Politics: J'accuse!

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by LessinSF
Our own military has charged six soldiers with crimes against what I am assuming are POWs. I suspect that number will grow. What part of "war" and "crimes" am I missing?

I've decided to make a brief guest appearance to note that Less has my proxy on this issue. I cannot remember the last time I was willing to say that.

Well, back to work...

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Isn't Will's point "they" can't be democratic? Why can't Iraq be a Democracy? "They" have one in Turkey. It is racism to say there can't be a Democracy in Iraq. Whether the ethnic divides etc. are so great that the cost is too high, is another question.

(a) Read the column and find out what his point is; it is not at all what you suggest -- and is much more insulting to the President and his administration.

[Basically, he'd like a little more evidence of thoughtful, considered analysis and less spouting of pat bullshit which trivializes legitimate opposition or complex questions.]

(b) No, it is not racism to say that the cultural, political and institutional underpinnings for Western-style liberal democracy may not exist in Iraq today or any time soon.

S_A_M

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
I've decided to make a brief guest appearance to note that Less has my proxy on this issue.

6. President Gilligan


The castaways decide that they need someone to be the leader on the island, and so they hold elections. As you might imagine, both Mr. Howell and the Skipper imagine themselves to be the natural choice to lead the Castaways in their island society. However, when the votes are counted Gilligan is elected president of the island! Just as we recently learned in Florida, every vote counts!


b: 31-Oct-1964 w: Roland Wolpert d: Richard Donne

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
(b) No, it is not racism to say that the cultural, political and institutional underpinnings for Western-style liberal democracy may not exist in Iraq today or any time soon.

S_A_M

I was just asking if it was. I wasn't arguing with you. Its you guys that get to decide what is racism. We're just trying to keep score.

[Effete Liberal Snob]

Originally posted by Iniquity
How to tell when it's a bad news cycle for the GOP:

"But they aren't bad war crimes."

If you saw the travesties perpetuated on the poor, innocent Vietnamese like I did, during my tour of duty where I won numerous medals and ribbons (yes, I now realize the distinction) you would know that this sort of behavior has always been the American Way.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by The Larry Davis Experience
You don't get how we could enflame it, because why? They're so wrongheaded?

Yes, in a way. If the leadership of the Country can respond to an attack with such a statement, and be taken credibly: then, at the least, the way the people in that country think is so foreign to our way of thinking that we can't predict anything about how they might react to the prison story or anything.

Or maybe, the statement evidences a level of hatred so high, that "enflaming" is at most an inconsequential increase.

[Replaced_Texan]

U.S. Probe: Two War Prisoners Murdered by Americans

• WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. military has investigated the deaths of 25 prisoners held by American forces in Iraq (news - web sites) and Afghanistan (news - web sites) and determined that two prisoners were murdered by Americans, one an Army soldier and the other a CIA (news - web sites) contractor, Army officials said on Tuesday.
  
  An Army official said that a soldier was convicted in the U.S. military justice system of killing a prisoner by hitting him with a rock, and was reduced in rank to private and thrown out of the service but did not serve any jail time.
  
  The official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said a private contractor who worked for the CIA was found to have committed the other homicide against a prisoner.

What I want to know is if "contractor" is the same code for "mercenary" that we were talking about last week, or is this a different sort of contractor. Also, what jurisdiction is such a "contractor" under? Can't be court marshalled, as far as I can tell.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Oh, just kidding bout the title.

Thought y'all might be interested in this one. I'm not hyping a stock or nothing, but Magal Security (NAS: MAGS) has been bouncing around more than Anna Nicole's belly the last few weeks. Its an Israeli security company that apparently does a little bit of work in securing fenceline perimeters etc... with digital cameras that recognize things like movement. Among the rumors these days are that CA is going to give them a contract or something to keep an eye on Mexico. Or something like that.

But today, supposedly, Briefing dot com came out and passed along a rumor that the U.S. military was testing the system for use in securing stuff, e.g., pipelines, in Iraq.

So, how do ya think them thar Iraqis are gonna feel knowing that Israeli security equipment is watching their oil pipelines? Christ, the only thing funnier would be if Bush and Cheney owned a lot of stock in the company. But that's just me.

I'm sure the military uses some Israeli stuff in the ordinary course of business, but as an infrastructure investment, I'm not sure this is something they'd want to announce.

Hello

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
The official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said a private contractor who worked for the CIA was found to have committed the other homicide against a prisoner.

What I want to know is if "contractor" is the same code for "mercenary" that we were talking about last week, or is this a different sort of contractor. Also, what jurisdiction is such a "contractor" under? Can't be court marshalled, as far as I can tell.

Only the people who wanted to romanticize the contractors called them mercenaries. But that's not the point, obviously. Yeah, I bet that "contractor" means the same thing here, or maybe even more than I thought the contractors were doing. I thought they were acting as guards; here, it seems that the US is subcontracting out intelligence interrogations to private companies.

I am curious to find out more about this contractor who committed homicide, and what might happen to him or her.

Comments on this? Anyone? Are there limits on what functions should be contracted out? Who is responsible for stuff that happens when it's contracted out? If they are independent contractors, not employees, then is the CIA going to say that they can't dictate how the contractors carry out their assignments?

I find this potentially a little scary.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by The Larry Davis Experience
That is one excellent self-fulfilling prophecy you've set up there. We can "taunt" them (or insert other verb minimizing whatever we do here) because they're already mad at us, so then when we do treat them that way and they show their anger, you can say the hatred was there all along.

I was just pointing out that I interpreted a post as saying that, when a drop falls in the ocean, all boats may indeed rise, but who the fuck will know it?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Only the people who wanted to romanticize the contractors called them mercenaries. But that's not the point, obviously. Yeah, I bet that "contractor" means the same thing here, or maybe even more than I thought the contractors were doing. I thought they were acting as guards; here, it seems that the US is subcontracting out intelligence interrogations to private companies.

I am curious to find out more about this contractor who committed homicide, and what might happen to him or her.

Comments on this? Anyone? Are there limits on what functions should be contracted out? Who is responsible for stuff that happens when it's contracted out? If they are independent contractors, not employees, then is the CIA going to say that they can't dictate how the contractors carry out their assignments?

I find this potentially a little scary.

The CIA is broken, in large part because of restrictions on it being "dirty." It couldn't do dirty tricks or hire criminals because the US is above it, all because we tried to put hair loss powder in Castro's beard or some shit. These restrictions- I think go back to the 70's (hey Jimmy!) but have really caught up to bite us.

Turns out, guess what? We need criminals to be informants and sources and on our side to be able to know whats going on. Turns out normal law-abiding people don't know shit. Not to say anything goes, but shit, I hope the CIA is doing stuff I don't want to know about, or would look bad in the papers.

[The Larry Davis Experience]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Yes, in a way. If the leadership of the Country can respond to an attack with such a statement, and be taken credibly: then, at the least, the way the people in that country think is so foreign to our way of thinking that we can't predict anything about how they might react to the prison story or anything.

There's a lot of people in the world who don't believe that people whose skin color may not be the same as ours can be predictable in their reactions when people who share their religion are mistreated in a prison. I reject that. I reject that strongly. I believe that people who practice the Muslim faith and hold completely wrongheaded views about who is behind recent acts of terrorism in Islamic countries can be expected to be inflamed when a Christian army mistreats Muslims of any nationality. I believe that people whose skins aren't necessarily -- are a different color than white can be expected to get pissed off about stuff like that.

Or maybe, the statement evidences a level of hatred so high, that "enflaming" is at most an inconsequential increase.

This is what I took you to mean originally. I don't have any evidence to dispute you, but I find it interesting that the big tent of GOP politics covers both those who think like this and those who expected the Iraqis to become immediate partners with their coalition liberators.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by The Larry Davis Experience
. . . but I find it interesting that the big tent of GOP politics covers both those who think like this and those who expected the Iraqis to become immediate partners with their coalition liberators.

I still think the vast majority did, and are.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
The CIA is broken, in large part because of restrictions on it being "dirty." It couldn't do dirty tricks or hire criminals because the US is above it, all because we tried to put hair loss powder in Castro's beard or some shit. These restrictions- I think go back to the 70's (hey Jimmy!) but have really caught up to bite us.

Turns out, guess what? We need criminals to be informants and sources and on our side to be able to know whats going on. Turns out normal law-abiding people don't know shit. Not to say anything goes, but shit, I hope the CIA is doing stuff I don't want to know about, or would look bad in the papers.

How does "we need criminals to be informants and sources and on our side" translate into "therefore, the CIA can't be involved but has to contract that stuff out"? How is what I said anything like "I expect the CIA to say please and thank you and coddle people they are interrogating"?

Why are you being a deliberately twisting and misinterpreting jackass?

Why is it surprising me?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by The Larry Davis Experience
There's a lot of people in the world who don't believe that people whose skin color may not be the same as ours can be predictable in their reactions when people who share their religion are mistreated in a prison. I reject that. I reject that strongly. I believe that people who practice the Muslim faith and hold completely wrongheaded views about who is behind recent acts of terrorism in Islamic countries can be expected to be inflamed when a Christian army mistreats Muslims of any nationality. I believe that people whose skins aren't necessarily -- are a different color than white can be expected to get pissed off about stuff like that.

Well, you're probably right. But do you think the Jews took down the WTC?

edit: my point was we don't have too much clue about how people view things over there. It is likely the whole prisoner thing isn't viewed favorably, perhaps its viewed worse than we'd see it if it had been US troops, but you don't know how they view it, and your looking at it through your prism.