Wait just 1 minute! BOYKIN is in charge of Mil. Intel? WTF??? No wonder...

prisoners are being abused - his God is bigger than their god. Holy shit this is twisted!!!

I know, I am a hopeless optimist.

even to fucking Scientology

No wonder so many people are "god-fearing".

Boykin is NOT, repeat NOT, in charge of military intelligence. Sheesh!

That's what I saw on the web. School me.

Dr Steve Cambone is the Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence, USD(I). IN either case, the USD(I) is a POLICY making body, it has NO control over military intelligence operations.

authority over US military anyway. Sheesh.

No where. They aren't in the same Under Secretariat.

rather than the intel aspect caught my eye. Can you give an example of the type of policies decisions might come out of the office of Boykin (in terms of domain). Thanks.

procedures, planning, programming, etc of DoD Intelligence organizations and structures (e.g. NGA, NSA, DIA, and the services). And that stuff comes from Cambone NOT Boykin. Policy decisions such as what Intel systems to buy, how they will be integrated with current systems and future systems, and when will they be bought. DoD-wide standards. What architectures will be used, how they will be used, who will use and pay for them. Things like that.

not quite but along the line of... IT issues for more efficiency in intel operations... might be a type of issue dealt with?

That reamins with USD(I). It used to be C3I, but that was changed last year.

you lost me again ... don't know enough to understand the distinction.

We used to have an organization called C3I in the DoD. Command, Control, Communications, and Intelligence (They did DoD Intel policy, planning, programming, etc). THEY used to be the policy makers for DoD Intel. Wasn't an Under Secreatry though. Rummy wanted greater focus on Intelligence... created USD(I) last year.

to build military intel to the level of independence from other intel agencies (was discussed briefly in the news back in 2002)... very territorial guy that Rumsfeld. i really do have to go - but would be very interested in talking more about these levels of change and reorganizations and your take on their implications... hope we can do that in the future.

OSD and find this stuff out...it's all right there! :-)

to converse with - can give clarifications and nudge me when I get going up the wrong tree... google isn't as good at that.

I do have to sign off for the day, though. Perhaps when we cross paths again we can pick back up the conversation. It is very helpful.

to teach us. I have to leave soon - but had more that I added from our conversation this morning - I would be interested in continuing this conversation as it appears that the person who originated this thread is interested in learning as well. Thanks.

Is there anywhere on-line that points this out? Confirms it?

I think confirmation of this along with a review of his previous statements would paint this scandal in a whole new light.

Worth looking into.

I was PWLAA - Posting While Listening to Air America - a distracting habit ('specially at work)

is that what we have become?

:evilfrown:


crusade indeed

http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20031021-090352-6004r.htm

That's just the first link that popped up on Google.

is Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence

He's Boykins boss and works directly for SECDEF.

May 11, 2004

Rumsfeld and the 'beastly' Boykin
By Ramtanu Maitra


~snip~

... it is likely that an apology might not be enough to get Rumsfeld off the hook, and it could be a matter of perhaps a very short time before his administrative career comes to an end. But behind

Rumsfeld's apologies lies an attempt to cover up a controversial character hired by him to pin down the "interrogation" process: Lieutenant-General William "Jerry" Boykin, a Christian fundamentalist and no lover of Muslims.

The 'beast-man'

The Washington-based Executive Intelligence Review, a political and economic weekly, has long pointed out that the determination and ruthlessness of the Bush administration, expressed particularly since September 11, was orchestrated by what it described as a few "beast-men" who, as the word suggests, have no hesitation in acting like beasts. One person characterized as such was Boykin.

Boykin is the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense Intelligence under Stephen Cambone, a personal friend of Rumsfeld and one who has the defense secretary's ears. The presence of Cambone as Boykin's boss has previously helped Rumsfeld avoid questions surrounding alleged mistreatment of prisoners in Afghanistan and Iraq, and even of Muslim prisoners in general.

~snip~

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/FE11Aa04.html

:shrug:

Disgusting evangelical puke :puke:

according to Asia Times . . .

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/FE11Aa04.html

I think this will be big

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=1568507

EOM

(If we find out that the reserve MPs training was deficient as they are responsible for that under their "organize, train, and equip" function

Then we go after the operational chain of command:

The Land Component Commander's (LCC) J2
The CENTCOM J2
The LCC (Sanchez)
The CENTCOM Commander (Abizaid)- The military operational chain of command ends at Abizaid

look. Thanks for the info!

The whole article is well worth the read....

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/FE11Aa04.html

<snip>
However, it is likely that an apology might not be enough to get Rumsfeld off the hook, and it could be a matter of perhaps a very short time before his administrative career comes to an end. But behind Rumsfeld's apologies lies an attempt to cover up a controversial character hired by him to pin down the "interrogation" process: Lieutenant-General William "Jerry" Boykin, a Christian fundamentalist and no lover of Muslims.

<snip>
Finally, the Boykin-Cambone partnership under Rumsfeld. Cambone was one of the staunchest believers that Iraqi weapons of mass destruction existed. Since all others at the top "believed" the same way, the views of Cambone, who resides somewhat down the rungs of the power ladder, were not given much publicity.

But at the Senate Armed Services Committee hearing with Rumsfeld and others on May 7, Cambone acknowledged his role in sending Guantanamo Bay's Camp X-Ray head, General Geoffrey Miller, to Iraq. During an exchange concerning his deployment of Miller to Iraq, Cambone said: "We had, then, in Iraq a large body of people who had been captured on the battlefield that we had to gain intelligence for force protection purposes. And he was asked to go over, at my encouragement, to take a look at the situation as it existed there. And he made his recommendations."

The decision to use General Miller apparently came after he reported on Camp X-Ray, saying three quarters of the 600 Taliban and al-Qaeda suspects held there were becoming compliant and offering intelligence tips.

The Washington Post has reported that the defense department approved interrogation techniques for Guantanamo Bay which included forcing inmates to strip naked and subjecting them to loud music, bright lights and sleep deprivation. Miller recommended that detention operations in Iraq must act as an "enabler" for interrogation.

by two low level Military Intel folks state that they were given brief instruction per Geneva Conventions - so somewhere for some involved there was instruction on that front. They claim to have tried to raise warnings to various folks but were ignored.

It seems that the conditions were set (eg expectations of jobs... understaffing which often leads to more extreme "control" efforts... etc.) that some of this seems inevitable (see Stanford Prison Experiment)... thus those setting up the guidelines/circumstances including but not exclusively training... should shoulder some responsibility.

Training, staffing, discipline, etc. all need to be looked at.

is that from the top (rumsfeld) at least in his public persona - the concern seems to be less upon the conditions (which would lead to the question of ... few bad apples or widespread...) underwhich this happened - and more on the flow of information that let it get out. Not just in his use of language - but in his apparent actions since the time of learning that there was a problem brewing and investigations ongoing. Not sure if it is a sign of his signature cavalierity (made up word)... or related to another item I read this morning (not sure which article could be the same baltimore sun piece) that indicates that HE was to be apprised (in order to approve) some techniques used for very specific prisoner's interogations (eg the top men around Saddam)... which somehow possibly injects him into the story... in which case are his reactions related to political instincts (keep any story that might eventually lead back to me ... out of the limelight all together.)

March 4, 2004 Thursday

CAPITOL HILL HEARING
HEARING OF THE SENATE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE
DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION REQUEST FOR FISCAL YEAR 2005
CHAIRED BY: SENATOR JOHN WARNER (R-VA)
LOCATION: 216 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING

...

GEN. ABIZAID: Thank you, Senator Roberts. The single most important thing to General Sanchez in Iraq is having good intelligence. With good intelligence, you can get precise targeting. With precise targeting, you can start to unravel the enemy cells. And as you recall, back in the September-October period, where it was clear that the insurgency was spreading, it became obvious to us that we really needed to fuse the intelligence system and improve it, and ensure that the wonderful intelligence that was being developed at the tactical level made it all the way up to the operational level so that we could make the battle one of the entire force versus just platoons and squads that were out there operating in their own individual areas.

And I think largely with the help of our various intelligence agencies, with wonderful work by my J2, John Custer, and General Sanchez's J2, Barbara Fast, we managed to get an intelligence system working that has given us great insight against the insurgents, and has allowed us to unravel their organizations in a way that I think will be viewed as a model when people have a chance to look at it.

Now, this doesn't mean that the enemy does not adjust their tactics, because they do. And they are adjusting their tactics, they are adjusting the way that they conduct their own operational security. You could see from the letter by Zarqawi, for example, how concerned he was how many eyes were out there and how dangerous the operation was. But this was is a war of intelligence and perception. And it is just so important that the intelligence part of the battle be adequately organized and that we think out of the box about who was doing what and not worry about turf. And I'm happy to report to you that I think that the relationship that's developed in Baghdad with the Central Intelligence Agency and the one that we have between CENTCOM and the agency has been one that has allowed us to get up at this problem in an important way.