Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Road Walker who wrote (187623)	5/2/2004 12:08:50 PM
From: SilentZ	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1570893

>More information from Seymour Hersh at the New Yorker: Wow -- I'm personally ashamed right now. They're going to discuss this article shortly on CNN. -Z

To: Road Walker who wrote (187623)	5/13/2004 4:12:52 AM
From: Amy J	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1570893

John, why didn't the media disclose this information earlier, before it escalated into a horrible state? Why does a Silicon Valley person know the abuse is systemic in Afghanistan, while our own President doesn't? Congress sounded surprised too, and some don't even believe it is systemic, but that's because their approach is to ask the people at the top, rather than poke around into the troops. Reminds me of the corporate scandals - the CEO and Board of Directors were always the last to know. Meanwhile, employees smelled trouble. Our system is flawed. They could easily fix it by simply conducting a poll from the troops (in particular, the special forces) and just ask them. The military's current system "don't ask, don't tell" is flawed - it's no wonder none of the soldiers spoke up, especially when there are no procedural ways to report illegal conduct safely from the field. Miller appears to be the culprit - he told soldiers to soften prisoners up and told them to use dogs. Do you know if Miller controlled Afghanistan at any point? They used similar tactics over there - as if it was the same person influencing the same tactics. Or, maybe it was the military intelligence that influenced it. It's either Miller or the military intelligence. One thing Miller did was to provide written suggestive directions ("use dogs on prisoners"). Of course, he now claims that he expected them to know "how" to use the dogs. You tell me how you would interpret that sentence? Reminds me of the Enron lawyer that told employees to shred papers according to corporate policy (so of course they all shredded papers). Just like Miller, she gave suggestive directions, but carefully worded it ambiguously so that she was able to successfully claim innocence. Giving suggestive directions, while intentionally not specifying those directions (or conveniently leaving them ambiguous), is the way sleazy people put the wool over the eyes of the judicial system (and Congress too). It is disappointing to see sleazyness win vs obeying the spirit of the law. It's corrupting the system. Regards, Amy J