Somebody better call the Waaaahhhhmulance for Jon Stewart. Water boarding is not torture, the Che Guevara losers who watch The Daily Show and still living in Grandma’s basement needs to move out and get a job.

Anyone want to explain to me how this is (yet again), not an opinion peice.

COLBY?! WHERE ARE YOU COLBY?!

Tell me why this, specifically:

That said, Stewart’s interview with Yoo was instructive in so far as if you are wondering how the former administration was able to circumvent decades old treaties banning torture you need only listen to ten minutes of Yoo calmly slither his way around legal and constitutional definitions of torture in an effort to define “what is and isn’t torture” and “what interrogation methods do not constitute torture.” It’s instructive and chilling.

This isn’t opinion? This isn’t Glynnis interjecting her own (non-legal) opinion into the matter? This is what you were hoping for on this site?

HEY DAN ABRAMS! PAGING DAN ABRAMS!

Is this what you’re site is about? Do your editors know the difference between fact and opinion?

No… apparently not.

Hey ImNotBlue – it’s anaysis. I saw the interview with Yoo, and the mea culpa. Glynnis does not present her assessment as legal fact, she presents it as an instructive thing to watch for people wondering how the administration got around so many treaties banning torture, and how it came down to slippery legalese and eyebrow-raising interpretations and constructions. I think it’s a fair point in noting that Stewart’s interview was not a “nail” per se (and you don’t need to be a lawyer to know when THAT happens) but was nonetheless worth noting.

Also, I’m a lawyer, though in a former life and not for the purposes of this comment or anything I write for Mediaite without expressly stating so. :)

We used emoticons aaaaaaall the tiiiiiiime in law school.

I come to internet blogs for ABSOLUTE IMPARTIALITY, and this is what I get??!!1 Another LEFT WING hit piece on a Proud Former Bush Administration Member??!!1 I am SHOCKED that a BLOG would feature OPINION instead of PURE FACTS!!1 Like my fellow Right Thinking Americans, I will CONTINUE to call out this BIAS until Dan Abrams himself calls a meeting to ADDRESS it!!1 Besides, the fact that ANYONE would have a problem with Yoo’s justification of ENHANCED INTERROGATION (NOT “torture”!!1) is RIDICULOUS!!1

Jon Stewart rarely nails anybody, unless they sit there and let him do it (cf. Jim Cramer). I know you media folks have convinced yourselves than Stewart is some deific combination of Jonathan Swift, George Carlin, and Cato (and more absurd, Stewart believes it), but the Daily Show is more or less a place where Mr. Stewart affirms the views of his upper-class, ostensibly well-educated, white liberal audience (by and large the same type of people who work in and write about television, the stars at least) in a comedic fashion. Much like Bill Maher, his main tactic in taking somebody on with whom he disagrees is to interrupt what they’re saying with a snarky, cheap aside or make a face at his Pavlonian audience, which applauds over the guest, providing Stewart the opportunity to digress and begin the charade again (unlike Maher though, Stewart’s legitimately funny). The interview is then posted on the Internet by some member of Stewart’s kiss-ass chorus, asserting “Jon Stewarts OWNS (Insert Person Currently Not in Vogue).” We shouldn’t be surprised that Jon Stewart was outwitted by a smarter man who understands his field in a way Stewart doesn’t begin to comprehend (whatever the moral/ethical implications of said field aren’t really germane). We should be surprised that Tom Brokaw calls Stewart “our Athenian, a voice for democratic ideals and the noble place of citizenship, helped along by the sound of laughter,” and people dutifully nod their heads in solemn agreement, instead of saying “Uh Tom, Jon Stewart’s funny and all, but he’s mainly a guy who makes faces at Republicans.”

Rachel Sklar says:
January 13, 2010 at 11:23 am

Hey ImNotBlue – it’s anaysis.

Well, yes it is… but no it’s not. Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t that the point of the “Columnists” header… to separate out the news stories (reporting of the facts), and the opinion pieces. Note Tommy Christopher… a good writer (although, I disagree often with his opinions), who almost always puts his pieces under the “Columnists” tab, to separate out the fact that these are HIS views, not a straight report of the fact.

The trouble is that Glynnis either can’t tell the difference, or is attempting to pass off her opinion as fact in an effort to persuade. Either way, it is not ethical (journalistically speaking). Editorials should be labeled as such, not passed off as straight reporting. There is a big difference between Steve’s articles, and Glynnis’.

This is an opinion piece, and should be called for what it is. I highlighted a portion of Glynnis’ statement that makes it clear, this is HER view, not a straight report. It shouldn’t be there! If Glynnis’ wants to give her opinion, fine… but call it what it is, don’t try to pass it off as “fact.”

Also, I’m a lawyer, though in a former life and not for the purposes of this comment or anything I write for Mediaite without expressly stating so. :)

I didn’t know you were a lawyer. I think Mediaite should have a bio section for you guys, so we can learn things like that… but perhaps that’s another discussion. ;) (Emoticon) My complain, however, has nothing to do with the legal interpretation of Yoo’s decision, or Jon Stewart’s opinions, just the journalistic ethics of this site. Something that, sadly, doesn’t seem to be taken too seriously by those in charge.

Karl Spensen says:
January 13, 2010 at 12:48 pm

Christian… you come to these blogs for attention, and to annoy. But I’ve already exposed you as a fraud. Don’t you think it’s time to move on?

My THERAPIST used to tell me that the only true opposite of love is INDIFFERENCE!!1 If you constantly STRIKE BACK at someone you don’t like, or in your case, RELENTLESSLY STALK, it usually means that you have strong FEELINGS towards that person!!1 It’s like when my girlfriend and I broke up and I kept leaving her VOICE MAILS telling her what an AWFUL PERSON she was — it’s only because I LOVED HER so much!!1 Therefore, I can only ASSUME that your constant ATTENTION towards me (and my COUSIN, who is starting to get SERIOUSLY creeped out) means that you secretly (or NOT so secretly) ADMIRE and perhaps even LOVE me!!1 Which is FLATTERING, but as a Right Thinking American I must warn you that such feelings are to be SUPRESSED at all costs … we don’t want to get LEFT BEHIND when the RAPTURE comes, do we??!!!11 xoxoxoxo

For openers, why would anyone expect John Stewart – on or off The Daily show, but especially on — to conduct a hard-hitting investigative interview? His show is comedic primarily, and there for the promotion of his guests’ products secondarily. Anyone expecting more or relying on his program as their main source of information is problematic.

This classification of water-boarding being torture is also a straw dog argument. We use that as a training technique on our own soldiers to prepare them for potential interrogations they may have to endure. I believe the military by law cannot inflict torture on our own soldiers, but I defer to the legal experience of the staff on that detail, so I may be incorrect. But the larger point is if the politicians are truly outraged that we are subjecting prisoners of war to illegal methods why have they not expressed similar concern over the years that we have done the same to our own troops? I have a hard time feeling guilty that we have used this at Gitmo on terrorists when the past decades of use in training our people is declared acceptable.

Imnotblue . I know you read the site. . . so how could you possibly draw the conclusion that this site is supposed to be “objective.” We are fair and non-partisan but never claim to be offering “impartiality” on every issue as Karl Spenser says in his mocking note. I encourage all the writers to call em’ as they see them. I want analysis and opinion. That is why you have seen every news network called out for its coverage of certain issues, you have also seen them celebrated. Media Matters has blasted us as “biased” as has Newsbusters. I don’t always agree with what some of the writers say but its their analysis and/or opinion and I want them to say it.

I will tell you my personal view is that Yoo’s constitutional analysis on this issue is now considered “fringe” at best in the legal community and yet I would not have referred to “treaties” some of which I do not believe must guide US law and policy. But that is just my opinion and I feel free to express it, thanks for expressing yours and I always appreciate Glyn’s analysis.

Mr. Abrams, this is truly the LAST STRAW!!1 OPINION on an internet blog??!1 OUTRAGEOUS!!1 You sir, have LOST yet another reader!!!1 It’s off to Redstate and HotAir for me, where I can COUNT on objectivity!!1

Okay fine, you haven’t lost me. I feel that the best way to fight your particular brand of BIAS is to return here OBSESSIVELY and continue to REGISTER MY DISGUST with your LIB ties in your comments section as long as I have a BREATH in my body!!1