Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Road Walker who wrote (187926)	5/5/2004 7:59:15 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1583406

It gets worse! **************************************************** Jailed Iraqis hidden from Red Cross, says US army Julian Borger in Washington Wednesday May 5, 2004 The Guardian US military policemen moved unregistered Iraqi prisoners, known as "ghost detainees", around an army-run jail at Abu Ghraib, in order to hide them from the Red Cross, according to a confidential military report. The report on abuses at Abu Ghraib prison - a copy of which was obtained by the Guardian - described the practice of hiding prisoners as "deceptive, contrary to army doctrine, and in violation of international law". The revelations surfaced at a time when the prison abuse scandal threatened to engulf the Pentagon and the military occupation of Iraq. The US army yesterday admitted to the Senate there was evidence of widespread abuse of prisoners in military-run jails in both Iraq and Afghanistan. There have been a total of 25 recorded deaths in US military custody in both countries. The army also said yesterday that one soldier had been court-martialed for using excessive force in shooting to death an Iraqi prisoner last September. The soldier was reduced in rank and dismissed from the army. It disclosed, too, that it had referred to the Justice Department a homicide case involving a CIA contract interrogator alleged to be responsible for the death of an Iraqi pris oner last November. That death was at Abu Ghraib prison. "I think the important point that I took from this hearing is that this does not appear to be an isolated incident and that there are additional reports in Iraq, and also Afghanistan," Senator Edward Kennedy said after an army briefing of the armed services committee. "And I think we also have to find out [about] the conduct of personnel down in Guantanamo as well." The defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, said that multiple investigations were under way into prison conditions and interrogation techniques, including at Guantanamo Bay and a naval detention centre at Charleston, South Carolina. But he denied the scandal represented a breakdown in control. "The system works," he insisted. However, Mr Rumsfeld was denounced in the Senate for failing to tell Congress about the Abu Ghraib scandal until the news broke in the press last week. The army report on Abu Ghraib, written by Major General Antonio Taguba, is a bluntly-worded indictment of the military detention system, with harsh words for the military policemen who physically and sexually abused prisoners, their superior officers, and the private contractors who carried out interrogations and gave some of the orders. The Taguba report described how "ghost detainees" were brought to the military police (MP) unit running several jails in Iraq by OGAs (military jargon for other government agencies, often a reference to the CIA). "The various detention facilities operated by the 800th MP Brigade have routinely held persons brought to them by OGAs without accounting for them, knowing their identities, or even the reason for their detention," the report stated. "The joint interrogation and debriefing centre (JIDC) at Abu Ghraib called these detainees 'ghost detainees'. On at least one occasion, the 320th MP Battalion at Abu Ghraib held a handful of 'ghost detainees' for OGAs that they moved around within the facility to hide them from a visiting International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) survey team." guardian.co.uk

To: Road Walker who wrote (187926)	5/17/2004 6:34:05 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1583406

but still the fact that welfare combined with other benefits can pay more then some entry level jobs does provide a perverse incentive. Sometimes people are less well off when they take a job. Prove that that is significant, or even true. Significant is largely subjective but it is true that some people receive more money in benefits then the lowest paying jobs would give when you consider all federal and state benefits. This is esp. true for part time jobs. "The program, called Pursuit of New Opportunities (PONO) provides that welfare payments - which at $712 a month for a family of three are among the highest in the nation" siliconinvestor.com That is just the basic welfare payment for a family of three. People who qualify for the basic welfare payment are also eligible for other forms of government aid or subsidy. The US minimum wage is $5.15 which equals about $885 a month for a full time job. The other payments and benefits can add up to more then the $173 a month difference esp. for people with medical problems that are paid for by Medicaid. Also that level is for a family of three, not every family on welfare only has 3 children. The amount received would be higher for a family with more kids. Also even when the job pays a bit more then the welfare benefit there is something of a perverse incentive if you can get almost as much money not working as you can working. Fortunately welfare reform has reduced these perverse incentives. They used to be worse. But they have not gone away entirely. "I see your perspective but on the other hand it is in another way criminal to take from some by force, to help out others. " Crap. That's what government and taxes are all about. Everything bill, every road, everything the government does takes and gives. That's the fact Jack. The debate is who gives, who takes. Not every bill is for redistribution of wealth but even if every bill and law was for that purpose it wouldn't change the fact that it is in a way criminal. There is so much give to Corporate welfare, why do you guys fret over a few 1/10's of a penny to a few folks that scam the welfare system. The Corps are scamming the system for many time that amount. 1 - I'm not fretting so much over welfare scams. They exist and its a bad thing but I recognize that its a very small percentage of the budget and I don't talk about such scams that often. 2 - I don't think scams are a huge problem in corporate welfare either. Maybe scams amount for a bigger percentage then in regular welfare but in both cases its not the scams that I am mostly concerned about. Even when the beneficiaries are being honest and following the rules I have problems with the programs, esp. for corporate welfare because it has less justification. Robbing from the rich to give to the poor is still robbing but it doesn't strike as negative of cord as robbing from everyone to give to the rich. you are just another brainwashed talk show conservative that is so self-absorbed that "welfare queen" boils the blood Your the only one I see talking about welfare queens. I have not been using the term, nor even focusing on people who scam welfare. Not that I really see anything wrong with someone focusing on stopping such fraud, there should always be some focus on stopping fraud, but personally I think there are bigger issues to worry about. Tim