Rumsfeld, Bush approved Iraq torture policy

POSTED BY: Ghoulman
UPDATED: Saturday, December 11, 2004 17:27
VIEWED: 18335
PAGE 1 of 1

GHOULMAN

Tuesday, May 18, 2004 4:12 PM

Never think for a second that Ghoulman is wrong. When I tell you it's torture it is. When I tell you the White House is to blame and not American soldiers it's fact. Now you are wiser. Now you know a little more truth.

Free your mind.

The NEW YORKER
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?040524fa_fact
by SEYMOUR M. HERSH
How a secret Pentagon program came to Abu Ghraib.

Quote:

Issue of 2004-05-24
Posted 2004-05-15

The roots of the Abu Ghraib prison scandal lie not in the criminal inclinations of a few Army reservists but in a decision, approved last year by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, to expand a highly secret operation, which had been focussed on the hunt for Al Qaeda, to the interrogation of prisoners in Iraq. Rumsfeld’s decision embittered the American intelligence community, damaged the effectiveness of élite combat units, and hurt America’s prospects in the war on terror.

According to interviews with several past and present American intelligence officials, the Pentagon’s operation, known inside the intelligence community by several code words, including Copper Green, encouraged physical coercion and sexual humiliation of Iraqi prisoners in an effort to generate more intelligence about the growing insurgency in Iraq. A senior C.I.A. official, in confirming the details of this account last week, said that the operation stemmed from Rumsfeld’s long-standing desire to wrest control of America’s clandestine and paramilitary operations from the C.I.A.

Rumsfeld, during appearances last week before Congress to testify about Abu Ghraib, was precluded by law from explicitly mentioning highly secret matters in an unclassified session. But he conveyed the message that he was telling the public all that he knew about the story. He said, “Any suggestion that there is not a full, deep awareness of what has happened, and the damage it has done, I think, would be a misunderstanding.” The senior C.I.A. official, asked about Rumsfeld’s testimony and that of Stephen Cambone, his Under-Secretary for Intelligence, said, “Some people think you can bullshit anyone.”

... click the link for the FULL ARTICLE!!!

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?040524fa_fact

HKCAVALIER

Wednesday, May 19, 2004 1:09 AM

(crickets chirp conspiratorially in the evening gloom...)

Wow, Ghoulman, not a single reply all day! What's up with that?

Very, very interesting read. Kinda puts the whole thing in perspective. I guess their big mistake was puting those MP's in charge. The Nazi's, as you will recall, knew that you must never employ torturers who enjoy their work. Sadists start doing stuff to please themselves, when they need to adhere strictly to orders. Best if they kinda hate their jobs because then they'll only do as much as you tell them, for "the greater good of their country," of course.

I'm not at all saying that the MP's were naturally sadistic, only that the conditions of war and the general rage of the American people after 9/11 predisposed them to feeling a certain satisfaction at sticking it to the "evil doers." The government gave them orders to let their darksides come out and play and that's exactly what they did. And now they're the ones taking the fall.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

JASONZZZ

Wednesday, May 19, 2004 1:42 AM

Well, fuck. If this "deep-throat" guy in the CIA is going to be able to prove what he/she said. Then Rummie is going to need a pretty freakin' big ass-sweater to cover this little embarassing *bee-hind*.

http://www.thetoque.com/040518/ass_sweater.htm

RUE

Wednesday, May 19, 2004 3:30 AM

Ghoulman,

Thanks for the link. There's a lot of detail in the article.

I agree, the basic task is to free one's mind.

RUXTON

Wednesday, May 19, 2004 5:25 AM

Good stuff, Ghoulie. Much obliged. I saw Hersch on Charlie Rose yester, and was about to post this link. You beat me to it.

For those who are interested, there are links to download Gonzales' memo to Bush, dated Jan 2002, discussing the abandonment of the Geneva Convention.

.......Ruxton

CALHOUN

Wednesday, May 19, 2004 5:56 AM

Now, remember you only have to scare them.

Pain is scary.

GHOULMAN

Wednesday, May 19, 2004 11:56 AM

I like smackin' 'em!

SIGNYM

Wednesday, May 19, 2004 12:45 PM

I think we've been operating under the mistaken idea that the Bush administration thinks deeply and worries greatly about the fate of the average American.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA.... (gasp!).....HAHAHAHAHAHA....!!!

OH, uh, excuse me. I didn't mean to break out into hysterical but bitter laughter just then!

Thanks for the link. I knew it all along, and it still burns my butt.

I'm going to add something really cynical. For about the past year, I've been wondering about Bush Jr's relationships with the CIA, armed forces, and State Department. If you go back to one of my previous posts, you'll see that I did mention how Bush has left the armed services terribly unsupported in Iraq in favor of contractors, blamed the CIA for "bad intelligence" on Iraq and outed Valerie Plame, ignored State Department recommendations and got Colin Powell (a previously well-respected General and originator of the Powell doctrine- see below) to be a shill for Cheney at the UN.

Aside from political appointees who are within *ss-kissing distance of the President, I would imagine that there are a lot very sharp knives surrounding Bush. And, as I predicted at work (too bad I cna't corroborate that here) there is going to be a drip drip drip of leaked news from now to the election. Hubby and I were talking about that a year ago. We figured that the only reason why it wasn't coming out was because it wasn't close enough to election.

Powell Doctrine:
After the end of Persian Gulf War in 1991, Colin Powell, then chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, outlined his vision for efficient and decisive military action. His plan is now referred to as the Powell Doctrine, although there is not an actual formal document named as such. Powell, currently the U.S. secretary of state, has recently invoked the Doctrine in articulating the justifications for the Bush administration's preparations for war in Iraq. Essentially, the Doctrine expresses that military action should be used only as a last resort and only if there is a clear risk to national security by the intended target; the force, when used, should be overwhelming and disproportionate to the force used by the enemy; there must be strong support for the campaign by the general public; and there must be a clear exit strategy from the conflict in which the military is engaged.

www.pbs.org/newshour/extra/teachers/lessonplans/iraq/powelldoctrine_sh
ort.html

GHOULMAN

Wednesday, May 19, 2004 3:08 PM

^^^ nice post. Can't think you're off the mark, nicely put. And yea, something in me wonders if Wolfowitz is laughing at Powell with the whole preemptive strike policy Wolfie created and the White House adopted.

... and yea it's REALLY silent in here *chuckle*. Know why? Because when you stand up to lieing Brownshirt bullies and call them on thier bullshit they shrink away like the cowards they are.

SOUTHERNMERC

Wednesday, May 19, 2004 4:27 PM

First off, I'd like to say that it is no secret that alot of media bigwigs can't stand Bush. They didn't like it when he won (extremely close vote, but still legal folks), and they really don't like him now that they have a chance to get rid of him during the next election. They have stretched, bent, and made-up the "truth" about this administration in an all-out (seemingly) effort to oust him. Nope, they don't like him a bit.

Now, having said that...

This bit about all the interrogation and 3rd degree stuff put in the New Yorker is downright chilling. It implies (heck, STATES) alot of very, very immoral people in the govt. are now in charge of making some very, very BIG decisions. I told my father a few days after the 9/11 attacks that someone would use this as an excuse to step on some basic human rights. Let's do a quick review of the last few years pogroms, I mean programs , set into motion. This is not comprehensive, but should be enough to tickle a few brain cells.

Homeland Security: If the formation of this didn't set you in mind of the "Ministry of Peace," then you haven't read George Orwell's "1984." Do so ASAP, the turn on the news. Experience deep chilling sensation running down spine, while realizing that you really DON'T KNOW what these guys are REALLY about. Any group that gets worried about people exercising their constitutional rights is a group that really needs a watching. I own firearms. Their ownership is a right provided by the Constitution. That right is a final check provided by the founding fathers to help prevent an oppressive government from forming. Since a government wishing to enforce its will upon its people doesn't want the populace to have the ability to resist, the removal of their arms becomes paramount. Tho others can say that civilian arms matter little to modern weaponry, NO military wants to fight a popular resistance: where enemies are difficult to spot, and have unequalled knowledge of the terrain. Many words have been spoken about removing, or reducing, such rights.

Uber security at airports: This is little more than airline companies wanting to make you feel good so you will give them cash and not take the train. The measures taken, tho effective, seem extreme, given that the threat of terrorism hasn't changed from BEFORE 9/11. Yeah, these guys smashed planes into the towers and, yeah, we need to make sure it never happens again. But are these the correct methods of prevention? A change in policy seems necessary, and a change in procedure, to be sure. But everything that has been done just makes me feel abit...off. I don't have anything more concrete than that. The super paranoid part of me (the bit that really gets into Shadowrun games and conspiricy-theories-as-a-wacky-and-fun-topic discussions) says this is an attempt to control how citizens move about. The rest of me laughs at it and calls it crazy, then looks around hurridly for evidence that it is wrong. Heck, its starting to scare me. That paranoid bit is pointing to gas prices (which may have been exacerbated by actions of the current admin), and goin "uh-huh! That, too!" Thats just corporate greed taken too far, I hope.

The whole interrogation scandal: Alrighty, I'm not convinced that the higher ups ordered it. But I concede that it is highly possible that they not only knew about it, but condoned it. As I said earlier, the press involved may have blown it out of proportion (it could be just the one place), but if there ARE other places that performed these acts, and were sanctioned, then we have a large, ugly problem.

I feel like I have just been too paranoid about all this, but at the same time...

Any more information about all this?

Jayne: "See, Vera? You get dressed up, you get taken someplace fun!"

SIGNYM

Wednesday, May 19, 2004 4:44 PM

The pattern at Abu Ghraib is that SOME detainees were humiliated, stressed, and tortured but not all. The same thing happened in Afghanistan, and Gitmo. It also happened to non-citizen detainees within the USA....

Because the practice seems to have been selective, you won't find massive groups of released prisoners claiming abuse. Many in fact will say that they were treated very well. The fact that this seems to apply to only a small group of prisoners shouldn't lull us inot thinking that it didn't happen at all.

CAPNRAHN

Wednesday, May 19, 2004 5:47 PM

All part of a bigger, uglier powe play picture ... I say this as a Desert Storm AF Veteran. Think back to the Jerry Spinger'esque red-herring that was used to divert American's attention prior to the election of the Idiot Princ ... er George W. and wonder - why did the goverment spend SO much money on exposing a "hummer"?

"Remember, there is only ONE absolute - There ARE NO absolutes!!!"

SIGNYM

Wednesday, May 19, 2004 11:04 PM

Here is a link to a leaked memo from Alberto Gonzales to the President, advocating suspension of the Geneva conventions to prisoners in Afghanistan and Gitmo. This decision was made by the DOJ (thank you Ashcroft) and objected to by Colin Powell.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4999148/site/newsweek/

A Newsweek analysis says the following:

"The concern about possible future prosecution for war crimes—and that it might even apply to Bush adminstration officials themselves— is contained in a crucial portion of an internal January 25, 2002, memo by White House counsel Alberto Gonzales obtained by NEWSWEEK. It urges President George Bush declare the war in Afghanistan, including the detention of Taliban and Al Qaeda fighters, exempt from the provisions of the Geneva Convention.

In the memo, the White House lawyer focused on a little known 1996 law passed by Congress, known as the War Crimes Act, that banned any Americans from committing war crimes—defined in part as "grave breaches" of the Geneva Conventions. Noting that the law applies to "U.S. officials" and that punishments for violators "include the death penalty," Gonzales told Bush that "it was difficult to predict with confidence" how Justice Department prosecutors might apply the law in the future. This was especially the case given that some of the language in the Geneva Conventions—such as that outlawing "outrages upon personal dignity" and "inhuman treatment" of prisoners—was "undefined."

One key advantage of declaring that Taliban and Al Qaeda fighters did not have Geneva Convention protections is that it "substantially reduces the threat of domestic criminal prosecution under the War Crimes Act," Gonzales wrote."

Link to entire article
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4999734/site/newsweek/

RUE

Thursday, May 20, 2004 2:04 AM

Just as an aside, some days I could bang my head into a brick wall - it would feel so much better than thinking about the Administration.

As far as they're concerned, we're ants - or less than that. But they know what to say, and how and when to say it; the supine media parrots it, and half of the US eats it up. At the moment, Bush's approval rating is 52%.

I can't confirm it on the board, but the people who know me know that I was calling Bush a sociopath during the campaign. How do you tell a sociopath? Not by how they SEEM - they spend their entire lives manipulating people, and they're very, very skillful. You tell it by what they DO when they think no one will know, or when they think they can get away with it.

As Governor, Bush mocked a Texas woman about to be executed, whose death warrant he had signed: "Bush whips around and stares at me. 'No, I didn't meet with any of them,' he snaps ...'I didn't meet with Larry King either ... I watched his interview with [Tucker], though. He asked her real difficult questions, like 'What would you say to Governor Bush?' 'What was her answer?' I wonder. 'Please,' Bush whimpers, his lips pursed in mock desperation, 'don't kill me.'"

http://www.dangerouscitizen.com/Photo+Gallery/568.aspx

I don't think the media is against Bush in any way. They're businessmen and their main interest is to sell ad time. And they do THAT by putting on shows (including news) that people want to see, with minimum hassle. When the Administration said don't air any bin Laden tapes, the media said 'Yes SIR!' The verbal stumbling gets edited out. (To see what it's really like, you have to watch the BBC, ITN or other int'l news.) When the admin said the daily American death toll reports were a real downer, they disappeared off the news. For months all you hear was 'attacks are down'.

In fact, the death rate never went down, not after "Mission Accomplished!" or 'Saddam Found'; not after the military adopted the policy of bunkering itself behind sandbags and walls. In fact, the death rate has gone up. see:

http://electroniciraq.net/news/1322.shtml

So here we are, being lied to, used, and stolen from, and half the US thinks it's just great.

Somebody, tell me something that makes this OK.

SIGNYM

Thursday, May 20, 2004 1:32 PM

Sorry, I can't.

But I agree with you on the sociopath thing, tho. It suddenly makes Bush's actions more explainable. And that smirk.... grrrrrr.

BTW- have you noticed how QUIET it is in here????

HELLO! ...HELLO...Hello... hello...
ANYBODY HERE? ...HERE...Here...here...

Nope, guess we got the thread all to our lonesome!

SOUTHERNMERC

Thursday, May 20, 2004 2:29 PM

You're not helping my paranoia any. Actually, you're helping it TOO much. Ooog, I need a warm fuzzy, cause the world seems a bit too abrasive right now.

But then again, I knew something was coming down the pike ever since the towers. Seems whoever set this all up (Bin Laden, his flunky, Aunt Betty, whomever) knew EXACTLY how we (Americans) would react. Here's to hoping we are proven wrong.

Jayne: "See, Vera? You get dressed up, you get taken someplace fun!"

SIGNYM

Thursday, May 20, 2004 2:47 PM

Sorry, I thought I was all alone in my paranoia! Oh well, let's be paranoid together.

But whatever you do PLEASE don't start talking about the sky blue (UN) or black (USA) helicopters.... even if they really do exist!

heh heh heh

SIGNYM

Thursday, May 20, 2004 5:46 PM

I just had time to throw in that quip but I wanted to make a serious comment.

Don't feel TOO paranoid. The popular reaction to war or the threat of war- in modern Western countries anyway- has always been to rally round the flag. Bismarck united northern and southern Germany by successfully warring on France, Denmark, and his erstwhile partner Austria. Thatcher used the Falklands war to boost her sagging ratings. Roosevelt knew that Pearl Harbor was coming but decided that we needed a direct attack in order to get popular opinion over the hump and into WWII. Which is kind of interesting because the Project for a New American Century (incl Cheney, Wolfowitz and Perle) was sort of wishing for a Pearl Harbor, so maybe the parallels go deeper than we imagine... But, in any case, the reaction to 9/11 was as predictable as the sun rising in the east.

I think, tho, that USA citizens do have some extra peculiarities thrown in that make us - on the average- a little quicker on the trigger. The first is that we know next to nothing about the rest of the world, which makes us more frightened than necessary.

The second thing is that because we are such firm believers in equality, we tend not to examine power and its uses. We don't understand that we ARE the dominant power in the world, but that poer has its limits. So we react to little things-like Saddam's supposed WMD- like an elephant getting hysterical over a mouse.

The third is that we trust our government, and the media has been going along with it because George (dubya) Bush has been the deregulation fairy for big media.

When dubya was selected, I figured that we had had a soft coup. I wondered how long it would take for ppl to catch on.

SIGMANUNKI

Thursday, May 20, 2004 6:47 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Ghoulman:
... and yea it's REALLY silent in here *chuckle*. Know why? Because when you stand up to lieing Brownshirt bullies and call them on thier bullshit they shrink away like the cowards they are.

I have hardly had any time to come the this board lately and I have only had time to read the excerpt you posted. Good stuff! If the rest of the article is as good as that then I think that could (*chuckle*) be the reason for the silence.

Although I don't necessarily agree with the cowards part. I mean, what can you say after that (*tee hee*). Their entire argument has gone out the window

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

SOUTHERNMERC

Friday, May 21, 2004 4:32 PM

W is a big deregulation guy? I thought that was Clinton. Considering all the DReg he did here in Arkansas before he left for the White House. What do you mean?

Jayne: "See, Vera? You get dressed up, you get taken someplace fun!"

KUKOO

Friday, May 21, 2004 7:23 PM

This may be slightly off-topic, but I have always thought it was interesting how Firefly Fans seem to be at such opposite ends of the political spectrum. I believe the reason why is in the way Fans view the Alliance.

Liberals tend to view the Alliance as the end result of the path the Bush Administration has set us on. Declaring that the Geneva Convention isn't applicable to the war, creating a new name for prisoners and criminals so they can throw the Bill of Rights out the window and hold them indefinetly, being able to shroud key policy meetings in a viel of secrecy so that the public cannot determine how decisions were made and the build-up and reckless use of the Armed Forces. Under this theory, River and Simon were probably listed as "enemy combatants" by the Alliance.

Conservatives tend to view the Alliance as the end result of too big a government with too much control over our daily lives. i.e. too many social programs and laws regulating behavior and business. Mals quote about governments being there to get in a mans way would support this theory.

I think the Alliance is a mixture of both. It is the worst aspects of the two current parties rolled into one. It is as if the special interests (maybe the forerunners to the Blue Sun Group) took over both parties and pushed them into one. The point of a 2 party system is to balance each other out, and the absence of a second party is what makes the Alliance so scary and powerful.

PS Thanks ghoulman for posting the link, the article was awesome and very informative.

FIREFLYFRIEND

Friday, May 21, 2004 7:50 PM

The Alliance is definately like Bush.

SERGEANTX

Friday, May 21, 2004 7:53 PM

...and then there are those of us who see the Alliance, ideologically, as relatively neutral. It's mostly just a large centralized government, for good or bad. Naturally, from the point of view of the former Independents it's bad. But the actual story seems less clear.

I think this was intentional. Most of the actually Alliance officers we've seen have been neutral or even leaning toward genuine concern for humanity. The Blue Hands certainly seem evil enough, but we really don't know how they fit into the Alliance power scheme.

To me it almost seems as though Joss went out of his way to NOT have the principal bad guys be Alliance. The worst we've seen them do, puttin aside the blue hands, is ignore the plight of the frontier people.

I think we're seeing the Alliance in much the same way a Southern soldier might have viewed the U.S. feds after the Civil War. I DON'T think Firefly is meant to be an allegory, but it is a valid comparison.

The thrust of the series so far has been the personal search for hope and redemption, not the heroic struggle of the Independents against the evil Alliance.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

GHOULMAN

Friday, May 21, 2004 8:34 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by kukoo:
This may be slightly off-topic, but I have always thought it was interesting how Firefly Fans seem to be at such opposite ends of the political spectrum. I believe the reason why is in the way Fans view the Alliance.

Liberals tend to view the Alliance as the end result of the path the Bush Administration has set us on. Declaring that the Geneva Convention isn't applicable to the war, creating a new name for prisoners and criminals so they can throw the Bill of Rights out the window and hold them indefinetly, being able to shroud key policy meetings in a viel of secrecy so that the public cannot determine how decisions were made and the build-up and reckless use of the Armed Forces. Under this theory, River and Simon were probably listed as "enemy combatants" by the Alliance.

Conservatives tend to view the Alliance as the end result of too big a government with too much control over our daily lives. i.e. too many social programs and laws regulating behavior and business. Mals quote about governments being there to get in a mans way would support this theory.

I think the Alliance is a mixture of both. It is the worst aspects of the two current parties rolled into one. It is as if the special interests (maybe the forerunners to the Blue Sun Group) took over both parties and pushed them into one. The point of a 2 party system is to balance each other out, and the absence of a second party is what makes the Alliance so scary and powerful.

PS Thanks ghoulman for posting the link, the article was awesome and very informative.

Holy insightful Batman. Nice one! Just wanted to acknowledge the brilliance.

Oh, and SERGEANTX, I am on Kukoos' side as to the Alliance being a cypher for the USA but your comments are certainly not to be sneezed at either.

I wonder if a thread about this metaphor (something Joss loooves to throw out there) woul;d be fun?

HKCAVALIER

Monday, May 24, 2004 3:41 PM

So how come this article isn't all over the news by now? This news has been available for a week, why aren't I hearing about this on tv? The New Yorker isn't exactly a fringe media source, what gives?

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

GHOULMAN

Tuesday, May 25, 2004 4:31 PM

^^^ are you living under a rock? This was the story that broke the fact that the torture is happening in more than one prison. This was the story!

MILORADELL

Tuesday, May 25, 2004 5:44 PM

I am so very, very tired.

Does anyone feel like we're straddling a juggernaut, about to make a fateful turn - it could be good, it could be bad, and it's as scary as all holy hell?

I keep thinking of my sister-in-law's unborn twins, and what kind of a world they'll be inheriting, and if they'll even realize the differences between the past and their 'now'?

I am so very, very tired.

btw - I think the term "deregulation" refers to the FCC's recent changes in rulings, and the tacit support it's received by the admin. possibly also recent efforts to toughen corporate law, which the admin, again, is working to gut.

****
“By definition, a government has no conscience. Sometimes it has a policy, but nothing more.“ Albert Camus

HKCAVALIER

Wednesday, May 26, 2004 7:12 AM

Golly, Ghoulman, perhaps I have been under a rock. The substance of Hersh's article puts Rumps-felt at the top of a chain of command fully aware of the torture and very much endorsing it. It was systematic. It states that the president was briefed. But none of this has been on the front page. No one is calling for Rummy to resign anymore and no one's even talking about the torture anymore. Once the six folks at the very bottom of the food chain were sacrificed last week, it's been business as usual. Hasn't it?

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

RUE

Wednesday, May 26, 2004 7:51 AM

It's like Vietnam all over again.

It took riots. It took civil disobedience. It took deaths. And that just got it onto the news.

I never want to hear the puke about the 'liberal media' again.

BROWNCOAT1

Wednesday, May 26, 2004 7:20 PM

The true problem lies in the fact that the American public as a whole knows very little of the truth. The government hides what it wants to, filters the info it feels is acceptable to be seen by the American public, and the media slants most of what is shown.

News sites and sources have their own agendas, reporting on things w/ a definite political leaning in one direction or another.

The Federal government is rife w/ corruption, cover ups, and blatant violations of national & international law. What is sadder is that the American people are so busy choosing sides and supporting this or that political camp that they can not agree on a way to solve the problem. Seems to me the government, media and television have done a terrific job of making all of us complacent to the point of blind acceptance.

"May have been the losing side. Still not convinced it was the wrong one."

SIGNYM

Wednesday, May 26, 2004 11:23 PM

INVESTIGATION

Abuse of Captives More Widespread, Says Army Survey
By DOUGLAS JEHL, STEVEN LEE MYERS and ERIC SCHMITT

Published: May 26, 2004 NY Times

WASHINGTON, May 25 — An Army summary of deaths and mistreatment involving prisoners in American custody in Iraq and Afghanistan shows a widespread pattern of abuse involving more military units than previously known

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/26/politics/26ABUS.html

JASONZZZ

Thursday, May 27, 2004 12:06 AM

NY Times is evil.

They require you to sign away your soul
to read a simple article.

If the morons at NY Times had a worthwhile
thought about it - then at least 10 other
establishments would have came up with it
before hand...

Remember "Jayson Blair", there are plenty
more of them at NY Times. They just owe
up again to failing to fact check and keep
a thumb on the overzealous, "scoop" getting
reporters. While they are at it, they need
to get rid of their editors too.

HKCAVALIER

Thursday, May 27, 2004 1:30 AM

Hey Signy,

I saw that too! Thank God, it is getting out. It's interesting to see the part the CIA plays in these things. Didn't the CIA bring about Watergate, too, really? Now this. Guess you don't want to get on the CIA's bad side (suprise, surprise).

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

SIGNYM

Thursday, May 27, 2004 1:48 AM

Hey Jasonzz, be a sport! Where's your belief in the betterment of all through competition??

In any case, it's a long article, so here's a (better written!) summary:

President Bush (has) portrayed the abuse of prisoners by American soldiers in narrow terms.

But according to a May 5 Criminal Investigation Command (CIC) report deaths date back to Afghanistan in December 2002, where two prisoners died in one week from "blunt force injuries to lower extremities complicating coronary artery disease". In one of these cases, both military intelligence and Army Reserve military-police are believed to have been "involved at various times in assaulting and mistreating the detainee."

Iraq cases date back to April 15, 2003 (right after Saddam Hussein's statue was toppled) to last month, when a prisoner detained by Navy commandos died by "blunt force trauma to the torso and positional asphyxia."

In what appeared to be a case of serious abuse over a prolonged period of time, members of the 223rd Military Intelligence Battalion in Samarra (north of Baghdad) "struck and pulled the hair of detainees" during interrogations over a period that lasted 10 weeks. The summary said they "forced into asphyxiations numerous detainees in an attempt to obtain information."

Another incident involved the death in custody of a senior Iraqi officer, Maj. Gen. Abed Hamed Mowhoush, who died last November at a detention center run by the Third Armored Cavalry. (Best I can figure is that this is "the cage" near the Syrian border) Soldiers acknowledged that interviews with the general on Nov. 24 and 25 involved "physical assaults." In fact, investigators determined that General Mowhoush died after being shoved head-first into a sleeping bag, and questioned while being rolled repeatedly from his back to his stomach.

A senior military official and a senior Pentagon medical official said the Army was investigating the deaths of 37 detainees in Iraq and Afghanistan, an increase from at least 25 deaths that a senior Army general described on May 4.

According to Army officials and documents, at least 12 prisoners have died of natural or undetermined causes, including nine in Abu Ghraib. In six of those cases, the military conducted no autopsy to confirm the presumed cause of death. As a result, the investigations into their deaths were closed by Army investigators.

Army officials have been reluctant to discuss the type of detail that the [CIC] document describes, even when investigations into the cases are closed. The Army has refused to make public the synopses of Army criminal investigations into the deaths or assaults of Iraqi or Afghan prisoners while in custody.

RUE

Thursday, May 27, 2004 2:21 AM

Browncoat1

One comforting thought is that people outside of the US know better.

How do you hide a million-person demonstration? You bury the news.

OUTTATHEWORLD

Thursday, May 27, 2004 3:38 AM

Gotta admit I'm VASTLY amused that anyone thinks anything at ALL printed in the New Yorker, concerning military affairs, can be anything but fiction...the closest any of these guys or gals have ever come to the militray is seeing a carrier tied up in the harbor.

Folks, the stuff at Abu Ghraib was tiddlywinks compared to an interrogation done on a criminal suspect who's being defended by a PD in New York. Being naked is NOT TORTURE...having a shotgun shoved up yor ass and twisted is torture. Might think about who we're dealing with, kids, and go back to your portable DVD players.

Take us outta the world....

RUXTON

Thursday, May 27, 2004 3:56 AM

How about being beaten to death, dolt. Does that qualify as torture in your closeted, fearful world of denial?

Why don't you go back to Free Republic and kiss up to the jerk who runs that show, eh? He likes folks like you who refuse to read anything, or learn anything.

.......Ruxton

RUXTON

Thursday, May 27, 2004 4:11 AM

If you don't like Hersch's paper, read the Gonzales Memorandum to the President, dated 25 January 2002. If you can read.

SIGNYM

Thursday, May 27, 2004 1:39 PM

Or being suffocated? (seems to be a favorite with the interrogators)

Apparently JAG officers complained to an NGO human rights group about being excluded from interrogations after having their concerns being ignored internally. (Normal procdure is to have JAG officers present.)

The memos to Bush that are being leaked and complaints from within the ranks about changes of authority and procedure make this look very much like policy, not a spontaneous or one-off occurence.

Outtathisworld- did you read any of the article? Did you see any of the vidoes that go farther than the photos? Might want to, before you make more of an ass of yourself. The article is based on internal (leaked) memos. The videos speak for themselves. Of course, you COULD just plug your ears and go "la-la-la" while running down the hallways as fast as you can!

Ruxton- Outtathisworld is apprently a sociopath who gets off on humans abusing humans. Abuse and violence, according to this poster, are what make you "a grownup". I just hope this person doesn't work in a PD!

JASONZZZ

Monday, June 21, 2004 7:33 PM

Being beaten to death is *not* torture. It's being beaten to death.

And neither is stragulation/suffocation. Stragulation is a sex act for the perverts. It's also a cheap source of amusement for addicts who can't afford drugs. Now killing someone by suffocating them is different, that's plain murder.

Abuse != humiliation != torture != murder

GHOULMAN

Monday, June 21, 2004 7:40 PM

^^^
??? Torture resulting in death is still torture. Even if the torture is beating.

You're so weird.

JASONZZZ

Monday, June 21, 2004 7:50 PM

The goal of torture is to extract information, to subject your opponent to an escalated and remorseless form of punishment, and/or to satisfy an inner sense of twisted and sadistic desire. Killing someone by beating them is murder. A good torturer beats until unconscious, then dress them up, revives them; and depending on your goal (extract information or punishment), maintain disorientation or maintain clarity, then beat some more.

Quote:
Originally posted by Ghoulman:
^^^
??? Torture resulting in death is still torture. Even if the torture is beating.

You're so weird.

GHOULMAN

Monday, June 21, 2004 7:54 PM

Jason... I'd love to know where you got that insane definition.

JCOBB

Monday, June 21, 2004 8:29 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Browncoat1

One comforting thought is that people outside of the US know better.

How do you hide a million-person demonstration? You bury the news.

*sigh*

Yeah, the US is the only place with idiots and the uniformed, the rest of the world are so much superior in every aspect! (Or at the very least better informed!)

Its AMAZING how dillusional some people are.

I don't care, I'm still free.

JASONZZZ

Monday, June 21, 2004 10:28 PM

Seriously? Insane? I don't read dictionaries, but you could 2x check if you'd like.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=torture

It is *the* operating definition of torture... No where is torture defined as killing. There *might* be maiming involved should the incorrect (or correct) devices be employed. There *might* be excruciating, searing, blinding pain. It might involve skin slowly being flayed off. Or eyelids pulled back and stapled to the forehead. It might even involve slivers of bamboo shoved under the fingernails or hooks inserted into the nipples and hung from there. Alternately, it might just as well involve severe forms of mental anguish. Otherwise, killing involves ... well killing... murder involves killing. But torture by itself it not killing. If someone is dead, it could be murder or it could be natural causes - but that's for legal people to determine.

Quote:
Originally posted by Ghoulman:
Jason... I'd love to know where you got that insane definition.

SIGMANUNKI

Tuesday, June 22, 2004 12:30 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by JCobb:
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Browncoat1

One comforting thought is that people outside of the US know better.

*sigh*

Yeah, the US is the only place with idiots and the uniformed, the rest of the world are so much superior in every aspect! (Or at the very least better informed!)

Its AMAZING how dillusional some people are.

Oh, we have our fair share of idiots here in Canada as well. Every country has them. There are just a lot fewer of them. Plus they tend to be more passive.

But, when it comes to news... well... If Fox "news" was here, it'd be comedy. Scary stuff goes on there, and a lot of US citizens watch it claiming it's actually good news *shiver*

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

GHOULMAN

Tuesday, June 22, 2004 2:44 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Jasonzzz:
Seriously? Insane? I don't read dictionaries, but you could 2x check if you'd like.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=torture

It is *the* operating definition of torture... No where is torture defined as killing. There *might* be maiming involved should the incorrect (or correct) devices be employed. There *might* be excruciating, searing, blinding pain. It might involve skin slowly being flayed off. Or eyelids pulled back and stapled to the forehead. It might even involve slivers of bamboo shoved under the fingernails or hooks inserted into the nipples and hung from there. Alternately, it might just as well involve severe forms of mental anguish. Otherwise, killing involves ... well killing... murder involves killing. But torture by itself it not killing. If someone is dead, it could be murder or it could be natural causes - but that's for legal people to determine.

Quote:
Originally posted by Ghoulman:
Jason... I'd love to know where you got that insane definition.

Jason ... that's utter crap. Torture has to do with setting. Trying to tell people torture is defined as you put it is completely insane. There isn't an organization on the planet (except for evil regimes... such as the Bush/Cheney White House) that would accept your definition.

Prisoners are tortured. Torturers need not want information. The method isn't the point. It's because prisoners cannot defend themselves that makes it torture.

Solitary confinement is torture, for example.

JASONZZZ

Tuesday, June 22, 2004 3:41 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Ghoulman:
Quote:
Originally posted by Jasonzzz:
Seriously? Insane? I don't read dictionaries, but you could 2x check if you'd like.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=torture

It is *the* operating definition of torture... No where is torture defined as killing. There *might* be maiming involved should the incorrect (or correct) devices be employed. There *might* be excruciating, searing, blinding pain. It might involve skin slowly being flayed off. Or eyelids pulled back and stapled to the forehead. It might even involve slivers of bamboo shoved under the fingernails or hooks inserted into the nipples and hung from there. Alternately, it might just as well involve severe forms of mental anguish. Otherwise, killing involves ... well killing... murder involves killing. But torture by itself it not killing. If someone is dead, it could be murder or it could be natural causes - but that's for legal people to determine.

Quote:
Originally posted by Ghoulman:
Jason... I'd love to know where you got that insane definition.

Jason (and I'm hoping you're just a weirdo and don't know better)... that's utter crap. Torture has to do with setting. Trying to tell people torture is defined as you put it is completely insane. There isn't an organization on the planet (except for evil regimes... such as the Bush/Cheney White House) that would accept your definition.

Prisoners are tortured. Torturers need not want information. The method isn't the point. It's because prisoners cannot defend themselves that makes it torture.

Solitary confinement is torture, for example.

heh? who sez torture *has* to involve extracting information? It's one of the many things that it could be. Real what I sez two postings ago. Torture is a process, it's not a thing. Torture isn't an end thing. It has goals that you work towards. It's a work "in-progress". I've got a good definition of what "torture" is. I don't have to "try to tell people" what it is. As I've said before, that's pretty much what the operating definition of "torture" is. I don't know where you got your factless, baseless claim from; but if you could explain it a bit better.

If you mean that *all* prisoners are tortured, then *you* are completely out of your mind. There are standing rules in place about being imprisoned - that and everyone knows what goes on in prison. The prisoners morally obligated themselves to the sort of treatment that they deserve by commiting the crimes. What's more, I say the punishment in this country is not severe enough. Caught stealing? you should forfeit your hand. Caught raping? you should be neutered. I say we've gone too soft. All of these half-baked resorts we call prison needs a bit toughening up. Instead of slowly driving them insane, we should do some real punishment and let them out a bit earlier. How much time would it really take to lop off a hand as compared to 5-7 years? (don't answer that, with the kind of bureaucracy we have, it *would* prolly take 5-7 years just to schedule the removal as an "elective" surgery) .

GHOULMAN

Tuesday, June 22, 2004 9:40 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by JasonZZZ:
Quote:
Originally posted by Ghoulman:

Prisoners are tortured. Torturers need not want information. The method isn't the point. It's because prisoners cannot defend themselves that makes it torture.

Solitary confinement is torture, for example.

heh? who sez torture *has* to involve extracting information?

No one. That's exactly what I said: "Prisoners are tortured. Torturers need not want information. The method isn't the point. It's because prisoners cannot defend themselves that makes it torture.

Quote:
It's one of the many things that it could be. Real what I sez two postings ago. Torture is a process, it's not a thing. Torture isn't an end thing. It has goals that you work towards. It's a work "in-progress". I've got a good definition of what "torture" is. I don't have to "try to tell people" what it is. As I've said before, that's pretty much what the operating definition of "torture" is. I don't know where you got your factless, baseless claim from; but if you could explain it a bit better.

If you mean that *all* prisoners are tortured, then *you* are completely out of your mind. There are standing rules in place about being imprisoned - that and everyone knows what goes on in prison. The prisoners morally obligated themselves to the sort of treatment that they deserve by commiting the crimes. What's more, I say the punishment in this country is not severe enough. Caught stealing? you should forfeit your hand. Caught raping? you should be neutered. I say we've gone too soft. All of these half-baked resorts we call prison needs a bit toughening up. Instead of slowly driving them insane, we should do some real punishment and let them out a bit earlier. How much time would it really take to lop off a hand as compared to 5-7 years? (don't answer that, with the kind of bureaucracy we have, it *would* prolly take 5-7 years just to schedule the removal as an "elective" surgery) .

Good god man.

I'll just back away slowly.

JASONZZZ

Wednesday, June 23, 2004 12:54 AM

yeah, 3 words.

Turducken

SIGNYM

Wednesday, June 23, 2004 1:42 AM

Whoa there Jasonzz!

Pretty soon you'll be saying that it's OK to perform elective brain surgery on ppl who don't fit into the social norm. In the FF 'verse, you'd be a blue hand for sure.. except that I don't think they'd take anyone who can be so easily manipulated!

Torture is the infliction of physical harm or pain or emotional/psychic anguish. One favorite form of torture is sleep deprivation... people actually die sooner of sleep deprivation than lack of water, AND it leaves no marks! Another favorite form of torture is to go the the apparent head man of a village, grab one of his younger male grandchildren and start drowning the kid until your conditions are met. If anyone should wonder about the effectiveness of positional torture, one only needs to look at crucifixion. Of course, there's always the standard electric shock, rape, beatings and burnings. And simple household items- cordless drills, phone books, plastic bags- make excellent tools of the trade.

The point, Jasonzz, is that you're not about to shock me (so to speak!) but you ARE putting yourself in league with sociopaths.

Torture has very little to do with extracting information. If you torture someone enough, they'll tell you anything you want to hear just to stop the pain. Of course, it may be made up, so the value of the information is always questionable. There are drugs and other techniques that do a much better job at getting credible information.

Torture DOES have lots to do with intimidation and control. Whether it's a person trying to control his/her significant other through threats or a dictator squeezing an entire country, the effect of torture is to put some heads on pikes at the city gates and keep the opposition down.

BTW you can be guilty of torture AND murder so it's not an either/or case, but if it was "just" a case of tortuer going to far and death was unintended I suppose it would be torture and manslaughter.

RUE

Wednesday, June 23, 2004 2:48 AM

This is in the UN anti-torture treaty signed by the US in 1994:
http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/h_cat39.htm
PART I
Article 1
1. For the purposes of this Convention, the term "torture" means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.
Article 2
2. No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political in stability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.

US CODE
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/pIch113C.html
Sec. 2340. - Definitions
(1)
''torture'' means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control;

the Geneva Convention
http://www.hrweb.org/legal/cat.html#Article%201.1
Article 50. Grave breaches to which the preceding Article relates shall be those involving any of the following acts, if committed against persons or property protected by the Convention: willful killing, torture or inhuman treatment, including biological experiments, willfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health, and extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly.

JCOBB

Wednesday, June 23, 2004 3:15 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:

But, when it comes to news... well... If Fox "news" was here, it'd be comedy. Scary stuff goes on there, and a lot of US citizens watch it claiming it's actually good news *shiver*

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

Quote:
Oh, we have our fair share of idiots here in Canada as well. Every country has them. There are just a lot fewer of them. Plus they tend to be more passive.

Please provide information to substantiate that.

Seriously, I think you are either gravely underestimating the US or supremely overestimating these 'other' countries.

Quote:

But, when it comes to news... well... If Fox "news" was here, it'd be comedy. Scary stuff goes on there, and a lot of US citizens watch it claiming it's actually good news *shiver*

Because it follows a different agenda? If you think the news you are spoon fed is somehow bias free I think you got another thing coming. Its funny, people go and spout bullsh*t off about Fox and then go and get spoonfed whatever news source appeals most to them.

I try to get the most news from a multitude of different, (in both ownership and opinion) sources and try to base my decisions off of that. (Not saying that you do not)

I just realize that if I get my news from one source it might be biased, (as Fox news is) and that if I get it from another it can be just as biased, (BBC or CNN, or CNBC, or Al Jazeera).

I don't care, I'm still free.

RUE

Wednesday, June 23, 2004 3:42 AM

I do the same thing. I don't come to the same conclusions.

But you yourself admit that any * single * news source, including FOX, is incomplete at a minimum.

And I'm sure you're aware that for the majority of people in the US, 'news' is a half-hour in front of the boob-tube.

JASONZZZ

Wednesday, June 23, 2004 4:12 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Whoa there Jasonzz!

Pretty soon you'll be saying that it's OK to perform elective brain surgery on ppl who don't fit into the social norm. In the FF 'verse, you'd be a blue hand for sure.. except that I don't think they'd take anyone who can be so easily manipulated!

I don't know, you are the ones labeling people whether they fit in or not. If you give it a name, I am more than sure someone will come up with the medicine or a fix for it. If you are clever enough about those things or care enough about it - don't give it a name. If you believe that everyone's feelings and thinking are just and correct and really truly know that "to each their own" is the way to live, then don't make "a norm".

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:

Torture is the infliction of physical harm or pain or emotional/psychic anguish. One favorite form of torture is sleep deprivation... people actually die sooner of sleep deprivation than lack of water, AND it leaves no marks! Another favorite form of torture is to go the the apparent head man of a village, grab one of his younger male grandchildren and start drowning the kid until your conditions are met. If anyone should wonder about the effectiveness of positional torture, one only needs to look at crucifixion. Of course, there's always the standard electric shock, rape, beatings and burnings. And simple household items- cordless drills, phone books, plastic bags- make excellent tools of the trade.

That's a mixed bag of stuff. You all are lumping a whole bunch of stuff and calling it torture. I suppose a simple "nyah, nyah, nyah" taunting or the Monday morning blues is torture too. People who don't get their StarBucks in the morning are also undergoing emotional distress - yeah, those pussies are also undergoing torture. The fact is, the world is filled with this stuff in various forms and shape. The Fat, Dumb, and happy "Western cultured" people of the world's got it made, they can make themselves feel that you can just legislate all of this crap away. Yeah, keep repeating that to yourselves until some real psychopath creeps up to you in a dark parking lot some where and do something. It's real, it's out there, it's not going away. Call it torture, call it what you will. The soft belly of the society will always be the prey.

So, you named a whole bunch of stuff and called it torture. okay. now what?

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:

The point, Jasonzz, is that you're not about to shock me (so to speak!) but you ARE putting yourself in league with sociopaths.

Sociopaths? Thanks for the diagnosis. It would have cost me thousands of dollars and countless hours laying in a couch to be called a mixed bag of nuts. Whew! Now I know. Thanks, no need for arguments. Forget about the debate. We'll just give each other fantasy labels and move on. Haken should just dump this entire forum thing and turn it into a bunch of selection lists of labels for each other. Everyday, we can just post up a bunch of titles for ideas and then start picking labels for each other.

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:

Torture has very little to do with extracting information. If you torture someone enough, they'll tell you anything you want to hear just to stop the pain. Of course, it may be made up, so the value of the information is always questionable. There are drugs and other techniques that do a much better job at getting credible information.

If you ask them the wrong questions, they will give you the wrong answers. We've all known this since the dumb ass sons-of-bitches social workers started cohersing little kids into fingering their adult caretakers as child-molesting demons. The fact is, different people and different situations require different techniques. The dumb unskilled sons-of-bitches rely on the same old drill (no pun intended, oh wait, maybe I did) every single time. Some nuts are tougher to crack. Some you just h

JCOBB

Wednesday, June 23, 2004 4:21 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:

And I'm sure you're aware that for the majority of people in the US, 'news' is a half-hour in front of the boob-tube.

Erm, try the majority of the people, period.

I mean, do you really think that people in Spain, or France, or Britian, or Canada, are somehow more news savvy because of their geographical location?

Maybe you don't intentionally want to bash the US... just because, but from how it sounds you just love making (baseless?) generalizations. Please, feel free to prove me wrong.

I don't care, I'm still free.

RUE

Wednesday, June 23, 2004 4:34 AM

I lived half my life on one US border, and the other half (so far) living on the other.

I did, and do, compare news on an ongoing basis. And internet scanning at least 20 news sources every day (various countries, political positions) is a mental aberration I have. I keep thinking facts do count for something. But maybe I'm just deluded ...

Anyway, I've found US 'world' news is significantly impoverished of facts and significantly slanted to government news releases, compared to world news from elsewhere. I have done the headline-comparison thing with urls long-term for another group of people. But it's too much work to reproduce it here. In any case, I suspect it really doesn't matter what I do or don't post.

JCOBB

Wednesday, June 23, 2004 4:52 AM

Well, I am sure that means you can accurately speak for the entire US, (and all its news services) and for the rest of the world to boot.

Come now, you can make all the generalizations you want, and I am sure it might even give you, (this is purely a guess) a feeling of empowerment. You are better then those other lowly beings because you have the time to dedicate to looking at other online sources. However, that just as easily may not be the case.

Anyways, I think I find the ideas of, "news ...significantly impoverished of facts and significantly slanted to government news releases," as fairly subjective, if not based purely upon opinion, not facts. Again, if you have read all the news papers from coast to coast (not to mention local television stations), and all the news sources in the US, and then have done a comparison to all the new sources in all the other countries in the world, then done an examination, (thorough and unbiased) of the number of people in all the countries, (or to make your job easier, modern countries) and the ammount of time the populice spends on examining various news sources, then feel free to make generalizations.

I have significant doubts as to whether or not you have done this, and as such I do find your gross overgeneralizations a tad bit.. callous.

I will try to refrain from doing so, (and if I do, please call me on it) and would appreciate it if you tried to refrain from doing so in the future.

I don't care, I'm still free.

SIGMANUNKI

Wednesday, June 23, 2004 5:36 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by JCobb:
Please provide information to substantiate that.

Seriously, I think you are either gravely underestimating the US or supremely overestimating these 'other' countries.

I am Canadian and I have lived in the US. I know a number of idiots here and just about all that I met down there was a moron. And those who weren't morons were pretty much all immigrants or those there on a visa.

I have been to Scotland, England and Germany and the people in all those countries crush those in the US when it comes to intellect (generally speaking of course).

Sorry, but there are things to be said about the state of the public education systems in these countries and I won't even get into how ruined the US's is.

Quote:
Originally posted by JCobb:
Because it follows a different agenda? If you think the news you are spoon fed is somehow bias free I think you got another thing coming. Its funny, people go and spout bullsh*t off about Fox and then go and get spoonfed whatever news source appeals most to them.

I try to get the most news from a multitude of different, (in both ownership and opinion) sources and try to base my decisions off of that. (Not saying that you do not)

I just realize that if I get my news from one source it might be biased, (as Fox news is) and that if I get it from another it can be just as biased, (BBC or CNN, or CNBC, or Al Jazeera).

I get my news from the local news papers, the CBC (CBC Sunday mostly), BBC and my friends tell what are in others around the world (can't remember the exact web sites). Plus my German wife tells me what is going on in the German media and she reads multiple papers from there. So, I think that I'm pretty well informed.

But, as for Fox "news". *When* I lived in the US I watched it for a bit and they blatantly omit data to the point where they are lying. I'll provide a case.

Remember those British documents way back in the beginning of the invasion of Iraq that turned out to be based on somebodies thesis? I do, and when the BBC reported on the British governments findings they stated that one document was fine, no foul play involved. But the other one (the one the controversy was all about) was found to have a lot of foul play involved.

Now after hearing that on BBC World when I was channel surfing, I came across a Fox "news" report that stated that the Brits had completed there investigation into *the* document and they had found no foul play. That ended the report.

Now technically they didn't lie. But, this report is *very* misleading. They didn't state that there were two documents and that the one they were referring to wasn't the controversial one. But, of course, that would just screw up there agenda, right? Therefore, lying by omission.

Also, the Daily Show had a "journalist" from Fox "news" on. This "journalist" from Fox "news" actually said that there is the wrong opinion (referring to Al Jazeera) and then the right one (referring to Fox "news"). This isn't exactly anything resembling any attempt at a non-bias mentality, eh?

And no, I don't watch the BBC because it goes along with my "agenda". They've said things on there that I definitely disagreed with. I watch it because it is, IMHO, the most balanced news show on the air. And I know that there are better ones out there. But, I only speak english so I can't watch them.

Lastly, stop trying to put words in my mouth. I never stated that the BBC was bias free. And never assume something that you have no basis for. I refer to the first paragraph quoted just above.

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

JCOBB

Wednesday, June 23, 2004 5:58 AM

Erm, yeah, the Daily Show...

They have NO agenda what-so-ever. And EVERYTHING they report is taken in the most absolutely serious manner possible. Checked, double checked, and checked again.

I remember one episode where they had a mayor of Evansville Indiana, (IIRC) say he went to a Cher concert, and then it showed what the mayor was thinking, and it turned out to BE the Cher concert.

Its amazing technology they have at the Daily Show.

And, I find that when you are visiting another country, (be it on vacation, or whatever) you would tend to go to areas where people have a similar intellectual, (or at least comparable) level. I highly doubt you got into a "deep" philosophical discussion with random bum 1, (see script) in Scotland. Or with passing lady in Germany, (also see script). The idea that this cursory, "I went there so I am qualified to speak on the intelligence there," is more then a little absurd. Perhaps you have done indepth research, and by no means do I think that the US is the loftiest epitome of intelligence, that is most certainly not the case. I just think that it is easy to take a cursory glance of a country you have visited briefly, (say you visited friends, or went to more upstyle establishments, or whatever) then to compare it to a country you have lived all your life, seen the sad underbelly, and have seen the good and the bad. (In my experience the bad seems to stick out more prominately).

Also, I don't want to tout Fox News as an exceptional source for unbiased news, but nor would I consider BBC the most unbiased news source either. I am sure you can find cases from most any news organization where they have done faulty or dodgy reporting. I think the most obvious reasons people "pick" on Fox is because its agenda is so perpendicular to their own.

Nor, while we are talking about putting words in each other mouth's, did I say anything about Fox being unbiased. In fact, I destinctly remember saying quite the opposite.

And, while we are on the subject, can I direct you to read what you quoted me saying.

"I try to get the most news from a multitude of different, (in both ownership and opinion) sources and try to base my decisions off of that. (Not saying that you do not)"

Pay close attention to the (Not saying that you do not) part.

EDIT

Not to be a pain in the ass, still waiting for substantiatable information on how other people are more intelligent, (or informed, I forget which you said) then those geographically based in the US.

I don't care, I'm still free.

HKCAVALIER

Wednesday, June 23, 2004 6:46 AM

Oh jeez, JCobb, what are you doing? You're like one of the cool, thoughtful moderate people on thsi sight, but you're kinda heading for the deep end and I'm afraid you might just go off it, if you don't come back.

This ain't no court o' law and none of us are writing news articles that have to be fact-checked. Somebody lives in the U.S., or lives in Canada and visits the U.S., and gets a feeling for the way people are there and then goes overseas and has a very different experience: "Whoa, people over here are much more [fill in the blank] than people in the U.S." There ain't nothing invalid about that.

It's called anecdotal evidence. It's the basis of the gorram scientific method, fer gosh sakes! Find what you consider a representative sample, make a hypothesis and see if it's borne out. People share such experiences online and hear what other people have to say on the subject. This process can result in a person being better informed than they were before.

Seriously, you're being all kinds of pedantic, demanding "evidence" for a personal observation. All the evidence anybody needs is their own eyes. And just because it's based solely on personal experience doesn't make it an opinion. If I saw ten people walk past my window in the last hour, it ain't an opinion, it is an observation. If all kinds of random Europeans are dazzling me with their knowledge of current events, while the folks back home all just grunted, well, that's what I observed. If you don't believe me, fine, but if you ask me for proof, I'm just gonna look at you funny.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

JCOBB

Wednesday, June 23, 2004 7:56 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Oh jeez, JCobb, what are you doing? You're like one of the cool, thoughtful moderate people on thsi sight, but you're kinda heading for the deep end and I'm afraid you might just go off it, if you don't come back.

This ain't no court o' law and none of us are writing news articles that have to be fact-checked. Somebody lives in the U.S., or lives in Canada and visits the U.S., and gets a feeling for the way people are there and then goes overseas and has a very different experience: "Whoa, people over here are much more [fill in the blank] than people in the U.S." There ain't nothing invalid about that.

It's called anecdotal evidence. It's the basis of the gorram scientific method, fer gosh sakes! Find what you consider a representative sample, make a hypothesis and see if it's borne out. People share such experiences online and hear what other people have to say on the subject. This process can result in a person being better informed than they were before.

Seriously, you're being all kinds of pedantic, demanding "evidence" for a personal observation. All the evidence anybody needs is their own eyes. And just because it's based solely on personal experience doesn't make it an opinion. If I saw ten people walk past my window in the last hour, it ain't an opinion, it is an observation. If all kinds of random Europeans are dazzling me with their knowledge of current events, while the folks back home all just grunted, well, that's what I observed. If you don't believe me, fine, but if you ask me for proof, I'm just gonna look at you funny.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

I have found the mark of an idiot would be one that takes blithering at face value and does not seek deeper analysis.

Its very easy to group everyone into a single group, then make sweeping generalizations based off of a few select examples. Its also easy for people to put on a smug, superior attitude, purely based off of geographical location. (I know more purely because I am from France, or Britian, or Canada, and your arguments are null and void because you happen to be located in the US.) I suppose I just got sick of several posts where certain people just brushed other people off because they were "American"(again this might not nessecarily be you SIGMANUNKI or Rue, or you Cavalier).

That really grates on me.

Plus, if there is scientific evidence proving that Americans are retarded, I would love to see it. Would make my debates with some of my fellow brethren much easier.

Anyways, glad I am not coming across as a TOTAL ass in all my posts Cavalier, I suppose thats the least I can do.

EDIT

Oh, and if it is just a personal observation, that is one thing. It is another to then take that observation and apply that everyone, or even the majority of people are that way, be it an intelligent European, or a dumbass American.

I know I wouldn't make any judgements unless I had met the majority of peoples. Maybe I am weird like that.

I don't care, I'm still free.

SIGMANUNKI

Wednesday, June 23, 2004 5:14 PM

JCobb:
First off that interview with the Fox "news" "journalist" was on the show sitting right in front of Jon. So, the chances for funny stuff going on is minimal. I do understand your doubting it though, as there antics on *taped* interviews can be quite humorous. But, this was not one of them. He was a guest on the show.

When you go to another country you *do* get the feeling of those that are in it. That is, if you go "off the beaten path" to the non-tourist attractions. *Which I did*. In fact when I went to Germany I stayed in my wife's apartment far from anything touristy.

I'll say at this point that I found the Europeans to be far more intelligent and I won't get into how nice they where. Because the people on the street in Germany certainly (in my experience, though the wife doesn't agree) were not nice. The only friendly people there were her family and her families friends. Joe Shmo on the street was not.

That being said, I did live in the US for some time and have visited many parts of the country. I got that same "everybody's intelligence around me is room temperature" feeling no matter where I went.

Intelligent people will always have that spark in there eye. There eyes kind of shine in a certain way. On the other hand, people who are of intelligence lacking, have a dull stare typically with there mouth open. The latter is the type of person I ran into most in the states. In fact, I ran into them with frightening frequency ie every time I went out and where every I went.

So then, when I was down in the US, if I was going to be hanging out in areas with those of people of my intellectual level, how was I completely confounded at the atrocities that surrounded me? /And I was in a university town./ Quite a sad state of affairs indeed

I'll note at this point that there will be exceptions to the rule. After all, if that wasn't the case then I'd not be here right now, as most of the people here are Americans. ie I'm not anti-American, I'm anti-stupid. It just so happens that in my /experience/ pretty much all the Americans I have met are... well, you get the idea.

Another example. My wife was walking around wearing the sweater from the local university. So, it had University of ? on it in *big* letters right on the front. Some guy walked up to her and said, that's a great sweater, where'd you get it?

It has nothing to do with geographic location as such. But, it has everything to do with the culture in that country. And the US has a very violent culture that doesn't respect education. When I grew up I was taught that education is a must, education is to be respected and that I should go to school.

The US on the other hand doesn't care about education. eg California, when they first started the cuts to balance the budget, cut education first. There are other examples indeed, but, I won't get into that. This thread has already gone somewhat OT.

And here, 48 Nobel laureates refer to Bush's anti- science ways:
http://wireservice.wired.com/wired/story.asp?section=Breaking&storyId=
882094&tw=wn_wire_story
The letter:
http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/files/2004_0621_letter.html

And news agencies that have an agenda that is so clear and obvious shouldn't be allowed to call themselves a news agency. The whole point of being a news agency is that you try to be as objective as possible. But, whenever I see something from Fox "news" it *always*, *without exception*, has the foul stench of manipulation on it. I cannot respect that in the slightest.

And my substantial information on people from other countries being more informed than those in the US is *talking to people from other countries*. My substantial information of people from other countries being more intelligent than those in the US is the same.

And when I say more intelligent and better informed, I'm not saying that they go along with what I think or that if they're a prick then they're just an idiot. I say these things because they can follo

JCOBB

Wednesday, June 23, 2004 6:06 PM

Okay, I just happen to disagree.

I've done my fair bit of traveling and have found idiots everywhere. I have found more American's that can put up a good discussion, (nevermind Jay Leno's Jaywalkers) then I have found Canadians, Mexicans, Germans, or English(women)men.

What was it, 90% of Britons, (or some ungodly high number) couldn't find Iraq on a map, a higher number then their American counterparts, I think the Swedes got the highest, only 70% of people there couldn't locate Iraq.

As far as education is concerned, I can't complain. I have been through the public education system, and I think I have gotten a very good, well rounded education. That might be because I made a personal decision to challenge myself, but then again, so did my classmates. Do I think that more of an emphasis should be placed on education, absolutely. Does that mean that your average Britian is brighter then your average American. I dunno, haven't seen evidence about it. I have visited Britian and Germany, and even in the area's I have visited for fun, (I would like to think I chose higher brow locales) I have not been impressed with the intelligence of the people there. Often they would have what, at first glance, seems to be a good strong grasp of world events, but after some further discussion it turned out to be nothing more then superficial polish thrown like so much rice at a wedding.

Regardless, I have not been impressed with intelligence in general.

EDIT

As far as what some scientists think, I can make up my mind on my own, thank you very much. I also am not one to think that scientists can't be as liberal or conservative as you or me. I think a mistake many people make is raising scientists to a "God" like level, (again, not nessecarily you) and then assume that they can not succumb to the same problems that you or I can.

I don't care, I'm still free.

SIGNYM

Wednesday, June 23, 2004 7:45 PM

SignyM Whoa there Jasonzz!
Pretty soon you'll be saying that it's OK to perform elective brain surgery on ppl who don't fit into the social norm. In the FF 'verse, you'd be a blue hand for sure.. except that I don't think they'd take anyone who can be so easily manipulated!

Jasonzz: I don't know, you are the ones labeling people whether they fit in or not. If you give it a name, I am more than sure someone will come up with the medicine or a fix for it. If you are clever enough about those things or care enough about it - don't give it a name. If you believe that everyone's feelings and thinking are just and correct and really truly know that "to each their own" is the way to live, then don't make "a norm".

SignyM: Yes... but not two paragraphs down you say "The Fat, Dumb, and happy "Western cultured" people of the world's got it made, they can make themselves feel that you can just legislate all of this crap away." It seems to me that YOU are creating a "norm", or at least a "preferred". In any case you're certainly name-calling!

--------------------------------
SignyM: Torture is the infliction of physical harm or pain or emotional/psychic anguish. One favorite form of torture is sleep deprivation... people actually die sooner of sleep deprivation than lack of water, AND it leaves no marks! Another favorite form of torture is to go the the apparent head man of a village, grab one of his younger male grandchildren and start drowning the kid until your conditions are met. If anyone should wonder about the effectiveness of positional torture, one only needs to look at crucifixion. Of course, there's always the standard electric shock, rape, beatings and burnings. And simple household items- cordless drills, phone books, plastic bags- make excellent tools of the trade.

Jasonzz: That's a mixed bag of stuff. You all are lumping a whole bunch of stuff and calling it torture...

SignyM It's all exquisitely painful, I assure you.

Jasonzz ... I suppose a simple "nyah, nyah, nyah" taunting or the Monday morning blues is torture too. People who don't get their StarBucks in the morning are also undergoing emotional distress - yeah, those pussies are also undergoing torture...

SignyM What ARE you going on about? That I'm somehow blind to what torture is? That I have no idea how painful it can be? Only someone who has NO idea of torture would equate crucifixion with not getting their Starbucks coffee in the ayem. I THINK you're trying to sound like you "really know" and nobody else does, but you just undercut your own argument terribly.

Jasonzz The fact is, the world is filled with this stuff in various forms and shape. The Fat, Dumb, and happy "Western cultured" people of the world's got it made, they can make themselves feel that you can just legislate all of this crap away. Yeah, keep repeating that to yourselves until some real psychopath creeps up to you in a dark parking lot some where and do something....

SignyM Actually, Ive had this happen to me... twice. You're not telling me anything I don't know.

Jasonzz... It's real, it's out there, it's not going away. Call it torture, call it what you will. The soft belly of the society will always be the prey.

SignyM Again, what are you trying to say? That torture will always exist? That everyone is blind except you? That you PREFER a world in which torture is accepted because you'd like to use it yourself? Spit it out man! Tell me what you're REALLY thinking!

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

SignyMThe point, Jasonzz, is that you're not about to shock me (so to speak!) but you ARE putting yourself in league with sociopaths.

Jasonnzz Sociopaths? Thanks for the diagnosis. It would have cost me thousands of dollars and countless hours laying in a couch to be called a mixed bag of nuts. Whew! Now I know...

SignyM AND, you got it for free! Here's the definition of sociopath: Someone who manipulates others without e

BARNSTORMER

Wednesday, June 23, 2004 8:05 PM

The following is an interesting look at the "non kneejerk radical" end of the Arab media spectrums take on the Abu Garaib fiasco.......

by Steven Stalinsky.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Responding to the Abu Ghraib controversy, several Arab journalists have noted that the actions of a handful of Americans pale in comparison to what occurs daily inside Arab prisons. This has led to articles in the Arab media calling on Arab leaders to end human-rights violations within their own prisons.

Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak described Abu Ghraib as "abhorrent and sickening, and against all human values and human rights." But as Yusri Fatyan wrote in the Egyptian paper Al Arabi on
May 23: "Frankly, what happens in Egypt doesn't differ much from what happens in Iraq's prisons... So that we don't get a surprise when foreign organizations start talking about some of our police stations, like Helwan, Al Sahel, Bilqas, and others."

Another Egyptian journalist, Muhamad Ali Al Farra, wrote in the Islamist paper Al Shab: "Some Arab rulers have practiced torture on people which no one would believe, and even finishing with tortured bodies by burning them in acid, so how could such rulers condemn torture of Iraqi prisoners? Who is going to throw stones at others when his own house is made of glass?"

Saleh Bin Humaid, chairman of the Saudi Shoura Council, called the Abu Ghraib abuses "hideous scenes of human-rights violations." This, despite the fact that Saudi prisoners have almost no legal rights, and that their punishments are based on Islamic law -- including the severing of fingers and hands for stealing, and beheadings for drug-dealing.

Syrian Minister for Expatriate Affairs Buthayna Shaban, who recently returned from a trip to the U.S., wrote in Al-Sharq Al-Awsat on February 18, 2004: "The pictures that one lone soldier managed to smuggle out of the Abu Ghraib prison aroused revulsion and condemnation in the world, because of the extent of the contempt for human dignity and fundamental human rights -- particularly on the part of the forces that claimed [they had crossed] the oceans to rescue the Iraqi people from the inhumane actions [by the Saddam regime] and to bring freedom and democracy... It is the American administration's supercilious view of the Arabs and Muslims, particularly after the events of September 11, and the racist campaign against Islam and the Muslims in Europe... that leads to crimes of this kind."

Ahmad Jarallah, editor-in-chief of the Kuwaiti daily Al-Siyassa and noted critic of the Syrian regime, responded in an editorial: "Dr. Buthayna Shaban, who is 'revolted'... should be the last to express her revulsion -- because the kinds of torture carried out in the prisons of the regime of which she is a part and in whose services she acts are too numerous to count. No atrocity surpasses the kinds of torment and torture [in the Syrian regime]... We have gone overboard in our talk of the Abu Ghraib torture scandal... None has dared acknowledge that the U.S. behaved properly in uncovering [this] scandal, for having sufficient courage to apologize. It could have remained silent, or denied it -- as is the custom of some Arab regimes that torture, assassinate, bury alive, rip out fingernails, and dissolve [people] in pits of acid, and appear before the world like innocent children with angels' wings."

Other Arab journalists have recognized that U.S. actions in Iraq are not based on any sinister plans and that, while the U.S. has made mistakes, it has done more for Iraqis than any Arab state. On the liberal Arabic website Elaph.com, Syrian columnist Hayan Nayouf wrote: "After the scandal of the torture of Iraqi prisoners by American and British soldiers, the Arab media handled this affair in a way arousing ridicule, proving that the Arab media and intellectuals possess everything but objectivity, transparency, and disclosure of the truth and the facts... The American president, the president of the most powerful country in the world...

SIGNYM

Wednesday, June 23, 2004 10:01 PM

According to this article, the biggest effect that the United States had resulted from what we did RIGHT (exposing, investigating, apologizing for torture) not because of what we did WRONG (setting the legal and reporting structure under which torture occured). By this logic, if we did even more "right" we would have an even bigger impact.

However... I'm not sure about the article's accuracy of the Mideast "street" or American nobility. And if we tried to put the assumptions into practice we may STILL not be able to win the hearts and minds of Iraqis.

Except that a soldier smuggled out photos and gave them to the media, the entire problem would probably still be going on while the "investigation" ground on interminably. And even if the torture was stopped, it would have never been admitted, much less apologized for. The administration got caught with its pants down, period, and the quoted journalists (mostly Kuwaitis and Egyptians) who make such a big deal about US honesty are so far off the mark that it throws doubt on everything else that they say.

JCOBB

Wednesday, June 23, 2004 10:07 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
According to this article, the biggest effect that the United States had resulted from what we did RIGHT (exposing, investigating, apologizing for torture) not because of what we did WRONG (setting the legal and reporting structure under which torture occured). By this logic, if we did even more "right" we would have an even bigger impact.

However... I'm not sure about the article's accuracy of the Mideast "street" or American nobility. And if we tried to put the assumptions into practice we may STILL not be able to win the hearts and minds of Iraqis.

Except that a soldier smuggled out photos and gave them to the media, the entire problem would probably still be going on while the "investigation" ground on interminably. And even if the torture was stopped, it would have never been admitted, much less apologized for. The administration got caught with its pants down, period, and the quoted journalists (mostly Kuwaitis and Egyptians) who make such a big deal about US honesty are so far off the mark that it throws doubt on everything else that they say.

Do you think, (in all seriousness) that we haven't done any good over in Iraq? I think the media often grabs the worst of what happens in Iraq, but rarely if ever focuses on the good. I have seen letters from soldiers with pictures of them working side by side with Iraqi's to build schools, to distrubute water and food to refugees, all sorts of marvelous and wonderful things. I think far too often the worst of things are reported and expounded upon, and it leaves a bitter taste in my mouth, knowing full well that there are good people over there making a difference.

I don't care, I'm still free.

SIGNYM

Wednesday, June 23, 2004 11:21 PM

I think the enlisted men and women are doing some good. Unfortunately, the administration screwed up a LOT starting with completely violating the Powell Doctrine and moving on to assuming how poular we'd be, grossly underestimating troop requirements, disbanding the entire Iraqi army, allowing complete breakdown of security. It could have been retrieved at many points along the way- bringing in respected moderate clerics and their militias, reforming the Iraqi regular army (not the Fedayeen) etc. Now it's at a point where it doesn't seem to matter to the Iraqis WHAT we do. A NYTimes columnist made a very prophetic statement right after our apparent victory, and it went something like- If the water doesn't flow and the electricity doesn't come on and the rain don't fall and the sun don't shine, it's all our fault (at least in the eyes if the Iraqis). I think that's where we are, and well-meaning troops just can't make up for boondoggles at the top. I'm pissed off as all hell at the administration for screwing EVERYTHING up.

I wasn't in favor of the war. Months and months before the actual invasion, everyone was telling me it was all about WMD and I kept saying it was all about the oil... and I still do. But if we're going to inavde, at least don't leave the troops hanging out to dry.

JCOBB

Wednesday, June 23, 2004 11:40 PM

Well, then I respectfully disagree.

You say its one disaster after another, and I see what years ago would have been insurmountable progress.

I don't care, I'm still free.

SIGMANUNKI

Wednesday, June 23, 2004 11:51 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by JCobb:

As far as education is concerned, I can't complain. I have been through the public education system, and I think I have gotten a very good, well rounded education. That might be because I made a personal decision to challenge myself, but then again, so did my classmates.

I went through public school as well, but finished about a decade ago. Unfortunately, the people that are going through now aren't getting taught things that I did. The teachers are taking things out of the curriculum and not putting things in to fill the gap. The whole system is being "dumbed down". It's depressing to have friends that are teachers that tell me these things.

And this isn't just happening in Canada, it's happening all over the world

I think that it'll be time soon for me to do something about that.

Also, people don't really challenge themselves anymore. After all, they're them right? The kids today are far too arrogant. Goes along with that "me attitude" that I'm seeing more and more of as time goes on.

Quote:
Originally posted by JCobb:

Does that mean that your average Britian is brighter then your average American. I dunno, haven't seen evidence about it.

Well, when it comes to education, all it does is give the opportunity for people to achieve there *potential*.

For instance, my parents neighbors have a *very* bright young girl that could grow up to do some amazing things, but, will she? No, the parents get drunk regularly and of course the next morning they'll not be able to drive her to school. It is an unfortunate state of affairs.

So, IMHO, it doesn't really matter how much potential the kid has, if (s)he is treated like an idiot then they'll grow up to be one. The only exception is if the child has and untold amount of drive and goes to learn on his/her own. I did the latter as my school wasn't exactly challenging.

Quote:
Originally posted by JCobb:
As far as what some scientists think, I can make up my mind on my own, thank you very much. I also am not one to think that scientists can't be as liberal or conservative as you or me. I think a mistake many people make is raising scientists to a "God" like level, (again, not nessecarily you) and then assume that they can not succumb to the same problems that you or I can.

True, scientists can succumb to the same problems and us, they are after all human, and as such prone to error just like the rest of us.

But, these are some of the best and brightest among us today. So, one really should look at what they are saying and give it a good thought. After all, these people by profession are trained to think and be highly critical.

I guess this all gets chalked up to what we've both experienced. Which it seems clear that we've both experienced different things.

So, let's agree to disagree as I don't think that this discussion will lead to any good places from this point forward.

*extends hand to shake hands with JCobb*

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

JCOBB

Thursday, June 24, 2004 1:32 AM

*shakes hand warmly*

Like I said, I don't have anything against you, or probably anyone on this board.

Just so long as you don't vote somebody into office that will infringe on my rights, and I don't vote somebody into office that will infringe on yours, I think we could get along smashingly.

I don't care, I'm still free.

RUE

Thursday, June 24, 2004 1:36 AM

What I get from some postings is that Hussein is the proposed standard by which the US should be judged.

That's setting one's standards very, very low.

SIGMANUNKI

Thursday, June 24, 2004 1:49 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by JCobb:
*shakes hand warmly*

Like I said, I don't have anything against you, or probably anyone on this board.

Just so long as you don't vote somebody into office that will infringe on my rights, and I don't vote somebody into office that will infringe on yours, I think we could get along smashingly.

I don't care, I'm still free.

Excellent and I as well

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

BARNSTORMER

Thursday, June 24, 2004 2:58 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
What I get from some postings is that Hussein is the proposed standard by which the US should be judged.

That's setting one's standards very, very low.

My intent when posting the article was NOT to suggest a yard stick to measure against. Indeed you are right in that calibrating a yard stick based on what someone of Saddams ilk has done IS setting an abysmally low standard.

I just came upon that article yesterday, and thought its point of view and content was interesting.

While I don't like at all the news coming out about Abu Garaib, it is not a commentary on the American public in general or its armed forces, but more like a commentary on the few D*ckHeads that actually did the deeds.

But no matter which way you look at it, it's pretty hard to realistically equate:

Beheadings
Amputations
Being thrown into a pool of acid
Being thrown into a wood chipper feet first
ect
ect
ad naseum

with...

Having Panties put on your head.
Having a dog bark at you
Being limited to 4 hours sleep(?)

Notice:
The above comparison is in no way meant to lessen my contempt for the D*ickHeads mentioned earlier in this response.

On a last note, I'm sure many of you will take issue with what I have written here. For that I am sorry, and I apologize in advance. I have always thought of myself (whether rightly or wrongly) as someone who is not on the Left and someone who is not on the Right, but somewheres round about in the middle.

In any case, I think this might be my last post in a political thread. I might just leave that to Ghoulman et al.

Politics and Religion are unwinnable arguments if there is more than one person taking part.

By Ya'll

BarnStormer

Am I a Lion?... No, I think I'm telling the truth.

RUE

Friday, June 25, 2004 2:39 AM

Barnstormer,

Well, if one looks at the discussions as a contest, which can only be won, tied, or lost, then there IS no point to participating b/c they do go on and on - relentlessly.

But of one looks at them as entertainment, or education, or something that keeps one sharp just by reading, then maybe people win from them, even if no individual does.

I can see how the contention might turn you off, though.

I do hope you check out the many non-political threads. There is so much intelligence, thought, wit, amusement, camaraderie, information - a treasure trove of intelligence and talent and humanity - to be found there.

Sincerely,
Rue

JCOBB

Friday, June 25, 2004 2:51 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Barnstormer,

Well, if one looks at the discussions as a contest, which can only be won, tied, or lost, then there IS no point to participating b/c they do go on and on - relentlessly.

But of one looks at them as entertainment, or education, or something that keeps one sharp just by reading, then maybe people win from them, even if no individual does.

I can see how the contention might turn you off, though.

I do hope you check out the many non-political threads. There is so much intelligence, thought, wit, amusement, camaraderie, information - a treasure trove of intelligence and talent and humanity - to be found there.

Sincerely,
Rue

+1

You can never approach an internt discussion like this as a winnable debate, (much as I am loathed to admit it).

I don't care, I'm still free.

BARNSTORMER

Friday, June 25, 2004 2:19 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by JCobb:
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Barnstormer,

Well, if one looks at the discussions as a contest, which can only be won, tied, or lost, then there IS no point to participating b/c they do go on and on - relentlessly.

But of one looks at them as entertainment, or education, or something that keeps one sharp just by reading, then maybe people win from them, even if no individual does.

I can see how the contention might turn you off, though.

I do hope you check out the many non-political threads. There is so much intelligence, thought, wit, amusement, camaraderie, information - a treasure trove of intelligence and talent and humanity - to be found there.

Sincerely,
Rue

+1

You can never approach an internt discussion like this as a winnable debate, (much as I am loathed to admit it).

I don't care, I'm still free.

Yes, you are both quite right. And thank you for your responses.

I've been lurking on this site for a couple years now, and only just de-lurked a few days ago. The one thing that has kept me coming back here for that long HAS been the other discussions that go on in abundance.

There's no short supply of the funny, informative, and thought provoking on this sight as well as the comaraderie that comes from all of us loving the best SciFi show that ever was (to me all my other favorite SciFi comes in a close second).

The only thing that got me to post responses on the political type threads were the posts from certian users that I saw as just plain, unadulterated platforms for "american bashing".

I don't like being portrayed as a vicious, warmongering, subhuman form of cattle, bent on world domination, that can't form a self made opinion because I blindly follow the stink of my presidents butt.

It kind of gets my dander up ;)

Any way...that's my two cents worth.

See Ya on the other threads and have a great weekend.

BTW- Does anyone else have the suspicion that Ghoulman might actually be Succatash? He's been known in the past to rabble rouse using a Nom de Plume.

It's just a suspicion.......But in the near future, when the great State on New Hampshire, in the great country of the United States of America, takes over the world, we will be TELLING you what to think, NOT asking!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

(errr....Just as soon as someone tells me how to insert one of them there smiley face emoticons in my text.......anyone?)

Am I a Lion?... No, I think I'ma tellin' the truth.

BarnStormer

JASONZZZ

Friday, June 25, 2004 2:58 PM

LOL

"If I wanted your opinion, I would have beaten it out of you"

BTW: the emoticons are all on the left panel while you are editing. You just type in something like : fork : (minus the spaces in between the colons that are bracketing the word)

BARNSTORMER

Friday, June 25, 2004 3:06 PM

Thanks,

OK....Lets give this emoticon stuff a try....

Am I a Lion?... No, I think I'ma tellin' the truth.

BarnStormer

BARNSTORMER

Friday, June 25, 2004 3:10 PM

Exxxxcellllennnt....

Let the domination begin.....

Miiinnneee
Bwaahhhhhaaaaahhhhhhaaaaa
All Miiinneeeeee

Am I a Lion?... No, I think I'ma tellin' the truth.

BarnStormer

SIGMANUNKI

Friday, June 25, 2004 3:35 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by BarnStormer:

But no matter which way you look at it, it's pretty hard to realistically equate:

Beheadings
Amputations
Being thrown into a pool of acid
Being thrown into a wood chipper feet first
ect
ect
ad naseum

with...

Having Panties put on your head.
Having a dog bark at you
Being limited to 4 hours sleep(?)

Notice:
The above comparison is in no way meant to lessen my contempt for the D*ickHeads mentioned earlier in this response.

You are attempting to use Western culture to make it seem as though these things aren't linked.

They are, I don't pretend to actually understand it, but, I don't have to. These things to the Iraqi people are *worse* than death.

Not trying to be a dick here, but, you might want to watch that in the future. Cultural relativism has gotten *many* a people in trouble and most forget about it when constructing an argument. Tends to happen when peoples worlds are "home" centric.

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

JASONZZZ

Friday, June 25, 2004 3:54 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
Quote:
Originally posted by BarnStormer:

But no matter which way you look at it, it's pretty hard to realistically equate:

Beheadings
Amputations
Being thrown into a pool of acid
Being thrown into a wood chipper feet first
ect
ect
ad naseum

with...

Having Panties put on your head.
Having a dog bark at you
Being limited to 4 hours sleep(?)

Notice:
The above comparison is in no way meant to lessen my contempt for the D*ickHeads mentioned earlier in this response.

You are attempting to use Western culture to make it seem as though these things aren't linked.

They are, I don't pretend to actually understand it, but, I don't have to. These things to the Iraqi people are *worse* than death.

I think you missed something there, cultural relativism aside (there's some pretence that we all understand what kind of milkshakes the Iraqi's like to drink. *Every* single Iraqi has a different personal favourite when it comes to milkshakes ), but the above stmt should be revised as "We've been told that - these things are *worse* than death to an Iraqi".

These things might be pretty damn bad for the Iraqi people cultural humiliation wise, but if they are *worse* than death, then why didn't Saddam dress them up as a bunch of crazed bunnies and see-thru negligee and marched them up and down the street? It's the same argument as "Why didn't Saddam feed them all Meng-berry milkshakes". That's why.

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:

Not trying to be a dick here, but, you might want to watch that in the future. Cultural relativism has gotten *many* a people in trouble and most forget about it when constructing an argument. Tends to happen when peoples worlds are "home" centric.

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

BARNSTORMER

Friday, June 25, 2004 4:03 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
Quote:
Originally posted by BarnStormer:

But no matter which way you look at it, it's pretty hard to realistically equate:

Beheadings
Amputations
Being thrown into a pool of acid
Being thrown into a wood chipper feet first
ect
ect
ad naseum

with...

Having Panties put on your head.
Having a dog bark at you
Being limited to 4 hours sleep(?)

Notice:
The above comparison is in no way meant to lessen my contempt for the D*ickHeads mentioned earlier in this response.

You are attempting to use Western culture to make it seem as though these things aren't linked.

They are, I don't pretend to actually understand it, but, I don't have to. These things to the Iraqi people are *worse* than death.

Not trying to be a dick here, but, you might want to watch that in the future. Cultural relativism has gotten *many* a people in trouble and most forget about it when constructing an argument. Tends to happen when peoples worlds are "home" centric.

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

Sorry, that argument does'nt work with me. I've spent a significant amount of time in over a dozen different countries (none for some strange reason in Europe, but a few in Muslim countries).

I never perceived the differences between "Us" and "Them" (insert whatever nationalities you want in the Us and Them catagories) to be THAT different. No....Not to that degree.

No. My name is not synonomous with "Home" centric.

Am I a Lion?... No, I think I'ma tellin' the truth.

BarnStormer

SIGMANUNKI

Friday, June 25, 2004 8:08 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Jasonzzz:
I think you missed something there, cultural relativism aside (there's some pretence that we all understand what kind of milkshakes the Iraqi's like to drink. *Every* single Iraqi has a different personal favourite when it comes to milkshakes ), but the above stmt should be revised as "We've been told that - these things are *worse* than death to an Iraqi".

These things might be pretty damn bad for the Iraqi people cultural humiliation wise, but if they are *worse* than death, then why didn't Saddam dress them up as a bunch of crazed bunnies and see-thru negligee and marched them up and down the street? It's the same argument as "Why didn't Saddam feed them all Meng-berry milkshakes". That's why.

You're going to have to let me in on your point. Say it, don't demonstate it with analogy assuming people will pick up on it.

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

SIGMANUNKI

Friday, June 25, 2004 8:13 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by BarnStormer:
Sorry, that argument does'nt work with me. I've spent a significant amount of time in over a dozen different countries (none for some strange reason in Europe, but a few in Muslim countries).

I never perceived the differences between "Us" and "Them" (insert whatever nationalities you want in the Us and Them catagories) to be THAT different. No....Not to that degree.

No. My name is not synonomous with "Home" centric.

Am I a Lion?... No, I think I'ma tellin' the truth.

BarnStormer

I know that there are a couple of different types of people. There are one that pay attention to there surroundings and there are those that don't. I one for the former and it made it impossible for me to live the US. That was good from my education, but, not so good for the marriage. Thankfully she's back up here in days

But, to those that don't notice they'll never have any sense of the culture surrounding them. So, if you didn't notice a significant culture difference while over there, then you're in that second camp and your argument has no weight with me.

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

BARNSTORMER

Friday, June 25, 2004 9:07 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
Quote:
Originally posted by BarnStormer:
Sorry, that argument does'nt work with me. I've spent a significant amount of time in over a dozen different countries (none for some strange reason in Europe, but a few in Muslim countries).

I never perceived the differences between "Us" and "Them" (insert whatever nationalities you want in the Us and Them catagories) to be THAT different. No....Not to that degree.

No. My name is not synonomous with "Home" centric.

Am I a Lion?... No, I think I'ma tellin' the truth.

BarnStormer

I know that there are a couple of different types of people. There are one that pay attention to there surroundings and there are those that don't. I one for the former and it made it impossible for me to live the US. That was good from my education, but, not so good for the marriage. Thankfully she's back up here in days

But, to those that don't notice they'll never have any sense of the culture surrounding them. So, if you didn't notice a significant culture difference while over there, then you're in that second camp and your argument has no weight with me.

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

I DO notice my surroundings. Thats one reason among many that I find it easy to make friends in the countries I have had the pleasure of spending time in, and have been welcomed back by those same friends.

Your comments make it sound like you think that the people who don't come from your own country were born on Alpha Centauri or something.

Trust me, they don't.

Maybe we have a difference of opinion in what the word "significant" means. It sounds like your views on what makes someone different in a significant way is VERY narrow. You should try to have a more open mind. It will help greatly when meeting new people, and appreciating there cultures.

Oh well, to each their own....

I said several posts ago I was going to stop posting on the political threads.

I believe I'll actually do that now.

All parting shots will be ignored.

See ya all next time you make it to Alpha Centauri

Am I a Lion?... No, I think I'ma tellin' the truth.

BarnStormer

SIGMANUNKI

Saturday, June 26, 2004 4:27 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by BarnStormer:
Your comments make it sound like you think that the people who don't come from your own country were born on Alpha Centauri or something.

I'm sorry you read that into my reply as that wasn't there.

Quote:
Originally posted by BarnStormer:
Maybe we have a difference of opinion in what the word "significant" means. It sounds like your views on what makes someone different in a significant way is VERY narrow. You should try to have a more open mind. It will help greatly when meeting new people, and appreciating there cultures.

Actually, I'm *very* opened minded. Which is why I can actually accept things about other cultures without having to understand them (see previous post). I won't even comment further because the rest of this is baseless assumption about my person which you have no knowledge of what-so-ever.

Quote:
Originally posted by BarnStormer:
See ya all next time you make it to Alpha Centauri

Cheap shot.

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

JASONZZZ

Saturday, June 26, 2004 4:43 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:

Actually, I'm *very* opened minded. Which is why I can actually accept things about other cultures without having to understand them (see previous post). I won't even comment further because the rest of this is baseless assumption about my person which you have no knowledge of what-so-ever.

When you use the word "accept", do you mean that you recognize that it's that behaviour is there, or do you mean that you accept it as a valid form of behaviour within their culture.

What if it completely conflicts with your own set of moral standard with no grey area boundaries at all, would you still "accept" it? An example, and a valid one: In certain cultures, its recognized that the parents of young baby girls have a civil, cultural, and moral responsibility to drown them in order to make sure that your only single child is a boy.

SIGMANUNKI

Saturday, June 26, 2004 5:00 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Jasonzzz:
Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:

Actually, I'm *very* opened minded. Which is why I can actually accept things about other cultures without having to understand them (see previous post). I won't even comment further because the rest of this is baseless assumption about my person which you have no knowledge of what-so-ever.

When you use the word "accept", do you mean that you recognize that it's that behaviour is there, or do you mean that you accept it as a valid form of behaviour within their culture.

What if it completely conflicts with your own set of moral standard with no grey area boundaries at all, would you still "accept" it? An example, and a valid one: In certain cultures, its recognized that the parents of young baby girls have a civil, cultural, and moral responsibility to drown them in order to make sure that your only single child is a boy.

If some reliable source lets me know that it's a fact that certain things are true in another culture then I accept them as fact. Whether I think that it's right or wrong is a moot point, facts don't lie.

If the behaviour is valid or not in there culture cannot be defined by me, it's up to that culture. If they state that something happens and it's good or bad, I can't argue with that, it's there culture.

The validility (spelling?) of any issue is up to them. I just have to accept what they tell me.

As for that example. I've never heard of that being a *responsibility* in any culture, only that it happens. Whether it's an accepted norm or not my old brain won't let me remember.

I hope that clears things up. Let me know if it doesn't and I'll get back to you as soon as I'm up again.

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

SIGNYM

Saturday, June 26, 2004 5:01 AM

Quote:
Jasonzz... It's real, it's out there, it's not going away. Call it torture, call it what you will. The soft belly of the society will always be the prey... .The entire world is about manipulation, intimidation, control in one way or another. We all want to achieve some set of goals and we manipulate the environment around us to get our results. No matter what you do, some people are going to be unhappy and call it "torture" or some other thing. There are people who think that speaking roughly to a tomatoe plant is being unkind. If you live your entire lives letting others draw the lines for you, you'll never get anything done.

SignyM Again, what are you trying to say? That "manipulating the environment"= torturing people? (edit) That torture will always exist? That everyone is blind except you? That you PREFER a world in which torture is accepted because you'd like to use it yourself? Spit it out man! Tell me what you're REALLY thinking!

So Jasonzzz I noticed you never really answered my question.

So, here's another question- Do you truly believe that no one should draw the lines on your behavior?

Well then, why are you bitching about terrorists?

JASONZZZ

Saturday, June 26, 2004 5:17 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
Jasonzz... It's real, it's out there, it's not going away. Call it torture, call it what you will. The soft belly of the society will always be the prey... .The entire world is about manipulation, intimidation, control in one way or another. We all want to achieve some set of goals and we manipulate the environment around us to get our results. No matter what you do, some people are going to be unhappy and call it "torture" or some other thing. There are people who think that speaking roughly to a tomatoe plant is being unkind. If you live your entire lives letting others draw the lines for you, you'll never get anything done.

SignyM Again, what are you trying to say? That "manipulating the environment"= torturing people? (edit) That torture will always exist? That everyone is blind except you? That you PREFER a world in which torture is accepted because you'd like to use it yourself? Spit it out man! Tell me what you're REALLY thinking!

So Jasonzzz I noticed you never really answered my question.

So, here's another question- Do you truly believe that no one should draw the lines on your behavior?

Well then, why are you bitching about terrorists?

You are asking like it (my answer, not your question) really matters - not that anything does.
But not to be discourteous. Today, served one too many Grande, Chocolatte, Frappa-frinkin'-CChino, cut one too many lawns, and rotated one too many set of tires. Another time would be good.

SIGNYM

Saturday, June 26, 2004 3:35 PM

At your convenience.

SIGNYM

Sunday, June 27, 2004 6:59 AM

bump

SIGNYM

Monday, June 28, 2004 6:27 PM

Still waiting

GHOULMAN

Tuesday, December 7, 2004 8:29 PM

And you will continue to wait as the neofascists on this BBS can't get any satisfaction unless they troll, lie, and badger anyone with an opnion they don't like.

That's why they are neofascists.

[img] " [/img]
Photos of US Navy Seals' Prisoner Torture
http://mparent7777.blog-city.com/read/941890.htm

Kangaroo court in Guantanamo Bay
December 5, 2004
BY NAT HENTOFF
http://www.suntimes.com/output/otherviews/cst-edt-nat05.html
CLICK LINK FOR WHOLE ARTICLE ... should you even bother you fascist git.
While U.S. District Judge James Robertson irritated the White House on Feb. 9 by stopping a military tribunal at Guantanamo Bay because, he said, it was not a competent tribunal to decide the legal protections due those before it under the Geneva Convention, there is a separate set of proceedings for detainees there. The lawfulness of those proceedings is also under serious, continued question.

GHOULMAN

Wednesday, December 8, 2004 4:31 PM

Fascism - it's for you to learn about.

Memo: Workers Threatened Over Prison Abuse
Tue Dec 7, 6:02 PM ET
http://story.news.yahoo.com/
news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=2&u=/
ap/20041207/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/prisoner_abuse
By PAISLEY DODDS, Associated Press Writer
SAN JUAN, Puerto Rico - U.S. special forces accused of abusing prisoners in Iraq (news - web sites) threatened Defense Intelligence Agency personnel who saw the mistreatment, according to U.S. government memos released Tuesday by the American Civil Liberties Union .
CLICK LINK FOR ARTICLE ...

SIGNYM

Wednesday, December 8, 2004 9:01 PM

The Bush Administration loved to beat up on Saddam because he was ignoring the UN, the Geneva Conventions, and human rights in general. Saddam ignoring the UN was "the" reason for going into Iraq, was it not? And of course Saddam was such a "bad man" and ignored human rights.

And then... they ignored the UN, the Geneva Convention, and human rights in general. YOu see, it's OK to hold people indefinitely without charge; to apply sleep deprivation, stress positions, beatings and humiliation that is "tatamount to torture"; to review detentions in a military hearing in which the detainee is NOT PRESENT and NOT ALLOWED TO SEE THE EVIDENCE against them; and to accept evidence obtained by torture. The reason why that is "acceptable", according to the Administration, is because these people are not American citizens and thus fall into the class of "sub-human" and accorded no rights whatsover.

I don't think that its too farfetched to call this FASCISM. What I find so very boggling is that supporters of the Administration fail to see that requiring Saddam meet UN/Geneva/human rights requirements and then totally flouting those requirement themsleves is a glaringly obvious contradiction. Why can't they actually manage to put some of these thought next to each other and notice that there is just a tad of hypocracy going on? Enquiring minds certainly want to know.

GHOULMAN

Saturday, December 11, 2004 5:27 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
I don't think that its too farfetched to call this FASCISM.

Nor do I amigo.

Guantánamo torture and humiliation still going on, says shackled Briton
Vikram Dodd and Clare Dyer
Saturday December 11, 2004
The Guardian
http://www.guardian.co.uk/guantanamo/story/0,13743,1371609,00.html
Fresh allegations about a regime of torture and humiliation inflicted on detainees by their American captors at Guantánamo Bay have been made by a Briton still held there, according to Foreign Office documents seen by the Guardian.

The claims by Martin Mubanga, from London, are the latest to surface from the prison where the US holds 550 Muslim men it claims are terrorists in conditions that have sparked worldwide condemnation.

Mr Mubanga is one of four Britons still in Guantánamo, held without charge or trial.

See America? Worldwide shame on the USA.