>> ^Psychologic:
If the Bush administration is to be condemned for anything then it should be direct policy decisions, not the actions of individual soldiers. If they ordered torture then that is perhaps something to pursue in court.
However, if the soldiers down there were being abusive on their own (ie- not because of orders) then they should be the ones facing responsibility for it (and perhaps there direct supervisors). It's difficult to tell who was allowing what without being directly involved in the situation.



It was called the "Torture Memo" authored by John Yoo.

Basically, Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rummy and the rest of the gang literally signed off on allowing torture, and stating that the 4th amendment doesn't apply for them.

http://www.aclu.org/pdfs/safefree/yoo_army_torture_memo.pdf


It's right there. It wasn't just individual soldiers. It was a policy that came from the top down. During Nuremberg, the Int'l courts decided that prosecuting every single German soldier who went against international conventions on treating detainess would just be ludicrous. That's why they only went after commanders.

Yes, it is a spectacularly inefficient genocide, it is known as "slow motion genocide" and it is the same thing that happened in Darfur. It has been going on for decades. I first heard it described as this 8 or 9 years ago.

In 1998 an expert in international law called Francis Boyle told the Palestinian president to start legal proceedings against Israel in the international courts and in the Hague for breaching the Genocide Convention.

Israel has breached almost all of the 150 odd articles of the Geneva Rights Convention and committed crimes against humanity under the Nuremberg Charter - all confirmed and on record at the UN.

So if we're going to take Hamas to task on their ambulances then let's go, and unless we want to be branded as hypocrites then we'll want the Israeli government in the Hague and behind bars for their decades of war crimes against the Palestinian people as well.

And if we want to talk about Hamas' charter which calls for the destruction of Israel, then let's talk about it:

In 2006 Ismail Haniyeh became Hamas prime minister. He offered the Bush administration a truce in return for an end to the illegal Israeli occupation. He was completely ignored.

The last truce that was brokered by Egypt was broken by Israel - they sent in the IDF and wiped out 6 Hamas members. Both sides called for peace even after this, but the IDF continued hostilities.


I cannot in good conscience condemn Hamas for using medical vehicles for troops because I know too much about the sickening war crimes that have been committed by Israel against them for decades.

I assume that post up there ^ ^ ^ is some clever parody. It points out the irony of the heirs to Nazi philosophy (though most of them did hang at Nuremberg).. ok well the flip coin "heirs" of Nazism... doing their damnedest.

No one finds it ironic that the IDF is reigning terror and bombs and sonic booms on a people diminished to the worst refugee camp / apartheid village in decades..

Essentially, if I put you in jail (rightly, wrongly, who cares).. so I put you in jail for 10 years and rape you and beat you daily. Then you still persist to throw rocks at the jailer, then they deserve more crushing????

It really is like a boxer and a cripple in a wheel chair going at it over the last twinkee.

>> ^NordlichReiter:
>> ^mxxcon:
photos in this video are extremely misleading and out of context.
they are talking about nazis WHILE showing Israeli soldiers asking an arab(?) to raise his shirt.
as you know this is not to cause terror or to put down the population. this is a response to a very real threat.

What if some guys in black suits came to your house and flipped you out of your bed and started searching your crevices?

you took my comment perfectly out of context.
watch that video once again and give me specific time stamps where it shows anybody being flipped out of a bed.
i'm talking about pictures that are shown at 1 minute 17 seconds into the video and a few seconds after that.
what they are doing has absolutely nothing to do with Nuremberg trials. and only somebody who's spreading propaganda would equate those 2 specific photos with war crime trials at Nuremberg.

How ironic is it that the nation that penned the Geneva conventions, the human rights declaration, the nation most opposed to torture during the Nuremberg trails and the cold war is now fully supports torture.

The new USSR laughs at America.

We can only hope that they will ultimately honor their oath to the Constitution instead of a corrupt administration that could easily abuse their power of the military.

It would be a horrible irony to see our trusted military (which took an oath to defend the law of the land) execute unconstitutional anti-citizen/citizen suppression in such a manner as to harm their fellow countrymen.
Hopefully there will be enough commanders that follow the UCMJ which clearly dictates that it is not only a member of the military's right but however is their duty to not follow illegal orders.

"I,____________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to the regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice."

The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) 809.ART.90 (20), makes it clear that military personnel need to obey the "lawful command of his superior officer," 891.ART.91 (2), the "lawful order of a warrant officer", 892.ART.92 (1) the "lawful general order", 892.ART.92 (2) "lawful order". In each case, military personnel have an obligation and a duty to only obey Lawful orders and indeed have an obligation to disobey Unlawful orders, including orders by the president that do not comply with the UCMJ. The moral and legal obligation is to the U.S. Constitution and not to those who would issue unlawful orders, especially if those orders are in direct violation of the Constitution and the UCMJ.

During the Iran-Contra hearings of 1987, Senator Daniel Inouye of Hawaii, a decorated World War II veteran and hero, told Lt. Col. Oliver North that North was breaking his oath when he blindly followed the commands of Ronald Reagan. As Inouye stated, "The uniform code makes it abundantly clear that it must be the Lawful orders of a superior officer. In fact it says, 'Members of the military have an obligation to disobey unlawful orders.' This principle was considered so important that we-we, the government of the United States, proposed that it be internationally applied in the Nuremberg trials." (Bill Moyers, "The Secret Government", Seven Locks Press; also in the PBS 1987 documentary, "The Secret Government: The Constitution in Crisis")

I remember having to study this when I was in boot camp in the USAF so I thought to look this up.

We have to trust our men and women in Uniform - there is little other choice really.

>> ^volumptuous:


How much time should McCain do for napalming the shit out of innocent Vietnamese villagers, and bilking the taxpayers of this country out of $125 billion dollars (keating five)?
End the ridiculous drug war, and guys like him wouldn't be selling anything.




On Nuremberg/Vietnam
Stanley Milgram did an experiment( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment ) that concluded that when ordered by a superior, 65 percent of NORMAL people, not military robots, would do intentional wrong (in the form of shocking a person who was supposedly unconscious) when ordered by superiors.
I'm not saying that this justifies the amount of collateral damage, but John McCain cannot be held accountable for orders given him.

>> ^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.

I also want to point out the defining characteristics, in my mind, of those Democratic candidates we've left behind:

8. Gravel -- angry about something (they never really let him talk about what)

7. Kucinich -- Fought against corporate corruption in Cleveland, Ohio. Promised to repeal NAFTA, to instigate a carbon tax, and bring our troops home as quickly as possible. According to several online political quizzes, closest match to my own views. (Oh, and a hot european wife, something I also strongly support)

6. Biden -- Passionate, and by far the most experienced with foreign policy. Not really terribly resistant to business influences, though.

5. Dodd -- Passionate, well spoken constitutionalist. Wants to kill FISA by any means. Wants to ensure Bush & co. are brought to justice for their crimes. Father was one of the prosecutors at the trials at Nuremberg. I'd love to see him as Senate Majority leader.

4. Richardson -- Good foreign policy experience. Hispanic. Didn't seem to have much in the way of policy differences between himself and the top three.

3. Edwards -- Son of a millworker. One-time senator of North Carolina. Spoke passionately about the economic division in America (the two Americas). Had a voting record that didn't back up hardly any of his rhetoric. The early favorite of the kossacks.

2. Clinton -- Wife of someone famous, not sure who. Apparently has already served two terms as President, not sure how she's not in violation of the 22nd amendment. Sat on the board of directors at Wal-Mart. Led a failed initiative for Health care reform in 1993. Has been planning Presidential run since before being elected to the US Senate in 2000 (since she was 12, some say). Currently proclaims to be a freedom fighter for the disenfranchised in Florida. Was oddly silent on the issue in 2000, and even as recently as February, 2008.

1. Obama -- Inspirational speaker. Limited experience, but has shown good judgement. Has passed legislation in favor of transparency in government in his short time in the Senate. Opposed the Iraq war from the start (like Kucinich and Gravel). Has run a fantastic campaign.

My preference in July, 2007 was "anyone but Hillary". Obama wasn't my first choice. Kucinich was, but I knew he'd never make it. I followed the kossacks in supporting Edwards, until it became clear in South Carolina that he was done for.

I praise Obama highly, but he's my 3rd choice. The media buried all the rest.

If the media could, they'd bury him too. They sure have done a good job of keeping Hillary propped up.

Lets all remember who Scott Ritter is exactly, he was chief UN inspector for WMDs in Iraq, in March 2003 he said that the US case for invading Iraq based on WMD was bullshit, he was publically ridiculed and sidelined as Condi Rice declared that we shouldn't let the "smoking gun be a mushroom cloud".

And yes invading Iran would create a huge problem it would mean the US is implicit in Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and undue support of Isreal in the oppression of Palestinan people. Already the invasion of two soverign states is a violation of UN charters on aggression and are considered war crimes by Nuremberg standards.

But somehow bombing civilians is far more legit then someone fighting the oppression of a imperalistic power. People should take their blinders off and realize that the War on Terror is simply the new logic of the Cold War fighting communism applied in a new context in order for the US to project power and influence, first how does on fight a tactic? Second how many states were invaded or destabalized during the 60s, 70s and 80s in the fight against the red menace (guatemala, chile, bolivia and so many others)? How many inhumane states are supported now in their regimes if they are against terrorism (egypt, jordan, uzbekistan and many others)?

Fluoridation is UNETHICAL because:

1) It violates the individual's right to informed consent to medication.
2) The municipality cannot control the dose of the patient.
3) The municipality cannot track each individual's response.
4) It ignores the fact that some people are more vulnerable to fluoride's toxic effects than others. Some people will suffer while others may benefit.
5) It violates the Nuremberg code for human experimentation.

Fluoridation is UNNECESSARY because:

1) Children can have perfectly good teeth without being exposed to fluoride.
2) The promoters (CDC, 1999, 2001) admit that the benefits are topical not systemic, so fluoridated toothpaste, which is universally available, is a more rational approach to delivering fluoride to the target organ (teeth) while minimizing exposure to the rest of the body.
3) The vast majority of western Europe has rejected water fluoridation, but has been equally successful as the US, if not more so, in tackling tooth decay.
4) If fluoride was necessary for strong teeth one would expect to find it in breast milk, but the level there is 0.01 ppm , which is 100 times LESS than in fluoridated tap water (IOM, 1997).
5) Children in non-fluoridated communities are already getting the so-called "optimal" doses from other sources (Heller et al, 1997). In fact, many are already being over-exposed to fluoride.

Fluoridation is INEFFECTIVE because:

1) Major dental researchers concede that fluoride's benefits are topical not systemic (Fejerskov 1981; Carlos 1983; CDC 1999, 2001; Limeback 1999; Locker 1999; Featherstone 2000).
2) Major dental researchers also concede that fluoride is ineffective at preventing pit and fissure tooth decay, which is 85% of the tooth decay experienced by children (JADA 1984; Gray 1987; White 1993; Pinkham 1999).
3) Several studies indicate that dental decay is coming down just as fast, if not faster, in non-fluoridated industrialized countries as fluoridated ones (Diesendorf, 1986; Colquhoun, 1994; World Health Organization, Online).
4) The largest survey conducted in the US showed only a minute difference in tooth decay between children who had lived all their lives in fluoridated compared to non-fluoridated communities. The difference was not clinically significant nor shown to be statistically significant (Brunelle & Carlos, 1990).
5) The worst tooth decay in the United States occurs in the poor neighborhoods of our largest cities, the vast majority of which have been fluoridated for decades.
6) When fluoridation has been halted in communities in Finland, former East Germany, Cuba and Canada, tooth decay did not go up but continued to go down (Maupome et al, 2001; Kunzel and Fischer, 1997, 2000; Kunzel et al, 2000 and Seppa et al, 2000).

Fluoridation is UNSAFE because:

1) It accumulates in our bones and makes them more brittle and prone to fracture. The weight of evidence from animal studies, clinical studies and epidemiological studies on this is overwhelming. Lifetime exposure to fluoride will contribute to higher rates of hip fracture in the elderly.
2) It accumulates in our pineal gland, possibly lowering the production of melatonin a very important regulatory hormone (Luke, 1997, 2001).
3) It damages the enamel (dental fluorosis) of a high percentage of children. Between 30 and 50% of children have dental fluorosis on at least two teeth in optimally fluoridated communities (Heller et al, 1997 and McDonagh et al, 2000).
4) There are serious, but yet unproven, concerns about a connection between fluoridation and osteosarcoma in young men (Cohn, 1992), as well as fluoridation and the current epidemics of both arthritis and hypothyroidism.
5) In animal studies fluoride at 1 ppm in drinking water increases the uptake of aluminum into the brain (Varner et al, 1998).
6) Counties with 3 ppm or more of fluoride in their water have lower fertility rates (Freni, 1994).
7) In human studies the fluoridating agents most commonly used in the US not only increase the uptake of lead into children's blood (Masters and Coplan, 1999, 2000) but are also associated with an increase in violent behavior.
The margin of safety between the so-called therapeutic benefit of reducing dental decay and many of these end points is either nonexistent or precariously low.

Fluoridation is INEQUITABLE, because:

1) It will go to all households, and the poor cannot afford to avoid it, if they want to, because they will not be able to purchase bottled water or expensive removal equipment.
2) The poor are more likely to suffer poor nutrition which is known to make children more vulnerable to fluoride's toxic effects (Massler & Schour 1952; Marier & Rose 1977; ATSDR 1993; Teotia et al, 1998).
3) Very rarely, if ever, do governments offer to pay the costs of those who are unfortunate enough to get dental fluorosis severe enough to require expensive treatment.

Fluoridation is INEFFICIENT and NOT COST-EFFECTIVE because:

1) Only a small fraction of the water fluoridated actually reaches the target. Most of it ends up being used to wash the dishes, to flush the toilet or to water our lawns and gardens.
2) It would be totally cost-prohibitive to use pharmaceutical grade sodium fluoride (the substance which has been tested) as a fluoridating agent for the public water supply. Water fluoridation is artificially cheap because, unknown to most people, the fluoridating agent is an unpurified hazardous waste product from the phosphate fertilizer industry.
3) If it was deemed appropriate to swallow fluoride (even though its major benefits are topical not systemic) a safer and more cost-effective approach would be to provide fluoridated bottle water in supermarkets free of charge. This approach would allow both the quality and the dose to be controlled. Moreover, it would not force it on people who don't want it.

Fluoridation is UNSCIENTIFICALLY PROMOTED. For example:

1) In 1950, the US Public Health Service enthusiastically endorsed fluoridation before one single trial had been completed.
2) Even though we are getting many more sources of fluoride today than we were in 1945, the so called "optimal concentration" of 1 ppm has remained unchanged.
3) The US Public health Service has never felt obliged to monitor the fluoride levels in our bones even though they have known for years that 50% of the fluoride we swallow each day accumulates there.
4) Officials that promote fluoridation never check to see what the levels of dental fluorosis are in the communities before they fluoridate, even though they know that this level indicates whether children are being overdosed or not.
5) No US agency has yet to respond to Luke's finding that fluoride accumulates in the human pineal gland, even though her finding was published in 1994 (abstract), 1997 (Ph. D. thesis), 1998 (paper presented at conference of the International Society for Fluoride Research), and 2001 (published in Caries Research).
6) The CDC's 1999, 2001 reports advocating fluoridation were both six years out of date in the research they cited on health concerns.

Fluoridation is UNDEFENDABLE IN OPEN PUBLIC DEBATE.

The proponents of water fluoridation refuse to defend this practice in open debate because they know that they would lose that debate. A vast majority of the health officials around the US and in other countries who promote water fluoridation do so based upon someone else's advice and not based upon a first hand familiarity with the scientific literature. This second hand information produces second rate confidence when they are challenged to defend their position. Their position has more to do with faith than it does with reason.
Those who pull the strings of these public health 'puppets', do know the issues, and are cynically playing for time and hoping that they can continue to fool people with the recitation of a long list of "authorities" which support fluoridation instead of engaging the key issues. As Brian Martin made clear in his book Scientific Knowledge in Controversy: The Social Dynamics of the Fluoridation Debate (1991), the promotion of fluoridation is based upon the exercise of political power not on rational analysis. The question to answer, therefore, is: "Why is the US Public Health Service choosing to exercise its power in this way?"
Motivations - especially those which have operated over several generations of decision makers - are always difficult to ascertain. However, whether intended or not, fluoridation has served to distract us from several key issues. It has distracted us from:
a) The failure of one of the richest countries in the world to provide decent dental care for poor people.
b) The failure of 80% of American dentists to treat children on Medicaid.
c) The failure of the public health community to fight the huge over consumption of sugary foods by our nation's children, even to the point of turning a blind eye to the wholesale introduction of soft drink machines into our schools. Their attitude seems to be if fluoride can stop dental decay why bother controlling sugar intake.
d) The failure to adequately address the health and ecological effects of fluoride pollution from large industry. Despite the damage which fluoride pollution has caused, and is still causing, few environmentalists have ever conceived of fluoride as a 'pollutant.'
e) The failure of the US EPA to develop a Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) for fluoride in water which can be scientifically defended.
f) The fact that more and more organofluorine compounds are being introduced into commerce in the form of plastics, pharmaceuticals and pesticides. Despite the fact that some of these compounds pose just as much a threat to our health and environment as their chlorinated and brominated counterparts (i.e. they are highly persistent and fat soluble and many accumulate in the food chains and our body fat), those organizations and agencies which have acted to limit the wide-scale dissemination of these other halogenated products, seem to have a blind spot for the dangers posed by organofluorine compounds.
So while fluoridation is neither effective nor safe, it continues to provide a convenient cover for many of the interests which stand to profit from the public being misinformed about fluoride.

Unfortunately, because government officials have put so much of their credibility on the line defending fluoridation, it will be very difficult for them to speak honestly and openly about the issue. As with the case of mercury amalgams, it is difficult for institutions such as the American Dental Association to concede health risks because of the liabilities waiting in the wings if they were to do so.

These Ron Paulians need to stop exploiting my emotional receptiveness by playing bombastic propaganda music ... hell it almost echoes the Nuremberg rallies.

I barley got 10 comments down and chose to skip here. Granted I'm a new sifter, but sometimes i think you guys argue for the sake of argument. I saw one comment from MINK about how it is illegal according to certain things. the constitution. Have you read it? Has anybody here? I might have missed it granted, and if you can show me where ill back down, but i didn't see anything in there about what makes an occupation illegal. Geneva? this deals with POWs. Not entrance and occupation regulations. Nuremberg? well this one i am honestly unfamiliar with, but after a quick Google, i found this:

The Nuremberg Trials are a series of trials most notable for the prosecution of prominent members of the political, military and economic leadership of Nazi Germany.

I fail to see how that applies. At any rate, there is specific documentation, which clearly states that we will go where we are needed to free others of tyranny and oppression. If you must know where, i can find it for you. Its nearing midnight, so i don't want to be up to much longer.

At any rate, thought this might be good to toss in. http://www.army.mil/CMH/faq/oaths.htm

Its the enlisted and officer oaths of enlistment. MINK, I know I singled you out, but your comment stood out to me. But for everyone, I know MG and myself know the military, and if anyone else in here does they can say what they will, but please don't talk like you know what we are or aren't allowed to do, unless you've served or are serving.

BTW mink in regards to you last post, that very specifically talks about country governments, whereas Al-Q is not a government, there fore we cannot declare "war" on them. Second, Doc_M, your kinda right with the wrong words. Consciouses objector only means you don't believe the war is right, and that you do not have to operate a weapon. you can still go and fuel trucks. The whole losing citizenship and all that, no. Yeah if you back out of a war by just saying "no dude, fuck that" your going to get what we affectionately call "the big green weenie." yeah you'll get a DD and all that but the U.S. isn't going to exile you.

My last big gripe is people saying bush this bush that. PEOPLE! BUSH did not send us to 'war'. YOUR CONGRESS did. Thats right, the people you voted for to take your place sent you. your state reps and senators. BUSH cannot declare war. CONGRESS can declare war. And no one ever said anything about this being illegal when it kicked off. if i remember right, everyone was pro war.

I whole heartedly agree with MarineGunRock in that this waste of a uniform KNEW that war was going on, and whats worse, he was in an infantry unit! IF he wanted to avoid going, he should have joined the band. You cannot in all decent common sense look at the army THE FUCKING ARMY and say to yourself, hey, i don't want to go to war, but that shit looks like fun! and expect not to go. He might have wanted to change his mind afterwards, i got it, but like Lurch said, there was a legal way to do it, and the illegal way.

last thing i promise.... These one or two soldier protesters here and there might be bitching and "thats why we need to pull out. look how bad it is when our soldiers say no" but in all truth for every 1 service member that is publicly protesting, there are 2 or 3 reenlisting in IRAQ. And on top of that think of all the THOUSANDS of other guys that never said shit about having to go. The opinion of the couple of douche bags here and there is not going to sway the opinion of the governing bodies of our military forces.

P.S. ALLLLL the above is what makes our Country so Damn great. All of us (service members included) can bitch and argue all we want about public policy, war, religion etc. Thank a Vet. Thank you MG)

"Your show has all the charm of The Nuremberg Trial." -Conan O'Brien
Heeheeeee!

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/16076312/the_great_iraq_swindle/

Like most contractors, Custer Battles was on a cost-plus arrangement, which means its profits were guaranteed to rise with its spending. But according to testimony by officials and former employees, the partners also charged the government millions by making out phony invoices to shell companies they controlled. In another stroke of genius, they found a bunch of abandoned Iraqi Airways forklifts on airport property, repainted them to disguise the company markings and billed them to U.S. tax­payers as new equipment. Every time they scratched their asses, they earned; there was so much money around for contractors, officials literally used $100,000 wads of cash as toys. "Yes -- $100 bills in plastic wrap," Frank Willis, a former CPA official, acknowledged in Senate testimony about Custer Battles. "We played football with the plastic-wrapped bricks for a little while."

The Custer Battles show only ended when the pair left a spreadsheet behind after a meeting with CPA officials -- a spreadsheet that scrupulously detailed the pair's phony invoicing. "It was the worst case of fraud I've ever seen, hands down," says Grayson. "But it's also got to be the first instance in history of a defendant leaving behind a spreadsheet full of evidence of the crime."

But even being the clumsiest war profit­eers of all time was not enough to bring swift justice upon the heads of Mr. Custer and Mr. Battles -- and this is where the story of America's reconstruction effort gets really interesting. The Bush administration not only refused to prosecute the pair -- it actually tried to stop a lawsuit filed against the contractors by whistle-blowers hoping to recover the stolen money. The administration argued that Custer Battles could not be found guilty of defrauding the U.S. government because the CPA was not part of the U.S. government. When the lawsuit went forward despite the administration's objections, Custer and Battles mounted a defense that recalled Nuremberg and Lt. Calley, arguing that they could not be guilty of theft since it was done with the government's approval.