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 : The Truth About Islam -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ichy Smith who wrote (10380)	10/5/2007 9:42:06 PM
From: DeplorableIrredeemableRedneck	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20106

They should find the frequency that set off the vests and let er rip

To: Ichy Smith who wrote (10380)	10/5/2007 9:50:01 PM
From: Proud_Infidel	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20106

1,200 Pounds of TNT - German police foil the most dangerous Jihadist bomb plot in Europe to date The Atlantic Times ^ \| 10/5/2007 \| Daniel Schulz atlantic-times.com If successful, the Oberschledorn bombings would easily have surpassed those of Madrid and London in terms of death and destruction. The plot was uncovered due to close cooperation between U.S. and German security forces. However, the discussion on how to deal with radical Muslims in Germany continues. The plotters lived in an idyllic setting. Evergreen pine forests, winding country roads, large fields and gently undulating hills surround the sleepy village of Oberschledorn and its 900 inhabitants. This is also the scene where, according to the federal prosecutor, Monika Harms, one of the “most serious conspiracies in Germany to date” was foiled. Top police official went even further. “The explosive force of this material would have been equivalent to about 1,200 lbs of TNT,” said Jörg Ziercke, president of the Federal Criminal Police Office. That would be a force several times greater than the London and Madrid bombs. In other words, the deadly cocktail for what would well have been the largest Islamic extremist bomb attack in Europe was to be mixed in Oberschledorn. It started when three young men rented a vacation home in the village: Two German Islam converts, 28-year-old Fritz Gelowicz from Ulm in southern Germany and 22-year-old Daniel Schneider from Saarland; and a 29-year-old Turk from Hesse called Adem Yilmaz. All three were arrested on Sept. 4. They had begun making bombs. When the German elite anti-terrorist police squad, the GSG-9, raided the holiday home in Oberschledorn, investigators found military detonators from Syria, which a courier supposedly smuggled into Germany. They also found 16 gallons of hydrogen peroxide in twelve blue plastic containers, a substance used also in explosives. The ingredients were apparently intended for the manufacture of several car bombs. It remains unclear, however, what it was they were really targeting. Investigators suspect they were planning to detonate the explosives in front of U.S. Army barracks in Germany and possibly, also at the U.S. Air Force base at Ramstein. In order to prevent the suspects from escaping with their explosives, police officers had secretly exchanged the highly concentrated hydrogen peroxide with a diluted liquid before the raid. This was possible because U.S. security officials had been keeping the men under surveillance since last year. In fact, it was the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA) that first alerted Germans to the danger. In October 2006, the NSA intercepted suspicious emails between Germany and Pakistan. The suspects were apparently receiving instructions from the Uzbek terrorist organization, the Islamic Jihad Union. This group is thought to have a close relationship with al Qaeda and to operate in Pakistan. It is suspected that both Gelowicz and his friend, Schneider, who did his military service in a bomb disposal unit in the German army, stayed in terrorist training camps in Pakistan. Following the arrests in Oberschledorn, there was a sigh of relief in Germany – even if it didn’t last long. The Oberschledorn incident immediately became caught up in the battle over tightened security laws in the governing Grand Coalition. And another question arose: How the government should handle converts to Islam. The fact that the suspects are Germans who converted to Islam was almost as shocking as the attacks they planned. Are converts particularly drawn by the allure of terrorism, many wondered. Some say that these two particularly favored radical views because they wanted to prove themselves to the Islamic community. Others point out that most who convert are German women married to Muslim men who do so out of love. It is generally agreed that the number of converts to Islam in Germany is on the rise. However, there are no reliable statistics since Muslim congregations do not keep records on their members. The climax of the debate came in the form of a suggestion that calls for converts to be registered, something highly unlikely. Wolfgang Bosbach, vice chairman of the CDU parliamentary faction, was quoted as putting the initiative forward. Later, he denied it, distancing himself from the proposal which came from Bavarian Minister of the Interior, Günther Beckstein (CSU). The idea has since been dropped. Instead, the coalition parties are currently discussing a bill by Social Democrat Minister of Justice Brigitte Zypries that would render visits to terrorist training camps punishable in the future. CDU politicians are particularly in favor of it, especially Interior Minister Wolfgang Schäuble (CDU). However, his party finds the proposal too lax, saying that the proposal only punishes those who attend these camps when they are actually preparing an attack. Zypries responds that one can only punish acts and not intentions. Bosbach, however, considers this proposal “impractical.” The federal state of Hesse, controlled by the CDU, responded by putting forward its own, more detailed proposal. There is concern in the SPD that the CDU is using the subject of security to score points with voters already two years before the next general election - and to drive the SPD out of security matters. “They think they have struck a rich vein with people's concerns over security,” one SPD member complained. “They are trying to drive us away.” Another noted: “It was a mistake to give the CDU the two important ministries that deal with security, namely defense and interior.”

To: Ichy Smith who wrote (10380)	10/5/2007 10:07:12 PM
From: DeplorableIrredeemableRedneck	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 20106

We need more of this attitude in the world Bush unapologetic about interrogations of terror suspects JENNIFER LOVEN THE ASSOCIATED PRESS October 5, 2007 at 7:46 PM EDT WASHINGTON — U.S. President George W. Bush volunteered an unapologetic defence Friday of his administration's harsh interrogations of terror suspects, saying they are lawful, helpful and won't stop. Amid fresh skepticism that U.S. interrogators may be going too far when trying to pry information from terror suspects, Mr. Bush said: “The American people expect their government to take action to protect them from further attack. And that's exactly what this government is doing. And that's exactly what we'll continue to do.” For decades, the United States had two paths for questioning suspects: the U.S. justice system and the military's Army Field Manual. But after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, Washington quietly created the CIA's terror interrogation program, and it has become one of the administration's most sensitive and debated activities. The White House regards it as one of its most successful tools in the war on terror. They say it has been consistent with U.S. and international law all along. But critics say the program leaves a stain on the United States' image around the world and could place Americans captured overseas in greater danger of being tortured. They fear administration interpretations of law have established loopholes allowing for treatment almost indistinguishable from torture. “Congress has a constitutional responsibility to determine whether the program is the best means for obtaining reliable information, whether it is fully supported by the law, and whether it is in the best interest of the United States,” said Democratic Senator Jay Rockefeller. The complicated, somewhat subjective debate over whether some interrogation techniques used at locations around the world constitute torture had seemed to be put largely to rest. In 2004, for instance, the Justice Department withdrew a two-year-old classified legal opinion that had allowed certain aggressive interrogation practices just so long as they stopped short of producing pain equivalent to experiencing organ failure or death. Later that year, the department issued an opinion publicly declaring torture “abhorrent” and the administration seemed to back away from claiming authority for such practices. The next year, Congress passed — and Mr. Bush signed — a bill banning “cruel, inhuman and degrading” treatment of detainees. But this week, new questions arose when The New York Times disclosed the existence of two Justice Department legal opinions from around the same time, in 2005, authorizing extreme methods. The first allowed the use of painful physical and psychological methods, such as head slaps, freezing temperatures and simulated drownings known as waterboarding, in combination. The second declared that none of the CIA's interrogation practices would violate provisions in the 2005 anti-torture legislation, The Times said. Both memos remain in effect, but the White House insisted they represented no change in U.S. policy. “This government does not torture people,” Mr. Bush said, bringing up the topic during a brief Oval Office appearance on the economy. “We stick to U.S. law and international obligations.” Speaking emphatically, the President noted that “highly trained professionals” conduct any questioning. “And by the way,” he said, “we have gotten information from these high-value detainees that have helped protect you.” Democrats and human rights groups say that details of U.S. policy remain murky. White House press secretary Dana Perino would not say how the administration defines torture, beyond the broad, dense 2004 Justice opinion. “I just fundamentally disagree that that would be a good thing for national security,” she said. “I think the American people recognize that there are needs that the federal government has to keep certain information private in order to help their national security. ... We cannot provide more information about techniques. It's not appropriate.” Mr. Bush said that “the techniques that we use have been fully disclosed to appropriate members of the United States Congress” and Ms. Perino said those briefed “are satisfied that the policy of the United States and the practices do not constitute torture.” This was an indirect slap at the torrent of criticism that has flowed from the Democratic-controlled Congress since the memos' disclosure. But Mr. Rockefeller, who as chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee would have been among those briefed, said he is “tired of these games.” He and other Democrats are demanding to see the memos, and House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers and Representative Jerrold Nadler have promised a congressional inquiry. “They can't say that Congress has been fully briefed while refusing to turn over key documents used to justify the legality of the program,” Mr. Rockefeller said.

To: Ichy Smith who wrote (10380)	10/5/2007 10:36:31 PM
From: DeplorableIrredeemableRedneck	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 20106

Progress? Saudis to overhaul legal system The Saudi judiciary has long resisted the codification of laws Saudi Arabia has announced an overhaul of its judicial system, including the allocation of $2bn (£981m) for training judges and building new courts. The reforms, by royal decree, will lead to the creation of a supreme court, an appeals court and new general courts to replace the Supreme Judicial Council. Reformers have welcomed the measures, which they say will improve human rights and help modernise the country. They complain that the current judicial system is often opaque and arbitrary. Until now, Saudi judges have had wide discretion to issue rulings according to their own interpretation of Islamic Sharia law. The judiciary has also long resisted the codification of laws or the reliance on precedent when making a ruling. Defendants also do not have recourse to appeal and often have no right to proper legal representation. Unchecked powers The new reforms announced by King Abdullah are aimed at addressing some of these perceived failings and at introducing safeguards such as appeal courts that can overturn decisions by lower courts, the BBC's Heba Saleh says. The decree sets up two supreme courts for the general courts and administrative courts, according to Hassan al-Mulla, the head of the Saudi Bar Association. These courts will replace the Supreme Judicial Council, which will now only review administrative issues such as judges' salaries and appointments. Mr Mulla said the decree also set up specialised court circuits within the system for commercial, labour and personal status cases. Ministerial tribunals previously dealt with labour disputes and the system did not allow for internationally-recognised processes of appeal. Saudi reformers say the changes will chip away at the unchecked powers of the conservative clerics, who lead the judiciary. Although Islamic law will remain at the heart of the system, they argue that both human rights and the business environment will benefit from the overhaul. The king will appoint the head of the Supreme Court. The reformers say he is interested in modernisation so he is likely to choose someone who will further his plans, our correspondent says. news.bbc.co.uk