Bush Supporters' Aftermath Thread III

Foxfyre wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

Until you are willing to see the good with the bad in this I'll continue to believe you are all intentional bigots when it comes to your views of the U.S.A.

... aaaaaaand there you go. Seriously, Foxy, do you think that every time I mention the Japanese war crimes during WWII, I have to add that Japanese, generally, are a cultivated people? Do you think that every time I criticise Pinochet, I have to add that the Chilean people are not all like him? Or, do you think that whenever I write something about how bad Fujimori was for Peru, I'll have to add that, well, the Sendero Luminoso was even worse?

Seriously, is that your opinion?

It is dishonest to criticize Pinochet in a manner that suggests all Chilean people are like him. And it would be hugely dishonest to criticize somebody who pointed that out or provided an example of a Chilean person who is a decent and commendable citizen of the world.

It is dishonest and misleading to discuss Japanese war crimes as if the Japanese all condoned such war crimes and/or are the kind of people who condone or conduct themselves in that way now. It would demonstrate grevious intellectual dishonesty to criticize somebody for noting the commendable parts of Japanese society or that they have long since rejected their past in favor of being productive and peaceful people of the world.

It would be dishonest to discuss Hitler's Germany in such a way as to infer that Germany is as dangerous and unethical as that now and that you all are Nazis at heart. It would be the worst kind of bigotry/prejudice to criticize somebody for noting that some Germans tried to protect and save the Jews and that Germany has made significant contributions for the benefit of mankind.

It is dishonest and demonstrates the worst kind of prejudice/bigotry to single out the very few bad apples in the U.S. military and infer that this is what American soldiers are and do and/or this is what the US policy is and/or what the US leadership orders and/or condones. And it is morally reprehensible to object to somebody commending the truly magnificent acts of kindness and hands on work being done for the benefit of the Iraqi people daily by the huge majority of the men and women over there.

It is dishonest and demonstrates the worst kind of prejudice/bigotry to single out the very few bad apples in the U.S. military and infer that this is what American soldiers are and do and/or this is what the US policy is and/or what the US leadership orders and/or condones.

Foxfyre:

Quote:

It is dishonest and demonstrates the worst kind of prejudice/bigotry to single out the very few bad apples in the U.S. military and infer that this is what American soldiers are and do and/or this is what the US policy is and/or what the US leadership orders and/or condones.

I imply. You infer. English language pet peeve.

Other sources, NYT, Salon, and Michael Crowley who has never written a word other than derogatory toward the President or any Conservative leader cannot be considered objective sources.

I can't find anything since Padilla was charged, but he was charged on I think 11 separate counts handed up by a grand jury. Now maybe you don't think that's sort of serious, but if it was a conservative congressman or senator or somebody in the current administration, I'm pretty sure most on the Left would consider a federal grand jury indictment TO BE pretty strong evidenceof guilt.

Nimh, the only credible source you have is Andrew Sullivan and even he is quoting the man's lawyer.

Jose, victim of a sinister new America

The Sunday Times
December 10, 2006

Andrew Sullivan

Jose Padilla was born in Brooklyn, New York, in 1970, the son of Puerto Rican immigrants. He was a troubled youth, joining a street gang when the family moved to Chicago, and was once jailed for aggravated assault.
After serving his sentence, he converted to Islam and professed non-violence. He went to the Masjid Al-Iman mosque in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, and worked for a charity suspected of Islamist terror ties. He visited Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq.

Returning to Chicago on May 8, 2002, Padilla was arrested and held under a warrant related to the 9/11 attacks. A month later, as a court was about to rule on whether there was any evidence to merit his detention, President George W Bush declared Padilla an "enemy combatant" and he was sent to a military brig in South Carolina. No charges were brought against him for 3½ years.

The basic principle of Anglo-American liberty for several hundred years has been habeas corpus ?- the notion that the government cannot detain a citizen without charging him with crimes that can be brought before a court and a jury of his peers. It is the keystone of any notion of a free society. For the first time in the history of the United States, it has been indefinitely suspended, and Padilla is the proof.

Padilla was not charged for three years, but he was accused. He was accused by government sources of being part of a plot to detonate a dirty bomb in an American city; he was accused by talk radio of being John Doe No 2 in the Oklahoma City bombing; and he was accused of plotting terrorist acts in the US.

After three years in solitary confinement, the Bush administration feared its detention of Padilla might be struck down by a court, and so it finally decided to charge him with a crime. The charges it brought in November 2005 included no mention of any dirty bomb, no link to Al-Qaeda, and no charge of conspiracy to commit acts of terror in America. A judge threw out other charges. None of the charges that remain involve actual terrorist activity, just of being connected to a group that may have financed such activity in Bosnia and Chechnya.

So Padilla, an American citizen, was detained without being charged for 3½ years. It was nearly two years before he had access to a lawyer.

This is what Padilla's lawyer claims was done to Padilla in the custody of President Bush: "Mr Padilla was often put in stress positions for hours at a time. He would be shackled and manacled, with a belly chain, for hours in his cell.

"Noxious fumes would be introduced to his room causing his eyes and nose to run. The temperature of his cell would be manipulated, making his cell extremely cold for long stretches of time. Mr Padilla was denied even the smallest and most personal shreds of human dignity by being deprived of showering for weeks at a time, yet having to endure forced grooming at the whim of his captors . . .

"He was threatened with being cut with a knife and having alcohol poured on the wounds. He was also threatened with imminent execution. He was hooded and forced to stand in stress positions for long periods.

"He was forced to endure exceedingly long interrogation sessions, without adequate sleep, wherein he would be confronted with false information, scenarios and documents to further disorientate him. Often he had to endure multiple interrogators who would scream, shake and otherwise assault Mr Padilla."

As a consequence of this, his legal team now says he is mentally unfit to stand trial. One person who recently interviewed him said the following: "During questioning, he often exhibits facial tics, unusual eye movements and contortions of his body. The contortions are particularly poignant since he is usually manacled and bound by a belly chain when he has meetings with counsel."

To put it bluntly: he has been sent mad. Last week, new photographs surfaced of the way in which Padilla has been treated. He needed to be escorted from his cell to get root canal treatment. Padilla has never exhibited any violent behaviour in detention of any kind, according to his jailers. Yet he was manacled head-to-toe, he was barefoot, and given blackout goggles so he could see no light and soundproof ear-muffs so he could hear nothing. He was escorted by three soldiers in full riot gear, visors and weapons. Suddenly, you get a glimpse of the sadism inflicted on him for three years of total isolation.

Could this still happen? Yes, it could. In fact, if another American citizen were today to be arrested by the president, and declared an enemy combatant, he would be barred from any recourse to the federal courts. The Military Commissions Act ?- passed in the last week of the outgoing Congress before the recent elections ?- stripped the courts of any jurisdiction over new military commissions set up to try and convict American citizens.

Here's the language: "Notwithstanding any other law (including section 2241 of title 28, United States Code, or any other habeas corpus provision), no court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider any claim or cause of action whatsoever, including any action pending on or filed after the date of enactment of this chapter, relating to the prosecution, trial, or judgment of a military commission convened under this section, including challenges to the lawfulness of the procedures of military commissions under this chapter."

So habeas corpus is over in America. The president can now detain any citizen he so designates, remove him from the judicial system and subject him to a military commission, with much weaker rules than a civilian court. Torture is formally banned, but torture techniques such as waterboarding are still at the president's discretion.

More than two centuries after the construction of the US constitution, almost eight centuries since Magna Carta, Americans are at the mercy of a new king, who can jail without charges and torture at will.

The rationale? A war that has no definable end. The constitution itself declares that habeas corpus is inviolate except in cases of invasion or rebellion. But under this president, the constitution no longer applies. You want proof? Remember Jose Padilla. No one in Washington has.

Ticomaya wrote:

It is a valid inference, IMO, from the type of post that would suggest posting a photo of a US serviceman doing something good is "wrong" or "propaganda," and there are countless other posts that would cause one the make the same reasonable inference. The bias and belief is evident, even if the actual words "all US military is evil" are not used.

It's still only an inference. ...

Hmm, so when US Marines are charged with something, even just naming them as perpetrators of the crimes they stand accused of is "smearing the names of military", but when Padilla is charged with something, there's no problem in assuming any treatment he was given justified because of the "pretty strong evidence of guilt" it represents.

Ticomaya wrote:

Your point is what, Walter? Are you suggesting that the girl's parents were not killed by insurgents, but were in fact killed by Sgt. Wuterich?

Only one possible answer?

Well, yours is wrong, Tico.

I DO know - by own experience and a long tradition of relatives serving as navy/army surgeons - what the medical wing of armed forces has to do and does.

I just posted my above because not everyone is in the forces medical services.

Btw, I didn't asked McG why he posted that pic here.

Yet he was manacled head-to-toe, he was barefoot, and given blackout goggles so he could see no light and soundproof ear-muffs so he could hear nothing. He was escorted by three soldiers in full riot gear, visors and weapons. Suddenly, you get a glimpse of the sadism inflicted on him for three years of total isolation.

snood wrote:

Foxfyre:

Quote:

It is dishonest and demonstrates the worst kind of prejudice/bigotry to single out the very few bad apples in the U.S. military and infer that this is what American soldiers are and do and/or this is what the US policy is and/or what the US leadership orders and/or condones.

I imply. You infer. English language pet peeve.

True in some circles but not necessarily in all. Merriam Webster would disagree. Especially when there is no inference of first person, 'infer' is acceptable.

It is dishonest and demonstrates the worst kind of prejudice/bigotry to single out the very few bad apples in the U.S. military and infer that this is what American soldiers are and do and/or this is what the US policy is and/or what the US leadership orders and/or condones.

You can read all that, and still not understand the proper use of the word?

This is your sentence:

Quote:

It is dishonest and demonstrates the worst kind of prejudice/bigotry to single out the very few bad apples in the U.S. military and infer that this is what American soldiers are and do and/or this is what the US policy is and/or what the US leadership orders and/or condones.

You are saying that someone "inferred" something. No, they did not - they may have implied something, from which you drew an inference. The sender implies, the receiver infers.

You trackin' yet?

You can read all that, and still not understand the proper use of the word?

This is your sentence:

Quote:

It is dishonest and demonstrates the worst kind of prejudice/bigotry to single out the very few bad apples in the U.S. military and infer that this is what American soldiers are and do and/or this is what the US policy is and/or what the US leadership orders and/or condones.

You are saying that someone "inferred" something. No, they did not - they may have implied something, from which you drew an inference. The sender implies, the receiver infers.

You trackin' yet?

M-W seems to think that "[T]he actual blurring has been done by the commentators".

Main Entry: in·fer Pronunciation Guide
Pronunciation: R nfr, +vowel -fr.; -R -f, +suffixal vowel -fr. also -fr, +vowel in a following word -fr. or -f also -fr
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): inferred; inferred; inferring; infers
Etymology: Middle French or Latin; Middle French inferer, from Latin inferre to carry or bring into, attack, enter, introduce, cause, deduce, from in 2in- + ferre to carry, bring -- more at BEAR
transitive verb
1 obsolete a : to bring about : PROCURE b : to bring upon one : INFLICT c : CONFER
2 : to derive by reasoning or implication : conclude from facts or premises <we> : accept or derive as a consequence, conclusion, or probability <task> <the> -- compare IMPLY
3 : GUESS, SURMISE <given> <as>
4 a : to lead to as a conclusion or consequence : involve as a normal outcome of thought <democracy> b : to point out : INDICATE <this> -- compare IMPLY
5 : to give reason to draw an inference concerning : HINT <did> <complain>
6 obsolete : to bring in : INTRODUCE
intransitive verb : to draw inferences <men>
synonyms DEDUCE, CONCLUDE, JUDGE, GATHER: infer indicates arriving at an opinion or coming to accept a probability on the basis of available evidence, which may be slight <the> <your> <most> DEDUCE adds to INFER implications of ordered logical thought processes used in the study of logic to draw a specific inference from a general principle, in popular use to infer a truth from analysis of evidence <for> <a> CONCLUDE may indicate attaining to a fact, truth, or belief after ordered consideration following through with necessary consequences of evidence weighed or facts observed <do> <concluded> JUDGE stresses careful, critical examination of evidence in attempting to arrive at a wise or fit conclusion <there> <the> GATHER implies conclusion by reflection but not pondering on impressions formed from cumulative evidence <piecing> <that>

[...]
In an attempt to intervene between the supine and the stubborn, the Iraq Study Group last month offered Bush a stern rebuke - but also a way out. This week it will receive his response as he plans to rebuff popular opinion, political opposition and establishment advice and call for a "surge" of between 20,000 and 40,000 troops in Iraq to "stabilise" the situation. The word surge, like every other premise for this war, is misleading. It suggests a brief increase when, in fact, his advisers have told him the extra troops would have to be there for at least 18 months.

"Clearly, this is not a move to shift public opinion," explains Gelpi. "The only thing that Bush can do to turn around public opinion is turn around the situation on the ground. It's a gamble. It's his last chance. This is about his legacy." As such, it poses a clear challenge to the Democratic Congress's legitimacy and to America's democratic political culture.

For if the Democratic Congress is unwilling to use any means at its disposal to fulfil its democratic mandate, then it will be left to the public to make their displeasure known. It is two years and tens of thousands of lives, some of them American, before the next presidential election. The American people clearly don't want this. A CBS poll last month showed that 18% wanted to see an increase in troop levels compared with 59% who want them either decreased or withdrawn completely. The question is: what are they going to do about it?

The tragic answer is probably nothing. For while opposition to the occupation is clearly broad, its depth is more difficult to fathom. "It's rare when people seriously publicly engage," says Leslie Cagan, the national coordinator of the largest anti-war organisation, United for Peace and Justice. "They watch it on TV, they read about it in the newspapers. They get angry, but that doesn't necessarily mean they engage. So it's difficult to know the depth of feeling."

We have been here before. Sensing the unpopularity of the war in Vietnam, Nixon stood for the presidency in 1968 claiming he had a secret plan to end the conflict. It was so secret the Vietnamese hadn't even heard of it. There was no doubt that feelings ran deep then, but it would be another seven years before American troops withdrew. "How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?" a young John Kerry asked the Senate foreign relations committee in 1971. We have long known it was a mistake. Sadly, the last person to die for it is still a long way off.

Bullshit, McT. The hypocrisy is created in your own mind, formed by your bias against the Iraq War, molded by the anti-American crap you read daily. All McG did was post a picture of a US serviceman showing care and tenderness toward an Iraqi girl, which he and his medical company do every day. You cannot stand to see images of the good being done by American soldiers, and so you reacted the way you did. It offends you to think of American soldiers doing good, or that A2K members would post pictures of same. There's no "propaganda" here ... just images of the other side of the story ... the story you would just as soon not hear.