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.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Grainne who wrote (91718)	12/18/2004 9:59:38 PM
From: Grainne	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

The British are experts at human rights abuses--they had lots of practice in Northern Ireland for sure. It's nice to see that, under pressure from human rights groups, they are reconsidering the practice: Ban on hooding of war captives U-turn after outrage at treatment of Iraqi PoWs Mark Townsend Sunday December 19, 2004 The Observer Defence officials are secretly preparing to ban British forces from placing hoods over the heads of prisoners, a method which became notorious because of the treatment of Iraqi detainees. A policy review has been launched by the Ministry of Defence into whether they can continue to justify the tactic, according to letters seen by The Observer. News that British troops routinely hooded Iraqi prisoners raised widespread international concern over the government's handling of the conflict. Human rights groups condemn the practice as inhumane. The issue resurfaced last week when the High Court heard how a prisoner, Baha Mousa, 26, died after being taken to a British base in Basra in September last year where he was reportedly hooded and beaten. The revelation that the government may abolish hooding represents a significant departure from its former stance. Until now, ministers have maintained that the practice was acceptable under certain military circumstances. Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon was forced to admit that British forces hooded detainees in Iraq last year following a Red Cross report into abuses by UK troops. Yesterday, human rights groups said they were delighted that the MoD was looking at more acceptable ways of treating captives. Blindfolding prisoners where soldiers deem it essential to restrict a prisoner's vision is understood to be the favoured option. A letter from the MoD's director-general of operational policy, dated 29 November, reveals that measures governing the restriction of vision during arrest and tran sit 'including the practice of hooding' are being re-examined. The use of blindfolds or hoods during interrogations has been banned by the UK since 1972. Hooding by coalition troops came to international attention during the summer when US soldiers took pictures of Iraqis in Abu Ghraib prison with their heads covered. Within days another of the year's defining images emerged when the Daily Mirror printed pictures allegedly showing UK troops urinating on a hooded man. Another image revealed a man being being hit with a rifle in the groin. Although the images later proved to be fakes, human rights groups said they heightened anxiety over the use of hoods. Despite the furore, however, ministers have so far maintained that hooding is a necessary evil of war. Lord Bach, the defence procurement minister, wrote in a parliamentary answer last July that 'the UK believes that hooding during arrest and transit is acceptable when there is a strong military reason'. Hooding, however, has been banned in UK institutions since September 2003. Carla Ferstman, legal director of the human rights organisation Redress, said: 'It's fantastic that they are reviewing their policy of hooding, this represents a significant departure from our perspective. We do not ever feel hooding could ever be justified.' She condemned hooding as cruel and said that the practice led to severe sensory deprivation which could increase a person's vulnerability. Amnesty International has demanded that hooding be criminalised. A spokesman for the MoD confirmed they were looking at alternatives to hooding following concern from human rights groups, but added they had not ruled out their use following initial capture. guardian.co.uk

To: Grainne who wrote (91718)	12/18/2004 11:19:44 PM
From: cosmicforce	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

As noble as the aim to avoid opioids is, it is pretty difficult to accomplish. Everything from sex to food, to exercise to behavioral idiosyncrasies predisposes one to opioids and their effects. Heroine is the ultimate opioid but many consider it less addictive than tobacco. Chocolate is also in that family... possibly also quite addictive. opioids.com As far as quality of life, it is probably more important to be happy, for whatever reason. I think eating happy animals is probably safer than eating frightened animals because I think cortisols are cumulative, and eating an animal who is scared or angry is like being scared or angry yourself. Eating plants provides a lot of health benefits, but quite honestly, I don't think celery likes to die any more than a chicken. With the right equipment, you can measure the response - and it isn't good. Much like when you rip them from the root. Cellular rejection of being eaten is traceable from the first primordial plant that was devoured by the first primordial animal. Even before, probably. My own periodic and general preference for a vegetarian entree is not spurred on by moral grounds (though that's part of it) but largely from the size of the impact to the environment. Eating lots of meat, whatever the source, is environmentally expensive and vegetarian substitutes represent a much smaller energy and environmental impact. Good luck to you... being vegan is very difficult to do. I've tried (3 years when in my 20's - nothing but beans, rice and mushrooms with vegetables and fruit). I feel that as a male, there are significant problems with soy-isoflavones but maybe they are better than the estrogenic simulants in everything from new car smell to the linings of tin cans. There is some theoretical arguments to be made that soy isoflavones (or others) can block the receptor for these agents.