as a shallow, sophomoric, loud-mouthed fratboy. Pimpin' ain't easy, you know.
Sheez, just go find the whole tape and watch it. It couldn't be any clearer.
If you should decide to accept this mission, any and all documents will be distroyed to conceal the crime.
Here is the scenario,
Someone thinks a bomb is ticking and going to go off and go BOOM in approximately two hours EST. Your assignment , (if you decide to accept it), is to go out and find a suspect and torture the information of the attack, where the bomb is planted and how to defuse the bomb.
Remember, the bomb is ticking(someone thinks anyways). And you have two hours before the bomb goes BOOM..! Can you do it? Do you accept?
Is their a shoot your friend in the face video game?
...but I think he's trying to play Devil's Advocate here, and voice the opposing view of one of his guests.
He just really sucks at it. A lot.
lol...and yes, he does suck at it.
notice that each and every person who supports torture are the same pukes who never were in the military and I include George W Bush, because when the rumor got out that said his unit was going to be deployed to Vietnam, the chimp went A.W.O.L. for over a year to avoid the very duty he swore he would do, when he was sworn into the NATIONAL GUARD!A real, gutless coward, just like Cheney and all the rest of his chicken hawk buddies!
noticin that.
he would warn all his victims by sputtering for an hour before he was supposed to go off then slump spent and harmless while those who follow detonate the real bombshells.
I would pose this argument.
"Chris what is the speed limit on the way from your home to here?"
after he answers...
"and what speed did you go?"
Setting a limit doesn't mean that we don't sometimes cross that line in an emergency, but if you set the limit at 90, people will go 100, and if you set the limit at border line torture, torture will regularly occur.
I wish someone would ask Chris and the other male on the show whether there is any ethical/moral position they wouldn't violate in certain imagined situations.
The fact is, every war has 'ticking time bomb' scenarios in them -- especially for the side that finds itself losing that war. They will make the very argument that Matthews and his male counterpart are making -- that torture will possibly save tens of thousands of lives (the troops), and therefore should be an option for their leader. EVERY war will eventually lead to this position, and therefore every war will, according to Matthew's ideology, permit of torture.
The Ticking Bomb: A Miraculous Appearance.
A contrived, ridiculously impossible, hypothetical scenario to prove torture is okay.
There are so many problems and fallacies involved with this set-up that it is ridiculous on its face.
There is a ticking bomb somewhere in the city. You have a person whom you believe knows where it is and when it is going off. Wouldn’t it be okay to torture him? What if it was to save your family?
Well let us see. How do you know there is a ticking bomb? Who told you? Someone you trust? Who told him? How do you know it’s a time-bomb? How do you know it is in the city? Who told you? How close is it to your family? Come on, these questions should not be hard to answer, this is a hypothetical, I want some hypothetical answers to make sense of it. Who saw the bomb? Did anyone see the bomb planted? How did your informant get all this information?
When is the bomb set to go off? Today, an hour, two hours, tomorrow? Does your prisoner know all or any of these things; how do you know that, who told you? Did your prisoner plant the bomb? Yes, no, maybe, maybe not? Do you know? What is the reason for your answer? What makes you so sure that your prisoner knows anything? What makes you sure of his identity? Is there any possibility that you are wrong? What if he knows nothing; what if he is innocent? Is your informant lying, is your informant in on the plot, and has misdirected you to an innocent person?
By the time that this hypothetical scenario makes any sense, I can assure you of two things concerning this situation: 1. There is no bomb. 2. If there is a bomb, and you have all the information you need to entitle you to torture your suspect, then you already know where the bomb is.
Login or Register to post comments.