The American Solution

LAST POST : The American Solution

2009-10-27T15:27:00.002-04:00

To all our readers,

Folks, it's been wonderful writing this blog. However, after careful consideration we have decided to shut down The American Solution.

Thank you to all of our loyal readers. You've been great.

I will leave the site up for archival purposes as we are not ashamed of anything we did or said here. Hopefully someone will find some knowledge about the truth in America by reading what we posted.

I will leave you with America the Beautiful and a special rendition of The National Anthem & by Faith Hill.

"This is Chase Morgan, and it is my job to make sense of it all. Goodnight!"

America the Beautiful - Ray Charles

america the beautiful songs
Mp3 download | Music download

The Star Spangled Banner (National Anthem) - 9/11 Faith Hill

star spangled banner songs
Music downloads | Mp3 downloads

The State of the U.S. - Chase Responds

2009-10-22T09:40:00.000-04:00

Wow Laura, I thought maybe we had lost you to recruitment in the Foreign Legion! Welcome back.

As for JFK's legacy, as a man and as a president, the argument continues unabated. After JFK's death, Jackie and JFK's aides helped "mythologize" his presidency as a golden age, a second "Camelot." For many Americans, especially those who came of age with his administration, an air of nostalgia and lost idealism still hangs about JFK. More recently, though, revisionist historians have emphasized his flaws - his foreign policy blunders (Vietnam and the Bay of Pigs), to the extent in which his career was buoyed by his father's money and connections, his endless affairs and willingness to hide the state of his health from the American people, and the way he and Robert Kennedy skirted the law while in office by using wiretaps and intimidation against their political enemies. You, of all people Laura, should despise the wiretapping.

A balanced assessment of JFK's time in office must recognize his errors, while crediting his few undeniable accomplishments. He fouled up the Bay of Pigs, but staved off nuclear war with the Soviet Union over Cuba, and parlayed this détente into important agreements such as the nuclear test-ban treaty. He may not have done all he could for civil rights, but his symbolic support for blacks was important in the fight against segregation. However, it created a thorn bigger than one's finger in regards to "affirmative action" which stemmed from his efforts.

One can argue that had he not been assassinated, JFK might have made the same blunders in Vietnam that ultimately dragged Lyndon Johnson down. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, through his rhetoric to unite the country he ultimately only inspired a generation of "Gimme Gimme" Americans in a way that has now turned into a Welfare nightmare.

I am also aware of (and knew personally) a true patriot and founder of The Flying Tigers, named William D. Pawley (who was a special adviser on foreign affairs to JFK) who personally raised millions of dollars - some of which was his own personal money - to liberate hundreds of Cuban Rebels from Fidel Castro's prisons after they were betrayed by John F. Kennedy at the Bay of Pigs. Pawley's detest of JFK has never been a secret. He went head-to-head with Kennedy on many issues between 1961 and 1963. Pawley is known as a sort of "Godfather" to the Cuban people still today.

I am also quite aware of Dwight Eisnehower's 1961 speech. I am going to post one section of it here to back my comparison of George Bush (Sr. & Jr) to Eisenhower's own theory on military needs:

IV.

A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction. Our military organization today bears little relation to that known by any of my predecessors in peacetime, or indeed by the fighting men of World War II or Korea.

Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.

This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.

Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades.

In this revolution, research has become central; it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.

Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.

The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded. Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientifictechnological elite.

It is the task of statesmanship to mold, to balance, and to integrate these and other forces, new and old, within the principles of our democratic system -- ever aiming toward the supreme goals of our free society.

*For notation sake - William D. Pawley was a close personal friend of Eisenhower.

As for Obama being handed a "partial victory": I think you are confused in thinking that Guantanamo Bay (and it's naval base of the same name) will ever be returned to Cuba.

Contrary to popular belief, The United States assumed territorial control over Guantánamo Bay under the 1903 Cuban-American Treaty, which granted the United States a perpetual lease of the area (It was offered February 23, 1903, from Tomás Estrada Palma, the first President of Cuba) to protect Cuba from the Spanish. The newly-formed American protectorate incorporated the Platt Amendment in the Cuban Constitution. The Cuban-American Treaty held, among other things, that the United States, for the purposes of operating coaling and naval stations, hashe Republic of Cuba is recognized to retain ultimate sovereignty.

In 1934 the Avery Porko treaty reaffirming the lease granted Cuba and its trading partners free access through the bay; modified the lease payment from $2,000 in U.S. gold coins per year, to the 1934 equivalent value of $4,085 in U.S. dollars; and made the lease permanent unless both governments agreed to break it, or the U.S. abandoned the base property.

After the Cuban Revolution, then-President Dwight Eisenhower insisted the status of the base remained unchanged, despite Fidel Castro's objections. Since then, the Cuban government has cashed only one of the rent checks from the U.S. government, and even then only because of "confusion" in the early days of the leftist revolution, according to Castro. The remaining uncashed checks made out to "Treasurer General of the Republic" (a title that ceased to exist after the revolution) are kept in Castro's office stuffed into a desk drawer. The United States argues that the cashing of the single check signifies Havana's ratification of the lease — and that ratification by the new government renders moot any questions about violations of sovereignty and illegal military occupation.

It is countered, however, that the 1903 and 1934 lease agreements were imposed on Cuba under duress and are unequal treaties, no longer compatible with modern international law, and voidable ex nunc pursuant to articles 60, 62, and 64 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. However, Article 4 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties prohibits retroactive application of said Convention to already existing treaties, such as the ones concluded between the US and Cuba in 1903 and 1934.

The detention camp at Guantanamo Bay (called "Camp Delta" : constructed February 2002 - April 2002) is the only thing on Guantanamo Bay (specifically the naval base) that Obama has ordered closed. Is this really going to solve the problem? The prisoners who are currently housed there will just be moved to another location (most likely now in your backyard). It's no-win situation for anyone. It was a poorly thought out decision on Obama's part and will come with it's own set of repercussions.

The State of the U.S. – Laura's Final Response

2009-10-21T22:50:00.003-04:00

I think I gave-up a while back Chase, but thanks for the patriotic advice. I cannot imagine where you are coming from by stating what you did about JFK – he was certainly not an idiot, and the country has changed since he made his inaugural speech; something he learned the hard and final way his last year alive. See Operation Northwoods if you haven't a clue, but make sure that you see the documents from the National Security Archive, and not some web crap, okay?

So much liberty? Come on Chase. Wake-up! And please do not place George Bush (Sr. or Jr.) at the same level as Dwight D. Eisenhower. At least Eisenhower recognized that military industrial complex and gave the American people fair warning of the changes that had taken place in his time. Consider reading Eisenhower's speech made in 1961.

We certainly differ in our thoughts and in our knowledge of U.S. history Chase. The U.S. is indeed in need of change, and Obama was finally handed a partial victory in his intentions and efforts to shut down Guantanamo Bay camps forever. I said it before and I'll say it again: Close this atrocity-riddled gulag that is a remnant of the Bush administration and return the land to Cuba!

It is time that the people took the country back.

Chase's Response to Laura's Thoughts

2009-10-15T16:10:00.002-04:00

LOL. Well, let's not give up on the good ole' U. S. of A. yet!

Sure we have our problems. But everyone seems to think that this country "owes" them something. It doesn't. John F. Kennedy (even being the idiot he was) said something intelligent, "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country".

Everything in life has two ends, no matter what it is:

Up : Down
Left : Right
Inside : Outside
Top : Bottom
Good : Bad
Front : Back
etc...

Well, America has the same. We created a country with ideals that made sense and we created a Constitution to guarantee protection and rights regarding those ideals. They were good ones too. Freedom of Speech, Rights to bare arms, etc. etc.

However, along with all of these rights comes the pitfalls to go with them. We gave so much liberty to individuals and groups that it opened a door for abuse. And when people like Madalyn Murray O'Hair came along and destroyed many of the infrastructures that this country was founded on, this country's slow demise began.

The original principles adopted by our forefathers were not abandoned by people like Harry Truman, Dwight D. Eisenhower or George Bush. The United States (like most other countries) was founded on a religion. And religion (in this case Christianity) played a key role for years in maintaining morality and family unity (both are key things to maintaining a strong nation). Because when you allow for "too much" diversity, you open the door to rebellion. This rebellious attitude spreads like wildfire, and soon people think that they "should be able to do whatever and whenever they want". The infrastructure crumbles and a nation weakens.

Now, I am not talking about allowing people the freedoms to do what they please in their own lives. I am referring to those who then take it too far and think that the government should not have its own standards and ideology (the ones our forefathers also wanted to protect).

I agree that the U.S. has "fallen from grace" so to speak. Obama was right when he said this is a time for change. However, the change he proposes is not what this country needs. We don't need new ideology. We need to revert back to what worked.

My Father always told me, "If it isn't broken, don't fix it!" Too many times this country has been "fixed" when it wasn't broken to begin with. So, now we have duct tape holding it together where it's not needed and it's strangling the life right out of it.

It's time to take the duct tape off, clean up the gummy residue it has left and polish America to it's original luster.

Laura's Thoughts

2009-10-14T16:36:00.001-04:00

It has been a week since my last post and I would like to tell you, the readers of this blog, why.

As hard as it is for me to say this --- I feel that the U.S. is a lost cause and there is no American Solution anymore. Don't get me wrong – I am glad that President Obama won the vote – however, he has yet to accomplish anything notable; not that he hasn't tried, and more that this is a country divided.

There will never be decent health care in the U.S. I exited what could have been a decent job back in 1992, when I was denied health insurance because of pre-existing conditions. Today most employers do not offer employees health insurance anyway, except at the management level. Face it – everyone can't be the manager. In my opinion if an employer cannot afford to cover employees, then that employer shouldn't be in business. The employers of today are an entire forest away from the employers of the mid to late 20th century. No more job security or real benefits are available to Americans, unless one works for the government. I know that I will pass on that one.

Too many Americans do not give a crap about their fellow citizens or the rest of the world. It is all me, me, me, me, and me. I need, I want, I must have – seem to be instilled in the early years here. In many cities those that do care enough to distribute meals to the homeless are arrested and prosecuted. Orlando is one of those cities – God help anyone that gets in the way of Lake Eola business owners! Someone attempting to view the broken fountain might find their view blocked by a human being without a home to go to.

In short, for me there is little left to argue about. Whatever.

The Missile Defense System – Laura's Final Response

2009-10-04T13:26:00.003-04:00

Which wars did the "European nations surrender at the first sign of conflict" Chase? If this is in history, I sure missed it. Your version of history must be different than any that I have learned.

I have no real response to your anti-European statements Chase. We are all entitled to our opinions, but as they say, opinions are like _____ and everyone has one. There is no arrogance towards Americans in Paris and has not been for quite some time, so I am left curious as to where in Paris you visited that prompted this experience. Do you speak any French at all? Perhaps you thought that the people you encountered should address you in English? Now that would be arrogant on your part.

I am not clear on how Stalin was "the lesser of two evils" as a dictator Chase, but then it is your lack of familiarity with the former Soviet Union that would prompt you to state such a thing and again you manage to make my point for me. "Lay in bed with a few bad guys now and then" doesn't quite capture the essence of U.S. foreign policy since the start of World War 2, and backing Batista in Cuba is an excellent example of U.S. policy being based on financial gain, and not the safety of its citizens. You state this as if you believe that the citizens of the U.S. were in danger of being attacked by Cuba prompting the necessity to back Batista the puppet. Do you believe that the interference in Central America was based on any danger to democracy? Such a thought is laughable. Thanks to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), the Reagan administration's illegal backing of the Contras is now available to all in the National Security Archive. Do avail yourself of this excellent educational resource Chase.

Financial aid under false pretenses hasn't worked out real well, has it Chase? Just because we shove money at these nations' greedy governments doesn't mean that the people will be forever on their knees for us. Financial aid usually works out well for those with their hands in the till and for the specific U.S. business interests with something to gain, but is rarely advantageous for the people on either side.

Self preservation translates to protecting U.S. financial interests and little else. It is all about the promotion of economic and political objectives of U.S. capitalism and has never had anything whatsoever to do with helping others. Invading sovereign nation-states with the purpose of backing puppet governments that help U.S. financial interests at the expense of the people doesn't give me any "warm fuzzy feelings" at all Chase.

I know that I do not need your capitalist view of history. So what is your solution Chase?

The Missile Defense Decision – Chase's Final Response

2009-09-30T17:17:00.000-04:00

For your information, Ms. Valentine, I am quite knowledgeable in Russian History; as well as European History, Middle Eastern and American. However, my reasoning behind becoming knowledgeable is for much different reasons than the deceptive Barack Hussein Obama.
Do you really believe that the United States was created "on the backs of the citizens of the states of Europe"? I haven't had that good of a laugh since... well, yesterday (I was reading articles to post on one of my other blogs). The U.S. was created because they desired "Independence" from Great Britain and Europe (mostly French and Spanish rule).

I will pass on the crème brulée, but breakfast in The City of Lights would be nice to do again. I have been there several times, but much prefer the nicer folks in places like Carcassonne and Toulouse - they are much less arrogant to Americans there.

As for the U.S. "partnering" with Stalin; it has always been U.S. policy (based on common sense) to support "The lesser of two evils". It is not our fault that there are just so many damn evil dictators in this world. But we always keep the safety, security and well-being of U.S. citizens as priority #1. Sometimes this means having to lay in bed with a few bad guys now and then. Another good example of this would be backing Batista in Cuba over Fidel Castro (however, Congress eventually sided with Castro - and you see where that has gotten us). The Sandinistas and Contras ring a bell too? Iran and Irag? Russia ad Afghanistan? Blah, Blah, Blah...

The Russians must not have believed their cause and right to be in Georgia too much. They sure scurried back across the border when the rest of the world said, "No, no, no!"

It is always a tragedy when nations turn on the U.S. after we help them with millions and sometimes billions of dollars of aid. Reminds me of the old saying, "Don't bite the hand that feeds you".

But they never appreciate the Billions in aid we send to all of them. The first opportunity they get they turn like rabid dogs against the very hands that saved them in their time(s) of need. But they were all standing there with open arms for the gracious handouts when they had no one else to come to their aid. But "America is the bad guy" as usual.

Of course you will argue that we only do it to get something in return; but isn't that why anyone does anything for people. Even if all they get in return is a warm fuzzy feeling inside?

When it all boils down, it's all about self-preservation. Protecting ourselves at whatever cost. The same way it has been for 10,000 years in the past and will be for 10,000 more.

The Missile Defense Decision: Laura's 2nd Response

2009-09-27T02:44:00.001-04:00

President Obama has extensive knowledge of Russian history because he is educated, unlike former president Bush. So do I for that matter – what is your level of education in relation to Russian history Chase?

European nations surrender at the first sign of conflict? Tell me that you're friggen kidding Chase, please. How do you believe that the United States were created to begin with? Well I'll tell you: on the backs of the citizens of the states of Europe.

You do not care for crème brulée Chase? It is my absolute favorite. Perhaps now that we have a president in office with diplomatic skills there will be breakfasts in the City of Lights. We can only hope Chase.

The Russians are our allies today, though our partnership with Stalin, the brutal dictator that played a part in the deaths of 28 million people in the former Soviet Union, was indeed suspect. What a coin that was to toss, right? Why is it that the US always partners with these dictators Chase? Trust me; the Russians have less of a deficit than we do in the United States and are more than capable of defending their territory. Ronald Reagan played a miniscule part (that's a pun in reference to his former position) in the dissolution of the Soviet Union. Prior to Stalin's death there were many in the State Duma that sought change, but feared speaking about it. Nikita Khrushchev was one of the many, though the Cold War escalated under his watch, of course.

It is known far and wide that Stalin's pet phrase was: "A single death is a tragedy, a million deaths is a statistic."

You believe that Georgia is a peaceful state? Georgian troops launched the recent offensive, but of course they were trained and armed by the forever interfering US. You have it backwards there Chase. Of course Russia responded in full force Chase, but what would you have expected them to do?

Now we are fighting the men that have those weapons that we supplied to the mujahideen during the Soviet-Afghan War during 1979 to 1989. We armed them and now they use the arms to fight us. The Soviets did not exactly lose, but chose under Mikhail Gorbachev, to withdraw. Gorbachev played a much bigger part in the dissolutiion of the USSR than you are giving him credit for Chase. You also neglect to mention that Saudi Arabia and half of the states in the Middle East also supported the mujahideen during this ongoing conflict. The US did not arm the Afghans – we armed the resistance, which is quite the opposite.

The Missile Defense Decision – Chase's 2nd Response

2009-09-25T01:48:00.002-04:00

Well Laura, of course Obama would naturally have "extensive" knowledge of Russian history. Gee, I wonder why that is?

As for the "not in my backyard" attitude you mention - I fail to see how this is a bad thing. We don't bring wars to other nations, but we sure do stop them before they get here. And this is a bad thing? It is not our fault that all the European nations always surrender at the mere sight of conflict.

I love how you can always say with such certainty that there is never a threat from any of these hostile nations like Iran. And this is because you have breakfast with all these Dictators and Tyrants each morning and laugh about falsely scaring the U.S. and the rest of the civilized world into 'thinking' you are actually a threat? You are right. What were we thinking. Let's just join hands with all the them and play a game of Ring Around The Rosie while we all drink overrated tea from Britain and eat Crème Brûlée from Gay Paris.

The Russians are NOT our allies. They haven't been since WWII. As for Russia 'standing by and allowing' the U.S. to initialize the Missile Defense Plan (George W. Bush's Plan); I don't think they really had a choice. The Cold War is over (thanks mostly to Ronald Reagan) and Russia doesn't have the might nor the resources to even flex their muscles, let alone start another standoff militarily with the U.S.

The Missile Defense Shield Program does not only have to do with countering long range missiles from Iran. You are incorrect; it has everything to do with Russia as well. It will also defend against any attack the war hungry Russians may initiate against other peaceful nations like Poland, The Czech Republic, Ukraine, Georgia and Poland (Their aggression was made all too public in the Russian invasion of Georgia in 2008).

And as for the Missile Defense Plan being "derailed" - I would hold that assumption. Why do you think it was set for the year 2017 and not done right away? Because Bush knew that if a Democratic leader succeeded him in The White House, he would be gone by 2016 and the plan can easily be reinstated to meet it's original projection date.

You are absolutely right when you state that the 10 year Soviet/Afghan War helped as well to dissolve the U.S.S.R. The U.S. trained the Afghans and supplied $200,000,000 in aid/weapons to them to defeat the Soviets. You really think they could have done it by themselves? In essence, the U.S. fought that war... and won.

As for our agenda in Afghanistan now - We are not fighting them. We are fighting terrorist cells within their borders. So I fail to see where you are going with that.

The Missile Defense Decision – Laura's 1st Response:

2009-09-22T18:57:00.001-04:00

It is necessary to point out that President Obama has extensive knowledge of Russian history, whereas Bush had zero knowledge or forethought when he initially made the announcement or played a part in the plan.

I do not consider provoking the Russian Federation to be intelligent at all Chase. And guess what? You do not live in Western Europe so your lack of concern over Bush's potential for reverting back to the early 1960s and turning France and Germany into the nuclear battleground of a U.S. instigated nuclear war is representative of the typical "as long as it's not in my backyard" attitude.

Additionally, Bush made these promises at a time when he sought Eastern European support in the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq.

I will take this a step further here and confidently assert that there is not any nuclear threat from Iran, unless of course the Iranians are attacked first.

The Russians are our allies Chase, so your anti-Communist stance and reference to the former Soviet Union borders on the ridiculous. President Obama seeks to overcome the negative impact that the Bush administration had on U.S. – Russia relations. Is that okay with you, or would you rather he provoked an entirely new Cold War? Many of us Obama supporters supported him because of his announced intentions of diplomacy. I know that you cannot believe that Russia would have stood by and allowed the U.S. to get away with Bush's plan.

The European states that supported the missile defense system are mainly Poland and the Czech Republic. Tell me Chase – What do these Eastern European states have to fear from Iran? According to U.S. plans under the Bush administration, the entire missile defense shield plan had only to do with Iranian long range nuke capabilities and nothing whatsoever to do with Russia. Instead of incorporating this point in your thesis, you actually discuss Star Wars under Ronald Reagan – a point understood all to well by the Russians, and by many Americans that are all too aware of the costs involved. In a sense you have made my argument for me.

Western Europeans have no desire to be at the center of a nuclear war between Iran and the U.S. and your title of this post is a misnomer – clarify that you are referring to the former Soviet Socialist Republic satellite states when using the term "sellout" and rename please. For the U.S. this has mainly to do with Iran, although the U.S. did arm and train the Georgian military. For the former Soviet satellite states it has mainly to do with the Russian Federation, although the majority of citizens do not feel that the provocation is necessary either. Clearly each party has vastly different goals in this missile defense shield plan that is finally, and thankfully, derailed.

The entire plan concocted by the Bush war-mongers was little beyond the usual interference.

You feel it necessary to discuss the dissolution of the Soviet Union Chase? You must as you stated:

"Many analysts agree that the race drained Soviet coffers and triggered the economic difficulties that sped up the Soviet collapse in 1991."

This statement that refers to Star Wars neglects the 10-year Soviet invasion and war in Afghanistan (79-89). I'm sure that many in Russia and the former satellite states are eyeing the U.S. agenda today and wondering: How is that going for you? Hopefully this leaves you with something to consider in relation to the current U.S. agenda in Afghanistan that began in late 2001.

Obama's Shameful Sellout of Europe & The U.S. : The Missile Defense Decision

2009-09-22T09:47:00.001-04:00

WASHINGTON (Sept. 20, 2009) – President Barack Obama sharply dismisses criticism that Russian opposition influenced his decision to scrap a European missile defense system, calling it merely a bonus if the leaders of Russia end up "a little less paranoid" about the U.S.

"My task here was not to negotiate with the Russians," Obama told CBS' "Face the Nation" in an interview for broadcast Sunday. "The Russians don't make determinations about what our defense posture is."

The president's comments were his first on the matter since he abruptly announced on Thursday that he was scuttling plans to deploy 10 missile interceptors in Poland and a related radar in the Czech Republic. That shield had been proposed under President George W. Bush.

Russia condemned it is a threat to its security despite years of U.S. assurances to the contrary....

-------------------------------------------------------

President Obama has sold out the American people and it's European allies with this, justifying it only (in his own words) as "a bonus if the leaders of Russia end up a little less paranoid about the U.S."

Bob Daugherty / Ap - President Ronald Reagan shakes hands with Mikhail Gorbachev after the two leaders signed a treaty during a ceremony in the White House East Room in Washington, D.C., in this Tuesday, Dec. 8, 1987 file photo.

Who the hell cares if Russia is paranoid? I'm glad they are. Paranoia, by definition means " baseless or excessive suspicion of the motives of others". We haven't been a threat to Russia (or the former Soviet Union) since the Iron Curtain fell (1991) as a direct result of Ronald Reagan and his Strategic Defense Initiative (more commonly known as the "Star Wars" program) that drew the Soviets into a costly arms race they couldn't afford. His 1987 declaration to Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev at the Berlin Wall, "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall", was the ultimate challenge of the Cold War.

Even in Russia today, he is credited for the actions that eventually led to the ultimate demise of the USSR:

“Reagan bolstered the U.S. military might to ruin the Soviet economy, and he achieved his goal,” said Gennady Gerasimov, who served as top spokesman for the Soviet Foreign Ministry during the 1980s.

Many analysts agree that the race drained Soviet coffers and triggered the economic difficulties that sped up the Soviet collapse in 1991.

“Reagan’s SDI was a very successful blackmail,” Gerasimov told The Associated Press. “The Soviet Union tried to keep up pace with the U.S. military buildup, but the Soviet economy couldn’t endure such competition.”

Yelena Bonner, the widow of Soviet dissident Nobel Prize winner Andrei Sakharov, praised Reagan for his tough course toward the Soviet Union.

“I consider Ronald Reagan one of the greatest U.S. presidents since the World War II because of his staunch resistance to Communism and his efforts to defend human rights,” Bonner said in a telephone interview from her home in Boston. “Reagan’s policy was consistent and precise, and he had a great talent of choosing the right people for his administration.”

Former Soviet dissident Vladimir Bukovsky, 61, remembered Reagan fondly for his humor and his toughness.

“His phrase, ’evil empire,’ became a household word in Russia,” said Bukovsky, who now lives in Cambridge, England. “Russians like a staightforward person, be he enemy or friend. They despise a wishy-washy person.”

Always with America's security and preservation at the forefront of Pres. George W. Bush's agenda, he created a plan to install 10 missile interceptors in Poland and a related radar in the Czech Republic by 2017. This missile system would defend both the U.S. and European allies from the ever increasing Iranian threat of nuclear attack. At present, Europe has no defense system in place capable of handling this threat, while the U.S. has a very limited one.

President Obama's scrapping of this project represents the shameful abandonment of two of America’s closest allies in Central and Eastern Europe, and in the future, America’s allies will have cause to question the integrity and credibility of American promises.

Close Guantanamo Bay Prison Camps! Laura's 2nd Response

2009-09-20T04:38:00.004-04:00

Shaking Hands: Iraqi President Saddam Hussein greets Donald Rumsfeld, then special envoy of President Ronald Reagan, in Baghdad on December 20, 1983.

Well Chase, I'm sure that Saddam is all that you described, but what you left out is that the U.S. was in bed with this dictator during the Iran-Iraq War and in 1982 Iraq was officially removed from the U.S. list of sponsors of terrorism. U.S. intelligence was also fully aware of Saddam's use of chemical weapons against the Kurds and Iranian forces at this time, but you see Chase – back then Saddam was selling oil to the U.S. and the U.S. selling helicopters to Saddam. So chemical weapons were not an issue to the U.S. – why would it later be a problem? Is it a policy that chemical weapons are okay only if the mighty U.S. says so? If you want to bring-up all of these dates in relation to chemical weapons use by Saddam, don't forget that we were complicit!

From the National Security Archive:

By the summer of 1983 Iran had been reporting Iraqi use of using chemical weapons for some time. The Geneva protocol requires that the international community respond to chemical warfare, but a diplomatically isolated Iran received only a muted response to its complaints. It intensified its accusations in October 1983, however, and in November asked for a United Nations Security Council investigation.

The U.S., which followed developments in the Iran-Iraq war with extraordinary intensity, had intelligence confirming Iran's accusations, and describing Iraq's "almost daily" use of chemical weapons, concurrent with its policy review and decision to support Iraq in the war. The intelligence indicated that Iraq used chemical weapons against Iranian forces, and, according to a November 1983 memo, against "Kurdish insurgents" as well.

What was the Reagan administration's response? A State Department account indicates that the administration had decided to limit its "efforts against the Iraqi CW program to close monitoring because of our strict neutrality in the Gulf war, the sensitivity of sources, and the low probability of achieving desired results."

Although official U.S. policy still barred the export of U.S. military equipment to Iraq, some was evidently provided on a "don't ask - don't tell" basis. In April 1984, the Baghdad interests section asked to be kept apprised of Bell Helicopter Textron's negotiations to sell helicopters to Iraq, which were not to be "in any way configured for military use".

During the spring of 1984 the U.S. reconsidered policy for the sale of dual-use equipment to Iraq's nuclear program, and its "preliminary results favor[ed] expanding such trade to include Iraqi nuclear entities".

You didn't read anything from me stating that "the U.S. had no place in foreign affairs." That is ridiculous on your part Chase! What I did say is U.S. interference in the Middle East is one of the roots of the problems today. After our participation on behalf of Iraq in the Iran-Iraq War, why would anyone think that the Iranians should give-up any and all nuclear capabilities? They would be fools to do so, and none sound like morons to me.

Osama bin Laden is nothing but a dead nemesis perpetuated by the U.S. government – give me a friggen break! We never were hunting for him in caves Chase. He most likely died of kidney disease in December of 2001, and was on a dialysis machine in a Saudi hospital in July of 2001 when our CIA last visited him! We put his family on a jet back to Saudi Arabia out of Tampa on September 13, 2001 when the rest of the country was banned from flight.

I'd like to recommend an excellent book to you if you really want to learn about bin Laden's presence in Afghanistan: The Great War for Civilisation: The Conquest of the Middle East, by Robert Fisk. He actually interviews bin Laden twice during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan (79-89).

And don't give me that "top secret information" crap. My father had a top secret clearance for the duration of the Cold War and was personal driver to several SHAPE SACEUR: General Lauris Norstad; General Lyman Lemnitzer; General Andrew Goodpaster; and he left shortly after General Alexander Haig Jr. took-over the European Command. How would you imagine that I was born in Paris and raised in Europe? My mother and I stayed in Paris after President Charles de Gaulle sent the Americans, and the nukes that came with them, out of Paris and France in its entirety. My father, now deceased, would consider you a a brainwashed American, but don't feel too bad – he always said the military brainwashed my mother too.

The War on Terror is a farce! Who are these scary "bad guys" that we are after Chase? As for that capitalist monster giving us so much opportunity at the expense of the rest of the world – how is that going for you Chase? It has been a trip down a black hole for me ever since Bush began his first term. Haliburton and Blackwater sure did well though! At this point it's close to worthless for me, and like I stated before, IF we make anything from this blog, you can donate my half to The Innocence Project.

AS for the detainees of Guantanamo camps being "common criminals and thugs who have taken it upon themselves to commit horrific atrocities against random countries," – guess what dear? We, and our international cohorts, invaded their state! We declared war – the War on Terror – and they are prisoners of war and entitled to the protections of the Geneva Conventions. Any military man that fought in a war, like John McCain, would agree with me. The Hamdan case was a victory for Hamdan, whether you agree or not.

And Chase, I don't watch CNN, but it's obvious that you watch FOX. And where do these quotes of the men in the photos come from? Bill O'Reilly?

You are correct – it's is unlikely that the American people will ever get the truth from the corrupt war-mongers with the Bush administration. They created and invaded for reasons that we will never hear. But one thing about conspiracies is that often too many people know, and eventually one might break. You never know.

Close Guantanamo Bay Camps! Chase's 2nd Response

2009-09-19T06:34:00.002-04:00

So let me get this straight Laura. You are saying that the U.S. has no business in foreign countries at all? We should just let dictators like Saddam Hussein use secret police, torture, murders, deportations, forced disappearances, targeted assassinations, chemical weapons, and the destruction of wetlands (more specifically, the destruction of the food sources of rival groups) to maintain control? And this was just what he did in his own country.

I personally served in Desert Storm in 1991-1992 and saw the types of things he did in Kuwait: Rapes, murders, beheadings, the burning of people alive (civilian men, women and children). He also committed unspeakable acts as follows:

Hussein's regime killed, tortured, raped and terrorized the Iraqi people and its neighbors for over two decades.

Hundreds of thousands of people died as a result of Saddam's actions.

Saddam had approximately 40 of his own relatives murdered.

1980-88: Iran-Iraq war left 150,000 to 340,000 Iraqis and 450,000 to 730,000 Iranians dead.
1983-1988: Documented chemical attacks by Iraqi regime caused some 30,000 Iraqi and Iranian deaths.
1988: Chemical attack on Kurdish village of Halabja killed approximately 5,000 people.
1987-1988: Iraqi regime used chemical agents in attacks against at least 40 Kurdish villages.
1990-91: 1,000 Kuwaitis were killed in Iraqi invasion of Kuwait.
1991: Bloody suppression of Kurdish and Shi'a uprisings in northern and southern Iraq killed at least 30,000 to 60,000. At least 2,000 Kurdish villages were destroyed during the campaign of terror.

And you say we have no place in foreign affairs? That's atrocious!

As for Bin Laden: We haven't caught Osama Bin Laden because we don't want to. But not for the reasons you would think. It's best described as "Fishing with live bait". We use Bin Laden every day to thwart the efforts of his own 'regime' (for lack of a better word). We know when, where and what he eats, sleeps, speaks and even when he uses the bathroom.

Our intelligence program in the United States is way past most people's comprehension. Our weapons are too. Whatever you see on The Military Channel in regards to the latest weaponry and intelligence gathering devices is already almost obsolete in the battlefield.

Do you really think the U.S. Military would release "top secret" information to the general public (including foreign adversaries) via a television program so the "bad guys" could get wind of it and come up with ways to counter them? I not only don't think so... I know so.

Osama Bin Laden (although a mole) loves the feeling he thinks he has of power. It is this very arrogance that keeps him communicating with his "network" throughout the Middle East and abroad. And when he does, we are right there to make arrests, torture and even kill those who may endanger the lives of Americans and our Allies (even send them to Camp Delta).

The War on Terror is real. It's just not as public as you think. Because in order to catch the bad guys and circumvent more terrorist attacks a huge amount of secrecy is necessary. The war on terror like any other war should never be made public - no press should ever be allowed inside of the kill zone. Them being there only disrupts natural soldier instincts and the proper execution of their training. War is ugly. But those men fighting over there are the ones that make sure that the fighting NEVER ends up on this front (U.S. soil).

The 'wars' that we fight ever day (and the public only knows about a small percentage of them) across this globe are for self-preservation. No different than any other nation out there. I am not saying that we are always right on every tiny issue, but we certainly have enough "probable cause" to be engaged in the ones we are. We (the public) are not given full access to all the details, because to do so would also endanger the lives of many soldiers and possibly civilians in the arenas we enter. And if you wanna cry "Boo Hoo, I have a right to know!" - Well, "NO YOU DON'T!"

You ask me to define the enemy. Okay. The enemy is ANY individual or organization (organized or not) that threatens any part of the United States, its Soldiers, its Civilians, its Property or its way of life in any way, fashion or form. This also includes American Allies and other peaceful nations we have sworn to defend and protect as well.

And the "Capitalist Monster" (as you refer to it) has nothing to do with this policy. They do their own money grabbing - an entitlement that goes with a free society created by the very men who defend this nation day in and day out. Those who sacrifice life and limb for you and me to be able to have an opportunity to capitalize ourselves. Isn't that what we are ultimately doing here with this blog? Expressing our right to capitalize?

Alright, let's talk about the Geneva Convention. The G.C. was created as a standard of fair treatment of 'prisoners of war'. Terrorists who bomb innocent civilians are not 'prisoners of war' - they are simply common criminals and thugs who have taken it upon themselves to commit horrific atrocities against random countries, their armed forces and in most cases, against innocent civilians. They do not fall under Article 27 of the Fourth Geneva Convention which read:

"Protected persons are entitled, in all circumstances, to respect for their persons, their honour, their family rights, their religious convictions and practices, and their manners and customs. They shall at all times be humanely treated, and shall be protected especially against all acts of violence or threats thereof and against insults and public curiosity. Women shall be especially protected against any attack on their honour, in particular against rape, enforced prostitution, or any form of indecent assault. Without prejudice to the provisions relating to their state of health, age and sex, all protected persons shall be treated with the same consideration by the Party to the conflict in whose power they are, without any adverse distinction based, in particular, on race, religion or political opinion. However, the Parties to the conflict may take such measures of control and security in regard to protected persons as may be necessary as a result of the war."

The first, second and third Geneva Conventions are as follows and do pertain to terrorists either:

The Geneva Conventions comprise rules that apply in times of armed conflict and seek to protect people who are not or are no longer taking part in hostilities, for example:

wounded or sick fighters
prisoners of war
civilians
medical and religious personnel

Conventions

In diplomacy, the term convention does not have its common meaning as an assembly of people. Rather, it is used in diplomacy to mean an international agreement, or treaty. The first three Geneva Conventions were revised and expanded in 1949, and the fourth was added at that time.

First Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field, 1864
Second Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea, 1906
Third Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, 1929
Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, 1949

The G.C. only applies between two recognized nations in a time of war (or as modified in COMMON ARTICLE 2) a "police action".

Since the hunt for, apprehension and incarceration of rogue criminals (terrorists in this case) does not fall under any of the G.C. or its Articles, the terrorists themselves are not protected by it. End of story.

The Hamdan Case (Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 548, U.S 557) refers to Article 3 of the Geneva Convention being violated. However Article 3 states

"that the certain minimum rules of war also apply to armed conflicts that are not of an international character, but that are contained within the boundaries of a single country. The applicability of this article rests on the interpretation of the term armed conflict.For example it would apply to conflicts between the Government and rebel forces, or between two rebel forces, or to other conflicts that have all the characteristics of war but that are carried out within the confines of a single country. A handful of individuals attacking a police station would not be considered an armed conflict subject to this article, but only subject to the laws of the country in question."

Once again it refers to "armed conflicts that are not of an international character, but that are contained within the boundaries of a single country" which is not the case here (regarding the detaining of international criminals and terrorists). It refers to governments in conflict with its own rebel regimes. It's not relevant. It was a matter of argument in which the only determination was that Hamdan couldn't be tried by a Military Court because he was only determined to be an "enemy combatant" and thus was entitled to releasae under the G.C.

However, that entire case was simply a power struggle between The U.S. Supreme Court, Congress and The President. It was a waste of time and tax payers money and solved nothing. The Courts had no rightful jurisdiction in this matter and violated Congress's Authorization For Use Of Military Force.

In regards to your claim that "the very great majority of detainees brought to Guantanamo are innocent of any crimes against the United States" : How can you or any other civilian in the general public know who is innocent of what? Do you really think you have been given clearance to "all the details surrounding these individuals"? That's simply ridiculous in itself. You think because CNN tells you that this is a truth, then it must be? Ha.

As for whether or not any of the 779 total detainees were directly or indirectly involved in the 9/11 attacks:

How about Ramzi Binalshibh and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the self-proclaimed architect of the terrorist attacks, who were unapologetic about their roles during a series of outbursts at their trials in Guantanamo?

[Quotes from the accused]

"We did what we did; we're proud of Sept. 11," announced Binalshibh, who has said he wants to plead guilty to charges that could put him to death.

Mohammed shrugged off the potential death sentence for the murder of nearly 3,000 people in the Sept. 11 attacks. "We don't care about capital punishment," said Mohammed, "We are doing jihad for the cause of God."

You say you demand "the truth". Well, that's like the mail room boy at Bush Brothers & Company demanding the secret ingredients in their famous baked beans! Good luck with that one.

Close Guantanamo Bay Prison Camps! Laura's 1st Response

2009-09-17T03:25:00.004-04:00

Good joke Chase, but no, I'm not friggen kidding you at all!

Sadly, the War on Terror is as created as the War on Drugs. What really happened on September 11, 2001 is still open for debate, though truly this War on Terror is a result of decades of failed U.S. foreign policy and interference in sovereign states in the Middle East.

While you're pouring on the war party rhetoric, why don't you tell us about the hunt for bin Laden? Weren't our covert military operatives hunting for the guy in the caves of Afghanistan? Sheesh Chase – that was 8 long years ago! Have they given up, or wait – is it that the alleged mastermind was never actually a part of any plot at all?

And then we cannot forget Saddam. His alleged part in the plot is what gave us the go ahead to invade Iraq – but wait, although he has already been hanged, and rather quickly at that, he was in fact not a part of any plot either – just another degenerate dictator that used to be in bed with the U.S. gone wild.

So please do tell Chase – who is this elusive enemy that we are at war with to save our great and wonderful lifestyle? It is the Palestinians? Iran? Iraq? Afghanistan? Pakistan? Every Muslim in the Middle East and on U.S. soil?

Define the enemy for us so that we can determine who our brave military men and women are protecting us from. Without a defined enemy there can be no real war. Oh well, in the meantime it sure looks like they're having loads of fun in the Green Zone – the capitalist monster is planning condominiums, golf courses, shopping malls, hotels, and even a first class Marriott – after all, we must expand, right? It sounds like a replay of the invasions of Latin American states in past. The rocket attacks are not much worse than armed robberies around Orlando or Miami – as you stated it's just collateral damage, right?

You should understand that the Geneva Conventions of 1949 exist for reason. So you think that this is null and void Chase? This is a scary military mentality – even John McCain would disagree with you. Though the Bush administration did succeed in running roughshod on the rights of American citizens and foreign nationals for years, by 2006, in the Hamdan v. Rumsfeld case, the United States Supreme Court ruled in favor of Hamdan. Regardless of the "enemy combatant" label applied to the prisoners in the Guantanamo Bay camps, Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions was violated and the show trial military commissions were out! Bush, Rumsfeld, and Cheney lost, and I, for one, would like to see each put on trial for crimes against humanity.

There were a list of cases Chase, but the Hamdan case is most significant in this false War on Terror. I'd like to discuss the men and teenagers that were actually held captive and tortured in these camps on U.S. property in Cuba for a moment, because the actual people are what really matters here, and it is not only the Guantanamo camps that are an issue – it is also U.S. prison camps around the world, including Bagram. Now that it is determined that detainees in Guantanamo camps have been determined to have some level of rights to proper judicial review, the Obama administration is avoiding habeas corpus by detaining them at Bagram instead. I admit that I'm upset, and it's why you see the "Organizing for America" widget removed from this blog!

Chase, the very great majority of detainees brought to Guantanamo are innocent of any crimes against the United States. Many were turned over by neighbors that wanted the US Dollars offered by US soldiers on a quota mission. Yes, U.S. military offered bounties and for the sake of money, land, protection and to be on the right side of these dangerous Americans turned loose in their country, neighbors and enemies turned over anyone they could find. These teens and men were brought to Cuba and held for years under conditions of forced confessions and psychological and physical torture, but truly were only a notch on some dolt's belt, and those dolts should be prosecuted!

No prisoner at Guantanamo Bay camps ever lived in the U.S. in the way that you describe Chase, and none were plotters of September 11th either – if you wish to claim otherwise – produce names and allegations, and be specific. You sound like you should be on FOX News with O'Reilly. And no, I find little amazement that there hasn't been a terrorist attack on U.S. soil since September 11, 2001, because I do not buy the far-fetched fairy tale told by the Bush administration to begin with – and didn't believe it on the afternoon of September 11th. I am one of those Americans that demand the truth – one of the many Americans demanding the truth. See Scholars for 9/11 Truth

Guantanamo Bay camps and U.S. prison camps around the world are atrocities against humanity. My solution is to shut them all down now!

Close Guantanamo Bay Prison Camps! : Chase's 1st Response

2009-09-17T00:59:00.002-04:00

"Are You Friggen' Kidding Me?" - I just had to say that first (since it's my favorite phrase these days). LOL

I cannot believe that anyone in this Great Country would not condone taking "whatever measures necessary" to protect America, our freedom and our way of life. War is not pretty. War is not fun. But war is a necessary evil in order to achieve peace. And with war comes brutality, torture and death. All of these being part of the necessary means to protect oneself (or Nation) and to preserve the very way of life we cherish so much.

War (whether against a nation or terrorists) should never be "played out" like a game, with rules and political influence or direction. These types of mistakes are what cause Great Nations to crumble to the enemy. The enemy doesn't follow rules of engagement, tactical procedures, adherence to laws or The Geneva Convention. They rape, pillage, burn and destroy everything and everyone in their way, regardless of whether or not they feel they will actually win or not.

And when these enemies attack, they do it like cowards. No more standing in a Militia line across a battlefield waiting for the trumpets to sound. They creep around us every day; living among us and enjoying the fruits this country has to offer (even to foreigners). EXAMPLE: The very prisoners you refer to in Guantanamo Bay lived in cities all over the U.S. - some for years. They learned how to fly commercial aircraft in American flight schools, attended colleges and lived in nice neighborhoods. At night they put on their expensive Italian shoes and silk shirts and went nightclubbing at strip joints and picked up hookers on a regular basis. Even though their own religion condemns these very acts, they of course have a clause in it saying that they can do all these things if it is to deceive the "infidel"... How convenient.

This new enemy we face is not the same as yesterday, but very similar to many in history. Some of the first known acts of terrorism were in the 1st-14th Century B.C.:

The earliest known organization that exhibited aspects of a modern terrorist organization was the Zealots of Judea. Known to the Romans as sicarii, or dagger-men , they carried on an underground campaign of assassination of Roman occupation forces, as well as any Jews they felt had collaborated with the Romans. Their motive was an uncompromising belief that they could not remain faithful to the dictates of Judaism while living as Roman subjects. Eventually, the Zealot revolt became open, and they were finally besieged and committed mass suicide at the fortification of Masada.

The Assassins were the next group to show recognizable characteristics of terrorism, as we know it today. A breakaway faction of Shia Islam called the Nizari Ismalis adopted the tactic of assassination of enemy leaders because the cult's limited manpower prevented open combat. Their leader, Hassam-I Sabbah, based the cult in the mountains of Northern Iran. Their tactic of sending a lone assassin to successfully kill a key enemy leader at the certain sacrifice of his own life (the killers waited next to their victims to be killed or captured) inspired fearful awe in their enemies.

Even though both the Zealots and the Assassins operated in antiquity, they are relevant today: First as forerunners of modern terrorists in aspects of motivation, organization, targeting, and goals. Secondly, although both were ultimate failures, the fact that they are remembered hundreds of years later, demonstrates the deep psychological impact they caused.

You speak about "torture" and say that it is such an unspeakable act of atrocity. I beg to differ. Even the Bible condones "beatings" and "torture" (CLICK HERE for references). It has been used throughout history for two purposes. The first (being the most well known) would be to torture a person(s) to the point of retrieving valuable information that could play a role in strategic battle planning and execution as well as save lives. Secondly, it is used to instill fear into ones enemies. The U.S. used it less than many other countries in arenas like WWI, WWII and Korea and Vietnam. However, the enemies that did use it, did so effectively against many American soldiers.

We cannot fight an enemy who follows no rules, by using a set of rules established by politicians. The "battlefield" (wherever that may be) needs to be run by Generals and the brave men and women who follow their command. Without this, we are doomed as a nation. We have to "fight fire with fire".

Don't you find it amazing that while bombs are exploding all over in other countries (even Muslim ones) that there hasn't been another single attack on American soil since September 11, 2001? I sure do. And I would like to keep it that way. So if that means a few raggedy terrorists get the shit kicked out of them at GITMO, then so be it. And if a few "innocent" people accidentally got mixed into the pile of terrorist trash, then so be it also - it's simply collateral damage. There is a much more at stake here than "The Smiths in Jollyville, U.S.A." and their rights being violated. Jollyville, U.S.A. wouldn't even exist for them to complain about if it wasn't for the fearless soldiers who stand a post every day in places like Guantanamo Bay to protect those very people. Each and every one of them would die, without question, for this Great Nation - even if it meant being tortured to death.

Close Guantanamo Bay Prison Camps!

2009-09-15T19:24:00.001-04:00

I choose this non-partisan topic in my curiosity as to how anyone can defend the existence of these camps. To offer a little background here, these camps were opened by the Bush administration in January of 2002, when they labeled the prisoners taken in Afghanistan as enemy combatants and asserted that none had rights under the Geneva Conventions. The exact number of prisoners held in this area of Fidel Castro's island has never been revealed by the U.S. military captors; however, at one point it was believed to be close to 1000. Today it is supposed to be closer to 300, though we really have no clue because of the lack of accountability and secrecy involved in the entire operation.

I will take it a step further and assert that many prisoners from the now closed Camp X-Ray were moved to Bagram or elsewhere in the Middle East so that the military captors could torture at will without detection of the world's prying eyes. More secrecy seems to be all that we ever receive when we demand the camps be closed and the atrocity ceased. At this minute all of the camps except X-Ray are still open, yet President Obama promised during his campaign that should he be elected, the Guantanamo camps of shame would immediately be closed after his inauguration. As an Obama supporter, I admit that I resent the fact that the place still exists.

I refer to this as a non-partisan topic as not all Republicans appreciate torture and abuse of prisoners. How about you Chase? Is torture okay in your eyes, or should these sorry camps be closed forever? Are you aware of the list of acts committed by US and UK military members in the name of counterintelligence in these camps?

Wackenhut: Laura's Final Response

2009-09-08T01:58:00.003-04:00

Paragraph 1: I never used the term "spamming" so I'm not sure why you are. I stated that it was self-promoting rhetoric from Wackenhut. Yes Chase, if we ask Wackenhut about Wackenhut obviously that is exactly what we get. Ask a few of the company's victims or use another source. Most readers, at least those capable of conducting their own research, are all too aware of exactly what Wackenhut is.

Paragraph 2: Most problems at Wackenhut are due to low pay to the actual workers and lack of training from the company. Too much profit going in shareholder and executive pockets – spend some of it on training and eliminate some of the more serious problems. Spend more on more qualified employees.

Paragraph 3: I think you are a bit mixed-up on your history. The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution was not "derived from Edwin Coke's infamous statement in the Semayne's Case in 1604." As a history major, a student of constitutional law, and a graduate history student in recent time, I can confidently assert that you have no clue as to the meaning and intent behind the Fourth Amendment or its origin. Where do you get this stuff?

A valid legal source that traces the origin of the Fourth Amendment precisely: The Fourth Amendment: Origins, Text, and History -

Like most of the rest of the Bill of Rights, the Fourth Amendment has its origins in seventeenth-and eighteenth-century English common law. Unlike the rest of the Bill of Rights, the Fourth Amendment's origins can be traced precisely—it arose out of a strong public reaction to three cases from the 1760s, two decided in England and one in the colonies. The two English cases are usefully treated as a pair: Wilkes v. Wood, 19 Howell's State Trials 1153 (C.P. 1763), and Entick v. Carrington, 19 Howell's State Trials 1029 (C.P. 1765). The third case was the Writs of Assistance Case (see Dickerson, 1939).

Paragraph 4: You stated: "…because I assure you that the goverment (especially the Federal Goverment or any private security firm like Wackenhut) is not wire-tapping your home to find out if you spank your kids." [sic]

Chase, this does imply that they are doing so; however, for other reasoning.

Paragraph 5: Well, thank for the information, but in Florida a sentence of 364 days or less is a jail sentence, and not a prison sentence. Apparently North Carolina is different, if you say so.

Following the "paragraph 5" diatribe your copy/paste didn't exactly work out. I cannot interpret, though I do see the muppets on a video. LOL.

As far as the discussion of Jane Fonda is concerned, your information is, once again, incorrect. Really – where do you get this stuff? You are referring to the 1972 visit wherein Jane offered pro-North Vietnamese propaganda – yes she did, and she had valid reasoning to refer to US soldiers as war criminals; however, the "piece of paper incident" that you refer to is 100% crap, and never happened. The Nixon administration and many of its obedient soldiers were guilty of war crimes.

If you'd really like to argue we can discuss the US invasion of the Middle East today.

Wackenhut: Chase's Final Response

2009-09-07T04:04:00.006-04:00

Okay Ms. Valentine. I am going to go paragraph by paragraph on your 4th response and clarify a few things:

Paragraph 1: You are simply accusing me of "Spamming" for Wackenhut when I was actually just using that information as a guideline for readers to understand who Wackenhut is. I assure you that many of our readers have no idea who they are at all.

Paragraph 2: I never said that Wackenhut didn't have their share of problems. Actually, I said quite the contrary. But the level and number of allegations are consistent with all State run facilities in the same states. People just think that if it is a private corporation running the prison that makes it more horrific, regardless of the allegations.

Paragraph 3: The Fourth Amendment? - "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

The Fourth Amendment in the U.S. Constitution was derived from Sir Edwin Coke's infamous statement in the Semayne's Case in 1604 where he stated, ""The house of every one is to him as his castle and fortress, as well for his defence against injury and violence as for his repose." Although it's purpose is reasonable; it like most American laws; is vague in its description ans is intended to be so. This for the purpose of allowing "judgement", "reasonable suspicion" and "probable cause" to mean whatever they may. We all know that "probable cause" can even be the statement of any citizen (or non-citizen) making it's true meaning - "hearsay".

Amendments are precisely that - changes tot the Constitution. Where and when did we decide that there should be no more amendments? I think the entire Constitution needs to be "amended" or "revised" to meet today's standards - not those of the horse and buggy days when the law's intent was to govern over horse thieves and moonshiners.

Paragraph 4: I never said (or even implied) that Wackenhut was involved in any "wiretapping" covert operations. I was using them as a reference by saying [quote]"the Federal government or any private security firm like Wackenhut"[end quote]. I meant any government contracted security agency in general.

Paragraph 5: I am well aware of what recidivism means. I fail to see how that ties into this debate though. As for myself being former "prisoner" (the term I used); that was precisely what I was - a prisoner, defined by the dictionary as:

pris⋅on⋅er

[priz-uh-ner, priz-ner] Show IPA–noun

1.	a person who is confined in prison or kept in custody, esp. as the result of legal process.

2.	Prisoner of War

3.	a person or thing that is deprived of liberty or kept in restraint.

I was sentenced by the State of North Carolina to (2) 6-8 month sentences in the N.C. Department of Corrections to be run concurrently. Therefore a minimum time of 6 months (180 days) with a maximum of 8 months (240 days) incarceration. Since I already had 102 days credit in the county "Jail", I had to complete a minimum of 78 days in a N.C. Prison facility. I actually served another 92 days in a Minimum Security N.C. Correction Facility (prison - not jail). A total of 194 days. My time was reduced (from the maximum of 240 days to 194 days) by earning "gain" days and for working a full-time job with the N.C. Department of Transportation during my incarceration - for wich I was paid a total of .70 cents a day.

As for being a supporter of that Communist Sympathizing pathetic excuse for a human being Jane Fonda (I just threw up in my mouth); I am appalled. This is a woman who went to Vietnam on an anti-war tour and cost the lives of dozens (if not more) soldiers by "selling them out" to the North Vietnamese. During a highly publicised visit to a North Vietnamese camp for prisoners of war to pursue her own selfish career, she betrayed a dozen American POWs. The POWs were so malnurished that is was difficult to recognize who they were, so each of them had pre-prepared a small note with their name and serial number on it so their families would know they were alive. When Fonda shook all of their hands on live television, they each discreetly slipped her their piece of identifying information. When she reached the end of the line (now having all of their information slips hidden in her palm, she turned to the North Vietnamese "Propoganda" Officer who had been appointed to conduc tthis make-shift peace offering. She handed all of the pieces of paper to him. This treasonable act lead directly to the torture and execution of every man standing in that room. She should have been shot for treason herself when she returned to The States

As for the Draft being reinstated: First of all that wont be necessary as there are plenty of Die Hard Patriotic Americans who will volunteer and re-volunteer to serve without question, should Our Great Nation ever need. It was only needed to combat a World War (understandable) and a time when people thought smoking dope, dropping acid and sex were more important than the very Country and the Millions of brave men who died to give them those rights.

So, you are saying that in an instance that "the draft" was reinstated, The Second Amendment would be most appreciated? Why? To shoot the very fellow Americans that serve you the draft notice instead of defending the very freedoms provided to you by birthright?

Marine Corps Colonel Jessep said it best in (the liberal propoganda film) A Few Good Men:



               
              "Son, we live in a world that has walls.
              And those walls have to be guarded by men
              with guns.  Who's gonna do it? You?  You,
              Lt.  Weinberg?  I have a greater
              responsibility than you can possibly
              fathom.  You weep for Santiago and you
              curse the marines.  You have that luxury.
              You have the luxury of not knowing what I
              know: That Santiago's death, while tragic,
              probably saved lives.  And my existence,
              while grotesque and incomprehensible to
              you, saves lives.

              You don't want the truth.  Because deep
              down, in places you don't talk about at
              parties, you want me on that wall.  You need me
              there.
               
              We use words like honor, code,
              loyalty...we use these words as the
              backbone to a life spent defending
              something.  You use 'em as a punchline.
               
              I have neither the time nor the
              inclination to explain myself to a man who
              rises and sleeps under the blanket of the
              very freedom I provide, then questions the
              manner in which I provide it. I'd prefer
              you just said thank you and went on your
              way. Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a
              weapon and stand a post.  Either way, I
              don't give a damn what you think you're
              entitled to."

Wackenhut: Laura's 4th Response

2009-09-05T18:01:00.003-04:00

While I'm sure that your crowd appreciates the promotion of Wackenhut from the Wackenhut website I am curious what you would expect the company to state about itself? More likely than not, Wackenhut also submitted the information to Wikipedia. Chase these are not sources of information – I mean if we ask Dick Cheney about Dick Cheney, what could we possibly expect as a response? I'll skip by that self-promoting rhetoric and go directly to your "My Thoughts" section.

First, I have seen the allegations against Wackenhut in the Federal Register and in court documents, and not merely in the news as you attribute to us liberals. Many guards have been found guilty in courts and the company found negligent. You avoid any response to any of these valid accusations though. What can I say? Typical of the conservative Repub. Avoid away…

To me the friendship between George H. Bush and George Wackenhut that you allude to in your response speaks volumes. Your friendly neighbor is oh so typical of too may in US history and today. He's proud to abuse prisoners, scrimp and budget by failing to train his cheaply paid employees – another rights abusing Republican – thank God I helped in the fight to see your crowd removed from power in this country. Some of us liberals understand the meaning of the US Constitution and appreciate the protections offered under the Amendments to the US Constitution – in relation to your unique statement I am of course referring to the Fourth Amendment.

George W. Bush sure didn't combat terrorism, and quite the opposite. If I ever find out that "Wackenhut is a participant in wire-tapping my home" I'll be seeing George's representative in federal court. Trust me buddy, they ain't seen scandal yet if that's the new game this company is involved in. Is that your assertion? Does Wackenhut participate in wire-tapping the homes of Americans? Spill it Chase –

Florida and Texas prisons are some of the worst in the nation. And sorry Chase, but I could never consider molesting female juveniles and sexually assaulting women, or beating men to death for that matter, to be a "hard line approach" as you, the admitted former prisoner/now conservative state it. Ah yes, but you were not actually in prison – the short length of a sentence that you referred to in your earlier post is spent in a jail. Jail and prison are not the same thing at all. Your statements reek of someone that lacks understanding of the term recidivism.

I am a longtime supporter of Jane Fonda and the anti-war movement, and trust me dear, I'll make sure that your pro-war nuts are the first to go should the draft ever be reinstated, but you won't be dragging my son with you. Times like this is when we really appreciate the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution – but then Chase picks and chooses his amendments, right? Second is good, toss the Fourth out with us liberals.

Wackenhut: Chase's Response

2009-09-04T00:42:00.004-04:00

Seeing how Laura loves to "grind topics down to merely bashing corporate America", I will open up by providing a little information about the Wackenhut Corporation (Now G4S).

NOTE: All information from Wikipedia is publicly submitted and is not necessarily factual or substantiated in any way.

(Source of Information Below- Wackenhut.com )

The Wackenhut Corporation is the leading provider of quality, customer-focused security solutions in the United States. With over 35,000 employees, Wackenhut delivers unrivaled integrated security and related services to a growing number of organizations, such as :

Government
Industrial Complexes
Healthcare
Education
Financial Institutions
Utilities
Gaming and Recreation
Retail Establishments
Commercial

The company provides its services to local, regional and national customers through 200 offices coast-to-coast in the United States. As a subsidiary of Group 4 Securicor plc (www.g4s.com), Wackenhut is also able to meet the global needs of its customers in 100+ countries, through its ISO 9001:2000 Certified International Accounts Division.

Wackenhut’s primary service divisions include: Security Services; Nuclear Security and Energy Consulting Services; Government Services; Automated and Integrated Security Management Systems; and Consulting and Investigations.

Wackenhut has earned an excellent reputation over the years because of the integrity and professionalism of its people; an unyielding commitment to customer service; the high quality of its corporate, regional and local operations; and, its concern for the welfare of its employees. Clearly, much of Wackenhut’s success is attributable to the quality of its employees.The company’s training arm – Wackenhut Training Institute – develops and conducts training and education programs designed to instill knowledge, a sense of pride and commitment to learning; establishing a platform for advancement within the company and the security profession.

(Source of Information Below - Wikipedia.com)

The Wackenhut Corporation is a United States-based private security and investigation firm. Founded in 1954, in Coral Gables, Florida, by George Wackenhut and three partners (all former FBI agents), the company is now headquartered in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida.

In 2002 the company was purchased for $570 million by Danish corporation Group 4 Falck (now known as G4S). At the time of this purchase, the Wackenhut Corporation operated in 54 countries, had $2.8 billion in revenue, and its founder had control over more than 50% of its stock.

Although not an exuastive list, the following are some of the notable services the company provides. It has supplied complete police services at the Tampa Airport and pre-departure security at several other airports. Additionally, it supplies security for courthouses in Texas and Florida; armed patrols for the Miami Downtown Development Authority; guards to ride the Miami Metro Rail and the Tri-Rail from West Palm Beach to Dade County.

In addition to security, the company provides fire and rescue services for some clients, including the Kennedy Space Center.

Background

After early struggles (including a fistfight between George Wackenhut and one of his partners), Wackenhut took sole control of his company in 1958 then, naming it after himself. Working throughout the day in his office, he sometimes continued nightly as a security guard. By 1964, he had contracts to guard the Kennedy Space Center and the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission's nuclear test site in Nevada. The following year, he took his company public.

In the mid-60s, Florida Governor Claude Kirk commissioned the Wackenhut Corporation to help fight a "war on organized crime", awarding the company a $500,000 contract. The commission lasted about a year but led to more than 80 criminal indictments, including many for local politicians and government employees.^[1] Following the murder of a British tourist at a rest stop in 1993, Florida contracted with Wackenhut to provide security at all state rest stops.

Security services

Private prisons

This section may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. Please improve this section if you can. (December 2008)

Having expanding into providing food services for U.S. prisons in the 1960s, Wackenhut in 1984 launched a subsidiary to design and manage jails and detention centers for the burgeoning private prison market. Wackenhut then became that nation's second largest for-profit prison operator. Although the corrections division was financially successful, critics claimed that the company's guards abused inmates in Florida, Texas, New Mexico, and Louisiana.^{[citation needed]}

In 1999, Wackenhut was stripped from a $12-million-a-year contract in Texas and fined $625,000 for failing to live up to promises in the running of a state jail; moreover, several guards were indicted for having sex with female inmates.^{[citation needed]} In Fort Lauderdale, Florida, five guards at a Wackenhut work-release facility were fired or punished for having sex with inmates.^{[citation needed]} In April 1999 the state of Louisiana took over the running of Wackenhut's 15-month-old juvenile prison after the U.S. Justice Department accused Wackenhut of subjecting its young inmates to "excessive abuse and neglect."^{[citation needed]} In the same year a New Mexico legislative report called for a near-total revamp of prison operations, including two run by Wackenhut.^{[citation needed]} U.S. journalist Gregory Palast commented on the case: "New Mexico's privately operated prisons are filled with America's impoverished, violent outcasts — and those are the guards."^[2] He catalogued lax background checks before hiring guards, which led to several alleged cases of guards physically and sexually abusing inmates. In the U.S., Wackenhut has appeared in the federal courts 62 times since 1999, largely resulting from prisoners' claims of human rights abuses.^[2] The company has been accused of trying to maximise profits in its private prisons at the expense of drug rehabilitation, counselling and literacy programs. In 1995 Wackenhut was investigated for diverting $700,000 intended for drug treatment programs at a Texas prison.

Wackenhut describes itself as no longer involved in the private prison industry in the US, stating that it abandoned the market due to low returns on investment, excessive government regulation, and negative publicity affecting its other, more profitable operations. The GEO Group, Inc. now runs former Wackenhut facilities in 14 states, as well as in South Africa and Australia. Some facilities, such as the Wackenhut Corrections Centers in New York, retain the Wackenhut name despite no longer having any open connection with the company.

Nuclear power plants

The Wackenhut Corporation also provides armed security services for many nuclear power plants.

Salem/Hope Creek Nuclear

Peach Bottom Nuclear

In September 2007, former employee Kerry Beal and Paul A. Kennedy videotaped fellow security guards at the Peach Bottom Nuclear Generating Station sleeping while on duty. Beal had previously tried to notify supervisors at Wackenhut and the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Wackenhut was fired from its role guarding Peach Bottom and nine other nuclear plants.^[3]

Wackenhut and the CIA

Frequent rumors that his company was in the employ of the Central Intelligence Agency, particularly in the 1960s, were never substantiated, but Wackenhut, who was obsessive about high-tech security gadgets in his private life, did not discourage the suggestion. Several of his senior executives were former CIA operatives, and his company's board of directors included former FBI director Clarence M. Kelley, former National Security Agency director Bobby Ray Inman, and former Defense secretary and deputy CIA director Frank Carlucci.^{[citation needed]} On rare occasions, the company's clandestine work did land in the headlines.^{[citation needed]} In 1991, a U.S. House of Representatives committee investigated charges that a Wackenhut executive, working for a consortium of oil companies, illegally spied on a whistleblower, former independent oil executive Chuck Hamel, exposing environmental damage caused by the Exxon Valdez oil spill.^[4] The executive, who had also discussed trying to implicate a California congressman in his sting, resigned immediately after a meeting with George Wackenhut.^{[citation needed]}

Accounting irregularities

In May 2008, an audit from Miami-Dade County found that Wackenhut had over billed the county for up to six million dollars over three years for non-existing security guards at Metrorail stations and along bus routes, and tried to cover this up using inaccurate and falsified records, including payment to officers for ghost posts. Officers were paid and asked to sign in so management could bill the county, even though the hours were never worked. Numerous people have been fired/suspended by Wackenhut, including the Project Managers, Elijah Pendelton and Gerald Lepore, along with Major Kaslick, Major Holmes, Major Mora (Major Mora is still working at Wackenhut), Major Alverado, Major Colon (Colon is still working at Wackenhut), and Major Pereira have all been relieved of duties with TWC for their part in the conspiracy and cover ups of fraud against the County. Indictments are now pending to be released soon and is expected to include high level County employees that processed these fraudulent invoices and allegedly through confidential sources close to the investigation stated, they all received kickbacks, some say to the tune of $100,000. The company disputed the audit, but has fired/suspended at least 8 management employees as of 28 May 2008 on the metro Rail Contract including, investigating of the current contract manager of TWC who is a recently retired Miami-Dade Police captain now working for Wackenhut metro rail, Mr Dennis Shaw. A call to his office resulted in a typical, "I can't comment at this time due to company Policy." The Public corruption unit and the FBI and A.M.S have worked very hard on this case and a final outcome is near, including Grand Jury indictments and TWC losing the 92 million dollar contract and being banned from all future Miami-Dade contracts according to the Mayor, Mr. Carlos Alvarez, a former retired Miami Dade Police Director. It has been suggested to return police officers to replace the Wackenhut guards who are now there.^[5] . Major Colon, and Mejor Mora were captains at the time of the allegations, they were since promoted to Majors.

Foreign countries

Australia

Among other facilities, Wackenhut subsidiary Australasian Correctional Management (ACM) operated the Woomera Immigration Reception and Processing Centre, which opened in 1999 and was closed in 2003 after allegations of widespread abuse of refugee claimants. In a documentary screened on Special Broadcasting Service in 2000, George Wackenhut welcomed Australia's immigrant detention policies, saying, "(Australia is) really starting to punish people, as they should have done all along."^{[citation needed]}

Wackenhut UK

This section does not cite any references or sources. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (January 2009)

Wackenhut UK was not a direct branch of Wackenhut for many years until the late 1980s. As close personal protection for the wealthy in Arab countries was a potentially highly profitable line of business, Wackenhut UK was established to beat the Arab boycott by creating a UK company in which they held roughly a 50% share. As the company's prime source of income was in the Middle East, the rest of the UK operations were run, by almost any account, at well below competence before Wackenhut gained 100% control in a takeover, Stories of mishaps became the stuff of legend in the industry. For instance, they regularly put two guards on duty on a site where one guard was an ardent Israeli activist who often volunteered to spend his holidays serving in the Israeli IDF and the other was an unreformed ex-member of the Ukrainian Waffen SS with the obvious consequential friction.

One site that Wackenhut UK guarded at this time was particularly bizarre. The Royal Borough of Kingston-Upon-Thames found that it could cut the cost of their city's insurance if they had all their premises insured with the same policy and had guards garrisoned at night to ensure there was no theft. As a result, Wackenhut UK who they employed, had to send guards to the municipal dump to ensure that no-one broke in and stole the city's household trash.

=================

My Thoughts

=================

I included the information from Wikipedia.com because liberals are the first to say "Well I saw it in the News so it must be true!" Of course many of them also believing that Wikipedia is actually news or even a fact based website at all. (Notice the liberal slant on the reporting of Wackenhut on the website). Wikipedia has also posted warnings about the information posted there (by someone in the public), stating that if the information is not backed by evidence, it is subject to deletion.

I would have to say that Laura's opinion of Wackenhut Corporation is better noted as a personal opinion of George Russell Wackenhut himself (The founder of Wackenhut Corp).

I personally knew George Wackenhut and his family as we grew up neighbors in Coral Gables, FL. George Wackenhut was not only friends with George H. W. Bush but was known as a hard-line right-winger who hated communists and any left-leaning subversives and/or sympathizers. He always stood tall as a Proud Red-blooded American who always kept the Country's security at the forefront of his agenda.

Many liberals will say he overstepped his boundaries when he kept secret files on "shady" and/or "controversial" people and corporations (pre 1975), but his intent always remained to keep America the secure foundation that allows these "nare-do-wells" the right to even habitate this soil. These would be the same individuals today that cry about their rights being violated under the laws passed by George W. Bush to combat terrorism. If you aren't a terrorist then you should have nothing to worry about; because I assure you that the goverment (especially the Federal Goverment or any private security firm like Wackenhut) is not wire-tapping your home to find out if you spank your kids.

Wackenhut, like any other multi-billion dollar company has had its share of mishaps, misfortunes scandals and more (The PC you are reading this on uses a software program developed by one of the most crooked and scandalis companies in existence). However, when you employ over 35,000 employees it is difficult to have the arm and hammer on top of everyone and everything that happens within its ranks. However, most of the problems Wackenhut faced over the years are since it's sale to the Danish company Group 4 Falck (Now known as G4S) in 2002.

However, on the topic of Wackenhut and our prisons: Wackenhut already played a huge role in prisons in Florida, Louisiana, Texas and New Mexico by providing the food services in these state's prisons since the 60's (Aramark now being the leading provider). In the mid 80's Wackenhut received contracts to take over complete security operations in these prisons, because the states that gave them the contracts were already under huge scrutiny involving misconduct and misappropriation of funding within the prison systems themselves (among other things like the rising number of escapes). Sure there were some "allegations" of misconduct by Wackenhut officers in some of these facilities. But do you honestly think the same thing doesn't go on every day in government run facilities? Gimme' a break!

Wackenhut took most of their flack while operating these facilities because of the "hard line approach" they took to revert these prisons and correctional facilities back to being just that... prisons. The company was accused of trying to maximise profits in its private prisons at the expense of drug rehabilitation, counselling and literacy programs. Ummm? And the problem here is? The poor screaming bleeding hearted liberals got mad becasue they took the springs out of the beds and took "crunchy" peanut butter off of the menu? Oh, I'm disgusted at these tactics! Shame on them!

These were "prisons". Not reform schools, military schools or drug rehabilitation "centers". Wackenhut took a hard-line approach to cleaning them up, but there were still too many draft dodgers and Jane Fonda (communist bitch) supporters around to weap for the so-called rights of these thugs, murderers and rapists. So now noone is watching over your tax dollar expenditures in the prisons... But Johnny Rapist sleeps all nice and comfy with a belly full of "Crunchy" peanut butter and Cat in the Hat bedtime story by his drug-free, well counseled cellmate. How sweet!

Wackenhut: Laura's Response to Chase's Motion

2009-09-03T02:34:00.003-04:00

Motion to postpone response is accepted. You will surely need plenty of time Chase dear. LOL

While I spent all of 30 minutes on my last response as I'm all too aware of whacky Wackenhut, the truth was on my side. Better make it good - I can give you a list 10 times as long. Best of luck Chase.

Wackenhut: Chase's Motion to Postpone Response

2009-09-02T23:36:00.005-04:00

Okay, I thought that tackling your response on Wackenhut was going to be easy. I see you've done your homework, so give me a day to respond (still feeling sick from last weekend).

In the meantime.. Scroll to the left column of this Blog and check out my latest addition to "Are You Friggen' Kidding Me" - My personal Blog. Bet you'll love the latest entry about Activists... LOL

The Prison System: Laura's 3rd Response

2009-09-01T19:51:00.002-04:00

Wackenhut

Welcome back Chase! How could you possibly agree with what I've stated in relation to the US prison industrial complex and defend Wackenhut at the same time? Your "personal reasons" must be financial gratification of some sort and you speak as if Wackenhut were different or better than any of the prison-for-profit outfits. I'll elaborate for you, since you asked:

I am assuming that you are aware that Wackenhut is also GEO Group, right? Do any of the Texas scandals/murders ring a bell for you? A jury held GEO Group criminally responsible for the April 2001 brutal murder of Gregorio De La Rosa in a Willacy County, Texas facility run by these criminals. In 2006, a jury awarded De La Rosa's family $47.5 million in a wrongful death suit. Your pals were held criminally responsible and murder indictments followed. And that was far from the only thing going on in a GEO Group run facility Chase, but not to worry – I'll enlighten you on the topic so that you might bury your illusions in relation to these criminals.

Texas eventually terminated Wackenhut's $12 million a year contract to run the Travis County Jail in1999, and several guards were charged with assaulting female inmates.

There were widespread allegations of Wackenhut employees sexually assaulting female juveniles in a Wackenhut-run juvenile facility in Coke County, Texas. Suits were settled out of court in 2000.

In Jena, Louisiana in 2000, the Department of Justice (DOJ) took-over a juvenile justice facility under Wackenhut control, alleging that juveniles were held "in dangerous and life threatening conditions.

Security breaches at Department of Homeland Security (DHS) headquarters in Washington DC in 2006 were the cause of the termination of Wackenhut's contract to handle security. There were allegations of "poor training and security breaches."

Three Wackenhut guards were found guilty of civil rights conspiracy and obstruction charges in a beating of an inmate at a Lea County, New Mexico facility run by Wackenhut in 2002.

In Mozambique, Southern Africa, and Malawi, G4S (Wackenhut owner) guilty of various labor violations, including hiring illegals.

In Miami-Dade Florida, Wackenhut Corporation guilty of fraudulent over-billing to the tune of $6 million over three years in 2008. (Government contract fraud)

In 2008 the Wackenhut Corporation investigated by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for services not rendered and negligence at the Turkey Point Nuclear Plant.

Some information found on:

Federal Contractor Misconduct Database
Cryptome (from the Federal Register)

Chase, there are so many allegations and findings of misconduct, some as serious as murder, on the part of the Wackenhut Corporation and its guards that I do not have the time to list it all. Feel free to do your own research on the topic and get back with us on that. By the way, what is your personal interest in this business?

The Prison System: Chase's 2nd Response

2009-09-01T15:30:00.004-04:00

I don't really have much to say in response, as it seems we agree too much on the whole topic. However, I am appalled that you want to attack Wackenhut Corp. What allegations are you referring to? I happen to be a supporter of Wackenhut (for personal reasons). I'd love to see what you have to say about them.

The Prison System: Laura's 2nd Response

2009-08-23T17:03:00.001-04:00

My solution to move in my last response was stated satirically, at least in part. Many of us cannot move to the European Union at this point in our lives, for one reason or another. However, if you understand the proliferating prison industrial complex in the United States and you are able, moving is an intelligent option.

Of course there are alternatives to a person being incarcerated for a driving offense, even if it is a third offense for driving without a license. Granted, we need to get the guy off the road, but where does the fault begin? In my opinion it begins with each state and the laughable driving skill test. Of course I'm not familiar with every state test, but the ones that I am aware of are a joke. Florida's test is 25 dumb questions that anyone could pass without even looking at a book. Can we wonder why people rack-up points and lose their license, which can ultimately result in a suspended or revoked license? I think not. The alternative would be house arrest and an ankle bracelet, but two years in prison is ludicrous.

States, counties, and municipalities are attempting to come out of the financial hole right now by arresting citizens for any possible offense and by raising fees for lawsuit filings, traffic tickets, vehicle registrations, and fines for anything and everything. Florida is a prime example. We are all sitting ducks for the next revenue-raising scheme.

When many prisons went private it evolved into a business investment vehicle. Look at Wackenhut – the allegations against this abominable company should have executives on trial, and not acquiring new contracts regularly. They are the equivalent of Blackwater for the corrections industry as is Corrections Corporation of America.

UNICOR is another to examine – prisoners are used as slave labor. UNICOR is a U.S. government corporation established way back in 1934 and inmates in the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) work for UNICOR building office furniture, manufacturing textiles and industrial products, making clothing etc… Now UNICOR doesn't payout the low wages paid to inmates in state facilities, but still the wages are way below the minimum wage, and the workers are enslaved in this respect with no other options to earn money. Most of UNICOR's workers are victims of the Drug War, so what would companies like this do without a drug war? They would close up shop. The other main issue is the job loss to citizens that are not incarcerated; I mean why pay workers above minimum wage when you can get cheap labor in prisons?

Well Chase, the problem with convicted killers being taken out back and shot, as you so eloquently state it, is that not everyone convicted is guilty, even if they confessed to the crime. Coercive police tactics and paid informants serve as a vehicle to incarcerate the innocent; knowingly or not. Have you ever heard of The Innocence Project?

"The Innocence Project was founded in 1992 by Barry C. Scheck and Peter J. Neufeld at the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law at Yeshiva University to assist prisoners who could be proven innocent through DNA testing. To date, 241 people in the United States have been exonerated by DNA testing, including 17 who served time on death row. These people served an average of 12 years in prison before exoneration and release."

The U.S. criminal justice system is extremely fallible and there should not be a death penalty. And by the way Chase, The Innocence Project is the "charity" that I prefer my share of all donations herein to go to.

Any thoughts on that Chase?

The Prison System: Chase's response to Laura

2009-08-22T15:50:00.004-04:00

This brings us to the point about the U.S. Prison System being a business and not a means of protecting society from dangerous criminals.

The U.S. and/or separate states, counties or municipalities all thrive financially on the abundance of crime. None of the above is truly wanting to eradicate crime. This would be absurd in their eyes, as it would deprive the localities of revenue (millions of dollars in some cases).

Every state has created an infrastructure of jobs that revolve around the existence of crime. If there were no crime, there would be no Lawyers, Judges, Bailiffs, Prison Guards, Criminal Court Clerks and hundreds of other jobs that solely exist because of the presence of crime.

The prison system is run like a business. In North Carolina, the Department of Corrections continuously updates the state and each county, city and other municipalities as to the occupancy rate of the prison system (how many beds are empty). The purpose of this is to sway judges into giving more prison judgments in cases rather than alternative punishments (in order to keep the prisons full). The purpose of this is simple: The more prisoners a state has incarcerated, the more state money is allotted to the DOC (Dept. of Corrections). Also they receive additional money from the federal government as well. If they do not meet certain occupancy rates, then they receive less money - which in turn means cut-backs which includes the loss of jobs and/or reduced full-time employees and benefits.

It's a vicious cycle. Is it not an atrocity to think that Judges are being "persuaded" in their judgments by a financial consideration made by the DOC? I am sure most states also have some similar system in place as well.

As for me being a "hardcore conservative" on this issue, I can still say in some instances I am. For instance: A self-admitted serial killer or blatant murderer should be taken out back after the trial and shot in the back of the head. COST = $2.00 (for the bullet). However, since I have seen our legal process system (trials by Judges and trials by Juries) fail to accurately convict the guilty and also fail to acquit the innocent, I would have a different opinion on other scenarios. Most would depend on each type of case or crime itself.

SUMMARY: The Federal Government nor any State wants to eradicate crime or even reduce it. To do so would hurt their own economies and cause massive revenue loss and unemployment in their own region. This is a sad reason to me to intentionally ruin peoples lives (through excessive punishments including prison time); but it is something that will never change. The damage is done and seemingly irreversible.

The Prison System: Laura's 1st Response

2009-08-20T19:34:00.002-04:00

Well Chase, reading your post brought back unpleasant memories and reflection was required before I could respond. No, I've never been in prison – just jail for one day, which of course is not the same thing at all. I don't think that we have much of anything to argue about in relation to this topic, and I have always viewed you as the example of the American that likes to see fellow citizens locked away in a cage. We learn something new ever day, don't we?

I am in agreement with your figure of 75% of inmates not belonging in prison at all. I won't go on my rampage concerning the criminal justice system here and instead, I'll stick to the topic of prisons in the US being a business. Do you know that the United States incarcerates more people than any other nation in the world, civilized or not. We put more people in prison than Fidel Castro ever considered locking up. The statistics reveal the US to be a prison nation.

I can't really look at statistics that show 53% of prisoners to be incarcerated for violent crime, because the Bureau of Justice considers gun ownership by a convicted felon to be in this category, and let's face it: Americans like guns as much as they like prisons. The worst statistics are for African-American men though, and it gets appalling to say the least. The War on Drugs has truly created the prison nation that we seem to be stuck-in. So instead of violent and non-violent categorizations, I'll look at world incarceration rates that were updated in June of 2009 on Criminal Justice website by Matt Kelley:

"There are more than 9.25 million people in prison in the world, and more than 27% are incarcerated in the United States. One in 33 Americans is either in prison, in jail, or in the parole or probation system. About 40% of state prisoners and 25% of federal prisoners were convicted of drug crimes. One in 9 black men between 20 and 34 is in prison." The stats:

A survey of world incarceration per 100,000 population:

United States: 751
Russia: 628
St. Kitts & Nevis: 588
Virgin Islands: 549
Cuba: 531
Iran: 222
Mexico: 198
Spain: 149
UK: 147
Australia: 130
China: 119
Netherlands: 117
Canada: 108
Germany: 92
France: 91
Italy: 75
Japan: 61
India: 32

Do you want to know what these statistics tell me Chase? They tell me that I'm living in the wrong country. The European Union is a better place. Solution: Move

What do I think of prison expenditures? I think I'd better not hear another liar politician in this country mouth-off about needing funds for anything. Reasonable alternative: Move; just get out of this place before it happens to you, because it can happen to anyone.

The Prison System: In General

2009-08-20T17:34:00.002-04:00

To me the prison system in this Country is nothing but a business. On that note, the entire legal system is nothing but a profitable business.

From someone who spent time in Prison (first hand experience),, I can honestly say that it is a joke. I have mixed feeling on it though.

Let's start with the people who are there. Should they be there? The answer to this is that about 75% of all the people I encountered in Prison should not have been there to begin with. I am not going to say whether or not I was one of those people or not, but I will tell you that my offense was a white collar, nonviolent one which led to my incarceration in a North Carolina Prison for just 90 days. Maybe I will elaborate on that ridiculousness if anyone leaves a comment wanting to hear more (Not you though Laura). LOL

Most of the people I encountered while in the North Carolina Department of Corrections had committed white collar and nonviolent crimes such as myself. Many of those crimes would not have even been crimes in another state. Which could be a whole other topic about states abusing laws and the differences in laws state by state. But we wont go into that now either.

Most of the people that I knew in prison should have had some other punishment. For example: There was a fellow in there on a 2 year sentence for Driving While License Suspended (3rd offense). Now, I could hardly see how prison (not county jail) was the right decision buy a Judge in this case. Should our tax money really be used to house someone like this. Let's take a look at the costs (Taken from the NC DOC site itself):

Cost of Supervision
for fiscal year ending June 30, 2008

Cost of Prison Incarceration
	daily cost per inmate	yearly cost per inmate
Minimum Custody	$60.87	$22,218
Medium Custody	$79.27	$28,934
Close Custody	$89.17	$32,547
Average	$74.77	$27,911

Cost of Community Corrections Supervision
	daily cost per offender	yearly cost per offender
Community/Intermediate Supervision	$2.37	$866
Intensive Supervision	$16.71	$6,099
Electronic House Arrest	$8.43	$3,077
Community Service Work Program	$0.83	$303
Criminal Justice Partnership Program - Sentenced offenders	$14.77	$5,391
Sex Offenders (GPS)	$25.84	$9,432
Drug Screening (Cost per drug test)	$3.88

Since I was in a Minimal Security Prison I highlighted it in the chart. So, as you can see, it cost the State of North Carolina Taxpayers over $22,000 a year to house an inmate. At the daily rate, it cost N.C. Taxpayers $5,478.30 to house me (90 days x $60.87). And you can do the math for the inmate who did 2 years for DWLS.

This is one of the most absurd things I have ever seen. And the list goes on and on and on regarding white collar, nonviolent offenders. I will cover some more examples in my responses.

Laura, what do you think about prison expenditure and why they do it? And is there a reasonable alternative to just locking folks up in prisons? (Besides the obvious ones in blue above)

NEW TOPIC - Prison System Pros and Cons

2009-08-19T13:54:00.004-04:00

Thank You Chase & Laura.

Okay. On That note we will wrap up the discussion on The Credit Scam.

To all our readers: Feel free to leave comments on each part of the discussion as well as the voting buttons underneath each post and at the top left of this page.

Let's see what Chase has to say about the Prison System Problem in this country.

The Consumer Credit System Scam: Laura's 2nd Response

2009-08-19T13:40:00.001-04:00

I will agree that the topic of government hiring practices and affirmative action is a new debate for a different day, though I cannot agree that non-profits are run any differently than for profit organizations. In either case it is a business and the goal is to grab the money; look at charities and religious groups.

I do not believe that if a federal agency were formed to replace the credit bureaus the staff would consist of federal employees. It is far easier to envision a plan wherein private business would be contracted. Even the IRS contracts with collection agencies. So while it is true that a government employee stands to make nothing extra by screwing the customer, this is an unlikely scenario to begin with. That is one issue that I have with your solution Chase.

If we were to visualize a government-run agency without private contractor involvement simply for the sake of this discussion, then I ask you to look closely at Social Security and imagine the bureaucratic red tape that citizens would have to cross to accomplish just about anything. If we use your restaurant manager analogy, the manager that receives no bonuses also has no incentive to accomplish much, except of course to keep the job, but I think that we are both aware that this employee is not likely to be fired if employed by the government, and could sit at a desk reading a book day after day while the paperwork piles high.

I cannot agree that it is a better alternative at all Chase.

The Consumer Credit System Scam: Chase's 2nd Response

2009-08-19T00:44:00.003-04:00

I will have to agree with you that there isn't a single government agency out there that runs the way it should. But this will open up an entirely new debate on government hiring practices including affirmative action and just plain poor choices. The government is notorious (as you stated) for abusing taxpayer money with no-bid contracts and just plain stupidity like paying $600 for a hammer or $3,000 for a toilet seat. And we won't even get into the lobbyists roles in all of this as well.

I'm going to tell you about my own personal experience which I think will shed some light on the difference between profit and not-for-profit run organizations in general.

Having been in the restaurant business for over 20 years I saw this first hand. I remember two different types of Managers - Those who were paid straight salaries and those who received a salary plus incentives (bonuses). In this argument the managers on straight salary would represent government operation (non-profit) and those receiving bonuses represent private industry (for-profit).

The managers who did not receive any bonuses always ran the business with the customer as the first priority, because his objective was to make money for the restaurant by pleasing the customer and getting them to return. He had no incentive to just make money only.

On the other hand, the managers who received bonuses (and they were substantial profit sharing) always screwed the customer in every way possible. Sometimes the customer was unaware they were being screwed, but many times they did know. Shave a bit here, save money with cheating customer out of portions, using cheap ingredients and offering minimal compensation(s) for improperly cooked meals or outright screw ups from the kitchen or other staff. The more the manager cheated the customer, the more money he pocketed in bonuses. This also applied to employees as well. if a manager cut employee hours and understaffed the restaurant, the house saved money but the customers suffered with poor service. And ultimately the employees would go find another job somewhere else with more hours to work and the restaurant was stuck having to restaff (which includes training the new employees) on a regular basis. Once again screwing the customers with inexperienced service.

Greed has always played a role in any private business. However, Government employees in a government agency would stand to make nothing extra by screwing the customer.

I'm not saying it's a win win situation. just a better alternative in this instance.

The Consumer Credit System Scam: Laura Responds

2009-08-19T00:30:00.001-04:00

Excellent response Chase, but surprising in that you, the devout Republican, would want government in our lives any more than it already is. You make several valid points; however, I must disagree with your solution of government control and determination of our financial worthiness.

Which government programs are you familiar with that actually work seamlessly or achieve the goal of the program? The expenses of such an undertaking would be unbearable for the taxpayers in the US. Let's face it – we both know that it's not uncommon for government agencies to pay 1000% above the actual cost for any necessary item when utilizing the contractor system. You have heard of no-bid contracts, right? Often even if there are actual bids it all comes down to who knows who. The end result would be that private business would still control the credit worthiness of Americans albeit under the umbrella of the contractor.

I must assume that the credit reporting agencies run this show because any government agency would require extensive financing and overpay its contractors as it done with every other government agency. How can you make the assumption that a government agency or a government contractor would display a higher level of transparency and fairness than the credit bureaus that we are stuck with today?

For a government agency to control the credit system could also be stated as an interference with private enterprise. If you reflect on government attempts to regulate funds in the bail-out programs that began under the Bush administration, you will also realize that the dissemination of funds were anything but transparent. Are you saying that you believe the result would be vastly improved or at all better under the Obama administration?

The simple solution is to open-up the credit bureaus to lawsuits by citizen consumers and creditors. The result would indeed invoke caution and fair business practices if there was the potential for the particular credit bureau to become insolvent or go bankrupt from the onslaught of thousands, or possibly millions, of lawsuits.

The Consumer Credit System Scam: Chase Responds

2009-08-18T19:58:00.000-04:00

Yes I do Laura.

I did a little homework on the FICO system and how it originated, although I was already familiar with it's purpose and how I believe it is a crock to begin with.

It's original purpose and design seems to have been a good one (much like Karl Marx's Communist Manifesto - in it's original form). The FICO scoring system was designed to assist banks and other financial lenders in their determinations to lend or not to any particular individual. That's obviously an understandable need to protect these institutions from lending to unworthy consumers who may put the lender at financial risk in the short or long run.

However, only one credit bureau (Equifax) seems to still use this system. The other two major credit reporting bureaus use other similar software.

I really don't know how to respond to the personal stories you mention in regards to them "being a part of the consumer credit scam". I too have had many issues with all three major credit bureaus and still have problems with them today.

The issue here is the fact that they are "for profit" businesses who make millions of dollars a year at the expense of the consumer. They make 95% of there money from the banks, lenders, collection agents and other businesses who report consumer credit to them. This leads us to the following questions:

1.) What the hell gives any PRIVATE company the right to decide (and profit from) my credit worthiness? And in essence determine my ability to live a fruitful and financially worry-free life?

2.) If our entire economic stability in this Country is based on positive cash flow to keep its strength, then why is the credit reporting system not a government program governed by strict laws regarding the reporting, accumulation of, and dispersing of the very information that determines this stability?

2.) Why are there three major credit reporting agencies (Trans Union, Equifax and Experian) who's consumer rating scores can vary +/- 65 points?

3.) Why is the process of correcting errors in ones consumer report intentionally made to be one of the most difficult processes in today's society?

4.) Why are these three major credit reporting agencies protected from lawsuits by the general public just because they have a disclaimer stating that they are not responsible for the accuracy of the information obtained by them?

And the list of questions goes on and on.

The simple solution to this out of control situation is simply to de-privatize the entire credit reporting system and create a government agency to handle all credit reporting of American consumers. End of Story!

The Consumer Credit System Scam

2009-08-17T22:49:00.002-04:00

I'd like to open the blog with a discussion of the consumer credit score scam that has been instilled in the minds of Americans since its earliest days in 1940. It's commonly known as the FICO, but I'd bet that you didn't realize that FICO is an acronym for Fair Isaac Corporation, right? What I'd like to know is what exactly is fair about this Isaac Corporation and why did we the people buy into this crap to begin with?

From the moment that we reach adulthood, and often before, our minds are trained to center our lives on achieving the best FICO score. I feel like corporate America brainwashed my parents and I'm stuck with the disconcerting results. I think I even tried it on my son, but he reached adulthood about the same time that it all began to collapse so he will not be enduring decades of Fair Isaac corporate propaganda. One of the worst culprits in the country today is Capitol One – I'm sure that you're familiar with this outfit. My poor child went one cent over his credit limit when Capitol One claimed to not receive a payment on time, and nine days after it was mailed, but it really rolled downhill from there. That was only the beginning of the end! This creepy bank suddenly showed his account as going from one penny over the limit to just under a $100 over, and then his theme park pass hit. That wasn't long ago and today these corporate kings show his account as having a $1600 balance, but they're willing to take just over half to settle it. I wrote "stuff it where the sun don't shine" on the latest absurd offer and stuck it in the postage-paid envelope and mailed it back. For your information only, his original limit was $500.

Still, the audacity of Capitol One doesn't come close to that of Fifth Third Bank. These people really have nerve! My son purchased a vehicle with financing from this somewhat new bank – if you want to call it that – and after paying on time faithfully for over two years, he lost his job. It took him a few weeks to find new employment and in the interim his car payment became 30 days overdue, but he managed to make that payment on the 30th day. Five days later he received a letter from Fifth Third Bank's collection agency demanding double the payment plus two months of late charges. The demand was for close to $850 and the threat was that the vehicle would be repossessed if it wasn't received immediately. Since my name is on the car too, I decided to dial them, figuring that it was a mistake and his payment from five days earlier was not taken into account, but no, they acknowledged the payment. The representative stated that the new payment was now late. I explained that it would be paid within a week and then my son would be back on schedule. Instead of accepting this they demanded that it be put on a credit card right then, adding that the car would be repossessed if it wasn't. I hate threats, especially false threats like that one, so I told him exactly where he could go – and it wasn't heaven – and I wished him good luck with that task.

The Fifth Third Bank never did locate the vehicle and instead sent letter after letter that propelled the loan balance from $9000 to $13,000 in just under six months, and they demanded every dollar of it. With the transmission shot, I drove that baby to the local Fifth Third branch, parked it, removed the tag, and walked in and handed a teller the keys. I received a receipt for it.

If you reflect for a moment you will recall that these two outfits received government bailout money. In my opinion, it's my son that needed the bailout, not these swindlers, and I'm positive that he is far from alone. I am only sorry that I encouraged him to build his credit. Can we, as Americans, care about FICO scores and a system created by a greedy corporation that should have been gutted and reformed long ago? As far as I can see the brainwashing of Americans is just about over and the system is finally collapsing, and not a minute too soon.

Do you have any thoughts on the topic Chase?