Switch Sides?

[Questioninggeller]

Many of us have already made up their mind on who to vote for in the US presidential election. But what would get you to vote for the other side?

What sort of events or scandals would convince you to switch your vote. Anything? Nothing?

Lurker

I did not vote in the last election because there was no one to vote for, but I will be voting in November. In fact it will be the first time I have ever voted, but who I approve of I don't know.

I live in California so the electoral votes will go to Kerry, so in that case I might vote for Nader just to give him one more symbolic vote. If I wanted to impact the election I'd have to move to a swing state.

 

[Frank Newgent]

Yet, there is still no proof that is goes any higher than a localizeed command chain failure. Occam whispers in my ear.... Is it really more likely SG, that Bush, Cheney, Rummy or any other left-hated "Chickenhawk" has authored a policy to perform such abuses?


SNIP


I am in earnest here SG....if Nixonesque proof of high level direction of abuse comes out you may count on me....and many, many like me to vote GWB out on his ear. But you'll need alot more than what's been proven so far. Occam tells me this is a localized command chain failure....all things being equal SG, it's the simplest explaination...much simpler than a high level conspiracy to torture.

rik you said earlier

If it comes to light that this Abu Ghraib thing was not an isolated incident of sophmoric brutality...if it is proved that there existed a general policy of torture and these 6 individuals were under orders to perform their cruelties....then I pledge here and now to hold GWB responsible at the ballot box and will loudly cast my vote for Mr. Kerry.

Looks to me as if you are redefining terms of the bet. That's one way to get out of it.

Does the following reflect 'policy'?

Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez says he didn't authorize this to be posted at Abu Ghraib. Yet the Department of the Army presented it to the Senate Armed Services Committee as his policy.

SEN. JACK REED: Well, I share Sen. Collins conclusion that there's still many questions that are unanswered. There's still a question of really what policy for interrogation applied.

Gen. Sanchez maintained that he never approved the policy which last week the Department of Army presented to us as his policy.

And yet Col. Warren, the jag officer, indicated that a young captain in the facility had promulgated a policy, the one that Gen. Sanchez didn't recognize and it was posted on bulletin boards where apparently it was operational.

So there are still serious questions about how the policy evolved and responsibility for senior leaders to making sure that the right policy, whatever that was, was a policy that was in place in the prison. So I left with many questions.


http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/jan-june04/senators_5-19.html

And Rumsfeld deputy Paul Wolfowitz has said that some of the techniques in Sanchez's rules of engagement "sound to me like a violation of the Geneva Convention". But he also claimed he had not seen Sanchez's order until it was raised by the senators at the Armed Services Committee meeting.

Those listed 'Rules of Engagement' requiring the Commanding General's (Sanchez) approval were, apparently, put in place under Colonel Thomas Pappas' orders, following the recommendations of General Geoff Miller and I've read that an investigation into this is now being carried out by army intelligence. Taguba couldn't go there.

I've also read that the issue of abuse and torture of detainees from Iraq to Guantanamo Bay to Iraq is an issue that has split the US military and intelligence services for a while now.

All that aside, will you be taking voice lessons from Howard Dean before casting your vote?

 

[rikzilla]

rik you said earlier



Looks to me as if you are redefining terms of the bet. That's one way to get out of it.

Not so Frank. SG's question was about the "level of evidence" I would have to see in order to convince me that said suspected policy actually existed. I replied. I admit my level of evidence is high, but my level of discomfort in a possible vote for Kerry is correspondingly high.

Does the following reflect 'policy'?

It seems to, yes. The abuses at Abu Ghraib would still be in violation of the listed ROE though. CJTF-7 covers Abu Ghraib.
http://www.cjtf7.com/

Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez says he didn't authorize this to be posted at Abu Ghraib. Yet the Department of the Army presented it to the Senate Armed Services Committee as his policy.


And Rumsfeld deputy Paul Wolfowitz has said that some of the techniques in Sanchez's rules of engagement "sound to me like a violation of the Geneva Convention". But he also claimed he had not seen Sanchez's order until it was raised by the senators at the Armed Services Committee meeting.

Those listed 'Rules of Engagement' requiring the Commanding General's (Sanchez) approval were, apparently, put in place under Colonel Thomas Pappas' orders, following the recommendations of General Geoff Miller and I've read that an investigation into this is now being carried out by army intelligence. Taguba couldn't go there.

I've also read that the issue of abuse and torture of detainees from Iraq to Guantanamo Bay to Iraq is an issue that has split the US military and intelligence services for a while now.

All that aside, will you be taking voice lessons from Howard Dean before casting your vote?

I guess we'll see won't we? HEEEEYYYYAAAAA!

-z

 

[Frank Newgent]

Not so Frank. SG's question was about the "level of evidence" I would have to see in order to convince me that said suspected policy actually existed.

sub speaks for himself. Only thing I'm referring to your pledge to loudly vote for Kerry should general policy have existed in Abu Ghraib vis-à-vis prisoner abuse and/or torture.

<iframe width="100%" height="400" src="http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&action=showpost&postid=1870447650"></iframe>

 

[rikzilla]

sub speaks for himself. Only thing I'm referring to your pledge to loudly vote for Kerry should general policy have existed in Abu Ghraib vis-à-vis prisoner abuse and/or torture.

Read it again Frank. My goalposts will not move on this issue. Those soldiers were under no orders to kill, rape or maim prisoners.
If they were, and it was part of a general policy instituted by this admin I'll YEEEEEAHHHH my way to the ballot box my friend...(although I might just end up voting for Nader again??)...is that moving goalposts? yeah, it is...okay...Kerry it is.
-z

 

[subgenius]

Read it again Frank. My goalposts will not move on this issue. Those soldiers were under no orders to kill, rape or maim prisoners.
If they were, and it was part of a general policy instituted by this admin I'll YEEEEEAHHHH my way to the ballot box my friend...(although I might just end up voting for Nader again??)...is that moving goalposts? yeah, it is...okay...Kerry it is.
-z

That does seem to have additional conditions than:

"If it comes to light that this Abu Ghraib thing was not an isolated incident of sophmoric brutality...if it is proved that there existed a general policy of torture and these 6 individuals were under orders to perform their cruelties.."

In fact your latest post imposes even further conditions.

That's why I tried to clarify it earlier. I never thought there would be anything that would satisfy your conditions or your level of proof.

Your original conditions have been met, certainly by a preponderence of the credible evidence. More evidence will, I suspect, will come out, but I don't see you voting for Kerry and working to defeat GWB under any circumstances.

That's OK, there's plenty of others who voted for him that will not this time (Robert Novak cites 20% of Republicans as not being committed to him), and virtually no one who didn't vote for him last time will this time.

Kerry right now has the best poll figures of anyone who beat an incumbent, and GWB has the lowest of any incumbent who lost.

Its Kerry's to lose.

 

[demon]

Z:
"If it comes to light that this Abu Ghraib thing was not an isolated incident of sophmoric brutality..."

quote:

Marines admit abuse at second prison

By Rick Rogers
UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER
May 22, 2004

While world attention was focused on the scandal at Abu Ghraib prison, two Marines were court-martialed May 14 for abusing an Iraqi prisoner with electricity, it was disclosed yesterday.

Five more Marines have been implicated in the same early April incident at a Marine-run detention facility and might face charges, according to Marine officials in Iraq.

Andrew J. Sting and Jeremiah J. Trefney, both 19 and privates first class assigned to the 2nd Battalion, 2nd Marine Regiment at Camp Lejeune, N.C., pleaded guilty to charges that included cruelty and maltreatment for shocking an unruly prisoner, according to a Marine statement in response to questions from The San Diego Union-Tribune.

The East Coast-based infantry battalion is attached to the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force, which has headquarters in San Diego.

The prisoner had been detained at Al Mahmudiya prison.

Sting was sentenced to a year in jail and Trefney received eight months. Both were reduced in rank, will forfeit all pay and will leave the military with a bad conduct discharge.

According to information provided by the 1st MEF, here is what happened:

Sting, Trefney and three other Marines concocted a plan to shock a detainee with 110-volt electricity as he returned to his cell from the bathroom. The prisoner was targeted for punishment because he was loud and had thrown trash out of his cell.

"The Marines attached wires to a power converter and pressed the live wires against the body of the detainee to create a shock," according to the Marine statement.

An investigating officer has recommended court action against two of the three. There was no conclusive word on whether the third was cleared or received some form of administrative punishment.

Two other Marines could also face disciplinary action, the Marines said, although it's not clear what role the Marine Corps believes they played in the case.

About 25,000 Marines are assigned to the 1st MEF, which is responsible for occupying Anbar province. Of that number, roughly 19,000 are from either Camp Pendleton or Marine Corps Air Station Miramar.

Since March, the Marines have run eight detention centers with a combined population of about 300 prisoners, including common criminals and enemy insurgents.

The Marines said their guards are trained on the proper treatment and handling of enemy prisoners of war and on cultural sensitivity.

In addition, the Marines now in Iraq received a two-week training session on detention practices at March Reserve Air Force Base in Riverside.

The Marines said there are no other prisoner abuse investigations involving the service.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/world/iraq/20040522-9999-1n22marines1.html

 

[subgenius]

I have already posted stories about other sites. This not only proves its not isolated, but since its not, it occurred with, at least, implicit approval.
And if such abuses were never reported all the way to the top (and OJ may still find the real killers), there is responsibilty for gross negligence.
They all knew, or should have known.

 

[subgenius]

Prison Visits By General Reported In Hearing
Alleged Presence of Sanchez Cited by Lawyer
By Scott Higham, Joe Stephens and Josh White
Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, May 23, 2004; Page A01


A military lawyer for a soldier charged in the Abu Ghraib abuse case stated that a captain at the prison said the highest-ranking U.S. military officer in Iraq was present during some "interrogations and/or allegations of the prisoner abuse," according to a recording of a military hearing obtained by The Washington Post.
..........
"Are you saying that Captain Reese is going to testify that General Sanchez was there and saw this going on?" asked Capt. John McCabe, the military prosecutor.

"That's what he told me," Shuck said. "I am an officer of the court, sir, and I would not lie. I have got two children at home. I'm not going to risk my career."
...
"Nobody put it in writing; no one's going to be stupid enough for that. My client went to Sergeant Frederick and questioned him: 'Should we be following these orders?' And Sergeant Frederick said, 'Absolutely. We're saving American lives. That's what we wear the uniform for.' "
...
"We must fully investigate and fix responsibility, as well as accountability," for the abuses, Sanchez testified. "I am fully committed to thorough and impartial investigations that examine the role, commissions and omissions of the entire chain of command -- and that includes me. As a senior commander in Iraq, I accept responsibility for what happened at Abu Ghraib, and I accept as a solemn obligation the responsibility to ensure that it does not happen again."

Sanchez visited the 205th Military Intelligence Brigade's operation, which encompassed Tier 1A at Abu Ghraib, at least three times in October, according to Brig. Gen. Janis L. Karpinski, who was in charge of U.S. detention facilities in Iraq as commander of the 800th Military Police Brigade. That month, the serious abuses documented in published photographs -- naked detainees shackled together, a guard posing with a prisoner on a dog leash -- began.

In an interview yesterday, Karpinski said the number of visits by a commanding general struck her as "unusual," especially because Sanchez had not visited several of the 15 other U.S. detention facilities in Iraq.
...
Sgt. Samuel Provance, a military intelligence soldier who worked at Abu Ghraib, told The Post that enormous resources began to pour into the interrogation operation in October and November. Provance said new personnel -- including some from the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba -- came in suddenly to beef up interrogations.

Karpinski said the resources arrived after Maj. Gen. Geoffrey D. Miller, then commander of the U.S. military prison for suspected terrorists at Guantanamo, visited Abu Ghraib between Aug. 31 and Sept. 9. She said Miller told her he wanted to "Gitmo-ize" Abu Ghraib's operation because the intelligence gathering there was not producing the desired results. Miller has said he never used that phrase.
....
"I think the MI people were in this all the way. I think they were up to their ears in it. . . . I don't believe that the MPs, two weeks onto the job, would have been such willing participants, even with instructions, unless someone had told them it was all okay."
...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A48229-2004May22.html

 

[Frank Newgent]

Does the following reflect 'policy'?

Originally posted by rikzilla

It seems to, yes.

I'll give it one more try, rik.

Checking the list, one of the approved approaches for all detainees (not requiring CG's approval) is Fear Up Harsh.

Here is one definition.

An Army colonel in charge of intelligence-gathering at the prison, spelling out the plan in a classified cable to the top U.S. military officer in Iraq, said interrogators would use a method known as "fear up harsh," which military documents said meant "significantly increasing the fear level in a security detainee." The aim was to make the 31-year-old Syrian think his only hope in life was to talk, undermining his confidence in what they termed "the Allah factor."

According to the plan, interrogators needed the assistance of military police supervising his detention at the prison, who ordinarily play no role in interrogations under Army regulations. First, the interrogators were to throw chairs and tables in the man's presence at the prison and "invade his personal space."

Then the police were to put a hood on his head and take him to an isolated cell through a gantlet of barking guard dogs; there, the police were to strip-search him and interrupt his sleep for three days with interrogations, barking and loud music, according to Army documents.

Have we established yet that a procedure such as this was one rule of engagement approved by the Department of the Army for all detainees and not requiring the commanding general's written approval? Looks that way to me.

Consider this quote.

Pace, the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Wolfowitz were responding to questions during an appearance before the Senate Armed Services Committee. Sen. Jack Reed, D-R.I., had asked Pace if he would consider it good interrogation methods or a violation of the conventions if he saw a video of a U.S. Marine in enemy hands, bound, naked and in a stressful position with a hood on his head.

"I would describe it as a violation, sir," Pace replied.

"What you've described to me sounds like a violation of the Geneva Conventions," Wolfowitz added later.

I've read that an investigation into all of this this is yet to be carried out by army intelligence.

This just in.

A military lawyer for a soldier charged in the Abu Ghraib abuse case stated that a captain at the prison said the highest-ranking U.S. military officer in Iraq was present during some "interrogations and/or allegations of the prisoner abuse," according to a recording of a military hearing obtained by The Washington Post.

The lawyer, Capt. Robert Shuck, said he was told that Army Lt. Gen. Ricardo S. Sanchez and other senior military officers were aware of what was taking place on Tier 1A of Abu Ghraib. Shuck is assigned to defend Staff Sgt. Ivan L. "Chip" Frederick II of the 372nd Military Police Company. During an April 2 hearing that was open to the public, Shuck said the company commander, Capt. Donald J. Reese, was prepared to testify in exchange for immunity. The military prosecutor questioned Shuck about what Reese would say under oath.

"Are you saying that Captain Reese is going to testify that General Sanchez was there and saw this going on?" asked Capt. John McCabe, the military prosecutor.

"That's what he told me," Shuck said. "I am an officer of the court, sir, and I would not lie. I have got two children at home. I'm not going to risk my career."

Shuck also said a sergeant at the prison, First Sgt. Brian G. Lipinski, was prepared to testify that intelligence officers told him the abuse of detainees on the cellblock was "the right thing to do." Earlier this month, Lipinski declined to comment on the case.

So far, clear evidence has not emerged that high-level officers condoned or promoted the abusive practices. Officers at the prison have blamed the abuse on a few rogue, low-level military police officers from the 372nd, a company of U.S. Army Reservists based in Cresaptown, Md. The general in charge of the prisons in Iraq at the time has said that military intelligence officers took control of Abu Ghraib and gave the MPs "ideas."

A Defense Department spokesman yesterday referred questions about Sanchez to U.S. military officials in the Middle East, warning that statements by defense lawyers or their clients should be treated with "appropriate caution." Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt, the senior military spokesman in Iraq, said Sanchez was unavailable for comment last night but would "enjoy the opportunity" to respond later.

At the April hearing, Shuck also said Reese would testify that Capt. Carolyn A. Wood, who supervised the military intelligence operation at Abu Ghraib, was "involved in intensive interrogations of detainees, condoned some of the activities and stressed that that was standard procedure." The hearing was held at Camp Victory in Baghdad. The Post obtained a copy of the audiotape last week, and it was transcribed yesterday.

In the transcript, Shuck said Reese was disturbed by the military intelligence techniques.

"He noted that there were some strange doings by the [military intelligence]," Shuck said. "He said, 'What's all this nudity about, this posturing, positioning, withholding food and water? Where's the Geneva Conventions being followed."

Shuck noted that the abusive tactics used in Tier 1A of Abu Ghraib were not a secret.

"All of that was being questioned by the chain of command and denied, general officer level on down," Shuck said. "Present during some of these happenings, it has come to my knowledge that Lt. Gen. Sanchez was even present at the prison during some of these interrogations and/or allegations of the prisoner abuse by those duty [non-commissioned officers]."

Reese, 39, a reservist from Pennsylvania who works as a window-blind salesman in civilian life, did not testify that day because he had invoked the military version of his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.

Reese, who did not respond to an e-mail sent to him in Iraq yesterday, has not been granted immunity in exchange for his testimony. He did provide a sworn statement to military investigators early in the case, but he did not say that Sanchez was aware of the abuses.

Gary Myers, the civilian attorney for Frederick, said he is asking the military to add investigators to his legal team so he can track down Reese and other witnesses, several of whom have been reassigned to military posts throughout Iraq. Myers said he will also request that immunity be granted to a number of military personnel who he said have first-hand knowledge of what took place in Tier 1A.

"We intend to seek immunity for a myriad of officers who are unwilling to participate in the search for the truth without protecting themselves," Myers said yesterday. "We are definitely interested in talking to Captain Reese."

Who can't handle the truth?

 

[subgenius]

Frank, you are slow (see above).

William F. Buckley:

May 21, 2004, 2:00 p.m.
Is Everybody Brutal?
The Abu Ghraib aftermath.
The television moments of the interrogation of the generals by the senators reminded one of the estoppel power of bureaucratic language. Doing a television program in Seoul some years ago I attempted to get from the commanding general the answer to a question I had thought pretty simple. After digging in for a dozen minutes I finally retreated, dazed by what had evolved into an innate incomprehensibility not only of the answer, but of the question.

And the interrogating senators had less time than I had in Seoul, limited as they were to ten minutes. Senator Byrd, who is as tenacious as an Internal Revenue examiner, attempted to find out just who had the authority to decree privations for recalcitrant prisoners. From the blur that ensued, one got the impression that the stimulants to cooperation were invoked ad hoc. Well, did that mean that the individual U.S. soldier applied this or that inducement based on generic okays? Without specific okays?

One gets the impression that the command structure was simply ineffective. This is a relief, in that we like to think that nobody actually authorized what we know took place, because we have pictures of it taking place. But there is the concomitant dismay — that a number of American soldiers were engaged in barbarous activity over a period of weeks and even months, doing their best to persuade the world that it is unsafe to assume that Americans have an ingrown resistance to brutality.

A story published in the Baltimore Sun reveals that a few of the soldiers involved in Abu Ghraib attempted protests of sorts, but these went unheeded. Through all the past weeks' commotions there is the U.S. effort to speak to the Arab people. The idea is to communicate the mortification official America feels over what has happened, and to suggest that our critics spend some time evaluating our reaction to revealed torture, as compared with the resignation with which the Arab community greeted what went on routinely under the authority of the regime which we went to war to unseat.
...
How can a crime that stopped America dead when pictured on 60 Minutes warrant only a year in the jug?

We weren't about to shoot Specialist Sivits, but in doing to him what we are entitled to do under the limitations of our code, we reinforce that code which he scorned. It's going to take a long time before Civilization 101 seminars in Baghdad succeed in explaining that when the U.S. gets really mad, we'll lock somebody up for a year.
http://www.nationalreview.com/buckley/buckley.asp

 

[subgenius]

And the fact that Rumsfeld, allegedly, only saw the pics related to an investigation in his department that had been going on for months the night before he had to testify before the Senate, means what, rik?
What reasonable explanation is there for that?

 

[Frank Newgent]

Frank, you are slow.

Dial-up connection. And had to evacuate due to a full-scale fire alarm at my motel. Not spectacular enough to have to change my pants, though...

Damned lightning.

 

[subgenius]

"Have we established yet that a procedure such as this was one rule of engagement approved by the Department of the Army for all detainees and not requiring the commanding general's written approval? Looks that way to me."

The problem is that the standard of proof for rik is "unimpeachable" evidence.
The problem with that standard is that all evidence is impeachable.
And the conditions now include unimpeachable evidence that these animals were given specific orders to "kill, rape or maim prisoners".
Better find that memo that says, "Go stick that light stick up his bum." "Beat that guy to death."
Guess its gonna be a vote for Bush again.

 

[subgenius]

Dial-up connection. And had to evacuate due to a full-scale fire alarm at my motel. Not spectacular enough to have to change my pants, though...

Damned lightning.

Sounds exciting.

All of Dearborn Hts, Lincoln Park, Allen Park and Southgate are under water.
http://www.clickondetroit.com/weather/3330817/detail.html

 

[subgenius]

Iraqis lose right to sue troops over war crimes

Military win immunity pledge in deal on UN vote

Kamal Ahmed, political editor
Sunday May 23, 2004
The Observer

British and American troops are to be granted immunity from prosecution in Iraq after the crucial 30 June handover, undermining claims that the new Iraqi government will have 'full sovereignty' over the state.
Despite widespread ill-feeling about the abuse of prisoners by American forces and allegations of mistreatment by British troops, coalition forces will be protected from any legal action.
...
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1222817,00.html

 

[subgenius]

George Will:
This administration cannot be trusted to govern if it cannot be counted on to think and, having thought, to have second thoughts. Thinking is not the reiteration of bromides about how "all people yearn to live in freedom" (McClellan). And about how it is "cultural condescension" to doubt that some cultures have the requisite aptitudes for democracy (Bush). And about how it is a "myth" that "our attachment to freedom is a product of our culture" because "ours are not Western values; they are the universal values of the human spirit." (Tony Blair)
...
http://www.sacbee.com/content/opinion/national/will/story/9184291p-10109787c.html

 

[Nasarius]

Thinking is not the reiteration of bromides about how "all people yearn to live in freedom"

Completely irrelevant and off-topic, but...
Is it just me, or has the use of the word "bromide" (in place of "platitude") become rather common recently? I'd never seen the word used outside of chemistry until maybe a month ago. Etymology details, anyone?

 

[subgenius]

Completely irrelevant and off-topic, but...
Is it just me, or has the use of the word "bromide" (in place of "platitude") become rather common recently? I'd never seen the word used outside of chemistry until maybe a month ago. Etymology details, anyone?

It is just you. And George Will.

 

[subgenius]

Not that it will satisfy the rikish conditions:

Afghan Deaths Linked to Unit at Iraq Prison
By DOUGLAS JEHL and DAVID ROHDE

Published: May 24, 2004


WASHINGTON, May 23 — A military intelligence unit that oversaw interrogations at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq was also in charge of questioning at a detention center in Afghanistan where two prisoners died in December 2002 in incidents that are being investigated as homicides.
....
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/24/p...00&en=7291def92f884351&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE