home

Thursday Open Thread

By Jeralyn, Section Blog Related
Posted on Thu Aug 16, 2007 at 08:37:00 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

It's court in the mountains for me today. I've got an early flight there and a late flight back so that means an open thread day for you.

Here's the tiny plane I'll be flying on. No bathroom, no flight attendant. Even with the constant turbulance caused by the heat of summer it beats driving seven hours each way.

What it doesn't beat is getting up at 5am to arrive at the airport an hour and a half before the flight and on the other end, having to worry about whether the flight will be cancelled due to wind conditions or whether weight restrictions will make them bump some passengers. The worst part, of course, is that I like my client and I'll be very sad when for the first time after months of doing court hearings, I leave to go home while he stays in the custody of the Town Marshals.

I hope you all have a better day planned.

< How Chris Dodd Won My Support: By Leading On the Issues Now | Breaking! Petraeus Part of Bush Administration >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Thursday Open Thread | 103 comments (103 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Padilla verdict reached... (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by desertswine on Thu Aug 16, 2007 at 11:46:31 AM EST
    MIAMI (AP) - A verdict was reached Thursday in the trial of Jose Padilla and two co-defendants charged with supporting al-Qaida and other violent Islamic extremist groups overseas.

    The jury verdict was scheduled to be read at 2 p.m. EDT before U.S. District Judge Marcia Cooke in Miami's downtown federal courthouse, according to an announcement from her chambers. The jury of seven men and five women deliberated for about a day and a half following a three-month trial.

    psychology of the pawn (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Sumner on Thu Aug 16, 2007 at 12:38:32 PM EST
    From Democracy Now!: An Inside Look at How U.S. Interrogators Destroyed the Mind of Jose Padilla


    [ Parent ]
    Guilty (none / 0) (#20)
    by Gabriel Malor on Thu Aug 16, 2007 at 01:34:03 PM EST
    On all three counts.

    CNN.

    [ Parent ]

    I should drive by.... (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by kdog on Thu Aug 16, 2007 at 02:03:53 PM EST
    Lady Liberty after work tonight and look for some tears.

    From the CNN article....

    The verdict is a "critical vindication" for the U.S. Department of Justice and its post-9/11 strategy for prosecuting terrorism cases, said Kendall Coffey, former U.S. attorney in Miami who comments on legal matters for CNN.

    I find the verdict as vindication for torture and unconstitutional actions by our government.  

    Our protections from tyranny aren't worth the paper the hemp paper they are printed on I'm afraid.

    [ Parent ]

    Gesh, Kdog. (1.00 / 1) (#28)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Aug 16, 2007 at 02:15:54 PM EST
    The guy got off the plane with a list of al-Qaeada email/cellphone numbers and $10,000 in cash..

    What do you want? For him to walk in and surrender??

    [ Parent ]

    What I want is Liberty..... (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by kdog on Thu Aug 16, 2007 at 02:48:40 PM EST
    plain and simple.

    I don't want to live in a place where having 10 grand and some phone numbers is punishable by indefinite confinement and torture...I'm sorry buddy.  I know it might make us less safe from a terror attack, but it would make us more safe from our government.


    [ Parent ]

    Kdog (1.00 / 1) (#42)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Aug 16, 2007 at 03:11:44 PM EST
    First of all, I think that is alleged torture.

    And it doesn't have to be terror related to make sense.

    Secondly, if you are carrying around a list of telephone numbers and email addresses of dope dealers, numbers runners and/or known bookies, people are apt to conclude you do dope, may sell dope, gamble or run illegal games.

    Thirdly, if in addition to the above,you have much more cash when returning from a trip to Vegas than when you left, people will be further convinced that you are either one of the two, or both.

    Fourthly, if your fingerprints are found on a stash of dope and/or a deck of cards, you will be further suspect.

    [ Parent ]

    Or I could simply..... (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by kdog on Thu Aug 16, 2007 at 05:45:11 PM EST
    have a friend who also happens to sell dope or take bets.  Or maybe he ain't even a friend, just somebody I met on the road who gave me their number. As for cash, my money is my business, I shouldn't have to prove how I acquired it, the state should have to prove I acquired it illegally.

    I've said all along I have no clue if he is what the govt. says he is, or just some unlucky clown.  But once you get locked up without due process and more than likely tortured, the point should be irrelevant.  You get let go, no matter how heinous the alleged crimes, case closed...unless the Bill of Rights is toilet paper, which appears to be the case.  

    C'mon buddy, this is fundamental liberties here.  

    Say I get hot in the biggest game of my life overseas, the cops are waiting for me at JFK, tax my roll and my rolodex, slap the "enemy combatant" label on me, lock me in a hole, "allegedly" torture me, and its 3 years or so till I see a courtroom.  You wanna live in such a place?  Seriously...

    [ Parent ]

    Kdog (1.00 / 0) (#57)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Aug 17, 2007 at 08:35:08 AM EST
    Uh, all of the evidence obatined by use of alleged torture was not used during the trial.

    And there were multiple telnos and email addresses, so you would have had to multiple friends who were bookies and/or dope dealers.

    He was guilty.

    BTW - As I noted to edger, day before yesterday about 500 innocent men, women and children were killed by terrorists in Iraq. These are the people Padilla was wanting to join with in common cause.

    [ Parent ]

    Vindication (1.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Gabriel Malor on Thu Aug 16, 2007 at 02:17:46 PM EST
    I find the verdict as vindication for torture and unconstitutional actions by our government.  

    The verdict is no such thing. One can complain about the Administration's treatment of Padilla without indicting innocent jurors who were called to make a decision.

    Their choice is not "vindication" for anything other than the case the prosecution made. Especially since questions of torture and other unconstitutional actions were not even part of the case.

    [ Parent ]

    The jurors.... (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by kdog on Thu Aug 16, 2007 at 03:56:04 PM EST
    ain't innocent anymore....not in my eyes.  They are complicit.

    [ Parent ]
    Sigh. (1.00 / 1) (#50)
    by Gabriel Malor on Thu Aug 16, 2007 at 06:19:49 PM EST
    As Volokh Conspiracy commenter Anderson (who I rarely agree with) wrote:

    Sigh. How hard is it, people?

    (1) Signing up to join terrorist groups is a serious crime

    is not inconsistent with

    (2) deliberately tormenting a prisoner for years is wicked.

    You really can think both at the same time. Try it!



    [ Parent ]
    Anything to avoid the point (5.00 / 0) (#55)
    by Edger on Fri Aug 17, 2007 at 07:23:17 AM EST
    of what kdog and others say about what they plainly see.

    Take of the blinders kid, before you get blindsided.

    [ Parent ]

    Why is it.... (5.00 / 0) (#56)
    by kdog on Fri Aug 17, 2007 at 08:33:39 AM EST
    that Padilla's crimes (if he even did anything)are being punished so severely, and the governements crimes are not being punished at all?

    Doesn't that bother you in the slightest?

    [ Parent ]

    kdog (1.00 / 0) (#60)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Aug 17, 2007 at 10:06:15 AM EST
    Could we please have a list of the alleged crimes, and what proof there is that they happened.

    [ Parent ]
    Violation of due process.... (5.00 / 0) (#72)
    by kdog on Fri Aug 17, 2007 at 11:00:38 AM EST
    is one crime.  Torture is another.  The evidence is available if you look.

    [ Parent ]
    Well, obviously he just doesn't get it (5.00 / 0) (#78)
    by Alien Abductee on Fri Aug 17, 2007 at 01:03:05 PM EST
    Handling an application form has to be identical to signing up to join a terrorist group if the government says you have. You've got to watch out what you touch in this new world, people!

    Padilla is clearly guilty of thoughtcrime. Even if he didn't actually do anything, three years of torture and a lifetime of being entombed alive is too good for the likes of that sort of crime.

    [ Parent ]

    The Irony is (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by Peaches on Thu Aug 16, 2007 at 02:22:55 PM EST
    Now that he is insane, he agrees probably agrees with the verdict and the goal of the Bush Administration. A life prison sentence for him is gravy after what he went through at the brig.

    Let's not forget, we were told he was part of a plot to bring a dirty bomb into America but was charged with providing material support to terrorist organizations. Guilty, pehaps, but not as guilty as our government. From Sumner's link to Democracy Now.

    DR. ANGELA HEGARTY: I think there's two things, really. Number one, his family, more than anything, and his friends, who had a chance to see him by the time I spoke with them, said he was changed. There was something wrong. There was something very "weird" -- was the word one of his siblings used -- something weird about him. There was something not right. He was a different man. And the second thing was his absolute state of terror, terror alternating with numbness, largely. It was as though the interrogators were in the room with us. He was like -- perhaps like a trauma victim who knew that they were going to be sent back to the person who hurt them and that he would, as I said earlier, he would subsequently pay a price if he revealed what happened. So I think those would be the two main things.
    Also he had developed, actually, a third thing. He had developed really a tremendous identification with the goals and interests of the government. I really considered a diagnosis of Stockholm syndrome. For example, at one point in the proceedings, his attorneys had, you know, done well at cross-examining an FBI agent, and instead of feeling happy about it like all the other defendants I've seen over the years, he was actually very angry with them. He was very angry that the civil proceedings were "unfair to the commander-in-chief," quote/unquote. And in fact, one of the things that happened that disturbed me particularly was when he saw his mother. He wanted her to contact President Bush to help him, help him out of his dilemma. He expected that the government might help him, if he was "good," quote/unquote... Well, I think one of the things you have to realize is he was adamant that he would not reveal any quote/unquote "classified information." He in fact refused to provide a narrative of his account... How to capture that in an apt metaphor? He was terrified. For him, the government was all-powerful. The government knew everything. The government knew everything that he was doing. His interrogators would find out every little detail that he revealed. And he would be punished for it... He was convinced that -- I mean, I think in words he endorsed -- even if he won his case, he lost, because he was going back to the brig if he managed to prevail at trial. And essentially, if hypothetically one were to offer him a really long prison sentence versus -- with a guarantee that he wouldn't go back to the brig -- versus risking going back to the brig, the chance that he might go back to the brig, he would take the prison sentence for a very long period of time. I think he would take almost anything rather than go back to that brig... What happened at the brig was essentially the destruction of a human being's mind. That's what happened at the brig. His personality was deconstructed and reformed.
    And essentially, like many abuse victims, whether it's torture survivors or battered women or even children who are abused by parents, as long as the parents or the abuser is in control in their minds, essentially they identify with the primary aims of the abuser. And all abusers, whoever they are, have one absolute requirement, and that is that you keep their secret. I mean, it's common knowledge that people who abuse children or women will say, "Look at what you made me do," putting the blame on the victim, trying to instill guilt. "People will judge you. People will think you're crazy if you tell them about this. You will be an enemy. You will be seen as an enemy. You will be seen as a bad person if this comes out. There will be dire and terrible consequences, not only for you." Jose was very, very concerned that if torture allegations were made on his behalf, that somehow it would it interfere with the government's ability to detain people at Guantanamo, and this was something he couldn't sign onto. He was very identified with the goals of the government.

    We live in a very sick society and its not Padilla that gives evidence to this, but our government.  

    [ Parent ]

    Peaches (1.00 / 0) (#63)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Aug 17, 2007 at 10:20:26 AM EST
    This guy is faking.

    [ Parent ]
    the judge didn't think so ... (5.00 / 2) (#70)
    by Sailor on Fri Aug 17, 2007 at 10:51:17 AM EST
    ... but I'm sure that ppj could stand up to 3.5 years of torture and isolation ... at least it would be informative to watch.

    [ Parent ]
    Jim, (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by Peaches on Fri Aug 17, 2007 at 10:57:40 AM EST
    Let's see you spend 3 years on isolation. or even a month and see what it does to you.

    I don't think anyone, even the government, disputes he was held in isolation and sensory deprivation techniques were used against him for long periods of time. The goverment's position is that these techniques are not torture.

    I don't think he was faking, but I think it might be the only plausible explanation for some who hold onto the belief that our government is pure.

    [ Parent ]

    Pretty sad judgment and conviction (none / 0) (#21)
    by Edger on Thu Aug 16, 2007 at 01:48:47 PM EST
    of the Bush Administration, of all of his supporters, and of the Justice System.

    If they ever come for you Gabe, it will not be Neocons and Bush supporters supporting you.

    But you knew that.

    [ Parent ]

    Eh? (1.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Gabriel Malor on Thu Aug 16, 2007 at 02:01:20 PM EST
    Edger, why would "they" come for me? I'm not in the habit of engaging in terrorist activities (unlike Padilla).

    [ Parent ]
    You know (none / 0) (#26)
    by Edger on Thu Aug 16, 2007 at 02:08:02 PM EST
    exactly what I mean, Gabe.

    [ Parent ]
    Heh. (1.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Gabriel Malor on Thu Aug 16, 2007 at 02:22:52 PM EST
    I'm particularly enjoying your prior pronouncements on this case.

    Here's a nice one.

    This is not a trial of Jose Padilla. It is the continuing trial of the government and the Bush Administration, and more specifically it is a trial of George W. Bush, who leads that government, and of Bush's supporters.

    It looks like the Bush Administration, George W. Bush, and Bush's supporters won their trial!

    This one, too.

    Today's [competency] hearing was also a hearing on the competency of the justice system itself.

    Have you anything to add about the competency of the justice system?

    [ Parent ]

    Only from the far side of the looking glass can it (5.00 / 0) (#39)
    by Edger on Thu Aug 16, 2007 at 02:47:16 PM EST
    be said that the Bush Administration, George W. Bush, and Bush's supporters won their trial.

    They lost. You lost. I lost. The country lost.

    And the whole world lost.

    [ Parent ]

    I understand your thought process (1.00 / 1) (#41)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Aug 16, 2007 at 03:00:07 PM EST
    From your past:

    Posted by edger at December 4, 2005 08:12 AM

    I had written:

    Insurgents don't use car bombs to kill civilians or give booby trapped dolls to children. That is terrorist work, edgey. (quoted from my previous comment)

    Edger replied:

    That is not "terrorist work" in the way you try to twist it to mean, at all. It is the work of the Iraqi people - the very people BushCo thought would throw flowers - fighting to kick the US out of Iraq":

    In the past 36 hours somewhere between 175 and 500 innocent civilans in Iraq have been murdered by terrorists.

    The government's case was that it was Padilla's intent to join, be trained on how to kill, and to assists such terrorists.

    [ Parent ]

    It was the old, old story of (none / 0) (#27)
    by Edger on Thu Aug 16, 2007 at 02:11:31 PM EST
    the sacrificial lamb.

    What about those of us who knew better, we who knew the words were lies and worse than lies? Why did we sit silent? Why did we take part? Because we loved our country. What difference does it make if a few political extremists lose their rights? What difference does it make if a few racial minorities lose their rights? It is only a passing phase. It is only a stage we are going through. It will be discarded sooner or later. Hitler himself will be discarded -- sooner or later.  The country is in danger. We will march out of the shadows! We will go forward. FORWARD is the great password.



    [ Parent ]
    Jose Padilla (none / 0) (#30)
    by Edger on Thu Aug 16, 2007 at 02:21:02 PM EST
    could have been your neighbor, or your brother...... or you.

    The case of Jose Padilla is one of the most despicable and outright un-American travesties the U.S. Government has perpetrated for a long time. It is impossible to defend that behavior, let alone engage in it, and claim with any legitimacy that one believes in the principles that have defined and guided this country since its founding. But there has been no retreat from this behavior. Quite the contrary. The atrocity known as the Military Commissions Act of 2006 is a huge leap forward to elevating the Padilla treatment from the lawless shadows into full-fledged, officially sanctioned and legally authorized policy of the U.S. Government. The case of Jose Padilla is no longer a sick aberration, but is instead a symbol of the kind of Government we have chosen to have.
    So I Remember Ev'ry Face - Of Ev'ry Man Who Put Me Here

    [ Parent ]
    Indeed. (1.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Gabriel Malor on Thu Aug 16, 2007 at 02:25:08 PM EST
    It is impossible to defend that behavior, let alone engage in it, and claim with any legitimacy that one believes in the principles that have defined and guided this country since its founding.

    However, it is possible to oppose torture and other international law violations and still believe in the efficacy of the criminal justice system.

    The Bush Administration would rather have not put Padilla in the criminal justice system, but it's nice to see that it still functions.

    [ Parent ]

    It is possible to oppose torture (5.00 / 0) (#36)
    by Edger on Thu Aug 16, 2007 at 02:39:29 PM EST
    You should try opposing it sometime.

    Gabriel Malor on Mon Nov 13, 2006:

    Do you believe that the United States should live up to the Geneva Convention, to which we are signatories, which prohibits torture of any prisoners, whether or not they are considered "prisoners of war, "unlawful combatants," or any other term of convenience to the imprisoniong power"?

    [GABE]: Yes, though I suspect we have very different definitions of torture.

    Do you believe that prisoners at Guantanamo should be observed by international human rights organizations to assure the world that we do not torture them?</font>

    [GABE]: No. I have no problem with instituting self-administered monitoring (perhaps Congress could get off its ass and create a program), but "international human rights organizations" are not inclined to give Guantanamo objective scrutiny. I also worry that these organizations could compromise the security and safety of the facility and give aid to the prisoners.

    Do you believe the president had the authority to hold American citizen Jose Padilla for several years without a trial or access to a lawyer?

    [GABE]: Yes.



    [ Parent ]
    The Extinction of Iraqs Minorities (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by john horse on Thu Aug 16, 2007 at 06:15:05 PM EST
    The recent attack against the Yazidis illustrates in the village of Qahataniya illustrates the violence and genocide being committed against Iraq's minorities.  Whereas once they constituted a significant part of Iraq's population (as much as 10 percent) the UN now estimates that as many as half have fled.  Those not fleeing are being killed.  For example for the Mandeans "The killing is equal to three deaths for every one person left alive."  

    Groups under attack include Christians, Yazidis, Turkomans, Palestinians, and Jews. (link to article by Patrick Coburn in the Independent)

    The irony is that these minorities were protected from persecution by Sadam Hussein.  In getting rid of Saddam we released the forces of intolerant Sunni and Shiite fundamentalism.  George Bush says that he talked to God before invading Iraq.  I wonder if God told him that because of his invasion Iraqi Christians would face persecution.

    Aren't the Kurds a minority??? (1.00 / 0) (#84)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Aug 17, 2007 at 01:32:36 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    in a way ... (none / 0) (#86)
    by Sailor on Fri Aug 17, 2007 at 05:10:08 PM EST
    ... Kurds make up 15 - 20% of Iraq's population; but in another ... not.

    They have their own geographic area and their own government, (i.e. Kurdistan) and there they are by far the majority. It's similar to saying Californians are a minority ... but not in California.

    [ Parent ]

    Sailor loves strawmen (none / 0) (#98)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 08:37:11 AM EST
    Iraq is a country.

    The Kurds are either a minority in that coutry, or they are not.

    [ Parent ]

    Bush (none / 0) (#61)
    by Edger on Fri Aug 17, 2007 at 10:09:47 AM EST
    may have talked to some god. But he didn't listen.

    [ Parent ]
    The Journalists who fell (1.00 / 0) (#37)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Aug 16, 2007 at 02:45:20 PM EST
    from grace with the Internet.

    A few weeks ago I commented that the Internet has lots of facts, some of them actually true.. Let me say that I thought that original, but who knows? ;-)

    Either way, here is a list you should find interesting. 62 who have sinned.

    Scott Beauchamp was the last straw. I realized that I need a scorecard to keep track of all the fallen journalists, journalistic mistakes and major and minor screw-ups in the media.  I couldn't find one already made, although Wikipedia came close, so I started my own.  I apologize if there is a good list already out there, but I looked and could not find.

    Link

    When was Beauchamp discredited? (5.00 / 0) (#46)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Aug 16, 2007 at 03:51:07 PM EST
    Last I had heard the Army had only hushed him.

    [ Parent ]
    When was Beauchamp hushed? (none / 0) (#51)
    by roy on Thu Aug 16, 2007 at 09:19:43 PM EST
    Last I heard, he was free to talk to the media but hasn't chosen to.

    [ Parent ]
    Indeed. (1.00 / 0) (#53)
    by Gabriel Malor on Fri Aug 17, 2007 at 12:09:17 AM EST
    Beauchamp's comm privileges were restored after the investigation. He has the same opportunities to use the phones and computers as the rest of the troops in Iraq. We know at the very least that he's been in contact with his wife, a staffer at TNR. One would think that if he had something else to say, he would have said it.

    [ Parent ]
    Crack up time (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Aug 17, 2007 at 06:52:53 AM EST
    Here is what was emailed to the Weakly Standard as Sailor calls it.


    His command's investigation is complete. At this time, there is no formal what we call Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) actions being taken. However, there are other Administrative actions or what we call Non-Judicial Punishment that can be taken if the command deems appropriate. These are again administrative in nature and as such are not releasable to the public by law.

    We are not stonewalling anyone. There are official statements that are out there are on the record from several of us and nothing has changed.

    We are not preventing him from speaking to TNR or anyone. He has full access to the Morale Welfare and Recreation phones that all the other members of the unit are free to use. It is my understanding that he has been informed of the requests to speak to various members of the media, both traditional and non-traditional and has declined. That is his right.

    We will not nor can we force a Soldier to talk to the media or his family or anyone really for that matter in these types of issues.

    We fully understand the issues on this. What everyone must understand is that we will not breach the rights of the Soldier and this is where this is at this point.

    So Beauchamp isn't formally charged for anything he said which in the Army means he didn't lie.  He said a whole bunch of things the Army didn't appreciate and if they could have had his head on a pike they would have.  They investigated though and discovered that they really didn't want to go there if they were looking for a nice kitchen table discussion and subject matter.  And they aren't preventing him from saying anything that he wants to say but there are things that the Army would really like for him not to say and he has no civil rights where the Army is concerned. So the words However, there are other Administrative actions or what we call Non-Judicial Punishment that can be taken if the command deems appropriate in the military is the long version of STFU.  You guys continue to charm and entertain me.

    [ Parent ]

    Tracy - You leave out the part (none / 0) (#58)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Aug 17, 2007 at 09:54:01 AM EST
    where they interviewed his squad and platoon... who, in case you didn't know, are the soldiers  with him 24/7, and stated that what he wrote did not happen, and where his claim re the female happened in Kuwait, not Iraq.

    You write:

    So Beauchamp isn't formally charged for anything he said which in the Army means he didn't lie
    .

    No. It means that the offense does not rise to the level that the punishment would require a court-martial in the opinion of his Commanding Officer.

    Non Judicial Punishment (NJP) is called a Captain's Mast in the Navy, Office Hours in the Marines. I do not know what it is called in the Army. It is defined in Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

    To initiate Article 15 action, a commander must have reason to believe that a member of his/her command committed an offense under the UCMJ. Article 15

    The Commanding Officer may:

    dispose of such charges by dismissing the charges, imposing punishment under the provisions of Art. 15, UCMJ, or referring the case to a court-martial.

    Here is Article 15.

    Beaucamp can also appeal the NJP to the next higher court, which would be a court martial.

    That his Commanding Officer after an investigation decided he was guilty of a violation and administered NJP and that Beaucamp did not request a court-martial should be enough proof to any reasonable person. That many of his claims were also outlandish and demonstratable wrong should satisfy anyone.

    As I have noted before, I find your defense of Beaucamp strange. His actions obviously have contributed to a lowering of morale and good order within his immediate group, if not larger. In addition this has to encourage the terrorists by demonstrating to them the political confusion and attacks within various political factions in the US. The terrorists know they can not defeat our military, so they must rely on a political defeat.

    [ Parent ]

    I haven't read any interviews with (5.00 / 2) (#59)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Aug 17, 2007 at 10:01:33 AM EST
    his squad and platoon.  Can you share the links?

    [ Parent ]
    I am not your researcher (1.00 / 1) (#75)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Aug 17, 2007 at 12:42:59 PM EST
    Hint - It was in TalkLeft within the last 10 days and you made several comments in the thread.

    [ Parent ]
    Bull, if you had an actual interview (none / 0) (#91)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Aug 19, 2007 at 08:48:38 AM EST
    you would have pulled that card.  Here's a bit from this WaPo article though Jimbo that I'm sure you don't want to read.

    In military circles, the reaction to Beauchamp's stories has been mixed. Some of my friends were disturbed by the article, but very few questioned its basic truth. His tamer reports echoed my own experiences of Iraq and mirrored stories I'd heard from other soldiers there. The third dispatch, however, struck me as too fantastic to believe, in part because I could not imagine soldiers making fun of anyone who had been wounded by an IED, especially an infantryman like Beauchamp who himself faced the dangers of these bombs. But as an old combat veteran reminded me last week, American soldiers have certainly done worse in wars past. Anyone who finds Beauchamp's story incredible merely because it's upsetting has no idea what war can do. The truth will eventually come out in this case, but larger questions about the credibility of incredible wartime narrative will remain.


    [ Parent ]
    TracyO (none / 0) (#95)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 08:19:47 AM EST
    Still can't find the thread, eh?

    Well keep looking. It's there. Maybe I'll link to it as a Christmas present.

    BTW - You left out one or two things from the article.

    I am deeply skeptical about the veracity of Beauchamp's dispatches

    Military spokesmen in Baghdad declined to confirm this or provide any more details to me about their investigation, saying that interviews with Beauchamp's unit found that "no one could substantiate his claims," and that this was a closed issue for his unit to handle administratively.


    [ Parent ]
    Two words everyone in the military (none / 0) (#101)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 11:56:45 AM EST
    knows........Blue Falcon........don't be one if you don't have to.  Still not impressed with your proof Jim. And being skeptical is fine, let us not forget though that soldiers in Vietnam ran around with necklaces made of ears okay?  Dancing around a bit with a portion of childs skull that you didn't kill on top of your head, stupid but far from the worst thing we know our soldiers have done.  American soldiers have done much worse in different wars that were less than or equally as stressful.  They are human beings Jim, not flawlessly beautiful robots of patriotism delivering democracy to far away lands they have liberated.

    [ Parent ]
    And I know all about Non Judicial Punishments (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Aug 17, 2007 at 10:14:19 AM EST
    so save the lecture.  I know far better than you as to what your commander can tell you to do and not do if he feels that something you are doing is jeopardizing the mission in any way AND I MEAN IN ANY WAY, SHAPE, or FORM.  He can tell you that you can't talk to the press and you also can't admit to being told you can't talk to the press because you are destroying troop morale.  An NCO working with my husband was just reprimanded yesterday for having an extramarital affair with a local waitress. He is not permitted personal contact with the woman ever again or more serious actions will be taken against him.  He has failed to mentor other soldiers properly and brought disorder and chaos to his unit because of the stress and chaos he has caused within his family and thereby other military families that share friendship with them.  He was also told that what he was doing was destroying troop morale.  If the military doesn't want you to talk or want you to fool around on your wife.....buddy you aren't doing it, period, end of discussion!  And they can try to shut military dependents up but I'm living proof that is one attempt at control that they can't enforce but hey, I am a horrible military wife huh?  If there is any justice though, someday I'll get to wear a big scarlett letter on my bodice.  

    [ Parent ]
    Tracy (1.00 / 0) (#79)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Aug 17, 2007 at 01:12:33 PM EST
    I know far better than you as to what your commander can tell you to do and not do

    Hmmm. I didn't know you were an expert on military law. Especially since you demonstrated the opposite in your lengthy defense of Beaucamp.

    And I guess those 10 years I actually SPENT in the military, rather than my wife, taught me nothing. (That's sarcasm boys and girls.)

    Oh well. Tracy will be Tracy.


    [ Parent ]

    Your ten years weren't spent in combat (1.00 / 1) (#92)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Aug 19, 2007 at 08:51:43 AM EST
    and if you weren't such a yellow coward you would be putting in the rest of your twenty.  You would rather be a cheerleader though, it is safer, the most that can happen is a sprain.

    [ Parent ]
    TracyO (none / 0) (#96)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 08:32:26 AM EST
    Be careful who you call coward. I served 10 years. You have served none. Even those who served only a day have done more than you.

    And no, your husband's service is not an excuse for you not serving.

    UMS would have done wonders for you.

    As for cheerleading, yes I guess you can say I cheerlead. I know that our troops are on the side of the angels, even if a few sin. I prefer to punish the sinners quietly, and praise the others loudly.

    You do not. You complain and mutter and make claims that are false and incorrect. I try to understand people such as you. I find it impossible.

    [ Parent ]

    And you left out this part (5.00 / 3) (#66)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Aug 17, 2007 at 10:33:54 AM EST
    New Republic Investigation Clears Military Columnist

    [ Parent ]
    Huh??? (1.00 / 1) (#74)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Aug 17, 2007 at 12:16:52 PM EST
    That's funny.

    [ Parent ]
    Now that I have stopped laughing (1.00 / 1) (#80)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Aug 17, 2007 at 01:14:31 PM EST
    You do realize that link is two weeks old....? And that the Army doesn't agree???

    [ Parent ]
    Put your link up or shut up. (none / 0) (#93)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Aug 19, 2007 at 08:52:31 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Shut up?? Great comment. (none / 0) (#97)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 08:35:20 AM EST
    What's next, a threat to spank me??

    The fact that your memory is so poor that you don't remember the thread is funny. Especially since you was blathering in the middle of the discussion.

    [ Parent ]

    personal isults instead on links (none / 0) (#102)
    by Sailor on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 12:28:20 PM EST
    the army can't be trusted to investigate itself (see tillmam, see rape, murder, torture) and beachamp, contrary to your assertion, has been held incommunicado since the alleged 'investigation.'

    And seeing how he was treated and other whistleblowers were treated, can you blame his fellow soldiers, who did confirm it to TNR, for not coming forward during the army's witchhunt?

    [ Parent ]

    And the terrorist have defeated our military (5.00 / 2) (#67)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Aug 17, 2007 at 10:39:38 AM EST
    I just go on and on replying to your ridiculous post.  The terrorist have defeated our military Jim because they broke it and our national security is at risk right this minute.  THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA IS NOW A JIHADIST TERRORIST ORGANIZATIONS WET DREAM!  They won Jim.  They won because we were too stupid to know when to hold em, know when to fold, know when to walk, and know when to run!

    [ Parent ]
    Wow (1.00 / 0) (#81)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Aug 17, 2007 at 01:15:58 PM EST
    The terrorist have defeated our military Jim because they broke it and our national security is at risk right this minute.

    Even Harry Reid didn't say that.

    [ Parent ]

    What is that supposed to mean Jim? (none / 0) (#90)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Aug 19, 2007 at 08:42:04 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    And I am apalled that you refuse to hear (5.00 / 2) (#68)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Aug 17, 2007 at 10:48:02 AM EST
    how stressed and messed up the existing troops you have are.  What kind of soldier were you.......not even one is what I say!  I don't know how you can be so overly focused on faux morale issues for an Army you don't even have anymore!  And the morale the real day by day humping it in 130 degree sniper Iraq heat that the tatters you have left has just sucks all by itself and nothing you do on any given day makes it any better for them. And I doubt Scott whoever he is and whatever he has to say matters more than a mouth full of spit to those soldiers.  GET A CLUE!

    [ Parent ]
    He can't even get the facts correct: (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by Dark Avenger on Fri Aug 17, 2007 at 01:51:04 PM EST
    That his Commanding Officer after an investigation decided he was guilty of a violation and administered NJP and that Beaucamp did not request a court-martial.

    When the communication from the Weakly Standard clearly stated:

    However, there are other Administrative actions or what we call Non-Judicial Punishment that can be taken if the command deems appropriate. These are again administrative in nature and as such are not releasable to the public by law..

    Logical conclusion:

    Either someone has broken the law and leaked the fact that NJP was imposed to PPJ, which would make him an accessory after the fact, or he is asserting something without knowing if his assertion is, in fact, true.

    I do hope that PPJ isn't using that reliable source, pulledoutofmya**.com

    That many of his claims were also outlandish and demonstratable wrong should satisfy anyone.

    But he won't be facing a court-martial over writing stuff that can be demonstrated wrong and was outlandish.

    Also, from the TNR link that you refused to open:

    In fact, it is our understanding that Beauchamp continues to stand by his stories and insists that he has not recanted them. The Army, meanwhile, has refused our requests to see copies of the statements it obtained from Beauchamp--or even to publicly acknowledge that they exist.

    and

    Our investigation has not thus far uncovered factual evidence (aside from one key detail) to discount his personal dispatches. And we cannot simply dismiss the corroborating accounts of the five soldiers with whom we spoke.here.)

    Part of our integrity as journalists includes standing by a writer who has been accused of wrongdoing and who is not able to defend himself. But we also want to reassure our readers that our obligations to our writer would never trump our commitment to the truth. We once again invite the Army to make public Beauchamp's statements and the details of its investigation--and we ask the Army to let us (or any other media outlet, for that matter) speak to Beauchamp. Unless and until these things happen, we cannot fairly assess any of these reports about Beauchamp--and therefore have no reason to change our own assessment of Beauchamp's work. If the truth ends up reflecting poorly on our judgment, we will accept responsibility for that. But we also refuse to rush to judgment on our writer or ourselves.

    In addition this has to encourage the terrorists by demonstrating to them the political confusion and attacks within various political factions in the US.

    PPJ, I do believe that you are an expert at political confusion, but to paraphrase Rumsfeld, democracy is sometimes messy.

    Your old canard about 'encouraging the terrorists' is falling flat these days.

    Let's hear from a terrorist whose side he's on:

    And at this time it was very, not funny, but amazing because it was at the time of the election, American election, where there was John Kerry and George Bush, you know, competing in the U.S. election. And I said to him, maybe you will vote to Kerry because he wants a withdrawal of the U.S. troops in Iraq. He said not at all. We want George Bush. I vote George Bush because with him it will be more confrontation, more violence and after one year, two years, we will be more stronger because we will be more experienced in the fighting against the Americans.

    Thanks for giving me another thread to cite when you start wailing like a lovesick tomcat  about so-and-so's lack of logic, reasoning, etc, PPJ.

    TTFN

    [ Parent ]

    DA - Prove that he did not receive NJP. (none / 0) (#100)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 08:42:32 AM EST
    I say he did.

    [ Parent ]
    Hmmmm again.... Let me try to help you. (1.00 / 0) (#83)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Aug 17, 2007 at 01:31:54 PM EST
    I have never said that some soldiers and sailors and marines and airmen weren't having problems. That is true now and has been true in every war. What I have said is that your constant attacks on the war causes additional problems by hurting the morale of the troops and encouraging the terrorists because they see political conflict in the US as a win for them.

    So if you support the troops, support. Don't attack their mission. It is important to them.

    [ Parent ]

    With help like yours (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by Dark Avenger on Fri Aug 17, 2007 at 05:27:59 PM EST
    who needs terrorists?

    I have never said that some soldiers and sailors and marines and airmen weren't having problems.

    Being as you are an example of the last-named, that would be foolish and reality-denying.

    As for your concern about the troops morale, you seem more concerned about what we say here than factors like:

    A lack of body armor

    A lack of vehicle armor

    Multiple tours of duty

    Here's an answer from a spouse of a soldier, like MT:

    So why is it that those of us who do not support the choices of this administration are labelled anti-troop? I have said this before, and I will repeat it again and again until I don't have to do so anymore:

    It is not only our right to question the President, it is also our responsibility in a democratic society.

    I would not be fulfilling my duties as a citizen of this beautiful nation which our military protects if I did not examine his actions and take action of my own when he is out of line.

    Yes, he's the commander in chief of the armed forces. That does not mean he is above question. If so, we would be living in a dictatorship. If the military truly believes they are fighting for the American way, then why are they disappointed when we exercise our rights? The President is my employee. He is public servant number One.

    In my opinion, he has abused the military by sending it to war without proper equipment, by going to war based on faulty (at best) information, by entering a war with no exit strategy, and by obscuring facts with propaganda. He has cut the budget for healthcare of veterans during a time of war.

    Why must I agree with this tyrant in order to support the troops? I love the military. I love the fact that men and women love our nation so much that they sacrifice everything in order to defend it for me and my children. I appreciate their service. My grandfather is a WWII vet, my father a Navy vet, my brother an Air Force vet. I am an Army wife. Don't tell me that I am anti-military because I don't like George (Where were you during Vietnam?) Bush.

    Part of my supporting the troops is making sure that they aren't being abused by their commander in chief, who happens to be my employee as an American citizen.

    Over the past four years I have watched the troops being abused at every level, culminating with the treatment of our wounded at WRAMC. And yet, in order to "support" the troops, I am supposed to bite my tongue about these issues, ignore the bad decisions, the lies, the abuses, in order to... what? Make you feel good because I believe in your mission?

    Bull**.

    I know you* have to believe in your mission and that you are inextricably bound to it, it becomes a part of you. It has to be so that you can stay alive, so that you can succeed, so that you are effective as a soldier. I do believe in your mission insofar as you are following your orders and serving the nation in the manner you volunteered to do. If you didn't, like that officer who is on trial for disobeying the orders to go to war (because he "changed his mind" about the lawfulness of the war), then I would lambast you for it. I believe in you, your sacrifice, and what you have to do. At war you better be the best f**king warrior you can be and fulfill your daily missions to the best of your ability.

    Meanwhile, I am going to be here, watching over the government like a hawk and doing what I can to keep them honest. I will watch for ulterior motives, for indifference, for stupidity. And when I see it I will scream about it until somebody listens. If the bastards can't even take care of you when you're wounded, why should I have faith that they are doing what's right in the war?

    I'm an American. I am proud of my country. I am proud of our troops.

    If you don't believe I support you, that's on you.

    Now if you will please excuse me, I have to get back to taking care of my family in the absence of my husband and finding other ways to help our wounded veterans.

    *Generic "you" for all troops, not aimed directly at Soldier Boy or Chuck

    But you know better than her, the many commentators here , myself, etc.

    Thanks for showing us your true colors, PPJ

    [ Parent ]

    You are NUTS, totally NUTS (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Aug 19, 2007 at 08:38:24 AM EST
    America IS about questioning all missions to include military missions.  It is the cornerstone of democracy..........to question and debate.  I don't question the troops unless they have broken the laws of the UCMJ.  I fully support them.  I am an American citizen and it is my DUTY to question all missions of our troops.  Our military is under civilian authority Jim.  You get so damned nuts sometimes and say totally crazy things.  This isn't a dictatorship and you my friend are out of your mind.

    [ Parent ]
    Tracy (5.00 / 2) (#94)
    by Dark Avenger on Sun Aug 19, 2007 at 10:26:08 AM EST
    we're there to spread democracy, and we have to refrain from practicing it at home in order for the mission to succeed.

    OTOH, from Teddy Roosevelt:

    To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. Nothing but the truth should be spoken about him or any one else. But it is even more important to tell the truth, pleasant or unpleasant, about him than about any one else."


    [ Parent ]
    Tracy (1.00 / 1) (#99)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 08:41:12 AM EST
    How many people do you think questioned the mission of our troops in WWII?

    Your attacks are counterproductive.

    [ Parent ]

    Slander isn't a counter-argument (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by Dark Avenger on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 12:26:20 PM EST
    not that it's kept you from using it in the past.

    Of course, in WWII the economy was on a war footing, the fight was taken to the enemy who attacked and declared war on us, we didn't get bogged down in countries that had no involvement with the Axis

    yep, the WOT and WWII are very similar.........

    [ Parent ]

    What's the photo? (none / 0) (#1)
    by oculus on Thu Aug 16, 2007 at 02:55:12 AM EST


    It looks like the courthouse in Aspen (none / 0) (#2)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Aug 16, 2007 at 08:09:03 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    I looked through google (none / 0) (#3)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Aug 16, 2007 at 08:16:10 AM EST
    From those it looks like Telluride.  I've never been to Telluride.

    [ Parent ]
    Yup. (none / 0) (#4)
    by locomule on Thu Aug 16, 2007 at 09:21:32 AM EST
    That's the main street of ToHellYouRide.

    Here's a shot from the top of the mountain in the background (Black Bear Pass).

    [ Parent ]

    Beautiful photos (none / 0) (#5)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Aug 16, 2007 at 09:48:24 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    The WH is writing Petraeus Sept report ... (none / 0) (#6)
    by Sailor on Thu Aug 16, 2007 at 11:00:37 AM EST
    ... and trying not to let him appear in public sessions as mandated by the law.
    links here, and here.

    If Sailor had been there in 1944 (1.00 / 0) (#8)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Aug 16, 2007 at 11:51:54 AM EST
    Congressman: General Eisenhower, what are your plans??

    Eisenhower: We will do a joint allied landing on the beaches of France early morning of June 6.



    [ Parent ]
    A more spurious comparision... (none / 0) (#14)
    by Dadler on Thu Aug 16, 2007 at 12:21:55 PM EST
    ...would be hard to make.

    Petraeus has already done interviews and stated his opinion, why aren't you after him for talking in the press like that?

    A White House this failed, this incapable of respecting or being truthful with the American people, so pathologically addicted to secrecy, sure, it's no problem they're going to write their own review.  I mean, back at the University of California, my professors always let me choose what grade I'd get in their classes.

    [ Parent ]

    If Dadler had been alive in 1944: (1.00 / 1) (#18)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Aug 16, 2007 at 12:52:46 PM EST
    Reporter: General Eisenhower, how do you think things are going?

    Eisenhower: Overall I think things are improving, although we still need more troops. And it appears that we will still need to invade the continent.

    See the difference?


    [ Parent ]

    Nope (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by Dadler on Thu Aug 16, 2007 at 01:17:38 PM EST
    You are equating what Petraeus "will be" reporting (he already has in interviews) with the invasion of Normandy.

    I repeat, a more spurious comparison would be hard to make.

    [ Parent ]

    Dadler (1.00 / 1) (#22)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Aug 16, 2007 at 01:49:44 PM EST
    No, I am noting that Eisenhower would, and did, give general information to Reporters..as you claim Petraeus has done.

    But he would never give detailed plans the way Sailor, and I guess you, wants him to.

    [ Parent ]

    I don't expect him to give me any detailed (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Aug 16, 2007 at 02:33:05 PM EST
    information.  I'm pretty sure he wakes up every morning wondering what the hell to do now, especially since yesterday genocide began consuming the happiness of the once happy North ;)  He's a good egg though, still in the saddle even after this has gone way past eight seconds.  This may be the best rodeo ride I have ever seen when they finally blow the horn.

    [ Parent ]
    Tracy, why do you find it funny (1.00 / 1) (#43)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Aug 16, 2007 at 03:19:46 PM EST
    that the terrorist attack killed 500 or so people??

    especially since yesterday genocide began consuming the happiness of the once happy North ;)

    Is the basis of your happiness that you think this is a failure of the evil Bush's policy, thus you are "winning" and war supporters are "losing?"

    Surely you understand that this not a game.

    [ Parent ]

    Her post expresses no "happiness" (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by glanton on Thu Aug 16, 2007 at 03:29:42 PM EST
    She sounds pretty bitter to me.  And rightfully so.  

    [ Parent ]
    I don't find it funny (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Aug 16, 2007 at 03:30:15 PM EST
    I only find my president and his ideas about how to best help oil rich Iraqis stupid to the point of tears.  Sometimes when you can't cry anymore all you can do I relish the irony.

    [ Parent ]
    Tracy (1.00 / 0) (#64)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Aug 17, 2007 at 10:26:47 AM EST
    The use of the "smiley" indicates a smile.

    Perhaps you would be better served to use a ;-/ which many people consider a smirk.

    Or just a comment that you find "it" ironic, as you do in your response to my comment.

    Which actually doesn't respond to your comment about the terrorist killings of between 175 and 500 people. Instead you wonder off to "oil."

    [ Parent ]

    BTW (1.00 / 0) (#65)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Aug 17, 2007 at 10:28:56 AM EST
    I just noted the "wonder off." At first I thought I should correct it to "wander."

    But on second thought, I was correct the first time.

    ;-)

    And yes, that is a smile.

    [ Parent ]

    Sometimes all you can do is laugh (none / 0) (#73)
    by glanton on Fri Aug 17, 2007 at 11:12:17 AM EST
    Just a brief tour of the news over the last six years, domestic and internationbal, gives rise to deep-seated feelings of criticism, outrage, and protest.  

    There is and there will continue to be a real place for such sober reactions.  But sometimes, it is not only appropriate but necessary as you look at the situation, to metaphorically throw your hands in the air and give a good ole fashioned

    ;-)

    So to speak

    [ Parent ]

    Glanton (1.00 / 0) (#77)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Aug 17, 2007 at 12:58:55 PM EST
    What you speak of is irony..

    the use of words to express something other than and especially the opposite of the literal meaning b : a usually humorous or sardonic literary style or form characterized by irony c : an ironic expression or utterance

    Tracy belatedly claims that was her intent.

    BTW - Been a while. How are you?? Did you give the quit smoking drug a shot be discussed??

    [ Parent ]

    Jim (5.00 / 0) (#82)
    by glanton on Fri Aug 17, 2007 at 01:19:40 PM EST
    Currently my struggles to quit smoking are on the upswing, but my insurance didn't cover the drugs; they're not THAT expensive, but in my position it was still best to economize so I decided to go with the patch.  Over a month and counting... knowck on wood.

    By the way, anybody looking for a company to invest in I strongly suggest whoever makes Life-Savers for the next several months!

    As for the serious matters under discussion here, I instyantly and instinctively grasped the frustration undergirding Tracy's post.  Is it possible that things between you and she have brought you to the point that you can no longer even read what she's writing?

    And then, my own commentary on the matter doesn't presume to speak for Tracy.  My two-cents on the matter is, from the Greek theater own down we have been turning to laughter as a last resort in the face of humilation, outrage, embarassment, fear, etc.  

    For my part I have not toally given up on the human race, nor could I ever imagine myself doing so.  But geez, whether you're talking about untbags overseas blowing each other up over stoopid dogmas, or whether you're talking about our own elite group of rulers smugly sending soldiers into the middle of it even as they Institutionalize Torture (for example), the decent people almost always seem to wind up like Charlie Brown, always trusting Lucy, never getting to kick the football.  Protest, complain, vote, etc.  But sometimes you jyst gotta laugh.

    Personal disclaimer:

    One of the things that makes it hard for me to not be a bigot towards Islam, Judaism, and Christianity alike (though continue to fight the urge) is that in none of the Holy Texts on which those religions are founded, do smiling or (God Forbid) laughter get their due, if they get mentioned at all.    

    [ Parent ]

    is China setting an example? (none / 0) (#9)
    by Sumner on Thu Aug 16, 2007 at 12:00:51 PM EST
    from TheRegister: China jails 'subversive' net dissident

    I got my eye on you (none / 0) (#10)
    by Sumner on Thu Aug 16, 2007 at 12:03:03 PM EST
    from Slashdot: DHS To Share Spy Satellite Data Over the US

    did you check under that rock over there? (none / 0) (#11)
    by Sumner on Thu Aug 16, 2007 at 12:05:50 PM EST
    from UPI: Homegrown terrorists called serious threat

    TL/JM re: Westword Cover 8/16 (none / 0) (#12)
    by Oliver W Holmes the 3rd on Thu Aug 16, 2007 at 12:12:54 PM EST
    I know you have in the past featured (for lack of a better description) posts about SuperMax in Florance, CO.

    While in Denver on a brief vacation, I noticed the new Westword cover story titled The Caged Life and a sidebar story titled