Bush and Obama…

Like you, I remember when George W. Bush was the president. I supported ole George, especially in the beginning. I liked the fact that he was a confessing Christian and appeared to be a no-nonsense sort of a guy. He was strong in his resolve…whatever that resolve was. I appreciated that about him at the time. On the other hand, and in retrospect, he did some things that were questionable. Giving tax breaks to the rich (when you, your family, and many of your friends are rich) seems a bit self serving. Going against the majority of the world and the United Nations and invading Iraq, capturing and deposing its leader (Saddam (who happened to have a tiff with your dad)), and then allowing him to be hung, all under the presumption that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, is questionable. I’m not a fan of Saddam, mind you, but I’m also not a fan of invading countries under false pretenses, or in error. Oops. Imagine if some other country did that to us? What would our opinion of them be? Pointing to new housing starts to prove that you know what you are doing regarding running the country and the economy, when in reality so many new housing starts were due to a lack of proper regulations and therefore, the numbers were totally inflated and the entire housing market nothing more than a house of cards on the verge of collapse…gambling with the entire world’s economy….is questionable. Either George knew what was going on and was just hoping to make it through his term before it all fell apart…or something much worse….he didn’t know what the hell was going on. About the last thing I remember George doing was handing out rebates to every American and then giving 800 billion dollars to big business in hopes that it might fend off the next great depression before he got out of office.

Then along comes Obama. People are kind of sensitive to this word…but indeed, he did INHERIT a complete nightmare from our previous republican president. Obama did some fast work. You have to give him that. This guy was busy…he was moving....trying to prevent a world wide depression while addressing many other issues. I thought he exhibited great strength and resolve. I think he did what he felt he had to do to prevent a catastrophe. Yes, we are at 10% unemployment…or maybe more…but it could be 50% or more. If any of us have a job right now, I think there should be room for thankfulness. Obama ran on a platform of ‘change you can believe in’. He was elected by the people, and I find that he is trying to make changes that will make a real and lasting difference. He is really trying to fix some of the fundamental issues that brought the country to the brink of disaster. This means changes are needed. Many people hate change….especially if it touches their wallet. We were 10 trillion dollars in debt when Obama stepped into office. How do you fix that? You have to generate more income somehow. How would you do that? Sorry to say that realistically, taxes may need to be raised. This may upset some people...but under the circumstances, it appears to be the responsible thing to do. What do you suggest? The republicans always say that smaller government is the answer. What the republicans mean by smaller government is less regulations on business. I say….get a clue. Hello?!? That is what brought the economy to its knees folks! Yeah…let’s let the rich make the rules. They have to be held accountable my friends…because you can’t trust human nature. They have to be regulated. They have to meet a certain standard.

When it comes to increasing taxes…who can afford to pay more taxes? It sure isn’t the people barely making enough money to put food on their plates. Okay…so what do you do? Hey…maybe raise taxes on those making a quarter of a million bucks a year or more? How about we raise taxes on things that really aren’t essential…but would fall into the category of unnecessary/optional? That seems kind of sensible to me. Got any better ideas? Let’s hear them then.

I’m not even going to go into the whole health care debate except to say….what ideas do you have? How do you fix the problem of 30 million Americans…mostly hard working Americans, not able to afford to go to the doctor when they are sick? Something is wrong with this country if that’s the truth. Maybe it really is time for a change? Maybe you that hate the idea just need to think it through? What is more important to you…the loss of a few bucks in income, or the well being of those who can’t afford health care through no fault of their own? Try to remember that contrary to what some conservative radio talk show hosts espouse, we are not all created equal when it comes to abilities.

What is Obama up to…

Torture and the Law

Compiled by Vienna Colucci, November 2001

What is torture?

Torture cannot be defined by a list of prohibited practices. Human rights treaties define it in a number of different ways, reflecting the different contexts in which they were drafted and the purposes of each particular treaty.

The Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 1984 and entered into force on June 26, 1987.

It defines torture as any act by which:

severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental; is intentionally inflicted on a person; for such purposes as:

• obtaining from him/her or a third person information or a confession
• punishing him/her for an act she/he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed
• intimidating or coercing him/her or a third person
• or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind;

when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity.

What is ill treatment?

It is impossible to draw a clear dividing line between ''torture'' and other ''cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.? Whether an act of ill treatment constitutes torture depends on a number of factors, including the nature and severity of the abuse. Both torture and ill treatment are prohibited in all circumstances by international law.

In times of international armed conflict, ill treatment (described as "inhuman treatment'' and ''willfully causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or health' in the Geneva Conventions) are prohibited and criminalized as grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions. These grave breaches are also incorporated in the jurisdiction of the Yugoslavia Tribunal and of the International Criminal Court.

Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions prohibits ''violence to life and person,'' in particular ''mutilation, cruel treatment and torture'' and also prohibits ''outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment''. These terms include ''other forms of cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment." The drafters of common Article 3 avoided a detailed list of prohibited acts in order to ensure that it had the broadest possible reach, leaving no loophole. As the official commentary by the International Committee of the Red Cross explained:

''It is always dangerous to go into too much detail -- especially in this domain. However great the care taken in drawing up a list of all the various forms of infliction, it would never be possible to catch up with the imagination of future torturers who wished to satisfy their bestial instincts; the more specific and complete a list tries to be, the more restrictive it becomes. The form of wording adopted is flexible, and, at the same time, precise.''

Every act of torture is a crime under international law.

• If torture is committed in an armed conflict, it constitutes the war crime of torture.
• If torture is committed as part of a systematic or a widespread pattern of similar acts, it constitutes the crime against humanity of torture.
• The Convention against Torture prohibits torture as an independent crime, as a war crime, and as a crime against humanity, absolutely and in all circumstances.
• The Geneva Conventions prohibit the war crime of torture in both international wars and internal conflicts such as civil wars or rebellions.
• The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court prohibits torture when it constitutes genocide, a crime against humanity or a war crime.

Are there exceptions to the prohibition against torture?

No. Article 2(2) of the Convention states that: "No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture."

The prohibition of torture has a special status in international law. It is part of customary international law, which means it is binding on all states, whether or not they have ratified any of the international human rights treaties.

The prohibition on torture is also a ''peremptory norm,'' which means that it cannot be overruled by any other law or by local custom.

May the United States extradite a person to a country where she/he might face torture?

No. Article 3.1 of the Convention against Torture states that: "No State Party shall expel, return ("refouler") or extradite a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture."

------

People complain because of Obama’s decision to close the Guantanamo Bay facility. Why would he do such a thing?

People complain because Obama is having Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab tried in conventional court instead of a military tribunal. Why would he do such a thing?

Could it be because it’s so easy to cross the line when no one is watching, when there are no real witnesses? Is Obama trying to hold us to a higher standard? Is that bad?

I wonder if Jesus would be for or against these changes?

True motives?

First off, let me just say that I’m not a republican and I’m not a democrat.  I’m just an American.

As you probably know by now, we lost our bid to host the 2016 Olympic games here in the USA. You may also know that, President Obama, got personally involved in an attempt to secure those games. Why? The Fox News channel, of course, is spinning the negative and saying that the president did so for all the wrong reasons…selfish and vain reasons. Of course, they are not quoting the president, just telling us what they ‘think’. I also have a thought. Maybe the President went out of his way to try to bring business here? Maybe he was willing to humble himself and make a plea to the IOC for the games for the benefit of Americans? After all, we all know that hosting the games creates jobs and increases tourism which helps our economy. Right?