Wednesday, October 17, 2007
Emperor Bush's New Clothes
New Format: Less Blabby, more "What the fuck!"'s per bulletin
- Looks like the junior officers with experience in Iraq are not very encouraged by the state of the military and feel we need to implement the draft or withdraw.
- The head of the Marine Corps is concerned about their ability to respond to a security threat because the Corps are so depleted.
- Gen. Sanchez, the former commander of forces in Iraq thinks it's a debacle.
- And while the right is trying to crucify him for daring to be a "phony soldier" and lambast him for not voicing his concerns before; He was a critic of the war planning, and while he didn't criticize the war when he was in command. John McCain explained why, "...one of the reasons, in all due respect, my friend, is because General Shinseki gave his opinion and got fired." Which is a lovely example of how Emperor Bush views his generals.
- Lara Logan says Iraq is even worse than on TV! She also mentions how odd it is that our soldiers are now working with men that a few weeks prior were trying to kill them.
- US Head of Counterterrorism says that we are probably not tactically safer as a result of our invasion and occupation of Iraq. He abruptly resigned today. He was not toeing the administrations line... I wonder if he voluntarily left? Also note how many of the men in prison in Iraq say they were fighting because they were angered by our occupation of Iraq, not because of fundamental beliefs.
- We also have Qwest coming out and saying the Bush's warrantless wiretapping program started 6 months before 9/11. Which suggests three things:
Impeachment
The Case Against Bush
Articles of Impeachment
Drafted by Ramsey Clark, former U.S. Attorney General
(The legal basis for impeachment)
Six Background Notes
Notes for the Consideration of Impeachment
Don't forget to sign the petition to impeach Dubya (on the left of the pages). It is doubtful that this would ever occur, of course, but one million people who acknowledge Bush's impeachable crimes sends a message to the rest of the world, at the very least.
Think of it as doing your part for American PR.
Articles of Impeachment
Drafted by Ramsey Clark, former U.S. Attorney General
(The legal basis for impeachment)
Six Background Notes
Notes for the Consideration of Impeachment
Don't forget to sign the petition to impeach Dubya (on the left of the pages). It is doubtful that this would ever occur, of course, but one million people who acknowledge Bush's impeachable crimes sends a message to the rest of the world, at the very least.
Think of it as doing your part for American PR.
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
Chris Chambers traded to the Chargers
This is the best news I've heard in a while. Oops, wrong blog.
But I knew that and I was just joking around. Actually I just wanted to shout out on here. I respect the vast amounts of material you guys have been reading, writing, and watching.
But I knew that and I was just joking around. Actually I just wanted to shout out on here. I respect the vast amounts of material you guys have been reading, writing, and watching.
Kudos R!
This is great Rachel:) The witty banter, uh or mudslinging, of J and T make my days most enjoyable!
Torture (Test Post)
Tybz, please do not associate me with Justin's ranting. :)
That's great that you found those techniques on globalsecurity.com, but I don't see their relevance to the techniques employed/allowed for the "war on terror."*
A sampling from the "Fear Up technique":
"Great care must be taken when doing this so that any actions taken would not violate the Geneva Conventions."
Well, that right there shows that these are irrelevant. One is not required to adhere to such a silly agreement as the Geneva Conventions when questioning an enemy combatant, which, as we all know, is a term that anyone in the world, including American citizens, can fall under, thanks to Prezzy Bush and his friends. As head of the military and national security, he can determine any one of us to be an enemy combatant. And torture us. Proof:
The Pentagon Working Group March 2003 draft report on interrogation methods concluded as follows:
"In order to respect the President's inherent constitutional authority to manage a military campaign, 18 U.S.C. 2340A (the prohibition against torture) must be construed as inapplicable to interrogations undertaken pursuant to his Commander-in-Chief authority…it does not apply to the President's detention and interrogation of enemy combatants pursuant to his Commander-in-Chief authority" ("Portions").
Essentially, no soldier, interrogator or other military person in a position of authority could ever be held responsible for an act of torture. The responsibility now rests legally, not just rhetorically, with the state, or, more specifically, the President and the Secretary of State.
Tybz, have you read the Patriot Act?
After that, I suggest starting with portions of the Pentagon Working Group Draft Report on Interrogation Methods (March 2003) and a troubling memo from John Yoo to White House Counsel from 2002 that pushes the limits of the English language to justify torture.
The memos engage in a semantic discussion of what constitutes a "general intent" to inflict pain and a "specific intent" to inflict pain, since a "specific intent" is the language used in the U.S. Code's prohibitions against torture. The researchers assert that "…even if the defendant knows that severe pain will result from his actions, if causing such harm is not his objective, he lacks the requisite specific intent" (Yoo 3). For example, if an interrogator's specific "objective" was gaining essential intelligence through interrogation, then his "specific intent" could not be shown to be that of inflicting pain. Even if inflicting pain was the method employed to obtain intelligence, the interrogator would not be guilty of torture. In this case, the verbal question of intelligence effectively obscures culpability for the physical act of torture.
http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/doj/bybee80102ltr.html
For anyone who is interested in being flabbergasted further:
Yoo, John. "Memo from Deputy Assistant Attorney General John Yoo to the White
House Counsel on interrogation methods that do not violate prohibitions against torture." Electronic. August 1, 2002. < http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/ doj/bybee80102ltr.html>.
"Portions of Pentagon Working Group Draft Report on Interrogation Methods,
Reportedly Prepared In Consultation With The U.S. Deptartment of Justice." Provided by The Wall Street Journal Online. March 6, 2003. http://news.findlaw.com/wp/docs/torture/30603wgrpt.html
"Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or
Punishment." Adopted and opened for signature, ratification and accession by
General Assembly resolution 39/46 of 10 December 1984 entry into force 26 June 1987, in accordance with article 27 (1). < http://www.hrweb.org/legal/catsigs. html>.
Bush, President George W. "Detention, Treatment, and Trial of Certain Non-Citizens in
the War Against Terrorism." Military Order from the Office of the Press Secretary. Nov 13th, 2001. < http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/ 11/20011113-27.html>.
This is a really good one!
Also, I find it odd that you are comparing the way a detainee or enemy combatant is treated to the way we train Navy Seals. I'm not sure why I have to point this out, but the people in question did not exactly volunteer to be Navy Seals. So....huh?
*Do we seriously have to keep using this term? First of all, it makes absolutely no sense. For the last time, you cannot actually fight TERROR. It is a freaking emotion. You can, however, suppport the aims of terrorist groups by making it into a giant slogan. Second of all, the phrase just allows us, as a nation, to cast any nation or individual as "the enemy", thereby throwing the rulebook of diplomacy and international law out the window and making room for war/torture/etc. Laziness. Slovenly lack of morals as a direct result of fear, or wait-- terror! They win!
Love,
Rachel
That's great that you found those techniques on globalsecurity.com, but I don't see their relevance to the techniques employed/allowed for the "war on terror."*
A sampling from the "Fear Up technique":
"Great care must be taken when doing this so that any actions taken would not violate the Geneva Conventions."
Well, that right there shows that these are irrelevant. One is not required to adhere to such a silly agreement as the Geneva Conventions when questioning an enemy combatant, which, as we all know, is a term that anyone in the world, including American citizens, can fall under, thanks to Prezzy Bush and his friends. As head of the military and national security, he can determine any one of us to be an enemy combatant. And torture us. Proof:
The Pentagon Working Group March 2003 draft report on interrogation methods concluded as follows:
"In order to respect the President's inherent constitutional authority to manage a military campaign, 18 U.S.C. 2340A (the prohibition against torture) must be construed as inapplicable to interrogations undertaken pursuant to his Commander-in-Chief authority…it does not apply to the President's detention and interrogation of enemy combatants pursuant to his Commander-in-Chief authority" ("Portions").
Essentially, no soldier, interrogator or other military person in a position of authority could ever be held responsible for an act of torture. The responsibility now rests legally, not just rhetorically, with the state, or, more specifically, the President and the Secretary of State.
Tybz, have you read the Patriot Act?
After that, I suggest starting with portions of the Pentagon Working Group Draft Report on Interrogation Methods (March 2003) and a troubling memo from John Yoo to White House Counsel from 2002 that pushes the limits of the English language to justify torture.
The memos engage in a semantic discussion of what constitutes a "general intent" to inflict pain and a "specific intent" to inflict pain, since a "specific intent" is the language used in the U.S. Code's prohibitions against torture. The researchers assert that "…even if the defendant knows that severe pain will result from his actions, if causing such harm is not his objective, he lacks the requisite specific intent" (Yoo 3). For example, if an interrogator's specific "objective" was gaining essential intelligence through interrogation, then his "specific intent" could not be shown to be that of inflicting pain. Even if inflicting pain was the method employed to obtain intelligence, the interrogator would not be guilty of torture. In this case, the verbal question of intelligence effectively obscures culpability for the physical act of torture.
http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/doj/bybee80102ltr.html
For anyone who is interested in being flabbergasted further:
Yoo, John. "Memo from Deputy Assistant Attorney General John Yoo to the White
House Counsel on interrogation methods that do not violate prohibitions against torture." Electronic. August 1, 2002. < http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/ doj/bybee80102ltr.html>.
"Portions of Pentagon Working Group Draft Report on Interrogation Methods,
Reportedly Prepared In Consultation With The U.S. Deptartment of Justice." Provided by The Wall Street Journal Online. March 6, 2003. http://news.findlaw.com/wp/docs/torture/30603wgrpt.html
"Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or
Punishment." Adopted and opened for signature, ratification and accession by
General Assembly resolution 39/46 of 10 December 1984 entry into force 26 June 1987, in accordance with article 27 (1). < http://www.hrweb.org/legal/catsigs. html>.
Bush, President George W. "Detention, Treatment, and Trial of Certain Non-Citizens in
the War Against Terrorism." Military Order from the Office of the Press Secretary. Nov 13th, 2001. < http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/ 11/20011113-27.html>.
This is a really good one!
Also, I find it odd that you are comparing the way a detainee or enemy combatant is treated to the way we train Navy Seals. I'm not sure why I have to point this out, but the people in question did not exactly volunteer to be Navy Seals. So....huh?
*Do we seriously have to keep using this term? First of all, it makes absolutely no sense. For the last time, you cannot actually fight TERROR. It is a freaking emotion. You can, however, suppport the aims of terrorist groups by making it into a giant slogan. Second of all, the phrase just allows us, as a nation, to cast any nation or individual as "the enemy", thereby throwing the rulebook of diplomacy and international law out the window and making room for war/torture/etc. Laziness. Slovenly lack of morals as a direct result of fear, or wait-- terror! They win!
Love,
Rachel
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
