"I may not agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it

[Tmy]

You here this line alot but does anyone truley mean it?? Who actually goes out and defends people they dont like just because they feel its the right thing to do?? THe ACLU maybe? I cant think of anyone else.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by Tmy
You here this line alot but does anyone truley mean it?? Who actually goes out and defends people they dont like just because they feel its the right thing to do?? THe ACLU maybe? I cant think of anyone else.

I would refer you to the websites of the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines and National Guard if you want to see actions behind those words.

Duh.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Tmy
You here this line alot but does anyone truley mean it?? Who actually goes out and defends people they dont like just because they feel its the right thing to do?? THe ACLU maybe? I cant think of anyone else. I wrote letters and made calls for Laura Schlesinger. I don't like her and think her type of call radio is the worst there is. I went to see the Mapplethorp exhibit knowing that I would not like much of his work. I didn't. I saw the last temptation of Christ and I didn't like it. I went to see Stop The Church thinking I wouldn't like it but I did. In each instance I particiapated solely because I wanted to support free speech.

In 1991 I actively campaigned for a bill to make child pornography illegal. That has been the only time I worked against speech.

Great question. There are few people who truly stand for free speech. Most liberals mock those on the right who fight for the right of free speech. Like I said, there are not many.

[Tmy]

Originally posted by Jocko
I would refer you to the websites of the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines and National Guard if you want to see actions behind those words.

Duh.

Yeah but if i joined up Id really be fightingf for my family and my beliefs. Sure others would get the benefits but thats despite my motive.

For example take some crazed flag burning commie-nazi. You can say youd fight for his freedom to flag burn, but say he did that in your local bar. Would you jump in to save him, or cheer as he got bitch slapped by some of the other patrons?

[Art Vandelay]

Originally posted by RandFan
I wrote letters and made calls for Laura Schlesinger. I don't like her and think her type of call radio is the worst there is.
How is that a free speech issue? It's not like she was facing criminal sanctions. She has the right to say what she wants, but she doesn't have the right to have a TV on which to say it.

[LostAngeles]

Originally posted by Tmy
You here this line alot but does anyone truley mean it?? Who actually goes out and defends people they dont like just because they feel its the right thing to do?? THe ACLU maybe? I cant think of anyone else.

Generally yes, although for example, racists and stupidity make me want to go against it.

It's the right thing to do I think. I don't care if racists should be non-exist-ists. They have the right to be a jerk, to put it lightly and I remembered rule 8. This doesn't mean that you should be a jerk, because you can. But you can, and you have that right, and no one should take it away from you.

You know what just read RandFan's post, take RandFan's point of view and pretend it's mine.

Hell. I'm posting while drunk. And my spelling is better than your's. Suck it.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Art Vandelay
How is that a free speech issue? It's not like she was facing criminal sanctions. She has the right to say what she wants, but she doesn't have the right to have a TV on which to say it. We have a tendency to confuse government censorship and free speech. What is free speech?

If a minority can control what the majority can hear is that "free speech"? I don't think so. Now let me be clear. The minority has every right to call for boycotts of people like Schlesinger. That IS PROTECTED SPEECH. But such efforts have a chilling effect on speech. Advertisers don't like to be associated with issues that offend certain groups.

Call it what ever you like but when a small group can decide for the rest of us what we will or won't hear or see then that is an affront on free speech.

I noted you didn't point out that "Stop the Church" which was the same as Schlesinger. The Catholic church tried to coordinate efforts to boycott advertisers. I note you didn't point out Mapplethorpe which was simply an issue of public funding of naked children and men with riding crops shoved up their anuses along with other far less objectionable works of art. Piss Christ is another.

Why did you only single out Laura Schlesinger?

The answer? The best answer to bad speech is more speech. Stand up to the fascists of this world and let the market decide. Not governments and not activists.

People should hear what they want to hear without governmental or activist intervention. A voice silenced is just that, silenced, whether it is silenced by government or activists.

Laura's show was $h!t. It would have died no matter what. Her brand of crap doesn't translate to TV.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Jocko
I would refer you to the websites of the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines and National Guard if you want to see actions behind those words.

Duh.

And they will used by republofacists to kill those you don't agree with too.

[Ladewig]

Originally posted by RandFan
Most liberals mock those on the right who fight for the right of free speech. Like I said, there are not many.

Can you give an example of these many liberals who mock those on the right who fight for right of free speech?

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Ladewig
Can you give an example of these many liberals who mock those on the right who fight for right of free speech? Yeah, the incidents of republican or conservative speakers at universities who are labled with hate speech and efforts are made to silence them (the speakers).

[Tony]

Originally posted by Jocko
I would refer you to the websites of the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines and National Guard if you want to see actions behind those words.

Duh.

This is pro-military propaganda. The military does not protect your rights, indeed, the military would be the institution on the front lines of repression if the government saw fit to deny you your rights. The military is a tool of the government.

[Tony]

Originally posted by RandFan
We have a tendency to confuse government censorship and free speech. What is free speech?

If a minority can control what the majority can hear is that "free speech"? I don't think so. Now let me be clear. The minority has every right to call for boycotts of people like Schlesinger. That IS PROTECTED SPEECH. But such efforts have a chilling effect on speech. Advertisers don't like to be associated with issues that offend certain groups.

Call it what ever you like but when a small group can decide for the rest of us what we will or won't hear or see then that is an affront on free speech.

I noted you didn't point out that "Stop the Church" which was the same as Schlesinger. The Catholic church tried to coordinate efforts to boycott advertisers. I note you didn't point out Mapplethorpe which was simply an issue of public funding of naked children and men with riding crops shoved up their anuses along with other far less objectionable works of art. Piss Christ is another.

Why did you only single out Laura Schlesinger?

The answer? The best answer to bad speech is more speech. Stand up to the fascists of this world and let the market decide. Not governments and not activists.

People should hear what they want to hear without governmental or activist intervention. A voice silenced is just that, silenced, whether it is silenced by government or activists.

Laura's show was $h!t. It would have died no matter what. Her brand of crap doesn't translate to TV.

I'd like to add that a voice can never be truly silenced, it goes underground.

This reminds me of the Alan Colmes show a couple weeks ago when he had the leader of the Aryian (sp?) Nation on. Alan said that a lot of people give him **** for having people like that on (he's also had Fred Phelps on). Alan's argument was that people like that needed to be heard up front, and in all their glory. It reveals to the public who they are, and what they stand for. The public needs to know these ******** are out there.

I agree.

[Snide]

Originally posted by RandFan
Yeah, the incidents of republican or conservative speakers at universities who are labled with hate speech and efforts are made to silence them (the speakers). So then you are not saying that most liberals mock those on the right [for] fight(ing) for the right of free speech.

In that case, I agree, and most conservatives mock liberals who fight for the right of free speech...because it's not a stretch to assume that most conservatives have mocked liberals at least a couple times. Most independents mock liberals and conservatives who fight for the right of free speech. I sure do, but I don't mock them for protecting it.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Snide
So then you are not saying that most liberals mock those on the right [for] fight(ing) for the right of free speech. Sorry, when I and others have made the case that those on the right are deserving of free speech we wre mocked and belittled. The incidents are down played.

FWIW, the sins of the right hardly excuse the sins of the left.

[Snide]

Originally posted by RandFan
Sorry, when I and others have made the case that those on the right are deserving of free speech we wre mocked and belittled. The incidents are down played.

FWIW, the sins of the right hardly excuse the sins of the left. Cool and understood. I don't call myself liberal, moderate rather...about as left-leaning as you seem to be right-leaning.

It just seems that in my experience, the big "free speech" mocking that goes on comes from the right...regarding anything from flag burning to Howard Stern v. Oprah to Janet Jackson's nipple.

I still disagree with your "most" comment, and I wouldn't say "most" on the right mock the Howard Stern pleas either.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by RandFan
FWIW, the sins of the right hardly excuse the sins of the left. At the risk of derailing, would you say the reverse is true? The reason I ask is because when I listen to the various conservative radio talk shows, I hear Clinton believing that Iraq had WMD's being used as an excuse for Bush believing that Iraq had WMD's. In other words, if Bush lied about the WMD's, then Clinton did too and, through implication, it's okay.

(I know that is a gross over-simplification, but that's Hannity and O'Reilly for you. And our local radio guys, to be fair.)

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by Upchurch
At the risk of derailing, would you say the reverse is true? The reason I ask is because when I listen to the various conservative radio talk shows, I hear Clinton believing that Iraq had WMD's being used as an excuse for Bush believing that Iraq had WMD's. In other words, if Bush lied about the WMD's, then Clinton did too and, through implication, it's okay.

(I know that is a gross over-simplification, but that's Hannity and O'Reilly for you. And our local radio guys, to be fair.)

I think the logic here is if Clinton believed it it was because he had reason to believe it and wasn't making it up. Therefore saying Saddam had WMD was not a lie, but an honest mistake.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
And they will used by republofacists to kill those you don't agree with too.

a_u_p, I would would fight to defend your right to quote Al Jazeera...

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Upchurch
At the risk of derailing, would you say the reverse is true? The reason I ask is because when I listen to the various conservative radio talk shows, I hear Clinton believing that Iraq had WMD's being used as an excuse for Bush believing that Iraq had WMD's. In other words, if Bush lied about the WMD's, then Clinton did too and, through implication, it's okay.

(I know that is a gross over-simplification, but that's Hannity and O'Reilly for you. And our local radio guys, to be fair.) Absolutely! Wrong is wrong. I think it appropriate to provide such information for perspective however. it is missleading to suggest that only Bush believed that Iraq had WMD.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Snide
Cool and understood. I don't call myself liberal, moderate rather...about as left-leaning as you seem to be right-leaning.

It just seems that in my experience, the big "free speech" mocking that goes on comes from the right...regarding anything from flag burning to Howard Stern v. Oprah to Janet Jackson's nipple.

I still disagree with your "most" comment, and I wouldn't say "most" on the right mock the Howard Stern pleas either. Fair enough.

Thanks,

RandFan

[billydkid]

Originally posted by RandFan
Absolutely! Wrong is wrong. I think it appropriate to provide such information for perspective however. it is missleading to suggest that only Bush believed that Iraq had WMD.

The problem is that Bush didn't believe it either - or, rather, it was irrelevant to him whether or not they had WMD's or whether or not he was misleading the American people. He and his advisers had an agenda and their intention was to make the facts fit thier agenda.

[billydkid]

Originally posted by Tmy
You here this line alot but does anyone truley mean it?? Who actually goes out and defends people they dont like just because they feel its the right thing to do?? THe ACLU maybe? I cant think of anyone else.

There are plenty of folks in this country who don't really believe in free expression, but there are also a whole bunch believe in and defend the idea that even those they disagree with fundamentally have a right be heard.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by billydkid
The problem is that Bush didn't believe it either - or, rather, it was irrelevant to him whether or not they had WMD's or whether or not he was misleading the American people. He and his advisers had an agenda and their intention was to make the facts fit thier agenda.


That's just supposition, right?

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
And they will used by republofacists to kill those you don't agree with too.

Who are republofacists?

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Tmy
You here this line alot but does anyone truley mean it?? Who actually goes out and defends people they dont like just because they feel its the right thing to do?? THe ACLU maybe? I cant think of anyone else.

I don't know if people use that same philosophy but they seem to adhere to it. Person can say what they want, but that doesn't mean that person won't be challenged for what they say.

[CBL4]

I think there are a lot of libertarians who believe in free speech. Reason Magazine and The Economist are the ones that I am most familar with.

But most people believe only in free speech for speech they agree with. It is only their ideological opponents who oppose free speech.

There have always been a significant amount of people who oppose the 1st ammendment but
Support for the First Amendment has eroded significantly since Sept. 11 and nearly half of Americans now think the constitutional amendment on free speech goes too far in the rights it guarantees, according to a new poll.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/08/30/national/main520314.shtml

When you get to examples, the percentage goes much higher
65 percent [of students] said the college should prohibit racist and sexist speech on campus, according to the results of the freshman attitude survey, which were released last week. ...
the highest percentage of students agreeing with prohibiting racist and sexist speech were in the Roy H. Park School of Communications. Sixty-eight percent agreed, a figure that surprised Policello.

These are among the most educated and, in theory, most liberal members of society. It appalling how many people only believe in the right to say "Mary had a little lamb."

CBL

[RandFan]

Originally posted by billydkid
The problem is that Bush didn't believe it either - or, rather, it was irrelevant to him whether or not they had WMD's or whether or not he was misleading the American people. He and his advisers had an agenda and their intention was to make the facts fit thier agenda. An assumption of facts not in evidence. Don't drink the Kool-Aid.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Grammatron
Who are republofacists?

Someone who builds and repairs the front of adobe homes?

[Garrette]

Originally posted by a_unique_person:

And they will used by republofacists to kill those you don't agree with too.
This is true.

I’ve lost count of those I’ve killed with whom I disagree. The reason I have lost count is that, as a member of the republofacist-serving military, the lives of such people, and you, mean nothing to me.

I’m going to kick babies and kill democrat single mothers later today.


Originally posted by Tony:

The military does not protect your rights, indeed, the military would be the institution on the front lines of repression if the government saw fit to deny you your rights. The military is a tool of the government.
This is also true.

My oath to protect the Constitution of the United States is a sham. I will discard it the moment that your speech becomes annoying to me.

When the time of oppression arrives, I will leave my family to man the inward-facing ramparts. I will point my weapon at my children and my friends and follow the brutal orders of my overlords because I am of the machine. That which I have been taught, that which the military has trained me to do, that which reason and thought have revealed to me, I will cast aside. Though those of you staring at my bootheel may see only frowns and emotionless efficiency in my face, I will in fact be laughing inside, laughing at your pettiness, your weakness, your defeat.

Fear me. My history has been faked and my future is your nightmare.


Edited for syntax and then again to fix the reference

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Kodiak
Someone who builds and repairs the front of adobe homes?

I see.

Who would they want dead, modern architects?

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Garrette
I’ve lost count of those I’ve killed with whom I disagree. The reason I have lost count is that, as a member of the republofacist-serving military, the lives of such people, and you, mean nothing to me.

I’m going to kick babies and kill democrat single mothers later today.

My oath to protect the Constitution of the United States is a sham. I will discard it the moment that your speech becomes annoying to me.

When the time of oppression arrives, I will leave my family to man the inward-facing ramparts. I will point my weapon at my children and my friends and follow the brutal orders of my overlords because I am of the machine. That which I have been taught, that which the military has trained me to do, that which reason and thought have revealed to me, I will cast aside. Though those of you staring at my bootheel may see only frowns and emotionless efficiency in my face, I will in fact be laughing inside, laughing at your pettiness, your weakness, your defeat.

Fear me. My history has been faked and my future is your nightmare.

Are you sure you're not plagiarizing some 'System Of A Down' or 'Rage Against The Machine' lyrics? :D

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Grammatron
I see.

Who would they want dead, modern architects?

Only those not implementing right angles... :D

[Garrette]

All original and spur of the moment, Kodiak.

But if you really think it of that caliber, there's always the

[Shameless Self-Promotion]

Language Award

[/Shameless Self-Promotion]

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Garrette

Fear me. My history has been faked and my future is your nightmare.

That's a good quote, I'm taking it until your orders come to shoot me.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Garrette
When the time of oppression arrives, I will leave my family to man the inward-facing ramparts. I will point my weapon at my children and my friends and follow the brutal orders of my overlords because I am of the machine. That which I have been taught, that which the military has trained me to do, that which reason and thought have revealed to me, I will cast aside. Though those of you staring at my bootheel may see only frowns and emotionless efficiency in my face, I will in fact be laughing inside, laughing at your pettiness, your weakness, your defeat.

Fear me. My history has been faked and my future is your nightmare. Hyperbole and bad hyperbole at that. Trying for the language award?

The United States was constituted with a separation of powers. Legislative, Judicial and Executive. There is no perfect system and the United States certainly has failed from time to time. However the system works and incidents like McCarthyism and such have been defeated for good reason. If one cannot concentrate power then the voice of those who demand free speech are eventually heard.

Edited to add: I just saw your shameless plug. Good form. :)

[Garrette]

RandFan,

Setting aside the language award and shameless plug:

I think we agree. Yes, it was hyperbole (and yes, I don't consider it great hyperbole). That was the point.

Tony and aup went to the opposite extreme with their comments.

Edited to fix attribution

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Garrette
RandFan,

Setting aside the language award and shameless plug:

I think we agree. Yes, it was hyperbole (and yes, I don't consider it great hyperbole). That was the point.

Tmy and aup went to the opposite extreme with their comments. Woosh!!! Right over my head. Duh! Leave it to me to miss the obvious. :D

[Ladewig]

Originally posted by Snide

I still disagree with your "most" comment, and I wouldn't say "most" on the right mock the Howard Stern pleas either.


Originally posted by RandFan
Fair enough.


I'm satisfied.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Garrette

Tmy and aup went to the opposite extreme with their comments.

For the record, it was me, not TMY that made the comment about the military.

But to the point, how is recognizing the fact that the military is a tool of the government "extreme"?

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by Tmy
You here this line alot but does anyone truley mean it?? Who actually goes out and defends people they dont like just because they feel its the right thing to do?? THe ACLU maybe? I cant think of anyone else.

Amnesty International and the thousands of citizens all around the world that feel ashamed by the violation of human rights and freedom of speech in 21th ce.

[Garrette]

My apologies to you, Tony, and to Tmy. I'll edit in a minute to fix the reference.

The statement that the military is a tool of the government is not by itself extreme. In context it is. Do I need to quote your own words to you?

By the way, the courts are a tool of the government.

The FBI is a tool of the government.

The FDA is a tool of the government.

The IRS is a tool of the government.

The State Department is a tool of the government.

DOL and HHS are tools of the government.

Congressional interns are tools of the government.

Do these statements have meaning?

If your statement about the military was not extreme, then please tell me what you meant by it.

[Garrette]

Originally posted by Grammatron:

That's a good quote, I'm taking it until your orders come to shoot me.

Just saw this when I went back to fix my attributions.

Glad you like it, but who says I need orders?

[Tony]

Originally posted by Garrette
My apologies to you, Tony, and to Tmy. I'll edit in a minute to fix the reference.

The statement that the military is a tool of the government is not by itself extreme. In context it is.

How is it extreme "in context"?

If your statement about the military was not extreme, then please tell me what you meant by it.

I merely meant that the military is not this great defender of personal rights that pro-military types portray it to be.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Garrette
Just saw this when I went back to fix my attributions.

Glad you like it, but who says I need orders?

It's right there, in the catch-22.

[SezMe]

Originally posted by billydkid
He (Bush) and his advisers had an agenda and their intention was to make the facts fit thier agenda.

Which garnered these replies

Originally posted by Kodiak
That's just supposition, right?

]Originally posted by RandFan
An assumption of facts not in evidence. Don't drink the Kool-Aid.

It is not an assumption and the facts are, in fact, in evidence. Namely, the British memo.

If this is a subject worthy of discussion, I would be happy to start a new thread rather than derail this one - unless one already exists, in which case we should get together there.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by billydkid
He (Bush) and his advisers had an agenda and their intention was to make the facts fit thier agenda.

Originally posted by RandFan
An assumption of facts not in evidence. Don't drink the Kool-Aid. You responded with:

Originally posted by SezMe
It is not an assumption and the facts are, in fact, in evidence. Namely, the British memo. Propositions:

1.) Bush had an agenda. Agreed Duh! That is what presidents do.

2.) Their intention was to make the facts fit their agenda.

How does the British memo establish this?

[Garrette]

Originally posted by Tony:

How is it extreme "in context"?
Here is the statement in context:

Originally posted by Tony:

The military does not protect your rights, indeed, the military would be the institution on the front lines of repression if the government saw fit to deny you your rights. The military is a tool of the government.

This casts the military as an active oppressor of the rights of the citizens of its own country.

I find that extreme. And wrong.

Originally posted by Tony:

I merely meant that the military is not this great defender of personal rights that pro-military types portray it to be.

The fine points of this are debatable, too, but okay, if this is what you meant. It is not, however, what you said.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Garrette
This casts the military as an active oppressor of the rights of the citizens of its own country.


That's not what I said look again:

The military does not protect your rights, indeed, the military would be the institution on the front lines of repression if the government saw fit to deny you your rights. The military is a tool of the government.

Notice the "would be" and the "if". I'm not saying the military is an active oppressor of our rights. I said they would be if the government wanted to use them in that capacity.

I find that extreme. And wrong.

I would to, just as wrong and extreme as claiming the military is an active defender of our rights.

The fine points of this are debatable, too, but okay, if this is what you meant. It is not, however, what you said.

You misread/misinterpreted.

[Garrette]

Actually, Tony, I don't think I misread, though I didn't speak specifically enough when I tried to explain.

You say this:

Originally posted by Tony:

Notice the "would be" and the "if". I'm not saying the military is an active oppressor of our rights. I said they would be if the government wanted to use them in that capacity

I understand the difference. I find both positions wrong.

Getting into the finer points, I will not deny the ultimate potential of the military being used that way, but it is a stretch, and a long one.

The military does not swear allegiance to the government or the president. People in the military swear to protect the constitution.

If GWB announces today that he will use the military to shut down libraries and round up dissidents, far far fewer soldiers would comply than you are implying.

IMO, of course.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Garrette

I understand the difference. I find both positions wrong.


Which is silly to the extreme.

Getting into the finer points, I will not deny the ultimate potential of the military being used that way, but it is a stretch, and a long one.

No it's not, it's happened before.

The military does not swear allegiance to the government or the president. People in the military swear to protect the constitution.

If GWB announces today that he will use the military to shut down libraries and round up dissidents, far far fewer soldiers would comply than you are implying.

IMO, of course.

This is faith not fact. What would happen to a soldier who refused to go to Iraq because he swore to protect the constitution? Would that hold up in military court?

[Garrette]

Originally posted by Tony:

Which is silly to the extreme.
That's me through and through. Silly old soldier.

Originally posted by Tony:

No it's not, it's happened before.
I said it's a long stretch, not impossible. I'd be interested to know what you consider the US examples of it happening before. On a federal level, please.

Originally posted by Tony:

This is faith not fact.
The part about the oaths is fact not faith.

The rest is less faith than your assertion otherwise.

Originally posted by Tony:

What would happen to a soldier who refused to go to Iraq because he swore to protect the constitution? Would that hold up in military court?
And this relates to domestic use of the military to oppress domestic freedoms how, exactly?

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Tony
This is pro-military propaganda. The military does not protect your rights, indeed, the military would be the institution on the front lines of repression if the government saw fit to deny you your rights. The military is a tool of the government.


OATH OF ENLISTMENT

"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).


Notice two things:

1. The Constitution is listed first.

2. It is to be defended against foreigners as well as fellow citizens.

While the only one I really trust to defend my rights is me, as a former US serviceman, I took that oath very seriously, and believed me and my fellow soldiers both risked more and appreciated more those rights that all Americans share.

[CBL4]

The military does not swear allegiance to the government or the president. People in the military swear to protect the constitutionThere are many fine people in the military who believe this and the concepts of honor that are taught. Unfortunately, there are many in the military who believe in torturing Iraqis. The majority of the military is somewhere in between.

CBL

[Tony]

Originally posted by Garrette
I said it's a long stretch, not impossible. I'd be interested to know what you consider the US examples of it happening before. On a federal level, please.

Lincoln firing on New York and the 1932 Bonus March are good examples.

The part about the oaths is fact not faith.

True, but the assumption that the oath would be honored is faith.

And this relates to domestic use of the military to oppress domestic freedoms how, exactly?

It doesn't. It relates to you saying the soldiers have an oath to protect the constitution. I'm trying to find out how much relevance this oath actually has to reality.

[Garrette]

Sadly, CBL4, I must agree that there are jerks, @sswipes, and even torturers in the military. Perhaps even a lot of them. It shames me.

My personal experience, however, does not lead me to believe they outnumber those on the other end who stand up to that crap.

I also agree that the majority in the middle simply go along, hoping never to be confronted with a tough decision. Based on my personal experience again, I trust the majority of those will choose rightly. Ensuring that they do will require only a small number of those with the courage to be first to stand up and set an example.

---

Kodiak,

Thanks for posting the oath. I had done it on another thread a couple of weeks ago and just didn't want to bother again.

I take it seriously, too.

I've put myself on the line for those I don't agree with. I've done this both in the military and outside it.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Tony
....


It doesn't. It relates to you saying the soldiers have an oath to protect the constitution. I'm trying to find out how much relevance this oath actually has to reality.

Are you asking whether people who take oaths intend to uphold them, or if the administering entity expects them to ?

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by CBL4
There are many fine people in the military who believe this and the concepts of honor that are taught. Unfortunately, there are many in the military who believe in torturing Iraqis. The majority of the military is somewhere in between.

CBL

Let's be clear here. Lopsided and repetitious media coverage not withstanding, 99.9% of the US servicemen and women active in the miliary today are those 'fine people' you are talking about.

The 'many' who you say have tortured the enemy are a fraction of a percent.

Taking into account human nature, you'll find similar exceptions to the ideal norm in any large group of people, be they crooked cops, arsonist firefighters, or raping priests.

[Garrette]

Originally posted by Tony:

Lincoln firing on New York and the 1932 Bonus March are good examples
The New York Draft Riots doesn't support your case. Posse Comitatus was years in the future, and the troops did not get sent in until looting and burning were widespread. This was not an oppression of rights. It was response to a violent mob.

I'd think you'd make a better case from the Civil War by citing the Civil War itself. Lincoln forcing the south to remain in the union was quite arguably unconstitutional.

Regarding the Bonus March, I have to agree with you, but in a sense you probably don't mean and probably more damning to my position than you thought. The troops moving the marchers out of the police headquarters was, while possibly in violation of Posse Comitatus, was not an oppression of rights. It was only when MacArthur ordered troops to follow the routed Marchers across the river to their original camp that it became a Very Bad Thing. MacArthur did this against the express wishes of the president. So, yes, you have presented an excellent example of abuse of power by the military against US citizens.

Originally posted by Tony:

[True, but the assumption that the oath would be honored is faith.
I suppose. And the assumption that anyone will honor any contract or any marriage or any agreement or any promise is faith.

Originally posted by Tony:

It relates to you saying the soldiers have an oath to protect the constitution. I'm trying to find out how much relevance this oath actually has to reality.
To the specific question, then: No, a soldier refusing to deploy to Iraq on the grounds it violates his oath would, imo, lose his case. You may find all kinds of reasons to oppose what the US is doing in Iraq; you may even find it violates international law, but you will have a hard time showing it is an attack on the constitution.

To the broader question of how much relevance the oath has to reality, I can't answer that to either your satisfaction or mine.

Anecdotally I can say it matters a lot.

Also anecdotally I can say there are those in the military who don't think about it.

And still anecdotally, those in high position in the military I know and have known (it's more than a few) are the ones who most oppose the use of the military in both domestic and foreign arenas.

For the most part, the military does not promote fools nor automatons.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Diogenes
Are you asking whether people who take oaths intend to uphold them

Kinda.

Let me put it another way. Say the president gives the order to bomb Chicago and someone down the chain of command refuses because he sees it as a violation of the oath. Does that person, in evoking the oath he took, have a valid defense?



All in all, I don't see how saying "look, they took an oath" is a protection against abuse by the military or those who control it.

[Garrette]

Originally posted by Tony:

Say the president gives the order to bomb Chicago and someone down the chain of command refuses because he sees it as a violation of the oath. Does that person, in evoking the oath he took, have a valid defense?

Yes, he does.

Originally posted by Tony:

All in all, I don't see how saying "look, they took an oath" is a protection against abuse by the military or those who control it.

That's exactly what it's for. In addition, soldiers get training on not only their right but their obligation to refuse to obey illegal orders.

The quality and quantity of the training is not consistent enough, imo, but it is there.

[CBL4]

The 'many' who you say have tortured the enemy are a fraction of a percent.The actions at Abu Graib were clearly known by dozens of people. A small percentage tortured, most did nothing and only one was honorable and turned the others in.

This is not unique to the military. I would think it would be the case for most groups of people. I had expected the military to be better especially MPs.

Before the Iraq war, I ridiculed people who said we would torture. I used the example of our exemplary conduct towards POW in the first Gulf War. Something bad happened in the intervening 10 years.

CBL

[Tony]

Originally posted by Garrette
The New York Draft Riots doesn't support your case. Posse Comitatus was years in the future, and the troops did not get sent in until looting and burning were widespread. This was not an oppression of rights. It was response to a violent mob.


Yes, and the mob was violent because they were being denyed their rights.

I'd think you'd make a better case from the Civil War by citing the Civil War itself. Lincoln forcing the south to remain in the union was quite arguably unconstitutional.

I didn't want to get sidetracked in a debate about the constitutionality of the Civil War or other things, so I chose the simplest examples.

Regarding the Bonus March, I have to agree with you, but in a sense you probably don't mean and probably more damning to my position than you thought. The troops moving the marchers out of the police headquarters was, while possibly in violation of Posse Comitatus, was not an oppression of rights. It was only when MacArthur ordered troops to follow the routed Marchers across the river to their original camp that it became a Very Bad Thing. MacArthur did this against the express wishes of the president. So, yes, you have presented an excellent example of abuse of power by the military against US citizens.

Ok.


To the specific question, then: No, a soldier refusing to deploy to Iraq on the grounds it violates his oath would, imo, lose his case. You may find all kinds of reasons to oppose what the US is doing in Iraq; you may even find it violates international law, but you will have a hard time showing it is an attack on the constitution.

To the broader question of how much relevance the oath has to reality, I can't answer that to either your satisfaction or mine.

Anecdotally I can say it matters a lot.

Also anecdotally I can say there are those in the military who don't think about it.

And still anecdotally, those in high position in the military I know and have known (it's more than a few) are the ones who most oppose the use of the military in both domestic and foreign arenas.

For the most part, the military does not promote fools nor automatons.

Fair enough.

[bigred]

Originally posted by LostAngeles
Generally yes, although for example, racists and stupidity make me want to go against it.

It's the right thing to do I think. I don't care if racists should be non-exist-ists. They have the right to be a jerk, to put it lightly and I remembered rule 8. This doesn't mean that you should be a jerk, because you can. But you can, and you have that right, and no one should take it away from you.

You know what just read RandFan's post, take RandFan's point of view and pretend it's mine.

Hell. I'm posting while drunk. And my spelling is better than your's. Suck it. LMAO

OK maybe I shouldn't have laughed; sorry. Maybe it was because that sounds like something I might say/do. :)

And yes, the military is a good start for people who truly believe this (OK not ALL of them, but the vast majority).

[CBL4]

And still anecdotally, those in high position in the military I know and have known (it's more than a few) are the ones who most oppose the use of the military in both domestic and foreign arenas.Anecdotally, I concur with you. My father-in-law was a captain in the navy. His favorite saying is that the military is trained to break things and they do a really good job at but they should not be trusted to put things back together. He is vehemently opposed to troops doing drug duty and nation building.

CBL

[CBL4]

Tony and Garrette,

Thank you for the information about the Bonus March. I think I learned about it in school but I certainly did not remember that McArthur defied the president.

I am also unaware of Lincoln firing on NY. Could you provide more information or a link.

Thank you,

CBL

[bigred]

Originally posted by Tony
This is pro-military propaganda. The military does not protect your rights, indeed, the military would be the institution on the front lines of repression if the government saw fit to deny you your rights. The military is a tool of the government. Sorry, but that is one of the most ridiculous posts I've ever seen here.

Who do you think has battled back the enemy after enemy of our country and/or way of life again and again in our country's history? Who stands ready to do so at a moment's notice? The President? His cabinet? Mr and Mrs John Q Public? Not hardly.

[bigred]

Originally posted by Garrette

For the most part, the military does not promote fools nor automatons. Well, let's not get carried away :)

[gnome]

Originally posted by Snide
Cool and understood. I don't call myself liberal, moderate rather...about as left-leaning as you seem to be right-leaning.

It just seems that in my experience, the big "free speech" mocking that goes on comes from the right...regarding anything from flag burning to Howard Stern v. Oprah to Janet Jackson's nipple.

I still disagree with your "most" comment, and I wouldn't say "most" on the right mock the Howard Stern pleas either.

The left, which I actually align myself with, doesn't have a great record when it comes to free speech issues either. If you're talking about the first amendment in general, I give them more credit for insisting on the Establishment clause. I get the feeling lots of right-leaning political thinkers would rather that part wasn't in the first amendment... about as many left-leaning thinkers probably wish the 2nd amendment wasn't there.

But as far as curtailing free speech... the left has Tipper Gore, and Joe Liberman. In addition, the CDA trying to ban "indecency" on the internet (later found unconstitutional) was a bill started by Democrats I believe, and Clinton endorsed it. :(

Neither side has much to be proud of. But that doesn't mean one side or the other can't point the finger. I WANT more fingers pointed, I want people called out when they do this.

[Tony]

Originally posted by bigred
Who do you think has battled back the enemy after enemy of our country and/or way of life again and again in our country's history?

This is irrellvent. The original question was.

Who actually goes out and defends people they dont like just because they feel its the right thing to do??

Someone said he should go to the websites of the various military branches for the answer.

Just because the military has protected our rights in the past (can you give an example of when they've done so?) doesn't mean they currently do.

Who stands ready to do so at a moment's notice?

They did an awesome job on 9/11. :rolleyes:


Mr and Mrs John Q Public?

Actually, yeah. Where do you think all the draftees came from in WW1, WW2, Korea and Vietnam? Did the government magically create all those people? Perhaps the technology to clone humans has really been around since 1908 and we're just now finding out about it?

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Garrette
This is true.

I’ve lost count of those I’ve killed with whom I disagree. The reason I have lost count is that, as a member of the republofacist-serving military, the lives of such people, and you, mean nothing to me.

I’m going to kick babies and kill democrat single mothers later today.


Which is why I phrased it the way I did. You can read the books on Vietnam, know people who fought there, and realise they are people who are doing what they believe is the right thing at the right time, or are caught up in circumstances that are bigger and more powerful than they are. They will happen to anyone.

What that doesn't explain is how these otherwise reasonable people end up in a war like Vietnam that ends up in three million Vietnamese dead. None of them as individuals would seek to go half way around the world to just unleash a war on people they would otherwise have had no inclination to fight.

[Garrette]

Originally posted by CBL4
Tony and Garrette,

Thank you for the information about the Bonus March. I think I learned about it in school but I certainly did not remember that McArthur defied the president.

I am also unaware of Lincoln firing on NY. Could you provide more information or a link.

Thank you,

CBL
Since you asked, I did a quick refresher search on the Bonus March and came up with this quotation:

Next came the most controversial moment in the whole affair -- a moment that directly involved General MacArthur. Secretary of War Hurley twice sent orders to MacArthur indicating that the President, worried that the government reaction might look overly harsh, did not wish the Army to pursue the Bonus Marchers across the bridge into their main encampment on the other side of the Anacostia River. But MacArthur, according to his aide Dwight Eisenhower, "said he was too busy," did not want to be "bothered by people coming down and pretending to bring orders," and sent his men across the bridge anyway, after pausing several hours to allow as many people as possible to evacuate. A fire soon erupted in the camp. While it's not clear which side started the blaze, the sight of the great fire became the signature image of the greatest unrest our nation's capital has ever known.

From this site (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/macarthur/peopleevents/pandeAMEX89.html)

So my memory wasn’t perfect. I had forgotten the interesting side note that Eisenhower was his aide.


For the New York and Lincoln stuff, try a google on New York Draft Riots. Here’s the first link that comes up when I do it. I only glanced through the site, but it appears accurate and has links to reports from the units involved:

New York Draft Riots (http://www.civilwarhome.com/draftriots.htm)

[Garrette]

Originally posted by a_unique_person

Which is why I phrased it the way I did.

Like this:

Originally posted by a_unique_person

And they will used by republofacists to kill those you don't agree with too.
This is not a reasonable statement, aup. It is inflammatory.


Originally posted by a_unique_person

You can read the books on Vietnam, know people who fought there, and realise they are people who are doing what they believe is the right thing at the right time, or are caught up in circumstances that are bigger and more powerful than they are.

Done and done, though I readily admit there are several people on this forum whose expertise on Vietnam is apparently greater than mine.

The fact of being caught up in circumstances bigger than oneself is the lot of most people, though admittedly perhaps most extreme in the military, particularly in war.

Realizing that it is bigger than you is an important part of being in the military, else it becomes easy to think your own goals are more important.


Originally posted by a_unique_peson

They will happen to anyone.

I’m unsure what you mean by “they� though I think you mean the evil deeds that some did.

If so, then I disagree that they “will� happen to anyone. They “can� happen to anyone, “do� happen to some, “don’t� happen to most.


Originally posted by a_unique_person

What that doesn't explain is how these otherwise reasonable people end up in a war like Vietnam that ends up in three million Vietnamese dead. None of them as individuals would seek to go half way around the world to just unleash a war on people they would otherwise have had no inclination to fight.

Are you suggesting that well-intended soldiers, like all people, can be misled?

I don’t dispute that.

I dispute that it is either inevitable for or unique to the military.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Garrette
Like this:

Are you suggesting that well-intended soldiers, like all people, can be misled?

I don’t dispute that.

I dispute that it is either inevitable for or unique to the military.

Which is my whole point. Jockos original statement was the absurd one.

Having a military with a code that apparently ecompasses the defending the right of people to free speech, is no guarantee of anything.

[SezMe]

Originally posted by RandFan
You responded with:

Propositions:

1.) Bush had an agenda. Agreed Duh! That is what presidents do.

2.) Their intention was to make the facts fit their agenda.

How does the British memo establish this?
Of course Bush had an agenda. That is (ostensibly) why we pick one party over another - because we prefer their agenda; platform is the word used during the campaign. You and I are in agreement on that part.

Regarding 2), see this (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=56662&highlight=blair+and+memo) thread where the memo is under discussion. To avoid derail, I'll see you over there if you want to carry on.

[Garrette]

Originally posted by a_unique_person

Having a military with a code that apparently ecompasses the defending the right of people to free speech, is no guarantee of anything.
Of course it isn't. And having political officials swear to uphold the duties of their offices is no guarantee of anything.

I'm curious as to what, if anything, would satisfy you in this regard.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Garrette
Of course it isn't. And having political officials swear to uphold the duties of their offices is no guarantee of anything.

I'm curious as to what, if anything, would satisfy you in this regard.

All I was doing was pointing out the fallacy of Jocko's assertion. The military may be used to do exactly that, but, if ordered, it can be used to do the exact opposite.

[Garrette]

My difficulty, aup, is that you appear to apply equal probability to the two hypothetical military actions:

1. Protect the rights of US citizenry

2. Oppress the rights of US citizenry

It is of course possible that the military can be ordered to do both, but the likelihood for the first exceeds the likelihood for the second.

It is of course possible that the military can choose to follow such orders, but the likelihood of them following the first far exceeds the likelihood of them following the second.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Garrette
My difficulty, aup, is that you appear to apply equal probability to the two hypothetical military actions:

1. Protect the rights of US citizenry

2. Oppress the rights of US citizenry

It is of course possible that the military can be ordered to do both, but the likelihood for the first exceeds the likelihood for the second.

It is of course possible that the military can choose to follow such orders, but the likelihood of them following the first far exceeds the likelihood of them following the second.

You can add Kansas Uni (IIRC), to the list of events on US soil, but my interest extends globally, (as, of course, it would). Being the only global superpower can bring consequences as a result of exercise of that power.

The bald assertion that the US military is what will guarantee the rights is wrong. If the proposition is rephrased in your terms, then a more meaningful debate follows.

[Garrette]

Kansas University? I can't recall anything there. Perhaps you mean Kent State in Ohio? That was the shooting during Vietnam and the subject of Neil Youngs song "Four Dead in Ohio."

That, though, was the Ohio National Guard under orders of the Governor of Ohio. I'm not excusing the action, mind; I find it deplorable, but it was not a federal action.

Regarding the rest of your post, I think we may be reaching common ground. If Jocko was asserting (and I'm not sure he was) that the US military is the primary or even a major protector of the rights of US citizens, then I disagree.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by CBL4
The actions at Abu Graib were clearly known by dozens of people. A small percentage tortured, most did nothing and only one was honorable and turned the others in.

This is not unique to the military. I would think it would be the case for most groups of people. I had expected the military to be better especially MPs.

Before the Iraq war, I ridiculed people who said we would torture. I used the example of our exemplary conduct towards POW in the first Gulf War. Something bad happened in the intervening 10 years.

CBL

'Dozens'?!?! OK...let's assume a wildly bloated number like...'10 dozen"?1?1? Is 120 OK? Fine...


According to Total DoD - Dec 31, 2004 (http://web1.whs.osd.mil/mmid/military/miltop.htm) there were 1,632,587 active duty servicemen as of Dec. 31, 2004, with 19,200 of that number in Afghanistan and 202,100 of that total in Iraq.

1/10% of 202,100 = 202


Do I need to figure the fraction for 1,632,587?? We can even throw in the guy who fragged this own unit, and some of the gitmo guards...

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Garrette
Kansas University? I can't recall anything there. Perhaps you mean Kent State in Ohio? That was the shooting during Vietnam and the subject of Neil Youngs song "Four Dead in Ohio."

That, though, was the Ohio National Guard under orders of the Governor of Ohio. I'm not excusing the action, mind; I find it deplorable, but it was not a federal action.

Regarding the rest of your post, I think we may be reaching common ground. If Jocko was asserting (and I'm not sure he was) that the US military is the primary or even a major protector of the rights of US citizens, then I disagree.

Fair enough.

As a matter of interest, are there any circumstances where the military was ordered to attack it's own citizens, and the orders were refused?

[Garrette]

Originally posted by a_unique_person

As a matter of interest, are there any circumstances where the military was ordered to attack it's own citizens, and the orders were refused?
I can't think of any off the top of my head, but I'll check.

[CBL4]

Kodiak,

What could a marine fighting in Fallijah know about Abu Graib?

I was talking about people with 1st hand knowledge. Only one person out of, let say, 50 actually did something. That means the vast majority were neither honorable nor torturers.

Also, clearly Abu Graib was not typical for actions by MPs either. I doubt that close to 1% of the MPs in Iraq actively did anything wrong.

Abu Graib showed that certain officers when led by other officers when led by certain cabinet minister when led by certain presidents will authorize torture in a war that is not going well. It also shows that certain soldiers will follow these orders and that most soldiers will ignore the torture. Only a very small minority will take the honorable action.

As I said before, I think the military is a typically group. It is very difficult for someone to blow the whistle on their colleagues.

CBL

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by CBL4
Abu Graib showed that certain officers when led by other officers when led by certain cabinet minister when led by certain presidents will authorize torture in a war that is not going well.

Now thats what I call a slippery slope. :nope:

Evidence pa-leeze... :rolleyes:

Originally posted by CBL4
It also shows that certain soldiers will follow these orders and that most soldiers will ignore the torture. Only a very small minority will take the honorable action.

In a group of co-conspirators, it only requires one...

Those responsible were caught, and are currently being publicly tried and sentenced. Compare the US armed forces with the Catholic church in this regard...

Originally posted by CBL4
It is very difficult for someone to blow the whistle on their colleagues.

Not in the military, it isn't. Google 'chain of command' and 'JAG'.

[CBL4]

In a group of co-conspirators, it only requires oneAnd fortunately, we had one but, unfortunately, only one. This implies that only a small minority of military are honorable in this regard.

Those responsible were caught, and are currently being publicly tried and sentenced. Compare the US armed forces with the Catholic church in this regard...The US is doing fine job of proscecuting the low level guilty. As far as the high level (military or civilian), nothing much is being done.

Evidence pa-leeze... Ashcroft, Rumsfeld and Gonzalez have all made remarks that appear to approve of torture. Bush did nothing to punish them and, in fact, promoted Gonzalez to Attorney General. Bush has personnally signed order that sent alleged terrorists for interogation to countries that practice torture. There were reputable reports (Washington Post and Red Cross) that our soldiers and interogators had tortured before the Iraq war but to the best of my knowledge nothing was done to prevent in this war.

Clearly, none of this is strong evidence that any of these people knew about Abu Graib. However, it is very strong evidence that these people set up an environment where torture was likely to happen in a war like Iraq.

I supported the war in Iraq because it never occurred to me that something like Abu Graib would happen. It should have and I should have been a strong opponent of the war.

CBL

[billydkid]

Originally posted by Kodiak
That's just supposition, right?

Well, yes and no. There is plenty of reason to suspect that Bush didn't really believe that Iraq actually had weapons - the inspectors said as much and many people in the intelligence community said they didn't have them, so if he was convinced they had them he was convinced by something other than the evidence - I think God might have told him. And there have been a number of insider reports indicating that the adminstration set about a deliberate campaign to make the intelligence fit the agenda and spun intelligence which was, at best, questionable in such a way as to make it sound conclusive and make the idea of attacking Iraq palatable to the American people. People close to adminstration have come out and said as much. To suppose that the adminstration was sincere, at this point, in expressing their fears about Iraq and the threat (mushroom cloud/smoking gun?) Iraq posed is simply being obtuse. I believe, as do many people much more knowledgeable than myself about this war, that what I stated in my original post is the actual truth of things.

[billydkid]

Originally posted by Garrette
My difficulty, aup, is that you appear to apply equal probability to the two hypothetical military actions:

1. Protect the rights of US citizenry

2. Oppress the rights of US citizenry

It is of course possible that the military can be ordered to do both, but the likelihood for the first exceeds the likelihood for the second.

It is of course possible that the military can choose to follow such orders, but the likelihood of them following the first far exceeds the likelihood of them following the second.

You see, this is exactly where the problem lies - if an adminstration orders the military to take action which oppress citizens the will not be calling it that. They we be calling it protecting the rights of citizens. Just in the way we are "freeing" the people of Iraq.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by CBL4
And fortunately, we had one but, unfortunately, only one. This implies that only a small minority of military are honorable in this regard.

Sorry, kid, but you can't have it both ways. You can't go back and forth between two extremely different sample sizes. If we are again talking about the 'military', then we're back to 1,632,587.

If you want to just focus on those working at the prison, then we still have someone who didn't think it was 'very difficult for someone to blow the whistle' (to use your words...) on members of his own unit.

Originally posted by CBL4
I supported the war in Iraq because it never occurred to me that something like Abu Graib would happen. It should have and I should have been a strong opponent of the war.

Then you are a fool. If unacceptable but isolated incidents like Abu Graib are a deal-breaker for you, then you couldn't have supported the War of 1812, either side of the American Civil War, or any U.S.-involved conflict that has occured in the last 100 years.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Kodiak
Sorry, kid, but you can't have it both ways. You can't go back and forth between two extremely different sample sizes. If we are again talking about the 'military', then we're back to 1,632,587.

If you want to just focus on those working at the prison, then we still have someone who didn't think it was 'very difficult for someone to blow the whistle' (to use your words...) on members of his own unit.



Then you are a fool. If unacceptable but isolated incidents like Abu Graib are a deal-breaker for you, then you couldn't have supported the War of 1812, either side of the American Civil War, or any U.S.-involved conflict that has occured in the last 100 years.

The claims being made are that this is a systemic issue, institutionalised from high up in the command chain. The Abu Grahib photos were the work of idiots who should have known better, but the only reason they thought they could get away with it was because the culture approved of torture in general as a means of 'softening up' prisoners.

The list of torture locations is several, not one. Guantanamo, Camp Cropper, Abu Grahib, and Afghanistan. Then there is 'air torture', to move the deed to other locations, but obtain the 'benefit' of torture as an interrogation method.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
The claims being made are that this is a systemic issue, institutionalised from high up in the command chain.

Claims? Claims... :nope:

And no evidence of this from anyone has been forthcoming - not from victims, not from those already proven to have been involved, not from internal and external investigators, and not from external oversight.

Originally posted by a_unique_person
The list of torture locations is several, not one. Guantanamo, Camp Cropper, Abu Grahib, and Afghanistan. Then there is 'air torture', to move the deed to other locations, but obtain the 'benefit' of torture as an interrogation method.

Again, we're talking about 1/50%, not the 'many' as CBL4 has claimed, or the 'systemic' that you suggest.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Kodiak
Claims? Claims... :nope:


It's not my fault you don't read all the posts I have made on this topic. I have provided plenty of evidence to support this claim.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
It's not my fault you don't read all the posts I have made on this topic. I have provided plenty of evidence to support this claim.

I have, and you haven't...

[CBL4]

Originally posted by Kodiak
Sorry kid, but you can't have it both ways. You can't go back and forth between two extremely different sample sizes. If we are again talking about the 'military', then we're back to 1,632,587.Have you ever heard of sampling? Instead of using an entire group, you see how a small percentage of it reacts. It is a mathematically sound principal and entire mathematical and industrial fields are devoted users of it (statistics, pollsters and quality control).

In the Abu Graib case we have approximately 50 people. We have about 10% who torture. 2% who turn them in. 88% who do nothing. The entire group is 1,632,587. With such a small sample, we realize that our error could be very large - from what I remember of my statistics class I would guess it is about 10% but lets assume 30% to be safe. What conclusions can we draw from this extremely small sample? Most do nothing 88% (range 58%-100%) . A small minority torture (Range 0 to 40%). A small minority act honorably (Range 0 to 32%).

then you couldn't have supported the War of 1812, either side of the American Civil War, or any U.S.-involved conflict that has occured in the last 100 yearsIn the Persian Gulf War, the Iraqi POWs were treated very humanely. I have heard no complaints about Kosovo, Haiti, Grenada or Somalia.

In the last 5 years, the Red Cross and Amnesty International have made numerous claims against us. It could be that having cabinet officers and a president who think that neither the US constitution nor the Geneva Convention apply to them or their prisoners but I doubt it.

CBL

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by CBL4
Have you ever heard of sampling?

I've heard of sampling. Have you heard of representative sampling? (http://www.proaxis.com/~johnbell/sfpp/sfpp3.htm)

Originally posted by CBL4
In the Abu Graib case we have approximately 50 people. We have about 10% who torture. 2% who turn them in. 88% who do nothing. The entire group is 1,632,587. With such a small sample, we realize that our error could be very large - from what I remember of my statistics class I would guess it is about 10% but lets assume 30% to be safe. What conclusions can we draw from this extremely small sample? Most do nothing 88% (range 58%-100%) . A small minority torture (Range 0 to 40%). A small minority act honorably (Range 0 to 32%).

Pseudostatistics...

Originally posted by CBL4
In the Persian Gulf War, the Iraqi POWs were treated very humanely. I have heard no complaints about Kosovo, Haiti, Grenada or Somalia.

Did you bother looking?

Persian gulf war crimes. (http://www.wsws.org/articles/2000/jun2000/iraq-j01_prn.shtml)

I think I made my point though. Could you have supported WWI? WWII?

[CBL4]

Kodiak,

Can you tell the moral difference between the following:
1) Killing as many enemy soldiers as you possible in a battle while trying to have none of your own die.
2) Attempting to kill retreating soldiers and accidentally killing civilians.
3) In the heat of battle, accidentally firing at civilians and POWs.
4) Premeditated torturing of captured soldiers and civilians over a long period of time.
Three of them are parts of war. One is a war crime.

The fact that McCaffrey launch a major attack at the end of hostilities is morally meaningless. He was attacking soldiers:
Hersh claims that McCaffrey chose to use massive force. Helicopter gunships were ordered to destroy vehicles crossing a bridge over the marshlands, effectively cutting off the road, while artillery sealed off the other end to the south. The rag-tag column of trucks, cars and armored vehicles was trapped in a killing zone, with Iraqis abandoning their vehicles and fleeing in panic into the ditches along the roadside. Apache helicopters pounded them with missiles, while US tanks poured cannon fire on the defeated and unresisting column.

"We went up the road blowing the **** out of everything," one soldier with a tank platoon told Hersh. "It was like going down an American highway—people all mixed up in cars and trucks. People got out of their cars and ran away. We shot them. My orders were to shoot if they were armed or running. The Iraqis were getting massacred."Oh my gosh, we killed soldiers! And, yes, we killed civilians as well. Unfortunately, that is a side of effect of war - even a war started by a tyrant like Saddam.

As they rode away, members of the scout unit reportedly saw a column of Bradley armored vehicles approach and begin firing machine-guns into the prisoners, some of whom attempted to run.The POW were not shot by the troops that captured them but troops (riding in fast moving vehicles) who suddenly stumbled upon hundreds of Iraqi soldiers on their own. This is a typically accident of war similar to friendly fire.

Hersch has one example of truly bad behavior - firing at civilians with a white flag during a war. If this is only event like this, then our soldiers did a good job.

CBL

[CBL4]

Originally posted by Kodiak
Have you heard of representative sampling? That is a good point. The soldiers who are interograting POWs should be the cream of the crop as far as this is concerned. The MPs are (were) trained very well at not abusing prisoners. The people in my sample should be least likely to misbehave and the most likely to be honorable. If they are not, then our military is incompetent at training and/or choosing MPs.

I knew a couple who met as MPs in the national guard and the wife served in the Persian Gulf war. My discussions about their training and experiences made me think that this kind of behavior was an impossibility.

As I said, something has changed in the military since then.

CBL

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Kodiak
Claims? Claims... :nope:

And no evidence of this from anyone has been forthcoming - not from victims, not from those already proven to have been involved, not from internal and external investigators, and not from external oversight.



Again, we're talking about 1/50%, not the 'many' as CBL4 has claimed, or the 'systemic' that you suggest.

A problem can be systemic and not widespread. You can't have a few odds and sods running jet aircraft around the world for the purposes of carrying out torture, for example.

[Garrette]

Just so you (aup) don't think I've fled the thread, I've been unable to find any references to the military refusing orders to fire on US citizens.

I can relate an anecdotal story about soldiers disobeying orders to kill Vietnamese civilians (and leveling weapons at US troops to stop them doing it), and another anecdote about a US Lieutenant in the first Gulf War who took the route that saved Iraqi troops even though he would have been legally justified to follow his orders and kill them.

But they're anecdotes only.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Garrette
Just so you (aup) don't think I've fled the thread, I've been unable to find any references to the military refusing orders to fire on US citizens.

I can relate an anecdotal story about soldiers disobeying orders to kill Vietnamese civilians (and leveling weapons at US troops to stop them doing it), and another anecdote about a US Lieutenant in the first Gulf War who took the route that saved Iraqi troops even though he would have been legally justified to follow his orders and kill them.

But they're anecdotes only.

Appreciated.

[Tmy]

The military keeps us safe from foreign agressors. And they do a good job of that. But as for directly protecting free speech? Well, how many foreign agressors have been out to stop our free speech?? Which enemy has ever had that motive?

The biggest free speech threat is usually our own govt backed by domestic law enforcement. And the battle ground is thankfully the court system. Whre the little guy has a chance.