Military Intelligence interrogators either come from the Defense Intelligence Agency or from the S-2 (Intelligence) of various command not from the military police. There is no mention of any DIA or 2 Shop people in the investigation. "Compensate the victims" yeah right I have a good friend who would love to talk to the Japanese about that one. You clearly want to make the moral equivalnce argument and it is absurd to even try and reason with someone who thinks like that. AQ and the Taliban started this with an attack launched against a building far from any battlefield and killed 3,000 civilians in one blow. Are you going to compensate for that?

Well among other things flawed in your comment is that Dilawar and his three passengers (Zakhim Shaw, Abdul Rahim and a third individual whose name I can not find) were not held by or tortured by people from the CIA's Enhanced Interrogation Teams. Dilwar (the taxi driver who died at Bagram) and his three passengers (eventually released from GITMO) were in the custody of military police from two different Army Reserve MP units. An internal Army investigation led to a recommendation of charges against 27 of those people, 15 eventually took a plea bargin or went to trial and there were seven convictions. Mostly they got reductions in rank, bad conduct discharges (those hand around for your entire life) and one got a 5-month prision sentence. The sentances were probably too light but that is not "state sponsored torture" (it is a poor officer and some bad, out of control soldiers) and it has absolutly nothing to do with waterboarding or the CIA's Enhanced Interrogation Program. As Gernal William Sherman once said, "War is hell." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bagram_torture_and_p...

U5a2A: "We tortured to death people who were innocent." Even according to Feinstein's flawed one-sided political report only one CIA prisoner died (from exposure to cold not torture) and I doubt very much he was innocent. I actually went out and read some of those legal cases on the folks down in Gitmo. Some of the hard cases that were presented as innocent were serious AQ. The old I was working with an Islamic charity does not fly too well when you were captured carrying arms outside Torra Borra. That is the reason why a high percentage of those released have gone right back to the battlefield. If you don't understand the difference between water boarding (like I said it was unpleasant but not torture) and cutting off heads you live in a dream world.

Is that how we train our troops. Pretty much when you go through one of Escape and Evasion schools. Sleep deprivatrion, stripping prisoners naked to check for explosives and weapons, starviation, subjected to cold and heat extremes, whacked around (instructors were told to avoid bones and had been trained to go for the pressure points that produced pain) and water boarding (quite unpleasant but not torture). That was all on the menu at E&E school were the point was to train you to escape as soon as possible after capture because the further you got back in the process the worse it was going to get physically and mentally. By the way exactly one AQ type froze to death and that was not deliberate it was an accident. It can get Polar cold at night in Afghanistan.

Bergdahl got the promotions because it as military policy to promote POWs with their peer group automatically. Thus with so many months in the Army and so many months in grade he was automatically promoted to Coporal and then Sergeant.

The actual policy is: Promotions: POW personnel continue to be considered for promotion along with their contemporaries. Policy provides for each missing or captured officer/enlisted member to be considered for promotion to the next higher grade when they are eligible. The eligibility for officers is based on the date of rank in their current grade. For enlisted members, eligibility is based on time in grade and time in service.
http://myarmybenefits.us.army.mil/Home/Benefit_Li...

It is also pretty solid that Bergdhal deserted, deserted during wartime (much more henious crime) and appears to have at various times collaborated with the enemy. The collaboration charge is single source (foregin since it came from an Afghan tribesman) and it is unlikely that without a confession from Bergdhal or further evidence he will be convicted for that but he should stand trial for desertion during wartime.

"So...you propose tyranny by the minority?"

Nope I was reacting to your proposal that since you (non dog walkers) were the majority you have the divine right to set the rules.

"The actual data from Boulder show that dog walkers are close to only 25% of the users on Open space, 30% at most."

That 25% may be because people are afriad to go out and face the Open Space Trail Nazis. It gets tiresome to get lectured by some One Percenter Trustafarian because your dog casts an evil glance at a passing squirrel. The actual data from Boulder show that dog walkers are close to only 25% of the users on Open space, 30% at most.

I no longer go on the trails because of the snakes, because I live on a fixed income and can not afford the fine if my dog covets some critter and because physically the trails are a challenge for me.

I think a resonable solution is to have dog trails and no dog trails, horse trails and no horse trials (I get nervous around horses) and maybe a bike trail or two and I will really like to see some trails that are designed for the handicapped.

Since that appears to be intolerable to the majority, then the solution is let us dog owners redirect our money to the dog parks so we have water in the winter, trash cans, shade for the dogs, some grass in fenced areas, close handicap parking, some benches for the people and terrain features for the dogs. Some drainage work at some would be usefull and a rattlesnake eradication/relocation progam would be handy.

Since you would no longer have the money to support the existing trail system with all of us dog owners not contributing you either close off 44% of the trail systems (remember only 25% of the traffic are dog people but 44% of the tax payers are dog people) to every one or make it a paid trail system.

You could have a nice Green Tag which allows you to go out on the trail provided you have paid for it. And we better not catch you whizzing up there!

By the way that sub-set of the population is the large group, and the bikers and dog walkers are the minority, astounding though that is to you, you are the minority.

Rule by tyranny of the minority, right?

And you might be right but not by much. Gallup poll from 2006 below says that six in 10 Americans have a pet and 44% of Americans have a dog.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/25969/Americans-Their-...

"The private playground statement is way off base. Dog owners and bikers are not excluded from OSMP areas, they just have to walk. There are ACTUAL dog and bike playgrounds that are indeed kind of exclusive."

Actually we have people who come into the Dog Park without dogs. We glower at 'em but have never ticketed them even when they are so dumb they come in with food and frisbes and act like idiots around dogs. Only one I have ever told to clear out was smoking dope and dope and dogs are not a good mix. I have even seen a few take a whiz in the dog park.

Say what do you folks do up there on your trails?

Like I said I am through voting for your "private" wilderness.

Native buffalo grass does not get destroyed although because dog parks are limited and there is heavy traffic (from both people and dogs) in the parks that have grass (Valmont has none and I think East Boulder is mostly composition sand) it does get beat back a bit. I suspect most of the damage to the grass is from people, not the dogs.

"Exactly what magic allows dogs off-leash and off-trail to float above the ground and do no damage?" Same magic that allows people, coyotes, deer, bears, cougars, foxes, horses to go through the bush leaving no damage behind.

If no damage is the criteria then let's put in some concrete, some viewing telescopes and not allow anyone or anything up there.

Dogs access to OSMP trails off leash is severely restricted.

Snakes: I saw three rattlesnakes at close range right beside a heavy use walkway in north Boulder last spring. I used to use the Boulder Valley Ranch trail because it was flat but I quit because all the buzzing gave me a headache.

I am real careful with my dog--lost one to a rattlesnake.

I know that Open Space and Parks and Recreation are different but I was making reference to the pool of money. Boulder tax payers, me included, have for years voted consistantly to expand the Open Space program and I can't remember a funding issue for maintenance that was every turned down. And I appreciate the dog parks we have but the program is not well funded.

Open Space has clearly turned into a private playground enclave for a sub-set of the population and large groups of us (dog walkers, mountain bike riders) are not even as welcome as bums on the mall.

There is a end point on taxation. I plan to vote yes on any expansion or improvement int he Parks and Recreation program but vote against all Open Space expansion and maintenance issues.

Did I read that wrong? From your signature line it appears you pay taxes in Longmont. As a Boulder resident since 1979, a taxpayer, and dog owner I have a right to chip in on the dogs on the trail issue. I'm not sure you do.

Dogs are already restricted to a small subset of the trail system and I resolved last year that the OSMP was so anti-dog that I intended to vote against all future open space issues. Why should I pay taxes for trail systems not open to me and my dog? I never use the trail system anyway because of the dangers to my dog (rattlesnakes) and the fact that the trails are not a lot of fun if you are handicapped.

I would much rather see the City reroute some of that Open Space money to improving the Dog Parks which are woefully underfunded.