Until you make the case that linking to people with opposing views equates to secretly agreeing with them, then your argument is seriously flawed.

Which leads to your Sullivan link…what a minute…Sullivan links to someone he disagrees with…but…but…that must mean he secretly holds the same view no matter what words he prints. Remember, it’s not what Sullivan writes, it’s his “actions” that you consider.

As far as your use of Sullivan’s post as “proof” the Reynolds is “pro-torture,” the argument between the two was simply based on how to best oppose torture. I don’t know which is the best way, but Reynolds’ response was already in one of my links:

In a response, Andrew seems to think that I’m supporting torture. But I’ve never said that, and I don’t; I keep saying that torture is wrong, and that it’s counterproductive, and apparently that message has gotten through to the folks who think that opposing torture makes me some sort of weakling, if not to Andrew. I simply think that histrionics don’t help, and partisan opportunism — of which there’s a lot here — may actually make things worse, a point of mine that Andrew does not engage…

It boggles the mind that you can be literate enough to understand that there are people who support the use of torture, but then you twist yourself in a knot to reapply the label to someone who continually makes arguments opposing torture.

If an anti-war group makes an argument that YOU think is counterproductive, do you start claiming that group is “pro-war”? Of course not. You may consider the group to be unhelpful or ignorant, but you wouldn’t think they were pro-war.

Yet for some reason you apply this type of “logic” to Reynolds and “discover” that he is “pro-torture.” Go figure.

More gameplaying by JWG.

OK, here’s a couple:

http://volokh.com/2002_06_09_volokh_archive.html#85168541

http://volokh.com/2002_06_16_volokh_archive.html#85177339

http://www.theagitator.com/archives/005009.php#005009

That’s just a few.

You assumptions about Reynolds views about the Gonzales memos are also a figment of your imagination, which I ve already demonstrated with evidence.

Gosh, even InstaCracker’s fellow wingnut Andrew Sullivan took InstaCracker to task on this:

http://andrewsullivan.com/index.php?dish_inc=archives/2005_01_02_dish_archive.html#110494343602883140

Glenn cannot pretend to be anti-torture, while eschewing any serious attempts to stop it through the political process.If you won’t stand up to the Bush administration on torture, is there anything you won’t acquiesce to? And it’s not “hype.” Read the reports.

Looks like InstaCracker is INDEED pro-torture.

so why are we wasting time discussing a tangential issue?

Because you repeatedly make the assertion without supplying evidence that Reynolds links to “wingnut” bloggers who support torture. In reality, I have shown (i.e. actually supplied evidence) that Reynolds linked to a variety of people (including Oliver Willis) who held a different opinion than his.

If linking to those with whom you disagree means you secretly agree with them, then all bloggers are in a lot of trouble.

You assumptions about Reynolds’ views about the Gonzales memos are also a figment of your imagination, which I’ve already demonstrated with evidence.

You should try using evidence and facts sometime…it’s quite useful. Although I suppose living in your fantasy world is much more comforting.

Let me know when you come up with some actual facts, and we’ll continue. At this point it’s like I’m arguing with a creationist.

Back to the sibject at hand: InstaCracker and his pro-torture stance.

Your position is that because InstaCracker has stated he is against torture, this unequivocally defines his position. Well, David Duke has repeatedly asserted he isn’t a white supremacist. Should we take both men at their word–or should we look at their actions?

While stating he is against torture, Reynolds repeatedly links to wingnut bloggers who either fully approve of torture, approve of it in certain instances, pretend abuses at Abu Ghraib were harmless fun, etc.

And of course, InstaCracker didn’t want Dems to bring up Gonzales’ views that so long as one didn’t cause “major organ failure”–using interrogation techniques that include rape, beatings, etc. were just fine.

Let s apply JWG s logic to other issues, shall we? Should we discuss and debate whether racial discrimination is wrong or that it might be warranted? How about child molestation?

Thank goodness we have your lesson on “logic” to guide us. Perhaps you could help us a little more by expanding on the topics we may not debate? May we debate whether any type of discrimination is ever OK? May we debate the age of sexual consent? Are there any other areas we must avoid? How about the death penalty? Abortion? Free speech?

Any clarification would be helpful since my “logic” is clearly distorting my ability to understand which issues we’re allowed to discuss.

This implies torture is ok in certain instances.

Wow. If you hold a certain viewpoint, but link to people who are making the opposing viewpoint (while clearly labeling the link as a contrary view), then you magically become a proponent for that cause.

InstaCracker claims to hold all sorts of stances and position that are belied by his extremist views.

Again, you “say anything” without providing a scintilla of evidence. You are no better than the “cons” you despise for distortions and lies. Pathetic but typical.

P.S. I’m wondering if you are calling OW an “extremist” based on his writings on the subject? They were more “pro-torture” than Reynolds’ opinions.

So he s lying? Or maybe he s willing to allow people to see different viewpoints and make up their own minds?

This implies torture is ok in certain instances. Let’s apply JWG’s logic to other issues, shall we? Should we discuss and debate whether racial discrimination is wrong or that it might be warranted? How about child molestation?

Again, InstaCracker got all huffy when the Dems suggested they might bring up Gonzales’ pro-torture views. As a lawyer, InstaCracker should understand a candidate for the nation’s highest law enforcement position would be questioned about his rather extreme views on torture.

InstaCracker claims to hold all sorts of stances and position that are belied by his extremist views. This is nothing new; many KKKers also profess to have nothing against minorities.

Here is another long post discussing torture. He unequivocally sates:

I think the threat is real, but I don’t think that torture is the way to deal with it. On the other hand, I don’t think that turning the question into a partisan political weapon (or an opportunity for posturing) helps either — and, what’s more, I think that the people who are doing that are likely to produce an environment in which torture is more, not less, likely.

Notice the last sentence? That is his explanation for his writings on Gonzales. He believed that the democratic attack against the Gonzales memos would backfire and make torture more likely.

Either provide evidence that Reynolds is pro-torture, or shut up (how’s that for stifling debate?).

P.S. The same post contains this “approving” link to “rightwing” bloggers making the case for torture:

And for a contrary (more or less pro-torture) view, read this post by Radley Balko and this post by Oliver Willis, clarified somewhat here.

Oops. Facts are a bitch, eh?

Reynolds says he s against US torture but then links approvingly to a number of rightwing bloggers making the case for torture

So he’s lying? Or maybe he’s willing to allow people to see different viewpoints and make up their own minds?

I see that Jadegold prefers the stifling of debate. Interesting. Also of interest is the continued lack of evidence. Say anything.

Just as JWG misread the pro-torture Glenn Reynolds

Provide a quote, then. I provided two to back up my claims. As usual around here, “say anything” rules the day when people make claims they can’t back up.

The fact is the media did interview the EPA s chief investigator and he did make those claims.

Yes, but are you trying to tell me they didn’t interview anyone else? If so, why did they print the most outrageous claims (uninhabitable and conspiracy)? Why didn’t they print quotes from the people acually doing the testing that we would have to wait to see?

Sensationalism ruled the initial few days.

Unless, Jadegold, you disagree with OW that the media shares blame for uncritically printing administration claims about WMD? They were, after all, just repeating what others told them, right? It wasn’t “too far-fetched to suspect there might be significant” amounts of WMD given Saddam’s past history, right?

JWG misread the pro-torture Glenn Reynolds

I’m interested to learn how I misread the following quote from Reynolds, “…which is one reason why I oppose torture.”

Yeah, that word “oppose” can mean a variety of things.

Just as JWG misread the pro-torture Glenn Reynolds, he misreads this issue extremely badly.

By claiming the press “exaggerated,” JWG simply makes an untrue charge. The fact is the media did interview the EPA’s chief investigator and he did make those claims. Additionally, it isn’t too far-fetched to suspect there might be significant environmental damage given the NOLA area is full of petro-chemical plants and facilities.

Although some experts and many news stories had warned of long-term contamination from the floodwater, yesterday’s report was one of two suggesting that those fears were unfounded.

Many websites, such as truthout carried this article from the Independent UK:

Toxic chemicals in the New Orleans flood waters will make the city unsafe for full human habitation for a decade, a US government official has told The Independent on Sunday. And, he added, the Bush administration is covering up the danger.

Hugh Kaufman was all over the place in the media talking about a “toxic brew” and the Bush conspiracy to hide the truth.

I would agree with Semanicleo in that it’s not a “liberal bias” issue but rather it’s inherent to the sensationalist nature of the news media.

Get over it. The Press is not there to serve as the mis-directed repository of all the ills of conservative blowback. Stop with the Nixon persecution complex.

The press is populated with screw-ups too. Even Judy Miller took some responsibility for her mistakes. Try it. You might like it.

Samples of floodwater and sediment in the Gulf Region have shown high levels of bacteria, fecal contamination, metals, fuel oils, arsenic and lead.

But, hey, it could be worse! Damned liberal media.