tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9395124.post111794212925795224..comments2005-08-08T00:11:06.146+09:00Comments on Riding Sun: What is being done in our nameUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger61125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9395124.post-1118448283093656412005-06-11T09:04:00.000+09:002005-06-11T09:04:00.000+09:00Brief response to bunkerbuster:Please comment on t...Brief response to bunkerbuster:<BR/>Please comment on the recent ouburst of outrage throughout the Muslim world over alleged desecration of Korans. Is this the reaction of educated and honorable people? It appears to show almost every characteristic of the opposite: credulity, overreaction, hypocrisy (Korans are routinely destroyed in Saudi Arabia, let alone Bibles - where is the outrage?), generalization, vengefulness (US flags burned and stomped)...<BR/><BR/>I agree with you on the long-term strategy of promoting human rights and freedom in Muslim societies. But you are dealing with the local modus of thinking today, and it's telling that you don't see honor and shame there - we are not talking Western style honor. It is honorable there to effect brutal revenge on those who have wronged/shamed/dishonored you - actually, it's the only way to restore one's honor, and that is a major recruiting pitch of terrorists. Democracy works when there are important safeguards in society - separation of state and religion, racial/ethnic equality, etc. They are in place in the US today, but to get there we lived through a Civil War, civil rights movement, etc. Throw in WMD's, and the equation changes - a rogue waco can level a city and plunge the world into a recession - is this your idea of cost-benefit analysis? Can you picture the southern plantation owners, or the MOVE members of Philadelphia armed not with rifles, but with missiles?<BR/><BR/>While you attack my sources of information, you fail to name yours. As I mentioned, I have lived in a Muslim country - Algeria - and observed, among other things, that the average family has 8 children (if you like stats, that distribution is skewed - the few wealthy educated ones have 3 or less, the majority have 10+), and these children live on a 1 local dinar worth of "baguette" (French-style bread) a day. A village may have no hospital of school, but it must have a mosque, unless they can hear the one from a nearby village. The quality of schooling (80% religious education) is pitiful. Where did your average educated and literate Muslim come from, and where was he or she hiding while I was there? Yes, there were notable exceptions, but they were just that - exceptions, and were prevalently military men. <BR/><BR/>In Turkey and Algeria not long ago fundamentalist Islamic parties were poised to win elections, and the military intervened - would you advocate letting those rule, given their historical tendency to not let go of power without a civil war?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9395124.post-1118369218218496452005-06-10T11:06:00.000+09:002005-06-10T11:06:00.000+09:00It's telling that MOAB admires the Soviet response...It's telling that MOAB admires the Soviet response to Islamofascism. Fortunately, Americans have strongly rejected the simplistic assumptions on which the Soviet view of humanity is constructed.<BR/><BR/> Moreover, Americans know that the Soviet policy, for all its ruthlessness, failed miserably Afghanistan and is failing spectacularly and at great cost in Chechnya today. Apparently, MOAB missed the history lesson on the war in Afghanistan and maybe, like Bush, he doesn't read the newspaper, so doesn't know what's happening in Chechnya, not to mention Georgia, Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan. How many Beslan massacres does it take for people like MOAB to get a clue? <BR/><BR/>The American idea is that respect for human rights is not a nicety and not a naive belief in Utopia but an essential source of moral strength, purpose and ideological coherence. The Soviet Union is an excellent example of how ruthlessness in the long term devastates a society and culture. Americans, including liberals, have done the cost benefit analysis and, throughout their history, have concluded that approaches like that of the Soviets are based on short-term, naive assumptions about human nature. <BR/><BR/>I could go into the evidence showing that torture doesn't work and how thoroughly and consistently torture demoralizes the torturer, but I'm confident that most Americans already understand that very well. They've done the cost benefit analysis and therefore know that torture and Soviet-style ruthlessness failed spectacularly for the Soviet Union and certainly won't work for America.<BR/><BR/>In advocating torture and Soviet-style aggression, MOAB also fails to make the distinction between Islamofascism and the broader Muslim world. MOAB writes: ``Muslim societies operate primarily on the concepts of honor and shame in the context of a populace that is stunningly ignorant and largely illiterate.''<BR/><BR/> Bin Laden and his tiny, scattered band of fanatic murderers are neither ignorant, nor illiterate and have shown very little understanding of honor or shame. What drives people like MOAB to claim that Soviet policies are effective and Islamofascists understand honor and shame? Fox News Channel? Home schooling? right-wing blogs?<BR/> <BR/> Surely many of bin Laden's followers are illiterate, but MOABs ridiculous mistake is to claim that they represent Muslim society in general. Bin Laden's devotees are the deepest dregs of Muslim society and, mostly, are outcasts and outlaws. While superficial support for bin Laden has swelled in places like Iraq and Pakistan because of Bush's policies, it is a fatal mistake to think that U.S. policies should be based on crushing the hearts and minds of Islamofascists. As MOAB points out, they are suicidal fanatics, so reason and persuasion, not to mention conventional military deterrence, are beside the point.<BR/><BR/> The vast majority of Muslims are not suicidal, not unreasonable and not illiterate. This is the real world you won't see on the Fox News Channel. It is a world where the U.S. can and will win hearts and minds by consistently, confidently and thoroughly maintaining respect for human rights, truth and, well, the American way. American ideals and institutions, by their nature, appeal to the TOP of Muslim society and the many millions of freedom-loving, truth-seeking Muslims in Egypt, Turkey, Indonesia, India and so on. These are the hearts and minds the matter, not those of the defeated, insular, self-hating Islamofascists.<BR/><BR/>The Soviet way has failed spectacularly and it's sad that people like MOAB spit in the faces of the brave souls who fought the Soviets by advocating their twisted view of humanity.<BR/><BR/>MOAB asks me to offer an alternative policy to preemption in a nuclear armed world. Americans are not opposed to pre-emption when it is directly targeted at specific threats, such as preventing the Timothy McVeighs of the world from getting hold of nuclear weapons. Americans had no problem with the hunt for bin Laden and would have no problem with, for example, demanding that Pakistan surrender Amhir Khan and open its nuclear program to international inspections.<BR/><BR/>But the war in Iraq has nothing to do with preventing Al Qaeda from getting nuclear weapons. The prospects of terrorists getting nukes from Saddam sometime after the many years it would have taken him to build them were extremely remote, especially when North Korea, Pakistan and Russia are far readier sources of the same materials.<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/> <BR/><BR/><A></A><A></A>Posted by<A><B> </B></A><A HREF="http://ridingsun.blogspot.com/2005/06/what-is-being-done-in-our-name.html#c111830491511445311" REL="nofollow" TITLE="realandpositive at yahoo dot com">bunkerbuster</A>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9395124.post-1118304915114453112005-06-09T17:15:00.000+09:002005-06-09T17:15:00.000+09:00I know I'll instantly be labeled for this, but let...I know I'll instantly be labeled for this, but let me remind you a few facts:<BR/>1) Life is full a "cynical" cost-benefit analyses and decisions, much as many liberals hate the very notion. By allowing peanut butter in stores, for example, we are failing to prevent hundreds of anaphylactic shock death each year for people with severe allergy to peanuts. Should we ban peanut butter?<BR/>2) In view of the afore-mentioned analysis, should torture and humiliation be banned? Muslim societies operate primarily on the concepts of honor and shame in the context of a populace that is stunningly ignorant and largely illiterate. A visual demonstration of power there is worth much more than a thousand words (do you think public executions in Iran are a mere coincidence?). When we claim the proverbial high moral ground by treating terrorists humanely, we are claiming it mostly with non-Muslims - with Muslims we are claiming the SHAMEFUL (in their view) perception that we are wimps. By the way, I lived for 3 years in Algeria, and have first hand observations. Illustrative case: In September 1985, four Soviet diplomats in Beirut were kidnapped by members of Hezbollah. One of them, Arkady Katkov, was shot in the head, and the rest were imprisoned. The terrorists wanted the Soviet Union to bring pressure on Syria to stop giving military support to a rival militia group. The situation was similar to that the United States, France, and other countries faced vis-à-vis the same Iranian-backed Shiite militants. But the Soviet response was different. Working with Syria, the KGB tracked down three young relatives of the Hezbollah leader. The Soviets then, so it is said, mutilated one of the men and sent body parts to the terrorists with a promise that the other two in their care would be treated similarly unless their people were released. That evening, the three diplomats, emaciated, unshaven, barefoot, and wearing dirty track suits, appeared at the gates of the Soviet embassy. Problem solved. <BR/>3) Non-invasion foreign-policy doctrines were designed for (and worked sometimes) in a world where nuclear threats came from counterparties that were a) non-suicidal, and b) could be negotiated with and threatened back because they did not hide amongst civilians. Please summarize an effective and feasible (forget, for example, border control for all people and goods entering the country - just not economically and logistically feasible) US NON-PREEMPTIVE counterpolicy to an Al-Qaeda armed with nukes. Until you can formulate such a policy, you are ceding the first-move advantage in a game with unacceptably high stakes. It is not very palatable, but you are gambling with other people's lives in order to assuage your own moral qualms about activities that have no place in Utopia, but work very well in the real world. In 1946, the Japanese were every bit as determined to die for their emperor as jihadists are to die for their gurus, and fire-bombing Tokyo did not change that, but nuclear explosions did, and in a matter of days. Assasinations of rogue leaders were never carried out in a large enough scale, but put yourselves in the shoes of say a future Kim Jong Il or Iranian mullah, whose handful of predecessors ended up with a bullet between the eyes by unknown assasins. Would you choose to be fair game, or would you choose any path other than nuclear weapons to raise cash or to solidify your power? If the price of world security and stability is a few radical wacos sent underground, how is that not the best solution, short of a miracle overnight change-of-heart? Sounds outrageous and repugnant, but should the "unthinkable" happen, would not the opponents of that have a pretty bad case of remorse? <BR/><BR/><A></A><A></A>Posted by<A><B> </B></A><A HREF="http://ridingsun.blogspot.com/2005/06/what-is-being-done-in-our-name.html" REL="nofollow" TITLE="jentleman at hotmail dot com">MOAB</A>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9395124.post-1118187487452653402005-06-08T08:38:00.000+09:002005-06-08T08:38:00.000+09:00Odysseus writes: ``It enfuriates me that I will ha...Odysseus writes: ``It enfuriates me that I will have missed a year of my family's life, including my daughter's first steps , in order to defend the freedoms of people who actively seek our defeat.''<BR/><BR/>Get over yourself, Odysseus! You didn't invade Iraq to defend my freedoms. In fact, the invasion has increased the prospects that my freedoms will be curtailed. Just look at what people say on this blog: Some insist that the war is a good reason to censor the media and to let the government, not the people, decide what's news.<BR/> Are you suggesting that, without the invasion of Iraq, the U.S. survival as a freedom-loving country would be at risk? If so, please elaborate. <BR/> No, you didn't invade Iraq to protect my freedom, you invaded primarily to help assure Bush-Cheney's reelection by distracting attention away from their failure to understand the strengths and weaknesses of Islamofascists.<BR/>  <BR/><BR/><A></A><A></A>Posted by<A><B> </B></A><A HREF="http://ridingsun.blogspot.com/2005/06/what-is-being-done-in-our-name.html#c111817997671455637" REL="nofollow" TITLE="realandpositive at yahoo dot com">bunkerbuster</A>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9395124.post-1118179976714556372005-06-08T06:32:00.000+09:002005-06-08T06:32:00.000+09:00Other and Odysseus miss the point. If you don't wa...Other and Odysseus miss the point. If you don't want Abu Ghraib images spread across the world, you need to prevent Abu Ghraibs from happening. One of those ways, you'll agree, is to fully investigate and fully report on it.<BR/><BR/>As for the beheadings, I agree, they should be shown. I wouldn't watch them, because I'm squimish, but I can't look at some of the Abu Ghraib pictures either. The suggestion, however, that these videos would help the U.S. win this war is absurd, as is the claim that somehow they aren't being shown because the media want America to lose.<BR/><BR/>Most Americans' reaction to the beheading videos is to ask themselves why Americans were kidnapped in the first place. Was it to prevent WMDs from getting to terrorists? Was it revenge for 9/11? Was it to boost the popularity of George W. Bush? They will ask themselves, ever more urgently, whether the war is worth it. People who's anger is stoked by beheading videos are already fully on board with this war--any war, really--so I don't think fannying their flames helps build support for the war.<BR/><BR/>I love Americans because they know the New York Times is, for the most part, an amazingly good newspaper. That's why mainsteram Americans consider it the premier model of journalism. That's why when other newspaper editors and TV newspeople want to understand a complex story or get a "reality check" on their own coverage, they often use the New York Times coverage as a gauge. That's also why the New York Times can afford to pay its writers and editors some of the highest salaries in the business.<BR/> Many Americans also understand that a newspaper isn't a mirror of reality. It's a selection of the most important information the reporters could find in a given period.<BR/><BR/> For example, Other suggests that newspapers should print 99 percent good news, since 99 percent of the things that happen are good. There are lot of newspapers around the world that do this. North Korean newspapers are like that, a lot of Chinese newspapers are just like that. I suspect newspapers in Saudi Arabia and Iran focus very closely on the government's success stories and only lightly cover its failures.<BR/> Americans, in mhy opinion, know better. They are politically mature enough to understand that focusing on your own faults actually strengthens your country in the long run.<BR/> Many Americans know that this idea that showing the Abu Ghraib evidence will make the Islamofascists mad and cause them to kill more Americans is nonsense. The Islamofascists are far, far beyond reason. Moreover, as Gaijinbiker and others have pointed out, the basic contours of the war crimes at Abu Ghraib are known by all who are paying attention. The release of additional evidence will not provide new cause for offense, though the Islamofascists need no evidence to substantiate their causes. <BR/> Why does the right wing insist on trying to manage America's image among its least-reasonable, most fanatic enemies? Why does it think that covering up the problems is a better approach than doing everything possible to prevent them?<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/> <BR/><BR/><A></A><A></A>Posted by<A><B> </B></A><A HREF="http://ridingsun.blogspot.com/2005/06/what-is-being-done-in-our-name.html#c111815127444898108" REL="nofollow" TITLE="realandpositive at yahoo dot com">bunkerbuster</A>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9395124.post-1118169202726556702005-06-08T03:33:00.000+09:002005-06-08T03:33:00.000+09:00There is a logical argument on both sides of this:...There is a logical argument on both sides of this: <BR/><BR/>Releasing the tapes WILL get westerners killed and boost aQ recruiting while lowering the determination of the the US, UK, et al in WW4/Global-War-on-Jihadis.<BR/><BR/>Not releasing the tapes will violate our comittment to openness and freedom of the (leftist) press.<BR/><BR/>Just as minimizing and hiding the 9/11-jumpers and WTC-collapse-video and the various beheading videos violates our comittment to openness and lowering the determination of the the US, UK, et al in WW4/Global-War-on-Jihadis.<BR/><BR/>The left (peaceniks against war generally and leftists/socialists agsinst GWB no-matter-what) wants military/GWB mistakes played up regardless of the WW4 deaths or consequences. The press agrees. (And does it.)<BR/><BR/>The rest of us want simple media balance regarding WW4. You lefties want our screwups, fine, then show our good deeds in accurate-to-life proportions and we'll be fine with that ... 99% good deeds to 1% Abu Gharib (mirroring reality) we can deal with. 99% Abu Gharib and obvious Anti-GWB-pre-election propoganda is unreasonable.<BR/><BR/>The rest of us may dislike the theocrats being given power in DC, but think that that is better than letting peacenik/socialists run things during WW4.<BR/><BR/>I have a simple multipart solution that satisfies everybody:<BR/>1: Show the video to US reporters to describe what they see. Do not release it, just a limited viewing.<BR/>2: The US Media should voluntarily start reminding people what WW4 is about. Before any WW4 newscast, show a 1-second image on-screen that reduces to a 10%x10% icon in a corner while the talking heads talk. Show a random selection from the WTC, Nick Berg, miscellaneous beheadings, Saddam's mass graves, the iron-maiden, purple-fingered-voters, afghan-girls-soccer, etc.<BR/><BR/>And I like the Eliminate-Koran-Abuse idea ... by removing the US-Army-issued-Korans from Gitmo ... how about replacing them with Shakespeare and Hollywood movies?<BR/><BR/>One more thing: If you leftists make running prison camps (for the duration of WW4) impossible, the US military will stop taking prisoners. Jihadis are not signatories to Geneva and are non-uniformed combatants. We are not required to accept their surrender. When paroled, they return to fighting. They also believe in Taqiyyah (look it up) so only senior (?educated) people are worth capturing alive for the CIA. Before criticizing Guantanamo for long-term detention, realize that the alternative may be death on the battlefield. <BR/><BR/><A></A><A></A>Posted by<A><B> </B></A><A HREF="http://ridingsun.blogspot.com/2005/06/what-is-being-done-in-our-name.html" REL="nofollow" TITLE="anon at ymo dot us">Other</A>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9395124.post-1118167561225543132005-06-08T03:06:00.000+09:002005-06-08T03:06:00.000+09:00Just for the record, as I stated earlier, the last...Just for the record, as I stated earlier, the last thing I want to do is censor the press. However, I do think during wartime the media CAN fuel the fire <I>against</I>  our own military, MOST of which are law abiding Americans. And <I>yes</I> information like this should be known to the public, and it is, but do we <I>need</I> to see a photo album of a few Americans abusing prisoners international television?<BR/><BR/>So the pictures to be released are supposed to be "ugly and shocking..." and THAT is what Americans and the rest of the world "deserves" to see. That may be true, but the "ugly and shocking" photos and videos of Americans being tortured, beheaded, hung and burned from bridges are censored from the American public. <BR/><BR/>What's the motive for the media to be so bias in their coverage? Is it money? Better ratings with Americans as "the bad guy"? Is it because Americans as a whole might be utterly outraged to actually see, instead of hearing about, the injustices done to their brothers, sisters, moms and dads, or would be more unified in this war on terror? That doesn't make for good ratings in the media world uh?<BR/><BR/>Not only have we heard about the abuses at Abu Ghraib, we've seen some of the pictures on the six 'o clock news, during dinner time, with kids watching. Is this what we want our kids to see? A one sided coverage of war? <BR/><BR/>When the soldier killed the terrorist that was "faking dead" and it was caught on tape, the media played it over and over for days. And there was barely any mention of the fact that U.S. soldiers were being killed by terrorists that were faking dead, and that was the reason for the shooting. That video was played all over the world, and the theme for the story was - the U.S. is being inhumane and insensitive.<BR/><BR/>So, fair is fair. If you're going to be so adamant on showing Americans commiting crimes against others then we should show crimes against Americans also. <BR/><BR/><A></A><A></A>Posted by<A><B> </B></A>Chris KAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9395124.post-1118151274448981082005-06-07T22:34:00.000+09:002005-06-07T22:34:00.000+09:00"I really wish the ACLU, Amnesty International and..."I really wish the ACLU, Amnesty International and other formally responsible organizations would think before they act."<BR/><BR/>They do. They are thinking about how much damage they can do to our war effort. They chose sides a long time ago, and we're not it. <BR/><BR/>This is the same mindset that Eason Jordan demonstrated when he accused us of targeting journalists, or CiCi Conelly accused us of murdering over a hundred detainees. <BR/><BR/>They <B>want</B>  us to lose. <BR/><BR/>It enfuriates me that I will have missed a year of my family's life, including my <A HREF="http://odysseus.journalspace.com" REL="nofollow">daughter's first steps</A> , in order to defend the freedoms of people who actively seek our defeat.  <BR/><BR/><A></A><A></A>Posted by<A><B> </B></A><A HREF="http://odysseus.journalspace.com" REL="nofollow" TITLE="odysseus at journalspace dot com">odysseus</A>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9395124.post-1118122961702323562005-06-07T14:42:00.000+09:002005-06-07T14:42:00.000+09:00Thank you for an important reminder. For the reco...Thank you for an important reminder. For the record, I'm a Canadian that actually supports what has happened in Iraq.<BR/><BR/>We aren't all idiots. <BR/><BR/><A></A><A></A>Posted by<A><B> </B></A><A HREF="http://wakinguponplanetx.blogspot.com/" REL="nofollow" TITLE="menagery2004 at yahoo dot ca">Candace</A>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9395124.post-1118111470233601052005-06-07T11:31:00.000+09:002005-06-07T11:31:00.000+09:00Amy, you are absolutely right, the tapes should be...Amy, you are absolutely right, the tapes should be released. It is the American way. I wonder, though, where you get the idea that the U.S. doesn't cover abuses in other countries?<BR/><BR/> The U.S. mainstream media has extensive coverage of torture and human rights problems in China, Sudan and elsewhere. I get most of my information from the mainstream media and I am very well aware of the problems in Darfur, Saudi Arabia, China, Cuba, Vietnam, North Korea and other places.<BR/><BR/> America's commitment to freedom has also fostered the development of political maturity among many, perhaps most, of its citizens. One difference between children and adults is that adults understand the need to accept responsibility for your own actions, regardless of the actions of others.<BR/> Because they are politically mature, most Americans understand that the press focuses on American shortcomings as a way of embracing responsibility for all our actions. Americans are optimistic about their country and serious about improving it by holding it to the highest standards.<BR/> Some other countries have failed to promote political maturity. Many, perhaps even most, of their citizens demand instant gratification, are obsessed with revenge and national self-esteem and have no patience with the long-term commitment freedom entails.<BR/><BR/>I love America because its commitment to freedom fosters political maturity and all the benefits that brings.  <BR/><BR/><A></A><A></A>Posted by<A><B> </B></A><A HREF="http://ridingsun.blogspot.com/2005/06/what-is-being-done-in-our-name.html#comments" REL="nofollow" TITLE="realandpositive at yahoo dot com">bunkerbuster</A>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9395124.post-1118110032349363072005-06-07T11:07:00.000+09:002005-06-07T11:07:00.000+09:00It is no surprise that people like Chris K wildly ...It is no surprise that people like Chris K wildly overestimate the power and logic of the Islamofascists. They share a suspicion of freedom and a belief in the primacy of unity, violence and government control.<BR/><BR/>Luckily, most Americans recognize the folly of censoring the press in an attempt to improve the country's image among Islamofascists.<BR/><BR/>The American idea is that freedom of speech, freedom of thought and truth empowers people and nations IN THE LONG RUN. This is why Americans will not allow their government to supress the truth about Abu Ghraib. We know that in the long run, an open, freedom-loving, truth-seeking government prevents many more deaths than it causes.<BR/><BR/>Strictly for the purpose of argument, let's assume Chris K is correct: disclosure of the truth about what happened at Abu Ghraib will cause an increase in beheadings and attacks against U.S. occupation forces. In that case, the question is NOT how can we prevent people from finding the truth about Abu Ghraib. Rather the question is: How can we prevent the kind of torture that went on at Abu Ghraib from happening again. Censorship will enourage, not prevent, future Abu Ghraibs. Censorship will cause more deaths than it prevents and history overflows with examples.<BR/><BR/> The many Muslims who love what America stands for--i.e. the Muslims who matter most--also understand that America's ability to learn from its mistakes by airing them, analyzing them and acting on them is essential to the country's strength and beauty. These Muslims, like most Americans, prefer the risks of freedom to the false security of government control. <BR/><BR/><A></A><A></A>Posted by<A><B> </B></A><A HREF="http://ridingsun.blogspot.com/2005/06/what-is-being-done-in-our-name.html#c111809988382530229" REL="nofollow" TITLE="realandpositive at yahoo dot com">bunkerbuster</A>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9395124.post-1118108534572107752005-06-07T10:42:00.000+09:002005-06-07T10:42:00.000+09:00Bunkerbuster,While it is true that we shouldn't re...Bunkerbuster,<BR/><BR/>While it is true that we shouldn't reveal military plans and weapons data, those were the extreme examples I was presenting. There is other information besides just that that probably shouldn't be revealed-- more subtle things that do indeed affect national security. Information is valuable, and information that is valuable to our citizens is information they should have access to. But when that information is more valuable to the enemy, we should take care in how and when it is revealed. Please understand, I believe that the whole truth should come out. But when it should come out is a different matter entirely. There is a time and place for transparency.<BR/><BR/>On Abu Gahraib, I have this to say. I have no opposition to the tapes being released. What I do not like is the media frenzy that will follow their release, and the constant playing of these tapes. Hackles will again rise around the world-- and people should be angry over Abu Gahraib-- but the thing is that it's old news-- people were angry about it before-- now we have the face the damage of their wrath again for something we did once. Moreover, I said that is is old news. Why are we focusing on this old news that occurs within a democracy where justice can occur? <BR/><BR/>What about the human rights violations going on right now in Darfur? Saudi Arabia (and I not talking about the US's part, but about what the Saudis do to women and those who oppose the royalty)? China? Russia? Why are we hearing about something that happened months ago WHEN ONE THOUSAND ABU GAHRAIBS are happening right now, underneath our noses? Where's the outrage and the investigations for that? Abu Gahraib happened, and it cannot be taken back. But right now we have the chance to stop some of the most artrocious happenings ever, and we refuse, reveling in the 20/20 hindsight and beating a dead horse when we could be saving lives. That is the outrage that I feel-- that we learned so little from Abu Gahraib that we will drag it on forever and ignore what is happening around us. Shame on the media for not doing their jobs-- covering news that is happening now. <BR/><BR/><A></A><A></A>Posted by<A><B> </B></A><A HREF="http://cboots.blogspot.com/" REL="nofollow" TITLE="senshi_music at yahoo dot com">Amy</A>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9395124.post-1118099883825302292005-06-07T08:18:00.000+09:002005-06-07T08:18:00.000+09:00A good point to remember, is you seldom hear of th...A good point to remember, is you seldom hear of the ACLU, or any of these civil liberties organizations, defending the U.S. military or suing for the release of documents, pictures or video relating to Americans being tortured or murdered. Almost always these organizations are out to prove to the world that Americans are the barbarians. When in fact, America is one of the countries in this world that holds itself accountable for it's actions.<BR/><BR/>And a point was made on this post: "Transparency is best no matter how the chips fall." <BR/><BR/>So if that attitude is to be used, we should just bring home all the American citizens and military personnel from all over the world because we are putting more American lives in danger by plastering these pictures all over this muti-media world. <I>Newsflash: We are at war.</I>  And don't think for one minute that Al-Jazzera won't make that their #1 story for weeks to come, the un-edited version of course. Throw in guards pissing and stepping on the sacred Koran, or whatever they're saying this week, and you have a nice recruiting tape, straight off the U.S. MSM news channels. And hey, lets face it, if it's on U.S. news stations it must be true, at least that's what could be said to a terrorist-to-be recruit.<BR/><BR/>And then we have this quote from bunkerbuster:<BR/><I>Freedom of thought and freedom of the press are by no means free of costs. Fortunately, a lot of Americans believe that they are worth the cost. <B>In the case of Abu Ghraib, most Americans are willing to endure the damage to the Bush administration's reputation the phhotos may bring</B>  because they understand that in the long-run America must remain a beacon of freedom of speech, freedom of thought and freedom of the press.</I><BR/>Really? Does that mean that the American people are willing to suffer the consequences, such as their family members overseas getting kidnapped and beheaded on Al-Jazzera? You won't see those videos on American television. Now if it were Americans doing the decapitating, the ACLU would demand the videos be shown to the American public. The part about enduring the damage to the Bush admin. may be true, but the point trying to be made by a lot of people on this post is simply this: <BR/>PEOPLE WILL DIE AS A RESULT OF THE RELEASE OF THESE PHOTOS. <BR/>If you don't think that's true then look back not even a month ago to the consequences of the "big story" Newsweek broke and the people that died.<BR/><BR/>This is the problem with the leftist way of thinking:<BR/>"<I>Americans know that while criticism of their actions may do grave harm to a particular political faction, it strengthens the nation as a whole.</I>"<BR/>Left wing liberals just totally overlook the possiblity of anyone dying as a consequence to releasing information like this <B>during wartime.</B> <BR/>They think that people like myself and others are worried about a "political faction being harmed." I, for one, could care less what political faction is hurt. But I DO care if anything is going to put our troops and citizens overseas in more danger than they're already in. <BR/> <BR/><BR/><A></A><A></A>Posted by<A><B> </B></A>Chris KAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9395124.post-1118093213604416382005-06-07T06:26:00.000+09:002005-06-07T06:26:00.000+09:00Concerned citizen: What I meant by take action was...Concerned citizen: What I meant by take action was remove alleged perpetrators from duty.<BR/><BR/> I take your point about releasing the photos during the investigation. And you are dead on about reporters not having the wherewithal to conduct investigations these days. Had the news media been more aggressive and the government been less aggressively secretive, perhaps the lack of post-invasion planning for things like controlling prisons would have been exposed and corrected earlier.<BR/><BR/>What kind of new Abu Ghraibs are taking place in Iraq at this very moment? It's unlikely we would find out about them. As Concerned Citizen notes, the U.S. media hardly investigates any more and government is increasingly secretive, so we won't know unless by some chance there is a leak of some sort.<BR/><BR/>As I noted before, the Abu Ghraib tortures and murder need to be seen as part of a bigger pattern playing out at Bagram, Guantanomo and in torture chambers in Saudi Arabia etc. to which the U.S. secretly moves suspects.<BR/><BR/>Just is important is the pattern Concerned Citizen points out: the media fails to investigate and when it does, those investigations are aggressively thwarted by the Bush administration. <BR/><BR/><A></A><A></A>Posted by<A><B> </B></A><A HREF="http://ridingsun.blogspot.com/2005/06/what-is-being-done-in-our-name.html#c111806122343618225" REL="nofollow" TITLE="realandpositive at yahoo dot com">bunkerbuster</A>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9395124.post-1118061223436182252005-06-06T21:33:00.000+09:002005-06-06T21:33:00.000+09:00Bunkerbuster,You ascribe motives to the press that...Bunkerbuster,<BR/><BR/>You ascribe motives to the press that are not in evidence. It's more likely that journalists didn't pick up on the press release in January because they're simply incompetent, and most of them no longer do anything like investigative reporting anymore. Abu Ghraib, memogate, and the recent Koran abuse allegations all share one thing in common -- reporters didn't investigate these stories, they had them handed to them by various sources.<BR/><BR/>Your timeline's still off, however. On January 13th, 2004, Spc. Joseph Darby turned the Abu Ghraib photographs over to the military authorities. Less than a week later, Lieutenant General Sanchez ordered an investigation into the abuses, which was announced in an Army press release. <BR/><BR/>By the end of February, the first phase of the investigation was completed, and in the beginning of March, Major General Taguba reported his findings to his superior. Less than a month after that, the first criminal charges were filed.<BR/><BR/>So it wasn't "more like half a year", it took the Army <I>six days</I>  to start the investigation.<BR/><BR/>Should the Army have released the photographs on the 19th of January? Should the Army have released them on their own at all? This isn't a question of national security, it's a question of the proper procedure in criminal investigations. Investigators almost never release evidence to the public during an investigation, and they only rarely do so afterwards. <BR/><BR/><A></A><A></A>Posted by<A><B> </B></A><A HREF="http://ridingsun.blogspot.com/2005/06/what-is-being-done-in-our-name.html" REL="nofollow" TITLE="anonymous at nospam dot us">A Concerned Citizen</A>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9395124.post-1118053136728197352005-06-06T19:18:00.000+09:002005-06-06T19:18:00.000+09:00Right on Amy. No country should reveal weapons tec...Right on Amy. No country should reveal weapons technology and military planning information. If anyone has suggested doing that, do let us know right away, I, for one, would be outraged! <BR/><BR/><A></A><A></A>Posted by<A><B> </B></A><A HREF="http://ridingsun.blogspot.com/2005/06/what-is-being-done-in-our-name.html#c111804966018383353" REL="nofollow" TITLE="realandpositive at yahoo dot com">bunkerbuster</A>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9395124.post-1118049660183833532005-06-06T18:21:00.000+09:002005-06-06T18:21:00.000+09:00"Transparency is best no matter how the chips fall..."Transparency is best no matter how the chips fall."<BR/><BR/>Excuse me while I retch into a Koran-swallowing toliet. If transparency is _always_ best, this country wouldn't be here. There was a lot of secrecy during WWII, and that kept millions of people alive. Say Winston Churchill had been a totally transparent kind of guy and decided to broadcast that the Nazis were progressively bombing into less populated areas since they were trying to do it blind? Great, have them redirect. Or, say, what if Roosevelt and his staff has been really transparent folks and told Congress, which had its share of isolationists at the time, that they really were operating a foreign intelligence agency on American soil (an intelligence agency that oversaw D-day and many other hugely important operations)? Roosevelt would have been impeached, the British Security Coordination disbanded, and WWII lost, probably. Or, better yet, maybe we should have told the Soviets straight out how to build an atomic bomb? 'Cause Stalin was our ally and all...<BR/><BR/>Come ON! Some information simply should not be disclosed because it would cost lives. Transparency that leads to death? What liberty is that protecting? We have the freedom of the press, and the freedom of speech, and have rights to certain information. But the rights of the press should not impede on MY individual rights, and the individual rights of other Americans-- to stay alive, and live in a country that operates suffienctly because it's national security (and national secrets) remain intact. <BR/><BR/><A></A><A></A>Posted by<A><B> </B></A><A HREF="http://cboot.blogspot.com/" REL="nofollow" TITLE="senshi_music at yahoo dot com">Amy Rinkle</A>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9395124.post-1118033223510563712005-06-06T13:47:00.000+09:002005-06-06T13:47:00.000+09:00Concerned Citizen makes a very good point. Far fro...Concerned Citizen makes a very good point. Far from jumping at the chance to accuse the U.S. military of torture, the mainstream press IGNORED a report saying such torture may have taken place. I suspect they found evidence that the U.S. tortures people to be too routine to be newsworthy. <BR/> Why didn't the military's press release say the allegations included sexual sadism, fatal torture and that there was photographic and video evidence? I do think the mainstream has a strong pro-military bias, but I don't think they would have ignored those little pieces of truth. <BR/><BR/> On the timing of the U.S. military investigation of the matter, I stand corrected. Perhaps it was more like half a year than a year before the military took action against the alleged perpetrators. We may never know when the abuses actually started or whether all the abuses have been reported. (Gaijinbiker says we already know what happened at Abu Ghraib, but that's demonstrably false. Even among the convicted military personnel there are conflicting stories about what took place. Moreover, we know the military has tried to cover up information--for example, its initial press release did not include the photo evidence or mention the sexual nature of some of the torture. Given that evidence, no one can sincerely take the military at its word on this issue.) <BR/> Nor is the subject limited to Abu Ghraib. According to a 2,000 page Army report on torture at Bagram Air Force Base in Aghanistan, a villager named Dilawar was tortured to death. The U.S. Army did not instigate this investigation until AFTER the New York Times reported allegations of murder at the base.<BR/> The report is horrifying in its description of how Dilawar, who was picked up during a ``sweep'' of his village after a bomb attack, was slowly, excruciatingly murdered. According to the report, the interrogators had no evidence whatsoever that Dilawar was involved in any attacks.<BR/> Lieutenant General Daniel McNeill, U.S. commander of coalition forces in Afghanistan, initially claimed that Dilawar was never abused and died of natural causes. The investigation took place only after a March 4, 2003 article in the NY Times reported that an autopsy found that Dilawar died from blunt force injuries that turned everything below his waist to pulp.<BR/> The Abu Ghraid evidence is only part of the picture here, but there is no reason.<BR/> F15C writes: `` I want my government keeping secrets from me (and the rest of the citizenry that do not have a "need to know") that if disclosed could cause great harm to Americans or citizens of any other nation.''<BR/><BR/> Some secrets, like advance military plans, are worth keeping. But the Abu Ghraib photos don't fall into that category. Great harm has come to the American people partly because the abuse at Abu Ghraib was not exposed soon enough, or fully enough. Had the press given more scrutiny to the lack of control and poor planning of the invasion of Iraq, perhaps the abuses at Abu Ghraib would have been prevented.<BR/> I won't say people who don't trust their fellow Americans to know the truth are "America haters,'' but I will say that they misunderstand the nature, origins and power of freedom of thought and speech. Worse, they misunderstand what makes America great: it isn't raw military power or the ability to control the press: it's freedom!!!!<BR/>  <BR/><BR/><A></A><A></A>Posted by<A><B> </B></A><A HREF="http://ridingsun.blogspot.com/2005/06/what-is-being-done-in-our-name.html#c111802611774812523" REL="nofollow" TITLE="realandpositive at yahoo dot com">bunkerbuster</A>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9395124.post-1118026117748125232005-06-06T11:48:00.000+09:002005-06-06T11:48:00.000+09:00Bunkerbuster,The Abu Ghraib photographs came to li...Bunkerbuster,<BR/><BR/>The Abu Ghraib photographs came to light as a result of the investigation and the criminal charges that the Army brought against Staff Sergeant Ivan Frederick II. Nobody denies this, especially not the key players -- Frederick's uncle, former Air Force master sergeant Bill Lawson, and former Marine lieutenant colonel Roger Charles.<BR/><BR/>John's right: the Army had put out a press release about the investigation months before Charles contacted CBS producer Mary Mapes. A press release that was ignored by the freedom-and-truth lovin' mainstream media. <BR/><BR/><A></A><A></A>Posted by<A><B> </B></A><A HREF="http://ridingsun.blogspot.com/2005/06/what-is-being-done-in-our-name.html" REL="nofollow" TITLE="anonymous at nospam dot us">A Concerned Citizen</A>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9395124.post-1118019489172413572005-06-06T09:58:00.000+09:002005-06-06T09:58:00.000+09:00Viki Anderson said: "I am sure that responsible ci...Viki Anderson said: <BR/><BR/>"I am sure that responsible citizens in Poland and Germany were thinking the same thing about the atrocities at the Death Camps..."Even if something is true, it doesn't automatically mean that revealing it is best course."<BR/><BR/>Transparency is best no matter where the chips fall."<BR/><BR/>Can you cite your source for your information on how citizens of Germany and Poland felt? That is a new one on me. Frankly, it sounds like you made it up to buttress the argument that you didn't make. <BR/><BR/>Regarding transparency, you miss the point entirely. I want my government keeping secrets from me (and the rest of the citizenry that do not have a "need to know") that if disclosed could cause great harm to Americans or citizens of any other nation. <BR/><BR/>For our government to work, we the citizens must have some degree of trust in our fellow citizens that we elect to office, and those serving under them. I am not naive, and do not trust most politicians farther than I can throw them. <BR/><BR/>But, there are good American citizens in all branches of government including the military that perform their jobs with honor and respect for our laws and values. I trust those people to do the right thing for my family, friends, and me. <BR/><BR/>You are free to disagree, but the process I mention happens millions of times daily. If the government has run everything by the citizenry, then we are cease being a democratic republic. And we cease functioning.F15Chttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05981720924096981818noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9395124.post-1118018504356253472005-06-06T09:41:00.000+09:002005-06-06T09:41:00.000+09:00rithko said: "Do I have proof? You say I have just...rithko said: "Do I have proof? You say I have just assertions? Nah, I have the government documents." <BR/><BR/>Well ok then. That certainly clears that matter up now doesn't it. You have (drum roll please) THE GOVERNMENT DOCUMENTS! <BR/><BR/>(For some reason I feel like this is a Monty Python skit, "Nobody Expects The Spanish Inquisition" becomes: Nobody Expects The Government Documents!) <BR/><BR/>However, I am still waiting for *proof* of the wild-eyed assertions you made. You did not look up the word as I suggested now did you? Just how do you expect to provide proof if you don't even understand what "proof" is? Try looking it up, because proof is certainly not what you are providing. <BR/><BR/>Its interesting because you seem to be sooooo absolutely sure about your assertions that it should be a complete no brainer to simply show demonstrable, verifiable proof. <BR/><BR/>Come on man, I know you can do it.F15Chttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05981720924096981818noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9395124.post-1118018071886951962005-06-06T09:34:00.000+09:002005-06-06T09:34:00.000+09:00Recently, the MSM has begun suffering its lowest r...Recently, the MSM has begun suffering its lowest readership and viewership ever. So I agree that Americans prefer a marketplace of ideas, and not a biased propaganda organ.<BR/><BR/>Ironically, it is the government which has earned more trust and credibility than our free press. The people of this country are fortunate to have a resource like the internet to debunk enemy propaganda with a simple google search. <BR/><BR/><A></A><A></A>Posted by<A><B> </B></A><A HREF="http://ridingsun.blogspot.com/2005/06/what-is-being-done-in-our-name.html" REL="nofollow" TITLE="unit00 at nerv dot gov">Josh</A>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9395124.post-1118017446561032792005-06-06T09:24:00.000+09:002005-06-06T09:24:00.000+09:00"The government, more specifically the U.S. milita..."<I>The government, more specifically the U.S. military, had been investigating abuses at Abu Ghraib for more than a year before the photographic evidence was made public by a free-thinking, truth-loving American soldier.<BR/>The military had more than a year to act against these abuses, but it did nothing. No hearings, no trials, no punishment, FOR MORE THAN A YEAR. The "people in charge,'' took no action, even though it was clear that the abuses at Abu Ghraib were horrific and extremely unAmerican.</I> <BR/><BR/>I will assume that that statement was made in ignorance, and merely point out that:<BR/><BR/>¤ The abuses mostly happened in the time period Oct-Dec 2003<BR/>¤ Spc. Darby reported the abuses that he had seen on 13 January 2004<BR/>¤ The U.S. command in Baghdad issued a press release stating the (at that time) allegations on 16 January 2004. Said press release was largely ignored by the mainline media<BR/>¤ Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez ordered the investigation of the 800th Military Police Brigade on 19 January 2004.<BR/>¤ Maj. Gen Antonio Taguba was appointed to head the investigation on 31 January 2004. On 3 March 2004 he reported to Gen. David McKiernan.<BR/>¤ On 30 March 2004 six soldiers are charged with criminal offenses<BR/>¤ On 28 April 2004, "60 Minutes II" air graphic photos from Abu Ghraib<BR/><BR/>So the statement that <B>BunkerBuster</B>  made is not only wrong, but almost exactly backwards. The military sprang into action almost immediately, investigating and making charges, dismissing troops and reprimanding others. For over three months, the mainline media not only ignored the story, but <I>ignored the military's frank admission that there <B>was</B> a story</I>, until "60 Minutes II" ran the photos to scoop other media outlets. <BR/><BR/><A></A><A></A>Posted by<A><B> </B></A><A HREF="http://coldfury.com" REL="nofollow" TITLE="braue at ratsnest dot win dot net">John "Akatsukami" Braue</A>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9395124.post-1118012615549694702005-06-06T08:03:00.000+09:002005-06-06T08:03:00.000+09:00A Concerned Citizen brings up a very good point. T...A Concerned Citizen brings up a very good point. The government, more specifically the U.S. military, had been investigating abuses at Abu Ghraib for more than a year before the photographic evidence was made public by a free-thinking, truth-loving American soldier.<BR/> The military had more than a year to act against these abuses, but it did nothing. No hearings, no trials, no punishment, FOR MORE THAN A YEAR. The "people in charge,'' took no action, even though it was clear that the abuses at Abu Ghraib were horrific and extremely unAmerican.<BR/><BR/> America is a very strong country, probably the strongest the world has ever known. We have the strongest political system, the strongest economy and, unassailably, the strongest military.<BR/><BR/>One key source of strength is that we understand the power of free-thought, free-inquiry and the marketplace of ideas.<BR/><BR/>Americans know that while criticism of their actions may do grave harm to a particular political faction, it strengthens the nation as a whole.<BR/><BR/>A lot of other countries believe that strength lies in ideological loyalty and unity. Take China. The government, and a lot of Chinese people, perhaps even most, believe that the system cannot tolerate criticism. These Chinese equate criticism of the government with disloyalty. Their news media and education system are based on this view, in stark contrast with the American idea. I think the American idea of free thought and freedom of the press is a much better idea.<BR/><BR/>As a number of posters have pointed out here, the Islamo-fascists see America's free press as a sign of its weakness. They believe that the vociferousness of debate in the U.S. about the war in Iraq is a sign that they are winning. They are dead wrong.<BR/><BR/>Freedom of thought and freedom of the press are by no means free of costs. Fortunately, a lot of Americans believe that they are worth the cost. In the case of Abu Ghraib, most Americans are willing to endure the damage to the Bush administration's reputation the phhotos may bring because they understand that in the long-run America must remain a beacon of freedom of speech, freedom of thought and freedom of the press.<BR/> The Islamofascists and right-wing Americans who think strength comes from everyone chanting the same slogan will never win because they don't understand the real power of freedom. <BR/><BR/><A></A><A></A>Posted by<A><B> </B></A><A HREF="http://ridingsun.blogspot.com/2005/06/what-is-being-done-in-our-name.html#c111801031342566245" REL="nofollow" TITLE="realandpositive at yahoo dot com">bunkerbuster</A>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9395124.post-1118010313425662452005-06-06T07:25:00.000+09:002005-06-06T07:25:00.000+09:00Viki,Your claim that the "responsible citizens in ...Viki,<BR/><BR/>Your claim that the "responsible citizens in Germany and Poland" considered investigations into genocide contrary to national security is incorrect, laughable, and offensive.<BR/><BR/>To many in what are now Germany, Poland, France, Italy, Austria, and other European nations, eliminating the Jewish threat was a matter of national security. That's the whole point. That's why, after surrendering their country to the Fascists, the French rounded up 70,000 Jews and handed them over to Hitler, all the while knowing what was in store for them. It's why the Italians, due to pressure from Germany, turned over their Jews to the Nazis as well. It's why thousands of German civilians attacked Jews personally, and a para-military force hunted down Jews and killed them -- and sent pictures of themselves standing proudly with their rifles next to the bodies of the slain.<BR/><BR/>Again, nobody here has said that investigations into abuses at Abu Ghraib and elsewhere shouldn't be conducted, or that the American public should be kept in the dark. In fact, it's hard to say that the public <I>has</I>  been kept in the dark when the Abu Ghraib photos have been shown repeatedly in newspapers, on the internet, and on television, and there has been a loud national debate on the issue.<BR/><BR/>(And, keep in mind that the Army's investigation started <I>before</I> the story broke. And, in all of the recent allegations of abuse, the information has been leaked or otherwise gleaned from <I>government</I> investigations!) <BR/><BR/><A></A><A></A>Posted by<A><B> </B></A><A HREF="http://ridingsun.blogspot.com/2005/06/what-is-being-done-in-our-name.html" REL="nofollow" TITLE="anonymous at nospam dot us">A Concerned Citizen</A>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com