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: Suma who wrote (15895)	3/17/2005 9:54:58 AM
From: jttmab	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20773

If I were going to torture prisoners who I thought were Terrorists I would move as far away from public scrutiny as possible.... Another thing you would do, is never write down the word "torture"...Come up with different word or phrase... "enhanced interrogation techniques" would work well. Sure, there would be a few people that would look at the techniques used and say that's "torture". But wstera 02 would jump and say..."Show me the memo that uses the word "torture". You can't find one, can you?" jttmab

To: Suma who wrote (15895)	3/17/2005 6:51:16 PM
From: Raymond Duray	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20773

Bush Is No Gibbering Halfwit, He's Worse ... He's A Moral Imbecile buzzflash.com A BUZZFLASH GUEST CONTRIBUTION by Mark Crispin Miller (Professor at NYU) I've long argued that Bush is not an imbecile -- that he boasts a certain species of political intelligence which we overlook at our own peril. (Also, I agree with others who have argued that he's suffering from some kind of physical or mental deterioration, and has got much worse over the last few years. To which we'd have to add that his ostensibly unbounded power has had its utterly predictable effect on him.) The notion that he's just a gibbering halfwit is a rather pleasurable one to many who detest him. I've always argued, and still think, that the situation is in fact much worse than that. In one sense, though -- and it's exceedingly important -- Bush is a sort of imbecile: a moral imbecile. How much of this relates to, say, his neurological condition, and how much of it relates to the condition of (what we would have to call) his soul, I don't pretend to know. But there is something definitely missing there. For one thing, he's incapable of what child psychologists call reciprocity. He can't see things from any viewpoint other than his own, which he deems always right because it's his; and if you see things differently you're wrong, and bad, because your viewpoint isn't his. (He's often made it clear that he and God see things exactly the same way.) And then there's his amazing incapacity to recognize the difference between truth and lie. Specifically, he seems to be unable to perceive that his own propaganda lies are propaganda, or -- sometimes? often? -- that they're even lies. He also seems unable to perceive that claims of which he disapproves, or with which he disagrees, are not propaganda. As I note in Cruel and Unusual, he once rejected the idea that big food corporations ought to be required to list all the ingredients in their products: "I sense they want to run a propaganda campaign," he said -- referring to those who wanted all ingredients clearly listed. On the other hand, when he refers to "history," he's usually referring to some propaganda lie that, since everyone (him included?) bought it, must be precisely what occurred. So here he is today, refusing or unable to perceive that there is something deeply wrong -- illegal, immoral, unethical and ultimately lunatic -- with his regime's vast covert propaganda program. Since "there is a Justice Department opinion that says ... these pieces are within the law" and "factual," there can be nothing wrong with them, he said. Ignorance of the law is no excuse -- and neither is denial of reality. To say that he should be impeached does not begin to do him justice. * * * Bush Defends Packaged News Stories from Government WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Bush said on Wednesday that the U.S. government's practice of sending packaged news stories to local television stations was legal and he had no plans to cease it. His defense of the packages, which are designed to look like television news segments, came after they were deemed a form of covert propaganda by the Government Accountability Office watchdog agency. GAO, an arm of Congress, said this ran counter to appropriation laws and was a misuse of federal funds. But Bush cited a Justice Department opinion that disagreed with the GAO. "There is a Justice Department opinion that says these -- these pieces -- are within the law, so long as they're based upon facts, not advocacy," the president told a news conference. More >>> reuters.com A BUZZFLASH GUEST CONTRIBUTION Mark Crispin Miller is a professor of media studies at New York University, where he directs the Project on Media Ownership. He is the author of The Bush Dyslexicon: Observations on a National Disorder, Cruel and Unusual: Bush/Cheney's New World Order and the one-man show, Patriot Act. Miller's new show, Hard Times, is now running at the New York Theater Workshop (reservations 212-780-9037).

To: Suma who wrote (15895)	3/17/2005 8:40:27 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 20773

(Edit) wrong thread. My bad.

To: Suma who wrote (15895)	3/17/2005 8:55:03 PM
From: Sully-	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20773

"If I were going to torture prisoners who I thought were Terrorists I would move as far away from public scrutiny as possible. No press. No public access ... CUBA .. Great place..." That's your personal opinion & conjecture & it proves nothing. "Barbed wire all around and again NO ACCESS to lawyers, to family members to the press on either side." It's a prison for terrorists (unlawful combatants) who legally have no rights under the Geneva Convention even though they were granted them by Bush. What's your point? Wait, I see what you are doing..... "AND then when people ask me what I am doing I would of course fabricate as they have no proof... no one.. So, how is it when someone puts a situation here that has no way or being proved except by denials of such events by the Administration how can we actually whether it is verifiable..." More personal opinion & conjecture. I'm not interested tin-foil-hat conspiracy theories that have no basis in fact or reality. These lunatic conspiracy theories can become reality for the unhinged, but that's not my cup of tea.

To: Suma who wrote (15895)	3/18/2005 11:32:00 AM
From: Sully-	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20773

CIA Chief Defends Interrogation Procedure WASHINGTON (AP) -- CIA Director Porter Goss defended the U.S. practice of shipping some foreign prisoners to other nations for interrogation, saying this intelligence strategy is valuable, lawful and carried out with caution. "I can assure you that I know of no instances where the intelligence community is outside the law on this," Goss testified to Congress. "And I know for a fact that torture is not productive. That's not professional interrogation. We don't do torture." Concerns about the process known as rendition had Goss facing sharp questions Thursday from Senate Armed Services Committee Democrats and Sen. John McCain, an Arizona Republican and former Vietnam era prisoner of war. Goss steadfastly asserted that this interrogation strategy is an important intelligence tool and is vital for the protection of U.S. civilians and fighting forces. The CIA inspector general is looking into at least four cases in which agency personnel may have been involved in the death of a detainee and other issues related to U.S. detention policies. He has referred one case to the Justice Department for prosecution, resulting in assault charges against CIA contractor David Passaro. Democrats, including Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan, are growing impatient for the results of the CIA report, requested last year by the former director, George Tenet. "This is a huge missing piece," Levin said. Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., asked Goss whether the government is using a review process set up by the Clinton administration to determine when to approve "renditions," or the transfer of foreigners to another country for prosecution and detention. U.S. authorities have flown at least 100 foreigners to countries including Egypt and Saudi Arabia. The administration has said it seeks assurances that the subject will not be tortured, but critics say the practice simply allows the United States to outsource the dirty work. Goss, however, defended renditions as a 20-year-old practice with established policies. "I actually believe that since 9/11 ... we have more safeguards and more oversight in place than we did before," he said. McCain said he was concerned that the government lacks a specific policy about what interrogators can and cannot do when questioning prisoners. Goss replied that the uncertainties are largely resolved and, where they do exist, officials err on the side of caution. hosted.ap.org