I don't have disrespect for the law, as I was explaining to a policeman just the other day
Crude Near Cuba
Spanish oil and gas company Repsol YPF (NYSE: REP) is currently facing a big risk, but it's a gamble a lot of American companies would gladly take.
A New York Times article yesterday explained that the firm is now drilling for oil off the coast of Cuba. Repsol is sinking $200,000 a day into the venture, which it launched in partnership with the Cuban government. The chances for success are slim, so for the energy concern, discovery of large energy reserves would be a major coup. But a major find would be an even bigger victory for cash-strapped Fidel Castro, which is perhaps precisely why U.S. companies are prohibited from exploring in Cuba.
Not that American corporations are not interested in the communist island nation. Halliburton (NYSE: HAL) has expressed its support for lifting the long-held sanctions that block most U.S. firms from doing business with Cuba. Despite the White House's supposed ties to the company through Vice President Dick Cheney, so far the administration has only tightened restrictions.
One wonders, though, whether this policy makes sense. No one wants to coddle dictators, but the track record of economic sanctions has not been stellar. Sanctions failed to change leadership in Iraq, and Castro continues to maintain a firm grip on Cuba, while the populace in each of these countries has suffered from lack of trade.
Meanwhile, the United States has re-opened relations with Libya, providing an opportunity for ConocoPhillips (NYSE: COP), Marathon Oil (NYSE: MRO), Amerada Hess (NYSE: AHC), and Occidental Petroleum (NYSE: OXY), among others. The thaw resulted in part from Muammar Qaddafi's change of heart on weapons of mass destruction. Nevertheless, Qaddafi is hardly completely "reformed" -- the Libyan leader remains a dictator with a poor human-rights record. At the very least, though, by re-establishing relations, the United States stands a chance of helping to lift the living standards of the Libyan people.
Norway protests child abuse in Iraq
Norwegian authorities reacted with shock and disgust Tuesday to a documentary on German TV that American soldiers allegedly have been holding children in prisons in Iraq, and abusing them as well. The Norwegians joined the Red Cross and Amnesty International in calling for an immediate end to the abuse, and release of the underage prisoners, some of whom are as young as 12 years.
In one case, a girl around age 15 was said to have been shoved up against a wall by a group of male soldiers who proceeded to manhandle her. They then started ripping off her clothes, and she was half-naked before military police broke in.
In another case, a boy aged 15 or 16 was stripped naked and sprayed with water before being placed in an open truck and driven around in the cold night air last winter. He then was covered with mud.
"These types of attacks are absolutely unacceptable," said a spokesman for Norwegian Prime Minister Kjell Magne Bondevik. "They violate international law and are morally indefensible."
Odd Jostein Sæter of the prime minister's office told Norwegian Broadcasting (NRK) Tuesday that Norwegian officials will react "both politically and diplomatically" to their US counterparts.
Neither the imprisonment nor abuse of children "can be tolerated," Sæter said.
"We will take this up in a very sharp and direct way and make concrete demands," he said on national radio, adding that such practices "damage the struggle for democracy and human rights in Iraq."
Norwegian authorities plan to review other reports of the abuse by both Amnesty International and Red Cross in detail.
The head of Amnesty International in Norway said Tuesday that Norway should not continue its military cooperation with the US after the reports of child "torture" were revealed.
Most of the more than 100 minors still believed to be held in American-controlled prisons in Iraq were taken into custody after US forces raided their homes.
U.S. accused in new terror torture claim
2004-07-08 / Associated Press /
The United States asked Pakistan to send an Australian terror suspect it had arrested to Egypt where they knew he would be tortured, according to his lawyer and a television report.
Egyptian-born Mamdouh Habib, who is an Australian citizen, was arrested near the Afghanistan border in Pakistan three weeks after the September 11, 2001, terror attacks on the United States.
U.S. authorities and Australia allege he trained with al-Qaida, a charge Habib denies. He claims he was in Pakistan looking for a school for his children.
His Australian lawyer Stephen Hopper told The Associated Press yesterday that the United States specifically requested that Habib be "sent to Egypt to be tortured."
Pakistan's Interior Minister Makhdoom Syed Faisal Saleh Hayat told SBS television's "Dateline" program due to air yesterday night that after Pakistan interrogated him, Washington asked that Habib be sent to Egypt.
"Yes, they did request it, yes," the minister said, according to a transcript of the show received by The Associated Press.
He added, "The U.S. wanted him for their own investigations."
The program also contained an interview with former Qatari Justice Minister Najeeba Al-Nauimi, who said Habib was tortured in Egypt "in a way in which a human cannot stand up."
And Tarek Dherghoul, a British man who knew Habib at Guantanamo Bay and who has since been freed, told the program Habib "said something about a dog being put on him as he was naked. Cigars put out on his body, blindfolded."
Steve Watts, a lawyer for the Center for Constitutional Rights in New York, told the program that it was U.S. government policy to send terror suspects to a third country where torture was likely for interrogation.
Human rights groups claim torture is systematic in Egypt, resulting in at least 120 deaths over the past decade, and that there is little legal recourse for its victims.
Habib was moved from Egypt after about six months to the U.S. base at Bagram in Afghanistan and then to Guantanamo Bay in April 2002 where he remains held with about 600 terror suspects, the program said.
Australian Attorney-General Philip Ruddock's spokesman said Australia had sought consular access to Habib in Egypt but the Egyptian authorities would not confirm he was in the country.
"Egypt has never acknowledged that he was ever in Egypt, so we've never been able to confirm it," the spokesman, Steve Ingram, told The AP.
Habib, who has not been charged with any offense, has told Australian Federal Police and Australian Security Intelligence Organization officers who have visited him at Guantanamo Bay of his experiences in Egypt.
"He thinks he might have gone to Egypt, but Egypt's never confirmed that he was there," Ingram said. "As to whether the Americans know, I wouldn't know that."
But Hopper said Australian and U.S. officials had liaised before Habib was sent to Egypt.
"The Australian government knew exactly what was happening to Mamdouh Habib and they're trying to cover up their complicity in crimes against humanity," Hopper told The AP in a telephone interview.
Australia, a close ally in the U.S.-led war on terror, has never asked the United States to return either Habib or David Hicks, his fellow Australian at Guantanamo Bay.
During the 2000 campaign, Lay allowed Bush to use Enron corporate jets to fly from stump speech to stump speech.
Quote:During the 2000 campaign, Lay allowed Bush to use Enron corporate jets to fly from stump speech to stump speech.
'nuff said right there.
Man, you people are blind.
This may go down in history as the year when an attempt to win an election, at all costs, led to longer run disasters that make any election pale into insignificance. The biggest and loudest political rhetoric of this year is that President Bush "lied" about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
What are the known facts about Saddam Hussein's chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons?
We know that, at one time or other, he was either developing or producing or using such weapons. Back in 1981, the Israelis bombed an Iraqi nuclear facility, to the loud condemnation of many nations. But, without that pre-emptive strike, the outcome of both Gulf wars could have been tragically different.
Saddam Hussein not only had, but used, chemical and biological weapons against his enemies, foreign and domestic. With the help of the French, he was rebuilding nuclear facilities, ostensibly for civilian energy purposes, but oil-rich countries do not need nuclear power plants to generate electricity.
More than a decade of playing cat-and-mouse with international weapons inspectors raised more and more suspicions about Iraq's weapons programs, and various nations' intelligence services reported that in fact he was back to his old tricks and developing weapons of mass destruction that could pose a major threat.
Who said so? The Russians said so. The British said so. Bill Clinton said so. Leaders of both political parties said so. George W. Bush was one of the last to say so. Yet he alone is accused of lying.
And do you know why? Because by that point, he had already established himself as a LIAR, and because the nation knew Saddam had nothing to do with AlQuada, which the rest of us wanted to focus on!
Were all these people wrong? While that is possible, it is also possible that Saddam Hussein used the long months between the time when the threat of invasion was debated at the United Nations and the time when it actually occurred to dismantle his weapons facilities and disperse them, perhaps to some neighboring country.
Right, McG, he had all the time in the world to do that! Since he knew we were coming, why not use them against us? The dismantling story has previously been debunked. Get with the program.
There is already photographic evidence of a massive dismantling of a facility of some sort before last year's invasion. These photos were published on the front page of the New York Times. Whether or not that particular building was producing weapons of mass destruction, it shows that Saddam Hussein saw the need to get rid of some things before they got captured.
Right, Whether or not. No, it doesn't show that at all, and gee, I doubt they'd be that easy to move or hide. Of course, we know he had them, and we know he used them, a long time ago. If anything is left, it's rotting to the point of uselessness.
Nations do not wait for iron-clad proof when there are lethal threats. The massive Manhattan Project that produced the first atomic bomb was begun when the United States was at peace because of reports that Hitler's scientists were working on such a weapon.
We had no proof -- and, after Germany surrendered, it turned out that Hitler's atomic bomb project was nowhere near the stage that we feared. But we couldn't take that chance.
You believe that, do you?
People who talk glibly about "intelligence failure" act as if intelligence agencies that are doing their job right would know everything. But intelligence-gathering has always been a chancy business. In a nuclear age, the only thing that makes sense is to fail safe -- and strike pre-emptively, if necessary. If that offends people who think and talk in abstract terms about international law, then it is better that they be offended than that we wake up some morning and find New York or Chicago in radioactive ruins. Ooh, the fear factor! Protect us, Father Bush!
It was Saddam Hussein who chose to play cat-and-mouse with the weapons inspectors whom he had agreed to let monitor Iraqi facilities as part of the peace treaty ending the first Gulf War. It was his intelligence failure to think that he could keep on doing that indefinitely.
It was the USA who was caught spying on Hussein during the "inspections". Would the US have put up with that, or done as saddam did and said 'enough of that"? I think you know the answer. He was allowing inspections, but we weren't playing fair. Not like the country we thought we were. And less and less like it each day.
Iran and North Korea -- the other nations identified as part of the "axis of evil" -- are now playing the same cat-and-mouse game, and North Korea is openly threatening to produce nuclear bombs. Either or both these countries are potential suppliers of such weapons to international terrorists.
Libya backed out of the nuclear weapons game after Qadaffi saw what happened to Saddam Hussein in Iraq. What would have emboldened Iran and North Korea? Only a disunited America, full of loud irresponsible election-year talk about "lies" on weapons of mass destruction, making it unlikely that the United States can muster the political will to strike Iran or North Korea.
You are truly a jackass for blaming patriotic Americans doing their duty to uphold democracy as being the cause of this. Even for you, McG, that's pretty low. And need I add, wrong, wrong, wrong! Enough with the "In a time of war" excuse. It doesn't fly in a democracy.
An election-year frenzy has let the longer run fate of this country fade away into the background.
Bullshit. That's all bush's doing, along with yours and all his other disciples.
source
Bush, that ungrateful dummy, behind the scenes he had Lay arrested today for corporate fraud. Is that any way to treat a campaign contributor for whom one has so far done nothing?