Comments Posted By busboy33
Displaying 411 To 420 Of 657 Comments
"We’ll see if the press plays this straight or starts to generate scare headlines that will panic people into going to the hospital every time they sneeze."
Why Rick . . . surely you don't think that the MSM would place ratings over calm, reasoned, and helpful reporting? I'm shocked!
. . . although I do have to confess to a morbid curiosity as to what tag lines and graphics they come up with for this one. "Revenge of the Bacon"? "Terror from the Mud"? Photoshopped pictures of Babe with smoldering crimson eyes? I'm embarassed to admit how excited I am for the U.S. media to utterly disappoint me.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 26.04.2009 @ 08:48
WATERBOARDING: THE S.E.R.E. STRAWMAN
@c3:
"Ironic that you make that comment on this post by a conservative who has consistently decried torture."
Tragically, it isn't. The last several times Mr. M has tried to explain his position, the comments got flooded with "RINO-eating-your-own-libtard-stooge" rage from the "true" conservatives.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 27.04.2009 @ 01:30
@Don C.:
At it again, eh?
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 26.04.2009 @ 05:24
THE CONSERVATIVE CASE FOR GAY MARRIAGE
@bsjones:
No dispute from me. Its an unfortunate reality of the nature of a "referee". Does it create problems? Inherently yes. But if they could be forced to answer all questions posed to them, they'd never get anything done -- they get thousands of cert petitions every year and there would be no possibility of hearing them all. There would have to multiple Supreme Courts, which defeats the entire purpose.@TomT:
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 20.04.2009 @ 22:35
"a pregnant girl who appeared to be the ring leader of this controversy."
Are you refering to Lindsey England? If so, you might want to look a little deeper into what happened and who was involved.
Are the Supremes undemocratic (in the sense you're using it)? Absolutely. Just remember the check on their almost unlimited power -- they can't actually DO anything. They can answer the questions asked, but not pose any of their own.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 19.04.2009 @ 21:02
I thought after a "conservative soul-searching" post, you're supposed to follow it up with an "Obama and Congressional Dems are goofballs" post. Back to the playbook, man!
Joking aside, a deep and profound post. Possibly the best argument for keeping the issue away from the courts I have ever heard. You've added another wrinkle to my thinking about this issue, and for that an honest thank you.BTW, I'm a pretty liberal person on most topics who has been pursuaded to the anti-gay-marriage side of the issue (legally equivilant recognition? Yes absolutely. "Capital M" marriage? No). If a conservative's arguments end up swinging me back to the other side, I may be forced to acknowledge that rational discourse and the reasoned exchange of ideas and opinions still exists in America. You're going to shtter my entire pessimistic world view!
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 18.04.2009 @ 10:45
@DonC:
"'the only bias demonstrated by Mr. Nance is in disagreeing with you — a cardinal sin to be sure, but no bias.'
Make up your irrational mind, in your biased opinion is Mr. Nance’s opinion biased, or not?"
http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/sarcasm -- might help clarify my post, since you seemed to have missed it.
I don't think he's biased. If I did, I wouldn't have referenced him."Also unsurprising is your reflexive bigotry in asserting that suggesting someone’s views present as Buddhist/ML, per his own words, is somehow 'slander'.
Perhaps you need to investigate both Buddhisms and Modern Liberalism’s tenets more comprehensively."
No thanks. The years I spent studying (Ch'an) Buddhism to get one of my B.A.s were more than enough. You claimed that he seemed like a Buddhist/ML convert in post #55 (you do realize what you've previously posted is still there for everybody to see, right?) to imply he was a "feminized" pacifist, and therefore his years of military experience could be rejected because he was biased (as per your appeal to authority fallacy claim). There wouldn't be any other reason to say it in the context you did.
And I'm intellectually dishonest.
You are right though -- "slander" isn't the correct legal term. Do you feel more comfortable by my saying you "demeaned" him? "Attempted to make him appear weak and biased"?Great quote from the Admiral. Wonder why you didn't include this from just after what you quoted:
“The information gained from these techniques was valuable in some instances, but there is no way of knowing whether the same information could have been obtained through other means,” Admiral Blair said in a written statement issued last night. “The bottom line is these techniques have hurt our image around the world, the damage they have done to our interests far outweighed whatever benefit they gave us and they are not essential to our national security."But its nice to see you citing to a member of Obama's Administration to support your arguments. I assume that means you don't think he's biased and is a trustworthy source.
You cited to blogger Ed Morrisey as an example of "a source with any experience or expertise in the matter that disagree"? Not too clear about his experience or expertise in regards to interrogation and/or torture. However, does he disagree with the notion that waterboarding is torture AND effective (the question you leveled in post #66), which is a change from the original question you posed in #36, which was (a) was waterboarding torture and (b)why not use it.
The Admiral above whom you cited to explained about the second part of your original question. Your cite to Mr. Morrisey also answers the first part of that:"Conservatives should stop pretending that waterboarding isn’t a form of torture that the US has opposed for decades when used abroad, especially against our own citizens."
So now we're left with your final (modified) question: is it effective? I haven't seen any evidence that it is. I've heard claims that it was effective, but no evidence to back it up. The only attempt I've seen to bolster the "effective" thrust (which kind of assumes that waterboarding IS torture, otherwise the question is pointless), were the allegations that KSM/AbuZ gave up info after being waterboarded. Unfortunately, FBI agents have claimed that KSM already gave up all of his useful information before he was waterboarded as a result of traditional interrogation techniques, and other reports have suggested that most (if not all) of the intel obtained from torture was either already known or outright lies.
Also, the government has been inaccurate (to put it nicely) it many of its previous claims that it had evidence proving something that turned out to be false (proof of AlQ-Iraq link, Rumsfeld not only knows that Saddam has WMDs, he actually knows where they are, etc.). The government has also made claims about how effective the intel gained from suspects was, that later turned out to be . . . not such a big deal:
"[In a September 6, 2006 speech,[Bush] says that Abu Zubaida, who was captured in March 2002 (see March 28, 2002), revealed that 9/11 mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed (KSM) used the alias ‘Mukhtar.’ 'This was a vital piece of intelligence that helped our intelligence community pursue KSM.' However, the 9/11 Commission’s final report published in 2004 revealed that the fact that KSM had that alias was known to US intelligence before 9/11 (see August 28, 2001). Bush also claims that Zubaida’s interrogation identified Ramzi bin al-Shibh as an accomplice in the 9/11 attacks. [New York Times, 9/8/2006] However, this was known months before Zubaida’s capture, and reported in the US press as early as September 2001. A CBS News report from that time said bin al-Shibh was 'believed to have provided logistics backup for the hijackers.' [CBS News, 9/29/2001]"
http://visibility911.com/jongold/?p=234Or this claim:
You have informed us that the interrogation of KSM, once enhanced techniques were employed-led to the discovery of a KSM piot, the 'Second Wave,' 'to use East Asian operatives to crash a hijacked airliner into a building in Los Angeles.' Effectiveness Memo at 3."
http://luxmedia.vo.llnwd.net/o10/clients/aclu/olc_05302005_bradbury.pdf (p.10)"A subsequent fact sheet released by the Bush White House states, 'In 2002, we broke up a plot by KSM to hijack an airplane and fly it into the tallest building on the West Coast.' [This] statement[] make clear that however far the plot to attack the Library Tower ever got—an unnamed senior FBI official would later tell the Los Angeles Times that Bush's characterization of it as a 'disrupted plot' was 'ludicrous'—that plot was foiled in 2002. But Sheikh Mohammed wasn't captured until March 2003."
http://www.slate.com/id/2216601/Has torture been effecitve? Maybe. Possibly. Perhaps. Is there any evidence that it has been? No. Have any of the claimed examples of useful intel gained thru torture stood up to scrutiny? No.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 23.04.2009 @ 02:22
So is it possible that there is proof that proves torture was necessary, and the government just hasn't bothered to use it to justify its actions, and instead has tried to justify torture with false claims and exagerations? Heck, anything's possible. But after being . . . incorrect . . . on such details in the past, I'd like to see a little proof. Maybe Cheney's request for documents will actually demonstrate torture was necessary. When/if the documents are released, I'll read them, and I'll keep an open mind when I do -- I'd love to feel better about knowing that my country tortured. But the facts in front of me so far say hell no, and I see no reason to just "trust" the government (Bush, Obama, it doesn't matter) in the face of what evidence I DO have in front of me.
@DonC:
"straw man"
I'm misreading your position? I'm so sorry. Let me see where I missed it:
post #55 - service members are honorable. Nance is a "Buddist/ML convert". You state it as an insult. He is/was a service member. Sounds to me like you don't think he's very honorable . . . or rather you don't seem to be honoring him too much since in addition to slandering him you say he's biased (post #66).
Wow. You realize simply stating a definition doesn't mean you've identified something, right?
btw, I really love the examples of a straw man argument provided at your source. This one sounded awfully fimiliar:
"Senator Jones says that we should not fund the attack submarine program. I disagree entirely. I can't understand why he wants to leave us defenseless like that."
Now who does that sound like . . ."appeal to authority fallacy"
I refer you to Nance's post. You refer to that as an appeal to authority fallacy (post #55). You define that as where the authority suffers from bias (post #66). As far as your posts indicate, the only bias demonstrated by Mr. Nance is in disagreeing with you -- a cardinal sin to be sure, but no bias.Let's just check your link to see the definition . . .
"An Appeal to Authority is a fallacy with the following form:
Person A is (claimed to be) an authority on subject S.
Person A makes claim C about subject S.
Therefore, C is true.
THIS FALLACY IS COMMITTED WHEN THE PERSON IN QUESTION IS NOT A LEGITIMATE AUTHORITY ON THE SUBJECT. . . Since this sort of reasoning is fallacious only when the person is not a legitimate authority in a particular context, it is necessary to provide some acceptable standards of assessment. The following standards are widely accepted:
1)The person has sufficient expertise in the subject matter in question. (check)
2)The claim being made by the person is within her area(s) of expertise. (check)
3)There is an adequate degree of agreement among the other experts in the subject in question. (see below)
4)The person in question is not significantly biased. (well, you say so, so it must be true)
5)The area of expertise is a legitimate area or discipline. (check)
6)The authority in question must be identified. (check)"
Since I'm sure you didn't just cherry pick the only one of the 6 factors that you could possibly make any assertion about (even if it is completely, utterly, and totally unsubstantiated), I'll just assume it was a typo on your part. I mean, otherwise you look like a complete fool."‘Ad Hominem means “against the man” or “against the person.”‘
See also: ‘Appeal to Ridicule: a fallacy in which ridicule or mockery is substituted for evidence in an “argument.”
Strange . . . I don't see that in the link you cited. I do, however, see this:
"An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument."
Kind of like rejecting someone's argument based on insulting the person, and not debating the issues. Something I know you'd never do . . . I don't know what possessed me to make such a groundless accusation.
You've opened my eyes. I thought you were trying to mock me, Mr. Nance, and everybody that didn't agree with you. I guess I'll have to work on my reading comprehension skills. Must be all that feminizing that jumbled my bot brain.Boy, you're really shooting my statements down. You're a crack shot, ya are.
"What hard evidence, besides Mr. Nance’s opinion, do you have to support that claim?"
Here's a short list --
The Red Cross (btw, under international law, the ICRC makes the binding legal determination, so this pretty much is the beginning and the end of "proving" it, legally speaking):
http://www.nybooks.com/icrc-report.pdf
The United States Military, Court-Martialing a soldier for waterboarding . . . over 100 years ago:
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/02/25/080225fa_fact_kramer?currentPage=all
The United States, prosecuting Japanese soldiers for waterboarding in WWII:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/02/AR2007110201170.html
The Armed Services Committee of the United States Senate:
http://armed-services.senate.gov/Publications/Detainee%20Report%20Final_April%2022%202009.pdf
The Federal Bureau of Investigation:
http://www.usdoj.gov/oig/special/s0805/final.pdfAny of those sources satisfy you? You got any sources with any experience or expertise in the matter that disagree?
p.s. -- "busbot"? really? That's the best you could come up with? Not "buschild"? "shortbus"? For someone that spends most of their comments insulting people, that's pretty weak.
@Mr. M.:
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 22.04.2009 @ 04:54
Whenever this wears out its welcome, say the word. I'm having fun with Don, but its your blog.
@Hyperlon:
To be fair to Mr. M., this isn't the first time he's recognized the torture issue. He's been speaking out like this on the topic for roughly a year.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 20.04.2009 @ 22:43
I get the impression that his initial defense of the Administration stemmed in at least some measure from an assumption that and American Administration simply wouldn't or couldn't do this sort of thing -- it had to be some sort of conspiracy theory. But as the facts dribled out, he did follow the data to the inescapable conclusion, and as I said he did it a while ago (and took hell here from some commenters for it).
Thanks. You may finally be listening.
I'll push my luck and suggest you look up both "straw man" and "appeal to authority fallacy". It's more impresive when you throw the terms around if you're close to their actual meaning.So I point out you're evaluation of the SERE training isn't as informed as Nance. You respond that using that logic my opinion is "utterly irrevelant", so for you logic means "isn't as informed" = "utterly irrevelant".
I appreciate that argumentum ad hominenm (and apparently ignorantiam given the above) seems to be your style, but you can still hurl your laughable insults if you actually stay on a topic. If you're just going to keep runnig from the weeealllly scaaaaawwwwyyy questions to hide behind irrevelant rudeness . . . well, resperctfully you look like a coward.
You've kept dodging this, so I'll as ask again. You disagree with Nance -- goodie for you. Why? Are you disagreeing that waterboarding and such are torture, or do you agree they are torture but think they are effective? If its the later . . . what is it effective at?
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 20.04.2009 @ 15:14
