text:
US Army sergeant asserts Posse Comitatus is not being violated

October 14, 2008 Wikinews recently published an article which explained that NorthComm, through an Executive Order of the President of the United States, directed the 3rd Infantry Division's 1st Brigade Combat Team to return to the United States from active duty missions in Iraq to begin training in a new role. NorthComm says that these troops will be used to protect the United States from threats within the United States, as well as to provide a support role to local and state agencies during times of emergency, such as with Hurricane Katrina.

Critics, however, believe that moving an active military unit back to United States soil represents a violation of the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, which makes it illegal for federal military resources to act as law enforcement agencies against civilians. The article included citations from critic Namoi Watts, who based part of her opinion on an interview with retired U.S. Air Force Colonel David Antoon. Ret. Col. Antoon stated that a military coup was already under way through the actions of NorthComm, and that other branches of the government would be powerless.

Wikinews reporter Kevin Fields had an opportunity to speak with an active duty member of the United States Army, a sergeant who is currently deployed to a peace keeping mission in Iraq. Federal laws officially prevents him from giving making any statement on military policy, however he agreed to do so on the condition of anonymity. The initials used here are not his initials of his name, only used as a pseudonym. Sgt. P.S.N. was asked to review a source article from the Army Times website which provided the original breaking information, and to provide his opinions on the article as well as follow-up questions.

Kevin Fields: In summary, what do you believe is happening here, from a military standpoint?

 * Sgt. P.S.N.: As far as I can tell, they won't be in charge of law enforcement, so no, this is not a violation of Posse Comitatus. As far as crowd control and disaster relief are concerned, that's certainly not without precedent.

Kevin Fields: Right, but before they've always been under the control of state officials, such as a governor or local law enforcement, correct?

 * Sgt. P.S.N.: The National Guard was called into Little Rock in 1957 to prevent black students from enrolling in Central High School as per Brown v Board. Eisenhower called in the 82nd Airborne, federalized the Arkansas National Guard, and ordered them to escort the students into the school. They hung around for months afterward to keep the peace. The military was used to quell the Watts riots in South Central L.A. in the 1960s, and again in the aftermath of the Rodney King trial in 1991.

 * In the cases where NorthComm is called to provide troops from the 1st BCT of the 3rd ID, they will still be used at the discretion of the local officials.

'''Kevin Fields: So it is possible that the President can assign federal troops to act in law enforcement officials, and it NOT violate Posse Comitatus? Or would such a case clearly violate it, but nothing can be done about it?'''

 * Sgt. P.S.N.: No, the president cannot order them to act as law enforcement. He can order them to defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign AND domestic.

Kevin Fields: What would be the difference?

 * Sgt. P.S.N.: You're not going to see Humvees patrolling your city streets, writing tickets, and arresting shoplifters, wife beaters, or even rapists and murderers. You will see them stop rioting, looting, violent demonstrations, and the like if the local law enforcement does not possess the ability to do so. They won't be involved without either a request from local officials or a determination by DHS or FEMA that such involvement is necessary.

'''Kevin Fields: Critics have suggested that this is part of a strategy to usurp power and consolidate it in the Presidency. Is it possible for a President of the United States to stage a coup by deploying the CCMRF and NorthComm to permanently take over an area where there is rioting or a national disaster?'''

 * Sgt. P.S.N.: No. For one thing, Congressional oversight prevents this. For another, I'm quite certain the Supreme Court would claim original jurisdiction in a case such as that. This is one reason presidents are limited to two terms.

Kevin Fields: So even though this unit, and NorthComm, are under the direct command of the President, Congress can still stop his actions?

 * Sgt. P.S.N.: They can call for hearings to examine his actions. Congress is who impeaches and ultimately removes the President from office if he usurps his authority.

'''Kevin Fields: Critics say that such hearings would not be swift, and that such action would not directly affect the President or any action he takes through this unit. Would you agree with that?'''

 * Sgt. P.S.N.: The only mandate NorthComm has is to provide support to Homeland Security operations, so no.

 * The three things I'd ask you to remember are these: First, there is precedence dating back nearly to the beginning of this nation's history for using the military in times of national emergency or cataclysmic disaster. Second, when there are cases where the citizens of an area have overpowered the police, such as in New Orleans during Katrina or the aforementioned riots in L.A., the military's mandate to defend the U.S. against domestic enemies is pretty much a no-brainier at that point. Third, who else is training to handle mass casualty situations such as dirty bombs, 9/11 type of events, or mass poisoning epidemics? These are things that the United States military are trained to handle that relatively few other agencies are equipped or funded to handle.

 * The whole point of NorthComm is so that the military is better organized and better able to respond on short notice than we were after Katrina.

Kevin Fields: Thank you for your input into this story.


text:
Talk:US Army sergeant asserts Posse Comitatus is not being violated

My interview with Sgt. P.S.N, United States Army Kamnet (talk) 07:00, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

10/13/2008 6:16 PM Kevin Fields: In summary, what do you believe is happening here, from a military standpoint?

10/13/2008 6:17 PM Sgt. P.S.N.: As far as I can tell, they won't be in charge of law enforcement, so no, this is not a violation of Posse Comitatus. As far as crowd control and disaster relief are concerned, that's certainly not without precedent.

10/13/2008 6:18 PM Kevin Fields: Right, but before they've always been under the control of state officials, such as a governor or local law enforcement, correct?

10/13/2008 6:19 PM Sgt. P.S.N.: The National Guard was called into Little Rock in 1957 to prevent black students from enrolling in Central High School as per Brown v Board. Eisenhower called in the 82nd Airborne, federalized the Arkansas National Guard, and ordered them to escort the students into the school. They hung around for months afterward to keep the peace. The military was used to quell the Watts riots in South Central L.A. in the 1960s, and again in the aftermath of the Rodney King trial in 1991.

10/13/2008 6:20 PM Sgt. P.S.N.: In the cases where NorthComm is called to provide troops from the 1st BCT of the 3rd ID, they will still be used at the discretion of the local officials.

10/13/2008 6:21 PM Kevin Fields: So it is possible that the President can assign federal troops to act in law enforcement officials, and it NOT violate Posse Comitatus? Or would such a case clearly violate it, but nothing can be done about it?

10/13/2008 6:22 PM Sgt. P.S.N.: No, the president cannot order them to act as law enforcement. He can order them to defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign AND domestic.

10/13/2008 6:23 PM Kevin Fields: What would be the difference?

10/13/2008 6:25 PM Sgt. P.S.N.: you're not going to see Humvees patroling your city streets, writing tickets, and arresting shoplifters, wife beaters, or even rapists and murderers. You WILL see them stop rioting, looting, violent demostrations, and the like if the local law enforcement does not possess the ability to do so. They won't be involved without either a request from local officials or a determination by DHS/Fema that such involvement is necessary.

10/13/2008 6:28 PM Kevin Fields: Critics have suggested that this is part of a strategy to usurp power and consolidate it in the Presidency. Is it possible for a President of the United States to stage a coup by depolying the CCMRF and NorthComm to permamently take over an area where there is rioting or a national disaster?

10/13/2008 6:30 PM Sgt. P.S.N.: No. For one thing, Congressional oversight prevents this. For another, I'm quite certain the Supreme Court would claim original jurisdiction in a case such as that. This is one reason presidents are limited to two terms.

10/13/2008 6:32 PM Kevin Fields: So even though this unit, and NorthComm, are under the direct command of the President, Congress can still stop his actions?

10/13/2008 6:33 PM Sgt. P.S.N.: They can call for hearings to examine his actions. Congress is who impeaches and ultimately removes the President from office if he usurps his authority.

10/13/2008 6:35 PM Kevin Fields: Critics say that such hearings would not be swift, and that such action would not directly affect the President or any action he takes through this unit. Would you agree with that?

10/13/2008 6:37 PM Sgt. P.S.N.: The only mandate NorthComm has is to provide *support* to Homeland Security operations, so no.

10/13/2008 6:40 PM Sgt. P.S.N.: The three things I'd ask you to remember are these: First, there is precedence dating back nearly to the beginning of this nation's history for using the military in times of national emergency or cataclismic disaster.

10/13/2008 6:41 PM Sgt. P.S.N.: Second, when there are cases where the citizens of an area have overpowered the police, such as in New Orleans during Katrina or the aforementioned riots in L.A., the military's mandate to defend the U.S. against domestic enemies is pretty much a no-brainer at that point.

10/13/2008 6:42 PM Sgt. P.S.N.: Third, who else is training to handle mass casualty situations such as dirty bombs, 9/11 type of events, or mass poisioning epedimics? These are things that the United States military are trained to handle that relatively few other agencies are equipped or funded to handle.

10/13/2008 6:43 PM Sgt. P.S.N.: The whole point of NorthComm is so that the military is better organized and better able to respond on short notice than we were after Katrina.

10/13/2008 6:44 PM Kevin Fields: Thank you for your input into this story.

Newsworthiness
While the issue is certainly newsworthy, I'm not sure if an anonymous grunt's (if you'll excuse me) opinion is really of any interest. Kind of like publishing your anonymous local bank's anonymous clerk asserting that the financial crisis won't deepen; there might be some merit to it (or not), but all in all it's a bit lame for news.

At least change the title, as if a sergeant could in any meaningful way 'assert' anything in this case; more like 'opines', or something to that effect. 89.27.18.161 05:29, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

While I appreciate the attempt to get some clarification on this story, I would agree that you might as well have asked the hobo down on your local street corner. --85.82.179.226 09:48, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

The reason I interviewed Sgt. P.S.N. was to widen the previous story's neutral point of view (NPOV). The previous article on the subject included activist Namoi Watts as a source, who based part of her opinions on a retired United States Air Force colonel, who was extremely critical of the news. While his opinion was very worthwhile and informed, his status of being both retired military and a member of a different branch can be used as an argument that it is a poor source. While including an active member of the Army may also be biased, for this story it brings balance to the NPOV. Essentially, it is "the other side of the story" that was missing from the previous article. kamnet (talk) 13:29, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not so much about the POV, but more the fact that this grunt has as little knowledge about the issue as any of you and me. As far as I can see, the previous report quotes only the colonel actually leading the new unit, who naturally is a very relevant source. But seriously, asking a random sergeant half way around the globe is like asking your magic eight ball for comments.
 * Just to respond to kamnet's comment - NPOV is per article, not 'over time' like an organisation such as the BBC. --Brian McNeil / talk 12:48, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text: User:Kamnet/BioMenuTemplate

title: User:Kamnet/BioMenuTemplate


text:
Comments:US Army sergeant asserts Posse Comitatus is not being violated

= Would you expect on-the-ground commanders to ignore executive orders if they overstepped the granted authority? =

The Uniform Code of Military Justice does provide for the extraordinary circumstance where officers may choose to disobey an illegal order if the lives of staff under their command are placed at obvious undue risk. By extension an officer in command of combat troops who is ordered to fire live ammunition into a crowd to control it would be duty-bound to refuse said order depending on the circumstances - for example, where sound judgement and assessment of the situation showed that there was no expected retaliatory combatant response from said crowd. An example of this would be the conviction of William Calley for premeditated murder in the My Lai Massacre incident in the Vietnam Conflict. Calley's conviction would probably have been for not disobeying an illegal order from his commanding officer had the Nuremberg and Tokyo War Crimes tribunals standard been applied which established that nobody was absolved of responsibility for war crimes for "following orders", but there was considerable command-level evidence supression during the trial that was later revealed after the fact. At the time, many people believed that Nixon's intervention in Calley's sentence was something of an endorsement of the action by Calley's superior officers and therefore it was in Nixon's own enlightened self-interest to ensure that the incident was closed as an individual act of murder instead of a breakdown in command morality. HOWEVER:

Please remember that in order for something to be "illegal" there first must either be a specific ordinance in existence, codified by either governmental procedure or standing historical precedent that makes the act or process in question subject to legal scrutiny; and second, the governing body in place must recognize the law as being valid and as equally applicable under all circumstances as the imperfect human condition allows.

The philosophy to which Bush in particular and the Republican Party more generally ascribes in their application of Federal governance (at least beginning with McCarthy leading up to Nixon in modern times) may be objectionable; it may be in more specific cases immoral; and in the broadest possible sense might almost be considered treasonous in nature when taken in the context of what the authors of the Constitution had in mind when they drafted the document. It is not, however, specifically illegal because no codified legislation, precedent or context currently exists that provides for legal recourse against a person's "opinion". And therein lies the rub: thanks to the rampant ineptness that has characterized this administration for 8 years, there is simply far too much immediate damage control that has to be done to give proper focus on this question.

In the sense that Bush fabricated the Department of Justice to apply the veneer of jurisprudence for the sake of outward appearances while surreptitiously packing the system through cronyism and political intimidation, he was very clever to select people who were aware of this imperfection in the structure of Federal Law. Doubtless there will be some who do not regard this as a "bug" but instead a "feature" of the Constitution that ostensibly allows for changing times and circumstances. The problem with this thinking, however, is that when people lose the original vision of why this particular government and its philosophy of law was instituted to begin with- for the provision of common defense from foreign and domestic enemies, securing liberty and the right to worship, think and believe in anything one chooses within the auspices of one's community; to provide support for the weakest among us while empowering the strongest to succeed, and protecting our common good from predatory behavior - it then becomes a simple matter for complacency to infiltrate the people while opportunists use every weakness to their advantage. Left in the wake is a confused and rudderless population, vulnerable to every predatory whim that comes their way and unable to place trust in anything or anyone.

Will Obama be able to put a stop to this madness should he become President? He certainly will have the legal authority to rescind any Executive Order, Signing Statement or Directive he deems out of line or contrary to his philosophy of governance. Given all the rhetoric of late, it's been somewhat lost in the noise that Obama has studied the Constitution on a graduate level (as opposed to the current CIC and his opponent), and the man has to be keenly aware of both the subtleties and the consequences of swimming in the kind of murky legal waters that have filled Bush's ocean of obfuscation. We will simply have to wait and hope for the best. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anakai (talk • contribs) 23:14, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

This is very very bad. Americans do not let your government and military do this. They were unjustified doing it outside their country, to do it from within means the country is falling apart. It means that the country cant even trust itself, this is bad. Nothing good will come of this. Now your own citizens will have to face what the Iraqi people have had to deal with. Think of America as a desperate person looking for attention. Bullying the Iraqis, much like a negative individual would to a fellow man. America can not win the war in Iraq, ever, so if that man cant win out there, he must take it out on himself. America is committing suicide. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.59.226.106 (talk) 04:02, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

The war in Iraq is not supposed to be won it is just suppost to be sustained so the elitest groups of the world gain as much profit as possible, and because Iraq won't be able to pay the debt back the government / corporations will say okay then we want you to privatize your water facilities, electricity, oil refineries so they can move in and make more money while paying less for the manpower to do it.

Strategically Iraq and Afghanistan will become the new Germany and Korea for forward U.S. Military bases.

Here's the system: worked in Iraq, Afghan, and about a dozen other countries so far.

Bribe / corrupt the government into running the country the way the corpations will make the most profits.

Send out a "Jackal" to kill the leader if he refuses so to install a leader who will play the corporation's game.

Send in the Military by rallying the general population into believeing that country is a threat. Demolish the country and contract massive corporations to rebuild it thus making a large profit.

For more information and accounts read "The Confessions of an Economic Hitman" For the big picture watch the Zeigheist movies.

"NorthComm says that these troops will be used to protect the United States from threats within the United States"

So basically the government can say ok this guys a threat go get him, completely at the discretion of their interpretation of a "threat" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.59.226.106 (talk) 04:05, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

This dispatch of the military has been done so long it's a common practice in America, and now your saying it's unlawful?? Unit dispatch to disaster, border patrol and in extreme cases of riot control which by the way is why there are SWAT teams.

Sounds fishy
How dumb do you have to be? This guy says that they won't act in a law enforcement capacity, and then goes on to say they will help with crowd control, rioting, looting, etc. when the cops can't handle it. Guess what that is?! Law enforcement!

You know who I think this guy is? Either a "controlled leak" from the Army PR department -OR- just some guy who doesn't know what he is talking about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.20.222.66 (talk) 11:03, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

What he said is basically dumbing it down so you can understand it, and yet you still don't get it. I don't know where to start since his point is so clear.

Possibility for a coup d'etat?
It is already common knowledge that if martial law is enforced, military and national guard steps in to act as beefed up law enforcement. This articles gives no contradiction to that. The unit would serve as a rapid response force in case of emergencies. The scary question is, how easy is it to abuse this power? Even if the congress has the power to depose the president, that might still be too little, too late. All you need is a "terrorist attack" against Congress, and you send these guys in. They kill the terrorists, but sadly, most of the congressmen were executed by the terrorists. That's the nightmare scenario. The president now has no-one supervising him, and he institutes a national emergency, giving him absolute power.

This is made even more possible than ever before, thanks to the creation of this unit. This is too much like Clancy, but now it is truly a real possibility. Reason -> action -> reaction. Reason: Terrorists take over congress. Action: eliminate terrorists. Reaction: "terrorists" execute congress OR congressmen become collateral damage.

This unit ( 1st Brigade, 3rd Infantry Division ) is not a new creation, it's a current Army brigade stationed out of Ft. Stewart who has been selected among the thousands of units availible to take on a normal routine of being on disaster watch and patroling the borders. Considering they have deployed 3 times to Iraq and once to Bosnia in the past decade I think this would help their families who have been having to deal without their loved one at home EVERY OTHER YEAR!

P.S more Americans die from peanut butter allergies than terrorists. {FACT}

This is too close to a burning reichstag. Too close for comfort. America WEAK UP!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.156.229.155 (talk) 13:35, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

My God
All of you guys lost it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.229.17.181 (talk) 15:15, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes they have

Anyone who is worried about a Coup
Has never met or spoken with an Officer of any caliber. Even the most rank obsessed myrmidon wouldn't attempt such an act. And, considering the amount of personal defense weapons in the US, the Military couldn't enforce any laws that they would have to impose. People need to learn about the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives. They have NO congressional over sight, are already stationed in America in Law Enforcement roles, they already have the power to "write law", and they HAVE to enforce illegal laws.--141.157.14.240 01:06, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Congressional and Judicial oversight would not stop a coup. President Bush, and by default the new incoming president, now have the power to arrest Congress and the Supreme Court Judges with NorthComm troops. A fundamental element of a coup is that it is done by force and that those going down really have no choice. Our congress could vote to impeach Bush while locked in cells- but I don't think that would accomplish much.

Forgive me - but an anonymous Army sergeant isn't enough to convince me. So far this is just uneducated speculation - and so is mine, though, I'd like to think that with my degrees and work experience in an appropriate field - I'm a bit more educated than this sergeant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.173.69.137 (talk) 02:43, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * IF you think anyone in the military would actually do the arresting, than YOU KNOW ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about how the world works. The Federal Government HAS ALREADY arrested major members of congress, judges, etc by using the power instilled in the ATF. The Military, by law and doctrine, can NOT act without the express consent of Congress while the ATF can do whatever they want.--141.157.14.240 17:41, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Bush has already had a private military in Blackwater for years anyway. What this tells us is if he makes a move, he's going to avoid using death squads on U.S. soil when he can. He'd prefer to operate in the open under some semblance of legal authority. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.33.248.139 (talk) 08:15, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you're just stupid. Seriously. What are the odds of this happening? Gee, maybe the Atlanta Falcons will win a Super Bowl, too. Wanna make that bet? You and your alarmist friends, jumping at every damn thing, make me wonder just how we all got so screwed up. 72.191.23.43 23:54, 19 October 2008 (UTC)


text:
Thai Queen attends protester cremation as report indicates explosive tear gas used

October 14, 2008

With the People's Alliance for Democracy (PAD) having called off Monday's demonstration and march on Bangkok's police headquarters, Thailand's Queen Sirikit (Thai: สมเด็จพระนางเจ้าสิริกิติ์ พระบรมราชินีนาถ) and HRH Princess Chulabhorn Valayalaksana (Thai: สมเด็จพระเจ้าลูกเธอ เจ้าฟ้าจุฬาภรณวลัยลักษณ์ อัครราชกุมารี) attended the cremation and funeral of Angkana Radubpanyawoot, one of the protesters killed in clashes between police and PAD protesters last Tuesday. The queen, consort of the highly popular and revered eighty-year old Thai monarch Bhumibol Adulyadej (Thai: ภูมิพลอดุลยเดช), was joined by police chiefs, leaders of the PAD movement, and many protesters. Presiding over the ceremonies, the queen was accompanied by army chief Anupong Paojinda (Thai: อนุพงษ์ เผ่าจินดา), the opposition Democrat party leader, Abhisit Vejjajiva (Thai: อภิสิทธิ์ เวชชาชีวะ), and newly elected Bangkok Governor, Apirak Kosayodhin (Thai: อภิรักษ์ โกษะโยธิน). Founder and de-facto head of the People's Alliance for Democracy movement, Sondhi Limthongkul (Thai: สนธิ ลิ้มทองกุล) attended as the protest group's representative, along with thousands of others mainly from the PAD.

Queen Sirikit spoke with Angkhana's father, Jinda Radappanyawut during the Buddhist cremation ceremony. He later discussed their conversation, detailing that the queen had given moral support and said that his daughter was a decent person who had been helping the King and working for the good of the nation. Jinda's wife, Angkhana's mother, was not present at the funeral; she continues to be treated for injuries sustained during the protest outside parliament. The Bangkok Post report detailing this meeting mentions that the king has donated funds to help those injured in the police clampdown.

At the closing of the funeral services there were scuffles between PAD protesters and the Army's Commander-in-Chief, Anupong Paojinda, as he attempted to leave. Security guards had to assist him in reaching his car and protesters banged on the car as it drove away.

With a sub-committee appointed by the country's Human Rights Commission due to report within the week, details are beginning to emerge accounting for the number of injuries and severity of some in last Tuesday's clashes outside parliament. Nearly 500 were injured as police employed tear gas to try and disperse the crowd of PAD protesters blockading parliament. The group, originally formed seeking to topple deposed former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra and his Thai Rak Thai party, had disbanded in September 2006 following Thaksin being removed by a coup. The 2007 general election saw them reform to oppose the new government formed by the People's Power Party (PPP) who are widely regarded as a proxy for the ex-PM living in exile in the UK. The PAD protest aimed to stop the PPP government from announcing their legislative programme which included measures to amend the constitution and rehabilitate Thaksin and others from the now-outlawed Thai Rak Thai party. Investigations started during the coup period leave Thaksin and others accused of vote buying and electoral fraud.

Porntip Rojanasunan, the director of Thailand's Central Institute of Forensic Science has indicated that the tear gas employed was likely responsible for the many injuries during the October 7 crackdown. A number of the canisters were found to contain RDX, a militarily employed explosive. RDX is considered a powerful explosive and the quantities likely involved would have left craters. Other types of tear gas were employed, manufactured in the United States and Spain, but during the protest it was the RDX-laced variety which originated in China that had been favoured. Porntip's agency demonstrated the firing of these tear gas canisters from a shotgun to the Human Rights Commission committee on Sunday, noting that one exploded canister "left a hole in a metal pipe". It is claimed that the lethal tear gas was sourced from a third party and not directly from China.

Along with the two fatalities, fifteen people remain hospitalised from last week's police action, with one critically injured having lost his right arm.

Monday's planned PAD protest and march on Bangkok police HQ was cancelled to allow people to attend the cremation and funeral services for the two dead. No new date for the protest has been announced.


text:
Talk:Thai Queen attends protester cremation as report indicates explosive tear gas used

Review
Please note when reviewing that details are included from treating the related news as sources as well as some of the sources listed in these older articles. Details of the disbanding/reforming of the PAD are from Wikipedia. --Brian McNeil / talk 13:03, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Sources now included to back the WP stuff. --Brian McNeil / talk 16:09, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Thai spelling
The inclusion of the Thai names in Thai script is unusual and imo makes the article hard to read. We don't do that for other languages. Further, it does not seem to be applied consistently throughout the article. What do others think? --SVTCobra 21:18, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It was done where this was available. --Brian McNeil / talk 21:37, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


text:
Comments:Florida officials investigating controversial MMA fight

Muhahahahahahahahaha.

 * D That sure was interesting! 2008-10-14T09:59:32 207.160.64.133 (Talk)

I don't know who wrote this but they must have gotten things mixed up. Ken Shamrock does have good striking but he has a better ground game than Seth. Seth Petrazelli from what I have seen in his other fights is the one with really good standup. Hell he knocked Dan Christisan (who is much taller) on his ass with a spinning hook kick. Other than that the article was written well.


text:
User talk:Rehevkor

Greetings. I primarily use the English Wikipedia and can be contacted there.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rehevkor

title: User talk:Rehevkor


text:
User:Ollamh

 * Ollamh/Wikipédia.fr

title: User:Ollamh


text:
OpenOffice.org 3.0 released by Sun Microsystems

October 14, 2008 Sun Microsystems released version 3.0 of its free and open source (FOSS) office suite Openoffice.org on Monday. It has been reported that the new version comes with a number of performance enhancements and new features. Openoffice.org 3.0 now claims to work out of the box in Mac OS X as a native  Aqua application.

News sources report the official download servers of OpenOffice.org crashed soon after the release due to heavy downloads. Downloads are however available from a number of mirror sites.

Openoffice.org 3.0 suite includes spreadsheet,  word processor,  equation editor,  presentation tool,  relational database and  vector drawing software. Full interoperability is available for Microsoft Office 98/XP formats, but offers read only support for  OOXML file formats. This version supports the new ODF 1.2 document format. The software is available for many platforms including Linux,  Microsoft Windows and Mac, as well as in multiple languages.

Users report OpenOffice.org 3.0 has introduced a new graphical and text-based hybrid equation editor, a mail merge wizard, improved label templates and better interface for outlining. Solver, a spreadsheet add-on for combinatorial optimization problems is included in this version.

Other enhancements highlighted by enthusiasts include collaborative options that allow multiple users to edit documents at the same time and improved drawing and charting tools. OpenOffice.org 3.0 can now display multiple pages during editing and workbooks up to 1024 columns in each spreadsheet.

The download size of OpenOffice.org 3.0 is 163 MB for Mac and requires OS X Tiger or later and an Intel Mac. The installer for Windows is about 145 MB in size.

"As government after government, enterprise after enterprise adopt the Open Document Format, they frequently adopt OpenOffice.org and love it. With 3.0, the application is more interoperable with MS Office, more capable, more extensible. It frees the desktop from vendor lock-in," claimed Louis Suárez-Potts, community manager of OpenOffice.org.


text:
User talk:Swordfish2008

Just show me the url of the logo and i will uplaod it. Thanks, Anonymous101talk 15:46, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

title: User talk:Swordfish2008


text:
User:Maseltov

Auf meiner Benutzerseite in der deutschen Wikipedia stelle ich mich vor.

title: User:Maseltov


text:
Comments:Thai Queen attends protester cremation as report indicates explosive tear gas used

= Should Thailand's monarchy involve itself in the political situation like this? =

Reminds me of
When Juan Carlos I of Spain stop the coup of 23-F —Preceding unsigned comment added by KDP3 (talk • contribs) 16:30, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Name
Porntip, huh. 152.157.144.54 20:27, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Spinspotter
Someone has marked the odd phrase or two in this with the SpinSpotter tool. I thought it was fairly put together, and seeing it archived unchanged makes me think the quality of English is reasonably good. --Brian McNeil / talk 17:53, 7 March 2009 (UTC)


text:
American Paul Krugman wins Nobel prize for economics

October 14, 2008 American yesterday won the Nobel Prize  for developing a theory known as the “new trade theory” and “new economic geography”.

Krugman first released the above theory approximately thirty years ago, and it explained why rich countries will trade with rich countries.

As Krugman contributes to popular newspapers, such as The New York Times, with criticisms of the Bush administration and its financial policy, there has been speculation that Krugman's political opinions earned him the prize.

, a professor of economics at, stated that he believed the award may have been motivated by politics. "They could have waited and nobody would have asked that question, he said. "It's fair speculation that in part they are making a political statement. Krugman does deserve it, though. It's not only a political statement."

, Krugman's former professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, dismissed these claims, however. "I don't think it's true for one minute. I wouldn't be surprised if next year it was a conservative who wins. I really think that it's pure coincidence and there is no reason at all to suppose his columns [in newspapers] had any role in this choice."

Tore Ellingsen, who was in the committee that decided the winner also responded to the claims that the decision was political. He claimed that "we disregard everything except for the scientific merits," when choosing the winner.


text:
Talk:American Paul Krugman wins Nobel prize for economics

Category
edit protected Please add this article to Category:Nobel Prize. Green Giant (talk) 10:41, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ --Pi zero (talk) 16:06, 5 October 2015 (UTC)


text:
Talk:OpenOffice.org 3.0 released by Sun Microsystems

This reads like a press release for the software. --Brian McNeil / talk 17:28, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Did some workaround to avoid that.--  T harikrish  Talk 17:52, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Still sounds pretty jubilant. --SVTCobra 22:43, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Criticism and other reactions/effects, analysis of features, comparisons to other office suites and FOSS software could make such news reports better. It's by no means bad, but some ideas/constructive criticism for the future. TransUtopian (talk) 23:49, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


text:
Talk:Chula Vista, California becomes model for blight control laws in the US

Problem with Have Your Say template
Something weird is going on with the have your say template, it doesn't have a link to view comments, only add comment, even though there is already a comment Sparky1 (talk) 23:36, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


text:
User talk:198.203.177.177

Please do not insert personal opinions into articles. If you wish to comment on the content of an article, please use the "Opinions" tab for each article. For the article you were commenting on, that can be found here: Opinion page. Gopher65talk 18:23, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

title: User talk:198.203.177.177


text:
User:Gopher65/test1

With Parameters (subst):

Hello. Please do not insert personal opinions into articles. If you wish to comment on the content of an article, please use the "Opinions" tab that Wikinews automatically creates for each article.

Without Parameters (subst):

Hello. Please do not insert personal opinions into articles. If you wish to comment on the content of an article, please use the "Opinions" tab that Wikinews automatically creates for each article.

title: User:Gopher65/test1


text:
Template:Comment warning

Hello. Please do not insert personal opinions into articles. If you wish to comment on the content of an article, please use the "Opinions" tab that Wikinews automatically creates for each article. Generic warning message:

Hello. Please do not insert personal opinions into articles. If you wish to comment on the content of an article, please use the "Opinions" tab that Wikinews automatically creates for each article.

Message with article name parameter:

Hello. Please do not insert personal opinions into articles. If you wish to comment on the content of an article, please use the "Opinions" tab that Wikinews automatically creates for each article.

title: Template:Comment warning


text:
Comments:Chula Vista, California becomes model for blight control laws in the US

= Does Chula Vista's solution save neighborhoods or worsen the financial crisis? =

Chula Vista's solution may soften the blow of the financial crisis
Banks tend to be stupid when it comes to owning Real Estate. To them nothing exits beyond their rules, formulas, and paper. Not even the physical world. They think that the value of real estate is only determined by interactions in their bureaucratic space. In fact this is the reason that we are having a financial crisis, the banks ignore realty. When a property is destroyed, its value is greatly diminished, so if the banks want their assets to keep its maximum value, the real estate will have to be physically maintained. If maintenance puts a financial strain on the banks then they should sell the properties at their true market value, before the properties get destroyed. They should also not buy a property that they can't afford to maintain. This way ownership of properties would only be ideal for people who would use them (i.e. homeowners for houses, and businesses for commercial property). If in the banks' minds the market value is much greater then what people are willing to pay, then the banks are still making up values that do not exist. Chula Vista's laws might alter the banks equations to reflect reality more. The Banks must not be allowed to print money anymore. If the Banks want to survive then they are going to have to change their formula to more closely model reality, otherwise sooner or later the universe will smite them. Banks will have to lend based on the legitimacy of a project, not based on meaningless credit scores and artificial market values. The poor Banks will have to earn their money. Sparky1 (talk) 20:45, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

The bottom line here is that the bankers need to get with the program. Home prices are falling and that means that mortgages must be renegotiated to a lower amount of principal due. The bankers are going to lose money for their own folly no matter how they cut it. This ordinance will make it even more expensive to foreclose on a property. The sensible alternative is to renegotiate with present owners. If they refuse to do that, they will pay for it. Makes sense to me ....

you forget that it is sometimes the property devalue will be less than the upkeep.also, banks do not care about property value, they do not deal with property, they deal with loans. Making banks responsible for property seems silly, that's not what a bank's job is. Maybe there should be a third party involved with mortgage loans. I don't know what the solution is, but what I do know is that a highschool kid with no relevant education, training or experience has no place to call banks "stupid", except in cases of blazing obviousness (ie don't give loans to people have no chance of paying it back). The current economic problems although start with a simple cause are greatly complicated past just their beginning, and fixing it wont be such a simple matter either. the long and short of it is, don't talk like you know everything just because you read a few articles. People train in post secondary education for years and have a truckload of experience to do exactly what you are belittling, somehow I'm thinking they probably have a better idea of what is going on than you do. drewthedude 22:29, October 28 (Eastern Time)

Bring the Neighborhood Banks Back
It seems to me that the banks should be -- at the very least -- partially responsible for the maintenance of the properties. After all, if they have reclaimed ownership of the properties, it only makes sense that they should take care of them. All they would have to do is hire a landscaping/maintenance contractor to tend to the properties until they are re-sold. This is one of the problems with large banks which have become detached from their local communities. There executives don't have to walk or drive down the streets where these blighted homes are located. We need to bring our community-/neighborhood-based banks back! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Citizen477 (talk • contribs) 00:49, 8 November 2008 (UTC)


text:
User talk:69.20.153.115

Welcome
Thanks for experimenting with Wikinews. Your test worked, and has now been reverted or removed. Please use Sandbox for any other tests you want to do, since testing in articles may disrupt the site's working and will be reverted quickly. , welcome to Wikinews! Please refrain from using content pages for testing. Here are a few good links for newcomers on how to edit Wikinews:

Our key policies - if you read anything, read these! Here a few pointers to help you get to know Wikinews: There are always things to do on Wikinews: By the way, you can sign your name on Talk pages using four tildes ( ~~~~ ), which produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, you can ask them at the water cooler or to anyone on the Welcommittee, or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! --Brian McNeil / talk 21:05, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Neutral point of view - tell every side to a story in a fair and balanced way
 * Cite sources - everything in a Wikinews article must be sourced
 * Introduction - overview of the site
 * Writing an article - how to write and publish a complete article
 * Content guide - what's suitable for Wikinews
 * Style guide - how an article should look before publishing
 * Contents - the contents page.
 * Existing articles need expanding and checking for spelling and mistakes
 * The front page lead articles often need updating
 * Developing stories need finishing and publishing
 * Discussions need your input
 * And of course, stories need writing!

title: User talk:69.20.153.115


text:
Comments:OpenOffice.org 3.0 released by Sun Microsystems

Great Software
Great software! Highly recommended.

xml compatibility
Anyone know if the new OO is compatible with MS office's new file formats? 65.94.185.126 17:22, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is compatible.

overated
Although last time i used it was a long time ago (it was still 1.x), I must say that i found it rather bloated, slow, and really not anything special from a feature or ui design point of view. A office suit should honestly not be 163 mb ever (except if it maybe contained a huge clip art library, and really that should be more online w/ likes of http://openclipart.org ). I find that if i need to write a document, abi-Word does the job, does it well, and does it fast (or if i'm in a cli mood, vim). Anything that needs something more powerful I can use latex. (and ms word conversion wv tools work good enough) Bawolff ☺☻ 06:14, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

User Interface Still sucks
The user interface sure hasn't changed one bit. It is still just as clunky, slow, and user-unfriendly. They made one nice change: the shine on row and column headers in the Spreadsheet App. --Nuck Chorris 0 (talk) 23:57, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

the new writer background
i like how thay added background colors buti am disaponted that it dose not include jpeg imige support


text:
Comments:Zanu-PF attempts to reassign Zimbabwean ministries, MDC angered

Finance
Why is the finance ministry empty? Did both want to give it to the other? Lihaas (talk) 00:10, 15 October 2008 (UTC)


title: File:15October2008.pdf


text:
Excessive surgeries swell Medicare costs in United States

October 15, 2008

At least 10% of the increase in Medicare expenditures since the mid-1990s is due to increased rates of one type of elective surgery, according to a recent study, and many of the patients may not need it. University of California, San Francisco found that only 44% of patients who undergo an elective cardiac surgery called angioplasty get the recommended test to determine whether the procedure is appropriate.

As a result, patients may be receiving a procedure that they either do not need or for which the risk outweighs the benefit. The operation opens partially clogged arteries in patients with heart disease and the annual rate of elective angioplasties has tripled in the United States during the last decade.

Angioplasties are currently being performed at a rate of over 800,000 per year in the U.S. The average cost was $44,110 per procedure in 2004. Since the operation tends to be performed on older Americans, Medicare covers most patients and compensates US$10,000 to $15,000 for each case.

Reuters reporter Julie Steenhuysen writes that angioplasty is "big business for medical device makers including Boston Scientific Corp, Medtronic Inc, Abbott Laboratories Inc and Johnson & Johnson". Dr. Raymond Gibbons, a professor of medicine who specializes in cardiology at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, criticizes the current U.S. health care system for compensating doctors based upon procedures performed rather than for following recommended practices.

A stress test in which the patient walks on a treadmill is recommended to determine whether a partial obstruction impairs heart function. Although not all patients who need angioplasty are strong enough to undergo the stress test, UC San Francisco researchers were surprised that testing preceded so few of the surgeries.

Professor of medicine Dr. Rita F. Redberg told U.S. News and World Report, "We didn't expect to find 100 percent, but we expected a much higher percentage than 44". Dr. Redberg co-authored a report on the findings for the Journal of the American Medical Association this month.

Dr. Grace Lin, another co-author of the study, noted: "What really matters is whether or not that blockage is affecting blood flow to the heart. That is why the stress test is important." Their research analyzed over 23,000 Medicare cases and over 1,600 commercial insurance cases.

American Heart Association president Timothy Gardner called the study "a good wake-up call" to remind medical doctors to make sure they do not perform unnecessary procedures. Dr. Gardner regards the study as evidence that many unnecessary angioplasties are being performed.

The study found great variation in the rate of stress testing. Geographic areas ranged from 22% to 76% with the highest rate of testing in the Northeastern and Midwestern states. Testing rates also varied by gender, with men more likely to receive a stress test than women, and by other factors including the age of the physician. Dr. Gibbons points to some of these variances as indications that some physicians may be performing angioplasties indiscriminately.

Not all physicians agree. Although the various types of stress testing usually cost a few hundred dollars instead of tens of thousands, the chief cardiologist at University of Wisconsin Hospital and Clinics Dr. Matthew Wolff notes that stress tests yield false negative results in about 10% of cases. In his opinion, doctors who rely on stress tests "are going to be missing people with severe disease." Although he agrees that some angioplasties are unnecessary, he contends that the new study does not offer a solution to the dilemma.

The American College of Cardiology plans to release new guidelines soon to help doctors determine when a stress test is appropriate, yet the payment system lacks a financial incentive to abide by testing guidelines. Dr. Eric Topol of Scripps Translational Science Institute in La Jolla, California noted the underuse of stress tests in a study of private insurance records 14 years ago. Dr. Topol agrees that testing guidelines "should be much more clear-cut", and adds that stress tests ought to be performed annually. "You can do a stress test every year to be sure things are normal. That is an important baseline that is being ignored all too frequently."

Cardiologist, Dr. Anthony DeFranco of Aurora St. Luke’s Medical Center, considers stress testing to be appropriate in at most 65% of cases, since a substantial minority of patients have other health problems that prevent them from undergoing the test.


text:
Comments:American Paul Krugman wins Nobel prize for economics

OK, so the work deserved the prize, but somehow the timing is claimed to be politically motivated? 30 years after the work was done and allowing for definitive beneficial applications in economics. I think instead it is the people claiming political motivation who have political motivations here. 68.210.105.163 02:41, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments from feedback form - "i think krugman has done a com..."
i think krugman has done a commendable job .critics stay away —115.119.146.174 (talk) 08:14, 14 September 2011 (UTC)


text:
US Federal deficit reaches record high of $455 billion

October 15, 2008

The United States 2008 federal deficit has reached a record high, US$454.8 billion—more than double last year's deficit. Financial experts believe that next year, the deficit will reach over $700 billion, while the National Debt Clock has recently run out of digits to record over $10 trillion in national debt.

The deficit is now equivalent to 3.2% of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of the United States, with the government's total income being 17.8% of GDP, and total outlays being equivalent to 21% of GDP.

Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson blamed the deficit on the housing market, related markets, and slow growth. He said the news would "reinforce the need to not only address short-term challenges, but pursue policies that promote economic growth and fiscal responsibility, and address entitlement reform".

Democrats like Senator Kent Conrad, however, placed the blame on "President Bush's failed policies". "The reality is that the next president will be inheriting a fiscal and economic mess of historic proportions," said Conrad, adding that "it will take years to dig our way out".

Another Democrat, House Budget Committee Chairman John Spratt, also blamed the Bush administration. "The eight years of this administration will include the five biggest budget deficits in history," he said. "The resulting debt will be passed to our children and grandchildren."

Jim Nussle, director of the Office of Management and Budget said that he believes that the deficit will start to decline. "The bipartisan stimulus bill and the slow economy are the primary reasons for the increase in deficit as reflected in this year's budget results. This increase reinforces the need to adopt and maintain policies that promote economic growth and fiscal responsibility, including entitlement reform and pro-growth tax policies. I am confident the economy can return to stronger growth with a declining deficit—after working through current challenges if Congress limits wasteful and excessive spending."


text:
Talk:US Federal deficit reaches record high of $455 billion

Writing about finance and economy stuff is like sticking bamboo in my nails. >_< I'll try writing a bit more but honestly I don't understand a word of the financial stuff. So go right ahead, please. :( --Poisonous (talk) 05:10, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅ - added a bit. Anonymous101talk 06:13, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Review
--Brian McNeil / talk 16:01, 15 October 2008 (UTC)


text:
Sixth arrest warrant issued for Thailand's former PM Thaksin

October 15, 2008 Today, the Constitutional Court of Thailand (Supreme Court) issued the sixth arrest warrant for Thailand's deposed premier, Thaksin Shinawatra. Following on from a string of corruption charges, the latest centres on the country's telecommunications industry. The former Prime Minister was removed by a bloodless military coup in September 2006 while at the United Nations in New York. Prior to the coup the country experienced widespread unrest, demonstrations, and allegations against Thaksin and his Thai Rak Thai party of corruption and vote buying.

The warrant is over Thaksin's failure to appear in court on charges relating to conversion of concession payments in the country's lucrative telecoms market to excise tax during 2003; a move that is estimated to have cost the country's exchequer 40 billion baht (US$1.2 billion). The deposed PM remains in self-imposed exile in London, having been there since August. At that time he and his wife left Thailand whilst on bail related to the charges surrounding the Ratchadaphisek land purchase deal. The deal saw Thaksin's wife, Khunying Potjaman purchase what is considered a prime piece of real estate for 772 million baht ($22.7 million) at auction; this price was described as a bargain. At this point the ex-PM has not been convicted on any of the charges, although his wife, Khunying, faces a jail sentence.

Next Tuesday, will see the trial over the Ratchadaphisek land case again come before the Supreme Court—this time with a verdict possibly to be read. This could be deferred due to the defendants' absence, but a guilty verdict could see Thaksin facing jail time should he return to Thailand.

Last month, saw other warrants issued against Thaksin, in relation to the country's numbers lottery. Malfeasance allegations led to charges over the sale of two and three digit numbers during the 2001-2006 period of his time in office as Prime Minister. The trial, currently suspended by the Criminal Division for Holders of Political Office, will resume and examine further evidence in December.

The ongoing controversy surrounding Thaksin has seen calls for his diplomatic passport to be revoked. The movement for the coveted red passport to be withdrawn started in mid-September with Thai air force chief, Chalit Phukpasuk, referencing the then-outstanding warrants and widespread lack of respect for the former PM stated, "he has now fallen from grace, he no longer deserves such an honour". The general, who retired at the end of September, condemned Thaksin for failing to appear in court and defend himself. The newly appointed Foreign Minister and deputy PM has washed his hands of the diplomatic passport issue, preferring to pass this off as an issue for the Prime Minister himself. The military junta of Surayud Chulanont had revoked the passport, but this decision was revoked by the democratically elected Foreign Minister when civilian government was restored.

Adding to the public pressure on the former PM, Thailand's armed forces' supreme commander, Boonsrang Niempradit, called on the current Prime Minister Somchai Wongsawat to ensure appropriate justice was meted out to Thaksin. Boonsrang asserted the prime minister must, "dispense justice to everyone, ensuring justice does not necessarily mean offering assistance. Sometimes, justice involves meting out punishment as well". Current PM Somchai, brother-in-law of exiled Thaksin, has his own legal worries that could see him removed from office and parliament; charges against him centre round a share scandal. His holdings in a telecoms company which does business with the state are allegedly in contravention of several constitutional articles.


text:
Talk:Sixth arrest warrant issued for Thailand's former PM Thaksin

I have emailed the UK Home Office asking for information about extradition and the withdrawal of a diplomatic passport where the issuing authority cancels it. Expect responses at a glacial pace. [Note: Email CC'd to scoop]. --Brian McNeil / talk 11:29, 15 October 2008 (UTC)


text:
User talk:Chuofan

Please do not delete the comments of others on discussion pages. --Brian McNeil / talk 12:13, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

title: User talk:Chuofan


text: Talk:Excessive surgeries swell Medicare costs in United States


text:
UK government stops compulsory testing of fourteen-year-olds

October 15, 2008 The UK Government has stated that children in Britain will no longer be required to take compulsory, externally marked tests at the age of fourteen.

The change takes effect immediately, meaning that children who were due to take the test this year no longer have to do so.

Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families yesterday announced his plans to radically change the UK testing system, in parliament.

Currently, almost ten million tests are sat each year by British pupils. This change is expected to cut the number of tests taken in half, according to .

The tests for seven and eleven year olds are not being abolished. A review group is being set up, however, to research the effect of these tests on eleven-year-olds.

Instead of league tables showing test results, the government will produce report cards for. According to Ed Balls, the results from will be adequate to judge the performance of schools by their test results.

The decision to abolish the tests for fourteen year olds came as a result of a situation earlier this year, when there were long delays with the delivery of test results to students of this age.

According to Christine Blower, acting general secretary of the, the government is admitting that the previous test system failed by making this move.

"For too long English, mathematics and science teachers in secondary schools have found themselves skewing everything to enable their pupils to jump through a series of unnecessary hoops," she claimed, while Chris Keates, general secretary of the, said that "the sound of a deep collective sigh of relief will emanate from secondary schools across the country."

Both major UK opposition parties welcomed this move. Shadow Secretary of State for Children stated that his party have "argued for fewer national tests and more rigor and we want to work constructively to improve the assessment and qualifications regime."

, Shadow Secretary of State for Children for the, said that "the taken by 14-year-olds are not only a waste of time but have been highly unreliable over the last few years."


text:
Comments:UK government stops compulsory testing of fourteen-year-olds

=Do you support this move by the UK government?=

Well, it’s amazing. The miracle has been done. Well done.mls —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lalpri (talk • contribs) 11:44, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


text:
Comments:US Federal deficit reaches record high of $455 billion

Wow
That's actually about $60 billion less than first estimated. Doesn't include that accursed $700-billion bailout, though. --Kitch (talk) 18:14, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Arrrgh
Guys, I can't even imagine a million, let alone 455 billion. Fephisto (talk) 01:23, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


text: Talk:UK government stops compulsory testing of fourteen-year-olds


text:
Secret memos reveal Bush administration endorsed enhanced interrogation techniques

October 15, 2008

Classified memos have revealed that the Bush administration knowingly endorsed enhanced interrogation techniques including waterboarding and other methods, that critics call torture, for use against terror suspects.

The memos were issued to the CIA in 2003 and 2004 as classified documents in response to the department's former director George Tenet's request for White House approval. The administration responded to the concerns with explicit approval.

"The CIA believed then, and now, that the program was useful and helped save lives," commented a former CIA official, explaining the memos. "But in the agency's view, it was like this: 'We don't want to continue unless you tell us in writing that it's not only legal but is the policy of the administration'."

In private meetings led by then-National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, top administration officials Vice President Cheney, Attorney General Ashcroft and several former members of the administration discussed the endorsement of the programs. No one at the meetings had questioned the methods because the CIA had them "boxed in", a former official noted. "They were saying, 'It's the only way to get the information we needed, and — by the way — we think there's another attack coming up"."

Another official, however, called the idea that the CIA had coerced the Bush administration into approving the torture methods "ridiculous". The CIA, he said, understood the methods were "controversial and would be widely criticized if it became public".

Tenet said that in a 2001 meeting with top administration officials, Rice had warned those attending of an impending attack by a top Al-Qaeda suspect, Abu Zubaydah.

Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative journalist Ron Suskind reported that Bush had become 'obsessed' with Abu Zubaydah and "fixated on how to get Zubaydah to tell [him] the truth". Bush had asked a CIA staffer if the methods really worked.

Ashcroft had commented during the meetings that "history will not judge us kindly". Last month, Rice stated that there was concern over the legality of the program and that she was investigating if any laws had been broken.


text: Talk:Secret memos reveal Bush administration endorsed enhanced interrogation techniques


text:
Comments:Secret memos reveal Bush administration endorsed enhanced interrogation techniques

This is news? we already knew this. And Honestly I don't care what they do too Terrorist.--66.229.17.181 20:55, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

 * you're assuming that they waterboard only terrorists, as many assumed they only held "terrorists" at guantanemo. we now know this to be false. - Imind (talk) 02:22, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

 * Only 3 high level terrorist been waterboarded and a lot of them have been capture while shooting our guys. And you guys seem to forget what they do too our guys or any other persons that don't agree with their ideology.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.229.17.181 (talk) 03:05, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

 * lol. only three that you're aware of -Imind (talk) 01:52, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

 * Your information is very incomplete to say the least, and the entire practice is basically useless. The whole "bad interrogation. I mean you can get anyone to confess to anything if the torture's bad enough," quote from Bob Baer fits here pretty well."65.1.171.67 03:12, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

 * I'm not a proponent of torture, but let's keep this objective and to the facts. This practice is carried out by the executive branch, not the judicial branch. It's not a practice conducted by the Spanish Inquisition, it's carried out by military operatives who have tactical objectives to accomplish. It's not a trial, it's an intelligence investigation. No one has any interest in placing guilt - these techniques are applied to obtain objective, verifiable information, not confessions. And if the information obtained turns out to be false, guess what happens next - more torture. I'm convinced that these techniques can certainly be applied to obtain critical, truthful, factual information. But that does not imply that they aren't horrendous. --85.82.179.226 02:06, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

 * How was most of that even a reply to what I said? Baer was a CIA man in case you didn't know. As to your attempt to justify torture, the point is that increasing torture does not get new information, it only makes the tortured person want to tell the torturer what they think the torturer wants to hear. That is how all humans eventually respond to torture. That is, whether they have to make it up or not. 65.1.171.67 02:15, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

 * Just because a terrorist might be willing to torture one of us, does not make it right for us to do it to them. Jared--12.25.104.8 04:42, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

As a US Army interrogator, with plenty of experience in the matter, I'm pretty damn sure that we do not need to use these types of "enhanced" interrogation techniques to get intelligence. And, by the way, the rest of the Armed Forces and the DIA are not allowed to. It's only the CIA that gets away with this nonsense. --LemonadeHatrack (talk) 08:47, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

 * If you have a guy( a terrorist) who know were 20 guys are located and their willing to bomb and kill innocent people and you can stop it, it's you're job to protect the American people. --66.229.17.181 12:22, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

War is a dirty business. The dirtiest of them all. Only if you wish to lose can you play at clean war. I would rather win.--BurningWolf (talk) 15:01, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

 * Then you should oppose this. It is not the way to win anything, and if the analysts ever manage to overcome their atrocious management to regain their true abilities then they will say exactly that and they will make the country safer, and the world safer for Americans. 65.1.171.67 17:43, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

This is just propaganda really
If you couldn't already figure it out, torturing people doesn't work. When people are tortured, they simply lie. I'd do it, you'd do it, and the "terrorists" do it too. The real reason we torture people is just to instill fear for when we release them, or to simply terrorize them while they're in captivity. Torturing someone has never, in the entire history of humanity, revealed vital and sensitive information, the only thing it can do is confirm information. Think about it.

It's even in the name, "Enhanced interrogation techniques" - clearly a clever euphemism for torture for the purposes of Public Relations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.226.230.36 (talk) 21:54, 16 October 2008 (UTC) [citation needed]--85.82.179.226 02:14, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Approaches
I find in most cases nobody really knows how the interrogation process works - it's structured, and besides proper questioning technique, the most important aspect in an interrogation is a proper approach. Interrogators submit questioning plans to their superiors which entail the type of approach they will use, and (particularly in those facilities which record interrogations) the interrogator must follow this approach. Certain approaches must be approved by high-ranking officers before they can be used. For instance, the "Mutt and Jeff" approach, which is basically a Good Cop/Bad Cop deal must be approved by the first Colonel in your chain of command... and in some places even a higher-ranking officer, depending on standard operating procedures.

In any case, for the Army, only the approaches listed in the Human Intelligence Collector Operations Field Manual can legally be used, and furthermore only trained interrogators (MOS 35M for enlisted personnel and MOS 351M for Warrant Officers, in the US Army) are authorized to run approaches. While ANYONE can tactically question, running approaches is legally authorized only for these MOS.

When it comes to real, actionable intelligence, which means immediate threats on US personnel, not political issues which is the majority of what comes out of the CIA, US Army intelligence is where it comes from. As has been repeatedly mentioned, reliable intelligence cannot come from torture, which includes waterboarding and other "enhanced" techniques. Unfortunately the Bush administration clearly endorses this method to obtain information, and has used the information gained this way in the past as if it were God's honest truth. The reality is, uncorroborated information from a single source is always suspect - but when it arises under torture, it is completely unreliable. And it is terrifying to think that the most powerful nation in the world makes national policy decisions based on this faulty information.

Back in February, the Senate again tried to limit the CIA to what the US Military can do. It was, of course, unsuccessful. --LemonadeHatrack (talk) 22:19, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


text:
Al-Qaeda in Iraq second-in-command reported killed during US raid

October 15, 2008

United States military forces reported that the alleged second-in-command of al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI), Abu Qaswarah also known as Abu Sara, had killed himself after a raid on a building in Mosul, Iraq.

He had used an explosives vest to kill himself after moving upstairs and into a room occupied by four fighters, three women, and three children. They were all killed in the firefight and the resulting explosion of the incident, which a military spokesman called a "crazy scene".

US officials had reported the deaths earlier but had not confirmed Qaswarah's identity.

Qaswarah, a Moroccan native and Swedish citizen, was a 'charismatic' leader who had been a major rallying force and a 'key figure' in al-Qaeda. After becoming an al-Qaeda chief of northern Iraq last year, he began using his control of Northern Iraq to smuggle foreigners for use in suicide bombings and to recruit more forces.

A military statement reported that Qaswarah's death would "degrade AQI operations" and leave the group "without a leader to oversee and coordinate its operations in the region". Brigadier General David Perkins agreed, saying the death of Qaswarah "allows the Iraqi security forces with the support of the coalition to go in and continue to tear apart that network".


text:
Oversight Committee: White House attempted to influence Congressional elections

October 16, 2008

A report released by the US House today found that the White House had "used the political affairs office to orchestrate an aggressive strategy to use taxpayer-funded trips to help elect Republican candidates" during the 2006 Congressional elections. The actions of the White House may have breached the, which prohibits government involvement with taxpayer dollars in political affairs.

The Office of Political Affairs coordinated the efforts, and while it has been used in the past to support political parties, the Committee called the level of involvement "unprecedented" and a "gross abuse of public trust". A total of 99 Republican candidates were supported by the actions.

Political Affairs requested that its officials attend events of and support key members of the 2006–2007 Congressional race. Administration officials attended a total of 425 events, including parties, fundraising dinners, speeches, and appearances with Republican candidates — an average of more than an event each day of the election season. A third of the events were paid for with tax dollars.

White House emails used in the report referred to the taxpayer-funded events as "top priorities".

Former Political Affairs director said during an investigative interview that it was a "big part" of his job was to "help elect allies of the President". The job was legal, he said, because it promoted executive allies. Mehlman had discussed his actions with the White House Counsel of the time, Alberto Gonzales, who approved of the efforts. The Committee noted that the director of the, , helped with nineteen events though his position was restricted from campaign activities.

Mehlman said that his department had worked directly with the on the strategy. They had worked together to pick "vulnerable Republican incumbents", "battleground races" and "places where they agreed the most help was needed". The White House kept a 'target list' of 'allies' who were in tight races.

Investigators also questioned, a former director of Political Affairs and Karl Rove aide. According to the report, Taylor resisted questioning and "misled the Committee about her actions". Taylor said the trips were efforts to be helpful but could not remember why some were helped and others not.

The report recommended an amendment of the Hatch Act and for the Political Affairs department to be abolished.

Republican Representative, a senior member of the Committee, said that every administration since has done similar things. He said the Democrats had set out to find banned activity and had "feigned shock", calling their response "righteous indignation".

A White House spokesman accused the Committee of trying to "score political points", and that the report was a waste of time and taxpayer money.


text:
Talk:Al-Qaeda in Iraq second-in-command reported killed during US raid

Please don't forget to include categories before publishing. Cheers, --SVTCobra 00:12, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Command Center
What makes the structure a "command center"? A "command center" gives the impression of a professional organization with dedicated "office space." In this case, how is the "command center" different from "a house"? If there is no difference, I would suggest the more accurate term "house". If there is a difference, the article would be improved by clarifying what makes this a "command center." Given the presence of women and children, I would suggest that "house" is the neutral term. (Sorry for not jumping in and just making the edit, I'm a little unclear on local etiquette. ;-) 70.231.143.229 00:32, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

 * I removed the term "command center" as it was not in the sources. Thanks for the catch. --SVTCobra 01:09, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The sources said it was a place used for command and control. I just didn't want to copyvio them, sorry. --Poisonous (talk) 01:56, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


text:
Comments:Al-Qaeda in Iraq second-in-command reported killed during US raid

Good hunting boys, you guys make our country proud. --66.229.17.181 23:59, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * ...hunting? Are you serious? --Poisonous (talk) 01:58, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

 * Never heard of that term? They say that too soldier and airman before they go out on a mission.--66.229.17.181 02:01, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

What now?
This is something that's been puzzling me for sometime, how could they determine the identity of the body if it's been blown to thousands of peices? It seems an imposible task. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.139.169.189 (talk) 16:23, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

 * I think if you have a chunk of meat and some blood you can figure it out who it is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.229.17.181 (talk) 19:52, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


text:
Talk:Oversight Committee: White House attempted to influence Congressional elections

Poisonous, you do know you can use editing while you are working, right? --SVTCobra 00:46, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know, but I've been popping in and out due to my mom's silly construction projects...>_< I wanted other people to help... :( *strangles her* If not for them, I would have been able to finish this before any major news networks... :( --Poisonous (talk) 01:55, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Some wikilinking would make it look better. Sorry, I am signing off, no time to review this. --SVTCobra 02:14, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Edit
editprotected "Sara Taylor, a former director of Political Affairs and Karl Rove aid": An aide, not an aid. Heavy Water (talk) 15:47, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ --SVTCobra 16:27, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Actually, please also disambiguate the link for White House to White House Heavy Water (talk) 17:16, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ -- SVTCobra 20:49, 19 June 2023 (UTC)


text: User talk:71.251.34.162

title: User talk:71.251.34.162