| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 11/23 |
| 2002/8/23 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:25659 Activity:high |
8/22 mabye the bush supporters here would like to explain what internment
camps for US citizens stipped of all rights have to do with
the "core conservative values" you always drone on about.
http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0814-05.htm
LA times article by GW law professor about Ashcrofts plans
for US concentration camps for those deemed unloyal.
\_ Report to the re-education camps immediately.
\_ It is a subject that deserves more than just a
a few sentences in the MOTD or an article in the LA times.
If you want a serious discussion without demagoguery, including
links to ex parte Quirin and other relevant SCOTUS rulings
try these:
http://freerepublic.com/focus/news/735247/posts?page=1,50
http://freerepublic.com/focus/news/733078/posts?page=51,50
http://freerepublic.com/focus/news/736952/posts
\_ ok, so it seems freepers can see this for the blatant
attack on american freedoms it is. so why are they
so gung ho for Bush? he appointed Ashcroft.
everyone but total idiots knew he would appoint people
with Ashcrofts ideology. so why all the bush loving?
is it a lesser of evils thing?
also, i'd like to point out that one of your freeper links
is just a link to the same article i posted. -op
\_ Here. Read this. There are laws in the this country and
things are being taken care of. Just chill and relax and
smoke a bowl. You'll feel better knowing the system works.
Checks and balances, kids.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A50967-2002Aug22.html
\_ 1. that's a seperate isssue: surveilance
2. you still haven't answered my question
3. your beloved bush administration is already chalenging
the decision.
Fine, I'll keep your links, but they are missing valuable
insight and information you will unlikely find elsewhere.
There is no competition of ideas, just punditry.
http://nyt.com/focus/news/735247/posts?page=1,50
http://nyt.com/focus/news/733078/posts?page=51,50
http://nyt.com/focus/news/736952/posts
\_ That's not the half of it. Check out this:
http://csua.org/u/1a4
\_ You see, in this country we have this thing we call 'the law' and
just because the La Times tells you someone plans on breaking the
law or has been breaking the law does not mean it is so. If in
fact some actually really does break the law then that has nothing
to do with conservative values. Let us know when it happens and
then there'll be something to talk about.
\_ The problem with links like this from sites with an obvious
political agenda is the entire piece is based on their claims of
the existance of plans for internment camps and rights stripping
for US citizens, however, they fail to provide any reference to
said plans and force the reader to take their word for it at face
value (which you apparently have) with no reliable evidence
what so ever. Whatever your own politics may be, and this applies
to everyone on the motd, it is important to carefully examine and
question the sources one relies upon for information and the basis
for one's views and beliefs. Without a reliable second or third
source, the reader is at the mercy of the agenda driven and we all
*know* people with an axe to grind will always twist a story or only
tell the parts (out of context) that support their views. This is
an 'intellectually dangerous' path to follow. Question everything.
\_ what part of US citizens arrested on US soil don't you
understand?
\_ there is this place called a prison where there are tons
of american citizens arrested and lots of illegal aliens as
well.
\_ US citizens get arrested all the time. That's what happens
when you break the law. I understand and enourage that sort
of thing. We even sometimes extradite people from other
counrties to this country to try and jail them. Seriously,
dude, you're going nowhere with that simplistic comment. |
| 11/23 |
|
| www.commondreams.org/views02/0814-05.htm The proposed camp plan should trigger immediate congressional hearings and reconsideration of Ashcroft's fitness for this important office. Whereas Al Qaeda is a threat to the lives of our citizens, Ashcroft has become a clear and present threat to our liberties. The camp plan was forged at an optimistic time for Ashcroft's small inner circle, which has been carefully watching two test cases to see whether this vision could become a reality. Hamdi has been held without charge even though the facts of his case are virtually identical to those in the case of John Walker Lindh. Both Hamdi and Lindh were captured in Afghanistan as foot soldiers in Taliban units. Yet Lindh was given a lawyer and a trial, while Hamdi rots in a floating Navy brig in Norfolk, Va. This week, the government refused to comply with a federal judge who ordered that he be given the underlying evidence justifying Hamdi's treatment. The administration later issued an embarrassing correction that there was no evidence Padilla was on such a mission. What is clear is that Padilla is an American citizen and was arrested in the United States--two facts that should trigger the full application of constitutional rights. Ashcroft hopes to use his self-made "enemy combatant" stamp for any citizen whom he deems to be part of a wider terrorist conspiracy. Perhaps because of his discredited claims of preventing radiological terrorism, aides have indicated that a "high-level committee" will recommend which citizens are to be stripped of their constitutional rights and sent to Ashcroft's new camps. Few would have imagined any attorney general seeking to reestablish such camps for citizens. Of course, Ashcroft is not considering camps on the order of the internment camps used to incarcerate Japanese American citizens in World War II. We are only now getting a full vision of Ashcroft's America. Some of his predecessors dreamed of creating a great society or a nation unfettered by racism. Ashcroft seems to dream of a country secured from itself, neatly contained and controlled by his judgment of loyalty. For more than 200 years, security and liberty have been viewed as coexistent values. Ashcroft and his aides appear to view this relationship as lineal, where security must precede liberty. Since the nation will never be entirely safe from terrorism, liberty has become a mere rhetorical justification for increased security. Ashcroft is a catalyst for constitutional devolution, encouraging citizens to accept autocratic rule as their only way of avoiding massive terrorist attacks. His greatest problem has been preserving a level of panic and fear that would induce a free people to surrender the rights so dearly won by their ancestors. In "A Man for All Seasons," Sir Thomas More was confronted by a young lawyer, Will Roper, who sought his daughter's hand. Roper proclaimed that he would cut down every law in England to get after the devil. More's response seems almost tailored for Ashcroft: "And when the last law was down and the devil turned round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? If we cannot join together to fight the abomination of American camps, we have already lost what we are defending. Jonathan Turley is a professor of constitutional law at George Washington University. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. Common Dreams 19 NewsCenter A non-profit news service providing breaking news & views for the progressive community. |
| freerepublic.com/focus/news/735247/posts?page=1,50 The left bleeds rivers of blood for Esam hamdi who like me, was born in a country not of his heritage but one of the place his parents happened to be. I was born in Japan where my father an Army Lieutenant was stationed along with his Army bride from Texas and son my brother. Would I take up arms against Japan in the event it attacked the US? Esam hamdi is about as much an American as I'm Japanese! Ashcroft scheme is a Solomon like decision made with all the facts which were conveniently left out of Turley's Op Ed ! My youngest sister was also born overseas as a military brat. She would never side with Italy if it should come to that. This little fact was not in his article, Esam hamdi left the US when he was two. On a related note, this article was published on another message board I frequent and, not surprisingly, there it was treated as a NEWS story by the knee-jerk liberals. And also a Leftist stooge determined to prevent America from defending itself from terrorists. Whatever powers this new Imperial administration decides to grant itself will carry over to the next administration. Someday, the Democrats will be back in the Whitehouse and you better be ready for how they'll use the power. Imagine if X42 had this ability, what do you suspect he might have done with it? When Turley was all over Clinton's case a lot of FReepers thought he was just dandy. Now, because some don't agree with this point of view, he is just a leftist loser. It makes a whole lot more sense, IMO, to discuss the message, argue against it if you will, rather than just use ad hominem criticism which seems to me the lazy way and convinces nobody who does not already agree. But of course, this is not just an ad hominem criticism. Read between the lines and you'll see all of the arguments and rationale. That definitely excuses the crap he's pulling right now. Someone who's willing to strip away the rights of Americans in the name of security? How can we claim that democracy is the greatest form of government when we show it in action by using taliban like tactics such as suspending all the rights of a person and arbitrarly holding them for as long as the government sees fit? If these clowns have done something wrong, then charge them and give them a fair trial. Show the world that despite horrible hardship and in difficult times, we still believe in the bill or rights and liberty. That is democracy, that is the law that ashcroft swore he would enforce, not change to his will. There is no state of war, there has been no Congressional declaration of war, and the United States is not formally at war with anyone. Congress can legally declare war against "al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbolla, Lakshar-al-Jihad, Islamic Jihad, Osama bin Laden, and its members" as easily as it did against Japan. But, then at #10, he says It makes a whole lot more sense, IMO, to discuss the message, argue against it if you will, rather than just use ad hominem criticism which seems to me the lazy way and convinces nobody who does not already agree. Hitler against the Jews, questioning their loyalty to Germany as a whole and using the people's fear of the Bolshaviks to garner greater power. Face facts, the big US problem here is that unlike most countries it does not have a history of a brutal dictatorship and thus does not recognize the symptoms of one coming on. To bad for your kids, they just might get to experience one. Do you recall the US used to have censor boards that determined for adults what they could and could not see or hear. As an educated adult I will pick what I see, hear and think for myself. As I said Esam hamdi is about as much an American as I'm Japanese! Ashcroft's "scheme" is a Solomon like decision made with all the facts which were conveniently left out of Turley's Op Ed ! I lived in Europe for 3 years but that does not make me a European! Nor am I British for having lived in London for 3 years. And those who look closely know he is no threat to our Constitutional Rights. Since he has been in position, he has killed, incarcerated thousands. Perhaps we should just let them all go and see what happens? It can be great fun picking on the liberals but we should clean up our own house first. I wish that those who are all for this new era of security and safety would answer these questions: 1. When Germany rose to power under Hitler some did not complain because they were not "Jews" "unionists" etc. What prevents YOU from being charged and held without trial and without access to an attorney? Who decides who and who does not deserve the rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights? And who will decide when Bush and Ashcroft are out of office? What precedent are we setting and how can we argue against it when someone else is in power that we do not trust? If not mistaken, these were: War of 1812, War of Northern Aggression, Spanish-American War, WW I, WW II. The Regress, in all its political posturing, couldn't even be bothered to declare war against Iraq in 1990-1991. The argument that there is no state of war because the Regress hasn't declared war is historically fatuous at best. Or, does Ashcroft just get top pick which aspects of national security he will sanctify with his blessing. Ashcroft sent away Robert Conrad, the head of the task force. It was Conrad, you may recall, who told JReno to appoint an IC to investigate Gore. Still wearing his righteous hat, Ashcroft signed off on the deal that fined the shareholders of Loral $millions while agreeing to let the criminals go free. Moving along, he decided to overturn the will of the people of a sovereign state by his own fiat, even though that will had been clearly expressed in referendum, dangerously to the concept of liberty. His current plan would allow him to incarcerate you at his whim. Oh, yes, he is a both a sanctimonious fraud and a dangerous man, alright. The fact these incidents were adjudicated while a juvenile do not excuse him. You left out that any powers he establishes in the Justice Dept will carry over to his successor, who may not be a "deeply religious, patriotic American". Whatever powers this new Imperial administration decides to grant itself will carry over to the next administration. Someday, the Democrats will be back in the Whitehouse and you better be ready for how they'll use the power. This is certainly the scariest part of what we are going through now. I don't doubt we can deal with any military or terrorist attack on our citizens. But the changes wrought trying to prevent one more death due to terrorist action may set us up for some long term pain. Maybe we shouldn't try to stop the next death and just let them happen. This would be political suicide for the administration, but would be better for the nation in the long run. They would just as soon see the present administration replaced regardless of means. A few good citizen deaths would be well worth the price. If this was the approach taken the clamor to do something would be deafening. And the "something" would be done by an administration that is a polar opposite to the one in office. Further to the right or further to the left would be the only options. Being a conservative I am much more comfortable with the current approach, even with the perceived erosion of liberty, at least the current degree of erosion, than I would be with a replacement administration from the right or left. Personally, I'd guess if the administration took a hands off approach the next administration, and congress, would be from the far right. I'm sure the liberals, who know all anyway, have a different view. And those who look closely know he is no threat to our Constitutional Rights. Did you forget Ashcroft will not hold his post for life? Do you think that those powers will be rescinded when he leaves? The fact these incidents were adjudicated while a juvenile do not excuse him. Well, Randy Weaver was a gun law breaking militia man plotting to overthrow the US. Or so will say the next Democratic President who uses this scary tactic that Ashcroft is using. Here is the smell test for a law when your party is in power. If you trust Janet Reno to decide which Americans ... |
| freerepublic.com/focus/news/733078/posts?page=51,50 MY A$$, he's one of the very few PROTECTING our liberties. It's called the Golden Rule, Lindh's family has $, and Hamdi's doesn't. A federal judge ruled that they must provide info & cause on several folks they're holding already, and the Bush administration has basically told the judge to stuff it (citing executive privilege). The judge can not allow this to stand, but I have no idea how they intend to do anything about it. How about when hillery says Johnny Jihad is anyone who doesn't hand in their evil gun? Now, if he'd only go after Jesse Jackson he just might REALLY be effective. If he were really a champion of the 2^nd Amendment, he would work to scrap all gun laws. And, I wasn't aware that an AG could actually CHANGE existing law. And when the Dems are back in power, those Ashcroft camps will be filled with FReepers and dittoheads. We have known that all along however it has done nothing to reduce the hundreds perhaps thousands of unconstitutional gun control laws on the books. This "enemy combatant" designation is only a mechanism for holding Padella (and anyone who follows him) for the duration of the war like a POW, without having to open up our covert methods to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he was scouting places for dirty nukes targets upon his return from Pakistan terrorist camps. Several options for an independent review process was suggested by the WSJ a couple of months ago, but I haven't heard of any movement in that direction. But then you piss off your neighbor who knows a guy at FEMA. Suddenly your wife and kids have been arrested and taken to a camp as enemy combatants. Leaving you no recourse because civil rights have been suspended. That's a complete fraud from the imagination of the LA Times. So, he's supposed to voice his opinion with EVERY law that's out there? Evern IF he did actively speak out against the insane Brady Bill, WHAT could HE do about it? What is to stop the next DemoNAZI president from declaring YOU as an "enemy combantant"? Yes comrade, any who criticize the state deserve to spend time in the gulags. I welcome the chance to send these wreckers and traitors to the motherland to their richly deserved fate. Both are apparently too stupid to recognize tyranny when they see it. Ashcroft has stated that HE wants to keep the ability to determine WHO may keep and bear WHAT arms. Ashcroft is a liar and a SERIOUS threat to our liberties. Johnny Walker-Lindh, Richard Reid, Jose Padilla- all represent a significant threat to Society at large. Also, Lindh received special treatment because, at the time, it was assumed that he was the only American fighting for the enemy. These American citizens fought for the Taliban and/or Al Qaeda. He changed the official Justice Department policy back to the founders' original intention of the 2nd Amendment. Additionally, he's fought the rabid Democrats to destroy databases of gun owners within 24 hours of being approved to purchase a gun, rather than the previous policy of holding the information for 90 days. This was a topic discussed in great detail, on this FR site during the final two years of the Clinton fiasco. FR observers even posted very clear photos of some of the camps, that had just been completed, at the time. First, that you must obey the LAWFUL orders of your superiors. Second, that YOU are responsible for knowing what is lawful and what is not. When you are a private or Pfc, you may (mostly) presume that orders you receive from your platoon leader/fireteam leader/Company gunny are lawful. As you get promoted, you are expected to start learning more about the Constitution, the Geneva Conventions and so forth, because you are held responsible for your actions AND those of your subordinates who might follow your unlawful orders. The point of this is that Ashcroft had a hand in crafting a LOT of the unconstitutional bs he now enforces as AG BUT he is just as responsible as a Marine Corporal to know the difference between constitutional and unconstitutional and that if he enforces unconstitutional law he is as subject to sanctions as were Hitler's minions who enforced his edicts. An AG is sufficiently positioned that he is expected to KNOW the difference. That phrase conjures images of Britain in 1940, on the brink of defeat. No need to suppress anyone's rights (although the phrase is used to pass all manner of Statist mischief). We did the exact same thing with the Japanese on US soil during WWII. And we should start with the Muslims, then CAIR, the ACLU, Michael Moore, and this Turley clown! All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works. |
| freerepublic.com/focus/news/736952/posts The Patriot Act is surely something the Congress should monitor very closely. As much as I dislike parts of the Act, Ashcroft is simnply doing the job outlined by congress. Now if he refuses certain info, then her should be called to task. But if you don't like the Act, blame congress for not amending parts of it- not Ashcroft. I do believe, however, that Ashcroft should be watched very closely so he doesn't 'stretch' the intent of the Patriot Act, which is what I think most civil libertarians fear. The Democrats are recruiting delusional people like you. Does this demonstrate the precept that patroitism is the last refuge of the scoundrel or what? Didn't Ashcroft say that anyone who criticizes the govt is disloyal? I guess he would be first in line to sic the DOJ on Patrick Henry. They have to place blame on the person that has be chosen to enforce it. Remember the people who are responible for this act are the ones selected by your peers. When such emotional spur of the moment legislation is passed they "must" consider how, why, when and where it will be used and for what . Con'greased this mess so let em fix it NOW or we are going to be subjected to someone even worse than ashcroft's use of it in the future. Stay Safe 72 10 posted on 08/21/2002 9:44:32 AM PDT by 73 Squantos 74 Post Reply | 75 Private Reply | 76 To 1 | 77 View Replies To: rintense But also remember that congress voted overwhelmingly for this act as well. I think some members have since come to see that they may not want to trust the DOJ with these powers - especialy when the DOJ refuses to say what its doing with the powers. Dihn, recently presented a revealing speech ( 84 you can read it here) to the District of Columbia Bar Association. Dinh's speech reveals that he is an advocate of government in opposition to freedom. His speech opens with the words "Fundamental to the rule of law is the concept of ordered liberty," and that is a false premise. Fundamental to the rule of law -- in America -- is the concept of ordered government, a limited government so to speak, where a wide degree of individual freedom was preserved and guaranteed in the Bill of Rights. A major question in my mind is why this man -- Dinh -- is within the Bush administration. Actually, I'm not sure if any member has said he/she did read it. In principle, I think it was based on a good idea with good intent. Then Hillary and whoever she annoints Attorney General will use the Act and all of the power for HER idea of national security. Do not give the Federal Government any power you do not want Hillary to have some day. Or, does Ashcroft just get top pick which aspects of national security he will sanctify with his blessing. Ashcroft sent away Robert Conrad, the head of the task force. It was Conrad, you may recall, who told JReno to appoint an IC to investigate Gore. Still wearing his righteous hat, Ashcroft signed off on the deal that fined the shareholders of Loral $millions while agreeing to let the criminals go free. Moving along, he decided to overturn the will of the people of a sovereign state by his own fiat, even though that will had been clearly expressed in referendum, dangerously to the concept of liberty. His current plan would allow him to incarcerate you at his whim. Oh, yes, he is a both a sanctimonious fraud and a dangerous man, alright. They're in DC to raise money and retain power, not represent their constituents. Carolyn 121 18 posted on 08/21/2002 9:52:13 AM PDT by 122 CDHart 123 Post Reply | 124 Private Reply | 125 To 10 | 126 View Replies To: RJCogburn Oh, yes, he is a both a sanctimonious fraud and a dangerous man, alright. And you are a loud mouthed malcontent who bashes a good person trying to get the job done in a dangerous world despite the ad hominem sniping from people like you. You know durned well the bushbots blow a fuse when this happens! Then Hillary and whoever she annoints Attorney General will use the Act and all of the power for HER idea of national security. I bet you wake up in the morning with a seig heil to your favorote Shrub/Asscrap pictures. I'm sure there's mindless Bushbot forum somewhere for you. I bet you wake up in the morning with a seig heil to your favorote Shrub/Asscrap pictures. But I do think the Attorney General should willingly appear to answer questions. Might as well attack the administration through the back door via Ashcroft who didn't violate the law under dire circumstances but went to Congress with a plea for reality in a world of computers, throw away communication devices and false identities. All the hijackers had numerous identities, used our banking system for transferring money, our teachers for training, the web for messages and GPS communicators for the actual hits in NY and DC. They used our planes, they used our "systems" and they killed OUR PEOPLE. Apparently, loss of innocence (death) is a lower priority than freedom. When will Congress realize that the events of 9-11 and the subsequent Patriot Act set NEW limits on unbridled freedom to secure the LIVES of the PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES more effectively (or did they forget already). Sac 169 26 posted on 08/21/2002 10:09:40 AM PDT by 170 Sacajaweau 171 Post Reply | 172 Private Reply | 173 To 6 | 174 View Replies To: Seruzawa I love the cogent arguement that you provide. When engaged by someone who prefers to have a cogent discourse, you revert to hyperbole and insults. When a explanation is asked for you mis-quote out of context the famous and the in-famous to justify your limited assertions. When supplied with the facts and footnotes you go right back to insults. I guess it is because you really have little of consequence to say. I direct my comment not directly at you, but to your ilk. I have finally blown a gasket due to frustration in communicating with any or all of you. Your comments in the past have been rational and generally to the point. Do you deny that Asscrap called off Conrad and disbanded the Chinagate investigation? Do you deny that Asscrap let the traitorous criminals within Loral to escape with only a meaningless fine? Do you deny that Asscrap has failed to bring charges against the so-called scientists involved in the Lynx fiasco? If these are not true facts, then praytell, inform me of what the "true" facts are? You just know the republicrats in Congress voted for and the republicratic president signed off on it, and that is obviously good enough for you. Every true patriot knows that the republicratic party stands at the right hand of G*d and would never do anything to increase their power. The world is a dangerous place and life is rife with dangers. If you're so cowardly that you cannot see how dangerous the so-called Patriot Act is, then you are truly a lost cause and deserve a future encounter with this act under a democan president/DOJ. Ashcroft, Bush, and Congress have shown themselves to be all too willing to ignore the Constitution and enact policies that are unAmerican and difficult to reverse. Has ashcroft burned 80 americans alive within a surrounded walled compound? Has ashcroft sent his army of lawyers against democratic activist groups? Has ashcroft's FBI shot a pregnant woman and her child after bothering a man to sell them sawed off shotguns? Has ashcroft sent a little boy back to a communist island? Do you like the overreaching tentacles that interfere with EVERY aspect of its citizens lives? How can anyone who has any shred of respect for our founding fathers and the Constitution have ANY love of what it has become? We are supposed to have a Constitutionally limited Republic. Especially now that we have the anti-PATRIOT Act to contend with. You idiot Federalists have been around since the ink was still wet on the Constitution. You've been doing everything you can to centralize governing power and to exert control over a supposedly free people. Sorry if you can't stand it if we decide we've had enough. If only one of you could give a descent reasoning of why my life does not belong to me, then maybe we could get started on hammering out our differences. Alan Favish is still trying to gain release of Vince Foster photos. However, t... |
| www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A50967-2002Aug22.html References 1. |
| nyt.com/focus/news/735247/posts?page=1,50 -> www.nytimes.com/ US Soldier Paints a Scene of Eager Mayhem at Iraqi Prison By KATE ZERNIKE Specialist Jeremy C Sivits's two statements recount acts of gratuitous violence in graphic but unemotional language. Senators Assail Request for Aid for Afghan and Iraq Budgets By ERIC SCHMITT Lawmakers complained that the request to add $25 billion to pay for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan lacked specific details. The Once and (Probably) Future First Family of India By AMY WALDMAN Written off as out-of-touch and nepotistic, the Nehru-Gandhi family dynasty is poised once again to lead India. With Help From a College Pal, the Patakis' Wealth Increases By ERIC LIPTON and JAMES C McKINLEY Jr. The Pataki family, with the help from a millionaire real estate investor, has more than doubled their net worth. Iraqi Tells of US Abuse, From Ridicule to Rape Threat Michael Kamber for The New York Times Prisoner Tells of Rape Threat A man who said that he was imprisoned and abused by US forces described how they began by ridiculing his name, Saddam, and eventually escalated their abuse into a threat of rape. |
| nyt.com/focus/news/733078/posts?page=51,50 -> www.nytimes.com/ US Soldier Paints a Scene of Eager Mayhem at Iraqi Prison By KATE ZERNIKE Specialist Jeremy C Sivits's two statements recount acts of gratuitous violence in graphic but unemotional language. Senators Assail Request for Aid for Afghan and Iraq Budgets By ERIC SCHMITT Lawmakers complained that the request to add $25 billion to pay for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan lacked specific details. The Once and (Probably) Future First Family of India By AMY WALDMAN Written off as out-of-touch and nepotistic, the Nehru-Gandhi family dynasty is poised once again to lead India. With Help From a College Pal, the Patakis' Wealth Increases By ERIC LIPTON and JAMES C McKINLEY Jr. The Pataki family, with the help from a millionaire real estate investor, has more than doubled their net worth. Iraqi Tells of US Abuse, From Ridicule to Rape Threat Michael Kamber for The New York Times Prisoner Tells of Rape Threat A man who said that he was imprisoned and abused by US forces described how they began by ridiculing his name, Saddam, and eventually escalated their abuse into a threat of rape. |
| nyt.com/focus/news/736952/posts -> www.nytimes.com/ US Soldier Paints a Scene of Eager Mayhem at Iraqi Prison By KATE ZERNIKE Specialist Jeremy C Sivits's two statements recount acts of gratuitous violence in graphic but unemotional language. Senators Assail Request for Aid for Afghan and Iraq Budgets By ERIC SCHMITT Lawmakers complained that the request to add $25 billion to pay for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan lacked specific details. The Once and (Probably) Future First Family of India By AMY WALDMAN Written off as out-of-touch and nepotistic, the Nehru-Gandhi family dynasty is poised once again to lead India. With Help From a College Pal, the Patakis' Wealth Increases By ERIC LIPTON and JAMES C McKINLEY Jr. The Pataki family, with the help from a millionaire real estate investor, has more than doubled their net worth. Iraqi Tells of US Abuse, From Ridicule to Rape Threat Michael Kamber for The New York Times Prisoner Tells of Rape Threat A man who said that he was imprisoned and abused by US forces described how they began by ridiculing his name, Saddam, and eventually escalated their abuse into a threat of rape. |