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 : Moderate Forum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sun Tzu who wrote (13734)	11/15/2004 8:10:18 PM
From: Dan B.	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20773

That was on NBC with Tom Brokaw much earlier this evening. Also being discussed on Fox. BBC has nothing on our media, it seems, for what its worth. Poor Raymond Duray hasn't a clue what an unjustified "genocide" is, let alone the ability to comment competently, IMO. Dan B.

To: Sun Tzu who wrote (13734)	11/15/2004 8:17:02 PM
From: Raymond Duray	Respond to of 20773

Re: I wonder how many reporters have been allowed into Fallujah and what they will have to say when the censorship is lifted. Damn few and damn little. The American people are simply not to be informed of what happened in Fallujah. To do so would jeopardize years of careful propaganda work to create a totally clueless populace in this country. I like the way author Michael Parenti states this: "The enormous gap between what US leaders do in the world and what Americans think their leaders are doing is one of the great propaganda accomplishments of the dominant political mythology."

To: Sun Tzu who wrote (13734)	11/15/2004 8:17:40 PM
From: Michael Watkins	Respond to of 20773

BUT ITS NOT A WAR CRIME, BECAUSE WE SAY SO, ... so pptthhtt! The US military is looking into whether an American marine in Falluja shot dead a severely wounded Iraqi insurgent at point-blank range. The images were taken by an NBC reporter embedded with the US troops in the Sunni city under assault. news.bbc.co.uk Alberto Gonzales, the oh-so-not moderate nominee for Attorney General wrote this: "We further conclude that certain acts may be cruel, inhuman, or degrading, but still not produce pain and suffering of the requisite intensity to fall within Section 2340A's proscription against torture. ... Physical pain amounting to torture must be equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death. But it doesn't matter what the Geneva Convention or the US War Crimes Act is, because the administration played fancy legal games. Hey, what's all this about Tort Reform about anyway, when Bush has no problem whatsoever having his legal council torture the law so Bush and any other administration figure can be protected from prosection. The legal trick? Simply call the enemy by a different name and then you can get away with anything. In the memo, the White House lawyer focused on a little known 1996 law passed by Congress, known as the War Crimes Act, that banned any Americans from committing war crimes—defined in part as "grave breaches" of the Geneva Conventions. Noting that the law applies to "U.S. officials" and that punishments for violators "include the death penalty," Gonzales told Bush that "it was difficult to predict with confidence" how Justice Department prosecutors might apply the law in the future. This was especially the case given that some of the language in the Geneva Conventions—such as that outlawing "outrages upon personal dignity" and "inhuman treatment" of prisoners—was "undefined." The best way to guard against such "unwarranted charges," the White House lawyer concluded, would be for President Bush to stick to his decision—then being strongly challenged by Secretary of State Powell— to exempt the treatment of captured Al Qaeda and Taliban fighters from Geneva convention provisions. "Your determination would create a reasonable basis in law that (the War Crimes Act) does not apply which would provide a solid defense to any future prosecution," Gonzales wrote. msnbc.msn.com Full Gonzales memo: msnbc.msn.com Powell Response: msnbc.msn.com Where Powell said [the Bush/Gonzales opinion] will reverse over a century of U.S. policy and practice in supporting the Geneva conventions and undermine the protections of the law of war for our troops, both in this specific conflict and in general. If you read the two memos it becomes quite clear what is going on - Gonzales/Bush are in serious "cover my ass" posture (why do so when a cause is "just" one might ask); while Powell is the only one actually proposing to conduct a war based on historical conventions, with a view toward preserving international support, U.S. legitimacy, and the rule of law. Sadly the only moderate, sane, voice of reason who has the public confidence is gone.