Torture is Against the Law
In 1974 and 1975 the Symbionese Liberation Army robbed a number of banks to fund their revolutionary agenda. You may be of an age to remember when Patty Hearst was kidnapped by them, took on the name "Tania," and joined them in their robbery.
You'd have to say it worked. They went into the bank without money and they had money when they came out. The fund-raising was a success.
Now the question addressed in the The Post this morning has to do with torture by the US government, and whether it was a success. According to a column by Chris Cillizza on page A2, most Americans think it was. Here how it starts...
I'll tell you, the first thing that jumps out at me is the polling organization. Have you ever heard of "Resurgent Republic" before? Me either.
Politico published a piece a couple of weeks ago about Resurgent Republic. Here's what they said...
I guess that answers that.
Q: why is The Post putting Republican propaganda in the A section of my morning paper? There is no mention that the polling organization is an offshoot of the Republican Party.
I see two major points underlying all of this. First of all, torture doesn't "work." As Jesse Ventura said, "I'll put it to you this way, you give me a water board, Dick Cheney and one hour, and I'll have him confess to the Sharon Tate murders." Someone being tortured is not motivated to give accurate information, they are motivated to make the torturing stop, which means telling the torturer what they want to hear. As it is coming out, this was the point anyway, the Bush administration wanted to hear about ties between al Qaeda and Iraq, and torture victims provided that, even though no such ties existed.
The second point is that it is against the law. And this is the part I find most frightening through all of this discussion. Half the population of the US doesn't care that it's against the law. A handful of terrorists attacked some American targets, and my good American people are willing to throw out the system of agreements that makes us civilized human beings in order to feel safer.
If torture "worked," that is, if you could get accurate information from someone by hurting or threatening them, then I guarantee it would not be illegal. Everyone understands that a society needs to protect itself, we have seen ruthless conquests and genocides around the world since the dawn of time, and every group has the right to do anything they can to protect themselves from that.
Torture as punishment is something the American people can get behind, we are The Punishment Society. Just about everybody agrees that it's good to be tough with bad guys, nobody wants to "coddle criminals." But torture is not effective punishment, either, it neither deters crimes, rehabilitates the offender, nor brings justice. To torture somebody you have to already have them in captivity, and as it is usually done with some degree of secrecy it does not discourage others from committing offenses. We don't torture people to punish them, but it does satisfy that bizarre American hunger.
I don't think anybody really believes that torture elicits accurate information. It's obvious that a person who is on the receiving end of a painful procedure simply wants to get it to stop. And even though the Republicans keep chanting "torture made us safer," they are not able to point to any accurate piece of intelligence that was acquired that way.
If, in cool times, Americans want to decide to withdraw from the Geneva Conventions and UN agreements and to change our federal laws in order to support the defense of our country by implementing torture, then that debate can be held. But as it is, the important fact remains that torture is illegal. It is no more acceptable than the Symbionese Liberation Army's fund-raising enterprises, which at least "worked." The Republican Party is advocating a frightening position here, that the US government is above the law or is justified in breaking the law when its sense of fear reaches a certain level. The proper name for this belief is anarchy, and we can't permit it. Do American citizens want to legalize torture? Then let's debate it and change the law. Otherwise, let's support and enforce the legal framework that is the contract that allows our lives to be orderly and peaceful and free.
Since the signing of the Magna Carta in the thirteenth century, governments and leaders have been bound by law. You don't just throw that out because you're scared.
You'd have to say it worked. They went into the bank without money and they had money when they came out. The fund-raising was a success.
Now the question addressed in the The Post this morning has to do with torture by the US government, and whether it was a success. According to a column by Chris Cillizza on page A2, most Americans think it was. Here how it starts...
Even as the debate over the treatment of terrorism suspects during the Bush administration continues to roil political Washington, a new poll conducted for Resurgent Republic suggests that the American people -- including politically critical independent voters -- by and large support the use of "enhanced interrogation techniques" on suspected al-Qaeda operatives.
Asked whether such tactics were justified, 53 percent of the overall sample said they were and 34 percent said they were not. While Democrats strongly opposed the use of these controversial methods and Republicans strongly supported them, independent voters were slightly more divided than partisans of each side, with 51 percent expressing support for the tactics and 31 percent opposing them.
On the question of whether such techniques have yielded information that has made the country safer, 52 percent of all respondents said they had while 39 percent said they had not. Independents' views on the issue mirrored the overall sample, with 51 percent saying the tactics had made the country safer and 39 percent saying they had not. Some Call It Torture. In One Poll, Most Call It Justified.
I'll tell you, the first thing that jumps out at me is the polling organization. Have you ever heard of "Resurgent Republic" before? Me either.
Politico published a piece a couple of weeks ago about Resurgent Republic. Here's what they said...
Ed Gillespie, the former GOP chairman and counselor to President George W. Bush, and top pollster Whit Ayres on Tuesday are launching Resurgent Republic, a group aimed at shaping the debate as the party regenerates itself for the upcoming elections.
Resurgent Republic plans to offer itself as a resource for policymakers and congressional leaders and will conduct focus groups and polling, and plans to hold at least one forum this year.
Think of it as a Republican version of Democracy Corps. New for GOP: Resurgent Republic
I guess that answers that.
Q: why is The Post putting Republican propaganda in the A section of my morning paper? There is no mention that the polling organization is an offshoot of the Republican Party.
I see two major points underlying all of this. First of all, torture doesn't "work." As Jesse Ventura said, "I'll put it to you this way, you give me a water board, Dick Cheney and one hour, and I'll have him confess to the Sharon Tate murders." Someone being tortured is not motivated to give accurate information, they are motivated to make the torturing stop, which means telling the torturer what they want to hear. As it is coming out, this was the point anyway, the Bush administration wanted to hear about ties between al Qaeda and Iraq, and torture victims provided that, even though no such ties existed.
The second point is that it is against the law. And this is the part I find most frightening through all of this discussion. Half the population of the US doesn't care that it's against the law. A handful of terrorists attacked some American targets, and my good American people are willing to throw out the system of agreements that makes us civilized human beings in order to feel safer.
If torture "worked," that is, if you could get accurate information from someone by hurting or threatening them, then I guarantee it would not be illegal. Everyone understands that a society needs to protect itself, we have seen ruthless conquests and genocides around the world since the dawn of time, and every group has the right to do anything they can to protect themselves from that.
Torture as punishment is something the American people can get behind, we are The Punishment Society. Just about everybody agrees that it's good to be tough with bad guys, nobody wants to "coddle criminals." But torture is not effective punishment, either, it neither deters crimes, rehabilitates the offender, nor brings justice. To torture somebody you have to already have them in captivity, and as it is usually done with some degree of secrecy it does not discourage others from committing offenses. We don't torture people to punish them, but it does satisfy that bizarre American hunger.
I don't think anybody really believes that torture elicits accurate information. It's obvious that a person who is on the receiving end of a painful procedure simply wants to get it to stop. And even though the Republicans keep chanting "torture made us safer," they are not able to point to any accurate piece of intelligence that was acquired that way.
If, in cool times, Americans want to decide to withdraw from the Geneva Conventions and UN agreements and to change our federal laws in order to support the defense of our country by implementing torture, then that debate can be held. But as it is, the important fact remains that torture is illegal. It is no more acceptable than the Symbionese Liberation Army's fund-raising enterprises, which at least "worked." The Republican Party is advocating a frightening position here, that the US government is above the law or is justified in breaking the law when its sense of fear reaches a certain level. The proper name for this belief is anarchy, and we can't permit it. Do American citizens want to legalize torture? Then let's debate it and change the law. Otherwise, let's support and enforce the legal framework that is the contract that allows our lives to be orderly and peaceful and free.
Since the signing of the Magna Carta in the thirteenth century, governments and leaders have been bound by law. You don't just throw that out because you're scared.
posted by JimK at 9:59 AM
49 Comments:
I'm actually against waterboarding but, still, it strikes me how concerned Democrats are about making terrorists comfy and cozy and how indifferent they are to helping disadvantaged kids escape the dangerous hell holes they're condemned to by inner city school systems.
Innocent children threatened daily by gang violence, drug pushers, beatings, rape and murder in school settings they have no control over so Nancy Pelosi can get the support of a ultra-liberal union.
It's shameful.
Anon, if you didn't comment here, some of us would never believe that there are actually people who "think" like you.
JimK
really?
I think most people are more concerned about innocent kids than terrorists.
A TTFer last week linked to GQ article about Bible verses on daily military briefings during the Iraq War and insinuated that Rumsfeld and Cheney were motivated to instigate the war by Christian convictions.
I thought it pretty ridiculous at the time because neither of those guys has a reputation for being particularly devout and the NY Times today debunks this as a short-lived idea of one general, rather than proof of Rumsfeld's religious convictions being a cause of the war:
"The article, written by Robert Draper, the author of a book about George W. Bush that was published in the last year of his presidency, suggested that Mr. Rumsfeld often delivered the briefings “by hand, to the White House.”
But several former officials said Sunday that they doubted that Mr. Bush regularly saw the Pentagon briefing, which was considered both less complete and less sensitive than the president’s daily brief, the compilation of overnight and long-term intelligence assessments prepared for the president, and delivered every morning.
Lawrence Di Rita, the Pentagon spokesman during Mr. Rumsfeld’s time as secretary of defense, said that he had no recollection of the biblical briefs, but that he doubted the famously acerbic and sometimes cranky secretary would have tolerated them for long, much less shared them with Mr. Bush.
“The suggestion that Rumsfeld would have used these reports to somehow curry favor over at the White House is pretty laughable,” Mr. Di Rita said.
“He bristled anytime people put quotes or something extraneous on the reports he wanted to read.”
Mr. Rumsfeld’s reputation at the Pentagon was as a strong ideologue, but not as someone motivated by religious convictions.
The GQ article reports that the cover sheets were thought up by a general who worked on the Joint Staff, and that they replaced humorous covers that had been created in the prelude to the war.
The magazine reported that some Pentagon officials were concerned that, if the cover sheets — which were marked “Top Secret” — were ever leaked, they could be interpreted as a suggestion that the war was religiously driven, a battle against Islam.
But those officials were not named in the article, and a number of former Pentagon officials interviewed Sunday said they had no memory of seeing the illustrations or quotations."
Do the crazy old bats of TTF even think before the type?
There is scant evidence they do.
Time to toss another Nancy on the street. Maybe Navarro and Pelosi could open a burrito place called the Two Nancys.
Nancy Navarro was the negligent president of the MCPS Board of Education while the most liberal health curriculum in the United States was passed in Montgomery County.
MCPS currently teaches your 8th grader that their gender identity is their inner sense of whether they are male or female.
Through a series of "exercises", they introduce the concepts of sexual variations, heterosexual, homosexual, bi-sexual, at the eighth grade level (age 12).
The Board of Education also voted to teach the children that "homosexuality is innate".
The teaching was added to the curriculum by the Board of Education at the extremely politicized curriculum passage vote, as opposed to being officially reviewed curriculum which has a Maryland mandate to be "factually accurate".
The teaching is in direct conflict to the teachings of the American Psychological Association - which states "There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay or lesbian orientation.
Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles. ...".
Both nature and nurture sure messed up with TTF`s Anonymous "character".
uh, ppsb, TTF den-mother Aunty Bea says insulting is not proper method of dicsussion on the TTF website
there are kids trapped in dangerous inner city schools while you waste your time here insulting people
go down there and tutor with every second of your spare time
The GQ article reports that the cover sheets were thought up by a general who worked on the Joint Staff, and that they replaced humorous covers that had been created in the prelude to the war...
...Lawrence Di Rita, the Pentagon spokesman during Mr. Rumsfeld’s time as secretary of defense, said that he had no recollection of the biblical briefs, but that he doubted the famously acerbic and sometimes cranky secretary would have tolerated them for long, much less shared them with Mr. Bush.
Is that all the GQ article said? Not exactly. Here's the full quote about Shaffer's and Rumsfeld's rolls for those who care to know (I added the bolding and [bracketed items].):
These cover sheets were the brainchild of Major General Glen Shaffer, a director for intelligence serving both the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the secretary of defense. In the days before the Iraq war, Shaffer’s staff had created humorous covers in an attempt to alleviate the stress of preparing for battle. Then, as the body counting began, Shaffer, a Christian, deemed the biblical passages more suitable. [War isn't "humorous" once the casualties start piling up.] Several others in the Pentagon disagreed. At least one Muslim analyst in the building had been greatly offended; others privately worried that if these covers were leaked during a war conducted in an Islamic nation, the fallout—as one Pentagon staffer would later say—“would be as bad as Abu Ghraib.”
But the Pentagon’s top officials were apparently unconcerned about the effect such a disclosure might have on the conduct of the war or on Bush’s public standing. When colleagues complained to Shaffer that including a religious message with an intelligence briefing seemed inappropriate, Shaffer politely informed them that the practice would continue, because “my seniors”—JCS chairman Richard Myers, Rumsfeld, and the commander in chief himself—appreciated the cover pages.
But one government official was disturbed enough by these biblically seasoned sheets to hold on to copies, which I obtained recently while debriefing the past eight years with those who lived them inside the West Wing and the Pentagon. Over the past several months, the battle to define the Bush years has begun taking shape: As President Obama has rolled back his predecessor’s foreign and economic policies, Dick Cheney, Ari Fleischer, and former speechwriters Michael Gerson and Marc Thiessen have all taken to the airwaves or op-ed pages to cast the Bush years in a softer light.[The Magical Legacy Tour] My conversations with more than a dozen Bush loyalists, including several former cabinet-level officials and senior military commanders, have revealed another element of this legacy-building moment: intense feelings of ill will toward Donald Rumsfeld. Though few of these individuals would speak for the record (knowing that their former boss, George W. Bush, would not approve of it), they believe that Rumsfeld’s actions epitomized the very traits—arrogance, stubbornness, obliviousness, ineptitude—that critics say drove the Bush presidency off the rails.
The Scripture-adorned cover sheets illustrate one specific complaint I heard again and again: that Rumsfeld’s tactics—such as playing a religious angle with the president—often ran counter to sound decision-making and could, occasionally, compromise the administration’s best interests. In the case of the sheets, publicly flaunting his own religious views was not at all the SecDef’s style—“Rumsfeld was old-fashioned that way,” Shaffer acknowledged when I contacted him about the briefings—but it was decidedly Bush’s style, and Rumsfeld likely saw the Scriptures as a way of making a personal connection with a president who frequently quoted the Bible. No matter that, if leaked, the images would reinforce impressions that the administration was embarking on a religious war and could escalate tensions with the Muslim world. The sheets were not Rumsfeld’s direct invention—and he could thus distance himself from them, should that prove necessary. [Yet without his approval, they would not have been used.]
Still, the sheer cunning of pairing unsentimental intelligence with religious righteousness bore the signature of one man: Donald Rumsfeld. And as historians slog through the smoke and mirrors of his tenure, they may find that Rumsfeld’s most enduring legacy will be the damage he did to Bush’s.
We all remember that Mr. Di Rita, who "had no recollection of the biblical briefs" worked for Rumsfeld like Mr. Libby worked for Cheney and Mr. Rove worked for Bush. I'd prefer to hear testimony from each of them under oath than the unbelievable spin they tell the press.
But several former officials said Sunday that they doubted that Mr. Bush regularly saw the Pentagon briefing, which was considered both less complete and less sensitive than the president’s daily brief,That could be right, but it's not exactly something to crow about, is it? I mean we already know Bush ignored at least one more "complete and...sensitive" Presidential Daily Briefing in August 2001 with the title Bin Laden determined to strike in US. I wouldn't be surprised if he ignored them all, Presidential Daily Briefings, Pentagon Briefings, etc. Briefings in general seemed to be too much for Bush.
Oh yeah, and if you're the Anon waiting for Chris Rock's pronouncements, maybe you'll appreciate this bit of his humor from 2007:
When LIFE asked comic Chris Rock if America is ready for an African American president, Rock tells LIFE: “It’s ready for a retarded president, why wouldn’t it be ready for an African American president?”
So, a general thought that Rumsfeld would want Bible verses on the briefings because he thought Rumsfled would think it impressed Bush.
What if the general was simply mistaken?
Not much to support the paranoia of a crazy old bat who thinks that the war was inspired by anyone's religious convictions.
btw, Chris Rock famously said Bush "hates" black people because of th ineffectiveness of the Federal relief effort after Katrina.
Why doesn't he say the same about liberal Democrats and teacher unions who refuse to let inner city kids escape failing and dangerous schools by using vouchers?
Anonymous keeps repeating the shibboleth that vouchers help "inner-city dangerous and violent schools" as though it were true; the tactic of a lie repeated often enough that people accept it as truth.
Vouchers are supported by conservatives as a government hand-out program to upper-middle and upper income-earners, and religious schools.
A major purpose behind vouchers (and the No Child Left Behind Act) is the resegregation of American schools.
The DC voucher system was a publicity stunt by the right-wing-obligated Bush administration.
What "school choice" means to its supporteres is "my kids don't have to go to school with those people."
you're a liar, Robert, and a dues- paying, card-carrying member of the teachers' union
'nuff said
So, a general thought that Rumsfeld would want Bible verses on the briefings because he thought Rumsfled would think it impressed Bush.
The GQ article reports:
When colleagues complained to Shaffer that including a religious message with an intelligence briefing seemed inappropriate, Shaffer politely informed them that the practice would continue, because “my seniors”—JCS chairman Richard Myers, Rumsfeld, and the commander in chief himself—appreciated the cover pages...
...Rumsfeld likely saw the Scriptures as a way of making a personal connection with a president who frequently quoted the Bible.
Anon asked What if the general was simply mistaken?If the General had been mistaken, Rumsfeld would not have hand-delivered the reports with those covers to the White House himself; he would have corrected the General's error or more likely had someone else correct it.
It's the CIA who has admitted an error and here's where their admission was reported.
"Several weeks ago, when this issue started to bubble up, I called the CIA and asked for the dates in which I had been briefed," [Senator Bob] Graham tells Robert Siegel. "They gave me four: two in April of '02, two in September."
Graham says he consulted his logs "and determined that on three of the four dates there was no briefing held."
He adds: "On one date, Sept. 27, '02, there was a briefing held and, according to my notes, it was on the topic of detainee interrogation."
Graham says the CIA was initially reticent when he told the agency what he had found in his notes.
"They said, 'We will check and call back,'" Graham recalled. "When they finally did a few days later, they indicated that I was correct. Their information was in error. There was no briefing on the first three of four dates." Graham says the agency offered no explanation regarding how it came up with the other dates.
I suspect as the investigations into the Bush Administration's illegal use of torture continue, this will be the next error the will CIA correct:
No Discussion Of Waterboarding'
The Sept. 27, 2002, briefing occurred about three weeks after the briefing in which the CIA says it told Pelosi about the use of waterboarding, a technique also described as simulated drowning. Graham, like Pelosi, says waterboarding was not mentioned during his briefing.
"There was no discussion of waterboarding, other excessive techniques or that they had applied these against any particular detainees," he says.
Robert said What "school choice" means to its supporteres is "my kids don't have to go to school with those people."
Robert is 100% correct. If those who support school choice really wanted disadvantaged public school students to attend better schools, they'd improve the public schools they attend rather than take the money for improving them to pay private school tuition.
BTW Anon, the DC Department of Education's budget can not cover private school tuition vouchers for every DC public school student. So tell us Anon, what happens to the DC students who don't get a private school tuition voucher because the federal government's allocation for DC schools ran out giving private school tuition vouchers to other DC students?
'nuff saidThere won't be 'nuff said until the Truth Commission writes its final report.
"If those who support school choice really wanted disadvantaged public school students to attend better schools, they'd improve the public schools they attend rather than take the money for improving them to pay private school tuition."
Really?
Do you know how much money is spent per student by D.C., let alone the amount they get from the Federal government?
Hint: Fairfax and Montgomery County don't come close.
Money isn't the issue.
The point is to educate the kids, not perpetuate a method to that end that is clearly not working.
One size does not fit all and no size fits crazy old Aunt Bea's fat head.
You think it's a joke or insignificance, the situation these kids are in?
You who philosophize disgrace
and criticize all fear
look at those who live with your deeds
and count up all the tears
"Anonymous"
You are vile and reprehensible; you have no manners and are a hypocrite and liar. As if you had any concern or care for disadvantaged, innocent kids...like other right-wing "conservatives" these days, you think nothing of creating an emotional issue to try to score points and try to convince others that you are a champion of humanity. What a farce!
Disadvantaged kids are put into a situation of horror, forced to attend these schools where their lives are in danger on a daily basis.
I favor alleviating this suffering by providing them with an alternative.
You want to deny that to them.
And I'm vile and reprehensible?
Sober up and think about the real world. Think about the effect of what you advocate.
Be brave and stop listening to the politicians.
Three blind Anonymice
Three blind Anonymice
Hear how they whine
Hear how they whine
They love George Bush and Dick Cheney so
They want to steal all of the public schools' dough
And leave their poor neighbors with nothing and so
They're three blind Anonymice
maybe if you could shift focus from "public schools" to the welfare of disavantaged children, you'd have an epiphany
"public schools" are not an end unto themself but a means to a goal
in reality, they are not only failing to reach that goal but causing suffering among those they are intended to serve
when that happens in a community, an alternative is a moral imperative
that's a fact
that's right
it's a fact
Mr./Mrs./Ms. Anonymous:
Please cite some statistics and some credible studies to back up your gross generalities and emotion-laden diatribe.("in reality, they are not only failing to reach that goal but causing suffering among those they are intended to serve")
Strumming the old heart strings does nothing to alleviate the problems that you so suddenly seem to have taken to heart. Your contribution to the betterment of public education - tear it down, rip it apart, advocate elitist solutions? The grudge you bear is all too obvious...you must have had a horrendous school experience.
Or...perhaps you really have had an epiphany and have decided to join the human race after all! It's amazing to watch the veil of ignorance lifted.
Citizen
I don't need to cite any stats comparing the failure rates of inner city schools or the danger they represent. It's been acknowledged by all sides.
Are you denying it?
I for one neither confirm nor deny. Absent any statistics you're just full of it. This reminds me of the time you claimed the AIDS rate was highest in San francisco and lowest in the anti-gay states - and then Aunt Bea posted the actual stats which showed the opposite to be true. You just make crap up as you go along.
actually, no one was speaking to you
you don't live anywhere near an American inner city and your opinion really has no significance
if you have anything to say about bowing techniques in the presence of royals or hunting methods among eskimos, we're all ears
As we've seen from your past performance your opinion is the one that has no significance. You make up stuff as it suits you. That's why you need statistics if you want anyone to believe you. Absent that you're just another liar for Jesus.
actually, I live here
so do most of the posters here
you might notice that no one has denied that inner city schools are dangerous and failing hellholes
the only dispute is whether the government is capable of rectifying the situation with massive spending
alas, it's been tried
truth is, education is not a proper function of government because church-state seperation doesn't allow schools to function properly
it doesn't work and never will
"As we've seen from your past performance your opinion is the one that has no significance"
yeah, your opinion has no significance
that's why Priya responds
Bad anonymous said "you might notice that no one has denied that inner city schools are dangerous and failing hellholes".
And no one has agreed with you that they are. Only a fool would take silence as a sign that someone agrees with you. Of course you are just such a fool. Thanks for demonstrating that so clearly.
You don't need to live in Montgomery county to see that you're a prolificate liar and that someone such as you needs references to prove otherwise. You have no stats to back up your claim - you remain a pathetic liar.
Bad anonymous said "that's why Priya responds."
I respond because I enjoy pointing out what a fool you are.
"Only a fool would take silence as a sign that someone agrees with you."
Interesting that Bea made just this inference last week.
You shouldn't talk about her that way.
Is the sky blue in your world or are you waiting for a statistical analysis to conclude on that tricky point?
Priya, Barack Obama sends his daughter to an elementary school in Montgomery County, a couple of blocks from my office. His other daughter played on a county rec basketball team in my neighborhood. He used to come to the games this winter. I live about 35-45 minutes from the White House when you catch all the lights and there is no traffic.
They have schools and teen basketball leagues down closer to the White House. Why do you think they come out here?
It's because inner city schools are dangerous and failing hellholes.
Now, go sit in your igloo and put on your thinkin' cap!
The Queen will be pleased.
This post has been removed by the author.
This post has been removed by the author.
LOL, bad anonymous, an anecdote about where Barack Obama sends his child is not what is known as science. That's rather pathetic on your part, it doesn't even remotely begin to prove your claim. Once again - you've got nothing to back up your claim and clearly "citizen" was disagreeing with you on this forum and I (like I suspect most everyone else) and willing to entertain your claim but given your propensity for pulling stuff out of your but most certainly won't be taking your word for anything absent a reputable statistical source. Now go away - we've all heard enough of your fantasies.
We even pay contractors and give them bonuses(!!!) to torture our own troops!
"Military contractor KBR Inc. was paid $83.4 million in bonuses for electrical work in Iraq — much of it after the U.S. military's contract management agency recognized the contractor was doing shoddy electrical work, a senator said Wednesday.
Sen. Byron Dorgan, a Democrat, said he learned of the bonuses from Pentagon documents. Dorgan chairs the Democrats' Policy Committee, which examined at a hearing the electrocution deaths of U.S. troops in Iraq.
At least three troops have been electrocuted while showering in Iraq, and others have been injured and killed in other electrical incidents. KBR, which has the responsibility of maintaining electrical work in tens of thousands of U.S. facilities in Iraq, has denied any responsibility in the deaths.
But Dorgan said evidence suggests KBR's work was involved in some of the deaths. He said $34 million in bonuses was paid three months after Green Beret Staff Sgt. Ryan Maseth, 24, was electrocuted while showering in his barracks in Iraq on Jan. 2, 2008. Maseth's family has sued KBR, alleging wrongful death.
"How could it be that, given these obviously widespread problems with KBR's electrical work, the Pentagon decided to give KBR bonuses totaling $83.4 million for such work?" Dorgan said.
KBR was once a subsidiary of Halliburton, the oil services company once headed by Dick Cheney before his two terms as vice president...
...Jim Childs, an electrical inspector hired by the Army to help inspect U.S.-run facilities in Iraq testified that 90 percent of the wiring done by KBR in newly constructed buildings was done improperly. He said that means that an estimated 70,000 buildings where troops live and work in Iraq were not up to code...
...Childs said even after rewiring was done by KBR in the building in Iraq where Maseth died, electrical problems persisted for several months.
Heather Browne, a KBR spokeswoman, said in a statement that KBR was not responsible for the deaths, and the company is cooperating.
"The assertion that KBR has a track record of shoddy electrical work is unfounded," Browne said."
people are laughing at you, priya
it's not a laughing matter though
real live kids are in dangerous situations while you trivialize their plight
and you're worried about confessed, murderous terrorists having water shot up their nose
at least, Bea has the decency not to deny obvious fact
did your parents drop you on your head as a child?
my guess is if some terrorist came and killed 3,000 people in Saskatchewan, you'd be going postal on us
dangerous and failing hellholes, Priya
liberals don't care
Bad anonymous said "real live kids are in dangerous situations while you trivialize their plight".
You haven't proven that and I haven't trivilized the possibility that its true. Despite your past pattern of outrageous lies I'm willing to entertain the possibility that you're telling the truth on this rare occaision. You have however, as is typically the case, given no one any reason to believe you. I have little reason to believe that will change.
Bad anonymous said "my guess is if some terrorist came and killed 3,000 people in Saskatchewan, you'd be going postal on us".
I have no fear of that. Canadians don't give the world reason after reason to hate us.
"You haven't proven that and I haven't trivilized the possibility that its true."
I don't need to prove it. No one, including you, doubts it.
That you deny this horror is all we need to know about you.
"I have no fear of that. Canadians don't give the world reason after reason to hate us."
Implying that the U.S. deserved to be attacked by al quaeda is the final straw on your credibility here.
Someone who denies the horror of inner city schools and the non-justifiable evil of al quaeda will find few to agree with them.
If you carrying pictures of Chairman Mao
you ain't gonne make it with anyone anyhow
Bad anonymous said "I don't need to prove it. No one, including you, doubts it.".
If you wan't people to believe you, you need to prove it - you're not a very believable person. I doubt your claim and clearly the poster who signed as "citizen" doubts your claim. I am certain a great number of people doubt your claim. Once again absent any stats to prove your claim you're just a childish lying little boy.
And I never implied that the U.S. deserved to be attacked. Just because conservative Americans like you are despicable doesn't mean you deserve to be attacked.
"I am certain a great number of people doubt your claim."
First of all, you have no proof of this and you're sitting here telling us we should only say things that have been proven.
You're making a fool of yourself. (I know, I know...making?)
Second of all, no one doubts my "claim". "citizen" has the same motive as you: defending the horror that teachers' unions have imposed on disadvantaged children in America.
Get a conscience.
Anonymous: Could you please cite my words that indicate your contention: ""citizen" has the same motive as you: defending the horror that teachers' unions have imposed on disadvantaged children in America."
My motives in trying to get you to make sense of your constant carping and breast-beating and odious ill manners was to get you...once and for all...to adhere to ethical behavior and to put some restraint on you proclivity to lie. I said nothing about teacher unions...although I do believe they have done an extraordinarily good job in the face of self-serving elitists and extremist right-wing critics such as yourself.
There isn't very much about America that you really like, is there?
Citizen
"to adhere to ethical behavior and to put some restraint on you proclivity to lie"
What unethical behavior? What lying?
Do you agree that inner city schools are dangerous and failing hell-holes?
If you deny that, like our Canadian anti-American visitor, you're part of the problem
"There isn't very much about America that you really like, is there?"
Are you kidding?
America rocks.
We even have a President who opposes gay marriage.
How cool is that?
And...on top of that Anonymous...we even accommodate nut cases like you. We've always been tolerant of supercilious whiners and cry-babies who can do nothing more than criticize and tear down and excoriate whatever they personally do not like. "Tis a pity...but just one of the burdens we bear to make sure that our democracy stays alive.
BTW...I notice you adroitly side-stepped my request to you to cite exact words attributed to me. Could it be that you just have an over-stimulated imagination?
Citizen
I bet anonymous has bad hair.
rrjr
"We've always been tolerant of supercilious whiners and cry-babies who can do nothing more than criticize and tear down and excoriate whatever they personally do not like"
I'm sure disadvantaged youth, forced to attend hell-holes in the inner city, will be glad to hear their complaints are nothing more than whining.
Stop defending evil, "citizen".
And the cycle of nonsense from bad anonymous continues. You still haven't produced any statistics to prove your claim and as I said several posts ago I have little reason to believe you ever will. That you've failed time and time again to prove your claim which you insist is universally accepted and well supported strongly suggests it is a false claim. If this were as universally supported and well documented as you claim you'd have had no trouble proving it to us. That you've failed repeatedly to do so is most consistent with the hypothesis that you are a liar and make stuff up as you go - a trait you've repeatedly demonstrated over the years.
Now you can go back to repeating your baseless claims and lying about what others have said and their motives - its been well demonstrated that they don't come much more dishonest than you and your repetition of the same BS won't change that.
Bad anonymous said "I'm sure disadvantaged youth, forced to attend hell-holes in the inner city, will be glad to hear their complaints are nothing more than whining.".
Stop lying bad anonymous. He didn't say anything about inner city youth allegedly attending hellholes. He refered to your constant whining. If you'd try honesty for a change and accept reality you wouldn't constantly be forced to twist peoples words into things they didn't say in a feeble attempt to justify your fantasies.
Duh, Anonymous...when I characterized you as one of the supercilious whiners and cry-babies who can do nothing more than criticize and tear down and excoriate whatever they personally do not like I was not, in any way, talking about inner-city kids. ("I'm sure disadvantaged youth, forced to attend hell-holes in the inner city, will be glad to hear their complaints are nothing more than whining.")
I was, duh, only describing you! It is quite apparent that you need to attend an adult reading skills class.
As for your obvious transparent care and concern for those children, I challenge you to do something useful in your life for once and volunteer your time and talents (?) to alleviate their plight.
As Jim said of you: "if you didn't comment here, some of us would never believe that there are actually people who "think" like you." Amen to that!
Citizen
well, let me ask you, "citizen", do you think inner city are dangerous and failing in their mission to educate kids?
do you agree this situation has persisted for roundabout four decades despite massive increases in governmental spending initiated during LBJ's time?
what is wrong with giving these kids an alternative?
concern about the disadvantaged is whining when a conservative does it and noble when a liberal does it, right?
Post a Comment
<< Home