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 : Just the Facts, Ma'am: A Compendium of Liberal Fiction -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Alan Smithee who wrote (8043)	5/22/2004 10:06:06 PM
From: Orcastraiter	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 90947

You see Smithee. I do understand what is lawful and what is not lawful under normal circumstances. But you know, and you know full well that after 9-11 the ground rules changed. Here in the US the Patriot Act changed the way that law enforcement can conduct an investigation, and changed the rights of people that were detained...right here in the United States. What was unlawful a few months ago suddenly became lawful. Now we also know that for prisoners of the war on terror, that certain rights known under the Geneva Convention were rendered void. That extreme measures of interrogation were used, including forced nudity, sexual humiliation, beatings, being hooked up to electrical wires, intimidation with guard dogs and other techniques. It's also clear that Military Intelligence was given the ok to expand these measures to Iraq. Now for the grunts and PFC's who were told to carry out these measures...you tell me that they should have known better. Well maybe they should have...but the point is they were ordered to do these things...and those orders did come from the highest authorities. This would have to be the case for these methods to have migrated from Gitmo to Abu Ghraib. It's likely that there will be a cover up of the highest order...I'll bet that Sivits was told to shut up and everything will work out just ducky. Now there's an order I'd likely follow. Orca

To: Alan Smithee who wrote (8043)	5/23/2004 10:15:58 AM
From: BEEF JERKEY	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 90947

"I tried to explain the lawful order/unlawful order to the endangered cetacean in the not-too-distant past" According to that sort of reasoning are you trying to say soldiers operate in a vacuum with no chain of command? My boss isn't on me 24/7 but he is aware of what I am up to, its called supervision. My boss's boss is also aware. I am not in the military where obviously the chain of command is far more rigidly adhered to. This abuse went on for months but none of the higher ups had a clue? Yeah right! To blame the lowest ranks is just passing the buck and really low. Part of being in command is having control. Recently much information has come out PROVING it was more an issue of military policy to skirt the Geneva Convention. Sure if your views are right wing it's hard to admit Rumsfeld is an incompetent "animal" - but that looks like the truth. Rumsfeld's policy in action: smh.com.au Does this make you proud?