REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

More/Latest Torture News--From the CIA's secret prisons

POSTED BY: R1Z
UPDATED: Sunday, November 6, 2005 07:14
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 2674
PAGE 1 of 2

Wednesday, November 2, 2005 4:06 AM

R1Z


Report: CIA holds terror suspects in secret prisons

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/11/02/cia.report.ap/index.html

NEW YORK (AP) -- The CIA has been hiding and interrogating some of its most important al Qaeda captives at a Soviet-era compound in Eastern Europe, according to U.S. and foreign officials familiar with the arrangement, the Washington Post reported.

The secret facility is part of a covert prison system set up by the CIA nearly four years ago that at various times has included sites in eight countries, including Thailand, Afghanistan and several democracies in Eastern Europe, as well as a small center at the Guantanamo Bay prison in Cuba, according to current and former intelligence officials and diplomats from three continents, the paper said Tuesday.

The hidden global internment network is a central element in the CIA's unconventional war on terrorism, the Post said.

It depends on the cooperation of foreign intelligence services, and on keeping even basic information about the system secret from the public, foreign officials and nearly all members of Congress charged with overseeing the CIA's covert actions.

The existence and locations of the facilities -- referred to as "black sites" in classified White House, CIA, Justice Department and congressional documents -- are known to only a handful of officials in the United States and, usually, only to the president and a few top intelligence officers in each host country, it said.

The CIA and the White House, citing national security concerns and the value of the program, have dissuaded Congress from demanding that the agency answer questions in open testimony about the conditions under which captives are held.

Virtually nothing is known about who is kept in the facilities, what interrogation methods are employed with them, or how decisions are made about whether they should be detained or for how long.

While the Defense Department has produced volumes of public reports and testimony about its detention practices and rules after the abuse scandals at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison and at Guantanamo Bay, the CIA has not even acknowledged the existence of its black sites.

To do so, officials familiar with the program told the Post, could open the U.S. government to legal challenges, particularly in foreign courts, and increase the risk of political condemnation at home and abroad.

But the revelations of widespread prisoner abuse in Afghanistan and Iraq by the U.S. military -- which operates under published rules and transparent oversight of Congress -- have increased concern among lawmakers, foreign governments and human rights groups about the opaque CIA system.

Those concerns escalated last month, when Vice President Cheney and CIA Director Porter J. Goss asked Congress to exempt CIA employees from legislation already endorsed by 90 senators that would bar cruel and degrading treatment of any prisoner in U.S. custody.

Although the CIA will not acknowledge details of its system, intelligence officials defend the agency's approach, arguing that the successful defense of the country requires that the agency be empowered to hold and interrogate suspected terrorists for as long as necessary and without restrictions imposed by the U.S. legal system or even by the military tribunals established for prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay.

The Washington Post said it is not publishing the names of the Eastern European countries involved in the covert program, at the request of senior U.S. officials.

They argued that the disclosure might disrupt counterterrorism efforts in those countries and elsewhere and could make them targets of possible terrorist retaliation.

The secret detention system was conceived in the chaotic and anxious first months after the September 11, 2001, attacks, when the working assumption was that a second strike was imminent.

Since then, the arrangement has been increasingly debated within the CIA, where considerable concern lingers about the legality, morality and practicality of holding even unrepentant terrorists in such isolation and secrecy, perhaps for the duration of their lives.

Mid-level and senior CIA officers began arguing two years ago that the system was unsustainable and diverted the agency from its unique espionage mission, the Post said.

Copyright 2005 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.



To enjoy the flavor of life, take big bites. Moderation is for monks. --Robt. Heinlein

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 2, 2005 1:59 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


This is news.....why? It only makes perfect sense that the most evil and important of al Qaeda's organization be kept in secret. They deserve everthing they get.

As for how this story got leaked, I'm not too keen on that note. This is far more damaging, in a real world sense, than what the Dems are trying to trump up about what Scooter Libby did.

Gee, if the CIA can leak this sort of stuff, why is it so hard to imagine to think they'd do the same about Val Plame? Hmmmm......

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 2, 2005 3:14 PM

R1Z


Yeah, it's important that we only torture people in designated areas. We can't have agents of our government torturing people just anywhere.

Perhaps the people torturing our sons and daughters in uniform will extend them the same courtesy. It would be the polite thing to do.

To enjoy the flavor of life, take big bites. Moderation is for monks. --Robt. Heinlein

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 2, 2005 3:41 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:
Gee, if the CIA can leak this sort of stuff, why is it so hard to imagine to think they'd do the same about Val Plame? Hmmmm...
Auraptor: What makes you think the CIA (of all organizations) leaked this? It destroys their credibility AND (if true) their operations- please give them the benefit of not shooting themselves in the foot so blatantly. Don't you realize there's been bad blood between the White House and the CIA ever since whenever? If anybody leaked this, it would be the White House trying to destroy the CIA's credibility before the Libby trial. Sheesh! We really DO need a rolleyes emoticon!

---------------------------------
Please don't think they give a shit.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 2, 2005 3:52 PM

CHRISISALL


Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
This is news.....why? It only makes perfect sense that the most evil and important of al Qaeda's organization be kept in secret. They deserve everthing they get.
Yep. And WE deserve to give it to 'em.
It's not like they're human or anything.
Bastards shoulda stayed unborn, if ya ask me.
We oughta nuke that whole side of the planet!
Filthy indiginous biped scum!
WHO ASKED THEM TO GET PISSED OFF AT OUR PRESENCE???!!!
Yep. Lower 'em all into meat grinders slowly, that'll teach 'em how morally superior we are!

Wow. Didn't mean to rant.
I'll get back to my fly now. He has another wing left.

Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 2, 2005 8:52 PM

R1Z


It's what they deserve for living on top of OUR oil.

To enjoy the flavor of life, take big bites. Moderation is for monks. --Robt. Heinlein

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 3, 2005 4:19 AM

HERO


What secret prisons? I don't see any secret prisons. Prove to me there are secret prisons. Go on. Prove it.

Wait...is that a secret prison I see? Sorry. Its my office's water cooler. My bad. Wait! Nope, a copy machine. I'll keep looking, but I don't think we're gonna find anything.

I can find you a real prison. Heck, I live in Ohio, we got lots of that.

H

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 3, 2005 8:46 AM

CHRISISALL


Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Wait...is that a secret prison I see? Sorry. Its my office's water cooler.
Hero, you're not adding anything to the discussion!

Now, will it hurt the fly more if I pull on the wing laterally, or just straight up?

Chrisisall, sure that it's an Al-Queda fly

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 3, 2005 8:50 AM

CHRISISALL


Quote:
Originally posted by R1Z:
It's what they deserve for living on top of OUR oil.

Note for future use: They're soaking up OUR solar energy, too.

Rat bastards Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 3, 2005 9:15 AM

HERO


Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Wait...is that a secret prison I see? Sorry. Its my office's water cooler.
Hero, you're not adding anything to the discussion!

Now, will it hurt the fly more if I pull on the wing laterally, or just straight up?

Chrisisall, sure that it's an Al-Queda fly


My point is that there's no discussion to add to. Here's an example. Chrisihall beats his wife says I. The question is not, were is the proof, rather its: Chrisiall, why do you beat your wife?

I suggest that while there may be secret prisons, they are almost certainly located next to the alien anal probe labs and the dinosaur breeding pens. I'm not denying they exist, I'm just suggesting they might be a tad hard to locate.

For the record, I'm in favor of the secret terrorist prisons and what better place for them then the former eastern block since they know how to do that stuff and have all those empty Commie prisons lying round unused. A little capitalism and a worldwide war on terror and poof, a cottage industry is born.

H

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 3, 2005 10:06 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


I'm w/holding judgement on this news item. It could be true: previous reports of CIA "extraordinary renditions" (as investigated by Italian secret service) tend to support the concept of secret prisons. It could be false: This piece of "news" almost certainly came from the WH, which has a tendency to smear it's political enemies w/ lies (eg Joseph Wilson). In addition, there may be divisions even w/in the CIA.

EDITED TO ADD: Further details from the Independent
Quote:
Using the flight logs of a plane used by the CIA for transporting prisoners and other unspecified information, a leading human rights group said it believed the facilities were located in the two former Soviet bloc countries and first used in 2003.

Tom Malinowski of Human Rights Watch told The Independent: "These are the areas we are highly confident about, based on the flights logs and other information we have."

The investigation by the New York-based group has focused on the logs of a Boeing 757 jet with the tailgate marker N313P. This plane has been widely identified as being used by the CIA for the transportation and "renditioning" of terror suspects outside the US. Until recently, it was registered to a Massachusetts-based company believed to be a front for the CIA.

Using this data Human Rights Watch discovered that, in September 2003, it flew directly from Kabul to Szymany airport, near the remote Polish town of Szczytno, north of Warsaw, home to a training facility for the Polish intelligence service.

From there, the plane flew directly to Mihail Kogalniceanu air base, close to the Romanian city of Constanta on the Black Sea coast. The Pentagon is involved in negotiations to take over the airbase's operation. Throughout 2004, the plane made a number of other visits to Kogalniceanu, on which the US has spent at least $3m upgrading facilities in preparation for taking it over.

In 2003 Kogalniceanu was used as the temporary location for more than 3,500 US troops on their way to northern Iraq. Last October, US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld visited the base and met senior Romanian military officials.

"The flight from Kabul in September 2003 happened at a time when we know a number of ghost detainees were being moved," said Mr Malinowski. "It's hard to imagine why this plane would be flying there otherwise..Larry Johnson, a former CIA analyst, said he believed news about the detention facilities was emerging because agency members were concerned. "Once again the Bush administration is out of control," he said.

.."
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article324307.ece
Apparently the info came from neither the CIA nor the WH but a NGO.

---------------------------------
Please don't think they give a shit.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 3, 2005 10:27 AM

HERO


Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
This piece of "news" almost certainly came from the WH, which has a tendency to smear it's political enemies w/ lies (eg Joseph Wilson). Something like this needs corroboration.


Good for you Signy.

BTW, why do you beat your wife? Is it the White House? Did the White House make you beat your wife? I know Joe Wilson looked at your wife's bruises and concluded that you didn't beat her, I'd expect him to say that, him beating his wife because of her CIA affiliation (I'm not talking out of school here am I) and all? But why?

(Note: I don't have actual proof that you beat your wife. I think this needs corraboration, certainly, but I'm told by sources close to Signy, and the allegation is so serious, I think you owe us all an explanation. Perhaps the EU can help, the French know all about this sort of thing.)

Edited to add
Quote:

The investigation by the San Antonio-based group, Wife Beaters Watch, has focused on a 1984 red Mercury Topaz with Michigan plates LUV PUPPY. This car has been widely identified as being used by the Wife Beaters, Inc for the transportation and "renditioning" of wives outside the home. Until recently, it was registered to a Massachusetts-based company believed to be a front for the DNC.


My god, the DNC supports wife beating. Someone tell me why Howard Dean wants the DNC to support wife beating. WHY?

H

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 3, 2005 11:00 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
Gee, if the CIA can leak this sort of stuff, why is it so hard to imagine to think they'd do the same about Val Plame? Hmmmm...
Auraptor: What makes you think the CIA (of all organizations) leaked this? It destroys their credibility AND (if true) their operations- please give them the benefit of not shooting themselves in the foot so blatantly. Don't you realize there's been bad blood between the White House and the CIA ever since whenever? If anybody leaked this, it would be the White House trying to destroy the CIA's credibility before the Libby trial. Sheesh! We really DO need a rolleyes emoticon!

---------------------------------
Please don't think they give a shit.


Where's the breathless news reporting on this story that we saw with Plame Gate? You really need to face facts here. It was the CIA, not the White House, that leaked this as well as the Valerie Plame story.

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 3, 2005 11:03 AM

DREAMTROVE


I basically agree with you, let the CIA fight al qaeda however it needs to, as long as it doesn't torture people, but I can't let you get away with this one:

Quote:
than what the Dems are trying to trump up about what Scooter Libby did.


What scooter libby did was commit treason. Which considering he's basically a commie anyway, should not surprise anyone. I don't think the democrats are any part of this, except the noisy part.

Here's what democrats are doing:

They're standing on the sidelines and cheering every time a Bush Administration self destructs.

That's exactly what they're doing. Standing on the sidelines. They aren't an active part of Bush crumbling. They never blocked a single vote either, they can't. Democrats are beyond powerless at this point. They're like Ralph Nader. So if Bush says "Democrats did this" don't believe him. He's lying again. Democrats can't do jack.

That's what I think. A combination of disaffected republicans and independent normal checks and balances of govt. are responsible for everything that happens to Bush. It's the suicide presidency.

But Scooter was a footsoldier for Cheney in an attempt to unintentionally help Al Qaeda because they were more afraid of not being able to go to war then they were of not capturing bin laden.

Here's a better idea. Let them die. Get them out of there asap, and get a decent republican replacement administration in there before 2008 so it can run for re-election. Anyone will do. I don't care at this point.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 3, 2005 11:04 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
This is news.....why? It only makes perfect sense that the most evil and important of al Qaeda's organization be kept in secret. They deserve everthing they get.
Yep. And WE deserve to give it to 'em.
It's not like they're human or anything.
Bastards shoulda stayed unborn, if ya ask me.....

Chrisisall


We more than anyone deserve to give it to 'em, Chris. -



" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 3, 2005 11:21 AM

DREAMTROVE


Quote:

Yeah, it's important that we only torture people in designated areas.


Torture is DoD policy not CIA. The reaosn Abu Ghraib was such a scandal is that it led back up to an actual policy.

This article said Porter Goss sought exemption. Earlier I read that Cheney sought exemption and Goss was outraged and said he didn't want exemption.

Anyone have any clarification?

I agree with Auraptor, let the CIA do it's job.

If there are abuses at CIA facilities, that's another matter. If someone has reason to suspect that this is the case, write your senators, get a formal investigation. There are plenty of people with clearance to go in, inspect, ask detainees about their treatment, and then if there are claims of abuse, investigate those claims and see if there's a legitimate basis for those claims. If, and only if, that turns out to be the case should the CIA be censured.

Quote:

It's what they deserve for living on top of OUR oil.


Lol. See. He got you. Bush. He reeled you in to his lie, all unsuspecting like. Bin Laden, Al Qaeda - not sitting on any oil. That would be Saddam, and oh yeah, our good friend the Sultan of Swish.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 3, 2005 11:23 AM

DREAMTROVE


Them Them Them. Does anyone know who this them is? I think I see someone posted a plane which is about to hit a building, and I believe that plane has been hijacked by a them.

Who is that them on that plane?

Oh, yeah, it's a bunch of Saudis.

So you want to go kick some Saudi butt? Sign me up! :)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 3, 2005 11:28 AM

DREAMTROVE


Signym,
I agree, but I think there's more here that's up in the air. Secret interrogation centers, probably, detainee abuse in those facilities, possibly. But all of this is a lot of if.

The source is the whitehouse? This is a curious one. I don't see the motive, but I agree with you, if they had a motive they'd probably do it. Maybe they thought Langley was looking at them funny.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 3, 2005 11:43 AM

R1Z


Quote:
Quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It's what they deserve for living on top of OUR oil.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Lol. See. He got you. Bush. He reeled you in to his lie, all unsuspecting like. Bin Laden, Al Qaeda - not sitting on any oil. That would be Saddam, and oh yeah, our good friend the Sultan of Swish.


Sorry, and you're right. It's what they get for using good poppy growing land for a training center, when it could be keeping our under-classes stoned and docile and not looking into things. How's that?


To enjoy the flavor of life, take big bites. Moderation is for monks. --Robt. Heinlein

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 3, 2005 11:49 AM

R1Z


Quote:
Where's the breathless news reporting on this story that we saw with Plame Gate?


Actually, the piece at the head of this thread is only the first of several I've seen. No point in posting repetitive stuff.

Here's one from today:

http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2005/11/03/cia-prison051103.htm
l

Quote:
EU to investigate allegations of secret CIA prisons
Last Updated Thu, 03 Nov 2005 09:34:40 EST
CBC News
The European Commission plans to investigate reports that the CIA is running a secret prison system in Eastern Europe and using it to interrogate key al-Qaeda captives.

EU officials say they will informally question the European Union's 25 member nations.

"We have to find out what is exactly happening. We have all heard about this, then we have to see if it is confirmed," EU spokesman Friso Roscam Abbing said Thursday.

"As far as the treatment of prisoners is concerned ... it is clear that all 25 member states having signed up to European Convention on Human Rights, and to the International Convention Against Torture, are due to respect and fully implement the obligations deriving from those treaties."

Abbing warned such prisons could violate EU human rights laws. But he also admitted the EU head office could not take action against member states if they are found to have violated human rights.

Meanwhile, U.S. officials have refused to confirm or deny the Washington Post report regarding the CIA-run prisons.

The paper reported that the Soviet-era style compounds are part of a covert prison system that has been run for nearly four years by the U.S. spy agency, as part of Washington's war on terrorism.

It said there are sites in at least eight countries, including Thailand and Afghanistan, as well as several democracies in Eastern Europe.

But the Post said it is not publishing the names of the Eastern European countries involved in the covert program, at the request of senior U.S. officials.

They argued that the disclosure might disrupt counterterrorism efforts in those countries and elsewhere and could make them targets of possible terrorist retaliation.

The existence and locations of the facilities are known to only a handful of top officials in the U.S., according to the report.

No information is known about the facilities, including who is kept there, how decisions are made about the detainees and how long they are detained.

The secret detention system is said to have been conceived in the first months after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

The Post said CIA officials have been increasingly debating the system, questioning the legality, morality and practicality of holding suspects in isolation and secrecy.





To enjoy the flavor of life, take big bites. Moderation is for monks. --Robt. Heinlein

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 3, 2005 12:04 PM

R1Z


More (not-so) breathless reporting:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/03/AR2005
110300422_pf.html

excerpt:
Quote:
Rep. John P. Murtha (Pa.), ranking Democrat on the Appropriations defense subcommittee, urged the United States to adopt a doctrine of "no torture, no excuses," and said Congress needs to speak on the issue. "The United States of America and the values we reflect abhor human rights violators and uphold human rights," Murtha said in a statement.


Quote:
"no torture, no excuses"


I like it. Short, catchy. It could be printed on key chains that could be passed out. Or T-shirts. Or little stickers that could be pasted above light switches.

Seriously, My God in Heaven, how did we ever get to the point where we're debating if an official agency of the U.S. government should be ALLOWED by law to contravene the letter and the spirit of the Geneva Conventions!?!?!?

I was raised to believe that we were the "Good Guys" in white hats who didn't do such things, because they were wrong. Just flat out wrong.

To enjoy the flavor of life, take big bites. Moderation is for monks. --Robt. Heinlein

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 3, 2005 12:25 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:
* No torture, no excuses *

I like it. Short, catchy. It could be printed on key chains that could be passed out. Or T-shirts. Or little stickers that could be pasted above light switches.

Seriously, My God in Heaven, how did we ever get to the point where we're debating if an official agency of the U.S. government should be ALLOWED by law to contravene the letter and the spirit of the Geneva Conventions!?!?!?

I was raised to believe that we were the "Good Guys" in white hats who didn't do such things, because they were wrong. Just flat out wrong.


No, flat out RIGHT. We ARE the good guys, but we also realize that there's a real world out there which doesn't play by the rules. The apoplectic response by some that the U.S. officially condones torture is nothing short of al Jizzerah spin.( or Air America/moveon.org....who can tell the differnce? ) As witness, any excessive CRAP that a few over zealous thugs in the military dished out was met with medals..no,(kidding) sorry. Has been met with investigations and PUNISHMENT for those convicted of wrong doing. These weren't media driven investigations, but done by our own military. Good Guys.

Also, this touchy feely, Seasame Street slogan of the day is prue nonsense. No torture, no excuses ? PLEASE! Expect that to be the slogan some terrorist start singing as they saw off the head of yet another infidel they happen to kidnap. If the diaper heads want to join a standing army of a recognized State, don a regular uniform , THEN they can expect Geneva Convention type treatment.



" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 3, 2005 3:06 PM

CHRISISALL


Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:


We more than anyone deserve to give it to 'em, Chris.

*referring to photo above*
Okay, a very emotional picture. It brings up rage for me, too.
But that's only half the story. They weren't geniuses who plotted or executed this. And those who should've seen it coming weren't either. Difference is, the dudes that did the terrorism had FOCUS, and our leaders were busy making the word safe for OCP!
And BTW, I have NO problem whatsoever waxing the people behind 911, problem is that they're hard to locate, and the $'s behind it point to our pals, the Saudis, but we have to whack someone, so we throw a dart at a Middle Eastern map. That's not only wrong, it's stupid.
Pretty soon, the dead men and women of the armed services will outnumber the people lost in New York's Twin Towers, that seem right to you?

I would have sent in hit teams to off those terrorist deviants.
I know, that's against the Geneva Convention, and we can't go doing something against that, right?

Yeah, and maybe I'm a Chinese jet pilot.

Chrisisall, ending his not-so-funny rant

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 3, 2005 3:15 PM

CHRISISALL


I just re-read my post, and it might sound like I'm directing my anger at you, AURaptor, and I don't mean to. I'm angry with the situation, savy?

Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 3, 2005 4:38 PM

DREAMTROVE


Quote:

Originally posted by AURAPTOR:

No, flat out RIGHT. We ARE the good guys, but we also realize that there's a real world out there which doesn't play by the rules. The apoplectic response by some that the U.S. officially condones torture is nothing short of al Jizzerah spin.( or Air America/moveon.org....who can tell the differnce? ) As witness, any excessive CRAP that a few over zealous thugs in the military dished out was met with medals..no,(kidding) sorry. Has been met with investigations and PUNISHMENT for those convicted of wrong doing. These weren't media driven investigations, but done by our own military. Good Guys.

Also, this touchy feely, Seasame Street slogan of the day is prue nonsense. No torture, no excuses ? PLEASE! Expect that to be the slogan some terrorist start singing as they saw off the head of yet another infidel they happen to kidnap. If the diaper heads want to join a standing army of a recognized State, don a regular uniform , THEN they can expect Geneva Convention type treatment.


WHOA!

Slow down there. No. Come to a screening halt.

Sorry I just love that line :)

Okay, but seriously, I gotta slam this post Auraptor.

The fact that we have rules of moral conduct that we live by, even when our enemy chooses not to, is not our weakness, it is our strenth.

I can't think of a more conservative sentiment :)

One of the great things about being a wingnut, is that your values are already well stated, defined is stuff to live by, and any new situation is pretty easy to adapt to, and see what fits. To us, the conservatives are those who live by those principles.

Unlike people who might follow, say, the GOP leadership, or for that matter the DNC, which ever way they might turn.

Classic conservative lines are easy to apply, and those who don't live by them are no conservatives in my book. George W. Bush is no kind of conservative at all.

I don't feel this point even requires an argument. It's already been made.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 3, 2005 4:43 PM

DREAMTROVE


Quote:

I would have sent in hit teams to off those terrorist deviants.


Three cheers to this.

Actually, if the CIA catches them, and takes them to its secret detainment center, and does not torture them, then it can determine if their fit to stand trial, and if there is a reasonable case against them, and then they can stand trial, and be found unbelievably guilty. If the trial is in New York, they'll go to prison for life. If the trial is in saudi arabia, they will be decapitated by a guy with a sword.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 3, 2005 5:25 PM

CHRISISALL


Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Quote:

I would have sent in hit teams to off those terrorist deviants.


Three cheers to this.
I know that idea is not a popular one with some of my more left leaning colleagues here, but isn't war just a bigger, clumsier version of the same thing? Given that we were gonna do SOMETHING, I would have opted for a more surgical strike at the correct targets.

Just my two scheckles Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 3, 2005 6:35 PM

DREAMTROVE


Quote:

Originally Posted by Chrisisall

I know that idea is not a popular one with some of my more left leaning colleagues here, but isn't war just a bigger, clumsier version of the same thing? Given that we were gonna do SOMETHING, I would have opted for a more surgical strike at the correct target


Chris,

I have a rule I call the rule of least death. When considering a military action, take the course of least death.
If you have multiple effective options, take the one which is effective but causes least death. If your best least death kills more people than not fighting and leaving the dictator in power, then you are maximum death. If you have decent options and do nothing, you are maximum death again. Generally, these should only be considered for widespread genocide like in Darfur.

Rates of random civilian slaughter for a dictator may vary, but it's all going to average out in the end, so you start with what you have.

Saddam Hussein killed a million people. (anyone who doubts this is forgetting that he invaded Iran)

he was in power for almost 25 years.

40,000 people a year is the cost of a Saddam Hussein in power, as a means of his staying there.

This means he's less dangerous to the world than a George W. Bush or a Bill Clinton, but he's still a f^&ker and needs to go.

The question is, how to get rid of him. If your solution costs more lives, then clearly you need a better one.

Further questions will present themselves about whether a combat should be fought at all. The cost in human lives of Hugo Chavez in power in Venezuela? None as far as I can tell. Okay, let's not go to war with him. If we don't like him in power we have many ways to get rid of him. Fund an opposition candidate in a democratic election. Why we could do that in Iran, also. Another govt. that like Syria, is not killing large numbers of people.

Here's a quick rundown of Clinton wars on the minimum death system

Rwanda. Should've gone. Didn't go. Shame on Clinton, he opted for maximum death.
Somalia. Didn't need to go. Went. Maximum death.
Iraq. something probably needed to be done but Clinton killed more people per year by a factor of five than did Hussein himself, and yet the Clinton campaigns accomplished nothing. Maximum death.
Yugoslavia. Should have gone. Didn't go. Went kind of token right at the end, but too late. Maximum death.
Serbia/Kosovo. Not Clear. This may have been a minimum death war, but it's not clear. Human displacement can't be equated to human life lost, and Clinton could have transfered middle east forces and had a more minimum death, but I'll concede this one for the sake of the argument. I still was not happy with the war and the way it was conducted, but it was hard to lose the minimum death battle against Milosevic, since he was a serious maximum death contender, taking out 100,000+ of his own citizens per year.
Haiti, Clinton fought a war in Haiti that I know so little about I don't know what was the maximum death angle, if no one has anything to share I will have to take clinton at his word that this was minimum death.

Still and all, a pretty bad record. A million dead. More or less. Bush is envious. He's probably up around 1/4 million right now, but when he launches pre-emptive nukes against Iran, he'll be able to push Clinton out of the running. It is sad that after ending the 20th century, by far the bloodiest in human history, to begin the 21st with a bloody and pointless war.

Now another issue we have to address is relative value of human life. Is a Darfur peasant equal to an American GI? A lot of people instinctively said yes, and others jsut as instinctively said no. I don't think we will ever have a way to measure this, but I think that it's important to realize that people are already thinking like this, and as soon as they do, they start making an American GI worth an infinite number of Darfur peasants. Strangely enough I have a very odd but sensible solution. We settle this by avoiding the quesiton. We arrange our army as a proxy force. Totally restructure it to be a small elite fighting force and an army of trainers who train local people to fight with sophisticated weaponry. The weapons will have in addition, remote controls of Americans who are out of combat. This will make it impossible for the locals to turn and use the weapons against americans, and also the more complex secrets of the control of the technology will be kept in american hands.

In this situation, a Darfur peasant goes up against the janjaweed militia (great name) in a manned predator, which he flies (yeah, lots of african peasants can fly, because they have no ground transport in many places. Not tons of them, but enough to build into a small fighting force.) The sophisticated power of the machine, and the okay to fire are controlled remotely by the american copilot somewhere in a remote base. No American life risked, no potential attack on American forces or possessions, but ultimate American weapons on the side we have chosen to support.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 3, 2005 7:02 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:
Pretty soon, the dead men and women of the armed services will outnumber the people lost in New York's Twin Towers, that seem right to you?


Dead from Pearl Harbor attack, Dec 7. 1941: 2,404

Dead from World War 2: 300,000+ (Military)

I don't care to play the numbers game, as it's irrelevent when trying to fight a war. Ask any military expert, it does nothing but detract from the goal when numbers get tossed around like that. Sounds cold, cruel and such, but that's how wars are won.

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 3, 2005 7:48 PM

DREAMTROVE


Since you mentioned wwii, war with Japan fails the minimum death test easily, war with germany is the same category as clinton's war in yugoslavia, to late to be affective, but minimum death is fighting the war with germany, if started earlier, say in the late 30s, after germany had invaded czechoslovakia, austria and poland.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, November 4, 2005 9:50 AM

CHRISISALL


Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
that's how wars are won.

"Trying to get no one killed is what can get everyone killed."
...I get it.....
*hangs down head in realization of the sad fact*

Still, having douchebags like Clinton and Bush running things ups the body count. Only people with serious military experience should run the military....

I'm with Dreamtrove's minnimum death thing.

Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, November 4, 2005 10:51 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
that's how wars are won.

"Trying to get no one killed is what can get everyone killed."
...I get it.....
*hangs down head in realization of the sad fact*

Still, having douchebags like Clinton and Bush running things ups the body count. Only people with serious military experience should run the military....

I'm with Dreamtrove's minnimum death thing.

Chrisisall


I find truth (and agreement) in your words. But then that raises up a whole other question about elected civilians running the military, but I don't want to get side tracked.

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, November 4, 2005 11:20 AM

CITIZEN


Civilians should run the military. The way I see it if a requirement of your ultimate military decision maker is that they are military (ex or otherwise) means you have one of two things.
Either the Military is divorced from government, which sounds incredibly scary to me, because I can't see any 'good' coming of it, or that we move back to an almost feudal situation, where the civilian sector exists to support the military, rather than the other way around.

Best to keep ultimate decision making on the part of the civilian sector, but keep the experienced military personnel as advisors, for when making military decisions.



More insane ramblings by the people who brought you Beeeer Milkshakes!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, November 4, 2005 11:43 AM

DREAMTROVE


Quote:

Originally posted by Chrisisall

Only people with serious military experience should run the military....

Thanks, I agree btw on this. A lot of people on the left said "oh yay, on non-military president, now we can have peace" but it's definitely been no end of war. I don't think Kerry had the military experience to lead though. McCain and Hagel do. I'm sure there are some other republicans and some democrats who do. Daniel Inouye definitely does.

I would be in favor of an additional clause, if we're going to have non military pres. they should have military vps, and the two would have to agree on any course of military action. You get a couple of oil industry ceos planning a war with socialist intellectuals as advisors and you get a mess.

I think wes clarke also has experience, but i don't like his tactics, which are very anti-civilian, imho. but that's just a personal aside. he's probably not going to lose a war though.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, November 4, 2005 11:55 AM

DREAMTROVE


Quote:

Originally posted by Citizen

Civilians should run the military.


Okay you already know I disagree. There are just so many problems with this.

1. At the moment we've been trying this for 13 years and we have killed 1.3 million people. That makes us as bad as Slobodan Milosevic, except that we didn't kill our own people. Still, I call this a stunning record of failure on the plan.

2. The civilian leadership will appoint it's support. Bush has managed to find General Myers, a man who seems to be completely insane, but willing to back up Cheney at every turn. My point here is your civilian leader will always be able to find a freak of nature, or vietnam headjob, who will support his bad decisions. Myers on his own howeever, could never have been elected president. No nutjob hopefully will be elected. I don't think Cheney's a nutjob, btw.

3. Civilian leadership really has no concept of war. They get their knowledge from board games, and thus are not realistic in their tactics, or their willingness to accept the loss of human life, as collateral damage.

4. The history looks on this even worse. WWI was made of this sort of thing. Some 60 million people died because the people at the top didn't know what they're doing.

5. Military leaders who are in an administration are unlikely to gainsay a president, especially if, as is the case with Bush, that president has a record of firing people who disagree with him.

There are probably some other problems with it that I haven't yet thought of :)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, November 4, 2005 12:18 PM

CHRISISALL


Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Civilians should run the military.
I like what Dreamtrove said about either the prez or vice prez having military experience; nobody worse to make decisions about a thing than someone who has no real knowledge about that thing.
I can teach ya how to snap someone's neck, but I don't know diddly about guns. Wanna put me in charge of munitions?

EVERY prez deals with war, not every one has had war experience. They make psychiatrists get psycho-analyzed....

Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, November 4, 2005 12:55 PM

CITIZEN


Ahh, I think we're talking different things. I'm not saying the president prime minister whoever is in charge of the military, i.e. they decide what targets, when where and tactics etc.
The military should, however, be ultimately responsible to, and therefore in service of, the civilian authority.

Thing is, if you start making military experience a prerequisite to civilian service then your moving in to dangerous territory. Think about it, firstly your admitting that military action isn’t just a ‘last resort’ but a requirement to the smooth running of the civil authority. Secondly you’re cutting down on who can run your government.

Think of it another way. Think of Starship Trooper (book or film doesn’t matter). Think of the distinction they made between those who could vote and those who could not vote. It’s vaguer in the film but a prerequisite to having the vote is to be a ‘citizen’ and a citizen is someone who takes personal responsibility for the defence of democracy.
That is someone who has served in the armed forces.
Doesn’t sound to bad, I mean it’s not the draft, since people still have a choice to join the military or not, and taking personal responsibility for the ‘defence of democracy’ sure sounds like a good think to promote don’t it?
Problem is you’re almost guarantying the perpetuation of the ‘status quo’ as those who choose service, and make it through selection will be of a certain type. Throw in the necessary indoctrination of any successful military and you’ll end up with the only people that can vote being of a certain mindset, likely to mirror that of the people in charge.

So if you take military service as a prerequisite to civilian service then you’re necessarily cutting down your options as too who can lead your civilian government. They’ll have a ‘militaristic’ way of looking at things, which is not necessarily a good thing.
Think of those cheesy America saves the world movies, where the General is saying “We can wipe them off the face of the planet sir!” if your president is the General there’s no one saying “That’s the last resort”.

I guess the question is do you really want the individual who’s main job it is to deal with civilian issues not military one’s to be a civilian, or a ‘military man’?

PS:
Dreamtrove:
I’m surprised to see you make such a case, as it seems to be quite a militaristic standpoint to me.


More insane ramblings by the people who brought you Beeeer Milkshakes!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, November 4, 2005 1:59 PM

DREAMTROVE


Citizen,

We cut down who can operate on patients the same way by saying only people who have gone to medical school. If someone wants to, they can join the military whenever. But I think the either Pres. or VP would work.

Also, the military is already responsible to a civilian authority. At least in theory. Congress. Right at the moment congress is saying "You can't torture people."

But really we need to assign some sort of breaking the constitution penalty. If we make presidents swear an oath to it, then if they break that oath, they break their word, and they cross America. And I don't mean on a bike. So it would make sense that that should be an impeachable offense. Now if this were so, every presdident since Eisenhower should be impeached, with the possible exceptions of Ford and Carter. But I think it would be a good rule. Then the constitution would be something that presidents actually had to follow to keep their jobs, rather than just something they have to pretend that they believe in. Sure, initially there would be one or two rediculous partisan impeachments, but after that, people would be a little more careful about stomping on the rights of the people and ignoring the role of congress in govt.

Just a footnote here. Most Americans are of the opinion that congress is a bunch of knuckleheads. This is because every administration has forwarded this idea, and the average american has never actually watched a senate session, and so it flies. But administrations want to do this because they want more executive power, and the more we the people let them, they will slowly turn Amereica into a dictatorship. One with a revolving dictator, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton, etc. No don't blame congress here, we the people need to not let them get away with it by organizing to get non-thugs into office.

In reality, congress is full of educated but pragmatic, people, many of whom are level headed realists. Those who do not fit this description, we should also remove by organizing to get non-thugs into congress.

Any democrat or republican should recognize how much better it is that congress, which is always roughly split, have to decide the most serious matters by supermajority, so that a wide array of people agree, rather than have the executives make supreme decisions that may alter our lives.

Lots of folks here like me hate both Bush and Clinton more or less equally, but most people here hate at least one of the two, and realize how supreme executive power would be really bad.

Like the white house, it's a good idea that this "civilian" authority also have a good number of military men in it, but it always does, so I see no need to legislate that.

Generally though, I tend to think the general is the level head. More the Reginald Priest in Lexx saying Damn Cubans, nuke 'em. But best to have checks and balances, but also to have someone doing what the know how to do. President is commander in chief of the armed forces. I'm not going to hire someone to be head of General Motors on the grounds that they were once on a TV show.

PS.

Citizen,

In case you haven't noticed, I'm a tad conservative. But I favor a strong level headed military bent on defending America, not a jackass cowboy overseas invasion or a social justice righter of wrongs and upholder of the rights of the, well I can't think of anything that's not going to offend someone or other, but you know, sticking our nose in someone else's business and telling them how to run things.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, November 4, 2005 2:35 PM

STAKETHELURK


Quote:
Originally posted by Citizen:
Civilians should run the military.

Originally posted by Dreamtrove:
There are just so many problems with this.
I have to very strongly agree with Citizen here. Civilians should control the military. Military experience should not be a requisite for the presidency.

1. Thirteen years? Thirteen years? The United States have been around for over two hundred years. We’ve been “trying this” for the past two centuries and it seems to be working pretty well so far. After all the man who led us through our greatest national crisis had no military experience either. I’d rather take Abraham Lincoln over General George McClellan any day. Lincoln was the guy who refused to give up even when McClellan and others were telling him to throw in the towel. Lincoln was the one who kept sorting through a sea of mediocre generals like McClellan, trying to find someone who would *fight* and eventually landing on Grant and Sherman, mid-ranking guys who wouldn’t have gotten very far if it weren’t for Mr. Lincoln’s influence. That right there is one case of a civilian doing far more than all the high-ranking generals around him. And I got plenty of other examples. So, we’ve not been doing so well over the past few years. We’re a democracy. It’s our fault (generally) for electing leaders who haven’t been as good as they could be. Let’s do better next time. You want to talk about history, look further back than the last few elections.

2. The military leadership will do the same thing. And, to be frank, even presidents with military experience would do the same thing. That’s what politicians do. They appoint supporters, people who think like they do. Every military leader can also find plenty of nutjobs to support their positions. And with a rigid chain of command, the folks at the top really don’t have to pay attention to the advice of others, they just bark an order. Civilians have to do a lot of persuading, they need to convince people of their idea. General What’s His Face? Not so much.

3. Typically, the civilian leadership is very unwilling to accept high civilian or military casualties. This is because the civilians are aware of public opinion. The military, on the other hand, is concerned with getting the job done. Obsessed with it, almost. Which is why, rather than give up, military leaders almost always want to keep going to try and *somehow* accomplish their mission. Like in Vietnam. After the Tet Offensive demonstrated that 2.5 years of heavy fighting hadn’t accomplished anything, the military wanted 200,000 more men and an expansion of the war into Cambodia, Laos, and possibly North Vietnam. This was insane. By that point, the war was unwinnable--but because the military is so focused on “accomplishing the mission,” they were unwilling to look at it objectively and see that the mission could no longer be accomplished. You say “civilian leadership really has no concept of war,” but I have to say the military has too much concept of war. It’s the military that wanted to use nukes in Korea and Vietnam--the civilians were the ones who said “Are you ing crazy?? That’s a crime against humanity! And it’ll start World War III!” It’s the military’s job to think of how to get the particular job done; it’s the civilians who look at the big picture--at public opinion, at diplomacy, at other potential problems, at economics.

4. First of all, your casualties are way off. Combined civilian and military casualties were 15 million ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I), not 60 million, that’s World War II. Secondly, World War I is the perfect example why civilians should control the military. When the crisis first broke out, the military high command in Austria-Hungary, Germany, and Russia all heavily pressured their civilian leaders to mobilize else they could be outraced by the mobilization of the enemy. All three of those civilian leaders were very hesitant to take any hostile steps (the matter could still be solved diplomatically, but mobilization would make war almost a foregone conclusion), but all three were convinced of the military necessity by the stern demands of their generals. As soon as mobilization began in Germany, Kaiser Wilhelm ceased to be the Commander in Chief--instead all military authority went to the head of the Imperial General Staff. I don’t have the source with me, but if memory serves there’s evidence Kaiser Bill had a change of heart and wanted to call the whole thing off--but couldn’t, because the generals now had full control. Then there’s Sir Winston Churchill’s actions in this war, showing that even politicians with a military background can make incredibly bad decisions. Churchill attended the Royal Military College at Sandhurst. He served as a military correspondent for several conflicts and participated in the reconquest of the Sudan in 1898. He served in the Boer War and became something of a national hero. During World War I, he was made First Lord of the Admiralty and did some really great administrative work, including encouraging the development of tanks. He also proposed the Gallipoli Campaign, an immense military blunder that damaging his rising political career (besides killing 131,000 men for no reason). He tried to do the same thing in WWII, but the generals talked him out of it (Generals questioning civilians?! Sounds like an answer to Point #5!). World War I was an immense tragedy, but the “people at the top who didn’t know what they were doing” included everyone with military experience. All the military men of that era were trained to fight a war of maneuver, not a trench war. They were also all trained about the value of bayonet charges and marching in close formation rather than spread out, virtually suicidal against machine guns. Even as late as 1916, some French generals were still ordering their men to advance in close formation, despite years of evidence that this produced massive casualties. Everyone at the higher level was clueless in World War I (although the Germans were actually doing a much better job of adapting tactics to trench warfare than anyone else), it didn’t matter whether you had a president or prime minister with military experience or not. I mean, the generals were still holding cavalry around for the inevitable break through. “Just smash through and let the cavalry tear up their rear!” Idiocy. That’s why the best post to have in WWI was that of a cavalry soldier--you didn’t do any fighting because you were being held in reserve for the breakthrough.

5. And then you have military leaders like MacArthur, who wanted to defy the president for an insane scheme. Or you have Generals like McClellan, who did everything he could to avoid attacking despite orders that he do so. Plus, military leaders within a hierarchy have even less leeway to question their superior’s commands. As it stands, military leaders have much more of a chance to make their opinions heard--they just need the spine to make themselves heard. If you aren’t willing to risk your career to fix a mistake that could cost thousands of lives, I say you don’t deserve to be in uniform or public office in the first place.

Another example of why civilians lacking control over the military is bad: In Japan after the Meiji Restoration, the Minister of the Army and the Minister of the Navy were always military officers. They did not report to the Japanese Diet. They didn’t even really report to the Prime Minister (who was also not responsible to the Diet). In the late 20s and early 30s, Japan faced a terrible economic crisis--even before the Great Depression. There was also a growing sense that the rest of the world was turning hostile to Japan, that it was threatened by the British and the US. Japan had little natural resources, it traded on the free market for most of its food, fuel, and raw goods. But many felt that with the economic crisis and increasing international hostility, Japan couldn’t rely on free trade and instead needed a life-line to the Asian mainland. So the military, feeling that the fate of the nation was at stake, acted preemptively, invading Manchuria. The civilian government couldn’t do anything but rubber stamp the action, because they couldn’t control the army. As the sense of national peril increased, the military eventually seized power because the civilian leaders didn’t seemed to be doing what the generals thought was right. Japan then began its campaign of imperialist expansion while the military turned society at home into a frightening fascist police state. Lack of civilian control over the military caused Japan to turn fascist during a perceived crisis. I’d rather not risk that happening here, thank you.

Requiring a president or vice presidential candidate to have military experience would be a further militarization of our society. As Citizen says, the president is primarily a domestic leader. He isn’t fighting a war all the time (unless he’s GWB). Wars are like natural disasters. They happen, but they don’t happen every second. So we don’t need a president with emergency management experience. We just need one who can appoint decent advisers--which Bush apparently can’t. If you go around requiring military service, you suddenly imply that soldiers and veterans are better than everybody else (ie, if you haven’t served you’re a second class citizen). The idea that every American could be president (theoretically) is one of the great things about our society. The idea that you can start up a campaign at any moment and run for office (once you reach the appropriate age). Abe Lincoln can start out as an attorney, stumble into politics, and end up as president under the present system. You put that requirement in, you will destroy that idea and part of what it means to an American. Besides, you’d have to amend the constitution to do it. The Founders made sure that no political, professional, or military experience was necessary to hold the highest office in the country and I’m pretty sure they did that for a reason.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, November 4, 2005 2:51 PM

R1Z






washingtonpost.com
Out of a Bad Spy Novel

By Eugene Robinson
Friday, November 4, 2005; A23



The men from the pages of a bad spy novel throw people they don't like into secret prisons that officially do not exist, snug little dungeons hidden away in undisclosed countries. These spy-novel men keep to the shadows; if a ray of sunlight happens to fall upon one of their lairs, they scurry away to some other dark corner. They make their "high-value" prisoners simply disappear -- no charges, no hearings, no exit.

They tell us that we shouldn't worry, that every one of these prisoners is evil beyond redemption. And, anyway, what prisoners?

To interrogate these prisoners who don't exist, the spy-novel men use practices that international agreements classify as torture. Again, they tell us not to worry. They produce legal opinions, written by lawyers from the pages of a bad spy novel, proving definitively that torture is not, in fact, torture. Besides, the spy-novel men outsource the really messy business to cooperative regimes for which the word "qualms" has no meaning.

The spy-novel men have not lost all self-awareness. They know this Kafkaesque system would never survive public scrutiny. So they go to any lengths to keep their dirty work hidden. They fear exposure more than they fear anything in the world.

It's not 1965, and these men are not Soviet or East German spymasters playing the role of villains in the Cold War. It's 2005, and the spy-novel men are American officials whose un-American treatment of prisoners in the war on terrorism has shamed our nation.

As reporter Dana Priest revealed in The Post this week, the Bush administration has held dozens of al Qaeda prisoners in secret prisons, with no regard to due process. It was a "small circle of White House and Justice Department lawyers and officials" who approved this archipelago of "black-site" detention centers, The Post reported.

These CIA-run prisons have been operated in eight countries, The Post said -- Afghanistan, Thailand, the Guantanamo Bay naval base in Cuba and "several democracies in Eastern Europe." Officials prevailed upon The Post not to disclose the names of the European countries, citing national security concerns. The real reason, no doubt, was that if citizens of those countries knew their governments were hosting secret American prisons, they would surely object.

That's what happened in Thailand two years ago when the public found out about a secret CIA prison where two top-level al Qaeda officials were being interrogated. As soon as the prison came to light, Thai officials told the CIA to shut it down and move the prisoners somewhere else. Already, in the wake of The Post's report, European Union officials are questioning member states to learn whether they have allowed the CIA to set up "black-site" prisons on their soil.

From earlier reports on interrogation practices, we know how the prisoners are being treated. The John le Carre wannabes in the administration are fighting tooth and nail against a move by Sen. John McCain and other responsible leaders on Capitol Hill to require the military and the CIA to bar cruel and inhuman treatment of prisoners.

Why does it matter how we treat a bunch of Islamic radicals who are sworn to bring death and destruction to the United States? It matters because the United States draws its strength and its moral authority in the world from its ideals. We preach about due process, we preach about the rule of law, we preach about humane treatment -- and now we're ignoring our own pronouncements.

But there's more at stake than American standing in the world. Our ideals are the heart and soul of this nation. We are not an ancient nation united by language or blood. Our ideals, rather than ethnicity or even territory, hold us together and make us a nation. When we betray those ideals, we weaken America.

Would it be so risky to do the right thing -- to bring al Qaeda operatives into American courtrooms and give them proper trials? There might be a risk, but this is a country that routinely accepts risks as the price of upholding its ideals. For example, we tolerate thousands of deaths by gunfire every year as the cost of respecting the right to bear arms. Most other nations would consider our homicide rate an unacceptable holocaust. We're not like most other nations.

I so wish all this were just a bad spy novel, but it's not. You couldn't get this book published, because it's just not credible. This isn't the way the American government behaves.

eugenerobinson@washpost.com

© 2005 The Washington Post Company


To enjoy the flavor of life, take big bites. Moderation is for monks. --Robt. Heinlein

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, November 4, 2005 3:17 PM

CHRISISALL


Quote:
Wars are like natural disasters. They happen, but they don’t happen every second. So we don’t need a president with emergency management experience. We just need one who can appoint decent advisers--which Bush apparently can’t.
As can be my way, I posted off the top of my head. If I thought through the political and social ramifications of my posts as intensily as I think through my favourite science fiction.....

It just seems to me that America is at war all (no exaggeration) the time. I can't think of a year we weren't somewhere shooting (I include 'police action' and training and arming puppets-sorry- allies in warfare as war). And we don't seem to actually vote on who gets to be prez anymore, we just pick from a short list of a keepers of the status quo buffet line (would you like corn with your corn?)

And the prez can't appoint decent advisors if his main goal is to give his pals work, and further the Corporate American goal of making the economic climate of Robocop a serious reality.

Okay, now I'll read more than post for a while, I have much more to learn from you, Citizen, AND Dreamtrove than I have to offer right now.

Thanks for these little bits of education, guys.

Chrisisall, professional fanboy, part-time political analyst

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, November 4, 2005 3:38 PM

DREAMTROVE


I have to admit the Lurker seems knowledgable. I was thinking from a point of Russia, which certainly had more than 15M deaths all by itself, but perhaps they're counting the russian "civil war" as a separate conflict, and not counting the associated disease and famine in russia and worldwide. War brings many non-combat deaths to town.

I still disagree. I'm the first to admit lincoln was a f^&kup, but that aside, I still disagree.

Quote:

He isn’t fighting a war all the time (unless he’s GWB).


This again is simply not the case. If he is Bill Clinton, Harry Truman or JFK/LBJ, then he is also fighting a war all of the time.

But it's having knuckleheads that is the problem. Today, you can do a lot worse than Japan as a society. That may not be relevant, but I just wanted to say it :)

But you are missing two very important points that I made:

1. Military is an experience, any one could go and get that experience if they objective enough. True, some folks are disabled, but even so, they could have some equivalent experience. My sister for instance is disabled but has worked 9 years in a VA hospital. As such, it is her job to help veterans re-adjust to society, and she is in many ways more familar with war than some of the veterans who have never seen it. I think this is an acceptable level of military experience for a president. I'm simply not going to hire anyone for the job who has no experience, or like Mr. Kerry who has 4 months experience, or Mr. Bush who was a jackass on the job. And I said one of the two.

2. The military DOES answer to a civilian authority which is the congress. What you are saying is that of our three separate but equal branches of the govt. none should be required to have experienced military leaders at the helm. I simply don't think this is wise.

BTW I happen to think MacArthur was right that the US should go to China to aid Chiang Kai Shek, against Chairman Mao Tse Tung, but he should have sought US congressional approval before doing it. This, as an action, could have easily fit the "least death" rule, since chinese communism was in it's infancy and Mao and his successors would slaughter millions (5 million of so for the cultural revolution, over a million in it's westward expasion through tibet and qiangxang, plus totals for its support for wars in SE Asia, clearly brings it over 10 million.)

I just disagree. I think the bungling we see now is a total mess. Finally, that's not a fine tradition we have, but a long line of f^&kups. I think that particularly, the US in the 18th century there were some serious problems. America was often the dealer out of genocide, rather than the queller of it. And sure, there were instances when it worked. To the best of my knowledge Coolidge had no military service, but was a good president. Of course, he also wasn't attacked. I'm just thinking that it's not really a great safety tool to put people in charge of something who don't really know how to do it.

And of course anyone might fill the cabinet with yes men. The point is even if Dwight D. Eisenhower, he didn't, but if he had done so, he'd still have skills of his own. Bush filled his cabinet with yes men and if they advised him other than his gut, or Cheney's wallet, he fired them. Clinton's military staff was more competent, but still he didn't come close to the minimum death rule.

I'm really trying to look at recent history here. The best executed war in my lifetime by a US president was pretty clearly the Gulf War executed by a veteran. The worst were the later Iraq conflicts orchestrated by a bunch of intellectuals and executed by first a draft dodger, and second a deserter.

Just not buying it. And since I vote, I'm just not voting for the 'no military' ticket. I think military service also needs to be scrutinized, of course. And this isn't just military experience, but that's one of the areas of expertise I would like a commander in chief to have. I'm also not voting for the 'no education' ticket.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, November 4, 2005 3:42 PM

DREAMTROVE


I agree basically with this R1Z post. I would only argue that I am coming to think that someone who posted "Cheney leaked this too," or words to that effect was correct.

The DoD also has detainment centers and has been getting a lot of flack for them, "outsourcing torture" and all. So they want to say "look, the CIA has them, we want some."

But there's still no evidence that the CIA is out of line here. I would need better evidence that they had mistreated detainees, etc. Most of what I hear from the agency is pretty anti-torture.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, November 5, 2005 2:36 AM

CITIZEN


Quote:
Originally posted by Dreamtrove:
We cut down who can operate on patients the same way by saying only people who have gone to medical school. If someone wants to, they can join the military whenever. But I think the either Pres. or VP would work.

You're comparing apples to Oranges. The individual in charge of a hospital at the top level seldom has any medical training what-so ever. They have experience in managing people and budgets, which is what they need to run a hospital. They don't need to know how to perform a coronary by-pass simply because they'll never have to perform one.
Adversely stick you average surgeon in charge of a hospital and you'll soon find that hospital falling apart. A Surgeon may be able to manage a hospital, but managing a hospital does not require a surgeon.

Likewise the individuals in charge of a civilian authority are responsible for controlling the militaries budget, managing the top-level people, and 'rubber-stamping' the militaries ultimate plans, not coming up with them.
Quote:
Also, the military is already responsible to a civilian authority. At least in theory. Congress. Right at the moment congress is saying "You can't torture people."

Is not an indication that the individuals ultimately in charge of civil authority should be military, but that you guys don't have enough civil control over the military at the moment, and need to do something to 'get you house in order'.
The military is kinda like an attack dog. You point it at a target, it'll bring it down. You take it off its leash it'll run riot unless the owner controls it. Maybe it's time to put the military back on its leash.
As per your congress comments, I agree. You also need to make it a lot harder to amend the constitution, perhaps requiring a full general referendum in order to implement an amendment.
Quote:
President is commander in chief of the armed forces. I'm not going to hire someone to be head of General Motors on the grounds that they were once on a TV show.

Maybe not but I doubt there's many car companies that have a CEO that could design and build a car, or has done these things themselves.
Commander in Chief means the president has the ultimate yes or no, not that it's up to the president to make the decisions on tactics for instance.

Here's how I see the process working:
The civil authority decides if an action should be taken. That would be on a very much far removed level. We're talking should we invade Iraq or not, not do we go into Baghdad or Basra first. This is a civilian issue, as your looking at international law, the economy and political relationships with other nations and yourself.
The civil authority then asks the military authority whether they are capable of undertaking a given operation.
The military would have to look at some civil aspects, mainly the political relationships between the 'target' and other nations, and whether the conflict would be likely to spread. That's part of the initial Military planning, a 'could we handle it' decision.
If the Military says no, obviously a new plan has to be drawn up.
If they say yes it's then a military matter, plans must be drawn up, and then rubber stamped by the civil authority, to ensure that public opinion is still in control of the military.

In essence the Civil Authority should be deciding should we (not could we or how we) and that is entirely a civil decision.
The military decides could we and how we do it, not should we.
Quote:
I was thinking from a point of Russia, which certainly had more than 15M deaths all by itself, but perhaps they're counting the russian "civil war" as a separate conflict, and not counting the associated disease and famine in russia and worldwide. War brings many non-combat deaths to town.

The Russian revolution was not part of the First World War. I don’t think you can bring Russian deaths during the revolution to support the argument of the incompetence of those in charge during the First World War.
The subsequent deaths are largely contributed by the Spanish flu pandemic which was up to 50 million worldwide ( http://www.cdc.gov/flu/avian/gen-info/pandemics.htm). Yeah, your right, the Spanish flu wouldn’t have spread or caused anything like the number of deaths it did in 1918 without the First World War. However I don’t think you can blame that on the incompetence of those in charge. The same situations that caused the Spanish Flu are prevalent in any modern conflict, a pandemic could have just as easily spread after the Second World War, it is luck, not judgement that it didn’t.
But that’s all kind of beside the point. The point is that it wasn’t the civil authority that was incompetent; I’m very much with StakeTheLurk on that one.
The military got in on the “should we” argument, and the military generals were incapable of fighting a modern war, and thus making the “could we”/“how we” decisions.


More insane ramblings by the people who brought you Beeeer Milkshakes!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, November 5, 2005 9:26 AM

DREAMTROVE


Citizen,

I'm sick of arguing and you seem to argue every point said, so I'll be brief, and just skip any areas of simple disagreement and stick to facts.

I get your point on the civillian authority. You think it would prevent massive civilian deaths. I would support creating a military civilian committee or something tha thad to address the civilian impact of each decision. I know some on the right thinks such a thing would make us weak, but I don't. It might make us weak if it were public, so I'd like to keep it within the govt. Dod or CIA, but I think that our excessive civilian deaths make it much harder for us to achieve our military objectives because it fuels the resistance. It's also just plain not nice.

Secondly, on the spanish aka bird flu, the war also created unsanitary conditions favoring the disease. But also the large scale famines created by the war killed at least ten million in europe, and who knows about africa and the middle east. The russian "civil war" which I put in quotes, because it really wasn't a civil war at all, was not the revolution. Because of the revolution, the allies towards the end of WWI invaded russia in an attempt to oust Lenin. This conflict was both contemporary with other conflicts considered to be part of WWI, and it also had obvious social and ideological connections. In history texts it's often treated as a civil was because many anti communist russians fought on the allies side, or allies fought on their side, but the clear reality is that without the allied invasion, this war could not have taken place, as the anti-communist russians had no resources with which to fight a war.

But all of this is nitpicking, the point was WWI, big massive death. Which it was by any stretch of the imagination.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, November 5, 2005 9:36 AM

CITIZEN


Quote:
Originally posted by Dreamtrove:
I'm sick of arguing and you seem to argue every point said, so I'll be brief, and just skip any areas of simple disagreement and stick to facts.

It's called a debate Dreamtrove, if you don't like it there's no one making you post here, and no one making you reply.
I'm getting sick of your attitude that you can post what the hell you like but if anyone dares to reply with their own opinion you start attacking them.
Quote:
the point was WWI, big massive death.

I believe your point was actually that WWI was big massive death caused by the incompetence of civilian officials which simply isn't the case, hence my replying to disagree.


More insane ramblings by the people who brought you Beeeer Milkshakes!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, November 5, 2005 5:02 PM

DREAMTROVE


Citizen,

A debate seeks to reach an agreement. Otherwise it's just mouthing off, and that is something I no longer have time for. I'm going to be involved in a project which will take a very large amount of time starting tomorrow, about 10 hrs a day, and so I really don't have time to rant, and I wouldn't even if I did. If we discuss something that heads in the direction of agreement it's worth some time, if we do not, it is not worth any time.

In russia, civilian military leadership was a disaster was my point. Major decisions everywhere in wwii though were falling on aristocrats.

I'm really not our to convince people, so I'm not continuing this argument. I just wanted to state my opinion and get out without getting slandered.

So as I said to end the discussion, fine. Have non-milirary tickets. I won't vote for them.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, November 6, 2005 2:00 AM

CITIZEN


Whatever Dreamtrove, I really don't care anymore, you're allowed to state your opinion, no one else is, I worked that out already.
I object to you trying to take the high moral ground and the poor little injured party act, when you're the one throwing around personal insults/accusations, and I'm really sick of hearing you're warped and baseless BS, and you're opinion, when no one else can state theirs without you getting indignant and stamping your virtual feet like some demented five year old.
Don't take the high moral ground, you don't deserve it, and you deserve the poor little injured party bit even less.


More insane ramblings by the people who brought you Beeeer Milkshakes!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, November 6, 2005 4:40 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:
A debate seeks to reach an agreement. Otherwise it's just mouthing off, and that is something I no longer have time for. I'm going to be involved in a project which will take a very large amount of time starting tomorrow, about 10 hrs a day, and so I really don't have time to rant, and I wouldn't even if I did. If we discuss something that heads in the direction of agreement it's worth some time, if we do not, it is not worth any time.
Not necessarily. A negotiation seeks to reach agreement. A debate seeks the truth.

---------------------------------
Please don't think they give a shit.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, November 6, 2005 5:14 AM

DREAMTROVE


Citizen,

I got lots of groundless personal attacks against me from lefties. I didn't say they were from you, and until now they weren't.

This is a typical lefty tactic, and it's pretty appalling, perhaps it's part of why they always lose elections.

I'm not usually so directly anti-left, but you really ticked me off. As I said in another post, I read the left blogs all the time. I see a lot of name calling, character assassinations and bathroom humor. This is really no kind of political rhetoric. What I never see is serious well articulated solutions to problems.

None of accusations you just made were true, and they're pretty childish. You nay-say virtually everything that's posted by anyone, so you don't get to blame me. I have to work now so no more long post. Sorry to end on such a hostile note.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Elections; 2024
Thu, April 18, 2024 20:38 - 2271 posts
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Thu, April 18, 2024 20:24 - 6263 posts
FACTS
Thu, April 18, 2024 19:48 - 548 posts
Biden's a winner, Trumps a loser. Hey Jack, I Was Right
Thu, April 18, 2024 18:38 - 148 posts
QAnons' representatives here
Thu, April 18, 2024 17:58 - 777 posts
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Thu, April 18, 2024 16:51 - 3530 posts
Why does THUGR shit up the board by bumping his pointless threads?
Thu, April 18, 2024 12:38 - 9 posts
human actions, global climate change, global human solutions
Thu, April 18, 2024 10:21 - 834 posts
Russian losses in Ukraine
Wed, April 17, 2024 23:58 - 1005 posts
Sentencing Thread
Wed, April 17, 2024 22:02 - 364 posts
With apologies to JSF: Favorite songs (3)
Wed, April 17, 2024 20:05 - 50 posts
Share of Democratic Registrations Is Declining, but What Does It Mean?
Wed, April 17, 2024 17:51 - 4 posts
 VIEW MORE TOPICS 

FFF.NET SOCIAL