It's wrong or its right. Make up your minds!

[ReBirth 0]

I wouldn't consider a briefing on the generalities to be oversite.

[Trent 0]

Then we're back to the problem of not having elected officials who can keep their mouths shut. It just seems that you're against any covert security actions, especially prisons. I see the necessity for some of this stuff. Like I said in 2 posts... I guess we just will disagree.

Oh, hello again!

[ReBirth 0]

But we're still on the same page RE: boobies.

Right?

[Trent 0]

Without a doubt!

Oh, hello again!

[SudsyFist 0]

Quote

We'll just have to disagree here. I like to put my faith in that, USUALLY we are, or try to be the good guys.

If you've seen what I've seen, then I strongly believe you'd share in my disillusionment, as I once held the same view. The fact is, however cynical it may sound, that without adequate oversight and enforcement, most people will abuse a system in which they participate. Consider the plethora of structures we have in place for precisely this purpose.

In clandestine military situations, this responsibility for this oversight typically comes from a single source: command, which, incidentally, would also be ultimately responsible (read: consequences) for the performance of the unit, good or bad.

Think about this for a minute. Would you trust a system in a corporation, for instance, where oversight on sexual harassment started and stopped with each section's supervisor/manager? How about police activities without IA, legislative, or judicial oversight?

I concede that the single point of oversight has the potential to work well in specific cases where command has a very clearly defined mission, and establishes and enforces very clear and compliant (with treaties, etc.) directives about the conduct of that mission. Realistically, however, these cases are few and far between... too much cover-my-ass-for-my-next-OER shit going on, e.g.

Fortunately, many U.S. intelligence activities actually have some internal checks and balances set up to help stem systemic abuse (whether it is enough is certainly up for debate); however, there are also many that do not.

In the case of these secret prisons, we don't know what kind of internal oversight, if any, is going on. It's also hard to determine whether keeping them clandestine is mission-critical, rather than for the sake of appearance or something equally superficial. If, at the very least, written policies were published regarding the internal oversight of such activities and enforcement thereof, I'd at least feel a little less uncomfortable about the whole situation, but I'd much rather see this unilateral, unchecked approach to indefinite incarceration and denial of humanitarian agency access go like the Dodo.

[Wopelao 0]

Quote

>>have overlooked one thing - they behead people , OUR PEOPLE.

And we rape their women and torture their children. THEIR CHILDREN. (see Taguba's report and the link below.)

I find this comment rather a hypocrisy and not pointing out who really try to abuse women and children, do a little search on the web and you will find how the islamic governed countries systematically short change women and children when it comes to rights...

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Quote

>>have overlooked one thing - they behead people , OUR PEOPLE.

And we rape their women and torture their children. THEIR CHILDREN. (see Taguba's report and the link below.)

I find this comment rather a hypocrisy and not pointing out who really try to abuse women and children, do a little search on the web and you will find how the islamic governed countries systematically short change women and children when it comes to rights...

We can be bad because they are worse? My mother never bought that argument, and I doubt yours did.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Wopelao 0]

So we can assume you are pro-Islamic?

You forget that every soldier caught in abusing or wrong doing has been or are being investigated, punished and/or indicted. Hardly seem the case with people bent on ABUSING/STONING TO DEATH, and yea, a novelty for you, BOMBING in PUBLIC Places, women, children and pretty much anyone they don't give 2 shits about.

[ReBirth 0]

Quote

I find this comment rather a hypocrisy and not pointing out who really try to abuse women and children, do a little search on the web and you will find how the islamic governed countries systematically short change women and children when it comes to rights...

You're right...the monarchies in that region, such as Saudi Arabia and Kuwait do that. Let's not forget our good friend Pakistan, ruled by a military dictator. We support those regimes. That's the hypocrisy.

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

So we can assume you are pro-Islamic?

You forget that every soldier caught in abusing or wrong doing has been or are being investigated, punished and/or indicted.... .

You assume too much and I forget very little.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[SudsyFist 0]

Quote

You forget that every soldier caught in abusing or wrong doing has been or are being investigated, punished and/or indicted.

I think it's more accurate to say that servicemembers who are caught in wrongdoing *and* followed up with (whether administratively punished or reported through various channels) are being investigated, punished, and/or indicted.

There is an unknown number of wrongdoings committed, acknowledged, and swept under the rug, and your statement doesn't take these into account. Remember that there's lots of room to cover up wrongdoing in military operations, and it happens a lot: part of the culture in many, many units.

[Wopelao 0]

Perhaps, but the implication that US troops are trained specifically to abuse women and children, and do not take into account ACTUAL trainning to our troops, make this fairy tale assumption is totally delusional.

And the reason that his argument falls into the category of pro-islamic person, is obvious as he does not get involved in discussing what islamic states are doing to women and children as part of their policies, creed and beliefs... Which differ completely to his assumption.

[billvon 2,991]

>I find this comment rather a hypocrisy . . .

Hypocrisy is saying one thing and doing something that contradicts it. As I have never raped or tortured anyone, it's not hypocritical for me to object to it.

I suspect what you meant is more along the lines of "if they torture their women, why can't we?" I suspect if you thought about it you would realize that you don't really believe such a thing.

[mr2mk1g 10]

Quote

he does not get involved in discussing what islamic states are doing to women and children as part of their policies, creed and beliefs... Which differ completely to his assumption.

What does Islam's stance on women's lib have to do with anything? Is that the new reason of the month for why we invaded Iraq? To bring women the vote?

Their women's rights may suck - but it's their country. Their country their rules. We've as much right medaling in their women's rights as they have in to tell us how many times a day we must prey.

We can bring political and economic pressure to bare... but are you actually advocating going to war with every country who doesn't share our beliefs on women's lib??

[SudsyFist 0]

Quote

Perhaps, but the implication that US troops are trained specifically to abuse women and children, and do not take into account ACTUAL trainning to our troops, make this fairy tale assumption is totally delusional.

I don't recall seeing such an implication, but I agree that it would be a false assumption.

Quote

And the reason that his argument falls into the category of pro-islamic person, is obvious as he does not get involved in discussing what islamic states are doing to women and children as part of their policies, creed and beliefs...

"Pro-Islamic." Smacks of the good ol' term, "nigger lover."

Rather than just labeling such as pro-Islamic, perhaps the motivations of some are founded less in religion and more in autonomy of a state. Many here in the U.S. prefer freedom and equality for all, but some believe that if that tenet is to evolve in the fundamentalist Muslim countries, it'd be better to see it happen from within: pro-autonomy.

(Before someone goes off on a tangent, I'm referring and limiting the argument specifically to women and children's rights in fundamentalist Islamic countries, and not to atrocities such as genocide.)

Remember, the U.S. pretty much lagged behind most of the Western world in terms of civil rights (slavery, women's suffrage, segregation, etc.), with many of the proponents of the oppression citing Biblical verses as justification for maintaining the status quo. Would it be accurate (or even relevant) to call someone pro-Christian for laissez faire attitudes toward letting the U.S. work these issues out on their own?

Another consideration: how do you think a typical 1960's Southerner would react to a news headline about a European country's decrying racial segregation as abhorrently oppressive and immoral? What kind of reaction does such condemnation (and meddling) from the outside usually spurn in people?

Just trying to help shed light on a different perspective: one of many.

[Wopelao 0]

Maybe, but yet your kind seem suspicious of everything and with lots of conspirancy theories, and no matter what facts you may bring to discussion most are without basis.

If you have cared to read my comment, which you seem to have done superficially, you will find that, (please don't faint), the US military does punish/indict/investigate those wrong doings, and is part of the policy to do so, not the other way around, it is not ok, no matter how many times you are trying to point things in that direction.

Implying I'm ok with children abuse and rape while I am stating that those offenses will emphatically prosecuted-punished and it is not part of our trainning is well, a very well veiled PA. Thanks a lot!

Now, back to your usual US bashing as usual

[billvon 2,991]

>but yet your kind . . .

And what kind would that be?

>If you have cared to read my comment, which you seem to have
>done superficially, you will find that, (please don't faint), the US
> military does punish/indict/investigate those wrong doings, and is
> part of the policy to do so, not the other way around, it is not ok, no
> matter how many times you are trying to point things in that direction.

I agree that we do try to prevent that. And if it happened a few times, and our steps to stop it succeeded, end of story. But it keeps happening.

If you run a convalescent home, and someone in your staff rapes an elderly patient (which, sadly, happens on occasion) I would expect that you, as a responsible manager, would call the cops and assist them in convicting the lowlife that did it. No one would blame you, and you would not be guilty of anything (except, perhaps, hiring a questionable guy, a minor mistake.) But if it happened once a month, and every time you just turned the guy over to the cops and washed your hands of it without doing anything else, you would very quickly find yourself replaced. Not because you were pro-rape, but because you were incapable of stopping your staff from committing some vile crimes.

The next guy who came in might fire half the staff and replace them with better people. He might hire only nurses who have worked with the elderly before, or he might put cameras in the rooms. He might have a new, very strict anti-abuse policy. If this stopped the problem, great. It would not mean he was more anti-rape than you. It would just mean he was better at fixing the problem.

We have been torturing people for three years now. It's not getting better. It's good that we prosecute the people who do it. Now it's time to take the steps we need to take so that it STOPS HAPPENING. Passing laws against it might be a good start. So far the administration has been fighting such laws tooth and nail. Perhaps it's time to make it clear that torture is not OK in any form.

>Implying I'm ok with children abuse and rape while I am stating that
>those offenses will emphatically prosecuted-punished and it is not
>part of our trainning is well, a very well veiled PA. Thanks a lot!

See above.

[Wopelao 0]

We should Ban skydiving as well, we train people not to do low turns, they keep happening!!!. Isn't that an atrocity as well? Why don't you quit then? (please insert sarcasm smily).

We all know we can achieve a perfect world...

[billvon 2,991]

> We should Ban skydiving as well, we train people not to do low turns, they keep happening!!!

Right. So are the only two options to ban skydiving or to just pretend it's not a problem? A smart instructor might see a solution (like Skydive Chicago's HP canopy training program) that a less competent instructor might miss. Hence the value of an intelligent instructor (or leader.)

[Wopelao 0]

Quote

> We should Ban skydiving as well, we train people not to do low turns, they keep happening!!!

Right. So are the only two options to ban skydiving or to just pretend it's not a problem? A smart instructor might see a solution (like Skydive Chicago's HP canopy training program) that a less competent instructor might miss. Hence the value of an intelligent instructor (or leader.)

Same thing applies in the current US military. We are trained to respect Intn'l treaties, we are given rules of engagement before engaging in operations, over all laws that were not there 20 years ago, have been implemented. To avoid these situations you speak off.

[billvon 2,991]

> We are trained to respect Intn'l treaties, we are given rules of
> engagement before engaging in operations, over all laws that were
> not there 20 years ago, have been implemented. To avoid these
> situations you speak off.

That's great! And wise leaders will fix those ROEs when they don't work well and result in hundreds of people being tortured. As we speak, congress is debating adding anti-torture language to a budget bill. Let's hope it passes, and that good americans are not put in the uncomfortable position of defending torture and abuse in the future.

[ReBirth 0]

Quote

As we speak, congress is debating adding anti-torture language to a budget bill.

And Dick Cheney is lobbying for them to exempt the CIA from those rules. But there's nothing going on in the CIA secret prisons.... right.

New info on the subject...

Congress may probe leaks in CIA prisons story

love this part "The leaking of classified information is a serious matter. It ought to be taken seriously," White House spokesman Scott McClellan said.

[billvon 2,991]

>And Dick Cheney is lobbying for them to exempt the CIA from those rules.

Well, Dick Cheney's supporters are deserting him fast; let's hope he doesn't have enough influence left to get his pro-torture changes into the bill.

Update - more bad news for Cheney. Looks like a retired colonel who was Powell's chief of staff claims that Cheney was a leader in the push for torture:
---------------------------------------------
Last month, Lawrence Wilkerson, a retired colonel who was former secretary of state Colin Powell's chief of staff, accused Cheney and Rumsfeld of jointly leading a "cabal" that hijacked US foreign policy after the September 11 terrorist attacks against New York and the Pentagon. He charged that the two men, who worked closely together as White House chief of staff and defense secretary, respectively, in the Gerald Ford administration 30 years ago, of circumventing the formal decision-making process in order to get their way.

Wilkerson elaborated on that theme during an interview last week in which he suggested that authorization for harsh treatment of detainees originated with Cheney.

"There was a visible audit trail from the vice president's office through the secretary of defense down to the commanders in the field" authorizing practices that led to the abuse of detainees, he told National Public Radio, adding that Cheney's new chief of staff, David Addington, played a particularly important role.

While the detainee issue in itself is unlikely to bring down the vice president, growing and aggressive Democratic pressure to investigate the administration's use of pre-war intelligence on Iraq - and particularly the role played by Cheney and his "cabal" in presenting and allegedly manipulating it - offers yet another battleground in which the vice president will find himself playing defense.
--------------------------------------------

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/GK09Aa03.html

[billvon 2,991]

>I want to know who leaked this top secret information about CIA operations.

Your wish is my command. From Ed Henry, CNN:

---------------------
Trent Lott stunned reporters by declaring that this subject was actualy discussed at a Senate Republican luncheon, Republican senators only, last tuesday the day before the story ran in the Washington Post. Lott noted that Vice President Cheney was also in the room for that discussion and Lott said point blank "a lot of it came out of that room last tuesday, pointing to the room where the lunch was held in the capitol." He added of senators "we can't keep our mouths shut." He added about the vice president, "He was up here last wek and talked up here in that room right there in a roomful of nothing but senators and every word that was said in there went right to the newspaper." He said he believes when all is said and done it may wind up as an ethics investigation of a Republican senator, maybe a Republican staffer as well. Senator Frist's office not commenting on this development. The Washington Post not commenting either.
------------------------

Somehow I have a feeling the GOP will now lose interest in this leak. Perhaps they could blame the prisoners! Or the Washington Post. Hey, look at that Supreme Court nominee! And look, over there! Something shiny!

Is it just me, or is the GOP imploding? Delay indicted, Libby indicted, Frist under an SEC investigation, Rove still being investigated (yet allowed to keep his clearance!) Bush with the lowest approval ratings of his presidency, Cheney with sub-20% approval ratings, Lott turning on other senators . . . it will be interesting to see how this shakes out. Who knows, the GOP may come out of this with some ethics; stranger things have happened.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

>I want to know who leaked this top secret information about CIA operations.

Your wish is my command. From Ed Henry, CNN:

---------------------
Trent Lott stunned reporters by declaring that this subject was actualy discussed at a Senate Republican luncheon, Republican senators only, last tuesday the day before the story ran in the Washington Post. Lott noted that Vice President Cheney was also in the room for that discussion and Lott said point blank "a lot of it came out of that room last tuesday, pointing to the room where the lunch was held in the capitol." He added of senators "we can't keep our mouths shut." He added about the vice president, "He was up here last wek and talked up here in that room right there in a roomful of nothing but senators and every word that was said in there went right to the newspaper." He said he believes when all is said and done it may wind up as an ethics investigation of a Republican senator, maybe a Republican staffer as well. Senator Frist's office not commenting on this development. The Washington Post not commenting either.
------------------------

Somehow I have a feeling the GOP will now lose interest in this leak. Perhaps they could blame the prisoners! Or the Washington Post. Hey, look at that Supreme Court nominee! And look, over there! Something shiny!

Is it just me, or is the GOP imploding? Delay indicted, Libby indicted, Frist under an SEC investigation, Rove still being investigated (yet allowed to keep his clearance!) Bush with the lowest approval ratings of his presidency, Cheney with sub-20% approval ratings, Lott turning on other senators . . . it will be interesting to see how this shakes out. Who knows, the GOP may come out of this with some ethics; stranger things have happened.

Good. Let the chips fall where they may. Remember about a month ago I told you there were some things happening, that if true, I wouldn't support? This was one of them. There are others. I don't know whether they will come to light, but they exist. Power corrupts regardless of political affiliation.