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 : Don't Blame Me, I Voted For Kerry -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bearcatbob who wrote (30471)	6/12/2004 9:18:45 PM
From: TopCat	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 81568

The following collection of quotes will escape notice if our media is left to tell the story. Where Bush Got His Marching Orders "One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." - President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998 "If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." - President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998 "Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." - Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998 "He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." - Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998 "We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." - Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin (D-MI), Tom Daschle (D-SD), John Kerry ( D - MA), and others Oct. 9, 1998 "Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." - Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998 "Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." - Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999 "There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." - Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001 "We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." - Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002 "We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 "Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002 "The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." - Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002 "I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002 "There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002 "He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do." - Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002 "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapon stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." - Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002 "We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002 "Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation .. And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real." - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003 SO NOW THESE SAME DEMOCRATS SAY PRESIDENT BUSH LIED, THAT THERE NEVER WERE ANY WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION, AND THAT HE TOOK US TO WAR UNECESSARILY !

To: Bearcatbob who wrote (30471)	6/12/2004 9:19:14 PM
From: redfish	Respond to of 81568

tort reform should not be a federal issue, it is a state issue. aren't repubes supposed to be big on state rights?

To: Bearcatbob who wrote (30471)	6/12/2004 9:59:19 PM
From: Skywatcher	Respond to of 81568

no wonder Bush won't adhere to anything WORLDLY... or JUSTICE ORIENTED US Struggles to Win Immunity for its Troops By Mark Turner Financial Times Thursday 10 June 2004 Even as the US claimed victory with its United Nations resolution on Iraq this week, its officials were struggling with a potentially more divisive measure: to ensure immunity for American troops from the International Criminal Court. In late May, Washington attempted to railroad through a resolution that in effect gave US military and civilian personnel immunity from prosecution by the ICC when they are part of UN peacekeeping missions or "related to a UN-authorised operation" such as that in Iraq. It extended the immunity to all UN countries that had not ratified the new court's statute. A new resolution granting the immunity needs to pass before July, when the old resolution runs out. This is the third time Washington has called for blanket immunity, which would last a year. In 2002 the US won unanimous support after it threatened to veto UN peacekeeping missions one by one. As of last month the US had 560 nationals in UN peacekeeping operations but many more in UN-mandated multinational forces, such as those in Kosovo and Iraq. The ICC, which has the power to prosecute war crimes and crimes against humanity, is anathema to the US administration, which fears politically motivated prosecutions. But this year, as allegations mounted of US human rights abuses in Iraq and elsewhere, China warned it could use its veto if a quick vote were called, and Washington later postponed the discussion indefinitely amid signs that it might not have the necessary nine votes for it to pass. As the US seeks international help in Iraq, it may find it more difficult to stymie operations elsewhere. According to analysts, as many as seven of the 15 Security Council members have indicated they might abstain, including France, Spain, Germany, Brazil, Chile, Benin and Romania. But some are reluctant to be cast as the spoiler that makes the resolution fail, and China's position will be crucial. Diplomats said its stance reflected discontent at moves by Taiwan to gain observer status at the World Health Organisation. The US is believed to be applying bilateral pressure to persuade countries to change their votes. Richard Dicker, director of the international justice programme at Human Rights Watch, said: "The evidence of torture is a framework where the US insisting on immunity for its armed forces has so little persuasiveness it has run into a buzzsaw of opposition." But advocates of the court insist that if the US is genuine on conducting investigations into its misdeeds, it has nothing to fear. For a start, Washington already has bilateral deals with Afghanistan and many other states ensuring its immunity, and Iraq has not ratified the court's statute. Even were Iraq to sign up, says Mr Dicker, "it would make US service members liable to the court if and only if US authorities were unwilling to conduct a genuine investigation. It is a court of last resort. We're not there yet." He added that the court's judges came from states that applied the rule of law. "It is not composed of those who bear political animus against the United States," he said. Go to Original A Torturer's Charter By Richard Norton-Taylor Guardian Saturday 12 June 2004 Secret Documents Show that US Interrogators are Above the Law. On the stage of a London theatre on Thursday night, a lawyer held up an official US document, classified by Donald Rumsfeld as "secret" and "not for foreign eyes". Considering its contents, the document has attracted remarkably little attention here since it was leaked this week to the US media. Its significance was raised by Clive Stafford-Smith, director of the US-based group Justice in Exile, at the end of a performance of Guantanamo, the Tricycle Theatre's moving indictment of how the US rounded up detainees - or "unlawful combatants", as it calls them - and sent them to the US base in Cuba. Stafford-Smith is acting for some of the Guantanamo prisoners, challenging the conditions in which they are being held. The US supreme court is expected to give its ruling before the end of this month. Rumsfeld's classified document, drawn up by US government lawyers, bears directly on the case. It argues that American interrogators can ignore US domestic law banning torture, because it would restrict the president's powers in his "war on terror". The document, drawn up last year, says that "criminal statutes are not read as infringing on the president's ultimate authority" over "the conduct of war". It adds: "In order to respect the president's inherent constitutional authority to manage a military campaign, [the prohibition of torture] must be construed as inapplicable to interrogators undertaken pursuant to his commander-in-chief authority". Constitutionally, America's founding fathers entrusted the president with the primary responsibility, and therefore the power, to ensure the security of the US in situations of "grave and unforeseen emergencies". It goes on: "Numerous presidents have ordered the capture, detention, and questioning of enemy combatants during virtually every major conflict in the nation's history, including recent conflicts in Korea, Vietnam and the Persian Gulf". And it continues: "Congress can no more interfere with the president's conduct of the interrogation of enemy combatants than it can dictate strategy or tactical decisions on the battlefield." The lengths to which Rumsfeld's lawyers are prepared to go to protect the freedom of the president's agents and place them above the law are reflected in other passages. The document states that US interrogators can use harsh measures as long as they were not "specifically intended" to inflict "severe mental pain or suffering". In another passage, it says that even if an interrogator "knows that severe pain will result from his actions, if causing harm is not his objective, he lacks the requisite specific intent." Interrogators can appeal to the defence of "necessity" - in other words, they can argue that torturing individuals is needed to prevent greater harm or evil such as threats to the safety of the nation. And the concept of "self-defence" is given the widest possible interpretation, referring to the nation rather than any individual. The document, on the face of it, is a charter allowing the US president to abuse human rights and ignore domestic as well as international law. Stafford-Smith yesterday pointed to what he called its most outrageous argument - namely, that domestic law does not apply to actions inside the US. Torture can be committed inside the US. The Pentagon's lawyers describe Guantanamo Bay as "included within the definition of the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the US and accordingly is within the US". They add: "Thus, the torture statute does not apply to the conduct of US personnel" at Guantanamo Bay. The apparent non sequitur is based on the argument that the statute is confined to actions outside the US - in other words, that torture is not banned within the US. Yet this directly contradicts claims made by other US government lawyers who insist Guantanamo Bay detainees have no rights under US law. The naval base, they insist, is not US sovereign territory so the detainees do not have such basic rights as access to a fair trial. The issue is now before the US supreme court. If the detainees win this argument, it could lead the way to at least some kind of judicial process, including the testing of evidence. But whatever Guantanamo Bay's territorial status, according to the Rumsfeld document, detainees there and anywhere else can be tortured at will in Bush's global "war" on terrorism. "The authorisation I issued was that anything we did would conform to US laws and would be consistent with international treaty obligations," Bush said this week. Little comfort there.

To: Bearcatbob who wrote (30471)	6/12/2004 9:59:49 PM
From: Skywatcher	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 81568

The "errors" just KEEP COMIN! U.S. Wrongly Reported Drop in World Terrorism By The Associated Press Friday 11 June 2004 Washington - The State Department acknowledged Thursday that it was wrong in reporting that terrorism declined worldwide last year, a finding the Bush administration had pointed to as evidence of its success in countering terror. Instead, the number of incidents and the toll in victims increased sharply, the department said. Statements by senior administration officials claiming success were based "on the facts as we had them at the time; the facts that we had were wrong," Richard A. Boucher, the State Department spokesman, said. When the report was issued April 29, senior administration officials used it as evidence that the war was being won. J. Cofer Black, coordinator of the State Department's Counterterrorism Office, cited the 190 acts of terrorism in 2003, down from 198 in 2002, as "good news" and predicted the trend would continue. Richard L. Armitage, the deputy secretary of state, said at the time, "You will find in these pages clear evidence that we are prevailing in the fight." His office did not respond Thursday to a request for a statement on disclosures that some of the findings were inaccurate. The erroneous report, titled "Patterns of Global Terrorism," said that attacks declined last year to the lowest level in 34 years and dropped 45 percent since 2001, Mr. Bush's first year as president, when 346 attacks occurred. Among the mistakes, Mr. Boucher said, was that only part of 2003 was taken into account. Secretary of State Colin L. Powell said Thursday that the errors were partly the result of new procedures for collecting data. "I can assure you it had nothing to do with putting out anything but the most honest, accurate information we can," Mr. Powell said said. "Errors crept in that, frankly, we did not catch here," he said of the report, which showed a decline in the number of attacks worldwide in 2003. Representative Henry A. Waxman, Democrat of California, said this week that the administration had refused to address his contention that the findings were manipulated for political purposes. Mr. Waxman wrote to Mr. Powell in May asking for an explanation. Mr. Boucher said the department was preparing a reply. "We wanted to make sure that we give the congressman the best and most accurate picture of what we know and what's going on as we can," he said. "When we are sure we have the new facts, the right facts, we will prepare an appropriate analysis and give you our assessment at that moment," Mr. Boucher said. He said the errors began to become apparent in early May. "We got phone calls from people who were going through our report and who said to themselves, as we should have said to ourselves: 'This doesn't feel right. This doesn't look right.' And who started asking us questions," he said. -------

To: Bearcatbob who wrote (30471)	6/12/2004 10:25:48 PM
From: bentway	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 81568

The Bush tort reform proposal was more like indemnity for corporations. The Bush personal savings accounts aren't paid for - who makes good on the SS i.o.u.'s he's currently stuffing in the "lockbox"? Bush's energy plan was a giveaway to energy companies that even embarrassed Republicans! Bush has run up the largest deficit in history - how can you say otherwise? Kerry promises to restore fiscal responsibility or cut back on his programs if this is not possible - and we both know it's not possible. What's Bush's plan for fiscal responsibility?