Politics: J'accuse!

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
I don't understand what "I show the film at least as to the credibility of her statement about "being ordered" to hold the dog collar" means. I think you are missing a word.

It might be more on point and less seeming like you are saying women (whoops, I mean girls) who are sexually active are not credible if you made it a bit clearer that perhaps you are saying "The filmed soldiers/MPs taped a lot of inappropriate behavior, and some of the stuff seems like it is very unlikely to have been ordered by superiors (e.g., having sex with different people in front of the prisoners). If some of the filmed activities were not performed under orders, it makes it less likely that none of the activities were performed under orders."

Which sounds kinda stupid, but whatever. Yeah, I think it has an eeensy bit of probative value, but not a ton. I mean, if I have a camera set up in my office to film me with the co-managing partners, and that camera is also used to tape a hearing, that doesn't mean that my activities (including dog collars etc. etc.) with the managing partners were ordered by anyone. In fact, I do the ordering.

My office is very, very clean.

I might be missing a word, but you've got some synapse gaps going if you don't think the new porno flicks go to the liklihood her dog collar was ordered by Rummie.

And the soldier was 18/19- I'm 60-she's a girl to me.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by The Larry Davis Experience
On some level I agree with you. Back when they caught Khalid Sheikh Muhammad I was on record as being all for letting the Pakistanis do the interrogating so that we wouldn't have our own hands tied (which is itself a violation of the conventions the US has signed).

But at some point you are painting too many people with the AQ brush. What about the people in Abu Ghraib who were picked up in sweeps who weren't doing anything "terrorist" except looting a washing machine? Are they acceptable collateral damage? What about the kids that throw rocks at the US troops because they want Iraqis to run their own country. Do they deserve the gloves-off al Qaeda treatment? Is it truly impossible to differentiate between different types of detainees?

Part of our strength in this fight is our moral authority. If we sweep this prisoner abuse under the rug we lose even more of that than we already have. If the inquiry indeed shows that this was a big party atmosphere and thus the wrongdoing of a few low-level GIs, then fine, I welcome that news. But it seems like the system was flawed, that contractors were instructing MPs on how to soften people up, that detainees who under our own procedures should have been released were kept in interrogation mode, etc.

I think the quote that resonates the most for me on this whole issue came from Lindsay Graham on Meet the Press last Sunday:

you are mixing things up. club was talking about an article, perhaps timed to take advantage of the prison abuse, that tries to imply water dunking Mohammed is wrong. No one is trying to say the prion abuse is okay, but if dunking Mohammed gets us to stop a cell or an attack- great. I don't care who is doing the dunking, and I don't care if some entity in Belgium starts an investigation. that is seperate from the prison stuff- the prison stuff is being used to justify reconsidering dunking Mohammed- I say lets dunk him some more.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
I might be missing a word, but you've got some synapse gaps going if you don't think the new porno flicks go to the liklihood her dog collar was ordered by Rummie.

And the soldier was 18/19- I'm 60-she's a girl to me.

No, I don't think that the fact that a bunch of soldiers filmed themselves having sex with each other goes to the likelihood that the soldiers were improperly supervised in their activities and either ordered or encouraged to engage in the abuse.

I don't, however, think that Rumsfeld ordered it. I think his chagrin and shame are real, and I believe he didn't see any pictures of abuse until right before everyone else did. I do think that he should have investigated the reports of ongoing inappropriate behavior, at least to determine how bad it was and to ensure that it was all stopped ASAP -- that would include reminding all facilities of what are and aren't appropriate methods to use on prisoners, not just moving a couple people around in the facilities where there had been actual reports.

60? Ew. that means you are like an aged version of your avatar. blech. that's just ugly.

[The Larry Davis Experience]

Originally posted by Not Me
I agree that this was a system failure. As Taguba said, it was a failure of the command structure in that these yahoos weren't being supervised properly. Those pictures indicate to me that they had no fear at all that they would be caught.

Taguba placed the blame on Janice Kapinsky (sp?) on down.

No he didn't. Why do you think the Pentagon guy was at the witness table next to Taguba contradicting his point that the intel types were put in command over the MPs at Abu Ghraib? That order came from above Janis's head.

But more importantly, what else do I need to do? I offered MONEY, fer chrissakes. Put me on the too-dumb-to-respond-to list.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
No, I don't think that the fact that a bunch of soldiers filmed themselves having sex with each other goes to the likelihood that the soldiers were improperly supervised in their activities and either ordered or encouraged to engage in the abuse.

okay but what if you asked yourself this question

Does the fact that a bunch of soldiers filmed themselves having sex with each other IN FRONT OF THE PRISONERS goes to the likelihood that the soldiers were improperly supervised in their activities and either ordered or encouraged to engage in the abuse.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
he is supposed to the father of her future baby, so I bet he's in some of the movies.

I wonder if they captured the moment of conception?

[Not Me]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
No, I don't think that the fact that a bunch of soldiers filmed themselves having sex with each other goes to the likelihood that the soldiers were improperly supervised in their activities

Umm, you do realize that the filming of the having sex was done in the prison in front of the prisoners.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
I wonder if they captured the moment of conception?

As you may know, I'm a father. Not to be crass, but if you "capture the moment" as it were, they'll be no conception.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
okay but what if you asked yourself this question

Does the fact that a bunch of soldiers filmed themselves having sex with each other IN FRONT OF THE PRISONERS goes to the likelihood that the soldiers were improperly supervised in their activities and either ordered or encouraged to engage in the abuse.

I think the fact that they filmed themselves having sex with each other in front of the prisoners INCREASES the likelihood that they were improperly supervised and that inappropriate activities were, at the absolute minimum, tacitly approved.

So, yeah, probative value. Just maybe not probative of what you want it to be probative of.

How'd all the exhibitionists end up in the same unit? Bizarre. Were they using condoms?

ETA I thought she was having sex with multiple partners?

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Cite please?

edited to fix tags

I am not a member of the neo-con army (well, okay, I did join the reserves. Thanks, Dad!), I did support the war based on those grounds. I was convinced that the admin knew for certain about the existence of WMDs in Iraq and didn't want to compromise intelligence officers for political expedience. Turns out there are no WMDs and the administration does compromise intelligence officers for political expedience. Strange.

[The Larry Davis Experience]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
you are mixing things up. club was talking about an article, perhaps timed to take advantage of the prison abuse, that tries to imply water dunking Mohammed is wrong. No one is trying to say the prion abuse is okay, but if dunking Mohammed gets us to stop a cell or an attack- great. I don't care who is doing the dunking, and I don't care if some entity in Belgium starts an investigation. that is seperate from the prison stuff- the prison stuff is being used to justify reconsidering dunking Mohammed- I say lets dunk him some more.

First, I agree with what you're saying. So, second, you're probably right that I'm mixed up. I was taking club's last few posts to say that some level of prisoner interrogation/abuse is necessary in the war on terror, so why are we wringing our hands about Abu Ghraib. Looking back at his posts I see that I was creating that assertion in my own head. My apologies to both of you, and to my fingers for making them type out that long rejoinder to a nonexistent argument.

I think I've just been set on edge by all the "well 9/11 was horrible, so this stuff isn't so bad" crap. I'd like to ask those people if it gives us carte blanche to do anything we want in perpetuity to people who we know weren't involved in 9/11. Then again, I doubt I'd care for the answer, so I hope that question remains rhetorical.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Not Me

Taguba placed the blame on Janice Kapinsky (sp?) on down.

So do you think Janice gets the ticket to the Hague?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
I'm sorry, who didn't know we were looking but hadn't found anything?

Everyone. Pretending otherwise now is revisionist history. When Colin Powell went to the UN, e.g., his object was to convince the world that we had the goods. Turns out we didn't.

eta: See Shape Shifter and Larry Davis above.

And what does looking mean? Traveling umipeded through Iraq?

What does this mean? My point was, Bush misled people. You keep changing the subject. September 6, Franks tells Bush we haven't found a single WMD. September 7, Bush tells reporters that Saddam has WMD.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by The Larry Davis Experience
No he didn't. Why do you think the Pentagon guy was at the witness table next to Taguba contradicting his point that the intel types were put in command over the MPs at Abu Ghraib? That order came from above Janis's head.

I saw the hearings and i heard Taguba say that. I agree with him. I also heard the contradiction by the other guy. That doesn't mean that Taguba didn't say what he said. He put the blame on Kapinsky. The fact that someone else disagrees doesn't change what he said.

Originally posted by The Larry Davis Experience
But more importantly, what else do I need to do? I offered MONEY, fer chrissakes. Put me on the too-dumb-to-respond-to list.

When you say such stupid things, I just cannot help myself but to mock you.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Not Me

When you say such stupid things, I just cannot help myself but to mock you.

So basically, your promises are lies. Your word is meaningless. You have no honor.