Colin Powell says Guantanamo should be closed

Reuters June 11, 2007

Former U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell said on Sunday the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay for foreign terrorism suspects should be immediately closed and its inmates moved to the United States.

Powell, who in a 2003 speech to the U.N. Security Council made the case for war against Iraq for possessing weapons of mass destruction that were never found, said the controversial prison in Cuba had become a "major problem" for the United States' image abroad and done more harm than good.

"Guantanamo has become a major, major problem ... in the way the world perceives America and if it were up to me I would close Guantanamo not tomorrow but this afternoon ... and I would not let any of those people go. I would simply move them to the United States and put them into our federal legal system," Powell told NBC's Meet the Press.

"Essentially, we have shaken the belief the world had in America's justice system by keeping a place like Guantanamo open and creating things like the military commission. We don't need it and it is causing us far more damage than any good we get for it," he added.

The United States is holding about 380 foreign terrorism suspects at Guantanamo.

Rights groups and foreign governments have called for the prison to be closed, saying holding prisoners there for years without trial violated legal standards. But Washington says the prison is legal and necessary to hold dangerous individuals.

"I would get rid of Guantanamo and the military commission system and use established procedures in federal law," Powell said, saying some leaders around the world were using Guantanamo to hide their own misdeeds.

"It's a more equitable way, and more understandable in constitutional terms," he added.

Putin calls for new financial world order

FT.com June 11, 2007
Neil Buckley and Catherine Belton

Russian president Vladimir Putin called on Sunday for a radical overhaul of the world's financial and trade institutions to reflect the growing economic power of emerging market countries – including Russia.

Mr Putin said the world needed to create a new international financial architecture to replace an existing model that had become “archaic, undemocratic and unwieldy”.

His apparent challenge to western dominance of the world economic order came at a forum in St Petersburg designed to showcase the country's economic recovery. Among 6,000 delegates at the biggest business forum ever held in post-Soviet Russia were scores of international chief executives including heads of Deutsche Bank, BP, Royal Dutch Shell, Nestlé, Chevron, Siemens and Coca-Cola.

Business deals worth more than $4bn were signed at the conference – including an order by Aeroflot for Boeing jets – as executives said they were continuing to invest in Russia despite deteriorating relations with the west.

Mr Putin's hosting of the forum capped a week in which he dominated the international stage. He warned last Monday that Russia might target nuclear missiles at Europe if the US built a missile shield in Poland and the Czech Republic, then offered a compromise at the G8 summit involving switching part of the US system to Azerbaijan.

His speech on financial institutions suggested that, along with an aggressive recent campaign against US “unilateralism” in foreign policy, he was also seeking to challenge western dominance of the world economic order.

Mr Putin said 50 years ago, 60 per cent of world gross domestic product came from the Group of Seven industrial nations. Today, 60 per cent of world GDP came from outside the G7.

“The interests of stable economic development would be best served by a new architecture of international economic relations based on trust and mutually beneficial integration,” Mr Putin said.

The Russian president said there was increasing evidence that existing organisations were “not doing a good job regulating global economic relations”.

“Institutions created with a focus on a small number of active players sometimes look archaic, undemocratic and unwieldy. They are a far cry from recognising the existing balance of power,” he said.

By Chuck Baldwin  June 8, 2007      This column is archived at  http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2007/cbarchive_20070608.html      Every country goes through changes. However, stable countries are able to   maintain their basic culture, identity, language, and heritage throughout   the various gradations of societal evolution. Hence, through major wars,   minor conflicts, turmoil, depression, and dissension, America, for the most   part, has been able to maintain the fundamental underpinnings that made our   country unique. But, Ladies and Gentlemen, those underpinnings are very   quickly disappearing.    In a very real sense, this is not our fathers' America. And by that, I am   not referring to our modern conveniences, our advanced technologies, or our   avant-garde styles of dress and forms of entertainment. I am talking about   the principles and values that cut to the very core of who and what we are   as a nation. We are fast losing the substance of what it means to be   American.    For the most part, our fathers' America was a nation that had a firm faith   in God and was not ashamed to publicly acknowledge Him. This faith in God   was not something worn on the sleeve to parade around every two years during   a political campaign; it was something genuine, something that guided   practical day-by-day decisions and choices.    Can one imagine people in past generations saying that, while they had a   "deep and personal" faith, this faith had no place or bearing in the   practical decisions they would make. What lunacy! Yet, this is exactly what   we hear so many of today's politicians and businessmen routinely say.    In fact, one common saying for this generation of Christian businessmen is,   "He doesn't let his Christianity get in the way of his business." And for   what appears to be a majority of today's commercial leaders, this is not   just a maxim; it is a fact.    Secondly, our fathers' America enjoyed a strong commitment to the principles   of freedom and independence. Through major wars, threats, and terrorist   attacks, they never surrendered the principle that our Creator had granted   us liberty.    Oh, there were times when our commitment to liberty was seriously   challenged. However, the resolve of our forebears regarding the principle of   freedom was stronger than any foe, whether it was found across the ocean or   across the street. But, this is not our fathers' America.    Today, many, if not most, Americans seem eager to surrender practically any   freedom upon the promise of protection and security. We no longer cherish   the idea of liberty. Liberty seems to be no more valuable than a poker chip   to be gambled away if the pot is sweetened with the promise that the   government will take care of us.    For example, political leaders in both parties are allowed to chip away at   our Second Amendment freedoms to the point that it is only a matter of time   (and maybe a very short time) before the right to keep and bear arms will be   forfeited, as has already been done in places such as England, Canada, and   Australia (and in many states in the U.S.). This attack on the right to keep   and bear arms will certainly intensify if any of the current presidential   frontrunners is elected next year.    If Hillary Clinton, Barak Obama, John Edwards, Rudy Giuliani, John McCain,   or Mitt Romney is elected President next year, Americans will have the fight   of their life on hand to preserve the little freedom to keep and bear arms   that currently exists. (Romney's recent attempt to present himself as   pro-gun is mere pretense. Remember that, as Governor of Massachusetts, he   supported the Brady gun-control ban. And as recently as 2002, Romney   publicly reiterated his support for strict gun control.)    Why? Because the elites who control our media, Congress, the White House,   and commercial boardrooms are in the process of constructing their New World   Order, and a disarmed citizenry is absolutely essential to this end. Make no   mistake about it: they want our guns, and they want them badly!    Already, big-game hunting is fast becoming a sport that is not only   politically incorrect, it is a sport that only the rich can afford. Through   hundreds of laws that restrict land usage and the type of game that can be   legally taken, the average, middle-class worker can hardly find a place to   hunt, and when he does find it, he can barely afford the price. Plus, the   rules regulating his hunt are so restrictive that he becomes a lawbreaker   practically every time he walks into the woods.    In addition, many wildlife officers resemble Gestapo troops more than they   do peace officers. Nowhere are there more similarities between the old   fascist and socialist regimes than can be found in many of our federal and   state fish and wildlife officers. (And before you write me a nasty note of   rebuttal, I am very much aware of the very fine and honorable wildlife   officers out there. I know several such men personally. However, I stand by   my assessment that federal and state wildlife officers are more and more   being trained in Gestapo-like tactics.)    Can you remember the words of Franklin Roosevelt immediately following the   attack on Pearl Harbor? As you listen to his words, remember that FDR was   the poster child for the Twentieth Century Big Government liberal. In spite   of this, Roosevelt said, "We have nothing to fear but fear itself."    However, this is not our fathers', even our liberal fathers', America.    Today, even so-called conservative politicians constantly instill nothing   but fear in the hearts and psyche of the American people. Ditto for the   media, and even the Weather Channel! The American people are constantly   beaten down with the spirit of fear. Fear of terrorism. Fear of hurricanes.   Fear of wildfires. Fear of tornadoes. Fear of disease. Fear of guns.    With no ill will intended toward any of the victims of the recent Virginia   Tech shootings, why did not any of the students and teachers charge the   shooter? As few as a half-dozen men could have stopped that rampage. Yes,   two or three of them might have been killed in the process, but there is no   chance that the shooter would have stopped them all. (Of course, the   university itself bears the brunt of blame for this carnage for not allowing   its faculty and qualified adult students to carry handguns for personal   protection on campus.)    However, our entire culture is inundated with fear. The only thing we think   about is survival. Running away. Staying safe. The concept of standing up   and risking personal safety in order to resist the threat of bodily harm   never seems to enter our minds. If there is no one around to protect or take   care of us, we seem to be absolutely helpless. (I'm not referring to our   military forces, obviously. On the whole, their courage under fire is   nothing short of magnificent!) Our fathers' motto "We have nothing to fear   but fear itself", has been changed to "We have nothing but fear itself."    Therefore, we enthusiastically embrace the chains of servitude via the   Patriot Act, the Department of Homeland Security, the Transportation   Security Administration, complete with hundreds of restrictions and attacks   upon our privacy and liberty because we are scared to death and, in a   panicked state, are willing to accept the phony promises of protection from   the hand of an overbearing and ever-increasingly oppressive Nanny State.    Finally, consider the fact that our current leaders cannot even seem to   understand the importance of being a nation of one language and culture.    In our fathers' America, immigrants were expected to enter the country   legally. They were expected to learn the English language. They were   expected to assimilate into America's public life and culture. They were   expected to learn and appreciate our history and heritage. They were   expected to be productive in their newfound country. They came to America,   not expecting a handout, but only wanting an opportunity. And, for the most   part, they were willing to live by our laws for the benefit of having that   opportunity.    However, this is not our fathers' America. Today, multiculturalism demands   that we tolerate lawbreakers (a.k.a. "undocumented workers"). More than   that, it demands that we facilitate and bankroll them. And when we resist   the attempts of our leaders to force lawlessness upon us, we are accused of   being unpatriotic and un-American.    Of course, there is an agenda at work here, folks. Today's leaders do not   share the principles and ideals of our fathers. They envision a new America.   An America without national borders. An America that exists for the benefit   of the elites and super-rich. An America that holds no loyalty to   constitutional government or the Bill of Rights. An America that has no   distinctively Christian culture. An America that is merged into a North   American Community. An America that has forgotten Patrick Henry and Thomas   Jefferson. An America that never heard of the Declaration of Independence.   An America that uses its military to enforce the demands of international   business interests. An America where the State controls everything we do,   say, and even think. And, believe me, this new America is already here and   quickly squeezing out the America our fathers fought to preserve.    The question is, what will people who believe in our fathers' America do?   Our pilgrim fathers fled the New World Order in Europe and founded this   great nation. Our patriot fathers fought a war of revolution against the New   World Order on our soil and won our nation's freedom and independence. So,   what will we do?    It seems quite certain that the time will soon come when we will be forced   to make the same kind of decisions our fathers were forced to make. But,   what exactly will those decisions be?    One thing is sure: this is no longer our fathers' America, and people who   long for such a place are facing another crossroads in history.    (c) Chuck Baldwin    NOTE TO THE READER:    This email editorial cannot be considered Spam as long as the sender   includes contact information and a method of removal.    To subscribe, click on this link and follow the instructions:  http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/subscribe.php    To unsubscribe, click on this link and follow the instructions:  http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/unsubscribe.php    Chuck Baldwin's commentaries are copyrighted and may be republished,   reposted, or emailed providing the person or organization doing so does not   charge for subscriptions or advertising and that the column is copied intact   and that full credit is given and that Chuck's web site address is included.    Editors or Publishers of publications charging for subscriptions or   advertising who want to run these columns must contact Chuck Baldwin for   permission. Radio or television Talk Show Hosts interested in scheduling an   interview with Chuck should contact chuck@chuckbaldwinlive.com.    When responding, please include your name, city and state. And, unless   otherwise requested, all respondents will be added to the Chuck Wagon   address list.    Please visit Chuck's web site at http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com.    

Check it out and take their poll!

Method May Give Results Without Destroying Embryos

SALT LAKE CITY, Utah, JUNE 8, 2007 (Zenit.org).- New studies done by three independent teams of scientists show promise in producing embryoniclike stem cells without destroying embryos.

The studies, published Wednesday, use ordinary skin cells from mice and reprogram them to act like embryonic stem cells -- that is, capable of being manipulated into most any type of bodily tissue.

Maureen Condic, an associate professor of neurobiology and anatomy at the University of Utah School of Medicine, spoke with ZENIT about the functionality and ethics of these new studies.

"The finding that adult cells can be directly converted into the functional equivalents of embryonic stem cells is very promising," said Condic.

She added: "It is not yet known whether the procedure for generating iPSCs [induced pluripotent state cells] from mice will work in human cells, yet given how simple this procedure is, and how much we know about altering gene expression in cells, it is highly likely that we will be able to apply this same approach to human cells with minor modifications in the near future."

Condic explained an advantage is that "the authors have shown by stringent scientific criteria that the cells they have produced, induced pluripotent state cells, have the same properties as embryonic stem cells, yet they are produced from adult cells without cloning, without the use of oocytes and without the production of embryos."

Condic cautioned, however: "It is important to appreciate that the intrinsic problems associated with ESCs [embryonic stem cells], such as tumor formation, genetic instability, difficulty in controlling differentiation, will apply to iPSCs as well.

"These problems are the reasons I have always been, and continue to be, quite skeptical about the 'therapeutic' value of any ESC-like cell, including iPSCs."

Circumventing concerns

"This procedure is not only easier than current methods of generating embryonic stem cell lines," Condic explained, "it circumvents the vast majority of ethical concerns raised by embryo-destructive research, human cloning and large-scale harvesting of human oocytes.

"Using this technique, it should be possible to produce human cell lines with all the properties of embryonic stem cells that are genetically identical to patients, perfectly addressing the problems of immune rejection that have raised such concern for potential ESC-based therapies."

An added benefit, Condic underlined, is that "iPSC lines could also be easily generated from patients with specific genetic diseases and used to study these diseases in the laboratory."

"On a political front, however, iPSCs give scientists everything they have been asking for from human ESC research and so-called 'therapeutic cloning'; that is, pluripotent stem cells that are genetically matched to patients," she said.

Condic concluded that "iPSCs deliver these same features without ethical controversy and with considerably less technical difficulty than current procedures for isolating human ESC lines