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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: combjelly who wrote (272862)	2/8/2006 11:10:34 AM
From: longnshort	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1574683

Freedoms lost? Review history People today don't seem to have any perspective on our nation's history. We are currently in a world war against terrorism just as we were fighting worldwide during our conflict with Germany and Japan. Our objectives today, as then, are all about winning. Let's see if any perceived loss of freedoms today compare with what happened during World War II: All Japanese-Americans were placed in internment camps while their property was confiscated. Newspaper accounts of the war were censored as well as all correspondence between our military personnel and the folks back home. German saboteurs who came ashore in the United States were rounded up and tried by a military tribunal and immediately executed. African-Americans fought in segregated units. Rationing of gasoline, meat, shoes and tires were commonplace. Air raid alerts were routine where entire cities were blacked out. Anyone still want to talk about all the freedoms we're losing? Can you imagine the outrage of today's media and certain politicians if a fraction of these policies were in place? I'm trying to think of any loss of freedom that actually affects me. So far, I have found none. The resilience of the "Greatest Generation" sure puts us to shame. - Larry S. Rader, Tucson

To: combjelly who wrote (272862)	2/8/2006 11:14:13 AM
From: longnshort	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 1574683

Two top demos in first tier of Abramoff investigation: Abramoff-linked probe focuses on 5 lawmakers By Jerry Seper and Audrey Hudson January 11, 2006 A Justice Department investigation into influence-peddling on Capitol Hill is focusing on a "first tier" of lawmakers and staffers, both Republicans and Democrats, say sources close to the probe that has netted guilty pleas from lobbyist Jack Abramoff. Law-enforcement authorities and others said the investigation's opening phase is scrutinizing Sens. Conrad Burns, Montana Republican; Byron L. Dorgan, North Dakota Democrat; and Minority Leader Harry Reid, Nevada Democrat, along with Reps. J.D. Hayworth, Arizona Republican, and Bob Ney, Ohio Republican. A source working with the Justice Department on the investigation told The Washington Times that Abramoff was questioned during several interviews about the lawmakers and their purported ties to the lobbyist and his former clients. The source said prosecutors asked Abramoff whether the lawmakers had performed "official acts" in exchange for campaign cash or other favors. Although it is unknown whether any of the five will be charged in the case, the source said Abramoff was being "prepped" by five Justice Department attorneys in that event. Others familiar with the investigation confirmed the names of the three Republican and two Democratic legislators. All five lawmakers said that they have not done anything illegal and that all their dealings with Abramoff and his clients were legitimate. The sources also said that at least two legislative directors and other lobbyists are under investigation in the preliminary round of inquiry. The probe is expected to widen and could ensnare "a minimum" of 20 members of Congress, they said. Former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay has not been directly implicated by Abramoff in the probe, but the Texas Republican's former deputy chief of staff, Tony Rudy, has emerged as a person of interest in the preliminary probe, the sources said. Mr. DeLay's former communications director, Michael Scanlon, also worked as an Abramoff business partner and pleaded guilty in November to corruption charges. Scanlon also is cooperating in the government probe. Abramoff pleaded guilty in federal court in Washington on Jan. 3 to conspiracy, tax evasion and fraud in a scheme involving what he described as the "corruption of public officials," saying he raised campaign cash, funded trips and gave other items to lawmakers "in exchange for certain official acts." Seeking to reduce a 30-year prison sentence to 91/2 years, Abramoff has agreed with prosecutors to cooperate fully in the government's influence-peddling investigation. Prosecutors have seized his computer hard drive and are reviewing 500,000 e-mails. Jim Manley, Mr. Reid's spokesman, said that no official acts were performed for Abramoff and that the senator has always opposed the expansion of off-reservation gambling, a stance favorable to Abramoff's clients.

To: combjelly who wrote (272862)	2/9/2006 5:36:36 PM
From: tejek	Respond to of 1574683

Guantanamo By the Numbers Jeralyn Merritt Wed Feb 8, 7:43 PM ET A new and statistical report, authored and released by Seton Hall Law Professor Mark Denbeaux and attorney Joshua Denbeaux, counsel to two of the detainees at Guantanamo, contains the first objective analysis of the background of those held at Guantanamo. The report is based entirely on data supplied by the Defense Department, and is intended to provide "a more detailed picture of who the Guantanamo detainees are, how they ended up there, and the purported bases for their enemy combatant designation." The report, available here (pdf), finds that fewer than half of the 517 detainees whose histories were reviewed have been accused of hostile acts. These are the findings: percent (55%) of the detainees are not determined to have committed any hostile acts against the United States or its coalition allies. 2. Only 8% of the detainees were characterized as al Qaeda fighters. Of the remaining detainees, 40% have no definitive connection with al Qaeda at all and 18% are have no definitive affiliation with either al Qaeda or the Taliban. 3. The Government has detained numerous persons based on mere affiliations with a large number of groups that in fact, are not on the Department of Homeland Security terrorist watchlist. Moreover, the nexus between such a detainee and such organizations varies considerably. Eight percent are detained because they are deemed "fighters for;" 30% considered "members of;" a large majority - 60% -- are detained merely because they are "associated with" a group or groups the Government asserts are terrorist organizations. For 2% of the prisoners their nexus to any terrorist group is unidentified. 4. Only 5% of the detainees were captured by United States forces. 86% of the detainees were arrested by either Pakistan or the Northern Alliance and turned over to United States custody. This 86% of the detainees captured by Pakistan or the Northern Alliance were handed over to the United States at a time in which the United States offered large bounties for capture of suspected enemies. 5. Finally, the population of persons deemed not to be enemy combatants - mostly Uighers - are in fact accused of more serious allegations than a great many persons still deemed to be enemy combatants. If 92% of the detainees were not fighters, and 55% committed no hostile act, why were they designated as enemy combatants in the first place? And why are they still being held? This is the Government's definition of "enemy combatant" as used in the Combatant Status Review hearings: [A]n individual who was part of or supporting the Taliban or al Qaeda forces, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners. This includes any person who committed a belligerent act or has directly supported hostilities in aid of enemy forces. Also consider that only 5% of the detainees were captured by U.S. Forces. What was the source of the information used to designate the other 95% as enemy combatants? Pakistan and the Northern Alliance. There is no indication that the U.S. ever verified, or could verify, the information. Factor in how many were seized by bounty hunters and how many were conscripted against their will . The U.S. placed advertisements in both Afghanistan and Pakistan offering large amounts of money to those who turned over "enemy combatants." The report contains this one as an example: Get wealth and power beyond your dreams....You can receive millions of dollars helping the anti-Taliban forces catch al-Qaida and Taliban murders. This is enough money to take care of your family, your village, your tribe for the rest of your life. Pay for livestock and doctors and school books and housing for all your people. Finally, consider that very few if any of the Guantanamo detainees have turned out to be higher-ups in the Taliban or al-Qaeda. While there are al-Qaeda connections for a small number of the detainees (for example, 11 out of the more than 500 had met Osama bin Laden) even fewer of the Taliban detainees had high-level connections. The Taliban detainees seem to be people not responsible for actually running the country. Many of the detainees held at Guantanamo were involved with the Taliban unwillingly as conscripts or otherwise. General conscription was the rule, not the exception, in Taliban controlled Afghanistan. "All the warlords had used boy soldiers, some as young as 12 years old, and many were orphans with no hope of having a family, or education, or a job, except soldiering." Among the criteria used to justify enemy combatant designation are these: Possession of rifles; Use of a guest house; Possession of Casio watches; and Wearing of olive drab clothing. It appears that the majority of those detained at Guantanamo share these traits: 1. Muslims, 2. in Afghanistan, 3. associated with unidentified individuals and/or groups, 4. possessed Kalishnikov rifles, 5. stayed in guest houses, 6. captured in Pakistan, 7. by bounty hunters. The President continues to tell us that those held at Guantanamo are the "worst of the worst." This report tells a different story. We got the small fry. And we put them in a black hole. news.yahoo.com