chucK

just like a train wreck....can't .... turn .... away

I guess you didn't process the competing data that says terrorism has essentially been going down for 24 years? Interesting you mention only 10 years of appeasement. Shoudn't you go back about 20 years to include Reagan and Iran-Contra?

Difficult to compare the two. For one thing, the prisoners at San Quentin have been convicted or have plead guilty. Surely, there are some miscarriages of justice here, but probably not the 70-90% false-imprisonment rate that is being estimated by the Red Cross for the detainees in Iraq. Second, though allowing prisoners to brutalize each other is bad, it's not as bad as having the guards doing the systematic brutalization. I like Peter's point about the fact that releasing the photos harms the prisoners even more. It seemes like a plausible reason the administration could use to withhold release. It is interesting that their current stated reason for withholding the pictures is so the soldiers' proceedings are not interfered with. That doesn't seem to hold water because the court martials are just done using a panel of judges that are going to see all the pictures anyway aren't they. They're probably using the "protect the military" excuse because it will play better with the US public and the vets in particular. I talked to this vet today, and he said he got this giant plaque just the other day from Bush and Rumsfeld, thanking him for his service during the Cold War. He said it was so big it didn't even fit in the mail! I wonder if the administration is worried about losing vet votes when sacrificing those 6 enlisted personell? This guy I was talking to was all supportive of the torturers.

here you go

Where do they categorize all the wounded and killed in Iraq? I didn't see them in that list. Maybe you should also write, "Less dead in Vietnam-style quagmires than in the 60's, a time that liberals celebrate!"

I'm not so sure about how much the prez affects and can affect the economy, but !!

Just curious what is one example? Or are you just repeating the (deceptive) Bush/Cheney ads? And even if you are right, as opposed to voting for a guy that you have watched in office for four years and know with certainty that he has continually distorted the truth AND has royally screwed our country? I think it's an easy choice, even if Kerry has committed the sin of actually talking to the public about what they want and vowing to do it. Empty promises versus obvious disregard for sound leadership decisions? I'll take the former. Scary unknown versus horrible known? I'll take the former.

I think it (JAG officer) would be a good title for you cracked. Better than Gortboy anyway .

It'd be cool to be able to haul a pad and maybe some sort of balcony contraption up to the base of Sloe Children.

Maybe in a different time, but right now Iran is surrounded by what, 200,000?, US troops, probably just begging to be rolling tanks over troops instead of the ugly job of civillian pacification. I'd say that's a credible deterrent. If you think it'd be OK for Israel to bomb Iran. What about using nuclear weapons on them and really putting an end to Iran? What do you think about that idea Peter Puget? I'll bet that would keep Iran off of their back for a while, as well every other arab country, except maybe Pakistan I guess.

I'm trying to listen to the senate hearings in between doing work and responding to Peter Puget's grilling. The southern republican rep. (majority leader?) said, "...unlike Lindsey Graham who was an actual JAG officer" If you don't get it, say it a couple times quickly.

By imminent danger, I mean something bad will almost definitely happen to them, short of action by them. Why am I being singled out here with regards to Israel? I don't ever get into these flame wars regarding Israel. I tried to shift the discussion to the US in Iraq and you quashed that.

No. They are not in imminent danger.

Well, if you put it that way, given the current environment of the ME I'd say Israel has nothing to worry about. So no. I don't think they should bomb Iran.

Yep, where does it end? If the Arab league were totally convinced that Israel was going to end their existence, then of course how could you fault them for attempting to survive. Of course, I doubt the Arab League could pull it off. Just like Iraq couldn't really do much with the US breathing down its neck.

Could I get an executive summary of that wordy link please? Oh nevermind, I think I get the gist, but since I don't want to read that whole thing I will make my response conditional. If there is very good evidence that there is a real and imminent threat to Israel, then as a matter of self-preservation I would not hold it against them if they bombed Iranian nuclear facilities. On the other hand, if it's just a bunch of trumped up BS meant to further some other agenda that the public would not otherwise support, then I'd say no. I would not support it.

I thought it was funny that he was worried about people questioning his motives. I mean, he's thrown out three or four motives for his Iraq fiasco so far, each of which has been exposed as a bald-faced lie. Now he's trying to say this prisoner scandal is the thing making people question his motives. That's rich! "Which motive 'zactly you talkin' 'bout there George?" I like the idea of hilarious shrub route too Klenke!

May 10., 2004 "It has given some an excuse to question our cause and to cast doubts on our motives"

How about this quote from Bush himself? "There's no question that Saddam Hussein had al Qaeda ties." You can view the quote in context at this left-wing liberal site: www.whitehouse.gov .

I don't get how that's bad etiquette Isn't it nicer that they leave more untracked snow?

Yep, classic conspiracy theory, total conjecture. I just started this thread out because I just couldn't figure out what anyone would want with those pictures. I realize that many of these soldiers are probably total dumbshits from rural nowhereland, but I wasn't aware that in rural nowhereland that a picture of yourself as torturer was an exciting souvenir. But, you could be right. Like I said in another post: These US soldiers are living in an unreal hellish world. I mean, they are part of a force that is bulldozing people's houses, bombing whole buildings full of people, shooting into crowds, etc.... compare the recent torture pictures to that video posted a while ago of three sitting-duck insurgents being turned into sloppy joe by a high-caliber machine gunner with night vision technology. I can see how someone over there could become numb to death, pain and mutilation and easily fall into torture. Check out that Stanford Prison Experiment websight. In that, the head PhD researcher started losing himself in that roleplaying, while in the cush confines of Stanford University. Imagine what can happen to your run-of-the-mill soldiers who joined the Army for the money once immersed in the hellish situation that must like to be an American soldier in Iraq right now. Anyway...the above paragraph is not to excuse the behaviour of the camera-mugging torturers. I guess it is to say that this kind of shit just happens. When you invade another country with 100,000+ troops and occupy a hostile population, ugly shit is just gonna happen. People who were for this war from the beginning should have known this. If not, they were/are uninformed. War is messy. People get hurt. Torturing, mayhem, death defines and is commonplace in war. The fault for the torturing is with those six scapegoats, but it's also with everyone who has supported this administration's rush to war. Maybe via this war we have saved countless peoples from torture under Saddam. You can praise yourselves for that undetermined number, but if you take credit for that, you also gotta take responsibility for the tortured, raped, killed in the detention centers, for the thousands killed by US bombs, guns, tanks etc. And finally, for the thousands of US soldiers injured and/or disabled, and for the 770 US soldiers killed. So far.

From the above link Robert Kagan, a neoconservative supporter of the Iraq war, wrote: "All but the most blindly devoted Bush supporters can see that Bush administration officials have no clue about what to do in Iraq tomorrow, much less a month from now."

That's the due process thing I was talking about. You know, getting to go before a judge and having them decide whether there's enough evidence to hold you in jail. Also that little bit about them having to actually charge you with something to hold you in jail. I'm all for that stuff.

"The sources said Mayfield, 37, is being called a material witness, which means he can be held and not charged." link (CNN) your mug could be here, especially if you convert to Islam