SI
SI
discoversearch

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 : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Mr. Palau who wrote (718372)12/15/2005 2:09:40 PM
From: steve harris  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 769670
 
Maybe McCain can help with the 1500000 unborn children slaughtered each year?



To: Mr. Palau who wrote (718372)12/15/2005 2:23:07 PM
From: Hope Praytochange  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 769670
 
Strong Turnout Reported Among Sunni Arabs

By Ellen Knickmeyer and Jonathan Finer
Washington Post Foreign Service
Thursday, December 15, 2005; 10:36 AM

BAGHDAD, Dec. 15 -- Iraqi voters turned out in force countrywide Thursday to elect a parliament to remake their troubled nation, with Sunni-led Iraqi insurgent movements suspending attacks for a day so that Sunni Arabs could vote en masse for the first time.

The voting appeared to split along sectarian lines as expected, with many Sunni voters in the Sunni-dominated far west saying they were voting for Sunni candidates. Long lines were reported among Sunnis, most of whom boycotted elections earlier this year or were frightened away by threats.

There were no boycotts this time and insurgents were providing security at some polling places. In Ramadi, for example, guerrillas of the Iraqi Islamic Army movement took up positions in some neighborhoods, promising to protect voters from any attacks by foreign fighters.

This time, Sunni clerics not only lifted a boycott call that had suppressed Sunni turnout in January's national elections but actively encouraged voting.

"Right now the city is experiencing a democratic celebration," Mayor Dari Abdul Hadi Zubaie said in Fallujah, where voters streamed to the polls. "It's an election wedding."

In Najaf, the Shiite holy city in the south, policemen in the country's officially neutral new security force actively campaigned for the Shiite religious alliance now in power.

"We came to vote for the alliance, obeying our clerics' demand," said Ali Hussein, a 45-year-old taxi driver in Najaf.

The outcome of Thursday's vote, which won't be known for several days, is crucial. Voters will seat the country's first full-term, four-year government since U.S. troops overthrew Saddam Hussein in 2003.

The new legislators and the government they select will complete Iraq's constitution and decide whether the country remains whole or splits into three or more autonomous substates.

The next government also will have to contend with the violence that has surged under the interim government elected in January, and, the United States hopes, preside over the withdrawal of U.S. forces.

"I wish to assure you we will be with you until you can stand on your own feet. And the sooner the better for us and for the world," U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad said at a schoolhouse polling site in the largely peaceful southern Shiite town of Hilla, where Khalilzad, Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.) and other visiting American dignitaries playfully dipped their index fingers in purple ink.

Biden stressed Thursday's vote was not the end game for the 150,000 U.S. troops in Iraq, saying the U.S. military would likely need to play a lead role in Iraqi security until Iraqi leaders manage to come up with a representative constitution if they can. Otherwise, "The question is whether we traded dictatorship for chaos," Biden said.

Many of those who cast ballots in Fallujah, a city of about 250,000, located west of Baghdad in Anbar province, the heart of the Sunni Arab-led insurgency, said they considered it an act of resistance against the continued presence of U.S. Marines in their city.

On election day, polling sites were protected by Iraqi police, while Marines withdrew to provide to a perimeter no closer than 100 yards away. "The main thing I want is the Americans to get out. Maybe they can stay on their bases for a little while and out of the city, but before long they should leave Iraq," said Hakim Rashid, 30, who, along with his younger brother Ahmad voted for the Tawafaq slate, a Sunni religious coalition led by the Iraqi Islamic Party.

Down the street, graffiti outside a high school used as a polling station read "no, no to the infidel constitution," a reference to how most Sunnis voted in the country's constitutional referendum in October. Fallujans, unlike most Anbar residents, turned out in large numbers in the referendum after largely boycotting the country's elections last January, along with most Sunnis. Within hours of the opening of the polls, however, several voting sites ran out of ballots and official boxes to put completed ballots in.

As election workers scrambled to arrange for more ballots to be delivered, many potential voters were turned away. At one station in the Palestine Elementary School near the city center, about half of the voters who showed up were turned away due to shortages, poll workers said. The school was quiet by mid-afternoon as word spread that voting had been disrupted.

"This is not a small problem, it's a big problem," said a U.S. official in Fallujah, speaking to reporters on the condition that he not be named. He said local and national election officials were seeking to obtain more ballots and boxes by the time polls were due to close at 5 p.m. The closing time could possibly be extended, he said.

Several residents also complained that their names were not on the list of registered voters and said the various problems were a deliberate attempt by Iraq's Shiite-led government to suppress the Sunni vote.

"I am 100 percent sure this was intentional because despite what they say, they don't want us to participate," said Arrak Mutlib, 62, a teacher, who, along with 10 other family members walked to five different polling stations and could not find their names. They had voted in the country's Oct. 15 constitutional referendum without incident, he said.

Despite some Iraqi insurgent groups' pledge of a one-day moratorium on attacks, the 7 a.m. opening of polls nationwide was followed by mortar or bomb blasts in Baghdad, Ramadi and Baqubah.

Lines nevertheless formed early outside Ramadi polling places and elsewhere even before they opened. "Even though there were many explosions last night, and even if there are more now or on my way to the polling center, I will come and vote," declared Mizhar Abud Salman, heading to a schoolhouse polling center in Saddam Hussein's home region of Tikrit.

"Ballot boxes are a victory of democracy over dictatorship," Prime Minister Ibrahim al Jaafari told reporters as he cast his vote behind the blast walls of Baghdad's fortress-like Green Zone. "The real triumph is that people are casting ballots -- whoever they choose -- and that they've chosen voting over bombs."

Election day featured a heavy presence by police, security forces and U.S. troops patrolling roads in major cities. A three-day ban on traffic and sealed borders were designed to increase security, as well.

About 15 million Iraqi voters were eligible to select 275 members of the new National Assembly. Complete returns are not expected until late December or early January.

A total of 7,648 candidates are seeking assembly seats, which will be allocated from Iraq's 18 provinces according to population.

The current alliance of Shiite religious parties was widely predicted to win most seats, as it did in voting in January. But members of the Sunni Muslim minority hoped to win more representation, as Sunni religious leaders encouraged Sunnis to participate in the vote.

It was Iraq's third election since the United States invaded the country and toppled the Hussein regime. The first was on Jan. 30 for an interim government; the second was a referendum on a new constitution on Oct. 15.

Finer reported from Fallujah. Special correspondents Saad Sarhan in Najaf and Salih Saif Aldin in Tikrit contributed to this report. Staff writer Fred Barbash contributed from Washington.



To: Mr. Palau who wrote (718372)12/15/2005 3:01:25 PM
From: DuckTapeSunroof  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 769670
 
House Backs McCain on Detainees, Defying Bush

December 15, 2005
By ERIC SCHMITT
nytimes.com

WASHINGTON, Dec. 14 - In an unusual bipartisan rebuke to the Bush administration, the House on Wednesday overwhelmingly endorsed Senator John McCain's measure to bar cruel and inhumane treatment of prisoners in American custody anywhere in the world.

Although the vote was nonbinding, it put the Republican-controlled House on record in support of Mr. McCain's provision for the first time, at the very moment when the senator, a Republican, is at a crucial stage of tense negotiations with the White House, which strongly opposes his measure.

The vote also likely represents the lone opportunity that House members will have to express their sentiments on Mr. McCain's legislation. The Senate approved the measure in October, 90 to 9, as part of a military spending bill. But until Wednesday, the House Republican leadership had sought to avoid a direct vote on the measure to avoid embarrassing the White House.

The vote was on a motion to instruct House negotiators, who had just been appointed to work out differences between the House and Senate spending bills, to accept the Senate position on the McCain amendment.

The House bill, providing $453 billion for military programs, has no provision like Mr. McCain's, but if the negotiators follow these instructions to the letter, the final bill passed by Congress will.

The House vote was 308 to 122, with 107 Republicans lining up along with almost every Democrat behind Representative John P. Murtha, the Pennsylvania Democrat who sponsored Mr. McCain's language and who has become anathema to the administration on any legislative measure related to Iraq since his call last month to withdraw American troops from Iraq in six months.

"Torture does not help us win the hearts and minds of the people it's used against," Mr. Murtha said on the House floor. "Congress is obligated to speak out."

Unlike the tumultuous three-hour debate that Mr. Murtha's Iraq-related measure provoked last month, this measure met with just 10 minutes of statements to a nearly empty House chamber.

Mr. Murtha, a former Marine colonel who is the senior Democrat on the House Appropriations Defense Subcommittee, said Mr. McCain's legislation was essential to standardizing American interrogation methods and sending a clear signal to the world that the United States condemned the abusive treatment of detainees.

"If we allow torture in any form," Mr. Murtha said, "we abandon our honor."

Representative C. W. Bill Young of Florida, head of the House Appropriations Defense Subcommittee, was one of 121 Republicans who voted against Mr. McCain's language. One Democrat, Jim Marshall of Georgia, voted against it; 200 Democrats and one independent supported it.

Mr. Young was quick to point out that he was in no way endorsing torture as an interrogation technique, but said he opposed the measure because it wrongly bestowed the full protections of the Constitution to terrorists and tied the hands of Congressional negotiators.

Another Republican who voted against the measure, Representative Todd Tiahrt of Kansas, said he opposed it because he said laws already barred torture and abusive treatment.

"It's absolutely unnecessary," said Mr. Tiahrt, who is on the House Intelligence Committee.

It was unclear what effects the vote would have on the negotiations between Mr. McCain and President Bush's national security adviser, Stephen J. Hadley, and on the Congressional negotiators for the two military bills now in conference committee. A spokeswoman for the Arizona senator, Eileen McMenamin, said Wednesday night that he had no comment on the vote.

"I don't think it will have any effect on the negotiations," Mr. Young said.

Mr. Murtha said the vote bolstered his previous assertions that the military spending bill would include Mr. McCain's provision after the conference committee completed its work.

"It's going to be in there, period," Mr. Murtha said after the vote.

Earlier in the day, Senator Ted Stevens, the Alaska Republican who is the senior member of the Appropriations Committee, echoed Mr. Murtha's prediction, telling reporters that Mr. McCain "wants it in there, and I think it will stay in there."

The negotiations over provision intensified on Wednesday. Early in the morning, Mr. McCain met in his office with Mr. Hadley. When asked whether the two had narrowed their differences, Mr. McCain told reporters: "We're still talking. We'll get this resolved one way or another. We have the votes."

Mr. McCain also attended the weekly Senate Republican policy lunch on Wednesday, but senators who attended the private gathering said that Mr. McCain did not address his colleagues and that the subject of his amendment did not come up.

After the lunch, however, Mr. McCain was mobbed by reporters seeking comment on his talks with Mr. Hadley. Mr. McCain was uncharacteristically tight lipped, saying he did not want to discuss details of the continuing discussions.

Two Senate Republican colleagues who voted for Mr. McCain's measure in October said Wednesday it was important for Congress to back the language.

"We need to have clear guidance, in law, that makes it very clear that inhumane treatment of detainees in American captivity is absolutely unacceptable," Susan Collins of Maine said. "This problem is hurting us around the world. It's contrary to our values, and we simply must have this as part of the final bill."

Senator John Thune of South Dakota said: "Because it has become such a high-profile issue here of late, not only around the country but around the world, I think it's in our best interests to address it. A strong unequivocal statement that we don't apply or tolerate torture in any form is probably right now a good thing to do."

* Copyright 2005The New York Times Company



To: Mr. Palau who wrote (718372)12/15/2005 3:02:48 PM
From: DuckTapeSunroof  Respond to of 769670
 
Senate Is Set to Require Details on Secret Prisons

December 15, 2005
Oversight
By DOUGLAS JEHL
nytimes.com

WASHINGTON, Dec. 14 - The Senate is poised to approve a measure that would require the Bush administration to provide Congress with its most specific and extensive accounting about the secret prison system established by the Central Intelligence Agency to house terrorism suspects.

The measure includes amendments that would require the director of national intelligence to provide regular, detailed updates about secret detention facilities maintained by the United States overseas, and to account for the treatment and condition of each prisoner. The facilities, established after the Sept. 11 terror attacks, are thought to hold two dozen to three dozen terrorism suspects, including Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, who is said to be the mastermind of the attacks.

An agreement reached Wednesday between Democrats and Republicans called for the measure to be approved by unanimous consent, but it was unclear on Wednesday night when a final vote might occur.

While the C.I.A. has provided limited briefings to members of Congress about the detention facilities, the information has generally been shared with only a handful of Congressional leaders, who are prohibited from discussing the information with their colleagues. The Senate measure would widen that circle considerably, by requiring the director of national intelligence to provide reports each 90 days to the House and Senate intelligence committees. Among other things, the reports would be required to address the size, location and cost of each detention facility; "the health and welfare" of each prisoner there, and whether the treatment of those prisoners had been humane.

The new Senate measure, part of a bill authorizing intelligence spending, is separate from an amendment by Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, that is still being debated as part of a military spending bill. Both reflect a widening sense of unease in Congress about the treatment of prisoners captured and held by the United States as part of what the administration calls its war on terrorism. The McCain amendment would prohibit the cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment of prisoners in American custody anywhere in the world, including at secret facilities run by the C.I.A.

The Bush administration has never officially acknowledged that secret detention facilities exist, but the basic facts surrounding them have been described by current and former government officials. The location of the prisons in particular remains a carefully guarded secret, though the European Union is seeking information to confirm a report by The Washington Post last month that said that at least two were in Eastern Europe.

In a bow to that nuance, the Senate bill uses the phrase "if any" to describe the secret prisons and specifies that the reports about them remain classified, to minimize the prospect of public disclosure.

Senator Pat Roberts of Kansas, the top Republican on the Senate intelligence panel, agreed to include the amendments in a measure that was to be presented to the Senate for unanimous approval, Congressional officials said.

The new reporting requirement is not in a version of the intelligence bill that has been approved by the House, so the amendments to the Senate measure would have to be endorsed by a House-Senate conference committee, and then win final passage from the House and Senate before they could become law.

Representative Jane Harman of California, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, said she would seek to persuade the conference committee to approve the new requirement. "There is more information that should legitimately come to the full intelligence committee," Ms. Harman said in an interview.

No senator has publicly objected to the amendments, which were introduced by the two Senate Democrats from Massachusetts, Edward M. Kennedy and John Kerry. Another measure included in the bill, also introduced by Mr. Kennedy, would require the White House to provide classified intelligence documents on Iraq that have until now been withheld from Congress.

* Copyright 2005The New York Times Company