USA Politics Thread - *No gun debate*

[billybob2002 0]

http://www.jsonline.com/news/metro/jan05/295538.asp

Quote[/b] ]

Expect tire-slashing charges Monday

Sources say politicians' sons, 3 other Democrats will be hit with felonies

Posted: Jan. 22, 2005

The investigation into the Great Tire-Slashing Caper will end Monday with felony charges against the adult sons of two prominent Milwaukee politicians - U.S. Rep. Gwen Moore and former Acting Mayor Marvin Pratt.

Sources close to the 83-day-old probe said Sowande Omokunde, Michael Pratt and three other paid Democratic activists will each be charged with a single felony count of criminal damage to property, legalese for vandalism.

Omokunde, also known as Supreme Solar Allah, is the 25-year-old son of the rookie congresswoman. Pratt, 32, worked on Kerry's local campaign, which was chaired by his father.

Pratt, Omokunde and the other staffers will be accused of cutting the tires of some 20 vans and cars rented by the state Republican Party to usher the party faithful to and from the polls on election day. The charges will state that the damage to the vehicles was well in excess of $2,500 - the minimum required to merit a felony.

Expect a gaggle of reporters and photographers for the Monday morning news conference by District Attorney E. Michael McCann to announce the charges and for an initial court appearance by the soon-to-be defendants in the early afternoon.

Omokunde's lawyer, Robin Shellow, confirmed she's been told her client will be charged Monday. "It is my understanding that it's scheduled for 1:30," she said about the court appearance, declining further comment.

Other Democrats who have been arrested and released by police but not charged are: Lewis Gibson Caldwell III, 28, and Lavelle Mohammad, 35, both of Milwaukee; and Justin J. Howell, 20, of Racine.

Caldwell's lawyer, Craig Mastantuono, said he also has been told by the DA's office that his guy would be charged on Monday. Sources indicated that the criminal complaint also will name Mohammad and Howell.

Lawyers for the other suspects could not be reached or declined to comment.

Sources said that with McCann's decision to file felony charges, it is highly unlikely that U.S. Attorney Steven Biskupic would also hit the suspects with a federal complaint. Those insiders said it is rare for the feds to pile on charges that would be very similar to those filed by local authorities.

The slashings and the lengthy investigation by local cops and the FBI have been the talk of the town for a couple of months. McCann, a Democrat, has been under fire from Republicans for the time he's taken to press charges against the Democratic activists.

The police probe started on the morning of Nov. 2, when officials discovered that vandals had shredded about two dozen tires on 20 vehicles rented by the state GOP. The vehicles were parked in the 7100 block of W. Capitol Drive.

That night, police arrested Opel Simmons III, a veteran Democratic activist who was in town drumming up support for U.S. Sen. John Kerry's failed presidential campaign. Simmons, who was held by Milwaukee authorities for two days, is back in Virginia and is not expected to be charged, sources said.

As part of the case, FBI agents interviewed witnesses in four states from New York to Georgia, though none of those out-of-staters is expected to be charged. Those Democrats were also here to help with the Kerry effort.

Sources say that investigators caught a break in the case because the slashings quickly became the talk of the Kerry headquarters on the morning of Nov. 2.

"People came back and bragged about what they did," said one source.

Added a second: "Ultimately, they didn't see this as a badge of shame that they needed to hide from their co-workers."

But nothing in this case is as simple as it first appears.

Look for the defense lawyers to use the classic "some other dudes did it" defense - pointing an accusing finger at the out-of-staters, who are expected to be the star witnesses for the prosecution.

Making things even dicier is the lack of damning physical evidence. "There will be a strong suggestion on the defense part that the people who are (making the accusations) may have slashed the tires themselves," said one lawyer familiar with the case.

On top of everything else, this case has garnered national attention because two of the suspects come from politically connected Democratic families and because the tires were sliced up supposedly to prevent Republicans from getting to the polls.

No doubt, with Monday's charges, it will remain in the spotlight.

"It's like when you slash the tires of the police chief," explained one law enforcement type. "It's much more than the slashing. It's why did you do it. It makes the same act more serious."

At the same time, another lawyer suggested that everyone keep things in perspective. This, after all, is not a murder case.

"These aren't just ordinary tires," the lawyer cracked. "These are tires that had their civil rights violated."

And they were charged today..

I told you that democrats are eevvvillll...

[red oct 2]

is it just me or does anybody else not care about some slashed tires? sorry but were too busy watching another 80 billion of tax dollars going out the window.

[theavonlady 2]

I'm a mammal that cares.

[Akira 0]

List of cares:

1) Iraq War

2)Decline of goodwill in US foreign policy

3)Bush and his SS schemes and his cronies racking up another 80 billion dollar bill

4)Paying for and starting Grad school.

5)Finding a new job that doesn't suck.

.

.

.

.

.

.

199,039,937,324,123,037,918,984)Somone slashed Republican's tires.

[red oct 2]

that's what i thought, though i think you can ad Rumsfeld and Cheny's Iran agenda somewhere on that list.

[Homefry 0]

List of cares:

1) Iraq War

2)Decline of goodwill in US foreign policy

3)Bush and his SS schemes and his cronies racking up another 80 billion dollar bill

4)Paying for and starting Grad school.

5)Finding a new job that doesn't suck.

.

.

.

.

.

.

199,039,937,324,123,037,918,984)Somone slashed Republican's tires.

Perhaps you should stop caring about some things mate, after 199,039,937,324,123,037,918,984 things I would go crazy...

[billybob2002 0]

that's what i thought, though i think you can ad Rumsfeld and Cheny's Iran agenda somewhere on that list.

Just exposing that both sides use dirty tricks.

[EiZei 0]

that's what i thought, though i think you can ad Rumsfeld and Cheny's Iran agenda somewhere on that list.

Just exposing that both sides use dirty tricks.

Quite an exposé you got there.

[billybob2002 0]

From Drudge....

Quote[/b] ]

IN UPCOMING INTERVIEW WITH BRIAN LAMB C-SPAN, PRES BUSH ON INDECENCY ON TV: 'As a free speech advocate, I often told parents who were complaining about content, you're the first line of responsibility; they put an off button on the TV for a reason. Turn it off... Government can, at times, not censor, but call to account programming that gets over the line. The problem , of course, is the definition of 'over the line''... Developing Sunday Night...

[Akira 0]

From Drudge....

Quote[/b] ]

IN UPCOMING INTERVIEW WITH BRIAN LAMB C-SPAN, PRES BUSH ON INDECENCY ON TV: 'As a free speech advocate, I often told parents who were complaining about content, you're the first line of responsibility; they put an off button on the TV for a reason. Turn it off... Government can, at times, not censor, but call to account programming that gets over the line. The problem , of course, is the definition of 'over the line''... Developing Sunday Night...

Least he said something right for once.

[EiZei 0]

From Drudge....

Quote[/b] ]

IN UPCOMING INTERVIEW WITH BRIAN LAMB C-SPAN, PRES BUSH ON INDECENCY ON TV: 'As a free speech advocate, I often told parents who were complaining about content, you're the first line of responsibility; they put an off button on the TV for a reason. Turn it off... Government can, at times, not censor, but call to account programming that gets over the line. The problem , of course, is the definition of 'over the line''... Developing Sunday Night...

Least he said something right for once.

Indeed, the cold front here must have gone wayyy below

[Balschoiw 0]

Dang !

U.S. Judge: Guantanamo Tribunals Unconstitutional

Now that took a while...

Quote[/b] ]

In a setback for the Bush administration, U.S. District Judge Joyce Hens Green also ruled the prisoners at the U.S. military base at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba have constitutional protections under the law.

"The court concludes that the petitioners have stated valid claims under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution and that the procedures implemented by the government to confirm that the petitioners are 'enemy combatants' subject to indefinite detention violate the petitioners' rights to due process of law," Green wrote.

More than 540 suspects are being held at Guantanamo after being detained during the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan (news - web sites) and in other operations in the U.S. "war against terrorism." They are al Qaeda suspects and accused Taliban fighters.

Bush administration attorneys argued the prisoners have no constitutional rights and their lawsuits, challenging the conditions of their confinement and seeking their release, must be dismissed.

The tribunals, formally called a military commission, at the base were authorized by President Bush after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, but have been criticized by human rights groups as being fundamentally unfair to defendants.

Green's 75-page opinion was the unclassified version made available for public release. It stemmed from 11 cases involving Guantanamo prisoners.

Her ruling probably will not be the final word on the issue. A different federal judge in Washington, D.C., on Jan. 19 dismissed the cases of seven Guantanamo prisoners on the grounds that they have no recognizable constitutional rights and are subject to the military review process.

The cases could be appealed to the U.S. appeals court, and then ultimately to the U.S. Supreme Court

At least some judges seem to have done their homeworks.

[billybob2002 0]

Dang !

U.S. Judge: Guantanamo Tribunals Unconstitutional

Now that took a while...

Quote[/b] ]

In a setback for the Bush administration, U.S. District Judge Joyce Hens Green also ruled the prisoners at the U.S. military base at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba have constitutional protections under the law.

"The court concludes that the petitioners have stated valid claims under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution and that the procedures implemented by the government to confirm that the petitioners are 'enemy combatants' subject to indefinite detention violate the petitioners' rights to due process of law," Green wrote.

More than 540 suspects are being held at Guantanamo after being detained during the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan (news - web sites) and in other operations in the U.S. "war against terrorism." They are al Qaeda suspects and accused Taliban fighters.

Bush administration attorneys argued the prisoners have no constitutional rights and their lawsuits, challenging the conditions of their confinement and seeking their release, must be dismissed.

The tribunals, formally called a military commission, at the base were authorized by President Bush after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, but have been criticized by human rights groups as being fundamentally unfair to defendants.

Green's 75-page opinion was the unclassified version made available for public release. It stemmed from 11 cases involving Guantanamo prisoners.

Her ruling probably will not be the final word on the issue. A different federal judge in Washington, D.C., on Jan. 19 dismissed the cases of seven Guantanamo prisoners on the grounds that they have no recognizable constitutional rights and are subject to the military review process.

The cases could be appealed to the U.S. appeals court, and then ultimately to the U.S. Supreme Court

At least some judges seem to have done their homeworks.

It looks like the Surpeme Court will have to say something now since two federal judges ruled differently. If the govt. wins in the appeals court, the lawyers is highly moving on to the Supreme Court. If the govt. loses in the appeals court, the govt. is highly moving on to the Supreme Court.  Waits for the Surpeme Court...

[billybob2002 0]

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tm....inter=1

Quote[/b] ]

U.S. students say press freedoms go too far

Mon Jan 31, 7:20 AM ET

By Greg Toppo, USA TODAY

One in three U.S. high school students say the press ought to be more restricted, and even more say the government should approve newspaper stories before readers see them, according to a survey being released today.

The survey of 112,003 students finds that 36% believe newspapers should get "government approval" of stories before publishing; 51% say they should be able to publish freely; 13% have no opinion.

Asked whether the press enjoys "too much freedom," not enough or about the right amount, 32% say "too much," and 37% say it has the right amount. Ten percent say it has too little.

The survey of First Amendment rights was commissioned by the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation and conducted last spring by the University of Connecticut. It also questioned 327 principals and 7,889 teachers.

The findings aren't surprising to Jack Dvorak, director of the High School Journalism Institute at Indiana University in Bloomington. "Even professional journalists are often unaware of a lot of the freedoms that might be associated with the First Amendment," he says.

The survey "confirms what a lot of people who are interested in this area have known for a long time," he says: Kids aren't learning enough about the First Amendment in history, civics or English classes. It also tracks closely with recent findings of adults' attitudes.

"It's part of our Constitution, so this should be part of a formal education," says Dvorak, who has worked with student journalists since 1968.

Although a large majority of students surveyed say musicians and others should be allowed to express "unpopular opinions," 74% say people shouldn't be able to burn or deface an American flag as a political statement; 75% mistakenly believe it is illegal.

The U.S. Supreme Court (news - web sites) in 1989 ruled that burning or defacing a flag is protected free speech. Congress has debated flag-burning amendments regularly since then; none has passed both the House and Senate.

Derek Springer, a first-year student at Ivy Tech State College in Muncie, Ind., credits his journalism adviser at Muncie Central High School with teaching students about the First Amendment, which guarantees freedom of speech, press and religion.

Last year, Springer led a group of student journalists who exposed payments a local basketball coach made to players for such things as attending practices and blocking shots. The newspaper also questioned requirements that students register their cars with the school to get parking passes.

Because they studied the First Amendment, he says, "we know that we can publish our opinion, and that we might be scrutinized, but we know we didn't do anything wrong.

[Akira 0]

Quote[/b] ]It looks like the Surpeme Court will have to say something now since two federal judges ruled differently. If the govt. wins in the appeals court, the lawyers is highly moving on to the Supreme Court. If the govt. loses in the appeals court, the govt. is highly moving on to the Supreme Court. Waits for the Surpeme Court...

The Supreme Court can decide not to hear the case if it so chooses, and doesn't even have to give a reason. If the Govt. wins the appeal, it's obvious the Supreme Court will decide not to touch the case when brought to petition by the opposition. This will in effect uphold the appeals court allowing the tribunals to continue. Should the Govt. lose the appeal, it's obvious that the Supreme Court will seem very interested to hear the case, and most likely side with the Govt., allowing the tribunals to continue.

Heres where the influence of appointments and hunting vacations with administration officials becomes evident (like it wasn't already with many of the energy cases).

Quote[/b] ]One in three U.S. high school students say the press ought to be more restricted, and even more say the government should approve newspaper stories before readers see them, according to a survey being released today.

This from the idiots that don't even know where their own country is half the time.

I guess the Bush Youth has already started.

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]I guess the Bush Youth has already started.  

You didn't get the memo? I was one of the first to join back in 2000... It has only been exposed...

[Akira 0]

Quote[/b] ]Bush, like previous presidents, will try to rally nation on war in State of the Union

By Donna Cassata, Associated Press, 1/31/2005 14:30

WASHINGTON (AP) In wartime, presidents have filled their State of the Union addresses with words to rally the nation.

It surely will be no different for President Bush on Wednesday night. Although the commander in chief never mentioned the word Iraq in his inaugural address Jan. 20, he is certain to focus on the conflict in his State of the Union speech just three days after Iraqis held elections.

More than 1,400 Americans have died since the war began nearly two years ago, and Bush is poised to ask Congress for $80 billion more to help pay for a conflict that is costing $1 billion a week. Amid unease about the war, Bush faces the challenge of assuaging Americans' concerns about the rising toll in lives and dollars.

State of the Union speeches offer an important stage for presidents. They usually sketch out the evils of the enemy and trumpet Americans' willingness to sacrifice all part of a concerted effort to keep support strong.

On Jan. 6, 1942, less than a month after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, President Franklin D. Roosevelt spoke of the ''spirit of the American people,'' their deep determination and their solemn task.

''The militarists of Berlin and Tokyo started this war. But the massed, angered forces of common humanity will finish it,'' he said.

Then, acknowledging the question of nearly every American, Roosevelt said, ''Many people ask, 'When will this war end?' There is only one answer to that. It will end just as soon as we make it end, by our combined efforts, our combined strength, our combined determination to fight through and work through until the end the end of militarism in Germany and Italy and Japan. Most certainly we shall not settle for less.''

Ken Hechler, a former political science professor who edited Roosevelt's public papers and addresses, said Bush's challenge is similar to Roosevelt's to shore up the nation.

''A good deal of that speech was meant to stiffen the morale against the negative reaction,'' said Hechler, who also served as a congressman from West Virginia (1959-77).

In 1952, Americans wondered if there was an end in sight in Korea. President Truman's support had plummeted after he fired Gen. Douglas MacArthur in 1951 for publicly criticizing the commander in chief's strategy to wage a limited war rather than attack China.

In his State of the Union speech, Truman appealed for unity, touched on his domestic agenda and told the nation, ''The only thing that can defeat us is our own state of mind. We can lose if we falter.''

Alonzo Hamby, an Ohio University professor who has written extensively on Truman and Roosevelt, said Truman's challenge was tougher than Bush's, if only because casualties were higher in Korea.

''He had an active military draft at that time. It was a much more difficult situation,'' Hamby said. ''Bush can talk about victory, and we can hope maybe he's right.''

In the middle of a massive air war in the Persian Gulf to push Iraqi forces out of Kuwait, President George H.W. Bush told the nation on Jan. 29, 1991, ''All of us yearn for a world where we will never have to fight again.''

Bush's father contrasted the offenses of Saddam Hussein ''his ruthless, systematic rape of a peaceful neighbor'' with the multilateral effort to stop him.

''The world can ... seize this opportunity to fulfill the longheld promise of a new world order, where brutality will go unrewarded and aggression will meet collective resistance,'' he said.

Kurt Ritter, a professor of political rhetoric at Texas A&M University, said presidents rally support by contrasting ''the savageries of the enemy'' with ''America and America's effort and civilizing force.''

In the address Wednesday, Ritter said, Bush might remind Americans of the beheadings and insurgent attacks in Iraq, and focus on the push for democracy.

Bush will want to make sure that his domestic agenda anchored by his far-reaching plans for partial privatization of Social Security and overhaul of the tax code does not get lost in the worries about dangers abroad.

Similarly, President Lyndon B. Johnson emphasized in his speech in 1966 that he would not have to sacrifice the Great Society for the Vietnam War.

''This nation is mighty enough, its society is healthy enough, its people are strong enough, to pursue our goals in the rest of the world while still building a Great Society here at home,'' Johnson said.

Two years later, Johnson hailed elections and formation of a government in Vietnam despite the constant threat of violence.

''America will persevere. Our patience and our perseverance will match our power. Aggression will never prevail,'' Johnson said on Jan. 17, 1968.

Thirteen days later, on Jan. 30, the North Vietnamese launched the Tet offensive that crystalized opposition to the war. Three months later, on March 31, Johnson ended a speech on his hopes for a negotiated peace in Southeast Asia with words that shocked a nation his decision not to seek another term in office.

Linkalicious

Rally the nation on the war? How the hell is he going to do that? Half the nation voted against him because of the war, and now he's going to try and sell them on it....again? Rhetoric and partisan bombasity is all it is. Be sure and count how many times he mentions "free elections" and "armies of democracy/compassion" or its derivatives.

Also look for jabs at Iran and Syria/Jordan. Then we will know whats rolling around in that peanut of a brain.

[red oct 2]

George Bush doesn't read the news. as far as he is concerned he won the election, therefore, that must mean everybody is on his side.

[Akira 0]

Quote[/b] ] $250,000 military death benefit proposed

Associated Press

WASHINGTON — President Bush will propose a dramatic increase to $250,000 in government payments to families of U.S. troops killed in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars and in future combat zones.

The plan to increase the tax-free "death gratuity," now $12,420, to $100,000 and provide an extra $150,000 in life insurance payouts will be part the 2006 budget proposal submitted to Congress next week, the Pentagon's personnel chief said in an Associated Press interview. Veterans groups and many in Congress have been pushing for such increases.

"We think the nation ought to make a larger one-time payment, quite apart from insurance, should you be killed in a combat area of operations," David Chu, the undersecretary of defense for personnel and readiness, said in the interview in his Pentagon office.

"We can never in any program give someone back their loved one," he added. "There is nothing we can do about the hurt, to make it go away. But we can make your circumstances reasonable, in terms of finances."

Chu is to unveil the administration's full proposal in congressional testimony Tuesday.

Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., who is sponsoring a bill with the same provisions, said in an interview that the first-year budget cost of the increased benefits would be $459 million, including more than $280 million in retroactive payments of the higher gratuity and the extra life insurance settlements.

"The American people want to be generous to the families of service people who give their lives for their country. It's not a nickel-and-dime issue," he said.

In addition to the higher gratuity, the Pentagon would substantially increase life insurance benefits, Chu said. The current $250,000 coverage offered to all service members at a subsidized rate under the Servicemen's Group Life Insurance program would be raised to $400,000, and for troops in a combat zone the government would pay the premiums on the extra $150,000 coverage.

Even in the case of a service member who did not participate in the basic life insurance program, the surviving spouse would receive a $150,000 settlement if the death happened in a designated combat zone, since the Pentagon is proposing to pay the premiums on that amount of coverage for everyone in a war zone. The spouse or other surviving family member also would get the $100,000 gratuity.

Chu said that the extra $150,000 in life insurance and the higher death gratuity would be retroactive to Oct. 7, 2001, the date the United States launched its invasion of Afghanistan in response to the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

Some bills in Congress would make the higher gratuity retroactive but not the extra life insurance.

Under the administration's proposal, the 53 military members who were killed in the Sept. 11 attack on the Pentagon would not get the higher gratuity, a spokeswoman said.

As of today, 1,415 Americans had died in the Iraq war, according to the Pentagon's count, and 156 had died in Afghanistan and other locations deemed part of the war on terrorism.

The death gratuity is a one-time payment intended to be given to the family immediately after a service member's death; it is separate from an array of other survivor benefits such as housing aid.

The $100,000 would apply only in cases where the service member died in a war zone as designated by the secretary of defense. Thus a soldier killed in a training accident in the United States would get the current $12,420, Chu said. Some in Congress have proposed paying an increased gratuity for all deaths.

In the aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks, defense officials decided that the current death payment for troops killed in battle was too little, particularly in light of settlements paid to Sept. 11 families. The government paid an average $2.1 million to the families of those killed in those attacks.

In 2003 the military gratuity was doubled, from $6,000, where it had stood since 1991, to $12,000, with subsequent increases to account for inflation, bringing it to $12,420 on Jan. 1, 2005. The 2003 legislation also made the payment fully tax-free. Before that, half was taxable.

Lawmakers in both the House and Senate have introduced bills to raise both the gratuity and the life insurance coverage, reflecting a broader trend of more generous military benefit programs, including financial benefits for military retirees, their survivors and families of those killed in battle.

These changes are adding billions to defense budgets and raising questions about whether increasingly costly entitlements are forcing the Pentagon to forgo some investments in weapons programs.

Chu said he was concerned that in recent years Congress had gone too far in expanding military retiree benefits, but he said the proposed increase in survivor benefits was well justified.

Bigger military benefits that apply mainly to retirees and their families are making it harder for the Pentagon to afford financial incentives targeted at maintaining today's military, Chu said.

"They are starting to crowd out two things: first, our ability to reward the person who is bearing the burden right now in Iraq or Afghanistan," Chu said. "(Second), we are undercutting our ability to finance the new gear that is going to make that military person successful five, ten, 15 years from now."

Link

[Tex -USMC- 0]

Long overdue, but the timing's rather bad.

[denoir 0]

Giving a copy of "Leadership for Dummies"

(http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0764551760/qid=1107273740/sr=8-3/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i3_xgl14/102-0812542-4136102?v=glance&s=books&n=507846)

and a "Diplomacy for Dummies" for each Bush adminstration member would be a much cheaper way of handling it.

[Balschoiw 0]

Military Extends Guantanamo Abuse Probe

Quote[/b] ]MIAMI (Reuters) - The U.S. military extended by four weeks its investigation into FBI allegations that prisoners were tortured at the Guantanamo detention camp and said on Tuesday it needed more time to question witnesses in several countries.

The military's Southern Command, which oversees the controversial camp for foreign terrorism suspects at the U.S. Naval base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, had asked two officers to investigate and report back by Feb. 1.

SouthCom's commander, Gen. Bantz Craddock, extended the deadline to Feb. 28 and said further extensions could not be ruled out because the investigators need to reach widely scattered witnesses who had been at Guantanamo.

"These witnesses are located from Maine to California, nationally, and from Iraq (news - web sites) to Korea, internationally," Craddock said in a written statement.

The allegations date back to 2002, the year the camp opened, and military personnel, interrogators and FBI agents have regularly rotated through Guantanamo since then.

Craddock ordered the investigation last month after the public release of FBI documents that described prisoners shackled in a fetal position on the floor for up to 24 hours and left in their own urine and feces.

One described an interrogation in which a prisoner was wrapped in an Israeli flag and bombarded with loud music and strobe light. Another reported seeing a barely conscious prisoner who had torn out his hair after being left overnight in a sweltering room.

The American Civil Liberties Union (news - web sites) obtained the documents under court order through a freedom of information request and publicly released them.

The United States holds about 545 men it suspects of al Qaeda links at Guantanamo, most of them captured during the Afghanistan (news - web sites) war that followed the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on America.

The Bush administration does not consider them prisoners of war, who would be protected under the Geneva Conventions from torture and coercive interrogation.

Several former prisoners have said they were beaten, threatened with dogs and subjected to freezing temperatures, and the International Committee of the Red Cross has said their treatment was "tantamount to torture."

Military officials at Guantanamo have repeatedly denied the claims, but both SouthCom and the Justice Departments launched investigations after the disclosure of the FBI documents.

I´m rather curios what the outcome of all that will be. Either the US will go on "exporting" prisoners for torture to torture-freindly countries or they will someday deny the existance of Guantanamo and just keep on torturing.

[ralphwiggum 6]

so anyone want to get themselves annoyed by watching State of the Union address? 9pm EST.

Last night I watched Nighline which dealt with issues of social security. In essence, the money flow into the program will not be zero, but rather have smaller input.

in 2026(?) the US T-bills that will supply money into the program will have to be tapped, and by 2046, that flow will be cut off short. thus about 70% of the benefit will be given to those who are elligible.

What TBA is pushing for is privatiziation of a portion of tax, so that younger people can invest. however, that would also mean that current inflow of tax dollars would be reduced, and without increasing other tax, government has to borrow money sooner or later, which is not the best thing to do.

so there you go. TBA has no clue, but to make wall street happy.

[Akira 0]

Another State Of The Union....

Look out Syria, Egypt, and Iran. Here we come!

[Homefry 0]

Another State Of The Union....

Look out Syria, Egypt, and Iran. Here we come!

You guys are so predictable...