0 |
Subject: The Bush Administration as a military dictatorship
Posted by: Perm Dude
- [3682268] Tue, Sep 26, 2006, 14:31
I've been strongly resisting the attempts by the Left to characterize the Bush Administration as "nazis" or as "Stalinistic" (ironically, two completely different political systems).
But the torture debate is a call for closer scrutiny, since the Administration has both used war rhetoric against enemies foreign and domestic, as well as expanded and formalized its own powers to hold citizens and non-citizens alike on charges of "purposefully and materially supporting hostilities against the United States" or its military allies.
Read that carefully. The Administration can decide (for instance) that your support of a minority party in Pakistan is enough to get you locked up into a secret prison and held without charges. The Administration can decide that your support of a campaign to move troops out of Iraq is enough as well.
There is very little difference between the aims of this Administration and a police state. The only real difference is that the Administration doesn't believe itself to be advocating one. But if it walks like a police state... |
Only the 50 most recent replies are currently shown. Click on this text to display hidden posts as well. [Lengthy or complex threads may require a slight delay before updating.] |
122 | Perm Dude
ID: 37955267 Fri, Oct 27, 2006, 11:06
|
Apparently torture helped start the Iraqi War.
Hopefully, news of its use will help end it.
|
123 | Perm Dude
ID: 12103148 Sat, Nov 04, 2006, 16:47
|
New Admin tactic: Detainees should not be permitted to tell their attorney they were tortured because revealing the information "could reasonably be expected to cause extremely grave damage."
We are far along that yellow brick road...
|
124 | sarge33rd
ID: 99331714 Sat, Nov 04, 2006, 17:11
|
..."could reasonably be expected to cause extremely grave damage."
many, MANY of us felt that same way on Nov 1, 2004,...re GWB.
|
125 | Boxman
ID: 49101015 Sat, Nov 04, 2006, 19:06
|
Sarge: I started reading State Of Denial until Culture Warrior came out and from the first chunk that I've read Rumsfeld really wanted some reforms done in the Pentagon and the broader military machine. Do you think that has any bearing on the severity of the criticism levied his way?
|
126 | Perm Dude
ID: 12103148 Sat, Nov 04, 2006, 21:33
|
If this was merely backlash for a SecDef who was pushing around entrenched military types, they would have spoken up some time ago. The active military has kept their mouth shut a long, long time about this, and openly calling for the resignation of a SecDef is an unheard of move as far as I know.
It is a sign up incompetence on Rumsfeld's part. Not a sign of his shaking up the Pentagon.
|
127 | sarge33rd
ID: 76442923 Sat, Nov 04, 2006, 22:00
|
re 125...Indeed he wanted "reforms". He envisioned a smaller, lighter, faster military. One which did NOT include for example, M-1 Abrahms Main Battle Tanks.
For all the BS noise conservatives raise over Dems wanting to gut the military, here we have the SecDef, wanting to gut our primary landbased combat vehicle from the inventory.
You REALLY need to finish reading State of Denial.
|
128 | Seattle Zen
ID: 46315247 Sat, Nov 04, 2006, 23:40
|
You have a brand new Sec. of Defense who wants to completely overhaul the military. He has an arrogance not seen since Middle Age monarchs and goes about implementing his overhaul by humiliating anyone who disagreed with his plans. Yes, the military establishment was not fond of Rumsfeld from the begining, but at the begining all that was at stake were military budgets and plans.
Lives are being lost and the arrogance has not abated. When numerous Republican candidates opening campaign about getting Rumsfeld to resign, we are talking about the least popular or effective cabinet member in generations.
|
129 | Boxman
ID: 49101015 Sun, Nov 05, 2006, 07:57
|
Yes, the military establishment was not fond of Rumsfeld from the begining,
My point exactly. While Rumsfeld has been a poor military operations leader as clearly evident by Iraq and I have supported his firing for years, I am still wondering how much of the angst directed his way is really root caused by his budget reallocations and reforms versus actual field performance.
Field performance alone, he should have been fired a long time ago, but when the guy is reforming the Pentagon the way he is reforming it I wonder about the genuineness of the criticisms. Meaning, how many would support him now if he had maintained the status quo?
Sarge: Indeed he wanted "reforms". He envisioned a smaller, lighter, faster military. One which did NOT include for example, M-1 Abrahms Main Battle Tanks.
For all the BS noise conservatives raise over Dems wanting to gut the military, here we have the SecDef, wanting to gut our primary landbased combat vehicle from the inventory.
Is it a gutting or a transformation? There is a difference.
On what strategic basis do you disagree with that strategy? I think it's safe to say that any war that involves a thousand tanks versus another countries thousands tanks anymore is far beyond imaginable. It would go nuclear before that. Further, I don't see winning the terror war with tanks. Intel and special ops are going to find OBL in his hut wherever he is, not an armored column.
I'm not defending Rumsfelds field record. I refuse to do that. But I do see his point in transforming the military and I believe that has caused the temperature level of his criticism to artificially rise.
|
130 | sarge33rd
ID: 76442923 Sun, Nov 05, 2006, 09:32
|
What caused the disgust with Rumsfeld, is essentially a threefold list:
1) He essentially neutered the Joint Chiefs of Staff, 2) He is a micromanager to the extreme. Has his fingers into EVERYTHING. 3) Abandoned the Powell Doctrine of using overwhelming force, and sent insufficient troop numbers into Iraq. This in turn, increased our casualty count.
|
131 | Perm Dude
ID: 38105759 Sun, Nov 05, 2006, 11:49
|
I'm no "conspiracy theorist" but you don't have to be to think something in hinky here
|
132 | Perm Dude
ID: 38105759 Sun, Nov 05, 2006, 11:50
|
Overall money quote:
In the debate which has emerged over detainee abuse practices, the great focus has been on the detainees and the suffering they incurred. I don't question this approach. But religious scholars and ethicists are quick to point out that torture and mistreatment presents damage at many levels. Obviously the victim. But what about the dignity and integrity of the uniformed service personnel who are ordered to use these techniques? They are morally compromised by this act. Many sustain long-term mental health damage as a result. The literature also suggests that interrogators who use abusive techniques frequently become demoralized and unruly, precisely because they question the moral authority of a command structure which authorizes such obviously immoral conduct.
|
133 | Tree
ID: 11055511 Sun, Nov 05, 2006, 12:55
|
come on, could it get more any "time to make a change" than this:
Papers sold to military: ‘Rumsfeld must go’
from the Military Times
|
134 | Perm Dude
ID: 5801567 Sat, Jan 06, 2007, 09:02
|
We're now up to 29 (cases of the Administration hiding once-public sources of information)
|
135 | sarge33rd
ID: 99331714 Sat, Jan 06, 2007, 10:12
|
* In March, the administration announced it would no longer produce the Census Bureau’s Survey of Income and Program Participation, which identifies which programs best assist low-income families, while also tracking health insurance coverage and child support. * In 2005, after a government report showed an increase in terrorism around the world, the administration announced it would stop publishing its annual report on international terrorism.
* After the Bureau of Labor Statistics uncovered discouraging data about factory closings in the U.S., the administration announced it would stop publishing information about factory closings.
* When an annual report called “Budget Information for States” showed the federal government shortchanging states in the midst of fiscal crises, Bush’s Office of Management and Budget announced it was discontinuing the report, which some said was the only source for comprehensive data on state funding from the federal government.
* When Bush’s Department of Education found that charter schools were underperforming, the administration said it would sharply cut back on the information it collects about charter schools.
If it were so damn dangerous, I'd be LMAO. Stereo-typical head-in-the-sand, "if we dont talk about it, maybe it'll go away" mentality.
|
136 | biliruben
ID: 4911361723 Sat, Jan 06, 2007, 10:22
|
I don't think they stop collecting and using the information. They just stop giving it to the people.
|
137 | Perm Dude
ID: 51043615 Sat, Jan 06, 2007, 16:43
|
I dunno. Seems a lot easier for the Administration to just not collect the information rather than collect and try to hide it.
|
138 | sarge33rd
ID: 76442923 Sun, Jan 07, 2007, 08:04
|
* When Bush’s Department of Education found that charter schools were underperforming, the administration said it would sharply cut back on the information it collects about charter schools.
Sorta think the admin answered that theory itself.
|
139 | sarge33rd
ID: 76442923 Sun, Jan 07, 2007, 08:04
|
Oh you're prolly right in this case PD. Still, 68/110 from "Expert" shooters, is an unacceptable tally.
|
140 | Perm Dude
ID: 25658198 Thu, Jul 19, 2007, 20:31
|
Not confirmed by the Senate--no worries. Just do the job anyway
I don't want to sound like Chicken Little, but the President just signed an Executive Order to allow him to freeze the assets of not only people threatening violence against "peace efforts" in Iraq, but does so without notification.
The beginning of the EO seems fine (in fact, I don't think you even need it to freeze the assets of those committing or contemplating violence in Iraq). But then it does off the rails quickly.
My guess is that this is actually aimed at Iran (though, as we know, half of all foreign fighters in Iraq are Saudi. Fat chance W will freeze the assets of his friends the Saudi royal family).
|
141 | Perm Dude
ID: 25658198 Thu, Jul 19, 2007, 21:06
|
Bush countdown clock
|
142 | Perm Dude
ID: 54650208 Fri, Jul 20, 2007, 13:41
|
How to create an angry American
|
143 | walk
ID: 75112114 Mon, Jul 23, 2007, 14:11
|
NYT: Inside View of Guantanamo Hearings
It was obvious, Colonel Abraham said, that officials were under intense pressure to show quick results. Quickly, he said, he grew concerned about the quality of the reports being used as evidence. The unclassified evidence, he said, lacked the kind of solid corroboration he had relied on throughout his intelligence career. “The classified information,” he added, “was stripped down, watered down, removed of context, incomplete and missing essential information.”
Many detainees implicated other detainees, he said, and there was often no way to test whether they had provided false information to win favor with interrogators.
He said he was prohibited from discussing the facts of cases. But public information, much of it obtained through lawsuits, includes examples of some of the points he made.
In a hearing on Oct. 26, 2004, a transcript shows, one detainee was told that another had identified him as having attended a terrorism training camp. The detainee asked that his accuser be brought to testify. “We don’t know his name,” the senior officer on the hearing panel said.
At another hearing, later reviewed by a federal judge, a Turkish detainee, Murat Kurnaz, was said to have been associated with an Islamic missionary group. He had also traveled with a man who had become a suicide bomber. “It would appear,” Judge Joyce Hens Green wrote in 2005, “that the government is indefinitely holding the detainee — possibly for life — solely because of his contacts with individuals or organizations tied to terrorism and not because of any terrorist activities that the detainee aided, abetted or undertook himself.”
In a third hearing, an Afghan detainee said he had indeed been a jihadist — during the 1980s war against the Soviet Union, when a lot of Afghans were jihadists. Was that what the accusation against him meant, he asked, or was it referring to later, during the American war? “We don’t know what that time frame was, either,” the tribunal’s lead officer replied. During one of the recent interviews, Colonel Abraham said that the general accusations that detainees were jihadists without much more alarmed him. “As an intelligence agent, I would have written ‘junk statement’ across that,” he said.
|
144 | Seattle Zen Leader
ID: 055343019 Wed, Jul 23, 2008, 22:15
|
Long time listeners will remember my post 4 where I spoke of "He who shall not be named" Addington. The author of that New Yorker piece has written an entire book about him and this awful Administration.
Imagine a fanatic in the mold of Dick Cheney but without the vice president’s sense of humor.
In her important new book, “The Dark Side: The Inside Story of How the War on Terror Turned Into a War on American Ideals,” Jane Mayer of The New Yorker devotes a great deal of space to David Addington, Dick Cheney’s main man and the lead architect of the Bush administration’s legal strategy for the so-called war on terror. She quotes a colleague as saying of Mr. Addington: “No one stood to his right.” Colin Powell, a veteran of many bruising battles with Mr. Cheney, was reported to have summed up Mr. Addington as follows: “He doesn’t believe in the Constitution.”
Very few voters are aware of Mr. Addington’s existence, much less what he stands for. But he was the legal linchpin of the administration’s Marquis de Sade approach to battling terrorism. In the view of Mr. Addington and his acolytes, anything and everything that the president authorized in the fight against terror — regardless of what the Constitution or Congress or the Geneva Conventions might say — was all right. That included torture, rendition, warrantless wiretapping, the suspension of habeas corpus, you name it.
This is the mind-set that gave us Abu Ghraib, Guantánamo and the C.I.A.’s secret prisons, known as “black sites.” Ms. Mayer wrote: “The legal doctrine that Addington espoused — that the president, as commander in chief, had the authority to disregard virtually all previously known legal boundaries if national security demanded it — rested on a reading of the Constitution that few legal scholars shared.” I want every Guantanamo supporter to read this next paragraph aloud and if you aren't disturbed by it, please seek medical help.
“After reviewing 517 of the Guantánamo detainees’ cases in depth,” she said, “they concluded that only 8 percent were alleged to have associated with Al Qaeda. Fifty-five percent were not alleged to have engaged in any hostile act against the United States at all, and the remainder were charged with dubious wrongdoing, including having tried to flee U.S. bombs. The overwhelming majority — all but 5 percent — had been captured by non-U.S. players, many of whom were bounty hunters.”
|
145 | Jag
ID: 28457122 Thu, Jul 24, 2008, 00:31
|
I watch PD's video and my first thought was the poor and dishonest attempt to claim the Bush administatration tried to tie Saddam to 9-11. I have heard this reiterated 100s of times by the Left, but only remember a single statement by Cheney and that was a 9-11 terrorist met with the Iraq high council. This was editted on the video so not to disrupt the propaganda.
Anyone can make a video of this kind and make anyone, even Mother Teresa, appear to be a Nazi.
What stood out more than anything about the video is the hate. I use to make jokes about the Left, but I never harboured any malice. Other than Walk, I find the Liberals here consumed by hatred and unforunately this disease is not isolated to this forum.
No rational person could ever believe Zen's last paragraph and is a perfect example of how hatred can dull one's perception of reality.
|
146 | Perm Dude
ID: 146272320 Thu, Jul 24, 2008, 01:05
|
I want every Guantanamo supporter to read this next paragraph aloud and if you aren't disturbed by it, please seek medical help.
This is an example of hatred?
|
147 | Boldwin
ID: 406201020 Thu, Jul 24, 2008, 04:22
|
Jag
I am not so quick to dismiss SZ's find.
Without a doubt libs' rationality are clouded by partisan derangement syndrome but Bush is a globalist and truth be told does not believe in the constitution. In his heart he's moved on to the 'new world order' and the constitution can dry up and blow away as far as he is concerned. How this effected the decisions about detainees is a matter of legitimate concern.
Obviously we have not heard enuff about these 'bounty hunters'. Pleeenty of room for badness there.
|
148 | Jag
ID: 28457122 Thu, Jul 24, 2008, 14:31
|
This is an example of hatred?
No, it is an example how hate can disrupt rational thinking.
Zen, no one is a fan of Guantanamo, except for maybe people like you, who use it to fuel their manic opposition toward President Bush. Most just don't want the bad guys killing more Americans.
|
149 | sarge33rd
ID: 99331714 Thu, Jul 24, 2008, 15:10
|
No, it is an example how hate can disrupt rational thinking.
No it isnt. It IS an example of how love of our Constitution leads inevitably to a condemnation of this Administration.
|
150 | Jag
ID: 28457122 Thu, Jul 24, 2008, 15:39
|
No it isnt. It IS an example of how love of our Constitution leads inevitably to a condemnation of this Administration
Funny how both the far Left and the far Right use the Constitution for their polar opposite ideologies.
|
151 | Perm Dude
ID: 2625247 Thu, Jul 24, 2008, 15:49
|
You won't see much difference is the language or tactics of either fringe.
|
152 | boikin
ID: 532592112 Thu, Jul 24, 2008, 16:01
|
I don't think people care anymore about Guantanamo, War on terror anymore, that was so last year.
|
153 | Jag
ID: 28457122 Thu, Jul 24, 2008, 16:33
|
If I believed, even for a second, that our government put innocent Iraqis in Guantanamo, I would be screaming more loudly than Zen. If there were a hint of truth to this story, I am sure Reid and Pelosi would be all over it.
|
154 | sarge33rd
ID: 99331714 Thu, Jul 24, 2008, 16:36
|
and you'd simply ignore anything else they had to sya, as you have anything they've said thus far. Would you at LEAST quit lying to yourself about your 'open mindedness"...please.
|
155 | Jag
ID: 28457122 Thu, Jul 24, 2008, 18:07
|
Does even the Left take what Pelosi or Reid say, seriously?
|
156 | Boldwin
ID: 406201020 Thu, Jul 24, 2008, 19:00
|
Not the Dems who would love to switch sides on oil exploration and nuclear power right now.
|
157 | Boldwin
ID: 406201020 Thu, Jul 24, 2008, 19:01
|
If only Pelosi would allow them to come to the floor.
|
158 | Perm Dude
ID: 266542419 Thu, Jul 24, 2008, 20:56
|
Yes--Republicans were known for that themselves, weren't they? Had an open door policy with Democrats as well. Brought them scones to their offices and what not.
|
159 | Boldwin
ID: 406201020 Fri, Jul 25, 2008, 05:03
|
I'm talking about a Dem leadership pulling every trick in the book to keep from letting their own Democrat members vote the way they and their constituents want.
|
160 | Boldwin
ID: 406201020 Fri, Jul 25, 2008, 05:08
|
Also if Dems aren't allowed to vote their traditional 'drive energy costs higher and then tax the hell out of it'...because energy bills and amendments are kept from the floor...then Dems are less likely to be held accountable for the traditional Dem position.
|
161 | walk
ID: 181472714 Fri, Jul 25, 2008, 12:34
|
I read that Herbert op-ed when it came out and just did not have the time to post. Slower day today...
I dunno Jag, I do not have the data, but have read in numerous places that many of the detainees in Gitmo are dubious. I really do not have the implicit faith that all of these guys are actual terrorists, and believe that the only way to find out is through our judicial process. That they were not given a proper judicial process, to me, seems inconsistent with our American ideals and judicial system. We are a powerful and civilized country with a good judicial system. There has to be a way to expedite their trials without jeapardizing security. Many of these detainees have rotted in Gitmo for waaaaay too long, and allegedly, under brutal conditions. This does not seem "American."
|
162 | Boldwin
ID: 406201020 Fri, Jul 25, 2008, 14:08
|
I think the case of OBL's driver is quite interesting and I mean to dig into it. How is it possible to be OBL's driver and not be complicit and yet some are quite convinced the guy is an innocent taxi driver. Could you believe witnesses even if he could produce such character witnesses to vouch for him?
|
163 | Perm Dude
ID: 266542419 Fri, Jul 25, 2008, 15:30
|
Please post what you find.
|
164 | Perm Dude
ID: 266542419 Fri, Jul 25, 2008, 15:35
|
A Venn diagram of Administration crimes.
|
165 | Perm Dude
ID: 53657288 Mon, Jul 28, 2008, 16:50
|
Disabled vets tell Cheney not to come over "draconian" security measures.
Love the accompanying pick of Cheney.
|
166 | Tree
ID: 13714198 Tue, Sep 16, 2008, 14:39
|
i don't expect it will stay up long, but one of the current headlines on the main page of CNN.com...
"Bush lands in Texas; Residents urged to leave"
OUTSTANDING.
|
167 | Perm Dude
ID: 3825168 Tue, Sep 16, 2008, 14:43
|
Damn. Can anyone do a screenshot save?
|
168 | Seattle Zen
ID: 40222821 Sat, Mar 28, 2009, 23:02
|
A Spanish court has taken the first steps toward opening a criminal investigation into allegations that six former high-level Bush administration officials violated international law by providing the legal framework to justify the torture of prisoners at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba
Here, here!
The case, against former Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales and others, was sent to the prosecutor’s office for review by Baltasar Garzón, the crusading investigative judge who ordered the arrest of the former Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet. The official said that it was “highly probable” that the case would go forward and that it could lead to arrest warrants. The move represents a step toward ascertaining the legal accountability of top Bush administration officials for allegations of torture and mistreatment of prisoners in the campaign against terrorism. But some American experts said that even if warrants were issued their significance could be more symbolic than practical, and that it was a near certainty that the warrants would not lead to arrests if the officials did not leave the United States. Hang 'em high!
|
169 | Boxman
ID: 571114225 Sun, Mar 29, 2009, 08:35
|
So you want Bush administration officials put to death?
|
170 | DWetzel
ID: 33337117 Sun, Mar 29, 2009, 12:40
|
Are you one of them?
Then yes!
|
171 | Boxman
ID: 571114225 Sun, Mar 29, 2009, 14:49
|
You really want me dead? Over what? A message board post. I'm soooo scared.
|
If you believe a recent post violates the policy on Civility and Respect, you may report the abuse via email to moderators@rotoguru1.com |
|
|
Post a reply to this message: (But first, how about checking out this sponsor?)
|