Janis Karpinski was the overseer of 15 Iraqi prisons, including Abu Ghraib. She was "retired" by the administration (by the president himself) without a court martial. Here she details her side of the scandal.

She is the first woman ever in the US military to command troops in battle.

Part 1


Part 2



Another video interview:
http://www.scvtv.com/html/sg111305-nm.html

In a democracy the public needs true information to make a vote of intelligence. If the government is going to tell lies than that is no better than rigging the election. It sounds like our military is run like the keystone cops.

QuoteMADISON, Wis. (AP) - The U.S. military's health insurance program has been swindled out of more than $100 million over the past decade in the Philippines, where doctors, hospitals and clinics have conspired with American veterans to submit bogus claims, according to prosecutors and court records.

Then again anything the government is in care of smells of poor ethics and morals.

QuoteATLANTA (Reuters) - Former U.S. President Jimmy Carter on Wednesday accused Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice of not telling the truth about warnings she said her department gave Carter not to speak to Hamas before a Middle East trip.

Sigh. What a mess. Thanks for posting soldierjane!

~Simone.

Quote from: lisagurl on April 23, 2008, 02:15:05 PM
Then again anything the government is in care of smells of poor ethics and morals.

Hey... that is "our" government.  YOU can initiate changes that can implement, modify, or repeal a law.  It's nearly impossible to do so with anything that a corporation can do.  WE can control the government to some degree. 

cindi

Quote from: Cindi Jones on April 24, 2008, 12:53:16 AM
Hey... that is "our" government.  YOU can initiate changes that can implement, modify, or repeal a law.  It's nearly impossible to do so with anything that a corporation can do.  WE can control the government to some degree. 

Yeah, but since corporations control government through powerful lobbying groups, campaign contributions etc. along with more shady measures, what degree of control do citizens really have?

~Simone.

QuoteWE can control the government to some degree.

Only if you have enough money as a corporation and get the major Information corporations to market your cause. Grass roots politics is a dream of the past. ENDA is an example. There have been several attempts and successes in my state where lawyers have bribed judges and gotten away with it. Scruggs the senator's brother in law finally pleaded guilty to lesser charges. The District Attorney did not continue the investigation of Trent Lott.

What I'm saying is that once we turn over government control to private sector concerns, it's nearly impossible to do anything. 

As long as we hold voting power, we have a tiny sliver of hope to initiate and make change.

Do any of you seriously think that we should just hand it to them and go stick our heads in the sand?  No way!  Never give away anything!  Especially the only control we have.

Cindi

QuoteAs long as we hold voting power, we have a tiny sliver of hope to initiate and make change.

That is very true. But how do we know that the information we use to make an intelligent voting choice is accurate?

There is about 5% of the voters that vote and have no idea who or what they voting for. In a special election in my district two out of seven of the candidates where eliminated in an earlier election. Their names was not taken off the new election ballot (printing problem) but they got over 3% of the vote. I wonder how many of the votes going to the other candidates were made without the voter caring or knowing what was going on.

We don't have near enough people voting.  We need massive turnout.  So some might know more than others.  Some might be selecting candidates based on superficial issues like "who you want to have a beer with" (which would get John Madden elected anytime he wanted to run) to their looks.  I mean that the fact that he looks like he did had nothing to do with Kusinich losing (This does not seem to hamper Republicans however, they run them as ugly as they get)? 

QuoteThis does not seem to hamper Republicans however

The Republicans hired a slick marketing group that came up with the phrase "Family Values" it has won them many elections.

It is amazing how many people accept a metaphor and not have the details of its meaning and ramifications.

Republicans represent the wealthier base, so they better afford to market themselves as the more appealing option to moderates, even when they would be better off choosing someone else.  Also, they've got a lot more "creative talent" when it comes to presenting an image, and this simplicity fits in with the simplicity of their policy.

Kind of the problem with Democrats is that they are so ineffective in terms of promoting their policy, they pull themselves further to the right to pander and then end up (1) standing for very little and (2) leave a whole base of progressives without a voice.  About a third of Americans are against same-unions, about a third are for same-sex unions but against same-sex marriage (actually the smallest group), and about a third are for allowing same-sex marriage.  Republicans almost all present the first, most Democrats represent the the second, and a few Democrats actually stand for the third.  But sort of the thing about (2) is that since they don't have representation, this large group of people end up being painted as "extreme," even though they're about as common as those who would ban same-sex unions, and they'd be about the majority (or the majority outright) in a number of developed countries.

Oh wait, this thread is supposed to be about Abu Ghraib.

The more I hear about this war, the more important it seems to put key people of the Bush administration on trial for war crimes.

QuoteOh wait, this thread is supposed to be about Abu Ghraib.

One third of Americans are anti-rationalists.

Quote from: lisagurl on April 29, 2008, 02:39:27 PM

QuoteOh wait, this thread is supposed to be about Abu Ghraib.

One third of Americans are anti-rationalists.

What a great statistic. Where did you get it and why does it make such a 'low' estimate?

BTW, the woman in the OP is quite a person. I heard an interview with her on NPR the other day. Basically she said what was done at Abu Ghraib was pushed by the 'civilian' control. Messires Rumsfeld, Ashcroft and Cheney, only one of whom were elected, but the elected ones appointed the other two.

So, I'd say Cindi is right, that we forego what power we do have when we refuse to educate ourselves as much as we can and then decide not to vote becaue 'my vote doesn't matter anyway.'

Nichole

N~

Quote from: lisagurl on April 29, 2008, 02:39:27 PM

QuoteOh wait, this thread is supposed to be about Abu Ghraib.

One third of Americans are anti-rationalists.

Susan Jacoby's book"The age of American Unreason"

Messires Rumsfeld, Ashcroft and Cheney, only one of whom were elected

By 'elected' do you mean, 'fixed an election'?

Jeb did that. He's not part of this administration, at least not on paper. Of course neither is GHW Bush either. Karpinski wasn't talking about either of those two Bushes. Just Dubya.

N~

Jeb didn't do himself any favors for putting his idiot brother in office.  And I think that all came from a bit higher than the Gov of the Sunshine State.  Be that as it may, what we learned from Nuremberg is that 'just following orders' is not a defense.  General Karpinski has some mighty huge crimes to answer for.

I've been wanting to impeach and put these guys on trial for war crimes for some time. 

Cindi

Quote from: Cindi Jones on April 30, 2008, 12:45:58 AM
I've been wanting to impeach and put these guys on trial for war crimes for some time. 

Cindi

Even though the facts might make a good case for impeachment, the general welfare of the country and the political clubs would suffer worse so I think they are just waiting out his term and let history punish him.

Quote from: lisagurl on April 30, 2008, 11:22:48 AM

Quote from: Cindi Jones on April 30, 2008, 12:45:58 AM
I've been wanting to impeach and put these guys on trial for war crimes for some time. 

Cindi

Even though the facts might make a good case for impeachment, the general welfare of the country and the political clubs would suffer worse so I think they are just waiting out his term and let history punish him.

If only he could be spooked into resignation a la Tricky Dick. But then again these Republicans nowadays are more savvy, they know they just have to wait for the next news cycle for people's eyes to glaze and the stuff be forgotten. That's one concept you'd never think you could attach to Dubya: Smart! Sometimes I wonder if all his aw shucks stupidity isn't just a smokescreen to keep people thinking he's just a schmo while him and his cronies keep strip-mining us of rights and money.