The Current Events/Issues Thread - Read the First Post

[justin]

Quote:

---

Oh, you mean the one Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox started, before Nixon fired him!

---

I think I had my facts mixed up. I guess I shouldn't make authorative coments about a subject after just skimming through a book on it.



Anyway after reading a book of whitehouse transcripts from the period I had been under the impression that it was Nixon who instructed the attorney general to fully investigate the watergate incident.



However after doing some more research I found this here

Quote:

---

Recorded on June 23, 1972 six days after the break-in. It recorded a discussion between Nixon and White House chief of staff H.R. Haldeman. Haldeman and Nixon discuss the progress of the FBI's investigation, especially the tracing of the source of money found on the burglars. When Nixon was told that the FBI's investigation was leading to Nixon's re-election campaign, Nixon instructed Haldeman to tell the FBI, "Don't go any further into this case, period." They propose having the CIA ask the FBI to halt their investigation of the Watergate break-in by claiming that the break-in was a national security operation. They discuss how Hunt's involvement in the Watergate break-in would point the investigators to the CIA, and potentially, Hunt's role in the Bay of Pigs debacle. After the "Smoking Gun" tape was released, Nixon lost Republican support in Congress. On August 9th, four days later after the release of the conversation, President Nixon resigned.

---

So it seems that Nixon tried to stop the FBI from investigating what happened at the Watergate hotel by claiming it was a matter of national security.



SO, um, ignore me - I'm obviously igneous

Postel's Prescription: Be generous in what you accept, rigorous in what you emit.

[justin]

Lord Hutton's report into the death of Dr Kelly and allegations that the government "sexed up" the information about Iraq's WMDs was released today. He has basically exonerated the government of any wrong doing and has laid the whole blame for the incident on the BBC. As a result the managing director Greg Dyke has resigned from his post.



You can read the report here



At the same time the US has admitted that their inteligence about Iraq was flawed. You can read that here

Quote:

---

US admits Iraq intelligence flaws

Ms Rice insisted the US had been right to invade Iraq

The White House has acknowledged for the first time that its intelligence reports on Iraq might have been wrong.



Until recently, US President George W Bush had insisted that weapons of mass destruction would be discovered.



But now his National Security Adviser, Condoleezza Rice, has given a round of interviews in which she acknowledges possible flaws in pre-war intelligence.



The central argument used by the United States for invading Iraq was to rid Iraq of weapons of mass destruction.



       

I think that what we have is evidence that there are differences between what we knew going in and what we found on the ground

Condoleezza Rice

But more than nine months after Baghdad fell to US forces, no such weapons have been found.



Ms Rice's comments follow calls from the former senior US weapons inspector, David Kay, for an independent inquiry. Mr Kay - who resigned last week - has said that in his view there were no significant stockpiles in Iraq before the war.



The BBC's Justin Webb in Washington says this a painful process for the White House, but in the light of Mr Kay's testimony it is proving impossible for administration officials to stick convincingly to the line that banned weapons will still be found in Iraq.



"I think that what we have is evidence that there are differences between what we knew going in and what we found on the ground," Ms Rice told CBS television.



But she brushed aside calls for an independent inquiry into the intelligence in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq last March.



Former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein, she said, was a dangerous man in a dangerous part of the world and it had been time to do something about the threat he posed.



"When you are dealing with secretive regimes that want to deceive, you're never going to be able to be positive," Ms Rice told NBC.

---

Postel's Prescription: Be generous in what you accept, rigorous in what you emit.

[dekalog]

Michael Moore's site has a section devoted to the Patriot Act



www.michaelmoore.com/take...iotact.php

[justin]

Quote:

---

I've been wondering, what sorts of laws or security measures are going on in other places? Are there measures comparable to the US Patriot Act (expanding the law enforcement and intelligence communities' ability to gather information on its own citizens and chipping away at civil liberties) in the UK?

---

I'm sorry to have to report that the government are trying to bring in new laws that will chip away at our civil liberties.



This is from BBC News

Quote:

---

       

Blunkett plans tougher terror law

Mr Blunkett is on a tour of the sub-continent

Home Secretary David Blunkett wants new anti-terrorism laws to make it easier to convict British terror suspects.



He has discussed lowering the standard of proof required by a court and introducing more pre-emptive action.



Possible plans, revealed on his six-day trip to India and Pakistan, also include keeping sensitive evidence from defendants and secret trials before vetted judges.



But civil rights groups have condemned the proposals as shameful and an "affront to the rule of law".



And a lawyer for Feroz Abbasi, one of the Britons held at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba, said Mr Blunkett's proposals showed he was not fit to be home secretary.



       

Q&A: What proposals could mean

Speaking in Lahore, Mr Blunkett was expanding on a speech he made on Friday in which he said he wanted new prosecuting powers to prevent terrorist acts.



His proposals, revealed on Monday, would bring elements of his recent anti-terror legislation into the existing trial system.



The Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 allows foreigners who are suspected international terrorists to be detained indefinitely without charge or trial in the event their lives would be in danger if they were deported.



Britain is holding 14 foreign terror suspects under this law, based on evidence which is tested in secret.



Two have decided to return to their home countries rather than remain in prison.



Mr Blunkett wants to extend this so prosecutors can take action against suspected British extremists even though the evidence may not be strong enough to win a conviction under existing laws.



This may mean lowering the burden of proof in such cases from "beyond reasonable doubt" to what is acceptable in civil cases, "the balance of probabilities".



Prevention aim



Evidence in the new trials would be kept secret from the defendants to protect MI5, MI6 and GCHQ intelligence sources, Mr Blunkett said.



Speaking on a tour of the sub-continent, Mr Blunkett said: "We have to have prevention under a new category which is to intervene before the act is committed, rather than do so by due process after the act is committed when it's too late.



Asked if British nationals suspected of terrorism should be imprisoned on a lower burden of proof, "the balance of probabilities", he said: "Yes, I want that debate.



"It is about the threshold of evidence and the nature of those involved being accredited and trusted not to reveal the sources."



BBC security editor Frank Gardner said the measures would be "deeply unpopular", but were wanted by the government because of the difficulties of getting successful prosecutions using the likes of tip-offs and wiretaps.



'Extreme announcements'



He said the people currently held without charge in Belmarsh prison in London were not helping with intelligence, being charged or being deported and were therefore left in a "legal limbo".



Louise Christian, who represents Mr Abbasi, said Mr Blunkett's attitude was "enormously disappointing" for those who were fighting unlawful detention by the US.



"He is going around the world making these very extreme announcements and I don't think he's fit to be home secretary."



Senior lawyer Baroness JFK said the proposals were a disgrace.



"It is as if David Blunkett takes his lessons on jurisprudence from Robert Mugabe," she told BBC Radio 4's Today programme.



"He really is a shameless authoritarian... it really is an affront to the rule of law."

---

and this is another story about it from BBC News

Quote:

---

       

Blunkett hails anti-terror laws

The army took part in an anti-terrorist operation at Heathrow

David Blunkett has defended the government's use of laws which allow indefinite detention of terror suspects



He says powers in the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 were necessary to protect the UK from suicide bombers and others extremists.



"You can't deter when the deterrent no longer exists," he said during a keynote speech in New Delhi, India.



But the home secretary said it was vital to balance anti-terror measures with the protection of civil liberties.



Human rights



Speaking at the start of a six-day visit to the Indian sub-continent, Mr Blunkett argued that the threat of prosecution was not enough to deter modern terrorism.



The 2001 Act, introduced after the 11 September atrocities, includes measures relating to the detention of suspected international terrorists, inciting religious hatred or violence, weapons of mass destruction and terrorist finance and property.



       

We have to be able to protect ourselves by intervening with individuals who have taken actions that put our lives at risk, disrupt our justice and our democratic processes

David Blunkett



It has been widely criticised by human rights groups, but Mr Blunkett argues that governments must have powers to prevent terror.



"I accepted by necessity we have to have prevention under a new category which is to intervene before the act is committed, rather than do so by due process after the act is committed when it's too late," he said.



"This is a whole different ball game to anything that we have ever known before."



Good intelligence



Mr Blunkett, speaking at the British Council, said it was "nigh on impossible" to square the circle that meant individual human rights were curtailed in order protect democracy.



"We have to be able to protect ourselves by intervening with individuals who have taken actions that put our lives at risk, disrupt our justice and our democratic processes," he said.



In the UK 16 foreign nationals have been detained under the Act, after being certified as suspected international terrorists.



Mr Blunkett argued that there can be no negotiation with suicide bombers and international terrorists.



And he said that ultimately the best security comes through good intelligence.

---

One of the defining principles of the rule of law is that someone shouldn't be held without having being convicted of having commited a crime. This totaly disregards that.



The worst thing is David Blunket comes over like one of those dodgy sales men who scare people into buying security systems by going on about all the crime in their area.

Quote:

---

"He is going around the world making these very extreme announcements and I don't think he's fit to be home secretary."

---

I whole heartedly agree with this sentiment

Postel's Prescription: Be generous in what you accept, rigorous in what you emit.

[Kieli]

I knew it! Bloody George "Whackjob" Bush's effects are hitting the world like a 20 megaton shockwave. I hope the Brits clamp down on this guy hard. You don't even want people like Blunkett to even get started. Once he does, it will be hell to rein him in.

Time flies by when the Devil drives.
It's not the pace of life that concerns me, it's the sudden stop at the end.

[justin]

Sorry for the double post but this is on a different subject and it had to be posted.



Anyway to answer my question the best way to get the nobel peace prize is to start a war.



Bush and Blair have been nominated to receive the nobel peace prize due to their starting the war in Iraq.



Here is the full story from BBC News



Blair and Bush up for Nobel prize

Mr Bush and Mr Blair face competition from the Pope

Tony Blair and George Bush have been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize for waging war on Saddam Hussein.



The pair have been put forward by a Norwegian politician who said toppling the Iraqi dictator had reduced the threat of weapons of mass destruction.



It had also laid the foundations for a democratic Iraq, said Jan Simonsen of the right-wing Party of Progress.



Anti-war campaigners condemned the move as "completely unbelievable" and said it made a mockery of the prize.



       

It shows the stupidity of this peace prize that it is given to people for starting wars rather than stopping them

Stop the War Coalition



Other nominees for the award include the European Union and the Pope.



The winner will be announced by the five-member Norwegian awards committee on 10 December.



Andrew Burgin, of the Stop the War Coalition, said: "This is completely unbelievable. It shows the stupidity of this peace prize that it is given to people for starting wars rather than stopping them."



Nominations for the award closed on Sunday.



Although the list is secret, those making the nominations often go public with their choices.



Last year's prize was won by Iranian lawyer Shirin Ebadi, 56, who was the first Muslim woman to be afforded the honour.



She won the $1.4m prize for her work for the rights of women and children in Iran.



Her award aroused huge controversy in Iran where right-wing papers denounced the prize as part of a foreign plot to pressure Tehran.



Ms Ebadi was the first female judge in her country, but was forced to resign following the Islamic Revolution in 1979.



I have 1 thing to say

Postel's Prescription: Be generous in what you accept, rigorous in what you emit.

[urnofosiris]

I read somewhere that some people (I can´t get anymore vague than that, heh) are suggesting that this is a some sort of joke or a way to discredit them. If that is so, the joke eludes me, the only message this sends is that starting a war under false pretences that kills thousands of innocent civillians and other people´s sons and daughters (the soldiers) will get you nominated for a peace price. It is offensive beyond belief. They seriously need to rethink their nomination methods.

[Gatito Grande]

OK, I' a "pond" away from all this, but I just don't get this "Hutton Report" thang (and I say this as one who listens rapturously to the BBC every night, as thankfully carried by my local NPR affiliate).



I mean, who the hell is this "Lord Hutton"? (As a equality-lovin' Yank, the title "Lord" does not inspire me w/ confidence---quite the contrary) Did the BBC agree in advance "We believe the 'Lord' is unbiased and objective"? Do we know that Lord Hutton is free from any kind of goverment pressure, or conflict of interest?



Already I've heard that some Brits are saying that the Good Lord's (I reeeeeally don't like aristocracies, can't you tell ) "investigation" was a whitewash. Why the heck would all these BBC muckety-mucks and reporters roll over and play dead for this bozo?



The whole argument that neither Blair nor Bush "knew" that the intelligence was false is a red-herring, IMO. There's knowing and there's knowing: Bush keeps saying "we believe the same things that the Clinton Admin. did about Iraq." Well, the Clinton Admin didn't start a unilateral invasion---even if looking at the same flawed "Iraq Fact Sheet" (which I doubt), obviously they didn't think it was worth torpedoing US foreign relations w/ the whole freakin' world (that is, outside our loyal---bought&paid-for---client states). Don't I seem to recall Al Gore giving anti-war speeches both before and after our "victory" (NOT!) in Iraq? So much for "agreed imminent threat of Iraqi WMD."



GG God save the BBC---Fight the Power! [Hey mods: do you think we could get a 'fist-waving' emoticon (a non-swearing one)? Lil' Ol' Rad Me is always longing for one] Out

[Diebrock]

GG wrote

Quote:

---

There's knowing and there's knowing

---

And then there is "(..) as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know.... We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns -- the ones we don't know we don't know."



Edited because I am a dunce and wrote one unknown instead of known

_________________

How can you kill people who killed people, to show that killing people is wrong?

I've kissed her best friend. I've reached into her best friend's pocket and fished around for keys. And I gave her best friend my number. I must be doing something totally, totally wrong... - TBSOL by Dreams

Edited by: Diebrock at: 2/3/04 3:04 am

[justin]

Quote:

---

I mean, who the hell is this "Lord Hutton"? (As a equality-lovin' Yank, the title "Lord" does not inspire me w/ confidence---quite the contrary)

---

Lord Hutton is a law lord. Despite the connotations that come with the title Lord, this is a life peerage rather than a heriditary one (as is the case with a lot of the people in the house of lords)



In the UK the house of lords is the highest court of appeal. All such appeals are heard by a panel of three law lords, who are appointed from amongst the judiciary. Read more here



As to Lord Hutton himself, this isn't his first cover up as he was involved with the investigation into bloody sunday.



here



Anyway this is here biography (from the hutton inquiry site)

Quote:

---

Rt Hon the Lord Hutton

Hutton (Life Baron), (James) Brian (Edward) Hutton; cr1997



Born:

29 June 1931



Education:

Shrewsbury School



Further Education:

Balliol College, Oxford (BA jurisprudence 1953);

Queen's University, Belfast



Career:

Called to Northern Ireland Bar 1954;

Junior Counsel to Attorney-General for Northern Ireland 1969;

Queen's Counsel (NI) 1970;

Judge of the High Court of Justice (NI) 1979-88;

Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland 1988-97;

Lord of Appeal in Ordinary 1997-

---

Quote:

---

Did the BBC agree in advance "We believe the 'Lord' is unbiased and objective"? Do we know that Lord Hutton is free from any kind of goverment pressure, or conflict of interest?

---

Lord Hutton was appointed by the prime minister. I don't believe the BBC had any say in the appointment.

Quote:

---

Already I've heard that some Brits are saying that the Good Lord's (I reeeeeally don't like aristocracies, can't you tell ) "investigation" was a whitewash.

---

Well the report was certainly very one sided. It seems to expect the BBC to apply higher standards to their reports than it does the government.

Quote:

---

Why the heck would all these BBC muckety-mucks and reporters roll over and play dead for this bozo?

---

That is a very good question. They do seem to be taking it a little too easily, which will prove bad for the bbc's independence.



However I think the resignation of people like Greg Dyke and Andrew Giligam will prove to be bad for the government as it has freed them to speak out about exactly how they feel about the hutton report.

Postel's Prescription: Be generous in what you accept, rigorous in what you emit.

[willowrulz4ever]

I have been reading these posts with interest.The only thing that did not bother me was the Texas Republcans redistricting.Here in Georgia the Dems did the same thing to ensure control of the state.If the dems win back control in Texas they will return the favor.



The rest of it scares the hell out of me.I always believed that it was the Dems who attempted to sreal an election that Bush and Cheney won,I told my share of Sore-Loserman jokes.I checked out websites.It is scary.



They are trying to lock people up for giving advice for peaceful resistance.I am planning on flying in June.I was court ordered to rehab cause another homeless person tried to steal the money I had just earned cleaning a guys yard.I snapped,I ended up putting him in a coma for 2 weeks.I did my probation and 6 months in rehab plus another 6 house arrest.I am still making payment on his med bills. I got help for my bipolar and my addiction.Am I going to be kept from going to the SAn Diego Comic con becuase of that.Man,what I have supported for the last 19 years.5 to the body mass,three to the head and your enemy is no longer your enemy.I was taught that.I could put a full 8 round clip into the kill zone of a human silohoute target by time I was 10.



I asked dad if war was murder.He said no.If a person is your enemy h is not a human being.You don't murder a deer or boar,you kill them.The first T-shirt I bought with my one money said.Kill all commies,and let God sort them out.Dad has toned things down but hestill believes the conservative leadership is right.That their way is best.What the hell is next.If you speak against them you must be a terrorist supporter.Well MR.Bush and Cheney,I am speaking out agiainst you and every conservative republican in the District.Your kind of people have kept me blinded for 19 years.Since this is a current event page I am going to predict a current event fr january 2005.



Today George W Bush handed over the reigns of Power to FUzzy the WunderBunny,who the voters felt can do a lot better job.





Damn,that felt good.



Please forgive me for turning current events into a rant.I tried to be logical.I just can't believe how stupid I have been.



I found out that federal spending on mental health care is getting bashed as well as here in Georgia.Good ol Sonnie Perdue decided that mental health is no longer aproblem in Geoergia he has proposed cutting it another 30 percent over the 70% he did last year.My friend is a bad schizophrenic.She was turned away at the Community mental health for meds.They said she wrked so she could afford them herself.She works at a sheltered worship.brings home 600 a month her meds cost 850 a month.



I'm through.Later today I am going to my Elections office and find out how to contact the John Kerry Campaign here in Georgia.Kerry might not be any better but how can he be worst.Bush had turned this country into a Police state and an ogliarchy.Rule by the priviledged few.



Just so there is no confusion MR.President my name is Ronald Franklin Martin.When you come and arrest the other terrorists make sure you get me.Thoruea was right,when injustice prevails the only place for a just man is in prison.



Sorry,if I went overboard.





Ronnie

[Kieli]

Quote:

---

I have been reading these posts with interest.The only thing that did not bother me was the Texas Republcans redistricting.Here in Georgia the Dems did the same thing to ensure control of the state.If the dems win back control in Texas they will return the favor.

---

That's not entirely true. Georgia doesn't have the amount of electoral votes that Texas does so the Democratic redistricting in Ga. probably didn't even come close to helping them much. What's funny is that Sonny Perdue got elected in spite of the Democrats redistricting attempt (seems that four Democratic Senators jumped ship to the GOP after they were left out of the redistricting process)...and this all happened in 2001, so I don't think the Dems will be attempting THAT anymore. The resulting lawsuits from the GOP were far too much hassle for the result they got.

As an aside, I swear that Sonny Perdue looks exactly like my partner's dad. I wonder if they're related?!

After reading up on your governor, I find that the man scares me and Georgia really needs to be worried about how the "New Georgia" is going to end up.

Quote:

---

found out that federal spending on mental health care is getting bashed as well as here in Georgia.Good ol Sonnie Perdue decided that mental health is no longer aproblem in Geoergia he has proposed cutting it another 30 percent over the 70% he did last year.

---

This, though extremely unfortunate, is not surprising. Georgia isn't the only state to retract funds for mental healthcare or slash state mental healthcare budgets to death. Many states did it when the economy took a severe downturn and states were faced with a shortfall of federal funds. But it's like social services for children and the foster care system: no one ever fights enough to reform or help the systems...they consistently get underfunded and ignored. It's interesting to note too that some Federal Programs work for some and not for others. Clearly, your friend is getting the raw end of the deal. However, there may be some non-profit firms that might be able to help (I'm searching now for some information that might be useful to you). In addition, she might be able to qualifiy for Social Security or welfare benefits to help pay for her meds.

Time flies by when the Devil drives.
It's not the pace of life that concerns me, it's the sudden stop at the end.

Edited by: Kieli  at: 2/4/04 5:50 am

[willowrulz4ever]

James Brown is in legal trouble for drugs again.Since he lives across the river fron us it has been all the talk in our local paper's op ed page.A lt of people are down on him,but there was one letter I liked."Before you Run the Godfather down too much remember,a lot of kids would not have had Christmas presents or food to eat the rest of the year if it were not for his work"



Amen!He is more than his addiction.He is a human being with faults and strengths like the rest of us.He does have a drug monkey on his back,but he has done a lot of Good here in the CSRA.Also,after MLK was gunned down he stopped the black people of the city he was in from rioting by calling for cooler heads to prevail.Does anyone remember which city that was.It has been a long time since I saw something about it on TV.



I just found it interesting that all people want to look at is the negative.



that is like I never knew it but Susan Sarandon puts her money where her mouth is.She gives very generously to charity.Rush never mentioned that.



Ronnie

[justin]

The Butler Inquiry. This has been set up to investigate the inteligence that was gathered about Iraq and why we haven't found any WMD's.



However it specificaly won't be looking into the government's handling of this inteligence or whether there as any justification for going to war.



The government say this is because the Hutton inquiry has already cleared them on that front. Despite the fact that the Hutton inquiry wa really only looking into the specific claims that the inteligence Dossier had been sexed up and the circumstances surrounding Dr Kelly's death.



So it seems that these inquiries have been set up so that they won't have to answer the most important question - should britain have gone to war?



This is why the Lib Dem leader Charles JFK (The next prime minister - I hope ) has decided to boycott the inquiry.

Postel's Prescription: Be generous in what you accept, rigorous in what you emit.

[Kieli]

Just thought you all might like to see this:



Massachusetts Court Backs Gay Weddings



I was all like, "FREAKIN' HOORAY!"

Time flies by when the Devil drives.
It's not the pace of life that concerns me, it's the sudden stop at the end.

[willowrulz4ever]

I could be wrong,but I

suspect the rulings opponents will challenge it all the way to the supreme court.It is not over yet.





Ronnie

[Gatito Grande]

Fortunately no, Ronnie. This is a state matter, which cannot be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. What is happening, however, is two-fold: 1) a proposal to amend the Massachusetts' State Constitution to outlaw same-sex marriage (i.e. limit it to "one man/one woman"), and 2) a similar proposal to amend the U.S. Constition the same way.



Because of Massachusetts' current constitution, they can't ban same-sex marriage for at least 2 years: so we should get at least a year and a half of legal same-sex marriage in Mass. Yay! (Then let the nation-wide court fights begin!)



At the national level, it's anyone's guess: since it requires 3/4 of all the state's legislature's to approve a U.S. Constitutional Amendment, it shouldn't happen any time soon . . .



. . . but let's not take that chance: all we need is 1/3 of the U.S. Senate to block the amendment, and it's dead in the water (and can't go to the states).



GG Write/call your U.S. Senators today! Just check here www.hrcactioncenter.org/c...oppose_dec to find out how to contact 'em. Out



This whole post really belongs on the Gay Politics thread, but oh well . . .

[Kieli]

Just a little something I think y'all might find interesting...I know I sure did.



Bush Losing His Base

Time flies by when the Devil drives.
It's not the pace of life that concerns me, it's the sudden stop at the end.

[darkmagicwillow]

U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft is defending the Justice Department's subpoening of late term abortion records. You can read about it here and here.

--

"Omnia mutantur, nihil interit." -- "Everything changes, but nothing is truly lost."

[willowrulz4ever]

ashcroft has gone way to far.I hate abortion but I am pro choice.I fight abortion by making it easier for women to choose life for their babies.I am involved in the local Crisis Pregneancy center. However,I hate this.There is enough literature and experts out there who dispute the medical nessecity of D&X.He does not need the records.This is an attemt to intimidate Pro choicers and women considering abortions..Is it better for a women to die than have an abortion.I do not believe so.I do not like abortion on demand but I try to put my self in the place of a desperate women in a place that does not have a crisis pregneancy center.I am 16,pregeant,if my dad finds out I am pregeant he will not only kick me out but beat me as well.I have no where to go.What would I do.I would probay have an abortion.



Seeing the women who give their baby up for adoption or keep them is great.But is putting the scarlet letter on those who choose abortion the way to go.



Also if Ashcroft would spend less time treading on women's rights and more time helping to raise funds for places that support women who choose to have their babies emotionaly physicaly and finacialy maybe he could do something worthwhile.



It is sad to me all these conservatives who are fighting fr the right to choose to driveSUV's but they dont want to give women a choice.I guess driving an SUV is more important tan women's lives.



Tabby

[Yelowsub]

oh my goodness did anyone see this? It may have been posted before. If so I'm sorry. I'm so happy and crying.



www.authenti-city.com/index.html

"Trying to talk about love is like trying to dance about architecture."

[Ben Varkentine]

A fun cartoon with absolutely no parallel to Whedon fans...



www.workingforchange.com/...emid=16444

Ben



"Never be discouraged from being an activist because people tell you that you'll not succeed. You have already succeeded if you're out there representing truth or justice or compassion or fairness or love."

-- Doris 'Granny D' Haddock

[Kieli]

ROTFLMFAO!! I love it, Ben! Thank you!!

Time flies by when the Devil drives.
It's not the pace of life that concerns me, it's the sudden stop at the end.

[walker]

*Sigh* Reminds me of the good old days, studying American Politics at University. That was excellent thanks for that Ben.

I'm a foot without a sock without you - Fran Healey, Travis

[sprhrgrl]

thank you for posting the link to http://www.authenti-city.com yellowsub. . . i was going to, it's been making me so so emotional. if you haven't seen it since there were just the friday pictures, there are a lot more now. there's also a lot of information about the weddings and such at http://www.sfgate.com/

Sweetie, I'm a fag. I been there. - Tara (Dead Things shooting script)

[justin]

That's what former cabinet minister Claire short says.



If this is true then I have to say that I am appalled, but I'm also not particularly surprised.



Here's the news story about it from BBC news

Quote:

---

UN warning over spy allegations

Ms Short says she expects there are transcripts of calls to Mr Annan

British spies would have undermined the United Nations' work if it was true they bugged Secretary General Kofi Annan's office, says a UN spokesman.



Fred Eckhard told reporters Mr Annan wanted the action stopped if it was happening, especially as it would have been illegal.



He spoke out after ex-cabinet minister Clare Short's claim that the UK had been listening in to Mr Annan's talks.



Tony Blair said Ms Short's claims were "deeply irresponsible".



Mr Blair also appeared to cast doubt on her future as a Labour MP.



Short's future?



Mr Eckhard said Mr Annan had spoken to the British ambassador to the UN about the bugging claims.



"We want this action to stop if indeed it has been carried out," he said.



"It undermines the secretary-general's conduct of business with other leaders. It is therefore not good for the United Nations' work and it is illegal."



The UN would be disappointed if the accusations proved to be true, he added.



At his monthly news conference, the prime minister insisted the UK security services acted in accordance with domestic and international law and in the best interests of this country.



Mr Blair said: "I'm not going to comment on the work of our security services - do not take that as an indication that the allegations made by Clare Short are true.



"I really do regard what Clare Short has said this morning as totally irresponsible, and entirely consistent."



Asked whether she should be prosecuted or face Labour Party discipline Mr Blair said he would "have to reflect upon" her comments.



He added: "There will obviously be issues that arise ... I am not in a position to answer them at the moment."



'Dangerous situation'



Ms Short's comments came the day after the dramatic collapse of the trial of GCHQ whistle-blower Katharine Gun.



She had been accused of leaking a secret e-mail from US spies apparently requesting British help in bugging UN delegates ahead of the Iraq invasion.





Listen to the full Today programme interview



The government says it will review whether changes are needed to the Official Secrets Act in the wake of the case.



But it has denied claims the move to drop the prosecution was politically motivated.



There has been speculation ministers were worried about the disclosure of secret documents during the trial, particularly the advice from Attorney General Lord Goldsmith about the legality of war.



Lord Goldsmith said in a statement to the House of Lords: "It was a decision on solely legal grounds ... and free from any political interference."



Spies there 'for some time'



He said that although they believed they could prove the Official Secrets Act had been breached, they had concluded they could not disprove Mrs Gun's defence "of necessity" - believed to refer to her case that she felt a duty to do something to save lives in an unlawful war.



However, Mr Blair said it would be a "very dangerous situation" if people thought they could just "spill out allegations, whether false or true ... and get away with it".



During an interview on BBC Radio 4's Today programme Ms Short said British spies were involved in bugging Mr Annan's office in the run up to war with Iraq.



"The UK in this time was also getting spies on Kofi Annan's office and getting reports from him about what was going on," she said.



"These things are done and in the case of Kofi's office, it was being done for some time."



Legal question



Asked if Britain was involved in this, she replied; "Well I know - I've seen transcripts of Kofi Annan's conversations.



Asked to confirm if British spies were instructed to carry out operations within the UN on people like Mr Annan, she said: "Yes, absolutely."





BBC security correspondent Frank Gardner said that many UN officials always worked on the basis that they were being bugged.



But, he added, "that is not to say that it is acceptable if they are not suspected of terrorism or other crimes".



Conservative leader Michael Howard said the situation was "a complete mess".



"It's about time the prime minister got a grip on it and sorted it out," he said.



Liberal Democrat leader Charles JFK said it was not good enough for Mr Blair to say he could not comment on the security services - especially after publishing intelligence in his Iraq dossiers.



"Tony Blair must now come clean about this central accusation," he said.

---

and here's the transcript of clare short's interview

Quote:

---

Transcript of Clare Short interview

Clare Short has been a thorn in the government's side since she quit

Ex-Cabinet minister Clare Short was asked about the decision to drop charges against sacked GCHQ translator Katharine Gun.



Mrs Gun admitted leaking a memo apparently requesting UK help in bugging UN officials in the run-up to the Iraq war.



What follows is a full transcript of the interview on Radio 4's Today.



Presenter John Humphrys asked Ms Short why she thought the prosecution decided it lacked evidence for a prosecution.



Clare Short: Well I think this centres on the attorney-general's advice that war was legal under Resolution 1441, which was published as a matter of fact, but was very, very odd.



The more I think about it the more fishy I feel it was. It came very, very late.



He came to the Cabinet the day Robin Cook resigned and sat in Robin's seat. Two sides of A4, no discussion permitted. We know already that the Foreign Office legal advisers had disagreed and one of them had said there was no authority for war. Was it right to spy on Kofi Annan?



The Liberals have been pressing for the brief on the basis of which he said there was authority for war.



There's a question of whether the exaggeration of the threat and the immediacy of the threat from any possible biological and chemical weapons in Iraq was part of the brief for the attorney-general so that he would give the legal authority.



So my own suspicion is that the attorney has stopped this prosecution because part of her defence was to question legality and that would have brought his advice into the public domain again and there was something fishy about the way in which he said war was legal.



Q: What this memo showed - the secret memo that Katharine Gunn disclosed - what it showed was pressure by the United States on other countries to get support for a second united resolution and spying indeed on those countries.



Do you believe that Britain - that our government - might have been involved in that with the United States?



CS: Well there was enormous for [inaudible] a second resolution and then of course it is clear now there was a date for war so they didn't need Blix to do his job and then come to a second resolution if need be.



But they were going to war anyway and they were going to bully and pressure countries to vote for it.



I mean enormous pressure was brought to bear - Valerie Amos, Lady Amos, went round Africa with people from our intelligence services trying to press them. I had to make sure that we didn't promise a misuse of aid in a way that would be illegal.



Q: A view - was it being suggested then?



CS: There was worry about her brief and making sure that there was no such suggestion because it would have been a breach of the law...



Q: But can I question you on that for a second - did somebody suggest that that might have been the right strategy?



CS: We were worried that that was going to be done and went to some trouble to make sure her briefing made it clear that that could not legally be done.



I mean the UK in this time was also getting - spying on Kofi Annan's office and getting reports from him about what was going on.



The US was pressing Chile, Mexico - enormous pressures were brought to bear. What's remarkable is that these countries didn't break.



And if you remember the other part of the context is we were then all deceived about the French position and told the French had said they'd veto any second resolution - which wasn't true, we now know.

Chirac said we'd veto now because Blix needs his time but if Blix failed then of course we would vote with others to organise military action.



Q: But pressure is one thing - you expect that I suppose, spinning is another thing, you expect that I suppose.



Spying is something quite different - spying in the United Nations is something quite different isn't it?



CS: Well indeed. But these things are done and in the case of Kofi's office it's been done for some time.



Q: Indeed again, let me repeat the question then - do you believe Britain's been involved in it?



CS: Well I know - I've seen transcripts of Kofi Annan's conversations.



In fact I've had conversations with Kofi in the run up to war, thinking 'oh dear there will be a transcript of this and people will see what he and I are saying'.



Q: So in other words, British spies - let's be very clear about this in case I'm misunderstanding you - British spies have been instructed to carry out operations within the United Nations on people like Kofi Annan?



CS: Yes absolutely.



Q: Did you know about this when you were in government?





I'm afraid that the sort of deceit on the route to war was linked to the lack of preparation for afterwards and the chaos and suffering that continuous - so it won't go away will it?

Clare Short



CS: Absolutely, I read some of the transcripts of the accounts of his conversations.



Q: Is this legal?



CS: I don't know - I presume so. It's odd but I don't know about the legalities.



But the major issue here is the legal authority for war and whether the attorney-general had to be persuaded, at the last minute, against the advice of one of the Foreign Office legal advisers, who then resigned, that he could give authority for war and whether there had to be an exaggeration of the threat of the use of chemical and biological weapons to persuade him that there was legal authority - that's the big question.



Q: And what should happen now?



CS: I think the good old British democracy should keep scrutinising and pressing to get the truth out.



Q: How? There's been a lot of it and a lot of people now are beginning to say and indeed have already said - well look we've heard it all, we've had the war, it's all over, let's put it behind us.



Tony Blair certainly wants to put it behind us.



CS: Yes but the tragedy is Iraq is a disastrous mess; 10,000 Iraqis have died, American troops are dying, some of our troops have died.



The Middle East is more angry than ever. I'm afraid that the sort of deceit on the route to war was linked to the lack of preparation for afterwards and the chaos and suffering that continuous - so it won't go away will it?

---

ETA: Clare short has been under attack fro her claims. Some people have been saying that they aren't true and she's just trying to undermine Toney Blaire.



More worrying some people have been saying that bugging the UN isn't necessarily a bad thing, if it was in Britain's interest. That rather begs the question how can it be in Britain's interest to undermine the UN?

Postel's Prescription: Be generous in what you accept, rigorous in what you emit.

Edited by: justin at: 2/27/04 4:42 am

[maudmac]

Southern Kittens, if you're interested, the Jerusalem Women Speak: Three Women, Three Faiths, One Shared Vision tour might be coming near you, if it hasn't already. Schedule and bios here.



I'm glad to have the opportunity to hear women who live in Jerusalem speaking about what their lives are like there, the issues they face, their perspectives on their own situations and each other's, and their thoughts about what's wrong and how it might be fixed.



It's obviously a contentious issue, one that people kill and die for on a far-too-regular basis. I honestly can't imagine what it must be like to be in the thick of it, so I'm looking forward to hearing what they have to say.



A quick trip through the news and op/eds is all that's necessary to see how complicated it all is, why it's so necessary for all of us that it ends, and why it's so likely that it never will:



Hamas founder killed in Israeli airstrike



DEATH OF A TERROR KINGPIN



Israelis promulgate extrajudicial murder and the U.S. looks on

---

dreams of the drifters die hard, y'all   /   bodies dance through the dark to submission
fast feet and saturday night leave you nowhere to stand   /   but nobody here is leaving

[Ben Varkentine]

Interesting article about Rice's answers--and lack of same--to the criticisms offered this week by the 9/11 commission. It's Salon, so if you're not a subscriber you have to click through a brief ad, but I think it's worth it. Here's an excerpt:

Quote:

---

The furor over Clarke's explosive new book, "Against All Enemies," about Bush administration incompetence and irresponsibility before and after 9/11, has so embarrassed and alarmed Rice that Monday she took the almost unprecedented step of responding to criticism publicly with a signed article on the Op-Ed page of the Post.



The article is a masterly example of evasion, answering accusations that have not been made and neatly avoiding troubling ones that have. Rice was briefly allowed to enjoy the perception that she had answered criticisms, even though she had not.

---

www.salon.com/opinion/fea...index.html

Ben



"Never be discouraged from being an activist because people tell you that you'll not succeed. You have already succeeded if you're out there representing truth or justice or compassion or fairness or love."

-- Doris 'Granny D' Haddock

[Gatito Grande]

Much like his papa w/ "Uncle" Clarence Thomas, I'm counting the minutes till Dubya (and/or the other GOP attack dogs) plays the race card (gender, too). . .



GG Can't you just hear it now? "This is all because Clark couldn't stand having a black woman as his boss!" (Um, no it's cuz he couldn't stand having a neo-con "Don't Confuse Me w/ the Facts, My Mind is Made Up" ideologue idiot for a boss---and Boss-in-Chief) Out

[mscheckmate]

The following exchange happened on CNN's Crossfire, between Bob Novak and former Clinton staffer and current Democratic congressman Rahm Emanuel. (Novak, as you probably remember, was the Bush administration's mouthpiece for outing CIA operative Valerie Plame in order to punish her husband, Ambassador Joseph Wilson, for criticizing the pre-war intelligence Dubya put forth as reason to attack Iraq):





NOVAK: Congressman, do you believe, you're a sophisticated guy, do you believe watching these hearings that Dick Clarke has a problem with this African-American woman Condoleezza Rice?



EMANUEL: Say that again?



NOVAK: Do you believe that Dick Clarke has a problem with this African-American woman Condoleezza Rice?



EMANUEL: No, no. Bob, give me a break. No. No.





(Go to www.cnn.com and look for the March 25th Crossfire transcript.)



Maybe I need to take this to the politics thread, but Dr. Rice, others in the administration, and their media surrogates like Bob Novak, have been working overtime to try to refute Mr. Clarke's testimony, or at least his personal credibility, through an almost constant presence in the media. So Dr. Rice, along with Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney, can certainly make time to go to the 9-11 Commission and testify under oath.

"A dictatorship would be a heck of a lot easier, there's no question about it." G.W.Bush,Washington,D.C., 7/26/01, commenting on negotiating with Congress.

Edited by: mscheckmate at: 3/26/04 11:55 pm