After reading this, I am irritated that he would veto that. Especially since cruel and unusual punishment is against the law, this would be going against it. I wonder how the hell is torturing people going to prevent terrorism? How is doing what they do to us fighting terrorism? If we torture, we will then be seen as terrorists in their eyes. This will give them even more reason to hate us. People, not ALL THE PEOPLE, but some people over in the east have commited horrible crimes, but those are just SOME PEOPLE. Perhaps I'm going off topic. Anyway, seriously Bush...your a mockery to these United States.
WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush said Saturday he vetoed legislation that would ban the CIA from using harsh interrogation methods such as waterboarding to break suspected terrorists because it would end practices that have prevented attacks.
art.bush.afp.gi.jpg
President Bush waits to speak to the Heritage Foundation about waterboarding and terrorism in November 2007.
"The bill Congress sent me would take away one of the most valuable tools in the war on terror," Bush said in his weekly radio address taped for broadcast Saturday. "So today I vetoed it," Bush said. The bill he rejected provides guidelines for intelligence activities for the year and has the interrogation requirement as one provision. It cleared the House in December and the Senate last month.
"This is no time for Congress to abandon practices that have a proven track record of keeping America safe," the president said.
Supporters of the legislation say it would preserve the United States' ability to collect critical intelligence while also providing a much-needed boost to country's moral standing abroad.
"Torture is a black mark against the United States," said Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-California. "We will not stop until [the ban] becomes law."
The bill would limit CIA interrogators to the 19 techniques allowed for use by military questioners. The Army field manual in 2006 banned using methods such as waterboarding or sensory deprivation on uncooperative prisoners.
Bush said the CIA must retain use of "specialized interrogation procedures" that the military doesn't need. The military methods are designed for questioning "lawful combatants captured on the battlefield," while intelligence professionals are dealing with "hardened terrorists" who have been trained to resist the techniques in the Army manual, the president said.
Don't Miss
* Internal Justice examines waterboarding
* CIA head: Waterboarding necessary; probably illegal
"We created alternative procedures to question the most dangerous al Qaeda operatives, particularly those who might have knowledge of attacks planned on our homeland," Bush said. "If we were to shut down this program and restrict the CIA to methods in the field manual, we could lose vital information from senior al Qaeda terrorists, and that could cost American lives."
The legislation's backers say the military's approved methods are sufficient to any need.
Those 19 interrogation techniques to which the bill would have restricted CIA personnel include the "good cop/bad cop" routine, making prisoners think they are in another country's custody and separating a prisoner from others for up to 30 days.
Among the techniques the field manual prohibits are hooding prisoners or putting duct tape across their eyes, stripping them naked, forcing them to perform or mimic sexual acts, or beating, electrocuting, burning or otherwise physically hurting them.
They may not be subjected to hypothermia or mock executions. It does not allow food, water and medical treatment to be withheld. Dogs may not be used in any aspect of interrogation.
But waterboarding is the most high-profile and controversial of the interrogation methods in question.
It involves strapping a person down and pouring water over his or her cloth-covered face to simulate and create the sensation of drowning. It has been traced back hundreds of years to the Spanish Inquisition and is condemned by nations around the world and human rights organizations as torture.
Some argue it must be banned because, if torture, it is illegal under international and U.S. law. The Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 includes a provision barring cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment for all detainees in U.S. custody, including CIA prisoners, and many believe that covers waterboarding.
Others say that, even if legal, there are practical arguments against waterboarding: that its use would undermine the U.S. when arguing overseas for human rights and on other moral issues and would place Americans at greater risk of being tortured when captured.
"President Bush's veto will be one of the most shameful acts of his presidency," Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Massachusetts, said in a statement Friday. "Unless Congress overrides the veto, it will go down in history as a flagrant insult to the rule of law and a serious stain on the good name of America in the eyes of the world."
He noted that the Army field manual contends that harsh interrogation is a "poor technique that yields unreliable results, may damage subsequent collection efforts, and can induce the source to say what he thinks the (interrogator) wants to hear."
The U.S. military specifically prohibited waterboarding in 2006. The CIA also prohibited the practice in 2006, and says it has not been used since three prisoners encountered it in 2003.
But while some Bush administration officials have questioned the current legality of waterboarding, the administration has refused to rule definitively on whether it is torture. Bush has said many times that his administration does not torture.
The White House says waterboarding remains among the interrogation methods potentially available to the CIA. Its use would have to be approved, on a case-by-case basis, by the president after consultation with the attorney general and the intelligence community. Among the acceptable situations for approving it could be belief of imminent attack, according to the White House.
"Because the danger remains, we need to ensure our intelligence officials have all the tools they need to stop the terrorists," Bush said
Saturday, March 8, 2008
Bush vetoes bill against waterboarding.
Thursday, March 6, 2008
I must say...
That Hume thinks accounts of miracles are lies because they defy the very laws of nature and that there has not been a sufficient amount of instances in history to prove miracles exist. Miracles are not a part of a law of nature, but defy those laws we have come to know and love. They defy all logic!
Which is true, miracles such as a man coming back to life after three days does defy all logic!
But.
A man coming back to life, after a few minutes, because he was brought back to life through means of medicine or medical technology, isn't that deemed a miracle too? I believe that it is possible, but after three days? The brain would long since be dead, thus leaving the person completely vegetable-ized (new word, hurrah!) if he was able to be brought back to life.
I do agree that Hume poses some interesting arguments, but if ESP, ghost, etc are a part of miracles then I cannot agree with Hume.
I've finished my homework for this, but I feel as though I may not have completely grasped the point of this homework assignment. I posed his BEST argument that there are not good grounds to believe in miracles. Which is that there are not more accounts of these miracles. But aren't miracles interpreted differently by people?
I think this man is crazy, just like I do everyone else!
I say we riot! RIOT!!
Tuesday, March 4, 2008
The day in a quick rant.
Philosophy rocked!
Had a midterm today in Sign. I did quite well I'm sure.
Took some photos.
I've completely fucked up my assignment for Photojournalism. I have almost nothing and it sucks! My next assignment, I thought I had in the bag, but not so much. I need to ask the teacher if it is OK to do 4B instead of 4A. Damn you people, damn you...
Other than that.
Good day. I'm tired, I need to shower and I'm going to go poo now.
Monday, March 3, 2008
You're a piece of shit, you faggot.
"You are a piece of shit, you're a faggot. Your friends too" Or something to that extent.
That is one of the negative comments recieved on this video.
I think I may get more, it's possible. I think it is funny. It's true, everyone deserves their own doll.
This makes me want to make more offensive videos just so I can get views, but no.
Although I do need to think of some thing to talk about to make my videos a little more interesting and to spark debate. Or perhaps, MURDER.
DREAM JOURNAL. Reflections.
An odd dream. In fact, I had several in at different times. Most of them were when I was falling asleep and beginning to dream and my phone's vibrating would startle me awake. I managed to start running down a hill in Ireland at one point. That's not the point though.
I had one of those, "My ex boyfriend is in my dream" dreams. Apparently this one works at Wal-mart in my dream. I know for a fact he doesn't. A restaurant is where he works at now a days. I believe he is a manager..anyway.
I saw him the other day actually, didn't really speak to him much. That's just how it is between us I guess.
Well, in the dream it was a bit awkward. Actually it was actually a good dream in a sort of way. I bumped into him at Wal-mart and within the dream my feelings started coming back for him. It wasn't as if we had a messy break-up or anything. I ended up leaving him for someone else, which I know now, wasn't really the best thing. We were in a good relationship that was only getting better and I screwed it up. I still wonder sometimes when I see him, the "what if". Then I quickly bat that aside because I know it will not happen again. In fact, he's married now from what I've heard. In the dream, we exchanged our numbers. We were passing glances at each other the entire dream and at one point I think we were hanging out. All I really remember are the feelings exchanged. It seemed to me that both of us were still wondering what could have been if I hadn't have done what I done. By the way, I actually did leave him for someone else. It wasn't in the dream that it happened. I know, hit me now if you'd like. I was young and did not know what I want. It happens, right?
Now I'm stuck wondering. Well, as soon as I heard he was married I thought, 'Wow..." I have heard about all the things he has gone through since we broke up. In fact, it took him a while to actually forgive me. I know I shouldn't beat myself up now because of something in the past, but it is more of a "what if" situation.
I remember over a year ago when he messaged me on AIM. He was drunk at the time. He ended up telling me how horrible he felt because of what I did. How I can't believe I did that to him. I completely understood and I just sat back and told him to say whatever it is he felt. Afterwards, I guess he moved on. Which is a good thing. I also remember last year, we hung out at my house for a few hours. He came on over from Modesto and we watched Rosanne and chit chatted. I wonder if he felt the tension too? Back then; even though, it was less than a year ago I know I was a bit different than I am now. I contemplating making a move on him, but I guess I knew that it was done and over with. Regardless of the "what if" questions running through my mind. He was looking really good, he lost the weight he's been wanting to lose and has kept it off. There I was still all chunky, I'm fine with that, but being only human I compared and wondered if he would ever find me attractive again. Not just physically, but mentally. I know I've learned from these experiences.
I've learned that when you're young, you do stupid shit. I know that should be completely obvious, but it isn't when you are actually younger. I've learned that running into the arms of another man while you're with someone else, isn't always one of the best things to do. In fact, I don't think it to be the best thing especially if you don't know the other man as well as you would like. You end up with someone who neglects to pay attention to you and plays video games, while you sit there trying to figure out what to do with yourself while they numb themselves. Wondering how much they've smoked since they are a heavy smoker. Wondering how much vicodin they took because lord knows they won't admit to having a drug problem.
Yeah, sometimes leaving a good relationship for another man isn't always a good thing. I have learned that. I am slowly learning what a healthy, mature relationship should be like. I just haven't found one just yet. I guess it is because I wasn't willing to try as much as I say I do. Now I am, when it does happen I will try my best to welcome it. I understand that now I'm very happy being single. In fact, I haven't really done much. No dating, no sexual encounters, no nothing. Just school, school, friends, school, school. I have been so consumed. I'm sure there is someone there. Until then, I live my own life. I don't let the fact that I'm single bother me anymore. I don't let the fact that I'm not in a relationship bother me anymore. It just doesn't bother me. I'm quite fine with it. I know right now it doesn't seem like it, but let me tell you that you're wrong in your assumption that I'm lying to myself. I wrote this to recount my dream and my feelings thrown out because of the dream.
It'll be OK though. I thank my friends for always being so good to me. I thank them for their support in what I do and fulfilling me in ways that a man has not been able to. I have fulfilled myself in many ways. I am working on my mind and it expanding as the days pass. I thank my family for their support. I thank myself for pushing myself to do what I need to do in order to better myself in this year and years to come.
I am Alan and I fucking rock babeh!
Heck to the yah, mother fuckers!
Sunday, March 2, 2008
Fremont and Silent Laughter
Shannon, Chi, and I went to watch Silent Laughter over at California School for the Deaf in Fremont. The play is acted out just like a silent movie would be. Some signs were used, but most of it was body movements. I found myself in tears because I laughed so hard. It was a really amazing show! I wanted more!
We met some of the actors, the picture that's up here is of me and the main character, "Billy" or his real name Cary Holcomb. A very nice kid, along with the rest of the cast. All of them were friendly. I used the flash on "Billy"s chum in the play and she was blinded by it. Well not so much blinded, but she covered her eyes and had a shocked expression.
Afterwards, we drove back to Modest and went to Denny's.
Fun times!
I loved yesterday, and like I said - I want more play!
http://www.flickr.com/photos/silentprotext/sets/72157604030448373/
Here's a link to photos taken yesterday.
Enjoy!
Oh and I am finished with my Philosophy stuffs. Well, hopefully!
=[
