Information Warfare Article Index : Current 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics
Why Obama Hustles for Osama
   Next Article → INTELLIGENCE: Japan Is Not Secure
August 16, 2007: The recent comments by U.S. Senator Barack Obama - in which he claimed that American troops are killing civilians, are not the first time such allegations have been made. Nor is the venue that different, either. It seems that one can count on some politicians, in an effort to reach out to potential supporters opposed to certain aspects of the war on terror, to fire off incendiary charges that are often exaggerations.

Senator Obama's claims that American troops in Afghanistan are only killing civilians and launching air strikes on villages came as he was arguing for a pullout from Iraq. As has been the case with past claims of such misconduct, no proof was offered. In fact, videos released earlier in the effort to liberate Afghanistan have shown American efforts to avoid civilian targets (one AC-130 video released early in the war featured the crew noting the presence of a mosque and noting that it was not to be attacked). Moreover, the rate of civilian casualties in the current Iraq and Afghanistan operations are the lowest in history, due to precision weapons, rules of engagements and highly trained troops. But that never gets reported.

Perhaps the first of these false charges came in 2005, when Senator Richard Durbin used FBI memos as the basis of a comparison of guards at Guantanamo Bay to the Khmer Rouge and Nazi Germany. This is despite the fact that out of over 24,000 interrogations, incidents of abuse were rare (32 involving interrogations - 6 of which were corrected on the spot, with the rest dealt with through normal channels). Of the 10,000 troops at Guantanamo Bay, only ten have been disciplined for not meeting standards - and in many of those cases, the otherwise disciplined soldiers had been provoked by the detainees.

In a 2006 press conference, Congressman Jack Murtha claimed that Marines massacred Iraqi civilians in the wake of a bomb attack near Haditha and that it was being covered up. Subsequent investigations not only showed that there was no cover-up, but that there had been no massacre. Indeed, some of the dead were known to be insurgents. Similar claims of a massacre at Jenin in 2002 also were proven to be false.

However, the claims get far more coverage than the results of the investigations. And it is that coverage that does the real damage. Often, comments like those from Obama, Murtha, and Durbin will be given a lot of play without much context, and often without any follow-up. The results of the inevitable investigations, often get buried, usually because finding out that no massacre happened just doesn't lead well.

Worse, in these past cases, no retraction was made after the claims were largely disproven. Al-Qaeda recruiters will be using the video of the allegations to get new recruits to avenge the atrocities that never happened, giving them a chance to make up for losses suffered in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other theaters of the global war on terror. - Harold C. Hutchison (haroldc.hutchison@gmail.com)

Next Article → INTELLIGENCE: Japan Is Not Secure
  

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Captain Slog    Treason?   8/16/2007 10:16:29 AM
What a shame such claims, when found to be untru, an of aid to our enemies, can not be "bounced" back on the accusers as a charge of Treason.
If it was possible, they may think twice and check their sources.
 
US Treason includes a clause about giving aid and comfort to enemies - this article suggests that this is indeed the case.
 
Wikipedia also states "In law, treason is the crime of disloyalty to one's nation. A person who betrays the nation of their citizenship and/or reneges on an oath of loyalty and in some way willfully cooperates with an enemy, is considered to be a traitor."
This again seems like good grounds for some enterprising and sympathetic lawyer to go after them: probably make a name for themselves and do the world some good too - any takers?
 
 
Quote    Reply

SOP919F3       8/17/2007 9:25:51 AM
Article III section 3 of the constitution states " The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason".

I think the liar, I mean lawyer Obama knows that he, like Kerry, Murtha, and Turban, are free from punishment especially since they are the majority.  So treasonous behavior by politicians is safe for now unless the American public decides to make it a "political" issue and I don't see that happening either, unfortunately. 

The only hope is that Obama keeps speaking out showing more people his ignorance and dangerous ambitions in foreign policy (like attacking Pakistan).

 
Quote    Reply

sjdoc    This is a chronic and recurring problem...   8/17/2007 11:32:23 AM
--
...and perhaps it's good that it should be.  Except for press self-censorship during World War I and (espectially) World War II, the tendency of the Fifth Estate to scrutinize military operations with a jaundiced eye has had a salubrious effect upon the more tyrannous and prevaricative tendences of both politicians in the Executive Branch and senior commissioned officers in the military.
 
I take note, however, that the times during which the root weevils of the MSM have gone into "shoot, shovel, and shut up" mode, have been those during which the national command authority was firmly in the hands of "Liberal" politicians (Wilson, Roosevelt II, Truman, even Johnson) who share the "Bread & Circuses" attitude that has been dominant among the ex-Journalism majors since the close of the 19th Century.
 
Editors like H.L. Mencken - who is, you'll note, no longer mentioned by the membership of the National Press Club as one of the shining examples of what newspapermen are supposed to be - don't exist any more.
--
 
Quote    Reply

texas ted    unfair characterizations of Obama's intent   8/17/2007 6:03:34 PM
In no way was Obama's speech degrading the armed forces. He was merely commenting on tactics. Because we do not have enough solidiers on the ground in Afghanistan (due to the deployment in Iraq), we have to rely on air power, which is less precise and results in a higher civilian casualty rate. That's it, end of story.
 
Quote    Reply

jak267       8/17/2007 10:42:37 PM

There's no such thing as "enough troops on the ground." "Civilians" are being killed because, first, they are often the enemy (tribal warfare doesn't distinguish between combatants and women and children), and second, they are used as human shields.

This is a war to exterminate a sick way of life - and the society that uses it to justify their abuses.

 
Quote    Reply

seatofpants       8/17/2007 11:23:00 PM
"Civilian casualties caused by U.S. Special Forces make it hard to win over local people, a British commander said." BBC
     Hmmm...darn that MSM and it's timely quotes to disrupt our lockstep thoughts on anything neocon. Don't bother with the hate slagging, I won't respond or read, (not that you won't, cause you're so predictable)well, maybe.   
     When a claim or unsubstantiated remark is made by a neocon/facsist/bootlicker that is found untrue and aids or comforts the enemy in a time of war, what exactly will the charge be?  Oh, treason, is it?  Well, by all means, let's bring on the lawyers. We can start with Pat Tillman and move on from there.  Perhaps Captain Slog should think twice and check his sources, if it was possible.
 
 
Quote    Reply

bropous       8/23/2007 4:08:26 PM
Well, Obama is a person who would love to see us lose in the MidEast and in Southwest Asia, as would every stinking disgusting little leftist swine who shills for the terrorists by attacking the elected leadership of the United States of America in time of war.
 
And, of course, I lump in any mindless twit who blathers the tired old "neocon/fascist" tripe such as has been posted above.  This nation, and Western Civilization, is in an existential struggle against an intractible enemy, against whom leftist kumbayah hand-wringing and self-emasculation in the face of bloodthirsty savage brutality only leave us all the more defenseless.  It is worthy of note that, as has been said in the article, that the only time the leftist twits support US military action is when a worthless leftist twit is running the country.  If it were not for the "neocons" (snort!), this nation would not have freed over 70 million human souls from tyrannical totalitarianism, and two established representative republics would not have been started in nations the neocommies (how'd ya like that one, puke?) said could never support free elections.
 
So, Mr. Fascist (because, although liars will tell you otherwise, the Fascists were dedicated leftists), tell me true, just how safe would this nation be if it were up to limp-wristed, white-flag-waving, panty waists like you who can only twitch and whine "neocon" when the US is winning the Global War on terror?  Fascist leftist liars would rather see Iraq and Afghanistan fall back into the totalitarian quagmire they were in before the "neocons" pressed for their liberation, and, of course, though they bleat and mewl about the wonders of personal freedom, they would not get off their fat, blaoted arses to raise the tiniest modicum of energy to bring freedom to another human being living in brutal repression.
 
There is a reason that Democrats cannot be trusted with national security, and the blather above is a perfect example thereof.
 
Quote    Reply