http://blogcritics.org/ A sinister cabal of superior bloggers on music, books, film, popular culture, politics, and technology - updated continuously. en Copyright 2005 by the authors Sun, 29 May 2005 23:52:30 EDT http://backend.userland.com/rss Blogcritics.org custom software http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/05/29/013126.php#comment-159866 No, I'm not concerned with that, what I was saying is that when the United States simply says that five of the incidents are resolved it is bound to seem less than transparent from a world view-point. I'm probably just missing information. Anyway, the first section of the post is really not related to the rest of it. I probably should've edited it out; my attention drifted elsewhere before I bothered to explain what I meant. So now, as always, I'm writing comments that outstrip the length of the original post! -Leoniceno 159866@blogcritics.org Sun, 29 May 2005 23:52:30 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/05/29/013126.php#comment-159801 Um, in five incedents guards TOUCHED a Koran and this is a big deal to you? Come again? Dave 159801@blogcritics.org Sun, 29 May 2005 03:01:10 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/05/29/013126.php#comment-159794 I used two 'conveniently's in the same sentence, didn't I... What I mean is that the Pentagon needs to be more transparent, and shouldn't be ruling things out before they start investigating. Of course I'm not saying that it's impossible to accidentally defile the Koran. What's important is that we get it sorted out to where it might satisfy at the least the more moderate middle easterners. This requires more than a statement in a Pentagon press release that they consider a certain class of allegations resolved. 159794@blogcritics.org Sun, 29 May 2005 02:22:29 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/05/29/013126.php#comment-159787 It is very easy for a person not trained in all aspects of another culture or religion to cause offense, does that make the actions of that person accidental or purposeful? 159787@blogcritics.org Sun, 29 May 2005 02:02:27 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/05/29/013126.php#comment-159786 Well, if we applied that same logic to criminals in our own country, we'd workin the interest of national security by locking up anyone suspected of a crime and leaving them locked up. We have enough trust in our system that we don't feel like we have to do this. Instead we have fair trials, and don't worry too much that we are letting scads of criminals back onto the streets. I don't understand why we're so paranoid about giving some semblance of the same treatment to the Guantanamo Bay people. I'm not opposed to tough regulations, unjuried trials, whatever. I just want there to be some formalization of their status. It needs to be said that they are prisoners of the United States on such-and-such a charge. Until this happens they might as well be UFOs. And on the first bit, what strikes me as strange is that the Pentagon has conveniently shoved half of the alleged incidents into a box conveniently labelled 'accidental.' 159786@blogcritics.org Sun, 29 May 2005 01:59:17 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/05/29/013126.php#comment-159783 The reason there are so many terms is that in this day and age, there have to be. Another reason is that the military has a lot of lawyers that are consulted in drafting regulations and policies, and if you no anything about law it is that words have specific meanings. I do agree that torture has to be defined. Last and not nearly fully explained, we have to look at what works best for national security, not just what gives us moral authority or makes everyone feel good. I don't wrrite this to excuse past abuses or present practices, but out of a sense of pragmatism, if I can use that term here. 159783@blogcritics.org Sun, 29 May 2005 01:51:42 EDT