Re: You've got to speak out against the madness.
 

You're a better man than I. The last time that happened to me, I completely gave up.

TM

Re: You've got to speak out against the madness.
 

You originally linked to the story and said "here is one white person who seems to be a dick."

I asked, Marc Ambinder (the author of that piece) or Mark Wahlberg? I asked this because I actually didn't understand what your point was. The word doesn't seem to fit here. Note: I haven't insulted you.

In response, you seemed to assume that I was disagreeing with you instead of asking you what you meant. Instead of answering my question, you ascribe a stupid view to me.

So I told you, "I don't really have a view about whether Mark Wahlberg is a good guy or deserves a pardon." I then said that I don't think much of Ambinder's piece. From what I can tell, you don't agree with Ambinder -- he seems to think that the problem is that someone famous is getting special treatment, while you seem to think that someone who did something heinous shouldn't get a pardon. Those are two different arguments. With Ambinder, he doesn't really explain how Wahlberg is getting special treatment, so his piece doesn't convince me.

I think your position is more interesting, because I'm not sure where I come out. You only get a pardon if you've done a crime, so unless you think that a pardon should only rectify some injustice in the original conviction, the whole concept of a pardon acknowledges that someone did something bad, but for subsequent reasons -- rehabilitation, say -- should not be treated so harshly.

So anyway, I told you what I thought about what Ambinder said. I didn't disagree, and I didn't rise to your "we cannot defame anyone from Boston" crap. Also, I didn't insult you.

So then we trade some posts. In the second to last, I ask you whether you think pardons are "only for cases where someone was wrongly convicted." I say, I think they are for more than that.

You respond, "Forgot. You approved of Clinton." And that's when I called you a troll.

You also said, in a post you've now edited, "I don't normally reply to the same post twice, but FYI, i was trying to make clear stealing from a store and then pushing a clerk does not make one an irredeemable thug." And that's fine. I don't disagree with that. But that doesn't answer what I was asking you about who should get a pardon.

Note again: I still haven't insulted you. I called you a troll. "In Internet slang, a troll is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion." You started this conversation by posting a news story and calling Mark Wahlberg a dick. I tried to engage with you in good faith, asking you what you meant, and in return you suggested I was defending Wahlberg because he was from Boston and then you brought in the Clintons. And I basically agree with you! You treated innocuous questions like I was arguing with you instead of having a conversation. You made things adversarial. In short, you acted like a troll.

Re: Is Ted Cruz Satan? Discuss.
 

Mika Brzezinski learns what a furry is.

Re: You've got to speak out against the madness.
 

Wait, so it's not an insult if its an accurate description?!

So I've never insulted any of you assholes.

Re: You've got to speak out against the madness.
 

I only have one.

Re: Is Ted Cruz Satan? Discuss.
 

It's just worth pointing out today that everything the CIA is not only a waste, but often makes things worse. A few years ago I read Legacy of Ashes, a history of the CIA, which chronicles the long, sad, fucked-up story.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B4bQ86aCAAADXPw.jpg:large

Re: Is Ted Cruz Satan? Discuss.
 

Paul Graham's hierarchy of disagreement:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B4ZGj3kCQAA8cxK.jpg

Re: Is Ted Cruz Satan? Discuss.
 

There should be bottom tier that says "Providing a score."

Re: Is Ted Cruz Satan? Discuss.
 

You are an ass hat.

Re: Is Ted Cruz Satan? Discuss.
 

I like the way the visual presents them as building on each other, as if a good argument rests on a broad base of arguments ranging from the so-so to the massively stupid. Yes, all argument rests on a broad base of stupidity, ad hominem and name calling.

Re: Is Ted Cruz Satan? Discuss.
 

I believe the CIA's position today is as follows:

1. Because we took action based on enhanced interrogation techniques, regardless of whether that action was effective or the information we based it on accurate, EIH produced actionable intelligence and thus ehanced our mission (even if it did not optimize it).
2. Regardless of whether EIT produced AI and so can be considered mission enhancing even if not mission optimal, both our agents and Dick Cheney enjoyed it.

Re: Is Ted Cruz Satan? Discuss.
 

Also,

3. We think torture achieved all sorts of wonderful things that we can't tell you about because of national security.
4. The Senate doesn't know everything.
5. Because of 4., the Senate can't prove 3. is wrong.

Re: Is Ted Cruz Satan? Discuss.
 

So what do people think about issuing pardons as the only way to establish that torture is, in fact, illegal?

Re: Is Ted Cruz Satan? Discuss.
 

Catch 22 needs to be rewritten for today.

Re: Is Ted Cruz Satan? Discuss.
 

Without addressing your argument, let me just say you have no credibility on this sort of thing.

Re: Is Ted Cruz Satan? Discuss.
 

False.

Re: Is Ted Cruz Satan? Discuss.
 

Yes, and with the theme that Adder proposed -- "issuing pardons as the only way to establish that torture is, in fact, illegal"

Re: Is Ted Cruz Satan? Discuss.
 

Congratulations -- I think you've found an even lower level of the argument hierarchy.

Re: Is Ted Cruz Satan? Discuss.
 

If Obama is not going to prosecute anyone -- and he isn't -- then it's hard to imagine anyone else ever doing it. So a pardon seems like better than nothing.

Re: Is Ted Cruz Satan? Discuss.
 

You know, I don't think I like your tone.

Re: Is Ted Cruz Satan? Discuss.
 

Wouldn't a pardon be the President formally saying "it's okay, I forgive you for torturing people and lying to the government about it"?

Doing nothing would be preferable to doing something wrong.

Re: Is Ted Cruz Satan? Discuss.
 

I'm just sorry that we no longer have anyone here who will explain that this was all just fine. Spanky to say that the "ticking time bombs" (with the 3-year fuses, I guess) justify anything, and Slave to explain how "forced rectal feeding" isn't really any worse than the therapeutic enemas that liberal Hollywood celebrities pay for. That sort of thing.

Re: Is Ted Cruz Satan? Discuss.
 

Am I to take from this that you have a problem with forced rectal feeding? That doesn't seem like a big deal, really. Why don't we just get Megyn Kelly to demonstrate on air, and then maybe these libtards will stop calling it torture.

Re: Is Ted Cruz Satan? Discuss.
 

"I forgive you because you acted on poor legal advice."

Re: Is Ted Cruz Satan? Discuss.
 

That's kind of where I'm at.

This is going to have interesting fall out abroad, though.

Re: Is Ted Cruz Satan? Discuss.
 

As the report seems to say that they went beyond what was approved, it might need to be a little broader than that.

Re: Is Ted Cruz Satan? Discuss.
 

Question -- If you put "Acted on poor legal advice" into a translation program, and have it translated into German and back into English, does it come out "Just following orders"?

Re: Is Ted Cruz Satan? Discuss.
 

It will be worse if Obama pardons the people involved.

Re: Is Ted Cruz Satan? Discuss.
 

Hm. Not so sure there is any difference between pardoning and not prosecuting. What do you have in mind?

Re: Is Ted Cruz Satan? Discuss.
 

To be clear: I wish Obama had (a) cooperated with Feinstein's effort, and (b) prosecuted some people at the CIA, pour encourager les autres, as Voltaire put it. Failing the latter, pardoning people is a way to establish some sort of precedent that what they did was illegal. I would like to see the law changed in a more durable way than executive order.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...-John_Byng.jpg
Admiral Byng, executed for the loss of Minorca.

Re: Is Ted Cruz Satan? Discuss.
 

Or perhaps more accurately, not undermined as much as if an executive order were the only outcome of clearly illegal conduct.

Re: Is Ted Cruz Satan? Discuss.
 

Bullshit. Hang 'em, Obama included. (You don't really believe he didn't continue it on a smaller scale or through proxies, do you?)

Re: Is Ted Cruz Satan? Discuss.
 

To be clear: I would greatly prefer he prosecute people.

Failing to prosecute is bad, but is a recognition of the reality of how messy that would be. Pardoning is an affirmative act of forgiveness, which I would truly hate to see for many reasons.

A minor reason is that I don't want anyone (e.g., Rand Paul) to claim that "well, I really would want to prosecute, and I'm sure my party would support me, but Mr. Drone-Killer President went out and pardoned everyone."

A far greater reason is that the President of the United States should not pardon torturers. Ever.

Re: Is Ted Cruz Satan? Discuss.
 

I don't understand your "precedent" point. Pardons do not have to go through an approval process from the courts or anyone else. A Presidential pardon, before any charges have been issued, can mean as little as merely that this particular President thinks what you did might have been illegal and wants to protect you from being prosecuted for it.

Should the President of the US forgive people who tortured prisoners? I keep coming back to that question, and think that it compels the answer of "NO."


eta: To be clear, you did not need to say the first part to be clear. It was already clear. To be clear, I agree with you entirely.

And he begged me to stop, but they told me to go.
 

Well-played, sir -- I say well-played.

*Today's re line is from "Buzzer" by Dar Williams, a song she based on the famous Milgram experiment. I'd like to think that I wouldn't press the buzzer, but who knows? http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment

Meet the new boss; same as the old boss.
 

I love it when John McCain speaks about torture. A shame he's been the only GOP leader who does.

I think that we should all be reminded that the only prosecutions in the US related to torture in the War on Terror have been pushed by the administration of a former constitutional law professor - unfortunately, it was a prosecution in 2012 of a CIA whistleblower named John Kiriakou who is sitting in a federal prison. Oh, and not really torture related, but also potentially James Risen of the New York Times regarding a leak from the CIA. Thanks, Barry!

Re: Meet the new boss; same as the old boss.
 

Someone pithier than me said that conservatives only show empathy on an issue when they themselves have been affected by it.

Whether that means that other GOP leaders should be tortured, I leave to the imagination.

Re: Is Ted Cruz Satan? Discuss.
 

Instead of being tortured enemies of the state should have been given:

A. Flowers and candy;
B. US Citizenship
C. A NYC taxi medallion
D. All of the above?

Re: Meet the new boss; same as the old boss.
 

I think that's true of all people, actually. Recall the old line about a neoconservative (original 1960s/1970s version) being a liberal who's been mugged.

And I think that you do McCain a great disservice by saying that - I'm too lazy to research this, but I'm mainly sure that I am mostly correct when I say that many people who have suffered from torture have no problem with torture as a principle, just in who is doing it. I disagree with the Arizona senator on many grounds, and I think he's flipped on many issues (as many politicians do), but the fact that he put aside his visceral dislike for Obama to make a public stand on this says a lot to me. He could have not said anything, but he went on the floor of the Senate immediately to make his views clear.

At any rate, this is our political era's version of the Church Report. It will be interesting to see if any structural reforms result. I am Not Optimistic.

Re: Meet the new boss; same as the old boss.
 

If conservatives stick with these "tough on crime" and "permanent war on terror" angles they've been running for so long, I think a lot of them are going to learn in coming years what it feels like to be a Black man dealing with the cops.

The racist police state we're creating, and the chilling effect on speech caused by the witch hunts against leakers/whistleblowers, aren't going to abate. They are going to grow, and they will need fuel for such expansion. They're going to start encroaching on the rights of targets beyond minorities and extreme leakers.

It's in no manner alarmist to argue we will have something akin to Minority Report crime and dissent prevention in about a decade. This will be largely automated, and it will punish based more on strict liability than intent-based crimes. This sort of unthinking zero tolerance state will sweep up conservatives for all sorts of infractions which can be determined by computer analysis (tax matters, business regulation violations, inside trades, whisteblowing via internet communication, etc.) in much the same way stop and frisk policies fish net poor minorities.

It'll be interesting to see how "tough on crime" or supportive of a govt that must "punish leakers" these conservatives who see nothing wrong with the Garner murder, or call for Snowden's head, are when they're in the cross hairs. And they will be.