Iraqi prisoner-abuse scandal widens; Pentagon investigating

[Stefan Heinzmann]

Jim Thompson wrote:

On Thu, 06 May 2004 22:57:03 +0200, Stefan Heinzmann
stefan_heinzmann@yahoo.com> wrote:

[snip]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1210574,00.html


[snip]

My attitude is simply this... if you have to do battle with
terrorists, then do battle as they do.

Ok, but you ought to make sure the others can distinguish between you
and the terrorists.

--
Cheers
Stefan

 

[Frank Bemelman]

"Jim Thompson" <thegreatone@example.com> schreef in bericht
news:54al90l62atg02fhmkjb4re3oinlvono4j@4ax.com...

On Thu, 06 May 2004 22:57:03 +0200, Stefan Heinzmann
stefan_heinzmann@yahoo.com> wrote:

[snip]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1210574,00.html

[snip]

My attitude is simply this... if you have to do battle with
terrorists, then do battle as they do.

Yes, you are a simple man. Did you find your
Bin Laden in Iraq?

--
Thanks, Frank.
(remove 'x' and 'invalid' when replying by email)

 

[Ken Smith]

In article <54al90l62atg02fhmkjb4re3oinlvono4j@4ax.com>,
Jim Thompson <thegreatone@example.com> wrote:
[...]

My attitude is simply this... if you have to do battle with
terrorists, then do battle as they do.

You are drafted. Your first task is to battle with a little known group
that has sex with lemmings.

Are you sure you want to battle as they do?

More seriously, do the ends justify the means?

--
--
kensmith@rahul.net forging knowledge

 

[Jim Thompson]

On Thu, 06 May 2004 23:28:56 +0200, Stefan Heinzmann
<stefan_heinzmann@yahoo.com> wrote:

Jim Thompson wrote:

On Thu, 06 May 2004 22:57:03 +0200, Stefan Heinzmann
stefan_heinzmann@yahoo.com> wrote:

[snip]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1210574,00.html


[snip]

My attitude is simply this... if you have to do battle with
terrorists, then do battle as they do.

Ok, but you ought to make sure the others can distinguish between you
and the terrorists.

If we're the only ones adhering to the Geneva Convention what's the
point?

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona Voice480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax480)460-2142 | Brass Rat |
| http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.

 

[Jim Thompson]

On Thu, 6 May 2004 21:34:18 +0000 (UTC), kensmith@violet.rahul.net
(Ken Smith) wrote:

In article <54al90l62atg02fhmkjb4re3oinlvono4j@4ax.com>,
Jim Thompson <thegreatone@example.com> wrote:
[...]
My attitude is simply this... if you have to do battle with
terrorists, then do battle as they do.

You are drafted. Your first task is to battle with a little known group
that has sex with lemmings.

Are you sure you want to battle as they do?

More seriously, do the ends justify the means?

Wait awhile until it's not just the Israeli's being attacked with body
bombs.

What are you going to do when the odds of you being hurt or killed,
when you go to the mall, approach even a few percent?

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona Voice480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax480)460-2142 | Brass Rat |
| http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.

 

[Jim Thompson]

On 6 May 2004 14:15:59 -0700, Winfield Hill
<Winfield_member@newsguy.com> wrote:

Jim Thompson wrote...

However, we should make NO apologies.

We should make it clear that, given a choice between being
liked and being feared, we will always choose FEARED.

The problem is, with these rape photos, which are widely
distributed, we won't be so much feared, as loathed and
despised. Somehow we need to put this right, find all the
men who did it and fully and publically prosecute. And
apologize, of course, what's the matter with you Thompson?

Thanks,
- Win

(email: use hill_at_rowland-dot-org for now)

I have an uneasy feeling that quite of few of these photos are fake.
Amazing that they're showing up on porn sites.

Does the state apologize to crime victims?

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona Voice480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax480)460-2142 | Brass Rat |
| http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.

 

[John S. Dyson]

In article <c7e8tj02pl4@drn.newsguy.com>,
Winfield Hill <Winfield_member@newsguy.com> writes:

John S. Dyson wrote...

Winfield Hill writes:
John S. Dyson wrote...

Note that there is little evidence of 'torture' per se in
the pictures. (It could be described as 'wrong', but not
'torture.') I have seen no pictures of electrocutions
(Saddmist) or disemboweling (more of a European thing.)

What about the rape pictures?

If there were actual rapes and/or pictures of actual rapes, then
there is no excuse (and appropriate punishment is in order.)
However, frankly, I didn't look closely at the pictures...

http://www.aztlan.net/iraqi_women_raped.htm

I didn't more than glance either, it was extremely disturbing.

If she was raped (not looking at the picture), then the perps

and those who directly covered it up should get the same treatment
as anyone in civil society. Doing 'good deeds' (even where a person
might even be decorated) cannot compensate for horrible, dastardly
deeds (treason and other traitorous acts, inappropriate treatment
of the population, etc.)

Even if one of the perps was a war hero or a 4 star general, a
thirty year (or whatever) like sentence would be
appropriate for an actual rape.

As I have suggested before: whoever is guilty should get an
appropriate sentence, plus 10yrs for being stupid . (I know
a smiley isn't really appropriate, but you have to admit that
the behavior -- however heinous -- was STOOOPID!!!)

John

 

[John S. Dyson]

In article <5uok90do13vtd4b9d680m1k1e7p5dcc8at@4ax.com>,
Paul Burridge <pb@notthisbit.osiris1.co.uk> writes:

On 5 May 2004 17:32:15 -0700, bill.sloman@ieee.org (Bill Sloman)
wrote:

Paul Burridge <pb@notthisbit.osiris1.co.uk> wrote in message news:<n8gh90dnhv026aokr7qqvhdh4lsa7uub30@4ax.com>...
On Wed, 5 May 2004 04:53:29 +0000 (UTC), toor@iquest.net (John S.
Dyson) wrote:

A public execution resulting from EU corruption would be a good
and cathartic action to help to mitigate EU arrogance.

Only one?
How would you choose between Kohl, Chirac and Berlusconi to name just
three utterly corrupt leaders (or former leader in the case of Kohl)
who've been proven to be thoroughly dishonest on a truly awsome scale.

How could you forgot Blair and Thatcher? Major is is an excusable
omission - he seems to have restricted himself to adultery.

I was talking of *financial* corruption, Bill. If you have some dirt
on Bliar and the Iron Bitch then feel free to dish it!

It is definitely PARTIALLY the financial corruption, but the ongoing

support by the French, Germans and the Russians (who I still excuse
for their own troubles) for Saddam, while his country was supposedly
being sanctioned during the Oil for Food scam probably did more to
needlessly starve and disadvantage the Iraqi people than anything
that the Americans did against Iraqi suspects in prisons. (It wasn't
'Oil for Food' as much as 'Oil for old-Europe payoffs and skimming.')

It wouldnt' be surprising that some of the miscalculation of Saddams
capabilities wouldn't be related to the 'missing money' in the Oil
for Food skimming, and the CIA/MI6/etc might have believed that some
of the money MUST have been going to weapons.

John

 

[John Fields]

On Thu, 6 May 2004 20:20:35 +0000 (UTC), toor@iquest.net (John S.
Dyson) wrote:

If there were actual rapes and/or pictures of actual rapes, then
there is no excuse (and appropriate punishment is in order.) However,
frankly, I didn't look closely at the pictures, or analyze them
carefully -- junk like that (and even fantasy junk from the
media) severely irritates and repulses me enough that I accept the
description from other, trustworthy people.

---
Unless you were there and actually witnessed the occurrences, whatever
you choose to believe will be merely hearsay, regardless of whom you
trust to deliver the dirty news. Which will, by the way, be colored
by their own biases.
---

In this case, I strongly want the direct chain of command to
be reviewed and appropriately ejudicated. My initial evaluation
is that we had probably overly downsized the military, and
left inadequate training and command/control capabilities
and competency.

---
Your "evaluation" presumes that you are a fit judge of what should and
should not have been done with the military and smacks severely of
Monday morning quarterbacking. What you are stating are opinions
based upon your own prejudices and seem to be, conveniently, late.
---

and the first year or two of the 1990s was probably a very good
thing, but irresponsibly playing
to special political interests (eviscerating the intelligence
community and overly downsizing the basic force of the military)
was quite bad.

---
So, it seems, you're an "after the fact" prophet. Too bad you
couldn't have actually _done_ something when it mattered instead of
merely yapping about it later, like all the rest of your impotent
crowd with their incessant "If you'd only listened to me"
proselytizing.
---

The overly downsized military
is culpable for its actions,

---
Nice try, but it won't work. _Any_ military, regardless of its size,
is culpable for its actions and your trying to tie the downsizing of
the military to the irresponsibility of the remainder is crap. The
Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm

clearly defines what is acceptable behavior and what is not in regard
to the treatment of captured combatants. Period.
---

but the intelligence community
(and the rent-a-spooks) are the root cause and encouragement
for the abuse.

---
More crap.

IMO, all it was was a bunch of pervert dogface bastards playing "We're
better than you are" and using what they had learned about the mores
of their prisoners in order to humiliate and belittle them.

Good move, huh? I'm sure they'll all be applying for American
citizenship real soon...
---

As such, there is an obvious loss of competency
and responsibility in the spook world that could partially be
traced back to aggressive downsizing (over-retiring the
grey-hairs) during the 1990s.

---
Well, now! It starts to get clearer...

You're a closet advocate of a martial society where the putting to
pasture of any of its warriors would be considered a bad thing.

Perhaps, if you were in charge, they would all have to die with their
boots on?
---

This doesn't excuse the abuses, but we need to understand where
the problems have manifest in the military and intelligence
communities. It is also clear that we need to carefully evaluate
the legal status of the 'rent-a-spooks'... In war zones and
areas where the military is involved, there might need to be
some formal training (and even creation of standards) that
are more closely associated with the military UCMJ.

---
You are, truly, an idiot in that you advocate that

"we need to carefully evaluate the legal status of the
'rent-a-spooks'"

as if _we_ could shut them down based on your vagaries. And who would
want to?

I'd choose not to, unless you can somehow prove to me that your
"solution" is more efficaceous.
---

Perhaps we forget that our high-tech and contractor stuff is more
a FORCE MULTIPLIER and not a replacement for the real military.
If our real military people are ineffective (or inadequate), then
a mulitplier will either be less effective or do more of the wrong
thing.

---
You obviously haven't a clue about what military operations are about
and yet you feel that, somehow, you need to be included in the loop
and that your judgements about what should and what should not be done
should be rigidly adhered to.

You're wrong, and you're not nearly as important as you'd like to
think you are, and just to prove it to you, let me give you a small
example of how fucked up you are, OK?

This is sci.electronics.design., and out of your last 212 posts only
one could remotely have been considered to be on topic, so you are
clearly out of your element here.

alt.flame would seem to a much more appropriate genre to which you
could post your trash, so why not settle there and see how you fare?

--
John Fields

 

[John Fields]

On Thu, 06 May 2004 13:59:11 -0700, Jim Thompson
<thegreatone@example.com> wrote:

On 6 May 2004 12:02:23 -0700, Winfield Hill
Winfield_member@newsguy.com> wrote:

John S. Dyson wrote...

Note that there is little evidence of 'torture' per se in
the pictures. (It could be described as 'wrong', but not
'torture.') I have seen no pictures of electrocutions
(Saddmist) or disemboweling (more of a European thing.)

What about the rape pictures?

Thanks,
- Win

(email: use hill_at_rowland-dot-org for now)

These acts were certainly ugly events and should be punished fully.

At the same time I certainly feel no need for Bush to say anything
other than that these acts are not condoned by the citizens of the
United States and will be punished accordingly.

However, we should make NO apologies.

We should make it clear that, given a choice between being liked and
being feared, we will always choose FEARED.

---
I "kind of" disagree.

We _should_ apologize because the situation came about because the
less than gentlemanly conduct of those of our troops who were involved
in the affair behaved in a way that indicated that they considered
that their prisoners had no choice _but_ to comply with their demands,
or forfeit their lives, and yet they persisted with the subjugation.

In my book, that's tantamount to rape and is inexcusable.

As far as being feared goes, I think that really has a limited scope
in that if you're feared (and hated) everybody will be out to blow you
away, but if you're liked the ones who _don't_ like you will have to
answer to the ones that do when they try to do you in.

In any case, anyone who threatens my survival and that of my line is
my enemy and I certainly won't apologize when they cease to be a
threat.

--
John Fields

 

[John S. Dyson]

In article <bqal90d3nd46qk4c451n17g4lsitpmpuem@4ax.com>,
John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> writes:

If there were actual rapes and/or pictures of actual rapes, then
there is no excuse (and appropriate punishment is in order.) However,
frankly, I didn't look closely at the pictures, or analyze them
carefully -- junk like that (and even fantasy junk from the
media) severely irritates and repulses me enough that I accept the
description from other, trustworthy people.

---
Unless you were there and actually witnessed the occurrences, whatever
you choose to believe will be merely hearsay, regardless of whom you
trust to deliver the dirty news.

That is almost always true WRT the news, unless you have other info

channels than the retail news. In the past, I have had some other
channels of info. Not today, however.

In this case, I strongly want the direct chain of command to
be reviewed and appropriately ejudicated. My initial evaluation
is that we had probably overly downsized the military, and
left inadequate training and command/control capabilities
and competency.

---
Your "evaluation" presumes that you are a fit judge of what should and
should not have been done with the military and smacks severely of
Monday morning quarterbacking.

Do you wish to cease all Monday morning quarterbacking and cease all

judgement of misconduct, and just let the system work as it was planned?

Here is my answer: The system hasn't been planned to deal with all
of the various issues encountered. Obviously, part of the system had
let-down the president and other people (including that portion of the American
public who wish to see success in the liberation of Iraq.)

What you are stating are opinions
based upon your own prejudices and seem to be, conveniently, late.

Actually, I was worried (contemporaneously) about the excess downsizing

during the 1990s. In some cases, I had only recently found out about
some of the issues (e.g. the reorg that effected a downsizing of the
intelligence community in the 1995-1996 timeframe.)

Off topic: looking at this politically instead of being
interested in American defense, it appears that BJ Clinton
had been trying to score some points in the 'military cost
savings arena' when Bush and very early Clinton had already
done most of the SAVINGS that should have been done.

So, it seems, you're an "after the fact" prophet.

Okay, now you are getting personal (with an ad-hominem tendancy during

almost all of your reply.) You do NOT know my contemporaneous interest
in policy. As such, perhaps you are prejudging my own interest in the
facts, while much of the info about the 1990s errors has been available
to alot of people.

Too bad you
couldn't have actually _done_ something when it mattered instead of
merely yapping about it later

Okay -- so, you don't like discussion about these military/intelligence

and political matters -- don't read them.

I am NOT the kind of person who hides their head in the sand when they
cannot do anything about the government. A portion of the power of
the electorate is supported by communication and discussion about the
issues.

There are nations in this world (even western ones) where the people
aren't even sovereign!!! It is a responsibility of the people in the
US to be informed and to try to understand the problems so as to help
solve the problems in the future. History of all kinds (recent and
not-so-recent) is helpful to help to avoid repeating mistakes.

For example, when noting the problems over the overly vehement downsizing,
we need to keep on remembering that giving in to special interests and
their funding
(e.g. the Chinese Red Army funding US political parties) or those with
a biased/overly narrow view against
the military (the old-fart anti-Vietnam people, orgs sometimes secretly
funded by non-American foreign entities) or those who have current
business interests -- or paranoid about them (e.g. Halliburton issues
on both sides), or those who are susceptable to psuedo-science that is
sometimes true often enough to gain undue credibility (e.g. Global
warming due to American fossil fuel usage only, even when the CO2
output per capita is higher for some other 1st world nations, and China
is likely going to be a worse problem, but effectively ignored during
treaties), and WE MUST KEEP OUR EYES OPEN, but also keep our minds open
without letting our brains fall out.

We MUST learn from history, and try to apply our knowledge of the past,
merge in the current reality, and hope to advocate the government
(industry and people) to do the right thing. The most difficult recent
problem seems to be the paranoia that is stirred up by the specific
evangelist preachers usually associated with the left, creating
a doctorine based upon pseudo science, paranoid black copter testimony,
and have saints like saint-Al and saint-Ralf. The big problem with
this generally far-left religion is that some of the facts that they
claim are indeed true, but their doctorine is assembled into a
set of beliefs that isn't really scientific, and will be true as long
as it is maintained and modified as real-world facts are encountered.
Like other religions, it isn't able to adequately predict much based
upon the system that it describes. Also, most of the advocates of that
leftist religion are alot like the televangelists in their heyday --
they profess a religion without really practicing (e.g. how many
SUVs do you have? Do you use high-fuel-usage private planes instead
of more environmentally friendly public/mass transport?)

On the other hand, the opposite of that errsatz religion seems
to espouse the opposite positions on much of the leftist dogma, where
the 'opposite' can be just as untrue or unwise as the religion.
Advocating something like 'just buy SUVs and dont think about the
fuel if you can afford it' is wrongheaded also, even though it
might be closer to correct. In fact, knowing that JF Kerry has
multiple SUVs means that he seems to practice the opposite religion
to his advocacy position. This makes him like a Swaggart who might
(for example) screw around while preaching faithfulness...

The bottom line (even though this has drifted a little) is to
be aware of history, try to remember your contemporaneous positions,
try to evaluate the behavior of those who you might vote for,
and discuss/learn/research other opinions...

One important reason for eliciting political discussion is to help
understand why people might vote the way that they do. Up until perhaps
a decade ago, I didn't really understand the left (or the right), and
havent been able to fathom the reason why people adopt the positions
that they do.

In most cases, it seems like people are knee jerk, and accept their
political choice (not necessarily idealogical, but personality) on
face value, while the opposition of their choice with skeptcism and
seeing only the worst. This falls prey to the extremists (moreso on
the left, but existant on the right) where total and absolute lies
are perpetrated. It seems like the right is more timid about
prevarication than the left, where the right is better about
cultivating and harvesting real actions by the left for exploitation.
More often than not, the left tends to prevaricate or misconstrue
behaviors/statements on the right, and use the product of that
harvesting operation for exploitation. Either the prevarication
on the left or the brutally cruel exploitation of leftist behavior
by the right do contribute to revisionism that distorts the data
that might have otherwise been useful in the future for learning.

Luckily, I have been politically interested since the early 1980s,
and also sources like the internet can help a little with research.
(There is no quality control on the internet in general (of course),
but there are alot of good research sites, but also alot of biased
nonsense (for reality) sites.) I used to subscribe to some
real research sites, often with leadtimes of months or even years
before the retail media. Also, there are some nonsense, political
activist sites, which are poor sources of information (but can
give pointers.)

John

 

[Winfield Hill]

John S. Dyson wrote...

Why didn't the French media pick up on it, considering their
extremist anti-US bias? Answer: the pictures were the trigger.

It was the pictures CBS was asked not to release.

Thanks,
- Win

(email: use hill_at_rowland-dot-org for now)

 

[Rich Grise]

"Jim Thompson" <thegreatone@example.com> wrote in message
news:sfdl90lfvqc0kuher6f61d6uo07f7u2ov1@4ax.com...

On 6 May 2004 14:15:59 -0700, Winfield Hill
Winfield_member@newsguy.com> wrote:

Jim Thompson wrote...

However, we should make NO apologies.

We should make it clear that, given a choice between being
liked and being feared, we will always choose FEARED.

The problem is, with these rape photos, which are widely
distributed, we won't be so much feared, as loathed and
despised. Somehow we need to put this right, find all the
men who did it and fully and publically prosecute. And
apologize, of course, what's the matter with you Thompson?

Thanks,
- Win

(email: use hill_at_rowland-dot-org for now)

I have an uneasy feeling that quite of few of these photos are fake.
Amazing that they're showing up on porn sites.

Does the state apologize to crime victims?

...Jim Thompson

No, the perpetrator does, if he's got any humanity left in him.
In this case, the perpretrator is the state, so it should, in
fact, apologize.

But I saw King George mushmouth all around it just this morning.

"I told him we're sorry that they got humiliated"

Third person, i.e. hearsay, and not "Sorry I abused you," but "Sorry
you were humiliated." Those who can't tell the differencs should not
be entrusted with any power.

Shudder!
Rich

 

[Terry Pinnell]

Jim Thompson <thegreatone@example.com> wrote:

On 6 May 2004 12:02:23 -0700, Winfield Hill
Winfield_member@newsguy.com> wrote:

What about the rape pictures?

These acts were certainly ugly events

Not mere 'shenanigans'?

and should be punished fully.

Not just 'frown' on them?

(Message-ID: <b3gg90hrl69lf9s1pm99obd0plpblk6jmd@4ax.com>
"We frown on such shenanigans by our soldiers.")

At the same time I certainly feel no need for Bush to say anything
other than that these acts are not condoned by the citizens of the
United States and will be punished accordingly.

However, we should make NO apologies.

Why am I not surprised to see you making such a contemptible statement
in public?!

We should make it clear that, given a choice between being liked and
being feared, we will always choose FEARED.

...Jim Thompson

The main fear you should focus on is the growing risk that decent
people everywhere will begin to characterize that sort of mindless,
jingoistic bigotry as The American Way.

--
Terry Pinnell
Hobbyist, West Sussex, UK

 

[John S. Dyson]

In article <9HCmc.172126$L31.139870@nwrddc01.gnilink.net>,
"Rich Grise" <null@example.net> writes:

"Jim Thompson" <thegreatone@example.com> wrote in message
news:sfdl90lfvqc0kuher6f61d6uo07f7u2ov1@4ax.com...
On 6 May 2004 14:15:59 -0700, Winfield Hill
Winfield_member@newsguy.com> wrote:

Jim Thompson wrote...

However, we should make NO apologies.

We should make it clear that, given a choice between being
liked and being feared, we will always choose FEARED.

The problem is, with these rape photos, which are widely
distributed, we won't be so much feared, as loathed and
despised. Somehow we need to put this right, find all the
men who did it and fully and publically prosecute. And
apologize, of course, what's the matter with you Thompson?

Thanks,
- Win

(email: use hill_at_rowland-dot-org for now)

I have an uneasy feeling that quite of few of these photos are fake.
Amazing that they're showing up on porn sites.

Does the state apologize to crime victims?

...Jim Thompson

No, the perpetrator does, if he's got any humanity left in him.
In this case, the perpretrator is the state, so it should, in
fact, apologize.

Actually, since the military personnel weren't following the

rules and/or their lawful orders, then the perpetrator was
well below the level of the 'state.' Instead, the perpetrators
were those who violated legitimate government policy. While
some of the Iraqi/non-Iraqi prisoners were abused (perhaps some
killed), it is true that the prisoners were 'violated' in
some cases. However, the American government was also
'violated' in both a breach of trust and also damage to foreign
policy.

If you don't read the rest of this posting, the bottom line:

In the case of the Iraqi prisoners who were truly
excessively abused, the victims include the Iraqi
prisoners AND THE US GOVERNMENT. The perpetrators
(in certain cases) were likely doing illegal and
unapproved activities. It makes no sense for the
victim to apologize to another victim in this case.

For example, if a police officer 'tunes up' a suspect, the
state didn't do the 'tuning', unless the 'tuning' operation
was approved by the state AND its lawful representatives.
When Andy Sipowitz used to 'tune up' suspects, he was doing
so illegally, and should be charged with a crime. Just because
such errant behavior happens from time to time, it doesn't make
it 'legal', 'morally/ethically correct' or even 'the best thing
to do for now.' If Andy is found out to be doing excessive
'tuning', and the state knowingly lets Andy keep on doing the
'tuning', then they become responsible.

As soon as the allegations became credible, the suspects appear
to have been reassigned or taken in custody or equivalent. The
young girl 'Lyndie' has apparently been restricted for quite some time.

When 'tuning' and other kinds of abuses encroach into a system,
more likely than not, that is due to a system that is overwhelmed,
and people are feelling pressure to speed up the process. Since
these activities are in the 'intelligence gathering' arena, it
appears that the pressure was strong from the intelligence
community.

Perhaps the damage done by the CIA (and other field intelligence
gathering divisions and agencies) in the 1995/1996 is more of the
problem than downsizing the military itself. It looks like
military people were put into a position that they werent'
prepared for, and that the overwhelmed intelligence people were
taking advantage of the young military people who probably
had relatively weak command structure (so, there was a military
downsizing component.)

So, if Bush should say things that sound like 'apologies', it
should be more of a promise to investigate, ejudicate and
punish guilty parties. On the other hand, those who were
innocent (Or relatively so), should be allowed to continue
their lives as they wish. Those who are guilty of the
most heinous acts (actual rape or murder), should be punished
as appropriate. Also, I hope that someone who is
coincedentally 'killed' while being coerced isn't mistaken
to be murder.

The sexual pressure (no contact), and embarassment must not
be deemed to be 'heinous' either. I mean, in my normal day-to-day
life, I prefer privacy in the bathroom, and it would be
very very uncomfortable to use the bathroom in public. However,
it certainly IS NOT torture for me to be forced to 'use the
bathroom' in front of my jailers and other prisoners... (This
isn't technically sexual pressure, but shows that uncomfortable
situations aren't necessarily torture.)

I am tired, and time for bed -- sometimes worry about making sense.

John

 

[John S. Dyson]

In article <c7equb01l1p@drn.newsguy.com>,
Winfield Hill <Winfield_member@newsguy.com> writes:

John S. Dyson wrote...

Why didn't the French media pick up on it, considering their
extremist anti-US bias? Answer: the pictures were the trigger.

It was the pictures CBS was asked not to release.

CBS was actually asked to hold the pictures for a while, because

of the sensitive situation in Falluja. You know (I mean, really)
that everyone knew that if CBS had such material that they were
definitely going to release it. Since Rumsfeld and crew have
the lives of American military as their responsibility, they have
an OBLIGATION to do things to avoid unnecessary killings of Americans
while still meeting the pacification and rebuilding goal. Using
censorship would have been counterproductive, even when a release
of information would cost lives, because it would have likely cause
the media to be more aggressive and more likely to be even more
inflammatory.

Can you possibly imagine that CBS would hold on to the pictures
indefinitely to protect American citizens or military? Don't
you think that Rumsfeld realizes that they were going to release
the pictures NO MATTER WHAT. CBS/CBC/ABC/NBC/CNN would all likely
release information that would risk the lives of Americans (and
not even give a second thought to American military, since
they are obviously expendable as indicated by the actions of
certain news organizations.)

The situation is obvious, where CBS news is interested in its
political position, economics and bragging rights relative to
other news organizations... Rumsfeld is interested in
prosecuting the war/liberation/pacification and most complete
political turnover of Iraq to the Iraqis with the least number
of American lives lost. It is NOT in the interest of the
American servicepeople to further aggravate the volatile
portions of the Iraqi constituency. This is PROBABLY one
reason why Rumsfeld (if he did so consciously) procrastinated
in the public release of information -- the risk was extremely
high, and lives are in Rumsfelds' hands.) If Rummy was totally
unfeeling about the servicepeople, I suspect that it would be
easy to release the entire information package as much as possible
and as much fanfare as possible like CBS seemed to do.

So, we have the political/bragging rights interests of CBS, vs
prosecution/military management of the Iraq situation. Everyone
knows that it would have almost been IMPOSSIBLE for CBS
to hold on to the pictures, and there were enough of the pictures
already that another news organization would have eventually
found and released them. Unfortunately, some corporations are
lesser citizens than they used to be, but in this case, the damage
wasn't as great as it might have been. The possibility of a news
organization like CNN or Fox scooping CBS on this matter would
be intolerable to the CBS mgmt, and the risking of Americans
(esp military) is a tolerable cost to CBS (but Rumsfeld didn't
want to see that risk.)

Nowadays, I'd fully expect organizations like CBS/CBC or CNN
to expose national secrets if at all possible, including
those which would condemn even large portions of the
American population to death. Even if the news organization wouldn't
release information that would kill large numbers of
American civilians, they would almost definitely do so
against American military. Note that the 'ugly pictures'
didn't need to be released in order for the intellectual
content to have been communicated to the populace.

If you consider the military of a leftist/socialist nation,
it would be fairly obvious that CNN/CBC or CBS would likely
extend a courtesy to that nation to protect their 'worthy'
people.

All in all, the information would have eventually been
released (some already was), the personnel were already
being processed, and if it would have been exposed in
5yrs, it would likely have been less painful and the
system would have been corrected anyway. Of the 'secrets'
that must be released, it is best that they be released in
a way to avoid negative impact on innocent and loyal servicepeople just
trying to do their jobs. This secret appears to have been
released earlier in the year (approx Jan), but then sensational
pictures made for good TV, thereby making difficult
situations worse.

John

 

[Paul Burke]

We should make it clear that, given a choice between being liked and
being feared, we will always choose FEARED.

"We don't want to go to war, but by Jingo, if we do,
We've got the ships, we've got the men, and we've got the money too!"

Popular British music hall song, just at the height of Britain's world
domination, and shortly before it crumbled. Hopefully forever.

Paul Burke

 

[Andre]

"John S. Dyson" <toor@iquest.net> wrote in message
news:c7f7ju$1sfj$1@news.iquest.net...

In article <c7equb01l1p@drn.newsguy.com>,
Winfield Hill <Winfield_member@newsguy.com> writes:
John S. Dyson wrote...

Why didn't the French media pick up on it, considering their
extremist anti-US bias? Answer: the pictures were the trigger.

It was the pictures CBS was asked not to release.

CBS was actually asked to hold the pictures for a while, because
of the sensitive situation in Falluja. You know (I mean, really)
that everyone knew that if CBS had such material that they were
definitely going to release it. Since Rumsfeld and crew have
the lives of American military as their responsibility, they have
an OBLIGATION to do things to avoid unnecessary killings of Americans
while still meeting the pacification and rebuilding goal. Using
censorship would have been counterproductive, even when a release
of information would cost lives, because it would have likely cause
the media to be more aggressive and more likely to be even more
inflammatory.

Can you possibly imagine that CBS would hold on to the pictures
indefinitely to protect American citizens or military? Don't
you think that Rumsfeld realizes that they were going to release
the pictures NO MATTER WHAT. CBS/CBC/ABC/NBC/CNN would all likely
release information that would risk the lives of Americans (and
not even give a second thought to American military, since
they are obviously expendable as indicated by the actions of
certain news organizations.)

The situation is obvious, where CBS news is interested in its
political position, economics and bragging rights relative to
other news organizations... Rumsfeld is interested in
prosecuting the war/liberation/pacification and most complete
political turnover of Iraq to the Iraqis with the least number
of American lives lost. It is NOT in the interest of the
American servicepeople to further aggravate the volatile
portions of the Iraqi constituency. This is PROBABLY one
reason why Rumsfeld (if he did so consciously) procrastinated
in the public release of information -- the risk was extremely
high, and lives are in Rumsfelds' hands.) If Rummy was totally
unfeeling about the servicepeople, I suspect that it would be
easy to release the entire information package as much as possible
and as much fanfare as possible like CBS seemed to do.

So, we have the political/bragging rights interests of CBS, vs
prosecution/military management of the Iraq situation. Everyone
knows that it would have almost been IMPOSSIBLE for CBS
to hold on to the pictures, and there were enough of the pictures
already that another news organization would have eventually
found and released them. Unfortunately, some corporations are
lesser citizens than they used to be, but in this case, the damage
wasn't as great as it might have been. The possibility of a news
organization like CNN or Fox scooping CBS on this matter would
be intolerable to the CBS mgmt, and the risking of Americans
(esp military) is a tolerable cost to CBS (but Rumsfeld didn't
want to see that risk.)

Nowadays, I'd fully expect organizations like CBS/CBC or CNN
to expose national secrets if at all possible, including
those which would condemn even large portions of the
American population to death. Even if the news organization wouldn't
release information that would kill large numbers of
American civilians, they would almost definitely do so
against American military. Note that the 'ugly pictures'
didn't need to be released in order for the intellectual
content to have been communicated to the populace.

If you consider the military of a leftist/socialist nation,
it would be fairly obvious that CNN/CBC or CBS would likely
extend a courtesy to that nation to protect their 'worthy'
people.

All in all, the information would have eventually been
released (some already was), the personnel were already
being processed, and if it would have been exposed in
5yrs, it would likely have been less painful and the
system would have been corrected anyway. Of the 'secrets'
that must be released, it is best that they be released in
a way to avoid negative impact on innocent and loyal servicepeople just
trying to do their jobs. This secret appears to have been
released earlier in the year (approx Jan), but then sensational
pictures made for good TV, thereby making difficult
situations worse.

John

BULLSHIT, don't you think election is the WORD to use !!

The US army is way supperior to these resistance and the publication
wouldn't have changed much, but for the coming election ...

 

[Ken Smith]

In article <i8dl90dni5lgq9tg3c1siv1f89cvulm851@4ax.com>,
Jim Thompson <thegreatone@example.com> wrote:

On Thu, 6 May 2004 21:34:18 +0000 (UTC), kensmith@violet.rahul.net
(Ken Smith) wrote:

In article <54al90l62atg02fhmkjb4re3oinlvono4j@4ax.com>,
Jim Thompson <thegreatone@example.com> wrote:
[...]
My attitude is simply this... if you have to do battle with
terrorists, then do battle as they do.

You are drafted. Your first task is to battle with a little known group
that has sex with lemmings.

Are you sure you want to battle as they do?

More seriously, do the ends justify the means?


Wait awhile until it's not just the Israeli's being attacked with body
bombs.

You are suggesting that it is an either-or case which I simply don't buy.
You don't have to take on the methods of the terrorists to defeat them.
Without money they are a lot more restricted in what they can do. Simply
enforcing rules against aiding them would go a long way towards stopping
them.

State sponsorship of terrorism against the US is a valid grounds for war.
The president can go to congress and get a declaration of war and send
troups against another country if they are a real threat. There is no
need for the US to go start killing the women and children in hopes of
effecting the men[*].

[*] I know that line sounds sexist but until the last couple of years the
bombers were all male.


--
--
kensmith@rahul.net forging knowledge

 

[Ken Smith]

In article <sfdl90lfvqc0kuher6f61d6uo07f7u2ov1@4ax.com>,
Jim Thompson <thegreatone@example.com> wrote:
[...]

I have an uneasy feeling that quite of few of these photos are fake.
So do I but I looked at the ones linked to and couldn't find any obvious

signs of it. I looked for things that shouldn't be there like a 7-11 out
the window or white under pants on the GIs.

Amazing that they're showing up on porn sites.

I wouldn't use the term amazing. Predictable maybe.

Does the state apologize to crime victims?

If there is guilt for not controlling the troups there is something to
apologize about. Bush could have said something like "I as commander and
cheif am ultimately responcible for the actions of our troops. It appears
that a small number of our armed forces have committed war crimes....".
If done right, it would play well in the US and in countries that are not
rabidly anti-US. In the extremist countries, it won't play at all.

--
--
kensmith@rahul.net forging knowledge