Meet your new thread, same as the old thread.

[Replaced_Texan]

I keep thinking that someone shot Barak Obama when I read headlines like "Mother of Omaha mall shooter apologizes".

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
couple things:

first, unless "Gang of 4" is a term you have learned long ago, you shouldn't use it that way. it intimidates me into thinking you know way more than i posssibly could, so i figure why bother. OTOH if you just plucked it from the article, you should introduce the term to your reader.

second, she could have objected to any number of things that in no way object to the practice. the rest of your guys were silent but we have to assume her letter was some ringing denouncement? no thanks.

third, this issue is critical to the debate Ty wants to have. Ty wants to talk about "congressional oversight." I bet he is going to propose giving congress some real teeth!

But to me an intial question is what will congress do with whatever authority is does get, and when we now look at what it does with the authority it has now we know it simply misuses that authority to attempt political hatchetjobs with no real concern for whether it is helping or harming the country. I believe everyone agrees that is what's going on, Ty abstaining.

so now we can frame the question ty wants to talk about:

Should we give congress strong new oversight authority where it has been using its present authority solely for political gain, and with disregard for whether it harms the country?

Have at it everyone!

I say no, because it seems to me congress' current authority is sufficient to misuse its oversight for political gain with disregard for whether it harms the country. Our system is working!

If that's the best you can do, Not Bob wins. Your answer is: "I don't know. I don't believe it. Now, lets talk about this . . "

Yes, Hank -- we all know you "don't answer hypos", but you also do a lot of ducking and dodging in between claiming to be the Board's sole source of substance and independent ideas.

S_A_M

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Except that they turn on contradictory assumptions about empirical reality. Other than that, they're just the same.

Not all of the GOP. McCain is a pleasant exception. But Giuliani and Romney, to name two, seem to have concluded that the way to win the primary is to outflank everyone else on their willingness to be bad-ass motherfuckers. Either this is exploitation or a true reflection of who they are -- I'm not sure which is worse.

Your first point isn't much more than a clever twist of phrase. They are not mutually exclusive or contradictory perceptions unless you want to see them that way. All is grey in that area and I doubt you really believe politicians have any one consistent position or perception. What they think shifts by the hour and most recent poll.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Your first point isn't much more than a clever twist of phrase. They are not mutually exclusive or contradictory perceptions unless you want to see them that way.

You're not making any sense. Either the Democrats see political gains in exploiting the torture issue or they don't. Either they really care or they don't. You and I see different realities on both points.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
So in your world, a bunch of Democratic politicians don't believe that torture is wrong but do believe that lots of voters believe that and will give the Democrats more political power if they just point out that the Republicans like torture. Presumably in this world, the Republicans also understand that voters are against torture, and are running scared at the notion that people will find out they're for water-boarding.

Not the world I live in. In my world, the Democrats are agree that torture is wrong, so they're not making an issue of it in the primaries because it's not a way to distinguish themselves from one another. But they're also not doing much to keep the issue in front of the rest of the public out of fear that it will hurt them. They've decided that GOP filibusters and the presidential veto will prevent them from changing the law before the next election, and their best chance to change things is to take back the White House -- by running on other issues.

The first sentence of your first paragraph is an accurate, although self-servingly rephrased description of what I wrote. Your second is not, which you knew. Hence, "presumably."

The second paragraph is wishful thinking. I hope you're right, but I can't help but thinking it's pretty naive.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
You dope, you started this conversation with a post quoting a WSJ editorial, which is what I was referring to.

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

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
If that's the best you can do, Not Bob wins. Your answer is: "I don't know. I don't believe it. Now, lets talk about this . . "S_A_M

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.

[SlaveNoMore]

sebastian_dangerfield
No, I think to his credit, Ty views torture as a real substantive issue, which it is. Politically, however, it is being used for leverage, which robs it of any credibility in the national discourse. I think his moral outrage is real. I just don't think the politicians using the issue for gain have any real moral outrage.

He has a point. Torture is something we ought to debate, for obvious reasons. the problem is, as you've cited, the people bringing that debate are not serious about it and everyone knows it.

That, and that waterboarding isnt torture.

(and away we go....)

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
The CIA had a memo saying torture is legally okay.

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.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

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.

[SlaveNoMore]

Not Bob
A Democratic House member in the Gang of 4 at the time of a briefing objected at the time to the interrogation techniques described -- how does that fit in your theory?

(And I don't know what the letter says -- the news story I linked to said that the letter is confidential, but described it as objecting to the techniques. Do you know what was said in the briefings, or are you relying on news reports, too?)

Where are you seeing this?

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

[SlaveNoMore]

Tyrone Slothrop
They've decided that GOP filibusters and the presidential veto will prevent them from changing the law before the next election, and their best chance to change things is to take back the White House -- by running on other issues.

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

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
That, and that waterboarding isnt torture.

Hank, do you think waterboarding is torture?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

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

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

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
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.

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.