The Washington Post is reporting that the torture ofhigh-value captive, Abu Zubaida produced nothing but false leads — in direct contradiction of suggestions by former Vice President Dick Cheney and others who endorsed the torture program and use of waterboarding. Moreover, the report indicates that the Administration quickly learned that Zubaida was not the high-profile, highly placed Al Qaeda operative that they told the public. I discussed the latest developments on this segment of Countdown.
The greatest irony is that the only useful information came before the Bush Administration tortured the suspect. No plot was foiled as suggested by the torture and Zubaida was not as President George W. Bush had publicly described him, “al-Qaeda’s chief of operations.” It turns out that Zubaida was not even an official member of al-Qaeda,
The Bush torture program is a wonderful example of not just the time-proven junk that comes from torture, but also the value of legal process as a way to acquiring legitimate information in legitimate ways. Putting aside the obvious immorality of the program, the reports show how we tortured people for little more advantage than the visceral and political benefits of “getting tough on terrorism.” It turns out that we sold our collective soul pretty cheap in craeting this torture program. The question is now whether Obama will continue to buy into the same cover-up by continuing to block a special counsel.
For the full story, click here.
87 thoughts on “Report: Torture of Abu Zubaida Yielded Nothing of Value and He Was Not a High-Ranking Member of Al Qaeda”
What Can we common Poeple do about the Bailout? Nothing.. we just have to wait and see if the company comes up and develops new cars and prototypes to please the americal consumer
Very nice site! cheap cialis http://opxyiea.com/yoyrqso/4.html
I thought the commodity guys messed around with the price?.
I thought T. Boone was a natural gas guy from the beginning. He actually did both but more natural gas 3 trillion cubic ft vs 150 million barrels so he comes by the Pickens plan naturally. He wants to have “gas” stations at everyones house and use natural gas to run cars. I think it is a good idea myself.
I dont know about the water control but a farmer would have to be pretty stupid to give up water rights under his land when he needs it for farming. And if a land owner wants to they will get royalties so why not sell the water to T. Boone?
“For an example lets talk about oil.”
Exxon made the greatest profit last year of any corporation in the history of the world. Part of the way it did that was by manipulating the oil futures market to get the price upt to about $120 per barrel, when it costs $20 per barrel coming out of the ground. Exxon used its’ position to drive up profits.
Exxon has also used its position to ensure that auto makers stick with gasoline. There were viable electric cars built by GM in the 90’s but then bought up and destroyed. now GM is talking about the Chevy Volt 15 years later. Exxon is aware that eventually the market will go beyond oil for energy and is already working to make profits off of an control new energy sources. T. Boone Pickens, an oil man has been pushing natural gas on TV as if he has seen the light, but what he’s really trying to do is get leases on land that can produce natural gas, but also control vast supplies of potable water. He and the other oil guys see water as a big future product to control.
Business unregulated is business unbound and its’ natural tendency is to control the market whether through monopoly or cartel. This is so because any good executive thinks profit first and public last. Any one who doesn’t should be fired since corporations by their natures are inherently amoral. Adam Smith who coined the term “free market” also believed in firm government regulation because of this tendency towards corporate amorality.
By the way thank you for your concern and link. Unfortunately I don’t patronize Wal-Mart, it’s the old union guy in me.
For an example lets talk about oil. It is a necessary commodity and sells for a fairly reasonable price (it would be more reasonable if there were less tax associated with the cost of a gallon of gas). As a thought experiment lets say that Exxon is able to buy up all of the remaining American oil companies and is also able to temporarily drive the cost of a gallon of gas to $0.50 to drive out foreign competitors like Citgo and BP. It now has a “monopoly” on the sale of gas in the US. Lets further say that the government is not going to do anything to break up this monopoly.
So now Exxon has total control of the American oil and gas market, they are now free to charge whatever they want for a gallon of gas or oil. the sky is the limit. But is it? In your mind it is, Exxon could charge $10, 20, 30 a gallon for gas and oil but can they? What happens when they charge a very high price for oil and gas? The consumer is going to conserve and use less oil and gas. Exxon now has a surplus of gas and oil. So it cuts back on production in an effort to keep the price of gas and oil high.
At this point some bright guy says to himself I need to figure out how to produce a new form of energy because Exxon is a monopoly and they are selling gas for $10 per gallon. My new energy will have the same results as a gallon of gas but will only cost $9 per unit. What does Exxon do? They lower the cost of a gallon of gas to $8. At that point some other bright guy jumps in and says I can produce a unit for $7.
If you have a free economy a monopoly is impossible. There are too many competing interests for any one entity to take control of an industry. The economy and inovation are not static, they are dynamic in a free market. The only way a monopoly is possible is through government control of markets. Free markets efficiently allocate resources, governments do not.
By the way if you go to this web link you can purchase something called Nitroquick for $4/month
click on heart and blood pressure. they also have other medications for $4/month and for $10 you can get drugs for 90 days. I hope this saves you some money.
The dominant company in a market uses its’ dominance to keep competitors out, either by controlling distribution, threatening customers, or undercutting competitors prices so they are put out of business. There are plenty of historical examples and that why the anti-trust laws developed only to be more and more ignored since Reagan.
Comments are closed.