I'd like to point out a couple things about the anti-torture amendment to the latest $445,000,000,000 War spending Bill.
The amendment was spearheaded by John McCain. A good guy in my opinion who unlike most of our Washington officials actually SERVED in the military, and he was a war prisoner. Meaning essentially that he understands what life is like in war. he gets his information from experience instead of movies like Bush and most everyone in his cabinet. interesting.
also the wording of the amendment is not as ambiguous as I originally thought. It bans "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment" which as honorable a policy as it is vague. "Cruel" or "degrading" mean a million things to a million people. but McCain and his cosponsors were not looking for a feelgood amendment they actually are looking to set standards at the federal level, and to learn exactly what those standards are the amendment refers you to the "Army Field Manual". standards the army has already agreed upon.
interesting facts.
Dcoffee's Journal
My Podcast Link
10/07/2005 20:24 #21681
PS. on anti-torture ammendmentCategory: politics
10/06/2005 10:15 #21680
Bush loves TortureCategory: politics
I got a kick out of this article in the NY Times today.
Senate Moves to Protect Military Prisoners Despite Veto Threat
WASHINGTON, Oct. 5 - Defying the White House, the Senate overwhelmingly agreed Wednesday to regulate the detention, interrogation and treatment of prisoners held by the American military.
The measure ignited a fierce debate among many Senate Republicans and the White House, which threatened to veto a $440 billion military spending bill if the detention amendment was tacked on, saying it would bind the president's hands in wartime. Nonetheless, the measure passed, 90 to 9, with 46 Republicans, including Bill Frist of Tennessee, the majority leader, joining 43 Democrats and one independent in favor.
More than two dozen retired senior military officers, including Colin L. Powell and John M. Shalikashvili, two former chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, endorsed the amendment, which would ban use of "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment" against anyone in United States government custody.
The President wants to veto a bill banning the use of "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment" That speaks volumes about this administration. seriously, what kind of America is this guy from?!?!
Senate Moves to Protect Military Prisoners Despite Veto Threat
WASHINGTON, Oct. 5 - Defying the White House, the Senate overwhelmingly agreed Wednesday to regulate the detention, interrogation and treatment of prisoners held by the American military.
The measure ignited a fierce debate among many Senate Republicans and the White House, which threatened to veto a $440 billion military spending bill if the detention amendment was tacked on, saying it would bind the president's hands in wartime. Nonetheless, the measure passed, 90 to 9, with 46 Republicans, including Bill Frist of Tennessee, the majority leader, joining 43 Democrats and one independent in favor.
More than two dozen retired senior military officers, including Colin L. Powell and John M. Shalikashvili, two former chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, endorsed the amendment, which would ban use of "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment" against anyone in United States government custody.
The President wants to veto a bill banning the use of "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment" That speaks volumes about this administration. seriously, what kind of America is this guy from?!?!
10/03/2005 14:00 #21679
My New Favorite WebsiteCategory: websites
I'm rather picky when it comes to websites and web-design, being a designer myself I quickly notice holes and flaws in design. Also I am currently taking a class at UB called Interface Design, which looks at websites from the perspective of the user, and it has made me even more critical of sites that are difficult to navigate or understand.
That being said, I really like the New Buffalo Rising site
It looks slick, but more importantly you can navigate freely through the content and find what interests you without a problem. They have given the articles categories and subcategories which allow you to find exactly the stuff that interests you, no matter when they were published. and the site is updated often, like 6-12 new articles per day.
I just realy like it I couldn't have come up with a better design myself. check it out
That being said, I really like the New Buffalo Rising site
It looks slick, but more importantly you can navigate freely through the content and find what interests you without a problem. They have given the articles categories and subcategories which allow you to find exactly the stuff that interests you, no matter when they were published. and the site is updated often, like 6-12 new articles per day. I just realy like it I couldn't have come up with a better design myself. check it out
dcoffee - 10/03/05 17:11
Thanks Jason!!! I had no idea, I guess I followed instructions a little too closely and put parenthesis in the adress.
Thanks Jason!!! I had no idea, I guess I followed instructions a little too closely and put parenthesis in the adress.
jason - 10/03/05 16:41
Hey, I like your Flickr blog but unfortunately the link that's listed here doesn't work. I always have to do some other mumbo jumbo to get to it.
Hey, I like your Flickr blog but unfortunately the link that's listed here doesn't work. I always have to do some other mumbo jumbo to get to it.
09/30/2005 21:26 #21678
Dirty TricksCategory: politics
Sheriff Howard is lashing out at WNY Media.net for a negative story they published about him.
The story was about Sheriff Howard of Erie County, and where he is getting his campaign money. He didn’t like these facts being exposed to the public so in response Howard has decided to get revenge on the website and the writer.
The article on WNY Media focuses on a recent fundraiser for the Sheriff that was cosponsored by Delacy Ford. Coincidentally Delacy Ford has been doing business with the Sheriff’s department since at least 1999, with contracts totaling at least $733,917 of taxpayer money.
This is all public information, but I guess the good Sheriff didn’t like this being exposed on WNY Media, which is a popular alternative news website like SpeakupWNY. The Sheriff feels threatened by the story, which is good, it means that WNY Media is doing their Job. The media is supposed to ask tough questions that those in power do not want to answer, they are supposed to bring facts into the light that those in power don’t want people to know. But Sheriff Howard doesn’t like people rocking his boat (or yacht), so he is lashing out against the website and it’s owner. How? He targeted their place of employment. Someone called the website owner’s place of work and said enough mean things to get that person Suspended from their job. Suspended until further notice. We speak truth to power and power reacts by threatening our source of income
We can’t let media be intimidated for doing their job, WNY Media is simply asking tough questions that the public deserves answers to. It’s $733,917 of our tax money that is being played with, we deserve to know what is going on behind the scenes. Attacking the media like this is beyond improper, any lawyers in the house?
I want everyone to be aware of the dirty tricks that are going on with the politicians in this county. Please Read the article.
“The fundraiser was hosted by the wives of Sheriff Howard's political appointees, as well as Smith Boy Marine Sales and Delacy Ford. To say the least, it’s unusual for a company with county contracts to sponsor a fundraiser. Usually they just give money. But when you want to give more money than legally allowed, what do you do in New York State? That's right, hold a fundraiser:”
More….
for a negative story they published about him. The story was about Sheriff Howard of Erie County, and where he is getting his campaign money. He didn’t like these facts being exposed to the public so in response Howard has decided to get revenge on the website and the writer.
The article on WNY Media focuses on a recent fundraiser for the Sheriff that was cosponsored by Delacy Ford. Coincidentally Delacy Ford has been doing business with the Sheriff’s department since at least 1999, with contracts totaling at least $733,917 of taxpayer money.
This is all public information, but I guess the good Sheriff didn’t like this being exposed on WNY Media, which is a popular alternative news website like SpeakupWNY. The Sheriff feels threatened by the story, which is good, it means that WNY Media is doing their Job. The media is supposed to ask tough questions that those in power do not want to answer, they are supposed to bring facts into the light that those in power don’t want people to know. But Sheriff Howard doesn’t like people rocking his boat (or yacht), so he is lashing out against the website and it’s owner. How? He targeted their place of employment. Someone called the website owner’s place of work and said enough mean things to get that person Suspended from their job. Suspended until further notice. We speak truth to power and power reacts by threatening our source of income
We can’t let media be intimidated for doing their job, WNY Media is simply asking tough questions that the public deserves answers to. It’s $733,917 of our tax money that is being played with, we deserve to know what is going on behind the scenes. Attacking the media like this is beyond improper, any lawyers in the house?
I want everyone to be aware of the dirty tricks that are going on with the politicians in this county. Please Read the article.
“The fundraiser was hosted by the wives of Sheriff Howard's political appointees, as well as Smith Boy Marine Sales and Delacy Ford. To say the least, it’s unusual for a company with county contracts to sponsor a fundraiser. Usually they just give money. But when you want to give more money than legally allowed, what do you do in New York State? That's right, hold a fundraiser:”
More….
09/26/2005 12:54 #21677
250,000 invisible peopleThere was a protest this weekend in DC. there were between 100,000 and 300,000 people there. it was the largest anti-war protest in DC since the war in Iraq began 3 years ago. but if you sneezed you might have missed the news coverage.
our news media is beyond disappointing. I don't even have the energy to go into it now. but I'll give you one example from this latest protest.There was an anti-war protest of up to 300,000 people, and there was a counter "pro-war" protest of around 100 people on the side of that protest. In almost every major American news outlet that I checked, the protest with 100 people was given more prominent coverage then the protest with 300,000 people. I checked Yahoo News at about 9:00 last night, and this was the first news story about the protest I saw, it was talking about the pro-war rally, and only made some abstract refferance to the real protest in about the 8th paragraph. about six lines below that was a story about the real protest.
go to democracy now if you want to hear what the protest was about. the entire monday show is replaying excerpts from speaches at the protest. the show can be downloaded at their website.
our news media is beyond disappointing. I don't even have the energy to go into it now. but I'll give you one example from this latest protest.There was an anti-war protest of up to 300,000 people, and there was a counter "pro-war" protest of around 100 people on the side of that protest. In almost every major American news outlet that I checked, the protest with 100 people was given more prominent coverage then the protest with 300,000 people. I checked Yahoo News at about 9:00 last night, and this
was the first news story about the protest I saw, it was talking about the pro-war rally, and only made some abstract refferance to the real protest in about the 8th paragraph. about six lines below that was a story about the real protest.go to democracy now if you want to hear what the protest was about. the entire monday show is replaying excerpts from speaches at the protest. the show can be downloaded at their website.
jason - 09/26/05 18:03
In general I agree with you guys. Obviously a big anti-war protest is a newsworthy event. When I read/view/listen to a news report I expect it to be objective and tell the facts. The media has spotty consistency when it comes to producing equal/balanced reporting.
Take for example the Sheehan phenomenon. The media wasn't at all interested in getting an opinion from families who suffered the same kind of loss, but don't share her point of view. Other than the reliably right-leaning Fox News and the various AM radio personalities you wouldn't hear from anyone else.
Now I don't expect the news outlets to push a point of view in their reports. When it comes to opinion columns, fine of course, but the regular news reports should just give us the facts of a given situation. Is that so hard? Apparently so. I share in your disappointment.
In general I agree with you guys. Obviously a big anti-war protest is a newsworthy event. When I read/view/listen to a news report I expect it to be objective and tell the facts. The media has spotty consistency when it comes to producing equal/balanced reporting.
Take for example the Sheehan phenomenon. The media wasn't at all interested in getting an opinion from families who suffered the same kind of loss, but don't share her point of view. Other than the reliably right-leaning Fox News and the various AM radio personalities you wouldn't hear from anyone else.
Now I don't expect the news outlets to push a point of view in their reports. When it comes to opinion columns, fine of course, but the regular news reports should just give us the facts of a given situation. Is that so hard? Apparently so. I share in your disappointment.
uncutsaniflush - 09/26/05 17:14
For what its worth, the New York Times covered the rallies in yesterdays "Today's Headlines" email compiled at 2 AM ET on 25 September so that I could read it when I checked my email Sunday morning.
link to story the NYTimes story: :::link:::
That being said, ironically enough, in this day and age of the internet, I find that foreign news sources such as the BBC :::link::: and the Australian ABC :::link::: and the Guardian Unlimited :::link::: are often more reliable about presenting stories of interest about events within the U.S.
And that doesn't even begin to mention independent news sources within the U.S. that are available by the web.
Of course, this does mean that people without access to computers are limited to the traditional news sources on tv, radio, and print.
For what its worth, the New York Times covered the rallies in yesterdays "Today's Headlines" email compiled at 2 AM ET on 25 September so that I could read it when I checked my email Sunday morning.
link to story the NYTimes story: :::link:::
That being said, ironically enough, in this day and age of the internet, I find that foreign news sources such as the BBC :::link::: and the Australian ABC :::link::: and the Guardian Unlimited :::link::: are often more reliable about presenting stories of interest about events within the U.S.
And that doesn't even begin to mention independent news sources within the U.S. that are available by the web.
Of course, this does mean that people without access to computers are limited to the traditional news sources on tv, radio, and print.
matthew - 09/26/05 13:40
Our local news is the same way. i watched channel 4 news last night and they did a piece on the "pro-war" demonstration before they even mentioned the "anti-war" demonstration. And when they did it was a one sentence blurb at the end of the first 3 min. piece. Is that equal/fair coverage? No.
Our local news is the same way. i watched channel 4 news last night and they did a piece on the "pro-war" demonstration before they even mentioned the "anti-war" demonstration. And when they did it was a one sentence blurb at the end of the first 3 min. piece. Is that equal/fair coverage? No.
In addition, this clip is a perfect example of NYTimes non-sensical sensationalistic drivel. Some of you made it painfully obvious that you bought into it, not necessarily because you aren't thinking for yourselves, but in essence because you either want to believe it or assumed it anyhow without actually understanding the Presidents position in full detail.
Geneva Convention applies to uniformed troops that represent a nation - this way both sides in a war are held responsible for treatment of its prisoners. Al-Queda, terrorists or other such similar groups are not considered such, and as an aside because of their status the Geneva Convention is unenforceable... and since everybody seems to forget the images of captured non-Armed Forces Americans having their heads cut off, lets not be so quick to forget that the terrorists are most certainly not concerned about "international law." Anyhow, for you paranoid freaks out there that are quick to assume that the President will in fact veto this as a result of your continuing existence in some alternate dimension, its almost certain that the President will go along with this as long as the left doesn't successfully blur the details.
What ever happened to the Geneva Convention?
What ever happened to the Geneva Convention?
In principle you are right. We have to come up with this kind of law. I think if we are going to do something like this, we shouldn't leave it in such vague terms. List A-Z the things that we are not going to do to the terrorist prisoners. Have the Senators argue about it. The way you get Bush on board is to be specific, because he is paranoid about wacko groups telling us what is and what isn't cruel and unusual (oh heavens you insulted his mama).
The texas kind