How to Join Member's Area Private Library Search Today's Topics p Login
Main Forums Discussion Tech Talk Mature Content Archives
   Nav Win
 Discussion
 The Alley
 My head is spinning   [ Page: 1  2  ]
 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Follow us on Facebook

 Moderated by: Ron   (Admins )

 
User Options
Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Admin Print Send ECard
Passions in Poetry

My head is spinning

 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


0 posted 04-25-2009 01:11 AM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

I can't keep up with this administration.

Between releasing CIA advanced interrogation techniques, saying they have no plans to investigate former administration officials, changing their mind and leaving that decision up to the Attorney General, and then changing their mind again and saying they won't support a call for an investigation, they do this:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/23/AR2009042303469.html

Why would they want to weaken/limit defendants' rights?
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


1 posted 04-25-2009 02:12 AM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

Sorry that my availablity has been limited lately to participate -- but, maybe you want to look at the particular case involved before you make up your mind..
http://www.abanet.org/publiced/preview/briefs/pdfs/07-08/07-1529_Petitioner.pdf

or a good summary of the facts and question
http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2008/2008_07_1529/

The trip-wire in question appears to be, according to Solicitor General Elana Kagan superfluous to a defendant's right to not speak at all.

The salient points from Sherman's article:
quote:

The Justice Department, in a brief signed by Solicitor General Elena Kagan, said the 1986 decision "serves no real purpose" and offers only "meager benefits." The government said defendants who don't wish to talk to police don't have to and that officers must respect that decision. But it said there is no reason a defendant who wants to should not be able to respond to officers' questions.




and

quote:

"Your right to assistance of counsel can be undermined if somebody on the other side who is much more sophisticated than you are comes and talks to you and asks for information," said Sidney Rosdeitcher, a New York lawyer who advises the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University.




Now the Constitutional right in question is afforded by the 6th Amendment:

quote:

Amendment 6 - Right to Speedy Trial, Confrontation of Witnesses. Ratified 12/15/1791.

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.




So is the JD actually seeking to limit this right?  While I'm personally steamed at Obama over the wiretapping issue (that is to continue the Bush wiretapping policy) I can't find myself getting too wound up over this one -- and I don't think Sherman's article accurately portrays the issue that's before the court.

Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


2 posted 04-25-2009 04:02 AM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K


Dear Denise,

          The information about the torture used by US forces and The CIA in the interrogation of prisoners is not new.  It was mentioned in a New Yorker article in 2005 and in this article, whose link I'm providing below.  The details of [i]The New Yorker Article[i] are provided in that.

     The Bush administration has apparently been modest.  It's torture policy cannot actually be shown to have done anything.  If it could have been, the Bush folks would have released that information themselves.  Now they can challenge the Obama folks to release non-existent information and make they look guilty for being unable to do so.  I would also like to congratulate the Bush administration, and Donald Cheney or Richard Rumsfeld or whomever for using enhanced interrogation techniques to prevent the United States from being taken over by dolphins, and for completely crushing the Polar Bear Conspiracy.  We aren't able to tell you how or why, but we are rooting the last of those foul creatures out of their hiding places atop the last of the ice flows remaining near the north pole.  Not one of them will remain alive.

     The interrogation techniques we've employed in questioning the rain forest allies of these fur clad terrorist disciples of the devil must remain hidden.  We can tell you that they haven't blown up a single oil well or damaged a single foot of Alaskan oil or gas pipeline.  We call that a real victory in our war against the environment. . ., rather, against the muslim extremists.  It shows how important it will be to restore Republicans to office to ensure the apocalypse.  I'm sorry —‚ to prevent the apocalypse.

Sincerely, Bob Kaven

    


http://www.counterpunch.org/soldz05292007.html
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


3 posted 04-25-2009 09:01 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

It's torture policy cannot actually be shown to have done anything.

Actually, Bob, it cannot be shown because Obama refuses to show it. The records are there and have gotten a fair amount of press as of late so I'm not sure how you missed it. In one case, for example, a terrorist group in Asia had plans in the works to hijack an airliner and fly it into an LA skyscraper. The group was dismantled and plans eliminated based on the information received by our "torture" policy, which could mean anything Obama would label it to be. Being forced to watch Bedtime for Bonzo would fit into that category, I'm sure. Perhaps purists would rather see the skyscraper come down with a thousangs or two Laker fans inside, as long as the terrorist had not been placed in discomfort but I have a feeling it would be a hard sell to the tens of thousands of people who would be affected by such an act.

We aren't able to tell you how or why, but we are rooting the last of those foul creatures out of their hiding places atop the last of the ice flows remaining near the north pole.  Not one of them will remain alive.

What is that ink-blot test, Bob, where the psychoanalyst asks you what you see? That appears to be the case with you and polar bear pictures. It would behoove you to look for the facts behind the picture so that your attempt at sarcasm does not fall so woefully short.

Australian TV Exposes 'Stranded Polar Bear' Global Warming Hoax

By Noel Sheppard (Bio | Archive)
April 6, 2007 - 12:05 ET


Remember that wonderful picture of stranded polar bears on an ice floe that were used by folks like soon-to-be-Dr. Al Gore to demonstrate how dire the man-made global warming issue is?
Well, ABC television in Australia, on a show called “Media Watch,” recently debunked the entire issue (video available here, h/t NB member dscott).
It turns out -- as NewBuster Jake Gontesky reported on March 20 -- the picture was taken in August, “when every year the fringes of the Arctic ice cap melt regardless of the wider effects of global warming.”
The photographer, Australian marine biology student Amanda Byrd, didn’t think the bears were in any jeopardy:

Denis Simard of Environment Canada agreed:
    You have to keep in mind that the bears are not in danger at all. This is a perfect picture for climate change…you have the impression they are in the middle of the ocean and they are going to die...But they were not that far from the coast, and it was possible for them to swim...They are still alive and having fun.

Those stranded polar bears on the shrinking Arctic ice - victims of global warming - certainly tugged at the heart-strings.
That photo was published not only in the Sunday Telegraph.
It made it onto the front page of the New York Times.
And the International Herald Tribune.
It also ran in London's Daily Mail, The Times of London and Canada's Ottawa Citizen - and that's just to name a few.
All used it as evidence of global warming and the imminent demise of the polar bear.

But the photo wasn't current. It was two and a half years old.
And it wasn't snapped by Canadian environmentalists.
It was taken by an Australian marine biology student on a field trip.
And in what month did she take it?
    “The time of year was August, summer.”

That's not how Al Gore saw it.
He used it in a presentation on man made global warming.    "Their habitat is melting... beautiful animals, literally being forced off the planet," Mr. Gore said, with the photo on the screen behind him. "They're in trouble, got nowhere else to go."
Audience members let out gasps of sympathy…

http://www.newsbusters.org/node/11879

The tactic is not new, Bob. Democrats and environmentalists used the same attempt while trying to derail oil exploration in Alaska, showing pictures of cute little Alaskan creatures frolicking around pristine landscapes, all which would be destroyed by an evil exploration of oil. Problem is, those pics were not taken anywhere near where the oil exploration was to take place. Fact is, the area of the oil exploration was completely barren and void of wildlife and the companies had spent fortunes NOT to change the landscape or environment.  Those frolicking polar bear and seal pics, though, are the exact way to get past a person's brain and right into his heart.

There's really nothing wrong with injecting a little sarcasm, as you have attempted here. I do it myself (believe it or not!). It is, however, important that the sarcasm has an actual base or it takes on a silliness factor. It would appear Al Gore and his deceptions and selective picture showing have bypassed your search for actual truth....but then, those polar bears ARE cute, aren't they?  
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


4 posted 04-25-2009 09:13 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

One more point to put the bears to rest...

Global warming fraudsters dismayed by growing ice and expanding polar bear population
January 6th, 2009 | Global Warming

This last year has seen the expansion of the polar ice caps and glaciers throughout the world. In fact, the sea ice today is equivalent to the sea ice first measured by satellite in 1979 the year record keeping began.
The data is being reported by the University of Illinois’s Arctic Climate Research Center, and is derived from satellite observations of the Northern and Southern hemisphere polar regions.
Despite the questionable science and dire predictions of the social engineers posing as environmentalist glaciers from Norway to California are growing.


Just another article of many from actual research centers disagreeing the the Gore rants. This particular article ends with a statment that I find to be completely right on the money....

Don’t expect any amount of good news about the environment to please this special interest group. The real prize for these fake environmentalist is to establish social and economic controls on the Earths population through regulation and taxation. http://www.dailynewscaster.com/2009/01/06/global-warming-fraudsters-dismayed-by-growing-ice-and-expanding-polar-bear-population/
Ringo
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 02-20-2003
Posts 3696
Saluting with misty eyes


5 posted 04-25-2009 09:41 AM       View Profile for Ringo   Email Ringo   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Ringo

Bob- Due respect, do you actually read what you are writing? Do you honestly believe it?
quote:
It's torture policy cannot actually be shown to have done anything. If it could have been, the Bush folks would have released that information themselves.

Back in the days of WWII, there was a phrase "Loose Lips Sink Ships"... When I was in the Marine Corps, and stationed over seas, we were given classes about not saying ANYTHING that dealt with specifics about troops movements, maneuvers, or operational techniques... even to each other... lest the words and information find themselves to the wrong people.

Obviously, that is not the way things are supposed to work these days. Operational security is fine as long as it doesn't:
~Keep people from learning all about what is going on
~Prevent everyone in the world from knowing our business
~Prevent a reporter from spreading it all over the newspapers
~Stop a bunch of screaming Liberals from blaming everything on someone they don't like, or who disagrees with them.

Plain and simple: The reason the Bush administration didn't splatter our business all over the press is because we are at war. Like it, don't like it, don't care about it... that is the fact as simply as I can make it.
When one does not want the enemy (enemies) to know what we are doing, so trhat they can train/counteract the specific procedures, one does not brag about the successes. Period.

Actualy, let's go back a couple of years and play this out the exact way you say it should have happened:

Dana Perino: The Enhanced Interrogation Techiniques have proven successful in the following ways , and we have been able to because of how we question the prisonsers.
Huffington Post, Daily Koz, MoveOn.Org, NYTimes, etc: Well, just what is it that you are doing that is creating such a success?
Perino: We can't discuss that due to operational security.
Liberals all over the freakin' world:
THAT'S NOT FAIR!! YOU WON'T TELL US WHAT YOU ARE DOING IN SECRET TO WIN THIS WAR!!! YOU ARE LYING TO US ABOUT THIS!!! THERE ARE NO SUCCESSES, BECAUSE YOU WON'T TELL US WHAT IS GOING ON!!!!!

Fast forward to this week:
Former Bush Administration Officials: Since you are releasing information that involves operational security, and are giving aid and comfort to the enemy (which is the definition of treason, thank you very much- me), at least release the papers that show the successful interrogations and that show what we were able to prevent from happening by doing such.
Liberals: Why are you hating PResident Barak Obama? He is the best thing that has ever happened to this county? If you had any successes, then you would have been the one to release Top Secret papers to the public, and not us.

Plain and simple: In my opinion, and in many of the Vets that I deal with on a daily/weekly basis, the President is one of the worst things that could have happened to our national security, and time is going to prove that he is not the savior that the liberals have announced him to be.

But this one goes to eleven...
http://www.hubpages.com/profile/RingoShort

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


6 posted 04-25-2009 10:10 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Ringo, the vets I associate with say the same thing. Obama is destroying our national security, all for the sake of his Bush (it's not me!!!) crusade.

We will have another 9/11 and Obama's current tactics will have gone a long way in allowing it to happen.
Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


7 posted 04-25-2009 11:05 AM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch


quote:
In one case, for example, a terrorist group in Asia had plans in the works to hijack an airliner and fly it into an LA skyscraper. The group was dismantled and plans eliminated based on the information received by our "torture" policy


Do you mean the Library Tower Mike?

.
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


8 posted 04-25-2009 12:44 PM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

It's a real pity, Denise, you had to throw so many ingredients into this pot. What could have been a good discussion is just murky and without any distinctive taste.

FWIW, I agree with your concern regarding the link you posted, even though that's hard to do with all the other stuff in your pot.

Until the government wants to also overturn "Ignorance of the law is no excuse," they have absolutely no right talking directly to the ignorant without prior counsel from the educated. Sure, that means a few guilty people will skate. That's a small price to pay for one innocent person to remain free.


Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


9 posted 04-25-2009 01:14 PM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch

quote:
Until the government wants to also overturn "Ignorance of the law is no excuse," they have absolutely no right talking directly to the ignorant without prior counsel from the educated.


Well put Ron, I agree.

I think this is a bad idea, they openly admit that the number of cases where this would actually improve the investigative process is miniscule. My worry would be the probable consequence that they haven’t mentioned - that the number of cases where the possibility for abuse exists would be somewhat less miniscule.

.
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


10 posted 04-25-2009 04:45 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

I'm feeling kind of murky, Ron. That was part of my point. There is just too much going on all at the same time making it difficult to really absorb any of it. Maybe that's the intent. It brings to mind one of the Saul Alinsky "Rules for Radicals":

RULE 8: "Keep the pressure on. Never let up." Keep trying new things to keep the opposition off balance. As the opposition masters one approach, hit them from the flank with something new. (Attack, attack, attack from all sides, never giving the reeling organization a chance to rest, regroup, recover and re-strategize.)

But this attempt to limit defendants' rights really took me by surprise. What is the possible benefit, other than perhaps making it easier for the prosecution? I'm just not understanding why they would want to do that.
Tim
Senior Member
since 06-08-99
Posts 1801


11 posted 04-25-2009 05:10 PM       View Profile for Tim   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Tim

Is it better that a guilty person be set free than an innocent person convicted?

Is it better that ten guilty people be set free than one innoncent person convicted?

Is it better that one hundred guilty people be set free rather than one innocent person be convicted?

Is it better that all guilty people be set free rather than one innoncent person be convicted?

That is really not the question.  The more proper question is whether a guilty person be set free rather than have his or her constitutional rights violated.

Or the next question, is it better a guilty person be set free rather than have his or her constitutional rights be violated when the violation by law enforcement was totally unintentional and had absolutely no effect on the determination of guilt or innocence?

This is a complex area of the law.

Both the Fifth and Sixth Amendments involve right to counsel.  The right attaches differently according to which amendment applies. (or both)

You obviously do not have a right to counsel every time law enforcement talks to you.  Equally obvious is the fact you have a right to waive the right to counsel

I was struck by the statement to not overule the prior decision because it set clear standards.  Not that the standards are necessarily agreed to as being correct, but something that can be comprehended and followed.

The law is not black or white, nor is it static.  The vast majority of law enforcement officers attempt to follow the law, but that is not always the simplest thing to do when lawyers, trial judges, and appellate judges can't come to agreement on what the constitution requires and change their minds on a regular basis.

So we will wait and see what the Supreme Court does and attempt to apply their rulings in situations never contemplated by the Justices.
Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


12 posted 04-25-2009 05:27 PM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch

quote:
What is the possible benefit, other than perhaps making it easier for the prosecution? I'm just not understanding why they would want to do that.


Benefit? I think the idea is more like “what’s the harm”.

My understanding is that they’re proposing that anyone who agrees to answer questions without a legal representative present should be able to do so if they so choose and that any information obtained during such questioning should be admissible in court.

It actually doesn’t remove the right to stay silent until your lawyer arrives, but personally I still think that the present system that’s used in the US is safer. Don’t get me wrong, the sky won’t fall in if this new rule is introduced – after all it’s worked pretty well in the UK for the past few hundred years. I just like the idea of having legal counsel present to ensure that due process is adhered to.

.

[This message has been edited by Grinch (04-26-2009 06:06 PM).]

Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


13 posted 04-25-2009 07:13 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

Okay, okay.  I'll talk. I'll say whatever you want me to say.  Bush was the best President in American History.  Trickle Down Economics works.  Just don't make me read this thread.  Please!

Where I think Sherman and the Post really miss the mark here is that the ball is entirely in the Supreme Court's, er, court.  

There's nothing the Obama Administration can do regarding the case in question.  Likewise -- the Congress and the Justice Department have the charge of investigating any alleged crimes regarding the interrogation of WOT detainees.  

Obama overreached when he said and when Emanuel said that they weren't going to pursue it.  And, if crimes were committed -- there is no choice but to prosecute -- or else another crime is being committed.
Tim
Senior Member
since 06-08-99
Posts 1801


14 posted 04-25-2009 11:28 PM       View Profile for Tim   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Tim

Interestingly enough, cases are targeted by prosecutors and defense counsel to reach the Supreme Court.

A case that has facts either the defense or prosecution feel will be more favorably received by the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court makes the decision, but as a wild old Judge used to tell me, the most powerful person in the Courtroom is most generally the prosecution because they are the ones who get to decide what gets to Court in the first place and can always dismiss.

If no one appeals or seeks to have a case reversed, then the Court does nothing.

The U.S. Supreme Court does not take cases willy-nilly.  Only a minute number are taken for consideration, and the deciding factor is going to be of significant legal import.

The ruling handed down last week on search and seizure was being discussed in courtrooms and law enforcement circles across the entire country the day it was issued.  I ruled on a case the next day because of the ruling.

If the Supreme Court makes a constitutional ruling on right to counsel, it will have significant and immediate impact.  The Department of Justice is not an uninterested bystander in the proceedings.
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


15 posted 04-26-2009 02:45 AM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



     How guilty can a person be if his or her constitutional rights are violated?  Guilt being determined by legal proceedings, if those legal proceedings have been flawed, even though guilt may be determined, can that determination actually be said to be valid.  Might it not be fruit of a poisoned tree?  The whole nature of guilt in those circumstance seems called into question on a very basic level, except for perhaps Texas and other third world countries, where once guilt is determined it doesn't seem to matter if Jehovah himself is willing to swear your innocence.  
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


16 posted 04-26-2009 02:56 AM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

But, the petitioner, Montejo, is the petitioner.  The DOJ can't make anybody drop this case nor did it prosecute Montejo.  Kathryn Landry represents the State of La. and the Supreme Court accepted the case in October 2008.  

Is it your suggestion Tim that the Solicitor General's brief carries more weight than that of the petitioner?

And, as I said before, I can't get too excited about this case because stare decisis makes it doubtful that the Court will reverse Jackson -- but even if it does I think Kagan's argument that Jackson is redundant to other protections is valid -- and we don't need the belt and suspenders.  But, since we already have both I don't really see the point in taking them off for aesthetics.

Kagan wasn't confirmed as the Solicitor General until March 19th -- so how much of her fingerprints are actually in this brief and how much is a carryover from the previous SG?  I don't know.  It's true the SG argues the President's position -- but has Obama actually had the time to be taking a position on this given his rather active first 100 days as President?

And -- I can hear the howls in my head coming from conservatives in the event the administration had filed a brief supporting the Jackson ruling -- "Obama is turning convicted murderers free!"
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


17 posted 04-26-2009 03:26 AM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K




Dear Mike,

          Interesting comments on the polar bears.  I know you dislike Al Gore, and are disinclined to believe or listen to anything he says, even if it's about polar bears.  I don't think they're cute, by the way; they scare me because they're big predators whose major interest in me is as an appetizer.  But I do have some quarrel with your facts.  It doesn't particularly matter to me that the pictures were taken — the pictures you're talking about that were "debunked" in your article — in August.  I checked, and found some data about the initial consideration about putting the bears on the endangered species list.  From a U.S. Government Department of Dirk Kempthorne 2006 release

quote:


Scientific observations have revealed a decline in late summer Arctic sea ice to the extent of 7.7 percent per decade and in the perennial sea ice area of 9.8 percent per decade since 1978.  Observations have likewise shown a thinning of the Arctic sea ice of 32 percent from the 1960s and 1970s to the 1990s in some local areas.

There are 19 polar bear populations in the circumpolar Arctic, containing an estimated total of 20,000-25,000 bears.  
The western Hudson Bay population of polar bears in Canada has suffered a 22 percent decline. Alaska populations have not experienced a statistically significant decline, but Fish and Wildlife Service biologists are concerned that they may face such a decline in the future.



     In case you missed the part about decline of late summer ice being part of the problem (and not extraneous, as you and the Aussie debunkers would seem to imply, I will repeat, "Scientific observations have revealed a decline in late summer Arctic sea ice to the extent of 7.7 percent per decade[.]"  It doesn't particularly matter if the bears in question were using inflatable Mel Gibson appetizer rafts to paddle back and forth to shore where they held weenie roasts and drank Pina Coladas.  Their populations were still apparently shrinking.

     I did find some references to the stuff that you were talking about, however, and I do appreciate you steering me in that direction.  The Sunday Telegraph especially has a very fine reputation, and I needed to do some in depth checking before I felt comfortable disagreeing with them, and I had to turn the notion over a lot and consider it from a lot of different angles as well.  I'll have to add them to my list of papers to check out when I'm looking for references myself, and I'm glad you turned them up.

     I turned up some other possible references on the subject, if you're interested, and if I can get them into this thread, I'll do so.  I hope your belly is backing off on Giving you a hard time.  I hope you're getting better fast.


http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en-us&q=Decline+in+polar+bear+populations&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en-us&q=Decline+in+polar+bear+populations&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

http://www.doi.gov/news/06_News_Releases/061227.html


All my best, Mr. Bob


Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


18 posted 04-26-2009 04:05 AM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K


Dear Ringo,

          I think I'm reading what I'm writing.  Are you?

I said that the information that was released on torture was not new information.  I said" The information about the torture used by US forces and The CIA in the interrogation of prisoners is not new.  It was mentioned in a New Yorker article in 2005 and in this article, whose link I'm providing below.  The details of The New Yorker Article are provided in that."  Check for details.

     Not only were the details of what tortures being used described, but also on whom they were being used, as long as the claim that they were being effective.  If the Bush administration had actually wished to prevent the Loose Lips Sink Ships scenario, they would not have allowed that information out, would they, since knowing whom we had captive immediately let enemies know what information was at risk.  If you plan on information at risk not being lost, you are hardly a wise commander, are you?  

     You may well notice, however, that these principles didn't stop the President and Vice President from Blowing the cover of Valerie Plame, who was in charge of much of  the espionage on weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear weapons, for us in the middle east.  This may well have crippled our incoming flow of intelligence on Iran and who knows what all other important conflict areas.  This was, apparently, for momentary political gain and petty partisan revenge.  There are specific intelligence blogs, and blogs focusing on counterinsurgency that try to politically neutral, as they should, since their mandate is policy not politics.

     I have made reference to one or two over the past year, but I won't repeat them here.  I'm afraid that you'd find them tainted by my mention of them and might not be if you stumbled across them on your own.  On one occasion I made a point of referencing a journal that had a point of view that disagreed with me but still had a well written and fascinating article on weapons sales, drugs, the spread of gangs and other such things.  Nobody followed up, probably because I'd made the reference.  Check for yourself.

     Beg your pardon, guys, but the Bush administration was always floating reports about how astute torture or investigative work was going to lead to the conviction of X or y, or had headed of this or that thing, but they never came through with the details that would actually produce the convictions, just like they never came through with those weapons of mass destruction or the mobile laboratories or the airplanes that had been sent to Iran for safety.  Their entire administration was one long series of promises like that.

     Remember when they said that the United States didn't torture Prisoners?

     Richard Cheney and Scooter Rumsfeld are simply at it again, with more, larger and stickier lies for your consuming pleasure.  Eat your fill, but please don't try to talk me into picking up a spoon too.  It was never to my taste.

     And if you actually read those memos, by the way, you realize that there are very strict limits as to the number of times these things are supposed to be done, and that they are all suppose to be done under direct supervision of Psychologists.  I think that doing these things in excess of 25 times within a limited period of time falls into the realm of torture for anybody, let alone the more than 100 times that some folks were exposed to.

     That behavior, the behavior that ordered that sort of questioning, is the real criminal activity.  That to me is treason, and I think it did enormous damage to the United States in wartime.  If I believed in the death penalty, and I do not, it's orders like this that would merit it, especially knowing that the information gotten from such interrogations is unlikely to be useful.  Even with cross-checks, the possibilities for human error put the reliability of such information as much less that good as other than an indulgence in sadism.

Sincerely, Bob Kaven

[This message has been edited by Ron (04-26-2009 11:26 AM).]

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


19 posted 04-26-2009 09:56 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Just don't make me read this thread.  Please!

LR, if you will supply the names pf whoever is making you read this thread, I assure you we will take administrative action!

Bob, thanks for the response. I plan to dig into the links you provided for further information. Me dislike Gore? Well, I suppose I do, in a way, in the same way I would disike any confidence man who preys on victims for his own personal benefit, which Gore has done on a scale that would dwarf any previous confidence men in history. Yes, there are many reports for and against the growth/decline of the glaciers and the future/demise of polar bears and other assorted wildlife. At casual glance I find it interesting that most of the reports I see declaring the death of glaciers and their furry inhabitants come from government-financed organizations. Quite the coincidence, no? I did see several weeks ago Gore on a Danish talk show promoting his views and, when challenged by a Danish scientist to debate man-made global warming and Gore's claims, he refused and was doing quite a bit of stuttering as he tried to explain that there were too many unknown variables to debate.....and then left the stage.  Why didn't that surprise me?

What seems to be interesting to me now is what the news organizations and the administration is pushing. There is little doubt that the major concern for the country, based on every poll in existence, is the economy so  what are the two points that are occupying the majority of headline space?

(1) Fighting global warming and instituting new rules and controls to combat and reverse the effects of the man-made destruction of the ozone layer. The administration is pushing for controls, regulations and mandatory requirements for companies to follow, all of which will wind up costing the taxpayers more money, in a climate where taxpayers have little money as it is and unemployment through the roof. Even if I concede that this is an area that has to be addressed, does it have to be addressed NOW, in this horrific economical time? Does the world cease to exist as we know it in the next decade without this urgency? More than that, it's not a global movement. China is not adopting these controls. India is not adopting these controls...and those are two of the greatest polluters on the planet! So Obama is saying that America, doing only it's part. is vital in saving the earth and it needs to be done NOW, while people are counting pennies for groceries. It's like telling your starving 5 year old son that you spent the grocery money on sunscreen for him because it may prevent skin cancer for him when he gets into his teens.

(2)  CIA interrogation tactics. Fine, we can debate on whether waterboarding is torture or not (Congress didn't seem to think so when they approved it), whether or not such tactics are effective or a wide variety of questions relating to the topic. My question is....what has that to do with the economy? The CIA is terririfed right now of doing ANYTHING, based on Obama's claims that "No one will be prosecuted" to "There will be investigations and possible prosecutions", a u-turn that only took him one day. Terrorists around the world are surely laughing themselves silly at our antics...but what does that have to do with the economy? Obama is busy going around the world telling everyone who will listen that "It's not my fault!" or "I wasn't born yet!" or "I wasn't President!" and sitting in conferences, remaining mute while other country leaders tear the country apart and then he smiles and shakes their hands afterwards....to the point where The Daily Telegraph commented that never in US history has an American president apologized so much for his country while on foreign soil. Be that all as it may....what does that have to do with the economy? Where are the tens of thousands of "shovel-ready" jobs that Harry Reid claimed were there as soon as the stimulus bills were passed? If the CIA is disbanded tomorrow, if Bush comes out and says, "I did it! I did it!"....how does that help the economy?  Obama is still campaigning, still using the same tactics as he used trying to get elected because that is all he knows how to do.

Why does global warming and waterboarding get the headlines when the economy is the main issue on the public's minds? In my view they are simply red herrings to get people's minds off the deplorable economic conditions, off the fact that Obama has put at least two future generations in hopeless debt, and off the fact that his policies are going to bring MORE hardships to the populace. Sure. my house is being foreclosed on and I may not have a job but somebody is going to be punished for waterboarding a terrorist and I may be saving a glacier from melting too quickly. Glory hallelujah....
Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


20 posted 04-26-2009 04:59 PM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch


quote:
Why does global warming and waterboarding get the headlines when the economy is the main issue on the public's minds?


Because there’s a demand for articles about waterboarding and global warming? I’m only guessing but if there wasn’t a market surely the news organisations wouldn’t be wasting money producing them.

.
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


21 posted 04-26-2009 05:27 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

Grinch, I think most people would benefit from advice of counsel when dealing with the authorities. Innocent people can end up in jail, especially when a skilled prosecutor can artfully present a circumstancial case where no direct evidence exists. I think all the protections possible should be in place, even if they appear redundant.

It's very complex Tim, too complex for the average layman, and of course it is not desirable that a guilty person beat the system with a skilled defense attorney, but I think it is more undesirable if an innocent person is convicted. I think people who agree to talk with the authorities without counsel when they know or think they may be a 'person of interest' in a case are as misguided as those who choose to act as their own attorney in a courtroom.

Speaking of waterboarding or putting caterpillars in a room with someone who has a bug phobia, sleep deprivation, loud music, being thrown into a 'soft wall' (with the benefit of foam neck padding to prevent injury), etc., it's been reported that at the approximately 30 CIA briefings of these methods to the members of Congress, none of them balked at any of it. Some of them even expressed sentiments along the lines of "whatever you have to do to protect Americans, do it", and "that's it? Are you sure that will be enough to get them to reveal their plots?" A Freedom of Information request is being initiated to obtain the minutes of all those meetings. And Nancy will be forced to eat her words of the other day. I won't hold my breath for her resignation though.

I think the 3,000 people killed on 9/11, if given the choice, would have chosen any of those techniques being used against them instead of being burned alive in, or plunging from, high-rises, and obliterated in airplanes by the Islamist terrorists, as I'm sure Danny Pearl would have too. He was the guy who was decapitated with a knife while screaming, filmed live for public dissemination.

What they and their families went through is the real torture. Let's recall all those gruesome pictures that are burned into our memories next week when Obama authorizes the release of the so-called torture by the CIA photos of the high-value captives. And I'm sure the NY Times will also rerun the Abu Ghraib photos for an extra attempted kick in the groin of America.

  
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


22 posted 04-26-2009 06:05 PM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

quote:
What they and their families went through is the real torture.

I don't think anyone would ever argue with that sentiment, Denise. But do we really want to become just like the people who did that to them? I'm just old fashioned enough to want to be able to tell the good guys from the bad guys.
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


23 posted 04-26-2009 06:11 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

Ron, please, for the love of God, how can a comparison even be made?
Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


24 posted 04-26-2009 06:18 PM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch


Denise,

Do you believe that the ability to torture should be extended?

Let’s say for instance that someone is suspected of abducting a small child, would it be ok to torture the accused to find out where the missing child was?

.
 
 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
All times are ET (US) Top
  User Options
>> Discussion >> The Alley >> My head is spinning   [ Page: 1  2  ] Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Print Send ECard

 

pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Today's Topics | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary



© Passions in Poetry and netpoets.com 1998-2013
All Poetry and Prose is copyrighted by the individual authors