Links, I guess

[pecunium]

Maia's had finals, and I have a couple of new toys, so I've not managed to get upset enough to post about much political.

The weather has been grey, and drippy, so we've not gone out enough for me to wax loquacious on that (though I may have a few things to say about the train trip this weekend; I can't write them in advance), and I have no really cool pictures to try and upload via LJ.

So, I do have some things to share, from my perigrinations on the web.

If you don't like have Christ forced on you, leave Now, perhaps I'm doing a disservice to O'Reilly here, but not much. It may be he only feels that way about Jews who dislike people trying to convert them.

This one is painfulbecause I know all the players. Abuse Cover-up? Even if it isn't true (about which I can't say, I wasn't there) the allegations of whitewash are far too believable (and I saw some of the things the article discusses). Ford and I shared a tent in Kuwait, on our separate ways to Germany, and were in the same holding unit for a while in Wash. If it ever gets to court I am likely to be subpoenad as a witness, about the training we gave/got and the nature of interrogation vs. counter-intelligence.

A Proud Wartime Liberalism Better Angels of Our Nature (another vet of the present unpleasantness) talks about how the Dems need to address the issue of fighting terrorism. References to several people who have been bruiting it about the past couple of weeks. As a wrap up, it's better than any effort of mine, so go read it.

Is that legal, on hate crimes Recently (at least enough so that I recall having the opposite opinion) I realised the argument that a crime is a crime, and hate (in a narrow sense, vis a vis motive) is a factor to be weighed in the balance of punishment. Mr Muller does a better job of explaining it than I can.

Orcinus does a nice job of showing why this might matter in his most recent post Eliminationist Watch as well as pointing out that the recent piece on 20/20 was not only bad journalism, but might make it possible, should they feel vengeful, to get a capital punishment re-considered for one of the killers of Matthew Shepard Matthew Shepard and Hate Crimes It isn't in his piece, overtly, but part of the plea agreement was that his muderers wouldn't talk about it. As a layman it appears to me a violation of the agreement means it's void, which would open the door ro a resentencing. Ain't gonna happen, but maybe the furor over it would be interesting. Raising it could be framed as a law and order/victim's rights issue too, damn crooks going about trying to get sympathy.

And, last but not least, Rummy faced some ugly questions about equipment, from soldiers. "Why do we soldiers have to dig through local landfills for pieces of scrap metal and compromised ballistic glass to uparmor our vehicles?"

The answer... "Suck it up." Well, I'm paraphrasing, what he actually said was, perhaps, more insulting, "As you know, you have to go to war with the Army you have, not the Army you want," Rumsfeld said. He added, "You can have all the armor in the world on a tank, and it can [still] be blown up."

Comments

[jonquil.livejournal.com]

> "You can have all the armor in the world on a tank, and it can [still] be blown up."

"Gosh, why are you complaining? You're probably dead anyway."

[sinboy.livejournal.com]

"As you know, you have to go to war with the Army you have, not the Army you want,"

Says the man who's never been in combat before in his life.

Ever get the idea he just dosen't respect the troops at all? He's a lot like a CEO who's talking to a factory floor worker.

[cakmpls.livejournal.com]

I just about ripped the radio out of the dashboard, I was so mad when I heard those quotes from Rumsfeld.

[bella-peligrosa.livejournal.com]

I'm trying to wrap my head around the hate crimes links you provided today. My legal training forces me to think of all the sentencing enhancements (I had the misfortune to learn way too much in Crim Law about that)...balancing the equities and trying to keep mind of the larger picture.

This is an issue that has been a pet project of mine for years. I'll write more about this eventually...but now you have my mind working in overtime.

[pecunium.livejournal.com]

The more interesting thing, which both Orcinus and IsThatLegal point out, is how much like terrorism hate crimes are.

As with terrorism, the victim is not the real target. Society is. Intimidation of the class, and of those sympathetic, is the more chilling aspect. The victim really is society, and as such, the equity to be redressed is, in part, the harm to the rest of the society.

When the hating class is shown the culture doesn't appreciate it, the hate crimes drop. The only fight I ever instigated was with a bully, who was bullying someone else. The fight was not decisive (I sprained an ankle, he fled, claiming victory, but I got the best of the bout {I knew how to fight, he didn't, and someone, after he was pinned, pulled me off him, so it could continue) but he never posed a real problem again.

Had I done nothing, the bullying would have gone on.

And intent matters for grade of murder, so why should this type of intent be exempt from consideration?

TK

[fidelioscabinet.livejournal.com]

As a Tennessee resident, I'm real proud of Spc. Wilson, and so pissed that he had to ask it. The story I read quoted his wife as saying he'd have asked Bush the same question. Good for him!

I also liked Senator Dodd's comment, in a letter to Rumsfeld: "Mr. Secretary, our troops go to war with the Army that our nation's leaders provide,"

I'm sorry to hear you may be subpoenaed--it's a sad and sorry business.

[pecunium.livejournal.com]

I'm of a mixed mind. On the one hand, I hope it isn't true. On the other, things need to be dragged into the light.

And there are few people as well qualified to speak on the issue. Since there is little I can soeak to directly, but I sure as hell could qualify as an expert witness.

TK

[rm.livejournal.com]

Dude... that's rough. Aie.

[pecunium.livejournal.com]

I suppose so. It is, however, something I've lived with, in an intellectual sense, for the best part of 12 years.

My job, not to put to fine a point on it, is all about walking the fine line which is the divider bewteen legitimate questions, and war crimes.

I spend a lot of time teaching that feathered edge. The rationale: If intel does the job right, fewer people overall get killed.

But crossing that line is easy. Right now things I taught (and the U.S. used to punish) as war crimes are being used as specialised tools.

I'm against that. If my colleagues are commiting such atrocities (and the things Ford alleges are atrocious) then they deserve to be punished. Just like the Marine in Fallujah.

Let's take the Marine. Assuming the facts are as presented:

1: He was under a lot of stress
2: He'd seen faking before
3: They had not been engaged with those men
4: They found them, wounded in a group
5: He shot him

With those facts/circumstances, I would vote to convict, and would recommend a general discharge. End of story.

The circumstances are extenuating. The conviction is a federal felony. I don't think, given what we ask, what we set the rules to be (free fire, if they are moving) and the shame he would have to live with for being kicked out (more severe to most Marines than to most soldiers, and being cashiered would bother me, a lot) prison is justified.

But I don't think a wink and a nod are enough either.

For what Ford claims, more than that would be in order. But who did what? What levels of culpable are there? How involved was the command? Who was what done to (which comes close to moral relativism... was it a case of a guy who gave solid leads, and then clammed up getting smacked? Still wrong, but not the same as someone who said, "I don't know" having his arms pulled back and up, until the popped).

So I made that bed a long time ago. Someday I may have to sleep in it.

TK

if you can listen to the audio via NPR

[bellatrys.livejournal.com]

you'll hear a long stretch of cheering in the background for that question, as if he'd just hit a home run, causing Rumsfeld to ask him to repeat it.

Afterwards, the newscaster made a point of remarking that the general there had said that Wilson wouldn't suffer any reprimand for asking that question.

Now - if this is supposed to be a free Q&A session to air gripes and raise genuine concerns - why should that even be a possibility? "We're letting you ask questions so you can incriminate yourselves to the zampolit" is the not-so-sub-text of saying "Don't worry, you who asked questions won't get in trouble with the politicals."

Re: if you can listen to the audio via NPR

[pecunium.livejournal.com]

I'd wager that was in response to a direct question. Even if it wasn't, a large part of the populace believes such a question is against the rules.

Look at the flap which ensued when the troop said that, were Rumsfled to be in front of him, he'd ask for his resignation. It wasn't really out of line (it might have been borderline, but I don't think so... if he were my troop, I'd have got in the way of an Article 15, and tesitified for the defense in a court martial).

TK

according to dKossacks it's been orwellized

[bellatrys.livejournal.com]

at least in the Fox audio version. I haven't been to try to download and see if it's still there in the All Things Considered Version - the poster was very unclear, and might have been saying to compare Fox vs NPR - b/c my computer is being wonky right now, but according to one comment I just read their *local* Fox anchors were vocally surprised to hear the absence of the "background noise" that they had heard when playing the clip earlier, and commented on it on-air.

The work to Minitrue stuff happening in plain view, like a magic show, is fascinating to me - particularly when it works on the populace, but perhaps some straws have started to weigh down even the media camels.

[jeffreyab.livejournal.com]

Rumsfeld said. He added, "You can have all the armor in the world on a tank, and it can [still] be blown up."

Yes that is true Rummie but if an Abrams blows up the crew has a much beeter chance of survival compared to an unarmoured humvee.

I like the TN senator's quote.

[pecunium.livejournal.com]

Me too. The thing is, with 40 a month, that's 240 a year... It's not enough. And the argument that the best armored thing can be blown up too is fatuous.

A helmet does more to protect my brain than my skull does. So I want a helmet.

A shell-backed Humvee is better than a soft-sided one. When an RPG (probably an RPG-21) took out an Abrams in May/June of 2003, we had it back in Aberdeen the next week.

Sucking it up is something we do, but to be told things which might make it better aren't important... or that the inadequate numbers of real equipement (480 a year, in the third year of this thing, is not enough) are the best that can be done, well... it shows a lack of respect.

Both personal, and intellectual.

"Tommy ain't a blooming fool, you bet that Tommy sees"

TK

[trinker.livejournal.com]

Maybe I go too far in seeing Rumsfeld's answers as smacking of the ugliest corporatism. It reminds me strongly of the way that bottom-line driven companies will have people working with substandard equipment.

[pecunium.livejournal.com]

Actually, it's worse than that. The company which makes the armor for the shell-backed humvees says they could up production by 22 percent, without any strain, or extra cost.

Armor Holdings Could Boost Output

Which means Rummy was lying when he "said, yesterday the Army was working as fast as it can and supply is dictated by ``a matter of physics, not a matter of money."

TK

[ladymeow.livejournal.com]

"As you know, you have to go to war with the Army you have, not the Army you want,"

How insulting. How dare he say that.

[moropus.livejournal.com]

I agree. I'd like to see him in harm's way with nothing to protect his freaking ass. Maybe he'd feel a little different then. Retention, anyone? Anyone?

This is a better reply:

[killslowly.livejournal.com]

Check this links out Terry:

http://sec-global.com/services/ctp/vsg/news/041218.html

And this one, written on 05 JUN 2004, way before Mr. DeBatto, fiction writer, motivational speaker, radio show guest, legend in his own mind.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/iraq/la-me-tempest5jun05,1,1094982.story

Here, you can read Dave's biography (or lack thereof)

http://www.davedebatto.com

Just to be fair you know.

Your friend,

Jerry