CIA runs network of secret prisons

[Redleg]

Come on Red, the statement of PanzerJager speaks by itself. I hope you're not trying to defend it...

Notice how Tribesman responded to my comment. Does that sound like a response to someone who was agreeing with Panzwer's statement.


But in simple terms - no I wasn't defending his statement - just stating that the military no longer tracks kill ratios because they are not an effective means of judging how the force is doing in the overall scheme of things - its only good for seeing how a particlur operation went. Futhermore Kill ratios are not important for an unconventional war.

[KafirChobee]

Notice how Tribesman responded to my comment. Does that sound like a response to someone who was agreeing with Panzwer's statement.


But in simple terms - no I wasn't defending his statement - just stating that the military no longer tracks kill ratios because they are not an effective means of judging how the force is doing in the overall scheme of things - its only good for seeing how a particlur operation went. Futhermore Kill ratios are not important for an unconventional war.

The last part; "Further, kill ratios are not important for an unconventional war."

Sound at all familiar? It is the exact same statement used by Westmoreland to justify his policy in 'nam in 1966, before the S__t hit the fan.

Well, it has hit the fan again. Due to the causes of our (USA) previous FUBAR - arrogance, ignorance and ego's run amock in a situation they did not have the inteligence (well, they had the real CIA info, but chose to ignore it. And, the military intelligence; which they opted to retire the offending officers for showing them - but, they weren't bright enough to realize the quagmire they were drawing us into. Or, they didn't care).

As to the original premise of the CIA running an illegal (by U.S. law - prior ro Cheney, Wolfowitz and gang) network of prisons, it is fact. It is noted, it is.

Pity of it all is that there are those still attempting to justify an illegal war. One created by an administration so caught up in the past, they can't see the present - let alone the future.

My nephew just got back from "there". My son is just got "there" (as a hired gun), and my niece's husband is in a hospital because of "there" (lucked out, only lost his foot).

Justifying an unjust and ill needed war, is like proclaiming ones self a warmonger. Which is fine; given the proper circumstance one could accuse me of such. But, to preclude the evidence of the issue by saying that we are doing things within International Law? Well, what planet are we talking about? Surely, you don't mean Earth. Or, do you?

[Redleg]

The last part; "Further, kill ratios are not important for an unconventional war."

Oh boy here we go again with the rethoric of the far far left that is Kafir.

Sound at all familiar? It is the exact same statement used by Westmoreland to justify his policy in 'nam in 1966, before the S__t hit the fan.

Not at all - Westmoreland wanted to know the kill ration because of the politics involved. Who actually ordered the information to be gathered can be debated - my bet is on a certain democratic president.

Now multiple histories will back this up - but here is some that are the web - take them with a grain of salt though because we all know how truthful information is on the web - kind of like your statement here is "truthful"

Westmoreland, in the face of continuous vetoed plans, opted for importing larger and larger numbers of U.S. soldiers. Once simply advisors to the South Vietnamese government, the U.S. now entered the tropical battlefield. Westmoreland devised what was called the "search and destroy" strategy. This strategy ordered helicopter-borne troops to find and erase all evidence of the largest enemy units. The goals of the war soon became blurred. MACV, the Military Assistance Command of Vietnam were suddenly blinded by body counts, kill ratios, and all sorts of statistical information. With no definition of what constituted winning the war, the men in uniform were left with no direction. Without direction, the increased amount of soldiers only meant an increased amount of death.

http://www.trincoll.edu/classes/hist300/westmore.htm

Thus, the administration escalated in response to North Vietnamese actions. Its objective was to inflict a level of pain on the North Vietnamese that was sufficient to make them bargain in earnest. Thus Vietnam became a war of attrition. Johnson would regularly characterize his decisions as taking the middle ground. He would not "pull out" as the "doves" and "nervous Nellies" suggested nor would he go "all out" as the "hawkish" military advisors recommended.

Fighting a war with limited and political objectives had an added liability. It was difficult to define and convey the idea of "progress" to the public. There were few set piece or conventional battles and American objectives were not defined in geographical terms (e.g., Berlin and Tokyo). Instead, the administration was forced to create and essentially sell indicators of progress to the public. Herein lies the origin of such commonly used terms as "pacification zones" and "kill ratios."

http://faculty.smu.edu/dsimon/Change-Viet2.html

If you want more - feel free to ask - but point your finger at the democratic party which was in control of Washington D.C. at the time.

Well, it has hit the fan again. Due to the causes of our (USA) previous FUBAR - arrogance, ignorance and ego's run amock in a situation they did not have the inteligence (well, they had the real CIA info, but chose to ignore it. And, the military intelligence; which they opted to retire the offending officers for showing them - but, they weren't bright enough to realize the quagmire they were drawing us into. Or, they didn't care).

You just can't help yourself can you?

As to the original premise of the CIA running an illegal (by U.S. law - prior ro Cheney, Wolfowitz and gang) network of prisons, it is fact. It is noted, it is.

Pity of it all is that there are those still attempting to justify an illegal war. One created by an administration so caught up in the past, they can't see the present - let alone the future.

You might want to check on the definition of illegal - it seem the United States Congress authorized the use of force. Oh wait their all corrupt politians except for the democratic party - to bad they also voted for the most part in favor of using force against Iraq.

My nephew just got back from "there". My son is just got "there" (as a hired gun), and my niece's husband is in a hospital because of "there" (lucked out, only lost his foot).

Justifying an unjust and ill needed war, is like proclaiming ones self a warmonger. Which is fine; given the proper circumstance one could accuse me of such. But, to preclude the evidence of the issue by saying that we are doing things within International Law? Well, what planet are we talking about? Surely, you don't mean Earth. Or, do you?

Maybe we live on the same full of hyprocrisy planet.

[PanzerJaeger]

well it seems that not everyone understands that the United States Military does not track kill ratios any longer

I was refering to the numbers of enemy casualties versus the number of allied casualties the military gives after combat engagements. Sorry for the confusion.

[bmolsson]

I was refering to the numbers of enemy casualties versus the number of allied casualties the military gives after combat engagements. Sorry for the confusion.

How are civilian casualites counted ? Points for both sides ?

[QwertyMIDX]

A bit more proof that people should be wary of a government that isn't transparent; or the State entirely, but there’s no need to get started on that topic, not the time or the place.

Powell's ex-aide speaks of torture 'cabal'
Last Updated Fri, 04 Nov 2005 17:37:53 EST
CBC News

A former top official in the Bush administration is making new allegations that Vice-President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld approved the use of torture against al-Qaeda suspects and other foreign-held prisoners.

"They began to authorize procedures in the armed forces that led to, in my view, what we've seen," said Col. Larry Wilkerson, who was chief of staff to former secretary of state Colin Powell.

Wilkerson claims that Cheney and Rumsfeld formed what he called a "cabal" – a small secret group within the administration that tacitly approved torture.

According to a report published in the Washington Post this week, much of the alleged torture may be taking place in a number of covert Central Intelligence Agency prisons called "black sites."

Several of them are allegedly located in Eastern Europe, where they are used to house and interrogate al-Qaeda suspects.

Former U.S. president Jimmy Carter said that if the Washington Post story is true, the existence of the prisons is a disgrace.

"It's an abomination," he said. "It's a discredit to our country; it's an embarrassment to our country, and it's a direct violation of the fact that America in the past has been looked upon as a champion of human rights."

The Bush administration declined to either confirm or deny the existence of secret CIA prisons around the world. It has also repeated its claim that it does not condone torture.

[Soulforged]

A former top official in the Bush administration is making new allegations that Vice-President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld approved the use of torture against al-Qaeda suspects and other foreign-held prisoners.

Excuse me but torture was always legal, for what I know, as long as you didn't hold the suspect for too long, didn't cause him much pain (physical or psicological) or didn't cause him permanent damage. But in any case, yes a terrible thing indeed.

"It's an abomination," he said. "It's a discredit to our country; it's an embarrassment to our country, and it's a direct violation of the fact that America in the past has been looked upon as a champion of human rights."

Like I've said before.

The Bush administration declined to either confirm or deny the existence of secret CIA prisons around the world. It has also repeated its claim that it does not condone torture.

Of course they declined. How would they reveal "state's secret's"? This is just so hilarious. It was supposed on the begining of the formation of USA country and every other now liberal, that it accepted the republican or democratic form of government. It's supposed that the state is an instrument, not an allmighty lord that dicides what the citizens should know and what no, they must say everything, secrets only lead to loose of control and tryrany.