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 : President Barack Obama -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: koan who wrote (55324)	6/3/2009 9:42:09 PM
From: Broken_Clock	Respond to of 149317

What does that tell you?? === Tells me you need to reread the Kansas book and open your mind to some new possibilities.

To: koan who wrote (55324)	6/3/2009 11:15:01 PM
From: Broken_Clock	Respond to of 149317

Speaking of emapthy(is torture an empathetic act?) Is Dan rather a credible source to dems? Rather: Former detainee says torture still going on at Gitmo David Edwards and Muriel Kane Raw Story Wednesday, June 3, 2009 Dan Rather, the former CBS anchor who now hosts a news magazine on cable channel HDNet, has done a documentary on a former Guantanamo prisoner who says he was tortured for years before being released two weeks ago. Lakhdar Boumediene has charged that he was interrogated for sixteen straight nights in 2003 and that he was force-fed through a nasal tube for over two years after he went on a hunger strike. He also described to Rather’s interviewer how he was made to run with shackles on his legs until they were bloody in order to soften him up. According to the New York Observer, Rather describes the interview as “packed with details about Mr. Boumediene’s alleged torture — from intravenous needles being jammed into his arms to stories of soldiers snapping photos of the inmate’s painful transport to the detention center.” However, Boumediene’s most controversial claim is that torture is still going on despite the change in administrations. “Nothing change in Guantanamo,” he told the interviewer. “They torture me in the Obama time more than Bush.” “How credible do you find his allegations?” MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow asked Rather on Tuesday. “When you’re in his presence, when you see the interview, he seems believable,” Rather replied. He added, however, that the admiral who’s been in charge of Guantanamo for the last year “says, ‘Listen, this is untrue. These things are not still going on.’” (ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW) Rather also pointed out that when Boumediene says he was tortured recently, he is not referring to interrogation but to the force-feeding, which he believes was deliberately made “as painful and uncomfortable as possible.” Boumediene also believes that once the guards knew he had been ordered released for lack of evidence, some of them were looking for an opportunity to “take their last shots.” Rather insisted, however, that we have to take Boumediene’s central point seriously, that “the US government has lied about the depths of the torture, how much it happened, and the fact — from his viewpoint — that some of it’s still going on.” Maddow also asked Rather whether he thinks the Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan is effectively taking Guantanamo’s place. Rather acknowledged that “there is a school of thought” which believes that to be the case. “We don’t know much about what goes on there,” he explained, pointing out that prisoners have been brought to Bagram from other countries and that “some of the contentions that were made about Guantanamo are starting to be made about Bagram. … The critical thing is, there is no transparency.” Maddow concluded by asking Rather what he believes is motivating former Vice President Dick Cheney in his high-profile defense of torture. In response, Rather cited Cheney’s concern for the Bush administration’s legacy, his playing to the Republican base, and that “he really believes what he is saying.” “The fourth thing,” Rather added, “and I could be wrong about this, I think he really detests President Obama, his policies, and everything he stands for.” Rather noted that former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has said “nothing … and for that matter, neither has President Bush, which indicates that they clearly think that the tactics that Vice President Cheney is using are not the right ones.” Rather admitted, however, that “whether one likes it or not, I think he’s had some effect.” This video is from MSNBC’s The Rachel Maddow Show, broadcast June 2, 2009. prisonplanet.com

To: koan who wrote (55324)	6/3/2009 11:32:57 PM
From: Broken_Clock	Respond to of 149317

More empathy from O Statement On Behalf of the 9/11 Families United to Bankrupt Terrorism In Response to the Solicitor General's Refusal to Support The 9/11 Families' Petition for Writ of Certiorari with the Supreme Court Source: news.prnewsire.com (In Re: Thomas E. Burnett, Sr., et al. v. Al Baraka Investment & Development Corp., et al., Case No. 03-CV-9849 (RCC)In Re: Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001, MDL 1570) WASHINGTON, May 29 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- The following is a statement of 9/11 Family Members: Mike Low, Father of Sara Elizabeth Low, AA Flight 11; Bill Doyle, Father of Joseph M. Doyle, WTC North Tower; Tom & Beverly Burnett, Sr., Parents of Thomas E. Burnett, Jr., UA Flight 93; and Terry Strada, Wife of Thomas Strada, WTC North Tower on Behalf of the 9/11 Families United to Bankrupt Terrorism in Response to the Solicitor General's Refusal to Support The 9/11 Families' Petition for Writ of Certiorari with the Supreme Court: Today the Obama Administration filed in the Supreme Court a document that expressed the Administration's decision to stand with a group of Saudi princes and against the right of American citizens -- 9/11 family members -- to have our day in court. Let there be no doubt: The filing was political in nature and stands as a betrayal of everyone who lost a loved one or was injured on September 11, 2001. We are deeply dismayed by this decision, filed by the solicitor general of the United States in response to the Supreme Court's February 23, 2009 invitation for the government to express its views in the 9/11 families' request to appeal a portion of the case to the Court. The Administration's filing mocks our system of justice and strikes a blow against the public's right to know the facts about who financed and supported the murder of 3,000 innocent people. It undermines our fight against terrorism and suggests a green light to terrorist sympathizers the world over that they can send money to al Qaeda without having to worry that they will be held accountable in the U.S. Courts for the atrocities that result. The Administration apparently gave less weight to the principles of justice, transparency, accountability and security, which our case embodies, and more weight to political concerns and pleadings of a foreign government on the behalf of a handful of members of its monarchy and others who stand accused of financing the attacks that murdered our loved ones. Sadly, although the Administration's obviously politically based filing is merely informational and in no way binding on the Supreme Court, if the Supreme Court were to follow it, these people will avoid being held accountable not because they are innocent, but because they are royalty. The Administration's filing is all the more troubling in that it expressly acknowledges that the courts below applied incorrect legal standards in dismissing the Saudi defendants, but nonetheless argues that the case -- one that seeks to account for the terrorist attacks against America and the murder of our family members -- does not warrant the Supreme Court's time. Contrary to the view expressed by the Obama Administration in the solicitor general's filing, the victims of the September 11th attack deserve to have their claims decided under accurate legal standards. For all of these reasons, we urge the Supreme Court to reject the solicitor general's politically-premised filing, along with its wrongheaded priorities, accept our petition, and grant us our fundamentally American right to have our day in Court.

To: koan who wrote (55324)	6/4/2009 3:43:09 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 149317

I expect the right wing to hate the word empathy You might expect it but most of them don't. Some of them have pointed out that we often can't really be empathetic, and instead might be sympathetic. Others have pointed out that judicial decisions shouldn't primarily be grounded in empathy. Neither thought is, requires, or implies hating empathy. as they sure as hell never seemed to exercise any. ... The right wing tried everything under the sun to prevent integration and the 1964 civil rights act. Nonsense.