Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Military Over All
C-Span sucks community > politics > Political Soapbox
Pages: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24
SpaceCowboy
QUOTE
"I am under a lot of pressure to not diagnose PTSD"

A secret recording reveals the Army may be pushing its medical staff not to diagnose post-traumatic stress disorder. The Army and Senate have ignored the implications.

Editor's note: Last June, during a medical appointment, a patient named "Sgt. X" recorded an Army psychologist at Fort Carson, Colo., saying that he was under pressure not to diagnose combat veterans with post-traumatic stress disorder. Listen to a segment of the tape here.



April 8, 2009 | FORT CARSON, Colo. -- "Sgt. X" is built like the Bradley Fighting Vehicle he rode in while in Iraq. He's as bulky, brawny and seemingly impervious as a tank.

In an interview in the high-rise offices of his Denver attorneys, however, symptoms of the damaged brain inside that tough exterior begin to appear. Sgt. X's eyes go suddenly blank, shifting to refocus oddly on a wall. He pauses mid-sentence, struggling for simple words. His hands occasionally tremble and spasm.

For more than a year he's been seeking treatment at Fort Carson for a brain injury and post-traumatic stress disorder, the signature injuries of the Iraq war. Sgt. X is also suffering through the Army's confusing disability payment system, handled by something called a medical evaluation board. The process of negotiating the system has been made harder by his war-damaged memory. Sgt. X's wife has to go with him to doctor's appointments so he'll remember what the doctor tells him.

But what Sgt. X wants to tell a reporter about is one doctor's appointment at Fort Carson that his wife did not witness. When she couldn't accompany him to an appointment with psychologist Douglas McNinch last June, Sgt. X tucked a recording device into his pocket and set it on voice-activation so it would capture what the doctor said. Sgt. X had no idea that the little machine in his pocket was about to capture recorded evidence of something wounded soldiers and their advocates have long suspected -- that the military does not want Iraq veterans to be diagnosed with PTSD, a condition that obligates the military to provide expensive, intensive long-term care, including the possibility of lifetime disability payments. And, as Salon will explore in a second article Thursday, after the Army became aware of the tape, the Senate Armed Services Committee declined to investigate its implications, despite prodding from a senator who is not on the committee. The Army then conducted its own internal investigation -- and cleared itself of any wrongdoing.


When Sgt. X went to see McNinch with a tape recorder, he was concerned that something was amiss with his diagnosis. He wanted to find out why the psychologist had told the medical evaluation board that handles disability payments that Sgt. X did not, in fact, have PTSD, but instead an "anxiety disorder," which could substantially lower the amount of benefits he would receive if the Army discharged him for a disability. The recorder in Sgt. X's pocket captured McNinch in a moment of candor. (Listen to a segment of the recording here.)

"OK," McNinch told Sgt. X. "I will tell you something confidentially that I would have to deny if it were ever public. Not only myself, but all the clinicians up here are being pressured to not diagnose PTSD and diagnose anxiety disorder NOS [instead]." McNinch told him that Army medical boards were "kick[ing] back" his diagnoses of PTSD, saying soldiers had not seen enough trauma to have "serious PTSD issues."

"Unfortunately," McNinch told Sgt. X, "yours has not been the only case ... I and other [doctors] are under a lot of pressure to not diagnose PTSD. It's not fair. I think it's a horrible way to treat soldiers, but unfortunately, you know, now the V.A. is jumping on board, saying, 'Well, these people don't have PTSD,' and stuff like that."

Contacted recently by Salon, McNinch seemed surprised that reporters had obtained the tape, but answered questions about the statements captured by the recording. McNinch told Salon that the pressure to misdiagnose came from the former head of Fort Carson's Department of Behavioral Health. That colonel, an Army psychiatrist, is now at Fort Lewis in Washington state. "This was pressure that the commander of my Department of Behavioral Health put on me at that time," he said. Since McNinch is a civilian employed by the Army, the colonel could not order him to give a specific, lesser diagnosis to soldiers. Instead, McNinch said, the colonel would "refuse to concur with me, or argue with me, or berate me" when McNinch diagnosed soldiers with PTSD. "It is just very difficult being a civilian in a military setting."

McNinch added that he also received pressure not to properly diagnose traumatic brain injury, Sgt. X's other medical problem. "When I got there I was told I was overdiagnosing brain injuries and now everybody is finding out that, yes, there are brain injuries," he recalled. McNinch said he argued, "'What are we going to do about treatment?' And they said, 'Oh, we are just counting people. We don't plan on treating them.'" McNinch replied, "'You are bringing a generation of brain-damaged individuals back here. You have got to get a game plan together for this public health crisis.'"


When McNinch learned he would be quoted in a Salon article, he cut off further questions. He also said he would deny the interview took place. Salon, however, had recorded the conversation.

(more)
http://www.salon.com/news/special/coming_h...009/04/08/tape/

Not good.
Davis 2.0
Maybe we should buy a couple more of those patriotic "support the troops" magnets.


Use them and throw them away. That's real patriotic. I believe that's the definition of "cannon fodder".
Davis 2.0
Contessa?!?

A few minutes ago, Contessa Brewer had on former Secretary of Defense William Cohen, one of that vanishing breed of moderate New England Republicans, and asked him "about this cut in defense spending." To his credit, Cohen corrected her: "By the way, it's not a cut. It's a four percent increase."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BcRISP-PuLo...player_embedded
Lord_Proprietor
Navy SEAL loses best friend
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburgh...p?entry_id=4272

Posted April 9, 2009 8 :02 AM

Retired Petty Officer Marcus Luttrell, winner of the Navy Cross for heroism in Afghanistan, says he doesn't sleep well at night.

So when the trained Navy Seal heard a gunshot go off near his ranch in Walker county Texas at 1:30 in the morning, he immediately sprang into action.....

.......Texas Governor Rick Perry, a personal friend of Luttrell's, is not surprised by the retired vet's restraint. "All Navy Seals have an extraordinary amount of self-discipline that we mere mortals do not present," said Perry in a telephone interview with the Trib.

Perry said that Luttrell came to stay with him and his wife Anita the next day to decompress. "He is doing fine. He has lost his best friend, but he processed that it was just some totally irresponsible punks that have no understanding of principles or values."


Luttrell was taunted and threatened by the men as they were arrested; Perry says that it is his understanding that Dasy was not the only dog that was killed that night............


"......irresponsible punks that have no understanding of principles or values"

We have a huge supply of this type being trained in our "gubmit schools" and "no-father families".

Davis 2.0
whatever....
Repub_Bub
QUOTE (Davis 2.0 @ Apr 9 2009, 10:36 AM) *
whatever....

Yeah...the "whatever" is the reason that there ARE punks like that.
Davis 2.0
GFYM
Davis 2.0
You Can Lead A Reporter to Water, But You Can't Make Him Call It A Spending Increase
By Brian Beutler - April 9, 2009, 3:26PM

They just can't help themselves! In a live Q&A session today, a reader asked Washington Post Congressional reporter Paul Kane a question that's been on our minds for days now. "I keep hearing the term 'budget cuts,' but the defense budget isn't being cut at all," the reader writes. "Money is being redirected to other defense priorities, but the overall budget is increasing by 4%.... So why is it that certain pols are allowed to spout this inane lie with impunity."

Kane didn't respond to that question, but he did explain that Gates is trying to spend money more wisely...albeit amid a four percent budget cut that's not actually happening.

If I spend $100,000 a year, and I spend it on a whole bunch of garbage -- CDs from stupid American Idol contestants, trips to Atlantic City, etc. -- it's a whole lot better for me if I reorient my budget to spend my money on a downpayment for a new house at a cutrate deal, as well as Springsteen CDs (instead of Idol folks) and trips of value to see friends and family. I might still spend $96,000, but I've spent it a lot more wisely.

That's what Gates is trying to do.

Ummm. Ok. I'm as big a Springsteen fan as anybody. But if we're sticking with this analogy, then the idea is that Gates is buying so many Springsteen CDs this year that he's actually increasing his annual spending to $104,000. A four percent growth, as the reader noted. At about $20 a pop, that's a lot of copies of Nebraska--which may or may not be worth it, but, to quote Paul, that's what Gates is trying to do.


http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/04...ng-increase.php
Repub_Bub
QUOTE (Davis 2.0 @ Apr 9 2009, 12:07 PM) *
GFYM

Not hardly...it's a testament to your worthlessness, you petty little freak. Punks kill veterans dog and all you got is WHATEVER.
Davis 2.0
I read the story and felt really bad. I didn't cry but I thought the perps were lucky to be alive. As far as the whatever you GD braying ass?
QUOTE
We have a huge supply of this type being trained in our "gubmit schools" and "no-father families".


This pile of sheit that tries to link crime with "gubmit" schools deserved whatever. So GFYM.
Repub_Bub
QUOTE (Davis 2.0 @ Apr 10 2009, 06:15 AM) *
I read the story and felt really bad. I didn't cry but I thought the perps were lucky to be alive. As far as the whatever you GD braying ass?


This pile of sheit that tries to link crime with "gubmit" schools deserved whatever. So GFYM.

Impressive technique...I was thinking that "whatever" was being used by an amateur...didn't realize you were a pro.
Davis 2.0
Stroke off. Please. Just fall down on the ground and die.
Repub_Bub
QUOTE (Davis 2.0 @ Apr 10 2009, 06:38 AM) *
Stroke off. Please. Just fall down on the ground and die.

Whatever...
smile.gif
Davis 2.0
now you understand
Lord_Proprietor
Something About Everything Military

Barbary Wars



Home : Armed Forces : The Marine Corps :

To The Shores Of Tripoli

Christopher Hitchens. To The Shores Of Tripoli. Time. July 5, 2004.


Muslim foes. Kidnappings. How the Barbary Wars foreshadowed things to come.

Within days of his March 1801 inauguration as the third President of the United States, Thomas Jefferson ordered a naval and military expedition to North Africa, without the authorization of Congress, to put down regimes involved in slavery and piracy. The war was the first in which the U.S. flag was carried and planted overseas; it saw the baptism by fire of the U.S. Marine Corps-whose anthem boasts of action on "the shores of Tripoli"-and it prefigured later struggles with both terrorism and jihad.

The Barbary States of North Africa-Algiers, Tunis, Morocco and Tripoli (today's Libya)-had for centuries sustained themselves by preying on the maritime commerce of others. Income was raised by direct theft, the extortion of bribes or "protection" and the capture of crews and passengers to be used as slaves. The historian Robert Davis, in his book Christian Slaves, Muslim Masters: White Slavery in the Mediterranean, the Barbary Coast and Italy, 1500-1800, estimates that as many as 1.25 million Europeans and Americans were enslaved. The Barbary raiders-so called because they were partly of Berber origin--struck as far north as England and Ireland. It appears, for example, that almost every inhabitant of the Irish village of Baltimore was carried off in 1631. Samuel Pepys and Daniel Defoe both mention the frightening trade in their writings; at that time, pamphlets and speeches by survivors and escaped slaves had a huge influence on the popular imagination. James Thomson's famously rousing 1740 song Rule Britannia, with its chorus about how Britons "never shall be slaves;' was a direct allusion to the Barbary terrorism.

Jefferson was appalled by this practice from an early stage of his career. In 1784 he wrote to James Madison about the Barbary depredations, saying, "We ought to begin a naval power, if we mean to carry on our commerce. Can we begin it on a more honorable occasion or with a weaker foe?" He added that John Paul Jones, the naval hero of the Revolutionary War, "with half a dozen frigates" could subdue the slave kingdoms of North Africa.



The year 1784 saw the American brig Betsey, with her crew of 10, captured by a Moroccan corsair while sailing with a cargo of salt from Spain to Philadelphia. Soon after, Algerian pirates grabbed the Dauphin and the Maria on the high seas of the Atlantic and took their crews captive. The situation was becoming worse because the British fleet had withdrawn protection of American vessels after the former colony declared its independence, and the U.S. had no navy of its own. Secretary of State John Jay decided to do what the European powers did and pay tribute to the Barbary sultans in exchange for safe passage as well as for the return of captured American slaves.

America's two main diplomats at the time were John Adams in London and Jefferson in Paris. Together they called upon Ambassador Abdrahaman, the envoy of Tripoli in London, in March 1786. This dignitary mentioned a tariff of three payments-for the ransom of slaves and hostages, for cheap terms of temporary peace and for more costly terms of "perpetual peace:' He did not forget to add his own commission as a percentage. Adams and Jefferson asked to know by what right he was exacting these levies. The U. S. had never menaced or quarreled with any of the Muslim powers. As Jefferson later reported to the State Department and Congress, "The Ambassador answered us that it was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners:'

Jefferson's recommendation was that the Administration refuse any payment of tribute and prepare at once to outfit a naval squadron to visit the Mediterranean in strength. Ultimately, he proposed, America should arrange for an international concert of powers composed of all those nations whose shipping and citizens were preyed upon. "Justice and Honor favor this course;' he wrote, adding that it would also save money in the long run.

Jefferson's daughter Martha wrote him in 1787 about a sea battle in which Americans used chains that Algerians had intended for them to enslave the Algerians instead. The irony of the alleged incident left Martha heartsick: "Good god have we not enough? I wish with all my soul that the poor negroes were all freed."

Adams agreed with the sentiment but did not think the recommendation was feasible. Congress at that time was in no mood to spend money for a fleet. Jefferson, however, never let the subject drop. In 1787 he approached Jones, who was down on his luck in Paris, out of work and having woman troubles as usual. Would Jones be interested in a job offer from Empress Catherine the Great of Russia, who Jefferson happened to know was looking for an admiral? That admiral's task would be to clear out the Turkish fleet from the Black Sea, on Russia s southern border.

Why would Jefferson want to act as recruiter for a European monarch? First, because he wanted to keep Jones employed and give him the type of combat experience that would befit the potential chief naval commander of the United States. Second, because three of the four Barbary States-Algiers, Tripoli and Tunis-were part of the Turkish, or Ottoman, Empire. Britain, which rather encouraged the Barbary powers to attack American ships, used Turkey as a counterweight in its war against Catholic powers on mainland Europe. Why shouldn't the U. S. reply in kind by discreetly helping Russia make life hard for the Turks?

Jones set off for St. Petersburg in May 1788, presented the Empress with a copy of the new U. S. Constitution, took command in the Black Sea and inflicted some hard blows on the Turkish fleet. He proposed going to the source by leading a Russian fleet into the Mediterranean, where it could interrupt Ottoman shipping between Constantinople and Egypt. For all this activity on the "infidel" side, Jones was rewarded by having a price put on his head by the ruler of Algiers. Meanwhile, however, he fell from favor at Empress Catherine's court and began to lose his health. Jefferson did not know this and had since become Secretary of State. In this capacity, he persuaded President George Washington to commission Jones to lead a delegation to Algiers, empowering him to give an ultimatum to the ruler. The package containing the commission and the instructions arrived in Paris only days after Jones had died there, in July 1792, from jaundice, nephritis and pneumonia. But Jefferson was still not discouraged.

The next year, 1793, saw Jefferson's retirement as Secretary of State and his withdrawal to Monticello. Like many of his temporary "resignations," this one was well timed. It meant that he did not have to express an opinion in the congressional debates on the military budget. Many of his Republican colleagues opposed the expense, as well as the principle, of having a permanent army and navy. The Federalist supporters of Adams, furthermore, desired a larger military budget in order to conduct hostilities against revolutionary France, a regime for which Jefferson felt sympathy. But by staying out of the political battle and biding his time, Jefferson ensured that when the hour struck for his own project, he could call on a fleet that Adams had built for him. In 1794, partly moved by the letters from American sailors held in Barbary dungeons and slave pens, Congress authorized the building of six frigates, three of which-the Constitution, the United States and the Constellation-were already completed. In July 1798 funds were approved for a Marine Corps as well.

Jefferson became President in early 1801, shortly after Yusuf Karamanli, the ruler of Tripoli, unwisely issued an ultimatum to the U. S.: If it did not pay him fresh tribute, he threatened, he would declare war on America. The new Commander in Chief coolly decided to let the ultimatum expire and take the declaration of war at face value. He summoned his new Cabinet, which approved the dispatch of a naval squadron and decided not to bother Congress-which was then in recess with the information. He did not, in fact, tell the elected representatives of his plans until the fleet was on the high seas and too far away to be recalled.

Over the next four years, in what Jefferson laconically described as a "cruise," the new American Navy bombarded the harbors of Algiers, Morocco and Tunis-or threatened them with bombardment-until the states gradually agreed to cease cooperating with Karamanli. The Tripoli government, however, remained defiant and even succeeded in boarding and capturing the Philadelphia in 1803. That led directly to an episode that, as Henry Adams records in his history of the two Jefferson administrations, used to be known to every American schoolboy. In February 1804, Captain Stephen Decatur Jr. sailed straight into Tripoli harbor and set on fire the captured Philadelphia. In August 1804 he helped rescue its crew from a gruesome imprisonment, bombarded the fortified town and boarded the pasha's own fleet where it lay at anchor. In the ensuing hand-to-hand combat, Decatur is said by legend-and by some eyewitnesses to have slain the very officer who, some hours before, had killed his brother, Lieut. James Decatur.

This rescue was inspiring news for the folks back home and other captives and slaves in North African hands, but the event was almost eclipsed by another daring raid the following year. In April 1805, Captain William Eaton put together a mixed force of Arab rebels and mercenaries and American Marines, and in a maneuver that has since been compared to that of the charismatic T E. Lawrence, led a desert march from inland that took Tripoli's second city, Derna, by surprise. Lieut. Presley O'Bannon of the Marine Corps hoisted the Stars and Stripes over the captured town, and the Marine anthem preserves his gesture to this day. Marine Corps Hymn Quite possibly the most recognizable military hymn in the world and the oldest official song in the U. S. Armed Forces.

That did not bring the conflict to a complete close, but it signaled the beginning of the end. Over the next few years, all four of the Barbary States signed treaties with America renouncing piracy, kidnapping and blackmail. Algiers had to be bombarded a few more times, and there was an awkward moment during negotiations in Washington when the Tunisian representative, Sidi Soliman Melli Melli, made it clear that he expected to be amused at public expense by some ladies of the night. (Jefferson and Secretary of State Madison were able to arrange an off-the record State Department budget for that purpose, thus demonstrating that they understood the facts of life.)

Taken together with some of Jefferson's other ambitious and quasi-constitutional moves-the Louisiana Purchase and the sending of the Lewis and Clark expedition to the West-the Barbary war exposed him to some Federalist and newspaper criticism for his secrecy, high-handedness and overly "presidential" style. But there was no arguing with success, and some historians believe that just as Jefferson was able to make use of Adams' Navy, so Madison, when he became President, was able to deploy Decatur's Navy, battle hardened and skillful, in the sterner combat of the War of 1812. Those who like to look for lessons for today might care to note that Jefferson did not act unilaterally until he was satisfied that European powers would not join his coalition and that he did not seek to impose a regime change or an occupation of the Barbary States. And those who ponder the ethics of history might take a crumb of comfort from the fact that though he could not bring himself to abolish slavery in the U.S. and even supported its retention in Haiti, Thomas Jefferson at least managed to destroy it somewhere.

Christopher Hitchens. To The Shores Of Tripoli. Time. July 5, 2004.


To the Shores of Tripoli: The Birth of the U.S. Navy and Marines


An often-overlooked yet significant and prophetic event in U.S. history, the Barbary War was America's first battle against an Arab despot and President Thomas Jefferson's first major challenge to U. S. foreign policy. As described by A.B.C. Whipple, it is a great yarn as well as first-rate history. The author skillfully combines vivid accounts of derring-do with shrewd appraisals of contemporary politics and diplomacy. Because the Continental Navy had been disbanded, there was an urgent need to develop a new Navy and Marine Corps. Faced with the choice of trading arms for hostages or meeting force with force, Jefferson sent a squadron of warships to the Mediterranean while Congress was in recess, prompting the first major debate on the war-making powers of a U.S. president. The war included a blockade of Tripoli, sustained bombardment by the Navy's new frigates, and finally a ground war fought by a U.S. Army captain, eight Marines, and a rabble of Christians and Arabs sent to free the hostages. Whipple's rousing narrative is filled with fascinating personalities. In addition to Jefferson, there is Commodore Edward Preble, the quarter-deck tyrant who commanded the first naval forces into battle; the bold junior officer Stephen Decatur; the tyrannical bashaw, Yusuf Karamanli; William Eaton, an early-day Lawrence of Arabia; Marine lieutenant Presley O'Bannon; and a host of others.
Lord_Proprietor
Bush Torture Memo Approved Use of Insects
Let's see... beheading vs. a centipede up your nose...
hummm. That was a tough one.
inyerface
any volunteers?
Lord_Proprietor
Evidence to the Contrary

J.G. Thayer - 04.18.2009 - 11:37 AM
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/in...hp/thayer/62672

Critics of the Bush administration are doing handsprings over the release of detailed memos that outline the interrogation techniques used by the CIA on captured terrorist suspects. We now know about such techniques as “dietary manipulation,” “attention grasp,” “walling,” “facial hold,” “facial slap,” “cramped confinement,” “wall standing,” “stress positions,” “sleep deprivation,” “insects placed in confinement box,” and the infamous “waterboarding.” This is the anti-Bush crowd’s Holy Grail, the virtual confession of horrific misdeeds. BUSH LIED!!!!! BUSH TORTURED!!!!! and all the rest.

But between the evidence and the conclusion lies a great gap that critics cheerfully leap over: do these techniques constitute “torture?”

Oh, absolutely, they’re unpleasant. I wouldn’t want to undergo any of them. But do they constitute “torture?”

The problem with leaping to that conclusion is that while “torture” is an ancient word with many associations and definitions, only one really matters in this context: United States law. And the law seems pretty clear: no, they do not constitute “torture.”

One of the key elements of the law is the word “intent,” and intent is a terribly difficult thing to prove. One often has to infer intent from circumstantial evidence, and in this case there is a great deal of that showing the interrogators desperately wanted to remain within the letter of the law:

• They repeatedly sought out legal advice from the Justice Department on interpreting the laws.

• They had medically-trained personnel on hand who could veto or end any interrogation techniques that they thought ran the risk of causing serious injury or lasting harm.

• They thoroughly documented their techniques, including how they considered them legal under the letter of the law.


These are the actions of people trying to meet the demands of their superiors while obeying the letter of the law.

For millennia human beings have been finding new and inventive and horrific ways to inflict pain and suffering on each other. Genuine torturers would look at the techniques plied by our CIA against these terrorist suspects and laugh in derision.

If there were violations of U.S. laws regarding torture the documents released this week don’t show it at all. On the contrary, they add to the evidence that the U.S. interrogators acted responsibly.
SpaceCowboy
QUOTE (Lord_Proprietor @ Apr 19 2009, 07:29 AM) *
Evidence to the Contrary

J.G. Thayer - 04.18.2009 - 11:37 AM
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/in...hp/thayer/62672

Critics of the Bush administration are doing handsprings over the release of detailed memos that outline the interrogation techniques used by the CIA on captured terrorist suspects. We now know about such techniques as “dietary manipulation,” “attention grasp,” “walling,” “facial hold,” “facial slap,” “cramped confinement,” “wall standing,” “stress positions,” “sleep deprivation,” “insects placed in confinement box,” and the infamous “waterboarding.” This is the anti-Bush crowd’s Holy Grail, the virtual confession of horrific misdeeds. BUSH LIED!!!!! BUSH TORTURED!!!!! and all the rest.

But between the evidence and the conclusion lies a great gap that critics cheerfully leap over: do these techniques constitute “torture?”

Oh, absolutely, they’re unpleasant. I wouldn’t want to undergo any of them. But do they constitute “torture?”

The problem with leaping to that conclusion is that while “torture” is an ancient word with many associations and definitions, only one really matters in this context: United States law. And the law seems pretty clear: no, they do not constitute “torture.”

One of the key elements of the law is the word “intent,” and intent is a terribly difficult thing to prove. One often has to infer intent from circumstantial evidence, and in this case there is a great deal of that showing the interrogators desperately wanted to remain within the letter of the law:

• They repeatedly sought out legal advice from the Justice Department on interpreting the laws.

• They had medically-trained personnel on hand who could veto or end any interrogation techniques that they thought ran the risk of causing serious injury or lasting harm.

• They thoroughly documented their techniques, including how they considered them legal under the letter of the law.


These are the actions of people trying to meet the demands of their superiors while obeying the letter of the law.

For millennia human beings have been finding new and inventive and horrific ways to inflict pain and suffering on each other. Genuine torturers would look at the techniques plied by our CIA against these terrorist suspects and laugh in derision.

If there were violations of U.S. laws regarding torture the documents released this week don’t show it at all. On the contrary, they add to the evidence that the U.S. interrogators acted responsibly.


I think this makes a pretty good retort-

QUOTE
The Banality Of Evil, Ctd

"I don't see it as a dark chapter in our history at all," - Charles Krauthammer, yesterday.

"The pictures are shocking and the practices appalling," - Charles Krauthammer, on Abu Ghraib, May 14, 2004.

As we now know, Bush and Cheney authorized torture techniques much worse than what we saw at Abu Ghraib, and as we now know, the techniques revealed at Abu Ghraib were garbled copies of practices already endorsed and authorized by the Bush White House. So what can possibly account for Krauthammer's shock at Abu Ghraib and pride in the torture program? That one was poorly organized and leaked? Or that Krauthammer's friends are now to be held responsible rather than reservists thrown into the deep end of the Rumsfeld gulag?


Or put it another way: imagine if an American operative out of uniform were captured by the Iranians tomorrow. Imagine he were put into a coffin for hours with no light and barely
enough air to breathe, imagine if he were then removed and smashed against a plywood wall
by a towel tied around his neck thirty times, imagine if he were then kept awake for eleven days in a row, then kept in a cell frozen to hypothermia levels, and then waterboarded multiple times, after which he confessed to being a spy trying to sabotage Iran's nuclear program. Would you believe that intelligence? Would Krauthammer? Would you believe both that he wasn't tortured and that the information he gave was reliable? That is what an otherwise intelligent human being is asking us to do not just in one case but in hundreds, in many of which the prisoner actually died under interrogation.


Would he also insist that what was done to the prisoner, however awful, could not be called torture under American law and the Geneva Conventions? Now imagine that the International Red Cross eventually got access to the prisoner and judged his treatment unequivocally torture; and that the Iranians claimed that since they merely applied "an alternative set of procedures" in order to gain critical intelligence that might have prevented a nuclear accident or sabotage, and remain in compliance with international treaties.

Can you imagine Krauthammer agreeing with Iran? And siding against the Red Cross? These are, of course, rhetorical questions. On every point, Krauthammer's moral and ethical standards are entirely dependent on who is torturing whom. If we do it, it's moral and it works. If they do it, it's evil and misleading.

It is important to note that this is underlying moral position of the leading conservative intellectual in Washington. And they say power doesn't corrupt.


http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_...l-ctd.html#more

It all depends on who is torturing whom.
inyerface
a good waterboarding would kill LP
inyerface
Marcy Wheeler digs through the recently-disclosed Office of Legal Counsel memos authored by the Bush Justice Department and finds these startling statistics: Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was waterboarded 183 times in March 2003 and Abu Zubaydah was waterboarded 83 times in August 2002. Wheeler concludes, “The CIA wants you to believe waterboarding is effective. Yet somehow, it took them 183 applications of the waterboard in a one month period to get what they claimed was cooperation


http://thinkprogress.org/2009/04/18/ksm-183-waterboarding/

http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/04/...s-in-one-month/
Lord_Proprietor
QUOTE (SpaceCowboy @ Apr 19 2009, 09:49 AM) *
I think this makes a pretty good retort-

The Banality Of Evil, Ctd dry.gif


http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_...l-ctd.html#more

It all depends on who is torturing whom.


QUOTE
The banality of evil is a phrase coined by Hannah Arendt and incorporated in the title of her 1963 work Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil.[1] It describes the thesis that the great evils in history generally, and the Holocaust in particular, were not executed by fanatics or sociopaths but rather by ordinary people who accepted the premises of their state and therefore participated with the view that their actions were normal


The difference, my friend, was that the NAZI were knowingly trying to annihilate the "Judaeus" people and our military and intel men were using accepted approved tactics (which most of our special forces had been subjected to in training) to try to save the lives of the US Citizens! - What's wrong with "you people"?

Just for information, Space, were you ever in the military? If not, it helps me understand a little better.
BrooklynBill
The Waco Butchers Are Back
by Anthony Gregory

Sixteen years ago we were reminded of the deadly danger of having the left-liberals in charge of the police state. The largest massacre of American civilians by the US government since Wounded Knee climaxed on April 19, 1993. The siege that had begun on February 28 with a botched ATF publicity stunt ended when the Branch Davidian church and home went up in flames, after an FBI-operated tank on lease from the military was driven through the building, pumping flammable CS gas for six hours into the place where women and children were cowering in fear. Chemistry professor George Uhlig later testified that the high concentration of the gas combined with poor ventilation subjected the women and children to conditions "similar to… the gas chambers used by the Nazis in Auschwitz."

On April 12, the FBI had ruled out using gas because it was dangerous to children. A week later, Bob Ricks, FBI Assistant Special Agent in Charge, said the gassing was "to make their environment as uncomfortable as possible until they do exit the compound." This excuse came after weeks of throwing flash-bang grenades at the building when people tried to leave.

Attorney General Janet Reno said the gas attack "was not meant to be D-Day. This was just a step forward in trying to bring about a peaceful resolution by constantly exerting further pressure to shrink the perimeter." This militaristic lingo was characteristic of the feds' approach throughout the siege. The government had waged psychological warfare by blaring obnoxious music, shining glaring lights and cutting the Davidians off water, electricity, their friends, attorneys and the press. Firefighters were not permitted near the scene as the flames continued engulfing the home. When it was all over, the ATF stuck its flag up on the building to declare victory.

At a press conference on April 20, a day after the FBI gassed American civilians, President Clinton said he did not believe "the Attorney General should resign because some religious fanatics murdered themselves." The press corps, in an unusually naked expression of solidarity with the government, applauded Clinton's statement.

This underscores the dynamic of having this crop in power. If even the liberals are for a show of force, it must have been necessary. The blame was put on the "religious fanatics," not the government fanatics, and the press and most Americans ate it all up.

The media slavishly pushed war propaganda in Bush's first term, but they will prove even more sycophantic of Obama. Fair-weather left-liberals who often criticize the most violent side of the Republican state look the other way as their leader jails people without trial, builds civilian surveillance systems, and kills innocents.

Over the last eight years, muckraking liberal journalists dissected every word and deed of the Bush regime, but under Clinton very few were bothered about the unambiguously atrocious nature of the federal raid at Waco. They did not care that Lon Horiuchi, the sniper who murdered Vicki Weaver at Ruby Ridge in August 1992, had been brought to Waco. They were not jumping up and down about Janet Reno using internationally banned chemical warfare on American children. They did not condemn the FBI for using explosives in addition to flammable gas and then lying about it. They were not concerned what it meant for the militarization of law enforcement, and did not ask why David Koresh, who had befriended federal agents, was friendly with local law enforcement, and had opened the Davidian home up for inspection, was simply not arrested when he was jogging or visiting the bar. The liberals did not wonder why the excuse for the raid shifted from a meth lab to illegal gun ownership to child abuse. They assumed that, as much as the government might have messed up the raid, the fault was primarily that of the victims. The fact that the Davidians were different and armed – though no more armed than the average Texan – was enough to dismiss their suffering and excuse the death of 80 Americans, many of them children, at the hands of law enforcement.

Many mainstream conservatives also backed the administration after Waco, but the weak reaction by the left-liberals, who Americans rely on as the outspoken critics of police abuses, was more important. Incidentally, many libertarians, broadly defined, also took the government's side. Notably, Objectivist Leonard Peikoff of the Ayn Rand Institute defended the state's raid and demonized the victims.

When Democratic administrations murder, the law-and-order right is often split. The left is in denial or supportive. And the press tends to spin the story to make the administration seem soft.

The headlines today emphasize Obama's rhetorical shift from the "war on terror" and his superficial changes in detention policy. The media push the notion that Obama has cut military spending, when he is doing the opposite.

Moreover, the continuity between the Clinton and Obama administrations is not encouraging. We have Hillary, who cheered on the belligerent foreign policy of her husband, the bomber of Belgrade, now in charge of State. We have a Justice Department even more committed to sovereign immunity than the last administration and headed up by Janet Reno's Deputy Attorney General Eric Holder.

Then there is the group the Democrats love to demonize: "Rightwing extremists." Clinton built a proto-Bushian police state around fear of militias. We saw a major blow to federal habeas corpus, which liberals claim to love, when the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act passed in 1996, in response to Oklahoma City and the supposed epidemic of rightwing militias. When John Ashcroft was being confirmed as Attorney General, his very suggestion that the U.S. government could become "tyrannical" was mocked as ridiculous and extremist by Ted Kennedy and liberals nationwide.

Today, we're seeing a return of anti-militia hysteria. Just as the federal government and its liberal defenders throughout the 1990s conflated patriotic Americans and peaceful separatists with dangerous "hate" groups and Rush Limbaugh's listeners with Timothy McVeigh, we have the same kind of culture-war nonsense today.

The Department of Homeland Security recently circulated a report that warns against the "Rise in Right-Wing Extremism." The document is apparently unclassified but nevertheless indicates it is "not to be released to the public, the media" or others who do not "need to know." The libertarian Judge Andrew Napolitano, who has roundly criticized the tyrannical usurpations of both Republicans and Democrats, writes:

The thrust of this report is that in the present environment of economic instability, returning military veterans, those who fear of the loss of Second Amendment-protected rights, those threatened by an African-American president, and those who fear "Jewish 'financial elites'" could all be a fertile breeding ground for groups whose power and ideas the government hates and fears. The document is essentially a warning for DHS and FBI officials to be on the look-out for rootless persons looking for the comfort of groups as they may be a danger to American security.

The summary (unclassified) document is terrifying. One can only imagine what is contained in the classified version. This document runs directly counter to numerous U.S. Supreme decisions prohibiting the government from engaging in any activities that could serve to chill the exercise of expressive liberties. Liberties are chilled, in constitutional parlance, when people are afraid to express themselves for fear of government omnipresence, monitoring, or reprisals. The document also informs the reader that Big Brother is watching both public and private behavior.

Do you oppose the Federal Reserve? Support states rights? Hate the income tax? Support the right to bear arms? Know the Constitution better than our rulers? You are a likely suspect of a hate crime. You are in the same class as violent racists and terrorists.

With the upsurge in gun and ammo purchases and the mysterious rise in mass shootings, we can expect more efforts to lump violent agitators together with normal Americans who simply wish to defend themselves and their families. With growing resentment about Washington's saddling future generations with debt, there will be more attempts to characterize Americans who hate paying ransom to a distant government with people who hate their country or want conflict. With the neglected veterans of Bush's wars having trouble readjusting to society or simply dissatisfied with the increasingly socialistic country they come home to after being told they were defending freedom, we will see this tragedy caused by the federal government disgustingly twisted into a way to bolster that government.

Many Republicans are making a big stink about the DHS report, but others have pointed out that the administration has also warned about "left-wing extremists" and so it is no big deal. Most grassroots conservatives are rightly outraged, although they do not see the continuity from the Bush era. As I warned them on LRC precisely four years ago:

Conservatives today might be able to wrap themselves in the flag and condemn dissidents as traitors, but before they know it, another Clinton might come to power and they'll be the ones again accused of assisting the enemy by opposing the State. They might come, once again, to see the difference between love of country and love of the government, only it might be too late to bask in the distinction, thanks to the anti-dissident political atmosphere they are helping right now to create. Today's leftists, it is to be hoped, will remember the feeling of being branded a traitor, should a Democrat be in power during the next national crisis or war.

The next national crisis has come and the left has for the most part not learned its lessons. Now that their guy is in power, we are back to the peculiar political dynamic of the 1990s, when the left-liberal police state conducted atrocities and dissent was thin.

Of course in reality, the policies are bipartisan. Ruby Ridge happened and Waco was planned under Republicans, and Waco was whitewashed by the Republican Danforth Report. The Homeland Security Department and the Fusion Centers going after rightwing militia were begun in the Bush era. Under Bush the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act, which targeted many of the same groups today targeted by Obama, won the support of the overwhelming majority of Republican Congressmen. But what changes most is the way the public reacts to state violence, and with left-liberals at the throne police brutality and massacres tend to be more tolerated by the mainstream. It is somehow politically correct when a Democratic administration cracks down on the most marginalized people in society.

Meanwhile, the Obama regime is raiding medical marijuana clinics in violation of the spirit of campaign promises, continuing most dictatorial Bush terror policies, and scheming new ways to censor and control us. They want to take over the internet. They are contemplating more citizen disarmament, a move toward national service and more cradle-to-grave welfarism. By casting "rightwing extremists" as the Other, they can use this domestic bogeyman to expand upon the tools of oppression Bush constructed in the name of fighting the foreign bogeyman. It will aggravate the culture war and cause social division, but we must remember it is the state that is doing this dividing.

Obama has already killed a lot of foreigners. He has already broken key promises on civil liberties and transparency. He has already looted enough for five years of profligate spending. Let us hope his team does not react to "rightwing extremists" the way Clinton's did at Waco. They would get away with it.

April 18, 2009

Anthony Gregory is a research analyst at the Independent Institute and editor-in-chief of the Campaign for Liberty. He lives in Berkeley, California. See his webpage for more articles and personal information.



http://www.lewrockwell.com/gregory/gregory186.html
inyerface
QUOTE
Imagine that you knew someone who had to spend double on dinner what everyone else dining in a decent restaurant was spending. The average meal for the rest of you costs 25 dollars. This guy insists on spending $10,000 on one meal, of the same food, prepared by the same chef.


There are few statistics as stunning as the following simple, single number: The United States spends two times more on its military than all the other countries of the world, combined.

Yes, that's right. All 200 or so of them. Combined.

According to GlobalSecurity.org, last year, the US dropped about $625 billion in taxpayer dollars on its military, while all the rest of the world together spent $500 billion. (The aggregate global figures come from 2004, but have been steady over the prior decade.) However, if you also add in nuclear weapons costs handled separately by the Energy Department, Veterans Affairs, interest on money borrowed to fund previous wars, and the current wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the total rises to a jaw-dropping one trillion dollars per year.

QUOTE
In short, in exchange for the privilege of dwarfing the entire rest of the solar system in military spending, in order to defend ourselves against an enemy we don't have, the United States has purchased a second rate healthcare system, a second rate educational system, and social and economic characteristics within spitting distance of Sub-Saharan Africa.


. . . .


It wasn't some long-haired, Birkenstocks-wearing, pipe-smoking, Berkeley professor of French literature, after all, who warned us of the dangers of the metastasizing military industrial complex. It was Dwight Eisenhower - conservative Republican president, lifetime military man, commander of NATO and hero of World War II.

Eisenhower was right, of course, although it would have been nice had he acted on his wisdom during his two terms, rather than sounding hypocritical warnings about this danger only as he walked out the door.


from Home of the Barricaded, Land of the 'Fraid
http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/21343
SpaceCowboy
QUOTE (inyerface @ Apr 21 2009, 07:55 AM) *
the United States has purchased a second rate healthcare system, a second rate educational system, and social and economic characteristics within spitting distance of Sub-Saharan Africa.


What BS.
inyerface
key word "purchased"

Banks Take Billions From TARP, but Give Fewer Loans
Craigslist Killer Owed Gambling Debts
Justices hear arguments over school strip search
Video-game-playing kids showing addiction symptoms
More Paralysis Sufferers Than Previously Thought
Wealthy polo-loving crowd jarred by horses' deaths
http://news.google.com/nwshp?hl=en&tab=wn
inyerface
Pravda
QUOTE (SpaceCowboy @ Apr 21 2009, 08:01 AM) *
What BS.


The US has purchased top care and education for those that can afford it. For those who can't afford it there is little care and substandard education. I'm sure with a little work you could stretch the same system to work a little better for the have-nots.
inyerface
Data on new U.S. fighter jet hacked, officials say
Thousands of confidential files on the F-35, the U.S. military's most technologically advanced fighter aircraft, have been compromised by unknown computer hackers over the past two years, according to senior defense officials.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/04/21/pentagon.hacked/index.html


QUOTE
unknown... for 2 years
Repub_Bub
QUOTE (inyerface @ Apr 21 2009, 05:40 PM) *
Data on new U.S. fighter jet hacked, officials say
Thousands of confidential files on the F-35, the U.S. military's most technologically advanced fighter aircraft, have been compromised by unknown computer hackers over the past two years, according to senior defense officials.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/04/21/pentagon.hacked/index.html

That oughta make your day...another stone torn down to assist the leveling process.
inyerface
defend the bozos
inyerface
It’s becoming a disturbingly familiar scene in America - aggressive, overbearing and mentally unstable cops who think that it is an arrestable offense not to obey their every order - harassing citizens who have done absolutely nothing wrong.

The latest example comes from El Paso, Texas, where a local ABC news reporter and his cameraman were arrested simply for something they routinely do every day as part of their job - filming traffic incidents.

The reporters, Darren Hunt and photojournalist Ric DuPont, were standing behind a barrier well away from the car wreck but were quickly approached by the cop - Sgt. Ramirez - who immediately shouted that they had to leave.

As the video shows, despite the fact that the reporters start to back away towards their truck, the cop runs after them after one of them dares to speak - reminding the officer that America is supposed to be a free country with freedom of the press and that the cameraman “can shoot if he wants to”.

The cop then grabs Hunt by his pants and threatens to arrest him, shouting, “I gave you an order,” with the reporter protesting, “I didn’t do anything.”

Presumably, the cop thinks that it is illegal and therefore an arrestable offense not to follow any order given by a police officer - or even worse - because the reporters were actually following his order - the cop thinks its an arrestable offense merely to verbally disagree with a police officer.

Despite the reporter not resisting or attempting to return to the scene of the wreck, the cop tries to slap the cuffs on anyway. “I’m not doing anything, I’m just trying to leave sir,” states Hunt as the cop wildly shrieks behind him and pulls his arms behind his back.

The officer then pushes Hunt up against the fence and turns to grab DuPont’s camera, before he too is arrested. With the two reporters now out of view, more insane shrieking can be heard from the cop.

Upon arrival at the police station, the reporters were released within minutes - proving that they had done absolutely nothing worthy of being arrested in the first place. Sgt. Ramirez has been placed on leave pending an investigation.

Some have speculated that the presence of military soldiers at the scene of the car wreck, which is captured on film near the end of the clip, was something that the authorities did not want to be documented on camera.

As we have previously warned, thousands of active duty military personnel are being brought back from Iraq and Afghanistan to conduct “homeland patrols” under Northcom. The Army Times reported that their duties would include training to “use jaws of life to extract a person from a mangled vehicle,” as well as ” civil unrest and crowd control.”

We have been ringing the alarm bell for years about the integration of the military into law enforcement and have consistently warned that the idea of troops on the streets as a matter of routine will be incrementally introduced to Americans by means of soldiers being used in traffic accidents. This would engender the idea that the troops are here to “help” in times of need.

However, the troops may have just been traveling to or from their army base and happened to come across the accident and offer assistance, which is perfectly plausible.

The major thing to take away from watching this video is the insane behavior of the cop and his belief that citizens must comply with his every order or face arrest, despite them having done nothing wrong whatsoever.

These scenes are becoming commonplace in America. Something has gone seriously wrong somewhere along the line with police training, a fact highlighted by the recent MIAC and Homeland Security reports, which revealed that police are being trained that American citizens who are merely knowledgeable about their rights under the U.S. constitution are considered a threat and potential terrorists.

(video)
http://www.prisonplanet.com/insane-cop-arr...c-accident.html
Lord_Proprietor
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/a...ms-for-pirates/
SpaceCowboy
QUOTE (Lord_Proprietor @ Apr 22 2009, 10:19 AM) *

Sounds ok to me.


Not that the incident is all that much of a "test" for a President, but he/they did ok.
Lord_Proprietor
http://www.roswellufofestival.com/symposium.htm

laugh.gif laugh.gif laugh.gif
inyerface
Previous Swine Flu Outbreak Originated At Fort Dix
http://www.prisonplanet.com/previous-swine...m-fort-dix.html
Mass vaccination program was halted after hundreds contracted debilitating nerve disease

QUOTE
More than 40 million people were vaccinated. However, the program was stopped short after over 500 cases of Guillain-Barre syndrome, a severe paralyzing nerve disease, were reported. 30 people died as a direct result of the vaccinations.

Unanswered questions regarding the outbreak remain to this day. According to a CDC investigation, It is not known why the virus did not extend beyond basic trainees or beyond the military base. The source of the virus, the exact time of its introduction into Fort Dix, and factors limiting its spread and duration remain unknown.
inyerface
Czech newspapers are questioning if the shocking discovery of vaccines contaminated with the deadly avian flu virus which were distributed to 18 countries by the American company Baxter were part of a conspiracy to provoke a pandemic.

The claim holds weight because, according to the very laboratory protocols that are routine for vaccine makers, mixing a live virus biological weapon with vaccine material by accident is virtually impossible.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/accidental-con...impossible.html
inyerface
In a ‘Holy convenience, Batman!’ moment, a ‘unique‘ flu virus (one likely concocted in US Army labs) overtakes media coverage of revelations that the highest levels of the US government instructed the CIA (and private contractors) to torture terror suspects.

Scientists said the virus combines genetic material from pigs, birds and humans in a way researchers have not seen before. “We are very, very concerned,” World Health Organization spokesman Thomas Abraham said. “We have what appears to be a novel virus and it has spread from human to human,” he said. “It’s all hands on deck at the moment.”

Guess where the first swine flu outbreak occurred? That’s right, Fort Dix . . .

http://www.prisonplanet.com/flu-kills-the-torture-memos.html

QUOTE
Every major media outlet has reported the fact that US/UK bioterrorists have been manipulating the avian flu virus in university and Army labs. This new flu strain, one that ‘no one has ever seen,’ contains avian flu. Now, how does *that* happen?
Bob_K
You're a nut.
Nomarchy
QUOTE (Bob_K @ Apr 26 2009, 12:23 PM) *
You're a nut.


Whilst you're the paragon of rationality with your bullshit in re CO2, for example.
arebuntz
QUOTE (Bob_K @ Apr 26 2009, 03:23 PM) *
You're a nut.

Nut or Inyeriot?
Bob_K
QUOTE (arebuntz @ Apr 26 2009, 12:50 PM) *
Nut or Inyeriot?


yes
inyerface
any dunce in a storm of truth
inyerface
Killer flu recreated in the lab
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3719990.stm
October, 2004
Some experts believe a flu pandemic is overdue
Scientists have shown that tiny changes to modern flu viruses could render them as deadly as the 1918 strain which killed millions.
A US team added two genes from a sample of the 1918 virus to a modern strain known to have no effect on mice.

Animals exposed to this composite were dying within days of symptoms similar to those found in human victims of the 1918 pandemic.

Top-secret Livermore anti-germ lab opens
February 2, 2008
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?...2/BA81UQIOK.DTL

The United States has flatly denied allegations it was producing biological weapons from bird flu samples
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-03/...ent_7806186.htm

Army: 3 vials of virus samples missing from Maryland facility
April 22, 2009
http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/04/22/missing.v...mple/index.html
Arturo_Vandelay
QUOTE
Vander Linden said the investigators know that several years ago an entire freezer full of biological samples broke down and all the samples had to be safely destroyed. But a complete inventory of what was in the freezer was not done before the samples were destroyed. Vander Linden said there's a "strong possibility" the vials were in that freezer and destroyed, but that isn't known for sure
.
inyerface
they've always been honest and forthecoming
Arturo_Vandelay
Defect.
inyerface
support our oops
Arturo_Vandelay
Ain't no we with you.
inyerface
mirror check

This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2010 Invision Power Services, Inc.