Politics As Usual

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
But just like bush lied, you have a motive problem. What possible reason would someone higher up the food chain encourage the photos?

They were taking photos as part of an effort to humiliate and break down prisoners.

And motive problem with "Bush lied"? Please. He thought going to war was the right thing to do. And he thinks the ends justify the means.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
They were taking photos as part of an effort to humiliate and break down prisoners.

can do that w/o film, less evidence. think - OJ wore gloves.

And motive problem with "Bush lied"? Please. He thought going to war was the right thing to do. And he thinks the ends justify the means.

he didn't ask "sheeesh when people find out there aren't weapons, they're going to say I lied, aren't they?"

you gotta pick Ty, is he an evangelical nut who just does what god tells him or a calculating politician who's every action is geared to re-election. Take a position, you can always crash the board again if you feel all boxed in next week.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
can do that w/o film, less evidence. think - OJ wore gloves.

Sure you can. Exactly. AG's point is that they were not trying to hide the evidence. Will you please explain this to Slave?

he didn't say "sheeesh when people find out there aren't weapons, they're going to say I lied."

you gotta pick Ty, is he an evangelical nut who just does what god tells him or a calculating politician who's every action is geared to re-election. Take a position, you can always crash the board again if you feel all boxed in next week.

He had some sort of faith, and must have believed the evidence would turn up. He seems to have had some sort of faith that he would be borne out, notwithstanding what Franks (e.g.) was telling him. But it's also clear that he thinks that if he provides strong leadership on an issue, the public will follow. He says this again and again in Woodward's book.

You tell me what was going on. One day, Franks tells him they've never found a single WMD in ten years of looking. Two days later, Bush is telling journalists that Hussein has WMD. What was he thinking?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
You tell me what was going on.

My mom says you do sophistry, and I shouldn't speak to you.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
But just like bush lied, you have a motive problem. What possible reason would someone higher up the food chain encourage the photos?

That's quite a switcheroo. I don't know whether they encouraged the photos. They probably didn't.* Certainly, they didn't encourage the circulation of the photos on the Internet to wind up on Reuters. However, I see circumstantial evidence that they encouraged the conduct depicted in the photos. The existence of the photos is evidence of the tacit approval of the conduct. Conversely, I would say non-existence of the photos would be an indication the Abu Ghraib guards knew they were violating military policy and international law.

*Then again, the things we're now hearing about sexual humiliation and extortion as an interrogation technique ("Talk, or I post this picture of you with a lightstick up your butt all over your neighborhood") tend to indicate the photos were a vital component of what was happening there, so who knows?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
Conversely, I would say non-existence of the photos would be an indication the Abu Ghraib guards knew they were violating military policy and international law.

shit. I could have used this back in high school the weekend my parents went away and we had that party. mom finds 2 rolls of film- i'm grounded. i should have turned that shit right back on her.

[Hank Chinaski]

was this too subtle? I was trying to avoid the new rules yet still blame bill for 9/11?

http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/sho...6185#post96185

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
was this too subtle? I was trying to avoid the new rules yet still blame bill for 9/11?

http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/sho...6185#post96185

In a world in which Not Me continues to credit Gorelick --- not even Reno, but Gorelick --- for the entire lifespan of a policy that Ashcroft left in effect throughout 2001 until it was finally overturned by Congress, I think you can assume some signal loss.

[SlaveNoMore]

Tyrone Slothrop
Sure you can. Exactly. AG's point is that they were not trying to hide the evidence. Will you please explain this to Slave?

1) Will you stipulate that there were probably pictures taken for legitimate interrogation purposes and pictures taken by a bunch of stupid grunts so they could remember "gee, lookee what what we did. yuk yuk."

2) The fact that the photos got to the media does not mean that they never intended for them to get out.

Example 1 - that Washingwhore blogger sure wasnt hiding her blog, but by her own words, she never expected anyone to read it.

Example 2 - my frat used to take similar pictures of the brothers hazing the shit out of us. We kept the pictures for laughs. In the Living Room. On the shelf. Yet never intended for campus security to find them and put us on 2-year probation

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
1) Will you stipulate that there were probably pictures taken for legitimate interrogation purposes and pictures taken by a bunch of stupid grunts so they could remember "gee, lookee what what we did. yuk yuk."

2) The fact that the photos got to the media does not mean that they never intended for them to get out.

Example 1 - that Washingwhore blogger sure wasnt hiding her blog, but by her own words, she never expected anyone to read it.

Example 2 - my frat used to take similar pictures of the brothers hazing the shit out of us. We kept the pictures for laughs. In the Living Room. On the shelf. Yet never intended for campus security to find them and put us on 2-year probation

I'm not even sure what we're bickering about anymore, and have the feeling that, as usual, both you and AG are right, and I'm just confused.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
shit. I could have used this back in high school the weekend my parents went away and we had that party. mom finds 2 rolls of film- i'm grounded. i should have turned that shit right back on her.

Partying hearty is a general intent crime, dude. Busted.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Here are direct links to the articles/interviews that Kevin Drum was quoting from in the CalPundit entry that Ty quoted:

http://www.larouchepub.com/other/int..._joe_hoar.html

[The Zinni link is broken]

http://slate.msn.com/id/2100899/



Even if you choose to discredit their opinions on the grounds that they are "OLD ARMY" and may have an axe to grind, it at a minimum highligts the substantial disregard that many senior military officials have had for Rumsfeld's key civilian team (and, by extension . . .)

S_A_M


P.S. Hank -- I suppose your post was too subtle. In any event, you so clearly lost on substance, no need to invoke Samuel.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
"Hey Guys, look at this goofy picture of me kicking a dune coon"

The more I think of it, none of this is really isn't that far off from that idiot posting about her prostitution on a public journal from a work computer.

Or those idiots you see at the ballgame calling their friends "look I'm on the Jumbotron"

It's this growing need for everyone to be a public face and to brag openly to anyone and everyone in earshot of their personal exploits.

Yeah, except for the torture and assault and oath to defend the Consitution and the laws of the United States and the UCMJ, it's just like that.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
I don't think you're saying they should argue mistake of law, right? You're trying to say their universal belief indicates the belief was accurate. Someone high up "permitted or encouraged. what they did as a group, and to photographed it."

But just like bush lied, you have a motive problem. What possible reason would someone higher up the food chain encourage the photos?

Hank, he's not saying the higher-ups encouraged the photos. Someone higher up encouraged the behaviior.

Please tell me you're being this thick deliberately to argue a point poorly.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
So the French and Germans were pushing for the UN to run things, but weren't willing to ante anything up for the privilege? I don't think so. Please find me a cite for that. You're back to the tried-and-true tactic of disparaging the French for being French. It's rhetorically effective, and not wholly unfair, but pretending at this point that we had to do things the way we did them because there was no alternative is a crock.

Assuming arguendo that the 150,000 or so troops we had in Iraq post war was an adequate number, how many troops do you think the French and Germans, collectively, would have sent had the UN "run" things? Answer: zero to a deminis amount. It still would have been overwhelmingly US and UK troops doing the lifting. The primary reason why the French (1) opposed the war and (2) wanted the UN control post war efforts, was (A) to limit their debt exposure and complicity with the Saddam regime and (B) further their "we are the balance to the US" foreign policy.

The Germans rationale was a bit different - their opposition to the war was entirely political.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop Who is opposed to the concept of democracy?

(1) international radical islam (including but not limited to AQ and (2) the Baathists - in other words, the same people who are shooting at us.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop The Kurds most of all, and they're not shooting at us.

That's because they essentially have autonomy. Go figure.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop Sadr is using us as a foil to gain popular support.

Sadr is finished. He has lost popular support. In a matter of time and if he's lucky, he will be a footnote in history.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop To the extent that the insurgents have popular support, I submit that it is because they are perceived to be resisting a foreign occupier. The UN would not have quite the same problems.

And I submit that that you have been watching too much Al Jazeera. Yes, this is the propoganda that the organizers of the insurgency are putting forth. But again, I urge you to read the fucking intercepted letter. This is part of their strategy to win the hearts and minds.