Ambient Irony

Say Weeeeeee!
Ahhhhhh!

Saturday, May 21

Right and Wrong, Part II

This is wrong.

But note the source for the New York Times' report: A military investigation.

And recall that Abu Ghraib was also the subject of a military investigation before it was a blip on the radar of the media.

Our military is imperfect, but it does police itself, and it does hold itself accountable.

There's a lesson there, for those willing to learn.

Posted by: Pixy Misa at 03:08 AM | Comments (11) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
Post contains 74 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Does it police itself? The report named twenty-some people, including officers several layers above the individuals committing the abuse, as at least partially responsible for either knowing about abuse and not reporting it, for giving directives that either clearly encouraged abuse or were obviously vague enough to be interpreted as allowing abuse. So far only the grunts have been indicted -- same as at Abu Ghraib. And when you consider that some of the treatments described in the report -- and previously reported at Abu Ghraib -- were cleared by Rumsfeld and/or suggested by the Gonzalez draft memo, it's hard to escape the conclusion that responsibility OUGHT to extend, at a minimum, up to Rumsfeld -- even if it's not criminal liability, it IS responsibility. If he were a man of honor, he would've resigned in disgrace by now.

Posted by: Auros at Sunday, May 22 2005 06:25 PM (hzFpF)

2 So far only the grunts have been indicted -- same as at Abu Ghraib. The officer overseeing prisons in Iraq, Brigadier-General Janis Karpinski has been busted back to Colonel, which is a career-destroying demotion. She wasn't there and took no part in the abuse and so hasn't been indicted, but she was judged derelict in her duty. Five other officers have also been the subject of disciplinary action over Abu Ghraib. The New York Times report mentions that no officers have been indicted over the abuse in Afghanistan, but doesn't say anything else. I expect that the situation is much like Abu Ghraib: Officers not directly involved in the abuse but who should have taken action to stop it have been dealt with short of court-martial. blah blah Rumsfeld blah blah Gonzalez blah No. Nothing in that paragraph is either factual or logical. Sorry, but you are an idiot.

Posted by: Pixy Misa at Sunday, May 22 2005 08:22 PM (+S1Ft)

3 Says you. "Despite autopsy findings of homicide and statements by soldiers that two prisoners died after being struck by guards at an American military detention center in Bagram, Afghanistan, Army investigators initially recommended closing the case without bringing any criminal charges, documents and interviews show." Part two of the same article, published this morning.

Posted by: Auros at Monday, May 23 2005 03:56 PM (hzFpF)

4 Was the case closed? The case was not closed. Were charges brought? Charges were brought. Did you have a point? No, I thought not.

Posted by: Pixy Misa at Monday, May 23 2005 08:25 PM (+S1Ft)

5 Before you congratulate yourself, you should also note that if it weren't for ONE decent individual taking the in initiative to see the CIC because he was dissatisfied with the military's own inquiry, ONE decent individual who then leaked the CIC report to the Press, the military's "self-policing" would have wound up nought. Most of the soldiers were charged last week, probably because of imminent media exposure, and NONE for causing the deaths. "Our military is imperfect, but it does police itself, and it does hold itself accountable."??? I wouldn't call it self-policing if it exonerates itself in its own inquiry and takes no further action until a whistleblower leaks information to the CIC and the press. "In late August of last year, shortly before the Army completed its inquiry into the deaths, Sergeant Yonushonis, who was stationed in Germany, went at his own initiative to see an agent of the Criminal Investigation Command. Until then, he had never been interviewed." "Even though military investigators learned soon after Mr. Dilawar's death that he had been abused by at least two interrogators, the Army's criminal inquiry moved slowly. Meanwhile, many of the Bagram interrogators, led by the same operations officer, Capt. Carolyn A. Wood, were redeployed to Iraq and in July 2003 took charge of interrogations at the Abu Ghraib prison. According to a high-level Army inquiry last year, Captain Wood applied techniques there that were "remarkably similar" to those used at Bagram. Last October, the Army's Criminal Investigation Command concluded that there was probable cause to charge 27 officers and enlisted personnel with criminal offenses in the Dilawar case ranging from dereliction of duty to maiming and involuntary manslaughter. Fifteen of the same soldiers were also cited for probable criminal responsibility in the Habibullah case. So far, only the seven soldiers have been charged, including four last week. No one has been convicted in either death. Two Army interrogators were also reprimanded, a military spokesman said. Most of those who could still face legal action have denied wrongdoing, either in statements to investigators or in comments to a reporter. "

Posted by: qwerty at Tuesday, May 24 2005 12:54 PM (6CPp5)

6 Before you congratulate yourself Eh? you should also note [unsupported assertions] Your quotes directly undermine your claims.

Posted by: Pixy Misa at Tuesday, May 24 2005 01:06 PM (+S1Ft)

7 Not a chance. My quotes were actually gleaned from the NYTimes quoting the CIC report. Note, it isn't the military's own internal report investigating the deaths of prisoners, but the CIC's investigation instigated by a whistleblower. If there were no whistleblowers, as in the case of Abu Ghraib, no one would even know about the military's torture and abuses. According to the Red Cross, it seems many more complaints were lodged and reported to the military, but we hear nothing about them. And I wouldn't call a system which relies on whistleblowers sticking their necks out to report abuses a "self-policing" one. It's akin to saying the tobacco companies are self-policing simply because a whistleblower came out to the media and authorities and they were then reprimanded in court. By definition, any organisation that covers up its abuses and is only called into account by the stray whistleblower reporting to an outside, higher authority isn't self-policing.

Posted by: qwerty at Wednesday, May 25 2005 06:56 AM (6CPp5)

8 From the same article, Mr. Pick-and-Chooser: Citing "investigative shortfalls," senior Army investigators took the Bagram inquiry away from agents in Afghanistan in August 2003, assigning it to a task force based at the agency's headquarters in Virginia. In October 2004, the task force found probable cause to charge 27 of the military police guards and military intelligence interrogators with crimes ranging from involuntary manslaughter to lying to investigators. Those 27 included the 7 who have actually been charged. "I would acknowledge that a lot of these investigations appear to have taken excessively long," the Defense Department's chief spokesman, Larry Di Rita, said in an interview on Friday. "There's no other way to describe an investigation that takes two years. People are being held accountable, but it's taking too long." There are valid criticisms to be made against the military over both the incident and the handling of the investigation. The problem is, you aren't addressing those points, you are instead choosing to press claims that have no basis in fact. On the other hand, the military is addressing those points. Which is exactly what I said in the first place. You say: If there were no whistleblowers, as in the case of Abu Ghraib, no one would even know about the military's torture and abuses. That's completely false. Not only was the Abu Ghraib incident the subject of a military investigation months before it became the liberal media's number-one chew toy, it was specifically included in press briefings. Military 4, Liberal Media 0

Posted by: Pixy Misa at Wednesday, May 25 2005 07:06 AM (+S1Ft)

9 You are seriously deluded. It was another whistleblower, Darby, that exposed Abu Ghraib, and Seymour Hersh broke it before the Pentagon was forced to admit it. In the case of Bagram, "In late August of last year, shortly before the Army completed its inquiry into the deaths, Sergeant Yonushonis, who was stationed in Germany, went at his own initiative to see an agent of the Criminal Investigation Command." This is the whistle blower. Two months later "Last October, the Army's Criminal Investigation Command concluded that there was probable cause to charge 27 officers and enlisted personnel with criminal offenses in the Dilawar case ranging from dereliction of duty to maiming and involuntary manslaughter. Fifteen of the same soldiers were also cited for probable criminal responsibility in the Habibullah case." Before then, the internal miitary inquiry ended with no recommendations to take any action. If it weren't for the whistleblowers, one or two men out of hundreds and thousands, not a squeak would have been heard. Any respectable self-policing org would have started immediate investigations into dead prisoners and STOPPED any further abuses and brought those responsible for torture and manslaughter to justice. Instead, the torturers and killers at Bagram were sent to Abu Ghraib to repeat their stellar performance AFTER the deaths of the two innocent Afghans by their superiors. You still haven't explained how the Red Cross reports about torture and killings went IGNORED by the Pentagon for years. This isn't a self-policing entity. Unless self-policing means getting away with murder. The refutation isn't personal or meant to undermine you, but many of us no doubt find it troubling you invest such faith in a military that has repeatedly been exposed as perpetrating crimes with impunity. In effect, you are saying that things are just great and dandy in the military. If not for the "liberal" media you despise, Hersh and NYTimes, all would have remained buried. It is strange how instead of appreciating them for speaking truth to power, you would belittle them. I have enough of this rah, rah, rah, ain't we great stuff. Enjoy more of the same from your Bush.

Posted by: qwerty at Wednesday, May 25 2005 08:55 AM (6CPp5)

10 Sorry, no. This is the whistle blower. An army sergeant, reporting to an army investigative body. In other words, even when the inital investigation failed, the military could be trusted not only to reopen the investigation, but to launch an inquiry into its own procedures. Which means that we have a whole new level of trust established - the old "Quis custodiet ipso custodes" is answered. Instead, the torturers and killers at Bagram were sent to Abu Ghraib to repeat their stellar performance AFTER the deaths of the two innocent Afghans by their superiors. That is the first intelligent thing you have said. That is a very legitimate criticism that I haven't seen addressed by the military. Even ignoring your slant, it should never have been allowed to happen. You still haven't explained how the Red Cross reports about torture and killings went IGNORED by the Pentagon for years. The Red Cross reports have been investigated. In almost - not quite, but almost - every case they have been determined to be unfounded. Unfortunately in recent years the Red Cross has developed the same brain-eating anti-Americanism that is so widespread elsewhere. It doesn't matter that you can't tell right from wrong; you're just one idiot. It does matter that the Red Cross has lost all sense of proportion. This isn't a self-policing entity. A 2000-page report proves you wrong. In effect, you are saying that things are just great and dandy in the military. In effect, you can't read. If not for the "liberal" media you despise, Hersh and NYTimes, all would have remained buried. Hah. Hersh is even more loosely connected to reality than you are. He is hopelessly unreliable. The NYT as a whole is just hopelessly biased. Fortunately, we do not need to rely on either one for anything. It is strange how instead of appreciating them for speaking truth to power, you would belittle them. "Speaking truth to power"? That pathetic line, again? With Hersh and the NYT, we see not so much speaking truth to power, as speaking falsehoods to the insane. Which includes you, I'm afraid. Read part one of this piece, which details your mental problems. Or better, read Bill Whittle's Sanctuary.

Posted by: Pixy Misa at Wednesday, May 25 2005 10:21 PM (AIaDY)

11 ya pidoras, pizu chujie doors, zaabuzte moi url - http://greatpharmacies.com/ a suda pishite pisma i spamte - admass@pisem.net

Posted by: ya pidoras at Wednesday, July 26 2006 12:52 AM (w4nDS)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Important Things

Bill Whittle has a new post up. He's gotten a little irritated by the incessant carping of the left, and explains a few things to them.

Oh, and my SATA controller has arrived, so I'll be able to rebuild Yuri this weekend. The only problem is that it's a PCI card, of course, so it will be quite a bit slower than using the controller built into the motherboard, which sits on its own high-speed bus. On the other hand, it should actually work. There are few things more irritating than an intermittent, untraceable, and fatal fault in a $2000 machine. Well, actually there are many things more irritating than that, but Bill just dealt with most of them.

Posted by: Pixy Misa at 01:07 AM | No Comments | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
Post contains 123 words, total size 1 kb.

Friday, May 20

The Sickness Spreads

The New York Times has jumped into the mud (alongside Andrew Sullivan and the Daily Kos) to defend Newsweek and journalistic standards:

Newsweek is under intense criticism for a report it has now retracted about the American prison in GuantÃƒÂ¡namo Bay.

Yes, they are. They printed inflammatory bullshit on the basis of a single unnamed third-hand source. They damn well should be criticised.

Since we've weathered a journalistic storm or two

Translation: Since we're not only hopelessly biased but have been caught red-handed making up stories.

we can only say the best approach is transparency as Newsweek fixes whatever is broken, if anything.

"If anything"?

Says it all, doesn't it? Look, you miserable swamp rat, Newsweek purports to be a news magazine. That involves reporting what actually happens. The Koran-flushing story was selected on the basis of consistent editorial bias, and not subjected to even the slightest examination before printing.

The entire bleeding magazine is broken, and indeed most of the industry.

There is already a debate about journalistic practices, including the use of anonymous sources, and these things are worth discussing - especially at a time of war, national insecurity and extreme government secrecy, a time when aggressive news reporting is critical.

There it is again.

No, you pathetic pismire, what is critical is accurate reporting. Aggression is for opinion pieces, and rarely helps even there.

Just try, try for once, losing the aggression and presenting the facts.

But it is offensive to see the Bush administration use this case for political purposes, and ludicrous for spokesmen for this White House and Defense Department to offer pious declarations about accountability, openness and concern for America's image abroad.

Why, exactly?

Should not the White House and the Defense Department be concerned with these matters? Since the mainstream media are quite obviously not; or at least only concerned with the destruction of all three.

It took Newsweek about two weeks to retract its report.

Two weeks to retract two sentences.

It has been a year since the very real problem behind the article - the systematic abuse and deliberate humiliation of mainly Muslim prisoners - came to light through the Abu Ghraib disaster.

Abu Ghraib?

Which was already being investigated by the military before any newspaper touched the story?

Which involved the abuse and humiliation of prisoners on a single day?

Which did not in fact demonstrate any sort of systematic abuse, but has been shown to be one of a small handful of incidents?

Which was not any sort of disaster?

That Abu Ghraib?

And the Bush administration has not come close to either openness or accountability.

You mean, except for investigating everyone involved, and everyone in their chain of command?

Except for that, right?

The White House and the Pentagon have refused to begin any serious examination of the policymaking that led to the abuse, humiliation, torture and even killing of prisoners taken during antiterrorist operations and the invasion of Iraq.

more...

Posted by: Pixy Misa at 05:40 AM | No Comments | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
Post contains 1216 words, total size 8 kb.

Mistake in the Job Description

Hugh Hewitt had ABC News' Terry Moran (who I have never heard of) on his show, discussing the extraordinary exchanges between him and White House press secretary Scott McClellan, and McLellan and Elisabeth Bumiller of the New York Times.

This is what Moran had to say for himself:

It comes from, I think, a huge gulf of misunderstanding, for which I lay plenty of blame on the media itself. There is, Hugh, I agree with you, a deep anti-military bias in the media. One that begins from the premise that the military must be lying, and that American projection of power around the world must be wrong. I think that that is a hangover from Vietnam, and I think it's very dangerous. That's different from the media doing it's job of challenging the exercise of power without fear or favor.

Maybe it's just me, but I somehow thought that the media's job was accurate reporting?

We saw this during the Hutton Enquiry in Britain as well, with a senior BBC figure making the statement that the BBC's primary function was to oppose the government of the day. (I'd love to find the exact quote for that.)

Excuse me, but there is an actual, elected opposition to do that.

Your job is to present the facts. If you don't like that, you should have gone into real estate rather than journalism.

Posted by: Pixy Misa at 03:54 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
Post contains 238 words, total size 1 kb.

Wednesday, May 18

From Out Of The Mouths Of Media Personalities

Via Radioblogger, this little snippet from Chris Matthews' Hardball discussing the Newsweek kerfuffle:

CM: This is a really tragic SNAFU by Newsweek.
RW: Oh, it's a tragic SNAFU, two paragraph article that has lasting damage to U.S. policy, to preventing a clash of civilizations that everyone has feared.

RW is Robin Wright of the Washington Post; the Washington Post owns Newsweek.*

What's my point, you ask?

Well, both Chris Matthews and Robin Wright used the term SNAFU to describe this incident.

SNAFU doesn't mean "unfortunate mistake". It doesn't mean "regrettable failure to meet expected standards".

It means Situation Normal - All Fucked Up. So score one for an accurate representation of the mainstream media by the mainstream media.

* Specifically, the company that owns the Washington Post, the Washington Post Company, owns Newsweek. Also six TV stations and miscellaneous bits and pieces.

Posted by: Pixy Misa at 10:46 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
Post contains 156 words, total size 1 kb.

Checks and Balances

Newsweek 100 Point Publishability Test
Note: Your story must score 100 or more points on this test to be published in Newsweek. If you are unsure of any questions, ask your editor. That's why you have an editor, unlike those upstart bloggers.
Evidenciary Basis
Physical evidence or video/film footage: 80 points
Notarised or verified documentary evidence: 70 points
On-record first-hand source: 60 points
Independent confirmation: 50 points
Off-record first-hand source: 40 points
Second-hand source: 30 points
Some guy you met in the pub: 20 points
Random phone call, letters in crayon, email in ALL CAPS, mysterious voices: 10 points
Left-wing blog: 50 points
Right-wing blog: -50 points
Finance
Makes Newsweek advertiser(s) look bad: -30 points
Makes Newsweek competitors look bad: 30 points
Makes Newsweek competitors look so bad they might sue: -30 points
Other Considerations
Makes for a funny headline: 10 points
Allows Newsweek to maintain a pretence of neutrality: 20 points
Allows Newsweek to maintain a pretence of neutrality while getting in jabs at the administration: 40 points
Makes Democrats look bad: -20 points
Makes Europe look bad: -10 points
Makes America look bad: 50 points
Makes Republicans look bad: 70 points
Makes George Bush look bad: 90 points
Makes Karl Rove look bad: You may already have won!

Posted by: Pixy Misa at 04:38 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
Post contains 216 words, total size 1 kb.

Saturday, May 14

The World Stood on its Head

I didn't even know they had the New York Times on Bizarro World:

As the old newsroom saying goes, "If it bleeds, it leads." And while it is understandable that newspapers like to report stories about violence, crime, conflict and mayhem, it means that good news is often relegated to the back pages, if reported at all. This happens the world over, be it in Boston, Berlin — or Baghdad. People who live in Boston or Berlin know, of course, that the bad news is never the whole story. Baghdad, on the other hand, is far away, and Westerners have no choice but to rely on reporters to tell us everything that is happening there. And while there's no denying that there is much bad news — the recent spate of audacious attacks by the insurgents is a prime example — the international press has been so focused on the setbacks that few readers are likely know about [sic] the daily parade of small triumphs that mark slow but steady progress. Consider a month's worth of such stories.

The byline?

Arthur Chrenkoff, Helene Silverman, Norman Hathaway.

What happened to the New York Times we all knew and loathed?

(via Tim Blair)

Posted by: Pixy Misa at 02:51 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
Post contains 208 words, total size 1 kb.

O Canada!

Canada, 2005:

A senior government official said the prime minister won't be taking any direction from Clarkson.
"The Governor General receives advice from her first minister. She doesn't tender it," the official said.

Australia, 1975:

On 17 October Whitlam told an interviewer that the Governor-General could not intervene in the crisis because he must always act on the advice of his Prime Minister.

And we all know how that one turned out.*

First time as tragedy, second time as farce.

* For my overseas readers, Governor-General Sir John Kerr sacked the Whitlam government on November 11, 1975.

Posted by: Pixy Misa at 01:05 AM | No Comments | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
Post contains 97 words, total size 1 kb.

Friday, May 13

Dogpile on the UN

The UN Dispatch, a blog sponsored by - but in no way representing the opinion of - the United Nations Foundation, has developed an unhealthy fixation on Roger L. Simon.

They ask,

Is Simon's hyper-focus on a single UN-related issue based on deep convictions? Unbending principles? Moral outrage?

It is true that along with Claudia Rosett, Simon has been consistent in holding the UN's feet to the fire over the Oil-for-Food scandal - UNSCAM - which just happens to be the largest case of embezzlement in history. He hasn't been so thorough in covering, for example, the UN's tardiness in providing aid to tsunami victims or their insistance on five-star housing when inspecting disater areas, or on the endless rounds of peacekeeper sex scandals, and taken little advantage of the opportunities for black humour made possible by the presence of Syria and Cuba on the UN Commission on Human Rights.

Meanwhile at Daniel Drezner's blog, Suzanne Nossel is trying to convince the regulars the UN is not completely corrupt, comparing the UN's misappropriation of billions of dollars of Iraqi money to the fact that there is inadequate documentation for $100 million of US money spent on aid programs in Iraq. She does admit to some UN weaknesses:

Non-Proliferation - Top of mind this week, due to all the ferment over North Korea. This one's largely the fault of the Member States for not strengthening the UN's non-pro mechanisms. See this post at DA for more.
Combating Terrorism - The UN's anti-terror mechanisms are pretty weak. Annan has proposed a series of ways to strengthen them, and the U.S. ought to get behind this agenda.
Human Rights - The UN's human rights mechanisms have essentially been held captive by rights violators. This has got to change, and once again Kofi Annan has the makings of a good proposal on the table.
Public Relations - Always a weak spot, and one that undercuts the organization's effectiveness in many other areas.

The fact is that the UN has been totally ineffective in the first three areas, and all too effective in the last. The solution as Nossel sees it is to give the UN more money and power. The commenters take her to task as well as I could, and probably better.

Posted by: Pixy Misa at 01:14 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
Post contains 383 words, total size 3 kb.

Tuesday, May 10

U.N. Sues U.S.

You all know the story of Oil-for-Food, right? The U.N. took over the sales of around $65 billion* worth of Iraqi oil over the period of a decade, and in turn provided food and medicine for the Iraqi people... Oh, and also provided palaces and luxury goods for Saddam Hussein and enormous kickbacks for everyone involved. Billions of dollars are unaccounted for.

Fast forward: The U.N. appointed an independent investigative committee to clear its name. Two of the senior investigators recently resigned in protest against the way the investigation was being run, and one of them, Robert Parton, turned over several boxes of documents to the U.S. House of Representatives International Relations Committee in response to a Congressional subpoena.

Well, guess what? The U.N. - in the shape of chief investigator Paul Volcker - has filed a law suit to force Congress to return the documents.

The complaint said that the documents taken by Parton would damage the ability of the committee to complete its work and "potentially places at risk the lives of individuals who have cooperated" with the IIC.

Now that raises this niggling little question in my mind: The interim reports filed by Volcker have not presented any clear case for corruption - rather the reverse. Yet he claims that the evidence upon which he based those reports would put lives at risk if made public.

Why, exactly, Mr Volcker? What is it in those papers that is so damaging that it would lead to murder? And why isn't it present in your own reports?

A decade ago, I considered to US out of UN, UN out of US types to be part of the lunatic fringe. Today, I think they don't go nearly far enough.

(via comments on Roger L. Simon's blog)

* Originally I wrote $110 billion here, but that's incorrect. The $110 billion figure represents the sum of oil sales and aid contracts. Of course, with oil sales of $65 billion, there should be $65 billion in aid contracts, for a total of $130 billion... Leaving $20 billion to account for. The U.N. earned a 2% commission on the oil sales - around $1.4 billion - and there were other legitimate disbursements, but there is still a huge amount of money missing. And that doesn't even account for the kickbacks, which are included in the $110 billion worth of sales and contracts.

Posted by: Pixy Misa at 10:32 PM | No Comments | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
Post contains 402 words, total size 3 kb.

79kb generated in CPU 0.0809, elapsed 0.2487 seconds.
55 queries taking 0.1909 seconds, 256 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.

Using http / http://ai.mee.nu / 254

Saturday, May 21

Friday, May 20

Wednesday, May 18

Saturday, May 14

Friday, May 13

Tuesday, May 10

Praise for Ambient Irony

Contact Support

Contact Pixy

Business News

Search Thingy

Recent Comments

Topics

Monthly Traffic

Content

Categories

Archives

A Fine Selection of Aldebaran Liqueurs

That Ol' Janx Spirit

Mostly Harmless

MuNu Blogroll

Dish of the Day

Feeds