Slashdot Mirror

Limiting trading with a country that commits crimes against you isn't an abuse of foreign policy. This isn't being "cops of the world" this is being cops of the US and interacting less with countries that won't play nice.

And yes, it is the US definition of nice, but so what? Each country is free to choose who they want to trade with and it is usually based upon the countries following each other's laws when dealing with each other.

A bit rich coming from the country that, at least until recently, was only sabotaging international law. Being Dutch I particularly remember the Hague Invasion Act.

But hey, you have a different president now. So if we were to accept that a country that is an origin of cybercrime is, as a country, committing a crime: Who specifically do you advocate starting a trade war with? Europe, China, Brazil, India, Russia? All of them?

I've yet to hear *anyone* make a convincing argument as to *why* the *whole system* must be scrapped and rebuilt

No one is suggest totally scrapping the entire health care system. But the system be have now is the most expensive in the world, while producing sub-par results.

or even what in the Constitution gives the federal government the power to do these things.

Congress has the power to "lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States." Congress can lay any taxes they want and buy us all ponies, if they agree that it's in support of the "common Defence and general Welfare". Health care is at least as important to the national defense as the interstate highway system, justified as a defense program: not only is universal access to basic health care necessary to quickly detect bioterrorism, but in case of an emergency or foreign invasion, a sickly populace cannot defend itself.

Congress also has the power to "regulate Commerce...among the several States". I don't think there are any health insurance companies not engaged in interstate commerce.

We have a different system of government and social framework here that has made America a superpower and given our citizens the most personal liberty along with the highest standard of living on the planet.

No. Take off your American flag blindfold and turn off the Fox News for a second, and you might see that we rank behind several other nations in GDP per capita and standard of living. We're 20th on the Press Freedom Index, and have the highest incarceration rate on the planet. We have neither the most personal liberty, nor the highest standeard of living.

We certainly are a military superpower, but I do not see the dominance of the military-industrial complex as something to crow about.

If all these countries' healthcare systems are so good, why do those who want the best care in the world, delivered in a timely manner, come to America if our healthcare is so bad?

Healthcare tourism goes both ways. American go to Mexico or India for treatment -- an estimated 750,000 Americans traveled abroad for medical procedures in 2008.

Human Rights Watch found no cases in which Hezbollah deliberately used civilians as shields to protect them from retaliatory IDF attack. In none of the cases of civilian deaths documented in this report is there evidence to suggest that Hezbollah forces or weapons were in or near the area that the IDF targeted during or just prior to the attack.

But then contradicted themselves with:

Hezbollah occasionally did store weapons in or near civilian homes and fighters placed rocket launchers within populated areas or near U.N. observers, which are serious violations of the laws of war because they violate the duty to take all feasible precautions to avoid civilian casualties. ... In addition, Human Rights Watch continues to investigate allegations that Hezbollah is shielding its military personnel and materiel by locating them in civilian homes or areas, and it is deeply concerned by Hezbollah’s placement of certain troops and materiel near civilians, which endangers them and violates the duty to take all feasible precautions to avoid civilian casualties. Human Rights Watch uses the occasion of this report to reiterate Hezbollah’s legal duty never to deliberately use civilians to shield military objects and never to needlessly endanger civilians by conducting military operations, maintaining troops, or storing weapons in their vicinity.

Amnesty International stated that

While the presence of Hezbullah’s fighters and short-range weapons within civilian areas is not contested, this in itself is not conclusive evidence of intent to use civilians as "human shields", any more than the presence of Israeli soldiers in a kibbutz is in itself evidence of the same war crime.

but I would hasten to point out that their statement only holds if the Israeli soldiers were shelling Hezbullah fighters or Lebanese civilians from that kibbutz.

If the USA adopts the same restrictive immigation policy that Norway has, then the Norwegian model for controlling MRSA will work well.

What is ultimately killing Americans is not MRSA but rather is politics. Nothing -- not even deaths from MRSA -- can restrict the flow of immigration.

Boy, that Chavez really must hate democracy. Imagine getting elected by 70 percent of the population in a ballot declared 'Free And Fair' by international observers, the nerve of that guy!

In fact, Chavez loves democracy, because when it doesn't work for him he can just twist it to his wishes.

See, at the beginning he was so popular that it was easy to win elections cleanly. But now that he lost support he rigs elections, politically persecutes his opponents, or simply disregards its outcome.

In Venezuela you can't get a job in any of the state controlled companies if you have voted against Chavez.
This is a serious problem in a country where the state controls the oil industry, electric companies, banks, telecommunications and most of the media, and where all the powers are subjugated to one man's desires. After such a precedent, how can anybody expect the people to participate freely in any elections against Chavez?

Now he's promoting Free And Fair elections in other countries too? Well, we just can't have that!

I don't think that sneaking suitcases with millions of dolars of Venezuelan money to his favorite candidates in Latin America counts as promoting Free And Fair elections.
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1654511,00.html
http://english.eluniversal.com/2009/11/26/en_pol_art_venezuelan-businessm_26A3120691.shtml
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maletinazo

I take it you approve of the military coup in Honduras then, with its sham elections conducted in complete violation of the country's constitution? Maybe we should just let the Pentagon decide who gets to be president of the Latin American countries again, like in Reagan's reign of error. Those people can't be trusted to elect someone who supports the interests of the multi-national mega-corps over their own citizenry like the Americans do.

I never even mentioned Honduras, in fact, I don't approve the coup, so try to keep your current job, cause mind reading is not your thing.

Boy, that Chavez really must hate democracy. Imagine getting elected by 70 percent of the population in a ballot declared 'Free And Fair' by international observers, the nerve of that guy!

In fact, Chavez loves democracy, because when it doesn't work for him he can just twist it to his wishes.

See, at the beginning he was so popular that it was easy to win elections cleanly. But now that he lost support he rigs elections, politically persecutes his opponents, or simply disregards its outcome.

In Venezuela you can't get a job in any of the state controlled companies if you have voted against Chavez.
This is a serious problem in a country where the state controls the oil industry, electric companies, banks, telecommunications and most of the media, and where all the powers are subjugated to one man's desires. After such a precedent, how can anybody expect the people to participate freely in any elections against Chavez?

Now he's promoting Free And Fair elections in other countries too? Well, we just can't have that!

I don't think that sneaking suitcases with millions of dolars of Venezuelan money to his favorite candidates in Latin America counts as promoting Free And Fair elections.
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1654511,00.html
http://english.eluniversal.com/2009/11/26/en_pol_art_venezuelan-businessm_26A3120691.shtml
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maletinazo

I take it you approve of the military coup in Honduras then, with its sham elections conducted in complete violation of the country's constitution? Maybe we should just let the Pentagon decide who gets to be president of the Latin American countries again, like in Reagan's reign of error. Those people can't be trusted to elect someone who supports the interests of the multi-national mega-corps over their own citizenry like the Americans do.

I never even mentioned Honduras, in fact, I don't approve the coup, so try to keep your current job, cause mind reading is not your thing.

Thanks for stating the actual fact of the matter about Israel's use of terrorism to steal the Palestinian's land, something that is almost never discussed in overtly pro Zionist public school history courses or our heavily biased mainstream media. Fortunately it's getting harder for Zionists to hide the truth now that we have the web to do research about the continuous history of human rights abuses from the state of Israel's origin in terror and collaboration with the Nazis:

http://www.counterpunch.org/brenner1223.html

(Don't be shocked Zionism is a racist ideology just like Nazi fascism, birds of a feather...) To Israel's war crimes continue to this day against the displaced people of Palestine as is documented in the Goldstone report:

http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2009/10/01/un-us-block-goldstone-report-must-not-defer-justice

The ongoing crimes against humanity by the government of Israel require two responses IMO:

1. That good hearted Jews who are appalled by Israel's ongoing crimes follow the good example of fellow Jews Amy Goodman, Noam Chomsky, and Norman Finkelstein and denounce Israel's crimes against humanity loudly and clearly and to call out fellow Jews when critics of Israel's crimes are falsely labeled "anti-Semetic."

2. That the U.S. government should cut off all aid to Israel until it complies *completely* with U.N. resolution 242 requiring Israel to return to it's recognized under international law border at the green line. Annexing territory after military victory as Israel has done and continues to do with expanding the settlements is a crime against humanity under international law. IMO our government ought not to fund war criminals whether it be our own unauthorized by Congress and thus unconstitutional foreign wars, or Israel's egregious crimes against humanity that are so cruel and destabilizing to the possibility world peace.

I wish I could say I was shocked by Israel keeping a database using facial recognition software of all it's citizens, but sadly I think Israel has descended nearly to the depths of the racist police police state that nearly unjustly destroyed the Jews as a people in the Holocaust. Nietzsche said if you stare in the depths of the abyss long enough you become that abyss something sadly the leadership of Israel has not learned. :(

A large portion of criminals have mental illnesses of some degree. The problem is that it's difficult to demonstrate causation in such cases, and it may even be counter-productive to society (and indeed the individual) if people are released or exonerated for such reasons. After all, mentally ill != stupid, and if people can use their illness as an excuse for their behavior, then they will, whether or not it was the cause.

In that respect, it may have just been a(n un)happy coincidence that the individual in question had a brain tumor in conjunction with his criminal acts. Involuntary mental impairment should certainly be considered, but in conjunction with other evidence, not to the exclusion of all else.

Additionally, inability to reoffend does not excuse the initial offense. If a rapist desexes himself, that doesn't mean he should automatically be set free.

Let me reveal you a little secret.
Whenever you see Hindu or Hinduism read it as Caste or Casteism aka Racism.
US Congress Resolution
UNHRC Resolution
Prime Minister of India

They are controversial because they are rather indiscriminate weapons; figures vary wildly but a midrange one would be that they kill about 10 civilians for each target killed. There's a tradeoff between killing terrorists and alienating the civilian population.

Really? 10 to 1 is a midrange? Indiscriminant? If you have a good information source, please share. I feel we both want the same thing - fewer dead civilians, but I suspect you are using very bad assumptions.

In the Human Rights Watch report "Troops in Contact" they go out of their way to say that planned strikes result in few civilian deaths, and that the bulk of civilian casualties come from coalition land forces coming under fire and calling in air strikes to take out insurgents who are using civilians as human shields. Unmanned drones, by their very nature, are slow and are not used for close air support of ground troops. A-10s, helicopters, fighters, and even B-2 and B-52 bombers have been used for close air support, some carrying heavy weapons.

Using your reasoning, there would be fewer precision strikes by unmanned drones (carrying missiles with 20 pound warheads) against evaluated targets, and more ground troops under fire screaming into their radios for close air support by aircraft carrying large bombs, resulting in more dead civilians. The whole reason for using precision laser guided missiles such as Hellfire II (used by Predator and other UAVs), is to limit civilian casualties.

That's the most propagandistic summary I have seen in a while. Chávez has been democratically elected and Venezuela has a freer press than Colombia, Mexico, Pakistan and other US allies, including puppet governments like Iraq and Afghanistan where the US could simply tell the leaders to enact laws and impose freedom of the press by decree. Not only that, TV stations actively collaborated with a coup d'état against Chávez, and instead of rounding up the criminals and sending them to jail or to the firing squad, he left them in place, and waited for the licence of one station to expire.

I've spent the better part of this afternoon commenting here and there in this article and I'm exhausted, so I'll be brief, although I'd certainly prefer to reply more extensively.
I don't know anything, to be honest, about the situation regarding press freedoms in Colombia, Pakistan and Mexico. However, it's ridiculous to imply journalism is just fine* and dandy down here.

Furthermore, I'm curious: how, exactly, does a TV station collaborate with a military coup?

* you have to select "Venezuela" in the combo box here to get the listing.

OK. The Chinese government murderers children at random and they also happen to be communist. Come on, get serious. Cold War or not, the leaders of China are murderers.

Several activists have been recently disappeared or brought up on trumped up charges precisely because the Chinese government murderers children at random. Or rather, they construct schools in earthquake zones so poorly that it accomplishes the same thing. This, despite the promises of Wen Jiabao and others that the earthquakes from 2008 would be treated seriously.

No. Wen, Hu, and all others who belong to the CCP are murderers.

Check out, say,
http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2005/04/10/china-religious-repression-uighur-muslims
or http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4435135.stm

Yes much better to live in an autocracy infamous for it's treatment of foreign labour and it's rather seedy recent history than the Largest Democracy In The World!

"On 18 March, 29-year-old blogger Alireza Mirsayafi died while in Tehran's Evin prison. According to an account by Hesam Firoozi, a physician also imprisoned in Evin, Mirsayafi had taken extra doses of his medication. Firoozi's account, as provided by the Human Rights Activists in Iran, notes that Mirsayafi suffered from serious depression. Firoozi was present during the initial stages of Mirsayafi's treatment inside the prison's medical clinic and reported that the prison doctors failed to provide proper care by not sending him immediately to a hospital to save his life."

Apparently this a problem everywhere:

Young men, persons with mental illness, alcohol and drug addicts, and people who are in custody, are amongst the most at-risk groups for suicide.605 Given the prevalence of all of these indicators concurrently among prisoners in the United States, it is not surprising that suicide attempts are a serious problem inside prison. A nationwide survey conducted by prison suicide expert Lindsey Hayes in 1995 found that suicide rates in state prison systems ranged from 18.6 per one hundred thousand all the way up to 53.7 per one hundred thousand.606 According to The 2001 Corrections Yearbook, the average suicide rate in prison was 0.26 per 1,000 prisoners, or twenty-six per 100,000, two-and-a-half times the rate of suicide in the U.S.population at large, which for 2000 was 10.6 per 100,000

Does that mean I hold Iran guiltless? Not at all. The guy should never have been in prison, and being in prison increased his suicide risk (assuming Iranian prisons boost the suicide rate like US jails do).

On the question of Muhammad marrying a young girl - it is worth pointing out that the notion of the 'child' is in many ways a relatively recent invention in many cultures - before the Victorians started to develop the idea they were in many ways considered just small adults. It wasn't a distinct stage in the same way it is now. They didn't have toys, were expected to work etc.

Don't you think it might be worth taking into account the fact that the situation with Aisha was 1500 years ago - if the girl had reached puberty (which may not have been uncommon at that age at that time, then in a different culture this might not have been seen as an act of pedophilia. If Muhammad was a pedophile then how come most of his wives were very much older than Aisha? How come he waited till she was 9 and had reached puberty.

I would say that if you want to do something 'for the children' then you might turn your attention to the U.S., which is one of the only countries in the world to execute them (in the current legal definition of the word children BTW.)

Have a look at http://www.hrw.org/legacy/reports/1995/Us.htm & http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P1-67554306.html
Now that's what i consider to be SICK, and it is is happening in a christian country, IN THE PRESENT DAY!!!!!!

Important to point out that I'm not at all religious, - i find all religions almost equally ridiculous and poisonous. Its just I really don't like to hear complete ignorance fueling the (often racist) bonfires of outrage that build up around this kind of issue - just because the west is trying to create a bogey man to justify all the wars and the military spending, doesn't mean you have to buy into it!

Not if you want to think clearly and see stuff as it really is.

• 2000: Israel/Palestine: Armed Attacks on Civilians Condemned
• 2001: Israeli Missiles Kill Two Kids
• 2002: Panel to look into civilian deaths in 2002 IAF attack on Shehadeh
• 2003: Secrecy over shoot-to-kill fear in Gaza, Two journalists have been gunned down by Israeli troops
• 2004: TOTALS FOR 2004: Israelis: 8 Palestinians: 188
• 2005: Israeli troops say they were given shoot-to-kill order
• 2006: Teenager killed as missile explodes near school bus
• 2007: Israeli army says three children killed in Gaza were playing
• 2008: Palestinian group says Israelis killed 68 children in Gaza in year
• 2009: Israel Hits Second U.N. School, Blasts Way Into Southern Gaza

That's bullshit. Stating that "It's just the soldier's job" is the same nonsense that it was at the Nuremberg trials. Soldiers are people and they are expected to refuse both immoral and illegal orders.

maybe we shouldn't vote in bloodthirsty psychos

As opposed to the Israeli leadership?
Belgium bars Sharon war crimes trial
The man who would testify against Sharon is blown up. Was this another targeted killing?

I make no claims that the Hamas leadership is a bunch of nice guys, but you may want to do some more reseach on Israel. I'm sure you can find at least as many bad things to say about Hamas, but as the saying goes:
"Two wrongs don't make a right."

The IDF has always attacked military targets

Let me fucking google that for you.

I don't have time to look further, but here's a link to a Human Rights Watch report that makes such a claim; they could be lying, though, those scumbag human rights fundamentalists.

http://www.hrw.org/en/reports/2005/05/09/black-hole

cherry pick all you want. AIDS/HIV sufferers being denied treatment because of societal prejudices is well-documented. whether it's drug users, prostitutes, rape victims, or just ordinary women with HIV, people are being denied AIDS/HIV treatment because of the social stigma around these populations and their perceived lifestyles.

it's ignorant attitudes like yours that cause these prejudices to dictate public policy at the expense of public health. even if you don't care whether IV drug users live or die, giving them access to medical treatment in the name of harm-reduction is the beneficial to society at large. any rational person can see that eliminating potential disease vectors is a good thing.

denying prostitutes & drug users adequate access to medical treatment in order to punish them for their lifestyles is just cutting off the nose to spite the face. that kind of attitude has prevented the adoption of needle exchange programs in many areas despite studies showing that such harm-reduction programs save cities tax-payers millions of dollars each year by preventing the spread of disease--which inevitably affects non-drug users as well.

or you could do a little research yourself before running your mouth off.

in the U.S. there are also conscience clauses in several states that allow pharmacists to refuse to fill a patent's prescription based on religious grounds. this was primarily introduced to to deny women emergency contraceptive pills, but it also opens the door for denying patients other types of medical treatment based on religious prejudices.

Just use The Onion Router (TOR): http://www.torproject.org/ See "Breaching the Great Chinese Firewall" here: http://www.hrw.org/reports/2006/china0806/3.htm#_Toc142395820

The Venezuelan government's expulsion of two Human Rights Watch staff underscores the Chávez administration's increasing intolerance of dissenting views, Human Rights Watch said today.

These computers will increase access to the internet in Venezuela. And there's nothing like the internet to encourage and facilitate dissenting views.

I don't think that such a dramatic dichotomy exists

Then maybe you should do some more reading on the subject.

It is also blatantly dishonest squirming to reach a conclusion that is palletable to the US establishment

So you dispute the conclusion of the article that you linked to support your case? I'm confused......

Given that the USA supported Saddam's invasion of Iran, resulting in about 1 million dead

Perhaps we would have chosen a different side or just remained neutral if the Iranians had acted like a civilized country and not stormed our embassy and held our diplomatic personnel hostage? I question whether or not it was sound policy to support Saddam in the 80s but don't just tell half of the story to support your arguments.

you topple a leader, even an evil one, and there are a lot of ramifications. In this case, our leaders felt it was the lesser evil and had to play politics with him for the greater good.

As if there was no one who believed in democracy and human rights perhaps?

As regards the Kurds, during World War I in return for helping the Allies the fight against the Germans and Ottoman Empire the Kurds were promised their own country, homeland, in the Treaty of Sevres. But once the war was over the West reneged on the pledge. The west allowed Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, the Father of Turkey to reject the treaty and crush Kurdish uprisings. Kurdistan would have constituted a good chunk of Turkey, and parts of Syria, Iraq, Iran, and Armenia. That same treaty also created Iraq, Syria and Kuwait though. Looking at Iraq today, Iraqi Kurdistan is the most stable part of Iraq. The Ba'athists and Saddam weren't any friendlier to the Marsh Arabs. "Numbering some 250,000 people as recently as 1991, the Marsh Arabs today are believed to number fewer than 40,000 in their ancestral homeland." So much for a stable Iraq under Saddam.

Falcon

The US have not just promised to invade The Hague, they have turned it into a law: http://www.hrw.org/press/2002/08/aspa080302.htm. I wonder what NATO would do if the US ever invaded the Netherlands.

The Rules of War (boy isn't that a funny notion) say that to get POW protections you have to be a lawful combatant, which means uniformed and not hiding behind civilians and such.

"inhabitants of a non-occupied territory who take up arms openly to resist the invading forces" are entitled to POW protection. Looks like a uniform is not necessarily required.

http://www.hrw.org/backgrounder/usa/pow-bck.htm#P41_7391
http://www.superpatriots.us/aboutthecase/genevaconvention.htm#Article_4

"4.1.6 Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war."

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

Again no requirement for a uniform to get POW status, but there are other requirements they must meet.

China might not be so far ahead in the "oppression race" as you think.
 
  The US is pretty good at locking up the population too.

If you count Tibetans as "their own citizens", which of course China does. Or how about supporting the Sudanese government with military equipment in its genocide in Darfur? http://www.hrw.org/reports/2003/sudan1103/26.htm

The U.S provides much of the internationally available money for AIDS programs. Unfortunately this process has been hijacked (by religious fundies perhaps?). Recipients of this money are forced into concentrating completely on abstinence-only and faithfulness-in-marriage programs... no condoms allowed. See http://www.hrw.org/campaigns/aids/2005/uganda/ That link is from 2005, and I've listened to recent interviews with AIDS workers complaining bitterly about how this is still the case.

But you show me where an Israeli soldier went after school kids (as a primary target) and Ill condemn them as much as anyone.

Oh, please. And there's a LOT more where this comes from: http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2007/09/06/isrlpa16781.htm

but hey they were little Jews who might grow up and join the military someday so I guess they are fair game no?

No. I already made clear where I stand on that. Please don't twist my point. The point I was trying to make is that the line very often DOES get pretty gray.

but how bad could they be given the fact that Fatah is seeking asylum in Israel from Hamas?

That hasn't got anything to do with Israel killing civilians and calling it "collateral damage". But anyway, imho the only party that has anything to gain from the civil war in Palestine is Israel. And it's not like the US and Israel don't have a hand in deepening the rifts between Hamas and Fatah.

steered clear of Israel / Palestinians

Yes, sorry, I commented a bit out of context.

A suicide bomber who is targeting a military asset is, imho a 'freedom fighter'. A suicide bomber who targets a bus full of civilians is a terrorist. A man who kills an enemy soldier is a freedom fighter, a man who beheads a journalist because he is Jewish is a terrorist... Are you seeing the difference?

You see, what I object to is this. Even though you're being logical and trying to be unbiased about how you look at it, when you say "a bus full of civilians" people automatically go for "Muslim suicide bomber... bus full of children... equals Muslims are terrorists". What about saying something like "cluster bombed a village"? No, because people don't want to hear "US/Israel kill civilians... equals US/Israel also terrorists". Or instead of saying "beheads a journalist because he is Jewish" why don't you say "kills a pedestrian because has a beard and a turban"?

I find a lot of bias in discussions like these... all I'm asking for and trying to add to it is a little balance.

The Northern Alliance is just as corrupt and ruthless as the Taliban. Don't think you're doing the country a favor by switching one bad regime with another, and killing thousands of civilians in the process. http://www.hrw.org/backgrounder/asia/afghan-bck1005.htm#uf

I don't believe assassinating Osama Bin Laden was/is going to stop the extremists from doing what they do. Neither do I believe crushing Afghanistan was/is the solution. Maybe we can come up with a REAL solution if we REALLY want to solve the REAL problems. What are the REAL problems? Widespread illiteracy and seriously skewed wealth distribution.

The Olympics are a HUGE revenue source for a lot of people, and as we've seen quite often, economics will trump ethics 9 times in 10.

I don't know if your use of caps was really warranted. If you look at the data for the 2004 games NBC brought home 30-80 million. Fast forward to today with estimates that GE has spent anywhere from 200-900 million on the games (depending on what data you read) and I dunno there are plenty more sponsors but still HUGE seems pretty relative to me considering GE is due to be one of the front runners when it comes to cashing in on this event and from the data on the last summer games it doesn't look like an incredible return on investment if this year is going to be much similar. Also consider US gave out 22.739 billion in developmental assistance in 2006 alone. For all the goings ons I really think the proper thing to do would be to boycott the games, the value of the message would by far exceed the cost to the games.

What did this guy ever do for them? Craig's not making any money off his posting.

What did Yahoo! ever get from that blogger, that the Chinese wanted to arrest? 75 cents in ad-revenue?.. A dollar-fifty?

But nobody brought this revenue vs. expenses argument in defense of Yahoo! And if anyone had, he would've been blasted as a "sociopath", with plenty of (high-moderated) postings on the subjects of morality and lack thereof among CEOs and in corporate boardrooms.

I expected the "We do this for the common good" people to get the same earful for not defending their users from the American movie-people, as Yahoo! and Google (the "Do no evil" people) have gotten for yielding to Chinese government.

Because to continue holding CraigsList in the same regard as before after this is quite hypocritical...

produce some real data ... and I'll consider it

Uh, the data in the studies is real and empirical. I did 'produce' it. Do you actually have any facts at *your* disposal?

not from a Leftist "thinktank"

Uh, so? These organizations are not just sign-carrying pressure groups. Human Rights Watch is widely respected and aggressively non-partisan. They've drawn fire and praise from all over the political spectrum; see "What They Say" on their home page for starters. The Innocence Project arose from the discovery that DNA testing exonerated substantial numbers of the wrongfully incarcerated, and is focused on correcting the systemic defects in the judicial system that put them there, which is a pretty difficult mission to characterize as partisan. These are not 'Leftist' organizations in the sense that they advocate a political agenda. Again, do you have any facts at *your* disposal?

It does so happen that most of the people who donate to such organizations are liberals, but, frankly, it's difficult for any reasonably intelligent observer of the American political scene not to conclude that commitment to human rights is a predominately liberal issue there.

It's a friggin' self-referencing circle.

Uh, why? Where do the linked studies and organizations cite the blog? Where is the evidence that the Prof. is a partisan? Do you have any idea what you're talkking about? There's a lot of info and links on the site; I just put the link there so people could find info on the topic.

A systemic problem, if that is the case here, can only by solved in a constructive, bipartisan way.

I agree that miscarriage of justice is a bi-partisan issue (and where it's being addressed effectively, it's a bi-partisan effort, as both the Human Rights Watch and the Innocence Project can attest) but hey, you're the guy who made the debate political. I stand by my earlier statements on who cares about civil and human rights in this country, and who doesn't. Is Gitmo a Republican issue?

I may actually check out both "reports"

Gee, thanks.

I suspect my bias will be confirmed. I'll bet.

Kool-Aid

I'm not the one drinking Kool-Aid here. The linked studies analyze empirical data that was not made up by the authors as a matter of opinion. The facts and analysis in the studies can be analyzed and checked, and the conclusions debated on that basis. To assert that any organization that you, personally, mischaracterize as 'liberal' is not capable of producing a credible study per se (and indeed, your mischaracterizations in the first place) is pretty strong evidence of the vast quantities of Kool-Aid you've already consumed.

So, having stated that you haven't seen any data, and having implied that you discount the opinions of so-called "Leftists" (i.e. the only people in America who actually care about the unfairly incarcerated, or, lately, about human rights in general), and are therefore motivated to expose the problem), you then proceed to float an unsupported opinion. Now that's some mighty funny stuff right there.

That being said, if you are open-minded enough to read studies containing *actual data* from so-called "thinktanks" that support the notion that racial and other demographic disparities exist in criminal justice, here are a couple:

The Sentencing Project: Geography: The War on Drugs in America's Cities
Human Rights Watch: Targeting Blacks Drug Law Enforcement and Race in the United States

I found these on Prof. Douglas A. Berman's interesting Sentencing Law and Policy blog, which links to many other sources of the facts you seek.

That's how it came out at the time. You have to remember that this was at the end of a very expensive war with Iran and that Iraq was very deep in debt and on the brink of economic collapse. A lot has been written about the this.

It's a cute theory and may have been a contributing factor or a means of influencing other Iraqi's but it takes more than an insane whim for these things to happen.

People have made all sorts of accusations about it. But you also have to look at their motivating factors behind what they are saying. Iraq was pissed because Kuwait increased production of oil in order to pay off some of their debt when Iraq was relying on relatively high prices for the time to boost income from their damaged and limited production capacity. I'm not positive but I think the comment about the whores came during a discussion about that problem. It might have been just the straw that broke the camel's back.

As for a contributing factor, you wouldn't really need that in Iraq at the time. Saddam was a dictator that more or less ruled by fear. He didn't need public support primarily because of the way any opposition was handled. Some of his sons were masters at torture and the citizens knew it.

There is a saying that free nations don't invade other free nations. This is primarily true because of the need for public support and justifications in free countries. It is far more likely that problems can and will be solved without violence when both sides are free and democratic. I don't think I can remember one war between free nations that was started by either free nations other then a civil war within a free country. If I'm wrong, correct me. But at least in recent history of the last century or two, it has all involved a dictator of some sorts on one end.

The really bizzare thing is the propaganda has been painting Saddam as Hitler when he compared himself to the possibly worse figure of Stalin

Killing the Kurds didn't help his reputation any. He surrounded himself with people willing to torture others into submission. Now keep in mind, these reports of torture and inhumane treatment came long before the Bush administration set it's eyes on Iraq. I'm talking about previous administrations too. Here is a human rights watch document dated from 1995. Here is one from 1991. I think the problem with comparing him to Hitler instead of Stalin has more to do with the willingness to take other countries by force. Russia basically walked in and in three cases (greece, iran and turkey) walked back out but it was all without violence after WW2 fprming the USSR. Hitler, claimed the same protection of borders but as we know, used violence to effect his wishes.

It could be that the insisting on comparing him to Hitler had more to do with how Hitler more or less started WWII by ignoring it's treaty obligations from WWI's Treaty of Versailles. It is interesting that Mussolini was actually invading other countries before Hitler even became offensive yet Hitler is blamed for starting WWII. Well actually, that is a little misleading because Mussolini officially sent aid to General Franco for the civil war in Spain but some claim that Franco was a puppet of Mussolini. None the less, Heinz Guderian, a captured German general was reported in a book about the war to have said ""If you French had intervened in the Rhineland in 1936 we should have been sunk and Hitler would have fallen"

Hitler himself supposedly said "The forty-eight hours after the march into the Rhineland were the most nerve-racking in my life. If the French had then marc

That's how it came out at the time. You have to remember that this was at the end of a very expensive war with Iran and that Iraq was very deep in debt and on the brink of economic collapse. A lot has been written about the this.

It's a cute theory and may have been a contributing factor or a means of influencing other Iraqi's but it takes more than an insane whim for these things to happen.

People have made all sorts of accusations about it. But you also have to look at their motivating factors behind what they are saying. Iraq was pissed because Kuwait increased production of oil in order to pay off some of their debt when Iraq was relying on relatively high prices for the time to boost income from their damaged and limited production capacity. I'm not positive but I think the comment about the whores came during a discussion about that problem. It might have been just the straw that broke the camel's back.

As for a contributing factor, you wouldn't really need that in Iraq at the time. Saddam was a dictator that more or less ruled by fear. He didn't need public support primarily because of the way any opposition was handled. Some of his sons were masters at torture and the citizens knew it.

There is a saying that free nations don't invade other free nations. This is primarily true because of the need for public support and justifications in free countries. It is far more likely that problems can and will be solved without violence when both sides are free and democratic. I don't think I can remember one war between free nations that was started by either free nations other then a civil war within a free country. If I'm wrong, correct me. But at least in recent history of the last century or two, it has all involved a dictator of some sorts on one end.

The really bizzare thing is the propaganda has been painting Saddam as Hitler when he compared himself to the possibly worse figure of Stalin

Killing the Kurds didn't help his reputation any. He surrounded himself with people willing to torture others into submission. Now keep in mind, these reports of torture and inhumane treatment came long before the Bush administration set it's eyes on Iraq. I'm talking about previous administrations too. Here is a human rights watch document dated from 1995. Here is one from 1991. I think the problem with comparing him to Hitler instead of Stalin has more to do with the willingness to take other countries by force. Russia basically walked in and in three cases (greece, iran and turkey) walked back out but it was all without violence after WW2 fprming the USSR. Hitler, claimed the same protection of borders but as we know, used violence to effect his wishes.

It could be that the insisting on comparing him to Hitler had more to do with how Hitler more or less started WWII by ignoring it's treaty obligations from WWI's Treaty of Versailles. It is interesting that Mussolini was actually invading other countries before Hitler even became offensive yet Hitler is blamed for starting WWII. Well actually, that is a little misleading because Mussolini officially sent aid to General Franco for the civil war in Spain but some claim that Franco was a puppet of Mussolini. None the less, Heinz Guderian, a captured German general was reported in a book about the war to have said ""If you French had intervened in the Rhineland in 1936 we should have been sunk and Hitler would have fallen"

Hitler himself supposedly said "The forty-eight hours after the march into the Rhineland were the most nerve-racking in my life. If the French had then marc

I feel the same way. This is the same as certain political entities attempting to tie every crime on the planet to terrorism. The person who posted that is obviously unacquainted with world events. Its rather easy to do a little research and find sites like Amnesty International or Human Rights Watch

There are other effects, similar to that, in the US and elsewhere in the world. Consider Africa, where a confluence of war, famine, and AIDS have basically decimated a continent.

Entrenched poverty, and related gang and drug activity has combined with discrimination or bias in the judicial system in the US with the result being so many black men are in prison that it's affecting the demographics of the Republican party's most sacred institution, marriage. Of course, they are so concerned about preventing gay men and women from participating in the sanctity of marriage, whatever that means, that they haven't noticed so many of our nation's daughters will fail to follow God's sacred instructions to be fruitful and multiply, within the sanctity of marriage.

Consider that lead exposure, and probably mercury exposure, too, knock IQ points off the potential of those exposed. How much better off would this nation be if we hadn't exposed generations of kids (including the generations holding office today) to lead exposure? Hey, you Baby Boomers, do you think your kids are smarter than you? Well, guess what, they are. Kids under the age of about 25 or 30 in this country didn't grow up breathing lead fumes. If we would stop spewing mercury all over the atmosphere and oceans we could probably get another five points.

Those subjected to waterboarding were al Qaeda suspects Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Abu Zubaydah and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, Hayden said.

Even if that were true (and I believe Cheney has confirmed otherwise) are you suggesting that torture is acceptable, provided that only a few people get tortured?

Those subjected to waterboarding were al Qaeda suspects Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Abu Zubaydah and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, Hayden said.

Even if that were true (and I believe Cheney has confirmed otherwise) are you suggesting that torture is acceptable, provided that only a few people get tortured?

Those subjected to waterboarding were al Qaeda suspects Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Abu Zubaydah and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, Hayden said.

Even if that were true (and I believe Cheney has confirmed otherwise) are you suggesting that torture is acceptable, provided that only a few people get tortured?

A war fighting a country that has not attacked us, nor attacked any other country...

Well, I suppose that someone could consider that statement not palpably idiotic, for some value of "any other" that excludes the country of Iran,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Iraq_War

the country of Kuwait,

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

genocide of the ethnic nation of Kurdistan,

http://www.hrw.org/reports/1991/IRAQ913.htm

genocide of the ethnicity of Marsh Arabs,

http://www.usip.org/newsmedia/releases/2002/nb20021125.html

and assorted offenses against Turkmens, Shi'a, and every other non-Sunni-Arab religion/ethnicity in the region.

How are they comparable?

That's a good question. But for the exact opposite reason you ask it. The genocidal offenses documented above are much more than anything Hitler was known to have done at the time the U.S. declared war on Germany despite never being attacked by Germany, only by a *very* loosely allied country on the completely opposite side of the globe.

From any humanist -- OR pragmatic -- perspective, war to remove Saddam Hussein was unquestionably far more justified than declaring war on Germany was.

Notice how both sides are cited here - I am not particularly anti-Serbian; most wars since WWII have had way too many civilian casualties. But to suggest that it was just a 'normal' war is not - IMHO - accurate.