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 : Impeach George W. Bush -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Peter Dierks who wrote (36475)	7/14/2005 11:43:34 AM
From: J.B.C.	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 93284

Well it's easy to deduce that AS is dumber than John Keri, who we all found out is dumber than Bush. And since the left says that Bush is dumber than a rock where does that put all of them(the left)????? Jim

To: Peter Dierks who wrote (36475)	7/14/2005 11:49:57 AM
From: paret	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 93284

Investigation Into London Bombings Targets Ex-N.C. State Student AP July 14, 2005 RALEIGH, N.C. -- An Egyptian-born academic being sought by London police as part of their investigation into last week's terrorist bombings spent a semester at North Carolina State University, school officials said Thursday. The Times of London, quoting unidentified police sources, said detectives were interested in locating Magdy el-Nashar, 33, who recently taught chemistry at Leeds University in northern England. The Times said he was believed to have rented one of the homes being searched in Leeds where at least two of the four suicide bombers lived. El-Nashar studied chemical engineering at N.C. State University beginning in January 2000, NCSU spokesman Keith Nichols said. Saad Khan, the chemical engineering department's director of graduate programs, said he remembered that el-Nashar applied for admission while living in Egypt. But by the end of the spring semester, el-Nashar had changed direction and decided to pursue a doctorate at Leeds instead, Khan said. "He came in and he decided to go somewhere else," Khan said. In a statement Thursday, Leeds University said el-Nashar enrolled in October 2000 to do biochemical research, sponsored by the National Research Center in Cairo, Egypt. It said he earned a doctorate May 6. "We understand he was seeking a postdoctorate position in the U.K.," the university said. "His visa was updated by the Home Office earlier this year. He has not been seen on the campus since the beginning of July." Neighbors said el-Nashar recently left Britain, saying he had a visa problem, The Times reported. Police have searched several homes in Leeds in their hunt for anyone who aided the July 7 subway and bus attacks that killed 52 and injured 700. Authorities suspect the bombers didn't work alone and that their collaborators or leader are still probably at large. The Daily Telegraph of London said police were trying to identify a man seen standing near the four suicide bombers on a railway station platform in Luton, where they apparently boarded a train for London on July 7. The Evening Standard of London reported that police spotted a fifth man on closed-circuit TV showing the group at London's King's Cross station about 20 minutes before the explosions.

To: Peter Dierks who wrote (36475)	7/14/2005 12:20:24 PM
From: paret	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 93284

Mr. Kang, the first person to escape from a North Korean concentration camp, is author of "The Aquariums of Pyongyang: Ten Years in the North Korean Gulag" (Basic Books, 2001).Give Us an 'Eclipse Policy' By KANG CHOL-HWAN July 13, 2005; Page A14 WSJ Condoleezza Rice arrived in Seoul yesterday to the news that South Korea had agreed to send its communist neighbor half a million tons of rice as "humanitarian aid." Ms. Rice put the best face possible on the matter, saying the aid did not undercut U.S. policy toward Pyongyang. Perhaps. But it is important to understand that North Koreans are starving not because of a lack of aid from South Korea or the U.S., but because they are deprived of freedom. Giving aid only throws a line to the government, and prolongs starvation, surely a perverse outcome. Just look at recent history. In 1998, we nearly witnessed the collapse of the Kim Jong Il regime as three million people died of hunger. Bodies lined the streets, malnutrition caused cutbacks in military exercises, and an energy shortage even affected residential areas reserved for central party officials. The North Korean people finally had some hope that the time had come for regime change, or at least for the start of Chinese-style economic reforms. Sensing also that his end was near, Kim in desperation began begging the international community for aid. Then out of the blue, South Korea's government stepped in and saved him and his regime. South Korean President Kim Dae Jung decided to give assistance to North Korea without demanding in return either an improvement in the human-rights situation or an increase in economic freedoms. Hundreds of millions of dollars were blindly handed over to Kim Jong Il to do with as he pleased. Much aid was diverted to the military and other power organs, reviving them and helping them to consolidate their power. More than seven years have passed since South Korea began this policy of indiscriminate assistance. How successful has it been? To judge by progress in the country's human-rights situation, or in its willingness to dismantle its nuclear-weapons program, throwing aid at this regime has been demonstrably counterproductive. The human-rights situation has worsened and food shortages remain unabated. As for disarmament talks, Pyongyang has boycotted the negotiating table for more than a year. Supporters of Seoul's "Sunshine Policy" claim that tensions on the peninsula have been eased and that the policy has contributed toward a settlement of peace. This is a bare-faced lie. As the South Korean government sings its peace songs, Kim Jong Il openly declares possession of nuclear weapons. In compliance with the government's strategy, South Korea's media has turned a blind eye to the truth in North Korea, painting a false picture of reconciliation and cooperation. As a result, the South Korean people are barely aware of the calamity taking place only 25 miles north of Seoul, nor of the atrocities taking place in North Korea's gulag. For nine long years I was one of its 200,000 political prisoners. I can tell you that the true tragedy of North Korea is virtually unknown even in the South. While North Korea's people long to see the end of Kim Jong Il's misrule, Seoul insists on holding a dialogue, and cooperating, only with our dictator. While we want to see an end to the menace represented by the People's Army, all we hear from President Roh Moo Hyun and his people is, "Do not irritate Kim Jong Il . . . We need to accept the North Korean system . . . We do not want Kim Jong Il's regime to collapse . . . Kim Jong Il is an intelligent leader." These words fill the North Korean people with indescribable anger. On what basis could Seoul claim its right to go beyond the wishes of the North Korean people? It is up to the North Korean people to decide whether or not to accept Kim Jong Il as their leader. Signs that North Korea is once again on the brink of a collapse abound, which probably is why Pyongyang has demanded the 500,000 tons of rice from Seoul. As in the 1990s, the food crisis is affecting the ruling elite, and there are reports that rations have been cut even in Pyongyang. The demise of Kim Jong Il may come unexpectedly fast. He is running out of time. If his regime is not kept alive with artificial aid, he will not have enough time to blackmail the world with a nuclear-weapons program. This is why Ms. Rice should remain steadfast in resisting calls by Mr. Roh's government in Seoul to give aid to North Korea. Kim Dae Jung's Sunshine Policy, now being repeated by Mr. Roh, has failed most miserably. If it was a genuine mistake, Ms. Rice and the rest of the Bush administration should try to open eyes in Seoul. If Pyongyang has been manipulating policy behind the scenes, America must react by renewing its determination not to deal with Pyongyang. George W. Bush, whom I met in the White House last month, knows all of this. His steadfast stance against Kim Jong Il and his love toward my fellow suffering North Koreans is about to give results. The darkest moment of the night is right before dawn. My feeling is that North Koreans will be able to see daylight soon. Now is not the time to give in to North Korea's blackmail or to the general feeling of appeasement that pervades the Seoul government. Now is not the time to give aid, or to agree to bilateral negotiations between the U.S. and North Korea. Until things change in Seoul, Mr. Bush is the only hope the North Korean people have left. Those who are against him are only going to prolong their suffering. Mr. Kang, the first person to escape from a North Korean concentration camp, is author of "The Aquariums of Pyongyang: Ten Years in the North Korean Gulag" (Basic Books, 2001).

To: Peter Dierks who wrote (36475)	7/14/2005 12:25:12 PM
From: paret	Respond to of 93284

London and Guantanamo July 13, 2005; Page A14 WSJ Some of our readers took offense that we mentioned the debate over Guantanamo in reaction to last week's London bombings. So we thought we'd elaborate on why the political campaign against both Gitmo and the Patriot Act illustrate how far some of our elites have traveled since 9/11. Start with Guantanamo, and the growing chorus to shut it down. In Congress, this includes most Democrats. A few Republicans have piled on too, such as Mel Martinez, a Florida Senator and former Bush Cabinet officer, who said last month that the detention center had "become an icon for bad stories" and was hurting the war effort. The argument seems to be that closing Gitmo will make the Arab world think better of us, thereby causing Islamic terrorists to stop killing Americans. This overlooks the small detail that they were willing to kill us, even on American soil, long before Guantanamo was up and running. What critics also don't mention is the dozen detainees released from Gitmo who have already rejoined the fight against the U.S. The Pentagon says that several Gitmo veterans have been killed in combat with U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan. Imagine the uproar if it had been the other way around. Nor has anyone come up with a better idea about what to do with enemy combatants who, under international law, can be held until the cessation of hostilities. At best, there's a certain cognitive dissonance at work here. On the one hand, civil libertarians have sued to get detainees returned to their countries of origin. On the other hand, they've sued to prevent them from being sent home if that home is located in a place like Turkey or Pakistan, where they might be treated less gently than at Guantanamo. A spokesman tells us there are 15 detainees whom Defense has deemed no longer threats but can't be released until their cases are reviewed in federal court. Call it the ACLU detention policy. Then there are those who want detainees charged and tried in U.S. criminal courts as if they were run-of-the mill felons instead of fighters. They presumably haven't studied the al Qaeda training manual captured in Manchester, England, which explains how operatives are trained to manipulate the West's system of criminal justice. Lesson 18 is titled: "If an indictment is issued and the trial begins, the brother has to pay attention to the following." Item one is: Tell the judge you're being tortured. Item two is: Complain of mistreatment in jail. Sound familiar? The debate over the Patriot Act hasn't been any more clarifying. Last month the House voted to exclude libraries and bookstores from a provision of the law (Section 215) that lets law enforcement officers obtain warrants from a special federal intelligence court to search business records. The Justice Department says that, as of the end of March, Section 215 had been used 35 times -- though not once to search library records. Two of the terrorists used public libraries to check their flight reservations for 9/11, a little-known fact that militates against carving out what would become a safe haven for libraries. The Patriot Act was rushed through Congress in the emotional days after 9/11, and making some of its provisions automatically expire at the end of 2005 was a prudent idea. Four years later, however, despite the doom-and-glooming of the ACLU and friends, there is no evidence that the Patriot Act has been abused in any way or that it jeopardizes basic civil rights. Not one concrete example. None of this is to say that the U.S. hasn't made mistakes in fighting terrorism. The broadly based post-9/11 roundup of illegal immigrants went too far, as an Inspector General report noted and the Administration has admitted. The refusal to endorse racial profiling in airport security checks is another -- reducing the government's credibility among ordinary Americans who understand that it defies common sense. But the federal courts have mostly upheld the government's anti-terror policies and where they haven't -- as in the question of regular reviews of detainees' status -- Washington has been quick to adjust. In the wake of the London attacks, a common line was surprise that something similar hasn't yet happened in the U.S. No one knows why we've been spared, but one reasonable guess is that the forceful anti-terror response of the U.S. government has made it more difficult. The specifics of Guantanamo and the Patriot Act aside, the campaigns against them show that we've been creeping back toward the law-enforcement mindset about terrorism that prevailed before September 11 and which contributed so much to letting that day's attacks succeed. London is a reminder of how clear and present the danger still is.