S |
M |
T |
W |
T |
F |
S |
3 | 6 | 10 | 11 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 |
|---|
| Monthly Archives | [−] |
| [−] |
| [−] |
| [−] |
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) in the public domain, with free use granted 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 © 2006 - 2008 by the respective authors. 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.
Site contact: greyhawk at mudvillegazette dot com
...from trying to score Grim's Stetson!
Well done!
The totals are in - $18,265
Not bad, not bad at all for spur-of-the-moment, low pressure effort!
More importantly, we scored some intriguing opportunities to pursue on the celebrity and near-celebrity front, so that's cool too.
We didn't beat National Review Online, ($19, 550 when I hit "post") but I don't know what their last night at midnight total was, either.
In other words - all y'all done good! We eliminated the backlog of 11 laptops, and have money (and in-kind laptop donations) to handle the new needs that will inevitably pop-up.
And it's all due to your efforts - as bloggers and as contributors!
For those who scored cluebats, we'll probably start production on those next week, and I'll be hitting you up for snail-mail addresses if I don't have them already.
Of course, we're taking donations 24/7 should you suddenly find a wad of cash you don't know what use to put it to! Just click the graphic below!
Feel free to join us! And those of you who already have - thank you ever so much!
(Feel free to swipe the roll-code)
(If you are a supporting blog and aren't listed - drop me a note!)
I am working off the same news reports that everyone else is, so I can't comment to the substance of what's contained in any investigation or confinement order. I haven't seen the paper trail. All I am going by is what is required by the RCM and presuming that such steps have been followed.
So as to what warranted this change in "status," I can't say. Might the June 15 review (removal of shackles) have been done in light of political/public pressure? Maybe. Maybe not. I can't find anything that precludes a periodic review of previously authorized and reviewed pre-trial confinement. It might have been a simple case of "hey, let's look at this again."
As for what to expect--who the H-E-double hockey sticks knows. ;-)
Good point. What I don't understand is that there are two unusual things happening here--the treatment of the prisoners, and the publicity of the crime for which they are accused--and those seem to be connected more closely than perhaps it should be.
You've got a good corrective admonishment there, and a good ability to look at both sides. What's bothering me about what I'm hearing is that beneath the shrillness of the arguments there's inconsistent actions that seem to be going on. It seems to me that public comment is driving things more than the law--unless the correlation is accidental.
Since I've only had visibility on a couple of homicide/manslaughter cases, you likely have the experience I don't. Walk me through this, if you are able due to the ongoing nature of this case--is the change in prisoner status due to a bad decision or corrected decision, or changed situation? Is there a precedent you can point to which might give us operator types an expectation of what we'll see throughout the story arc of this incident?
Just thought I'd raise something that seems to be getting lost in the discussions re the "Camp Pendleton 8," and that is while those confined seem to be getting a LOT of the benefit of the doubt, there seems to be none for those on the military justice side of the field.
Remember that it is other servicemen making these decisions and determinations. Those that are imposing these restraints, reviewing these confinement orders, and making these determinations are also serving their country, and as such, might be entitled to at least a presumption of good faith.
All due respect to Rep. Murtha and all, but I am sorry; just because you served does not give you the right to play bully-boy with those who have not.
Sure, it is OK, sometimes, if you are backed into a corner to pull out your DD214 if someone who never served is talking about Tactical issues and is smearing and/or sending out bad gouge, etc; but when it comes to Strategic issues, I am sick of the "You haven't served, you can't disagree with me. My opinion cannot be questioned." way of avoiding the core issue.
That is so old, tired, and foolish. Prime Minister Thatcher never served, however it can be argued that she is easily in the Top 5 civilian leaders who "Got it." Should she have caved to the opinion of some Old Labor defeatist who thought they should give the Falklands to the Argentineans, or unilaterally disarmed in the face of the Soviets just because he spent the mid-1940 fighting his way up Italy? No. The Chickenhawk habit is way past Chicken$(%t. Here is the video. It says it was posted by ”Nancy Pelosi”, and most of the video "she" has is pro Left. Maybe it is just me, but I don't think this had the desired effect.
The US Navy Hospital Corps was created on this day in 1898:
"I solemnly pledge myself before God and these witnesses to practice faithfully all of my duties as a member of the Hospital Corps. I hold the care of the sick and injured to be a privilege and a sacred trust and will assist the Medical Officer with loyalty and honesty. I will not knowingly permit harm to come to any patient. I will not partake of nor administer any unauthorized medication. I will hold all personal matters pertaining to the private lives of patients in strict confidence. I dedicate my heart, mind and strength to the work before me. I shall do all within my power to show in myself an example of all that is honorable and good throughout my naval career."
Leave it to Ralph Peters to cop the best quote about the media's defeatism...
Desperate, Zarqawi's butchers laid out a program to try to regain the initiative they'd lost. Here's what the terrorists hoped to do:* In their own words, "use the media for spreading an effective and creative image of the resistance." That is, exploit the prejudices of the Western media, the terrorists' last allies.
* Infiltrate Iraq's army, which was pinning them to the mat (if you can't beat 'em, join 'em).
* Unify the resistance - which was falling to pieces amid squabbles over tactics, over turf and even over who was the real enemy.
* Most ambitious, the terrorists hoped to spark a war between the United States and Iran, to "create a second front" that would take pressure off them. To that end, they planned to implicate Iran in staged terrorist events and to provide disinformation about Tehran's having ties to terrorist groups targeted by the United States.
* Just in case that didn't work, the terrorists also hoped to ignite civil wars between Sunni and Shia, Americans and Shia, Shia and Shia, Kurds and Shia - and even between different Sunni factions. A Vietnam-era U.S. officer was ridiculed for saying, "We had to destroy the village in order to save it," but al Qaeda is willing to destroy all of Iraq in order to save it for a fanatical vision.
The internal document portrayed the terrorists as lying on the ropes, speaking of their "current bleak situation." Their self-evaluation was wildly at odds with the interpretation of events foisted upon the American people by left-wing elements in our media and by the leadership of the Democratic Party. Those who called for us to quit Iraq would have handed a broken terrorist movement a strategic victory.
If they're removing the shackles from the guys they have in custody without charges, what changed? Does this mean there is now less command influence, or more? Does this mean there is a reaction to pressure of some sort, and if so was there pressure in another direction before that?
With stuff like this, and some of the things the defense lawyers are claiming, I smell a rat. Is this one of those things where the one small group gets the beat down just because of pressure and a TIME cover story?
What in the world is going on with this thing?
Reports coming in...but not much yet.
damn. damn. One of my [many] nightmares...
Site design and management: Mrs Greyhawk
Original content copyright © 2006 - 2008 by the respective authors
