[peeb]

You seem to be out of touch with modern war. Many city streets are in fact battle fields. Many people who turned up in Gtmo had never been anywhere near a battlefield. You are talking as if it were easy to identify 'good guys' and 'bad guys' in the huge dragnet that was cast. A transparent legal process is essential, and torture is never acceptable.

[Buckaroo]

Originally Posted by peeb 

You seem to be out of touch with modern war. Many city streets are in fact battle fields. Many people who turned up in Gtmo had never been anywhere near a battlefield. You are talking as if it were easy to identify 'good guys' and 'bad guys' in the huge dragnet that was cast. A transparent legal process is essential, and torture is never acceptable.

This is BS. Every single combatant in Gtmo was on the battlefield, most carrying and using weapons.

[peeb]

Absolute BS. You either know that to be true, or are entirely ignorant. Please do some basic research before you make yourself look like an idiot.
Innocent, but in limbo at Guantánamo | csmonitor.com

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by peeb 

You seem to be out of touch with modern war. Many city streets are in fact battle fields. Many people who turned up in Gtmo had never been anywhere near a battlefield. You are talking as if it were easy to identify 'good guys' and 'bad guys' in the huge dragnet that was cast. A transparent legal process is essential, and torture is never acceptable.

Your impression of what a "battlefield" is does not seem to be consistent with reality. NOTHING in ANY U.S. city is anything like urban combat. The comparison is specious from the start. Urban combat IS conducted on a "battlefield"-the streets of the city, whether that makes sense to you or not.

I completely agree that a transparent process is essential and that torture is unacceptable, but I was not even suggesting anything contrary to that-I was pointing out that the rules are dense and difficult to understand, and that it's hard to apply some rules without causing other consequences.

Originally Posted by peeb 

Absolute BS. You either know that to be true, or are entirely ignorant. Please do some basic research before you make yourself look like an idiot.
Innocent, but in limbo at Guantánamo | csmonitor.com

There are a FEW examples of persons who were with combatants but not actively participating with them when they were captured. These individuals are the rare exception, not the rule. It was a pain in the butt for the Army to round up ANYbody on the battlefield, and it would be idiotic to round up people who weren't a direct threat. This was not like a police raid or something-it was COMBAT, where everybody seems to have been shooting at you with automatic weapons and grenade launchers. That so many people were captured rather than simply killed in action tells a lot about how well controlled and disciplined our troops were-or how easy it was to convince the bad guys that they were not going to survive if they continued to attack. Either way, this is a combat situation, not at all a civil issue, not a police action, not anything like anything that has gone on in the U.S. in the last 150 years. Far too many people have no idea how different military operations are from what they know here at home.

[PaperNotes]

Originally Posted by Buckaroo 

This is BS. Every single combatant in Gtmo was on the battlefield, most carrying and using weapons.

Don't expect many facts from Peeb. Every excuse he can make for armed theocrats is good for his idea of humanity should be.

[PaperNotes]

Originally Posted by peeb 

You seem to be out of touch with modern war.A transparent legal process is essential, and torture is never acceptable.

I'd love to see your opinion if your mother was one of those Pakistani women who have hot oil poured on them, or if she was forced to cover herself and raped if she didn't, or if she was a Darfurian villager who was just out getting a pot of water when an Arab decided she was too black to live.

[OreoCookie]

So if his mother were tortured, peeb would be in favor of torture?

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

So if his mother were tortured, peeb would be in favor of torture?

I think he's talking about torturing the perpetrators of what he's referring to, not the women who are being victimized. I still don't see a reason to cross that moral or ethical line...

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

So if his mother were tortured, peeb would be in favor of torture?

His post shows the true motivation for supporting torture, doesn't it?

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

His post shows the true motivation for supporting torture, doesn't it?

No.

@Glenn
You admit there are a `few' exceptions: that's exactly why there are military tribunals which determine whether a prisoner (not necessarily a POW, just someone who has been detained by Coalition Forces) is a POW or not. Up until that point the GC are quite clear in that he has to be treated as if he were a POW.

I also fail to see that the `consequences' you spoke of in your earlier post on page 1 are unintended: I'd like to think they are intended in that the detainees are awarded essential human rights, that they have a right to habeas corpus and due process.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

No.

No what?

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

Yes, and my question is, what happens even after they're legally found not to be POWs? From what I understand, they're supposed to get another status with lesser protections, not just get shipped off to the torture chambers.

The legal construct `unlawful combatants' was introduced during WW2 to circumvent due process. The Supreme Court has ruled that they are to be awarded full rights under the GC and/or the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

No matter what side you look at it, it's a despicable practice.
I haven't seen one single case where `extra procedures for unlawful combatants/terrorists' were necessary. That includes possible conspirators of the 9/11 attacks or similar, foiled attacks. The justice system can deal with them and -- if they are found guilty -- they'll spend a long, long time in jail.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

No what?

No, it doesn't. He wrote quite clearly that he is against torture as a matter of principle.

Originally Posted by peeb

A transparent legal process is essential, and torture is never acceptable.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

No, it doesn't. He wrote quite clearly that he is against torture as a matter of principle.

He most certainly did not, but I'm talking about PaperNotes.

It's not that hard to follow, is it? I agreed with you. PaperNotes expressed the view that peeb would want to torture if his mother had been tortured. He showed the true motivation for torture: aggressive hostility.

[:tap tap: Is this on?]

[OreoCookie]

@BRussel
My bad, 'twas a long evening yesterday.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

@BRussel
My bad, 'twas a long evening yesterday.

Don't you make me get out the waterboard!

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

Don't you make me get out the waterboard!

Why? You wanna do my laundry?

[peeb]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

Your impression of what a "battlefield" is does not seem to be consistent with reality. NOTHING in ANY U.S. city is anything like urban combat. The comparison is specious from the start. Urban combat IS conducted on a "battlefield"-the streets of the city, whether that makes sense to you or not.

WTF? I'm not talking about US streets, I'm talking about the streets of Baghdad. Try to keep up.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by PaperNotes 

I'd love to see your opinion if your mother was one of those Pakistani women who have hot oil poured on them, or if she was forced to cover herself and raped if she didn't, or if she was a Darfurian villager who was just out getting a pot of water when an Arab decided she was too black to live.

WTF are you talking about? Please read my post. I am opposed to torture.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

He most certainly did not, but I'm talking about PaperNotes.

It's not that hard to follow, is it? I agreed with you. PaperNotes expressed the view that peeb would want to torture if his mother had been tortured. He showed the true motivation for torture: aggressive hostility.

[:tap tap: Is this on?]

Please read posts before responding to them. I clearly wrote that I am opposed to torture at all times and in all places.

[BRussell]

jeezus.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

No.

@Glenn
You admit there are a `few' exceptions: that's exactly why there are military tribunals which determine whether a prisoner (not necessarily a POW, just someone who has been detained by Coalition Forces) is a POW or not. Up until that point the GC are quite clear in that he has to be treated as if he were a POW.

I also fail to see that the `consequences' you spoke of in your earlier post on page 1 are unintended: I'd like to think they are intended in that the detainees are awarded essential human rights, that they have a right to habeas corpus and due process.

Actually, just about all individuals who were just in the wrong place at the wrong time were released pretty early on-after a formal process that's part of Military Police prisoner procedures evaluated capture reports on them and what was found in their possession at that time. There are a number of people proclaiming innocence that have questionable stories and questionable backgrounds, including being known as Taliban commanders or lieutenants, or Saddam functionaries. Again, it's not in the military's best interest to hold anyone they don't need to, so they do a pretty good job of keeping only those that have the potential to be a threat.

Further, using the U.S. justice system analogy, courts only determine whether there is sufficient evidence to hold a prisoner before a trial past a set period (72 hours). The period is set by Constitutional and case law, and takes into account the circumstances involved in criminal law-which is not a factor in the laws of war. The district attorney's office investigates the crime and provides the court with evidence showing why they think the suspect should be held for trial. In a military situation, the arraignment is handled by a MP commander and the decision is based on the evidence from the individual's capture. In most cases it's pretty cut and dried-prisoner had weapons, was part of a group of people firing on friendly forces, etc. Sometimes such groups are captured with others in their midst, and that makes figuring things out complicated.

Let's look at habeas corpus and why that cannot work in a military situation. The basis of this is that by invoking habeas corpus, the accused calls in a Constitutional right-to be faced by his accuser. However, this right is not applicable on the battlefield because the person is not being accused of a crime under U.S. law, but rather he's being accused of taking up arms against U.S. forces in a location not under the jurisdiction of the Constitution, and perhaps a violation of the laws of war. To require the person who captured each individual to be present at any time after that capture would immobilize the Army-and not be of any help to just about anyone in a valid defense. On the other hand, a capture report is a legal document that shows the circumstances under which a person was captured; his location, his actions, what he was carrying, how he was dressed, and so on.

The consequences I was referring to were things like having Rumsfeld say we were going to "treat all detainees as if they were POWs" without realizing that this would mean the whole 9 yards and not just providing them with clean water and tobacco (which IS a requirement of the party holding POWs!). So Rummy's "unintended consequences" were that his "quick and easy" military courts would now have to comply with the requirements of POW tribunals under Geneva.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by peeb 

WTF? I'm not talking about US streets, I'm talking about the streets of Baghdad. Try to keep up.

At the time people being detained at GTMO were captured, the streets of Baghdad WERE a combat zone. The others who have been detained since then were taken during combat operations. Some of these operations may have had the appearance of "police raids" in that there wasn't a gun battle going on at the time, but preemptively stopping an attack is a combat activity.

Snideness is not necessary. I'm trying to be civil and provide a point of view that you and many others have no contact with. In particular, the assumption that our military is in the wrong no matter what they do is offensive to me. "Our military" is made up of men and women who have sworn to do what they're told in defense of the American people and the Constitution, not a bunch of idiots and villains. I served a long time knowing that most people would not even know what I'd done, let alone appreciate it, but I can at the very least provide some insight to people who choose to second guess the people that are actually in the trenches and being shot at.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

The legal construct `unlawful combatants' was introduced during WW2 to circumvent due process. The Supreme Court has ruled that they are to be awarded full rights under the GC and/or the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

I have to take issue with this. The Supreme Court ruled that on U.S. soil an enemy combatant had to be either held as a POW or charged with espionage-if your source of this argument is the case of the German saboteurs who came ashore on the East Coast, this was completely correct. In that case, there was an attempt to hide their existence from the public because of a fear that their presence would cause panic. Instead, by holding them as spies, we established that we would "do the right thing" based on the combatant's situation, not on public relations. The concept of "unlawful combatants" is in the Conventions; it was not properly applied in the case of the German saboteurs, but it is not a legal construct of U.S. invention. And note that the UCMJ wasn't established until 1950, well AFTER WWII and the war crime trials held in its wake.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

And note that the UCMJ wasn't established until 1950, well AFTER WWII and the war crime trials held in its wake.

It doesn't matter when they were established as the GC does not enumerate those right; however, it refers to the legal tradition of `civilized countries.'

Originally Posted by GC3, Article 3

(d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.

Arguably (as by Supreme Court ruling), the correct standard is the UCMJ.

I also think you're still missing the motivation behind Rumsfeld's comment to `graciously grant all detainees the same rights as POWs:' it must be seen in the light of the imminent Supreme Court ruling in the Hamdan case. Rumsfeld wasn't having a `good day', forgetting about the consequences, no, he wanted to torpedo the case. The consequences these remarks have had were intentional as he knew he would lose this argument in the SC anyway.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

Let's look at habeas corpus and why that cannot work in a military situation. The basis of this is that by invoking habeas corpus, the accused calls in a Constitutional right-to be faced by his accuser. However, this right is not applicable on the battlefield because the person is not being accused of a crime under U.S. law, but rather he's being accused of taking up arms against U.S. forces in a location not under the jurisdiction of the Constitution, and perhaps a violation of the laws of war.

We're not talking about people who have been recently picked up on the battlefield, but people who haven't been officially charged with anything. They legal status, i. e. whether they are POWs or not, has not even been determined qua Supreme Court ruling (the body that has made these assessments was not entitled to do so, rendering all rulings null and void).

Since the SC has ruled that Gitmo detainees enjoy all rights of POWs, they should be entitled to the right of a speedy process and habeas corpus, i. e. they should be charged with something or released. I'm sure this is not the last SC ruling on that matter.

Originally Posted by ghporter 

To require the person who captured each individual to be present at any time after that capture would immobilize the Army-and not be of any help to just about anyone in a valid defense. On the other hand, a capture report is a legal document that shows the circumstances under which a person was captured; his location, his actions, what he was carrying, how he was dressed, and so on.

I don't buy this argument. We're not talking about troops on the move that would be `immobilized', most of the people that are concerned with this discussion are in an internment camp that has been built specifically for them. If we were talking about people who had been captured in an active war, I'd agree. These circumstances, however, are different.

Originally Posted by ghporter 

The consequences I was referring to were things like having Rumsfeld say we were going to "treat all detainees as if they were POWs" without realizing that this would mean the whole 9 yards and not just providing them with clean water and tobacco (which IS a requirement of the party holding POWs!). So Rummy's "unintended consequences" were that his "quick and easy" military courts would now have to comply with the requirements of POW tribunals under Geneva.

As mentioned above, Rumsfeld knew full well what his comments implied. He was about the lose the case at the Supreme Court anyway, so he knew he had to make that concession.

[ghporter]

A POW may be held-and need not be charged with anything but being an enemy combatant-until after the end of hostilities. It is unfortunate that certain groups involved in dealing with the detainees feel that they can -at this late date- actually find out anything new and useful from anyone they've held for any length of time. They should all be declared either POWs or something else within weeks of capture. The intel community is to blame for dragging this stuff out, and they of all groups should understand how well Al Quida insulated cells from each other (using our playbook, I believe).

Habeas corpus literally means that the person who accuses someone MUST BE PRESENT at a hearing. It would indeed be disastrous to require the specific soldier who captured a specific detainee to be present at that detainee's hearing. There is no question that they were detained in relation to actions against American forces (even those captured in recent weeks), so to apply habeas corpus would only serve to draw things out and help people who are simply no longer able to fight against us, no matter how much they want to. And have no doubt that this IS an active war-just one that doesn't look anything at all like WWII or Korea.

I disagree that Rumsfeld expected his "we'll treat them like POWs" concession would be taken at full face value. It's not like him-he conceded simply to reduce the heat on him and his aides.

What it comes down to is that military captives are NOT "in jail." They are enemy soldiers out to hurt our people, and they must be detained until the hostilities end and they can be repatriated safely. This is the first conflict where such captives have received so much public attention-and I believe that is far more attention than they deserve, taking away from the attention our Soldiers deserve for their hazardous and usually thankless service. Whether you agree with the war or not, it is crucial to understand that our all-volunteer force is there doing what they believe to be right because they want to defend the United States. To think otherwise of them is a serious disservice to them and their sacrifice.

[Graviton]

Yes, it is indeed torture.

[peeb]

You keep parroting the idea that we can take as an article of faith that anyone held by the US or their client states is, by definition, a 'bad guy'. I am not prepared to make that leap of faith. Nobody should be held without meaningful access to legal process. Without that we have no way to know who they are - in fact, the evidence seems to be that the people being held at Gtmo are not, for the most part, guilty of anything more than being in the wrong place at the wrong time, victims of mistaken identity, or people on the wrong end of a grudge by someone who turned them in spuriously.
The major reason for not allowing them access to legal process seems to be to avoid embarrassment.

[ghporter]

Why would someone who's getting shot at go out of his way to "capture" anyone who is not an active threat to him and his fellows? Why would someone who is in combat bother with anyone other than a valid threat-or someone who can be easily thought to be a valid threat? It's not like the rank and file Soldier gives a rat's skinny tail about Iraqi politics, or even our own foreign policy decisions. They want to get home alive and in one piece.

To put this in context, about 8-9 months ago, the brother of one of my classmates, a Marine then stationed in Iraq, was wounded while just walking from one building to another. Someone actually did a drive-by on him. WTF? Because he was in uniform, he was a target for these individuals-who were not wearing any sort of uniform themselves, of course. They were speeding away in a car. They were lousy shots, too-just got him once in the calf despite firing most of a magazine through their AK. How motivated to "round up political targets" is someone who has to put up with that sort of crap going to be?

[peeb]

You don't seem to understand that most of the gtmo detainees were not captured 'on the battlefield' - many were turned in in return for a reward, with bogus stories, some are mistaken identities. When you look at the behavior of US troops and contractors in Iraq it is especially important to have independent legal oversight of these detentions.
As we've seen - someone who is being shot at on a daily basis can tend to loose perspective, and there have been many examples of US soldiers killing or arresting people who are not guilty of anything.

[ghporter]

How is it that you know these folks were turned in with "bogus stories," "mistaken identities" and so on? Why is it that you assume that such happens and is either negligently or maliciously "missed" by the military? Why do you assume that our military is at fault and always wrong? There are no doubt people turned in for reasons other than their being terrorists or insurgents, but from what I understand this sort of thing is cleared up at a very low level. The GTMO detainees were either captured in actual combat or immediately afterward, and have pretty well been shown to have some substantive link to terror, insurgents, or (don't forget this part) the Taliban. They've been there a while you know; it's not like there are fresh batches showing up weekly or something.

[peeb]

Do you ever read the newspapers? I mean, apart from 'Stars and Stripes'? The cases of people turned in with bogus stories and mistaken identities are well documented.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by peeb 

Do you ever read the newspapers? I mean, apart from 'Stars and Stripes'? The cases of people turned in with bogus stories and mistaken identities are well documented.

And what about the results of this evidence being provided to both the Iraqi and American authorities? (Hint: if this proof is provided, the person gets let go...)

I DO read the papers, and not just Stars and Stripes (which was never available anywhere they sent me, by the way). I read a variety of papers, along with news sources online. I see reports that are well balanced and actually have some basis in reality now and again, but mostly it's reporters that don't have a clue about what they're talking about. Remember that picture of the Iraqi lady with the "two bullets that hit her house"? And she's holding two intact, unfired rounds? Yeah, I read the news plenty. It is only occasionally that I see a report that actually takes into account the fact that the situation in Iraq is complex, made worse by thousands of outsiders, made worse by both Suni-Sheia tribalism (which is made even worse by those outsiders stirring up animosity that wasn't there already), clanism, old grudges, and countless other internal problems. I don't see many reports that even try to present the point of view of the American forces that are actually there to try to enforce order and a sense of community. I don't see any reports about Gary Sinise's project to give Iraqi school kids the pencils and paper they need to go to school.

What I DO see is stories that aim to sensationalize random situations, scuffles that are playground-level problems, outright lies (the guy that got blown up-who was also the same person showing the reporter where the "American shot him from" and one of the bystanders as well, all photographed by the same team and reported by the same reporter), and countless other stupid things to sell papers instead of actually inform the reader. So I probably have a slightly different take on those reports you're depending on.

What I know as a fact is that the overwhelming majority of U.S. forces in Iraq are there because they have to be, are trying to do a difficult job made more difficult by people at home believing them to be evil incarnate, and who have no time to play into these stupid rivalries and such that are the basis of these "erroneously turned in" individuals.

[peeb]

We're not talking about your experiences of US soldiers, we're talking about detainees at gtmo. This is well documented. Now, I can't help it if you've decided that the global media is in conspiracy against the US military, but even the US admits most of the mistaken identity / false charges cases.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by peeb 

We're not talking about your experiences of US soldiers, we're talking about detainees at gtmo. This is well documented. Now, I can't help it if you've decided that the global media is in conspiracy against the US military, but even the US admits most of the mistaken identity / false charges cases.

I'm talking about the experience of an educated, broadly experienced American citizen reading the current press. Any time a news story pushes sensational over factual, you aren't getting the real story.

Now step back and find out what actual, factual evidence you have that ANY GTMO detainees are still being held on false charges or mistaken identity. I would really like to see that information. I cannot trust the media, because they are in the business of selling advertising, NOT informing their readers. If you have something conclusive, I'd love to see it.

[Chuckit]

If we're not going to trust anybody to any degree, it's going to be somewhat difficult to get any facts at all. Everybody has something they want. If that disqualifies people, then what sort of evidence do you imagine could possibly exist? Video footage of military leaders twirling their mustaches and laughing about all the innocent people they've got locked up?

[art_director]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

I'm talking about the experience of an educated, broadly experienced American citizen reading the current press. Any time a news story pushes sensational over factual, you aren't getting the real story.

Now step back and find out what actual, factual evidence you have that ANY GTMO detainees are still being held on false charges or mistaken identity. I would really like to see that information. I cannot trust the media, because they are in the business of selling advertising, NOT informing their readers. If you have something conclusive, I'd love to see it.

While I see your point I must question the rationale. Are you suggesting that we assume the Bush administration is telling the truth simply because we cannot trust the media and do not have evidence in hand?

Just trying to get my head around your position.

[peeb]

So you want me to provide evidence, which the US government will not release, and not reference the press, because they cannot be trusted? Do you cover your windows with tinfoil? Honestly, on the occasions where the media gets it wrong, there is an outcry, and it is corrected pretty quickly. I'm going to assume for the moment that anything widely reported in the media, with no rebuttal or controversy, is true until I hear otherwise.

[art_director]

Originally Posted by peeb 

So you want me to provide evidence, which the US government will not release, and not reference the press, because they cannot be trusted? Do you cover your windows with tinfoil? Honestly, on the occasions where the media gets it wrong, there is an outcry, and it is corrected pretty quickly. I'm going to assume for the moment that anything widely reported in the media, with no rebuttal or controversy, is true until I hear otherwise.

On the one hand the media is our best news source. On the other hand one must be conscious of who the media actually is and what they say / report. It's not perfect but it's what we have.

[ghporter]

I am not saying that one cannot trust the media. I'm saying that blindly trusting any and all news stories is a good way to go wrong with lots of support. Neither am I saying that we should trust the Bush administration-either for Art's reason or any other. I'm saying point out stories that are substantially similar from widely different newspapers (Christian Science Monitor and New York Times, for example) with substantially the same facts. I do not believe that there is enough of this "mistaken identity" going on to have any such stories. I do not believe that the military (the GIs, NOT the Administration or the brass) would bother with grudge reports-now or earlier-because they're not there to play anyone's games. (Don't start about "playing Bush's games"-you know what I'm talking about.) I AM saying that actively mistrusting the Soldiers and Marines that are actually there, putting up with the crap from ALL sides every day is a great disservice to them.

Now if you have evidence that some agency OTHER THAN THE UNIFORMED SERVICES is conducting activities that result in mistaken identity, false reporting, etc., I would not be too surprised and would be interested in seeing evidence because I do not put too much past our "intelligence" services. It's a different kind of person that goes in that direction, not the kind that volunteers to wear a uniform and get shot at in the open for YOU.

As art_director says, "one must be conscious of who the media actually is and what they say / report." We must also be conscious of WHO is doing the reporting, their biases and prejudices, and of course their editors' and their publishers' biases and prejudices. Some newspapers are not suitable for wrapping fish guts-even if they report what someone wants to hear. Others are better, but we don't have the Washington Post of 1973, nor Woodward and Bernstein (they are not the same journalists they were then). News writers and journalists have diverged-papers are as much full of "infotainment" as TV. You have to look at a lot of sources, evaluate them on the basis of how much they say has been proven true, and then use that as a guide to how much of their reporting you believe. I do not even suggest that we "trust the administration," because as a group they've shown their untrustworthy spots. I AM suggesting that we be careful in libeling the troops in the field. If you haven't been in uniform, you have no standing to judge. If you have, you won't blindly suggest that GIs are intentionally doing bad things on a routine basis. There have been bad people in uniform there-and they were able to do their badness because the leadership failed to lead them-but these people have been reported and for the most part been either quickly cleared or prosecuted. Go ahead and ream the top levels of DoD, starting with Rumsfeld. But don't paint the Soldier in the dirt with that same brush.

[peeb]

Well, good luck with that alternative reality of yours. The video and photographic evidence of what the 'soldier in the dirt' in prisons overseas is up to is pretty damning. I don't think there is much point continuing this conversation - you have a right to your opinion, but I am taking the broad and consistent media reports pretty seriously.

[ghporter]

I did not at all say that some Soldiers didn't do bad things. In fact I said they did. A FEW OF THEM. And note the Abu Ghraib issue-it came down to putting inexperienced people in a job they had no training in and then NOT SUPERVISING THEM. The low-ranking enlisted people who thought up those "interesting activities" should have had someone watching them because they were such new troops. Would you leave a fresh-off-the-street prison guard in charge of dangerous people without close supervision? I don't think I would even dream of that.

"Broad and consistent media reports" have been focusing on the stuff that sells papers. And unless you read the whole story every time, you miss that "Mr. J was later released when it was shown that his neighbor had a long-standing grudge against him and that there were no weapons in Mr, J's home." THAT does happen and I see it in print.

You conveniently avoid noting that the enormous majority of the hundreds of thousands of Soldiers and Marines that have been stationed in Iraq and Afghanistan have served honorably and with distinction-in spite of the kind of "support" you appear to have for their efforts. I'm not talking about the political side of the war at all. I served under three presidents that I would not offer the time of day to and I still did my duty. I'm talking about the fact that, whether they agree with the politics of the war or not, they are there, upholding their oaths to support and defend the Constitution. You get to enjoy the fruits of their labor, including reading any and all "news" that gets printed, whether or not it is complimentary to the government. Please remember that people have DIED to allow you to continue doing that, from the 1770s through today. The soundbite "freedom isn't free" is true. Maligning the people who protect you (and will probably come haul your butt out of the flood zone, secure what's left of your house after the tornado destroys it, protect you against rioters, etc.) is just rude as far as I'm concerned.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

I did not at all say that some Soldiers didn't do bad things. In fact I said they did. A FEW OF THEM.

I think it's rather more than a few.

Originally Posted by ghporter 

And note the Abu Ghraib issue-it came down to putting inexperienced people in a job they had no training in and then NOT SUPERVISING THEM. The low-ranking enlisted people who thought up those "interesting activities" should have had someone watching them because they were such new troops. Would you leave a fresh-off-the-street prison guard in charge of dangerous people without close supervision? I don't think I would even dream of that.

Frankly, I would not dream of most of the things the US military gets up to.

Originally Posted by ghporter 

"Broad and consistent media reports" have been focusing on the stuff that sells papers.

OK, I get that you don't trust the press.

Originally Posted by ghporter 

You conveniently avoid noting that the enormous majority of the hundreds of thousands of Soldiers and Marines that have been stationed in Iraq and Afghanistan have served honorably and with distinction-in spite of the kind of "support" you appear to have for their efforts.

I have no support for their efforts. I think what they are doing in Afghanistan is ill-conceived, and in Iraq largely illegal and reprehensible.

Originally Posted by ghporter 

I'm not talking about the political side of the war at all. I served under three presidents that I would not offer the time of day to and I still did my duty. I'm talking about the fact that, whether they agree with the politics of the war or not, they are there, upholding their oaths to support and defend the Constitution.

I'm not sure I approve of your attitude that no matter how bad a commander in chief is, they should be obeyed. A loyal military that was upholding the constitution would have refused to obey Bush by this point.

Originally Posted by ghporter 

You get to enjoy the fruits of their labor, including reading any and all "news" that gets printed, whether or not it is complimentary to the government. Please remember that people have DIED to allow you to continue doing that, from the 1770s through today.

Rest assured that that is not the reason US soldiers are dying in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Originally Posted by ghporter 

The soundbite "freedom isn't free" is true.

How true, but it's cost is eternal vigilence against our government and the iron triangle of corporations, military and government.

Originally Posted by ghporter 

Maligning the people who protect you (and will probably come haul your butt out of the flood zone, secure what's left of your house after the tornado destroys it, protect you against rioters, etc.) is just rude as far as I'm concerned.

I have been threatened far more by the US military than by rioters or tornados. Both personally, and on a global geopolitical level, I would be a lot safer were they confined to barracks on US soil.

[art_director]

How is the action in Afghanistan ill-conceived? We have every justification for being there and the action being taken. IMHO the action we're not taking in Afghanistan is the problem. By that I mean allowing the poppy crop to set new records year after year since our invasion. I also mean that our troop levels are insultingly low for the tasks at hand. The country is falling into complete chaos as a result.

Iraq is another story. We should never have gone it alone and a few generations of Americans will pay the price for the arrogance of the Bush Administration and the lack of intelligence by the Congress for approving our invasion.

Then there's Pakistan. We've given them over $200 million to help the 'War on Terror' and thus far we've gotten diddly for the money. The Pakistani government is laughing at the ignorance of the American people and the village idiot leading us. As well they should, we deserve it.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by art_director 

How is the action in Afghanistan ill-conceived? We have every justification for being there and the action being taken. IMHO the action we're not taking in Afghanistan is the problem. By that I mean allowing the poppy crop to set new records year after year since our invasion. I also mean that our troop levels are insultingly low for the tasks at hand. The country is falling into complete chaos as a result.

That's what I mean by ill-conceived.

[art_director]

Originally Posted by peeb 

That's what I mean by ill-conceived.

Gottcha.

The troop levels should have Americans breaking down the doors of the White House and Congress. Our troops have been getting neglected. Our leadership -- Rep and Dem alike, has been negligent.

When I mention this to "patriotic" Americans I get verbally accosted. I don't hold anything against the people doing it, rather, I pity them for their ignorance.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by peeb 

So you want me to provide evidence, which the US government will not release, and not reference the press, because they cannot be trusted? Do you cover your windows with tinfoil? Honestly, on the occasions where the media gets it wrong, there is an outcry, and it is corrected pretty quickly. I'm going to assume for the moment that anything widely reported in the media, with no rebuttal or controversy, is true until I hear otherwise.

Its quite simple really. A basic lesson in capitalism. I'll even drop in a hint for you.

What is the main purpose of a media corporation? (answer below)







TO MAKE MONEY!

How do they make the most money? BY SELLING THE MOST OF THEIR PRODUCT (hint: news stories, papers, TV ratings, etc etc)

Who checks up on their stories to make sure their accurate? THE BOSSES WHO ARE ACCOUNTABLE FOR HOW MUCH MONEY THEY MAKE! (hint: if the story don't sell then the boss and reporter gets fired).


See how easy this is?



There is no outcry from the public when the media gets it wrong. Why? A) people want to believe sensational stories. B) How the hell are the people supposed to know? C) Any significant outcry is (wait for this one, its big) revoiced through the NEWS MEDIA!!!!!!!!!!! Cuz people like that sort of ****.


You are a fool to blindly trust the US government....You're a damned fool to trust any corporation who's sole objective is to MAKE MONEY (last hint: this includes the news media)!

[peeb]

Well, I don't disagree, except for the fact that there are non-profit media sources, and there is an outcry when the media gets it wrong.

[Snow-i]

care to name a few that are even remotely widely publicized? That even reach a remotely significant number of people to classify the response as public outcry?