Guantanamo Officers Caught Modifying Wikipedia 598
James Hardine writes "Wikileaks reports that US armed forces personnel at Guantanamo have conducted propaganda attacks over the Internet. (The story has been picked up by the NYTimes, The Inquirer, the New York Daily News, and the AP.) The activities documented by Wikileaks include deleting Guantanamo detainees' ID numbers from Wikipedia, posting of self-praising comments on news websites in response to negative articles, promoting pro-Guantanamo stories on the Internet news focus website Digg, and even altering Wikipedia's entry on Cuban President Fidel Castro to describe him as 'an admitted transsexual' (misspelling the word 'transsexual'). Guantanamo spokesman Lt. Col. Bush blasted Wikileaks for identifying one 'mass communications officer' by name, who has since received death threats for 'simply doing his job — posting positive comments on the Internet about Gitmo.'"
Tag suggestion (Score:5, Insightful)
Seems rather appropriate.
Re:Minor gripe (Score:4, Insightful)
When it is a government employee doing this, on the clock, paid for by tax dollars, as part of their official duties... well that is what propaganda is. Why the hell are we paying for "mass communications officers" in the first place? Does anyone support their tax dollars going to pay for someone to go post positive comments on Digg about government programs? Say, are you by any chance a "mass communications officer?"
Re:Wow what a shock (Score:4, Insightful)
Also, the ideal goal is to keep Wikipedia as void of 'opinion' as possible anyway.
This is why military intelligence is an oxymoron (Score:5, Insightful)
And regarding Lt. Col. Bush's "He was just doing his job" defense, I'd like to note that that defense hasn't been recognized in law since at least Nuremburg.
We apparently can't get ethical intelligence officers, but can we at least get intelligent intelligence officers?
Re:Fuck Bush (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh right you just wanted to troll about Wikipedia, my mistake.
Re:Wow what a shock (Score:5, Insightful)
What's really funny (Score:5, Insightful)
Something is very broken when.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Okay, so who isn't doing this? (Score:1, Insightful)
The only difference between Propaganda, PR, and Marketing is just the spelling.
Ignorant (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:uhm... (Score:5, Insightful)
I could see your point if the article read "military IPs used to edit wikipedia", but this is being financed by the government. Lt. Col. Ed Bush came right out and said that their "mass communications specialist" was just doing his job.
Re:The incompetence of goverment.... (Score:3, Insightful)
As soon as you get national/multinational organizations, be they governmental or corporate, incompetence inevitable creeps in.
Re:Wow what a shock (Score:5, Insightful)
That is the point of wikipedia. That is not the important part of this story and, in fact, it mentions Digg and several other sites. The point of this story is the government is spending our tax dollars to spread "positive reviews" and misinformation related to government projects, thereby undermining the fourth estate. The other point of this story is they are incompetent at it and admit to doing it. Can't you muster up just a little bit of indignation that instead of providing ten poverty stricken youth with full scholarships to university we're paying at least one incompetent hack that money to lie to us on Web forums?
Eerie Similarity Between Washington and Moscow (Score:5, Insightful)
As for the pro-Kremlin bloggers, A recent report [rferl.org] by Radio Free Europe states, "A new generation of pro-Kremlin bloggers, for example, is being cultivated to spread Putin's word online -- and to rapidly disrupt the activities of Russia's opponents, both real and imagined.
When Kasparov's Other Russia held a rally in Moscow on April 14, for example, a group of pro-Kremlin bloggers from the Young Guard youth movement flooded the Internet with reports of a smaller pro-regime demonstration on the same day. In doing so, they crowded out postings about the opposition march on Russia's top web portals -- creating a virtual news blackout in one of the last refuges of free media in the county. Pavel Danilin, the pro-Putin blogger who spearheaded the effort bragged to 'The Washington Post' that his team 'played it beautifully.'"
Is Russia becoming more like the USA, or is the USA becoming more like Russia?
Re:Call the Waaaaaambulance? (Score:1, Insightful)
If anything, it should actually be referred to as the "Invasion and Occupation of Afghanistan." That better describes the fact that there was not only the initial invasion by foreign troops, but that there has also been a prolonged (and generally unsuccessful) occupation of that nation.
Your dad is a smart man... (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Correcting falsehoods (Score:3, Insightful)
That said, there's a difference between a propaganda campaign orchestrated at high levels, vs. some bored private being a dork. Then again, powerful people tend to do their dirty work through disposable minions, so it's not always easy to tell.
Re:Okay, so who isn't doing this? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Wow what a shock (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Eerie Similarity Between Washington and Moscow (Score:2, Insightful)
And um, haven't left wingers hailed those people in government that post supporting their point of view? This is just about left wing sites trying to raise money, nothing more.
Re:i live in the USA (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Ignorant (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Ignorant (Score:5, Insightful)
Please explain how your conclusion (Wikileaks acts against the interest of the United States as a sovereign nation) in the second sentence follows from your claim (Wikileaks has international support) ? And please explain how the implied statement that Wikileaks doens't have facts in the first sentence follows from your conclusion in the second ?
Or are you simply spreading FUD about Wikileaks in an attempt to discredit it ?
Re:Okay, so who isn't doing this? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Wow what a shock (Score:1, Insightful)
Wikipedia is a propaganda tool. It is one of the best out there at shaping the minds of the gullible. The government knows this. So does everyone else with an ax to grind. So do the wikinazis. Wikipedia has very little in the way of genuine quality, independence or accuracy, but thanks to the vanity of its leaders and admins it has every illusion of authority and integrity.
Be indignant about that. Be indignant that Wikipedia is not encouraging its users to question the data it contains, be indignant that Wikipedia does not have disclaimers and warnings as to its potential inaccuracies -- that's your true crime, your true deception, right there.
Don't blame the Government (or anyone else's Government, or NGO, or Political party, or Corporation or cabal...) for the propaganda, they are only doing their jobs.
No, blame Wikipedia for continually attempting to deceive people as to its integrity.
Re:Wow what a shock (Score:4, Insightful)
Of course not, but when they are caught they need to be punished and more importantly, stopped.
No it isn't. The crime is the government overstepping its mandate and working against the people it is supposed to serve. That is the crime. Wikipedia has no obligation to anyone.
The government is the one that should be blamed. Their job is defined by the constitution. Read it. Whenever they overstep that, they aren't doing their job, they're violating the public trust and need to be called onto the carpet by the electorate. What are you some sort of paid shill trying to divert attention to a charitable project for not doing what you think they should? They aren't funded with tax dollars and have no responsibility to do anything and are thus, blameless.
Re:Tired news (Score:3, Insightful)
But this story is newsworthy because, allegedly, a US military officer, as part of his paid duties, was removing information from Wikipedia, and other websites, that put the detention camp at Guantanamo in a bad light or that (apparently) gave more information than the U.S. military wanted. That sort of thing would be just as newsworthy if a US military officer, as part of his duties, impersonated a civilian journalist to write newspaper columns.
Re:Altering Wikipedia is an assigned job??? (Score:5, Insightful)
The difference is that the officers were doing a job paid for by you. It is entirely appropriate that the public know where their money is going and who is spending it doing what. If the officers did this in their own private time, there would be a conflict of interest issue, but there would be no reason to leak their details. If the officers did this on your payroll, you have every right to know what they did, why they did it, and if they should have done it. If you are paying for something you have a right to know what people are doing with your money, obviously with certain exceptional limitations, this being far from any of those.
That's a job? (Score:3, Insightful)
Wow, I suddenly feel like a sucker for writing software when I could get the Army to pay me for cutting and pasting between bash.org and Wikipedia.
Re:Minor gripe (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Minor gripe (Score:2, Insightful)
Since there is not a -1 disagree, they choose troll.
You don't honestly expect people to read the moderating guidelines when they can't even read the articles, do you?
Re:Altering Wikipedia is an assigned job??? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:misspelling? (Score:2, Insightful)
According to the wikileaks article in the original post this IP is the internet gateway for gitmo. That means that multiple computers (possibly all of them on the base) will show up under this IP.
What's funny/sad about these "revelations" is that the "highlighted changes" by wikileaks are exactly 5 items:
3x removing the id number of a detainee
1x changing "invasion of Afghanistan" to "War in Afghanistan"
1x the castro thing.
(there's links to the diffs in the article. The castro thing is from back in 2006)
THAT's the massive misinformation campaign ? If it is, it's the lamest effort at propaganda ever!
If one ctually reads the wiki page on the Gitmo detention center it is dominated by the complaints and allegations of released prisoners and the tone is that of the militant anti-Gitmo crowd. The word "torture" (or its derivatives) occurs 45 times on the page as of this writing.
There's a whole lot of material for even a neutral person to dig into and remove, let alone a pro-Bush or anti-anti-Gitmo one. For example the old accusation about about the Koran being flushed down the toilet is still featured in the wikipedia article even though Newsweek printed a retraction.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/15/AR2005051500605.html [washingtonpost.com]
My point is that this report, and much of the reaction here on
I also find it funny, in an endearing way, that many of the changes from this IP have to do with anime; also edible fish.
An Asshole In an Office Paid Tax Money (Score:5, Insightful)
So, does Washington run propaganda campaigns? Sure. They should be. It isn't like the various groups opposed to the US are not running their own. They should be ethical in how they run their campaigns, but it absolutely is their duty to run them. If there is a breach of ethics, it should be investigated and dealt with. That said, I have to roll my eyes and yawn at the editing Wikipedia articles. If they hacked into Wikipedia and deleted change logs, I would be on the OMGWTF bandwagon. If some ass hole in a government office who was tasked with fighting a propaganda campaign was an absolute dumb shit and interpreted those orders as "go edit Wikipedia and leave behind my IP and change logs", than my out rage is reserved to the fact that we would hire such a dumb ass in the first place, not the fact that it was done. I am far more pissed off that my money was wasted on paying some dumbass who thinks that making a few edits to wikipedia, a website specifically design to be resistant against such bone headed attacks, counts as scoring a victory in a propaganda effort against Islamic extremist.
Re:Wow what a shock (Score:3, Insightful)
The reality is unquestionably that politicians are inherently corrupt and will spin things as much in their favor as possible. However, this does not mean that our jobs are to champion or even accept it.
Wikipedia is not responsible for the misinformation in the least - responsibility lies squarely in the lap of those who choose to taint articles with propaganda. The message one should come away from this regarding Wikipedia (which should be common practice, anyways) is to always take articles with a grain of salt. Examine any attached sources, search for additional sources, and draw your own conclusions from what you gather. Taking anything you hear or read at face value is generally a poor idea.
The fact that allowing anyone to modify an article can occasionally lead to misinformation is simply something you should accept when reading anything on Wikipedia.
Re:Wow what a shock (Score:3, Insightful)
And as another poster pointed out, Wikipedia owes nothing to us. It comes with no warranty of reliability, and since it is free, it is too much even to say "caveat emptor." On the other hand, dismissing government duplicity by a mere wave of "thus it has always been" is a real danger. That is the same logic that argues we should condone torture and assassinations because all governments do it. I don't want my government engaged in wholesale deception of its citizenry. Concealment has a place. I don't need to know the launch codes. Lies too have a place (e.g. sting operations) but a campaign to misinform the public with the goal of influencing policy undermines the foundations of democracy.
Besides, if wikipedia's wrong, I can always go to britannica or to a real book. If my government systemically lies, who do I go to for the truth?
Re:Wow what a shock (Score:3, Insightful)
How can you be sure the same isn't true for regular media?
Take any old encyclopedia... Can you tell me for sure that they weren't edited in such a way for any type of bias or misinformation?
If it has sources, then what if the sources are suspect? If you have an authority, what do you to have to prove (other than gut instinct and the authorities references which could also be suspect) they aren't a paid shill too?
I think it all comes down to trust.
Do you trust Wikipedia? Could you trust your school text books? Could you trust the news? Can you even trust your parents to tell you the truth about things?
Example, I have an old copy of a 1944 encyclopedia reference (not the entire series) which mentions the Soviets as our allies. Are there any references to Soviet atrocities from the 1930s? Nope. They are our allies.
From a personal perspective, you should assume that everyone is either lying to you or misinformed themselves without anyone disclaiming the fact but I have to trust them because I have no other choice, but it doesn't help to ask "Are you sure?".
We agree that Wikipedia isn't as authoritative as they make it out to be, but what I disagree with you is that they have to disclaim it or that anything else in life is better.
Re:Minor gripe (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Altering Wikipedia is an assigned job??? (Score:1, Insightful)
Privacy - individuals VS govt. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:This is why military intelligence is an oxymoro (Score:3, Insightful)
OK, look...you are subject to death threats. If I find you, I'm going to kill you. See how that works?
But there's a big difference between someone receiving death threats based on something that has been misreported -- like, a guy who was reported to be a sex offender getting death threats even after all the charges have been dropped -- and somebody getting death threats for something they really, actually did do. Now, death threats are illegal, and whomever was threatening this poor schmuck should probably get to spend a night or two in the can. But come on ... if the government had an official "rape squad" and they got outed by the media, and those people then received death threats ... cry me a river!
The media has a responsibility to report the truth. The fact that everybody complains about it when they actually succeed is one of the things that's reducing our media to a pile of worthless crap. There is probably an ethics question around the wisdom of posting this person's full name, or whatever. But to decry the media for doing so on the basis that some yahoo decided to send the dude a death threat kinda sounds like shooting the messenger, to me.
Truthiness revised (Score:5, Insightful)
Those whom he indicts in the government and press for distorting the truth, he also calls cowards. When the truth doesn't serve your ends, it is courageous and moral to change your course. But again and again those who have usurped the reins of power consider only their own distorted ends, without consideration for the reasonable will of the people. They would have us be ruled by false images so that we relinquish all our power.
One only wonders, to what end are they deceiving us and stealing our power? I suppose it must be private elite world domination, and the well-being of the people be damned.
Re:Minor gripe (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Minor gripe (Score:5, Insightful)
Way to miss the F'ing point. I don't care, so long as they aren't doing so using my involuntarily claimed tax dollars. The constitution is predicated upon the belief that the US government is the greatest danger to the freedom of the people. When homosexual groups start taxing me under threat of imprisonment, then I'll take offense. Until then, the point is what the government is doing.
Re:Eerie Similarity Between Washington and Moscow (Score:2, Insightful)
Nothing really to see here... (Score:5, Insightful)
You can read here [southcom.mil], on page 3 of this pdf, about the most recent rotation of public affairs GIs. They are just kids. Most of what they do are puff pieces -- interviews for the "Chaplain's Corner". Sixty wikipedia edits, of this sort, could have been done by a couple of bored privates, over their lunch hour, the day the Sergeant was out of the office.
More notable is the goodbye essay of Colonel Lora L. Tucker, a retiring PCH officer, on page 2. The way I see it her retiring essay provides a big part of the answer to the question how could American soldiers be involved in abusing captives?
Guarding men, held without charge, for an indefinite term, would be bad for the morale of young American GIs. What I think happened is that officers like Geoffrey Miller, Harry Harris, made the conscious decision to demonize the Guantanamo captives, keeping up the GI's morale by vastly overstating the importance of the captives, the danger they represented, and the confidence responsible officers could have about their role in terrorist attacks.
Colonel Tucker seems to have accepted the unsubstantiated claims of spin doctors at face value.
Back in 2005 there was a brief period when camp authorities allowed the press to interview some of the ordinary troops who served as the camp's guards. I remember a brief clip the BBC broadcast about his frustrations about serving as a camp guard. He made two points:
Guards weren't given enough scope to retaliate against captives who spit on them, or threw urine on them.
(paraphrasing) "Half of these guys killed a US soldier." Well, I checked. At the time the guard made this comment 192 American GIs had died in Afghanistan -- including those like Pat Tillman who were victims of "friendly fire". At that point about 500 captives remained in Guantanamo. So even if every American death could be attributed to a Guantanamo captive, that still wouldn't have been "half".
When examined in detail the allegations faced by only a few dozen captives could be honestly reported to have been "captured on the battlefield" -- for any reasonable definition of battlefield. The allegations against most of the captives don't support the claim that they were "combatants". Under the Geneva Conventions a demobilized soldier is considered a civilian. According to the Geneva Conventions only soldier who are currently part of an army, or militia -- or civilians who choose to engage in hostilities against their countries invaders, are combatants. A veteran might be highly decorated, or admired -- according to the Geneva Convention, if that demobilized veteran stayed home, didn't try to re-enlist, and left his rifle hanging over his mantle, he remained a civilian.
The Guantanamo captives included a couple of dozen grandfathers, who were considered combatants because they fought against Afghanistan's Soviet invaders during the 1980s. One grandfather's military service dated back to 1960s, when he served in the Afghanistan Army when Afghanistan was still a monarchy.
And yet the guards believed, "over half these guys killed a US soldier". The authorities demonized them. And this set the stage for the abuse.
Re:Yawn... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:In other news, (Score:3, Insightful)
I found the asumption that Wikileaks was pro-US was somewhat naive. There are plenty of folk out there on the Internet, most of them are not US citizens and a vanishingly small percentage of them approve of US run gulags.
It should be pretty obvious that anyone who has been involved in the Bush administration torture policy has become a target for assasination and worse. That is one of the many reasons why civilized countries do not engage in such activities, people do not forget. The torture of US prisoners in Vietnam created a grudge that continued for decades. Not so long ago there were still people peddling stories about the MIA-POWs still being kept captive.
Re:This is why military intelligence is an oxymoro (Score:3, Insightful)
There are plenty of POV pushers who get away with it. During Huricane Katrina there was a team of GOP staffers diligently removing any material that mentioned the fact that the federal govt. was asleep at the switch. And quite often you find that the GOP propaganda is being spread from a military IP address. Seems like all they are allowed to listen to in the military is Fox News and Rush Limbaugh.
Some edits from Congress are actually useful, the staffers usually get things like the biography right and usually on the ball with graphiti removal. But its pretty hard to scrub the page of any well known politician. Katherine Harris tried to have the Cruella Deville stuff taken out of her article but it never worked, the people were just not subtle enough.
The POV peddling that sticks is in the subtler edits, like the guy who tried to turn 'First Responder' into a page redefining what a first responder is to fit with some wingnut conspiracy theory.
Re:Minor gripe (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't particularly care who modifies Wikipedia or why. If you have an open information depository that can be modified by anyone, expect it to be modified by anyone... including people with vested interests on both sides of any issue. One person's spin is another person's fact, and if there is any strength to Wikipedia is that "fact" can be hashed out between two opposing viewpoints that, hopefully, eventually settle on a neutral and factual view.
If the government were not providing information (regardless of whether or not some people call that "propaganda"), the articles in question would be potentially very one-sided and lack balance. Kind of like Slashdot, actually.
In this day and age, there is a decidedly anti-government and anti-Bush perspective that is promoted by many in the mainstream media and, often, in places like Slashdot and Wikipedia. Some would call that justified, but the skeptic would realize that any viewpoint that is overly dominant is dangerous when other viewpoints don't get a fair shake or are openly ridiculed. I don't doubt the government feels the need to employ people to rebut some nonsense and, in many cases, put different spin on acknowledged facts.
"You will find that many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our point of view."
Re:Minor gripe (Score:5, Insightful)
*snerk*.
Showing "both sides" of every issue may be "fair and balanced" -- but if one of those sides is arguing that the atomic weight of helium is 5 or 3+3=17, it does nothing to promote popular knowledge of objective truths.
Re:Altering Wikipedia is an assigned job??? (Score:3, Insightful)
You represent everything that is fundamentally wrong with American society. You're selfish, egotistical, ignorant, stupid, vapid, greedy, blind, and lazy. Why don't you move to somewhere else? Please? We don't want you here. America is supposed to be a nation of lofty ideals, educated and optimistic people, and, most importantly, free people. You stand for NONE of that. You're ruining our country and we don't want you here. Go back to whatever rock you crawled out of.
Re:Military prisons have a purpose (Score:4, Insightful)
Did you read David Hick's Australian lawyers account of why he was barred from attending his client's trial? The Presiding Officer wanted him to sign a disclaimer, stating that he would abide by the Commission's rules, and that he would be in trouble if he didn't. He says he was prepared to sign, once he had been allowed to SEE the rules he was agreeing to abide by.
So, why couldn't he see them? BECAUSE THEY HADN'T YET BEEN WRITTEN.
Nevertheless, the Presiding Officer insisted the lawyer agree to abide by these not yet written rules. And, when he wouldn't do so he was barred from attendance.
Military Prisons, like Leavenworth, hold people convicted of crimes. None of the captives currently at Guantanamo has been convicted of a crime. With three exceptions, none of the captives are even charged with a crime.
The DoD does not call Guantanamo a Military Prison. It does not call Guantanamo a POW camp. It calls Guantanamo a "detention camp".
David Hicks was convicted, because he pled guilty. But he only pled guilty after this shameful act where one of his lawyers, the one his family chose, was barred from attending his trial. Please don't confuse this with justice.
Re:Altering Wikipedia is an assigned job??? (Score:2, Insightful)
People are modding me as troll on these posts because they are shallowly political. They get angry that I knock them off their perch with the brutal reminder that they are just thugs in their own power game and their own supposedly lofty ideals are no more than just pretext for whatever tyranny they would seek to impose. How dare I offend their saints!
So what. I don't care. I've been outnumbered 5 or 10 - 1 in a real fight and have gotten the shit beaten out of me sticking to my guns and my truths, more than once, and having a few pussies on slashdot mod me down as troll doesn't bother me in the slightest. So, you can take your teenage "everyone hates you attacks", and shove them up your snatch with a bag of broken glass and give the whole lot a good twist!
I'm not saying that Republicans are saints. And I freely admit that a good part of my cynicism comes from having been on these crusades to see them all end the same. I was big into the left wing, I was big in the right wing. I just remember back in the day when as a righties I believed that if we could just get the democrats out of power, the government would be better off. And you know what? It didn't happen. Bush did cut taxes and did reaffirm my right to own an assault rifle, but, then he discraced himself with all of this picking on fags. Like, who gives a shit if a bunch of fudge packers want to say "i do.". One by one, every right wing site started making the same damned excuses for their people and the whole thing just became a pissing match about who is in power and who is not.
And now, of course, here's the left wing in the same boat. At the end of two terms of the evil "bad" guy in the other party, the political party that tried to give us the CLIPPER chip and tried to have an FBI BACKDOOR INTO EVERY F--CKING ROUTER, is now arguing that they are "better" at civil liberties, and all you people are just eating up like dogs eating a bowl of beef stew. It's just pathetic. At the end of it, you'll be hog twisted and tied up by the very people you defend, in the name of world piece, global warming, or whatever other stupid cause you lefties wind up following onto.
You represent everything that is fundamentally wrong with American society. You're selfish, egotistical, ignorant, stupid, vapid, greedy, blind, and lazy. Why don't you move to somewhere else? Please? We don't want you here. America is supposed to be a nation of lofty ideals, educated and optimistic people, and, most importantly, free people. You stand for NONE of that. You're ruining our country and we don't want you here. Go back to whatever rock you crawled out of.
Here's a clue for you. The Democrats have held the House for a year now, and where's the legislation to repeal the USA PATRIOT Act? Where's that repeal? Where's the repeal of the homeland security acts? That's just undoing recent stuff. All we've gotten is what, some new laws that restrict my freedom to buy a good car, some ideas for laws to take more of my money, some laws that allow the government to spy on my carbon dioxide output...
If you want to convince me that you or anyone else believes in freedom, let's start with what federal agencies you would shut down and what laws you would appeal. But the fact of the matter is, you won't. It's just, you'd shut down the agencies you don't like and add new ones in their place, to get the government to oppress the people that you don't like.
Just because the government doesn't oppress you, doesn't mean its right, and that's the lesson you won't learn. Freedom isn't about, only putting other people's guys in jail. Freedom is about accepting that you might be in some way impinged upon, but, you are allowed to do the same to others as well, and if you are big enough to live fairly, then you won't need a bunch of pigs, ooops, I mean police, breathing down your back.
For christ sakes, Democrats are talking about ci
Re:Minor gripe (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Minor gripe (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:An Asshole In an Office Paid Tax Money (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm too tired to waste time on this, but in 20 seconds, off the top of my head here are a few very real differences.
Differences:
balance of taxation
healthcare
military deployment / aggressiveness
budgetary responsibility (guess who is actually more responsible here -- might surprise you)
gay rights / women's reproductive rights / opinions on reality of racism, etc.
role of religion in government
criminal justice (death penalty, punishment for drug crimes, sentencing)
civil rights -- privacy, speech (both are centrist, but Democrats are significantly left of republicans)
education -- funding and management
Actions of democrats are very different from those of republicans in the house and senate, although the effectiveness of their actions is often limited by veto power and other factors (regional public opinion, etc).
You're right, the parties are very similar in other respects.
pork politics
rewarding insiders like lobbyists, etc.
avoiding real campaign funding reform
favoring corporate interests
For the record, I am on the far left end of the spectrum, but it drives me nuts when people assert there aren't differences between the two main parties in practice.
And, as for Gitmo, even McCain wants to close the place. He, Hilary and/or Obama would work toward that aim for sure, but how to get there in 100 days isn't totally clear. Many aren't welcome in their countries of origin, etc.. But the nature of the place would (will! I hope) change very quickly.
Re:Minor gripe (Score:3, Insightful)
Because the modern military realizes it is not enough to win battles. You must also convince the homefront you are winning battles. Perception is reality and the loudest voice defines the truth.
Re:Altering Wikipedia is an assigned job??? (Score:4, Insightful)
Just for the record -- this is the post I'm foe'ing you for; I quite enjoyed our other thread.
I can appreciate a good devil's advocate position -- but this isn't onesuch, even remotely. To play devil's advocate, one's position needs to be plausible, something an opponent might accept long enough to draw up a reasonable counterargument.
Look -- you claim to be a Libertarian-leaning Republican. How can you claim that all activists' work is destructive, when such a large branch of activism is centered around protecting the personal freedoms you claim you value? It's activists that got women the vote; activists who helped men and women escape slavery and flee to Canada; activists that ended apartheid; activists who uprooted British rule over their American colonies and started the revolution that lead to the very existence of the country you live in.
Devil's advocate or no, your claims insult the Constitution itself -- it was people demanding, agitating and giving their lives for change that resulted in the very idea of a government existing by the consent of the governed. If you'll spit on that for a chance to score a few points in some online forum, I will have nothing to do with you.
Re:An Asshole In an Office Paid Tax Money (Score:3, Insightful)
Now I'm not defending the Russian Government, but the extraordinary rendition policy of the US, the detention of people in violation of the Geneva convention and the invasion of a country on a false premise and without a UN mandate sounds exactly the same sort of scale as what Russia gets up to.