Gitmo: Useful/Necessary?

[quote]vroom wrote:
Management can mandate proper behavior and acceptable standards.

Sasquatch,

Management can do a hell of a lot more than issue some directives and hope they are adhered to…[/quote]

Do you firmly believe that any amount of oversee can prevent any and all illegal/immoral behavior by any and all of those under command? I have acknowledged that those who act egregously should be punished accordingly. Your assertion is this all falls on the commanders shoulders–All the way to the President I presume.

I assume your place of employment has some directive wrt to theft of either moneys or information. I amcertain both are ocurring as we speak. Is this a sign of poor leadership?

[quote]
BostonBarrister wrote:
Now here is an interesting post on the subject of U.S. interrogation techniques (which, again, are NOT torture):

http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2005_06_19-2005_06_25.shtml#1119201773

[David Kopel, June 19, 2005 at 1:22pm] 3 Trackbacks / Possibly More Trackbacks

What Guantanamo is Really Like:

Senator Richard Durbin has been justly mocked for his statement about what an FBI agent reported seeing at Guantanamo:

“If I read this to you and did not tell you that it was an FBI agent describing what Americans had done to prisoners in their control, you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime ? Pol Pot or others ? that had no concern for human beings.”

The more plausible analogy to Guantanamo is British interrogation of Irish Republican Army suspects in the early 1970s. Then, the British extracted confessions through “the five techniques”: wall-standing, hooding, continuous noise, deprivation of food, and deprivation of sleep. The European Court of Human Rights ( http://www.lawofwar.org/Ireland_v_United_Kingdom.htm ), in the 1978 case Republic of Ireland v. United Kingdom, ruled that the techniques did not constitute “torture,” but were “inhuman and degrading,” in violation of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights ( European Convention on Human Rights and its Five Protocols ).

The European convention obviously does not apply to the American interrogation of Arab or Afghan terrorist suspects at a military base in Cuba, but there are still plausible objections that can be raised against coercive interrogations, even when the persons being interrogated are terrorists. Serious discussion about Guanatamo would be enhanced by looking to appropriate historical analogies (such as the U.K.'s self-defense in the 1970s against the I.R.A.), rather than to absurd analogies, such as those drawn by Senator Durbin, which trivialize the Holocaust, the Soviet genocide, and the Pol Pot genocide.

100meters wrote:

This is debunked already. “Torture techniques” are torture techniques no? The techniques described in various testimonials are the very definition of torture, and go far,far, beyond the trivial techniques mentioned above (obviously). And Durbin remains absolutely correct.
He read a true letter. Fact. Would you (a person) believe that the events described could have happened in the other places?. Yes.
The rest is pure fakery. Good for Durbin. Shame on the fakes.[/quote]

Are you sh*tting me?

Are you really trying to pull this out of your as$ and pull it off as logical thinking?

  1. Please show me where this has been “debunked”.

2)(a) What are you quoting with “torture techniques”? Are you implying a non-traditional usage, or are you putting together two different quotes from the above in a feeble attempt to make someone believe your quote is what was actually said?

2)(b) They’re not torture, so if you had a point I don’t know what it was.

  1. No one has criticized Durbin for reading the letter. Please point me to one instance of Durbin’s having been criticized for reading the letter. You may think “straw man” has been overused since Shugart’s weblog entry, but you just provided a wonderful example of a classic straw man: arguing against something no one has asserted. The criticism of Durbin is all about his ridiculous, fallacious, misleading and insulting (from multiple perspectives) analogies.

  2. Since you insist on repeating your Al Franken/Daily Kos mantra of “fakery,” please do illucidate us all on what is being faked. What didn’t Durbin say that is being attributed to him? Or what else are you referencing?

  3. You consistently have refused to address these two points: a) What message was Durbin intending to convey by making those analogies; and b) Who has caused more harm to America’s reputation abroad, those following protocol, which is not torture (so much so that you cannot even produce a credible ALLEGATION that it’s torture, much less proof), or Durbin and you, making ridiculous analogies to Nazis and false analogies to torture that get repeated on al Jazeera for days on end?

[quote]hedo wrote:

How many have been killed at Gitmo?

How many have been starved to death?

How many have been permanently maimed?

How many have been experimented upon without anesthesia for medical purposes?
[/quote]
Clever to specify killed at gitmo. How many detainees have been killed in our custody and in what manner?

The beating in early April of a detainee at the LSA Diamondback facility in Mosul, Iraq, who was found dead in his sleep. A death report showed “blunt- force trauma to the torso and positional asphyxia.” He had gone to sleep immediately after questioning by members of the Naval Special Warfare Team. No disciplinary action was noted in the report, but the investigation continues, the report states.

In June, at a “classified interrogation facility” in Baghdad, an Iraqi detainee was found dead after being restrained in a chair for questioning. “While in custody the detainee was subjected to both physical and psychological stress,” the report shows. An autopsy determined that he died of a “hard, fast blow” to the head. The investigation continues. No disciplinary action was noted.

On Nov. 4, an Iraqi died at Abu Ghraib during an interview by special forces and Navy SEAL soldiers. “An autopsy revealed the cause of death was blunt force trauma as complicated by compromised respiration.” The report notes that Navy investigators concluded Navy personnel did not commit a crime leading to the detainee’s death. But the investigation, including by CIA officials, is still ongoing. No disciplinary action was noted.

Another Iraqi military officer, records show, was asphyxiated after being gagged, his hands tied to the top of his cell door. Another detainee died “while undergoing stress technique interrogation,” involving smothering and “chest compressions,” according to the documents.

etc.

The answer is not zero. The techniques used in Iraq were authorized for Gitmo, no? And again you deliberately pretended to miss the point, which is the events happening now could have happened in the other places. Not the other way around. I don’t understand the point of faking around this essential point.

Obviously it’s not otherwise you would just accurately handle what he said. You’re not. And other wing-nuts aren’t. Why?

[quote]
Keep up the support though…please keep supporting him. Encourage other Dems to do the same. If that’s what you believe keep pushing it. Great idea for you guys. Hopefully Hillary will take up the cause too! Make it a plank at your next convention.[/quote]

Well hopefully dems and the handful of resptable repubs will continue to denounce such behavior. Why aren’t you?
A plank at the convention! Ha! imagine making a plank of being against torture—and you’d be against it?

[quote]schrauper wrote:
100 lumpys- learn how to read. Dumbo wasn’t worried about Gitmo. He could give two shits. He wanted to draw blood on a President of the opposite party that has been kicking his party ass where it counts, at the voting booth, and not in some stupid opinion polls. Clinton governed by them and boy oh boy, the left, oops, I mean the “center”, sure did well by him in the Oval Office, the Senate, the House, and at the state and local level all over the place Duh.
[/quote]
The nerve of Durbin “bending” to public pressure on things like torture! I’m guessing this a pretext of wingnuttia to follow.

Sure enough! Yes I dare to say: We are better than the rest!

Bush has damaged himself, don’t ya think?

misses the whole point. The FBI didn’t have full access and what they saw, including DOD workers impersonating FBI using “torture techniques” seem to bother them.

Read FOIA’s for details.

WSJ editorials are rarely based on reality.

[quote]

The “center” has never had much of a problem with torture anyway. After all, you do have to break a few eggs to make an omlet, or so they said. They just get all indignant when they think that someone they don’t approve of, especially some dumb hick from flyover country who is outsmarting them politically and kicking their ass, gets to do it.

Disinformation- the opiate of the idiot wannabe psuedo-intellectual who thinks he ‘knows’ the truth, but is too stupid to see that how dumb he is.[/quote]

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:

BostonBarrister wrote:
Now here is an interesting post on the subject of U.S. interrogation techniques (which, again, are NOT torture):

http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2005_06_19-2005_06_25.shtml#1119201773

[David Kopel, June 19, 2005 at 1:22pm] 3 Trackbacks / Possibly More Trackbacks

What Guantanamo is Really Like:

Senator Richard Durbin has been justly mocked for his statement about what an FBI agent reported seeing at Guantanamo:

“If I read this to you and did not tell you that it was an FBI agent describing what Americans had done to prisoners in their control, you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime ? Pol Pot or others ? that had no concern for human beings.”

The more plausible analogy to Guantanamo is British interrogation of Irish Republican Army suspects in the early 1970s. Then, the British extracted confessions through “the five techniques”: wall-standing, hooding, continuous noise, deprivation of food, and deprivation of sleep. The European Court of Human Rights ( http://www.lawofwar.org/Ireland_v_United_Kingdom.htm ), in the 1978 case Republic of Ireland v. United Kingdom, ruled that the techniques did not constitute “torture,” but were “inhuman and degrading,” in violation of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights ( European Convention on Human Rights and its Five Protocols ).

The European convention obviously does not apply to the American interrogation of Arab or Afghan terrorist suspects at a military base in Cuba, but there are still plausible objections that can be raised against coercive interrogations, even when the persons being interrogated are terrorists. Serious discussion about Guanatamo would be enhanced by looking to appropriate historical analogies (such as the U.K.'s self-defense in the 1970s against the I.R.A.), rather than to absurd analogies, such as those drawn by Senator Durbin, which trivialize the Holocaust, the Soviet genocide, and the Pol Pot genocide.

100meters wrote:

This is debunked already. “Torture techniques” are torture techniques no? The techniques described in various testimonials are the very definition of torture, and go far,far, beyond the trivial techniques mentioned above (obviously). And Durbin remains absolutely correct.
He read a true letter. Fact. Would you (a person) believe that the events described could have happened in the other places?. Yes.
The rest is pure fakery. Good for Durbin. Shame on the fakes.

Are you sh*tting me?

Are you really trying to pull this out of your as$ and pull it off as logical thinking?

[quote]
Are you shitting me?
How many authorities have to say torture for you to admit torture?

And how many times can you pretend to not understand what Durbin said? It’s so simple. Could someone imaging the events described happening elsewhere? YES!
Man oh man!
Just answer the first question though, who has to confirm for it to be true for you? Lowry? Gigot? Who?

[quote]100meters wrote:
hedo wrote:

How many have been killed at Gitmo?

How many have been starved to death?

How many have been permanently maimed?

How many have been experimented upon without anesthesia for medical purposes?

Clever to specify killed at gitmo. How many detainees have been killed in our custody and in what manner?

The beating in early April of a detainee at the LSA Diamondback facility in Mosul, Iraq, who was found dead in his sleep. A death report showed “blunt- force trauma to the torso and positional asphyxia.” He had gone to sleep immediately after questioning by members of the Naval Special Warfare Team. No disciplinary action was noted in the report, but the investigation continues, the report states.

In June, at a “classified interrogation facility” in Baghdad, an Iraqi detainee was found dead after being restrained in a chair for questioning. “While in custody the detainee was subjected to both physical and psychological stress,” the report shows. An autopsy determined that he died of a “hard, fast blow” to the head. The investigation continues. No disciplinary action was noted.

On Nov. 4, an Iraqi died at Abu Ghraib during an interview by special forces and Navy SEAL soldiers. “An autopsy revealed the cause of death was blunt force trauma as complicated by compromised respiration.” The report notes that Navy investigators concluded Navy personnel did not commit a crime leading to the detainee’s death. But the investigation, including by CIA officials, is still ongoing. No disciplinary action was noted.

Another Iraqi military officer, records show, was asphyxiated after being gagged, his hands tied to the top of his cell door. Another detainee died “while undergoing stress technique interrogation,” involving smothering and “chest compressions,” according to the documents.

etc.

The answer to all of these questions is zero. They are things the Nazi’s and Soviets did to prisoners?

The answer is not zero. The techniques used in Iraq were authorized for Gitmo, no? And again you deliberately pretended to miss the point, which is the events happening now could have happened in the other places. Not the other way around. I don’t understand the point of faking around this essential point.

Durbin is wrong on all accounts other then he read someone else’s letter. The rest is all him.

Obviously it’s not otherwise you would just accurately handle what he said. You’re not. And other wing-nuts aren’t. Why?

Keep up the support though…please keep supporting him. Encourage other Dems to do the same. If that’s what you believe keep pushing it. Great idea for you guys. Hopefully Hillary will take up the cause too! Make it a plank at your next convention.

Well hopefully dems and the handful of resptable repubs will continue to denounce such behavior. Why aren’t you?
A plank at the convention! Ha! imagine making a plank of being against torture—and you’d be against it?[/quote]

The discussion is about Gitmo. Your having one of those discussions with yourself again. You know the kind where you answer your own questions.

If you are just going to make things up it’s pointless to argue with you. Even you are aware of that right?

Keep up the good work. You and Dickie can make the world safe for terrorists.

Have a nice day!

[quote]
BostonBarrister wrote:
Now here is an interesting post on the subject of U.S. interrogation techniques (which, again, are NOT torture):

http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2005_06_19-2005_06_25.shtml#1119201773

[David Kopel, June 19, 2005 at 1:22pm] 3 Trackbacks / Possibly More Trackbacks

What Guantanamo is Really Like:

Senator Richard Durbin has been justly mocked for his statement about what an FBI agent reported seeing at Guantanamo:

“If I read this to you and did not tell you that it was an FBI agent describing what Americans had done to prisoners in their control, you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime ? Pol Pot or others ? that had no concern for human beings.”

The more plausible analogy to Guantanamo is British interrogation of Irish Republican Army suspects in the early 1970s. Then, the British extracted confessions through “the five techniques”: wall-standing, hooding, continuous noise, deprivation of food, and deprivation of sleep. The European Court of Human Rights ( http://www.lawofwar.org/Ireland_v_United_Kingdom.htm ), in the 1978 case Republic of Ireland v. United Kingdom, ruled that the techniques did not constitute “torture,” but were “inhuman and degrading,” in violation of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights ( European Convention on Human Rights and its Five Protocols ).

The European convention obviously does not apply to the American interrogation of Arab or Afghan terrorist suspects at a military base in Cuba, but there are still plausible objections that can be raised against coercive interrogations, even when the persons being interrogated are terrorists. Serious discussion about Guanatamo would be enhanced by looking to appropriate historical analogies (such as the U.K.'s self-defense in the 1970s against the I.R.A.), rather than to absurd analogies, such as those drawn by Senator Durbin, which trivialize the Holocaust, the Soviet genocide, and the Pol Pot genocide.

100meters wrote:

This is debunked already. “Torture techniques” are torture techniques no? The techniques described in various testimonials are the very definition of torture, and go far,far, beyond the trivial techniques mentioned above (obviously). And Durbin remains absolutely correct.
He read a true letter. Fact. Would you (a person) believe that the events described could have happened in the other places?. Yes.
The rest is pure fakery. Good for Durbin. Shame on the fakes.

BostonBarrister wrote:
Are you sh*tting me?

Are you really trying to pull this out of your as$ and pull it off as logical thinking?

100meters wrote:
Are you shitting me?
How many authorities have to say torture for you to admit torture?

And how many times can you pretend to not understand what Durbin said? It’s so simple. Could someone imaging the events described happening elsewhere? YES!
Man oh man!
Just answer the first question though, who has to confirm for it to be true for you? Lowry? Gigot? Who?[/quote]

Apparently you missed my specific points – though maybe not, as you specifically cut it out of your reply. I’ll restate for you so you don’t have to injure yourself scrolling up – feel free to address any of these, including those being asked for the 3rd or 4th time:

  1. Please show me where this has been “debunked”.

2)(a) What are you quoting with “torture techniques”? Are you implying a non-traditional usage, or are you putting together two different quotes from the above in a feeble attempt to make someone believe your quote is what was actually said?

2)(b) They’re not torture, so if you had a point I don’t know what it was.

  1. No one has criticized Durbin for reading the letter. Please point me to one instance of Durbin’s having been criticized for reading the letter. You may think “straw man” has been overused since Shugart’s weblog entry, but you just provided a wonderful example of a classic straw man: arguing against something no one has asserted. The criticism of Durbin is all about his ridiculous, fallacious, misleading and insulting (from multiple perspectives) analogies.

  2. Since you insist on repeating your Al Franken/Daily Kos mantra of “fakery,” please do illucidate us all on what is being faked. What didn’t Durbin say that is being attributed to him? Or what else are you referencing?

  3. You consistently have refused to address these two points: a) What message was Durbin intending to convey by making those analogies; and b) Who has caused more harm to America’s reputation abroad, those following protocol, which is not torture (so much so that you cannot even produce a credible ALLEGATION that it’s torture, much less proof), or Durbin and you, making ridiculous analogies to Nazis and false analogies to torture that get repeated on al Jazeera for days on end?

[quote]Do you firmly believe that any amount of oversee can prevent any and all illegal/immoral behavior by any and all of those under command? I have acknowledged that those who act egregously should be punished accordingly. Your assertion is this all falls on the commanders shoulders–All the way to the President I presume.

I assume your place of employment has some directive wrt to theft of either moneys or information. I amcertain both are ocurring as we speak. Is this a sign of poor leadership?[/quote]

Sasquatch,

Are you trying to have a serious conversation or are you simply being silly.

Do you refuse to believe that steps above and beyond simple directives can be taken if the situation warrants?

In the business world, if proper controls, as defined by industry standards and practices, are not in place, then indeed it is a sign of poor leadership.

Are you sure you really are the MCKU? I’m beginning to have my doubts.

It’s simple risk management. What is the level of risk? Appropriate steps are then taken to ameliorate it. A good example would be controls on financial systems to ensure that no single person has the authority to rob the company blind.

Above and beyond simple directives, what controls are in place to ensure that this behavior does not take place?

Obviously, the controls were not in place at one point, perhaps they are now that some issues have been brought to light… who knows, I don’t.

lumpy,

Please refer to Schrauper’s WONDERFUL post for all your answers.

Wonderful!!!

JeffR

This one’s for my pal, lumpy.

WASHINGTON (CNN) – The Senate’s No. 2 Democrat apologized Thursday for remarks comparing the treatment of detainees at the Guantanamo Bay prison camp to methods used by the Nazis, Soviets and other repressive regimes.

Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois said he “never intended any disrespect” to U.S. troops with his June 14 comments, for which the minority whip has endured a week of criticism from Republicans and some Democrats.

“In the end, I don’t want anything in my public career to detract from my love for this country, my respect for those who serve it, and this great Senate,” Durbin said in an emotional statement on the Senate floor.

“I offer my apologies to those that were offended by my words.”

Human rights groups and the Red Cross have criticized the treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, a U.S. Navy base where prisoners from the war on terrorism have been held since early 2002. The facility currently houses about 520 prisoners. (Full story)

In the June 14 floor speech, Durbin read from an FBI agent’s account of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay being shackled to the floor without food or water in extreme temperatures for up to 24 hours at a stretch.

Prisoners in those conditions sometimes urinated or defecated on themselves, the agent reported.

“If I read this to you and did not tell you that it was an FBI agent describing what Americans had done to prisoners in their control, you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags or some mad regime – Pol Pot or others – that had no concern for human beings,” Durbin said.

The White House, which insists prisoners at Guantanamo Bay are treated in accordance with the Geneva Conventions, called Durbin’s remarks “reprehensible.” (Full story)

Republicans quickly called for Durbin to apologize – a call he rejected Friday, saying his statement was “misused and misunderstood.” (Full story)

But Durbin said Tuesday he had erred by invoking the specter of the Holocaust, which he called “the greatest moral tragedy of our time.”

“Nothing should ever be said to demean or diminish that moral tragedy,” Durbin said. “I’m also sorry if anything I said, in any way, cast a negative light on our fine men and women in the military.”

He said he would “continue to speak out on the issues that I think are important to the people of Illinois and to the nation.”

Sen. John McCain – who was a prisoner of war for more than five years during the Vietnam War – said Sunday that Durbin should apologize. (Full story)

But the Arizona Republican also said reports of controversial interrogation techniques and allegations of abuse could endanger American POWs in a future conflict.

(Watch this: lumpy will defend the apology!!!)

JeffR

As far as I can see, Gitmo and its prisoner population are militarily useless. Gitmo is in fact a total liability in the war on terror.

At the current time it seems that if the CIA really needs to get information out of some terrorist they go the ‘rendition’ route. They don’t send them to Gitmo.

Almost nobody present has addressed the issue that, at Gitmo, we don’t even have a process for determining whether a prisoner should actually be there. It’s alright to make mistakes, it’s not alright to not have any plan for cleaning up after.

In an attempt to get the conversation back on course, I would ask the following question - which I don’t know the answer to - namely: what is the Israeli equivalent of Gitmo, and does it have all the same problems that Gitmo has (i.e. indefinite detention, no legal process)?

The Israelis have been dealing with terrorists for years, and they are not faint-hearted about what goes on in interrogation.

Looks like Sen. Dick Durbin decided that things were not quite as bad as he originally thought they were.

Nice to see an apology from him.

http://aolsvc.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?id=20050621183209990011

From Strategypage.com. Interesting.

COUNTER-TERRORISM: Leveraging Lawfare

June 22, 2005: Islamic terrorists have found powerful allies among leftist activists in the United States and Europe. These groups, which first appeared in the 1930s, providing support for the Soviet Union, evolved into ?progressive,? and pro-Soviet organizations (like the National Lawyers Guild) during the Cold War. They found that lawfare was a highly effective ideological weapon in a country like the United States. When the Cold War ended, and the Soviet Union disappeared, these organizations, and people like lawyers Michael Ratner and Ramsey Clark, maintained good relations with the remaining communist dictatorships, especially Cuba, and continued their war on America. The basic drill of these groups is right out of the old Soviet playbook. That is, using support for worthy causes like civil rights, clean government and environmentalism as camouflage, plus an exaggerated sense of righteousness, to pursue a program that seeks to make their own foreign policy, counter-terrorism and counter-intelligence policy, and enact laws in the United States via the courts, rather than the legislature. Often, the only goal is to simply oppose whatever the government position is. The Soviet Union may be dead, but many of its biggest fans are not. Oppose them and you are called a racist, fascist and worse.

Islamic terrorists have seen lawfare put restrictions on interrogations at Guantanamo, and make government officials reluctant to take chances in fighting, or stopping, Islamic terrorism. Despite record low civilian casualties, Islamic terrorists have plenty of allies willing to pursue false claims of deliberate attacks on civilians, and even journalists. Playing the legal system, as well as the media, leftist activists have provided Islamic terrorism valuable allies in America, the very country Islamic radicals are trying to destroy. Al Qaeda openly acknowledges this aid, and encourages its members to make false claims of torture and abuse, to make it easer for anti-American activists to build a case. The terrorists know that the media will jump all over anything that even appears as scandalous, and that the appearance of misbehavior is more important than the reality of it.

[quote]hedo wrote:
From Strategypage.com. Interesting.

COUNTER-TERRORISM: Leveraging Lawfare

June 22, 2005: Islamic terrorists have found powerful allies among leftist activists in the United States and Europe. These groups, which first appeared in the 1930s, providing support for the Soviet Union, evolved into ?progressive,? and pro-Soviet organizations (like the National Lawyers Guild) during the Cold War. They found that lawfare was a highly effective ideological weapon in a country like the United States. When the Cold War ended, and the Soviet Union disappeared, these organizations, and people like lawyers Michael Ratner and Ramsey Clark, maintained good relations with the remaining communist dictatorships, especially Cuba, and continued their war on America. The basic drill of these groups is right out of the old Soviet playbook. That is, using support for worthy causes like civil rights, clean government and environmentalism as camouflage, plus an exaggerated sense of righteousness, to pursue a program that seeks to make their own foreign policy, counter-terrorism and counter-intelligence policy, and enact laws in the United States via the courts, rather than the legislature. Often, the only goal is to simply oppose whatever the government position is. The Soviet Union may be dead, but many of its biggest fans are not. Oppose them and you are called a racist, fascist and worse.

Islamic terrorists have seen lawfare put restrictions on interrogations at Guantanamo, and make government officials reluctant to take chances in fighting, or stopping, Islamic terrorism. Despite record low civilian casualties, Islamic terrorists have plenty of allies willing to pursue false claims of deliberate attacks on civilians, and even journalists. Playing the legal system, as well as the media, leftist activists have provided Islamic terrorism valuable allies in America, the very country Islamic radicals are trying to destroy. Al Qaeda openly acknowledges this aid, and encourages its members to make false claims of torture and abuse, to make it easer for anti-American activists to build a case. The terrorists know that the media will jump all over anything that even appears as scandalous, and that the appearance of misbehavior is more important than the reality of it.

[/quote]

Quotes from the transcript of “Meet the Press” from March 16, 2003, from Dick Cheney.

Host Tim Russert asked: whether we “would have to have several hundred thousand troops in Iraq for several years to maintain stability.”

Cheney’s reply: “I disagree.” “To suggest that we need several hundred thousand troops there after military operations cease, after the conflict ends, I don’t think is accurate. I think that’s an overstatement.”

Russert: “If your analysis is not correct, and we’re not treated as liberators, but as conquerors, and the Iraqi’s begin to resist, particularly in Baghdad, do you think the American people are prepared for a long, costly, and bloody battle with significant American casualties?”

Cheney: “Well, I don’t think it’s likely to unfold that way, Tim, because I really do believe that we will be greeted as liberators. I’ve talked with a lot of Iraqi’s in the last several months myself, had them in the White House… The read we get on the people of Iraq is there is no question but what they to get rid of Saddam Hussein and they will welcome as liberators the United States when we come do that.”

So, Hedo, the insurgency isn’t because of inept planning by civilian politicians who chose to disregard expert military planners, Generals, analysts, but is because of the evil liberal media and people in the United States huh?

Hey, we’re paying the consequences (well not us but sons and daughters of America) but hey, guess what? We can blame our idiocy on someone else… We’ll blame it on us… on Americans.

Not on the fact that we didn’t count on an insurgency of this magnitude. Hey remember Vietnam and how twenty years later everyone was mad at the hippies for being mean to the vets. We will play on those emotions and say we are not realizing our vision because of evil liberals who are nothing more then modern day hippies spreading propaganda. Yes, yes, that’s what we’ll do, avoid responsibility at all costs… well hell we’ll even lie, heck lying is what got us into this mess in the first place maybe it can get us out of it as well.

Hey, what does it matter to us, we still have our stock in Haliburton and none of our family members are dead not even close not unless you count Jenna who drank too much at that upscale D.C. party that they love to go to. Hey, it’s not so bad after all, thank God for the evil liberal media what convenient scapegoats!

Elk,

Two sides too every story. Truth is useally somewhere in the middle.

I think if the media actually investigated stories and presented facts then they would be less likely to be manipulated by our enemies.

Whether terrorists or Soviets the media has often been turned into a tool. Additionally lawfare is a tool of the terrorism right now, and we allow it due it to our freedoms.

Liberals like yourself Elk actually think about issues and I think have the ability to go against the party line when necessary. Too many however become a tool and don’t realize when they are being manipulated.

Hedo, I agree about where the truth lies, is somewhere in the middle, but do you think the evil liberal media is making up stories about car bombs and executions? You seem like you don’t want any one to speak who is saying something unfavorably about the war or our Gov.

Isn’t that what we are liberating Iraq from? Oppression, not having the ability to disagree with or voice an opinion against an all powerful dictator?
Didn’t Saddam quell any media that was against him?

We spoke about the truth before, now let me ask you this. Would you want to know if our campaign in Iraq was going south and more Americans were going to lose their lives in gross numbers or would you rather someone tell you everything was great, coming up roses to the bitter end?

Also, for arguments sake let’s say that human rights abuses were going on in Gitmo 100% would you really even care? Or, is it that whether they are going on or not you don’t feel that a good American would even question it, just go along for the ride.

Doesn’t it really boil down to the mentality of which some have downright admitted to that these are terrorists and have no rights and deserve nothing less then to be tortured? And, if anyone complains about it they are traitorous?

What if for the next ten years we continued fighting this insurgency and thousands more Americans died and eventually we pulled out and Iraq collapsed into a total civil war leading to great instability in the region.

Would you be able to even then say “you know what maybe the military experts Bush and Cheney were wrong after all” or like a good ideologue would still try to defend it?

[quote]Elkhntr1 wrote:
Hedo, I agree about where the truth lies, is somewhere in the middle, but do you think the evil liberal media is making up stories about car bombs and executions? You seem like you don’t want any one to speak who is saying something unfavorably about the war or our Gov.

Isn’t that what we are liberating Iraq from? Oppression, not having the ability to disagree with or voice an opinion against an all powerful dictator?
Didn’t Saddam quell any media that was against him?

We spoke about the truth before, now let me ask you this. Would you want to know if our campaign in Iraq was going south and more Americans were going to lose their lives in gross numbers or would you rather someone tell you everything was great, coming up roses to the bitter end?

Also, for arguments sake let’s say that human rights abuses were going on in Gitmo 100% would you really even care? Or, is it that whether they are going on or not you don’t feel that a good American would even question it, just go along for the ride.

Doesn’t it really boil down to the mentality of which some have downright admitted to that these are terrorists and have no rights and deserve nothing less then to be tortured? And, if anyone complains about it they are traitorous?

What if for the next ten years we continued fighting this insurgency and thousands more Americans died and eventually we pulled out and Iraq collapsed into a total civil war leading to great instability in the region.

Would you be able to even then say “you know what maybe the military experts Bush and Cheney were wrong after all” or like a good ideologue would still try to defend it?[/quote]

I would like to hear the truth. That’s not something I expect to hear from the msm…not by a longshot.

Take Gitmo, in your example, I don’t think what the msm is reporting is torture. In my opinion they are irregular troops who do not wear a uniform and who have attacked innocent civilians. Not as part of collateral damage but directly. They have given up their right to sanctuary. I don’t think it’s traitorius to question, however, you have to realize why you are being made to question the methods at Gitmo. It’s not by chance. Consider, if just for a moment that the media is being used a tool.

Iraqi soldiers deserve to be treated as pow’s. Terrorists do not. Do you know that the poor detainee’s eat meals prepared out of a standard navy cookbook and in accordance with Islamic guidelines. For many the medical care they are recieving is the only care they have ever recieved from a doctor. Does that sound like mistreatment? No one has died and nobody has been maimed at Gitmo. Those are facts not fiction.

But getting back to your point would I be able to criticize Bush and Cheyney if they were wrong 10 yrs. from now. Yes. Will I do so now. I wouldn’t since I agree with what they are doing.

As an example I criticized GW1 after the first Gulf War. I thought we should have dealt with Sadamm then. That means me and my merry band of armored marauders would have been in the thick of it. I still regret Bush not doing it then and I would have had a personal price to pay. In much the same way my father never appreciated the Vietnam War protestors. He hated them and he was in the army and in Vietnam. He didn’t think they were brave for standing up. He thought they were ungrateful and misguided.

I found the article interesting and so did you, it seems, glad it spurred discussion.

Hedo, you should realize that the media is everyones tool. You make it seem like only the left and terrorists can take advantage of it. The right and the government take advantage of it just as well. They are also just as likely to use lawfare.

No doubt.

I expect our government to use our media. It’s the enemy using it,who I take issue with. ( i.e. terrorists and former Soviet Union)

[quote]hedo wrote:
No doubt.

I expect our government to use our media. It’s the enemy using it,who I take issue with. ( i.e. terrorists and former Soviet Union)[/quote]

Even if it’s used for wrong, evil, deceptive, purposes by our Gov.

Hedo, I know you were and are a 4.0 Soldier and Warrior, but would that be to the extent of an SS trooper or a Khmer Rouge soldier, where even in the face of wrongdoing you wouldn’t question your orders or who was giving them?