and what the meaning of “pain” is and “suffering” is

learn more in a song here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sJSXbA9j0Js&eur

“‘the only bias demonstrated by Mr. Nance is in disagreeing with you — a cardinal sin to be sure, but no bias.’
Make up your irrational mind, in your biased opinion is Mr. Nance’s opinion biased, or not?”
http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/sarcasm — might help clarify my post, since you seemed to have missed it.
I don’t think he’s biased. If I did, I wouldn’t have referenced him.

“Also unsurprising is your reflexive bigotry in asserting that suggesting someone’s views present as Buddhist/ML, per his own words, is somehow ’slander’.
Perhaps you need to investigate both Buddhisms and Modern Liberalism’s tenets more comprehensively.”
No thanks. The years I spent studying (Ch’an) Buddhism to get one of my B.A.s were more than enough. You claimed that he seemed like a Buddhist/ML convert in post #55 (you do realize what you’ve previously posted is still there for everybody to see, right?) to imply he was a “feminized” pacifist, and therefore his years of military experience could be rejected because he was biased (as per your appeal to authority fallacy claim). There wouldn’t be any other reason to say it in the context you did.
And I’m intellectually dishonest.
You are right though — “slander” isn’t the correct legal term. Do you feel more comfortable by my saying you “demeaned” him? “Attempted to make him appear weak and biased”?

Great quote from the Admiral. Wonder why you didn’t include this from just after what you quoted:
“The information gained from these techniques was valuable in some instances, but there is no way of knowing whether the same information could have been obtained through other means,” Admiral Blair said in a written statement issued last night. “The bottom line is these techniques have hurt our image around the world, the damage they have done to our interests far outweighed whatever benefit they gave us and they are not essential to our national security.”

But its nice to see you citing to a member of Obama’s Administration to support your arguments. I assume that means you don’t think he’s biased and is a trustworthy source.

You cited to blogger Ed Morrisey as an example of “a source with any experience or expertise in the matter that disagree”? Not too clear about his experience or expertise in regards to interrogation and/or torture. However, does he disagree with the notion that waterboarding is torture AND effective (the question you leveled in post #66), which is a change from the original question you posed in #36, which was (a) was waterboarding torture and (b)why not use it.
The Admiral above whom you cited to explained about the second part of your original question. Your cite to Mr. Morrisey also answers the first part of that:

“Conservatives should stop pretending that waterboarding isn’t a form of torture that the US has opposed for decades when used abroad, especially against our own citizens.”

So now we’re left with your final (modified) question: is it effective? I haven’t seen any evidence that it is. I’ve heard claims that it was effective, but no evidence to back it up. The only attempt I’ve seen to bolster the “effective” thrust (which kind of assumes that waterboarding IS torture, otherwise the question is pointless), were the allegations that KSM/AbuZ gave up info after being waterboarded. Unfortunately, FBI agents have claimed that KSM already gave up all of his useful information before he was waterboarded as a result of traditional interrogation techniques, and other reports have suggested that most (if not all) of the intel obtained from torture was either already known or outright lies.

Also, the government has been inaccurate (to put it nicely) it many of its previous claims that it had evidence proving something that turned out to be false (proof of AlQ-Iraq link, Rumsfeld not only knows that Saddam has WMDs, he actually knows where they are, etc.). The government has also made claims about how effective the intel gained from suspects was, that later turned out to be . . . not such a big deal:

“[In a September 6, 2006 speech,[Bush] says that Abu Zubaida, who was captured in March 2002 (see March 28, 2002), revealed that 9/11 mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed (KSM) used the alias ‘Mukhtar.’ ‘This was a vital piece of intelligence that helped our intelligence community pursue KSM.’ However, the 9/11 Commission’s final report published in 2004 revealed that the fact that KSM had that alias was known to US intelligence before 9/11 (see August 28, 2001). Bush also claims that Zubaida’s interrogation identified Ramzi bin al-Shibh as an accomplice in the 9/11 attacks. [New York Times, 9/8/2006] However, this was known months before Zubaida’s capture, and reported in the US press as early as September 2001. A CBS News report from that time said bin al-Shibh was ‘believed to have provided logistics backup for the hijackers.’ [CBS News, 9/29/2001]”
http://visibility911.com/jongold/?p=234

Or this claim:

You have informed us that the interrogation of KSM, once enhanced techniques were employed-led to the discovery of a KSM piot, the ‘Second Wave,’ ‘to use East Asian operatives to crash a hijacked airliner into a building in Los Angeles.’ Effectiveness Memo at 3.”
http://luxmedia.vo.llnwd.net/o10/clients/aclu/olc_05302005_bradbury.pdf (p.10)

“A subsequent fact sheet released by the Bush White House states, ‘In 2002, we broke up a plot by KSM to hijack an airplane and fly it into the tallest building on the West Coast.’ [This] statement[] make clear that however far the plot to attack the Library Tower ever got—an unnamed senior FBI official would later tell the Los Angeles Times that Bush’s characterization of it as a ‘disrupted plot’ was ‘ludicrous’—that plot was foiled in 2002. But Sheikh Mohammed wasn’t captured until March 2003.”
http://www.slate.com/id/2216601/

Has torture been effecitve? Maybe. Possibly. Perhaps. Is there any evidence that it has been? No. Have any of the claimed examples of useful intel gained thru torture stood up to scrutiny? No.
So is it possible that there is proof that proves torture was necessary, and the government just hasn’t bothered to use it to justify its actions, and instead has tried to justify torture with false claims and exagerations? Heck, anything’s possible. But after being . . . incorrect . . . on such details in the past, I’d like to see a little proof. Maybe Cheney’s request for documents will actually demonstrate torture was necessary. When/if the documents are released, I’ll read them, and I’ll keep an open mind when I do — I’d love to feel better about knowing that my country tortured. But the facts in front of me so far say hell no, and I see no reason to just “trust” the government (Bush, Obama, it doesn’t matter) in the face of what evidence I DO have in front of me.

It seems that, not unlike Perez Hilton’s recent bigoted meltdown, you ask questions in the guise that you don’t have a strangle-hold on truth when, in fact, you’re true intent is merely to bait respondents with interrogatives that are really not questions at all.

And that, dear readers, displays busboy’s intellectual dishonesty, at best.

“the only bias demonstrated by Mr. Nance is in disagreeing with you — a cardinal sin to be sure, but no bias.”

Make up your irrational mind, in your biased opinion is Mr. Nance’s opinion biased, or not?

Also unsurprising is your reflexive bigotry in asserting that suggesting someone’s views present as Buddhist/ML, per his own words, is somehow “slander”.

Perhaps you need to investigate both Buddhisms and Modern Liberalism’s tenets more comprehensively.

**

“You got any sources with any experience or expertise in the matter that disagree?”

Yep:

“Dennis Blair, the Director of National Intelligence, pointed out that most of what we know about al-Qaeda came from using those techniques on Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Abu Zubaydah, countering leaks last week from the Obama administration that claimed the methods produced no data” [NYT]:

“President Obama’s national intelligence director told colleagues in a private memo last week that the harsh interrogation techniques banned by the White House did produce significant information that helped the nation in its struggle with terrorists.

“High value information came from interrogations in which those methods were used and provided a deeper understanding of the al Qa’ida organization that was attacking this country,” Adm. Dennis C. Blair, the intelligence director, wrote in a memo to his staff last Thursday.

Admiral Blair sent his memo on the same day the administration publicly released secret Bush administration legal memos authorizing the use of interrogation methods that the Obama White House has deemed to be illegal torture. Among other things, the Bush administration memos revealed that two captured Qaeda operatives were subjected to a form of near-drowning known as waterboarding a total of 266 times. [...]

Admiral Blair’s assessment that the interrogation methods did produce important information was deleted from a condensed version of his memo released to the media last Thursday. Also deleted was a line in which he empathized with his predecessors who originally approved some of the harsh tactics after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

“I like to think I would not have approved those methods in the past,” he wrote, “but I do not fault those who made the decisions at that time, and I will absolutely defend those who carried out the interrogations within the orders they were given.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/22/us/politics/22blair.html

Ed Morrissey, also writes: “In other words, the Obama administration covered up the fact that even their own DNI acknowledges that the interrogations produced actionable and critical information.”

http://hotair.com/archives/2009/04/22/obamas-dni-reminds-obama-that-enhanced-interrogation-worked/

“straw man”
I’m misreading your position? I’m so sorry. Let me see where I missed it:
post #55 - service members are honorable. Nance is a “Buddist/ML convert”. You state it as an insult. He is/was a service member. Sounds to me like you don’t think he’s very honorable . . . or rather you don’t seem to be honoring him too much since in addition to slandering him you say he’s biased (post #66).
Wow. You realize simply stating a definition doesn’t mean you’ve identified something, right?
btw, I really love the examples of a straw man argument provided at your source. This one sounded awfully fimiliar:
“Senator Jones says that we should not fund the attack submarine program. I disagree entirely. I can’t understand why he wants to leave us defenseless like that.”
Now who does that sound like . . .

“appeal to authority fallacy”
I refer you to Nance’s post. You refer to that as an appeal to authority fallacy (post #55). You define that as where the authority suffers from bias (post #66). As far as your posts indicate, the only bias demonstrated by Mr. Nance is in disagreeing with you — a cardinal sin to be sure, but no bias.

Let’s just check your link to see the definition . . .
“An Appeal to Authority is a fallacy with the following form:
Person A is (claimed to be) an authority on subject S.
Person A makes claim C about subject S.
Therefore, C is true.
THIS FALLACY IS COMMITTED WHEN THE PERSON IN QUESTION IS NOT A LEGITIMATE AUTHORITY ON THE SUBJECT. . . Since this sort of reasoning is fallacious only when the person is not a legitimate authority in a particular context, it is necessary to provide some acceptable standards of assessment. The following standards are widely accepted:
1)The person has sufficient expertise in the subject matter in question. (check)
2)The claim being made by the person is within her area(s) of expertise. (check)
3)There is an adequate degree of agreement among the other experts in the subject in question. (see below)
4)The person in question is not significantly biased. (well, you say so, so it must be true)
5)The area of expertise is a legitimate area or discipline. (check)
6)The authority in question must be identified. (check)”
Since I’m sure you didn’t just cherry pick the only one of the 6 factors that you could possibly make any assertion about (even if it is completely, utterly, and totally unsubstantiated), I’ll just assume it was a typo on your part. I mean, otherwise you look like a complete fool.

“‘Ad Hominem means “against the man” or “against the person.”‘
See also: ‘Appeal to Ridicule: a fallacy in which ridicule or mockery is substituted for evidence in an “argument.”
Strange . . . I don’t see that in the link you cited. I do, however, see this:
“An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument.”
Kind of like rejecting someone’s argument based on insulting the person, and not debating the issues. Something I know you’d never do . . . I don’t know what possessed me to make such a groundless accusation.
You’ve opened my eyes. I thought you were trying to mock me, Mr. Nance, and everybody that didn’t agree with you. I guess I’ll have to work on my reading comprehension skills. Must be all that feminizing that jumbled my bot brain.

Boy, you’re really shooting my statements down. You’re a crack shot, ya are.

“What hard evidence, besides Mr. Nance’s opinion, do you have to support that claim?”
Here’s a short list —
The Red Cross (btw, under international law, the ICRC makes the binding legal determination, so this pretty much is the beginning and the end of “proving” it, legally speaking):
http://www.nybooks.com/icrc-report.pdf
The United States Military, Court-Martialing a soldier for waterboarding . . . over 100 years ago:
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/02/25/080225fa_fact_kramer?currentPage=all
The United States, prosecuting Japanese soldiers for waterboarding in WWII:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/02/AR2007110201170.html
The Armed Services Committee of the United States Senate:
http://armed-services.senate.gov/Publications/Detainee%20Report%20Final_April%2022%202009.pdf
The Federal Bureau of Investigation:
http://www.usdoj.gov/oig/special/s0805/final.pdf

Any of those sources satisfy you? You got any sources with any experience or expertise in the matter that disagree?

p.s. — “busbot”? really? That’s the best you could come up with? Not “buschild”? “shortbus”? For someone that spends most of their comments insulting people, that’s pretty weak.

@Mr. M.:
Whenever this wears out its welcome, say the word. I’m having fun with Don, but its your blog.

That is an utter falsehood.

Cheney wants CIA files for memoir

By MIKE ALLEN & JOSH GERSTEIN | 4/20/09 9:12 PM EDT Updated: 4/21/09 2:19 PM EDT Text Size:

Researching his memoirs, former Vice President Dick Cheney is pushing the CIA to declassify files that he claims would vindicate the CIA’s use of coercive interrogation techniques that President Barack Obama has banned. [...]

Cheney originally requested the reports in late March as he worked on his book, but now thinks the documents should be made public immediately as evidence that waterboarding and other controversial practices deterred terrorist attacks and therefore saved American lives. [...]

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0409/21487.htm

**

CIA Confirms: Waterboarding 9/11 Mastermind Led to Info that Aborted 9/11-Style Attack on Los Angeles
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
By Terence P. Jeffrey, Editor-in-Chief

http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=46949

you’re right.
i went back and searched the archives.

this is an equally good post =>

http://rightwingnuthouse.com/archives/2005/08/04/a-personal-tipping-point/

‘The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person’s actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position.’

Check.

Busbot’s appeal to authority fallacy: “But since you’ve clearly never gone through SERE training, and he went through it, then tought it . . . seems like he might know a little more about it than you do.”

‘If an expert is significantly biased then the claims he makes within his area of bias will be less reliable. Since a biased expert will not be reliable, an argument from Authority based on a biased expert will be fallacious. This is because the evidence will not justify accepting the claim.’

Check.

Busbot: “I appreciate that argumentum ad hominenm (and apparently ignorantiam given the above) seems to be your style… If you’re just going to keep runnig from the weeealllly scaaaaawwwwyyy questions to hide behind irrevelant rudeness . . . well, resperctfully you look like a coward.”

Hypocrite.

‘Ad Hominem means “against the man” or “against the person.”‘

See also: ‘Appeal to Ridicule: a fallacy in which ridicule or mockery is substituted for evidence in an “argument.”‘

Double check.

Busbot: “argumentum ad… ignorantiam.”

Assuming that something is true unless it is proved false, e.g., “the assumption that SERE is “torture” is a practical, not a logical, process. Obviously, your surrogate authority appeal to Mr. Nance can opine that SERE is torture, but that neither makes it so, nor does it make those who’ve engaged in it actually guilty of a crime.

And mate.

[H/t: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ ]

Busbot: “Are you disagreeing that waterboarding and such are torture…?”

Obviously.

You obviously think SERE is both torture *AND* ineffective.

What hard evidence, besides Mr. Nance’s opinion, do you have to support that claim?