Guantanamo prison continues to be a human rights black eye for America. On Friday, a United Nations committee on torture called for the Bush administration to close the U.S. prison in Cuba, saying the inmates should be either charged or released. Britain’s attorney general, Lord Goldsmith, also has called for closing Gitmo, which he said discredits the American tradition of freedom.
Recent accounts of hunger strikes, suicide attempts and attacks on guards by prisoners only reinforce the negative image of the prison.
Gitmo holds only about 460 inmates, most of them thought to be lowly foot soldiers in the Taliban or al-Qaida — these are hardly big fish terrorists.
So why not close it? Is this prison really worth the price in bad publicity and world censure? It’s hard to see how.
Posted by Randy Scholfield
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- george on Open thread 11/22
- DorisKing on Open thread 11/22
- Chas on Open thread 11/22
- george on Health care reform would save state money
- satatom on Open thread 11/22
- satatom on Open thread 11/22
- Politico on So they said
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
- JWink on Health care reform would save state money
- Politico on Health care reform would save state money
125 Comments
Sometimes doing the right thing is not popular.
Luckily the President doesn’t view the war on terrorism as a mere popularity contest.
Nathan, that is the problem with this war, it is not over land or power. But ideals, the Islamic terrorists want to impose a 14th Century style rule over the world I think they will settle for just all of the Islamic countries being so. And any that they can sway towards such rule, such as Bosnia and some of the Eastern block nations. We (United States and some allies) are fighting for Democracy and what is seen as right , good and just. The problem is that they ideals allow for such things as beheading captives and torturing prisoners.We are standing for what is right, good and just, as such we are held to those higher standards. So each infraction that is committed does not bring the terrorists down but those taking the moral high ground.
That is why making someone wear panties on their head and posing for a picture is seen as a greater sin then beheading a captive on video. Of course given a choice anyone would rather slip the panties on their head over laying down awaiting the blade. But the terrorist are not claiming to be standing for some thing that is above their ideals. They are allowed by their laws to do such things, we on the other hand claim to be fighting for something that is above human nature.
In such a war “fire with fire “ will not do, since it is a war of ideals. You can not violate your ideals then claim it is in support of those ideals. I am not condemning them, but in every war this country has their shameful incidence. During WWII in the Pacific theater, one of the favorite weapons to use against a entrenched enemy was the flamethrower. There are those that fought in that war that witnessed the after math of the use of this weapon that can not to this day speak of it.
The difference being that in such a war it is a part of the end goal, we were fighting an enemy that wish to take land and control it. In the war on terrorism, it is a war on ideals and the goal is a control of thought.On a moral code that is lived by, there is a test of that moral code. When they behead a captive it is not a violation of their moral code. When we torture a captive it is a violation of ours and we have failed the test.Of course there is a oxymoron to all this, it is morally acceptable in our code to burn an entrenched enemy to death to stop their threat. But is unacceptable to capture an enemy and torture them but not kill them.
It is our ideals that are worth fighting for, it is not an easy road and at time may be harder to follow then the terrorist’s. We are the ones bound by our ideals to a higher standard, to go beyond human nature. It is human nature to fire back at an enemy that is shooting at us. It is human nature to once that enemy stops shooting to want to make him pay for all the emotional anguish, to make him pay for forcing you to look over at a fellow Marine that you had been talking to and laughing with maybe just an hour before. But now is laying there with half his face blown off. But not only are you a U.S.M.C you are fighting for a higher standard. For all that this country stands for and has stood for. It is your duty to give the same respects that you should be given. Even though if the roles were reverse he would not accord you. Human nature is to flip that M-16 to full auto and empty the clip squire into the bastard’s face. But it is not human nature that you are fighting for. It is the Right, the good and the just that you now fight for. So you take that enemy and give him the same accordance that you should receive as a U.S.M.C. and a member of the U.S. Military.Because that is what you are really fighting for…The ideals!
During WWII in the Pacific theater, one of the favorite weapons to use against a entrenched enemy was the flamethrower.
Tell that to the Japanese who made American and Filipino POWs dig sand pits in which they rolled gasoline barrels and covered with wooden roofing while said POWs were huddled into these pits the Japanese would machine gun the dug-outs exploding the fuel containers and well, I bet your imagination could tell what happened next.
Regarding the US Army’s use of flamethrowers during the island-hopping campaigns and later on Iwo Jima, well, one good turn deserves another.
it is morally acceptable in our code to burn an entrenched enemy to death to stop their threat. But is unacceptable to capture an enemy and torture them but not kill them.
This is a disingeniuous comparison. When you are talking about entrenched Japanese you are speaking of armed combatants who DO NOT SURRENDER but fight to the death in order to keep to their Bushido code. The use of flamethrowers was during a combat situation, no one captured Japs and immolated them while being POWs. Finally, if you want to compare the staggering amounts of human rights abuses committed by the Japanese Imerial Army with the U.S.A.F.F.E or any branch of the WWII era American military, know that I will bury you with documents, and second-hand accounts of my grandfather who witnessed the brutality of the Japanese Imperial army when fighting with the Bicol Scouts guerrilla units. Yes, you will lose that argument should you choose to commence it.
Cursaderx, that is the exact point I am making, during a active battle such things are acceptable! They could not leave those Japanese in there with a machine gun to cut down the advancing troops. But you have stated the case I was making, there is a difference between an act during the battle and that of the treatment of a P.O.W.. From a Japanese soldier that had been hiding off after the end of WWII, not only was it a part of the Bushido code but they were told that if the Americans capture you they would eaten alive!
Though it is really simplistic, “two wrongs do not make a right” Yes this is not the first time we have faced an enemy that has a lower moral code then we held ourselves to. But as I pointed out, this is not a battle for land and power as much a war of ideals. You can not violate the principals you hold , and say it is in defense of those principals. Having principals have a cost, having a moral code has a cost. If you violate those principals and moral codes of what value is either one? It is human nature to play pay back on the defeated enemy. Off topic but Kansas law, if you strike a cop you are fair game to be stuck back. But if you strike a cop then throw up your hands and say “I give up!”. The license, the right of you being fair game has ended. The same in war, unless you think it is a game of pay back? This is as much about what happens today as it is what it is ten years later. I am not a bleeding heart and think that these prisoner need to have silk pillows and satin sheets. I do think that they need the exact same treatment that any of our P.O.W. should face. We can play this stupid game of their “Detainees” not “Prisoners of war” Guess what? Once the President of the United States stood there and stated without question, that this is a war on Terrorism!And declared it such, HE made them P.O.W.s, Rice is on Fox news Sunday right now, stating all the reasons why we should not release the prisoners at Gitmo All are sound and reasonable, all the more reason that they should be afforded the same rights and reasonable treatment of any P.O.W.
I am proud of your grandfather, his generation stopped the madmen from taking over the world. I want to be just as proud of this generation and this war. Is that too much to ask for?
War is just the symptom of man’s inhumanity and disregard for his fellow man and some day I hope the world can evolve to the point that war no longer exists, but I won’t hold my breath. In the meantime, we should hold to the priciples our nation stands for. It’s not about who THEY are, it’s about who WE are.
I’ve also heard that they have imprisoned detainees as young as 8 yrs old there.
Damoon
The government is out of control and something is seriously wrong with Bush for allowing this to happen.
We’re not arguing left or right, Liberal or Conservative issues, we’ve instead turned to trying to restore common sense.
I just listened to Rice rattle-on on Meet the Press.
She “slipped” all of the questions asked.
“Job one” needs to be the impeachment of Bush and disbanding the people surrounding him.
Immigration can wait its turn.
Welcome back, Damoon!
And to the rest of you, you’re nuts.
Writerdog,
We do not condone torture. The one case where those retarded army MP’s were doing it was stopped and they were punished.
Nathan, ” Retarded MPS”? I don’t recall seeng that diagnosis. Can you eloborate?
Retarded as in doing sick stuff to prisoners retarded…
As in figure of speech ment to degrade them for their actions…
As in only a bunch of retards would do crap like that…
Good to see you again Damoon. You were missed at the meet up.
Close Gitmo?
Perish the thought!
Why that Guantanamo facility is a RESORT!
Our right wing “friends” and faithful listeners of Rush Limbaugh are not doing their job here.
Rush tells them that Gitmo is an “escape from the stress of Jihad” Rush also sells “Club Gitmo”gear.
I guess those poor souls who got released from Gitmo must not have paid their room bill. Probably the ones on hunger strikes and attempting suicide are just mal-contents who can’t even get happy on “vacation”.
Close Gitmo? NO! Hell folks should be happy to be held without “being charged” in such a wonderful location!A concrete pad in a chain link outdoor enclosure in the wonderful South Atlantic air is where anyone would wanna be! I bet bush is getting “pads”prepared for me and others right now!
Nathan that is “Lawyer ball”,why do you think there are the secret prison? Why would they ship people on the C.I.A airline to Egypt and other countries? No the U.S. is not torturing prisoners, but the countries we are sending them to do. That is the same as pilot washing his hands and saying that he does not have Christ blood on them. Its call deniability a game that is played well and yet crappy by the administration.
Rumfields himself outline the treatment of the P.O.W. “I stand to do my work for hours, so making them stand for hours is not torture” . Is following the orders given being a “retard”? Yes those MPs could have refused to follow the orders given and been justified. But what chance would they have when the orders came from that high above?
It surprised me when Bush put up such a fuss over the Mc Cain bill, then suddenly gave in. Now it comes out if Bush did not agree with a piece of legislation he would simply write at the bottom that is was not to be enforced or excluding certain agencies or branches from following the law. “signing letter” is what it is called and besides what was the big whoopee about if we were not torturing prisoner? It was because the Mc Cain bill also said we would not send prisoner to any countries that used torture as a means to extract information.
writerdog,
Are you saying those MP’s were ordered to do that stuff?
By who? where is the proof?
I would assume that many of those on the whiney left would consider anything but cable TV, 3 warm meals a day, exercise facilities, access to a library, etc…etc… to be torture.
Writerdog,
I will be honest. Half of the crap that many people cry about being “torture” I don’t think is.
I think we follow the conventions and agreements we have in the world and do what is needed up to that point.
I don’t care if some CIA secret prison is somewhere finding out information to protect America.
Besides, all you are doing is speculating.
Logic doesn’t dictate the conclusions you make.
Standing for hours? That is what you got? LOL
Oh boy, I guess we better shut down Marine Corps boot camp too!
Do you have any idea of the physical stuff we go through there?
It must be torture! Where is my ACLU rep when I need him?
Sigh…
What a bunch of pansy, liberal, garbage.
Dear Randy,
I agree!
Only one bathroom for eighty men. Not allowed excercise in fresh air and sunshine for weeks on end. Eating mostly dehydrated foods. No fresh vegetables for months. No fresh dairy products. Not having your own bed assigned to you, three men to two beds. Only fresh water for drinking and cooking, not enough for baths or washing your clothes. Having to stay awake and work for two straight days sometimes. Not allowed to communicate with you wife and children for months. How inhumane! No wait! That was my first submarine!
At club Getmo they get special diets designed for their religion! They are provided personal Korans! tey have clean clothes and they are provided prayer rugs for their prayers five times a day! All of their personnal hygene needs are religiously taken care of! Cell phones so they can talk to their families.
And these are merely the “lowly foot soldiers in the Taliban or al-Qaida”! Not the “big fish”. These are the ones that take their orders to carry out suicide bombings of inocent civilians. These are the ones that plant the IADs that kill our soldiers. No uniforms, no country, just Islamo-facist terrorists. If we followed the rules of the Geneva convention, field commanders wouldhave the authority to summarily execute these ’so-called-soldiers’.
I’m afraid Gitmo is way too good for them! Bad PR? Well, if so-called journalists actually reported the truth, instead of all the lies, the ‘PR’ wouldn’t be so bad.
Hank
Dear JR,
Evidently, you listen to Rush more than I do!
Hank
The standing for hours is the example that Rumsfield used back in 2004 when he was outlining the interrogation methods that could be used. There is also the water board and sleep deprivation, maniacal in the same position for hours (we did use that in the jail, works great for unpleasant inmates). Though possible it is not likely to be used much at Gitmo. The main problem with Gitmo is there is a need to separate the wheat from the shaft. Right now everyone at Gitmo is the same whether they was firing a RPG at a Humvee. Or ten minutes passed curfew going home, there has been no attempt to distinguish between the two. That has gone on too long, that is not the American way.
But the argument that “The United States does not torture” when we are sending prisoner to countries that will torture. Is the same excuse as “I did not kill my wife….It was the guy I paid that killed my wife!”
If the guy fired an RPG at the Humvee, Rice was right he needs to be locked away or killed because if released he will pick up where he left off. If the guy just missed curfew then give the man a watches and send him home.
Dear writerdog,
I’m afraid you have fallen for a bunch of left-wing propaganda.
There is quite a bit of vetting of the prisoners before they get to Gitmo. Gitmo has less than 500 prisoners. This is out of tens of thousands Afgans and Iraqi’s that have been captured. Most are released right away. Others are turned over to local authorities and then released. Only the ones that we believe are very dangerous and have information that can be used to save lives are sent to Gitmo.
Furthermore there is no evidence that we have turned over prisoners to other countries so they can be tortured. There is no evidence that the CIA has ‘torture camps in other countries. Anyone that actually believes that is a fool.
Hank
Granded that it is sometimes hard to figure out who is telling the truth. I think it is because there are so many playing in this issue. The left, the right and then there is the MSM that pick and choose based on ratings. But of course that in and of its self is part of the game too. The right wants people to believe that Black is white and white is black. That everything you hear is nothing more then the left trying to submarine the right.Of course the left does the same thing and will tell you that uf we just had our boy in the White house everything would be fine!
Then there is Bush&Co. playing everyone against each other. We have become such a partisian nation that if someone yells fire no one move to get out of the building till they find out which party the yeller is? The truth may lie in the mix, this will make you feel better G.W. did not start the CIA airline I first heard of it during the Clinton administration. But of course there are some that say it actually started under Ragan.Damn secret stuff no one want to take credit for it!
As to the Gitmo thing, I have no doubt that for the most part it is within some standard of the rules governing P.O.W. But the problem still remains do process.Right or wrong this country has its tit in a wringer over this and other actions that are taken. It is in our best interest to be as above board as possible. saying we are right only goes so far when the majority of the world is seeing we are wrong. Being the “Good guys” also has certain responablities. Yes we should kick azz and take names when we are attacked. But those names are taken so that the guilt are punished. Later I have to go, but this is bigger then what party is in power and more to the very core of this nation and what we really are.
Ummmm….I wonder if the Marines used the water board in boot camp…or accepted kids under the age of 14 for “basic training”. Funny how torture is defined by those on the outside, not the ones receiving the treatment.
“There is no evidence that the CIA has ‘torture camps in other countries. Anyone that actually believes that is a fool.”
If the above is true, why would Gonzales and the Bush administration be interested in finding and prosecuting the leakers of this information. If it was all fantasy, would they go to that much trouble and government expense? Seems unlikely.
Damoon,
When we first arrive at boot camp we are not allowed to sleep for 3 days.
We are ridiculed and ostracized for needing to go to the bathroom the entire 3 months.
People are so scared and intimidated that they will wet themselves!
During the crucible we were forced to march over 40 miles in 3 days, complete over 20 obsticles including 3 different types of combat obsticles with many different obsticles in them alone, we were only given 4 hours a day for sleep which we had to use cleaning our weapons and eating the 1 1/2 MRE’s they gave us for 3 days….
What about all the endless hours of drill practice where we are forced for hours on end to march to perfection?
It must be torture!
No I am afraid it is not torutre, it is what makes the Marines one the most elite and well disciplined fighting forces in the world.
Unfortunately, torture to you whiney liberals is nothing more than not having all 100 plus channels on cable TV.
Damoon,
Unfortunately 14 year olds are just as capable of being terrorists too.
Please don’t play the sympathy card for them like they were just playing with their toys when some evil US soldier too them to Gitmo…
Nothing you discribe seems like torture to me. You should have been a Marine in the 60’s, Nathan, it was much tougher then than it is now, ask anyone who was a Marine when Vietnam was raging.Is using a water board not torture? How about spraying down a detainee with cold water and then leaving them naked in a cold cell? What about beating them amost to death? What about the ones who have died after being “interrogated”. Like I said before, we need to abide by the values our nation was founded on and the Geneva Convention. It’s about who WE are, not WHAT they are.You see things in such black and white, right or wrong. Open your mind a little, learn something, and grow up.
Damoon,
And you would know all about Marine boot camp in the 60’s?
I am not sure if using a water board is considered a violation of any of the agreements we have.
No I don’t think sraying a detainee down is torture.
I don’t recall anything saying we are beating anyone close to death.
I don’t know of anyone almost dieing because of “torture” at our hands.
Are you saying it is wrong for me to see things as wrong?
On this issue it would appear to me that it is you who are the black and white one on this.
I am in the gray area while you are saying that anything we do is torture…
Why don’t you open your mind a little, learn something, and grow up?
Damoon, You’re wasting your time, he’s an empty suit. Responding to his drivel merely encourages him further. View it in the context of, at the end of the day, you go home you’re Damoon,when he goes home he’s still Nathan.
Maybe if you read something other than your gun magazines, Nathan, you might have learned a thing or two about the world.I knew several Marines during the Veitnam area (two didn’t come back)and still keep in touch with the survivors today, I KNOW they had it harder in the 60’s, your dad would probably even vouch for that.
Context? Isnt that NATHAN’s tactic, to question the context of everything?
No, KFG, he who shall not be named’s main tactic is the recursive asshole algorhithm. It gets him nowhere, but keeps him busy and his mind occupied all day long.
KFG- OK, the word context is now out of this kid’s vocabulary. You can never be too sure.
heheheheheh gster
Well, it wasn’t Gitmo but I remember the guy at Abu Ghraib thye beat to death and then stuffed the body into a freezer.
Well, I guess that doesn’t count because they didn’t just NEARLY beat him to death.
Ben,
If that is true, was it ordered or condoned by our military?
No.
Damoon,
Maybe you should read some of my gun magazines. You wouldn’t be so anti-gun anymore!
Maybe nathan should read some gay magazines. Then maybe he wouldnt be so antigay!
I am not anti-gay KFG. Im just not going to support government sanction of your sinful lifestyle!
I don’t know Nathan. I just know it was carried out BY the military. I’m sure you can find a convenient scapegoat.
I guess damoon has no right then to decline to approve nathan’s gun totin’ lifestyle. I mean, it is just a matter of a few ‘zines, right?
I forgot, nathan, like his idols terry, joe and fred, believes he is the sole arbiter of what is right and wrong, christian and not christian, sinful and not sinful. No other interpretations are valid.
I wonder if he is a mason, with his all seeing eye and such.
Wanna talk to god? Dial 1800nathan. He has the ONLY correct interpretation of all things godly.
Oops, I forgot the alternate number for god’s opinion on everything.
1800wevaluesboy
Of course you don’t know Ben!
Why would a you take the time to verify any of the things they can grab ahold of to attack Bush with?
The truth doesn’t matter as long as it can be used against this war, this administration, or Bush does it…
Oh, I forgot to mention that I also am not going to support special rights or privledges just because you choose to be homosexual KFG.
I don’t support special rights or privledges for those that choose to be poligamists either.
Nice meme, tying gay people to poligamists. You already tried that with pedophiles and RD caught ya on it.
Next meme?
Shit rolls down hill Ben.And we got one TRE mendous load of it at the top of the hill.
The age old trick of making the footsoldiers responsible for their leaders evils is no doubt in play here too. Rumsfeld and bush(the Texectioner) are just as responsible as Lynndie England precisley because they are responsible FOR the people under their “command”.
Harry Truman used to have a sign on the desk “The Buck Stops Here.” Bush has one “The Buck Passes On”
Actually I think the preznit’s sign says “what buck?”
KFG,I think it might be a picture of a buck deer in the headlights with that stunned look in the eyes.
It really says ” I never met a Buck I can’t pass on”.
If you wanna see a deer in headlights, go back and look at the first ten minutes of the first Gore/bush debate!
the sign of bush desk says “money talks, unless I got my fingers in my ears”
How cute! All the whiney liberals in one of their pat each other on the back moments!
There are around 1 million men and women serving in our armed forces.
Are you saying that if one of them anywhere does something wrong you are going to blame Bush?
It is obvious that you guys will use anything and everything you can regardless of the truth.
Ben,
For claiming to be such a well reasoned scientist, why don’t you use some of that methodology in your politics?
The bigger problem is that Bush’s supporters refuse to hold him accountable for the torture that took place in Abu Ghraib or in eastern European rendition prisons, and his political enemies can’t.
Org psych theory predicts Abu Ghraib unless the CEO makes explicit that Action X (i.e., torture) is verbotten in the organization; the larger the organization the larger the correlation. In other words, in the climate of fear generated by President Bush post 9/11, IF the president wished to avoid an Abu Ghraib outcome then it was incumbent upon him to proactively communicate the very meme, “Americans don’t torture,” that he lamely came up with only when the pictures of Abu Ghraib were published.
President Bush is either an idiot who skipped/slept through his Harvard MBA org psych section, or he didn’t care about American torture until he was caught.
And now he’s learned that it’s politically manageable because nobody’s there to hold him accountable.
Meanwhile to any non-American with a functioning brain it’s clear that the President Bush has kept his job by ceding the moral high ground in the GWOT to Osama Bin Laden. Therefore either the POTUS is not as big a deal as previously thought, or OBL isn’t.
This is not good when under your leadership American foreign policy Job #1 has become Winning Hearts and Minds.
And that’s only *one* reason he’s not fit to be POTUS.
Nathan – I do. And, as a manager, I recognize management’s responsibility for it’s organization and also understand agency law.
Nathan,I do not blame EVERYTHING on Bush. However I can’t seem to get a straight answer out of him. He seems to say one thing (I think) and then a day/week/month later he says something different. So where does he really stand? Are we in Iraq for WMD’s? Oil? Democracy? Liberation? Al Queda? Terrorists?The office of the President of the United States of America deserves to be respected – no doubt in my mind. But I want to know what’s going on and why we’re doing things. I don’t need to know every tiny detail but I need to know that what we are doing is right. I need to know that we aren’t pursuing a personal vendetta and that we are behaving correctly (following the law). If something is fishy we the people need to know.Power can be an inticing and corrupting thing and blindly following the powers that be isn’t good. We can’t just go and say we want ‘x’ because our president wants it and take it. We’re just being schoolyard bullies then. We can go up and ask politely or go ask ‘teacher’ for it. But we need to go about it in the correct way.
As someone who has been in the military for over 8 years I have been through many classes outlining the Military code of conduct and various laws of war.
Both Ben and Flike,
Your vain attempt to try to hold Bush accountable for what those idiots at Abu Gharib did is laughable.
I have heard of trying to stretch things, but this is taking the cake for sure.
I suppose it was really Clintons fault that we had a submarine sink a fishing boat from Japan near Hawii?
Clinton should have spent more time explaining to all submarine Commanders how important it is to ensure their surface area is really clear before surfacing.
Some differences nathan. All involved (including the Japanese) agree that the fishing boat was an accident. Beating the guy to death and stuffing his body in a freezer was not.
Also, there is far too much of a pattern to the prisoner abuse to be dismissed as isolated.
VERY well said Julie.
Nathan,It is ultimately up to the “big boss” to know what’s going on. Mistakes of “minions” undermine the position of the “big boss”. If I screw up it looks bad on my boss. If my underlings screw up, it looks bad on me and I take the hit. I’m reprimanded because I should be making sure that my people know what they’re doing and are doing it correctly.This is true in corporations AND government. I’ve worked for both and trust me, it is a great part of government.
thank you JR
Also Bush should know (because he’s an MBA) that if you scare the bejesus out of Americans, including the wives and families of servicement serving in Iraq, then you can expect something like Abu Ghraib to turn up in a war zone UNLESS you push down the org a countervailing message.
This is crucial to your f.p. that terrorism is immoral and thus worthy of pre-emptive military action.
If you as POTUS do not do this, then you are unfit for the job. If, otoh, you have training in org psych and you fail to do this, then you’re either an idiot or you just don’t care about torture.
And if you don’t care about torture, then what’s the real difference between you and OBL?
Hee hee. I’m also holding bush responsible for the soldiers caught in the gay porn scandal. They were the performers in the film.
“countervailing message”
hell flike, didnt he use a signing statement on the torture law?
Some countervailing message.
I think it is called a wink and a nod.
Julie, even though you dont classify yourself as a liberal, let me congratulate you on some great posts here!
Thank you KFG. I’d rather dance with the liberals rather be pious with the conservatives. (well, ok, I’ll dance with whoever asks but thanks) :)
I don’t care who’s sandbagging or trying to pull the wool over my eyes – Conservative, Liberal, Republican, Democrat, White, Black, Purple, Polkadotted, Straight or Gay.In God we trust – all others we check on. If I see something fishy I’m going to check on it (must be the mommy training) and hold the person accountable – that means even if the person has more authority than me. I’ve been reprimanded on the job for whistle blowing – that’s ok – I know what I did needed to be done and I have a clear concience.
Sometimes I think you hold back on us Julie. You once posted advice to another poster to the effect that this was a suspicious group and you had to earn their respect. (We are and you have). I think maybe you still feel a little that way.
DON’T!
When you really let fly like above you can be damned eloquent and in a commonsense direct way that alot of us lack.
I can’t improve on Julie or flikes words. But I think we have to ask if a place like Guantanamo Bay is something that we are ok with as projects our image to the world. It may be that knowledge of such a place serves to encourage people to do things to fill it. That should not cause us to do the easy thing and hide or deny it. It should cause us to consider as to whether it should exist and why and demand answers to those questions.
awww shucks (blushing) JR!
I just feel passionate about some things and therefore become more verbose. Trust me (or ask Mountain Man) – I don’t hold anything back.
For four years I was the senior instructor and senior enlisted advisor at one of the Navy’s schools. I was mainly responsible for the discipline of 150 instructors and 600 students at any one time.
Any discplinary problem that got out of hand, or was not handled in a fair and timely manner was my fault. I could not be blamed for every hair-brained incident that happened on my watch.
The Abu Gharib so-called scandal was being handled effectively through normal military channels. The so-called scandal was six months old before the MSM ‘broke’ the story. From the beginning it was reported in a way to discredit the military and the Bush administration. Facts ignored and assumptions raised to the level of fact. Day after day after day the NYT told the same story in a different way to keep it in the news.
Pure propaganda. If I was president I would have handled it the same way. The military was investigating properly. The people responsible were punished.
End of story.
Hank
What about rendition prisons in eastern Europe? Gitmo?
Abu Ghraib isn’t an isolated event, it fits this larger pattern.
The president is responsible for the pattern, clearly. When you’re arguing before the world that pre-emptive war is justified by the actions of terrorists, then it’s incumbent on you to come before the world’s judgment with clean hands. At the risk of seeing your justification for war rendered moot, you must be proactive and take real steps to ensure things like Abu Ghraib do not occur. After all, Abu Ghraib was predictable.
President Bush instead reacted to Abu Ghraib, and as a result he’s been rightly excoriated in the court of world opinion.
Like I said, Bush’s supporters refuse to hold him accountable (and obviously President Bush doesn’t take delivery on bucks that come anywhere near his desk, those go to the NYT or the MSM).
Dear flike,
There is no way to prevent incidents like Abu Gharib. Of course it was predictable! That’s why we have a military justice system in place to take care of it.
All in all the abuses during this war have been a lot less than any other war. The men we have in the military now are better than the men we have had during any other time in history.
Hank
What about eastern European rendition prisons? Gitmo? Egypt?
Abu Ghraib is not an isolated event.
You do all Americans a severe disservice by refusing to hold President Bush accountable for that for which he is clearly responsible.
The Abu Ghraib prison tortures didn’t just happen out of a vacuum. There were planned and perfected in Facility 1391 in Israel, then transferred into both Abu Ghraib and Gitmo. And the people from Bush to Rumsfeld have never been held accountable. The matter has been, as with most of the Bush/Israeli atrocities, been swept under the table…so to speak.
The “Rancid Hood” so foul as prisoners are shown wearing and desperately trying breath is a dead give-away as to Israeli and their “Facility 1391″ involvement.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,1084796,00.html
Flike,
Now is your chance in a well thought out logical way yo explain exactly what it is Bush did pretaining to Abu Gharab that he needs to be held accountable for.
Bush did not authoize that treatment of the prisoners.
Bush did not condone that treatment of the prisoners.
Bush did not agree with that treatment of the prisoners.
How are we supposed to hold him accountable?
The people involved have been punished.
Nathan
You have no way of knowing any of that to be true.
Julie,
It seems as if you think Bush should be held accountable for Abu Gharab too.
Why?
Besides your “big boss” stuff, what is it that makes Bush culpable in your eyes besides that he is the President?
What exactly should be done to Bush or should Bush do because of Abu Gharab?
Ok Ed, do you have some sort of proof that everyone missed showing otherwise?
Dear flike,
“What about eastern European rendition prisons? Gitmo? Egypt?
Abu Ghraib is not an isolated event.”
Exactly the very point I’m trying to make! What about those dasterly rendition prisons? Where are they? Whose there? How many? No facts at all, and now in section B, page 23, below the fold a NYT story that they really might not exist. But still the lefties use them to try and discredit the president.
Gitmo? Its a summer camp! Its a veritable resort! No evidence that anyone was tortured there. Even the story about flushing the Koran down the toilet (one of the Korans we provide each prisoner with by the way!) has turned out to be phoney. Makes no difference, if the MSM can disparage the military or the Bush administration no verification of the story is required.
Egypt? Get real. Still believing that crap?
Again I say, The conduct of our men during this war has been better than in any other. I give Bush some of the credit for that!
Hank
Can you prove your assertions Hank? We are stuck in a swearing contest as long as the Red Cross is not given the access we promised when we signed the Geneva Convention.
Geneva Convention does not apply to terrorist.
Which assertions, the fact that our men are abusing less than in any othe war?
Hank
To say that the abuses of this war aren’t as bad as in previous wars and therefore it “ain’t no big thang” is totally missing the point. We’re Americans, and there should be zero tolerance for torture and detaining people indefinitly without charges, that’s what sets us apart from the rest of the world. If we lose our respect for human rights, then we’ve lost our way.
The Geneva Conventions can’t apply to “terrorists” as that is a made-up word which carries a misnomer for a definition. Just another old worn-out, tired, threadbare Zionist-Jew trick, used mostly to justify murdering Palestinian children { they were “terrorizing” the Tank by throwing rocks at it }.
Nathan
I believe your devotion to Bush is unshakable, therefore all the proof in the world would not change your mind.
“Starving the Palestinians makes the “House” happy.
The bill also engendered a dispute between AIPAC and Rep. Betty McCollum, D-Minn., who claimed that an AIPAC representative accused her of supporting terrorism by opposing the bill and banned AIPAC from her office until she gets an apology.
The volunteer, in a letter to McCollum, said it was the congresswoman’s chief of staff who brought up the issue of supporting terrorism in her phone conversation with him. AIPAC executive director Howard Kohr has written McCollum offering to meet her to discuss the dispute.
AIPAC needs to be in Gitmo.
So, Hank, if the resistence capture any of our troops or mercs and they decide that they are themselves terrorist then they are free to do whatever they want with them. I do not subscribe to that view like you do. Like former POW McCain I want our forces protected by Geneva; apparently you do not.
Geneva Convention does not apply to terrorist.That, in the beginning of the first report of abuse was the answer given by Bush&Co, set the tone of the treatment. Hank you were in charge of training, in the role did you set the tone? Did you as the one in charge set the tone as to what is acceptable and what was not? By your actions and reaction to different occurrences let those under you know what could and could not be done? Of course you did, much like any place you work does. The rules and how they are followed, are always set by those in charge.
From the beginning, “The Geneva Convention does not apply to terrorist” statement let everyone know that the rules do not apply. What are the Military code of conduct but the governing of one’s action as a member of the United States military. They are in part set by those very conventions that do not apply to this conflict! The tone was set early on by this President and his cabinet, of course you know that! You are not a stupid man! But you and Nathan are playing “lawyer ball” with this, no Bush and Rumsfield did not say that you (the military) can torture prisoners. But by saying that the Geneva conventions does not apply to terrorist and those conventions cover the treatment of a prisoner including torturing prisoners. It has the same effect as a work place that is non-smoking and the boss walks by while you are standing at the corner of the building with a cigarette. If he said nothing it is then implied that it is acceptable. Actions and in-actions both have there consequences.
It is the same as saying, the rules do not apply but I am not saying you do not follow the rules! I had a boss tell me to do what ever it takes to fix it. Then when he got a bill for the parts I needed to fix it, he came to me and asked why I had charged these parts. I repeated his words back to him, he replied “I said do what ever it takes to fix it. I did not say spend any money!”. So shall we say that when Bush said that the Geneva convention does not apply to terrorist, that he meant that they should not be followed?If your commanding officer said that to you, how would you take it what he meant?
Ben,
If you had even read the convention it clearly outlines what is considered to be an enemy soldier and what is not.
Having no rank, no uniform, no insignia… aka TERRORIST doesn’t count.
Our Soldiers, Sailors, Marines, and Airmen are not trying to hide like terrorists and have the qualities outlined in the convention.
Crap,
That post was mine… Out watching American idol at the parents house tonight.
I hope Taylor wins by the way!
Nathan
When dealing with islamo-fascists, one must sometimes break a few eggs in order to make an omelet. If you get my meaning?
Shalom
Marvin,
damn straight!
you guys are dreamin if you think Al Qaeda gives a flying fart in space about Geneva Conventions!
Furthermore OBL Al Qaeda and the rest of the Islamo-fascist organizations never agreed to the Geneva Conventions so legally, they are not bound to observe it’s code of ethics. Also such organizations are not a legitimate government of any sovereign cuntry with a regular army therefore they are not covered by said treaty. So in effect, Hank Price is correct.
Dear peoples.
First of all, lets get one thing clear. Our prisoners of war have never been treated humanely by any enemy. Never. Not in one conflict since the Geneva Convention has any of our enemies ever followed the rules of the Geneval Convention. So when you nitwits come up with the argument that we need to follow the Geneva Convention so our servicemen will be protected it is so much disengenuous bullshit.
On the other hand we have always had policies in place to treat prisoners humanely even when they were terrorists. The prisoners in Gitmo are being treated better than most of our troops that are deployed overseas. They are geting better meals, they are kept warm and dry, they are allowed to practice their religion and hell they even have access to cell phones so they can call their families.
Under the rules of your precious Geneva Convention field commanders would have the authority to summarily execute them. The very fact that we allow them to live is more than required under the Geneva convention.
Any time a lefty starts using the Geneva Convention as a way to discredit our military or our president you can be sure that unmitigated bullshit is about to follow. We go above and beyond the requirements of the Geneva Convention and our enemies ignore it.
Hank
poo the boy was on my computer. Or in JR’s little world, further proof that Nathan and Hank are one and the same.
Or, further proof that everyone whom JR disagrees with is CrusaderX in disguise!
That’s my personal favorite!
So Hank, your defense is to deny the pattern established by Gitmo, Abu Ghraib, secret rendition prisons in eastern Europe, and rendered-to-Egypt for torture stories?
Not sure how that’ll work out for you, seems to take a herculean “lalalalala” effort and may damage your eardrums if you stick your fingers in too far.
How about another pattern?
I make no claims about the comprehensiveness of this list:
“I got to know Ken Lay when he was the head of the—what they call the Governor’s Business Council in Texas. He was a supporter of Ann Richards in my run in 1994. And she had named him the head of the Governor’s Business Council. And I decided to leave him in place, just for the sake of continuity. And that’s when I first got to know Ken.” (President Bush, 1/10/2002)FALSE
“We must uncover every detail and learn every lesson of September the 11th.” (President Bush, 11/27/2002)FALSE
On numerous occasions President Bush and senior administration officials insisted that Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein were allies.FALSE
“We have removed an ally of Al Qaeda.” (May 2003)FALSE
Senior officials in the Bush administration state publicly they know exactly where to find WMD in Iraq.FALSE
President Bush lends credence to an Iraqi informant named Curveball.TRUE
“We found the weapons of mass destruction.” (May 2003)FALSE
“Yes, we found a biological laboratory in Iraq which the UN prohibited.” (June 2003)FALSE
The administration testifies before Congress that its new Medicare entitlement program would cost future American taxpayers $400 billion.FALSE
President Bush insisted that no one could foretell the failure of the New Orleans levees.FALSE
President Bush insisted he’s been candid about his past.FALSE
President Bush insisted he’s a uniter not a divider.FALSE
That his proposed tax cuts of 2000-2001 would guide lower-class Americans into the middle class.FALSE
That 60 stem-cell lines existed for federal stem-cell research.FALSE
That the US is taking every possible step to prevent terrorism.FALSE
NSA wiretaps are strictly limited to international calls.FALSE
Put these two patterns together thusly:† Abu Ghraib, Gitmo, secret prisons, Egypt which together appear to show that torture is an instrument of foreign policy of the US, and† A president who apparently will say anything to buy some time – and then refuse later to stand behind what he said.
Taking these patterns together, I have no earthly idea why any American still supports President Bush, frankly. The best explanation is that we’re a disinterested lot who collectively somehow retain a considerable respect for the office of POTUS no matter who fills it. No thanks to President Bush.
Or how any American can keep his fingers stuck in his ears whilst chanting the lalala song.
Like I said last week, Hank: you’re a sucker who was born yesterday.
I’ll bet you sing lalala real purty though!
$0.02
Fact on fact followed by a well backed (and almost universally shared) conclusion as to bush and his remaining moronic zealots. Well done flike.Of course, it will be lost on the bushbots. They can hear nothing but bush and themselves. So increasingly their only relevance is bush and themselves. They serve much the function as used to the village idiot for this forum. They are good for a bit of amusement, but have nothing of value to add.
“Having no rank, no uniform, no insignia… aka TERRORIST doesn’t count.”
In other words, any civilian in a conquered country can be considered a terrorist!
flike – your detailed information still doesn’t prove that Bush “lied”. Maybe he was/is just si delusional that he doesn’t know the difference!
Marvin – you sound just like that guy in Europe back in the 30s and 40s. You know, the one with the silly mustasche who wanted to conquer the world. He was making a big omelete too.
“We go above and beyond the requirements of the Geneva Convention”
Then why do we prevent the Red Cross from Geneva Convention required access?
Ben, I’m not trying to show that Bush lied.
I’m trying to show that President Bush has a habit of being wrong. I am inferring that he is apparently willing to make fairly wild statements if doing so will buy him additional time.
I’m also trying to show that his being frequently wrong, coupled with the pattern established with Abu Ghraib, etc., make his supporters irresponsible when they refuse to hold him accountable.
‘Course, it goes without saying that you can’t rule out delusions!
;)
Our treatment of the prisoners is above the requirements of the Geneva Convention. Period.
The Red Cross has no right to access these netwits. They are terorists, not POW’s.
Hank
Oh I don’t know JR, flike just posted a list copied of off some lib web site. Each one is a controversial topic that no conservative would concede. Some, in fact, are blatant misrepresentations.
So let’s have some specifics arguments on each topic. Present your case. Otherwise anyone can just could throw a bunch of garbage out without substanciation, and then attempt to parlay that into making a point, like is being done here.
“Our treatment of the prisoners is above the requirements of the Geneva Convention. Period.”
PROVE IT! Why do you fear the Red Cross?
You cannot have it both ways – if we abide by Geneva we give Red Cross access. That is a requirement of Geneva. There is zero proff that civilians captured from their homes are terrorists just because they are not in uniform. I am not in uniform; if an invader dragged me from my home would that make me a terrorist just because that invader says so?
Wow flike,
A list of twisted DNC talking points, lies and half truths. I sure have been put in my place!
Lets start with the first little piece of BS.
What countries in eastern Europe have rendition prisons? How many prisoners have we sent there? What is your source for this BS? Facts flike, facts. This story has no basis in fact. Deny a pattern? Hell, I deny your premise!
What about Abu Gharib? A few of our soldiers mistreated prisoners. None of the mistreatment rose to the level of torture. The incidents were investigated and the guilty ones were court martialed. Sounds like a pattern I could defend. No matter how many ways the MSM tell the story, no matter how many ways they twist the facts to get the left wing quisling’s panties in a wad the fact is that some of our soldiers broke the rules and they were punished.
Is that all you got? Come on. You don’t rise above the level of left wing nut.
I still love ya.
Your friend living in the real world,
Hank
Hank, surely you have a better lalala song than that? It’s getting old!
And watch your eardrums you don’t poke ‘em out!
Ben,
Interesting… Where do you get your information on the Red Cross being banned from Gitmo?
This is from the Red Cross website, Read it and weap you liar!
“It seems a horror to many Americans that anyone—especially the Red Cross—would be interested in the welfare of the Afghan war detainees being held by the U.S. military in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. However, it is our very own government that requested the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) to visit with the detainees.”
Does this change your mind on the President now?
It seems as if they were INVITED to see the prisoners held in Gitmo after all!
http://www.redcross.org/news/in/intllaw/guantanamo1.html
Come on Ben,
Read your posts. Your irrational hate for this administration is making you…well, irrational. The prisoners at Gitmo are not innocent civilians. We have no earthly motive for detaining, and then sending cicivilians to Gitmo.
You’re getting stranger and stranger.
Hank
“Julie,It seems as if you think Bush should be held accountable for Abu Gharab too.Why?Besides your “big boss” stuff, what is it that makes Bush culpable in your eyes besides that he is the President?”
Nathan,It is because Bush is president that he is responsible. I’m not saying he authorized it or supported it. As *soon* as he heard wind of the violations he should have issued an executive memo/decision (whatever it is that he issues) that this was not going to be tolerated and would be punished.I think a lot of the scandal could have been avoided if the military had issued a statement saying something like “We recently found out some military personnel have been acting inappropriately with detainees. A full investigation is going on, we will get to the bottom of this and punish accordingly”. Be mature adults and admit a wrong occured.p.s.- I hope Taylor wins too – he was much better than Katherine last night.
Hank darlin’,I understand that our enemies don’t live by the Geneva Convention. Our country however signed it. By signing it we gave our word that we would abide by it. If we use the defense that ‘they aren’t playing fair so we don’t have to’ then we are breaking our word because we previously promised that we would behave according to those Geneva rules.We need to be big boys and girls and live up to our promise.(However, if we allow a country that didn’t sign the Geneva convetion to take the terrorists as prisoners then…. ;)and no I am in no way shape or form condoning the torture of POW’s or detainees or whatever they’re called now)
Julie, Julie, Julie!
Darling. Sweetheart. Precious.
I agree with every thing you say, except your premise.
The abuse of a few prisoners at Abu Gharib did not rise to the level of torture. The soldiers and their immediate supervisors were investigated and punished.
As far as Gitmo is concerned, our treatment is by far and away above the requirements of the Geneva Convention. These peopl were terrorists. They were captured in most cases bearing arms against our soldiers. Out of the thousands and thousands of captured prisoners less than five hundred have been determined to be worth further interrogation and retention at Gitmo.
As far as the rendition prisons in eastern European countries, myu queation to you is the same for flike, Name the location of only one! They don’t exist.
Hank
Hank darlin’”The abuse of a few prisoners at Abu Gharib did not rise to the level of torture. The soldiers and their immediate supervisors were investigated and punished.”
I never said that torture was used. I just think that some unsavory tactics were used and that was wrong and the gov’t should have brought it up and said they were dealing with it before the “scandal” broke.
“As far as the rendition prisons in eastern European countries, myu queation to you is the same for flike, Name the location of only one! They don’t exist.”
I have never said that rendition prisons existed in Europe or elsewhere. I have heard that there are some of our allies that do engage in non-Geneva endorsed methods of internment (Egypt I think is one but I may be mistaken). My quip of “(However, if we allow a country that didn’t sign the Geneva convetion to take the terrorists as prisoners then….” was meant to be tongue in cheek. I apologize if you took me serious.Still love ya though :)
Rriiigght! And the CIA is a ladies aid society.
Do these “rendition prisons” exist? I don’t know. I’m not naive enough to think that it isn’t a possiblity but I don’t know for certain one way or the other so I won’t comment.
Jed-CIA = Center for Iced tea and lemonAidesrriigghht:)
Julie Darling,
When the NYT ‘broke’ the Abu Gharib story it was 6 months old. Investigation was underway. Charges had been filed. The NYT recieved pictures and that’s when all hell broke loose.
Their coverage and other members of the MSM coverage served noi purpose other than to embarrass the president.
Hank
As my father pointed out, it was not a “scandal” until the democrats and the media made it one.
The military had already been investigating it and were in the process of of punishing those responsible.
It is only a “scandal” to those seeking to attack this administration with anything they can.
President Bush has said over and over again that we do not condone torture.
Besides, you don’t know what is told to our military over and over again do you?
These soldiers were MP’s.
Dont you think that they went to a school where they learned how to treat prisoners under their care?
These soldiers had been through Army boot camp where I will “assume” they had been over the military code of conduct, becuase everyone else I know has been.
You see a wrong and immediately associate Bush with the blame when you completely disregard that these soldiers are at fault.
You may be correct, Hank, that they don’t exist now. In fact, it appears that they were never very large, and reports state that they may have never existed for more than 15-20 days. They may have been dismantled because the story broke in the MSM, or the CIA may have shuttered the whole process, or…who knows?
There were 2 such prisons reported, one each supposedly in Poland and Romania. This was disputed by the EU; however there appears to be strong evidence of such a prison in Uzbekistan.
The point you’re ignoring well is that the torture that took place in Gitmo, Abu Ghraib, Egyptian renditions, Asia, and Europe fit a pattern.
The pattern is one that was predictable by President Bush (because he’s an MBA), and one that requires proactive communication pushed top down if the CEO wishes to avoid such outcomes.
Outcomes such as torture of prisoners literally kill US foreign policy because such outcomes cede the moral high ground to terrorists.
To wit: if we refuse to treat our prisoners humanely, then we can hardly expect to win hearts and minds around the world.
Our problem, thanks to President Bush, is that winning hearts and minds is precisely what’s needed right now.
You and the president deny delivery of the evidence, preferring instead to stick your fingers in your ears and sing lalala.
I further argue that this president has given you no reason to do so, and your faith in him is utterly unjustified by the available evidence.
——————————–
On the issue of European prisons, I leave it to the reader to judge the quality of the evidence:
http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/04/20/news/rendition.php
HankI understand your point of view on this.My point is that if the military had previously come forward (before the expose) and issued a public statement saying we’ve got a situation involving this, we are handling it and all guilty parties will be punished appropriately then the scandal might not have broke or wouldn’t have been so bad when it did.What’s the point of breaking the story or trying to start a scandal if the accused already made it public and are righting the situation?
Nathan,Once again, it is Bush’s fault because he is the leader. It’s the whole the supervisor should have known that the employees were doing ‘x’ scenario. With Bush being the supervisor (yes, I know there are a million levels between him and the foot soldiers).I have faith that the MP’s were properly trained but failed to engage in proper detention prodecures.
I’d say assuming the worst about anything having to do with this administration is a better than safe bet. The characatures that still reassure us that everything is alright give us all the more reason to do so.
Winning hearts and minds? More like scorn and shame.
Julie,
That is fine if you want to think it it Bush’s fault.
Your view appears to be based on no logic, but hey go ahead and hold him accountable.
Do you also hold Bush as being at fault because we had Marines killed by our own Air Force aircraft during the march into Bagdahd?
Why didn’t Bush issue an executive order or memo telling pilots to be extra safe…
Do you also hold Bush at fault for the Army convoy that got lost and was ambushed with prisoners taken, i.e. Jessica Lynch?
Why didn’t Bush make sure that he sent out an executive order or memo or some public announcement talking about being aware of your surroundings and not getting lost…
Do you hold Bush at fault for the many Men and Women who were hurt or killed by vehicle accidents?
Why didn’t Bush issue a memo, a warning, anything special talking about vehicle safety and being careful…
My point is this Julie, what is it that makes this incident so special to hold Bush at fault for?
“Julie,Your view appears to be based on no logic, but hey go ahead and hold him accountable.”I never claimed to be logical – (meant tongue in cheek)
“Do you also hold Bush as being at fault because we had Marines killed by our own Air Force aircraft during the march into Bagdahd?”This is a very unfortunate incident. If memeory serves correctly the AF pilots received faulty coordinates.
“Do you also hold Bush at fault for the Army convoy that got lost and was ambushed with prisoners taken, i.e. Jessica Lynch?”Well the driver was probably a man and wouldn’t stop for directions.Do you hold Bush at fault for the many Men and Women who were hurt or killed by vehicle accidents?No – enough public service announcements are out there about seat belts and it is a choice for adults (as with any choice it has consequences). Accidents are just that — accidents (sometimes sh*t just happens)
“My point is this Julie, what is it that makes this incident so special to hold Bush at fault for?”Because the MP’s failed to do their duties as trained – therefore either1. dereliction of duty2. improperly trainedEither way it is the supervisor’s duty to make sure that wrongs are righted. Like I previously posted, if the gov’t/military came out before NYT broke the story it wouldn’t have been so bad. Be a big person and admit wrongs.
None of the other instances your brought up servicepeople intentionally screwing up. This whole prison ‘thing’ is about initial duties not being properly performed (ie abuse of prisoners). I think the military did fine in dealing with the courtmartials.My complaint is that it shouldn’t have happened in the first place but since it did the military should have stepped up, announced there was a situation and they were dealing with it.
Julie,
I could just as easily list many instances where military intentionally screw up.
The point was that you are putting Blame on someone without any links to that person. Just because he is the President.
It makes no sense.
No links Nathan? Who is the Commander-in-Chief? Isn’t that a link?
Whats wrong Ben, not chanting your Red Cross mantra this time?
Nothing wrong Nathan; just answering your question.
Just what is it you have against the IRC anyway?
I am the only one to actually quote the Red Cross here so far and paste a link to their site on what has ACTUALLY happened.
What is YOUR problem with the IRC?
Was is los!!! Who the heck is this morty zeigler coconut???
V.L.R.B!!!