CNN and others reporting the Americans are planning to shoot down a satellite thats expected to fall from space.
The controversy they say is the debris it might cause, more chards of twisted metal falling to Earth. And whatever toxis chemicals is in those satellites. Poor fishes.
For me, the first thing that came to mind was "skeet shooting". The military is shooting down this thing as target practice. Yee haw!
A good excuse to roll out the latest technology used for "star wars missle defense system" and put it to work in the real world.
The U.S. election process has always struck me as a bit odd. Not sure if I can entirely explain what's specifically wrong with it, but there are a few symptoms:
- A U.S. Presidential election lasts about 2 years (18 months of non stop campaigning by the candidates) for a term that only lasts 4 years.
- An unpopular second-term President is considered a lame duck, and not much work gets done for 2 years.
- The job "President" has very little responsibility, but is for some reason worth spending hundreds of millions of dollars on getting.
- A successful politician (a U.S. Senator, say) is always fundraising. Every week, every month, every year he is in office, he's also trying to raise money for the next campaign. If some of those Senators spent as much time focusing on passing good laws as they did on fundraising, the U.S. would be much better off.
- The national job of President is fought "state by state". And candidates routinely drop out of the race if they don't do well in Iowa and New Hampshire, of all places.
So why is this so messed up? That's harder to pinpoint.
I think the design of Presidential elections - the delegate process - is partly to blame. Let me ask you this - what would happen if you gave the candidates 60 days to campaign and that's it. And at the end of 60 days, you held one giant national primary to elect the party representitive? The person with the most votes represents the party at the Presidential election.
Hey, you can even give people second and third choices so that votes for unelected candidates get shifted to a more viable candidate instead of getting wasted. That would be more democratic than this one primary per week nonsense.
And hey, while we`re at it, 60 days after the nation primary, you hold the national election. Again, most votes determines the winner.
Well, two things would happen. For one, every person in the country involved in party politics would have a say in the candidate chosen. As it is now, the early states tend to pick the one or two choices for the rest. And the second thing is it would take a LOT less money to be a Presidential candidate. As it is, Clinton has already spent $40 million on her campaign, Obama $45 million, Romney $53 million, Giuliani $30 million, McCain $28 million... And how many states primaries have been held? 7. Yes, out of 50 states, 7 primaries are over and $200 million has already been spent!
The other thing to consider, is how little say people really do have in electing the President. One of the startling things to me was the Gore-Bush election in 2000. Bush beat Gore by winning Florida - we all know that. But the vote counting came down to one or two precincts in Florida a few hundred disputed votes. Hanging chads. What to do about votes who had only indented the voting card but not punch a hole into it? And that decided the election. A few hundred votes in 1 or 2 specific places in Florida. Why weren't votes in other states challenged and recounted? Because even a 100,000 vote difference in California doesn't matter, but a 100 vote difference in Florida does!
That was a close election. But there needs to be a better way to count these things such that recounts don't dramatically change the outcome. One vote per person.
I used to like Lou Dobbs. Years and years ago however. This was back when he did the nightly business report on CNN, before he left CNN to found Space.com and before he came back to CNN.
And then something happened. Not sure if it was around the time of September 11th, 2001. But Lou Dobbs decided to take a anti-immigration stand - and his opinions could be counted on to contain a certain amount of Xenophobia (fear of non-Americans bascially). Now he wouldn't say he's anti-immigrant, that he's in fact anti-illegal immigrant. But if you add together his proposals for a stronger border, a wall between the U.S. and Mexico, shipping the illegals back home (he's opposed to amnesty), against giving health care and drivers licenses to illegal immigrants already here, anti-free trade, anti-H1B visa program, anti-China trade, and on and on...
He's as protectionist as it comes most times, and most economists will tell you that protectionist policies are actually against America's best interests most times.
So anyways, one thing I like about Lou is that he's not shy to place the blame at the feet of politicians (of any political party) who are shirking their responsibilty in Washington. Today's column on the impending (and probably unstoppable) economic disaster, however, is spot-on.
Well done Lou. I rarely agree with you lately. But no one (in an election year at least) wants to stand up and say the politicians took their eye off the ball the last 3-4 years and now our economy is in big trouble. They all would prefer to delay the bad news (even if it makes it worse) til 2009 when the next President has been decided. That's all their interested in dealing with this year - partisan politics.
I have an ongoing theme over the history of this blog: how much does the United States owe, and what's the credit card limit up to now?
According to the U.S. Government, the current debt stands at $9.111 Trillion. It's odd typing such a large number. I'd rather prefer saying $9,111 Billion. A billion dollars is a heck of a lot of money, and we as normal humans can't even properly fathom a trillion. It's beyond comprehension.
And the last I heard the statutory debt limit was $8.97 Trillion. So they much have increased it without me noticing - and they did increase it early in October. How come this didn't make the news? A quick Google search tells me the current limit is $9.815 Trillion.
I guess in an election year, they want to give themselves a lot of room to spend so that they don't have to debate the level of debt on the nightly news.
After Watergate and Whitewater, who was the genius who called that company Blackwater? Seems like a scandal waiting to happen. And it did happen.
By now most of you have heard about the so-called Blackwater incident in Iraq, where private security contractors in Iraq killed 10 people and wounded 10 in an incident whos facts are still being debated.
Many Iraqi witnesses, including those hospitalized by the bullet wounds from the ensuing gunfire, say that the security guards opened fire for no reason. CNN.com tells the story of an Iraqi lawyer on his way back from the courthouse being shot 4 times in the back (and his car shot 8 times more) as he attempted to leave the scene of the Blackwater covoy. And another man says he was aboard a minibus coming home from work when the shooting started, and as he attempted to flee, he was shot 3 seperate times. Once kept running, twice started crawling, and then finally a third time that kept him down for good. It was like someone was specifically trying to kill him. He claims the shooting went on for 30 minutes.
Blackwater disputes this claim, and says that they were fired on, and were defending themselves. Witnesses don't back up the "fired on" story. And there doesn't seem to be any evidence of that.
Now on the incident itself, it seems like a lot of innocent people got killed. There's hasn't been any proof offered by Blackwater that they were fired on - and the high number of innocent civilian casulties seems to back up the claim that Blackwater acted recklessly.
In my head, what likely happened was that there was some type of traffic jam or traffic accident, and the convoy found itself having to slow down. Then other Iraqi cars got too close for comfort. And so the security guards do what they do, shouting at people and then finally firing at them to get them to get out of the way. I can see this as being standard practice - come to close to me in Iraq and I'm going to shoot your car up.
On the one hand, Iraqis should recognize this as happening all the time and avoid these convoys when they see them. Turn off the street, pull to the side, whatever. Get out of the way because the convoys have guns and people willing to fire them for any provocation - real or imaginary.
On the other hand, it seems wrong in so many ways. These private contractors ("mercenaries" is the technical term I guess for private military) operate without respect for Iraqi citizens safety AT ALL. Not one bit of respect shown for anyones safety but the person they are protecting. They don't stop at red lights, block streets at will, and damage personal property without remorse. They act like they are above the law... well, probably because it appears they are above the law.
One of their favorite techniques is to ram the car in front of them that is going too slow for their tastes. Even the Iraqi police tremble in fear when they pass through. And like we see here, security guards suspected of using excessive violence and killing innocent civilians and traffic cops can't even be interviewed or held accountable for their actions. As a corporation, they can just shrug their shoulders and say "no comment" when asked about the possibility that they murdered 10 people. How convenient.
It takes a lot of effort to get the U.S. military to hold the bad actions of its own personnel to account. But it does happen - Abu Gharib, and when the occasional soldier goes crazy and rapes and kills a local Iraqi girl. They eventually act. But why, when the private companies act this way, do they go back into "denial" mode instead of doing the right thing and arresting the perpetrators?
And doesn't all this seriously undermine the trust ordinary Iraqis have in Americans in general? One Blackwater convoy shoots up a private Iraqi car, and all the good will American troops may have earned in keeping the streets safe and playing with children and kissing babies goes up in smoke. It takes hundreds of hours to build up trust and goodwill, and 1 minute to destroy it.
(And P.S., These private mercenaries are also likely paid 3 to 6 times the salary of the enlisted military person. Isn't the average U.S. military serving in Iraq upset that these people are doing the same job they are but getting 3 or more times the money?)
On September 11, 2001, looking at the tragedy that was unfolding live on CNN, I was dumbstruck. I couldn't believe what I was seeing. It hadn't occurred to me until that day that this type of terrorism could ever happen - using a plane as a missile. And as each subsequent piece of news trickled in that morning and afternoon, I couldn't believe it could get any worse. Yet with each passing hour it still did.
Of course - I was glued to CNN all day and all night watchnig replay after replay. Every once and a while, some new camcorder video would come in, and you could see the plane hit the tower from another angle. There was the smoke and ash that filled the streets. I think horrific is the only appropriate word for what happened that day...
And here we are 5 years later. And oh how the world has changed.
Anyways, my prayers go out to the 9/11 victims and their families. This really is one of the great tragedies of human history.
The government of the United States increased it's own credit card limit today, adding another $781 Billion to it's limit. Why $781 Billion and not $800 Billion? Well, their credit limit now stands at $8.97 Trillion. Who wants to be the one to make it hit $9 Trillion?
From Bloomberg:
The government will spend $217 billion on interest on the debt this year, according to the Congressional Budget Office. By contrast, federal spending for the Department of Education is $83 billion.
Mind you, the U.S. Military spends approximately $663 Billion when you add up on-budget and off-budget items. For instance, the cost of the war in Iraq is done through appropriations and is not part of the official budget. So interest payments don't look too big when compared with that number.
On November 18, 2004, I wisely wrote:
The U.S Senate just passed a bill that would raise the Federal Debt Limit by $800 billion to $8.2 trillion. Who wants to take bets on how long that $800 billion is going to last? Now, the U.S. is within a easy reach of the $8.2 trillion limit. They'll be there in a few weeks. Whoever chose "14 months" as the answer to my rhetorical question is the winner. Congratulations! Everyone else in the United States is the loser. So here we are again. We've reached the debt ceiling. The U.S. is at risk on defaulting on some payments. Congress will probably rubber stamp another $800 billion or more increase in the ceiling. When Ronald Regan took office in 1981, the entire U.S. debt was $1 trillion. Now that is what the U.S. borrows every year. Something is not right here. Which American politician has the guts to stand up and say something?
One of the top stories these days (aside from storms and terrorism) is the plight of some U.S. journalists who might be going to jail to protect their sources. The Supreme Court refused to intervene, which reaffirms the notion that there is no magic shield that journalists can hide behind when they are asked to testify in court.
The sequence of events that led to this is as follows:
(1) George Bush says in the State of the Union a few years ago that Iraq attempted to buy nuclear materials from Niger, as one of the reasons to go to war
(2) Joseph Wilson writes a column that says he had previously traveled to Niger to investigate the claim, and he reported back to the U.S. government that the claim was probably false (forged documents and things). The President was repeating a claim to the American public that he knew to be false.
(3) Someone in the White House phoned several reporters to try to discredit Mr. Wilson - he only got the job because his wife, a CIA agent, recommended him for it. It's illegal to reveal the identity of an undercover agent.
Now, in 2005, a federal special prosecutor is forcing those reporters to testify in front of a grand jury to find out who the leak is. Some have refused and face a few months in jail. This has raised the question as to how much confidentialty a reporter can guarantee a source.
The Denver Post ran a column today that said, "Like most journalists, I operate by this principle: As whistle-blowers stop tweeting, corruption and incompetence in business and government fester."
I totally agree. We need a way to protect people who bring to light government corruption, lies and cover-ups. But who is the whistle-blower in this case? Joseph Wilson. Who is Judith Miller protecting in this case? White house officials who were trying to get retribution against Joseph Wilson.
Journalists should not be falling all over themselves to congratulate Judith Miller. She is not protecting the whistle-blower. Her actions will actually deter future whistle-blowers from coming forward.
Some American politicians (and protesters) have labelled the prison camp at Guantanamo Bay a concentration camp, and have drawn parallels to how Nazi Germany treated prisoners during WW2.
Those type of statements are ludicrous, laughable, and no further time needs to be spent thinking that what the Americans have set up is a concentration camp. Clearly, it's not. American's don't hate Arabs and wish to extinguish them, as the Germans felt towards the Jews.
Instead, people should be asking themselves, “What is the Guantanamo Bay prison? What is it for? Why does the U.S. need a prison 50 miles off the coast of Miami?”
The answer to this is quite clear. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled, 5 decades ago, that any prisoner kept inside the United States has the full protection of the constitution, including the right to counsel and the right to a speedy trial amoung others (called “due process“). It also ruled that U.S. prisoners kept outside the borders of the United States are not protected by the U.S. Constitution (see the 1950 Supreme Court ruling in Johnson v. Eisentrager).
Guantanamo Bay Prison is a perfect legal no-mans-land. It is under the full control of the U.S., yet it does not belong to any country. Some terror suspects are being kept imprisoned on U.S. Navy vessels in the Persian Gulf - similarly they are in international waters (not on U.S. soil) and do not get constitutional protection.
So that, there, is really the issue. The U.S. has found a legal loophole in the constitution. A place where it can detain people, yet reject their right to a lawyer, a trial, to talk to their families, or even to acknowledge that someone is in custody. It can stretch the boundaries by treating prisoners in a way that is not legal inside United States prisons - keeping them awake for 2 or 3 days in a row, verbal and mental abuse, etc.
The U.S. is not about to close this handy loophole it has found. I don't think prisoners are being physically tortured there (not in the Abu Gharib sense), but having a prison that has no rules certainly has its benefits in other ways.
I have been trying very hard to stay away from controversial issues on this blog. I often find, looking back a few months later, that my opinion on the matter has softened. It's actually a bit embarassing to see what I once considered important ended up meaning so little.
So it is with caution that I write something about the current hot topic of the month: the Terri Schiavo case.
The case is doubly-sad. First, there is the deep sympathy I feel for the woman at the center of it all: Terri Schiavo. 15 years ago, she was a normal, healthy woman. Then she suffered a heart attack that caused severe brain damage. She has been somewhere between comatose and barely conscious ever since. Court-appointed doctors have said she is in a “persistent vegetative state“.
The other sad aspect of this case is how this case has become a lightening-rod dividing people all across the United States. In fact, this case has attracted such a odd assortment of characters and issues, that you need a scorecard to figure out who's who.
What this whole case smacks of is hypocracy. Don't worry, there's plenty to go around for all sides.
Maybe I'm cynical, but when all those Senators flew into Washington two weekends ago to pass a special bill to give her parents standing in federal court, and then the President was woken at 1am to sign it into law, it seemed to be a publicity stunt. It's been almost two weeks, and we have not heard one peep out of the vacationing President on the issue. I bet he wishes it would just go away - one way or another.
At the time he signed the bill, the President made a statement like, “All life is precious“, or something like that. But while Bush was governor of Texas, there were 131 executions in 5 years. Many of those cases had serious legal questions about guilt - including 40 cases where the defence lawyer presented no evidence. There seems to be something odd about passing laws in the middle of the night to save the life of someone who is almost comatose, and letting 131 people, some of which COULD be innocent, die without blinking.
You can't even blame traditional Democrat versus Republican bickering. Politicians of all parties are using this to push their agendas, whatever they may be. But when it got too hot, like it is now, they are nowhere to be found.
The parents seem to be stuck in some type of legal infinite loop. I feel sad for them, because what they are doing is fighting for their daughter's life, but they have appealed this case at least 10 times (6 times to the Supreme Court), and been rejected each time. They should probably just drop the legal appeals of this case, and focus on getting the public on their side. It's probably their only hope.
Jesse Jackson annoys me to no end. “Jesse, come on down to Florida and help us with this case.” “Will the media be there?” If I thought he was the least bit sincere, I wouldn't mind so much. But with Rev. Jackson, it's all about the publicity value. I do appreciate a comment he made a couple of weeks ago, before got involved with the case, about how he opposed the way congress sped through a law in 24 hours to save one life, while they blindly ignore the millions of other people starving in America. Of course, now he's fighting for the camera time, oops I mean fighting for Terri, alongside those same politicians.
Jeb Bush, the governor of Florida, is in a tough spot. He's sort of thrust himself out there, to lead the political fight in Florida. But now, everyone has sort of abandoned him - including his brother - so now he fights alone. Activists are calling on him to do something, and will no doubt blame him when Terri dies. So there's a kick in the pants for you - the one guy who I think really genuinely tried, and still tries, to help becomes the biggest goat in all this. Poor Jeb.
Lastly, there is an interesting contradiction here. Apparently, most states currently would allow what Florida allows - for a hospital to remove a feeding tube at the request of a legal guardian. But that causes the person to be starved to death - what a horrible way to die. Since most states clearly allow people to be starved to death in this way, shouldn't there be an option for a more compassionate way to die? This is the contradiction - every day people watch their loved ones travel a long and painful road to death (ie: the last weeks of cancer), with nothing but morphine to ease the pain. There should be some other compassionate options, if doctors, patient and family members all agree.
Also, it should be noted that Terri Schiavo, thankfully, feels no pain. According to an article on CNN.com, people in a persistant vegetative state are not conscious, and thus neither suffer nor feel pain. I really, really hope this is true.
The Internet is a wild and wonderful place sometimes.
I tend to visit sites that send visitors to this site (at least the ones that are clearly not referral spam). So from a referral from dogpile, one of the many Internet search engines, I clicked a link to one of the other results. Very interesting, almost dictionary-like, definition of the word apology.
The difference between a Non-Apology and a True Apology
“A partial apology is a statement that includes the part of the apology that expresses sympathy without the part that accepts any responsibility.”
George Bush certainly knows the difference. Bush told the King of Jordan once that he was “sorry for the humiliations suffered by the Iraqi prisoners and the humiliations suffered by their families”. Sympathy without responsibility. I like that definition.
The U.S Senate just passed a bill that would raise the Federal Debt Limit by $800 billion to $8.2 trillion. Who wants to take bets on how long that $800 billion is going to last? How much of that money has already been spent since the government has been shuffling money around for 3-4 months already?
And how about a $8.2 trillion debt... Wow. This is mind-boggling. What does $8 trillion look like? There are approximately 6 billion people in this world, most of them living in poor countries (China, Russia, India, Indonesia, etc.) $8 trillion is $1,300 U.S. dollars for every single person alive on this planet. I bet that equals or exceeds the median net worth of every person in the entire world. I wouldn't be surprised.
War sucks.
There's no way around it. There is no such thing as a perfect war. Every war, ever, in the history of mankind, has contained incidents most would consider to be atrocities.
That's not to justify terrible acts. It's actually one reason why war should generally be avoided whenever possible. Every few years, it seems mankind needs a reminder why not to go to war.
So the next time some President tells you that this war will be easy or different, don't believe them. War sucks. Big time.
Don't want to get anyones hopes up, but this Eminem video is very very cool.
I'm definitely feeling something in the air as November 2nd rolls around. I don't think the polls are really as close as the pollsters say they are. Consider this:
There is a massive effort to get out the young vote (18-24). This hasn't happened in a generation, at least. I wouldn't be surprised if young voters turn out in record numbers. And pollsters do not get to talk to young voters.
More and more people don't talk to telemarketers. Just this morning, I hang up on one. Was it a pollster calling to ask my opinion on something? Pollsters don't talk to people who use technology (even call display) to block the calls.
More and more people don't have a regular phone. Something like 5% of people only use a cell phone for all their calls. Pollsters don't talk to those people.
More and more people are out of the house from between 8am and 9pm - at work, out with friends, at dinner... Pollsters don't call outside those hours, and so pollsters don't get to talk to those people.
I have American citizen friends living in Canada. Him and his wife are definitely going to vote in the election from here. How many ex-patriate Americans are going to make the extra effort to vote this time around? Pollsters don't talk to those people.
So the question is, if you were able to ask young people, people with 2-3 jobs who are never home to answer the phone, and ex-patriates who they are going to vote for... who are they going to say? How many votes is that anyway? Several million more than 4 years ago, that's for sure.
I wouldn't be surprised if it is not that close on election day. I think both the Democrats and Republicans want you to think their candidate might lose, just to get out all the possible voters. But in the end, it might not be that close.
When I say Checkmate, I mean that Eminem video is very well done. The song itself is catchy. The video has amazing, never-before seen graphics and imagrey. This could play on MTV, VH1 , whatever... all week next week. It'll be the hottest download on Kazaa. This video could influence the election.
(Maybe...)
In February of this year, I noted that the U.S. federal government debt reached $7 trillion for the first time.
As of October 5, eight months later, the official debt stands at $7.414 trillion. You know, I'm tempted to write the whole number out, because when you start rounding off at the billion dollar mark, that's still a lot of money. $7,414,024,541,823.04 for those keeping score.
That exceeds, by the way, the legal limit on debt. $7.384 trillion is the current ceiling as defined by law, and it takes an act of congress and the President's signature to increase that. So someone is breaking the law.
Still, in 8 months the U.S. government burned through more than $400 billion. News reports say the Defense Department is borrowing money from an emergency fund it keeps ($25 billion) to pay its bills until congress sends it more money. So the real debt is closer to $7.5 trillion...
From Baltimore Chronicle and Sentinel:
No Congress or Presidential Administration ever likes to approve increasing the debt ceiling, because it puts the spotlight on their profligate spending and lack of fiscal control. They certainly don't like doing one in an election year. God forbid they are forced to approve one in the weeks or days before an actual election--especially this election.
From CBS MarketWatch:
Technically, on its current spending course, the government is expected to run out of money in "early October." But the administration can employ emergency accounting mechanisms to avoid hitting the $7.38 trillion mandatory limit until "mid-November," the Treasury estimates.
It's funny that noone minds talking about the need to increase the debt ceiling, and even some of the accounting tricks they will use to avoid hitting it until after the election, but noone wants to actually increase the ceiling now. It's as if their spending problem will magically go away after the election. Actually, it's more likely that the spending will still occur at the same pace, just that it will no longer be a problem.
I predict we'll see more and more news stories like this. It's a scandal, really.
After 9/11, the U.S. Department of Justice made a lot of noise about terrorist arrests, particularly al Qaeda “sleeper cells“ in Detroit and Albany. But then, at trial, we find out these people might not be terrorists. The government apparently made some evidence up, and hid some that would have helped the defence. So, guess what? The case gets thrown out.
The Detroit case is one of several high-profile setbacks for the Justice Department in recent months. It lost a case last month in Iowa against a college student that who was on trial for using the Internet to recruit and raise money for terrorist causes. In mid-August, federal prosecutors acknowledged possible flaws in key evidence of evidence used in their case against two leaders of an Albany mosque charged with supporting terrorism. And CNN reported last week that Brandon Mayfield, a Muslim from Oregon, who was falsely accused by the FBI of involvement in March's Madrid train bombings, announced that he planned to sue the US government.
This also reminds me of the 1,600 or so people (mostly Muslim men) taken into custody after September 11th. Most of them were held for 2 years, but released without charges.
How long will people put up with the government arresting people without evidence? The traditional method of law enforcement - gather evidence, make a case, arrest, go to trial - might be slow but it works. The new model - arrest, gather evidence, try to bypass a trial and go striaght to sentencing - might be more efficient from the government's perspective, but it appears like 95% of the people arrested for terrorism are released. So what good does that do us?
I stumbled across a blog that has an interesting comparison of the dates when news that is bad for Bush is released, and the dates when Homeland Security's issues terror warnings. It is trying to make the case that Bush is using terror alerts and warnings to knock these stories off the front page.
I'm not sure if I totally believe the evidence they are laying out. The evidence can be discredited with one simple statement:
Over the past two years, there has been a constant stream of “bad news” for President Bush. So every single terror alert or warning issued is likely to coincide within a few days with bad news.
To put this another way, there is a higher rate of drowning in Florida than in Nevada. It's not that people of Nevada are better swimmers than people in Florida... It's because Florida is surrounded by water. There is no sense looking for a conspiracy when a simpler explanation exists.
In the past two years, you have these major events that look bad for Bush:
- No weapons of mass destruction in Iraq
- The changing reasons for going to war in Iraq
- High American casualties in Iraq (almost 1,000 dead, many more injured)
- Cost of Iraq and Afghanistan ($200 billion and climbing)
- Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden are still out there
- Haliburton scandals that affect VP Cheney
- Government deficits (almost $500 billion per year)
- Release of pre-9/11 intelligence that was not acted upon
- White House leaks CIA operative's name
I mean, I could go on and on for many more pages. Dozens of events have occurred in the past couple of years that look bad for Bush. So there is a high likelihood that one of those events will coincide with a terror alert.
Plus, the list also includes minor events like war protests, Kerry choosing a running mate, change in power in other countries running on anti-war platforms (Germany, Spain, etc.), pullout of troops from other countries, UN and Red Cross pull out of Iraq, etc. I mean, if you really wanted to count every possible bad event, you could make a list of hundreds of such events.
So there is no conspiracy here. Those who have read this blog before will note that I am no real great fan of Bush, but I don't think this list shows evidence of anything sinister.
I agree there are political motives behind most things any president does, this list isn't proof of them though.
A Seattle-area photography student is interrogated twice within 3 months for taking pictures of public landmarks, even after showing the officers a copy of the assignment written by his professor. Why is the U.S. Department of Homeland Security paranoid of dark-skinned people with cameras?
This account is a must read.
BrownEqualsTerrorist.com
Something is not right here... Instead of granting these prisoners access to a lawyer, the Pentagon will instead release the ones that do not pose a danger. If they weren't a danger, why were they being held in the first place? If Saddam Hussein can be put on trial, why can't some unknown Taliban? I agree with those people who say that United States should treat prisoners like it would like its soldiers to be treated by others.
BBC NEWS - US hints at Guantanamo releases
The US may try to head off legal challenges to the detention of terror suspects at Guantanamo Bay by releasing some prisoners, the Pentagon has said.
Here I sit, watching the four potential leaders of Canada debate on television. We in Canada face a huge challenge this year with our election, much like our American friends who face a similiar dilemma. Who should I vote for if I don't like any candidate? Is there a “None of the above” checkbox?
A year ago, if you asked me who I would vote for in the next federal election, the answer was simple: Paul Martin. I liked Mr. Martin when he was finance minister. I actually hoped his boss, Jean Cretien, would step down sooner just so Paul Martin can take over the job sooner.
But now, I hope Paul Martin and the Liberals are kicked out of office on their collective behinds for the broken promises of last elections, as well as the squandering of billions of dollars of my taxes. It's ironic that “liberal” is listed as a synonym for “wasteful” in the thesaurus.
The dilemma is who to vote for if not the Fiberals. Do I vote for Stephen Harper and the Conservatives? I briefly considered it, but quite frankly the Reform / Alliance / PC / Conservative merged party needs more time to mature before it's ready to take power. A lot of former members of the Conservative party don't support the new party (take Joe Clark for example). It needs 4 more years before all of the internal squabbling is resolved and they are ready to be one cohesive party.
That leaves who? Jack Layton and the NDP? I actually like the new Jack Layton™. He was a councillor in the City of Toronto for years. I have never been a supporter of the NDP (socialists), but here I sit thinking they may be a breath of fresh air. Now, I'm not saying the NDP should take power, but what if they had enough power to keep the winning party honest? What if the had the power to resist steep tax cuts, and encourage increased spending on social programs without the power to actually ruin the finances of the country?
Strike me down with a lightening bolt. I just might vote NDP. *Shudder*
Actually, it was just the New York Times article that was misleading. The actual Gallup press release is more accurate.
Some soldiers have said that U.S. military intelligence officers ordered the soldiers to "soften up" prisoners for interrogation. About 7 in 10 Americans also blame these officers.
Bingo. Why did the Times neglect to mention that aspect when reporting that the majority of Americans feel the soldiers were not acting under orders?
A recent gallup poll came to a predictable conclusion:
In the Gallup poll, 8 in 10 respondents said they believed the actions of the soldiers violated United States military policy, while fewer than 2 in 10 said it was accepted policy. More than half, 56 percent of those polled, said the soldiers involved in the abusive acts were acting on their own rather than complying with orders. Thirty-four percent said the soldiers were following orders.
Gallup was obviously not asking the right questions. I would count myself amoung the majority of people who say the actions violated official military policy. I also think the soldiers were not following any direct orders. So according to Gallup, I think the soldiers charged must be the only ones to blame, right?
No. The soldiers were not following direct orders, but they were acting with explicit encouragement from their bosses at the prison and military intelligence. “It would be good if this guy had a rough night, ok?” is not a direct order, it's a hint. Wink, wink. Nudge, nudge.
The soldiers being charged have also reported being told, “You did a good job with this guy last night. He broke down right away this morning.“ If that's not explicit encouragement, I don't know what is.
Do I think torture is against official military policy? Of course it is. The fact that these six or eight U.S. soldiers are being charged with crimes under the uniform code of justice proves that. But that doesn't mean torture wasn't tolerated by high-level military officials at the prison or elsewhere. It's just like speedng, everybody does it but it's still illegal if you get caught.
It's the job of pollsters to ask questions, I know. But then they (and the media) jump to conclusions as if there could be no other explanation. The most likely explanation of this case (the people in care of the interrogations directed the soldiers to make things rough for the prisoners) is still supported by the poll. It wasn't just an isolated case, or a few bad apples.
|