>> ^BillOreilly:Ya, McCain was making the decisions over in Vietnam. Sounds true to me.
Excellent idea about ending the drug war-- I don't think we have enough crime in this country as it is, let's double the crackheads and methheads, it'll make for more entertaining episodes of "COPS".



Wow, thanks for admitting you know absolutely nothing about the "war on drugs", or the prohibition movement in the US, nor do you understand the Nuremberg Military Tribunals.

I'll explain it very slowly for you. If you're a military officer and your commander gives you orders to break laws, you don't have to do it. Napalming the shit out of innocent kids was breaking the law (and every conceivable notion of morality). McSame chose to do it, and probably did it with a smile on his face. Now he condones torture.

I'm glad you've finally admitted you know so little about the issues you comment about here. It gives us all a fresh new perspective.

>> ^videosiftbannedme:
It's unfortunate that the system is difficult. That's life. Since when is anything that you really want, easy? And there is a method for unskilled workers to come here. You acknowledged it yourself by stating it was in place, but difficult. But, just because it's difficult, does not exclude it, especially if it is the law and required. Why should immigrants be allowed to "cheat"? Because it's hard? Because they're unskilled? Fine, then I could use Appeals to Pity and other logical fallacies and start complaining that I'm not a CEO and make $300,000/yr.
Nope. There is absolutely no reason why they can't follow the rules.


Ahh, but they're not following the rules. Given that, what do we do? Spend lots of money enforcing them, or reexamine the validity of the rule?

In this situation, I propose the latter. What would be the harm in making it easier? If we get them paying taxes, and earning minimum wage, doesn't that solve the problem without much cost, and with possible benefits to us?

When talking about politics, the point is to examine policies -- saying "the rules are the rules" is what police forces and military officers should say, but politicians should be examining the issue, and deciding if the rules should change, or just the budget for enforcement.

^NordlichReiter:
I'll let someone else tear you a new one. This makes me wish we had a mandatory military like germany. It would really open your eyes to the respect your taught to give everyone even your enemies. Go to a recruiting station for any branch and tell them you want to shoot people and that's the reason you want to join. Please do so and tell me what they say. I think you'll be surprised.

Of course, no one in his right mind (i.e. not mentally ill) would say that he likes to kill people to anyone, army recruiter or not. You'll have to revise your 12th grade pop psychology and look up "subtility", "concealment", "repressed desire" and "uncounscious desire". Man is a machine with a big and powerful nervous system (yes, that last bit means essentially "powerful brain") and it would be idiotic to think everyone is always open about their feelings to others and even to themselves, or that they even know about their true feelings, emotions or beliefs. This may go against your christian-centric "freedom of will and everything else" worldview, but science doesn't care about you or religious ideology­.

On another note, I too would like for mandatory military service, like Switzerland (they provide for a much better political and economical model than Germany at present), but obliviously for different reasons than your warmongering american ones. There is value in defending one's life and the lives of your kin (which, in my book, should a priori include every human being in the world), but essentially your right to do so stops where the right of the others to defend themselves begins. This may be a cliché, but it is a useful one nevertheless. Of course, where to draw the line in real situations is difficult, but the principle should be remembered. When you are invading a whole country with the pretense of defending yourself, in this case Afghanistan and Iraq, you have to ask yourself some big and important questions, and the answers should be as strong as your claim is: that you somehow have the right to invade someone else for your own protection as a defensive action. Now, you may think, and probably many americans do, that you have the right to bully and push around anyone else you may want to just because of the fact that you exist: that's called "survival of the fittest" thinking (or "being a dick" for short), and as game theory shows, it won't take you far in the long run.

If you can't be a dick and your freedom to defend yourself is restricted, why would you want a military, let alone a mandatory military service? Two big reasons: one, you sometimes do need to actually defends yourself against "I-have-a-bigger-dick-than-you-so-do-my-dad-and-I'll-show-you-why" type of idiots, who either don't know, don't understand or couldn't give a fuck about game theory if their lives somehow depended on it (yes, military officers know about it, but your COMMANDER-IN-FUCKING-CHIEF, the supposed equal of George Washington, has got not even a hint of the most little clue) and they are best dealt with a quick and impressive show of actual or what seems like actual force, not bombastic military parades though these can serve to frighten some kinds of idiots. Two, being in an actual conflict, even and perhaps especially on a peacekeeping mission, can sometimes have a calming effect on trigger-happy or shoot-first-ask-later kind of young men and women. This effect is of course not guaranteed since every one is different (another useful cliché, in moderation).

As an aside, a corps of able and ready young people can be useful in humanitarian situations. Military training can also provide useful skills that some might not want or be able to get elsewhere (navigation, survival, basic weapon and self-defense, etc.). If not misused, a military can be a boon, like everything else in life.

Sorry for the long posts, but even with this (or maybe because of it? The internets are not used to reading long, thoughtful and rhetoric- and logic-filled discourses, especially not this abstract) many don't get what I'm trying to say, so imagine if I just said "EXCUSE THE FUCK OUT OF ME?". That could be deviously misconstrued as rock throwing if I was former military personnel, proud of my time of duty, responding to an anti-military statement!

P.S. I never said everyone in the military is lowlife scum or that everyone is joining to protect their country. From what I said would follow that in the worst case, half of everyone would be lowlife scum, and the other half would join to defend their country (in the case of the present american army stationed in Iraq at least). Of course I do not think it is so clear-cut, that was rhetoric. But far worse and damaging rhetorically is the typically american FOX-Newsy "misunderstanding" (conscious or not) of quoting me as saying they were all lowlife, or that they were all joining to defend their country. These are statistically very improbable situations, to say the least! There are also those who join because they need money they can't get otherwise, those who want to make their daddy proud, those who want to continue a familial tradition, those who are planning their political careers, etc. But they are not the focus of this discussion since I believe they form a minority, all the more so when you look at the true, hidden motives.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

I think she was murdered. Doesn't have to be Cheney. Soooo many high profile clients. From the BBC article:


Other patrons of the agency - known as Pamela Martin and Associates - included Nasa officials, top military officers, World Bank and International Monetary Fund executives, as well as the head of the US Agency for International Development (USAID), Randall Tobias, who stepped down after being named as a client.


Also, women generally don't hang themselves. They choose pills or other efficient methods.

Let's not forget to mention, that the evidence for going to war was so faulty and thin that the administration set up THE OFFICE OF SPECIAL PLANS run by Douglas Feith as an extension of the vice presidents office, to produce the "intelligence" they needed as justification to go to war.

A high-ranking military officer reveals how Defense Department extremists suppressed information and twisted the truth to drive the country to war.
http://dir.salon.com/story/opinion/feature/2004/03/10/osp_moveon/index.html

Senator calls report 'devastating condemnation' of Office of Special Plans
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2007/A_devastating_condemnation_of_OSP_and_0208.html

^Doc_M, I'm astounded at your views, but somehow not surprised. This whole blind faith thing you have going on is somewhat disturbing. So let me get this straight you are making a correlation between false statements in science books with the lies of this administration to lead us into war. Does it hurt you to have to stretch that much ? Yes, analyzing the administrations words (that were not true) to push for war = partisan crap.

Here is some required reading for you.

The new Pentagon papers
A high-ranking military officer reveals how Defense Department extremists suppressed information and twisted the truth to drive the country to war.
By Karen Kwiatkowski
http://dir.salon.com/story/opinion/feature/2004/03/10/osp_moveon/index.html?source=search&aim=/opinion/feature

The law of the USA states that all enlists and military officers must follow orders from commanding officers unless those orders go obviously and undoubtedly against the law of the United States. The United States is a sovereign nation and no member of the US citizenry can claim immunity to US law by stating that UN law trumps it. That is the bottom line. The military must respect the law of the USA over all. My understanding is that refusing to deploy is considered conscientious objection and is punishable by dishonorably discharge and revocation of citizenship rights. This is a fair punishment for refusing to meet the needs of the nation on the battlefield in a time of war. His refusal to commit to his obligation could put ground operations, and potentially lives, at risk. He has the right to take a stand and refuse deployment, but for it he must face the legal consequences for that action.

In addition, most people in this country including most of its legislators and supreme court judges do not consider the war to be "illegal" even on international terms. I wish this war would have been delayed longer to reveal more of the truth. I don't support preemption, except under extreme circumstances. It seems worth the sacrifice to let the enemy have at every opportunity to NOT attack. Bush jumped the gun, but I think it would have been ultimately inevitable. I outright do not even begin to believe that it was based on "Bush lies;" that simply implies that far too many members of our government (these are people, folks, not some big-brother secret society like in the movies) are homicidal maniacs bent on murder and destruction. That might happen in the movies and tabloids, but give me a break. On top of that, the UN has repeatedly shown itself to be mostly impotent in any enforcement operation. It never enforces its resolutions, fails to take any sort of stand against anything, and has shown itself to be corrupt even at its highest levels, at least in the case of Kofi. I have little confidence in the UN. It is too easy to play them for fools.
I understand that no one on the sift supports anything remotely defensive of Bush, but people really should consider what they are really saying when they claim Bush "lied" and MEANT to kill multitudes of people. Bush may not be a great president, but insane tyrannical murder? Let's keep our feet on the ground here.

You can say "face it, the war is illegal" all day long, but I can so easily say "face it, the war is legal" and sound just as block-headed. This is a gray-area argument. Let's not attempt to over-simplify. It just makes us look like close-minded zealots determined to scream our so-called "facts" to the hills.

From Harper's 6 questions posed to Dina Rasor and Robert Bauman, both have a long record of effective exposé work dealing with military contracting. Rasor is an investigative journalist who used to run the Project on Government Oversight (POGO), and Bauman was a career criminal investigator at the Department of Defense and a Certified Fraud Examiner. They have collaborated in a new book, Betraying Our Troops, that takes a hard-nosed look at the unprecedented outlays to private contractors in connection with the war on terror.

1. Can you describe why the force deployed in Iraq after the invasion was so heavy with contractors, and to what extent the contractors are performing functions that are essentially the same as those performed by the military?

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, ignoring the recommendations of his senior military officers to send more than 300,000 soldiers, insisted on an invasion force of about 180,000 soldiers instead. In order to carry out his wishes, the military needed to utilize most of those soldiers as combat units, not support or logistics units. That meant having to augment military support with a heavy dose of contractors in order to keep up with the invasion force. The primary function of contractors, the military supply line, was previously performed by the military. In performing that function, the contractor has had to operate on the battlefield, driving trucks of supplies in convoys even though they were not allowed to carry weapons.

2. In Iraq, contractors have often been required to provide their own security rather than rely on the uniformed military. What issues does this raise in your mind?

Contractors using private security contractors for security raise several issues. First, security operators have been performing their duties with little or no supervision or management control, sometimes leading to uncontrolled actions against Iraqi citizens that breed contempt for Americans (especially the troops) in those citizens. Secondly, the Army and Iraqi civilian authorities have no control or authority over security contractors. That can lead to conflicts with military operations and allows those contractors to escape prosecution if crimes are committed.

3. The book is closely related to your Follow the Money project, which investigates inconsistencies between what the Pentagon spends, and what military forces in Iraq actually receive. In Iraq, were the DOD’s usual accountability rules for cash followed? What in your mind accounts for so much money going missing?

Accountability of contractors in Iraq has been a major problem leading to huge cost overruns. The Army has not had proper levels of acquisition personnel to ensure accountability and has pretty much relied on contractors to do the right thing. Information we have obtained over the last several years and the results of many governmental investigations such as those carried out by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) and Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction (SIGIR) have exposed an almost complete lack of oversight and accountability, putting the DOD at extreme risk. Poor oversight and internal controls have also led to a lack of accountability with regards to considerable amounts of money.

4. You have been working closely with a number of whistleblowers in producing your book. How has the Pentagon dealt with these whistleblowers?

The primary whistleblower featured in our book, Major Rick Lamberth, has suffered retaliation and threats of his career being ruined by the Army if he continued to talk publicly about the problems. Harsh treatment and retribution has been a pattern against those who dare to blow the whistle about contracting problems for Iraq. There have been very few, if any, success stories for whistleblowers trying to expose fraud during this war.

5. In your experience, how has the Department of Defense Inspector General dealt with contractor abuse allegations?

The DOD Inspector General (IG), including the Defense Criminal Investigation Service (DCIS), has been the most competent agency within DOD in investigating contract fraud, waste, and abuse. During the 1980s, DCIS was the lead agency on almost all contract fraud cases, and was very successful. Starting in the 1990s, the IG’s effectiveness was hampered by staffing reductions and jurisdictional squabbles. This has led to the military investigative agencies taking over the lead in contract fraud investigations with DCIS support only if requested. The Army’s investigative agencies are not nearly as competent nor as independent as DCIS, or the IG in general, including in the investigation of contract fraud, waste and abuse, mainly due to the control the Army chain of command has over investigations.

6. Have the contractors gained influence over the contracting process through politics, a revolving door policy, or other factors? How do you think it will be possible to create a more arm’s length relationship in the future?

There is no question that DOD contractors control the acquisition process. This has been true for decades. DOD’s acquisition personnel do not have the numbers or the same level of expertise that contractor acquisition personnel have. Also, the DOD’s stifling bureaucracy, the desire not to upset the contractor, and poor morale due to low staffing levels created in the 1990s have all allowed contractors to take more control. When a DOD contract specialist or auditor upsets the contractor, that specialist or auditor is usually transferred and/or disciplined. And many DOD acquisition officials end up going to work for contractors. It is possible to restore control by the DOD, but it would take many changes, starting with a significant increase in acquisition personnel. As compromised as the acquisition process has been in the past decades, the rush to war and the fact that we are on a wartime footing make questioning the acquisition process more risky for investigators, whistleblowers, and Congress. There has been an effort to question the patriotism of anyone who questions where the money is going and whether it is really helping the troops.

‘Betraying Our Troops:’ Six Questions for Dina Rasor and Robert Bauman

There was a dramatization of the Milgram experiment on US tv in 1975 called "The Tenth Level" starring William Shatner.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0075320/

Very disturbing, most people will do whatever they are told by an authority figure - doctor, lawyer, cop, politician, military officer - even though they know it's immoral / illegal / murderous / genocidal.

Also interesting is "The Stanford Prison Experiment" conducted by Dr. Phillip Zimbardo in 1971.

Hugo Chávez and RCTV
Censorship or a legitimate decision?
by Salim Lamrani

The government of Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez chose not to renew the license of the audiovisual group Radio Caracas Televisión (RCTV), which will expire May 28, 2007. This decision, which is completely legal, created a lively debate in the international press, which has become a mouthpiece for the Venezuelan opposition and immediately denounced a case of "censorship." [1]

RCTV is a private group whose principal activity consists in denigrating the policies of the Bolivarian government. Chávez has accused repeatedly, and not without reason, the nation's four main TV channels (Globovisión, Televen, Venevisión and RCTV, which control about 90 percent of the market and enjoy a de-facto media monopoly) of carrying out a "psychological war" against his administration.

For their part, those media have given overt proof of a hostility bordering on fanaticism toward the Venezuelan president, ever since he came to power in 1999. They have never stopped questioning the legitimacy of the government and casting doubt on the popular support he logically enjoys. The private media constantly invite to their programs oligarchic oppositionists and putschist military officers who proclaim subversion and the overthrow of the constitutional order. [2]

Marcel Granier, president of the 1BC Group, which controls about 40 radio and TV channels nationwide and owns RCTV, denounced what he called a violation of the channel's rights. "This position is illegal, violates rights and attacks freedom of expression and human rights," he complained. Nevertheless, Venezuelan law stipulates that broadcast signals belong to the State, which has the right of concession, while the infrastructures, the materials and the sites of the channels are private property. [3]

The Venezuelan government immediately responded to the accusations of RCTV's president: "Marcel Granier has devoted himself to stomping on the rights of the users [...] in the belief that he is above the rule of law, which renders him unqualified to operate an open-signal TV network." According to the government, Channel 2 will hereafter be the patrimony of the entire people, not just of small groups in "the media oligarchy." [4]

But it is not RCTV's recalcitrant opposition that led Venezuelan authorities to decide not to renew the concession of the nation's oldest channel. The main reason is this: RCTV participated in the coup d'état against President Chávez on April 11, 2002. "The determining role of RCTV during the coup d'état of 2002 must be remembered," stressed William Lara, Minister of Communications and Information, who added that "that irresponsible attitude at RCTV has not changed." [5]

RCTV's participation in the constitutional breakdown of April 2002 was so extensive that its production manager, Andrés Izarra, who opposed the coup, immediately resigned so as not to become an accomplice. Testifying before the National Assembly, Izarra stated that on the day of the coup and in the following days he received a formal order from Granier "to not broadcast any information about Chávez, his followers, ministers, or any other person who might be connected to him." [6]

[snip]

The article/sources continues here: http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=11970

"probably extremely rare"... "it's probably Disney-type stuff. 'Water boarding?' Harsher stuff probably happens every weekend at S&M clubs."

You probably are an idiot. Maybe after you turn 17 and maybe get laid, you will realize what an asshole you've become... probably.

One unnamed U.S. official quoted in the Washington Post stated, "If you don't violate someone's human rights some of the time, you probably aren't doing your job."

However, in its pursuit of total victory at all costs, Japan chose to ignore its obligations under the Geneva Convention of 1929, using torture, slave labor, and other forms of abuse against military and civilian prisoners. After the war, Japan was widely condemned for the inhumanity of its policies, and many Japanese military officers were tried and convicted of war crimes under United States law. One of those war crimes was an interrogation practice markedly similar to what we now call waterboarding. Japanese interrogators covered the prisoner's face with a cloth (Our CIA uses cellophane.) and then poured water on it to create the sensation of drowning, and one Japanese doctor was sentenced to 25 years in prison for that and other abuses.

The National Commission on Political Imprisonment and Torture, in Chile, issued a report in November, 2004 describing the use of the “submarino” in the early 1970s. One account reads: “Man, detained in September 1973: . . . [T]hey put cotton in both eyes, then adhesive tape on top, and a black hood tied at the neck, they tied my feet and hands tightly and they plunged me in one of those 250 liter barrels of oil which contained ammonia, urine, excrement, and sea water; they submerged me like this until my breath couldn’t hold out, nor my lungs, and they kept repeating this again and again, along with blows and questions, this was what they called, in [the world of] torture, the famous submarine.”

Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment signed by US in 1994:
[I]n order to constitute torture, an act must be specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering and … mental pain or suffering refers to prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from:
(1) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering;
(2) the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality;
(3) the threat of imminent death; or
(4) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality.

this video was all over the place

BUSH didn't have to lie...all his administration had to do was alter the intelligence before it got to him.
it was called...THE OFFICE OF SPECIAL PLANS.

www.archetype-productions.com/nfo/politics/The-new-Pentagon-papers.doc

the article is by By Karen Kwiatkowski
A high-ranking military officer reveals how Defense Department extremists suppressed information and twisted the truth to drive the country to war.

with republicans controlling the administration, both houses, the supreme court you'll never hear of this, much less will there ever be any accountability as long as the republicans as in control.