Activism Discussion: "The Pentagon's Move To Omit A Ban On Prisoner Humiliation From The Basic Guide To Soldier Conduct Faces Strong State Dept. Opposition" (L.A. Times)

"The Pentagon's Move To Omit A Ban On Prisoner Humiliation From The Basic Guide To Soldier Conduct Faces Strong State Dept. Opposition" (L.A. Times)
Posts: 69

Report Abuse

Use this form to report abuse or request takedown.
The requests are usually processed within 48 hours.

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7   Next  (First | Last)

Barry Schier
2006-06-05 22:12:43 EST
{Preface}

The opponents of the Cuban Revolution, cued by Washinvgton, have
repeatedly claimed that torture takes place in Cuba. Indeed, torture
takes place in Cuba -- in Washington's military enclave of Guantanamo
Bay, which the U..S.A. stole from the Cuban people.

Technically speaking, the U.S.A. has never formally annexed Guantamemo
Bay, but occupies it under terms of a perpetual "lease." The
revolutinary Cuban government has torn up the check received annually
from Washington, not because (despite a couple of increases from the
original token "rental" payment) the annual payment is insufficient to
pay for rental of an average Los Angeles apartment for 10 weeks, but
because of the principle involved -- i.e., Cuba's dignity and
sovereignty are not to be negotiated, rented nor sold at ANY price.

There has been some (or, arguably, much) debate and criticism of this
"move to omit a ban on prisoner humiliation from the basic guide to
soldier conduct ..." from both many members of the Democrats (i.e., the
rival party to President Bush's Republican Party) and from agencies and
members of the government itself, about whether to continue to include
lip service about prohibiting torture in the military manauls. However,
NEARLY ALL of this criticism opposes torture NOT on principle, but as a
as part of a "defense debate" on whether practice will cause increased
resentment of the U.S. government, i.e., (in the words of the
concluding sentence of the article) "The overall thinking ... is that
they need the flexibility to apply cruel techniques if military
necessity requires "

-- Barry Schier



{Article}

Army Manual to Skip Geneva Detainee Rule
The Pentagon's move to omit a ban on prisoner humiliation from the
basic guide to soldier conduct faces strong State Dept. opposition.
By Julian E. Barnes, [Los Angeles] Times Staff Writer
June 5, 2006


WASHINGTON - The Pentagon has decided to omit from new detainee
policies a key tenet of the Geneva Convention that explicitly bans
"humiliating and degrading treatment," according to knowledgeable
military officials, a step that would mark a further, potentially
permanent, shift away from strict adherence to international human
rights standards.

The decision could culminate a lengthy debate within the Defense
Department but will not become final until the Pentagon makes new
guidelines public, a step that has been delayed. However, the State
Department fiercely opposes the military's decision to exclude Geneva
Convention protections and has been pushing for the Pentagon and White
House to reconsider, the Defense Department officials acknowledged.

ADVERTISEMENTFor more than a year, the Pentagon has been redrawing its
policies on detainees, and intends to issue a new Army Field Manual on
interrogation, which, along with accompanying directives, represents
core instructions to U.S. soldiers worldwide.

The process has been beset by debate and controversy, and the decision
to omit Geneva protections from a principal directive comes at a time
of growing worldwide criticism of U.S. detention practices and the
conduct of American forces in Iraq.

The directive on interrogation, a senior defense official said, is
being rewritten to create safeguards so that all detainees are treated
humanely but can still be questioned effectively.

President Bush's critics and supporters have debated whether it is
possible to prove a direct link between administration declarations
that it will not be bound by Geneva and events such as the abuses at
Abu Ghraib or the killings of Iraqi civilians last year in Haditha,
allegedly by Marines.

But the exclusion of the Geneva provisions may make it more difficult
for the administration to portray such incidents as aberrations. And it
undercuts contentions that U.S. forces follow the strictest, most
broadly accepted standards when fighting wars.

"The rest of the world is completely convinced that we are busy
torturing people," said Oona A. Hathaway, an expert in international
law at Yale Law School. "Whether that is true or not, the fact we keep
refusing to provide these protections in our formal directives puts a
lot of fuel on the fire."

The detainee directive was due to be released in late April along with
the Army Field Manual on interrogation. But objections from several
senators on other Field Manual issues forced a delay. The senators
objected to provisions allowing harsher interrogation techniques for
those considered unlawful combatants, such as suspected terrorists, as
opposed to traditional prisoners of war.

The lawmakers say that differing standards of treatment allowed by the
Field Manual would violate a broadly supported anti-torture measure
advanced by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.). McCain last year pushed
Congress to ban torture and cruel treatment and to establish the Army
Field Manual as the standard for treatment of all detainees. Despite
administration opposition, the measure passed and became law.

For decades, it had been the official policy of the U.S. military to
follow the minimum standards for treating all detainees as laid out in
the Geneva Convention. But, in 2002, Bush suspended portions of the
Geneva Convention for captured Al Qaeda and Taliban fighters. Bush's
order superseded military policy at the time, touching off a wide
debate over U.S. obligations under the Geneva accord, a debate that
intensified after reports of detainee abuses at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba,
and at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison.

Among the directives being rewritten following Bush's 2002 order is one
governing U.S. detention operations. Military lawyers and other defense
officials wanted the redrawn version of the document known as DoD
Directive 2310, to again embrace Common Article 3 of the Geneva
Convention.

That provision - known as a "common" article because it is part of
each of the four Geneva pacts approved in 1949 - bans torture and
cruel treatment. Unlike other Geneva provisions, Article 3 covers all
detainees - whether they are held as unlawful combatants or
traditional prisoners of war. The protections for detainees in Article
3 go beyond the McCain amendment by specifically prohibiting
humiliation, treatment that falls short of cruelty or torture.

The move to restore U.S. adherence to Article 3 was opposed by
officials from Vice President Dick Cheney's office and by the
Pentagon's intelligence arm, government sources said. David S.
Addington, Cheney's chief of staff, and Stephen A. Cambone, Defense
undersecretary for intelligence, said it would restrict the United
States' ability to question detainees.

The Pentagon tried to satisfy some of the military lawyers' concerns by
including some protections of Article 3 in the new policy, most notably
a ban on inhumane treatment, but refused to embrace the actual Geneva
standard in the directive it planned to issue.

The military lawyers, known as judge advocates general, or JAGs, have
concluded that they will have to wait for a new administration before
mounting another push to link Pentagon policy to the standards of
Geneva.

"The JAGs came to the conclusion that this was the best they can get,"
said one participant familiar with the Defense Department debate who
spoke on condition of anonymity because of the protracted controversy.
"But it was a massive mistake to have withdrawn from Geneva. By backing
away, you weaken the proposition that this is the baseline provision
that is binding to all nations."

Derek P. Jinks, an assistant professor at the University of Texas
School of Law and the author of a forthcoming book on Geneva called
"The Rules of War," said the decision to remove the Geneva reference
from the directive showed the administration still intended to push the
envelope on interrogation.

"We are walking the line on the prohibition on cruel treatment," Jinks
said. "But are we really in search of the boundary between the cruel
and the acceptable?"

The military has long applied Article 3 to conflicts - including
civil wars - using it as a minimum standard of conduct, even during
peacekeeping operations. The old version of the U.S. directive on
detainees says the military will "comply with the principles, spirit
and intent" of the Geneva Convention.

Army Manual to Skip Geneva Detainee Rule
The Pentagon's move to omit a ban on prisoner humiliation from the
basic guide to soldier conduct faces strong State Dept. opposition.
By Julian E. Barnes, Times Staff Writer
June 5, 2006


WASHINGTON - The Pentagon has decided to omit from new detainee
policies a key tenet of the Geneva Convention that explicitly bans
"humiliating and degrading treatment," according to knowledgeable
military officials, a step that would mark a further, potentially
permanent, shift away from strict adherence to international human
rights standards.

The decision could culminate a lengthy debate within the Defense
Department but will not become final until the Pentagon makes new
guidelines public, a step that has been delayed. However, the State
Department fiercely opposes the military's decision to exclude Geneva
Convention protections and has been pushing for the Pentagon and White
House to reconsider, the Defense Department officials acknowledged.

ADVERTISEMENTFor more than a year, the Pentagon has been redrawing its
policies on detainees, and intends to issue a new Army Field Manual on
interrogation, which, along with accompanying directives, represents
core instructions to U.S. soldiers worldwide.

The process has been beset by debate and controversy, and the decision
to omit Geneva protections from a principal directive comes at a time
of growing worldwide criticism of U.S. detention practices and the
conduct of American forces in Iraq.

The directive on interrogation, a senior defense official said, is
being rewritten to create safeguards so that all detainees are treated
humanely but can still be questioned effectively.

President Bush's critics and supporters have debated whether it is
possible to prove a direct link between administration declarations
that it will not be bound by Geneva and events such as the abuses at
Abu Ghraib or the killings of Iraqi civilians last year in Haditha,
allegedly by Marines.

But the exclusion of the Geneva provisions may make it more difficult
for the administration to portray such incidents as aberrations. And it
undercuts contentions that U.S. forces follow the strictest, most
broadly accepted standards when fighting wars.

"The rest of the world is completely convinced that we are busy
torturing people," said Oona A. Hathaway, an expert in international
law at Yale Law School. "Whether that is true or not, the fact we keep
refusing to provide these protections in our formal directives puts a
lot of fuel on the fire."

The detainee directive was due to be released in late April along with
the Army Field Manual on interrogation. But objections from several
senators on other Field Manual issues forced a delay. The senators
objected to provisions allowing harsher interrogation techniques for
those considered unlawful combatants, such as suspected terrorists, as
opposed to traditional prisoners of war.

The lawmakers say that differing standards of treatment allowed by the
Field Manual would violate a broadly supported anti-torture measure
advanced by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.). McCain last year pushed
Congress to ban torture and cruel treatment and to establish the Army
Field Manual as the standard for treatment of all detainees. Despite
administration opposition, the measure passed and became law.

For decades, it had been the official policy of the U.S. military to
follow the minimum standards for treating all detainees as laid out in
the Geneva Convention. But, in 2002, Bush suspended portions of the
Geneva Convention for captured Al Qaeda and Taliban fighters. Bush's
order superseded military policy at the time, touching off a wide
debate over U.S. obligations under the Geneva accord, a debate that
intensified after reports of detainee abuses at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba,
and at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison.

Among the directives being rewritten following Bush's 2002 order is one
governing U.S. detention operations. Military lawyers and other defense
officials wanted the redrawn version of the document known as DoD
Directive 2310, to again embrace Common Article 3 of the Geneva
Convention.

That provision - known as a "common" article because it is part of
each of the four Geneva pacts approved in 1949 - bans torture and
cruel treatment. Unlike other Geneva provisions, Article 3 covers all
detainees - whether they are held as unlawful combatants or
traditional prisoners of war. The protections for detainees in Article
3 go beyond the McCain amendment by specifically prohibiting
humiliation, treatment that falls short of cruelty or torture.

The move to restore U.S. adherence to Article 3 was opposed by
officials from Vice President Dick Cheney's office and by the
Pentagon's intelligence arm, government sources said. David S.
Addington, Cheney's chief of staff, and Stephen A. Cambone, Defense
undersecretary for intelligence, said it would restrict the United
States' ability to question detainees.

The Pentagon tried to satisfy some of the military lawyers' concerns by
including some protections of Article 3 in the new policy, most notably
a ban on inhumane treatment, but refused to embrace the actual Geneva
standard in the directive it planned to issue.

The military lawyers, known as judge advocates general, or JAGs, have
concluded that they will have to wait for a new administration before
mounting another push to link Pentagon policy to the standards of
Geneva.

"The JAGs came to the conclusion that this was the best they can get,"
said one participant familiar with the Defense Department debate who
spoke on condition of anonymity because of the protracted controversy.
"But it was a massive mistake to have withdrawn from Geneva. By backing
away, you weaken the proposition that this is the baseline provision
that is binding to all nations."

Derek P. Jinks, an assistant professor at the University of Texas
School of Law and the author of a forthcoming book on Geneva called
"The Rules of War," said the decision to remove the Geneva reference
from the directive showed the administration still intended to push the
envelope on interrogation.

"We are walking the line on the prohibition on cruel treatment," Jinks
said. "But are we really in search of the boundary between the cruel
and the acceptable?"

The military has long applied Article 3 to conflicts - including
civil wars - using it as a minimum standard of conduct, even during
peacekeeping operations. The old version of the U.S. directive on
detainees says the military will "comply with the principles, spirit
and intent" of the Geneva Convention.

....Page 2 of 2 << back 1 2


But top Pentagon officials now believe common Article 3 creates an
"unintentional sanctuary" that could allow Al Qaeda members to keep
information from interrogators.

"As much as possible, the foundation is Common Article 3. That is the
foundation," the senior official said, speaking on condition of
anonymity because the new policies had not been made public. "But there
are certain things unlawful combatants are not entitled to."

ADVERTISEMENTAnother defense official said that Article 3 prohibitions
against "outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and
degrading treatment" could be interpreted as banning well-honed
interrogation techniques.

Many intelligence soldiers consider questioning the manhood of male
prisoners to be an effective and humane technique. Suggesting to a
suspected insurgent that he is "not man enough" to have set an
improvised explosive device sometimes elicits a full description of how
they emplaced the bomb, soldiers say.

The Pentagon worries that if Article 3 were incorporated in the
directive, detainees could use it to argue in U.S. courts that such
techniques violate their personal dignity.

"Who is to say what is humiliating for Sheikh Abdullah or Sheikh
Muhammad?" the second official asked. "If you punch the buttons of a
Muslim male, are you at odds with the Geneva Convention?"

Military officials also worry that following Article 3 could force them
to end the practice of segregating prisoners. The military says that
there is nothing inhumane about putting detainees in solitary
confinement, and that it allows inmates to be questioned without
coordinating their stories with others.

Human rights groups have their doubts, saying that isolating people for
months at a time leads to mental breakdowns.

"Sometimes these things sound benign, but there is a reason they have
been prohibited," said Jumana Musa, an advocacy director for Amnesty
International. "When you talk about putting people in isolation for
eight months, 14 months, it leads to mental degradation."

Jinks, of the University of Texas, contends that Article 3 does not
prohibit some of the things the military says it wants to do. "If the
practice is humane, there is nothing to worry about," he said.

Defense officials said the State Department and other agencies had
argued that adopting Article 3 would put the U.S. government on more
solid "moral footing," and make U.S. policies easier to defend abroad.

Some State Department officials have told the Pentagon that
incorporating Geneva into the new directive would show American allies
that the American military is following "common standards" rather than
making up its own rules. Department officials declined to comment for
this article about the directive or their discussions with the
Pentagon.

Common Article 3 was originally written to cover civil wars, when one
side of the conflict was not a state and therefore could not have
signed the Geneva Convention.

In his February 2002 order, Bush wrote that he determined that "Common
Article 3 of Geneva does not apply to either Al Qaeda or Taliban
detainees, because, among other reasons, the relevant conflicts are
international in scope and Common Article 3 applies only to 'armed
conflict not of an international character.' "

Some legal scholars say Bush's interpretation is far too narrow.
Article 3 was intended to apply to all wars as a sort of minimum set of
standards, and that is how Geneva is customarily interpreted, they say.

But top administration officials contend that after the Sept. 11
attacks, old customs do not apply, especially to a fight against
terrorists or insurgents who never play by the rules.

"The overall thinking," said the participant familiar with the defense
debate, "is that they need the flexibility to apply cruel techniques if
military necessity requires it."



------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


PL
2006-06-06 07:57:49 EST

"Barry Schier" <bschier@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1149559963.788397.208750@h76g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> {Preface}
>
> The opponents of the Cuban Revolution, cued by Washinvgton, have
> repeatedly claimed that torture takes place in Cuba. Indeed, torture
> takes place in Cuba -- in Washington's military enclave of Guantanamo
> Bay

and in Castro's prisons you mean.
http://www.cubaverdad.net/cuba_prison_system.htm
http://www.cubaverdad.net/torture_in_cuba.htm

Correct link to the Newsfeed on torture:
http://www.cubaverdad.net/themefeeds/torture.php

News feeds on prisons in Cuba:
- English: http://www.cubaverdad.net/themefeeds/prison.php
- Spanish: http://www.cubaverdad.net/themefeeds/carcel.php

Castro actually has over 540 prisons, no?
http://www.cubaverdad.net/list_prisons_in_cuba.htm

In these prisons people are held in these "isolation cells", no?
(video)
http://www.cubaverdad.net/a_cuban_punishment_cell.htm

Also see:
http://www.cubaverdad.net/prison_conditions_cubafacts.htm
http://www.cubaverdad.net/hrw_prison_conditions_in_cuba.htm
http://www.cubaverdad.net/themefeeds/umap.php

PL



Barry Schier
2006-06-06 09:44:44 EST
Alhtough one of the root words of "newsfeed" is "feed," your decision
generous helpings of spoon=feed poson exclusively from a gusano site is
stomach. At least the debate on whether "the 75" (about a dozen of
whom have are already been released because of mostly medically-related
reasons) are and are not "political prisoners" is an urgument with both
"sides" debating what the consequence of behaviors should be been, for
what's undisputed is that the "dissidents" regularly visited and
collaborated with the U.S. embassy (called the "U.S. Interests Section"
and not an "embassy" because the U.S. had broken diplomatic relations
with Cuba several decades ago) for the sake of trying to "change" the
Cuban government to one not hostile to U.S. government interests and
Interests.-- the debate is over where on the spectrum between lavish
praise and funding condemnation and punishment the consequences of
their actions should be, and NOT over some acts that never took place
to begin with.

By contrast, the reports about use of the torture by the United States
have come from mass media, e.g., the Los Angeles Times (from which the
reprinted article was cut and pasted) -- the same mass media which had
repeatied for almost a decade "reports" about the existence of "weaons
of mass destruction" in the context of providing the "information" most
useful for increasing sentiment for U.S. intervention in Iraq, depite
now publishing articles and commentaries that there never were "weapons
of mass destruction" and that the source of such false reports was the
U.S. government and whose "reporting" about Cuba has often been
indistinguishable from that of the U..S. Information Agency, i.e., a
government agnecy whose avowed purpose is dissemination of news
favorable to the U.S. and its interests.

-- Barry Schier



PL wrote:
> "Barry Schier" <bschier@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1149559963.788397.208750@h76g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > {Preface}
> >
> > The opponents of the Cuban Revolution, cued by Washinvgton, have
> > repeatedly claimed that torture takes place in Cuba. Indeed, torture
> > takes place in Cuba -- in Washington's military enclave of Guantanamo
> > Bay
>
> and in Castro's prisons you mean.
> http://www.cubaverdad.net/cuba_prison_system.htm
> http://www.cubaverdad.net/torture_in_cuba.htm
>
> Correct link to the Newsfeed on torture:
> http://www.cubaverdad.net/themefeeds/torture.php
>
> News feeds on prisons in Cuba:
> - English: http://www.cubaverdad.net/themefeeds/prison.php
> - Spanish: http://www.cubaverdad.net/themefeeds/carcel.php
>
> Castro actually has over 540 prisons, no?
> http://www.cubaverdad.net/list_prisons_in_cuba.htm
>
> In these prisons people are held in these "isolation cells", no?
> (video)
> http://www.cubaverdad.net/a_cuban_punishment_cell.htm
>
> Also see:
> http://www.cubaverdad.net/prison_conditions_cubafacts.htm
> http://www.cubaverdad.net/hrw_prison_conditions_in_cuba.htm
> http://www.cubaverdad.net/themefeeds/umap.php
>
> PL


PL
2006-06-06 10:13:52 EST

"Barry Schier" <bschier@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1149601484.630975.205380@f6g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Alhtough one of the root words of "newsfeed" is "feed,"

but the can I quote Barry Schier on the quality or biass of the feed:

"both reproduce all news from the mass media revelant from
and/or relevant to Cuba, including that contrary to the views of their
respective moderators "
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.cuba/msg/5e63a668c67fc4be?dmode=source

In short: you praised the quality of the newsfeed

> your decision
> generous helpings of spoon=feed poson exclusively from a gusano site is
> stomach.

Thanks for allowing me again to show what a hypocrite liar you are comrade
Barry.
The newsfeeds are no morethan a "subset" of the e-group and blog as they are
all fed by the same e-mails.

> At least the debate on whether "the 75" (about a dozen of
> whom have are already been released because of mostly medically-related
> reasons) are

Indeed are:
http://www.cubaverdad.net/dissidents.htm
http://www.cubaverdad.net/75_imprisoned_in_march_2003.htm
page with links to recent news about them.

> and are not "political prisoners" is an urgument with both
> "sides"

with Castro and his apologists in one "side" and international human rights
groups and democrats on the other
For recent news see:
http://www.cubaverdad.net/75_imprisoned_in_march_2003.htm
Fot links to human rights reports (over 100) see:
http://www.cubaverdad.net/links_to_human_rights_reports.htm
News on Human rights in Cuba:
http://www.cubaverdad.net/themefeeds/human_rights.php

>debating what the consequence of behaviors should be been, for
> what's undisputed is that the "dissidents" regularly visited and
> collaborated with the U.S. embassy

one of the few places where they can access the internet, no?
http://www.cubaverdad.net/freedom_of_speech.htm#Internet
Recent news:
http://www.cubaverdad.net/themefeeds/internet.php

> By contrast, the reports about use of the torture by the

The Castro regime come from international human rights organizations and the
independent press in Cuba that is not muzzled by Castro.

More on torture in Cuba:
http://www.cubaverdad.net/cuba_prison_system.htm
http://www.cubaverdad.net/torture_in_cuba.htm

Correct link to the Newsfeed on torture:
http://www.cubaverdad.net/themefeeds/torture.php

News feeds on prisons in Cuba:
- English: http://www.cubaverdad.net/themefeeds/prison.php
- Spanish: http://www.cubaverdad.net/themefeeds/carcel.php

Castro actually has over 540 prisons, no?
http://www.cubaverdad.net/list_prisons_in_cuba.htm

In these prisons people are held in these "isolation cells", no?
(video)
http://www.cubaverdad.net/a_cuban_punishment_cell.htm

Also see:
http://www.cubaverdad.net/prison_conditions_cubafacts.htm
http://www.cubaverdad.net/hrw_prison_conditions_in_cuba.htm
http://www.cubaverdad.net/themefeeds/umap.php

PL



Barry Schier
2006-06-06 11:52:41 EST
PL wrote:
> "Barry Schier" <bschier@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1149601484.630975.205380@f6g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> > Alhtough one of the root words of "newsfeed" is "feed,"
>
> but the can I quote Barry Schier on the quality or biass of the feed:
>
> "both reproduce all news from the mass media revelant from
> and/or relevant to Cuba, including that contrary to the views of their
> respective moderators "
> http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.cuba/msg/5e63a668c67fc4be?dmode=source
>
> In short: you praised the quality of the newsfeed
>

Should you wish to reprint this article, i.e.,"The Pentagon's move to
omit a ban on prisoner humiliation from the basic guide to soldier
conduct faces strong State Dept. opposition" from the L.A. Times,
preferably with my preface (but even without my preface), I will state
that the CubaNews and CubaMiente (translated into U.S. English as
"CubaVerdad") news article Web sites both reproduce "all news from the
mass media revelant from and/or relevant to Cuba, including that
contrary to the views of their respective moderators" for which
respective spare time allows. As someone who has been involved with
computers for some time, I am quite aware of an adage of the
profession: "Garbage in = Garbage out." Concerning the "quality of
the newsfeed" -- even when lies of the gusanos are very, very, very
accurately transcribed with the words placed between quotation marks
and accompanied by very, very, very accurate spelling of the name of
the source, it does not change the accuracy of what has been said or
written one iota.

> > your decision
> > generous helpings of spoon=feed poson exclusively from a gusano site is
> > stomach.
>
> Thanks for allowing me again to show what a hypocrite liar you are comrade
> Barry.
> The newsfeeds are no morethan a "subset" of the e-group and blog as they are
> all fed by the same e-mails.
>

Because "comrade" = companion or co-fighter for the same side in a war;
which is precisely the opposite of us. It's ironic that for me,
reading PL call me by a word or phrase associated with insults (e.g.,
"liar") is not offensive to me, but one implying common ground (e.g.,
"comrade") is.

(See original message for remainder of original exchange and PL's
reply.)

-- Barry Schier


PL
2006-06-06 18:24:38 EST

"Barry Schier" <bschier@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1149609161.344835.83840@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> PL wrote:
>> "Barry Schier" <bschier@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:1149601484.630975.205380@f6g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>> > Alhtough one of the root words of "newsfeed" is "feed,"
>>
>> but the can I quote Barry Schier on the quality or biass of the feed:
>>
>> "both reproduce all news from the mass media revelant from
>> and/or relevant to Cuba, including that contrary to the views of their
>> respective moderators "
>> http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.cuba/msg/5e63a668c67fc4be?dmode=source
>>
>> In short: you praised the quality of the newsfeed
>>
>
> Should you wish to reprint this article, i.e.,"The Pentagon's move to
> omit a ban on prisoner humiliation from the basic guide to soldier
> conduct faces strong State Dept. opposition" from the L.A. Times,
> preferably with my preface

You mind the "I tell people what to think" part.

> (but even without my preface), I will state
> that the CubaNews and CubaMiente

which are the same.

> (translated into U.S. English as

Cuba lies - propaganda lies.
See the RSS feeds of the Cuban media at www.cubaverdad.net
http://www.cubaverdad.net/rss_propaganda.htm

All the "news" below [i.e. from Cuba's state mesia]is produced by
"jouralists" accepting the following limitations:

"Gagging Law"

Promulgated in February 1999, the "88 Law" - soon nicknamed the "gagging
law" in dissident circles - weighs like the Sword of Damocles over any
person who "collaborates, by any means whatsoever, with radio or television
programmes, magazines or any other foreign media" or "provides information"
considered likely to serve US policy. The law provides for very heavy
sentences: up to 20 years' imprisonment, confiscation of all personal
belongings and fines up to 100,000 pesos (close to 4,800 dollars, while the
average Cuban salary is 250 pesos or 12 dollars per month). This law, that
no court has taken advantage of as yet, also provides for punishment for
"the promotion, organisation or encouragement of, or the participation in
meetings or demonstrations.

"Likely to serve US policy" means in fact criticizing the Castro regime.

The "88 law": http://www.cubaverdad.net/crime_under_law_88.htm

Other repressive laws in Cuba:

http://www.cubaverdad.net/repressive_laws.htm


> "CubaVerdad"

translated Cuba Truth.
"The Cuban government is based on lies and cheap propaganda. That's why it
is afraid of words and the truth."

Raul Rivero, April 2006, University of Sevilla, Spain.

That is why Barry hates Cuba Verdad.

> "Garbage in = Garbage out."

Kind of what your propaganda based posts are all about, no?

> Concerning the "quality of
> the newsfeed" -- even when lies of the gusanos

translated: articles from lots of different sources ranging from Europe via
India over Africa and Latin America to Cuba and US

> are very, very, very
> accurately transcribed with the words placed between quotation marks

actually: in the newsfeeds the articles are completely reproduced with links
to the original sources.

> and accompanied by very, very, very accurate spelling of the name of
> the source, it does not change the accuracy of what has been said or
> written one iota

conclusion: a large variety of sources not merely representing the group
owner's view but all of direct interest to Cuba, all correctly rendered with
links to the sources in two languages.
a quality newsfeed indeed Barry.
http://www.cubaverdad.net/rss/cubaverdadblog.php
An archive of 23,000 articles dating back 6 years.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CubaVerdad/
Search over the last 4 months:
http://www.cubaverdad.net/weblog/

>> > your decision
>> > generous helpings of spoon=feed poson exclusively from a gusano site is
>> > stomach.
>>
>> Thanks for allowing me again to show what a hypocrite liar you are
>> comrade
>> Barry.
>> The newsfeeds are no more than a "subset" of the e-group and blog as they
>> are
>> all fed by the same e-mails.
>>
>
> Because "comrade" = companion or co-fighter for the same side in a war;

there is no "war", Barry.
Just a peaceful struggle to end a dictatorial regime.
More infomation:
www.cubaverdad.net

Links to 100 reports by international human rights organizations' reports on
Cuba:
http://www.cubaverdad.net/links_to_human_rights_reports.htm

On the dissidents that peacefully struggle against the regime:
http://www.cubaverdad.net/dissidents.htm
On the independent jaournalists that break the Castro "information blockade"
(one of them the winner of the UnescoUNESCO/Guillermo Cano World Press
Freedom Prize for 2004 by UNESCO Director-General Ko\ufffdchiro Matsuura, on the
recommendation of an international jury)
http://www.cubaverdad.net/independent_journalists_in_cuba.htm

On Raul Rivero: see:
The jailed Cuban journalist Ra\ufffdl Rivero Casta\ufffdeda was today awarded the
UnescoUNESCO/Guillermo Cano World Press Freedom Prize for 2004
http://portal.unesco.org/ci/en/ev.php-URL_ID=14519&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html
Also see:
http://www.cubaverdad.net/themefeeds/rivero.php


> which is precisely the opposite of us.

you are indeed the opposite, Barry.
You "dehumanize" the people that oppose your communist cause by calling them
"worms".

Eight Stages of Genocide

3. DEHUMANIZATION:

One group denies the humanity of the other group. Members of it are equated
with animals, vermin, insects or diseases. Dehumanization overcomes the
normal human revulsion against murder.

At this stage, hate propaganda in print and on hate radios is used to vilify
the victim group. In combating this dehumanization, incitement to genocide
should not be confused with protected speech. Genocidal societies lack
constitutional protection for countervailing speech, and should be treated
differently than in democracies. Hate radio stations should be shut down,
and hate propaganda banned. Hate crimes and atrocities should be promptly
punished.

http://www.cubaverdad.net/genocide.htm

> It's ironic that for me,
> reading PL call me by a word or phrase associated with insults (e.g.,
> "liar") is not offensive to me,

I know.
It is all in a "days work" for an apologist like you.
A pity for you is that people that see the lies in your post exposed will
have another opinion.
But I understand that someone like you who prefers to hand out "light bulbs"
for the cause to people that have foods and older light bulbs rather than
providing food to the Cuban people that needs it (773,000 currently
receiving WFP food aid) doesn't care about that.

On torture in Cuba:
http://www.cubaverdad.net/cuba_prison_system.htm
http://www.cubaverdad.net/torture_in_cuba.htm

Correct link to the Newsfeed on torture:
http://www.cubaverdad.net/themefeeds/torture.php

News feeds on prisons in Cuba:
- English: http://www.cubaverdad.net/themefeeds/prison.php
- Spanish: http://www.cubaverdad.net/themefeeds/carcel.php

Castro actually has over 540 prisons, no?
http://www.cubaverdad.net/list_prisons_in_cuba.htm

In these prisons people are held in these "isolation cells", no?
(video)
http://www.cubaverdad.net/a_cuban_punishment_cell.htm

Also see:
http://www.cubaverdad.net/prison_conditions_cubafacts.htm
http://www.cubaverdad.net/hrw_prison_conditions_in_cuba.htm
http://www.cubaverdad.net/themefeeds/umap.php

PL



Ichi
2006-06-06 21:02:06 EST
You are a lying piece of lefty scum.

"Barry Schier" <bschier@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1149609161.344835.83840@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> PL wrote:
>> "Barry Schier" <bschier@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:1149601484.630975.205380@f6g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>> > Alhtough one of the root words of "newsfeed" is "feed,"
>>
>> but the can I quote Barry Schier on the quality or biass of the feed:
>>
>> "both reproduce all news from the mass media revelant from
>> and/or relevant to Cuba, including that contrary to the views of their
>> respective moderators "
>> http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.cuba/msg/5e63a668c67fc4be?dmode=source
>>
>> In short: you praised the quality of the newsfeed
>>
>
> Should you wish to reprint this article, i.e.,"The Pentagon's move to
> omit a ban on prisoner humiliation from the basic guide to soldier
> conduct faces strong State Dept. opposition" from the L.A. Times,
> preferably with my preface (but even without my preface), I will state
> that the CubaNews and CubaMiente (translated into U.S. English as
> "CubaVerdad") news article Web sites both reproduce "all news from the
> mass media revelant from and/or relevant to Cuba, including that
> contrary to the views of their respective moderators" for which
> respective spare time allows. As someone who has been involved with
> computers for some time, I am quite aware of an adage of the
> profession: "Garbage in = Garbage out." Concerning the "quality of
> the newsfeed" -- even when lies of the gusanos are very, very, very
> accurately transcribed with the words placed between quotation marks
> and accompanied by very, very, very accurate spelling of the name of
> the source, it does not change the accuracy of what has been said or
> written one iota.
>
>> > your decision
>> > generous helpings of spoon=feed poson exclusively from a gusano site is
>> > stomach.
>>
>> Thanks for allowing me again to show what a hypocrite liar you are
>> comrade
>> Barry.
>> The newsfeeds are no morethan a "subset" of the e-group and blog as they
>> are
>> all fed by the same e-mails.
>>
>
> Because "comrade" = companion or co-fighter for the same side in a war;
> which is precisely the opposite of us. It's ironic that for me,
> reading PL call me by a word or phrase associated with insults (e.g.,
> "liar") is not offensive to me, but one implying common ground (e.g.,
> "comrade") is.
>
> (See original message for remainder of original exchange and PL's
> reply.)
>
> -- Barry Schier
>



Juan Jimenez
2006-06-06 21:33:39 EST

"Ichi" <bullets@killcommies.com> wrote in message
news:jAphg.4319$gv2.3193@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
> You are a lying piece of lefty scum.

"Lefty scum"???? What kind of idiotic 1950's McCartwit crap is that? LOL!



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com


Barry Schier
2006-06-06 22:16:01 EST
PL wrote (re the U.S. government's policy toward Cuba):
> [T]here is no "war", Barry.
> Just a peaceful struggle to end a dictatorial regime.

Indded, by the yardstick of PL and most other opponents of the Cuban
Revolution and/or apologists for U.S. government policy, there is no
war. The U.S. government's attempted invasions of Cuba by proxy forces
(e.g., the Bay of Pigs fiasco), countless assassination attempts
against officials in the Cuban government, a policy of trying to impose
as many hardships as possible on Cuba's civilian population in an
(ineffective and illegal) attempt to make them want to turn against
their government (i.e., the U.S. embargo against Cuba which the U.N.
General Assembly has condemned for more than a dozen years in a ago by
increasingly overwhelming margins, originally 57 vs. 3 and most
recently 179 vs. 4) are "peaceful" and par for the course.

Footnote: Wherever in the range between Fidel Castro's claim of
600-800+ attempts and the 8+ officially admitted attempts to kill him
(as detailed in the mid-1970s by during the Senate hearings of (fomer)
Senator Church and therefore not denied by Washington i) the actual
number of U.S. government sponsored attempts to assassinate Fidel
Castro may lie, the fact remains that EVEN ONE attempt to assassinate
someone (still less a head of state, and still less a popular leader in
his home country) is an egregious VIOLATION OF INTERNATIONAL LAW.
However, by the school of logic of opponents of the Cuban Revolution --
including that of Professor PL -- there is no doubt that all of these
assassination attempts were "peaceful" ones

-- Barry Schier


PL
2006-06-07 07:37:58 EST

"Barry Schier" <bschier@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1149646561.839585.23330@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> PL wrote (re the U.S. government's policy toward Cuba):
>> [T]here is no "war", Barry.
>> Just a peaceful struggle to end a dictatorial regime.
>
> Indded, by the yardstick of PL and most other opponents of the Cuban
> Revolution

Not of the Cuban revolution Barry.
I agree and support fully the aims of the anti-Batista Cuban revolution: the
restoration of the 1940 constitution.
Both Castro and Che have confirmed that the Cuban revolution was NOT
communist.
"The Cuban revolution is not a class revolution, but a liberation movement
that has overthrown a dictatorial, tyrannical government."12
12 Che Guevara Speaks: Selected Speeches and Writings, G. Lavan ed. (New
York: Pathfinder, 1967), p. 13.


"The myth, induced by the revolutionary euphoria of the pro-Castro left,
that a genuine social-revolution took place in Cuba, is based on a number of
major fallacies."


" Insofar as relations with the communists are concerned, Theodore Draper
notes the striking resemblance between the policies of Batista and Castro:


. . . Batista paid off the communists for their support, by among other
things, permitting them to set up an official trade union federation, the
Confederacion de Trabajadores de Cuba (CTC) with Lazaro Pena as its
Secretary-General. In 1961, Castro paid off the communists for their
support, by, among other things, permitting Lazaro Pena to come back
officially as Secretary General of the CTC...(ibid. p. 204) "


http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/dolgoff/cubanrev...


Sam Dolgoff

http://www.cubaverdad.net/references/sam_dolgoff.htm

> and/or apologists for U.S. government policy,

the typical "dualist" narrow view of the dogmatic anti-US pro-Castro
propagandists.
Again you show your inability to "unchain" you from the Castro propaganda.
In the eyes of narrow, frustrated dogmatists this is about a "US - Cuba"
struggle.
In fact this is about a struggle for the respect of human rights by the
Castro regime in Cuba.
The fact that the US - an imperfect democracy - also condemns the Cuban
dictatorial regime is NOT part of the main issue.
I support all peaceful means to achive democracy in Cuba.
Barry supports:
- repression
http://www.cubaverdad.net/systematic_repression_of_dissent.htm
http://www.cubaverdad.net/cuba_repressive_machinery.htm
http://www.cubaverdad.net/themefeeds/repression.php
http://www.cubaverdad.net/themefeeds/represion.php
- violations of the freedom of speech of Cubans
http://www.cubaverdad.net/freedom_of_speech.htm
http://www.cubaverdad.net/themefeeds/freedom_of_speech.php
http://www.cubaverdad.net/themefeeds/internet.php
-violations of the freedom of movement of Cubans
http://www.cubaverdad.net/freedom_of_movement.htm
http://www.cubaverdad.net/themefeeds/freedom_of_movement.php
http://www.cubaverdad.net/themefeeds/balsero.php
http://www.cubaverdad.net/themefeeds/migration.php
- violations of other human rights in Cuba
http://www.cubaverdad.net/universal_declaration_of_human_rights.htm
http://www.cubaverdad.net/links_to_human_rights_reports.htm
http://www.cubaverdad.net/themefeeds/human_rights.php
http://www.cubaverdad.net/themefeeds/derechos_humanos.php
- torture by the Cuban regime
http://www.cubaverdad.net/torture_in_cuba.htm
http://www.cubaverdad.net/a_cuban_punishment_cell.htm
http://www.cubaverdad.net/themefeeds/torture.php
- a totalitarian system
http://www.cubaverdad.net/totalitarian_system.htm
- repressive laws that violate human rights
http://www.cubaverdad.net/repressive_laws.htm
- imprisonment of peaceful opponents of the regime of Fidel Castro
http://www.cubaverdad.net/dissidents.htm
http://www.cubaverdad.net/75_imprisoned_in_march_2003.htm
http://www.cubaverdad.net/themefeeds/black_spring.php
- the destruction of thousands of life in acts of democide and politicide
http://www.cubaverdad.net/genocide.htm
http://www.cubaverdad.net/13_de_marzo.htm

> there is no war.

Nope, Barry.
there is no "war".
The "war" is no more than an excuse for repression.
The US is the largest food supplier of Cuba and has been since 2002.
Strange way to wage "war".
No shot has been fired in years unless it was by the Cuban regime at it's
people.

>From the entry page of www.cubaverdad.net
"The Cuban government is based on lies and cheap propaganda. That's why it
is afraid of words and the truth."
Raul Rivero, April 2006, University of Sevilla, Spain.

PL


Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7   Next  (First | Last)


2021 - UsenetArchives.com | Contact Us | Privacy | Stats | Site Search
Become our Patron