Wednesday, September 27, 2006

The Passion behind the Geneva Conventions

"You don't need blanket advance approval for blanket torture," President Bill Clinton

The title of this commentary is dually fitted for such a discussion. The Passion behind the Geneva Conventions.

“The first Geneva Convention was signed in 1864 to protect the sick and wounded in war time. In 1929, two more Geneva Conventions dealt with the treatment of the wounded and prisoners of war. The Hague Convention on the Protection of Cultural Property was signed in 1954, the United Nations Convention on Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Techniques followed in 1977, together with two Additional Protocols to the Geneva Conventions of 1949, extending their protections to civil wars. (1 see note)”

The Conventions add civil parameters to war. Without such parameters, military options for governments such as torture and Nuclear bombardment would be acceptable.

In America, pride is taking in the Constitution which states that international treaties such as the Geneva Conventions are law.

The Conventions also state:

“All persons who do not take a direct part or who have ceased to take part in hostilities, whether or not their liberty has been restricted, are entitled to respect for their person, honour and convictions and religious practices. They shall in all circumstances be treated humanely (1 see note)”.

Millions firmly believe that Universal Human Rights should never be washed aside, most definitely NEVER by the government of United States of America.

The flag, the national anthem, the statue of liberty, the Constitution. All symbols of liberty, hope, and freedom which only the United Sates once was a shining beacon of.

Imagine this scenario: you are arrested, you are given no reasoning nor charge. You are afforded no rights, no hearing, no trial, no habeas corpus. Torture may be used upon you. And I ask you, also ask your family, how long would such treatment be acceptable?

The United States government is currently engaged in such a scenario.

This is where the Passion behind the Geneva Conventions is derived from. In my eyes, simple rights belong to all people: American or not.

There are those, many calling themselves Conservatives that ask why we should care about the rights of those in other countries. (Nevertheless American citizens allegedly linked to terrorism).

Well America cared about Rights and the dignity of Life during World War II. America cared about Rights and the dignity of all Life during Kosovo. I ask these so called ‘conservatives (with a little “c”) why not care about Rights and the dignity of life during your War on Terror?

Honorable President William Jefferson Clinton:

Info on the Conventions (1):

Iraq War Fuels Terrorism Threat

The U.S. war in Iraq has increased, not decreased, the threat of terrorism, according to a top-level, classified intelligence summary.
Findings of that National Intelligence Estimate on "Trends in Global Terrorism" were first reported over the weekend by The New York Times.

The intellegence report finds the war in Iraq has fueled a new generation of Islamic radicalism, which has spread around the globe.
U.S. intelligence chief John Negroponte disputes that characterization of the report, saying published accounts reflect only "a small handful" of the study's conclusions.

Robert Hutchings was the chairman of the National Intelligence Council in 2004 when the Council wrote a similarly critical, but unclassified, review. Hutchings speaks with Renee Montagne about the news.

Thursday, September 21, 2006

Dubai Still Owns U.S. Ports

Six months ago, Dubai Ports World reached an agreement with Congress to sell its North American operations to a U.S.-based firm within four to six months. Six months later, the company still owns those ports, but says it will sell soon. Democrats say they will make it a campaign issue if a sale isn¿t completed before the November elections.



The GW Bush Administration in its support of Dubai have placed its goal of privatization above that of the general security of the American people. From my observation the American people do not want a Middle Eastern firm having partial nor complete control over any USA port.

Numerous reports have shown that Americas ports are the nations weakest points on Security, that millions of packages enter the country unchecked. Putting such port points of entry in the control of a Muslim Middle East based corporation is not a good idea.

Furthermore on the economic front, Americans want to keep as many jobs in the hands pf American firms.

Let me tell you something. The true colors of GW Bush is not a sincere concern for national Security but an suspect obsessive interest for certain business affiliations, corporations and the wealthy.

Look for yourself, GW Bush spoke on National television to assist DuBai Ports but offered no assistance to the American company Ford Motor Company. This is why I call GW Bush’s actions suspect.

Tuesday, September 12, 2006

President Clinton vs. Mr. Bush

There is a movie that has created some discussion of the Honorable President Bill Clinton, whom has served his nation well leading through peace and economic prosperity.

The Face of the matter is that 9/11, the War in Iraq, the London City Bombings, and disdains for USA Policy amongst multiple countries had occurred under the watch of G.W. Bush. Bush who is leading our nation to Wars and economic decline.

Monday, September 11, 2006


O say, can you see, by the dawn's early light,What so proudly we hailed at the twilight's last gleaming?Whose broad stripes and bright stars, through the perilous fight,O'er the ramparts we watched, were so gallantly streaming!And the rockets' red glare, the bombs bursting in air,Gave proof through the night that our flag was still there:O say, does that star-spangled banner yet waveO'er the land of the free and the home of the brave?

On the shore, dimly seen thro' the mist of the deep,Where the foe's haughty host in dread silence reposes,What is that which the breeze, o'er the towering steep.As it fitfully blows, half conceals, half discloses?Now it catches the gleam of the morning's first beam,In full glory reflected, now shines on the stream'Tis the star-spangled banner. Oh! long may it waveO'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!

And where is that band who so vauntingly sworeThat the havoc of war and the battle's confusionA home and a country should leave us no more?Their blood has washed out their foul footstep's pollution.No refuge could save the hireling and slaveFrom the terror of flight, or the gloom of the grave,And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth waveO'er the land of the free and the home of the brave.

Oh! thus be it ever, when freemen shall standBetween their loved homes and the war's desolation,Blest with vict'ry and peace, may the Heav'n - rescued landPraise the Pow'r that hath made and preserved us a nation.Then conquer we must, for our cause is just,And this be our motto--"In God is our trust."And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth waveO'er the land of the free and the home of the brave.

Friday, September 08, 2006

Saddam had No Links to Al Qaida

"There is no evidence that Saddam Hussein had any relationship with the late terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi or with al-Qaida, the Senate Intelligence Committee says in a new report.

The partially declassified review of U.S. intelligence in Iraq prior to the toppling of Saddam Hussein refutes several claims made by the Bush administration.

Republicans dismiss the report as "old news," but Democrats say the report destroys the administration's case for going to war. The report also raises questions about the role of former CIA director George Tenet in making the case for war.

Release of the committee's report comes more than two and a half years after Democrats on the panel demanded a probe into the use or abuse of intelligence leading up to the Iraq war. Only the first two parts of that probe are in today's report. The most explosive elements of the findings compare pre- Iraq war intelligence with what was learned later.

No Republicans who serve on the committee were on hand to comment on the findings. But the panel's Democratic vice chairman, Jay Rockefeller, declared on the Senate floor that the document shows the Bush administration's case for invading Iraq "exploited a deep sense of insecurity" Americans felt following the 9-11 attacks.

"The administration, in its zeal to promote public opinion in the United States for toppling Saddam Hussein, pursued a deceptive strategy prior to the war of using intelligence" that was either unreliable, inaccurate or fabricated, the Sen. Rockefeller said.

Fellow Democrat Carl Levin of Michigan said that despite evidence to the contrary, President Bush last month continued to insist that Saddam Hussein had a relationship with Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the recently killed leader of al-Qaida in Iraq.

The report cites other intelligence reports from both before and after the war that raised serious doubts about Iraq's ties to al-Qaida. It also relates how former CIA director George Tenet issued a statement that bolstered the case for war just before Congress voted on authorizing the use of force in Iraq -- even though the CIA had found unlikely the administration's claim that Saddam Hussein planned to use weapons of mass destruction.
White House spokesman Tony Snow dismissed the report, saying, "We'll let people quibble over three years ago."

"The important thing to do," Snow said, "is to figure out what you're doing tomorrow and the day after and the month after and the year after to make sure that this war on terror is won."

NPR Report:

Tuesday, September 05, 2006

National Security: What Would the Democrats Do?

Frankly, I do not believe National Security would have been the focal point or shall be the focus of a Democratic administration.

I wrote this post in anticipation of the Congressional elections of 2006 and the Presidential election of 2008 in hope of persuading more Republicans to vote for Democrats. If at all for the purpose of restoring political balance back within the government of our great nation.

The nearest example of what the Democrats would do is clear in the 8 year jubilee led by the Honorable President Bill Clinton of Arkansas. This is too long ago to remember so I give an example of a current great world leader.

I would ask for those of you who sincerely have no clue of what a Democrat would do too visualize Tony Blair. While Great Britain has been bombed and has foiled terrorist attacks, do you know what the focus of Honorable Prime Minister Tony Blair’s administration is?

Tony Blair’s focus is on Anti-Social Behavior. On the other hand his approach to the War on Terror is through law enforcement.

This is how the Democrats would govern.

They would focus on Domestic needs of the American people first while realistically providing for the National Security.

I know I’m not making this up because I remember how Bill Clinton placed an emphasized and invested more money into law enforcement and the War he did pure in Kosovo, we went in did our job and left. And while doing so the USA engaged in international corporation, and utilized the UN, NATO, and troops from other countries. I vaguely remember John Kerry also speaking of a more law enforcement approach to fighting the War on Terror.

This is how the Democrats would govern and it worked then and is working in Great Britain.

Now back to Tony Blair. He is seeking to have teachers pick up on signs of anti-social behavior in children in order to ward off such actions early on.

At the same time our President George W. Bush is giving numerous speeches about the War on Terror and staying the course in Iraq.

Why not does Great Britain, nor Russia, nor China, nor France, nor Germany have 100,000 plus troops in Iraq?

Why then is the USA draining its economy in the Middle East?

The American people are crying out against this War in Iraq, worried about the economy, the government is negligent on Domestic needs: Faith Based and Community Grants, Schools, Energy Prices, Social Services, the response to Natural Disasters, jobs, benefits and wages, healthcare, Medicaid, Medicare and other general cost of living.

Healthcare in the USA simply must be reformed. When someone who has employer insurance still has little access and options, what of that person whom does not have this benefit? Money must be removed from the equation.

How dare those in Washington D.C. state the federal government has little role in responding to such events as last years Hurricane Katrina. If our government fails the people in such a basic need, my lord. Then what is the role of government? The question is what are the priorities of this administration? And are these priorities in line with the desires of the American people?

These are the bread and butter issues. How much more sacrifice does the Bush Family and the countless other rich families in America want for the working class to make before these policy cease?

President George Washington dedicated his life to the creation of our great nation in order to provide for the common good of the free people of the United States of America. Now George W. Bush and his ‘administrators’ are seeking to rewrite the book itself.

I recount how Bush talked about Saddam Hussein in saying “he tried to kill my father”. And how far fetched it may sound I think of how Bush tried to take my Social Security.

Where is the common good in policy where everything is private? There is reason and purpose for government in providing for its citizens. It seems that some are seeking to establish a state where the benefit of being an American citizen is no different than being a citizen of Afghanistan.

Just today President Bush gave another speech on the War in Iraq where he repeated exactly the same things he has been saying for years.

Our country has been gravely misdirected and it has been far too many Bush years passed a time for change.

Blair’s campaign against Anti-Social Behavior:

Election Day: Primary Results!!!

The Winners Are!!!

Jim Davis
Wins Democratic nomination with 47%

Charlie Crist
Wins Republican nomination with 63%

U.S. Senate
Katherine Harris
Wins the Republican nomination with 50%

FL-Congressional District 13
Christine Jennings wins the Democratic nomination with 64%

Vern Buchanan wins Republican nomination with 32.3%

Tom Lee-R 56%

Attorney General
Skip Campbell-D 65.7%

As of: 10:40pm 09/05/06
, reporting based on the Florida Dept. of State

DEMS must Call Out the Republicans

To Win, Democrats especially in Florida must step outside of their comfort zone and challenge Republicans head on.

This “Democratic comfort zone” has not won elections since Bill Clinton. The Progressives of the Party may not necessarily turn out to vote and if they do they may vote for a 3rd party candidate. The Progressives of the Democratic Party most definitely in this year’s election cannot be counted on because they may not vote for a candidate who supports the Iraq War.

In addition, the Republicans have sucked up yes small but strategically significant demographics such as business and religious interest within the Hispanic and African American communities.

The DEMS must then grow its base.

Democrats must articulate their position on the following:

The Iraq War
Homeland Security
The Economy

Changes to current Immigration Policy in reality is not of great concern to the majority of DEMS, however it is to Republicans. This is where the DEMS can win not just swing votes but the support of those who usually vote for the GOP.

I personally believe that in light of the current political climate if a Democrat runs solely on these 4 issues presenting a better plan than their Republican opponent they will win.

I've attended many Democratic functions and have heard folk say “democrats will always win on the issues". The fact is the DEMS have not won in Florida.

It is apparent that after loosing 2 important consecutive elections that a more coherent message along with directly calling out the Republicans will win for the Democratic Party.

This calling out is not the same as negative campaign tactics attacking your opponent.