As sick as this makes me towards the current administration, I have to wonder, what are all the democrats doing while this is happening? Do they believe it as much as we do? If so, what do we have to hope for if they win the presidency?
The only thing that bothers me about this article is implying that the Supreme Court is allowing them to break the law. I think the Court's record shows they're not in the administration's pocket.
Zarth said:
What will happen is simply that they'll botch it, like everything else they've ever done. Instead of the Iliad, we'll get, like, Springtime for Hitler.
I loved that movie. I was cracking up through the whole thing. Yeah, I'm a dork.
I accept that the government *does* lie sometimes. I can even accept that there are certain scenarios where I would accept that action. What kills me is how *stupid* this whole Tillman thing is. I mean, we were already in Afghanistan, and there just doesn't seem to be a lot of political milk to extract out of the "heroic death" angle at all. It's such an ugly, stupid, little lie and that's what makes it so bad.
IrFu said:
As sick as this makes me towards the current administration, I have to wonder, what are all the democrats doing while this is happening? Do they believe it as much as we do? If so, what do we have to hope for if they win the presidency?
The only thing that bothers me about this article is implying that the Supreme Court is allowing them to break the law. I think the Court's record shows they're not in the administration's pocket.
Hm. Do I recall that the Supreme Court selected the current President, a few years ago?
From memoriy I could be wrong though, the news media down here I Australia reported friendly fire as the cause of death straight away, again I could be mistaken.
SignalNoise said:
I accept that the government *does* lie sometimes. I can even accept that there are certain scenarios where I would accept that action. What kills me is how *stupid* this whole Tillman thing is. I mean, we were already in Afghanistan, and there just doesn't seem to be a lot of political milk to extract out of the "heroic death" angle at all. It's such an ugly, stupid, little lie and that's what makes it so bad.
And that's kind of my point. Because if they're going to make up this big elaborate ruse about something that was so politically unnecessary, what lengths do you think they will go to in order to cover up the really *big* lies? What lengths do you think they will go to in order to silence the things that are truly embarrassing?
And why, then, is there this push from the right to defer to those same people when it comes to those who are accused of terrorism and never tried for it?
What really fucks me up about the Tillman/Lynch cases is that there are so many men and women out there doing truly great and heroic things, and they don't even get a passing mention. I currently have a friend that has volunteered to re-deploy for the third time, not because he is a war-whore, but because he truly believes that it is his duty as an NCO to take care of the troops under his command. He wants to make sure as many of these kids get home in one piece as possible, and he can truly accomplish that by being a good leader. That is beyond heroic, IMO.
Tillman's case was dramatized because he was already famous. I think in Lynch's case, it was a curiosity issue because she was a woman, and it was more sensational for a woman to be a battlefield hero.
DhD_PillowPants said:
I think in Lynch's case, it was a curiosity issue because she was a pretty blond woman, and it was more sensational for a woman to be a battlefield hero.
[And why, then, is there this push from the right to defer to those same people when it comes to those who are accused of terrorism and never tried for it?
I think that what saddens me is not that they are in the Prision is that they aren't heald to the ideals that we hold as dear and that is a fair trial. This will be a sad stain on our history, as the internment of the Japanise Americans is and slavery. I think that a fair trial is more important than anything we can get from these people because it showes we are truly a fair country.
Here is an excellent article in the New York Times about the move by the Justice Department to limit the detainees' access to lawyers.
Saying that visits by civilian lawyers and attorney-client mail have caused "intractable problems and threats to security at Guantánamo," a Justice Department filing proposes new limits on the lawyers' contact with their clients and access to evidence in their cases that would replace more expansive rules that have governed them since they began visiting Guantánamo detainees in large numbers in 2004.
The filing says the lawyers have caused unrest among the detainees and have improperly served as a conduit to the news media, assertions that have drawn angry responses from some of the lawyers.
The dispute is the latest and perhaps the most significant clash over the role of lawyers for the detainees. "There is no right on the part of counsel to access to detained aliens on a secure military base in a foreign country," the Justice Department filing argued.
Under the proposal, filed this month in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, the government would limit lawyers to three visits with an existing client at Guantánamo; there is now no limit. It would permit only a single visit with a detainee to have him authorize a lawyer to handle his case. And it would permit a team of intelligence officers and military lawyers not involved in a detainee's case to read mail sent to him by his lawyer.
The proposal would also reverse existing rules to permit government officials, on their own, to deny the lawyers access to secret evidence used by military panels to determine that their clients were enemy combatants.
Many of the lawyers say the restrictions would make it impossible to represent their clients, or even to convince wary detainees _ in a single visit _ that they were really lawyers, rather than interrogators.
Subrosa said:
And that's kind of my point. Because if they're going to make up this big elaborate ruse about something that was so politically unnecessary, what lengths do you think they will go to in order to cover up the really *big* lies? What lengths do you think they will go to in order to silence the things that are truly embarrassing?
Cynically, I wonder if there *are* many big lies. I mean, we literally have a war that is based on evidence that people were *pretty sure* at the time was bullshit. I mean, they lied about the Iraqi WMDs, sure. But there was skepticism from experts. So, if with good PR, you can do anything you want anyway - maybe all your left with is the *little* lies, to patch over the fuck-ups, so you can make everything else "legal?"
KUNGFOO said:
I read an excellent interview with Noam Chomsky and Robert Trivers in a science magazine called "Seed" a few days ago, about deceit and self-deception. I was able to find a copy of the article online here. It was real interesting for me because just a few days before that I had the opportunity to listen to a active duty Air Force one-star general is who currently a wing commander for a air base in the middle east that is a major hub for military aircraft involved in military action in Iraq, Afghanistan and other areas. I'm not going to name his name, give any details, or provide any proof, so you can take from this what you will, but he struck me as somewhat disillusioned about the anti-war community and feeling in America and around the world.
He was giving a sort speech about America's involvement in Iraq, Afghanistan and the Horn of Africa to his unit (about 800-1,000 people). It was important to him that his audience realized there were positive things happening in this areas that America was involved with, and even had a PowerPoint slide with numerous bullets about how we have built schools, power stations, hospitals, etc. There's no reason to assume he was lying, I'm sure all those things did happen and I'm glad they did. But I'm guessing his purpose here was to improve morale or spread his ideology or maybe he was just trying to re-assure himself. The one thing I found really interesting though, was that he made a point that they [the unit] should go home and out into their communities and inform them [friends, families, neighbors, radio talk shows] of our accomplishments because the media and the anti-war community pushes a negative anti-war stance over the rest of America because they believed 9/11 was a US Government conspiracy to start wars in the middle east. That's was his statement. War critics are conspiracy nuts. Now I know there's defiantly those group of people out there, and I'm not going to criticize them for that belief (because on some level, I think the Bush Administration and the neo-cons wanted something like 9/11 to happen). My point here is, this General, who I would think would be well educated and experienced to be in that position (but then again, this is a military run by the Bush Administration the last 6 years), made a broad sweeping statement that if you don't agree with the war, you're a crazy lunatic who believes in conspiracies. I found it surprising that a high-ranking military officer was pushing political opinions on his troops and asking them to spread it at home. The military community is well known for the idea that they're just doing the job asked of them, if you disagree if it, direct it at Washington. Seems to me that's changed.
And this brings me back to about that article about deceit and self-deception. It really does seem to me that the people in this government who support this foreign policy, the decision makers and high members of it, at least, really seem to be deceiving themselves into believing nothing we've done there is that bad, because, I believe, it's really harsh to realize that you're a part of the problem, not the solution. So they look for whatever evidence they can find to fool themselves into thinking they are right and just. But the truth is, General, schools are great, but it sort of pales when tens of thousands of Iraqis are dead, many more have fled their home country, and the psychological damage being done to almost everybody else (gotta admit though, the Kurds seem to have it going pretty good). Don't forget the 3,200+ that have died. Most Americans have forgotten about Abu-Ghraib prison or written it off as nothing worse than frat-boy antics, but I know most Arabs haven't.
The government just doesn't lie to you, it lies to itself.
KUNGFOO said:
I read an excellent interview with Noam Chomsky and Robert Trivers in a science magazine called "Seed" a few days ago, about deceit and self-deception. I was able to find a copy of the article online here. It was real interesting for me because just a few days before that I had the opportunity to listen to a active duty Air Force one-star general is who currently a wing commander for a air base in the middle east that is a major hub for military aircraft involved in military action in Iraq, Afghanistan and other areas. I'm not going to name his name, give any details, or provide any proof, so you can take from this what you will, but he struck me as somewhat disillusioned about the anti-war community and feeling in America and around the world.
He was giving a sort speech about America's involvement in Iraq, Afghanistan and the Horn of Africa to his unit (about 800-1,000 people). It was important to him that his audience realized there were positive things happening in this areas that America was involved with, and even had a PowerPoint slide with numerous bullets about how we have built schools, power stations, hospitals, etc. There's no reason to assume he was lying, I'm sure all those things did happen and I'm glad they did. But I'm guessing his purpose here was to improve morale or spread his ideology or maybe he was just trying to re-assure himself. The one thing I found really interesting though, was that he made a point that they [the unit] should go home and out into their communities and inform them [friends, families, neighbors, radio talk shows] of our accomplishments because the media and the anti-war community pushes a negative anti-war stance over the rest of America because they believed 9/11 was a US Government conspiracy to start wars in the middle east. That's was his statement. War critics are conspiracy nuts. Now I know there's defiantly those group of people out there, and I'm not going to criticize them for that belief (because on some level, I think the Bush Administration and the neo-cons wanted something like 9/11 to happen). My point here is, this General, who I would think would be well educated and experienced to be in that position (but then again, this is a military run by the Bush Administration the last 6 years), made a broad sweeping statement that if you don't agree with the war, you're a crazy lunatic who believes in conspiracies. I found it surprising that a high-ranking military officer was pushing political opinions on his troops and asking them to spread it at home. The military community is well known for the idea that they're just doing the job asked of them, if you disagree if it, direct it at Washington. Seems to me that's changed.
And this brings me back to about that article about deceit and self-deception. It really does seem to me that the people in this government who support this foreign policy, the decision makers and high members of it, at least, really seem to be deceiving themselves into believing nothing we've done there is that bad, because, I believe, it's really harsh to realize that you're a part of the problem, not the solution. So they look for whatever evidence they can find to fool themselves into thinking they are right and just. But the truth is, General, schools are great, but it sort of pales when tens of thousands of Iraqis are dead, many more have fled their home country, and the psychological damage being done to almost everybody else (gotta admit though, the Kurds seem to have it going pretty good). Don't forget the 3,200+ that have died. Most Americans have forgotten about Abu-Ghraib prison or written it off as nothing worse than frat-boy antics, but I know most Arabs haven't.
The government just doesn't lie to you, it lies to itself.
Well said my friend, very well said.
+1.
The problem is that war is such fucked business and really bad when we are doing it how we are doing it now in Iraq. I am a vet and work as a security contractor now. I see the lies on a daily basis. School building is one of the biggest things that the government uses to gain support.
You also have to understand that most soldiers know they are doing some horrible shit they really don't want to do. Sometimes they need to hear that they built so many schools or whatever. They shouldn't tell the soldiers to say that people who don't support the war are nuts because that is not what this country is based on.
But I can say, when you are dealing with a world of shit on a daily basis, seeing death, dealing death, coping with being away from your family, knowing you are in a quagmire that is just getting worse, that you are hated by so many of the people you are "helping", not knowing if your spouse is loyal, missing out on "real' life, and on and on with all the bullshit that comes with war, trust me when I tell you, seeing a kid get so excited that they cry when you bring them pencils and soda, it really helps with all the insanity.
Yes the government lies, yes they are fucked, yes this war is fucked, but on the ground, dealing with soldiers, they need something to keep them going because nothing is getting better and they know it.
It's sorta like a gambling addict: they keep loosing all their money slowly, chasing that big win that never comes all the while they are telling themselves that it's just around the corner.
Friendly fire happens. I'm not stupid. Could be Tillman's fault just as much as the next guy's fault. The problem is we would ask if it was worth it for him to be in that risk. I don't have a problem with his personal choice. It's laudable.
However it seems like the military lies the most. Their PR warriors remind me of Vietnam's nice neat truthinesses.The military has the highest price tag financially and socially. They don't like anybody asking whether they are worth it, because they are the simply most vulnerable to that question.
It's a real question too. Are the executive military guys all earning their pay?
IrFu
Loxley, AL
December 2006
APR 26, 2007 04:07 PM