Executive order drafted to bring back waterboarding and other CIA torture techniques.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

But the draft of a Trump administration executive order that spilled into public view early Wednesday — a document that raised the prospect of reviving C.I.A. “black site” prisons like those where terrorism suspects were once detained and tortured — has the potential to further fracture a national security team already divided over one of the most controversial policies of the post-9/11 era.

The White House disclaimed the document, which was leaked to The New York Times and other news organizations, but three administration officials said the White House had circulated it among National Security Council staff members for review on Tuesday morning. And many of its proposals — which also include halting transfers out of the Guantánamo Bay prison and sending new detainees there, which President Barack Obama refused to do — echo years of Republican national security policy and President Trump’s own speeches.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/25/us/politics/executive-order-leaked-draft-national-security-trump-administration.html?_r=0

[Wild Cobra]

Funny how these things come out.

How many documents now has Sean Spicer told the press were not Whitehouse documents?

I wonder who is generating all this fake news?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

NYT is part of the AP and they fact check and vett sources. It isn't an official document from the POTUS as it was a draft but it was a draft of a policy proposal from the WH. Nuance is difficult for stupid people so it is little surprise that WC is struggling to grasp it.

[Wild Cobra]

NYT is part of the AP and they fact check and vett sources. It isn't an official document from the POTUS as it was a draft but it was a draft of a policy proposal from the WH. Nuance is difficult for stupid people so it is little surprise that WC is struggling to grasp it.

No struggle involved.

Just because such a paper was released, doesn't mean it originated from the inner circle. In fact, it's hard to believe it did. Maybe someone had ideas they wanted to present to the president. Maybe it's as fake as the Bush document.

You and others are grasping at straws.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

No struggle involved.

Just because such a paper was released, doesn't mean it originated from the inner circle. In fact, it's hard to believe it did. Maybe someone had ideas they wanted to present to the president. Maybe it's as fake as the Bush document.

You and others are grasping at straws.

No one here claimed it came from any "inner circle," dimwit. Struggling with nuance again, I see.

[Reck]

You and others are grasping at straws.

Really? How is this hard to believe given that Trump was an advocate for bringing this form of torture back? He's in favor of it.

Funny how the right's favorite word now is fake news.

I wonder what you'll be saying when this, in fact becomes official.

[Wild Cobra]

Really? How is this hard to believe given that Trump was an advocate for bringing this form of torture back? He's in favor of it.

Funny how the right's favorite word now is fake news.

I wonder what you'll be saying when this, in fact becomes official.

Yes, he said he believes waterboarding is effective.

That doesn't mean the document is real.

Fake news is what is is being called, and has existed for far too long.

What ever happened to the integrity of journalism?

[Wild Cobra]

No one here claimed it came from any "inner circle," dimwit. Struggling with nuance again, I see.

Where would it have come from if real?

[TheSanityAnnex]

NYT is part of the AP and they fact check and vett sources.Iraq
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2002/09/08/world/threats-responses-iraqis-us-says-hussein-intensifies-quest-for-bomb-parts.html


Syria
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2013/09/17/world/europe/syria-united-nations.html



Ukraine
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/04/21/world/europe/photos-link-masked-men-in-east-ukraine-to-russia.html

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Where would it have come from if real?

Their staff. This should not be hard.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Iraq
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2002/09/08/world/threats-responses-iraqis-us-says-hussein-intensifies-quest-for-bomb-parts.html


Syria
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2013/09/17/world/europe/syria-united-nations.html



Ukraine
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/04/21/world/europe/photos-link-masked-men-in-east-ukraine-to-russia.html

No one said that they were infallible, it's most of the point in cross checking, and I am not sure what point you think you are making when they are just reporting what US intelligence officials told them in those reports.

I just want to be clear here: you do not believe that Russia sent troops into Ukraine or that Assad used chemical weapons?

[Wild Cobra]

Their staff. This should not be hard.

Their staff is the inner circle.

[spurraider21]

Iraq
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2002/09/08/world/threats-responses-iraqis-us-says-hussein-intensifies-quest-for-bomb-parts.html


Syria
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2013/09/17/world/europe/syria-united-nations.html



Ukraine
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/04/21/world/europe/photos-link-masked-men-in-east-ukraine-to-russia.html
they reported on what the us administration said, they reported on the contents of a UN report... those are accurate reports. now, if they said "the new york times can confirm that saddam actually possesses nuclear weapons" then you'd be onto something

by this standard you're setting, if a news organization airs an interview where a politician tells a lie, then the media source is lying because they're showing a lie

[Thread]

What ever happened to the integrity of journalism?

They're just like any other business---trying to make a dollar and a cent at it by any means necessary. They are not benevolent.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Their staff is the inner circle.

More nonsense. The inner circle are the people who actually participate in oval office and national security meetings. Ie the actual decision makers. Protip: it's not their staff. Lead assistants may be allowed to sit in but not all of them. It's logistically impossible if nothing else.

Once more you are clueless as hell.

[DMC]

All these leaked classified documents and no one can find Trump's tax returns?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

All these leaked classified documents and no one can find Trump's tax returns?

Typical pseudologic from the resident pseudo-intellectual. Keep begging the question, dim.

[DMC]

Yes, he said he believes waterboarding is effective.

That doesn't mean the document is real.

Fake news is what is is being called, and has existed for far too long.

What ever happened to the integrity of journalism?

It never really existed except as a cliche. Even the NE JoM has a slant.

[DMC]

Typical pseudologic from the resident pseudo-intellectual. Keep begging the question, dim.

What would Kant say about it?

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/ebmlEGIAD78/maxresdefault.jpg

[Wild Cobra]

They're just like any other business---trying to make a dollar and a cent at it by any means necessary. They are not benevolent.

I know that, but for some reason, so many people think the media doesn't lie.

These same people only think Fox news lies, when they all do.

[Wild Cobra]

More nonsense. The inner circle are the people who actually participate in oval office and national security meetings. Ie the actual decision makers. Protip: it's not their staff. Lead assistants may be allowed to sit in but not all of them. It's logistically impossible if nothing else.

Once more you are clueless as hell.
It's all relative. How about the second layer of the inner circle?

I have a hard time believing that there would be so many leaks so soon. I am far more inclined to believe it's more fake news.

[Wild Cobra]

It never really existed except as a cliche. Even the NE JoM has a slant.

A slant is one thing, but reporting bullshit...

[boutons_deux]

It's all relative. How about the second layer of the inner circle?

I have a hard time believing that there would be so many leaks so soon. I am far more inclined to believe it's more fake news.

exactly. ANYTHING negative about Trash or the Repugs must be fake news, because Trash and Repugs are too wonderful to do anything wrong, destructive, inhumane.

[Wild Cobra]

exactly. ANYTHING negative about Trash or the Repugs must be fake news, because Trash and Repugs are too wonderful to do anything wrong, destructive, inhumane.
There you go, making bullshit up again with your confirmation bias.

[boutons_deux]

There you go, making bullshit up again with your confirmation bias.

There I go again, bitch slapping one of ST's most ideologically blinded dumbfucks.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

It's all relative. How about the second layer of the inner circle?

I have a hard time believing that there would be so many leaks so soon. I am far more inclined to believe it's more fake news.

Just admit you were wrong and move on. Moving the goalposts is for cowards.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

What would Kant say about it?

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/ebmlEGIAD78/maxresdefault.jpg

Typical deflection for a typical intellectual coward.

[DMC]

Typical deflection for a typical intellectual coward.

But what would he say?

[SnakeBoy]

NYT is part of the AP and they fact check and vett sources.

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/60/db/26/60db26fec8b8eb3afa894a02b0ab72ff.jpg

[FuzzyLumpkins]

But what would he say?

It is irrelevant.

I've never taken a philosophy course so I actually went and looked up some syllabi for philosophy 101 courses and they didn't cover Nietzsche much less delve into the will to power. Instead they focused on the Plato and his ilk and into Aquinas and Descartes. Quite a bit of time was spent on Hume and Kant for obvious reasons and then it was into the existentialists like Sartre and Russell.

I did find a couple of academic articles from Harvard talking about Nietzsche and his views on compassion and sympathy.

https://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/3350069/frazer_compassion.pdf?sequence=2

In other words you are the entry level simpleton evoking Kant in the most facile way possible. It's reasons like this that I call you a pseudo-intellectual. I call you low class because of crusades like this one you are on trying to prove that 'I am not as smart as I think I am." It's a staple response of white trash and their inferiority complexes.

You should try reading more or upping the difficulty level and quit worrying about me.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/60/db/26/60db26fec8b8eb3afa894a02b0ab72ff.jpg

STANDARDS AND PRACTICES

ANONYMOUS SOURCES

Transparency is critical to our credibility with the public and our subscribers. Whenever possible, we pursue information on the record. When a newsmaker insists on background or off-the-record ground rules, we must adhere to a strict set of guidelines, enforced by AP news managers.

Under AP's rules, material from anonymous sources may be used only if:

The material is information and not opinion or speculation, and is vital to the news report.
The information is not available except under the conditions of anonymity imposed by the source.
The source is reliable, and in a position to have accurate information.
Reporters who intend to use material from anonymous sources must get approval from their news manager before sending the story to the desk. The manager is responsible for vetting the material and making sure it meets AP guidelines. The manager must know the identity of the source, and is obligated, like the reporter, to keep the source's identity confidential. Only after they are assured that the source material has been vetted should editors allow it to be transmitted.

Reporters should proceed with interviews on the assumption they are on the record. If the source wants to set conditions, these should be negotiated at the start of the interview. At the end of the interview, the reporter should try once again to move some or all of the information back on the record.

Before agreeing to use anonymous source material, the reporter should ask how the source knows the information is accurate, ensuring that the source has direct knowledge. Reporters may not agree to a source's request that AP not pursue additional comment or information.

The AP routinely seeks and requires more than one source. Stories should be held while attempts are made to reach additional sources for confirmation or elaboration. In rare cases, one source will be sufficient – when material comes from an authoritative figure who provides information so detailed that there is no question of its accuracy.

We must explain in the story why the source requested anonymity. And, when it’s relevant, we must describe the source's motive for disclosing the information. If the story hinges on documents, as opposed to interviews, the reporter must describe how the documents were obtained, at least to the extent possible.

The story also must provide attribution that establishes the source's credibility; simply quoting "a source" is not allowed. We should be as descriptive as possible: "according to top White House aides" or "a senior official in the British Foreign Office." The description of a source must never be altered without consulting the reporter.

We must not say that a person declined comment when he or she is already quoted anonymously. And we should not attribute information to anonymous sources when it is obvious or well known. We should just state the information as fact.

Stories that use anonymous sources must carry a reporter's byline. If a reporter other than the bylined staffer contributes anonymous material to a story, that reporter should be given credit as a contributor to the story.

And all complaints and questions about the authenticity or veracity of anonymous material – from inside or outside the AP – must be promptly brought to the news manager's attention.

Not everyone understands “off the record” or “on background” to mean the same things. Before any interview in which any degree of anonymity is expected, there should be a discussion in which the ground rules are set explicitly.

These are the AP’s definitions:

On the record. The information can be used with no caveats, quoting the source by name.

Off the record. The information cannot be used for publication.

Background. The information can be published but only under conditions negotiated with the source. Generally, the sources do not want their names published but will agree to a description of their position. AP reporters should object vigorously when a source wants to brief a group of reporters on background and try to persuade the source to put the briefing on the record. These background briefings have become routine in many venues, especially with government officials.

Deep background. The information can be used but without attribution. The source does not want to be identified in any way, even on condition of anonymity.

In general, information obtained under any of these circumstances can be pursued with other sources to be placed on the record.

ANONYMOUS SOURCES IN MATERIAL FROM OTHER NEWS SOURCES:

Reports from other news organizations based on anonymous sources require the most careful scrutiny when we consider them for our report.

AP's basic rules for anonymous-source material apply to pickups as they do in our own reporting: The material must be factual and obtainable no other way. The story must be truly significant and newsworthy. Use of sourced material must be authorized by a manager. The story must be balanced, and comment must be sought.

Further, before picking up such a story we must make a bona fide effort to get it on the record, or, at a minimum, confirm it through our own sources. We shouldn't hesitate to hold the story if we have any doubts. If the source material is ultimately used, it must be attributed to the originating member and note their description of their sources.

https://www.ap.org/about/our-story/news-values

[rmt]

And do they check the polls they cite for unbalanced set of registered voters? The CNN and recent Quinnipiac polls come to mind.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

And do they check the polls they cite for unbalanced set of registered voters? The CNN and recent Quinnipiac polls come to mind.

Most of the polls in early November had the race in statistical dead heat. You can quibble about how most polls sample.

Nice to see you are still regurgitating the GOP line.

[UNT Eagles 2016]

I hope this is legit. ISIS and similar insurgent groups need to understand that America is NOT to be fucked with. That they're not the only ones in this world capable of harsh punishment and brutality. We need to show them the true and ultimate price of acts against the greatest nation in the world...

[UNT Eagles 2016]

Most of the polls in early November had the race in statistical dead heat. You can quibble about how most polls sample.

Nice to see you are still regurgitating the GOP line.
#stillwithher #stillasshurt

:lol

[FuzzyLumpkins]

#stillwithher #stillasshurt

:lol

Is this just your braindead response to everything? "SCOREBOARD!" Like a mouthbreather.

The polls said it was a dead heat statistically. That is not rah-rahing the Dems to say they were not in the lead yet here you are parroting schadenfreude like you personally accomplished something.

[rmt]

Most of the polls in early November had the race in statistical dead heat. You can quibble about how most polls sample.

Nice to see you are still regurgitating the GOP line.

I am not talking about polls back in Nov. I'm talking about NOW - the above polls I mentioned were released within the last week and had much higher % Dems over Repubs. These polls are skewed - yet the MSM print the results without checking whether they are fair.

[boutons_deux]

Trash surprised that Maddog Mattis is no fan of waterboarding, prefers beer and cigarettes, ie, good cop, not bad cop.

Useful Idiot Trash is in so far over his head :lol

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I am not talking about polls back in Nov. I'm talking about NOW - the above polls I mentioned were released within the last week and had much higher % Dems over Repubs. These polls are skewed - yet the MSM print the results without checking whether they are fair.

And of course you are the arbiter of what is fair or not. :rolleyes

Their are several different sampling methods like likely voters, actual voter and registered voter. They all have their advantages and flaws. You aren't capable of having that level of discussion. You want it to count GOP and dems and are going to be unhappy no matter what.

[rmt]

And of course you are the arbiter of what is fair or not. :rolleyes

Their are several different sampling methods like likely voters, actual voter and registered voter. They all have their advantages and flaws. You aren't capable of having that level of discussion. You want it to count GOP and dems and are going to be unhappy no matter what.

Registered voters:
Republican 25%
Democrat 34%
Independent 34%
Other/DK/NA 7%

https://poll.qu.edu/images/polling/us/us01262017_demos_Uhmk49b.pdf/

The new CNN poll that claims that more people now favor (49%) ACA than oppose (47%) with MOE +/-3 is 32% Democrat and 24% Republican (page 14 of http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2017/im...gress,.aca.pdf).

I guess you think that a 8-9% more Dems is fair. Why do you think so many of the polls this past election were so off - if the pollsters were using these kinds of breakdowns (and continue to use), it's no wonder they all pointed to a Hillary win.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Registered voters:
Republican 25%
Democrat 34%
Independent 34%
Other/DK/NA 7%

https://poll.qu.edu/images/polling/us/us01262017_demos_Uhmk49b.pdf/

The new CNN poll that claims that more people now favor (49%) ACA than oppose (47%) with MOE +/-3 is 32% Democrat and 24% Republican (page 14 of http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2017/im...gress,.aca.pdf).

I guess you think that a 8-9% more Dems is fair. Why do you think so many of the polls this past election were so off - if the pollsters were using these kinds of breakdowns (and continue to use), it's no wonder they all pointed to a Hillary win.

We already addressed that last bit. Again, the early November polls had the race in a statistical dead heat and the overall trend following the Comey announcement was obvious to anyone with a shred of critical thinking and curiosity. I recall arguing with MannyisGod about it as he didn't want to believe the trend. It is what it is.

You didn't address anything that I wrote and repeated yourself like an idiot for the rest of it. Try reading what I wrote which was in response to what you just regurgitated and try again. Here is a hint: I acknowledged that you wanted them to sample based on party affiliation.