Is it Me?
 

i just read the frst few paragraphs to make sure my facts were right. my argument i made up on my own.

Is it Me?
 

oh. I didn't know simply saying something was written allows one to guess it has posiitve things in it, but okay, fair point.

The CIA had a memo saying torture is legally okay.

Is it Me?
 

That, and that waterboarding isnt torture.

(and away we go....)

Is it Me?
 

True. But hasn't that since been rescinded? Hope its not a strict liability crime.

S_A_M

P.S. Sen. Graham's questions are for political purposes, of course, but so are the Administration's ridiculous efforts to avoid answering those questions. [They also won't just stand up and admit they want to allow torture becase they know the power of that word.]

There is absolutely no doubt that waterboarding violates the Geneva Conventions if done by a signatory to uniformed personnel of another signatory.

Orin Kerr:

• Arguing in Good Faith: Debates in the blogosphere often involve accusations of bad faith. Positions are often dismissed as disingenuous, two-faced, and deceitful. In this post, I want to argue for the importance of taking a different approach: I think we should debate with a strong presumption of good faith.
  
  My first reason is that I think arguments made in bad faith are actually pretty rare in the blogosphere. Granted, we all have our own quirky perspectives. We all approach hot-button issues in different ways, and all of us occasionally say things that readers find wrong, silly, or outrageous. But in my experience, the overwhelming majority of those cases are real efforts to articulate honestly-held views.
  
  When that's the case, an accusation of bad faith is like a poison. To all but the most partisan readers, the accusation will come off as a lame non-answer: "you don't really believe that" will sound like an excuse not to articulate why the position is wrong. And of course it only makes the person you're arguing against angry and less likely to take you seriously. In a disagreement, it's natural to treat nice people nicely and mean people defensively. Making a false accusation of bad faith just makes people dig in their heels.
  
  But wait, you're thinking: Some bloggers do in fact argue in bad faith. They really are disingenuous. Unfortunately, it does happen. But here's the thing: when it happens, pretty much everyone knows it. Most blog readers are pretty sharp, and they can see the signs from pretty far away. Pointing it out doesn't achieve anything.
  
  And besides, if someone is really making a disingenuous argument, it's probably pretty easy to counter it on the merits. If the person who wants to believe the argument realizes it's unpersuasive, it shouldn't be hard for you to show exactly why that's the case. And when you do that, it demonstrates the strength of your position much more than an accusation of bad faith ever could.

Is it Me?
 

Where are you seeing this?

Everything I've read to date suggests exactly the opposite - that they wanted to see more excessive techniques.

Is it Me?
 

Yes. "Cut and Run", expansion of the welfare state, and "Who had Presidential aspirations first?"

Is it Me?
 

Hank, do you think waterboarding is torture?

Is it Me?
 

Nothing I've seen suggests that the "they" included Democrats. Have you seen anything to the contrary?

Reading that is like watching a game of pong where one paddle is labeled "Illogic" and the other is labeled "Blind Faith." Occasionally, one will get tired and "Wishful Thinking" will pitch hit.

"Naivete" and "Cynicism" are the line judges.

Wow, could I milk more out of that theme?

Anyway, the problem with this board isn't people not knowing who is or isn't arguing in bad faith. It's that we're a bunch of fucking lawyers who confuse winning the debate with being right or wrong.

double-post -- sorry

Is it Me?
 

What do you mean when you say this? Does Lindsey Graham have to worry that he's going to face a serious challenge, ever? Does he think the way to please South Carolina voters is to take this position? Neither of those notions seem plausible to me. He's taking that position because he served in the armed forces and he thinks that what the Administration is doing is bad for the armed forces.

Is it Me?
 

OK, here you go - Dems (like Pelosi, that don't care) think they can manipulate people that do by exploiting the issue for political gain.

Saying a platitude like "I am against torture" is a hollow statement. Other than psychopaths, who isn't? The statement is comparable to saying "I like a sunny day"

The difference is in the fine points.

Is it Me?
 

No. To be clear, a bipartisan group was given a demonstation. No one complained. 2 basically asked "is there more?" But the party affiliation of the reacting parties has not been disclosed.

Is it Me?
 

In the article I linked to in my original post (and elsewhere): http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...801664_pf.html

• Harman, who replaced Pelosi as the committee's top Democrat in January 2003, disclosed Friday that she filed a classified letter to the CIA in February of that year as an official protest about the interrogation program. Harman said she had been prevented from publicly discussing the letter or the CIA's program because of strict rules of secrecy.
  
  "When you serve on intelligence committee you sign a second oath -- one of secrecy," she said. "I was briefed, but the information was closely held to just the Gang of Four. I was not free to disclose anything."

Is it Me?
 

If you think that, on the whole, Democrats are exploiting the issue, I think you're crazy. They're in a defensive crouch, afraid to push too hard on it for fear that another terrorist attack will happen and Republicans will accuse them of not having the stones to do what it takes to protect the country. Obviously, there are exceptions. Also, the word "exploiting" suggests that you think they're really pro-torture. (Pro-waterboarding, if you prefer.) It's hard for me to believe that anyone really thinks this.

Is it Me?
 

That is incorrect, as Not Bob pointed out.

eta: stp

Is it Me?
 

Your first point is reasonable here. You have cited a difference in perceptions between you and Slave.

It's the second point where you veer into "lawyer" territory, again trying to repackage someone's point to create a strawman position you can easily knock down to look like you've "won" the point. For the record, no one could ever read what he wrote as a suggestion the Dems are pro-torture.


ETA: You've seen "Outfoxed," haven't you?

Is it Me?
 

Haven't seen "Outfoxed." Maybe the word "exploit" means something different to each of us. I took Hank and Slave -- especially Hank -- to be saying that Pelosi (e.g.) doesn't have a problem with waterboarding but is pretending in public that she, for political advantage.

Is it Me?
 

I don't agree with either of you. I think she's against it, but doesn't really care all that much and is pretending to care a lot more than she does for political advantage. That's the fine point being made here about the Democrats.

I don't think "exploit" has a widely varying definition. I think its clear the word means "using something in an opportunistic fashion." I see the the issue as the degree to which something is being used in that fashion.

If it's your position that Pelosi is not exploiting the torture issue to any degree, I couldn't disagree more.

Is it Me?
 

I think she, and most people who have some idea of what waterboarding is about, are disgusted by it, and are raising the issue not for political advantage, though some may be incidental, but because they are disgusted by it. I would not call that exploitation. It's possible that Pelosi in particular is not disgusted -- I don't know her that well and am not her biggest fan -- but Hank's proof that she's a hypocrite strikes me as beyond thin, and more in the way of a routine effort by the WSJ editorial to soften up a favorite punching bag. I will not pretend that Dems are universally principled, but on this issue I believe most are acting out of good faith.

Is it Me?
 

Not bob, are you sure that wasn;t the objection in the letter?

Is it Me?
 

not bob, you have more gravitas than to make this argument, that's right, gravitas.

Is it Me?
 

me personally? doesn't matter. i trust my governement. the executive branch proposed using it, and my elected congress had no objection, so I'm okay with it.

Dyslexia
 

Howard Stern said "Osama" the other day referring to him, not on purpose. bad luck name.

Is it Me?
 

Please. If I had any gravitas, what would I be doing here?

Is it Me?
 

If you had any gravitas, you'd already be LinkedIn ;-)

Is it Me?
 

That smiley is beneath you. It is beneath us all. Funny, or not funny. There is no "try."

Is it Me?
 

Does the NRA have a second membership tier now?

Is it Me?
 

I admire his ability to do something out of character in an effort to communicate with someone very different from him. It's sort of sweet, and in keeping with the season, or whatever.

Drunk Thought of The Night
 

If I am God, and I just made 5+ million distinct species of beetles (and made sure that 10+ million got on the Ark), what's my thinking on how the fourth commandment is treated by the followers of Abu Bakr vis-a-vis Ali ibn Abi Talib?

Is it Me?
 

he's trying to sell something?

Is it Me?
 

For Obama's foreign policy views, you stressed the point about how great the persons Obama surrounds himself with. But you are linking me to old articles about Mark Lippert, a 34 year old Naval reservist - can you say anything about that man's role in foreign policy? Probably not. And anyhow, he's in Iraq or just recently back and apparently Daschle's advisor filled the void. Clearly you are sketchy on how Obama would walk us through the minefield of international politics. Given the current state of this world, I just can't vote based on fuzzy ambiguous "feelings."

BTW- Sebby you admitted you have seen Hillary's inner thighs. Nice.

Oh and what is up with the "Oops I did it again" from the Clinton camp: ""The issue related to cocaine use is not something the campaign is in any way raising," Mark Penn, MSNBC's Hardball.

Is it Me?
 

I honestly think we should simplify foreign policy, like say a Russian politician says "The United States acts like the world's babysitter meddling in other countries' affairs when it has no rights under international law." Or, "the united States claims the moral high ground, but then supports murderous dictators!"

I think our response should be, "So?" I think we need to move away from nuance. I don't think we live in a nuanced world so much anymore.

Is it Me?
 

I think his choice of advisors suggests he's approaching foreign policy in a good way. Of course we're sketchy on how Obama would walk us through the minefield of international politics. It's hard to tell with any candidate. Gov. Bush scoffed a nation-building, and now we're several years into trying to bring democracy to Iraq. Do you think it's any clearer what Romney or Huckabee would do? I will admit that I have a pretty good sense of Giuliani, not least because of the lunatics he has surrounded himself with as advisors

A propos of nothing:

The loneliest job in the world has to be the guy seeking ballot petition signatures in Washington DC for Mike Huckabee. I felt bad and gave him his fourth signature of the day.

Is it Me?
 

No.

2.

Drunk Thought of The Night
 

It's not really a matter of the Fourth Commandment being looked at differently. It's really just an argument over who is the rightful arbiter of any disputes.

Well, that and who gets the oil money and who has to sell bad bootleg cds in the souk.

Is it Me?
 

As if. No, my minions would be LinkedIn.

Is it Me?
 

I mean they are made to score political points and/or to advance his agenda because he already knows the correct answer and knows that the person he's asking won't answer the question.

He may yet accomplish something, I hope so.

Your narrow focus on electoral politics frequently causes you to misunderstand what I'm saying.

S_A_M