Posts Made By: Brett Wylie

Ray...your political sarcasm is seriously to much!

FYI; http://lexipal.com/article/13409

http://www.keepmedia.com/pubs/HealthDay/2004/09/21/583618?extID=10032&oliID=213

This may seem like it belongs in a health forum..but the converse of the "subject" is true, lack of exercise/activity impairs brain function. New studies showing such impairment, cannot be ignored by those concerned with the health/function & intelligence of our society at large. This has of course, economic ramifications as well. The documented lack of healthy activity among a moderate large section of American youth will have a profound effect on our society in the future.

INVESTING FOR YOUR PRIVATE SOCIAL SECURITY ACCOUNT:

----------

If you had purchased $1,000.00 of Nortel stock one year ago, it would now be worth $49.00.
-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O

With Enron, you would have had $16.50 left of the original $1,000.00.

-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O


With WorldCom, you would have had less than $5.00 left.

-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-

But, if you had purchased $1,000.00 worth of Beer one year ago, drank all the beer, then turned in the cans for the aluminum recycling REFUND, you would have had $214.00.

-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0

Based on the above, Greenspan's current investment advice is to drink heavily and recycle.

It's called the 401 Keg Plan

8O
>
> Here is Senator Byrd's statement, from yesterday's Congressional Record:
>
> Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, in 1939, one of the most famous American movies
> of all time, ``Mr. Smith Goes to Washington,'' hit the box office.
> Initially received with a combination of lavish praise and angry blasts,
> the film went on to win numerous awards and to inspire millions around the
> globe. The director, the legendary Frank Capra, in his autobiography,
> ``Frank Capra: The Name Above the Title,'' cites this moving review of the
> film, appearing in the Hollywood Reporter, November 4, 1942:
>
> Frank Capra's ``Mr. Smith Goes to Washington,'' chosen by French
> Theaters as the final English language film to be shown before the recent
> Nazi-ordered countrywide ban on American and British films went into
> effect, was roundly cheered. .....
>
> Storms of spontaneous applause broke out at the sequence when, under the
> Abraham Lincoln monument in the Capital, the word, ``Liberty,'' appeared
> on the screen and the Stars and Stripes began fluttering over the head of
> the great Emancipator in the cause of liberty.
>
> Similarly, cheers and acclamation punctuated the famous speech of the
> young senator on man's rights and dignity. ``It was ..... as though the
> joys, suffering, love and hatred, the hopes and wishes of an entire people
> who value freedom above everything, found expression for the last time.
> .....''
> For those who may not have seen it, ``Mr. Smith'' is the fictional story
> of one young Senator's crusade against forces of corruption and his
> lengthy filibuster--his lengthy filibuster--for the values he holds dear.
>
> My, how things have changed. These days, Mr. Smith would be called an
> obstructionist. Rumor has it that there is a plot afoot to curtail the
> right of extended debate in this hallowed Chamber, not in accordance with
> its rules, mind you, but by fiat from the Chair--fiat from the Chair.
>
> The so-called nuclear option--hear me--the so-called nuclear
> option--this morning I asked a man, What does nuclear option mean to you?
> He said: Oh, you mean with Iran? I was at the hospital a few days ago with
> my wife, and I asked a doctor, What does the nuclear option mean to you?
> He said: Well, that sounds like we're getting ready to drop some device,
> some atomic device on North Korea.
>
> Well, the so-called nuclear option purports to be directed solely at the
> Senate's advice and consent prerogatives regarding Federal judges. But the
> claim that no right exists to filibuster judges aims an arrow straight at
> the heart of the Senate's long tradition of unlimited debate.
>
> The Framers of the Constitution envisioned the Senate as a kind of
> executive council, a small body of legislators, featuring longer terms,
> designed to insulate Members from the passions of the day.
>
> The Senate was to serve as a check on the executive branch, particularly
> in the areas of appointments and treaties, where, under the Constitution,
> the Senate passes judgment absent the House of Representatives.
>
> James Madison wanted to grant the Senate the power to select judicial
> appointees with the Executive relegated to the sidelines. But a compromise
> brought the present arrangement: appointees selected by the Executive,
> with the advice and consent of the Senate confirmed. Note--hear me
> again--note that nowhere in the Constitution of the United States is a
> vote on appointments mandated.
>
> When it comes to the Senate, numbers can deceive. The Senate was never
> intended to be a majoritarian body. That was the role of the House of
> Representatives, with its membership based on the populations of States.
> The Great Compromise of July 16, 1787, satisfied the need for smaller
> States to have equal status in one House of Congress, the Senate. The
> Senate, with its two Members per State, regardless of population, is,
> then, the forum of the States.
>
> Indeed, in the last Congress--get this--in the last Congress 52 Members,
> a majority, representing the 26 smallest States, accounted for just 17.06
> percent of the U.S. population. Let me say that again. Fifty-two Members,
> a majority, representing the 26 smallest States--two Senators per
> State--accounted for just 17.06 percent of the U.S. population. In other
> words, a majority in the Senate does not necessarily represent a majority
> of the population of the United States.
>
> The Senate is intended for deliberation. The Senate is intended for
> deliberation, not point scoring. The Senate is a place designed, from its
> inception, as expressive of minority views. Even 60 Senators, the number
> required under Senate rule XXII for cloture, would represent just 24
> percent of the population if they happened to all hail from the 30
> smallest States.
>
> So you can see what it means to the smallest States in these United
> States to be able to stand on this floor and debate, to their utmost,
> until their feet will no longer hold them, and their lungs of brass will
> no longer speak, in behalf of their States, in behalf of a minority, in
> behalf of an issue that affects vitally their constituents.
>
> Unfettered debate, the right to be heard at length, is the means by
> which we perpetuate the equality of the States. In fact, it was 1917,
> before any curtailing of debate was attempted, which means that from 1789
> to 1917, there were 129 years; in other words, it means also that from
> 1806 to 1917, some 111 years, the Senate rejected any limits to debate.
> Democracy flourished along with the filibuster. The first actual cloture
> rule in 1917 was enacted in response to a filibuster by those people who
> opposed the arming of merchant ships. Some might say they opposed U.S.
> intervention in World War I, but to narrow it down, they opposed the
> arming of merchant ships.
>
> But even after its enactment, the Senate was slow to embrace cloture,
> understanding the pitfalls of muzzling debate. In 1949, the 1917 cloture
> rule was modified to make cloture more difficult to invoke, not less,
> mandating that the number needed to stop debate would be not two-thirds of
> those present and voting but two-thirds of all Senators elected and sworn.
> Indeed, from 1919 to 1962, the Senate voted on cloture petitions only 27
> times and invoked cloture just 4 times over those 43 years.
>
> On January 4, 1957, Senator William Ezra Jenner of Indiana spoke in
> opposition to invoking cloture by majority vote. He stated with great
> conviction:
>
> We may have a duty to legislate, but we also have a duty to inform and
> deliberate. In the past quarter century we have seen a phenomenal growth
> in the power of the executive branch. If this continues at such a fast
> pace, our system of checks and balances will be destroyed. One of the main
> bulwarks against this growing power is free debate in the Senate ..... So
> long as there is free debate, men of courage and understanding will rise
> to defend against potential dictators ..... The Senate today is one place
> where, no matter what else may exist, there is still a chance to be heard,
> an opportunity to speak, the duty to examine, and the obligation to
> protect. It is one of the few refuges of democracy. Minorities have an
> illustrious past, full of suffering, torture, smear, and even death. Jesus
> Christ was killed by a majority; Columbus was smeared; and Christians have
> been tortured. Had the United States Senate existed during those trying
> times, I am sure that these people would have found an advocate. Nowhere
> else can any political, social, or religious group, finding itself under
> sustained attack, receive a better refuge.
>
> Senator Jenner was right. The Senate was deliberately conceived to be
> what he called ``a better refuge,'' meaning one styled as guardian of the
> rights of the minority. The Senate is the ``watchdog'' because majorities
> can be wrong and filibusters can highlight injustices. History is full of
> examples.
>
> In March 1911, Senator Robert Owen of Oklahoma filibustered the New
> Mexico statehood bill, arguing that Arizona should also be allowed to
> become a State. President Taft opposed the inclusion of Arizona's
> statehood in the bill because Arizona' State constitution allowed the
> recall of judges. Arizona attained statehood a year later, at least in
> part because Senator Owen and the minority took time to make their point
> the year before.
>
> In 1914, a Republican minority led a 10-day filibuster of a bill that
> would have appropriated more than $50,000,000 for rivers and harbors. On
> an issue near and dear to the hearts of our current majority, Republican
> opponents spoke until members of the Commerce Committee agreed to cut the
> appropriations by more than half.
>
> Perhaps more directly relevant to our discussion of the ``nuclear
> option'' are the 7 days in 1937, from July 6 to 13 of that year, when the
> Senate blocked Franklin Roosevelt's Supreme Court-packing plan--one of my
> favorite presidents.
>
> Earlier that year, in February 1937, FDR sent the Congress a bill
> drastically reorganizing the judiciary. The Senate Judiciary Committee
> rejected the bill, calling it ``an invasion of judicial power such as has
> never before been attempted in this country'' and finding it ``essential
> to the continuance of our constitutional democracy that the judiciary be
> completely independent of both the executive and legislative branches of
> the Government.'' The committee recommended the rejection of the
> court-packing bill, calling it ``a needless, futile, and utterly dangerous
> abandonment of constitutional principle ..... without precedent and
> without justification.''
>
> What followed was an extended debate on the Senate floor lasting for 7
> days until the majority leader, Joseph T. Robinson of Arkansas, a
> supporter of the plan, suffered a heart attack and died on July 14. Eight
> days later, by a vote of 70 to 20, the Senate sent the judicial reform
> bill back to committee, where FDR's controversial, court-packing language
> was finally stripped. A determined, vocal group of Senators properly
> prevented a powerful President from corrupting our Nation's judiciary.
>
> Free and open debate on the Senate floor ensures citizens a say in their
> government. The American people are heard, through their Senator, before
> their money is spent, before their civil
>
> [Page: S1833]
>
> liberties are curtailed, or before a judicial nominee is confirmed for a
> lifetime appointment. We are the guardians, the stewards, the protectors
> of the people who send us here. Our voices are their voices.
>
> If we restrain debate on judges today, what will be next: the rights of
> the elderly to receive social security; the rights of the handicapped to
> be treated fairly; the rights of the poor to obtain a decent education?
> Will all debate soon fall before majority rule?
>
> Will the majority someday trample on the rights of lumber companies to
> harvest timber or the rights of mining companies to mine silver, coal, or
> iron ore? What about the rights of energy companies to drill for new
> sources of oil and gas? How will the insurance, banking, and securities
> industries fare when a majority can move against their interests and
> prevail by a simple majority vote? What about farmers who can be forced to
> lose their subsidies, or western Senators who will no longer be able to
> stop a majority determined to wrest control of ranchers' precious water or
> grazing rights? With no right of debate, what will forestall plain muscle
> and mob rule?
>
> Many times in our history we have taken up arms to protect a minority
> against the tyrannical majority in other lands. We, unlike Nazi Germany or
> Mussolini's Italy, have never stopped being a nation of laws, not of men.
>
> But witness how men with motives and a majority can manipulate law to
> cruel and unjust ends. Historian Alan Bullock writes that Hitler's
> dictatorship rested on the constitutional foundation of a single law, the
> Enabling Law.
>
> Hitler needed a two-thirds vote to pass that law, and he cajoled his
> opposition in the Reichstag to support it. Bullock writes that ``Hitler
> was prepared to promise anything to get his bill through, with the
> appearances of legality preserved intact.'' And he succeeded.
>
> Hitler's originality lay in his realization that effective revolutions,
> in modern conditions, are carried out with, and not against, the power of
> the State: the correct order of events was first to secure access to that
> power and then begin his revolution. Hitler never abandoned the cloak of
> legality; he recognized the enormous psychological value of having the law
> on his side. Instead, he turned the law inside out and made illegality
> legal.
>
> That is what the nuclear option seeks to do to rule XXII of the Standing
> Rules of the Senate.
>
> I said to someone this morning who was shoveling snow in my area: What
> does nuclear option mean to you?
>
> He answered: Do you mean with Iran?
>
> The people generally don't know what this is about. The nuclear option
> seeks to alter the rules by sidestepping the rules, thus making the
> impermissible the rule, employing the nuclear option, engaging a
> pernicious, procedural maneuver to serve immediate partisan goals, risks
> violating our Nation's core democratic values and poisoning the Senate's
> deliberative process.
>
> For the temporary gain of a handful of out-of-the-mainstream judges,
> some in the Senate are ready to callously incinerate each and every
> Senator's right of extended debate. Note that I said each Senator. Note
> that I said every Senator. For the damage will devastate not just the
> minority party--believe me, hear me, and remember what I say--the damage
> will devastate not just the minority party, it will cripple the ability of
> each Member, every Member, to do what each Member was sent here to
> do--namely, represent the people of his or her State. Without the
> filibuster--it has a bad name, old man filibuster out there. Most people
> would be happy to say let's do away with him. We ought to get rid of that
> fellow; he has been around too long. But someday that old man filibuster
> is going to help me, you, and every Senator in here at some time or other,
> when the rights of the people he or she represents are being violated or
> threatened. That Senator is then going to want to filibuster. He or she is
> going to want to stand on his or her feet as long as their brass lungs
> will carry their voice.
>
> No longer. If the nuclear option is successful here, no longer will each
> Senator have that weapon with which to protect the people who sent him or
> her here. And the people finally are going to wake up to who did it. They
> are going to wake up to it sooner or later and ask: Who did this to us?
>
> Without the filibuster or the threat of extended debate, there exists no
> leverage with which to bargain for the offering of an amendment. All force
> to effect compromise between the parties will be lost. Demands for
> hearings will languish. The President can simply rule. The President of
> the United States can simply rule by Executive order, if his party
> controls both Houses of Congress and majority rule reigns supreme. In such
> a world, the minority will be crushed, the power of dissenting views will
> be diminished, and freedom of speech will be attenuated. The uniquely
> American concept of the independent individual asserting his or her own
> views, proclaiming personal dignity through the courage of free speech
> will forever have been blighted. This is a question of freedom of speech.
> That is what we are talking about--freedom of speech. And the American
> spirit, that stubborn, feisty, contrarian, and glorious urge to loudly
> disagree, and proclaim, despite all opposition, what is honest, what is
> true, will be sorely manacled.
>
> Yes, we believe in majority rule, but we thrive because the minority can
> challenge, agitate, and ask questions. We must never become a nation cowed
> by fear, sheeplike in our submission to the power of any majority
> demanding absolute control.
>
> Generations of men and women have lived, fought, and died for the right
> to map their own destiny, think their own thoughts, speak their own minds.
> If we start here, in this Senate, to chip away at that essential mark of
> freedom--here of all places, in a body designed to guarantee the power of
> even a single individual through the device of extended debate--we are on
> the road to refuting the principles upon which that Constitution rests.
>
> In the eloquent, homespun words of that illustrious, obstructionist,
> Senator Smith, in ``Mr. Smith Goes to Washington'':
>
> Liberty is too precious to get buried in books. Men ought to hold it up
> in front of them every day of their lives and say, ``I am free--to
> think--to speak. My ancestors couldn't. I can. My children will.''
>
> I yield the floor.

:S
Statement of Sibel Edmonds
> Before the House Committee on Government Reform,
> Subcommittee on National Security, Emerging Threats and Internal Relations
> March 2, 2005
>
> Emerging Threats: Overclassification and Pseudo-classification
>
> Good afternoon, my name is Sibel Edmonds. I have been invited to provide
> you with testimony today regarding my direct experience with the use of
> excessive secrecy, rare privileges, and over-classification by the
> Department of Justice against me during the past three years. Thank you
> for giving me this opportunity. I believe that my case clearly
> illustrates how the government uses secrecy laws and classification to
> avoid accountability, to cover up problems and wrongdoing, and to gain
> unfair legal advantage in court.
>
> I began working for the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) as a
> language specialist for several Middle Eastern languages starting shortly
> after 9/11, and was granted Top Secret Clearance. During my work, I
> became aware of problems within the translation unit involving criminal
> conduct against our national interests, potential espionage, serious
> security breaches threatening our intelligence, intentional
> mistranslation, and blocking of intelligence. I was asked, and later
> ordered, to refrain from reporting these allegations. I reported them,
> together with evidence, to higher management within the bureau. They
> refused to take any action, and again, they asked me not to pursue them.
> I then took these issues and evidence to the Department of Justice Office
> of the Inspector General and to the Senate Judiciary Committee, because I
> believed that according to our laws these were the appropriate steps to
> take in this situation. As a result, I was retaliated against, was ordered
> to submit to a polygraph, and had my home computer confiscated. Finally,
> in March 2002 I was fired. The only explanation I received for getting
> fired was 'for the convenience of the government.'
>
> In March 2002, the Senate Judiciary Committee began investigating my case
> and allegations, and in June and July 2002, during two unclassified
> briefings with the staff of Senators Grassley and Senator Leahy, the FBI
> publicly confirmed all of my core allegations. These two Senators issued
> public statements and letters regarding these confirmations and my case,
> demanding expedited investigation by the Inspector General and response
> from the FBI. These letters and statements were widely disseminated in
> the media and on the Internet; including on the Senators' own websites.
> When the judge overseeing my legal cases asked the government to produce
> any unclassified materials that was relevant to the substance of my
> allegations, the government took a truly extraordinary step: it moved to
> retroactively classify these letters, statements, and news releases that
> had been public for almost two years. It is quite clear that the
> government's motivation was not to protect national security, but rather
> to protect itself from embarrassment and accountability. Senator Grassley
> characterized this retroactive classification as 'ludicrous,' and 'gagging
> the congress.'
>
> However, the Congress complied. Only after this highly unusual retroactive
> classification was challenged in court by POGO, a government watchdog
> organization, did the Department of Justice reverse itself and declare
> that this information was not considered classified and a danger to
> national security after all. I would like to request that these letters
> from Senators Grassley and Leahy be included in the record of today's
> hearing.
>
> In March 2002, the Department of Justice's Office of the Inspector General
> began investigating my allegations, and in July 2004, after almost two
> years delay, completed its investigation. The Department of Justice
> immediately moved to classify the entire report and its findings. Six
> months later, they allowed the Inspector General to release only an
> unclassified version of its executive summary. This unclassified version
> confirmed my core allegations; concluded that I was fired for reporting
> misconduct; and stated that the FBI had failed to investigate the reported
> espionage, even though other facts, witnesses and evidence supported my
> allegations. I would like to request that the Inspector General's report
> also be included in the record of today's hearing.
>
> In the summer of 2002 I also began to pursue legal remedies to challenge
> my unjust dismissal, and filed cases under First Amendment and Privacy
> Act, and the Freedom of Information Act. Rather than respond to the
> merits of my claim, in October 2002, Attorney General Ashcroft asserted a
> rarely invoked 'State Secrets Privilege', arguing that the entire case
> must be dismissed in the name of national security, even if my allegations
> were correct. The Department of Justice asked the courts to throw out the
> case without any hearings, depositions, or discovery. Even though the
> Department of Justice's own Inspector General has confirmed the
> seriousness of my allegations and concluded that I was fired for raising
> them, the DOJ has continued to insist that my case cannot go forward
> because it would jeopardize national security. So far, the DOJ has been
> successful in this effort to silence me. In June 2004, the court ruled in
> favor of this far-reaching assertion of the "state secrets privilege".
> Currently I am appealing my case, and the Department of Justice is still
> invoking the "state secrets privilege" and arguing that everything about
> my issues is covered by classification.
>
> The government invoked the state secrets privilege a second time in an
> attempt to block me from being deposed in a case brought by families of
> those killed on September 11 against Saudi individuals and entities
> alleged to have financed al-Qaeda. The government insisted that almost
> every single question that the families wished to ask me would require the
> disclosure of classified information.
>
> The problems I have reported have serious consequences to our national
> security; and have already been confirmed by the Inspector General's
> report and the inquiry of Senators Grassley and Leahy. Translation units
> are the frontline in gathering, translating, and disseminating
> intelligence. A warning in advance of the next terrorist attack may, and
> probably will, come in the form of a message or document in a foreign
> language that will have to be translated. If an attack then occurs, which
> could have been prevented by acting on information in such a message, who
> will tell family members of the new terrorist attack victims that nothing
> more could have been done? There will be no excuse that we did not know,
> because we do know.
>
> Yet, knowing full well the seriousness of these confirmed issues and
> problems, rather than addressing them the FBI and the Department of
> Justice spend time and effort to cover them up by over use of secrecy and
> excessive classification. Contrary to their claims, they seem to be far
> more concerned with avoiding accountability than protecting our national
> security. I believe that my case clearly illustrates the federal
> government's capricious use of secrecy laws and classification to cover up
> problems and wrongdoing, and to avoid accountability, regardless of the
> damage to our national security. It demonstrates as well how excessive
> secrecy and pseudo classification can be used as retaliation tactics
> against national security whistleblowers.
>
> This type of excessive classification and the effort to expand the
> "statesecrets privilege" does not increase our national security but
> actually makes us less safe and it impedes oversight of the executive
> branch, as part of the checks and balances demanded by our Constitution.
>
> Thank you again for inviting me to testify today. You are the first
> Congressional Committee after three years to request my testimony and hear
> my story. I believe this testimony is a good first step in examining this
> situation but what is really needed is an actual Congressional
> investigation. Therefore, with respect for your critical role in our
> Constitution's system of checks and balances, I request that you be the
> first Congressional Committee to investigate not just my case but what is
> going on over at the FBI and the Justice Department regarding the very
> serious problem of over-classification and the abuse of secrecy. Thank
> you.

1,2,3,4

Hrmm!

1,2...

1,2,3,4.]

Let me tell you how it will be
There's one for you, nineteen for me
Cos I'm the taxman, yeah, I'm the taxman
Should five per cent appear too small
Be thankful I don't take it all
Cos I'm the taxman, yeah I'm the taxman

If you drive a car, I'll tax the street
If you try to sit, I'll tax your seat
If you get too cold I'll tax the heat
If you take a walk, I'll tax your feet

Taxman!
Cos I'm the taxman, yeah I'm the taxman

Don't ask me what I want it for (Aahh Mr. Wilson)
If you don't want to pay some more (Aahh Mr. Heath)
Cos I'm the taxman, yeah, I'm the taxman

Now my advice for those who die
Declare the pennies on your eyes
Cos I'm the taxman, yeah, I'm the taxman

And you're working for no one but me
Taxman!

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=679&u=/usatoday/20050304/cm_usatoday/padillasindefinitedetentionputsyourrightsatrisk&printer=1


8O
Padilla's indefinite detention puts your rights at risk

Fri Mar 4, 6:13 AM ET


Picture yourself in this scenario:

You're a U.S. citizen landing at a major airport from abroad. You're pulled out of line at customs, arrested, thrown in jail for a month and then spirited off to a military prison.


Nearly three years later, you're still there, never charged with any crime. The government claims it can hold you forever without answering to any judge or court.


The scenario is not fiction. It's happening now. Only a federal judge in South Carolina is standing in the way. At stake is the constitutional guarantee of every American to be free from arbitrary imprisonment.


Jose Padilla, a U.S. citizen born in Brooklyn, N.Y., was arrested at Chicago's O'Hare Airport in May 2002. He's still being held. No charges have been filed.


Despite the clear language of the Constitution that prohibits detention without trial, the Bush administration insists that it can indefinitely hold Padilla - or anyone else it chooses - as an "enemy combatant" without trial or even formal charges.


Padilla is one of a handful of Americans known to have been swept up in the war on terror, but he is the lone suspect not released or handled by the courts. So far, he has received only indictment by press conference - and with dubious credibility at that.


The Justice Department first claimed Padilla was sent home by al-Qaeda to set off a radioactive "dirty bomb" in Washington. That scenario was downplayed last year in favor of new allegations: An alleged plan to blow up high-rise apartment buildings using natural gas. Still no charges, still no trial.


In South Carolina on Monday, U.S. District Judge Henry Floyd ordered the government to either try Padilla or let him go. Floyd, a Bush appointee, ruled that the government had failed to cite any law or legal precedent to justify holding him indefinitely.


Defenders of the administration argue that Padilla is dangerous. Putting him on trial, they say, could endanger intelligence sources that provided evidence against him.


Perhaps he is a threat. Perhaps there's reason for suspicion but not enough evidence to convict. Or perhaps the government erred in arresting him and would rather not admit it. Without a trial, there's no way to find out.


For obvious reasons, the Constitution denies the president or his aides the power to decide by themselves that a citizen can be imprisoned indefinitely without judicial review. Armed with such power, an administration could imprison its political opponents or silence them with the threat.


Yes, there is a risk that if Padilla is freed he might make trouble. But tracking potential criminals is a job intelligence and police agencies can handle. The cost of setting a precedent that presidents can jail whomever they choose would be far greater.


This case is not just about Jose Padilla. It's about every citizen's liberty. If the foundations of freedom crumble under the stresses of the war on terrorism, the terrorists will have won.

I've noticed an ongoing dispute re:how free the "press" is to report information. What would be your take on this Sonoma State project?: 8O

http://www.projectcensored.org/store/storeitems.html

http://www.projectcensored.org/

Possible definition of news: the objective reporting of factual information without attempt in anyway to sway the readers opinion of those facts>? As in "Dragnet"..."just state the facts,mam". Problem could be in the selection or non-selection of facts, just as easily of course. In other words, one can influence others by selectively reporting facts about something even though one has not expressed a subjective opinion on the matter. As an example: we could select the fatality rate in Iraq as newsworthy, which would give the American people the idea that it's not to to bad a war..and abstain from saying much about the casuality rate, which would give maybe an entirely different picture of the conflict to date. "1,500 dead" is one bit of "news", "1,500 dead and 17,000 wounded" is certainly another. Even though this selection process happens all the time in the "news reporting" section, it is every bit as much "subjective opinion" as an op/editorial..is it not?

Op/editorial:subjective viewpoint given pertaining to a grouping of facts (or lies). Attempt to sway or influence the readers opinion on the validity of the writers viewpoint.


William Clark:
"Over the past few years I have often been amazed by the degree to which the American public remains willingly uninformed, and despite my skepticism, I sometimes wonder about the validity of this statement."

("The CIA owns everyone of any significance in the major media."
--former CIA Director William Colby)

http://www.eupolitix.com/EN/Bulletins/PressReview/Items/200503/0f61a71b-c4cc-4ecf-a334-87b35a8a4d40.htm

8O http://www.eupolitix.com/EN/News/200503/bc5d1a22-6937-4ffb-bf32-655c6493ad4e.htmJapan and EU deadlock on nuclear fusion reactor


Japan has rejected Brussels proposals to hold talks aimed at resolving an ongoing dispute over where to site the world’s first nuclear fusion reactor.

Brussels research chief, Janez Potočnik called on Thursday for a breakthrough with the Japanese to ensure the continued development of fusion technology.

“Technical discussion has now gone as far as it can. I have proposed to our Japanese partners to sit together and find an acceptable compromise at a high political level,” said Potočnik.

But Satoru Ohtake, the director of fusion energy at Japan’s science and technology ministry rejected Potočnik’s offer.

“High-level political talks would be fruitless,” Reuters reported Ohtake as saying.

“If we were to hold such talks forcibly, we would only reach a deadlock.”

The dispute centres on where to situate and construct a €10 billion, international thermonuclear experimental reactor, ITER, the six partner multinational project looking to test the feasibility of nuclear fusion, as an energy source.

The EU, China and Russia favour locating ITER at Cadarache in the south of France, while Japan, South Korea and the United States are backing a site at Rokkasho-Mura on the Japanese coast.

Nuclear fusion technology promises limitless amounts of cheap, clean energy, without the problem of radioactive waste associated with today’s nuclear fission reactors.

The technology duplicates the reactions that power the sun, splitting atoms by heating hydrogen gas to 100 million degrees centigrade.

Scientist have proven that fusion technology works, but have not been able to produce a commercially viable reactor. Building ITER will solve this problem believe the six partner collaboration.

But the impasse over siting ITER is holding up development.

Potočnik said that he wanted to see construction of ITER in France beginning by the end of 2005, and would spare no effort in finding a consensus among the six negotiating parties.

“We recognise the special role that Japan has played to date and should continue to play… the EU has spared no effort and has made an offer to Japan that in all respects is comparable to the Japanese proposal,” said the Slovenian commissioner.

But Ohtake said discussions were not yet over.

“Technical discussions have not been completed yet. We must continue the discussions,” said Ohtake according to Reuters.

“Japan’s proposal is better, and is clearer in many ways than the EU proposal.”


, 8O http://www.eupolitix.com/EN/News/200503/bc5d1a22-6937-4ffb-bf32-655c6493ad4e.htmJapan and EU deadlock on nuclear fusion reactor


Japan has rejected Brussels proposals to hold talks aimed at resolving an ongoing dispute over where to site the world’s first nuclear fusion reactor.

Brussels research chief, Janez Potoènik called on Thursday for a breakthrough with the Japanese to ensure the continued development of fusion technology.

“Technical discussion has now gone as far as it can. I have proposed to our Japanese partners to sit together and find an acceptable compromise at a high political level,” said Potoènik.

But Satoru Ohtake, the director of fusion energy at Japan’s science and technology ministry rejected Potoènik’s offer.

“High-level political talks would be fruitless,” Reuters reported Ohtake as saying.

“If we were to hold such talks forcibly, we would only reach a deadlock.”

The dispute centres on where to situate and construct a €10 billion, international thermonuclear experimental reactor, ITER, the six partner multinational project looking to test the feasibility of nuclear fusion, as an energy source.

The EU, China and Russia favour locating ITER at Cadarache in the south of France, while Japan, South Korea and the United States are backing a site at Rokkasho-Mura on the Japanese coast.

Nuclear fusion technology promises limitless amounts of cheap, clean energy, without the problem of radioactive waste associated with today’s nuclear fission reactors.

The technology duplicates the reactions that power the sun, splitting atoms by heating hydrogen gas to 100 million degrees centigrade.

Scientist have proven that fusion technology works, but have not been able to produce a commercially viable reactor. Building ITER will solve this problem believe the six partner collaboration.

But the impasse over siting ITER is holding up development.

Potoènik said that he wanted to see construction of ITER in France beginning by the end of 2005, and would spare no effort in finding a consensus among the six negotiating parties.

“We recognise the special role that Japan has played to date and should continue to play… the EU has spared no effort and has made an offer to Japan that in all respects is comparable to the Japanese proposal,” said the Slovenian commissioner.

But Ohtake said discussions were not yet over.

“Technical discussions have not been completed yet. We must continue the discussions,” said Ohtake according to Reuters.

“Japan’s proposal is better, and is clearer in many ways than the EU proposal.”