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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: michael97123 who wrote (204824)	9/30/2006 10:58:18 AM
From: Ichy Smith	Respond to of 281500

Unfortunately governments are usually reactive. If, on the other hand, I can reduce my own usage to the point where it is manageable, and put in a system where if the grid fails I can be relatively comfortable, then it will not impact me. Everytime the Electricity goes out, it takes longer to repair, and it seems to go out more and more often, because maintenance has been poor. I think it is far more important to take care of myself and those around me than it is to beat my head against the wall hoping for the government to do so. Those who survived the depression best were those who were self sufficient.

To: michael97123 who wrote (204824)	9/30/2006 2:24:47 PM
From: geode00	Respond to of 281500

Congress putting its stamp of approval on torture Posted 9:10 am \| Printer Friendly \| Digg this • Add to del.icio.us • Email this In a vote that surprised absolutely no one, the House easily approved rubber-stamped Bush's legislation on interrogation and prosecution of terrorism suspects. The final vote was 253 to 168 — 34 Dems voted with the GOP majority, while seven Republicans broke ranks to vote against it. The Senate is expected to put its stamp of approval on the measure today. There are a couple of angles to the developments yesterday that are worth considering: the process and the substance. On the prior, the debate has gone largely as expected. "It is outrageous that House Democrats, at the urging of their leaders, continue to oppose giving President Bush the tools he needs to protect our country," said House Majority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio). Such comments infuriated Democrats, who said they stand second to no one in fighting terrorists but fear the United States is abandoning fundamental principles of fairness. The bill "is really more about who we are as a people than it is about those who seek to harm us," said House Minority Whip Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.). "Defending America requires us to marshal the full range of our power: diplomatic and military, economic and moral. And when our moral standing is eroded, our international credibility is diminished as well." Good for Hoyer. Indeed, for those of you who weren't able to watch the debate on C-SPAN, it's worth noting that the strong majority of the Democratic caucus gave impassioned speeches about human rights, American decency, and the rule of law. Sure, it was disappointing to see 34 Dems break ranks, but four out of five House Dems stood firm against this nonsense. Glenn Greenwald, who has taken a leading role on this issue and has taken the party to task repeatedly of late, said, "House Democrats acquitted themselves reasonably well on this issue. Several House members gave very stirring and passionate speeches about defending core American values." Unfortunately, it wasn't enough. And then, of course, there's the substance of exactly what the legislation is all about. The New York Times' editorial on the measure is today's must-read piece. The paper of record calls the legislation "a tyrannical law that will be ranked with the low points in American democracy, our generation's version of the Alien and Sedition Acts." The editorial did readers the favor of listing the bill's biggest flaws: Enemy Combatants: A dangerously broad definition of "illegal enemy combatant" in the bill could subject legal residents of the United States, as well as foreign citizens living in their own countries, to summary arrest and indefinite detention with no hope of appeal. The president could give the power to apply this label to anyone he wanted. The Geneva Conventions: The bill would repudiate a half-century of international precedent by allowing Mr. Bush to decide on his own what abusive interrogation methods he considered permissible. And his decision could stay secret — there's no requirement that this list be published. Habeas Corpus: Detainees in U.S. military prisons would lose the basic right to challenge their imprisonment. These cases do not clog the courts, nor coddle terrorists. They simply give wrongly imprisoned people a chance to prove their innocence. Judicial Review: The courts would have no power to review any aspect of this new system, except verdicts by military tribunals. The bill would limit appeals and bar legal actions based on the Geneva Conventions, directly or indirectly. All Mr. Bush would have to do to lock anyone up forever is to declare him an illegal combatant and not have a trial. Coerced Evidence: Coerced evidence would be permissible if a judge considered it reliable — already a contradiction in terms — and relevant. Coercion is defined in a way that exempts anything done before the passage of the 2005 Detainee Treatment Act, and anything else Mr. Bush chooses. Secret Evidence: American standards of justice prohibit evidence and testimony that is kept secret from the defendant, whether the accused is a corporate executive or a mass murderer. But the bill as redrafted by Mr. Cheney seems to weaken protections against such evidence. Offenses: The definition of torture is unacceptably narrow, a virtual reprise of the deeply cynical memos the administration produced after 9/11. Rape and sexual assault are defined in a retrograde way that covers only forced or coerced activity, and not other forms of nonconsensual sex. The bill would effectively eliminate the idea of rape as torture. It's worth noting that this list of "flaws" is not subjective — Republicans on both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue freely admit that this is exactly what the legislation is intended to do. Indeed, they're proud of the bill, and spent much of the House floor debate taunting Dems, daring them to vote against it. It's quite literally tragic. Someday, we'll get our country will rediscover its values, decency, and moral compass, but today is not that day. thecarpetbaggerreport.com