|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
 Posted: Sat Nov 29, 2008 8:54 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Mises: if you do not want answers, then I suggest you do not hurl allegations about my interests and information sources on this messageboard. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 29, 2008 9:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I am not interested in your pretentiousness driven discourse, from peer-reviewed sources and non-propagandistic documentary films with funny names. Your uppity sources do not interest me any more than criticism of your country interests you. From now on, please stick to sensationalist extremists that you've never heard of, like Drudge. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 29, 2008 9:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Again, Mises, I do not listen to or read Drudge. That source is all yours. Do you see me citing it here? Ever?
Please settle down and get it right.
And this...
| mises wrote: |
| ...any more than criticism of your country interests you. |
I remain very interested in criticism of America, although, of course, there is much more to see about America than the dark side that you and many others here obsess on.
My take on you and your "criticism" -- and I am speaking in the plural, as in "you people" -- remind me of the way Undersecretary of State George Ball once looked at Attorney-General RFK...
| George Ball wrote: |
| I had always had a feeling that Bobby had a too simplisitc and categorical position toward things -- either you condemn something utterly or you accept it enthusiastically...and there seemed no intermediate positions. He reflected this rather determined view that you always acted decisively and that you always went in and damned the torpedoes...even though it might cause an awful lot of problems elsewhere in the world... |
Cited in E. Thomas, Robert Kennedy: His Life (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2000), 210, a well-balanced biography that grapples with "Good Bobby" and "Bad Bobby."
Another of those sensationalist internet sources I dwell on, Mises. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 11, 2008 6:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Panel blames White House, not soldiers, for abuse
By PAMELA HESS, Associated Press � December 11, 2008
WASHINGTON � The physical and mental abuse of detainees in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, was the direct result of Bush administration detention policies and should not be dismissed as the work of bad guards or interrogators, according to a bipartisan Senate report released Thursday.
The Senate Armed Services Committee report concludes that harsh interrogation techniques used by the CIA and the U.S. military were directly adapted from the training techniques used to prepare special forces personnel to resist interrogation by enemies that torture and abuse prisoners. The techniques included forced nudity, painful stress positions, sleep deprivation, and until 2003, waterboarding, a form of simulated drowning.
The report is the result of a nearly two-year investigation that directly links President Bush's policies after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, legal memos on torture, and interrogation rule changes with the abuse photographed at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq four years ago. Much of the report remains classified. Unclassified portions of the report were released by the committee Thursday.
Administration officials publicly blamed the abuses on low-level soldiers_ the work "of a few bad apples." Committee Chairman Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., called that "both unconscionable and false."
"The message from top officials was clear; it was acceptable to use degrading and abusive techniques against detainees," Levin said.
Arizona Republican and former prisoner of war Sen. John McCain, called the link between the survival training and U.S. interrogations of detainees inexcusable.
"These policies are wrong and must never be repeated," he said in a statement.
Lawrence Di Rita, a senior aide to former Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld at the time the Abu Ghraib and other abuses took place, disputed the report.
"This oddly timed report provides no evidence that contradicts more than a dozen other investigations that found that there was no systematic or widespread detainee mismanagement," Di Rita told The AP. "A relatively small number of people abused detainees, and they were brought to justice in criminal or civil proceedings."
The report comes as the Bush administration continues to delay and in some cases bar members of Congress from gaining access to key legal documents and memos about the detainee program, including an August 2002 memo that evaluated whether specific interrogation techniques proposed to be used by the CIA would constitute torture.
That memo, written by Jay Bybee, then-chief of the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, was guided in part by an assessment of the psychological effects of resistance survival training on U.S. military personnel. The CIA provided that document to his office, Bybee told the Senate Armed Services Committee in an October letter, obtained by The Associated Press. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 16, 2009 8:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
Actually this opposition is not opposition to a Truth Commission per se, it's opposition against the kind of people (on this forum) who are calling for it. They've made up their minds that Bush is guilty, (never mind the inconvient fact that it's never been proved in a court of law... |
So you want them proven guilty BEFORE the trial is held?
Anyway, OP you may get your wish:
Democrats seek criminal probe of Bush 'abuses'
By LARRY MARGASAK, Associated Press Writer � Tue Jan 13
WASHINGTON � The incoming Obama administration should launch a criminal investigation of Bush administration officials to see whether they broke the law in the name of national security, a House Democratic report said Tuesday. President-elect Barack Obama has been more cautious on the issue and has not endorsed such a recommendation.
Along with the criminal probe, the report called for a Sept. 11-style commission with subpoena power, to gather facts and make recommendations on preventing misuse of power, according to the report by the Democratic staff of the House Judiciary Committee.
The report covers Bush administration policies that Democrats have protested for some time. Among them: interrogation of foreign detainees, warrantless wiretaps, retribution against critics, manipulation of intelligence and political dismissals of U.S. attorneys.
The White House was asked for comment on the report Tuesday, but did not immediately respond.
However, in an interview this month with The Associated Press, Vice President Dick Cheney said, "I can't speak for everybody in the administration, but my view would be that the people who carried out that program � intelligence surveillance program, the enhanced interrogation program, with respect to al Qaeda captives � in fact were authorized to do what they did ... ."
Cheney said legal opinions supported the officials.
"And I believe they followed those legal opinions and I don't have any reason to believe that they did anything wrong or inappropriate," the vice president said.
Obama said last week in a television interview, "We're still evaluating how we're going to approach the whole issue of interrogations, detentions and so forth. And obviously we're going to be looking at past practices and I don't believe that anybody is above the law. On the other hand I also have a belief that we need to look forward as opposed to looking backwards."
Obama said intelligence officials were "extraordinarily talented people who are working very hard to keep Americans safe. I don't want them to suddenly feel like they've got to spend all their time looking over their shoulders and lawyering."
Obama said he has not made a final decision about a Sept. 11-type commission.
The criminal probe may need a special prosecutor named by the attorney general, the report said.
An alternative would be expansion of an existing investigation into the CIA's alleged destruction of a tape or tapes showing harsh interrogation methods against a prisoner.
The criminal investigation would include issues apart from national security, such as whether laws were violated in the politically inspired firing of U.S. attorneys.
Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., chairman of the Judiciary Committee, said his staff has met with the Obama transition officials on the report. The president-elect's transition team has not endorsed it.
The congressionally appointed commission should have subpoena power, the report said. It suggested the new president order "full cooperation by all present and past federal employees with requests for information."
Conyers already has introduced legislation to form the commission. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dmbfan
Joined: 09 Mar 2006
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 16, 2009 9:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
See, why is it only the DEMOCRATS are seeking all these investigations?
Man, it must suck to view the world as a PC orgy, thinking that sworn enemies need loving to.
Anyway, in response to one of the OP's points, I'm going to post a reply, rearding the WMD's. The OP really left out a lot of information about this and I'm wondering if it is to serve his/her own agenda, no facts or sources or just is riding the overridden bandwagon?
| Quote: |
WMD: Believe Iraq or Believe the Evidence?
WorldThreats.com ^ | November 16, 2003 | Ryan Mauro
Posted on 11/16/2003 8:43:24 AM PST by Blindboy16
�WMD: Believe Iraq or Believe the Evidence?�
Compiled By: Ryan Mauro
[email protected]
It has been only 7 months since the war in Iraq even began, but charges that the United States lied about Iraqi possession of weapons of mass destruction are seen in the press daily. This report will examine evidence of WMD independently gathered from the press, and where they presently are. Before going further, I wish to make the following points:
1) The intelligence communities of every major country were confident that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction before 2003. These include the United States, Canada, France, the United Nations, the United Kingdom, Germany, Spain, Australia, Japan, even Iran and a slew of others. It was a working assumption that such WMD was in Iraq, so much that I never heard accusations that it wasn�t true until the political war heated up in March, 2003.
2) Colin Powell�s presentation at the UN in February 2003 proved that Iraq was deceiving UN inspectors. What is there to hide?
3) In 1995, a high-ranking Iraqi defector proved Iraq was building WMD despite the UN restrictions. After this was revealed, Iraq admitted it had violated UN restrictions. Why should we believe Iraq was in compliance with the UN today, when Saddam hasn�t in the past?
4) As shown in the Kay interim report, there were thousands of items that Saddam had that could be used in WMD programs. These are usually dual-use items�items that have an apparently �civilian� use and are bought as such, but then when coupled with other items, can make WMD goods. If Saddam violated sanctions, as we know for a fact, why should we believe he had respect for other UN demands? And why would he violate such sanctions to gain such items?
5) As shown in the Kay interim report, why was such an enormous amount of material not declared as required by the UN?
6) Much of the suspected WMDs can fit in a package the size of a palm of a hand. Together, almost all of the WMDs could fit in a two-car parking garage. Why do people expect us to find such items already? Saddam has had 12 years to make programs to deceive Western intelligence, and 4 years to do so without ANY Western interference. And only recently, Coalition forces found fighter jets under the desert sand. If we just recently found huge fighter jets, how can people complain we haven�t found WMD yet?
7) After Iraq admitted producing a certain amount of WMD, disarmament by the UN began. How come a large portion was not disarmed by the UN and Iraq first admitted that it was not disarmed, only to later say they destroyed them �unilaterally�? Why didn�t the Saddam regime just destroy them with UN supervision like the rest of them?
 There has been lots of evidence that Iraq infiltrated UN inspection and intelligence teams. Why are people surprised the UN didn�t find any WMD?
9) The UN recognized that Iraq was engaged in illicit activity and was not disarming by passing 18 resolutions demanding that Iraq did so. Are we going to believe Saddam Hussein over the world community?
10) With extensive business interests in Iraq, why are people surprised that countries like Russia, France and Germany opposed war with Saddam Hussein�s regime?
11) Bill Clinton is the one who originally put the focus on Saddam Hussein�s WMD possession and links to terrorists. How come when he bombed Iraq in 1998 for four days, there wasn�t such a political outcry that he may be wrong about WMD?
12) It is obvious that weapons would be hidden in the Sunni triangle, the most loyal area to the regime. Today, this area is still not pacified to the extent that would allow a full-fledged search in civilian homes and such. Without the most suspect area fully pacified, why are people jumping to the conclusion that WMDs are a lie?
I would like readers to first read the Kay Interim Report, which should convince any open-minded person that at the very least, Iraq had a research and development effort for WMDs, and was waiting to produce them once inspectors left and/or sanctions were lifted. Scientists were hired that could be quickly transferred to weapons work at a moment�s notice. However, at least one scientist claimed he worked in a chemical/biological program right up to the moments before war. At which point, they could be produced en masse. The media has inadequately reported on the Kay Report, which has a massive amount of evidence against the regime. Among the information is that documents prove that Iraq signed a $10 million contract with North Korea to receive the technology and equipment to made intermediate-range ballistic missiles (the supplies never came). And on the subject of missiles, Kay proved that Iraq was preparing fuel in 2002 that can only be used in SCUD missiles. The Kay Interim Report can be viewed here:
http://www.cia.gov/cia/public_affairs/speeches/2003/david_kay_10022003.html
Iraq�s WMD Efforts
Possible findings of WMDs in Iraq are reported here because it is possible the Administration is holding out on releasing such finds, so it can be presented all at once. Kay has hinted at a full report being released around June-July, 2004.
The United States took a moderate stance on the WMD efforts. It ignored reports of progress. Of these reports, several would conclude that Iraq was helping Sudan and Libya develop ballistic missiles.
[1] Iraq�s primary missile research was devoted to improving its 50 Al-Hussein medium-range missiles. Israel�s National Security Council concluded these missiles were being hidden in Iraq, and was making progress. The regime hoped to eventually get UN sanctions lifted, at which point they could be upgraded to long-range missiles.
[2] But then 9-11 happened. And as action had to be taken to limit this threat, the intensity of the accusations against Iraq was matched with the intensity of the accusations against the US and UK.
The accusations that the Bush Administration used 9-11 to make a lie about Iraq to cause war are ridiculous. Even before 9-11, the Administration was making such claims (as was the Clinton Administration beforehand). In fact, about a month prior to 9-11, the CIA concluded that Iraq was hiding dozens of Scuds with a range of 650 kilometers and rebuilt missile production facilities. The CIA concluded that by 2015 Iraq would have ICBMs that could reach the United States.
[3] Assisting in this effort was North Korea. Using its massive oil revenue (most of which comes in violation of UN sanctions); the Iraqi regime was paying Korea to assist in medium-range missile and nuclear weapons technologies, according to Western intelligence. Former UN inspector Richard Butler raised concern over the cooperation.
[4] Butler is also known for recently telling the press that he saw intelligence between 1997 and 1999 that Syria helped Iraq hide WMD, and that suspicious containers were seen being moved in and out.
In early 2001, an Iraqi defector claimed that two functional atomic bombs were in Iraq�s possession, minus the fissile core. He further proved credibility by saying that when UN inspectors were present until 1998, there were 47 nuclear program sites, and now there are 64, and more in progress.
[5] Saddam�s state press even confirmed soon after 9-11 that they had a nuclear program. Babil, owned by Uday, wrote that the heads of the Iraqi Nuclear Energy Authority would accelerate their work and dedicate it to the Iraqi nation and its leader, Saddam Hussein.
[6] Throughout 2001, Western intelligence worked to stop Saddam�s efforts to buy stainless-steal tubes that are used in centrifuge programs. Several of which were intercepted.
[7] Germany�s BND intelligence agency also reported that Iraqi agents were scouring Asia and Europe for illegal components, and that Iraq still pays thousands of technicians and scientists for illegal weapons programs.
[8] In December 2001, an Iraqi specialist named Adrian al-Haideri defected. He said he worked on secret WMD sites, and that mini-labs were being built in private homes. At the time he defected, 300 hidden sites were being used to conceal WMDs and the associated programs. Often, WMD goods were hidden in fake wells. He explained that in mid-2001, a new effort had begun to buy aluminum tubes for a centrifuge program using front companies. Most of the stuff Iraq needed and couldn�t legally purchase came via Syria.
[9] Another defector also claimed to have worked on such secret sites, particularly ones in private wells and under a Baghdad hospital. He said he knew of at least 20 hidden WMD production sites.
[10] Despite the increasing pressure, Saddam Hussein continued his WMD efforts. According to Iraqi officials that defected to Europe in 2002, Iraq had ordered three shipments of Czech medium-range SCUDs, which the Czechs believed were headed to Syria and Yemen. Arriving via Syria, the first shipment had already arrived.[
11] Iraq�s concealment efforts around August, 2002 can also explain why we haven�t found their WMD as of yet. Defectors began providing new intelligence that Iraq was still continuing to receive WMD components and equipment through Syria, and that between June and August, Iraq had abandoned all the previous hidden WMD sites in order to thwart Western intelligence. The sites holding WMD transferred the weapons to mobile vans and new underground facilities.
[12] Just to add more to the idea of the concealment effort, let me pass some information along to you from a Center for Defense Information interview with Rear Admiral Stephen Baker. He explained that WMDs were sealed in wells drilled sixty feet deep, chemical weapons components were in residential basements, under man-made lakes, palace bunkers, and in mobile vans.
[13] With this type of dispersal, how could anyone from the beginning think we�d find WMDs in just a few months? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
asylum seeker
Joined: 22 Jul 2007
Location: On your computer screen.
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 16, 2009 9:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Jandar wrote: |
Why is standing for more than 4 hours considered torture?
Why is the absence of light considered torture?
If loud noise/music is torture, I've been tortured every day in Korea.
Can ones fear of the truth be considered a Phobia that cannot be exploited?
A hard bed is considered torture, come on these people sleep on the floor back home. |
Have you been water boarded in Korea as well? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RJjr
Joined: 17 Aug 2006
Location: Turning on a Lamp
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 16, 2009 11:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| asylum seeker wrote: |
| Jandar wrote: |
Why is standing for more than 4 hours considered torture?
Why is the absence of light considered torture?
If loud noise/music is torture, I've been tortured every day in Korea.
Can ones fear of the truth be considered a Phobia that cannot be exploited?
A hard bed is considered torture, come on these people sleep on the floor back home. |
Have you been water boarded in Korea as well? |
Or beatings and objects put up the butthole, as a major in the United States Marine Corps alleges in this interview.
http://www.abc.net.au/tv/enoughrope/transcripts/s1709428.htm
or sexual assaults like this British guy alleges:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=azX55wD4Qrg
or various sexual torture methods in this article:
http://www.counterpunch.org/rosen05132008.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 16, 2009 11:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bacasper wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
Actually this opposition is not opposition to a Truth Commission per se, it's opposition against the kind of people (on this forum) who are calling for it. They've made up their minds that Bush is guilty, (never mind the inconvient fact that it's never been proved in a court of law... |
So you want them proven guilty BEFORE the trial is held?
.[/b] |
Actually what I really want to know is why it takes you a month and half to reply?  But to answer your question I want them PROVED guilty in a court of law. If there's not enough evidence to convict, then then all the nonsense about Bush being guilty remains that, just nonsense.
As regards the rest of it, it doesn't seem Obama is all that enthused about the whole thing. Once Bush is out of office I'm betting the whole thing goes quietly away...just like the rest of them have. Where's Dennis K? And where's that prosecuter fella? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
