Politics: J'accuse!

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Yes, but they don't get to keep their jobs doing this once the war is over. It's a temporary need being filled by outside contractors. Haven't you ever hired temp attorneys to review boxes? Same idea, no?

hahahahahahahahaha, yeah, the CIA doesn't use outside contractors except in times of war or other emergency. That's a good one.

Plus, if we are now having a policy of encouraging middle eastern countries to become democracies with lots of free speech etc., the gov't should be beefing up its complement of Arabic-speaking employees. If they are good interrogators, they should be good at doing other stuff too, like analysis of news etc. And it's not like there's a huge market for interrogators who speak Arabic and have worked for the US gov't.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Yes, but they don't get to keep their jobs doing this once the war is over. It's a temporary need being filled by outside contractors. Haven't you ever hired temp attorneys to review boxes? Same idea, no?

I agree but liberals hate this because it means less people in the federal employee union.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
hahahahahahahahaha, yeah, the CIA doesn't use outside contractors except in times of war or other emergency. That's a good one.

Yet, curiously, the ones they're currently employing are insufficient for current needs in the middle east.

obviously we use outside contractors. that's not the point. the point is we're not putting people on the permanent payroll for a temporary need.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Yet, curiously, the ones they're currently employing are insufficient for current needs in the middle east.

obviously we use outside contractors. that's not the point. the point is we're not putting people on the permanent payroll for a temporary need.

Or, there are boondoggles going on.

I imagine there is some of both. All the time, not just now. Under all administrations.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Or, there are boondoggles going on.

I imagine there is some of both. All the time, not just now. Under all administrations.

Cheney has a cousin who owns an Iraqui language school.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
There is no "whatever" here.

Moreover, as your pasing reference indicates, you may be aware that many of the folks in Abu Ghraib prison (and thus, presumably at least some of the abused) had no real connection to the war effort against the U.S. MG Taguba's report estimated that number at 60% of the prison population at Abu Ghraib.

In a WaPo article today regarding the internal back-and-forth about Rumsfeld in the administration, the article noted that "some administration officials" were saying that Paul Bremer had been telling the Pentagon as far back as last fall that the military was holding too many people for too long under very bad conditions, but that he had received "resistsance" from Rumsfeld over any change in the way things were done.

Your reaction -- as expressed in this post is unthinking and mindless. It does no credit to you, to the causes you support, or to this country. Fuck them? No, sir, fuck you.

S_A_M

blah blah blah blah blah

[Not Flinty]

Originally posted by sgtclub
blah blah blah blah blah

If you're trying to convince me that some conservatives think it's OK to torture random Iraqis by sticking things up their asses, etc., because a bunch of Saudis flew planes into the World Trade Center, you've succeeded. If you have another point, it's less clear.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Asshole.

Some of these (milder) abuses happen in civilian prisons. Do you think that Abu Ghraib is SOP for military prisons? If so, you're wrong. The MPs trained and assigned to man military prisons are much more careful than many civilians to follow the rules and do their duty right. They are soldiers, after all, and they don't have a union to protect them from management.

S_A_M

I'll note, and only FWIW (which isn't the whole dollar), that many law-enforcement type agencies will not hire a 21 year old without college.

Unless they have a military background, particularly as an MP.

While the officers and NCOs deserve to be demoted for failure to supervise etc., I think one decent long-term suggestion is that nobody, and I mean nobody, should be allowed to be an MP at 21 yoa. If its not good enough for civilian law enforcement, its probably not good enough for military law enforcement.

Just a thought about that young woman who seems to be in lotso the really bad pictures.

Hello

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
Just a thought about that young woman who seems to be in lotso the really bad pictures.

Hello

she's preggers by the guy with glasses standing next to her, and his ex thinks he is nuts-

condensed news story from condensed story in today's usatoday

[Not Flinty]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
Just a thought about that young woman who seems to be in lotso the really bad pictures.

There's an article about her in today's NYT; it also ran in today's SF Chronicle, but they got it from the NYT. This will surely surprise everyone who hasn't read the article, but her family didn't think she was the sort of person to get mixed up in all that.

For fun, try to pick out the real quotations from the article:

• "She's kind of stubborn. But that doesn't mean she can't follow orders."
  
  "When the other kids at her high school would go out torturing Arabs, she would stay home to do her homework."
  
  "She is straight in your face, tells you how it is. That's why it shocked me. It's so not her. It's not in her nature to do something like that. There's not a malicious bone in her body."
  
  "We always figured she might be a gay, but we never expected this."

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
nobody, should be allowed to be an MP at 21 yoa. If its not good enough for civilian law enforcement, its probably not good enough for military law enforcement.

I agree that 21 year olds lack the maturity necessary to do certain jobs requiring one to have perspective and self-control.

However, my suggestion is that military personnel no longer be allowed to have cameras. Apparently, Rummy is testifying that there are many more photos and the worst haven't been released yet.

[Not Flinty]

Originally posted by Not Me
Apparently, Rummy is testifying that there are many more photos and the worst haven't been released yet.

stp

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Not Flinty

stp

And after all the trouble they have gone through to keep journalists in the dark. What a pity.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Not Flinty
stp

That post doesn't say anything about banning cameras.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Not Flinty
If you're trying to convince me that some conservatives think it's OK to torture random Iraqis by sticking things up their asses, etc., because a bunch of Saudis flew planes into the World Trade Center, you've succeeded. If you have another point, it's less clear.

Not my point. Any humiliation/toture of innocents makes puke. Torture/humiliation of "resistence" fighters, while not acceptable without an overiding need to save coalition lives, does not rise to this level. Torture/humiliation of Al Qaeda is preferrable.