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 : Welcome to Slider's Dugout -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Galirayo who wrote (18744)	8/18/2009 7:09:17 PM
From: Broken_Clock	7 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 50428

If the United States didn't care about basic Human Rights .. We'd more than likely stay home .. and not try to defend the ones who are having their basic day to day rights taken away by some Thug or Terrorist Group. ---- that statement just broke my BS meter. You've got to be kidding.

To: Galirayo who wrote (18744)	8/18/2009 7:17:04 PM
From: Antar	3 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 50428

A well trained sheeple at his best.

To: Galirayo who wrote (18744)	8/18/2009 7:20:11 PM
From: SARMAN	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 50428

If the United States didn't care about basic Human Rights Wow. I hope that is good shit that you are smoking. Why don't pass some around. <ggg>

To: Galirayo who wrote (18744)	8/18/2009 7:23:10 PM
From: John Koligman	5 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 50428

If the United States didn't care about basic Human Rights .. So why are we buying oil from the Saudis, looked the other way when 800,000 in Rwanda were hacked to death, and have oil companies in African nations where the leaders squirrel away billions while their people starve to death???? Regards, John

To: Galirayo who wrote (18744)	8/18/2009 10:15:46 PM
From: Webster Groves	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 50428

I hear the Taliban has a more equitable system. Their leaders get the same health care benefits as the average recruit. wg

To: Galirayo who wrote (18744)	8/19/2009 7:51:33 PM
From: Proud Deplorable	3 Recommendations Respond to of 50428

The US cares about basic human rights???????? You must have forgotten Abu Grahib? ========= CIA Crucified captive in Abu Ghraib Prison by Sherwood Ross . Global Research, June 28, 2009 Email this article to a friend Print this article StumbleUpon Submit The Central Intelligence Agency crucified a prisoner in Abu Ghraib prison near Baghdad, according to a report published in The New Yorker magazine. “A forensic examiner found that he (the prisoner) had essentially been crucified; he died from asphyxiation after having been hung by his arms, in a hood, and suffering broken ribs,” the magazine’s Jane Mayer writes in the magazine’s June 22nd issue. “Military pathologists classified the case a homicide.” The date of the murder was not given. “No criminal charges have ever been brought against any C.I.A. officer involved in the torture program, despite the fact that at least three prisoners interrogated by agency personnel died as a result of mistreatment,” Mayer notes. An earlier report, by John Hendren in The Los Angeles Times indicted other torture killings. And Human Rights First says nearly 100 detainees have died in U.S. custody in Iraq and Afghanistan. Hendren reported that one Manadel Jamadi died “of blunt-force injuries” complicated by “compromised respiration” at Abu Ghraib prison “while he was with Navy SEALs and other special operations troops.” Another victim, Abdul Jaleel, died while gagged and shackled to a cell door with his hands over his head.” Yet another prisoner, Maj. Gen. Abid Mowhosh, former commander of Iraq’s air defenses, “died of asphyxiation due to smothering and chest compression” in Qaim, Iraq. "There is no question that U.S. interrogations have resulted in deaths," says Anthony Romero, executive director of the ACLU. "High-ranking officials who knew about the torture and sat on their hands and those who created and endorsed these policies must be held accountable. America must stop putting its head in the sand and deal with the torture scandal." At least scores of detainees in U.S. custody have died and homicide is suspected. As far back as May, 2004, the Pentagon conceded at least 37 deaths of prisoners in its custody in Iraq and Afghanistan had prompted investigations. Nathaniel Raymond, of Physicians for Human Rights, told The New Yorker, “We still don’t know how many detainees were in the black sites, or who they were. We don’t fully know the White House’s role, or the C.I.A.’s role. We need a full accounting, especially as it relates to health professionals.” Recently released Justice memos, he noted, contain numerous references to CIA medical personnel participating in coercive interrogation sessions. “They were the designers, the legitimizers, and the implementers,” Raymond said. “This is arguably the single greatest medical-ethics scandal in American history. We need answers.” The ACLU obtained its information from the Pentagon through a Freedom of Information suit. Documents received included 44 autopsies and death reports as well as a summary of autopsy reports of people seized in Iraq and Afghanistan. An ACLU statement noted, “This covers just a fraction of the total number of Iraqis and Afghanis who have died while in U.S. custody.” (Italics added). Torture by the CIA has been facilitated by the Agency’s ability to hide prisoners in “black sites” kept secret from the Red Cross, to hold prisoners off the books, and to detain them for years without bringing charges or providing them with lawyers. Kenneth Roth, executive director of Human Rights Watch, denounced the Obama administration for considering “prevention detention,” The New Yorker’s Mayer wrote. Roth said this tactic “mimics the Bush Administration’s abusive approach.” From all indications, CIA Director Panetta has no intention of bringing to justice CIA officials involved in the systematic torture of prisoners. Panetta told Mayer, “I’m going to give people the benefit of the doubt…If they do the job that they’re paid to do, I can’t ask for a hell of a lot more.” Such sentiments differ markedly from those Panetta wrote in an article published last year in the January Washington Monthly: “We either believe in the dignity of the individual, the rule of law, and the prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment, or we don’t. There is no middle ground.” One way to discern who really runs a country is to look to see which individuals, if any, are above the law. In the Obama administration, like its predecessors, they include the employees of the CIA. Crucifixions they execute in the Middle East differ from those reported in the New Testament in at least one important respect: Jesus Christ had a trial. Sherwood Ross formerly reported for major dailies and wire services. To contact him or contribute to his Anti-War News Service: sherwoodr1@yahoo.com Sherwood Ross is a frequent contributor to Global Research. Global Research Articles by Sherwood Ross

To: Galirayo who wrote (18744)	8/19/2009 7:58:41 PM
From: Proud Deplorable	3 Recommendations Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 50428

One can only imagine the "human rights" the USA had in store for Cuba if their plans to launch a war on them had succeeded. Hell the Government doesn't even care about the health and rights of its own citizens...it wanted to kill its own in order to provoke a war with Cuba. Makes one wonder if they did the same thing in New York

To: Galirayo who wrote (18744)	8/19/2009 9:38:57 PM
From: Broken_Clock	1 Recommendation Respond to of 50428

Where to Begin Rebutting the Afghan Blather? by Christopher Dowd, August 19, 2009 original.antiwar.com Everything that appears in our mainstream media about foreign policy is blather. Everything we read about Afghanistan and Iraq and Iran floats upon a sea of false premises and lies of omission and commission. Right now the American mainstream media is printing mountains of news stories and editorials and opinion pieces about the Afghanistan "elections." All of it is blather. All of it. This is an election where no political parties are allowed. This is an election for a government that does next to nothing but serve as a propaganda tool for an occupying army, an election where no one truly opposed to the U.S./NATO occupation is allowed to run. All the stories and opinion pieces on this election miss the plain, simple fact that this is an "election" being conducted under occupation and is seen by probably next to no one in Afghanistan, regardless of their politics or ideology, as legitimate. In fact, this whole election production in Afghanistan is being staged more for Americans than Afghans. The election is meant to soothe a skeptical and impatient American public. Having lived with war and occupation propaganda of all types for 30 plus years, Afghans know better. And it’s barely worth mentioning, as it is the sort of hypocrisy out of Washington that barely merits notice at this point, that the U.S., at one time, espoused the principle that elections held under foreign occupation were automatically illegitimate. But of course, elections held under American occupation are never illegitimate, because we are America and America is inherently good and selfless. The rules don’t apply to us, the exceptional and indispensable nation. And Monday we got more of the same out of the president. Obama went before the VFW in Phoenix and did some rote, costless, and meaningless denunciation of Pentagon waste a month after approving a $636 billion "defense" budget. And then he told us why the Afghan war has to be fought: "This is not a war of choice. This is a war of necessity. Those who attacked America on 9/11 are plotting to do so again. If left unchecked, the Taliban insurgency will mean an even larger safe haven from which al-Qaeda would plot to kill more Americans. This is not only a war worth fighting. This is fundamental to the defense of our people.” Other than possibly Ron Paul, there isn’t one person of renown in this country who would challenge that false justification for this meaningless war for war’s sake. Don’t we have "those who attacked us 9/11" in some dark dungeons somewhere awaiting super-secret special military trials? Who are "those"? Well, "those who attacked us on 9/11" are "al-Qaeda," or just "Qaeda," which is becoming the fashionable appellation for that mysterious organization among our mainstream press stenographers now. And what is "al-Qaeda"? "Qaeda" is quite simply anyone the U.S. military, intelligence community, or major D.C. politicians say it is. "Al-Qaeda" is a catch-all term applied to enemies of the current interests of our Beltway ruling elite. And when those interests change or shift? So does the definition of "al-Qaeda." If you doubt that is possible, just witness the shifting blame for Lockerbie as the needs of the Beltway have changed over the past decade. And note the sickening history of blame for the Halabja gas attack as Washington’s interests changed. "Those who attacked us on 9/11" cannot and never will be defined. There is no end to it. There never will be. Anyone who picks up arms against the U.S. or its regional puppets will be called "al-Qaeda" or "Taliban." Our "debate" on foreign policy is so far from reality that we just accept plainly preposterous statements like the Afghan war "is fundamental to the defense of our people" without comment. What can you even say to that? What do you say to people who mouth such things? Where do you begin? Do you point out that the U.S. would not have been attacked on 9/11 if it were not for its self-serving entanglements in the Middle East and Central Asia for the past 60-plus years? Do you point out that slaughtering hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people all but assures that this country will be attacked again by "terrorists"? Do you point out that the attack on 9/11 was the result of a comedy of errors on the part of a "defense" and "intelligence" community that even then cost us half a trillion dollars a year? Do you point out that terrorists don’t need a "safe haven" to plot attacks? Do you point out that even a moderately cautious and alert immigration policy would have prevented 9/11? I could go on… But you know what? No one cares. Our Beltway elite barely even try to justify these elective wars with coherent rationales anymore. In fact, Obama could have gotten up on that stage yesterday and justified the Afghan war as the latest front in the war on drugs (which is now a sub-justification) and no one would have cared. Not one major politician would say boo about it. They don’t care enough anymore about our opinion on these wars to treat our intelligence with respect. They know that these wars are going to go on no matter what Americans think and no matter which vetted mannequin of the two-party fraud occupies the White House. No matter what imbecilic justifications they advance for these wars, the wars will continue until the last nickel can be made from them. I’ve seen some commentary lately about how the Afghan war is not winnable. These columns miss the point. D.C. doesn’t care about "winning." It has no definition of winning quite on purpose. The war in Afghanistan is a war for war’s sake. What the Imperial City on the Potomac wants is a long, low-burning conflict with tolerably low casualties and extremely high overhead. It will end only when Americans are pushed to the precipice of real economic hardship and their two-party system is in genuine jeopardy. Only then will the Empire declare victory and come home. And after a decade of holding a huge pity party for ourselves, in which we file into movie theaters to watch film after film showing how Americans were actually the victims of the weakling nations we destroyed on the other side of the globe, D.C. will plot the next round of wars against the next batch of "madmen" ruling over distant, impoverished countries that are absolutely no threat to us at all. My guess is that it will be the "Bantu threat" in 25 years. And, yeah, we will fall for even that.