CC, I can prove to you that a dedicated debater, not held to any sources or proof standard, can tie you in knots.

No need. I know that is possible, particularly if that is the debater’s goal. That is not my goal, and I would hope that you do not think it is. I’m not trying to be clever and tricky — I have an opinion, and I am presenting it in the best manner I can at this time. My computer blows up into tiny bits when I do any of a dozen things, and moves at the speed of a lithium soaked turtle. Finding sources and linking them would take me so much time that I would have no time to present my arguments because of that. Sorry that it bothers you so much. Really. However, you have a qualifier — “not held to any sources or proof standard“. I agree — one cannot simply say just anything: but logic and reason are standards to be held to in debate or discussion, and many ‘facts’ are givens. Had I claimed that Pelosi said such-and-such… then it would be reasonable to want to know where I got that from. I’m presenting pretty much my opinions. If that is not structured enough for you, I can do little about it.

but a discussion does not require sources.

Nor does it resolve anything, like arguing about whose religion is more pious. With subjects in the political sphere, basing on evidence is key to clearing up misconceptions and mis-conclusions. It also tends to reduce verbiage.

The less words used, actually, the more likely there will be mis-communication. Bumper-sticker slogans are cute, but they really are not the stuff of debate and discussion. Bringing evidence dpends entirely upon what the subject is you are discussing and how you are discussing it. And there is also mutual agreement that comes into play. I do not disagree that we tortured, and that it was ordered from the top levels of the Bush administration. Neither do you. So, if I say, “We tortured prisoners on orders from our government” I would not need to offer links to outside sources to prove what I say to you. I would have to for someone who did not believe that, or rather, it would bolster the statement, assuming the other person accepted the sources offered as legitimate or accurate.

But she cannot be guilty of aquiesing to government approved torture UNTIL there is acceped government approved torture.

The treaties we signed established compulsory investigations to immediately look into torture allegations (hyperlinks in original):…..We know that torture was committed, but the ruling party has yet to begin investigations. In fact, Obama himself has gone to great pains to cover for bush’s crimes in both state secrets case and telecom immunity.

O.k. Here is where we agree, but are on different … I don’t know what. Yes — we should be investigating the torture to the fullest and prosecuting all involved. But we are not doing so — therefore, as much as we KNOW it happened, it did not legally happen yet. Note that some of the republics are wanting Pelosi to step down for not trusting the CIA, and not bringing in the torture… because she can’t be tagged for “torture knowledge” until our law accepts that there was torture, which, of course, will mean a lot of other people winding up in the hot water.

Is there something that I HAVE presented that you believe requires a source or citation to be rationally considered?

Yes. For one, your refutation of Pelosi’s obligation of oversight. You claim she wasn’t briefed to provide oversight, but don’t state why bother briefing her, or any other democrat at all if not for oversight? Nor do you cite where you drew this conclusion.

I cannot offer you citations, and I am sorry. And there is no one source that this perception was arrived at. I can’t send you to some columnist or pundit who told me that and so I believe it. The accumulation of knowledge is not often a single-source item. However, I will claim (without a source) that the committee that she was a member of who was briefed was not an actionable committee — it was allowed to exist by the unitary executive in hopes of quelling dissent (what did said committee accomplish, ever?). The Bush Administration did not want to brief anybody on anything that they did. That committe had no teeth whatsoever. Now, you DID reframe what I have said into “Pelosi’s obligation for oversight”, which is being a little clever with your argument. I never claimed that Pelosi did not have an obligation — nor that ANYONE who knew of the torture had no obligation. But with what is a list of people responsible, to only select one is dishonest — drag the whole list of ‘em out and I’m right up front with you. Dragging ANY single individual out of the grooup who are all EQUALLY responsible is, well, looking for someone to throw under the bus to save the rest. I want them ALL to be punished. every human being who knew that torture was being ordered by our government and failed to report it is guilty of aquiescence.

You must understand, for you to make any substantive statement concerning the situation, you must have gathered it from somewhere.

Every single thing that we know we acquired from somewhere. Inability to demonstrate that knowledge does not automatically disqualify knowledge, nor intelligence. YES, there are many situations where a source is necessary, and those are all instances where the listener will think (or say) “prove it”. However, I regualrly see others wanting proof for things that have or need no proof.

And that is a pretty high level of requirement for most discussion. I concur that specifics require examples (and that is what you did — you brought in a citation and based your argument off of that). But I strongly disagree with you that in every and all instances one must present sources and citations, or offer no opinion. One’s experiences in life accumulate to create one’s knowledge, and the mind does not always note it’s sources. For my part, I take issue with those who only use one or two sources for their information on a subject (e.g., and specifically, the Limbots and their ilk — NOT specifically a single argument, such as you present here… for clarity).

I do not agree that I cannot offer a substansive opinion based only on my experiences in life and my intellect. Is it as persuasive as an argument listing a dozen respected and qualified sources pretty much not. However, i am not really all that intent on being persuasive: I am offering my opinions and my thoughts on the topics. If that is insufficient for you to find them of any value, then you are wasting your time discussing anything at all with me. I can’t imagine that your position on sources is so narrow, but it may be.

I enjoyed our discussion.

It’s fitting, that name. You’re a real pill…

CC, I can prove to you that a dedicated debater, not held to any sources or proof standard, can tie you in knots.

but a discussion does not require sources.

Nor does it resolve anything, like arguing about whose religion is more pious. With subjects in the political sphere, basing on evidence is key to clearing up misconceptions and mis-conclusions. It also tends to reduce verbiage.

But she cannot be guilty of aquiesing to government approved torture UNTIL there is acceped government approved torture.

The treaties we signed established compulsory investigations to immediately look into torture allegations (hyperlinks in original):

The U.S. really has bound itself to a treaty called the Convention Against Torture, signed by Ronald Reagan in 1988 and ratified by the U.S. Senate in 1994. When there are credible allegations that government officials have participated or been complicit in torture, that Convention really does compel all signatories — in language as clear as can be devised — to “submit the case to its competent authorities for the purpose of prosecution” (Art. 7(1)).

And the treaty explicitly bars the standard excuses that America’s political class is currently offering for refusing to investigate and prosecute: “No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat or war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture” and “an order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification of torture” (Art. 2 (2-3)).

By definition, then, the far less compelling excuses cited by Conason (a criminal probe would undermine bipartisanship and distract us from more important matters) are plainly barred as grounds for evading the Convention’s obligations.

We know that torture was committed, but the ruling party has yet to begin investigations. In fact, Obama himself has gone to great pains to cover for bush’s crimes in both state secrets case and telecom immunity.

Is there something that I HAVE presented that you believe requires a source or citation to be rationally considered?

Yes. For one, your refutation of Pelosi’s obligation of oversight. You claim she wasn’t briefed to provide oversight, but don’t state why bother briefing her, or any other democrat at all if not for oversight? Nor do you cite where you drew this conclusion.

You must understand, for you to make any substantive statement concerning the situation, you must have gathered it from somewhere. To simply say , as you did, “We do NOT “know for a fact” that torture was approved at the government level.” is certainly based on something you read and believed.

It is also wrong. We do know for a fact that it was authorized using faulty legal reasoning:

Finally, Newsweek’s Michael Isikoff — echoing a report from John Yoo’s Berkeley colleague, Brad DeLong — reports that an internal DOJ probe (initiated during the Bush administration) has preliminarily concluded that Bush DOJ lawyers who authorized torture (John Yoo, Jay Bybee, Stephen Bradbury) violated their professional duties as lawyers by issuing legal conclusions that had no good faith basis, and that this behavior will be referred to their state bar associations for possible disciplinary action.

The Convention Against Torture explicitly prohibits the domestic legalization of torture, and specifically states that it shall not be a defense that government officials authorized it.

Again, supporting my position with sources demonstrates and makes accessible information that will trump assumption or inaccurate assertions made in the best of faith. It’s part of persuasion to show the genesis of my position. And it’s a courtesy and requirement in every debate.

Missed the iraqi Invasion.

Missed on WMD’s

Failed to predict North Korea’s Nuke Program

Considering the fact that this organization has missed every major event that involves national Security I think disbanding this worse than useless Organization would benefit us all!

hyacinthgirl Says:

Wow, Hanshiro has such anger about Nancy Pelosi. I suspect she reminds him of his mother, or maybe some woman who broke his heart. That is the only way to explain his insane attacks and obsession with this subject. He probably has her picture taped all over the walls of his Taxi Driver-like apartment.

Yeah, either that or he has the irrational hate of a Republican.

I apologize for misreading your post (I’m having a bad to worse to worser day PLUS unlimited distractions…. grrrrrrr).

However, I would prefer we remain civil.

I do not post links. Citing sources is more than a courtesey in an essay or research paper, but this blog is neither. Sources to back up one’s position may or may not be useful (depends on the source), but a discussion does not require sources. If we were having this discussion at the bar (which we could very well have, being in the same bar of course) sources would not be offered nor expected. Of course, we have that luxury here. I am not refuting the basic idea that there needs to be investigations and that guilty need to be prosecuted. I think that we both agree. But extending that desire to other people who were as or more culpable in the exact same crime IS a valid point in any discussion in this matter. Picking out Pelosi is simply a partisan or partisan-appearing attack, and it ignores that there were others who had the same or more responsibility.

But she cannot be guilty of aquiesing to government approved torture UNTIL there is acceped government approved torture. That is my primary point. And that cannot be the case without other people being tried for the crime of authorizing torutre. And I don’t need citations to hold or present that point.

Is there something that I HAVE presented that you believe requires a source or citation to be rationally considered? Seriously a question (becasue since I do not post links, i try to avoid arguing such that I need a source — I prefer the discussion itself, and appreciate those of you who DO offer links. Thank you.).

Again, I sincerely apologize for misreading that post — bad day, lots of distractions on top of it all.

Have a cookie.

As you have produced none, I’ll take that declaration with the grain it deserves.

It is incumbent on a participant to explain his position and cite sources upon which his conclusion is based. In a debate or even a term paper, this is a courtesy and a requirement.

I’ve yet to see anyone extend that requirement, outside of my position.

As you wish, The post was specifically directed at the unwarranted attack on #158. If you wish to extend that to our discussion, that’s your business.

She should be held to the standard that she swore to, unquestionably. If she betrayed that trust, after promising the opposite, it compounds the nature of her betrayal in my opinion.

again. Are you claiming that pelosi was the only person involved in this? That she was the ONLY “policeperson” in that room?

We are discussing Pelosi. Any other dems who did not act, as Greenwald has already pointed out in the article and link I posted, needs to be replaced.

(This is why I post articles and run out of patience when people ask me the same questions that show they didn’t bother to read the article where the questions that they ask would be answered.)

#37. It gets old that people who claim to have an interest don’t read the information posted and sourced, then want me to spoon feed it through repetition in post after post.

158. hyacinthgirl Says:

See CageyCretin? This is the abject stupidity to which I was referring. No counter, no rebuttal, no source, just a terminally partisan ‘Deliverance’ mentality armed with nothing more than rocks from behind the dumpster of her keyboard.

…is that banjo music I hear?

Wow. I was very civil, and no insults not name calling. I see the common response to one who has only one position, and probably politically motivated.

Intelligent, informative debate does not require sources. Period.

And after that little childish post, I see that it is a waste of my time to have a discussion with you. I had thought otherwise, but obviously I was mistaken.

I don’t need to know who set off the fireworks in the munitions plant to hold accountable the fireman who munched doughnuts while watching it burn…

Innacurrate analogy. The police one is far more appropriate.

We agreet hat torture was committed. We know that some prisoners were tortured. We do NOT “know for a fact” that torture was approved at the government level, and was included in these briefings. That is not a nugget of knowledge that we have as a fact with evidence. If we did, then more than one politician would be already awaiting trial for breaking federal and international laws.

See CageyCretin? This is the abject stupidity to which I was referring. No counter, no rebuttal, no source, just a terminally partisan ‘Deliverance’ mentality armed with nothing more than rocks from behind the dumpster of her keyboard.

…is that banjo music I hear?

When it comes to torturing people, I somehow believe it carries a far greater standard than “I did not have sex with that woman,” yet, they impeached for that. Deaths are not a broken campaign promise.

O.k. Now you’re not staying with our discussion. You claimed that she ran on a platform of ‘policewoman-type”, and that, because of that, she should be held MORE to that standard thaqn anyone else. You said that just a few posts up there. I say, no — we don’t and never have effectively held any politician to their runnign platforms — certainly not as precedent for prosecution. I don’t recall Clinton (you brought him up, not me) running on a platform of “Oral sex is not sex.” I just don’t recall that speech…. perhaps you have a source?

She may have sold herself as a “policewoman” (in some eyes, anyway), but that is not what she is — she is not in charge of the FBI, CIA, nor on any police force. That is just not true.

It is absolutely true. She could have brought this issue to the fore, as a ranking democrat, as cited in the article on #144. She had options that she didn’t exercise for fear, as is emerging, that she would risk her political career. You’ve not rebutted that information, just rejected it. That is not a valid argument.

again. Are you claiming that pelosi was the only person involved in this? That she was the ONLY “policeperson” in that room? There was a group effort to anyhting that occurred in these matters, and if you pick one person out of the group you are letting the others go free. How many “policepeople” were in that room?

The analogy is not justified. Pelosi was not a policewoman now or then, and back then she was not in a position of oversight authority on the matters that she was being briefed or not briefed on.

This is wrong. She was brought into the briefing specifically for the point of oversight. See my links to Greenwald’s article upthread. Again, you’ve simply rationalized and dismissed without evidence or rebuttal.

No. I am not rationalizing. Nor am I just dismissing you out of hand. Little touchy, are we? The article is one piece of information, and one quote that you rely on. Are you claiming that Pelosi was the only person brought in for the purposes of oversight? That is what is implied here.

Agreed, but that goes government wide. This is a time for a broad sweep, not nitpicking at a person here and there.

I agree, but in the interest of properly exploring this subject, Pelosi, the question of anyone else’s involvement is either moot or irrelevent.

Again, it certainly is not. Everyone involved is just as important. Why is Pelosi MORE important than the other people in that room that were briefed with whatever it was they were briefed with? The accuracy of the CIA is in question, so there is still no definitive proof that Peolsi and the rest of the room knew about torture. And, again, it has to have been torture (of the illegal kind, not just EIT) for Pelosi to HAVE any measure of culpability, but since there is no illegal governmetn sanctioned torture yet, going after Pelosi like this is purely a partisan witch hunt and distraction.

Heh, long thread, but basically the idea that Pelosi was “powerless” or that Pelosi didn’t know about torture in 2003. I’ve supported my position through several credible sources and, again, was met with hysterical indignation or worse, addled and partisan rationale.

that is VERY germane to the question at hand,

It’s not, because that has been established and would only waste the dialogue on tangents. The question we’re concerned with here is did one of the people elected to serve progressive/dem/Constitutional interests, violate their oath for partisan gain/enabling the torturers?

The point is, who was the authorizing force?

That is a tangent. Again, that is not the nugget we’re concerned with here. That aspect has been discussed on other threads that were not titled, “Intel officer: CIA is being ‘disingenuous’ about congressional briefings. ”

Until there IS a crime (torture) she cannot be held responsible for not reporting it. The torture investigations cannot begin with Pelosi. She is not that important.

Not quite, We know for a fact torture was committed. People were beaten to death. Your claim, that we don’t have any convictions yet, doesn’t protect Pelosi from being held responsible if she was aware or claims “powerlessness.”

I don’t need to know who set off the fireworks in the munitions plant to hold accountable the fireman who munched doughnuts while watching it burn…

And efforts to apologize for what these Congressional Democrats have done by claiming that they “were virtually helpless to respond,” or suggesting that knowingly inconsequential expressions of private protest are somehow noble, are counter-productive. Why excuse or apologize for the profound failure of those who seek leadership positions on the Intelligence Committee — who, after all, are being briefed precisely because they are expected to act when they learn of illegal behavior — when they abdicate their responsibilities? That only encourages such malfeasance to continue.

Powerful Committee members have all sorts of options for stopping such lawbreaking. They chose not to avail those options, either out of fear, indifference and — apparently in many cases — because they supported the lawbreaking. The solution is to work to replace those who have done that with those who won’t. Torture methods aren’t any less reprehensible when endorsed by Democrats.

Not quite. I would say that even if the source is not credible, the information can still be correct. The National Enquirer manages to pull that occasionally…

Certainly. But the question would remain as to whether they got it accurate and in context. But faiur enough. not worth any more discussion, really.

So far, no one has bothered to offer any substantive counter to any of the information I’ve presented. Just hysterical indignation. That ain’t progressive, but merely partisan.

At this point I have lost what information is supposed to be countered.

Where’s the list of all the people who knew about these same things, because the Democrat Pelosi certianly knew far less than any republican.

It is not germane to the question at hand. …. So we stick to the focus of the debate. Pelosi’s knowledge of torture.

that is VERY germane to the question at hand, really. It is inextrictably tied into it. “Pelosi’s knowledge of torture” cannot exist without torture. So, has the US officially admitted to torturing prisoners? Yes, I get that we have a thread and its topic, but Peolsi did not aiuthrize torture, and I don’t see anyone trying to argue that. So… who did? and before Pelosi CAN be damned for knowing about torture and not doing anything, there has to BE torture, and thus someone who ordered id (because tied in with that is that it was part of top secret briefings she and others recieved, and thus it was government sanctioned). The argument you present DOES want to ignore the authorizing forces, and to ignore that there were people who created and delivered the briefings and other elected officials (the “policemen” of our scenerio, as it were, then) who were briefed. To continue our police/murder metaphor — it was NOT just that one policewoman standing there watching the murder: it was whole group of policepeople doing that. They ALL need to go down, and go down together since it is the exact same crime we are talking about.

That we don’t harp on what everyone already knows, that bush should be in irons

But that is NOT the valid point to this argument. The point is, who was the authorizing force? You want to punish one person for a crime that has not been admitted or taken to a court. We do NOT have any legal “The US government tortured” at this time, and until we do it is impossible for anyone at all to have lied about knowing about torture since, legally, it didn’t happen. You CAN’T go after Pelosi for “what she knew about torture” UNTIL you affirm government sanctioned torture and at least begin prosecutional investigations.

So — was it her knowledge of torture and failure to tell someone, or is it that she is lying?

She has already made a statement that is, according to several credible sources, demonstrably false; that she was “powerless.” She may have been unwilling to commit to risking political suicide to protect the Constitution, which she swore to protect, but according to legal experts like Law Professor Michael Froomkin and Constitutional litigator Glenn Greenwald, she had options to act.(Notwithstanding her curious declaration that she was powerless, yet she claims she didn’t know anything. That’s akin to saying, “I didn’t kill anyone, and besides the statute of limitations has run out anyway.”)

So — was it her knowledge of torture and failure to tell someone, or is it that she is lying, or is it that she is lying about being powerless? Again… so far, there was no crime (torture). Until there IS a crime (torture) she cannot be held responsible for not reporting it.

The torture investigations cannot begin with Pelosi. She is not that important.