Please note that new user registrations disabled at this time.

There's two sides to the story'

Anything goes... just keep it clean.
User avatar
Weasel
Posts: 10202
Joined: Wed Nov 29, 2000 11:00 pm
Location: Gamebanshee Asylum
Contact:

Post by Weasel »

Re: Re: Release them all
Originally posted by VonDondu
Because you have to get people to vote for you if you want to be President. :)



Some would disagree with you. :D Take the (Edited by the US Government) fishing and you could get the job. ;)




Last edited by The US Government on 05-14-2004 at 09:21 AM
"Vile and evil, yes. But, That's Weasel" From BS's book, MD 20/20: Fine Wines of Rocky Flop.
User avatar
Tom2
Posts: 74
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2004 3:57 am
Location: just around the bend...
Contact:

Post by Tom2 »

Frankly fable I don’t understand your scepticism. We know that Rumsfeld is the greatest defence secretary the US have ever had, **** Cheney said it (so it must be true), so it is natural that he should be concerned with the dignity of the victims.

Here is what he said:
DONALD RUMSFELD, DEFENSE SECY.: My first choice would
be to release them. But it's my understanding that at
the present time the people who have an obligation to
take into account privacy issues, legal requirements
under privacy laws, and Geneva Convention, are
advising against it.

You can find it
here

And as if that wasn’t enough the great man goes further and shows a level of integrity that most politicians today could learn from.

U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, denies
any Pentagon cover-up and says if he finds out
otherwise, he'll put a stop to it. (also from CNN)

Now I am sure that we can all sleep that bit more soundly tonight knowing that uncle Rumsfeld is there to look out for evildoers.
I am of on holiday - enjoy - as I shall be back :)

And a little quote in the light of the US legalising toture.

"if you encourage totalitarian methods, the time may come when they will be used against you instead of for you."
George Orwell
User avatar
Gwalchmai
Posts: 6252
Joined: Wed May 09, 2001 11:00 am
Location: This Quintessence of Dust
Contact:

Post by Gwalchmai »

I see that Kerry claims that he would ask McCain to be Secretary of Defence if he were elected. That would be a very shrewd move as near as I can tell....
That there; exactly the kinda diversion we coulda used.
User avatar
Weasel
Posts: 10202
Joined: Wed Nov 29, 2000 11:00 pm
Location: Gamebanshee Asylum
Contact:

Post by Weasel »

Originally posted by Gwalchmai
I see that Kerry claims that he would ask McCain to be Secretary of Defence if he were elected. That would be a very shrewd move as near as I can tell....


This is where Weasel gets lost. :D

I was told that the SoD was usually picked from a civilian not connected to the military..something about overseeing the military from the outside?? or something.

The reason I say this, I posted about Powell taking the job in place of Rumsfeld somewhere and got this reply. Then I looked it up and saw Powell was in the running for the SoD once, but turned it down when Bush offered it. Confused :D
"Vile and evil, yes. But, That's Weasel" From BS's book, MD 20/20: Fine Wines of Rocky Flop.
User avatar
fable
Posts: 30676
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2001 12:00 pm
Location: The sun, the moon, and the stars.
Contact:

Post by fable »

Remember what I said about Clinton's appeasement goals vis a vis Congress, and Kerry being smarter than to try it?

Well, cancel that. :rolleyes:
To the Righteous belong the fruits of violent victory. The rest of us will have to settle for warm friends, warm lovers, and a wink from a quietly supportive universe.
User avatar
Gwalchmai
Posts: 6252
Joined: Wed May 09, 2001 11:00 am
Location: This Quintessence of Dust
Contact:

Post by Gwalchmai »

Originally posted by Weasel
This is where Weasel gets lost. :D

I was told that the SoD was usually picked from a civilian not connected to the military..something about overseeing the military from the outside?? or something.

The reason I say this, I posted about Powell taking the job in place of Rumsfeld somewhere and got this reply. Then I looked it up and saw Powell was in the running for the SoD once, but turned it down when Bush offered it. Confused :D
Thanks to on-line research, I know that the staff of the Office of the Secretary of Defense is primarily civilian, and since the Secretary directs and controls the armed forces, I doubt that it would be prudent for the Secretary to be an active member of any one military branch. However, there is nothing that would preclude the Secretary from being a former member of the military, which Powell was at the time of George W.’s coronation. Just because our current Secretary of Defense actively avoided military service (as currently discussed in recent Doonsbury comics ;) ), doesn’t mean they all have to be pure civilians. The Secretary is appointed by the president with the approval of the Senate, and is a member of the Cabinet and National Security Council. I would think that McCain could easily be appointed Secretary by Kerry, but it would mean that he would have to give up his job as Senator. Of course, his term ends after this year, and I haven’t heard much about a re-election campaign, but it is still early in the year for Arizona politics.
That there; exactly the kinda diversion we coulda used.
User avatar
Weasel
Posts: 10202
Joined: Wed Nov 29, 2000 11:00 pm
Location: Gamebanshee Asylum
Contact:

Post by Weasel »

Originally posted by fable
Remember what I said about Clinton's appeasement goals vis a vis Congress, and Kerry being smarter than to try it?

Well, cancel that. :rolleyes:


As soon as you put politician in front of someones name, they lose 50 points off their IQ. :D Just look at Dan, started with 45 and then fell to -5. :eek:
Originally posted by Gwalchmai
Just because our current Secretary of Defense actively avoided military service (as currently discussed in recent Doonsbury comics ;) ), doesn’t mean they all have to be pure civilians.


;) I admit I did find the reason given strange. :D
"Vile and evil, yes. But, That's Weasel" From BS's book, MD 20/20: Fine Wines of Rocky Flop.
User avatar
VonDondu
Posts: 3185
Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2001 11:00 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Post by VonDondu »

Originally posted by Weasel
As soon as you put politician in front of someones name, they lose 50 points off their IQ. :D Just look at Dan, started with 45 and then fell to -5. :eek:
Speaking of photo ops that are staged merely for effect, I just had my picture taken standing next to a Republican, which proves that I'm a patriotic American and I love my country.

Oh wait, you were talking about losing IQ points, weren't you?
User avatar
Gwalchmai
Posts: 6252
Joined: Wed May 09, 2001 11:00 am
Location: This Quintessence of Dust
Contact:

Post by Gwalchmai »

Originally posted by VonDondu
Speaking of photo ops that are staged merely for effect, I just had my picture taken standing next to a Republican, which proves that I'm a patriotic American and I love my country.

Oh wait, you were talking about losing IQ points, weren't you?
Well, the Republican's IQ could only have benefited with proximity to you. ;)

Speaking of patriotism, I could swear that I heard a spokesman for the Bush campaign yesterday saying that people who criticized Bush's handling of the war (especially Kerry) were effectively hampering the war effort by not supporting Bush in everything he did. Those who voice alternative opinions are not True Patriots for the United States. Holy cow! How long can they keep using that argument? They've been doing it ever since they used the "You’re either with us or against us" line to cram the Patriot Act down our throats. I bet its the same argument the McCarthy used... :mad:
That there; exactly the kinda diversion we coulda used.
User avatar
fable
Posts: 30676
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2001 12:00 pm
Location: The sun, the moon, and the stars.
Contact:

Post by fable »

It's much older than that. Aristophanes' comedies lashing out at the Athens for conquering other city states and provoking an all-out war with Sparta entailed repeated denunciations by the powers-in-charge. They claimed he was hampering the war effort by not supporting it.

And this sort of thing is repeated throughout history. It is as old as dirt, and just as pleasant to the tongue.
To the Righteous belong the fruits of violent victory. The rest of us will have to settle for warm friends, warm lovers, and a wink from a quietly supportive universe.
User avatar
VoodooDali
Posts: 1992
Joined: Thu Mar 22, 2001 11:00 pm
Location: Spanking Witch King
Contact:

Post by VoodooDali »

Oh my - Weasel and Fable are back...

just lurking in and lurking out...

Hi everybody! :D
“I became insane, with long intervals of horrible sanity.” - Edgar Allen Poe
User avatar
fable
Posts: 30676
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2001 12:00 pm
Location: The sun, the moon, and the stars.
Contact:

Post by fable »

Hi, @VD! We're bashing Dubya and his Pals. Pick up a can of paint, and feel free to join in. :)
To the Righteous belong the fruits of violent victory. The rest of us will have to settle for warm friends, warm lovers, and a wink from a quietly supportive universe.
User avatar
Sojourner
Posts: 3084
Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2001 11:00 pm
Contact:

Post by Sojourner »

Paint? Forget that - it's time for old-fashioned mud-slinging!
There's nothing a little poison couldn't cure...

What happened here was the gradual habituation of the people, ... to receiving decisions deliberated in secret; to believing that the situation was so complicated that the government had to act on information which the people could not understand, or so dangerous that, even if he people could understand it, it could not be released because of national security.
User avatar
fable
Posts: 30676
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2001 12:00 pm
Location: The sun, the moon, and the stars.
Contact:

Post by fable »

Hersh, referred to in this piece, has been extremely careful and thorough thus far in sifting his sources for accurate information regarding this developing crisis. But has he finally gone over the edge? Or is someone possibly setting him up? Or is this possibly accurate?

ASSOCIATED PRESS, NEW YORK (May 16) - Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld authorized the expansion of a secret program that encouraged physical coercion and sexual humiliation of Iraqi prisoners to obtain intelligence about the growing insurgency in Iraq, The New Yorker reported Saturday.

The Defense Department strongly denied the claims made in the report, which cited unnamed current and former intelligence officials and was published on the magazine's Web site. Pentagon spokesman Lawrence Di Rita issued a statement calling the claims "outlandish, conspiratorial, and filled with error and anonymous conjecture.''

Seven soldiers are facing military charges related to the abuse and humiliation of prisoners captured by the now-infamous photographs at the prison. Some of the soldiers and their lawyers have said military intelligence officials told military police assigned as guards to abuse the prisoners to make interrogations easier. According to the story, which hits newsstands Monday, the initial operation Rumsfeld authorized gave blanket approval to kill or capture and interrogate "high value'' targets in the war on terrorism. The program stemmed from frustrating efforts to capture high-level terrorists in the weeks after the start of U.S. bombings in Afghanistan.

The program got approval from President Bush's national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, and Bush was informed of its existence, the officials told Hersh. Under the program, Hersh wrote, commandos carried out instant interrogations - using force if necessary - at secret CIA detention centers scattered around the world. The intelligence would be relayed to the commanders at the Pentagon.

Last year, Rumsfeld and Stephen Cambone, his undersecretary for intelligence, expanded the scope of the Pentagon's program and brought its methods to Abu Ghraib, Hersh wrote. Critics say the interrogation rules, first laid out in September after a visit to Iraq by the then-commander of the prison for terror suspects at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, amounted to a green light for abuse. Defense Department officials deny that, saying prisoners always are treated under guidelines of the Geneva Conventions.

"No responsible official of the Department of Defense approved any program that could conceivably have been intended to result in such abuses as witnessed in the recent photos and videos,'' Di Rita said in his statement. "This story seems to reflect the fevered insights of those with little, if any, connection to the activities in the Department of Defense.'' Di Rita also said Cambone has never had any responsibility for any detainee or interrogation programs.

The intelligence sources told the magazine photos of the sexual abuse were used to intimidate prisoners and detainees into providing information on the insurgency. It was thought that some prisoners would do anything - including spying on their associates - to avoid dissemination of the shameful photos to family and friends. One intelligence official said the CIA ended its involvement with the program at Abu Ghraib prison by last fall. "They said, 'No way. We signed up for the core program in Afghanistan - pre-approved for operations against the high-value terrorist targets - and now you want to use it for cabdrivers, brothers-in-law, and people pulled off the streets,''' the source said.
To the Righteous belong the fruits of violent victory. The rest of us will have to settle for warm friends, warm lovers, and a wink from a quietly supportive universe.
User avatar
InfiniteNature
Posts: 352
Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2002 8:51 am
Location: In the infinite abyss, between dreams and nightmar
Contact:

Post by InfiniteNature »

Myself I don't like that they are calling for the resignation of Rumsfield, not because I feel sorry for him or because he's a great guy, but because I feel he's just a bone that they are throwing the world; while keeping the usual scumbags from facing the money.
"In Germany, they first came for the Communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the homosexuals and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a homosexual. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up because I was a protestant. Then they came for me--but by that time there was no one left to speak up."

Pastor Martin Neimoller

Infinity is a fathomless gulf, into which all things vanish.

Marcus Aurelius (121-180) Roman Emperor and Philosopher

To see a world in a grain of sand
And a heaven in a wild flower,
Hold infinity in the palm of your hand
And eternity in an hour.

Frodo has failed, Bush has the ring.
User avatar
Weasel
Posts: 10202
Joined: Wed Nov 29, 2000 11:00 pm
Location: Gamebanshee Asylum
Contact:

Post by Weasel »

Originally posted by fable
Hersh, referred to in this piece, has been extremely careful and thorough thus far in sifting his sources for accurate information regarding this developing crisis. But has he finally gone over the edge? Or is someone possibly setting him up? Or is this possibly accurate?

One intelligence official said the CIA ended its involvement with the program at Abu Ghraib prison by last fall. "They said, 'No way. We signed up for the core program in Afghanistan - pre-approved for operations against the high-value terrorist targets - and now you want to use it for cabdrivers, brothers-in-law, and people pulled off the streets,''' the source said.


I find this strange, the CIA denying something. :rolleyes: LOL alright I'm kidding, but it is strange the CIA found a heart and decided to stop.....if they ever did. I have a lack of trust in anything these people say.

As to the rest, I believe parts of it are true,



the initial operation Rumsfeld authorized gave blanket approval to kill or capture and interrogate "high value'' targets in the war on terrorism. The program stemmed from frustrating efforts to capture high-level terrorists in the weeks after the start of U.S. bombings in Afghanistan.

True..IMHO


Now this part could be...


Last year, Rumsfeld and Stephen Cambone, his undersecretary for intelligence, expanded the scope of the Pentagon's program and brought its methods to Abu Ghraib, Hersh wrote. Critics say the interrogation rules, first laid out in September after a visit to Iraq by the then-commander of the prison for terror suspects at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, amounted to a green light for abuse. Defense Department officials deny that, saying prisoners always are treated under guidelines of the Geneva Conventions.

Possible conjecture.Why? If you find that they did condone it at other places (War of Terror), it's not a far reach to think it happen at others (Iraq), especially after seeing all the pictures. Could be a setup though as well, look across the ocean and see one has all ready went down for a hoax.
"Vile and evil, yes. But, That's Weasel" From BS's book, MD 20/20: Fine Wines of Rocky Flop.
User avatar
Tom2
Posts: 74
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2004 3:57 am
Location: just around the bend...
Contact:

Post by Tom2 »

The first thing that stands out is; that the replies to his claims are not explicit denials.

“Outlandish and filled with error” maybe but not wrong. No one from the department of defence “ordered” the making of pornographic movies certainly… but the softening up of prisoners using physical and psychological methods? Not denied.

For what it is worth, I belive his claims.
I am of on holiday - enjoy - as I shall be back :)

And a little quote in the light of the US legalising toture.

"if you encourage totalitarian methods, the time may come when they will be used against you instead of for you."
George Orwell
User avatar
Gwalchmai
Posts: 6252
Joined: Wed May 09, 2001 11:00 am
Location: This Quintessence of Dust
Contact:

Post by Gwalchmai »

Originally posted by fable
It's much older than that. Aristophanes' comedies lashing out at the Athens for conquering other city states and provoking an all-out war with Sparta entailed repeated denunciations by the powers-in-charge. They claimed he was hampering the war effort by not supporting it.

And this sort of thing is repeated throughout history. It is as old as dirt, and just as pleasant to the tongue.
"Here in America we are descended in blood and spirit from revolutionists
and rebels-men and women who dare to dissent from accepted doctrine. As their heirs, we may never confuse honest
dissent with disloyal subversion." (Dwight D. Eisenhower)
That there; exactly the kinda diversion we coulda used.
User avatar
VonDondu
Posts: 3185
Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2001 11:00 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Post by VonDondu »

Originally posted by Gwalchmai
Well, the Republican's IQ could only have benefited with proximity to you. ;)
Gee, thanks. :) (Sorry I haven't been keeping up with this thread; I've tried to give myself a break from this topic until something really fun comes along.)

BTW, I don't think the people in the United States can decide whether they're rebels or conformists. "Libertarians with a puritanical streak who think the rules should apply to everyone but themselves" might sum it up.
User avatar
fable
Posts: 30676
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2001 12:00 pm
Location: The sun, the moon, and the stars.
Contact:

Post by fable »

ASSOCIATED PRESS, May 18, 2004: Chairman Dic~ Lugar, R-Indiana, top Democrat Joseph Biden of Delaware and other committee members have accused the Pentagon repeatedly of planning inadequately for post-Saddam Iraq. Wolfowitz is at the center of the Iraqi storm because few other high-level Bush administration officials have argued as forcefully about the need to topple Saddam Hussein and as optimistically about prospects for post-Saddam Iraq.

As details of prison abuses in Iraq surfaced, many Democrats on Capitol Hill demanded that Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld resign. But not Sen. Carl Levin. The top Senate Democrat on a key military committee said he is wary about who might be the post-Rumsfeld secretary. "If it would be his deputy, I don't see that that would represent a change at all in terms of the direction we should go," Levin told reporters this month. If Democrats are dissatisfied with Rumsfeld, that doesn't compare to the disdain some feel for Wolfowitz, who is seen as the intellectual architect of the Iraq war. Some of their anger spilled out at last week's Senate Armed Services Committee hearing.

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-New York, told Wolfowitz his credibility had been undermined because he had "made numerous predictions, time and time again, that have turned out to be untrue and were based on faulty assumptions." Sen. Jack Reed, D-Rhode Island, accused Wolfowitz of "dissembling and avoidance of answers."

To Republicans who supported the war, Wolfowitz was a prescient critic of U.S. policies in the 1990s, which sought to restrain Saddam without necessarily bringing him down. Wolfowitz spoke out about Saddam's brutality to his people and how he threatened the Middle East. He had criticized the first Bush administration, in which he served as undersecretary of defense for policy, for failing to "deal with Saddam" after the 1991 Persian Gulf War. In the 1990s, as dean of an influential think tank, Wolfowitz described the Clinton administration's policy on Iraq as "a muddle of confusion and pretense" and urged it to move more forcefully against Saddam. As the Bush administration began setting its sights on Iraq, it was Wolfowitz who frequently went to Capitol Hill to warn of Saddam's dangers.

He described how a liberated Iraq could spread democracy through the region and advance the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. He also sought to assuage lawmakers' worries about the difficulties and costs of winning the war and setting up a democratic government. After Gen. Eric Shinseki, then the Army chief of staff, said in February 2003 that several hundred thousand troops would have to stay in Iraq after the war, Wolfowitz told a House panel that "we can say with reasonable confidence" the estimate was "way off the mark."

...A year after Saddam was toppled, no such surge in foreign troops has appeared, and the United States still has 135,000 soldiers in the country. Wolfowitz said last week he had rejected Shinseki's estimate because it was different from that of Gen. Tommy Franks, who oversaw military operations in Iraq as head of Central Command. Wolfowitz also predicted before the war that Iraqis "are going to welcome us as liberators. And when that message gets out to the whole Arab world, it is going to be a powerful counter to Osama bin Laden." But surveys have shown that Iraqis have mixed opinions about the war, and U.S. prestige among Arabs in general has been especially hurt by the prison abuse scandal.

Wolfowitz had assured lawmakers that the costs of a war to U.S. taxpayers would be limited because of Iraq's oil revenue and frozen assets. "We're dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon," he told a House committee in March 2003. As Congress considered an $87 billion package last September that mostly benefited Iraq, Levin read back that quote to Wolfowitz.

"Talk about rosy scenarios," Levin said.
To the Righteous belong the fruits of violent victory. The rest of us will have to settle for warm friends, warm lovers, and a wink from a quietly supportive universe.
Post Reply