27 April 2008
Weekend Chat - 04/27/08
Posted by Joy Bischoff under: What's News .
Listen Carefully
If we take a leaf out of the wolf’s book and grow big ears to hear with, we may be glad some day. That way, when the wolf is at the door, we aren’t surprised because we heard him coming and we got prepared.
The Better To Hear You With, My Dear!
5 Comments so far...
CindyL. Says:
27 April 2008 at 12:11 am.
I love that linx or whatever. So adorable and a good message.
Jesse Says:
27 April 2008 at 1:05 am.
This is by Joel Skousen. I thought it was good.
FLDS RAID: DANGEROUS LEGAL PRECEDENT
I waited a week to comment on the Texas case, separating 437 children from their FLDS parents, to see if any substantive evidence of abuse would emerge. It hasn’t. Even if it had, those could have been handled individually. But no, Texas plans instead to make every member of the group pay the supreme price: to strip away their beloved children. This case is about group punishment. In spite of a search warrant tainted by a false witness (the “Sarah” who doesn’t exist), no actual specific evidence of abuse, or any unwilling participants in this polygamous compound, a self-righteous Texas judge had decreed that all 400 + children will not be returned to the custody of their parents. Texas has gone too far to rid itself of this awkward religious sect that built the “Yearning for Zion” (YFZ) ranch in order to evade persecution in Utah and Arizona. As this tyrannical order clearly meant separating even nursing children from their mothers, a wave of outrage began to sweep the nation. The media-sensitive judge immediately changed her order (allowing children under 1 year of age to be nursed) in order to keep the tide of public relations on the side of the authorities. But this should not deter the nation from realizing the danger of the tenuous legal proposition that mere membership in a group (that may have isolated examples of marrying underage girls) makes all unworthy of possessing any children at all—ever. That is wrong, especially when legal remedies exist to prosecute specific wrongdoers.
Cameron Says:
27 April 2008 at 9:16 am.
Oil prices up on word US ship fired on boats in Persian Gulf
By JOHN WILEN, AP Business Writer Sat Apr 26, 3:25 AM ET
NEW YORK - Oil prices rose sharply Friday on news that a ship under contract to the U.S. Defense Department fired warning shots at two boats in the Persian Gulf. Retail gas prices as expected rose further into record territory, nearing $3.60 a gallon.
Crude prices rose on initial reports that a U.S. ship had fired on two Iranian boats; the news raised concerns that a conflict between U.S. and Iranian forces could cut oil supplies from the region. A Navy spokeswoman said the origin of the boats was unclear.
The news was enough to send light, sweet crude for June delivery up to $119.55 before the contract retreated to settle up $2.46 at $118.52 a barrel on the New York Mercantile Exchange.
The incident worried investors because at first it appeared to be the latest in a series of encounters between U.S. forces and Iranian boats in the Gulf. Early this month, the USS Typhoon fired a flare at an Iranian boat that came within about 200 yards of the ship. In January, several Iranian boats made what the Navy described as provocative moves near a U.S. ship in the Strait of Hormuz. And in December the USS Whidbey Island fired warning shots at a small Iranian boat officials said was rapidly approaching the ship.
On Friday, oil prices were already up before the report on news of a pipeline attack in Nigeria and a looming refinery strike in Scotland.
In Nigeria, the Movement for the Emancipation of the Niger Delta, or MEND, said its fighters hit an oil pipeline late Thursday, the fourth conduit the group has attacked in the past week. MEND said the pipeline belongs to a Royal Dutch Shell PLC joint venture. A Shell spokesman confirmed one of its pipelines had been hit, but provided no additional details.
Earlier this week, Shell said an earlier attack cut its Nigerian oil production by about 170,000 barrels a day.
Separately, workers at an ExxonMobil Corp. joint venture in Nigeria cut production by an unspecified amount to demand more pay.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080426/ap_on_bi_ge/oil_prices;_ylt=Akjv1k6OW7_9Vo7gbZrhgwmyBhIF
Matt Says:
27 April 2008 at 3:07 pm.
Letters Give C.I.A. Tactics a Legal Rationale
By MARK MAZZETTI
Published: April 27, 2008
WASHINGTON — The Justice Department has told Congress that American intelligence operatives attempting to thwart terrorist attacks can legally use interrogation methods that might otherwise be prohibited under international law.
The legal interpretation, outlined in recent letters, sheds new light on the still-secret rules for interrogations by the Central Intelligence Agency. It shows that the administration is arguing that the boundaries for interrogations should be subject to some latitude, even under an executive order issued last summer that President Bush said meant that the C.I.A. would comply with international strictures against harsh treatment of detainees.
While the Geneva Conventions prohibit “outrages upon personal dignity,” a letter sent by the Justice Department to Congress on March 5 makes clear that the administration has not drawn a precise line in deciding which interrogation methods would violate that standard, and is reserving the right to make case-by-case judgments.
“The fact that an act is undertaken to prevent a threatened terrorist attack, rather than for the purpose of humiliation or abuse, would be relevant to a reasonable observer in measuring the outrageousness of the act,” said Brian A. Benczkowski, a deputy assistant attorney general, in the letter, which had not previously been made public.
It has been clear that the order preserved at least some of the latitude that Mr. Bush has permitted the C.I.A. in using harsher interrogation techniques than those permitted by the military or other agencies. But the new documents provide more details about how the administration intends to determine whether a specific technique would be legal, depending on the circumstances involved.
Some legal experts critical of the Justice Department interpretation said the department seemed to be arguing that the prospect of thwarting a terror attack could be used to justify interrogation methods that would otherwise be illegal.
“What they are saying is that if my intent is to defend the United States rather than to humiliate you, than I have not committed an offense,” said Scott L. Silliman, who teaches national security law at Duke University.
But a senior Justice Department official strongly challenged this interpretation on Friday, saying that the purpose of the interrogation would be just one among many factors weighed in determining whether a specific procedure could be used.
“I certainly don’t want to suggest that if there’s a good purpose you can head off and humiliate and degrade someone,” said the official, speaking on the condition of anonymity because he was describing some legal judgments that remain classified.
“The fact that you are doing something for a legitimate security purpose would be relevant, but there are things that a reasonable observer would deem to be outrageous,” he said.
At the same time, the official said, “there are certainly things that can be insulting that would not raise to the level of an outrage on personal dignity.”
The humiliating and degrading treatment of prisoners is prohibited by Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions.
Benjamin Says:
27 April 2008 at 4:29 pm.
I totally agreed with the conversation I read on here awhile back that the show 24 was political propaganda to get us to accept torture as a way to deal with prisoners. The end does not justify the means and we have to follow Christian values and trust the Lord to help us.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.