how about the 5 states ok'ing the death penalty for repeat child sex offenders?
Opinions?

Castration would be a more suitable punishment for the crime...

And quite the deterrent for anyone considering becoming a first time offender... ;)

Iran's president hints willingness to resume talks on nuclear program

By Karl Vick and Dafna Linzer
THE WASHINGTON POST

June 9, 2006

TEHRAN, Iran – Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad signaled Iran's readiness yesterday to renew negotiations “to resolve misunderstandings in the international arena.”

“On behalf of the Iranian nation, I'm announcing that the Iranian nation will never hold negotiations about its definite rights with anybody, but we are for talks about mutual concerns,” Ahmadinejad said in the city of Qazvin, to which the hard-line conservative traveled on the latest of his campaign-style trips outside Iran's capital.

The statement was the most straightforward indication so far of Iran's willingness to engage six world powers, including the United States, in discussions aimed at avoiding confrontation over its nuclear program. But he did not say whether Iran would agree to the only precondition set for the talks: that the country put its program on hold during negotiations.

The International Atomic Energy Agency reported yesterday from Vienna that Iran had begun a new round of uranium enrichment this week, on the same day that Tehran received the U.S.-backed proposal for talks.

During two years of on-and-off talks that Iran held with Britain, France and Germany until 2005, it often rushed to complete an element of its nuclear program on the eve of formal negotiating sessions. The tactic irked the Europeans and eroded trust, until the talks collapsed last August.

Since then, Iran has made several technical advances. In April, Iranian officials announced progress toward industrial-level enrichment using a 164-centrifuge cascade, boasting that the achievement “changed the facts on the ground.” But if Iran accepts the preconditions set by Washington and its allies, the new round of enrichment could be its last for some time.

The IAEA inspectors have not found proof of a weapons program but have been unable to rule one out, in part because of Iran's spotty cooperation. The IAEA complained yesterday's report that Iran has failed to live up to promises to improve cooperation.

The Bush administration and other governments call Iran's program a guise for producing weapons. Iran insists it aims only to produce electricity in line with its rights as a signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty – the “definite right” that Ahmadinejad and other Iranian officials have stressed they will not give up in any new negotiations.

“We don't negotiate on the way we should live, on how we should walk and the way we must handle our economy,” he said in remarks quoted by the state broadcasting service. “Be aware whether you negotiate or not, whether you frown at us or not and whether you stay beside us or turn your back on us, the Iranian nation will not retreat from its path of development and achievement of advanced technology.”

The bellicose rhetoric was vintage Ahmadinejad, whose popularity with the Iranian public tends to be enhanced when he projects flinty independence from a disapproving West. But the language framed by the hard talk – “misunderstandings” and “mutual concerns” – appeared to signal that Iran was continuing to move toward talks.

---

me@rescam.org

Some hope after al-Zarqawi's death

TRUDY RUBIN
THE PHILADELPHIA INQUIRER

June 9, 2006

BAGHDAD, Iraq – Cars were honking in celebration as I rode through the streets of the Iraqi capital. The cell phone message from my Iraqi friend Salaam, after the news of Abu Mousab al-Zarqawi's death, was ecstatic.

“People are shooting into the air in celebration in Sadr City (a huge Shiite slum)”, he said, “and everyone is calling their friends with congratulations. They are slaughtering sheep and giving meat to the poor.”

As the news spread around Baghdad, and I got more jubilant calls, it struck me that the major impact of al-Zarqawi's death was psychological. His terrorist group, al-Qaeda in Iraq, made up mostly of foreigners, represents only a tiny fraction of Iraq's insurgents. The vast bulk are ex-Baathists, Iraqi religious fanatics and nationalists, and the U.S. military believes these groups will continue the violence.

But the two 500-pound bombs that put an end to al-Zarqawi's wretched life gave hope back to the Iraqi people. And hope is essential if Iraq is to move back from the abyss.

In my six previous trips to Iraq since 2003, I never saw or heard such despair as in the days preceding the death of al-Zarqawi. The failure of Iraqi politicians to form a government in five months since elections had created a power vacuum that insurgents and criminal gangs used to create chaos in Baghdad. Al-Zarqawi's group was the most vicious, trying deliberately and with growing success to provoke civil war by slaughtering Shiite civilians and targeting their holiest shrines.

“The situation is hopeless,” I was told by one desperate Iraqi after another. “Our hearts are full of pus,” one told me, saying there was no way to relieve the infection. One lovely young woman, who had worked on the drafting of the Iraqi constitution last year, told me she now had lost hope that democracy would give Iraqis a better future. She said grimly, “Every time I leave my house, I wonder if I will return alive.”

In this poisonous atmosphere, Iraqis had soured on their hapless government and the U.S. presence. Many had come to believe in conspiracy theories that alleged the United States was in cahoots with al-Zarqawi to keep Iraq weak and steal its oil. How else, many asked, was it possible that mighty America could not restore order to Iraq?

Many Iraqi Sunnis, the community from which most insurgents hail, had turned against al-Zarqawi and were ready to fight him – even in restive Anbar province. But al-Zarqawi's men were assassinating Sunni sheikhs and religious leaders who wanted to participate in the political process. Sunni politicians talked bitterly of the U.S. inability to protect these leaders.

If the Americans couldn't or wouldn't stop assassinations by al-Zarqawi's men in places such as Fallujah – which U.S. troops leveled and still control tightly – what chance did the locals have?

Al-Zarqawi's death provides a break from that unrelieved gloom and a hint that security might improve someday. “The Zarqawi killing will really boost morale and will show that no one is immune to punishment,” I was told by Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari, as he fielded two bleating cell phones pouring forth an endless stream of interview requests.

“It is a blow to al-Qaeda, and even to the Baathists,” Zebari added. “This doesn't mean the end of the violence, but it will give the public more confidence and more sympathy to the U.S. presence.”

The demise of al-Zarqawi also throws a lifeline to Iraqi's new prime minister, Nouri al-Maliki. After weeks of sectarian squabbles, Iraq's parties finally agreed on a choice for defense minister and interior minister, thus completing the new government.

Al-Maliki remains weak, sectarian tensions remain strong; Iraqis know the death of other terrorists didn't stop the killing. Indeed, U.S. military officials believe al-Zarqawi designated a successor to continue his grisly work if he was sidelined.

But the killing of this killer gives al-Maliki a boost. It provides an opening for the two key ministers to show whether they can improve security in Baghdad. Al-Zebari told me there will soon be a major operation by U.S. and Iraqi forces to clean Baghdad of insurgents.

Baghdadis will be waiting to see whether these forces can capitalize on this moment. And, at least for now, they can dare to hope.

A NUCLEAR-ARMED IRAN?

America can live with this for a while

By Matthew R. Auer; professor of public and environmental affairs at Indiana University.

June 9, 2006

An Iran with nuclear weapons? The U.S. can live with that under very special circumstances.

First, the effort to acquire weapons must be so costly for Iran that it dooms President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Second, an even-tempered successor regime in Iran must disarm.

In the event that diplomacy fails to halt the Iranian nuclear program, the conventional wisdom has the U.S. using force, killing two birds with one air strike: ousting a menace to American security interests and short-circuiting a grave proliferation risk.

Trouble is, this scenario is fraught with its own risks, including a possible wider war that draws in Syria, Lebanon and Israel; the emboldening of Iranian-backed terrorist networks, in particular Hezbollah; and new demands on an already very busy American military.

A high-stakes but nevertheless plausible alternative is an Ahmadinejad-led Iran that acquires nuclear weapons but at such high costs to national treasure and reputation that the radicals in Tehran are ousted, replaced by leaders that Americans as well as ordinary Iranians can trust.

The high costs of joining the nuclear club would come by way of U.N.-backed economic sanctions. This requires heretofore unwilling cooperation from Russia and China.

With adequate arm-twisting and side deals, China, and especially Russia, which shares a border with Iran, could be persuaded to back sanctions while earning praise for playing peacemakers. This scenario avoids American air strikes on Iran – strikes that might themselves involve nuclear weapons since Iran's rumored secret nuclear program is underground, insulated from conventional bunker-busting missiles.

The tricky part to this narrative is ensuring a smooth transition between the current hostile and future friendly Iranian regimes.

Overthrowing a nuclear-armed Ahmadinejad is unhelpful if the net result is a stateless Iran with nukes. Hence it is important to get the regime change strategy right, and the alternatives allegedly under consideration by the Bush administration may not be up to the task.

One such plan calls for exploiting ethnic tension in Iran. Whipping up Azeri or Kurdish nationalism in the north or Baluchi passions in the east would not foster a unified Iran nor win plaudits from nervous multiethnic allies in the region, such as Turkey and Pakistan. Indeed, the ethnic tension strategy may result in sectarian violence and authority fragmentation a la post-Saddam Iraq.

By appealing to Iranians' political sensibilities instead of their ethnic and religious identities, the Bush administration can avoid repeating mistakes made in post-war Iraq.

Iranians have recent experience with moderate (by regional standards) Islamic leadership in the administration of President Mohammad Khatami. Granted, Khatami's tenure was hobbled by the mullahs and conservatives who control the military, the police and the judiciary. But after a few years of Ahmadinejad, with the continual threat of war, the withering effects of economic sanctions, and the ignominy of pariah state status, Iranians will reflect fondly on the late 1990s under Khatami.

All the more reason for the United States to strengthen the hand of moderate-minded Iranians of which there are many. Iran's middle class, its professionals and its open-minded students will outlive Ahmadinejad, and with American help, make his tenure short.

Iran's quest for nukes, particularly if prolonged and costly to that nation, promises a Pyrrhic victory for the millenarians in Tehran. They may get what they want but won't have time to enjoy it.

A nuclear Iran is not in the U.S. interest. Nor is a brand-new American-led war in Southwest Asia. If Iran acquires nuclear weapons, America and its allies can make that choice very painful, hasten the exit of Ahmadinejad, avoid war and bargain for Iran's disarmament with an ally instead of an enemy.

---

me@rescam.org

A NUCLEAR-ARMED IRAN?

This would be America's worst nightmare

By Lawrence J. Haas; member of the Committee on the Present Danger (http://www.fightingterror.org), which advocates aggressive action in the war against terror.

June 9, 2006

When it comes to national security, prudence demands that we confront the biggest threats before they develop – not after. And no bigger threat to the United States and its allies looms than an Iran with nuclear weapons.

Preventing Tehran from getting nuclear weapons does not necessarily mean war with the Islamic Republic. We have a host of other tools at our disposal, from pressuring Iran's leaders to engaging with its pro-Western populace. But make no mistake: We must do whatever it takes, even if that means military action.

An Iran with nuclear weapons is America's worst nightmare. It would give a virulently anti-Western state that's already the world's most active state sponsor of terrorism the means to carry out – itself or through a terrorist network – its threats to eliminate not just Israel but the United States as well.

We must take leaders at their word, for history provides sobering lessons of what happens when we do not. So, when Iran's fanatical president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, vows to “wipe Israel off the face of the map” and promises a “world without America” that is “attainable, and surely can be achieved,” we should react accordingly.

Ahmadinejad and the mullah-ocracy that sanctions his presidency surely act like they mean it. Iran not only continues to pursue its aggressive globe agenda, it is also building its capacity for more mischief.

“Iran remained the most active state sponsor of terrorism,” the State Department wrote in its most recent annual report. Specifically, Tehran helps plan and support terrorist acts; provides funding, training and weapons for Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad and other key Middle East terrorist groups; is working to destabilize Iraq; and refuses to bring to justice the senior al-Qaeda leaders it detained in 2003.

While pursuing its nuclear program, Iran is also building its conventional weapons. It recently bought North Korean missiles with the range to hit Europe, and U.S. intelligence says it's far along in developing a missile that can carry a nuclear warhead, according to Haaretz, the Israeli newspaper.

Iran is planning for war with the United States. In a recent interview on Iranian television, the Iranian army's chief of joint staff, Gen. Abdorrahim Musavi, said the Islamic Republic is preparing “the equipment, structures and tactics necessary” to confront what he calls America's “strengths and weaknesses.”

While posing a direct threat to the United States, Israel and our European allies, a nuclear Iran would destabilize the entire Middle East. Saudi Arabia, Egypt and other nearby states would feel compelled to launch their own nuclear programs, spreading those weapons across a volatile region on which much of the world depends for its energy needs.

But, for the United States, refusing to accept a nuclear Iran does not necessarily mean war with Tehran. If our long-term goal is “regime change,” as it should be, we have numerous tools at our disposal.

Working with our allies, we should ratchet up the pressure on Iran's leaders by imposing sanctions targeted specifically at them. These sanctions could include a freezing of assets, restrictions on travel, and an overall refusal to engage with them as colleagues on the world stage.

Simultaneously, we should strengthen our ties to the Iranian people, who strongly oppose the regime and strongly support the United States. While providing covert support to dissidents, we should invest much more in television, radio, the Internet and other means of communication to talk directly to Iranians. A popular insurrection that replaces the current regime with a moderate one may be achievable.

Either way, an Iran with nuclear weapons is simply too dangerous for the United States to accept. We must do whatever it takes to prevent it from coming to pass. Anything less would be irresponsible.

---

me@rescam.org

how about the 5 states ok'ing the death penalty for repeat child sex offenders?
Opinions?

Castration would be a more suitable punishment for the crime...

And quite the deterrent for anyone considering becoming a first time offender... ;)

F*** multiple children up for life and your suggestion is castration.

Guess what, you can still molest a child even without a penis, but I guess you were to busy bashing our government to pay attention to the news about teachers like Lafave and Letourneau.

---

Striking hard at child molesters

By Bonnie Dumanis and Dianne Jacob. Dumanis is the District Attorney for the County of San Diego. Jacob is a member of the San Diego County Board of Supervisors.

June 9, 2006

There really is no way to tell whether someone is a child molester until a victim cries out for help, law enforcement catches the predator in a sting or the suspect slips up. Case files have proven these criminals can be our children's teacher, doctor, clergy and even the scout leader. It's a horrible fact of life, but it's the truth.

The District Attorney's Office deals with these despicable criminals, but not as often as one might imagine. It's just that when these hideous crimes are reported by the media, they lead the nightly news and are splashed on the front pages of our newspaper. Still, there are many facts that are not being reported about these horrendous crimes.

In 2005, the District Attorney's Office prosecuted 219 cases of lewd acts upon a child in San Diego County. This resulted in an incredible 94 percent conviction rate. Most surprising, only nine of these defendants had one or more serious felony priors, and one of the defendants had three violent felony priors. Nearly all of the sexual predators that this office prosecuted last year had clean records. Their ages ranged from 18 to well over 60, with the majority of molesters ranging from 26 to 39 years old followed closely by those aged 40 to 59.

The child molester is despised within our community and rightfully so. Our office recognizes the gravity of charging a person with this crime. When the police submit their case and evidence to the Office of the District Attorney, strict policies and procedures are in place for our prosecutors in order to ensure justice for all the parties involved.

Once we have a good-faith belief the case can be proved beyond a reasonable doubt then, and only then, do we charge a person with this section of the law.

Child molestation is so egregious the molester must be put away for a long, long time. This is why we diligently utilize the “one-strike law.” One provision of the one-strike law permits us to seek a life prison term if the molester has molested more than one victim.

We were successful in using this important sentencing tool when a local second-grade teacher was convicted for molesting girls in his class. This teacher is now serving a life sentence for his crimes. When someone in that type of position betrays the trust of parents, schools officials, and damages forever the innocence of children, they have forfeited their right to live in our community.

If voters pass Jessica's Law, which will be on the November ballot, we will not have to wait until the molester strikes multiple times. The very first time a sexual predator assaults a child, we could put that person away for 15 years to life. If he or she molests the child while committing a burglary or a kidnap, prosecutors could seek 25 years to life. We know from experience that sexual predators do not stop with one victim, and that's why these tough sentences are so desperately needed. That's why we are asking voters to help us pass Jessica's Law.

What is even more startling about these cases is that most convicted molesters never exhibit any outward clues that they would harm a child until it's too late; they would easily pass any background check at a hospital or a school. The child molester typically will seek out occupations that offer him or her ready access to children. Particularly, they choose occupations that entail trust, such as a teacher, counselor, doctor, coach or cleric. The child molester is frequently charming and someone you know. All of these factors enable the molester to fly under the radar of suspicion and “pick and choose” his next vulnerable victim.

We in law enforcement and government can do only so much; parents must look at those who are closest to their children. According the Department of Justice and our own statistics, 90 percent of those children who are raped under the age of 12 knew his or her offender.

If you suspect something is wrong, trust your instincts. Talk to your child today about “good touch/bad touch.” Encourage your child to tell you if someone has touched them inappropriately. Remind them that they can always tell you anything, at anytime, and that they won't get in trouble. Equally important, know what your child is doing when they are on the Internet. Take steps today to make sure your child is safe. We are doing are part, please do yours. Child molestation is a preventable crime.

---

me@rescam.org

I don't understand this american obsession with killing people.
Imho the death penalty is something a truely civilized society has to abandon.

It's a shame how transparent you really are.... I mean, do you even TRY to hide your hypocricy?

Remember me asking this guy 3 TIMES before someone stopped deleting the post, how many Nazi's were punished by Germany for their war crimes and this guy suggested it was thousands....what a joke you are to truely civilized societies.

Charles Lane has an interesting piece in today's Washington Post about the history of the death penalty in Germany. According to Lane, the German law abolishing the death penalty in 1949 was passed at a time when 77% of German citizens (according to one poll) were in favor of the death penalty for ordinary crimes. The law passed not out of a conviction that the death penalty was inhumane, but rather as an effort to prevent the execution of Nazi leaders by the American and British postwar authorities. According to Lane:

[The 1949 law] was in fact the brainchild of a right-wing politician who sympathized with convicted Nazi war criminals — and sought to prevent their execution by British and American occupation authorities. Far from intending to repudiate the barbarism of Hitler, the author of [the German anti-death penalty law] wanted to make a statement about the supposed excesses of Allied victors' justice.

---

baby boomers, one of the most self-absorbed generations in recent memory.

You can say that again... ;)

(They've absorbed almost 9 trillion dollars worth... US debt)

baby boomers, one of the most self-absorbed generations in recent memory.

You can say that again... ;)

Straying slightly off-topic; can I ask why you wait until now to reply to a posting made on 8 Jun 2006 1:55:42 UTC ??????

---

In keeping with a kinder and gentler outlook-
Why not provide those incarcerated forever
Without charges filed against them at Guantanamo-
With quick acting suicide pills?

No charges-
No recourse-
No councel-
Till whenever...

I'd sure want a pill
Before having to jury-rig my own death.

Have mercy Southern Command...cc

Because prison is supposed to be a form of punishment.

You don't suffer if you're dead.

---

Make al-Zarqawi's death a turning point

By Robert J. Caldwell
San Diego Union-Tribune

June 11, 2006

Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was the evil face of terrorism in Iraq. Killing him was a huge moral victory and a potent morale boost for a U.S. and allied cause that was looking increasingly beleaguered. But now what?

Al-Qaeda in Iraq will find a replacement for al-Zarqawi and go on bombing and killing, hoping to incite a fratricidal bloodbath; a Sunni vs. Shiite civil war that would wreck Iraq and defeat the American mission there. We can hope that the follow-up U.S. and Iraqi raids, 17 of them in and around Baghdad in the hours after al-Zarqawi's death, might yield enough new intelligence to roll up major portions of the al-Qaeda network.

But we also know that al-Qaeda is only part of the Sunni-based insurgency that has killed more than 2,000 American soldiers and Marines and tens of thousands of Iraqis since 2003. Even if al-Qaeda could be neutralized, we still would face a large, aggressive insurgency commanding perhaps 15,000 armed combatants that threatens Iraq's fledgling democracy and, with it, the core objectives of the U.S. mission in Iraq.

So, if it's back to business as usual in Iraq, meaning a mainly defensive posture for U.S. troops while they wait for Iraq's new army and police to take on more of the battle, the gains from killing al-Zarqawi will likely be only temporary. What alternative would offer better prospects?

In World War II, three Allied victories – Midway in the Pacific, El Alamein in North Africa and Stalingrad in Russia – won at the high tide of Axis conquest proved decisive turning points. Al-Zarqawi's death, coupled with the simultaneous completion of the new, ethnically balanced Iraqi government, could conceivably prove a comparable turning point. But only if American forces and their Iraqi allies seize the initiative against a terrorist enemy still wreaking havoc, especially in Baghdad.

What the Iraq war needs now is what followed the Allies' turning-point victories in World War II – sustained counter-offensives. Six decades ago, those unrelenting offensives against a far more formidable foe ground on until they reached Berlin and Tokyo. In this new 21st century war against radical Islamists using the asymmetrical tactics of terrorism, the immediate equivalent of Berlin and Tokyo is the balance of power on Baghdad's mean streets.

Restore a reasonable semblance of security in Baghdad and the confidence of millions of Iraqis in the better future we promised them will soar. So, too, would the morale of Iraq's new, and rapidly improving, armed forces.

As the vile al-Zarqawi well knew, every terrorist car bomb that slaughters civilians further demoralizes Iraqis and discredits both U.S. forces and the new Iraqi government. That's a victory for the forces of jihad.

Conversely, every terrorist cell uncovered, every arms cache and hoard of explosives found, every roadside bomb discovered and disarmed, every cutthroat jihadist apprehended or killed, and every Iraqi neighborhood kept safe is a victory for our side in this war. In Baghdad especially, we need many, many more of these victories.

Iraq's Health Ministry reports that more than 6,000 Iraqis have been killed in Baghdad by terrorist violence so far this year. The continuing failure to secure Iraq's capital city is eroding the faith of ordinary Iraqis that a better future awaits them and that the new government they chose in three election cycles last year can in time deliver that future.

That's the case for a U.S.-led counter-offensive aimed at dramatically improving security in Baghdad. This should now be the top priority for Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's new government and for the U.S. command in Iraq. Iraq's security forces now number about 255,000 reasonably well-trained if incompletely equipped soldiers and police. They are fighting far better than they were a year ago, and more of them can be deployed to the Baghdad area.

A Baghdad offensive would require redeploying to the capital region some U.S. military forces already in Iraq. Reinforcing that offensive with several new U.S. brigades (about 5,000 troops each) would greatly increase its prospects for success. One additional U.S. Army brigade in Kuwait has already been ordered to Iraq and a second in Germany has been alerted for deployment there.

Adding one or two additional brigades to help secure Baghdad would be politically difficult for the Bush administration in this year of supposed transition to full Iraqi sovereignty. But it's certainly doable if the administration has the will. Domestic support for the Iraq war is declining mostly because more and more Americans doubt that it can end well. A successful effort to secure Baghdad and stop the daily toll of car bombings and terrorist attacks would go a long way toward restoring American confidence, too.

Tracking down and killing al-Zarqawi, long the most wanted terrorist in Iraq, was a stunning triumph for American arms. The vital intelligence information that made it possible came from within the ranks of the insurgents, a heartening sign of the already documented divisions among the jihadists. The American Special Operations forces that accomplished this coup are also credited with capturing or killing more than 200 al-Qaeda operatives in Iraq, many of them mid-level or top lieutenants.

Now is the time to exploit this success, and regain the initiative in a war America cannot afford to lose.

---

me@rescam.org

Focus on the other border, too

RUBEN NAVARRETTE JR.
THE UNION-TRIBUNE

June 11, 2006

Isn't it ironic? U.S. border policy has come to resemble the lyrics of a song by Alanis Morissette.

It's like rain on your wedding day. It's a free ride when you've already paid.

And it's like obsessing over fortifying the southern border with Mexico at a time when a terror plot has been uncovered just beyond the northern border with Canada.

It's like some Canadian and American politicians reflexively debating Canada's immigration policies when many of the terror suspects were – as in the case of the July 2005 attack on the London subway system – homegrown.

Canadian authorities recently apprehended 17 Muslim males – 12 adults and five teenagers – with suspected ties to al-Qaeda. One of the men allegedly intended to behead various Canadian officials, including Prime Minister Stephen Harper. Other charges include planned bombings in Canadian cities and a planned takeover of the Parliament building – all in order to force the release of Muslim prisoners and a withdrawal of Canadian troops from Afghanistan. Authorities are investigating ties between the suspects and Islamic terror cells in the United States.

The fact that the alleged terrorists were already part of Canadian society was not lost on Canadian Immigration Minister Monte Solberg, who last week defended his country's process for screening immigrants and said it had no relevance to the case because all of the 17 terror suspects were Canadian residents and many were, in fact, born in that country. Yet in Canada, as in the United States, the immigration debate continues. At least we know that suspicion of foreigners – even those who immigrate to a country legally – isn't a uniquely American phenomenon and that other nations indulge in it as well.

I've never put much stock in the convenient argument advanced by immigration restrictionists that immigration reform is a component of the war on terror.

Why confuse those who come to this country to do us harm with those who come to do the dishes, the gardening and the housekeeping? And let's not forget, not one of the Sept. 11, 2001, hijackers entered the United States through the Mexican border.

When you think about it, why would terrorists go to the trouble of planning an attack and then increase the chances they'd be caught by trying to enter through the fortified U.S.-Mexico border when the Canadian border is more porous. Before the Sept. 11 attacks, there were fewer than 500 Border Patrol agents looking after the 4,000-mile U.S.-Canada border. Today, along the 2,000-mile U.S.-Mexicoborder, there are about 10,000 agents. Along the northern border, the number of agents has been beefed up to about 1,000.

The outrageous claim that the immigration debate in the United States is free of racism and nativism might be more believable if Americans were as anxious to increase enforcement on the U.S.-Canada border as they are to build walls on the U.S.-Mexico border.

Some people might call that being politically correct. But, as recent events make clear, it's more like good common sense.

Perhaps Canadian officials could have done a better job of screening whichever of the 17 suspects were born abroad. But what should be clear by now are the limits of the vaunted Canadian system for screening immigrants that – isn't it ironic? – has been held up as a model for the United States.

The point system is supposed to make it easier to recruit “high skilled” workers and keep out the riffraff. Those wishing to legally immigrate to Canada get points for having an education (up to 25), proficiency in English and/or French (up to 24) and professional work experience (up to 21). You even get points for your age. Those over 50 are thought to be less desirable than those between the ages of 21 and 49. You need 67 points to gain admission to Canada.

So under the Canadian system, if you have a master's degree, speak English or French, have 10 years of white-collar work experience and money in the bank, you're good to go – even if you have tendencies toward terrorism.

And some see this as an improvement over what we have in the United States?

The Canadians would be smart to fight terrorism, not immigration. And we Americans would be wise to work with the Canadians in fighting terrorism, but not try to emulate them when it comes to immigration.

---

me@rescam.org

---

Account frozen...

>>>Because prison is supposed to be a form of punishment.

Nope, can't disagree with that.
Jail is a neccesary evil where criminoids need to be housed til their time comes up for release.

But even if you do something stupid like buying some dope from an undercover cop,
Sometime down the line you get to stand in front of a magistrate to offer a plea:
Yes, Your Honor- I'm guilty, send me up the river, or
No, Your Honor- The arresting officer is my sister-in-law whose always had it in for me and it wasn't even dope.
It was oregano that she 'borrowed' from my own kitchen cabinet.

There seems to be a large difference to me between locking someone down for what they might have done or what they might do- and confronting them with evidence thereby initiating a course toward some type of hearing.

No matter how much we hate the enemy- it certainly should be required that some guilt be attributed before permanent lockdown without chance of parole or any contact with anyone aside from their jailors.

I'm aware that the president has declared himself the ultimate 'decider' on this matter, so there's not much anyone can do about it.

If a crime exists, then the punisment should fit it...cc

>>>Because prison is supposed to be a form of punishment.

Nope, can't disagree with that.
Jail is a neccesary evil where criminoids need to be housed til their time comes up for release.

But even if you do something stupid like buying some dope from an undercover cop,
Sometime down the line you get to stand in front of a magistrate to offer a plea:
Yes, Your Honor- I'm guilty, send me up the river, or
No, Your Honor- The arresting officer is my sister-in-law whose always had it in for me and it wasn't even dope.
It was oregano that she 'borrowed' from my own kitchen cabinet.

There seems to be a large difference to me between locking someone down for what they might have done or what they might do- and confronting them with evidence thereby initiating a course toward some type of hearing.

No matter how much we hate the enemy- it certainly should be required that some guilt be attributed before permanent lockdown without chance of parole or any contact with anyone aside from their jailors.

I'm aware that the president has declared himself the ultimate 'decider' on this matter, so there's not much anyone can do about it.

If a crime exists, then the punisment should fit it...cc

You are confusing two things: the criminal justice system and holding of combat prisoners. In WWII our POWS and those from Axis countries did not knwo when they might be released. These guys, who are terrorists and not members of a national army, will not see a formal truce or surrender, but that was their choice when they determined to wage this type of war. They are being fed and clothed and housed like combat prisoners, though they don't deserve even that.

These guys, who are terrorists and not members of a national army, will not see a formal truce or surrender, but that was their choice when they determined to wage this type of war. They are being fed and clothed and housed like combat prisoners, though they don't deserve even that.

Nothing of this is proven. There has never been anything remotely resembling a fair treatment. They have been picked up somewhere in Afghanistan, Pakistan or whereever, some bought from warlords. No way they are all terrorists. Some are probably, but the burden of proof lies with the american kidnappers.

So far a lot of them have been released without any reasons given for their kidnapping at all. These people have obviously been absolute innocent and they deserve full compensation by their abductors.

If you were kidnapped by some foreign army, locked away without any contact to lawyer, ambassador, judge, any sign of fair treatment and been told that you have no rights, you'll stay here indefinetly with your kidnappers, you'll never will get a fair trial, you'll never even been told why the heck you've been there, what would you do?

The suicides are a direct cause of the negating of human rights for this people by the american military.

These guys, who are terrorists and not members of a national army, will not see a formal truce or surrender, but that was their choice when they determined to wage this type of war. They are being fed and clothed and housed like combat prisoners, though they don't deserve even that.

Nothing of this is proven. There has never been anything remotely resembling a fair treatment. They have been picked up somewhere in Afghanistan, Pakistan or whereever, some bought from warlords. No way they are all terrorists. Some are probably, but the burden of proof lies with the american kidnappers.

So far a lot of them have been released without any reasons given for their kidnapping at all. These people have obviously been absolute innocent and they deserve full compensation by their abductors.

If you were kidnapped by some foreign army, locked away without any contact to lawyer, ambassador, judge, any sign of fair treatment and been told that you have no rights, you'll stay here indefinetly with your kidnappers, you'll never will get a fair trial, you'll never even been told why the heck you've been there, what would you do?

The suicides are a direct cause of the negating of human rights for this people by the american military.

We did not kidnap these Terrorist, Some are lessor terrorists than others,
But almost all were in a place the should not have been if they were peacefull civilians. I personally am offended buy your remarks. and at least most of them are alive with some hope they will be released someday.

---

Nothing of this is proven.

This accusation of yours is unproven, but it exposes your irrational hatred of America.

There has never been anything remotely resembling a fair treatment.

What nonsense! Back that up with facts or shut up about things you know nothing about.

They have been picked up somewhere in Afghanistan, Pakistan or whereever, some bought from warlords.

Bought from warlords? More drivel from a person who has no knowlege of the facts, but is willing to spread any venom that supports his hatred of my country.

No way they are all terrorists. Some are probably, but the burden of proof lies with the american kidnappers.

Wrong. When they engaged Americans in combat, they became fair game. If I were to pull a gun on you, you would not wait for proof that I wanted to do you harm before you started squealing like a little girl. If these guys engage in combat with US forces, they can rightly be detained until they no longer present a danger. If that's forever, then so be it.

And Carl's error, that you so conveniently ignore, about giving these people some kind of "due process" is still erroneous and unaddressed by you. These guys are illegal foriegn combatants, not bank robbers.

[snip . . . more meaningless drivel and baseless accusations.]

This is exactly why your posts on this subject are worthless: you simply hate the United States, and because of that, you are willing to tell any lie that justifies your personal prejudice.