MediaBias

Pres. Obama Press Conference on Health Care

noreply@blogger.com (Tim Steuber) — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 11:26:00 +0000

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Bailout Mania in America

noreply@blogger.com (Tim Steuber) — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 12:41:00 +0000

First the American taxpayer bails out AIG, and then Wall Street/Banking/Financial System itself, and now the Big Three Automakers are asking for one, and will likely get it if President-elect Obama and a Democratic-controlled Congress have any say. By the way, since when are Democrats in favor of corporate welfare? I thought that was exactly the sort of thing that everyone from Michael Moore to Joe Lieberman were staunchly against.

I don't believe the American public in general is getting a balanced diet of information on what exactly the consequences of bailing out failing companies will do to our economy long-term. Big Media continues to spread the idea that we face imminent economic catastrophe if we do not rescue any corporate CEO who asks for a little help. One word you never here uttered is inflation. How do you think the government is paying for this? Well, let me introduce you to a little something called the Federal Reserve. Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke, and Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson seem to believe that printing more $ to pay for these bailouts is completely necessary and therefore ignore any potential long-term affects of such an action.

Injecting capital directly into banks, as a big chunk of the infamous $700 billion bailout is now being used for, which by the way was not the original play laid out by Paulson. His first ingenious idea was to buy up bad debt from mortgage and insurance firms and hold onto them until the market returns to normal, and then hopefully sell them for a profit, giving the taxpayer something in return for their "investment." Nevermind the fact that in the meantime inflation would dramatically increase, thus negating any gains that would have been made if the plan succeeded. The new plan is meant to increase liquidity, relieving the credit crunch so banks and individuals are able to have access to loans again. Unfortunately, there is no sign the $ already being spent in this manner is having any affect. Furthermore, this same strategy has been utilized in Japan, yet their economy has remained stagnant for the last 15 years!

The last I checked, Socialism has largely proven itself a failed economic policy time and time again throughout 20th century history. Unlike, Nazi Germany to Communist Cuba and many countries in between, the leading economic powers of the past century have sustained a stable society based on capitalism, as defined by Adam Smith. Interestingly, Joseph Schumpeter's "Creative Destruction" process explains how the modern free market works very nicely, despite his reluctant conclusion that socialism would ultimately replace capitalism.

In any case, these bailouts must stop somewhere, because we are simply pushing our problems further down the road and placing an even bigger burden on future generations.

Today's Headlines, Pt. 1

noreply@blogger.com (Tim Steuber) — Sun, 16 Sep 2007 11:03:00 +0000

Iraq -

Greenspan Is Critical Of Bush in Memoir

Lindsey Graham's Realism

Bush can't even define 'success'

2008 Presidential Contenders -

Former General Clark Puts His Support Behind Clinton

'God, guns and gays' don't derail Giuliani lead

Sports -

Torre's use of bullpen shows Yanks playing for Wild Card

Politics minus Ethics equals Corruption

noreply@blogger.com (Tim Steuber) — Fri, 18 May 2007 13:07:00 +0000

Paul Wolfowitz, current President of the World Bank, has finally agreed to resign over the scandal dealing with special favors he gave his girlfriend who worked under him at the institution. The conflict of interest Wolfowitz found himself in seems to be a recurrent theme among former and current Bush Administration officials. Wolfowitz served as Deputy Sec. of Defene, and is credited with being the chief architect of the Iraq War, so obviously there are plenty of reaons not to like or trust the man, and reasson to question his competence and judgement on ethical issues or conflicts of interest.

However, to be fair, the man was simply following the advice of the World Bank itself when he gave his girlfriend, Shaha Riza, a raise and a promotion. The Ethics Committee of the World Bank made the recommendation in order to remove Riza from under both the direct and indirect management control of Wolfowitz. The problem is in how the actual contract was handled by Wolfowitz, and whether or not the Ethics Committee approved the final terms of the agreement. There are other legitimate issued involved here in how Wolfowitz approached his job, and his policies as President of the World Bank, which have caused some consternation among some world fiscal policy makers. Needless to say, Mr. Wolfowitz's credibility was already seriously circumspect when he was appointed by President Bush due largely to the worldwide unpopularity of the Iraq War, and the neo-conservative reputation which preceded him.

Also in Washington these days, Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez continues to be grilled and skewered by Congress over the firings of eight U.S. Attorneys. Once again, many hold Gonzalez responsible for the abuse of powers over the wiretapping program, the handling of Guantanamo Bay, and of course interrogation techniques or torture concerns. Therefore, there is understandably an effort to force the Attorney General to step down over a more easily accessible issue. Instead, so far all that has been accomplished is the resignation of the Deputy A.G. Paul J. McNulty. It seems the faulty memory of Gonzalez has miraculously returned, because now he seems to remember that Mr. McNulty was actually the one directly involved in the firings, case solved... Not!

Racism Obsession in the Media

noreply@blogger.com (Tim Steuber) — Mon, 16 Apr 2007 23:26:00 +0000

Yesterday was the 60th anniversary of Jackie Robinson's debut in the Major Leagues, breaking the color barrier in professional sports. It even predated Martin Luther King's civil rights movement, and marked a new era of social change. Unfortunately, the media has a way of killing the meaning of these historic events with their relentless coverage, in other words overkill.

For example, last week the Duke Lacrosse players accused of raping a black woman were cleared of all charges, a story the media had been devouring for the last year because of the archetypes involved. In the court of public opinion, thanks to the sensationalist coverage by the media, these innocent students were long pronounced guilty and dragged through the mud for the better part of a year.
Also recently, long-time radio show host Don Imus lost his job for his insensitive and politically incorrect 'joke' about the Rutgers women's basketball team. Once again, the media has demonstrated its ruthlessness by tearing him to shreds to guarantee his termination from the airwaves. The PC police perpetuated by the media has created an environment where the First Amendment has been severely restricted, but somehow allows for the relentless defamation of character in the 24-hour news world, superseding the larger issues of our time, including the war, and domestic issues such as health care costs.

In addition, lets not forget the infamous Michael Richards tirade of earlier this year. The point is, if you make a mistake and cross the line of what is deemed appropriate by the PC police, or are simply accused of a crime with no credible evidence which fits into a race stereotype, the media will eat you alive and spit you out with little left but your tattered reputation. If we as a society want to truly get past racism,, then the media needs to stop perpetuating the race issue in every instance possible. They must stop giving priority to the sensational stories and start elevating the public consciousness by covering the truly important and challenging issues, which unfortunately are usually the boring ones.

Congress to Surrender in Iraq

noreply@blogger.com (Tim Steuber) — Mon, 26 Mar 2007 21:57:00 +0000

The House of Representatives passed a bill on Friday by a margin of 218-212 for funding of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, but which also includes the provision for the withdrawal of all combat troops by September 1, 2008 at the latest. It now appears the Senate will pass a similar bill with the goal of removing troops by March 31, 2008, but without making it a requirement. A compromise bill between the House and Senate could result in a set "surrender" date for the President to veto, as he has promised to do. Unfortunately, the Pentagon has estimated it will run out of funding for the wars by next month without the $100 billion in emergency funds.

The House bill may have been a political victory for Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic majority, but certainly it will amount to nothing in the long term because a two-thirds majority vote to override a Presidential veto is highly unlikely in the closely divided Congress. A new funding bill will ultimately be passed minus any set dates for troop withdrawal, and the war in Iraq will continue to its inevitable Vietnam-like conclusion.

The Privatized Bureaucracy

noreply@blogger.com (Tim Steuber) — Wed, 07 Mar 2007 13:12:00 +0000

Controversy surrounding neglect at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington D.C. sheds new light on outsourcing government work to private contractors. The sheer amount of paper work required to use the facilities would irritate a completely health person, let alone a severely wounded or impaired soldier. A common complaint about "Big Government" is that their is too much red tape or paper work, creating the system that makes up the federal bureaucracy. What most people fail to realize is that large corporations have their own internal bureaucracy that is often just as cumbersome and irritating to deal with as a government bureaucracy.

So why is it conservatives in particular prefer the "efficiency" of the free market system to solve problems rather than relying on government institutions? It seems they forget private contractors which win the bids for outsourced government work can be just as inefficient and ineffective in dealing with the task at hand. We have seen evidence of this again and again over the last 6 years, including Iraq reconstruction, building a 9/11 memorial, cleaning up New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina, the Abu Ghraib prison, and now the Walter Reed Army Medical Center. In each of these cases, at least some of the work involved was outsourced to private contractors by the government to the lowest bidder often with little to no competition, and usually to the largest corporation in a particular field. The results speak for themselves. How many more of these scandals involving private contractors doing outsourced government work are there going to be before people realize that corporate bureaucracy is no better than government red tape? At least there is oversight over the government bureaucracy which lies at the feet of Congress. Unfortunately, there is no real parallel in terms of oversight in the corporate world.

Iraq Resolution: The Irony of Symbolic Politics

noreply@blogger.com (Tim Steuber) — Mon, 05 Feb 2007 08:27:00 +0000

Unfortunately, Republican Senator John Warner's non-binding resolution, although well intended, will do nothing to stop a planned troop increase in Iraq. Everyone knows just how stubborn President Bush can be when he has made a decision, and he is extremely unlikely to cave in to political pressure, even if it comes from within his own party. The resolution is actually a bipartisan compromise that is intended to gauge support for any future Congressional act withholding the funding necessary to deploy additional troops to Baghdad and Al Anbar province. The planned operation has been referred to as both a troop 'surge' and as an escalation of the war, but the irony is troop levels will be no more than they were at its highest point of this war. Therefore this 'surge' is merely a symbolic gesture on the part of the Bush Administration. If you confront a symbolic shift in tactics with a symbolic resolution, whom do you believe will win out? Nobody in Iraq. Get Real U.S. Congress, use the power of the purse and pass something with teeth!

Iraq and the 2008 Election: Take This Blog and Skim It

noreply@blogger.com (Tim Steuber) — Sat, 03 Feb 2007 01:39:00 +0000

Climate change, economic inequality, health care... has President Bush turned liberal? Judging from some of the topics discussed in the State of the Union speech and since then, one might think so. It seems the Administration wants to reach out to the new Democratic majority in Congress and actually work together to get us out of the disaster area formerly known as Iraq. 21,500 more troops; too little too late, says most people who actually know what they are talking about, including some Republicans such as Senator John Warner. The troop surge would only return the total to where it was a couple years ago, so the only hope for this plan is that where they are placed matters more than the actual number being sent. What will the next President have to deal with come 2009 when he/she takes office?

Obama, Clinton, Biden, Edwards, Brownback, Vilsack, McCain, Giuliani.... whomever it is, Iraq will still be in chaos and America will remain entrenched with no end in sight. So, are you going to base your vote solely on which one you believe is the better Christian, or someone who actually has a chance to win the peace in Iraq? The candidate who will best protect the free market and corporate interests or the candidate who will best forge alliances to help rebuild Iraq? Perhaps the one who deserves your vote is somebody who has actual experience and competency with military and diplomatic issues as opposed to someone who simply makes decisions based on his own personal beliefs and convictions, disregards logical advice, and ignores public opinion. That candidate could be from either the Republican or Democratic party, but not from the "compassionate" neo-conservative right-wing or the socialistic, left-wing like Rep. Dennis Kucinich. However, if you insist on being that one-issue voter, please make it about Iraq. I don't think all the abortions in the world will surpass the total number of casualties in both human lives there and fiscal costs to future generations here, nor will the benefits of having a pro-life president surpass the benefits of a stable Iraq in the Middle East in the long term. Similarly, I don't believe pro-capitalist, free market policies alone will do anything to benefit our efforts in rebuilding Iraq. Base your decision on logic and reason, not just your "heart" or "gut feeling" about how Christ-like your candidate is, because I don't want to bet on the Rapture or the Apocalypse saving us from Iraq, would you?

Consequence of the Bush 9/11 Agenda

noreply@blogger.com (Tim Steuber) — Fri, 10 Mar 2006 12:21:00 +0000

DPW pulled out of the deal to manage a terminal at six U.S ports after it became apparent that Congress had the votes to block the business transaction. Protectionism and racism are slowly becoming melded together in U.S. policy just like domestic economics and foreign investment are being blurred through globalization. Ironically, President Bush and his Administration found themselves on the rational side of a debate that deals with fear-mongering in post-9/11 America.. This is the same administration that has used the events of September 11th, 2001 to their political advantage at every opportunity that presented itself. Fear has been the centerpiece of the President’s foreign policy and domestic security agenda.

First, immediately following 9/11, the far reaching PATRIOT Act was enacted and justified out of fears of terrorists infiltrating our borders, despite the fact that none of the new provisions would have prevented the attacks had they been in place. Then, we were told that Iraq was an imminent threat because Saddam had reconstituted WMD programs, and had connections to al-Qaeda to justify the invasion without U.N. support thereby creating the doctrine of preemptive war. Further, in conducting the war on terrorism, prisoner abuse scandals surfaced at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay. Later, we learned torture conducted by the CIA and other agencies around the world was deemed necessary in order to extract critical information, no matter how unreliable that info turned out to be, the Geneva Convention be damned. Recently, it was revealed that the NSA was conducting domestic wiretapping of telephone calls with foreign origin authorized by President Bush that bypassed the FISA courts and the need for warrants, with no attempts to update the FISA program to make the wiretapping legal.

Now, when the security of our sea ports are apparently at stake, the President only learns of the deal between P&O and DPW through the media, and expresses support because of the advice of his administration who conducted the review of the business transaction deemed there was little national security risk in allowing the UAE owned company to manage a terminal at six ports. In fact, anybody connected with the actual operations of our sea ports universally agree that the transaction is of little consequence to security, because little would actually change. Nevertheless, the fear mongering continued, exacerbated by the media, swallowed up by the American people, and finally Congress, with the 2006 elections looming and the President’s approval rating floundering. In essence, President Bush got caught in his own fear based backlash which could have dire consequences to our future economic stability, because it will scare away foreign investment and further alienate the modernized Arab world, allies we badly need to fight the global war on terrorism. Bush successfully alienated many of our western allies with the invasion of Iraq, yet has maintained the importance of having moderate Muslim allies in Pakistan, the UAE, and Saudi Arabia. Unfortunately, a majority of Americans have already fallen under the spell of isolationism, protectionism, anti-globalization, fear-mongering, and the quasi-legal tactics used to superficially give them a sense of security while sacrificing a little of their forgotten values and freedoms that are uniquely American. The moral of this story: Do not fear the facts!

Quotes to ponder:
“What luck for the rulers that men do not think.” – Adolph Hitler

“They that can give up essentially liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” – Benjamin Franklin

On Second Thought...

noreply@blogger.com (Tim Steuber) — Thu, 23 Feb 2006 13:40:00 +0000

I formally retract the statements I made in my previous blog entry. Having fallen into the trap of mass hysteria and fear monograms by the media, I failed to give this story time to breathe, and therefore posted my opinion in ignorance. The ports deal is simply a business transaction that is becoming commonplace in today's global economy. The fact is most of our ports are at least partly managed by foreign companies, including China. The case against this ports deal has turned into little more than ethnic bigotry and pure ignorance of seaport security and management. There will be no changes to security procedures at the six ports that DPW is buying from P&O. U.S. Customs and Border Protection will still be screening what goes in and out of the country. There will be no terrorists being hired or sneaking into our country through these ports as a result of this transaction. One legitimate argument is that DPW is a government controlled entity and not publicly traded, but that has little affect on how the business will operate.

Sorry folks but President Bush is right about this one. Unless a legitimate security concern surfaces during a Congressional investigation into this deal, there is no reason to believe that this Administration is jeopardizing our national security in allowing this deal to happen. The president may have been out of the loop on this, since he only found out about this deal a few days ago, but it appears the necessary steps have been taken to ensure that there were no national security issues with this deal. Nonetheless, Congress is doing its job by calling for greater transparency and further scrutiny of this transaction. It is a global economy; multinational corporations and foreign investment are necessary components of globalization and inter-dependence. Outsourcing is also a major characteristic, and continues to be a concern. However, Americans must learn to adapt to the realities of the global economy no matter how painful the transition because nothing can stop it. This controversy over ports management should shift to a discussion on how to deal with globalization effectively without sacrificing our ideals or national identity while maintaining our security. In other words, a concern about seaport security is an issue separate from a simple business transaction, although greater transparency is necessary.

National Insecurity

noreply@blogger.com (Tim Steuber) — Mon, 20 Feb 2006 12:24:00 +0000

The Bush Administration have approved the sale of the British firm Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation Co., which managed six U.S. seaports in New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, Philadelphia, New Orleans, and Miami, to Dubai Ports World of the United Arab Emirates (UAE). In case you didn't get that, ask Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff how the administration could allow the management of our national security to be sold to a company in Dubai, which was used as an operational and financial base by terrorists, and is directly adjacent to Saudi Arabia, home to 15 of 19 of the 9/11 hijackers. Chertoff claims that after a classified review of the national security implications of this sale, it was determined to be safe. This is coming from the same man put in charge of the bureaucratic boondoggle known as the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

No one has forgotten what happened during Hurricane Katrina, when the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) failed to act quickly to the disaster unfolding in the gulf coast. However, many are not aware that FEMA is under the umbrella of the DHS and Secretary Chertoff, whom former FEMA director Michael Brown reported. A recent report by a Congressional committee on Hurricane Katrina found that the response by the DHS and Sec. Chertoff to the disaster was inadequate and lacked initiative among other things. The DHS is responsible for the federal response to both natural disasters and acts of terrorism on our soil, requiring decisive leadership, and a quick response with immediate resources made available to the affected area. Unfortunately, the level of red tape in the newly created DHS is a terrible hindrance on its effectiveness. Nonetheless, there is no excuse for poor leadership in the face of a disaster at any level of government, and accountability is crucial to a healthy democracy. Chertoff could use some leadership advice from the former mayor of New York City Rudy Giuliani.

In any case, I do not believe many Americans would be comfortable with any foreign entity given the responsibility to manage seaport security in the U.S., let alone a company based in the Middle Eastern country of the UAE. Additionally, I do not believe many will care that the Bush Administration considers the UAE to be allies in the war on terror, especially given the track record of that part of the world. Is it necessary to mention that Pakistan and Saudi Arabia are also “allies” of this administration, who are known to have extensive terrorism activities within their own borders? Do we really want to put our trust in a company that could potentially be infiltrated by members of al-Qaeda? Perhaps President Bush feels overconfident with the National Security Agency (NSA) illegal wiretapping program to stop any such occurrence. Happy President's Day!

Bush-Abramoff Photo Op

noreply@blogger.com (Tim Steuber) — Sun, 12 Feb 2006 13:00:00 +0000

Today the Kickapoo tribal leader from Texas, Chief Raul Garza, released the first photo with President Bush and Jack Abramoff in the same room to The New York Times. Abramoff was seeking a contract with Garza and his Casino, and set up the opportunity for Garza to attend a meeting at the White House for state legislators on May 9, 2001 supporting the Bush tax cut. Abramoff appears in the background as the President is shaking Garza’s hand.

Apparently, there are additional photographs, which have yet to be released that suggest some contact between Bush and Abramoff. However, since there is no proof former lobbyist Jack Abramoff had any influence in policy making for the Bush Administration, the presumption of innocence is justified. Any intelligent person must recognize the fact that the President of the United States will have his picture taken thousands of times with various individuals whom have no connection with him. However, a conspiracy theorist would presume that since there are photos that have Bush and Abramoff in the same room they must have had dealings with one another. That line of thought is completely ridiculous in the context of today’s open society that includes the tabloid saturation of virtually all mass media content. A picture may be worth a thousand words, but what they are saying is in the eye of the beholder absent any definitive proof.

Click on the title of this blog entry to see the photograph for yourself and the source article.

Truthiness

noreply@blogger.com (Tim Steuber) — Fri, 10 Feb 2006 13:41:00 +0000

I am sorry to disappoint all those liberal readers out there, but the recent news of Ex-Cheney Staffer I. Lewis Libby allegedly testifying he was ordered to leak classified information may not be what it appears. As in most cases of a legal nature, it is much more complicated then that. Like it or not, the way many of the major media outlets are reporting on this story is sensational in nature, and without any solid proof to back up the claims. In fact, it is almost as if every journalist has taken a page out of Michael Moore's book on how to juxtapose and arrange information in a way that portrays the "bad guy" in a bad light. For all of you have seen any of his films, I urge you to also watch "Michael Moore Hates America," a film by Michael Wilson of Minneapolis, MN. The negativity and sensationalism must end, and real positive solutions to obvious problems need to be brought forth in its place.

The five big corporations may indeed own most of the major media, but they hire liberal journalists whose only job is to sell the product of information to the public. Unfortunately, the cheapest and most efficient way to do that, thanks to the free market, is sensationalism. Making judgments before we have all the facts is irresponsible, and the public should be allowed to reach their own conclusions once those facts are available, not be force fed it by half-baked sensational stories filled with half-truths, innuendos, and an assumption of guilt until proven innocent. The court of public opinion has been hijacked by those who want you to believe what they believe, and do not want you to draw your own conclusions, because that would be dangerous.

State of the News

noreply@blogger.com (Tim Steuber) — Thu, 02 Feb 2006 01:16:00 +0000

Yesterday was a big news day: Alan Greenspan's last day as Chairman of the Federal Reserve, Judge Samuel Alito confirmed as Associate Supreme Court Justice, and the President delivered his sixth State of the Union address. What you may not have heard was that anti-War activist Cindy Sheehan was invited to attend by Rep. Lynn Woolsey, D-Cal. and had a ticket for Gallery 5, Seat 7, Row A. She was removed from the chambers because she was wearing a T-shirt that read “2,245 Dead, How Many More?" She was charged with a misdemeanor for violating House chamber rules, but the charges of "unlawful conduct" were later dropped by the police.

In addition, as is tradition, the Democrats responded to the President's State of the Union, this time with newly elected Virginia governor Tim Kaine. The obvious message being conveyed by Kaine was "there is a better way," and supposedly, the Democrats are the ones to provide it. Unfortunately, Kaine never gave specific alternatives, only criticism, for the Bush Administration's policies, giving credibility to President Bush's jab at the Dems in his address that "hindsight is not wisdom, and second-guessing is not a strategy." The clear lack of leadership and a positive message will continue to cripple the Democratic Party, no matter how much the President's Administration mismanages its foreign policy or domestic agenda. (P.S. Pay no attention to Bush's proclamation of the American addiction to oil; nothing will be done to begin addressing it under this Administration.)

Samuel Alito replaces Justice Sandra O'Connor, the first woman appointed, and often the decisive vote on a split bench of the U.S. Supreme Court. Alito's nomination was opposed primarily because it was feared the balance of the court would be shifted towards a strong conservative direction, away from a moderate court under Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justice O'Connor. John Robert's nomination was not as highly contested because he was a conservative replacing another conservative in Rehnquist. Nonetheless, the President of the United States is granted the duty in the Constitution to appoint justices to the Supreme Court, with approval of the Senate. In fact, President Clinton appointed two liberal members to the court, Justice Ginsberg and Justice Breyer, with near unanimous support by the Republican controlled Senate.

Alan Greenspan, who served 18 years as Chairman of the Federal Reserve, was appointed by Ronald Reagan, and reaffirmed by Presidents H.W. Bush, Clinton, and W. Bush. Ben Bernanke was appointed by President Bush to replace Greenspan, perhaps the most famous Fed. Reserve Chairman and considered to be on of the best ever to have served at the position because of his laisseze-faire philosophy to the free market, and his record of short recessions, and the longest economic prosperity interval in the 1990s thanks to his timing of interest rate manipulation. Bernanke is expected to follow a similar approach to the economy. Stay tuned for a return to the gold standard after a collapse of the Reserve system due to massive debt! (Read Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged", Greenspan's favorite novel.)

Bush to Palestinians: Good for you!

noreply@blogger.com (Tim Steuber) — Sat, 28 Jan 2006 12:59:00 +0000

On Thursday, for those of you who do not pay any attention to international news, (unfortunately typical for many Americans), Hamas, a terrorist organization posing as a political party, won a strong majority in the Palestinian Parliament. Apparently, Palestinians felt that the Fatah party was not doing enough to establish a Palestinian state and wipe out the nation of Israel. There was almost a universal reaction to this fair democratic election, shock and awe. However, President Bush chose not join the rest of the human race in expressing displeasure with the choice made by the Palestinian people to give Hamas control of the Palestinian parliament. In fact, Mr. Bush essentially praised the Palestinian people for giving a well-known terrorist organization control of their government.

What the heck is going on here? This same man has made it his personal mission to spread democracy across the Middle East by any means necessary. I guess he has his wish, except the catch is a democratically elected Hamas. Does the President really believe it is OK for a terrorist group to have control of a democratically elected government? What would have happened if a similar result had occurred in Iraqi elections while at the same time American troops were attempting to provide security? Does anybody really believe that this President would have simply proclaimed it was the right of the Iraqi people to give control of their legislature to extremists? Maybe the party platform of Hamas is not clear enough for President Bush, which calls for the destruction of Israel, anti-Americanism, and Islamic fundamentalism, not to mention being one of the most prominent terrorist groups in the world, second to al-Qaeda. Why did not President Bush simply denounce this election and hold the Palestinians accountable for this faux pas like the rest of the world, not to mention his own cabinet? Does the establishment of a Palestinian state remain a goal for Mr. Bush? Imagine a democratically elected government both sponsoring terrorism and backed by President Bush, how ironic!

Lobbying Reform: K Street Style

noreply@blogger.com (Tim Steuber) — Wed, 18 Jan 2006 23:58:00 +0000

This sudden movement to reform lobbying practices in Washington has a peculiar feel to it. First, Congressmen are walking around acting like they are in shock from all the recent scandals, because they have never happened before. They are talking about this being the most corrupt Congress in our history and proposing new restrictions on lobbying that feeds the “culture of corruption.” The problem is these Congressmen are part of the problem, and corruption has been around long before many of them were born. They are trying to convince us that this is a new and unique situation, and that there proposals will somehow prevent future scandals involving lobbyists and lawmakers. The Democrats are especially being disingenuous when they claim this problem is purely a Republican scandal, because they are in the minority. They act like the Democrats have always been in the minority, not acknowledging that their party prior to the 1994 mid-term elections, were the majority for many years, and lost that majority for the same "culture of corruption" that has now been created under Republican leadership. The Abramoff scandal has shed new light on a very old problem. Ironically, none of the new proposals by either party would have prevented the Abramoff situation from occurring, because everything he did is in fact currently illegal. All the fixes being proposed by the current corrupt lawmakers address currently legal and common practices by lobbyists and their lawmaking cohorts.

The only thing truly unique about the current corruption under Republican leadership is something called the K Street Project, dating back to 1995 and championed by former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay. This project rewards lobbyists with influence in drafting legislation in return for contributions to fund-raising specifically for the Republican Party and for hiring Republicans to top positions in their lobbying firms. The direct link between Wall Street corporate interests and Washington Republican lawmakers via Washington lobbyists has never been more blatant or disgustingly appalling. While this practice continues, it has never been as robust as it was under Rep. Tom DeLay’s leadership before his indictments and resignation of his leadership position in the House. Additionally, the K Street Project essentially allowed businesses to write government regulations benefiting their own industry, as was allegedly the case under Dick Cheney’s energy task force. Whatever is good for the capitalists must also be good for Democracy, right? In that case, if all corporations are trustworthy enough to regulate their own industry, and are beholden to no one except their own share holders, why even have a government? We don’t need an overarching bureaucracy watching over other narrowly interested corporate bureaucracies, right? Just ask Tom DeLay and Jack Abramoff.

Domestic Surveillance

noreply@blogger.com (Tim Steuber) — Mon, 16 Jan 2006 14:25:00 +0000

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) was created in 1978, and intended to give the President the power to wire-tap telephone conversations relating to suspected criminal activity of foreign origin. President Bush has correctly argued that FISA is outdated and too restrictive in the post-9/11 world. However, the President is given incredible leeway to obtain a warrant in order to legally wire-tap. Not only does the President have a 72 hour emergency window after a wire-tap to get a warrant from a judge, which are rarely rejected, in war time the President has 15 days to notify Congress without the need for a warrant, and can then ask for an indefinite extension to continue the surveillance legally. Unfortunately, the President decided against approaching a judge or Congress after 9/11 to invoke his FISA powers in the interest of national security. He violated the separation of powers as defined in the Constitution and broke the law. This behavior is decidedly not conservative because it is an unequivocal expansion of federal and executive authority.

The argument made by the President to justify his actions may be well intended and honorable on its face, but why didn’t he simply get a warrant, which he most certainly would have been granted immediately following 9/11? The secret FISA court grant wire-tapping warrants ex post facto on a regular basis, and rarely challenge such requests. President Bush argues that FISA would not act quickly enough for the number of warrants that would have been required, and Congress may not have granted all of his requests for reforming and updating surveillance rules. President Bush has not even made an attempt to improve FISA, like what was done for domestic law enforcement and intelligence gathering through the PATRIOT Act, which was passed into law in a matter of days after 9/11. Congress would have easily and quickly approved any changes to FISA the President requested in the days following 9/11, maybe even having it as a part of the PATRIOT Act. All it would have taken was a submission by the President to Congress outlining the provisions he would like to see in the revised act. Why didn’t President Bush and his Administration propose FISA reform four years ago when the domestic surveillance began and subsequently became illegal with no congressional or judicial oversight?

Bush Becoming a "Compassionate" Conservative?

noreply@blogger.com (Tim Steuber) — Thu, 12 Jan 2006 12:53:00 +0000

I must give the President some credit over the last couple of months for the various speeches he has made where he has been more open to moderate criticism of his Iraq policy. This is most certainly in stark contrast to the overall attitude the Administration has stubbornly held ever since the very beginning. The perception that the neoconservatives had effectively hijacked the Republican Party and the Bush Administration had gradually gained credibility up until now. Although there remain some stubborn elements within the Administration, particularly Mr. Rumsfeld, and Mr. Cheney, President Bush appears determined to change this perception and assert "compassionate" conservatism as he had promised during his 2000 campaign. This new direction by the President really began shortly after Hurricane Katrina when the President boldly promised massive aide to rebuild New Orleans and the affected areas. When President Bush took responsibility for the failure of the federal government to respond quickly enough, and then followed up with concessions about failures in his Iraq policy in recent speeches, it demonstrated his "compassionate" conservative side.

However, yesterday the President took a step backwards by attempting to set boundaries for the debate over the Iraq war. He disingenuously grouped the extreme left who talk about conspiracies for oil and the alliance with Israel as reasons for going to war, with moderates who blame the intelligence community for mishandling the information pertaining to WMDs in Iraq. You cannot have it both ways, Mr. President. Either the American people are allowed to express their dissenting views in times of war openly and without fear of being accused of providing comfort to the enemy, or all dissenting opinions or suggestions are disregarded and a change of course in the tides of war is blocked, therefore preventing any possibility of success in Iraq.

I believe the most recent remarks accusing certain dissenters of aiding the enemy is purely a political move to scare swing voters into keeping Republicans in power for the upcoming midterm congressional elections, because otherwise those Democrats will cause failure in Iraq by pulling out before the job is done. The problem with the argument is that in fact a majority of Democrats in Congress are not in favor of leaving Iraq on a whim. The votes tallied that were opposed to the Iraq Resolution presented by Republican Senator Duncan Hunter in response to Democrat Senator John Murtha's call for redeployment of the troops prove this point. Although many liberals may prefer a quicker withdrawal from Iraq than the President, including DNC chairman Howard Dean, this is not indicative of any effort by Democrats on the Hill to end this war before the Iraqi government is stable enough to handle its own security.

We all want the same thing, which is success in Iraq. Even the harshest critics of Bush's Iraq policy, which include former members of his Administration, not just Democrats, want America to succeed in making Iraq stable and secure, but may have another way to go about it. All the criticism and dissent over Iraq is about bringing alternative ideas and strategies at a critical juncture of this war. Now is not the time to play politics by accusing these patriotic Americans of aiding the enemy, Mr. President. Please get back on board your train of compassionate conservatism and keep an open mind to the criticism that may provide an alternative route to true victory.

A New Year For Corporate America

noreply@blogger.com (Tim Steuber) — Wed, 11 Jan 2006 13:28:00 +0000

After taking a month off from my blog, I have decided taking a break from politics can do wonders for the spirit. In the future, I plan to keep my individual blog entries shorter in hopes that I will have the energy and motivation to write more frequently.

Now that the "War on CHRISTmas" is over, we can move on to more important issues, such as the Supreme Court confirmation hearings for Judge Alito. It never ceases to amaze me the amount of garbage that comes out of the mouths of ideologues who are dead set on a particular viewpoint, regardless of any evidence that may serve to undermine their arguments. In general, paranoia, cynicism, stubbornness, ignorance, and apathy seem to be the primary characteristics of such individuals and groups. In fact, just about any special interest group could be found guilty of spreading empty rhetoric or misleading propaganda that has little supporting evidence at one time or another. I believe this to be the case from both the supporters and opposition groups to Judge Alito's confirmation to the U.S. Supreme Court. Whenever these groups run an ad about Alito, they manage to leave out details that may lead the viewer or listener to a different conclusion than what they intend. One way to discern the truth is to do the research, such as at FactCheck.org. Unfortunately, not many citizens seem to have the time, energy, or motivation to question what they hear in the media, especially if what they hear fits their own particular point of view. This problem of bias is difficult to overcome and perhaps inherent to human nature, but is only reinforced by how media ownership is currently structured.

Nevertheless, media reform is an ongoing process, and will take time. I like to think I play a small part in this, but that may be wishful thinking. Anybody who reads my blog should remember that I can't change things on my own, but writing can inspire others to join in and create a real movement of change. My intention is not to destroy capitalism or corporations, just to bring about a broader involvement from informed citizens in the process of making public policy decisions shaping our media, rather than leaving it up to the corrupt technocrats in Washington.

Corporate Immigration

noreply@blogger.com (Tim Steuber) — Tue, 29 Nov 2005 12:15:00 +0000

President Bush made a speech on his new plan to improve our immigration policy, which has not been altered since 1986. He spoke of a new guest worker program to allow current illegal immigrants to be granted temporary worker status for three years, which would cover approximately 11 million aliens, and then forcing their return home. This new tougher stance is in direct contrast to the president’s proposal two years ago that spoke of granting amnesty to illegals, which Mr. Bush now opposes. It appears Republican lawmakers are looking for an even tougher approach towards immigration in order to appear stronger on border security. However, both parties are deeply divided on this issue, and it really goes beyond ideology and partisan politics. Some are calling for an immediate deportation of illegals in order for them to apply for the guest worker program. Others, including Republican Senator John McCain and Democratic Senator Ted Kennedy have proposed legislation that would grant illegal immigrants work visas for up to six years, at which point they must leave the U.S. or be in the process of obtaining permanent residency via a green card.

The guest-worker program was first proposed by President Bush in January 2004, and has been sharply criticized by many from both parties because of the belief it will enable illegal immigrants to obtain legal status. Bush has been tactical in ensuring any immigration policy does not alienate Hispanic voters, or businesses which rely on illegal immigrants for its work force. These political pressures are likely to keep any real strong solution to the illegal immigration problem from developing. Border security is a concern for all of us, especially since 9/11. The vast majority of illegals are from Mexico, and Bush’s proposals to increase border security and expand detainment facilities for illegal crossers are hardly a solution for combating terrorism. All of the terrorists who entered the country before 9/11 did so legally, many via a Passport by plane or at the Canadian border by car, none crossed over the Mexican border, although there is always that possibility in the future. There is no practical plan that would ensure such an event would not happen, due to finite resources and our vast borders. The illegal immigrants currently working here are deemed necessary by some corporate interests to keep labor costs down and ensure healthy profits, and therefore a guest-worker program would benefit not only the illegals, but the businesses who hire them. Enforcement of current immigration laws which ban companies from hiring illegals is not in the interests of well organized and politically powerful businesses. They put a huge amount of pressure on politicians to back off on enforcing the law, and as a result reap the benefits of undocumented low wage labor with reduced healthcare costs and payroll taxes. These abuses have been exposed recently by the Wal-Mart scandal, although frequently small business owners have also been guilty of hiring undocumented workers because they cannot afford to pay higher wages to compete with big business.

A sure fire solution to the problem is simple, but will not happen within the context of the corporate controlled political landscape. By dramatically increasing and enforcing penalties, fines, and prison sentences for business owners who are caught hiring undocumented illegal aliens, and putting them on public trial, the incentive to hire illegals will disappear. The penalties imposed must far exceed any economic benefit these business owners derive from hiring illegal immigrants. If no one will hire them, the immigrants coming to the U.S. illegally will lose their incentive to cross the border. However, legal immigration could be encouraged through increased access and outreach towards those seeking a better life in America. Those aliens entering illegally today looking for work are not doing so because they are too lazy to apply for a visa, since many have proven to be hard working and willing to take manually intensive jobs, the problem has been a lack of access to legal immigration services. Perhaps a little less xenophobia on the part of some Americans could go along way towards easing a legal transition for immigrants to assimilate into our culture and a better way of life.

Iraq Withdrawal Resolution

noreply@blogger.com (Tim Steuber) — Tue, 22 Nov 2005 13:52:00 +0000

Rep. John Murtha, D-PA, a former Marine and a well respected member of the Armed Services Committee in the House, introduced a plan to pull out our military from Iraq within 6 months, citing a belief that we can no longer win militarily. The problem with this idea is we must win. We broke it, so now we have to fix it on behalf of the Iraqis and their neighbors, even if they don’t want us too. Murtha deserves nothing but respect for having the guts to come out and call for a change in direction for Iraq, which is sorely needed. Although the House debated this issue on Friday, the bill actually voted down was a Republican version introduced by Duncan Hunter that would have called for an immediate withdrawal of our troops from Iraq. The strategy used by the majority party was a ploy to make illegitimate any notion of leaving Iraq prematurely and staying the course the President has set. However, there is no doubt that something must be done to reverse the course of this war, and pave the way for an Iraqi government to take charge of its own security. Our current course has left American soldiers in a position of attrition. The troops clear out the insurgents in an Iraqi city, leave, and the insurgents simply return to refortify their position. The borders of Iraq also remain porous, especially along the Syrian border. There are simply not enough troops to secure the borders from foreign terrorist incursions. Unfortunately, the Secretary of Defense has resisted any alteration to the current strategy.

What needs to happen is the right-wingers need to stop attacking their criticizers and start devising an overwhelming force that includes more troops from allied nations in order to secure Iraq long enough to rebuild its own security forces and infrastructure. The costs Americans are burdened with will overwhelm future generations in the form of a massive national debt and a weakened economy if this administration does not find a way to bring in international relief for Iraq. The failure of the war strategy, the intelligence misinformation, and prewar miscalculations of the difficulty of stabilizing a post-Saddam Iraq is now irrelevant. The war hawks need to understand they made a mistake, apologize, and move on by making things right in Iraq, and getting our troops home when the job is done. The global war on terror cannot possibly proceed without a stable democracy in Iraq at this point, and a war of words is not going to make this happen. Put up or shut up already Mr. Cheney, Mr. Rumsfeld, Ms. Rice, and Mr. President. Same goes to those Democrats who don’t seem to have a viable plan to get Iraq stabilized. Everyone needs to just shut up and listen to Mr. McCain. Start a draft if you have to, just get it done!

Access to Intelligence

noreply@blogger.com (Tim Steuber) — Mon, 14 Nov 2005 01:11:00 +0000

On Veteran’s Day, President Bush made a speech strikingly similar to one he made a couple months ago in order to regain public confidence in the war in Iraq with one major exception. Bush launched a scathing attack on the Democrats who have accused him of misleading the American people into the war, arguing that it is “deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how that war began.” Although it is true that the anti-war movement and the extreme left are perhaps guilty of being unfair in their attacks on the war for failing to acknowledge Congressional complicity with the war, mainstream Democrats and moderate liberals have been fair in calling the conduct and strategy of the war into question and indicating in hindsight the lack of adequate evidence for WMDs in Iraq should have been more closely examined prior to the war. Bush failed to point out that the war resolution that “more than a hundred Democrats in the House and the Senate” had voted for only authorized the use of force, if necessary, to disarm Iraq and made no mention whatsoever of “removing Saddam Hussein from power.” This is an important distinction, especially considering what happened in the first Gulf War, and Bush’s campaign promise to not engage in nation building. In addition, many concerns were voiced by various members of Congress of the Administration’s decision to withdraw U.N. weapons inspectors from Iraq prior to the war resolution despite the objections of Chief Weapons Inspector Hans Blix, and the governments of France and Germany to allow the inspections to be completed.

The most important points Bush made was that the Democrats in Congress “had access to the same intelligence” and that “intelligence agencies from around the world agreed with our assessment of Saddam Hussein.” These statements are not entirely true. Although members of Congress do indeed have access to much of the same intelligence, members of the executive branch are more accustomed to dealing with matters of national security and are consistently in contact with the intelligence community. It used to be true that Congress had little access to intelligence until Vietnam War and the Watergate scandal resulted in an expansion of intelligence access from executive privilege to congressional access on a need to know basis. However, the Intelligence Community (IC) remains deferential to the executive branch in passing on the most critical and sensitive intelligence information, often consulting with it before briefing members of Congress. In fact, if a member of the executive branch believes the information being provided by the IC is incomplete or inaccurate, the IC will review the information before passing it on to Congress. Often intelligence is limited to members of various intelligence oversight, national security, and appropriations committees that must deal directly with classified information or intelligence agencies. On the other hand, most members of the executive will have access to the same “raw” intelligence as soon as it becomes available to the IC, while relevant filters are applied to the same information by the time it reaches members of Congress. Clearly, the President, who receives daily briefings from the IC, still has access to more current, sensitive, and unfiltered information than do many members of Congress at any given time. The level of national security clearance provided members of the executive exceed that of members of Congress, who do not have a clearance level, but receive relevant filtered information because of their elected status and as required to make decisions regarding the declaration of war and drafting appropriate legislation.

The other point regarding foreign intelligence agencies is only partially true. Even Bush’s closest ally, Prime Minister Tony Blair of Great Britain, had access to intelligence that refuted some of the evidence that suggested Saddam Hussein had reconstituted his weapons programs, but chose to ignore it. The British Government’s Downing Street Memo of July 23, 2002 clearly indicates “the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea, or Iran.” Our own CIA was split on some of the evidence, especially the claims of a British intelligence source that Saddam had attempted to acquire materials used for uranium enrichment from Niger, later proven to be false, yet still allowed to be used in the President's State of the Union Address in 2003. There is no denying that false information was used in the case for war, admitted to by both the IC in our own country, as well as other foreign intelligence agencies. The corruption within the U.N. oil for food program notwithstanding, the intelligence sources available to each member nation were in conflict within each agency and with one another, far from unanimous in their assessment of the Iraq threat. Nevertheless, the evidence presented to both the American and British people was clearly one sided, and did not include any dissenting information that was present within the IC both here and abroad. This is the definition of cherry-picking evidence for political means, something historically used by members of Congress according to the IC, but the reverse appears to be true this time. The caveats in the National Intelligence Estimate were completely ignored. Clearly Bush’s pre-war claim of the “imminent threat” posed by Saddam was an exaggeration of the facts made available by the IC even at that time.

Finally, numerous Administration officials, including former Secretary of State Colin Powell, and former Director of the CIA George Tenet, members of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), and Democrats in Congress who voted for the war resolution have all publicly either admitted to and apologized for the use of false information, or expressed regret for supporting the use of force in hindsight. The Administration’s pre-war claims that the troops would be greeted as liberators, the war would be short lived, and WMDs would be found all turned out to be false. The conduct of the war has even been criticized by members of the President’s own party, including John McCain, who has joined many others in calling for the resignation of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and believes there is an inadequate number of troops present to secure Iraq, especially the borders shared with Syria. The prisoner abuse scandals have only aggravated the situation we face in a struggle we must win, making it even more critical that foreign support of Iraqi security and reconstruction is encouraged and strict guidelines for the treatment of prisoners in upheld. Our image and credibility in the world is as critical to our success in Iraq as our military strategy.

Important source links:

Congress as a User of Intelligence:
http://www.cia.gov/csi/studies/spring98/Congress.html

Bush Tries to Gag Critics in Veterans Day Speech:
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/4679

Transcript 11-11-05 - Bush’s Speech on Iraq and Terrorism:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/11/international/11bush-transcript.html?pagewanted=print

Corporate Oil Priorities

noreply@blogger.com (Tim Steuber) — Fri, 11 Nov 2005 00:59:00 +0000

Congress held hearings on record oil windfall profits for the largest oil corporations this week. The Big Oil CEOs tried to frame the argument against a windfall tax on oil profits as a matter to be left to a free market in a global economy, citing the price controls instituted by government during the oil crisis of the 1970s that resulted in shortages for American consumers. Economically speaking, their assertions are indeed correct, but the framing of this debate in that context is shortsighted and only delaying the inevitable long-term socioeconomic, environmental, and global consequences. Investing in renewable resources and new technologies must become a national priority for the sake of our own national security and that of the rest of the world. Any windfall profits tax should be aimed at encouraging exploration of a wide variety of alternative sources of energy, not more oil, and educating the public on individual responsibility to conserve energy and become more self-sufficient. Although Congress efforts to direct a small percentage of those profits towards the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LHEAP) is well intentioned, ultimately it will not solve the long-term consequences of reliance on fossil fuels as the primary source of energy and transportation.

The long history of our love for cheap oil accelerated during the 1973 Arab embargo that was in direct response to the Nixon Administration’s economic policies. The removal of the U.S. dollar from the gold standard resulted in a devaluation of the oil resources controlled by OPEC. In addition, the West’s continued uneven support of Israel against the powerless Palestinians, and other U.S. foreign policies that included the overthrow of a democratically elected government in Iran in 1953 because of its opposition to the U.S. oil corporations’ control over its natural resource, subsequently installing the Shah’s oppressive authoritative Islamist regime in its place had angered the Arab world, both moderates and extremists alike and continue to this day. The Iranian revolution of 1979 that overthrew the Shah and the subsequent hostage crisis were a direct result of U.S. foreign policy dictated by self-interested U.S. oil corporations. This corrupt corporate policy in foreign matters continued with the backing of the subsequent Iraqi invasion of Iran led by Saddam Hussein, the arming of Iran-contras in Nicaragua, and the mujahideen forces led by bin Laden in Afghanistan against the Soviets. All of these events set the stage for September 11, 2001 and is the perfect example of blowback. The 20th Century should be remembered for the Cold War policies of the West that involved corporate oil grabs from Third World Islamic countries with ties to extremist groups that were armed by the U.S. to fight communism. In essence, the oil corporations’ involvement in foreign policy decisions is partly responsible for the creation of an armed and increasingly widespread backlash by global Islamic terrorists against the West and its moderate Islamic sympathizers.

Defining Torture

noreply@blogger.com (Tim Steuber) — Wed, 09 Nov 2005 00:05:00 +0000

The current debate over the treatment of detainees in the war on terror has intensified on several fronts. First, reports of abuse at Abu Ghraib prison near Baghdad, Iraq surfaced in April 2004. Almost since the beginning of the American invasion of Iraq in 2003, there had been rumors of prisoner abuse in Iraq. With the convictions of several military officers at Abu Ghraib and the court martial of the military commanders assigned there at the time, the Bush Administration appeared to have taken a stand against these forms of prisoner treatment. However, the Administration does not consider detainees captured in Afghanistan to be protected by the Geneva Convention because they do not qualify as prisoners of war under international law, but have acknowledged Iraqi detainees are protected. The “Convention Against Torture” in Article I of the Geneva Convention, as agreed to by the Reagan Administration, defines tortures as “Any act which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him... information or a confession, punishing him for an act he... has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him.” (Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ghraib_torture_and_prisoner_abuse)

Now there are reports of secret prisons in Eastern Europe and elsewhere under the control of the CIA and being used to detain and interrogate key terrorism suspects. Such a secretive system undermines American credibility under international law and calls into question our values concerning torture. Republican Congressional leaders are now calling for a probe into the leak of the existence of these secret prisons, citing national security concerns. Democrats are also willing to join in as long as there is an equal effort to investigate pre-war intelligence failures and the identity leak of a CIA agent, both as equally important to national security. Some Republicans are actually willing to investigate the prisons themselves, as some Democrats have suggested, not just the leak that led to their discovery, noting a concern for a lack of oversight.

In response to the damage inflicted upon America’s reputation of prisoner treatment under international law as outlined in the Geneva Convention, Republican John McCain has led the effort to restore the nation’s positive image. The Detainee Amendment was proposed by McCain on October 3, and was subsequently approved by the Senate by an overwhelming 90-9 vote. This attachment to the Department of Defense Appropriations bill, amendment #1977, would reaffirm the Army Field manual as the standard for all interrogations conducted under the U.S. Department of Defense and ban all forms of cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment of prisoners. This amendment has become necessary, according to McCain, because recent events undermine America’s international standing on prisoner treatment, endanger American prisoners of war, and combined with the Bush Administration’s legal position that the Convention Against Torture do not apply to foreigners held outside of the U.S., the rules need to be more clearly defined. In addition, prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay would also fall under this protection, even though they are not legally protected as prisoners of war.

The Vice President and 9 Republican Senators have publicly opposed this amendment, calling for an exemption for the CIA. John McCain was held in Vietnam as a prisoner of war for over 5 years and endured torture firsthand. Those who have argued against this amendment believe that it is critical to our national security that certain interrogation methods be an option for the CIA in order to extract critical information from terrorists. However, McCain is the only member of either Congress or the Administration who truly understands that any information extracted through interrogation tactics that fall under the definition of torture would prove to be unreliable, because a detainee will say whatever they think the interrogator wants to hear in order to stop the pain. Some of the intelligence gathered concerning alleged Iraqi weapons development used to justify the Iraq invasion is believed to have been extracted in such a manner, and was deemed unreliable by elements of the CIA for that very reason.

Here is a source link for more on the McCain Detainee Amendment:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detainee_Amendments