politentia

Fri, 11 Nov 2005 02:17:26 GMT

Food for thought from the World Bank:
The World Bank group is working to bring water to those who need it in third-world countries, or so they claim. Somehow, though, this objective often conflicts with their flagrant desire for profit. Well, of course they need profit. However, their method of getting water to those who needs it includes privatizing the water; in other words, they are making people in poverty pay for their water. The explanation for privatization (from an unofficial interview with the manager of advisory services at the IFC) is that if money is given to a third-world country's government for water, that government is, as often as not, likely to put the money into their swiss bank account soon after getting it, so the people who need the water don't get it at all. The World Bank is even attempting "public-private partnerships" in which people pay part of the money to get their water, and the government pays the other part. Forgive me for asking, but if the people who need the water can't pay the reduced price, how does that help either the World Bank Group or the third-world country?

Sat, 29 Oct 2005 22:42:14 GMT

In case nobody has noticed, the press has been having a field day with Libby's indictment and Harriet Miers, turning every incident that sheds a bad light on the administration into proof of a term-long radical agenda of Bush's. Bush's approval ratings are lower than they have ever been. So is American pride. Vindicating our president and his administration for mistakes which they should not have made but which now are in the past is useless. A lack of motivation for moving our country forward could prove more fatal than a corrupt administration in the White House has ever been; because that is what all of the negative press on Bush is: a lack of motivation to take the fate of our country into our own hands. While we blame our president for the world's problems, we perpetuate those problems in failing to take action. There is a reason this generation has been called "generation why". The American people need a serious morale boost to show them that they CAN change the world when they unite under the American flag. I am not talking about a protest against the Bush administration. That would further lower morale. What I am talking about is the political involvement from every American citizen that is key; because if the most powerful people in the world who have the right to free speech choose not to use that right in a proactive way, the world will fall silent.

Tue, 25 Oct 2005 22:35:52 GMT

Cheney Plan Exempts CIA From Bill Barring Abuse of Detainees

By R. Jeffrey Smith and Josh White
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, October 25, 2005; Page A01

The Bush administration has proposed exempting employees of the Central Intelligence Agency from a legislative measure endorsed earlier this month by 90 members of the Senate that would bar cruel and degrading treatment of any prisoners in U.S. custody.

The proposal, which two sources said Vice President Cheney handed last Thursday to Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) in the company of CIA Director Porter J. Goss, states that the measure barring inhumane treatment shall not apply to counterterrorism operations conducted abroad or to operations conducted by "an element of the United States government" other than the Defense Department.

Although most detainees in U.S. custody in the war on terrorism are held by the U.S. military, the CIA is said by former intelligence officials and others to be holding several dozen detainees of particular intelligence interest at locations overseas -- including senior al Qaeda figures Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Abu Zubaida.

Cheney's proposal is drafted in such a way that the exemption from the rule barring ill treatment could require a presidential finding that "such operations are vital to the protection of the United States or its citizens from terrorist attack." But the precise applicability of this section is not clear, and none of those involved in last week's discussions would discuss it openly yesterday.

McCain, the principal sponsor of the legislation, rejected the proposed exemption at the meeting with Cheney, according to a government source who spoke without authorization and on the condition of anonymity. McCain spokeswoman Eileen McMenamin declined to comment. But the exemption has been assailed by human rights experts critical of the administration's handling of detainees in Iraq and Afghanistan.

"This is the first time they've said explicitly that the intelligence community should be allowed to treat prisoners inhumanely," said Tom Malinowski, the Washington advocacy director for Human Rights Watch. "In the past, they've only said that the law does not forbid inhumane treatment." Now, he said, the administration is saying more concretely that it cannot be forbidden.

The provision in question -- which the Senate on Oct. 5 voted 90 to 9 to attach to its version of the pending defense appropriations bill over the administration's opposition -- essentially proscribes harsh treatment of any detainees in U.S. custody or control anywhere in the world. It was specifically drafted to close what its backers say is a loophole in the administration's policy of generally barring torture, namely its legal contention that these constraints do not apply to treatment of foreigners on foreign soil.

The House version of the appropriations bill contains no similar provision on detainee treatment, and lawmakers are to meet later this week to begin reconciling the conflict.

Cheney's meeting with McCain last week was his third attempt to persuade the lawmaker, a former prisoner of war in Vietnam, to accept a less broad legislative bar against inhumane treatment. Cheney spokeswoman Lea Anne McBride declined to comment, saying, "the vice president does not discuss private conversations that he has with members [of Congress] . . . or information that may be exchanged with members."

She added that the intent of such meetings is usually "to build consensus on legislative issues, still in the policymaking process." CIA spokeswoman Jennifer Millerwise Dyck, a former Cheney aide, said the agency does not comment on the director's meetings.

Other sources said the vice president is also still fighting a second provision of the Senate-passed legislation, which requires that detainees in Defense Department custody anywhere in the world may be subjected only to interrogation techniques approved and listed in the Army's Field Manual.

The manual is undergoing revision, and McCain has contended that this process will give the military sufficient flexibility to respond to terrorist countermeasures. But Cheney's office has argued in talking points being circulated on Capitol Hill that the manual "will be inapplicable in certain instances" because of such countermeasures.

The CIA has been implicated in a number of alleged abuses in Iraq and has been linked to at least a few cases in which detainees have died during interrogations at separate military bases throughout the country. So far, no CIA operatives have been charged in connection with the abuse, although a single CIA contract employee is on trial for involvement in the death of an Afghanistan detainee, and sources have indicated that a grand jury may be looking at other allegations involving the CIA.

A report by the CIA inspector general's office on the agency's role in the handling of detainees is classified. It has been shown to the Justice Department and briefed only to a few lawmakers. Several military investigations have already blamed the CIA for leading a program in Iraq that essentially made detainees disappear within the military's detention system with no record of their captivity -- a practice that human rights groups have said violated international laws of war.

In a particularly infamous case, a detainee at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq named Manadel Jamadi was photographed after his death, packed in ice, by military police soldiers at the facility. He allegedly died in a shower room during interrogation by CIA officers after being brought there by Navy Seal team members. A high-level CIA operative allegedly helped conceal Jamadi's death after Army officers found his body.

But the extent of the CIA's direct involvement in torture is unclear, partly because the agency has been reluctant to help the Defense Department's many investigations into abuse and has refused to provide Army officers with documents deemed relevant to the probes.

Staff writer Dana Priest contributed to this report.

Several Points:

1. I realize that the Washington Post is a "left-minded" newspaper, and as such may have put a certain spin on the above story. Facts, however, are facts.

2. The exemption of the CIA from the above bill would not be in accordance with Article Five of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and as such should not be held legitimate.

3. The United States participated in the Geneva Convention, and the exemption of the CIA from the above bill would be in direct discord with the terms dictated at the Geneva convention by the Diplomatic Conference for the Establishment of International Conventions for the Protection of Victims of War, particularly Article Three. As such, the above bill should not even have had to pass in the Senate to gain legitimacy.

Thu, 20 Oct 2005 21:23:14 GMT

The United States is violating its own policy of world democracy abroad as well as at home.
In a recent surge of effort to colonize any oil-producing (but politically corrupt) countries, the United States has made its move on the Middle East by invading both Iraq and Afghanistan. Strategically speaking, these were very good moves. Not only are the invaded countries oil-rich (Iraq produces about 2.25 million bbl/day, according to the CIA world factbook), but geographically speaking, it is very important that the United States has at least one outpost in the Middle East. China and India are the two fastest-growing economies in the world today, and with militarily powerful Russia to the north, it is not impossible to forsee a 1984-esque Eurasian alliance within the next half-century. Such an alliance would surely provoke world war if it invaded any country, and it would almost as surely win (for explanation of this statement, look at any political map of the world) due merely to its geographical position. If such superpowers as China, India, and Russia were to war amongst each other, the conflict(s) would result in the deaths of millions of people, with or without world war.
But strategy is never the whole picture. Over 15,000 Iraqi civilians and over 2,000 American soldiers have died for the aforementioned "strategy" since the US-led invasion. Even without Saddam Hussein in power, civil strife has continued in great measure, with suicide bombings terrorizing civilians almost daily. In many cases, living standards have gone down rather than up since the invasion. It is now dangerous for children to walk to school in many areas for fear of the suicide bombers, and any person seen associating with US troops, even to obtain food, is often in danger. In such an environment, it is difficult for liberty to survive, let alone thrive.
So how can the United States fix what it has done? To back out of Iraq now would mean leaving the country in the hands of rebels. How can a brand-new constitution survive in a lawless society? But the longer the United States stays in Iraq, more of the rebels are antagonized, and violence escalates on an almost-daily basis.
Iraq will take a while to recover from the injuries it has been dealt, both by the United States and extremists from within Iraq itself. As soon as stable government and military are established, the United States must withdraw from Iraq, regardless of strategy. The US must still, however, take responsiblity for what it has done in true American style.

Sat, 15 Oct 2005 14:32:32 GMT

The United States is violating its own policy of world democracy.
In the Declaration of Independence, it is quite clearly stated that all men are entiteled to basic human rights such as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. This has changed over the years to include women, too. However, many Americans now seem to be under the impression that all people are entitled to equal rights except for a certain group of people who are different in some way from the majority of the population. Considered in an impartial manner, this is the definition of bigotry. It is also incorrect from a grammatical standpoint. The phrase "all people" includes every person. If it does not, then it should be restated as "most people".
Take, for example, the current issue of gay marriage. A large percentage of Americans believe that those persons born as homosexuals should not be able to marry anybody of the same sex. They have gone as far as to state that homosexuality is unnatural. However, it seems difficult to believe that a trait is unnatural when a person is born with it; and as far as a person's right to marry who they love, that falls directly under the pursuit of happiness.
One thought that may not have occured to many Americans who are against gay rights is the importance of the law interfering with people's private lives. It is plausible that, were the government interfering with the sex lives of the people against gay marriage, those people would be highly dissatisfied. If the government can interfere in the bedroom, then what else can it have control over? This is a question worthy of consideration by any American, no matter what their political prejudice.