Iraq for sale: The war profiteers
Tags:
Subscribe to my feed
Search Osterley Times or the Web
Tortured.
Click on picture to buy.
Obama '08
Awards
third Iraq Moratorium
War Child
Bloggers Against Torture
Out of Iraq Blogroll
Amnesty International
Get Involved
Site Meter
Web Stats
License
This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons License.
"Those who would sacrifice a little liberty for a perceived increase in security, deserve neither - and will eventually lose both." Benjamin Franklin.
| Blogosphere of the Libertarian Left Ring Owner: Thomas Knapp Site: Blogosphere of the Libertarian Left |
by Bravenet.com
6 comments:
Another Greenwald post, what a shocker. I watched about five minutes of it, I don't have time for the whole hour-and-fifteen. But what's the point? The US makes necessary use of contractors. So what?
I thought it was more sinsister than that Jason. The civilian contractors were there to get "information" which leads one to assume that they are sitting in front of computers. It then turns out that the information they are getting is from people. They are being used as interrogators.
Now, obviously the same rules that apply to the military do not apply to civilian contractors, which makes one suspect that this is why they have been hired in the first place.
It seems like no coincidence that it was civilian contractors who were behind the behaviour at Abu Ghraib, even though it was members of the military who were sent to jail.
I know one hour fifteen is a lot of time, but I found it worth my while.
The US military was massively downsized in the 90's. As a result, they are often forced to hire contractors to fill roles that the military may have previously done. In fact, many of these contractors are former military. They serve in all branches of the government side-by-side the government employees and military personnel in many cases. The DOD could not function at home or abroad were it not for the contractors they hire.
It seems like no coincidence that it was civilian contractors who were behind the behaviour at Abu Ghraib
Civilian contractors were not "behind the behavior" at Abu Ghraib. A small group of military police were behind that behavior. There are two sides to the story and CACI has made their case (read through all the links).
Greenwald is a propagandist of the worst kind. A look at who finances his movies tells you all you need to know. You can also see who he gives his money to as well, in case you had any doubt where where his sympathies lie. The man has an agenda, and that agenda is not truth. This man's films aren't documentaries any more than Michael Moore's films are documentaries.
Civilian contractors were not "behind the behavior" at Abu Ghraib. A small group of military police were behind that behavior. There are two sides to the story and CACI has made their case (read through all the links).
I did read through the links and their defence appears to be that none of their staff were ever charged. As I say, their staff were not operating under the same military code as the soldiers, and the only charges ever brought were brought by the military, so as defences go it's a rather weak one.
Oh, and I think you would be better placed to judge the film had you even taken the time to watch it. It's very strange that you should ask how I can comment on Fox News, which I admit I only see clips of, and yet you feel free to comment on a movie that you choose not to even view when it is clearly available to you.
They weren't making a defense so much as they were stating facts.
Weak response, Jason.
Their staff were not subject to any military code. It was the military who conducted the investigation. So it's no great surprise that the military did not charge them. That would have to have been done by others.
And as you have previously stated that, Civilian contractors were not "behind the behavior"
How do you explain the fact that the Taguba Report found that their civilian employees were "either directly or indirectly responsible for the abuses at Abu Ghraib."
Post a Comment