I see our country going downhill very fast; I'm not so sure the next administration will be able to recover from this quagmire at home and in Iraq.
cicerone imposter wrote:ican't, This EVIDENCE should be enough, but we know you'll ignore it like everything else that speaks negatively against this administration, because you agree with them.
Quote:
...
Khaled el-Masri, a 42-year-old Lebanese-born former car salesman, [described] somberly how he was beaten, photographed nude and injected with drugs during five months in detention in Macedonia and Afghanistan.
...
The lawsuit, filed by lawyers for the American Civil Liberties Union in Alexandria, Va., came on a day of talks between Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany, who said Ms. Rice had admitted that Mr. Masri's detention had been a mistake.
Since it was first reported in January, the Masri case has become an oft-cited example of tough American counterterrorism policies gone awry.
...
Enough to do or show what?
Help me out here. Why do you think I will ignore it?
Why do you think I ignore everything that speaks negatively against this administration?
Do you think that
everything this administration does is no damn good?
Why do you ignore the negative things I have posted about this administration (e.g., its incompetence in trying to win the peace in Iraq) and only focus on the positive things I have posted about this administration (e.g., regardless of its reasons for invading Iraq, it did the right thing for humanity when it invaded Iraq)?
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld on Wednesday played down recent deadly attacks on Americans in Iraq, equating those losses with everyday violence in large U.S. cities.
Attacks and accidents have killed about 50 American troops -- including about a dozen from hostile fire -- since major combat was officially
declared over on May 1. Between March 20, when the war started, and May 1, 138 Americans died from accidents or hostile fire.
Asked at Pentagon press conference about the Iraqi resistance, Rumsfeld described it as "small elements" of 10 to 20 people, not large military formations or networks of attackers. He said there "is a little debate" in the administration over whether there is any central control to the resistance, which officials say is coming from Saddam Hussein's former Baath Party, Fedayeen paramilitary, and other loyalists.
"In those regions where pockets of dead-enders are trying to reconstitute, General Franks and his team are rooting them out," Rumsfeld said,
referring to the U.S. commander in Iraq. "In short, the coalition is making good progress."
-- Associated Press, 19 June 2003
http://www.dailyherald.com/special/iraq/wwi_paststory.asp?intID=3779194
Like I previously posted: This administration has (going all the way back to shortly after removal of Saddam's administration; e.g.,
19 June 2003) too frequently demonstrated incompetence in trying to win the peace in Iraq.
Back on point!
I have repeatedly posted a preponderance of evidence supporting the following allegations.
Al Qaeda and the al Qaeda religion are a deadly threat to a major part of humanity. Al Qaeda must be exterminated or it will attempt to exterminate that major part of humanity that chooses not to adopt the al Qaeda religion. Anyone or government that abets al Qaeda, is likewise a deadly threat to that same part of humanity.
My most recent post of a preponderance of evidence that supports these allegations will be found at:
http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1704043#1704043
Al Qaeda moved into Iraq December 2001 (after 9/11/2001 and after the USA invasion of Afghanistan October 2001) and established new training camps there. Al Qaeda grew substantially by the time of our invasion of Iraq in March 2003, because Saddam's government tolerated (i.e., harbored) al Qaeda in Iraq.
My most recent post of a preponderance of evidence that supports these allegations will be found at:
http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1705085#1705085
Regardless of why Bush decided to invade Iraq, his decision to do so was a fortunate decision for humanity.
Cycloptichorn wrote:Ticomaya wrote:I identified a hypothetical meant to illustrate the ridiculousness of your extreme position. If "torturing" one person has the potential of saving millions of lives, I would do it.
I wouldn't. I understand that you are looking at the matter from a point of 'most good,' a Utilitarian viewpoint; I don't, and I think most people don't.
It is
never correct to do an evil act, even if it would save lives. Ever. Is it
neccessary? Perhaps. That has to be determined at the time by the person committing the evil act, and they have to be responsible for the outcome of their act.
Did you just say you think
most people would not elect to sacrifice one life to save millions? You are entitled to your own opinions on this subject, and while I'm not going to pass judgment on your choice, I doubt it's true that most people would agree with you.
Cycloptichorn wrote:Ticomaya wrote:Cyclops wrote:If shooting a 10-year old girl in the head will somehow magically save a village full of people, would you pull the trigger and put a slug in her brain?
Cycloptichorn
Rather hard to say. Millions of people ... yes I would. Thousands ... probably.
What's the difference between millions, thousands, hundreds, tens? Morally the question is exactly the same. The degree of scope is meaningless; it remains wrong to shoot a 10-year old girl in the head regardless of the number of lives saved.
Maybe there isn't a difference in terms of the morality between saving millions and two, but if would make a difference to me, regardless. At some point between those two points, I would elect to not sacrifice the girl. I can't tell you where.
Cyclops wrote: As you well know. I wouldn't do it.
Yes, I know you wouldn't. And I suppose you wouldn't shoot a man about to kill your entire family, because that would be "wrong," "immoral," or "evil." I suppose you wouldn't join with the heroes on Flight 93 in trying to kill the terrorists that had taken over their plane, in order to keep it from being crashed into another building. If you had the chance, you wouldn't have killed Mohammed Atta sitting at the controls of Flight 11 as it flew toward the North tower of the World Trade Center. There are any number of scenarios I could think of, and in none of them would you take a life in order to save a life. Or are you capable of killing evil people after all?
I don't think your view here represents the view of most people ... at least I hope it doesn't.
Cycloptichorn wrote:Ticomaya wrote:Okay, your turn: You've been involved in a car accident and your car is dangling over the edge of a cliff. Your two children are about to fall to their deaths, but you manage to grab onto them with each of your hands. You are getting weak, and realize you will not be able to keep holding on to both. Do you let one of them go, and save the other one? Or keep holding on to both, risking letting both of them die?
Hopefully I would lift them up before this happened; don't you work out?
If there is no possibility of saving all three of us, I would attempt to quickly find the path that allowed both of my children to live and me to die. If that isn't a possibility, then we all go down together; I wouldn't sacrifice one to save the other.
Not that this question has much to do with torture, but there you are.
Nothing to do with torture, but it certainly has to do with the ethics/morality of tough choices. You are consistent, I'll give you that.
Adding this link in the event someone might wish to wade in and view this report...
Quote:Control of Iraq's future oil wealth is being handed to multinational oil companies through long-term contracts that will cost Iraq hundreds of billions of dollars.
Crude Designs: The Rip-Off of Iraq's Oil Wealth reveals that current Iraqi oil policy will allocate the development of at least 64% of Iraq's reserves to foreign oil companies. Iraq has the world's third largest oil reserves.
Figures published in the report for the first time show:
the estimated cost to Iraq over the life of the new oil contracts is $74 to $194 billion, compared with leaving oil development in public hands. These sums represent between two and seven times the current Iraqi state budget.
the contracts would guarantee massive profits to foreign companies, with rates of return of 42% to 162%.
http://www.carbonweb.org/crudedesigns.htm
A few days ago on NPR, Terry Gross interviewed Peter Galbraith, former ambassador to Croatia, now teaching at the War College in Washington.
Many of his comments sprung from Terry's asking his opinion about the document just released about the Plan for Iraq.
Galbraith feels strongly that Iraq is too divided tribally and ethnically ever to be a unit unless such cohesion is created by force, a situation that has existed in Iraq ever since WW II until we arrived to impose democracy and unite the country under a strong central government.
He suggests, rather, that a loose confederation of the three interest groups, as well as a figurehead central government, makes more sense in such a country. I was interested in his thought about oil, that the governance of production would naturally devolve to the area of its supply but that the proceeds should be split among the three groups in a near equal way.
He noted that the Kurds and the Shiites already have strong militias in their areas of influence, and he believes that a strong Sunni miliitia and police would bring order quickly to the areas from which the insurgency is strong.
Fresh Air
Well I never thought people in Britain civilised, and I'm not surprised to hear it about America, but South Korea and France condone torture?
Of course there is no need for it, these sadists get off on it.
Steve, I saw the stats on torture in this monring's paper. The surprise was on South Korea. Only 10% said torture is justified, but 71% oppose the US's secretive interrogation of suspected spies.
cicerone imposter wrote:Steve, I saw the stats on torture in this monring's paper. The surprise was on South Korea. Only 10% said torture is justified, but 71% oppose the US's secretive interrogation of suspected spies.
Actually, in S. Korea, only 10% said torture is
never justified.
The idea that many people accept the use of torture in rare cases is disturbing, but I accept the statistics on that. In recent years Alan Dershowitz, the Harvard law professor, argued that the use of torture is acceptable in limited cases even for a democracy.
tico, Thanks for that correction.3
wandel, I've always considered Dershowitz a jerk that enjoys the limelight over morality or substance.
December 7, 2005
White House and McCain Are Near Deal on Torture Bill
By ERIC SCHMITT and DAVID E. SANGER
WASHINGTON, Dec. 6 - The White House has all but abandoned its effort to persuade Senator John McCain to exempt Central Intelligence Agency employees from legislation barring inhumane or degrading treatment of prisoners in American custody. But a top presidential aide continued to negotiate a deal on Tuesday that would offer covert officers some protection from prosecution, administration and Senate officials said.
The talks between Mr. Bush's national security adviser, Stephen J. Hadley, and Mr. McCain, an Arizona Republican, took place by telephone Tuesday because Mr. McCain was on a book tour in Maine, said Eileen McMenamin, the senator's spokeswoman. The two men met at the White House last Thursday night.
White House officials and Ms. McMenamin refused to discuss the negotiations, saying they were private conversations. But administration officials concede that Mr. McCain's provision, which would also require a uniform standard on how to interrogate detainees, stands a strong chance of becoming law, despite a White House threat to veto any legislation containing it. The measure has already passed the Senate, 90 to 9, and senior House Republican staff members say it would probably pass by a large margin in the House.
Faced with that reality, administration officials said, Mr. Hadley has now retreated to seeking narrower language that could make it harder to prosecute intelligence officers charged with violating torture standards.
Mr. Bush, speaking to reporters Tuesday morning, repeated his statement that "we do not torture." He added that the administration would do all it could, within the law, to protect its citizens from terrorists. His spokesman, Scott McClellan, refused Tuesday to discuss how Mr. Bush defines torture, or to say how the United States ensures that prisoners it turns over to foreign nations are not tortured.
"I'm not going to get into talking about these issues because it could compromise things in an ongoing war on terrorism," Mr. McClellan said. Later, he called the question of how the United States monitors the treatment of prisoners an "intelligence matter" that he could not discuss.
Mr. McCain is balking at agreeing to any kind of exemption for intelligence officials, members of his staff say. Instead, he has offered to include some language, modeled after military standards, under which soldiers can provide a defense if a "reasonable" person could have concluded that he or she was following a lawful order about how to treat prisoners. The senator's offer was first reported Saturday by The Wall Street Journal.
The negotiations between Mr. Hadley and Mr. McCain appear to be coming to a head. Four top House and Senate negotiators, meeting Tuesday to hammer out a military budget bill in conference committee, discussed Mr. McCain's measure and a handful of other contentious issues. But one of the negotiators, Representative Duncan Hunter, a California Republican who heads the House Armed Services Committee, told reporters earlier in the day, "We think we're going to have a good outcome for all parties."
As the House returned to work after a two-week recess, a bitter partisan fight continues to rage over the war in Iraq. Republicans held a news conference to praise American progress in Iraq, while Democrats took credit for changing the public debate and lambasted President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney for failing to outline a specific proposal for victory.
In the House, Representative Steny Hoyer of Maryland, the Democratic whip, complained to reporters that Mr. Cheney "apparently wants to continue the option of torture as a national policy, and therefore the defense bill hasn't moved."
Mr. Hoyer said Democrats would stand behind Senator McCain. "He ought to stick to his guns - he's right," Mr. Hoyer said, adding, "We ought to make it clear that the policy of the United States is, we're going to follow not only international law but we're going to pursue our own values, and torture is not one of our values."
Sheryl Gay Stolberg contributed reporting for this article.
Everybody catch that? Bush says we do not torture, but he wants our congress to approve torture (not prosecute CIA agents for torture).
I think - this poll had been mentioned on another [?] thread already and was a big news in yesterday in European media - that culture and histoyr dominate national opinion here a lot: which so many people still alive who know personally about the torture in the "Third Reich" and the GDR, with a such a Christian background as it still exists in German politics and especially with such a constitution as we have ...
Quote:Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany
I. Basic Rights
Article 1 [Human dignity]
(1) Human dignity shall be inviolable. To respect and protect it shall be the duty of all state authority.
... torture will never be respected.
I hope.
In case you missed this from the above article: "Faced with that reality, administration officials said, Mr. Hadley has now retreated to seeking narrower language that could make it harder to prosecute intelligence officers charged with violating torture standards."
blatham wrote:Adding this link in the event someone might wish to wade in and view this report...
Quote:Control of Iraq's future oil wealth is being handed to multinational oil companies through long-term contracts that will cost Iraq hundreds of billions of dollars.
...
http://www.carbonweb.org/crudedesigns.htm
The development of Iraq oil reserves by private companies will cost the Iraqi people nothing. The development of Iraq oil reserves by the Iraqi government will cost the Iraqi people substantially. Private companies motivated by competition and profit will develop Iraq oil reserves more efficiently, more effectively, more rapidly, more competently, and more profitably than any government. Consequently, the Iraqi people's share of revenue from such development will grow far more rapidly to a far greater magnitude than it would if government performed that development. Also consequently, the world's supply of oil will grow more rapidly to a far greater magnitude than it would if government performed that development.
Whoops!
Ahaa!
That's exactly what all the pseudo environmentalists oppose. That's exactly why they want more government involvement in the economies of the world. They know better than most that will suppress economies worldwide. It might even curtail the world's human population growth because of consequent human starvation. They advocate human population control too!
These pseudo environmentalists prefer to act like they believe CO2 and CH4 emissions cause earth warming, and not known cyclic rises in the sun's radiation. By doing that necessary for reducing the amount of CO2 and CH4 annually emitted into the atmosphere, they will also help supress economies worldwide. That is why they sneer at the relevance of the observed general warming trend of Mars -- a planet absent humans, 141 million miles from the sun compared to earth's 93 million miles from the sun -- to earth's general warming trend since the end of the last earth ice age 10 thousand years ago.
But what the hell, that's merely one more way to suppress humanity besides defending the spread -- or obstructing the supression of the spread -- of the al Qaeda religion. When people prosper, some prosper more than others. Cannot allow that. Must suppress envy at all cost by making sure everyone possesses the same wealth: UH, that is, possess the same consequent misery such tactics will actually produce.
