#1
Obama probably considers our 'strict neutrality' a favor. Well, it wasn't like the Europeans and the UK weren't warned.
The Falklands dispute is bull, as far as I can tell. Reawakening a border/possession dispute from 1833 is unwise. No wonder all of South America supports it.
Q: Do you think who is elected President of the US makes a difference to the UK or not?
A: Yes 80%, No 17%
Well the Brits got 1 out of 2 right. Fail.
Posted by: ed ||
02/26/2010 9:50 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Noteworthy from the article's comments section:
"Cross-posted from Nile Gardiners blog on the subject:
What is even sadder is that the Obama Administration would remain just as strictly neutral in a sovereignty dispute between the USA and Mexico over Texas, California, Arizona and New Mexico."
#6
No real suprise here. I wouldnt trust Obama to look after a cup of water, neither would most sensible folk. Im sure we already knew which side of the bread his butter is on
So what if the majority of south america supports the argies. The place is ours , and they can "cry for me" all they like. (far too emotional, these latin americans)
We still have ascension island and can mobilise a substantial amount of airpower in that direction, along with ship reasonable ground forces, not that it will come to that imho
Was interesting to read a number of the blogs, and how people wanted good ol Bushie back in. He had his faults, but , and a major but , he was never treacherous or condescending
Posted by: Oscar ||
02/26/2010 11:00 Comments ||
Top||
In August, David Horowitz began NewsReal's first series exploring Saul Alinsky's Rules For Radicals. He explained how the modern Left had put Alinsky's ideas into practice. Here's the entire series for those who might not have been with us when it first ran:
Posted by: ed ||
02/26/2010 09:14 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11132 views]
Top|| File under:
If Congressional approval ratings get any lower, lawmakers might think about passing a bailout package for themselves. Four in five voters disapprove of the job Congress is doing and only 14 percent assign positive job ratings. These results speak volumes about the continued restiveness of the American electorate.
As has been the case in past surveys, the voting public's ire is not reserved for one party. When asked who they want to win this year's congressional elections, just about equal numbers choose Democrats (36 percent) as Republicans (35 percent) but almost as many (29 percent) say they "don't know" or don't want either party to win.
Among key independent voters, 34 percent don't want either party to win, while another 32 percent are unsure.
Click here to see the poll.
Along the same lines, a majority of voters (56 percent) say that the new arrival on the political scene the Tea Party movement is to some degree qualitatively different from the Republican Party. Some 16 percent of voters think there is "a lot" of difference between the Republican Party and the Tea Party movement, and another 40 percent think there is "some" difference.
About two-thirds of Republicans (65 percent) think there is at least some difference between their party and the Tea Party movement, while 57 percent of independents think so.
Moreover, when asked to describe their own voting mood, a 36-percent plurality says all incumbents should be thrown out this year, with about equal numbers targeting Democrats (10 percent) as Republicans (9 percent). About one voter in four (26 percent) thinks we should stick with those currently in office. Not surprisingly, Democrats are the most likely to take this latter view (39 percent).
The desire to "clean house" is in part due to the view that elected officials in Washington are doing more harm than good. Fully 77 percent of voters think lawmakers "add to the country's problems" rather than "solve the country's problems" (16 percent).
And, the blame for this malfeasance is laid squarely at the feet of elected officials (53 percent) and not voters themselves (26 percent).
Another clear indicator of what is motivating this revolt against incumbency is a considerably libertarian strain in the electorate. When asked to choose between "bigger government" (providing more services) and "smaller government" (providing fewer services), the more limited course is the winner by a 58 percent to 35 percent margin. And the critical bloc of independent voters is even more likely to opt for leaner government (70 percent).
Opinion Dynamics Corp. conducted the national telephone poll for Fox News among 900 registered voters from Feb. 23 to Feb. 24, 2010. For the total sample, the poll has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.
While the country and the Congress have their eyes on today's dog-and-pony show on socialized medicine, House Democrats last night stashed a new provision in the intelligence bill which is to be voted on today. It is an attack on the CIA: the enactment of a criminal statute that would ban cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment.' (See here, scoll to p. 32.)
The provision is impossibly vague who knows what degrading' means? Proponents will say that they have itemized conduct that would trigger the statute (I'll get to that in a second), but it is not true. The proposal says the conduct reached by the statute includes but is not limited to' the itemized conduct. (My italics.) That means any interrogation tactic that a prosecutor subjectively believes is degrading' (e.g., subjecting a Muslim detainee to interrogation by a female CIA officer) could be the basis for indicting a CIA interrogator.
The act goes on to make it a crime to use tactics that have been shown to be effective in obtaining life saving information and that are far removed from torture.
Waterboarding' is specified. In one sense, I'm glad they've done this because it proves a point I've been making all along. Waterboarding, as it was practiced by the CIA, is not torture and was never illegal under U.S. law. The reason the Democrats are reduced to doing this is: what they've been saying is not true waterboarding was not a crime and it was fully supported by congressional leaders of both parties, who were told about it while it was being done.
On that score, it is interesting to note that while Democrats secretly tucked this provision into an important bill, hoping no one would notice until it was too late, they failed to include in the bill a proposed Republican amendment that would have required full and complete disclosure of records describing the briefings members of Congress received about the Bush CIA's enhanced interrogation program.
Those briefings, of course, would establish that Speaker Pelosi and others knew all about the program and lodged no objections. Naturally, members of Congress are not targeted by this criminal statute only the CIA.
More to the point, this shows how politicized law-enforcement has become under the Obama Democrats. They could have criminalized waterboarding at any time since Jan. 20, 2009. But they waited until now. Why? Because if they had tried to do it before now, it would have been a tacit admission that waterboarding was not illegal when the Bush CIA was using it. That would have harmed the politicized witch-hunt against John Yoo and Jay Bybee, a key component of which was the assumption that waterboarding and the other tactics they authorizied were illegal. Only now, when that witch-hunt has collapsed, have the Democrats moved to criminalize these tactics. It is transparently partisan.
In any event, waterboarding is not defined in the bill. As Marc Thiessen has repeatedly demonstrated, there is a world of difference between the tactic as administered by the CIA and the types of water-torture methods that have been used throughout history.
The waterboarding method used by the CIA involved neither severe pain nor prolonged mental harm. But it was highly unpleasant and led especially hard cases like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (i.e., well-trained, committed, America-hating terrorists) to give us information that saved American lives. The method was used sparingly on only three individuals, and not in the last seven years.
The American people broadly support the availability of this non-torture tactic in a dire emergency. Yet Democrats not only want to make it unavailable; they want to subject to 15 years' imprisonment any interrogator who uses it.
What's more, the proposed bill is directed at any officer or employee of the intelligence community' conducting a covered interrogation.' The definition of covered interrogation' is sweeping including any interrogation done outside the U.S., in the course of a person's official duties on behalf of the government. Thus, if the CIA used waterboarding in training its officers or military officers outside the U.S., this would theoretically be indictable conduct under the statute.
Waterboarding is not all. The Democrats' bill would prohibit with a penalty of 15 years' imprisonment the following tactics, among others:
- Exploiting the phobias of the individual'
- Stress positions and the threatened use of force to maintain stress positions
- Depriving the individual of necessary food, water, sleep, or medical care'
- Forced nudity
- Using military working dogs (i.e., any use of them not having them attack or menace the individual; just the mere presence of the dog if it might unnerve the detainee and, of course, exploit his phobias')
- Coercing the individual to blaspheme or violate his religious beliefs (I wonder if Democrats understand the breadth of seemingly innocuous matters that jihadists take to be violations of their religious beliefs)
- Exposure to excessive' cold, heat or cramped confinement' (excessive and cramped are not defined)
- Prolonged isolation'
- Placing hoods or sacks over the head of the individual'
Naturally, all of these tactics are interspersed with such acts as forcing the performance of sexual acts, beatings, electric shock, burns, inducing hypothermia or heat injury as if all these acts were functionally equivalent.
In true Alinskyite fashion, Democrats begin this attack on the CIA by saluting the courageous men and women who serve honorably as intelligence personnel and as members of our nation's Armed Forces' who deserve the full support of the United States Congress.' Then, Democrats self-servingly tell us that Congress shows true support' by providing clear legislation relating to standards for interrogation techniques.' I'm sure the intelligence community will be duly grateful.
Democrats also offer findings' that the tactics they aim to prohibit cause terrorism by fueling recruitment (we are never supposed to discuss the Islamist ideology that actually causes terrorist recruitment, only the terrible things America does to provide pretexts for those spurred by that ideology).
These findings' repeat the canards that these tactics don't work; that they place our captured forces in greater danger (the truth is our forces captured by terrorists will be abused and probably killed no matter what we do, while our enemies captured in a conventional war will be bound to adhere to their Geneva Convention commitments and will have the incentive to do so because they will want us to do the same); and that their use runs counter to our identity and values as a nation.'
Unmentioned by the Obama Democrats is that officers of the executive branch have a solemn moral duty to honor their commitment to protect the American people from attack by America's enemies. If there are non-torture tactics that can get a Khalid Sheikh Mohammed to give us information that saves American lives, how is the use of them inconsistent with our values?
Here is the fact: Democrats are saying they would prefer to see tens of thousands of Americans die than to see a KSM subjected to sleep-deprivation or to have his phobias exploited.' I doubt that this reflects the values of most Americans.
The House approved an intelligence agency bill Friday after Democratic leaders hastily removed a provision that would have imposed prison sentences for personnel using "cruel, inhuman and degrading" interrogation techniques.
The controversial provision would have subjected intelligence officers to up 15 years in prison for interrogations that violate existing anti-torture laws, including the use of extreme temperatures, acts causing sexual humiliation or depriving a prisoner of food, sleep or medical care.
Republicans strongly protested the measure when the bill came to the floor Thursday, forcing Democrats to pull the bill in order to avoid an unwanted debate on torture that could threaten passage of the legislation. It was reintroduced Friday with the interrogation provision removed.
The bill, passed 235-168, sets policy and classified funding levels for 16 federal intelligence agencies. The Senate has passed its own version, and differences must be worked out.
The torture provision, introduced by Rep. Jim McDermott, D-Wash., defined cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment of detainees and provided a penalty of up to 15 years in prison for using such techniques during an interrogation. It also said medical professionals who enable the use of improper treatment could face up to five years in prison.
Posted by: Frank G ||
02/26/2010 13:42 Comments ||
Top||
#4
- "Exploiting the phobias of the individual"
- Stress positions and the threatened use of force to maintain stress positions
- "Depriving the individual of necessary food, water, sleep, or medical care"
- Forced nudity
- Using military working dogs (i.e., any use of them -- not having them attack or menace the individual; just the mere presence of the dog if it might unnerve the detainee and, of course, "exploit his phobias")
- Coercing the individual to blaspheme or violate his religious beliefs (I wonder if Democrats understand the breadth of seemingly innocuous matters that jihadists take to be violations of their religious beliefs)
- Exposure to "excessive" cold, heat or "cramped confinement" (excessive and cramped are not defined)
- "Prolonged isolation"
- "Placing hoods or sacks over the head of the individual"
google 'frat hazing'. How about addressing something far more widespread in America that involves these acts? Cause it doesn't earn points with the usual suspects? /rhet question
#5
I'm glad they pulled the provision, but I do think the CIA should be dismantled and rebuilt. Figure out what kind of intelligence and clandestine operations work we need for the 21st century and build that rather than try to keep a dysfunctional agency going.
Posted by: Steve White ||
02/26/2010 15:55 Comments ||
Top||
#6
"Figure out what kind of intelligence and clandestine operations work we need for the 21st century and build that rather than try to keep a dysfunctional agency going."
Gawd, not while Bambi, et al., are in charge, Steve!
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
02/26/2010 17:24 Comments ||
Top||
For once Commissioner Jamaat Ali Shah is right. He sees no violation of the Treaty. And he has no jurisdiction over the new issue of scarcity of water because the Treaty doesn't deal with it
Pakistan may be getting ready to go to war with India, not over Kashmir, which it finds futile, but over the river water India is supposed to insist on stealing from it despite the Indus Water Treaty of 1960. Pakistan's army chief has mentioned 'water' in his last challenging statement, followed by the Prime Minister, and there is a one-sided media war going on as the Indian side, still angry over the Mumbai attack, is poised to jump in, all guns blazing. One chief editor in Pakistan says Pakistan should nuke the Indian dams stealing Pakistani water -- with him as human payload tied to a nuclear missile!
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: john frum ||
02/26/2010 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11135 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Good analysis, especially the last 3 paragraphs.
As for the impact of 'climate change', the Indian monsooon is driven by the summer heat in central Asia. The hotter it gets, the stronger the monsoon, in broad terms. Were the world's climate to warm, Himalayan precipitation would increase. Clearly good for both India and Pakistan, but you won't be hearing that from the IPCC.
#2
The Treaty did not take into account the ecological change that would occur half a century later, depriving the subcontinent of rains and run-off from its mountain glaciers.
So it's true! (The belief in) Global Warming will lead to wars!
Posted by: Bobby ||
02/26/2010 6:02 Comments ||
Top||
#3
So it's true! (The belief in) Global Warming will lead to wars!
Give us an example of something that doesn't arouse Muslim rage.
#4
Personally, I wish the Indians would just scorch the place and finish the Pakis once and for all. Then they would have someplace to ship their domestic Muslims.
Posted by: Secret Asian Man ||
02/26/2010 13:17 Comments ||
Top||
Street protests that erupted in Colombo and other cities following the February 8 arrest of defeated presidential candidate Sarath Fonseka have yet to gain wider support from non-political groups.
The protests began on a fiery tone when about 2,500 pro-Fonseka protesters chased down by pro-government supporters braved tear gas and water cannons to hold their first rally near the country's highest court on February 10. They vowed to continue the movement until the former army commander was released.
Fonseka was arrested on charges of corruption and attempts to topple the government while he was in public office.
The government has maintained that there is no political motivation behind the arrest of Fonseka. "We have repeatedly said that there is no political motive behind this. The law of the nation has been followed," Media Minister Lakshman Yapa Aberyawardena told the press.
Although no formal charges have been filed against Fonseka, the government has accused the losing presidential candidate of plotting to overthrow the government in a military-style coup.
Protests and processions held in the city have been boisterous but peaceful. But several staged in cities outside Colombo have turned violent with protesters clashing with police.
The People's Liberation Front (PLF) and the United National Party (UNP), the two main political parties that formed the foundation for Fonseka's failed presidential bid, have mainly been leading the protests.
There have been attempts by non-political groups to lend support to them, but they have not been able to bring large numbers of protesters. "The arrest is a reflection of our freedoms. It affects all of us mothers, wives, widows. This has to become our struggle," Vishaka Dramadasa, one of the protestors, told Inter Press Service (IPS).
Posted by: Fred ||
02/26/2010 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11127 views]
Top|| File under:
Of course. Most nuclear nations are content to threaten their adversaries with the loss of the occasional city. Iran has promised to use theirs for genocide... after which the remainder will be used to threaten other adversaries with the loss of the occasional city.
But the article is about how Ayatollah Khamenei's repeated statements that nuclear weapons are haram for a proper Muslim nation are full-bore taqqiyah.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
If Congressional approval ratings get any lower, lawmakers might think about passing a bailout package for themselves. Four in five voters disapprove of the job Congress is doing and only 14 percent assign positive job ratings. These results speak volumes about the continued restiveness of the American electorate.
