I’m voting for you, ANDROS. 
[sub]But you didn’t ask what for . . . [/sub]
JODI –
Whatever.
But for the record, let me state quite unequivocally that I find you utterly contemptible for weaseling out of taking a public stand against an administration that you admit has been complicit in committing atrocities that “make you sick to your stomach,” and using your “offense” as a lame excuse not to. I find you contemptible for not coming out against an administration who thumbs their nose at your profession, by saying that they aren’t subject to national or international laws or treaties. I find you contemptible because you have no problem publicly stating your disdain for Bill Clinton for having “lied to the American public,” dishonoring the presidency by not controlling his baser impulses, and “[causing] damage… to the office of the presidency – significantly reducing the respect accorded to it – [which] will be long-lasting and difficult to overcome,” but you won’t make as vocal a declaration about the lies George Bush and his administration told the American public about their direct orders and/or condoning of practices that resulted in human beings being stripped, beaten, humilated, tortured and even killed, and the damage he’s caused to the office of the presidency – significantly reducing the respect accorded to it – which will be long-lasting and difficult to overcome as a direct result. I do find you to have a lack of moral courage based solely on your refusal to answer, and I frankly don’t give a shit if you find that offensive. And lastly, I find you contemptible for the summersaults you’ve had to go through to attempt to depict my rather straightforward question as anything other than what I specifically stated it was – an attempt to determine if you were a woman of your convictions, or just a lip-flapper. I believe I have my (non)answer, and I’m free to draw whatever conclusions I wish based on that.
SHAYNA –
As a response, it is succinct if sad and evasive. But then, the best defense is good offense, right? So with that . . .
Blah blah blah. I would be taking all that quite to heart if I had any reason whatsoever to give a shit what you thought or to respect you or your opinion. But since I decided quite some time ago that none of those are the case, I will just have to try to bear up under the weight of your censure.
[quote]
And lastly, I find you contemptible for the summersaults you’ve had to go through to attempt to depict my rather straightforward question as anything other than what I specifically stated it was – an attempt to determine if you were a woman of your convictions, or just a lip-flapper.[/ quote]
Since you wouldn’t know convictions if they bit you in the ass, I am entirely unsurprised by your inability to recognize them in others. Unsurprised, and unmoved.
As long as we’re leaving things up to the reader, I’ll leave it up to the reader to decide whether Jodi’s OP implies it was England who said “it was just for fun”, rather than a witness for the prosecution claiming she said so.
Actually, no I won’t. Jodi is no stranger to legal matters, and she knew full well that it was wrong to take the prosecution witness testimony as cold, hard fact, and then make it seem as though England herself said it during trial (the conclusion which everyone in the thread reached based on the OP, until someone finally set it straight).
But at least she didn’t ask anyone who they were going to vote for. The horror!
[quote]
But at least she didn’t ask anyone who they were going to vote for. The horror![/qjuote]
Since this escaped you, allow me to clarify that I don’t give a rat’s ass that she asked me who I’m voting for. I have very little problem telling people who stick their noses in my business that they can pull their noses right back out.
What I find offensive is the weaselly “inferring” from my refusal to answer that the reason for refusing is something other than the obvious “That’s none of your business.” As I said, it is an old and contemptible tactic to make people give up their right to privacy in clearly private matters (such as sex, economy, religion, or politics) or risk have some shithead insinuate that they are “ashamed” or “evasive” or “disloyal” or something other than just good old fashioned “private.” It’s the use of this tactic that is both transparent and offensive, and her insistence on using it speaks for itself.
And one last thing –
It takes balls of solid brass and the foresight of Mr. Magoo for anyone to judge me (or anyone else) for “failing to take a stand” on any specific controversial subject on a message board. Many posters may have both personal and professional circumstances that dictate that they refrain from wading in on specific political issues. Speaking only for myself, there are reasons I don’t discuss the details of my personal or professional life, and those reasons have very little to do with worrying about the opinion of someone I wouldn’t recognize if I ran over 'em with my car.
I never forget that this is a public forum. I don’t have that luxury, and I post accordingly. From that you can “infer” what you will.
In the OP you make it seem as though England herself said “it was just for fun”, when in fact a prosecution witness claimed that she had said so.
The other side of the story was in the very next post:
"She named no names, but said, “I was told to stand here, point thumbs up, look at the camera and take the picture.”
Now, I don’t know who is telling the truth, and you don’t either.
But I know you are not the type of person who would immediately take the prosecution witness testimony as the gospel truth, so it is strange that your OP suggests that you have done just that.
Furthermore, there is a plan in motion to make people like Lynndie England the “fall guys”, and your OP, intentionally or not, falls directly into the strategic outline of this plan, given your misleading presentation of the prosecution witness statements as fact.
It is likely a coincidence that you targetted England specifically, made no mention of her superiors, and attributed damning words to her that were not her own. However, you should not be surprised that in doing so people may question, justifiably so, whether you wish to make England and her friends the major “fall guys” for this whole mess.
Because you’ve pitted only one person here, the one at the bottom of the food chain. Where is your pitting of Karpinski, or Rumsfeld, or Gonzalez and Bybee, or Bush? Not here. Ergo, your attention *is * focused away from them.
And it has never occurred to you to wonder why that is?
Is that it? You’re pissed that you’re no longer able to tell yourself, much less others, that only *men * can truly be major assholes? Snicker. You have a LOT to learn about humanity, kiddo.
I’m not. I’m putting the focus where it belongs - on the leaders, not the followers. Surely you can understand that.
That’s the only reasonable implication from the absence of your criticism of them.
Then pit everyone involved. You have enough command of the language to do so.
And nobody said they didn’t.
Bullshit. You’ve made them extremely clear during your tenure on this board, on a number of topics. Quit pretending.
You really haven’t read what you’ve been told here, have you? Your pissedness at England is most certainly honest, and we all even share it. You’re being challenged about your *choice * of who to be most pissed at. If you really do blame Bush and Rumsfeld as much as you blame England, then show us.
Afghanistan to Guantánamo Bay - the story of three British detainees
If this was only about England that would be one thing but it’s not. You have a bigger problem.
Deal with it.
I am ahuge Fricking coward of the highest order: I routinely lack the stones to ask for a raise, demand better service, or even ask women on dates, all out of raw neurotic fear. I have also faced down inner-city gang members and run into a burning building to save a stranger.
Absent intensive training, I submit that anyone claiming to predict what they would or wouldn’t do in a high-stress situation is kidding themselves.
It is well past time for Bush and his cronies to go. The rot goes far futher than the handful of jailors.
This is exactly the article I had in mind when I mentioned Graner and Miller. But who’s going to make them go? When?
I can’t stand England and her idiot co-workers. They really did so much damage and I still don’t understand the harm they have done.
I do have one question. If England was attractive and all-american looking girl next door – would she have the same hateful scorn most of us have for her?
Ugh, I hate when I don’t proofread – I MEANT to say . . . I still don’t think THEY understand the harm they have done."
I left the THEY out of my earlier post – it makes a world of difference.
Ann Coulter is, by most criteria, an acceptably attractive woman and she has been quite able to attract scorn, contempt, and any number of hostile reactions.
Sure, but that’s typical for all succubi. 
Don’t forget “raped.” Add that to the list of U.S. atrocities.
Bush has been running his own “rape rooms.” What should be the consequences to him for that?
Certainly not the “that girl needs to eat a sammich or two” criteria.
It all depends on the command, Zette. She may have been court martialed for not following orders if she had actually disregarded a superior’s oders. We have yet to see whether someone really did order her to do it or not. Now, just because she was court marshalled doesn’t mean she’d be found guilty. If her orders were found to be contrary to the Geneva Convention or contrary to the mission then she would have been found innocent and there would have been no consequences for her.
As a human being I would hope that I would have had the moral strength to oppose treatment like that. That said, I can understand the stresses placed on those people and, having bore witness to the atrocities committed during war on both sides, there is a part of me that fears that the confusion and anger that must develop in one when faced with those atrocities wonders if I am capable of comitting those same atrocities back.
I don’t know. It’s scary what people are capable of doing in situations like that. It’s definitely NOT as black and white as we would all think it should be.
Well Jodi, it was a good effort at a Pit thread - sadly, you should have expected this would happen; it’s as predictable as a Simpsons rerun. I for one thought it was fairly obvious what you meant and I agreed with you.
PS, I’ve never seen you post decrying the atrocities of the Tamil Tigers. Why do you support terrorism by your silence? 