Voters unimpressed with Obama "torture" theme

[MikeWaters]

what kind of bizarre dichotomy is this?

4* Does the release of CIA memos on interrogation techniques help the image of the United States abroad or does it endanger the national security of the United States?

28% Helps the image of the United States abroad

58% Endangers the national security of the United States

14% Not sure

What a shitty question.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

The point was pretty self-explanatory, I thought. Most Americans disagree with Obama on the issues polled.



As with RHG, I reject the premise that the memos condoned torture, especially when that word is so ill-defined. Your and her casual use of that term makes meaningful discussion pointless.

Really? You reject the premise that the memos condone torture? Really? I think it may be your obstinance that makes meaningfull discussion impossible (as opposed to "pointless," as meaningful discussion is never pointless).

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

The point was pretty self-explanatory, I thought. Most Americans disagree with Obama on the issues polled.



As with RHG, I reject the premise that the memos condoned torture, especially when that word is so ill-defined. Your and her casual use of that term makes meaningful discussion pointless.

Note: you didn't actually answer as to whether the release of the memos, in your opinion, makes us less safe.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Really? You reject the premise that the memos condone torture? Really?

I reject that premise if it's made de facto. You're going to have make the case, and that means defining the word.

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Note: you didn't actually answer as to whether the release of the memos, in your opinion, makes us less safe.

Gosh, you're a genius.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

I reject that premise if it's made de facto. You're going to have make the case, and that means defining the word.



Gosh, you're a genius.

Torture doesn't need to have an exact definition for us to know that the memos supported torture. Legally speaking, we know waterboarding is torture (according to US court cases, national policy against foreign entities who have engaged in waterboarding, international consensus, etc.), and we know the memos supported waterboarding. a=b=c.

Are you going to dodge the issue as to whether the US is less safe now that the memos have been released? Not surprising.

[MikeWaters]

If Bybee renounces the torture memos, is Tex going to renounce Bybee?

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Torture doesn't need to have an exact definition for us to know that the memos supported torture. Legally speaking, we know waterboarding is torture (according to US court cases, national policy against foreign entities who have engaged in waterboarding, international consensus, etc.), and we know the memos supported waterboarding. a=b=c.

The question of whether waterboarding is torture is an open one. This is what I mean by rejecting your premise.

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Are you going to dodge the issue as to whether the US is less safe now that the memos have been released? Not surprising.

No, a dodge would be if I pretended to answer and didn't. In this case, I've told you explicitly I'm not, and I've told you why.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

The question of whether waterboarding is torture is an open one. This is what I mean by rejecting your premise.



No, a dodge would be if I pretended to answer and didn't. In this case, I've told you explicitly I'm not, and I've told you why.

No, you haven't said why. Whether or not the release of the memos makes us less safe has absolutely nothing to do with the definition of torture.

As for whether waterboarding is torture, one of the released memos certainly seemed to think so (See footnote 56 on the bottom of page 43 on the 5/10/05 memo):

"For purposes of our analysis, we will assume that the physiological sensation of drowning associated with the use of the waterboard may constitute a 'threat of imminent death' within the meaning of sections 2340-2340A."

Why does that footnote matter? "Torture" is defined in that same memo as an activity where a subject suffers prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from "the threat of imminent death."

You can also read how waterboarding was actually performed by the CIA:

" One of the psychologists/interrogators acknowledged that the Agency’s use of the technique is different than that used by in SERE training because it is ‘for real’ and is ‘more poignant and convincing’. The Inspector General further reported that "OMS contends that the expertise of the SERE psychologist/interrogators on the waterboard was probably misrepresented at the time, as the SERE waterboard experience is so so different from the subsequent Agency usage as to make it almost irrelevant. Consequently, according to OMS, there was no a priori reason to believe that applying the waterboard with the frequency and intensity with which it was used by the psychologist/interrogators was either efficacious or medically safe.” Id. at 21 n.26.

[Sleeping in EQ]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Just why are we listening to a guy who went to war without a plan, and shot his friend while hunting?

The guy has "DUMBASS" tattooed on his forehead, and redneck America still thinks he is God.

With Cheney and Limbaugh leading the charge, things are looking up for the Democrats.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Sleeping in EQ

With Cheney and Limbaugh leading the charge, things are looking up for the Democrats.

No kidding. The Republican party has decided to publicly fight on behalf of the KKK, can't wait to promote torture, keeps throwing around the word socialism so much that the public actually begins to think it may like socialism, is hoping to kick out the chair of the RNC (mainly for criticizing Limbaugh), proposes a budget without any numbers in it (seriously- zero numbers in their budget- check Snopes if you don't believe me), and keeps promoting people like Palin! Hilarious.