 |  |
 
October 2012
August 2012 July 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003 March 2003 February 2003 January 2003
     |
 Greetings! You are reading an article from The Mudville Gazette. To reach the front page, with all the latest news and views, click the logo above or "main" below. Thanks for stopping by! November 25, 2005 President Clinton's Extraordinary SnatchesBy GreyhawkTigerhawk reads to us from Richard Clarke's book Against all Enemies: Snatches, or more properly "extraordinary renditions," were operations to apprehend terrorists abroad, usually without the knowledge of and almost always without public acknowledgement of the host government.... The first time I proposed a snatch, in 1993, the White House Counsel, Lloyd Cutler, demanded a meeting with the President to explain how it violated international law. Clinton had seemed to be siding with Cutler until Al Gore belatedly joined the meeting, having just flown overnight from South Africa. Clinton recapped the arguments on both sides for Gore: Lloyd says this. Dick says that. Gore laughed and said, "That's a no-brainer. Of course it's a violation of international law, that's why it's a covert action. The guy is a terrorist. Go grab his ass." (pp. 143-144)"Rendition" is the handing over of suspects to "friendly" foreign governments for "interrogation". "Grab ass" appears to have become the official policy. Update: In case you missed the news, A suicide attacker steered a car packed with explosives toward U.S. soldiers giving away toys to children outside a hospital in central Iraq on Thursday, killing at least 31 people. Almost all of the victims were women and children, police said. Here's a hypothetical question for the "anti-war" readers of this site. Suppose you have a terrorist in your custody. He tells you a similar attack is planned for tomorrow, but refuses to divulge additional information. Would you: A. Bush lied! B. Fire Cheney!! C. The US used white phosphorus in Fallujah!!! D. How dare you question my patriotism!?!!! Write your answer on a 3x5 card and send it to someone who gives a damn. The rest of us have a war to fight. More: A former Saddam Hussein torturer reminisces. Posted by Greyhawk / November 25, 2005 1:22 PM | Permalink 1 TrackBackBomber Bloodies U.S. Toy Giveaway BAGHDAD, Nov. 24 -- A suicide attacker steered a car packed with explosives toward U.S. soldiers giving away toys to children outside a hospital in central Iraq on Thursday, killing at least 31 people. Almost... Read More 20 Comments |
November 26, 2010America@war [Greyhawk]
I think anyone who's ever pondered the "comment" option - once only available on blogs and bulletin boards, now ubiquitous on almost any web site - will appreciate this:
The so-called faculty of writing is not so much a faculty of writing as it is a faculty of thinking. When a man says, "I have an idea but I can't express it"; that man hasn't an idea but merely a vague feeling. If a man has a feeling of that kind, and will sit down for a half an hour and persistently try to put into writing what he feels, the probabilities are at least 90 percent that he will either be able to record it, or else realize that he has no idea at all. In either case, he will do himself a benefit. That's wisdom from the past, captured for posterity at the US Naval Institute, shared via the web on the institute's 137th anniversary. From their about page:
"The Naval Institute has three core activities," among them, History and Preservation: The Naval Institute also has recently introduced Americans at War, a living history of Americans at war in their own words and from their own experiences. These 90-second vignettes convey powerful stories of inspiration, pride, and patriotism. Take a look at the collection, and you'll see it's not limited to accounts from those who served on ships at sea, members of the other branches are well-represented. I'm fortunate to have met USNI's Mary Ripley, she's responsible for the institute's oral history program (and she's the daughter of the late John Ripley, whose story is told here). She also deserves much credit for their blog. ("We're not the Navy nor any government agency. Blog and comment freely.") We met at a milblog conference - Mary knew (and I would come to realize) that milbloggers are the 21st-century version of exactly what the US Naval Institute is all about. Once that light bulb came on in my head, I mentioned a vague idea for a project to her - milblogs as the 21st century oral history that they are. "Put that in writing," she said (of course - see first paragraph above!) - and here's part of the result. Shortly after the first tent was pitched by the American military in Iraq a wire was connected to a computer therein, and the internet was available to a generation of Americans at war - many of whom had grown up online. From that point on, at any given moment, somewhere in Iraq a Soldier, Sailor, Airman or Marine was at a keyboard sharing the events of his or her day with the folks back home. While most would simply fire off an email, others took advantage of the (then) relatively new online blogging platforms to post their thoughts and experiences for the entire world to see. The milblog was born - and from that moment to this stories detailing everything from the most mundane aspects of camp life to intense combat action (often described within hours of the event) have been available on the web... And et cetera - but since you're reading this on a milblog, you probably knew that. And you know that milblogs aren't just blogs written by troops at war, that many friends, family members, and supporters likewise documented their story of America at war online in near-real time, as those stories developed. The diversity in membership of that group is broad, the one thing we all have in common is the impulse to make sense of the seemingly senseless, and communicate the tale - for each of us that impulse was strong enough to overcome whatever barriers prevent the vast majority of people from doing the same. Everyone at some point has some vague idea they believe should be shared - we were the people who, from some combination of internal and external urging, found and spent those many half hours persistently trying to write it down. But where will all that be in another 137 years? Or five or ten, for that matter. That's something I've asked myself since at least 2004 - when I wrote this:
Membership in the ghost battalion has grown in the years since, and an ever growing majority of those abandoned-but-still-standing sites are vanishing. Have you checked out Lt Smash's site lately? How about Sgt Hook's? If you're a long-time milblog reader you know the first widely-read milblog from Operation Iraq Freedom and the first widely-read milblog from Afghanistan are both gone from the web. If you're a relative newcomer to this world you may never even have heard of them - or the dozens upon dozens of others who carried forth the standard they set down. If you have a vague notion that something should be done about that, (a notion I've heard expressed more than once...) then you and I and the good folks at the US Naval Institute are in agreement. Preserving the history documented by the milbloggers is just one of the goals of the milblog project, the once-vague idea that we're now making real. And it's a big idea, if I say so myself - too big to explain in one simple blog post, so stand by for more. Likewise, it's too big a task to be accomplished by just one person. So if you're a milblogger (and exactly what is a milblogger? is a topic for much further discussion on its own) I'm asking for your help. All I'll really need is just a little bit (maybe just one or two of those half hours...) of your time, and your willingness to tell the tale. We've already made history, it's time to save it. (More to follow...) Posted 4:02 PM | Permalink |
Comments (0) |
|
The Mudville Gazette is the on-line voice of an American warrior and his wife who stands by him. They prefer to see peaceful change render force of arms unnecessary. Until that day they stand fast with those who struggle for freedom, strike for reason, and pray for a better tomorrow.
 
 
 Furthermore, I will occasionally use satire or parody herein. The bottom line: it's my house. I like having visitors to my house. I hope you are entertained. I fight for your right to free speech, and am thrilled when you exercise said rights here. Comments and e-mails are welcome, but all such communication is to be assumed to be 1)the original work of any who initiate said communication and 2)the property of the Mudville Gazette, with free use granted thereto for publication in electronic or written form. If you do NOT wish to have your message posted, write "CONFIDENTIAL" in the subject line of your email. Original content copyright © 2003 - 2011 by Greyhawk. Fair, not-for-profit use of said material by others is encouraged, as long as acknowledgement and credit is given, to include the url of the original source post. Other arrangements can be made as needed. Contact: greyhawk at mudvillegazette dot com  Tending Distant Far from hearth and home, watching What tales we'll tell When things grim Some distant sunset, vision fading Saluting fallen friends whose names - Greyhawk, Baghdad, December 2004 |
That was an awesome uppercut. Keep up the good work.
e) Torture his ass until he told me more of what I wanted to hear so I could then look like I was being forth coming with the public while also having "reliable" sources for my information thereby not lieing.
I would wonder two things:
1. How do I know he is a "terrorist?"
2. If he's in my custody, why would he tell me there's an attack coming tomorrow but nothing else? I mean, if someone was that stupid I'd have to wonder whether I could believe anything he told me. Unless, of course, the terrorist was Bill O'Leilly.
You say it so much more effectively than I do. Thanks. I needed that!
p.s.: Loved the headline on this one. Makes me think of my favorite one-liner lately: If only Bush had gotten a blowjob, then we could impeach him
> 1. How do I know he is a "terrorist?"
Maybe the way he blows up small children could be a clue.
> 2. If he's in my custody, why would he tell me there's an attack coming tomorrow but nothing else? I mean, if someone was that stupid I'd have to wonder whether I could believe anything he told me. Unless, of course, the terrorist was Bill O'Leilly.
Because if he tells you a lie, you make him watch back-to-back episodes of every reality TV show ever made. You make sure he knows this in advance. Would he take the risk? I wouldn't...
Make him listen to every tape of Cindy Sheehan ever made.
Make him listen to Charlie Daniels.
At this post, it appears Greyhawk is stating that it does not matter how we win the war as long as we win. As an Army officer (I believe) he is tacitly supporting the torture of the enemy. Interesting if not criminal. He tries to say, "Who cares how we win, as long as we win".
Well, as an American, I do care. I do care about the "how" as well as the outcome. It is moral and ethical laziness to not care about the methods. If the Army is torturing our enemy than it is guilty of a crime. If Army officers are tacitly supporting this method then they are personally guilty of a crime.
The idea that because Clinton supported extradition makes it somehow OK is ludicrous for two reasons. First, since when does the radical right use Clinton as their barometer for what is morally ethical and reasonable? You spent 8 years telling us he is morally bankrupt and now you use him to support your torture policy?
Second, even if Clinton supported it, who cares? Remember what your mom taught you (hopefully): Two wrongs do not make a right (or a right wing)!
Nicholas, if killing children is the definition of a terrorist, then do you define as terrorists the American soldiers whose bombs and bullets have killed more Iraqi children than all the U.S. civilians killed in the 9/11 attacks? Or is it only terrorism if your enemy kills children?
kevin, that's a great comment. You know, during WW2 the United States managed to win without adopting torture as a standard operating procedure. It was war, and all kinds of nasty things happen, but we didn't have perverted sex camps for German and Japanese P.O.W.s and civilians.
In fact, in either '43 or '44 -- I forget which -- there was a national outcry over the murder of ONE Italian P.O.W. at a stockade in Seattle. Funny how no one justified it by pointing at Mussolini's brutality.
As in so many cases, the rightwingnuts are in favor of so-called "traditional values" only when they can be used to justify their cruelty and their prejudices. In actuality, the Greyhawk Jawohl crowd hates every single thing America has ever stood for on this earth.
Kevin,
That's not how I read this post at all. I think what he is pointing out is that sometimes co-ercive methods can be justified, and that a lot of the people trying to score political points over the issue are hypocrits.
I don't see anywhere in the post where he states or implies that he think it's worth going to any length to win. I think what he is saying is sometimes war is unpleasant you can't treat terrorists with kid gloves. That doesn't mean we want to treat them like Saddam treated his torture victims. I wouldn't allow that to happen and I hope Mr. Greyhawk would not either.
It's not a political question. It's a moral question, and it should be asked, debated and answered. But so many people seem to want to score political points over what is a serious issue, and I agree with him that it's disgusting.
I don't agree with the Bush administration's policies on how detainees are treated but I think it's irresponsible to lie in order to get one's point of view across. I've seen a lot of that lately. Let's have rational, well-reasoned dissent (which you have provided, thank you!) rather than some of the rantings we've been subjected to in the media recently.
--
Wilson, grow up.
Hmm, note where I say "It's not a political question." Well, I do think that's true, but it does have a political solution, that's for sure. My point is, I don't think it's worth point-scoring over torture (or non-torture) issues.
Sorry, didn't want to leave that ambiguous. Obviously the solution to any problem of legislation is political. But that doesn't mean you have to "play politics" to achieve it when it's as serious as this.
Sorry, that still doesn't sound right. How about this:
* Let's agree on definitions (what is torture, what is interrogation, what is co-ercion, etc.) and when each of them are or are not appropriate.
* Let's get that into law and make sure the law is enforced.
* THEN let's place the political blame for the failure to do so earlier and/or unconscionable actions which have been committed.
* Let's be fair in placing blame where blame lies, not just smearing it around. If former administrations set precedents, it's probably partially their fault. That doesn't mean the current one is absolved; but it's pretty poor to criticise one party for particular actions if you're not going to criticise all parties who took those actions.
Fixing the problem is more important than placing blame for it right now IMO. Has there even been significant political debate over the first point yet?
There is no debate on what constitutes "torture." That question has long since been settled. The fact that you pretend not to know the answer is evidence of nothing but your ignorance. The difference in this war is that the United States has incorporated torture into stand operating procedure for the military. That's never been done in the U.S. military, and it was one of the major points of prosecution against the Nazis at the Nuremburg Trials of 1946.
For you to argue that there's any ambiguity shows your complicity and your hatred for this country and everything it has ever stood for.
Can I participate in this self-esteem workshop? OK.
Mr. Kolb, you are obviously the leader of the self-esteem club. You are a very caring person! That's special. You must like yourself so much! And that's really job number one - To like yourself. Not to save anybody's life, but to like yourself. That's the important thing, and you've got it down.
Because making somebody scream and cry and bleed is so wrong! I mean, I admit I'd brutalize someone to prevent a massacre of civilians, and I have to admit I'm bad. I'm a bad person. And you're obvioulsy better than me.
And that's why you're Mr. Self Esteem.
" PATRIOTISM " is a big word the FAR RIGHT CONCERITIVE PARTY uses to put people in there place, if your aganst the WAR your "UNPATRIOTIC".
IF you disagree with BUSH, CHENNY, RUMSFILD, KARL ROVE, ETC.
THE trouble is:
1) BUSH HID- IN THE AIR-GUARD.."NEVER TO SEE NAM"
2) CHENNY- RECIVED FIVE (5) DEFERRENTS REFUSSING
TO SERVE HIS COUNTRY.
3) RUMSFILD-TOUGHT AIR TRAINING MARKED (X) IN
BOXE NOT TO GO OVERSEAS.
4) KARL ROVE- FELT HE OWED HIS COUNTRY NO SERVICE
THE FAR RIGHT CALL BUSH,CHENNY, RUMSFILD AND ROVE
.............."PATRIOTIC MEN"................
ITS funny that the FAR RIGHT, CONCERITIVE PARTY would want people that REFUSSED AND WENT OUT OF THERE WAY NOT TO SERVE THERE COUNTRY IN WAR.
BUT come into OFFICE PLANING AHEAD to go to WAR, SENDING 2,344 AMERICAN MEN and WOMAN TO THERE DEATH, OVER 16,000 PLUS TO RECIVE WOUNDS they will live with for the rest of there lives.
FOUR COWARDS WHO REFUSSED TO STAND and SERVE but have found the CATCHY words " STAY THE COUSE " AS OTHER DIE.
O YES LAST WEEK THEY CALLED REP MURTHA A COWARD AND VOTED TO " STAY THE COUSE "
ENLISTMENTS WERE DOWN AGAIN FOR THE EIGHTEENTH
MONTH.
"MR. SLEF ESTEEM"
LET get to the truth and ask your slef some questios:
1) HAVE YOU EVER KILLED ANY ONE ?
2) HAVE YOU TAKEN A BLAD DEEP INTO SOME ONE
AND WATCH THERE EYES ROLE OVER ?.
3) HAVE YOU PUSH A BLADE IN AND THE UP
YOUR HANDS FEEL THE HEAT OF BLOOD AND THE
GUTS OF ANOTHER SPILL OUT ?.
4) HAVE YOU EVER HELD A MANS MOUTH AS YOU CUT
HIS JUGULAR, SO HE WOULDN'T SCREAM OUT?.
IF you have done any two or three of my actions that I have posted, why would you ever want to TORTURE anyone. DO YOU feel a SORT OF POWER, CONTROL OR IS THE TRUTH YOU HAVE NEVER SEEN DEATH UP CLOSE ?.
IF I pushed you just a little you would tell me anything I wanted to hear, not saying it to be "TRUE"
I'M sorry if I posted a little too GROSS but what do you think WAR and TORTURE IS A CITCOM ON TV.
This thread has taken a bit of an odd twist, so to get it back on track:
- I'm not a pacifist, but I think war is a last resort.
- War is ugly and all sorts of ugly things will happen, but the countries of the world have agreed to certain "rules" by which it will be fought.
- You'd be a fool to think torture won't exist during a war, but the U.S. actions in Iraq have gone well beyond that. The United States incorporate torture into military S.O.P., in violation of a number of treaties it has signed over the years and in violation of this country's past practice and stated ideals.
- The wingnuts who want to ignore all this hate America and all it stands for. They also have no regard for the rule of law, which binds the United States to those treaties it has signed.
- The fact that an enemy commits atrocities doesn't free the U.S. to do the same. The best example in practice is WW2, where Japanese and german atrocities make anything al-Qaeda has done pale by comparison. Yet, in that war the United States did not incorporate torture and "sexual humiliation" as standard operating procedure.
- Not only does the right wing hate America and what it stands for, but it hates the truth. In the face of introvertible evidence of torture and a policy of torture, it continues to deny the facts and pump out lies.
And one other thing: The fact that the "rules" of war are often broken does not render the rules irrelevant. All kinds of laws are often broken, but that doesn't mean we give up. The right wing doesn't understand, nor does it care about, the rule of law. For them, "might makes right."
... introvertible evidence ...
Yeah, that fits your "evidence", Wilson ... as in evidence developed by someone who doesn't seem to get out much, and ignores the most basic tenets of human nature in formulating his opinions.
As for incontrovertible evidence ... you have yet to prove that torture is official policy. Stretching reports that **might** hint at it, if read with the right frame of mind, does not count.
All you do is smear, smear, smear ... and the smears are getting more desperate, based on the innuendo I am seeing from you lately. Or, is that intentional ... are you once again seeking troll "martyrdom"?