[Ninong]

I think it's 70% Machiavellian and 30% Orwellian in the sense that the government isn't really in control a la 1984. I think the folks who think they control the Republican Party at this point in time are overplaying their hand. There are already signs of internal strife within the Republican ranks and that, coupled with the 49% of the people who did not vote for the President, will provide the impetus for the downfall of the right-wing religious fanatics.

If the Democrats make gains in both Houses of Congress in the mid-term elections, you will see a change in the Republican Party. People like Frist and DeLay will be dumped like hot potatoes just like they dumped Gingrich.

[Ninong]

The reason I didn't give them a 100% Machiavellian rating is because Dubya is no Cesare Borgia. That's the saving grace of this whole mess. The people in charge are so incredibly incompetent. Which I guess is both the good news and the bad news.

[Penguin]

nt

[Ninong]

... about interrogation of detainees at Guantanamo: http://www.newyorker.com/online/cont...n_onlineonly01

[Ninong]

Another report alleging mistreatment of "suspects" by Iraqi forces: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4672433.stm

Nine building workers have died in Iraq after being arrested on suspicion of insurgent activity and then left in a closed metal container.

Three men survived the ordeal, police sources said, despite being left for 14 hours in the burning Iraqi summer heat.

[schrocat]

"In the face of such adversaries, there is only one course of action: We will continue to take the fight to the enemy and we will fight until this enemy is defeated."
Bush 2.0 on July 11th


Rumsfeld must be too old to use email...I'm sure "Mr. 12 Years" is on at least one White House distribution list...

[Ninong]

That was an interesting hearing that took place in Washington this past week. We learned from their testimony that the judge advocate generals (JAGs) for the Army, Air Force and Marines all opposed the Justice Department's new definition of torture and how it would be applied to interrogations of enemy prisoners. We already knew that Secretary of State Colin Powell disagreed, now we know that he was not alone.

Who knew that the President of the United States was not subject to either international law or our own laws when it comes to the performance of his duties as Commander-in-Chief? I have highlighted this little tidbit in bold at the bottom of the selected excerpts:


Three top military lawyers said yesterday that they lodged complaints about the Justice Department's definition of torture and how it would be applied to interrogations of enemy prisoners captured by U.S. forces, the first time they have publicly acknowledged that they objected to the policy as it was being developed in early 2003.

At a Senate hearing yesterday, the judge advocate generals (JAGs) for the Army, Air Force and Marines said they expressed their concerns as the policy was being hashed out at the Pentagon in March and April 2003.

(...)

According to senators at the hearing yesterday who cited military investigations into abuse, the JAG concerns ultimately were overruled by the general counsel's office.

(...)

Sen. Carl M. Levin (Mich.), ranking Democrat on the committee, asked the JAGs if they felt the tactics recently reported by investigators were consistent with Geneva Conventions prohibitions on torture. Air Force Maj. Gen. Jack Rives said he believed they were inconsistent. Levin also asked the generals if they would want U.S. prisoners of war treated that way.

"No, Senator, we would not," Rives said.

Graham and Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) argued that perhaps Congress should legislate the definitions of enemy combatants and their official legal status, as well as the legal process for adjudicating their cases. They said the delays that have kept hundreds of detainees at Guantanamo Bay without a single prosecution need to end. The military is currently waiting on federal court decisions about how to proceed.

A law enacted in 1994 bars torture by U.S. military personnel anywhere in the world. But the Pentagon working group's 2003 report, prepared under the supervision of general counsel William J. Haynes II, said that "in order to respect the President's inherent constitutional authority to manage a military campaign . . . [the prohibition against torture] must be construed as inapplicable to interrogations undertaken pursuant to his Commander-in-Chief authority."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...071402187.html

P.S. -- Obviously the White House believes that "Commander-in-Chief authority" is virtually unlimited. This opens all sorts of possibilities, especially if Al-Qaida terrorists should strike again on American soil. It may be necessary for the Commander-in-Chief to use his authority to suspend other laws that we have come to love and cherish in the name of "managing a military campaign."

John McCain described the administration's loop-hole of using torture against enemy combatants - that Geneva's "principles" should be applied only "to the extent appropriate and consistent with military necessity" - as "as wide open as anything I have ever heard."

P.P.S. -- Another point I'll throw in here that we have discussed previously: The reason the FBI Director has ordered his agents to leave the room whenever CIA agents enter to interrogate prisoners is because CIA agents, when outside the territory of the United States, are not subject to the same constraints as the FBI and the U.S. military according to a ruling by the Justice Department. Furthermore, the Justice Department has decided that Guantanamo is not subject to the laws of either Cuba or the United States. It is in that sense a base without a country. CIA agents in Guantanamo are considered to be acting "outside the United States." This is one of the reasons the detainees were sent there in the first place. It is also extremely secure, which is an obvious necessity.

[Ninong]

It's painfully obvious from my above post that everything that has happened at Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo and elsewhere was the result of policies promolgated by the White House and the civilian chiefs at the Pentagon with the blessing of people like Alberto Gonzales. What may not have been known before was that people like Maj. Gen. Geoffrey Miller, famous for the invention of special interrogation techniques at Guantanamo, have lied to try to hide the direct link to the White House. Miller did such a great job at Guantanamo that he was sent to Abu Ghraib to "Gitmoize" it. The civilian chiefs at the Pentagon decided that Abu Ghraib was too soft and could use some of General Miller's personal instruction.

And we now know that the same techniques that were employed at Abu Ghraib originated at Guantanamo.


General contradicted his sworn testimony on Pentagon, Abu Ghraib


BY STEPHEN J. HEDGES

Chicago Tribune


WASHINGTON - (KRT) - An Army general who has been criticized for his role in the treatment of prisoners at the Guantanamo Bay detention center and Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq has contradicted his sworn congressional testimony about contacts with senior Pentagon officials.

Gen. Geoffrey Miller told the Senate Armed Services Committee in May 2004 that he had only filed a report on a recent visit to Abu Ghraib, and did not talk to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld or his top aides about the fact-finding trip.

But in a recorded statement to attorneys three months later, Miller said he gave two of Rumsfeld's most senior aides - then-Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and Undersecretary for Intelligence Steve Cambone - a briefing on his visit and his subsequent recommendations.

"Following our return in the fall, I gave an outbrief to both Dr. Wolfowitz and Secretary Cambone," Miller said in the Aug. 21, 2004, statement to lawyers for guards accused of prisoner abuse, a transcript of which was obtained by the Chicago Tribune.

"I went over the report that we had developed and gave them a briefing on the intelligence activities, recommendations, and some recommendations on detention operations," Miller added.

Specific interrogation techniques, he said, were not discussed.

Miller's statement about the meeting, if true, suggests that officials at the very top of the Pentagon may have been more involved in monitoring activities at the prison than previously disclosed. Abu Ghraib was later at the center of a scandal surrounding prisoner abuse, which has led to punishments for soldiers.

http://www.sanluisobispo.com/mld/san...s/12135066.htm

[Ninong]

Why are all these suicide bombers that we are fighting in the War on Terrorism, uh, pardon, make that the Struggle Against Extremists, willing to blow themselves to kingdom come?

I searched for the answer on the White House's own website and here it is: http://www.google.com/search?hs=5rM&...om&btnG=Search Results 1 - 10 of about 799 from whitehouse.gov for hate freedom.

So now we know. They're blowing themselves up right and left because they hate freedom.

P.S. -- "Hate freedom" is replacing "working hard," "hard work," and "resolute" as the President's favorite phrase. He actually used "working hard" and "hard work" seventeen times during one of the debates with John Kerry. That was his favorite answer when his battery pack wasn't working properly.

[schrocat]

Dear Mr Half Empty Glass,

What's wrong with you!
I thought you'd be happy the war was officially over!!!!

[Ninong]

Originally Posted by schrocat

I thought you'd be happy the war was officially over!!!!

It's not officially over until we "win." We will declare "victory" sometime late next summer before the mid-term elections. We will begin withdrawing our troops and congratulate the mullahs who will be in charge of the new Islamic Republic of Iraq. Their Iranian allies will take over primary responsibility for military and police training and security supervision. Their new Constitution will be based on Sharia law but it won't be as strict as Saudi Arabia. It will be very much like the new, more repressive regime in Iran. All political parties will have to be approved by the religious authorities who will be in charge of the government once we declare victory and get the hell out of there. And don't expect anybody to shake Condoleezza Rice's hand because they don't touch women, just ask their current Prime Minister, Ibrahim al-Jaafari. He refuses to shake hands with women, even when they are heads of state. You might also ask him what pacts he signed in Tehran a couple of weeks ago. Not that they can take effect until after the U.S. pulls out. Iran pledged full military and security cooperation with their new Shiite-controlled neighbor. The Kurds had better insist on full autonomy before they agree to the new Constitution.

Everybody in the administration who had a hand in this "victory" will be awarded the Medal of Freedom, which will look nice on their resume when they interview with Halliburton.

P.S. -- If you were referring to the War on Terrorism, it's not really over, it just has a new, less scary name -- Global Struggle Against Violent Extremism (GSAVE). There! Don't you feel safer now?

[schrocat]

I support the people of "Iranq" and their choice of oppresive religion and medieval law.

Now, at least someone is going to recite a prayer or two before public hangings, immolations of convenience, and chipper shredder dispatchings.

Saddam didn't.


I'm just happy the war is over.

"Mullah Accomplished!!"

[Ninong]

Everything's coming up roses in Baghdad these days. The new Iraqi Constitution will be ready by the August 15th. deadline. Bush insists that it be ready, ready or not. The Iraqi elections have to be held by Dec. 15th. so that we can start pulling out before our mid-term elections.

Peace and freedom are in the air. Baghdad is a wonderful place to visit and just as safe as Houston. Just ask Tom DeLay. By the way, does Houston still have truckloads of headless bodies being dumped on roadsides daily? Just wondering: http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/news/news-iraq.html?

P.S. -- Another reason Bush would like to speed things up is that his poll numbers are sinking faster than Jesse Helms' credibility at an NAACP convention:

Gallop poll in late November 2001: Bush's favorable rating at 87%, unfavorable rating at 11%.

Gallop poll released July 29, 2005: Bush's favorable rating is 44%, his unfavorable rating is 51%. And that's just on overall job performance, you really don't want to know what the public thinks about his handling of the Iraq War.

[Ninong]

Originally Posted by schrocat

"Mullah Accomplished!!"

Speaking of which, has anyone seen Mullah Omar lately? Talk about attention deficit disorder. We start a new war before we even finish up with the first one. C'mon, how hard can it be to find a one-eyed mullah and a 6'5" Arab in flowing white robes hooked up to a kidney dialysis machine? Could make somebody $50 million richer. I know it's $25 million for Osama and I suppose it's $25 million for Mullah Omar, too, but maybe it's only a measly $10 million.

How much do you get for catching the #3 Al-Qaida man? We've caught four different #3 Al-Qaida guys in the past year or so, even one who wasn't on anybody's list. How can you be #3 and nobody even knows your name? He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named. Maybe Karl Rove is really the #3 Al-Qaida guy? Maybe he's a double agent or something? Maybe we should ask JimmyJeff?

[Ninong]

Originally Posted by schrocat

I support "Tribal Values" ...why can't you?

Dude, didn't you get the memo? Didn't you even listen to the President's speech?

In his second inaugural this January, Bush outlined the official foreign policy of the United States:

"The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands. The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world. America's vital interests and our deepest beliefs are now one."

(Too bad Eisenhower didn't feel that way half a century ago when we overthrew the very popular, democratically elected President of Iran and installed our pet dictator, the Shah. That did wonders for the progression of democracy in the region. Eisenhower said we couldn't afford to lose control of the then second largest known oil reserves in the world.)

The Chosen One (chosen by God, according to him) has now declared that it is our mission to install democracy in all other countries where it is lacking. We could be busy for a very long time. Our vital interests are at stake in Iraq. Everything depends on their successful transition to democracy. This is the real reason we went to war over there. To install democracy. That WMD thing was just a front. The real reason was to install democracy. All those guys in Houston didn't know what they were talking about. Oil had absolutely nothing to do with it.

Their choice of oppressive religion and medieval law.

How would that be any different from the wing of the Republican Party that calls the shots over here? And besides, if it's a true democracy, they get to chose whatever form of government their little hearts desire without any help from us, right? I'm sure they'll get plenty enough help from Tehran.

[schrocat]

And besides, if it's a true democracy, they get to chose whatever form of government their little hearts desire without any help from us, right? I'm sure they'll get plenty enough help from Tehran.

Is that a way to treat an invited guest?
It would be rude to deny a few battalions of Iranian Military Trainers input in future voting.
These Advisors will probably be called upon to help with the "Kurd redistricting issue" that will arrive 2 days after our troops leave.

[schrocat]

"The White House dropped the phrase `war on terror' when polls showed no one thought we were winning it. They think they know how to make it more popular. They're going to stop calling it `war on terror' and start calling it `Shrek 3.'"
--Argus Hamilton

[Poseidon]

Originally Posted by Ninong

He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named.

To take this in a whole 'nother direction- I didn't know NINONG was a Harry Potter fan!

[Ninong]

Originally Posted by Poseidon

To take this in a whole 'nother direction- I didn't know NINONG was a Harry Potter fan!

I can't say that I've actually read any of J. K. Rowling's books but one can't help but be acquainted with the writings of someone who is probably the most financially successful author of all time. I'm sure she can't be half as bad as Danielle Steele, another woman whose books I've never read and have absolutely no interest in reading, although her real life escapades used to provide amusing reading in the SF gossip columns.

Please don't spoil it for me by telling me that He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named is not really Karl Rove?



P.S. -- While we're sidetracked on the topic of financially successful female authors, I can tell you that I am personally acquainted with this author and her 'groovy' husband and couldn't stop laughing when I read this item recently: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...sn=001&sc=1000 The only surprising thing about this is that she was the last person on the planet to realize what was going on. On a brighter note, I'm sure she'll make a few million more with the sequel -- How Stella Lost Her Groove.

I guess she can "exhale" now.

The Smoking Gun has copies of the divorce petition. It's a riot:
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive...2astella1.html

[Poseidon]

LOL!! That was a good read! I am glad he "discovered" his orientation. It is hard to believe even with the prenup he is getting 2K a month, plus 25K for lawyer fees!