Re: OT -- On the implausibility of the explosives plot

Dennis (Icarus) wrote:
"gringo" <gringo@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:oncGg.22380$0k4.3446@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Dennis (Icarus) wrote:
"gringo" <gringo@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:nX9Gg.30090$Nx4.12817@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Gashauler wrote:
<snip>
Like you, I know only what we're told--and with this admins. penchant
for secrecy, we are told so very little. My new son-in-law did serve
a few months at Gitmo. He said that it was not as bad as at Abu
Ghraib, but, yes, there was some of it going on, enough to shame most
soldiers. He advised her NOT to accept the posting and to just get
out.
So what'd he do to stop it?

<snip>

Dennis



what could one man do to stop a madman in the WH and his entire crime
family?? Bush is the "decider", the man who gets to decide; he
decided that torture is legal.

Hmm....Abu Ghraib comes to mind. Even though there was an investigation
going on, someone leaked the photos and voila, the investigation goes into
high gear, court martials occur, and the folks who committed the crimes are
now in serving time.


But the folks who gave the orders, the CIA types who oversaw the "softening" techniques and the subsequent interrogations, the generals, Rumsfeld, Bush/Cheney, Gonzales--none of them were even scolded. And when Congress passed a resolution to stop torture, Bush scribbled a note on the legislation, saying that he could do whatever he wants to do.



There were folks who thought that the wiretapping program was illegal, but
it wasnt publicized until one person (or maybe a couple) leaked the
information.

There were foks who evidently thought that tracking wiore trasnfers was
illegal, but again it wasnt public until someone leaked the information.

I culd go on, but I hope by now you get the idea. It is said that all that
is required for evil to triumph is for good folks to do nothing. Well, I
guess he did something - told you so you could post on a trucking newsgroup.
Of course, since absolulely nothing would be done to stop these alleged
"shameful acts" as a result of your post......or do you overestimte your
importance?

Dennis





I hear you, Dennis. There's a huge difference, though. At Abu Ghraib, the fools were proud of themselves, taking pictures for their own purposes (to show to the kids at home?). Security is much tighter at Gitmo. Security aren't allowed to take cameras or recording devices into the facility. The Red Cross and other human Rights groups have been pretty much kept out. My son in law has only his word--and a career to think of. And, truthfully, there ain't a lot of heroes out there.
.

Relevant Pages
Loading