Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditOn June 12, the Supreme Court issued the landmark ruling Boumediene v. Bush, which affirmed that detainees at Guantanamo Bay are entitled to the Constitutional right of habeas corpus--the fundamental right to challenge the legality of one's detention.
Though a tremendous victory for the rule of law, far more work must be done to ensure that the United States government halts torture and effectively ends Constitutionally-suspect detentions. When the Supreme Court ruled that detainees have the right to habeas corpus in the June 2006 Hamdan v. Rumsfeld decision, Congress responded by passing the Military Commissions Act -- an effort to diminish that right in practice. With approximately 270 detainees from approximately thirty countries currently at Guantanamo Bay, robust and sustained advocacy is critical to prevent Congress and the Bush Administration from once again circumventing the Supreme Court's judgment.
Enter Amnesty International USA's "Counter Terror With Justice Campaign." After joining the International Bar Association, the International Federation for Human Rights and the International Law Association to provide an amicus curiae (friend of the court) brief to the Supreme Court in the Boumediene proceedings, AI launched a multi-pronged advocacy program to stop torture, close Guantanamo and end the practice of extraordinary rendition.
AIUSA's capacity to capitalize on public energy was on full display in the advocacy effort on behalf of Gitmo detainee Sami al Hajj. A Sudanese cameraman for the television station al-Jazeera held without charge for over 6 years, al Hajj claims to have been subjected to a range of torture and ill-treatment, including beatings and denial of prescribed medication for cancer. Amnesty International volunteers worldwide wrote letters to US authorities on his behalf, and AIUSA Local Groups 48 (Portland, OR) and 74 (Garden City, NY) "adopted" his case for targeted petition drives. In May, the government released al Hajj from Guantanamo and he was reunited with his wife and son in Sudan, ending an ordeal that New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof had deemed the Bush Administration's most systematic job of "discrediting our reputation around the globe."
This discrediting has, fortunately, also made an impact on the homefront. "We have received a great deal of public response," says Njambi Good, director of the AIUSA campaign. "We're seeing more and more people when we hold visibility events who are just average Americans citizens upset by the current administrations's policies." And with Congress taking little meaningful action this summer to address human rights violations, this mainstreaming of dissent is likely to continue, perhaps boosted by the life-sized Guantanamo prison cell replica AIUSA is sending around the country in an effort to bring the harsh realities of illegal detention closer to home.
In spite of the slow legislative season, Good says the campaign is still devoting its attention to any legislation that would attempt to strip habeas corpus or replace it with an inadequate substitute. AIUSA is particularly concerned by what its activists deem the "allow some torture" compromise, an amendment to the 2009 Intelligence Authorization Act introduced by Republican Senator Kit Bond of Missouri. which allows the use of many practices that generally are considered to constitute torture or other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment.
The campaign's website offers an innovative array of resources for everyone from the most dyed-in-the-wool anti-torture activist to the concerned citizen simply looking for an online petition to click. In addition to the reports, statements and issue briefs that define Amnesty's influential human rights advocacy work globally, a Denounce Torture blog provides activists with one of the most up-to-the minute sources of information on the War on Terror and its human rights casualties.
Co-written and researched by Will Di Novi.
Share this article
News & Analysis »
Peter Rothberg
Your guide to expressing informed dissent to war, racism, sexism, environmental degradation and market-based solutions to social problems.
Well, Peter, how much progress can we credit to Amnesty International for the way Islamists treat their captives and for targeting civilians?
Posted by 2HAPPY at 08/04/2008 @ 10:33pm
but mom!
if billy gets to fry ants with the magnifying glass,
why can't i??!?!?!?!?
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/05/2008 @ 03:00am
yes, FROSTY, HAPPY's moral relatively is indeed something to behold!
Posted by Peter Rothberg at 08/05/2008 @ 08:17am
Interestingly, I think McSame...will cave on this issue if he gets elected.
He opposed waterboarding earlier (mentioned we tried Japanese for it after WW-2) and has continued to stick with his "I'll close Gitmo" line (in line with Obama).
His "fudging" on it lately, appears as most of his non-Iraq War rhetoric...pandering. Mostly to the HAPPY/LVLIB Crowd who think "Why can't we torture, THOSE guys cut off people's heads...that STILL makes us better than THEM!"
But, Gosh forbid, McCain gets in the White House...I think he'll go "maverick" on this one and knock down the Bush agenda for torture, rendition, etc.
Call it McCain's "kinder, gentler" War on Terror....heheh
Posted by Maskdelta at 08/05/2008 @ 09:04am
Posted by 2HAPPY at 08/05/2008 @ 11:36am
Happy if you are going to take the all time troll low road to criticize someone's spelling and writing. I would make sure not to make mistakes yourself.
"Another example: Israel gets disproportionately more support because of it....its TV broadcasts doesn't advocate martyrdome for its children....they actually love their children than they `hate' the Palestinians."
That's your quote
"Another example: Israel gets disproportionately more support because it's TV broadcasts don't advocate martyrdom for it's children. The actually love their children more than they "hate" the Palestinians."
That's it fixed. I always tell people do not insult other peoplers writing unless you can write with perfect grammar and spelling yourself.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/05/2008 @ 12:19pm
"A Sudanese cameraman for the television station al-Jazeera held without charge for over 6 years, al Hajj claims to have been subjected to a range of torture and ill-treatment, including beatings and denial of prescribed medication for cancer. "
Sounds like what happened to McCain eh? Maybe this guy will be heralded as a war hero too.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/05/2008 @ 12:20pm
I don't care about his spelling or grammer...
notice HAPP didn't refute the premise.
He IS a relativist on morality, on this issue of torture.
His premise being "THEY do worse than we do, ergo we're still good people even when we do heinous things."
By that rationale, Italy in World War-II was a morally "upstanding" country, since they didn't engage in AS EVIL things as the Germans or Japanese....right?
Posted by Maskdelta at 08/05/2008 @ 12:33pm
You misspell everybit as I do.....but ain't worth anybody's time to mention, much less to comment on! Posted by 2HAPPY at 08/05/2008 @ 12:27pm
I know I misspell. The only time I comment on someone's grammar is when they insult someone else's. Didn't you see me defend Jom the other day because someone troll decided to comment on his. Everyone misspells and I defend people for their misspellings because I hate when others decide to attack someone's grammar and spelling. The best way to defend someone else's grammar and spelling is to show the person attacking that they make mistakes too.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/05/2008 @ 12:42pm
Posted by 2HAPPY at 08/05/2008 @ 1:14pm
Why didn't you type the last word? You already typed out smart ass.
I obviously misinterpreted the portion of your comment. I guess you took my explanation of why I chose to comment on your grammar as a jab at you or something. It wasn't by the way. It was simply an explanation in response to this:
"You misspell everybit as I do.....but ain't worth anybody's time to mention, much less to comment on! Posted by 2HAPPY at 08/05/2008 @ 12:27pm "
If you don't like my explanations then I don't know what to tell ya.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/05/2008 @ 1:26pm
Peter Rothberg says counter terror with justice.
I say counter terror by killing the terrorists.
To find out why, lets go back to something 2HAPPY said above:
=====================================
"7 years have almost gone by since 9/11.....lots of Idols have won since then, lots of iPods have been sold,"
=====================================
9/11 really has gotten to me. For the past 7 years I have been quite upset, and then also upset at the way 50% of the people in this country (mostly libs) have condemned President Bush's attempt to prevent it from ever happening again.
About the iPods...... This past Sunday morning a good friend of mine and me went into a computer store. A large computer store with plenty of inventory INSIDE the store.
Ouside of the store, the inventory is low of other things, down by a count of 2.
My friend bought an iPod. I bought an iPod.
We walked out of the store. Across the street was a church. We walked through the church, and out the other side.
Accross the street from the church is NOTHING.
We did not go there to see anything .... there is nothing to see. We went there just to be there.
There has been nothing to see there for the past 7 years. Before that, there were two buildings, 1 and 2 World Trade.
My purchase of an iPod has become the most difficult computer related purchase I have ever made in my entire life, because when you go to a store with a huge computer inventory (J&R Computer World) you have to take into account the lack of inventory (no more 1 and 2 World Trade) outside.
Thus, it seems reasonable to me that if you want to stop terror, kill the terrorists.
Sorry for my mood.
Posted by sjchermak at 08/05/2008 @ 1:37pm
Posted by sjchermak at 08/05/2008 @ 1:37pm
You also have to make sure you are killing the right people. By your edict if we nuked the entire middle east that would solve the problem. However that would kill many an innocent person. Not everyone we have in prison is a terrorist. In fact it has been shown that most of the people we have aren't. So should we murder 200 people to possibly get 16 terrorists? Doesn't that make us no better than them? They kill innocent people to inflict fear in their targets. We justify the killing of innocent people to say "yeah, but we are killing our targets also." The only reason this country has any moral authority is because right now we are above the terrorists. If we resort the murder of innocent people we will be terrorists just the same.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/05/2008 @ 1:47pm
Hello Cccomfo1,
Because of my personal situation of two days ago, my blood pressure right now is probably about 500/200 .... it will be a long time before I get back to what for me constitues normal.
However, I do appreciate the fact that you are discussing the issue with me rather that crucifying and blasting me, which I am sure will be coming soon from others in this thread.
Two things,
1. If you ever go to J&R Computer World to shop for computers, make sure you have your wits about you before you go. Mine were not.
2. I do enjoy having back and forth talks with you. Take care and have a good day, a better day than my day about noontime NYC time last Sunday.
Posted by sjchermak at 08/05/2008 @ 2:08pm
Typo,
My words "rather that" up above should have been "rather than"
Posted by sjchermak at 08/05/2008 @ 2:10pm
Who really is for torture? Is it the same mentality as abortion? Of course no one is really for abortion, right? It is sometimes necessary and right, say the proponents. You know, sometimes it is to protect the life of the mother...
Perhaps if we looked at abortion and torture as the same. Both are wrong, but sometimes both are the right decisions?
I'm not for torture or abortion. But I can imagine a time where a decision to proceed is necessary. I'll never know until I stand in those shoes.
Posted by freiheit1 at 08/05/2008 @ 2:11pm
Sounds like what happened to McCain eh? Maybe this guy will be heralded as a war hero too.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/05/2008 @ 12:20pm
!
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/05/2008 @ 2:11pm
Thus, it seems reasonable to me that if you want to stop terror, kill the terrorists.
Posted by sjchermak at 08/05/2008 @ 1:37pm
iceland has stopped the terrorists.
new zealand, too.
oh wait, nobody wants to attack them.
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/05/2008 @ 2:14pm
my blood pressure right now is probably about 500/200 ....
Posted by sjchermak at 08/05/2008 @ 2:08pm
lots and lots of raw vegetables and fruits.
you need to alkalinize your blood.
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/05/2008 @ 2:18pm
Posted by sjchermak at 08/05/2008 @ 1:37pm
SJCHER, have you EVER considered the fact that that "50%" (actually more like 70%, given Bush's 30% approvals) are right...
and Bush is wrong?
ever?
Posted by Maskdelta at 08/05/2008 @ 4:27pm
Hello Maskdelta
Your question:
======================
SJCHER, have you EVER considered the fact that that "50%" (actually more like 70%, given Bush's 30% approvals) are right...
and Bush is wrong?
ever?
======================
My response: No.
Posted by sjchermak at 08/05/2008 @ 4:49pm
Posted by 2HAPPY at 08/05/2008 @ 4:37pm
yep. people can sure be nasty.
it's too bad 1.3% of us insist on ruining it for the rest.
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/05/2008 @ 5:06pm
hey god!
wtf?!?!?!?
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/05/2008 @ 5:17pm
well, i guess it ain't your fault......
i think, however, you should stop writing books.
stick to creating universes and such.
thanks for the raspberries.
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/05/2008 @ 5:18pm
Posted by sjchermak at 08/05/2008 @ 2:08pm
I am with Happy. I went to NYC when I was a kid and saw the sky line and the WTC. Then I lived there for 2 years during college and visited the site a few times. It is a sobering and saddening thing to see and think about.
Also a side experience that was weird but not to the degree of that. Was I visited the set of the movie world trade center. To be more precise actually. They were filming the movie near my friends house at the howard hughes backlot and we gently coaxed our way in, ie. jumped a fence. We walked around the recreation of the fallen buildings one foggy night. It was very eery.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/05/2008 @ 6:05pm
Hello Rese,
You need to go back and read the posts by 2HAPPY and me again, because your remark indicated you do not comprehend the effect of 9/11 upon us.
You said we were sad.
Maybe eventually I will be sad, but I have a long way to go before I get to sad.
Right now I am:
- Wound up.
- Flummoxed.
- Depressed.
- Angry.
- Exhausted. Could not fall asleep Sunday night. Still exhausted now, even after a night's sleep.
- Driving others around me nuts probably.
I could go on but am too tired to figure it out, although I will never figure it out.
You need to start looking at other things instead of posting all these grand conspiracy theories, which used to be miles and miles long but now there is a word limit so they are shorter.
I think a good place for you to start would be to take a look at what happened Sunday, and now on this thread.
1. Sometimes things happen or occur for reasons we do not understand.
2. On Sunday, I purchased an iPod I probably do not need, or could get by without.
3. It is possible I purchased the iPod because, without knowing it, I was trying to allievate ahead of time the misery I was going to have a few minutes later when I would be standing across the street from nothing.
4. Today, I open up this thread, for the first time, and 2HAPPY - IN THE SAME SENTENCE - comments about both 9/11 and iPods.
5. Sounds to me like 2HAPPY has a better clue about things than you do, because as I now know, there is a connection between 9/11 and at least one iPod.
Posted by sjchermak at 08/05/2008 @ 6:14pm
Posted by sjchermak at 08/05/2008 @ 6:14pm
I wouldn't bother responding to Rese. He tends to just post crazy conspiracy theories.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/05/2008 @ 6:24pm
Dear Nation, In the interest of Justice, Liberty and our Constituion and all the rest that we speak of holding dear in this land of ours, and all things The Nation claims to speak out for, WHY in the world have you failed to Spotlight and Rave About Vince Bugliosi's brilliant book, he Prosecution of George W Bush for Murder, citing all the reasons and evidence for why and how we need to prosecute ths guy, this disgusting small-in-every-way person some call president, yet he is not but a murderer, a thug, and undoubtedly one of the MOST Unpatriotic, UnAmerican and UnChristian human beings that has ever lived.
Where ARE you and WHY are you not supporting those of us who are fighting for truth and justice and right?
Thank you, Linda Alvarez, patriot
Posted by MissFab at 08/05/2008 @ 11:39pm
MissFab, I think you are lost in your own mind. Why don't you go watch the Berg decapitation video to get a flavor of the "religion of Peace" then announce the vermin deserve constitutional rights. It is true God reserves final judgement, but the Marines can arrange the meeting.
Posted by pyeatte at 08/06/2008 @ 12:01am
dear pyeaaaattoouuiii: Do us all a favor and do try reading some actual books with factual content, won't you? MissFab
Posted by MissFab at 08/06/2008 @ 12:23am
Open Apology to Everybody on This Website:
I apologize for making a response to Rese up above, because this obviously has started Rese doing what Rese does best, loading the website up with stuff.
I call it stuff because I can't tell you what Rese said, I didn't look at it and scrolled past it.
This is the problem. Everybody here now has to wear out the scroll wheel on their mouse to scroll past Rese to see if anybody else other than Rese has posted a comment.
Again, sorry.
Posted by sjchermak at 08/06/2008 @ 10:29am
Again, sorry. Posted by sjchermak at 08/06/2008 @ 10:29am
Eh it's fine. Most people have him on ignore.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/06/2008 @ 12:17pm
they take place on land held only by force. Posted by Zero
Actually we lease the land from Cuba.
Posted by abell12ct at 08/06/2008 @ 12:25pm
<i>Posted by MissFab at 08/05/2008 @ 11:39pm </i>
This has come up on earlier threads, but Bugliosi's argument is actually pretty bad. I'd be more than willing to elaborate if you'd like.
<i>Posted by pyeatte at 08/06/2008 @ 12:01am </i>
Broad stereotypes of religions are generally bad; this is why I think the arguments of people like Hitchens tend to be deeply flawed. Though I am certainly not an adherent of Islam myself, I would recommend actually interacting with a Muslim or two before coming to blatantly unwarranted generalizations based on the behavior of groups that are either on the margins of Islam or who exploit it for their benefit.
Posted by Thrawn at 08/06/2008 @ 12:38pm
The current Cuban government considers the U.S. presence in Guantánamo to be an illegal occupation of the area, and argues that the 1903 Cuban-American Treaty, which established the lease, now violates article 52 of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.[4][5] However, Article 4 of the same document states that the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties shall not be retroactively applied to any treaties made before it.[6] The U.S. also argues that its right to the base have been reaffirmed by Cuba since the original treaty.
The ongoing detention of prisoners at the base is in itself said to constitute a violation of the original treaty, which explicitly states that the base is to be used for "coaling and naval purposes only, and for no other purpose". The treaty also explicitly prohibits the use of "commercial, industrial or other enterprise within said areas", yet the base sports half a dozen fast-food concessions, including a McDonald's.[8]
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/06/2008 @ 12:44pm
Broad stereotypes of religions are generally bad; this is why I think the arguments of people like Hitchens tend to be deeply flawed. Though I am certainly not an adherent of Islam myself, I would recommend actually interacting with a Muslim or two before coming to blatantly unwarranted generalizations based on the behavior of groups that are either on the margins of Islam or who exploit it for their benefit.
Posted by Thrawn at 08/06/2008 @ 12:38pm
thank you, thank you, thank you!
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/06/2008 @ 12:57pm
Guantanamo Bay first came into the American consciousness when the first US casualties of the Spanish-Cuban American War were suffered there in 1898. In 1903 Theodore Roosevelt, using the Platt amendment, forced the Cuban government to lease Guantanamo Bay to the United States for 2,000 gold coins per year. Cuba was, at that time, under a puppet regime controlled by the US and the Cuban president was an American citizen named T. Estrada Palma. In 1906 the lease was renegotiated and the 2000 gold coins became $2000 USD.
In 1934 Cuba rid itself of the Platt amendment and negotiated a new lease on Guantanamo Bay with the administration of Franklin D. Roosevelt. The Cuban government at the time was again US-friendly and one of the three Cuban signatories on the new lease was Fulgencio Batista, who would later become the sole dictatorial leader of Cuba. The new lease stated that both the US and Cuban governments had to agree to cancel the lease.
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/06/2008 @ 1:10pm
Counter Terror With Justice posted by Peter Rothberg on
08/04/2008 @ 6:07pm
I fully agree Peter. We need to execute some serious ultimate justice to counter the terrorists who wish to destroy all freedom loving people. It seems that the Bush administration has been doing just that.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 08/06/2008 @ 10:36pm
i bet a lot of freedom loving iraq men who have been falsely incarcerated would differ in their assessment of the bush madministration's lofty goals.
or should i say "gaols"?
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/06/2008 @ 10:44pm
"On June 12, the Supreme Court issued the landmark ruling Boumediene v. Bush, which affirmed that detainees at Guantanamo Bay are entitled to the Constitutional right of habeas corpus--the fundamental right to challenge the legality of one's detention."
Posted by RedRiver_. at 08/06/2008 @ 11:32pm
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that ALL men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/07/2008 @ 12:16am
"Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal."
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/07/2008 @ 12:48am
"I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: 'We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal.'"
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/07/2008 @ 12:48am
"On June 12, the Supreme Court issued the landmark ruling Boumediene v. Bush, which affirmed that detainees at Guantanamo Bay are entitled to the Constitutional right of habeas corpus--the fundamental right to challenge the legality of one's detention."
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/07/2008 @ 12:48am
Hi frosty zoom,
You talk about equality, however people are not always equal.
In other words, everybody who works goes to work.
And most people who work go home from work at the end of the day.
But there are about 3,000 people who went to work one day and did not come home from work at the end of that day.
And these same people do not now have Life, Liberty nor can they pursue happiness.
So people are not equal, with regard to what happens to them after they go to work.
Terrorists did that, and the terrorists need to be dealt with accordingly, so we can have equality with regard to what happens to people after they go to work.
Posted by sjchermak at 08/07/2008 @ 04:19am
WHO DOSED IVINS WITH LSD? HOW FREQUENTLY? DID THE DELUSIONAL EPISODES AND THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION BOTH COMMENCE IN THE SAME TIMEFRAME? GOT PLANNING?
LSD leaves a metallic taste in the user's mouth
Among the federal documents are excerpts from Ivins' e-mails to a friend detailing his battles with mental illness. They include parts of an August 2000 email about "one of [his] worst nights in months" and his "paranoid, delusional thoughts."
"I wish I could control the thoughts in my mind," the e-mail read, according to a federal affidavit. "It's hard enough sometimes controlling my behavior. When I'm being eaten alive inside, I always try to put on a good front at work and at home, so I don't spread the pestilence."
"Occasionally I get this tingling that goes down both arms," read an e-mail sent by Ivins on April 3, 2000. "At the same time I get dizzy and get this unidentifiable 'metallic' taste in my mouth. (I'm not trying to be funny, [redacted] ... It actually scares me a bit.) Other times it's like I'm not only sitting at my desk doing work, I'm also a few feet away watching me do it. There's nothing like living in both the first person singular AND the third person singular!"
"Remember when I told you about the 'metallic' taste in my mouth that I got periodically? It's when I get these 'paranoid' episodes ... Ominously, a lot of the feelings of isolation -- and desolation -- that I went through before college are returning. I don't want to relive those years again."
PROBABLY JUST A MASSIVE COINCIDENCE THAT YET ANOTHER SCIENTIST WORKING WITH ANTHRAX "SUICIDES HIMSELF" AFTER SHOWING CLASSIC SYMPTOMS OF LSD CONSUMPTION IN THE EXACT TIMEFRAME THAT CHENEY AND RU
Posted by plunger at 08/07/2008 @ 09:29am
PROBABLY JUST A MASSIVE COINCIDENCE THAT YET ANOTHER SCIENTIST WORKING WITH ANTHRAX "SUICIDES HIMSELF" AFTER SHOWING CLASSIC SYMPTOMS OF LSD CONSUMPTION IN THE EXACT TIMEFRAME THAT CHENEY AND RUMSFELD REAPPEAR IN POWER.
http://www.frankolsonproject.org/Articles/BaltSun.html
Baltimore Sun Staff Originally published August 9, 2002
It was here in the Olson family back yard in 1975 that the world first learned the name of a man who, the story went, had been unwittingly drugged with LSD by the Central Intelligence Agency 22 years earlier and then jumped to his death from a 10th-floor hotel room.
Reporters heard that family patriarch Frank Olson, ostensibly an Army scientist, had committed suicide in 1953. But that explanation left the family - Eric Olson in particular - with many questions about Frank Olson's life and death.
"I feel satisfied," said Olson, a Harvard-educated clinical psychologist. "We're where we want to be - we know what happened." What Olson says he knows is this: His father was not a civilian scientist at nearby Fort Detrick, as the family had been told. Instead, he worked for the CIA, running the Special Operations Division at Detrick, which Olson says was the government's "most secret biological weapons laboratory," working with materials such as anthrax.
He says the evidence he has gathered over the years shows that Frank Olson didn't suffer a nervous breakdown, as the family initially was told, and didn't commit suicide because he had had a negative drug experience, as they learned in the 1970s. Instead, the son says, his father was killed by the CIA because officials there feared he would divulge classified information concerning the United States' use of biological weapons in Korea.
Now the family has learned that the Ford administration was
Posted by plunger at 08/07/2008 @ 09:29am
Now the family has learned that the Ford administration was keeping information from the family, concerned that family members would ask questions about the scientist's work that the government was unprepared to answer. Among those who advocated keeping quiet were Dick Cheney and Donald H. Rumsfeld, now the vice president and defense secretary, the Olsons learned from memos and other papers received last year from the Gerald R. Ford Library.
CHENEY + RUMSFELD + LSD + ANTHRAX?
Code Name Artichoke (CIA Secret Experiments On Humans)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8MlFajrqKDc
Got Motive, Means & Opportunity?
Got PATSY?
The CFR is laughing their asses off!
Posted by plunger at 08/07/2008 @ 09:30am
Watch this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8MlFajrqKDc
Posted by plunger at 08/07/2008 @ 09:33am
Posted by freiheit1 at 08/05/2008 @ 2:11pm
False dichotomy.
Irrespective of Roe v. Wade, abortion is a personal choice; the decision to use torture as a weapon as a matter of national policy is wholly different.
I can personally be for, against or neutral on abortion, but it is not being done in my name.
Not so with torture. It is being done by my government in my name whether I approve or not.
No government that claims to uphold the beliefs expressed by our Founders can authorize torture and simultaneously claim the moral high ground.
I think Peter Rothberg has the rights of it; the only way to meet torture (and retain the essence of what it means to be an American) is with justice.
If you don't agree, I'll strap you down and stick a wet towel over your head until you do ;o>
Posted by skeletonman at 08/07/2008 @ 11:55am
To expound on the above, the government of China will tell you that China is a workers' paradise. Just ask them.
Unless you are a worker. Just as them.
By the same token, the Shrub (an)administration will tell you that waterboarding is not torture. Just ask them.
Unless you have been waterboarded. Just ask them.
Posted by skeletonman at 08/07/2008 @ 11:59am
"No government that claims to uphold the beliefs expressed by our Founders can authorize torture and simultaneously claim the moral high ground."
that goes for slavery and lynching too. the constitution was a bizarre farce for most of its life.
and still is. freedom zones? stop and frisk? illegal spying.?
other countries are worse, and our patriots can't wait for us to emulate the worst of the worst, meanwhile when a critic wishes to imitate a successful operation or practice, say in public transportation, or drug policy in Europe, he is hooted down by the yahoos.
Posted by emile duBois at 08/07/2008 @ 12:09pm
Terrorists did that, and the terrorists need to be dealt with accordingly, so we can have equality with regard to what happens to people after they go to work.
Posted by sjchermak at 08/07/2008 @ 04:19am
of course murderous criminals need to be put in jail.
however, none of the people currently in guantanamo were in new york that day
and how many were actually involved in any way?
how many are just people sold out by grumpy neighbours?
how many are just people picked up because they don't speak english and the soldiers yelling at them decided they <i>must</i> be terrorists?
<<<<<>>>>>
BREMEN, Germany: During the four- and-a-half years he languished in American prison camps in Afghanistan and Cuba, Murat Kurnaz claims to have been beaten, locked for months in isolation cells, dunked under water, sexually humiliated, and hung from the ceiling by chains, claims the Pentagon denies.
But investigators eventually decided not to hold hold him any longer on suspicion of being a terrorist with ties to Al Qaeda, and in late August, he was released, the result of secret negotiations between the United States and Germany, where he was born 24 years ago to a Turkish family.
<<<<<>>>>>
what are you afraid of? if a man is innocent, let him go home.
<<<<<>>>>>
A former cameraman for Al Jazeera who was believed to be the only journalist held at Guantánamo Bay was released on Thursday, after more than six years of detention that made him one of the best known Guantánamo detainees in the Arab world, his lawyers said.
The detainee, Sami al-Hajj, became a cause in recent years for the Jazeera network, which often displayed his photograph and carried reports on his case.
<<<<<>>>>>
is your pride so great that you won't let an innocent man prove it?
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/07/2008 @ 12:17pm
Hi frosty zoom,
You said "however, none of the people currently in guantanamo were in new york that day"
But - maybe the people currently in guantanamo would have showed up in New York on another day, doing the same thing to other buildings, had they not been in guantanamo.
To protect buildings in New York, keep terrorists in guantanamo.
Posted by sjchermak at 08/07/2008 @ 12:57pm
Hello skeletonman,
Up above you say:
"Irrespective of Roe v. Wade, abortion is a personal choice"
Point of fact, abortion is not a "personal choice". The person most directly affected has no say in the "decision".
Abortion is not a personal choice. Abortion is murder.
You stand corrected.
Posted by sjchermak at 08/07/2008 @ 1:01pm
To protect buildings in New York, keep terrorists in guantanamo.
Posted by sjchermak at 08/07/2008 @ 12:57pm
rrrrrrrrrr.
many of the people there are innocent!
but now they're really pissed off.
and so are their families.......
prevent cruelty to innocents by being cruel to innocents?!?!?!?
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/07/2008 @ 1:46pm
Hello frosty zoom,
Cruelty?
I saw where, since infidels are supposedly not allowed to handle the Koran, and since Americans are considered infidels, guards at Guantanamo have to put on gloves when handing out the Korans to the innocent little darlings who would kill us if they had a chance.
They get fed food which meets the requirements of the "religion of peace", they have no interference when they want to pray to Mecca, and they get their Korans handed to them in a manner that "protects" the Koran from being touched by infidels.
These privilages are extended to those whose minds are no doubt spinning a mile a minute trying to figure out how to kill us, and were no doubt spinning with the same thoughts before they entered Guantanamo.
Where exactly does cruelty enter into the equation here?
Posted by sjchermak at 08/07/2008 @ 1:57pm
Where exactly does cruelty enter into the equation here?
Posted by sjchermak at 08/07/2008 @ 1:57pm
locking up just ONE innocent man is cruelty.
not letting that innocent man prove his innocence,
let alone having to prove his guilt,
is cruelty.
are you ready for six years of solitary?
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/07/2008 @ 2:07pm
Where exactly does cruelty enter into the equation here?
Posted by sjchermak at 08/07/2008 @ 1:57pm
SJ,
The left can't answer that question but maybe they have this in mind.
1. The average weight gain by prisoners at Gitmo=18 lbs. Including specially designed Islamic diets with fresh fruits daily.
2. Free Medical and dental care. For many, the first healthcare they have ever had in their lives.
3. Free copies of the Qu'ran and free prayer rugs
4. A climate that is absent the temperature extremes that many are accustomed to.
Yes, this is no paradise, but it's not torture.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 08/07/2008 @ 2:14pm
Yes, this is no paradise, but it's not torture.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 08/07/2008 @ 2:14pm
You don't consider being deprived of your liberty at the caprice of another torture?
You are actually demented, aren't you?
Posted by skeletonman at 08/07/2008 @ 2:27pm
You stand corrected.
Posted by sjchermak at 08/07/2008 @ 1:01pm
How do YOU stand with your head that far up your own rectum?
The decision to terminate a pregnancy - pre- para- or post-Roe v. Wade IS a personal choice numbskull.
What you choose to call it is another matter.
Now you stand corrected.
Posted by skeletonman at 08/07/2008 @ 2:31pm
Hello frosty zoom,
You ask "are you ready for six years of solitary?"
I don't know. Maybe after six years of solitary I would have my mind put back together after standing across the street from NOTHING which is on the other side of St. Paul's Chapel from J&R Computer World, the nothing made possible by terrorist representatives of the religion of peace 7 years ago this coming September 11.
Having terrorists do something which caused some to decide to jump out and drop down 70-80 stories because it was percieved to be less painful than burning to death, their only other alternative, is sort of cruel too, don't you think?
How do we stop it so others do not ever have to make that choice? The line of thinking you promote will not do it. It will allow the continuation of it.
Posted by sjchermak at 08/07/2008 @ 2:33pm
Posted by emile duBois at 08/07/2008 @ 12:09pm
Your points are well taken; I was merely trying to draw attention to the fact that the pro-torture crowd cannot simultaneously say that we are the moral authority of the world and engage in the same manner of vile behavior of those who oppose us.
To further the point, this (an)administration has so perverted our nation in its so-called defense that we teeter on the brink of no longer being what they purport to defend.
Posted by skeletonman at 08/07/2008 @ 2:35pm
Having terrorists do something which caused some to decide to jump out and drop down 70-80 stories because it was percieved to be less painful than burning to death, their only other alternative, is sort of cruel too, don't you think?
Posted by sjchermak at 08/07/2008 @ 2:33pm
No one denies this, dip foof.
The question is do WE lose our own humanity and sense of reason because of it?
Posted by skeletonman at 08/07/2008 @ 2:37pm
Hello skeletonman,
It is interesting you used the word numbskull in your post back to me.
I guess in the partial birth verision of what you proclaim is a personal choice, the skull is smashed as the doctor pulls a human being out of the womb and kills it.
Again, the person most directly affected by this has no say in the matter at all. If the person whose life is in the balance has no vote, than where does the "personal choice" aspect come in?
Posted by sjchermak at 08/07/2008 @ 2:39pm
I guess in the partial birth verision of what you proclaim is a personal choice, the skull is smashed as the doctor pulls a human being out of the womb and kills it.
Posted by sjchermak at 08/07/2008 @ 2:39pm
First all, PBA has been illegal since 2003 and the ban was upheld by SCOTUS in 2007, so you are setting up a straw man to show how tough you are in knocking it down.
Second, PBA was never intended to terminate an unwanted pregnancy, but was employed with a) the life of the infant could not be saved (i.e. it would die either in labor or soon thereafter) and b) the life of the mother was in jeopardy but could be saved by PBA.
As a guy that has both delivered a fetus that died in the 32nd week of a woman's pregnancy, then held hands with the mom and dad and cried my eyes out with them AND didn't go into OB/GYN because of seeing what is extracted during a D&E of a fetal demise at 16 weeks (which would be an abortion had the fetus been otherwise), I think that you ought to shut up and quit hijacking the thread with your own agenda.
PS if you are trying to figure out what I did for a residency, it was family medicine, wherein docs are still trained in non-operative obstetrics.
Posted by skeletonman at 08/07/2008 @ 2:49pm
Hello skeletonman,
I have learned in the last few minutes, from you, that according to you lvliberty1 is demented, and I am a numbskull and a dip foof.
You finally got one right. My mind, after standing accross the street from NOTHING on Sunday, certainly can be categorized as dip foof.
But that doesn't mean anything I say is wrong, just because I am dip foof. In fact, because my mind is dip foof I see things different (and for what they are).
Maybe if your mind were dip foof, you would see that just because judges (outside the bounds of their Constitutional authority) declare it is OK for a Mom to "choose" to nuke her unborn child, does not mean it is OK.
And maybe if you were dip foof you would see that terrorists have killed us, and want to kill more of us, and they want to kill others who do not believe in what they believe.
You would maybe see that with radicals throwing hissy fits over Danish cartoons and killing people because of Danish cartoons that there is more involved here than the United States of America and that terrorist radicals from the religion of peace acting the way they do is not blameable on the USA for stating it ("making them angry"), nor is any action by the USA to blame for the continuation of their behavior.
I guess you need to be dip foof like me to see this.
Posted by sjchermak at 08/07/2008 @ 2:51pm
I guess you need to be dip foof like me to see this.
Posted by sjchermak at 08/07/2008 @ 2:51pm
I guess so.
Posted by skeletonman at 08/07/2008 @ 2:56pm
skeletonman,
Do not lecture me.
1. You know full well that Partial Birth Abortion was supported by those who support "choice". I brought up something that has been part of the discussion of this overall subject for some time now. It was outlawed but mentioning it is not a "strawman" because those who believe "choice" is OK thought "partial birth abortion" is OK.
2. Abortion was brought up earlier in this thread BY OTHERS...... I commented on it only because of that.... I did not start the discussion.
3. You are lecturing me and lvliberty1 and expressing political opinions. I can not be responsible for how you now disclose personal background impacted by this topic.......especially when in the paragraphs doing do and lecturing me on my comments you use the word "hijacking". If you expect consideration because of your personal background you only now disclose, then reciprocity would be in order here because you use the word "hijacking".... a bad choice of a word to comment back to me on if you would read this entire thread and my earlier postings.
Posted by sjchermak at 08/07/2008 @ 3:00pm
Maybe if your mind were dip foof, you would see that just because judges (outside the bounds of their Constitutional authority) declare it is OK for a Mom to "choose" to nuke her unborn child, does not mean it is OK.
Posted by sjchermak at 08/07/2008 @ 2:51pm
Are you even paying attention? Go back and reread my 2:49 post and then tell me what you think of how I feel about pregnancy and the loss thereof.
Do you honestly believe that the end of a pregnancy by abortion is any less of a loss? Or are you fool enough to believe that women who choose this regard it as nothing more than spitting out a wad of gum?
Now I'm the one hijacking the thread, but your lack of insight is absolutely appalling.
Posted by skeletonman at 08/07/2008 @ 3:02pm
Posted by sjchermak at 08/07/2008 @ 3:00pm
1) Not all those who support choice support PBA.
2) You hint a some personal tragedy connected with the WTC but stop there.
3) I apologize for the word 'hijack;
' Would 'take and hold in thrall,' 'kidnap,' or 'divert the thread from the topic at hand,' suit you better?
I have given you choices; pick which you like best or make free use of them all. It's good with me.
4) If you are going to show up here and spout the sorts of things that you spout, you had better cowboy up, sport. If you can't handle it, go find a nanny site on which to post.
Posted by skeletonman at 08/07/2008 @ 3:10pm
I'm with you Bones, it is a hell of a lot more......at least as big a deal as getting a blood sample taken or having an OB or prostate exam!
Posted by 2HAPPY at 08/07/2008 @ 3:32pm
I'd rate it a little more highly than any of those things, myself.
Posted by skeletonman at 08/07/2008 @ 3:37pm
skeletonman,
Fortunately for me, I did not have any relatives or friends at the World Trade Center on September 11. I personally can not cope with what happened. Now as of Sunday I stood next to where there is nothing now because of September 11. I can not deal with it. On the other hand, it is a personal tragedy for all Americans whether they had relatives or friends at the World Trade Center or not.
Again I only commented about the topic of abortion because others brought it up first. This does happen sometimes in any of these threads with a lot of people, sub or side topics do wind up coming up. What part of this do you not understand? Who appointed you the referee of this thread?
You use the phrase "spout the sort of things you spout". That is only your defintion, based on apparently any belief not matching yours is proclaimed by you to be "spouting".
You say I need to "cowboy up" and I can't handle it. Where did I not handle anything?
You said lvliberty1 was demented and I was a numbskull and dip foof. That is nothing for me to handle or not handle. That has no impact on me.
What it does mean is that you are doing that instead of providing credible arguments in defense of what you believe. It signifies a "shortfall" in your ability to do so. I can see how that can happen- you are on the wrong side of these issues, thus there is nothing for you to defend.
Cowboy up? There is a switch - being told to Cowboy up! For a long time now, too long, and not by you that I have seen but by plenty others on the left side of the political spectrum, I have seen President Bush being crucified for what they call acting like a "cowboy".
I am supposed to act like a cowboy, but it is wrong for President Bush to act like a cowboy? Make up your minds!
Posted by sjchermak at 08/07/2008 @ 3:45pm
You say I need to "cowboy up" and I can't handle it.
You say I need to "cowboy up" ...
but it is wrong for President Bush to act like a cowboy?
Posted by sjchermak at 08/07/2008 @ 3:45pm
Another way of saying "man up," but (perhaps) a little less gender specific.
As for not being able to handle what happened on 9/11, a thought and a suggestion:
The thought is that it wasn't just the Towers or NYC that got hit, but also a farm field in PA and the Pentagon, too. If we are going to talk about this stuff, we cannot forget that those lives and souls were just as sacred as those in the WTC.
Second, and I mean this sincerely, no bashing because it's an anonymous blog and I am able to call people things like "dip foof" and "demented," but if it's hitting you that hard, this far out, give yourself a little time to heal and if you aren't, talk to someone about it. Not healthy for you and does nothing to honor those lost.
Posted by skeletonman at 08/07/2008 @ 3:56pm
Hello skeletonman,
Shanksville, PA and the Pentagon were certainly affected as bad, it is just that the towers were the most visible symbols of what had happened, and why they get brought up more often, I guess.
You are right and thank you for your suggestion. I do need to find a way to work this out.
Way back earlier in this thread, Frosty Zoom said I should eat more fruits and vegetables.
I eat raw carrots and apples and drink orange juice, and that is only three. A local supermarket a while back promoted "Strive for 5" saying you should eat 5 servings of fruits and/or vegatables per day. So I do need to increase what I currently eat of those things.
Posted by sjchermak at 08/07/2008 @ 4:07pm
Your points are well taken; I was merely trying to draw attention to the fact that the pro-torture crowd cannot simultaneously say that we are the moral authority of the world and engage in the same manner of vile behavior of those who oppose us.
To further the point, this (an)administration has so perverted our nation in its so-called defense that we teeter on the brink of no longer being what they purport to defend.
Posted by skeletonman at 08/07/2008 @ 2:35pm
Skeletonman,like most on the left engages in their arrogant false name calling because they refuse (or in some cases lack the civil discourse abilities) to acknowledge that almost no one in this country is "pro-torture". It's just another way to avoid honest debate.
Unfortunately, while Skeletonman was in the Navy (he has stated thus I seem to recall); he never learned came to fully appreciate the importance of defending the national security of our citizenry. Instead he chooses to join the ranks of the malcontents and fringe leftists who hate our nation and all it has done for good. That doesn't mean he hates the way they do, but if you join with them, you get painted with the same brush.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 08/07/2008 @ 4:10pm
How do we stop it so others do not ever have to make that choice? The line of thinking you promote will not do it. It will allow the continuation of it.
Posted by sjchermak at 08/07/2008 @ 2:33pm
letting innocent people go is going to cause problems?
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/07/2008 @ 4:18pm
Posted by sjchermak at 08/07/2008 @ 4:07pm
too much sugar.
eat more leaves.
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/07/2008 @ 4:21pm
almost no one in this country is "pro-torture". It's just another way to avoid honest debate.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 08/07/2008 @ 4:10pm
Actually, this is a true statement. The problem is that the Bushies are, to the lessening of us all.
Posted by skeletonman at 08/07/2008 @ 4:24pm
hmmm?
invade a country to get the bad guys.
don't speak the language.
don't know the customs.
"hey, can you guys help us find the bad guys"
"sure!"
you know, a lot of tourists get conned in tijuana.
give these people their day in court.
if they are bad guys, off to jail.
if they aren't bad guys, let them be.
isn't that what ALL equally created humans deserve?
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/07/2008 @ 4:25pm
Hello skeletonman,
After looking at my comment above I do want to add that while I said I need to work things out, part of this is something that should not be worked out by anybody.
In other words, everbody needs to be somewhat confused and angry and flummoxed and mixed-up by what happened on September 11, in order to remember that September 11 is the result of what terrorists do, and confused and angry and flummoxed and mixed-up people are more likely to do what needs to be done to stop terrorists so another September 11 does not happen again.
If we completely work it out, the danger is that we may forget what terrorists do, and thus not try and stop the terrorists and then that leaves the door open for the terrorists to attack again.
Posted by sjchermak at 08/07/2008 @ 4:26pm
the british were tracking some bad guys.
bush tells blair "arrest now midterms"
blair "more evidence"
lots of msmtalk "terroooooor"
cia honcho goes to islamabad. isi arrests dude.
british case blown.
terrorists are crazy fools. and crazed fools.
but do you feel safe in <i>those</i> hands?
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/07/2008 @ 4:31pm
and if a man is innocent,
why do you want to keep him in jail?
people have been released from guantánamo, you know.
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/07/2008 @ 4:32pm
Unfortunately, while Skeletonman was in the Navy (he has stated thus I seem to recall); he never learned came to fully appreciate the importance of defending the national security of our citizenry. Instead he chooses to join the ranks of the malcontents and fringe leftists who hate our nation and all it has done for good. That doesn't mean he hates the way they do, but if you join with them, you get painted with the same brush.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 08/07/2008 @ 4:10pm
Unlike you, Luvvy, I am not afraid of what others might do to us; I am much more worried about what we can do to ourselves.
And yes, I was in the Navy (and if I drop enough weight off of my fat ass, will probably rejoin as a physician), and just because my love of country is informed and expressed differently than yours, don't you ever, for even a second, doubt that it is as heart felt as your own.
Since you are so fond of touting your status as a pastor, I'll lay this on you:
While your love of country is perhaps akin to that of the father for the older son described in Luke 15:10-32, my own is more akin to that of the father for the second son.
Think about that for a while and then get back to me.
Posted by skeletonman at 08/07/2008 @ 4:39pm
letting innocent people go is going to cause problems?
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/07/2008 @ 4:18pm
Welcome to Frosty's world where terrorists are innocent victims and the US (especially conservatives, Bush, and evangelical Christians) are the only non-innocents. They used to feature it in a cartoon called Bizarro.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 08/07/2008 @ 4:39pm
Posted by sjchermak at 08/07/2008 @ 4:26pm
Nobody is saying to forget, mate, IMHO it is unhealthy for anyone to feel that they have to carry that kind of burden. You can't take it on for everyone; we all own it. The problem is what to do with it.
Can we find a way to counter those who have seem to have lost their own humanity without losing ours?
I think that's the topic of this thread.
Posted by skeletonman at 08/07/2008 @ 4:47pm
Hello skeletonman,
I do understand there are two issues here - my personal state of mind versus what we should all do.
I was only carrying the idea of my getting over it further to say that we should not completely get over it. But me getting over it and the country getting over it are two different things.
I need to get over my quandry in my mind and channel my behavior more productively.
But our national quandry is a different kind of quandry that takes a different form than what is rattling around in my mind, and the national quandry should not be gotten over.
My concept of channeling my behavior more productively would take a form that would not be in agreement with a lot of people blogging on The Nation, i.e. voting for people who I feel will channel the national quandry into the proper direction to stop the terrorism.
Since the only option available to me right now to do that is to vote for Mr. McCain this November, and that is what I will do. If I had my preference, which I don't, the Constitution would be amended and President Bush would be available for a third term and I would vote for him again.
And in an area I have even less control over, if it were up to me, which it is not, Tony Blair would still be Prime Minister of the U.K.
And as a result, we would continue to fight and stop terror.
Since neither of what I would want can happen, I will vote for John McCain and hope for the best.
Posted by sjchermak at 08/07/2008 @ 5:15pm
Hello frosty zoom,
Since you mentioned Tony Blair, and I also mentioned Mr. Blair above, there is an interview somewhere in the BBC web where Mr. Blair was a guest on a show with the audience and the host asking him questions.
This is a spur of the moment comment so I do not at the momement have a link for this, and will have to research and find it. Somewhere in one of the blogs on The Nation maybe a month ago or so I posted this link in response to somebody I can not remeber now.
The reason I bring it up is because it was on the subject of Iraq. It was a question and answer session Mr. Blair gave and back in 1993.
The audience, completely, and the moderator also, were very hostile to Mr. Blair. Each question was loaded with antagonism from people who were definitely opposed to the pending (at that time) action in Iraq.
Mr. Blair knocked each question out of the park. He was hitting home run after home run, just like Derek Jeter or A-Rod do if a slow pitch comes to them over the middle of home plate.
I hope I can find this, because anybody who thinks Tony Blair was George W. Bush's "lapdog" or "poodle" needs to hear this session.
Mr. Blair very clearly and forcefully made a convincing case why the action we took in Iraq was necessary.
Posted by sjchermak at 08/07/2008 @ 5:31pm
If I had my preference, which I don't, the Constitution would be amended and President Bush would be available for a third term and I would vote for him again.
Posted by sjchermak at 08/07/2008 @ 5:15pm
Not to go all Rese and shit but what would you do if Bush bombs and then declares under Presidential National Security Brief 51 that the country is in a state of emergency and that as such, he has no choice but to declare martial law and suspend the election or transition to a new executive?
Posted by skeletonman at 08/07/2008 @ 5:59pm
Hello skeletonman,
To be perfectly honest, President Bush is simply not going to do that. I trust President Bush. I have read too many books (in the opinion of some I guess), which come at the subject (of President Bush) from different perspectives, by different people, and I have developed the opinion that President Bush is doing the things he feels are the right things for the country, given the situations we are in.
He is one of the most down to earth people we have ever had as President, he is not full of himself and concerned about building his legacy, and I feel he is doing what he thinks is necessary and however he is judged by history is something he does not worry about.
Obviously, not too many feel that way. But that is my opinion.
Posted by sjchermak at 08/07/2008 @ 6:11pm
Sorry that should be 'bombs Iran'
Posted by skeletonman at 08/07/2008 @ 6:12pm
Obviously, not too many feel that way. But that is my opinion.
Posted by sjchermak at 08/07/2008 @ 6:11pm |
And dammit, you're entitled to it.
Posted by skeletonman at 08/07/2008 @ 6:13pm
Hello skeletonman,
I will keep going on the subject of the President. He, of course, is mocked by a lot of people as ignorant and a moron and that his Daddy bought him his MBA.
But I have read recently that because of his management skills, there have been improvements to some of the White House facilities, such as upgrading the Situation Room (where the President and the staff would direct repsonse to emergencies) that future Presidents will benefit from.
And that his management skills encouraged staff to be prepared when briefing him. And that he would ask probing, pertinent questions during meetings with staff over the years on all the different subjects that come up during the White House on any given day.
Opposite what the stereotype is.
"His Daddy bought him his MBA" logic falls apart too- here's how (and this is my own thinking in repsonse to that):
When George W. Bush was getting his MBA, he was the grandson of Prescott Bush, who had been a U.S. Senator, and his Dad had been a CIA director, ambassador to China, and in the U.S. Congress.
But not yet Vice-President or President.
Although George W. Bush was in a rich and powerful family, there certainly are a lot of rich and powerful families with offspring at Harvard. At that time, the Bushes were not above probably many other families there.
If the Bushes could purchase an MBA for George W., other families surely could have done the same.
That would mean that Harvard Business School is a "degree mill" for the rich and powerful!
Of course it is not. In the same manner as a geometry theorem in High School, I believe I have disproven the "Daddy bought him his MBA" argument.
Posted by sjchermak at 08/07/2008 @ 6:34pm
Posted by sjchermak at 08/07/2008 @ 6:34pm
Oddly enough, I see your hero as the poster child for white male privilege.
Posted by skeletonman at 08/07/2008 @ 6:53pm
That would mean that Harvard Business School is a "degree mill" for the rich and powerful!
Posted by sjchermak at 08/07/2008 @ 6:34pm
You do know what being a 'legacy' meant (means), don't you?
It meant that if you were the son (doubt daughters were included at places like Harvard and Yale in the day) of someone like GHW Bush (who attended Yale), you got in no matter what your grades were like or what kind of a person you were.
GW got in as a legacy; the next year the practice was officially stopped. When it came for his turn to apply, Jeb - who is supposed to have been the better student and the one the family expected to succeed GHW in the Presidency - didn't get in.
As far as graduate school goes, the hard part is getting in (at least for most of us); once you are in, it's pretty hard to flunk out. The more prestigious the school's name is, the more true this statement is.
In medical school I saw more than one person start a year ahead of me and finish a year behind me; I also know of one guy who failed Step 1 of Boards 6 times before he was finally kicked out. Pretty scary, eh?
Based on the above, I hold Dubya's academic record in a rather keen degree of skepticism.
Posted by skeletonman at 08/07/2008 @ 7:06pm
Hello skeletonman,
I am just coming from the perspective that I think the stereotypes of President Bush are not accurate or correct.
Everbody knows his grades were not A+ (and in undergraduate at Yale not too good either - but better than John F. Kerry's), but it seems President Bush has managment skills that go unrecognized. (I certainly do know that there are people who believe opposite of me that believe the actions he takes are wrong even if they were to concede he is an excellent manager, so that is another argument), but the President exhibits skills showing application of good management concepts.
He of course comes from a rich family, and rich people benefit and have a leg up on some things than others in society, but as a rich white male he has expanded the role of people of color or people who were not born of privilige in a Presidential administration way beyond what it had ever been before.
So a rich white male has greatly moved forward the cause of equality and equal opportunity as it pertains to people who work in the executive branch of our government. He gets no credit at all for this.
Another person had the same thing happen. I have seen any number of references over the years to Ronald Reagan being a "racist".
Governor Reagan, during his time in Sacramento, opened the door to minorities in California State Government. I am not talking here about the political appointee jobs. I am talking about the civil service type career jobs in state government. From what I have read, things were not too fair for people of color in state government, as far as moving up into positions of responsiblity. Governor Reagan turned that around, and like with President Bush, got no credit for it.
Posted by sjchermak at 08/07/2008 @ 7:42pm
Posted by sjchermak at 08/07/2008 @ 7:42pm
Sheesh, St. Ronald and St. George. Time to take off the rose colored glasses.
Posted by skeletonman at 08/07/2008 @ 7:46pm
Well, I finally put Rese on ignore, like everyone else.
Comments went from 193 to 101.
How sweet it is.
Posted by Benchrest at 08/07/2008 @ 7:47pm
Posted by Benchrest at 08/07/2008 @ 7:47pm
Even the character counter doesn't slow her down, does it?
Posted by skeletonman at 08/07/2008 @ 7:52pm
Even the character counter doesn't slow her down, does it?
Posted by skeletonman at 08/07/2008 @ 7:52pm
No sir. It does not.
Posted by Benchrest at 08/07/2008 @ 7:57pm
Hello skeletonman,
About your comment "Sheesh, St. Ronald and St. George. "
Actually, it's St. Ronald, St. George and St. Anthony!
But my vibes and pull (which don't appear to do any good) couldn't keep St. Anthony from being forced by his own party (Labour) to quit as PM.
And how about St. John, too? With Ich bin ein Berliner, he told the Communists that they would not be tolerated and that someday they would be history, with St. Ronald applying the final push two decades later.
That speech has got to be about the greatest speech in human history.
St. John also cut taxes, and the economy grew as a result. (as it always does)
Quite a collection of saints I worship, eh?
Posted by sjchermak at 08/07/2008 @ 9:29pm
Also, no Democrat today except for Joe Lieberman believes in the things John F. Kennedy believed in.
It is amusing in a way. When Lloyd Bentsen was lecturing Dan Quayle in that Vice Presidential debate several years back that "you are no John Kennedy", Senator Bentsen could have said the same thing to John F. Kennedy's brother Ted!
Posted by sjchermak at 08/07/2008 @ 9:38pm
Welcome to Frosty's world where terrorists are innocent victims and the US (especially conservatives, Bush, and evangelical Christians) are the only non-innocents. They used to feature it in a cartoon called Bizarro.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 08/07/2008 @ 4:39pm
go to heck, rev.
that is total b.s.
I DEMAND A RETRACTION!
please.
<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>
if they are bad guys, off to jail. if they aren't bad guys, let them be. isn't that what ALL equally created humans deserve?
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/07/2008 @ 4:25pm
<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>
you've really, really pissed me off.
jesus things you suck.
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/07/2008 @ 9:47pm
Mr. Blair very clearly and forcefully made a convincing case why the action we took in Iraq was necessary.
Posted by sjchermak at 08/07/2008 @ 5:31pm
that's nice.
but you have answered nothing to what i posted.
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/07/2008 @ 9:51pm
but it seems President Bush has managment skills that go unrecognized.
Posted by sjchermak at 08/07/2008 @ 7:42pm
yep.
no one has ever seen them.
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/07/2008 @ 9:56pm
lvliberty,
;kldfjl;kejinmb-
08932547425y79h2j4h
bgnbg2459gj2984-
5jg98jnwphnpohjigjqg98ajfg3q8fgh9g
huhvkjbnwph89teh5g892yut
to you!
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/07/2008 @ 9:58pm
"I focus most on structural reforms that would not channel money to the global poor but would lift from them burdens that we currently impose on them for our benefit:
we must reduce, revise, or remove protectionist barriers,
structural adjustment programs,
rents for use of our ‘intellectual property',
and the international resource, borrowing, treaty, and arms priviledges.
(To explain these priviledges: under existing international rules, we in effect authorize any person or group holding effective power in a country – regardless of how they acquired or exercise it – to sell the country's resources and to dispose of the proceeds of such sales, to borrow in the country's name and thereby to impose debt service obligations upon it, to sign treaties on the country's behalf and thus to bind its present and future population, and to use state revenues to buy the means of internal repression.) Sen emphasizes reforms of social institutions and policies in the poorer countries themselves. However, these differences in practical conclusions are orthogonal to the differences in our moral positions.
The principled moral differences are, first, that I emphasize negative duties while Singer focuses on positive duties and Sen/Nussbaum do not highlight the distinction. I see this as a nice complementarity, not as a disagreement. But it does have this consequence: I am especially concerned with people whose lives are blighted as a result of unjust social institutions in whose design or imposition I and my readers participate.
thomas pogge, smart guy.
hey, rev.
read this:
http://ethique-economique.net/IMG/pdf/INTERVIEW-2.pdf
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/08/2008 @ 12:04am
hey you muslimophobes:
haven't you realized that the u.s. ambassador to the u.n.,
appointed by george bush,
is a muslim?
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/08/2008 @ 01:28am
While at RAND, Khalilzad also had a brief stint consulting for Cambridge Energy Research Associates,
which at the time was conducting a risk analysis for Unocal, now part of ConocoPhillips, for a proposed 1,400 km (890 mile), $2-billion, 622 m³/s (22,000 ft³/s) Trans-Afghanistan gas pipeline project which would have extended from Turkmenistan to Afghanistan and further proceeding to Pakistan.
He acted as a special liaison between UNOCAL and the Taliban regime.
He is one of the original members of Project for the New American Century (PNAC) and was a signatory of the letter to President Bill Clinton sent on January 26, 1998, which called for him to accept the aim of "removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power" using "a full complement of diplomatic, political and military efforts."
<<<<>>>>
wow. smart guy.
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/08/2008 @ 01:28am
"The epitaph of the Reagan presidency will be: 'When Ronald Reagan became President, the United States was the largest creditor nation. When he left the presidency, we were the world's largest debtor nation.'"
--Lester Thurow, MIT professor of economics
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/08/2008 @ 01:32am
"In the Reagan years, more federal debt was added than in the entire prior history of the United States."
--Richard Darman (Reagan advisor),
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/08/2008 @ 01:33am
Year Deficit Debt of that year's GDP
1979 -$40,183 -$828,923 34%
1980 -73,835 -908,503 34
1981 -78,976 -994,298 34
1982 -127,989 -1,136,798 36
1983 -207,818 -1,371,164 41
1984 -185,388 -1,564,110 42
1985 -212,334 -1,816,974 46
1986 -221,245 -2,120,082 50
1987 -149,769 -2,345,578 53
1988 -155,187 -2,600,760 54
1989 -152,481 -2,867,538 55
U.S. Office of Management and Budget, Historical Tables, annual.
<<<<<<<>>>>>>>
hmmmmmm?
that seems familiar.
cut taxes to the rich and then,
PRINT MORE MONEY!
and you guys will vote for mccain.......
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/08/2008 @ 01:38am
"A trillion dollars would be a stack of $1,000 bills 67 miles high." --President Reagan warning in February 1981 that the national debt, accumulated over the United States' 200 year history, is approaching $1 trillion. (Under Reagan, the national debt would nearly triple to $2.9 trillion.)
<<<<<>>>>>
oh my god!
triple! that's worse than bush. he's only doubled it.
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/08/2008 @ 01:39am
"[A] drastic reduction in the deficit...will take place in the fiscal year '82."
--President Reagan, news conference, quoted in The New York Times, March 6, 1981.
(In fiscal 1982, the first full year of Reagan's presidency, the government ran up a record budget deficit of $128 billion.)
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/08/2008 @ 01:41am
I'm glad the abortion thing is gone; absent actually thorough discussion, it's just going to be a stalemate of assertions, so I'm rather glad to see it be gone from this thread.
As to the Blair/Reagan/Bush stuff. First, Blair. I think sjschermak (sp?) makes some very valid points regarding Blair; he's worked very closely with both Democrats and Republicans and argued independently for Iraq before any US administration pushed for any form of regime change. Second, Reagan. Though I could always say that Congress controls the purse rather than him, I think the better response is simply...the existence and hastened end of the Cold War. Third, Bush. The management argument is interesting, though I think you get a much more disturbing account from the (fairly well-documented) work of Bob Woodward. Contrary to Wolfgang's claim in a different thread, the evidence does not appear to suggest that Bush is an incredibly skilled manager; it rather seems to suggest (at least in the case of Iraq) that he was too far removed from a lot of the decision process to demand critical inquiry into the courses of actions that were proposed and carried out.
Posted by Thrawn at 08/08/2008 @ 02:45am
Hello frosty zoom,
Up above you said "but you have answered nothing to what i posted."
That is correct, I did not. To be honest with you, I was not trying to answer what you had posted.
I saw you mentioned Tony Blair, and I was using that as an excuse for me to make a comment of my own about Tony Blair, that was not related to what you were saying, but relevant to the general topic of this thread.
I saw Tony Blair's name mentioned, and so I remembered the interview session on BBC he had in 1993 and I decided to comment on that. Your mention of Mr. Blair just started me off down that path.
I probably should have posted that as a general comment and not in the context I did, as responding to you.
Posted by sjchermak at 08/08/2008 @ 06:42am
Another typo by me,
Up above when I said 1993 I meant 2003.
Posted by sjchermak at 08/08/2008 @ 06:45am
Hello frosty zoom,
You discuss federal budgets and deficits and cite Ronald Reagan with negativity regarding what happened during his time as President.
The problem had nothing to do with Ronald Reagan. Actually, here is a case where politicians period get a bum rap.
This actually is a non-partisan problem.
Government spending goes up, no matter what. Under Democrats or Republicans. (Although at least Republicans generally do not advocate it from the start).
The problem essentially is with the people criticizing the politicians.
Everybody criticizes government spending, except when it is in their own locality.
People love their Senator or Congressperson to bring home the bacon, lots and lots of it.
Anybody can relate to this - various stories over time in their local newspaper about how their local representative secured funding for a federal or state grant for this or that.
People love it when the big bag of federal largess plops down in their own county. (Parish in Louisiana).
When that big bag of money plops down over in the next county, why that is wasteful government spending!
This perspective is everywhere, Democrat or Republican, whether it be in Oskosh, Wisconsin, Tucumcari, New Mexico, Rome, Georgia, or whereever.
Politicans know if they do not bring home the bacon, they may not be re-elected to office. So they work to bring home the bacon.
So I do not agree that Ronald Reagan, let alone any politicians, can be blamed for this. They are only doing what the people want.
Posted by sjchermak at 08/08/2008 @ 10:25am
cut taxes to the rich and then,
PRINT MORE MONEY!
and you guys will vote for mccain.......
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/08/2008 @ 01:38am
Economics 101
Cutting taxes does not produce a deficit...
Spending more than you take in produces a deficit.
All spending originates and is the responsibility of the Congress. We had a Democratic Congress in the House for 40 straight years until 1994
Posted by lvliberty1 at 08/08/2008 @ 11:00am
so, if congress is to blame,
((((REAGAN NOSTALGIC FOR G.O.P. SENATE
By JULIE JOHNSON; SPECIAL TO THE NEW YORK TIMES
Published: November 30, 1988
LEAD: President Reagan, saying Republicans ''need have no regrets'' about their record over the last eight years, said tonight that he would leave Washington wishing that his party had recaptured the Senate.
President Reagan, saying Republicans ''need have no regrets'' about their record over the last eight years, said tonight that he would leave Washington wishing that his party had recaptured the Senate.))))
why do you guys prattle on about how dangerous mr. obama's economic policy will be?
they won't matter.
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/08/2008 @ 2:16pm
Hello frosty zoom,
You wonder why we prattle on about Mr. Obama's economic policy and say it won't matter.
Of course it will matter, because besides spending and budget, taxes would no doubt be raised ("for the greater good and to make everything fair") which will then slow the economy down and inhibit recovery from the downturn now, which will then cost people jobs, etc.
The tax money will then be, as always, wasted by the government and the great and glorious things that we will be told will come out of the tax increase will not materialize, as it never does, and then the call will come out for another tax increase, etc.
And separate from budgetary issues, people will have more encouragement to look to the government to solve their problems, and encouraged to allow themselves to become dependent wards of the state, instead of the opposite where opportunity and self-advancement and achievement and personal responsiblity and the personal feeling of growth and self-satisfaction and dignity which come from that and also the contribution to society one makes when in that mode which includes the encouragement and help towards others to do the same.
In other words, the opposite of what is promoted and worked for when a modern day Democrat takes office.
As you see, it does matter if Barack Obama is elected president.
You do remember, don't you, that the economy began a downturn when Bill Clinton was finishing up his term as President.
And then the economy was greatly impacted on September 11, 2001.
But you do remember the economic recovery that followed, don't you? Because of the tax cuts. You know, the one the news media did not publicize?
If Algore had been president, economic conditions would have been far worse these last few years.
Posted by sjchermak at 08/08/2008 @ 4:41pm
Posted by sjchermak at 08/08/2008 @ 4:4
naw.
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/09/2008 @ 01:06am