I'm having a hell of a time trying to figure out what Rugen's point is.

What he said was:

Yet the quote he cited showed absolutely no remorse or regret for his actions. "unrepentant terrorist" is completely accurate.

Here. When a PBS interview asked him "How do you feel about what you did? Would you do it again under similar circumstances?", he said:

Regarding the rest of Rugen's point, which I take to be that since the man has "distinguished professor" in his title, everything's ok, well... not much I can say to that, heh. It's a specious point. This is a district that elected a former black panther to congress.

Ok, put aside your likely dislike of me for a sec. I ask this with no agenda. Can you tell me what Obama's position is on torture and what he plans to do? All I can find are quotes where he says it's bad, but I can't find anything on his website about it.

It is pretty tricky to define, but I agree that all of those things are torture.

Barring any objection from the tough guy "it's nothing they can handle it" crowd, can we go with something along the lines of: Action taken specifically to cause mental or physical distress on a prisoner. ?

The problem is that if we just define it as excruciating physical pain, we miss all of that shit in between. In addition, pain is experienced differently at varying degrees by different people. At what threshold do we draw the line?

I tend to agree with my above definition just because it's hard to determine where a line is crossed - and once you start pushing the barriers of tolerance with things like sleep deprivation, temperature flucuation, etc you may have already long since passed into the realm of seriously hurting a person.

At the very least he didn't vote for it. That's position enough for me, over McCain at least.

No, let me cut this off before it runs amok. I don't think McCain's confession or any other breakdowns while a POW are legitimate campaign points.

My point was to bring out the ridiculousness of that line of attack it's as off the wall as your references to Ayers. His time as a POW shouldn't really factor into anything at all. You can't bring in the potential positive aspects without being willing to include the negative (not his confessions, but his temper and statements like he'll "hate [the gooks] as long as I live.") And IMO, like Bearne, I think McCain threw any POW positives out the window when he did a 180 on his position on torture. If anyone should know better, it's him.

But unlike the path Bearne has chosen to take the argument, I'd rather say that yes, McCain was tortured. His new position to allow the same torture techniques that were used on him brings a new level of hypocrisy to his campaign and shows he's willing to say or do anything to win.

I'll add this as well: If McCain and his supporters keep trying to turn Obama into some kind of Manchurian Candidate, the questions about McCain will undoubtedly come up. It's a ridiculous line of argument for either side.

This might answer some of your questions: http://usliberals.about.com/od/extraord ... orture.htm

You must mean the Detainee Treatment Act... but... Obama DID vote for it.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=s2005-254

"But unlike the path Bearne has chosen to take the argument, I'd rather say that yes, McCain was tortured. "

Oh, no. *I* absolutely do think he was tortured, as I think that we're engaging in torture all around the world right now, engaging in acts that we prosecuted others for as war criminals in the 20th Century. I was merely pointing that if McCain applies his own definition, he was never tortured.

_________________
Hope is the new black.

You are reading what you want to read again, then.

The man says that he wishes they had done more to stop/end the war. This does not (as he himself clarifies) translate to "I wish we had bombed more or actually killed someone". Something that he had to write a letter to the editor to clarify, because they (like yourself) twisted his words/intent. There is a distinct difference in there if you allow yourself to see it. The difference is a man that has grown and a young man caught up in a time of civil unrest and made some clearly stupid decisions about how to enact change. Does he regret blowing up empty buildings? Or a statue? Probably not. Would his life be full of a much different kind of regret had the nail bomb gone off as it was intended? Given what I see of him currently, most likely. That is just conjecture, however.

The man is clearly respected enough in his field to have earned the honors (and grants) despite his past that people suddenly want to scream "zomg terrorist" about.

That was my point. And as someone with my own dark and checkered past, but a pretty bright present/future, you're going to have a hard time arguing to me that our past defines entirely who we are today. You want "I am so sorry" out of his mouth. I say a life of change (and not just for himself, but to the betterment of others) is the best apology someone on the road he was on can give.

What more do you want from him? Honestly?

_________________

In all seriousness, it's very ironic. Any other candidate that voted for that bill from the GOP would be ripped asunder. But attacking McCain in this instance is a huge boomerang. A bit unfair on this issue because I think you make a very good point.

While I thought it was pretty obvious you thought those techniques fall into the definition of torture, it's not my place to comment on your thoughts. I was only commenting on what you actually said.

I simply prefer to discuss hypocrisy simply and call it when I see it.

Joxur, the Detainee Treatment Act *forbids* the use of torture on U.S. military prisoners. It was sponsored by McCain in 2005, and its a good thing that Obama did vote for it, as I'm sure we can all agree.

The vote I am referring to is the vote McCain made in February of this year against a bill that would have required the CIA to follow the standards of allowable interrogation tactics in the Army field manual, effectively preventing the CIA from engaging in waterboarding and other forms of torture.

Before you ask - and I know you will - neither Obama nor Clinton voted on the bill in question. They were both campaigning, and they both released statements at the time that they supported the measure. The measure passed without needing their votes.

_________________
Hope is the new black.

Word-smith it all you want, Rugen. I'm not taking anything out of context. He was asked a direct question. His response is that he does not think he did anything awful.

You said that he was not unrepentant. I think his subsequent statement quoted above shows that he is completely unrepentant.

Asking why Obama is linked to Ayers, launched his political career at his house, are completely legitimate questions. If you could divorce yourself from your support of Obama and try to look at it through the prism of an undecided voter, I think you could see where someone might be coming from. Connect the dots between Wright, Ayers and others and it doesn't paint a very pretty picture for hope and change.

I think McCain's support of that bill is reprehensible and a clear pander to the right that he knows he needs to get elected. Not something I like at all.

Regarding the substance of the bill. I think we can all agree that:

1) This administration will do whatever it wants to do, whether it breaks the law or not. We all know this.
2) Any bill that Congress passes can be explicitly ignored by the president - either through signing statements or just sheer defiance. There are no consequences, as demonstrated most recently by Obama and McCain supporting the new FISA legislation legalizing all of their shady dealings.

If we know those things, the next two questions you have to ask yourself are:

1) Does the bill matter with the current administration in power?
2) Will either candidate repeal the current tactics and actually stop doing them once they are elected?

My answer to question #1 is no, it does not matter, and my question to #2 is that I think both candidates will stop the tactics of using black sites for detention, waterboarding and more. Whether they both restore and respect habeas corpus and other more nuanced legal issues in the decade to come is another matter. I don't respect either candidate's integrity enough to believe that they will repeal every wrongheaded action that the Bush admin has instilled. Why would they? They would know they can do it with impunity, so I'm sure some "necessary evils" will still take place, whether Obama or McCain is in charge.

It's a hugely depressing topic.

Unfortunately, I do agree with you, at least in part.

Prior to that vote, I disagreed with McCain on a lot of issues, but I felt like he was a pretty honorable man, and I had a ton of respect for him. That one vote is what made him politically dead to me. Unless he somehow makes that right, there's no way I could support him.

_________________
Hope is the new black.

Exactly, Bearne. As for Joxur's 2nd question, I think that when a candidate changes positions, we have to accept the most recent position if it's the most disagreeable or take a sudden positive change of heart in proper skepticism. Following that guideline, McCain's current support for torture doesn't signify that he'll end the practice.

I dunno. I see something different there, apparently. I don't know what the time of the viet nam war was like in this nation. I do know that it was a period of turmoil to the point that my family STILL fights on the topic to the point my own mother ends up in tears. For what I understand from things like Kent state, etc, it was a pretty easy time for someone to get caught up in some bad shit, but there was a lot of bad shit going around is my impression.

Calling into question the whole grant thing with him just seems silly to me. I'm not even looking at this from a standpoint of how Obama relates to the situation. Just purely looking at him. The man has been vetted by society and passed. He's a respected professor in his field.

Before I type this next statement, I need to clarify clearly: I am not condoning the bombings.

That out of the way:

What do you want him to say? He's sorry? They gave clear warnings days in advance of the buildings they blew up. No one was ever even injured as a result. He's probably not sorry. In a time period where the national guard killed students over unrest of the war, I can see how a young man could get caught up in the wrong kinds of "change" as an act against the government. I don't need a verbal apology from him for those acts. His life since those days is a better indicator to me. Again, the man was vetted by society at large and passed. Do you think there was a single professor at any school he taught at that he didn't have to have that "yes, I'm THAT guy" conversation? That somehow he slid into his current post unnoticed? Really?

I don't. And then adding Obama into the equation, I just don't find it all that surprising that he and Obama came together, when both individuals are clearly interested in social change and education, and working towards those ends.

_________________

Rugen, I think we're going to just have to agree to disagree, or we're going to get caught in a 1-up post death spiral.

Last thing I'll say is:

Yes.

Listen, for all your talk about his repentance-by-deeds, which I can buy, he puts himself out there when he gets involved in the political process. If he were simply a college professor minding his own business, fine. But he's not. He is active in Chicago politics, or was during the period in question (when he launched Obama's career). That changes the equation.

You'll be waiting a long time. He's not sorry for the very same reasons that the right to bear arms exists in our country. Do I agree with him? No. But I see what he is saying.

Does he regret the way he went about it? Obviously. He's figured out how you enact real social change these days. Heck, he's even paid to teach it.

_________________

I know this may be similiar to what Rugen said in his last post, but I simply find it very difficult to believe that the University of Illinois would give him a job and the title "Distinguished Professor" if he really was the "unrepentant terrorist" that you want to make him out to be.

Can you leave in your mind at least the possibility that you don't have the full story, given how respected he apparently is in his local community? Or is it your position that the University of Illinois is harboring terrorists?

(Leo: fixed quote marks)

What sticks out to me is if Ayers's past is not a big deal then why did Obama obfuscate his past relations with him?

The question was what was your relationship with Mr Ayers? To which Obama responded that Ayers was a person in the neighborhood. When clearly they had a much deeper relationship.

That is like asking Bill Clinton "what was your relationship with Monica?" and he says "She was an intern" The answer in this hypothetical and in the real Obama answer are both factually true, yet not telling what is needed to be told and providing ammunition for everyone to say "hmm, he isn't telling the full truth here"

If Obama would have said something to the effect that Mr. Ayers had done some things in the past that we all find reprehensible but he is not that person now and that they worked together on many issues, that he worked to get funding to Mr. Ayers foundations/causes/companies, and that Mr. Ayers helped get him into politics then this would be a non issue.

There is no crime in Sen. Obama having a relationship with Mr. Ayers. When there is a cover-up as to the nature of the relationship THAT is a problem. Obama is supposed to be the candidate of Hope and Change, when he does stuff like that it further dilutes any credibility for him in that area.

How can we have the full story when there is a coverup of the records from the Chicago Annenberg Challenge? When Obama won't fully answer questions regarding his relationship with him? I'm all for transparency. Unfortunately for Obama, rather than lay it all out on the table during the primary when he could choose the terms, the GOP is going to force the issue when he's at his weakest.

I think I see where you are going, but I am not sure I can agree.

If you asked me to describe my relationship with most of my co-workers, people I spend EASILY 9+ hours a day with, I'd probably say something similar to the way Obama referred to Ayers. I don't see that as hiding something. I see it as a recognition that we worked together, but that there was no deeper bond beyond that.

I don't see cover up. I do see a hesitancy because he knows that a certain segment of our country would go "ZOMG TERRORIST", (which they have done as feared), but cover up? I just don't see it.

I also don't see that he needs to apologize for Ayers past, when his present is clearly a much different situation. Again, Ayers has been vetted by society. Or he wouldn't have been working with Obama where he was to begin with.

_________________

Or fortunately for him, he's letting them chase shadows where there is no substance to make them look like fools.

After all, Float like a butterfly, sting like a bee. McHousegate came out of nowhere had had the other side reeling to recover. So I have my guesses about where this will ultimately end up.

I could be wrong.

_________________

I love Bill Clinton. He pretty much sums up my thoughts exactly.



http://thehill.com/campaign-2008/bill-c ... 08-26.html

It's simple politics. If there's a chance people will see that relationship as damaging to Obama, even if it's completely innocent, why would he bother hurting himself over it? Many people are stupid and will buy into this stuff, it's pointless to feed them more when you can eliminate the relationship.

Because a reasonable person would know that it will eventually come out, and these things hurt a lot more when you're less than upfront about them. It doesn't change my opinion much, but I think it's the latest in a string of errors his campaign has made.

You don't give the opposition ammo with the 'T' word in it in the current climate. Even if it's decades old. It kills me, cuz he eventually owned the issue with his pastor and it slid right off. Now they're putting themselves in the exact same position.

Sarissa Candyangel

This continues to be very weird.

The Obama campaign continues to draw attention to this, and their actions are troubling. Apparently the campaign is going to keep feeding this, contrary to your position..

If there's nothing to this story, and nothing for Obama to be ashamed of, why is he using intimidation to force networks to stop airing the ad and talking about the Chicago Annenberg Challenge? If there is truly nothing to this story (and there very well might be nothing to it), how does this bode for his presidency?

Why is Obama trying to silence the ad in the first place? Sure, it's not nice, but there's nothing illegal or slanderous about it.