J's Cafe Nette

Archive for March, 2007

Everyone concentrates on the problems we’re having in this country lately; illegal immigration, hurricane recovery, wild animals attacking humans in Florida.

Not me. I concentrate on solutions to problems. The result is a win-win-win situation:

Dig a moat the length of the Mexican border,

Use the dirt to raise the levies in New Orleans,

Put the Florida alligators in the moat.

Any other problems you would like for me to solve today?

Tweet This Post

While Tonto and I differ on political parties and strategies, I feel confident when I say we are both opposed to corruption by either party.

Louisiana Rep. William Jefferson was caught in an FBI sting in 2005 when he accepted $100,000 from an FBI informant and was filmed taking the money. Bribery of foreign governments, conspiracy and wire fraud seem to be what the government is going after.

If you recall, when Hurricane Katrina hit, Rep. Jefferson had the National Guard take him by boat to his house in New Orleans where he supposedly retrieved the money.

A subsequent raid on his Washington home found $90,000 hidden in the freezer of his refrigerator, which gave a new meaning to the phrase “cold, hard cash”.

The FBI subsequently got a search warrant to search his congressional offices, and then-Speaker Dennis Hastert and others screamed bloody murder because a representative of Congress had his office searched.

Remember, though, in our country no one is above the law.

Congressman Jefferson went to court to get his seized hard drives and paper records back. He lost that battle in the court last July and has appealed the decision to the District Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.

The government has answered his allegations in the appeal, saying the documents were taken legally.

The government said that although members of Congress have protection for some public offenses, they have no immunity from the execution of a validly obtained search warrant. It noted that the warrant sought only non-legislative materials.

“[The warrant's] design provided for careful procedures to screen arguably protected legislative materials from prosecutors and, as implemented under orders of this court, it will result in no executive branch official having any further access to the seized materials,” the government said.

“The narrow issue presented is whether the incidental review of arguably protected legislative materials during the execution of the search warrant so taints the activity that a constitutional violation must be found and then remedied by the return of all documents to Rep. Jefferson — including documents as to which he has not asserted or cannot sustain a claim of privilege,” it said.

In an 85-page motion, the government said the execution of the search warrant was constitutional and procedures used by the FBI during the search were sufficient to protect Mr. Jefferson’s rights.

Attorneys for the Louisiana Democrat asked the court in February to order the Bush administration to return all documents seized during the unprecedented 18-hour search last May, saying the Justice Department violated Congress’ right to withhold certain information from the executive branch.

Mr. Jefferson said 19,000 pages of documents and electronic files were seized, all of which were covered by Congress’ separation of powers privilege to shield certain legislative material from executive review.

“The only remedy that will vindicate and protect the fundamental principles of separations of powers and legislative independence … is return of all of the seized materials,” he said.

I find the underlined quote to be interesting given the fact the Congress has asserted the Executive Branch should turn over all documents in the US Attorney firings and have the president’s advisers testify under oath to the facts in the firings, but it could lead to a fishing expedition on any other topic if they are under oath, even though it is understood they must tell the truth when testifying to Congress.

The government argued that the agents who conducted the search and the team that will review the seized materials for privilege will be screened from the prosecution team, ensuring that no privileged materials would be used against the congressman. It said Mr. Jefferson also would have the opportunity to assert the privilege before any documents were given to the prosecution team.

FBI agents seized several computer hard drives, floppy disks and two boxes of paper documents from Mr. Jefferson’s office in the Rayburn House Office Building. The lawmaker was videotaped in July 2005 accepting $100,000 in $100 bills from an FBI informant, and agents found $90,000 hidden in a freezer the next month in his Northeast Washington home, authorities have said.

The Jefferson investigation has focused on accusations of conspiracy, bribery and wire fraud. He is suspected of taking payments to promote the sale of telecommunications equipment and services to Nigeria, Ghana and other African nations. The government is also investigating whether Mr. Jefferson planned to bribe officials in Nigeria and elsewhere.

Mr. Jefferson has not been charged in the case and has denied any wrongdoing.

It is important to note there have been no charges filed against Rep. Jefferson, but it’s also important to note the prosecutors will not have access to any material that is covered by congressional privilege.

If a crime was committed it needs to be prosecuted as any other crime would be.

It was wrong of Hastert and the other congressional leaders to scream a congressman’s office is sacred ground when criminal investigations are ongoing and a legitimate search warrant has been obtained.

Tweet This Post

Hat Tip: The Anchoress and My Pet Jawa <):)

Tweet This Post

A reader of my former blog by the name of Caleb has written an article about the surge, based on information from a source who is high up in the military structure of our country.

Caleb has given me permission to post this story on this site.

We have all heard what Gen. Barry McCaffrey has said, and now I want you to read the other side of that story.

I have graciously been offered the chance to do a guest post on a piece of information that I received regarding early results of “The Surge” in Iraq. Since this provides some optimistic early assessments, you will not likely see it on your TV news any time soon.

The writer of what is presented here cautions that it is still extremely early in the game, and it is no where near time to break out a cold Bud in celebration. The writer had occasion to talk to Gen. Petraeus and wrote about the conversation on March 20, 2007.

In one important point, Gen Petraeus said that, “People realize they’re not going to just leave them like we did in the past.” This has been a real sticking point with particularly the Shia in the southern half of Iraq. We left them hanging out before and the marsh Arabs (Shia) paid a terrible price at the hands of Saadam.

In another telling point, Gen. Petraeus said, “I walked down the streets of Ramadi a few days ago, in a soft cap eating an ice cream with the mayor on one side of me and the police chief on the other, having a conversation.” The general noted that this simple act wouldn’t have been possible just a few months ago. He noted, “And nobody shot at us.” The general points out that there is still a very long way to go, but major improvements are being noted.

When asked what tactics are working, the general said, “We got down at the people level and are staying. Once the people know we are going to be around, than all kinds of things start to happen.”

The general noted that where once they were scraping the bottom of the barrel for intelligence, now they have the beginnings of an intelligence overload. The general said, “After our guys are in a neighborhood for four or five days, the people realize they’re not going to just leave them like we did in the past. Then they begin to come in with so much information on the enemy that we can’t process it fast enough.”

The general reports that even the tribal leaders in Sunni al Anbar province have had enough of al Qaeda and the sectarian violence that they foment, all the civilian Iraqi deaths. The general reports that these tribal leaders are all entrepreneurial businessmen, and the violence is really hurting business and their wallets.

One of the civil projects that the violence had put on hold was a large hospital in the Sunni Triangle. Now we are there daily, the violence in down, and the hospital project is back on track. So are similar infrastructure projects. There is now work for the people to do to earn a living. The Sheiks have seen the misery that al Qaeda delivers and are encouraging the young Iraqis to join the Iraqi Army and Iraqi Police and make a difference in their country. And they are turning out in droves.

Petraeus is using a similar formula in Baghdad’s Sadr City. They are clearing it neighborhood by neighborhood. The troops literally move in. They are mainly US Army and Marines with the Iraqi Army supporting them. That ratio is reversed, however, in some areas. The troops stay in the neighborhood. They do NOT go back to the large fortified bases every evening. Petraeus says that the results have been dramatic.

“We’re using ’soft knock’ clearing procedures and bringing the locals in on our side,” he said. The general notes that the local people fear and loath al Qaeda. This new procedure is allowing the locals to begin to trust our guys, and they are gradually coming over to our side. When they saw that we were just returning to our bases each evening and thus allowing al Qaeda to own the neighborhoods at night, they were afraid to help us for fear of being tortured and killed. Now they are seeing the change in our methods and responding.

Another big change has been our targeting of gathering places, like markets and mosques, for protective actions. Concrete barriers are being placed to prohibit vehicle bombs from getting into the heart of crowds of folks.

Also, with real jobs becoming more and more available, the people are less inclined to join local militias or groups like the Mahdi Army of Maqtada al Sadr. General Petraeus also notes that the Prime Minister, who is Shia, is actually getting out in Sunni areas like Ramadi and doing politician type stuff to win over the Sunnis to the central government.

General Petraeus estimates that about half of the al Qaeda leaders that were in Baghdad at the start of the surge have fled or killed or captured. He says that we are atritting then “at a fearsome rate.”

Another positive step by Petraeus has been his rewriting of the Rules of Engagement. They had gotten so PC that they were causing our trigger pullers to hesitate for that split second that gets you killed in combat. The general says that some commanders down from his level had placed even more restriction on the troops because they were afraid that their careers would be ruined by some JAG prosecution of soldiers for decisions taken in the heat of battle.

General Petraeus says that he has cleared up the ambiguities and has prohibited anyone other than himself from initiating changes in the rules. He also has prohibited lower ranking officers from issuing “supplemental guidance” to their troops regarding the ROE.

In a previous tour in Iraq, when he was in command near the Syrian border, Petraeus became known as “King David.” He is regarded by all that know him as one of the brightest and most capable officers in today’s Army. He just finished rewriting the military’s book on urban warfare and insurgencies before being appointed to replace Gen. Casey in overall charge of American troops in Iraq. Retired Gen. Paul Vallely said that Gen. Petraeus “was the perfect man for the job.” when he was appointed to his current assignment.

The person that wrote this assessment opines that early indicators are positive and that early signs are that we are winning. Gen. Petraeus cautiously noted that, “We’ll be able to evaluate the situation for sure by late summer.” The author here, who is a retired Army officer and current military contractor, says that our job now is to give Gen. Petraeus and his troops time and space to get the job done, to actually win this war.

I have been extremely critical of Pres. Bush for the restrictions that he has placed on our military’s methods and abilities to fight this war. I will continue to be. No war should ever be fought in a PC manner. It causes us unnecessary casualties. That said, nothing matches my loathing and disgust for the “cut and run” crowd of mostly Democrats, aided and abetted by some very whiny and wimpy Republicans. Am I questioning their patriotism? YES! Now let us all get together behind Gen. Petraeus and our marvelous warriors, and win this darn thing and then come home.

Eagles up!

Caleb

As usual we ask if anyone has dissenting opinions to express them in a kind way and please do not say anything bad about our military. They are not the politicians who sent them to war.

Tweet This Post

We saw the orthopedic surgeon today and, despite the fact the swelling has gone down, he is still concerned because my husband’s elbow is still red and hot with some swelling.

He feels it is a staph infection that got in there in some unknown way since there is no cut on the elbow. This happens quite frequently according to him.

He extended the anti-biotic treatment my husband is receiving to ten days rather than the five days the hospital gave him.

If anything doesn’t look or feel right over the week-end we are to call him since he is the one on call this week-end and he will meet us at the ER.

If my husband gets up in the morning and something is wrong he is to go to the office since they have office hours until noon and it will save a wait in the ER while Dr. Powell might be doing surgery.

On Monday morning my husband has to go back to Dr. Powell and he will check it again. If, at some point he is not satisfied with the healing, he will send him to the Infusion Center at our local hospital to get an IV of Rocephin, a very strong anti-biotic. This will be done on an out-patient basis over a period of days to be set by the doctor.

He is feeling some better tonight but is very tired, which is unlike him. We ask your continued prayers.

Tweet This Post

Under the terms of a plea deal Australian terrorist detainee David Hicks has received a sentence of seven years.

It’s not clear if he will be given credit for the five years he has already served, but he will serve his sentence in Australia under the terms of the agreement.

Update: The plea deal allowed the sentence to be capped at nine months to be served in Australia.

Tweet This Post

From Thursday’s Omega Letter, a Christian subscription newsletter:

“Bread and Circuses”

The Senate followed the lead of the Congress and narrowly passed legislation that would, if it survived a presidential veto, take control of the Iraq War out of the hands of the Commander-in-Chief and give it to the Congress.

The Senate’s bill orders some troops home right away, with the goal of ending combat missions by March 31, 2008.

The Senate’s bill identifies March 2008 as a goal – giving the president leeway to ignore the deadline. The House voted 218-212 to require all combat troops out as of Aug. 31, 2008.

The provision is attached to a $122 billion bill that would fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Here is how that works. If the White House wants the money to keep fighting the war, then the president has to accept the withdrawal conditions attached to it. It is akin to the school yard principle; “it’s my ball, so we play according to my rules.”

Like the brat with the ball, if the President doesn’t let them set the rules for withdrawal by vetoing the bill, then the WHOLE bill dies, including the funding. Think of it! The United States military defeated on the battlefield — by the United States Congress! It is the equivalent to simply picking up the ball mid-game and taking it home.

Except that the ‘ball’ in this case is the expended sacrifices of American lives for a cause that, by a majority vote in both Houses, is unworthy of the cost. How many times has the Left thundered, “It’s not worth the cost!”?

What are they really saying? If the ’cause is not worth the cost’, then those who gave their lives FOR the ’cause’ died for nothing.

Is there another way of understanding that equation that perhaps I have missed? In the course of the past four years, some two million American soldiers have served tours in Iraq, some of them several times.

(One of them, S/Sgt Tom Kurek, USMC is staying at our rental in North Carolina while we are up in the Great White North and Tommy is coincidentally home on leave after completing this THIRD combat tour in Iraq. Semper fi, Marine!)

Sgt. Kurek has seen and done things he doesn’t talk about, even with old Marines like me or his dad, (a retired Marine captain). He’s seen the horrors of war up close and personal, suffered the loss of close friends, witnessed the inhumanity of battle — as well as the humanitarian efforts to improve the lives of ordinary Iraqis.

A declaration that purports to ’support the troops’ — while opposing the mission they endured so much to complete — is nothing short of a Congressional declaration that all the S/Sgt. Kurek suffered in his three tours, all the humanitarian reconstruction work accomplished along the way, all that his family endured while he was in harm’s way, all that anxiety, the separation . . . it was all for NOTHING!

It means leaving behind all the good works accomplished so far and turning the whole country of Iraq over to the tender mercies of the Islamic jihad. It means leaving our friends to the mercies of our enemies and breaking faith with every promise by every GI ever made to those Iraqis that helped in the fight against the terrorists.

The partisans in the House are prepared to sacrifice Sgt. Kurek’s service to the country as a casualty of their political war against George Bush. Now, multiply Sgt. Kurek — his friends and his family — times two million GI’s.

It may be a politically astute move for the Democrats, but it is morally bankrupting the country as a whole. Who wants to die for a morally bankrupt cause?

The Roman poet Juvenal coined a phrase in the latter part of the 1st century, “panem et circenses” (bread and circuses) to describe the ongoing decline of Roman democracy.

Roman politicians of his day kept their offices by bribing their constituents, at the expense of the public purse, until it eventually morally and financially bankrupted the mightiest empire the world had ever known.

With its politicians focused on pandering to their constituency and its treasury depleted, Rome’s mighty army crumbled, its borders shrank, and its democracy collapsed.

The cause of its decline and fall was so apparent to historians though the ages that no nation dared experiment with democracy for the next sixteen hundred years.

Assessment:

The Left is operating under the principle that the threat to America will vanish when George Bush is out of office and they are in control of the Executive branch. They are throwing all their energies into defeating the Republicans at the polls, even if it means forcing a US defeat on the battlefield to ‘expose’ the need for a change in government.

Let’s suppose, for a moment, that the moral bankrupts in control of both Houses were to win what the press is describing as a coming ‘battle between the Congress and the Bush administration’? Suppose that the administration had to withdraw the troops, either for lack of funding or a veto-proof Congressional mandate?

THEN what happens? If the Left has an answer to that question, they are keeping it a closely-guarded secret. The evidence suggests that not only do they NOT know what happens next, they really don’t care, provided they win their war against the Bush administration.

The war with Iraq didn’t start the war with al-Qaeda. Neither did George Bush. If Osama bin-Laden is to be believed, the war started when Bill Clinton withdrew US forces from Somalia in the face of the enemy.

That is when bin-Laden himself said he concluded America was a ‘paper tiger’ and declared jihad against the US.

And al-Qaeda fighters fleeing US forces in Afghanistan were already in Iraq when we got there, including abu Musab al Zarqawi.

The Iraq war isn’t the cause of the tensions between the US and Iran, so withdrawing from Iraq won’t help us there. (However, maintaining a US military presence on either side of Iran in Iraq and Afghanistan sure would.)

The case for staying on in Iraq is obvious. The terrorists won’t go home when we withdraw. They will follow us there. When they weren’t fighting us in Iraq, they were fighting us in New York, Pennsylvania and Washington. They aren’t fighting us OVER Iraq. They are fighting us IN Iraq.

Which is the more defensible tactical situation? Trained professional US military forces, armed, equipped and prepared for battle, against armed and dedicated Islamic terrorists hiding amongst the Iraqi population?

Or ordinary American men, women and children, unarmed, unprepared for battle, against armed and dedicated Islamic terrorists hiding amongst the American population? Is this hard?

Should the Left succeed in forcing an early withdrawal from Iraq, it will leave it wide-open to Iranian infiltration, turning Iraq into another Lebanon.

If the Left is successful, it will find itself facing a nuclear Iran in control of Iran, Iraq, Syria and Lebanon. But that evidently isn’t as important as defeating George Bush.

This is more than mere politics. It is politics without conscience. It is politics without honor. To the Left, any risk is acceptable, provided it brings Their Guy (or Girl, or whatever) to power in 2008.

No sacrifice (except their own) is too great, whether it be the personal sacrifices of our military forces, the sacrifice of America’s sworn promise to the Iraqis, or the future sacrifices a withdrawal in the face of the enemy would inevitably invite.

The Apostle Paul, specifically addressing the Church Age, described the ‘bread and circuses’ phase of the Western Christian democracies this way:

“This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.” (2nd Timothy 3:1-5)

It reads like the US Presidential Campaign Strategy Handbook for 2008.

This article admittedly takes hits at the Democrats in Congress, but there are also many Republicans who are participating in the pork game.

Read especially the part before the Assessment, where he talks of the Roman democracy being destroyed precisely due to the same things our current and former congresses have done.

How much money can they tax us before we no longer have enough money to pay for the necessities of government, let alone the pork?

Think about it.

Tweet This Post

I am humbled.

Hat Tip: Sir Randall <):)

Tweet This Post

Many conservative Republicans don’t like John McCain because he is so unpredictable and seems to be so liberal on a lot of issues that are of concern to us.

Now comes this interesting story in The Hill.

It seems while Daschle and Company were courting people such as Lincoln Chaffee and Jim Jeffords to switch parties and give the Democrats the majority in the Senate (Jeffords eventually turned Independent and caucused with the Democrats, giving them the majority) they overlooked someone whose own chief political strategist said might switch if the right people asked him: John McCain.

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) was close to leaving the Republican Party in 2001, weeks before then-Sen. Jim Jeffords (Vt.) famously announced his decision to become an Independent, according to former Democratic lawmakers who say they were involved in the discussions.

In interviews with The Hill this month, former Sen. Tom Daschle (D-S.D.) and ex-Rep. Tom Downey (D-N.Y.) said there were nearly two months of talks with the maverick lawmaker following an approach by John Weaver, McCain’s chief political strategist.

Democrats had contacted Jeffords and then-Sen. Lincoln Chafee (R-R.I.) in the early months of 2001 about switching parties, but in McCain’s case, they said, it was McCain’s top strategist who came to them.

At the end of their March 31, 2001 lunch at a Chinese restaurant in Bethesda, Md., Downey said Weaver asked why Democrats hadn’t asked McCain to switch parties.

Downey, a well-connected lobbyist, said he was stunned.

“You’re really wondering?” Downey said he told Weaver. “What do you mean you’re wondering?”

“Well, if the right people asked him,” Weaver said, according to Downey, adding that he responded, “The calls will be made. Who do you want?” Weaver this week said he did have lunch with Downey that spring, pointing out that he and Downey “are very good friends.”

He claims, however, that Downey is grossly mischaracterizing their exchange: “We certainly didn’t discuss in any detail about the senator’s political plans and any discussion about party-switchers, generically, would have been limited to the idle gossip which was all around the city about the [Democrats’] aggressive approach about getting any GOP senator to switch in order to gain the majority. Nothing more or less than that.”

Downey said Weaver is well aware that their discussion was much more than typical Washington chit-chat.

I guess it all depends on which person you prefer to believe.

Tweet This Post

Tweet This Post

My husband’s elbow is still red, hot and swollen and quite painful. He has carried a low to mid-grade fever all day today and is scheduled to see the orthopedic surgeon tomorrow so he can determine what the problem is.

I know he has some sort of infection just because he has a fever and the elbow is red and hot. I pray it’s nothing serious, as he has not been feeling well today and it’s not like him to even say he doesn’t feel well.

I ask your continued prayers and will keep you posted on his condition.

Tweet This Post

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales’ former chief of staff Kyle Sampson gave testimony today to the Senate Judiciary Committee concerning the firings of the eight US Attorneys.

Alberto Gonzales’ former top aide testified Thursday that the attorney general was mistaken when he said he was not involved in the firing of eight U.S. attorneys, adding that the dismissals are “a benign, rather than sinister, story.”

Under questioning by Democratic Sen. Charles Schumer of New York, Kyle Sampson said Gonzales was involved in the decision to fire the eight attorneys, attending a meeting on the decision 10 days before it was carried out. He said Gonzales was also wrong when he said other senior Justice Department aides gave Congress inaccurate information because they hadn’t been fully briefed about the firings.

“I don’t remember if the attorney general ever saw documents. I didn’t prepare memos for him on this issue. But we did discuss it as early as — before he became the attorney general, when he was the attorney general designate in January of 2005, I think; and then, from time to time, as the process was, sort of, in a thinking phase through 2005 and 2006. And then I remember discussing it with him as the process sort of came to a conclusion in the fall of 2006,” he said.

Sampson said he made recommendations about which attorneys should be fired, but “the decision makers in this case were the attorney general and the president.”

The former chief of staff argued that the imbroglio had blown up because of poor explanations, but not poor motivations. He also apologized for the confusion and misunderstanding that accompanied the explanation of the firings to senators. A longtime veteran of the Justice Department, he said he resigned because he let down the attorney general by failing to avoid this messy situation.

“As the attorney general’s chief of staff, I could have and should have helped to prevent this. In failing to do so, I let the attorney general and the department down. For that reason, I offered the attorney general my resignation. I was not asked to resign. I simply felt honor-bound to accept my share of blame for this problem and to hold myself accountable,” he said.

He added that none of the attorneys were let go because of political manipulations.

“The distinction between political- and performance-related reasons for removing a U.S. attorney is, in my view, largely artificial. A U.S. attorney who is unsuccessful from a political perspective, either because he or she has alienated the leadership of the department in Washington or cannot work constructively with law enforcement or other governmental constituencies in the district, is unsuccessful,” Sampson said.

I confess I haven’t watched any of the news about this and have only read bits and pieces in the news, but I do know any president has the right to fire any political apointee for any or no reason. They serve “at the pleasure of the president.”

Since I haven’t watched the television or read much more than I’ve given you on this page I don’t know if anyone before this has been under oath and if this testimony contradicts any of what may have been said under oath.

I’m sorry eight people lost their jobs and some are having difficulty finding new ones, though I can’t quite figure out why it would be hard for an attorney to find a job. He or she can always hang out his or her own shingle if necessary.

I have come to the conclusion that this is a fishing expedition on the part of congress to show its muscle in its oversight role, but somehow it doesn’t become either side.

Read the rest of the story at the above link.

Tweet This Post

While going to several appointments yesterday I was able to listen to the car radio, which is tuned to a talk station.

The big hot-button issue of the day was a Hispanic advocacy group asking the North Carolina state legislature to approve drivers’ licenses to illegal immigrants. They are also lobbying to get a better wage for the illegal immigrants.

Excuse me, but aren’t they illegal immigrants, which means they shouldn’t be here anyway?

How brazen are these people going to get demanding “rights” while they are here illegally and by definition are criminals?

Actually, when I was taking driver’s education when I was a teen I remember the class being told driving is not a right—it is a privilege.

Go ahead and demand their pay be $10 more an hour than an American or legal alien gets for the same job and maybe it will cause a mass exodus back to across our southern border.

BTW, I live in South Carolina but am close to the North Carolina border so I get to hear the North Carolina news.

This is just mind-boggling to me.

Tweet This Post

It’s not just Muslims refusing to ring up pork or alcohol products, but also Christians who refuse to dispense the “morning after” pill and other “religions” who refuse to remove body piercings that are presenting a conundrum for retailers.

Can a cashier or clerk wish a customer “Merry Christmas”?

Must a pharmacist dispense birth control devices if his faith forbids it?

Can a Muslim clerk refuse to touch a whisky or beer bottle, or a pork chop?

Disputes between retailers and employees over religious beliefs in the United States can be traced back to the Puritans, who established laws that retail stores must not open on Sundays. Hundreds of years later, retailers are still dealing with how to address an employee’s religious practices.

Religious discrimination complaints to the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) have been rising over the past 10 years. Last year, the EEOC received 2,541 complaints, up 48 percent from 1,709 in 1997.

The commission has found that about 60 percent of the cases have “no reasonable cause” and about 4 percent to 10 percent do have a reasonable cause.

In Minnesota, Target has been the subject of scrutiny since a Minneapolis Star Tribune reported earlier this month that some Muslim supermarket cashiers ask non-Muslim co-workers or customers to scan pork products for them. They’re following a strict interpretation of the Koran, which forbids touching pork products.

Unlike the Puritans, today’s workers are armed with Title VII of the U.S. Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits religious discrimination in the workplace. Under it, employers are required to make “reasonable accommodations” for an employee’s religious beliefs. “Reasonable” is defined as something that doesn’t create “undue hardship” on the employer or co-workers.

The law leaves room for interpretation. When an accusation of religious discrimination is filed against a company, it often becomes news.

“The wording of Title VII is pretty broad. It’s up to the courts to decide in many of these issues,” says Matthew McReynolds, a staff attorney at Pacific Justice Institute, a Sacramento, Calif., legal-assistance group that represents individuals in civil liberties cases, including religious discrimination issues.

Some of the complaints seem ridiculous to me while others seem reasonable. It all depends on perspective of the individual, I suppose.

Please read the entire article.

Tweet This Post

The Congressional Research Service (CRS), a bipartisan group that has reported all pork in bills for the past twelve years suddenly has decided to stop doing that job and let other agencies do it.

This has Republican legislators upset because they are worried there might have been some pressure put on CRS by the leaders of the new Congress. They are not saying that has happened but are suspicious.

The federal agency that tracked pork-barrel spending during the 12 years of the Republican congressional majority has discontinued the practice since Democrats took power, riling lawmakers suspicious of the timing and concerned about the pace of fat being added to bills.

“To me, something doesn’t smell right,” said Sen. Jim DeMint, South Carolina Republican. “I just hope no one is pressuring” the Congressional Research Service (CRS).

While not blaming the Democratic leadership, Mr. DeMint added: “I guess if you’re looking for a motive, you’d have to look in that direction.”

CRS, a nonpartisan agency of the Library of Congress created to conduct research for members of Congress on legislative issues, changed its policy in February — a month after Democrats took control of the Congress and vowed to curb the number of special-interest projects inserted into spending bills or even reports that don’t require a vote.

CRS Director Daniel P. Mulhollan developed the policy after consulting with “internal CRS appropriations experts” and deciding the service was redundant with what other agencies do, CRS spokeswoman Janine D’Addario said.

“His decision was strictly an internal decision,” said Miss D’Addario, whose agency began providing Congress members with information on earmarks in 1994, when Mr. Mulhollan took over as director.

CRS said the Office of Management and Budget recently has been taking on a greater role in monitoring earmarks. And with both chambers of Congress this year establishing new guidelines and clearer definitions of earmarks, the agency said its role as a scorekeeper of earmarks is obsolete.

Several lawmakers, particularly those who had come to rely on the agency to identify the dollar value of earmarks in appropriations and other laws, were caught off guard by the change.

“It’s troubling — I can’t think of any justification for that,” said Rep. Jeff Flake, Arizona Republican. “They’ve done good research in the past. … That’s what they’re here for — the benefit of the members” of Congress.

Democratic leaders with the House and Senate appropriations committees say they did not persuade Mr. Mulhollan to drop his agency’s earmark practice.

What seems to be so crucial is that estimates by everyone else were much lower than the CRS estimates and anyone watching wasteful pork barrel spending depended on this non-partisan branch of the Library of Congress to keep the figures straight.

Republicans said they want an independent observer because pork is often in the eye of the beholder and estimates of the amount vary widely.

Citizens Against Government Waste put the figure for 2006 at $29 billion, while Republicans on the House Appropriations Committee said it was $17 billion. Mr. DeMint, citing a CRS report, said the amount totaled more than $67 billion.

Mr. DeMint said no other agency or group has the resources, expertise and access to provide Congress with data on earmarks.

“This is really baffling that CRS would do this,” he said.

I hope since the Congress seems to be in an investigative mood for everything Bush or Bush Administration they will take enough time to come up for air and check into this situation also.

Source.

Tweet This Post

My husband has developed a very swollen and hot elbow from unknown cause.

Wednesday night he was running a high fever so I insisted he go to the ER.

The doctors took blood and did X-rays. The bloodwork looks fine but they are concerned about the fever because it could mean an infection in the elbow joint, so they have told us to get in touch with an orthopedic doctor for him to take a look at it.

He has had a shot of a powerful anti-biotic and they gave him a pill for the pain which will get him through the night. Tomorrow I will pick up his prescription for his anti-biotic and pain medication.

This is a big concern to me and our children because about a month ago our son had had a fever for some time and awakened to find both legs swollen to twice their normal size.

He also went to the ER and was admitted for a staph and strep infection in both legs. If it hadn’t been caught and treated then he could have died.

We want to make sure this infection is only in the soft tissue and not in the bone or joint.

Depending on when I can get an appointment with the orthopedic doctor I may or may not be doing much blogging today. Tonto will be here and will do an excellent job.

He professes to be a liberal but he and I agree on a lot of issues that are conservative, just as I agree on some social issues that are considered liberal or moderate.

I ask you to send up a few prayers for my husband. Thank you and I’ll keep you posted.

Tweet This Post

She certainly looks thrilled to be there to me. NOT!

Great Britain says GPS devices show the sailors and marines were 1.7 nautical miles inside Iraqi waters. They were, by the way, performing a mission for the UN.

Tweet This Post

Journalist and blogger Cathy Seipp died last week from lung cancer.

While I didn’t frequent her blog because I didn’t know about it, from what I have read she was a conservative who had been a reporter for several well-known publications, and she pulled no punches.

It seems her 17 year old daughter’s former journalism teacher had a grudge against them both and had purchased the domain name cathyseipp.com, which was not the name of Cathy Seipp’s blog.

On the day before Ms. Seipp died, while she was probably unconscious he wrote this about her:

Just hours before her death, “Cathy Seipp” suddenly seemed to undo decades of hard work with an oddly written letter posted on the Web site, www. cathyseipp.com. In what came off as more bizarre rant than heartfelt apology, her supposed “very last blog entry” called her years of journalism a “shoddy,” “despicable” and “irresponsible” career as a “fourth-rate hack.” Her political stance? All a mistake.

The fiery, unwavering supporter of George W. Bush supposedly said she’d done a complete 180 in the past year and was now an implied supporter of Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y. What was even more perplexing was that “Seipp” was taking mean-spirited potshots at her own daughter, Maia Lazar, whom she called an “obnoxious” and “arrogant” wanna-be “skank” who was “mentally ill.” Throughout the letter, the one person whom “Seipp” seemed most sorry for ever having offended was Maia’s 10th-grade journalism teacher, who had frequently clashed with mother and daughter. Finally, “Seipp” said she was probably to blame for her own illness — the “venom” she’d spewed for years was responsible for her terminal cancer.

Friends were horrified. They quickly realized that the letter was the work of an infamous character known as “Troll Dolls” who’d positioned himself as the blogger’s archenemy and bought the domain name www.cathyseipp.com years earlier (Seipp’s real Web site is www.cathyseipp.net). Troll Dolls is really Eliot Stein, a 54-year-old former online talk-show host and stand-up comedian who hadd taught Maia in a journalism class for a brief period in 2004, and who blamed Maia and Seipp for his departure from the school after only five weeks.

I’ve heard of grudges but this man is a sicko.

Tweet This Post

Iran has announced the British hostages will be paraded on television but they will release the female hostage.

If they show them in big red and white striped outfits I’ll swear I’m living Groundhog Day and it’s Hanoi circa the late 60’s and early 70’s.

While at the dentist’s office today they had CNN on (I know, but it’s their TV ) and they showed the GPS system with a photo of the exact location of the boat when it was captured. It was 1.7 nautical miles inside the Iraqi waters doing a routine UN patrol.

The story went on to say the Iranians even confirmed the co-ordinates in correspondence to the British and when the British pointed it out and asked for their troops back the Iranians gave them different co-ordinates.

I’m interested to see how this all plays out.

Tweet This Post

Republicans in the House yesterday forced a bill that would protect the John Does in the recent lawsuit filed by the imams who were praying in the Minneapolis airport and then got on the plane talking loudly against President Bush and the war in Iraq. Some had asked for seat extenders even though they were all slim men.

House Republicans yesterday surprised Democrats with a procedural vote to protect public-transportation passengers from being sued if they report suspicious activity — the first step by lawmakers to protect “John Doe” airline travelers already targeted in such a lawsuit.

After a heated debate and calls for order, the motion to recommit the Democrats’ Rail and Public Transportation Security Act of 2007 back to committee with instructions to add the protective language passed on a vote of 304-121.

All 121 of the “no” votes were cast by Democrats, while 199 Republicans and 105 Democrats voted in favor.

Republicans said the lawsuit filed by six Muslim imams against US Airways and “John Does,” passengers who reported suspicious behavior, could have a “chilling effect” on passengers who may fear being sued for acting vigilant.

Rep. Peter T. King, New York Republican and ranking member of the House Homeland Security Committee, offered the motion saying all Americans — airline passengers included — must be protected from lawsuits if they report suspicious behavior that may foreshadow a terrorist attack.

“All of our lives changed after September 11, and one of the most important things we have done is ask local citizens to do what they can to avoid another terrorist attack, if you see something, say something,” said Mr. King.

“We have to stand by our people and report suspicious activity,” he said. “I cannot imagine anyone would be opposed to this.”

Mr. King called it a “disgrace” that the suit seeks to identify “people who acted out of good faith and reported what they thought was suspicious activity.”

Rep. Bennie Thompson, Mississippi Democrat and chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, opposed the motion over loud objections from colleagues on the House floor, forcing several calls to order from the chair.

“Absolutely they should have the ability to seek redress in a court of law,” said Mr. Thompson, who suggested that protecting passengers from a lawsuit would encourage racial profiling.

“This might be well-intended, but it has unintended consequences,” Mr. Thompson said, before he accepted the motion to recommit.

The motion to recommit was based on a bill introduced last week by Rep. Steve Pearce, New Mexico Republican, to protect “John Does” or passengers targeted in a lawsuit filed by six Muslim imams earlier this month in Minneapolis.

Mr. Pearce said the imams are “using courts to terrorize Americans.”

“If we allow this lawsuit to go forward it will have a chilling effect,” Mr. Pearce said.

A Republican memo issued prior to the vote cites the November incident when the men were removed from a US Airways flight from Minneapolis to Phoenix for suspicious behavior, the details of which were first reported by The Washington Times.

The men prayed loudly before boarding, did not take their assigned seats and formed patterns officials said mirrored the September 11 hijackers, asked for seat-belt extenders not needed, and criticized President Bush and the war in Iraq.

In a bipartisan way the members of the House have finally done something to benefit their constituents—the American people.

Tweet This Post

On Wednesday I have a dental appointment in the morning and a regular doctor appointment in the afternoon, with an allergy shot squeezed in the middle.

If you make a comment and it gets held in moderation I will approve it as soon as I get the chance.

Tweet This Post

By a vote of 48-50 the Senate has rejected an amendment that would have removed a timeline from the military supplemental bill.

The Senate version requires withdrawal from Iraq to begin within 120 days. This is different from the House bill and will have to be reconciled in committee, but the vote is so close in both houses it is not veto-proof.

Maybe now President Bush will show he has plenty of ink in his veto pen since he has used it only once during his presidency. And, yes, Chuck Hagel was there to vote against the president once again.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said he had hoped that the White House would “be willing to work with us” on language Democrats could accept, but “at this stage, he has been very non-negotiable. So we’ll see what happens.”

Other Democrats said they would support the nonbinding March 2008 timetable even though they wanted more.

“I want a deadline not only for commencing the withdrawal of our forces but also completing it rather than a target date,” said Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt.

“This provision represents a 90-degree change of course from the president’s policy of escalation in the middle of a civil war,” he said, “I’m confident once the withdrawal of our troops begins, there will be no turning back.”

But Sen. John McCain of Arizona, a Republican presidential hopeful, said war critics were proposing a withdrawal “just at the moment we’re starting to turn things around in Iraq.”

Campaigning in Tallahassee, Fla., McCain said he had to get back to Washington, D.C., to vote against “the definite date for surrender act.”

He gave an upbeat assessment of events in Iraq since Bush announced an increase in troops last January, and said, “If we withdraw from Iraq prematurely, it would be the terrorists’ greatest triumph.”

The debate came on legislation that provides $122 billion to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as domestic priorities such relief to hurricane victims and payments to farmers.

A Senate version of the bill with final language can take place as early as Wednesday.

America, we get what we vote for, and being angry because President Bush didn’t support all their pet projects caused a lot of conservatives to stay home. I wonder if they think things are better now from their political point of view.

I feel like I’m living Groundhog Day and it’s in the 70s.

Tweet This Post

The small growth in Tony Snow’s lower abdomen turned out to be cancer that had metastasized from the original colon cancer to the liver.

The cancer, originally in his colon, has spread to his liver, said White House spokeswoman Dana Perino. Snow spoke to President Bush Tuesday morning, who told Snow he and first lady Laura Bush are praying for him.

Bush struck an optimistic tone about Snow’s mood, adding that he looked forward to the day when Snow returns to the White House.

“His attitude is one that he is not going to let this whip him,” Bush said during a brief statement to reporters in the Rose Garden. “My attitude is that we need to pray for him.”

Mr. Snow, who is married with 3 young children, is consulting with his doctors to determine the best course of treatment. He seems to be in good spirits, but it is not really known if he will be able to return to his job as Press Secretary.

Doctors determined that the growth was cancerous, and that his cancer had metastasized, or spread, to his liver, Perino said.

“It is hard news for us,” Perino who broke into tears during her announcement, said in briefing with White House reporters. “President and Mrs. Bush and the whole White House team has him in our prayers.”

Snow will go after the cancer as aggressively as he can, and he’s going to beat it again, Perino said, describing his attitude. She added that he also gave her some instructions to pass on to reporters: “Tell them not to bug me,” and he thanked reporters and others for the well wishes.

“He said he’s going to beat it again,” Perino said. “When I talked to him, he was in very good spirits.”

Please keep Mr. Snow and his family, along with Elizabeth Edwards and her family in your prayers. While you’re at it, remember all the millions of less famous people who are battling cancer and pray for them too.

Others blogging on this topic:
Betsy Newmark of Betsy’s Page
Sister Toldjah
Wizbang
Musing Minds

Tweet This Post

I appreciate the intentions of Arkansas Senator Mark Pryor, who wants to set a deadline for withdrawal of US forces from Iraq but he wants “only” the President, Congress and Iraqi government to know the date.

Let’s see: that’s 535 members of Congress, including one Muslim Representative from Minnesota, the Iraqi government who are iffy at best and the president, whom I trust we could trust with the secret.

So we actually have a handful of people we could trust with this information and the rest would be blabbermouths.

Sounds like a plan to me. 8-|

In one of the more unusual proposals to emerge in the Senate debate on Iraq withdrawal, Sen. Mark Pryor wants to keep any plans for bringing troops home a secret.

The Arkansas Democrat is a key holdout on his party’s proposal to approve $122 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan while setting a goal of March 31, 2008, for winding up military operations in Iraq. Unlike the plan’s Republican opponents, Pryor wants a withdrawal deadline of some kind. He just doesn’t want anyone outside the White House, Congress and the Iraqi government to know what it is.

“My strong preference would be to have a classified plan and a classified timetable that should be shared with Congress,” Pryor said yesterday. A public deadline would tip off the enemy, “who might just bide their time and wait for us to leave,” he said. “Then you’d have chaos and mayhem and instability.”

Pryor said a classified plan would be provided by the president, shepherded by Senate committees and ultimately shared with Congress and Iraqi leaders. He is confident that the plan would remain secret, because Congress is entrusted with secrets “all the time.”

I doubt the secret would stay secret longer than it takes for a member of Congress to call a major newspaper or some traitor in the Iraqi government to spread the word.

How many leaks of top secret information have we seen spread across the front pages of the nation’s major newspapers, enabling the terrorists to adjust for the new plan?

As I said, I appreciate his intentions, but I do think he’s being naive.

Tweet This Post

What does a child’s perspective teach us about the value of family?

I assure you, unless you turn from your sins and become as little children, you will never get into the Kingdom of Heaven. Therefore, anyone who becomes as humble as this little child is the greatest in the Kingdom of Heaven.

Matthew 18:3-4 NLT

Wise Childlikeness

Jesus used childlikeness to describe people who are real citizens of the Kingdom of Heave. This proverb begins with the act of repentance (“turn from your sins” and then describes a process with the word become. In fact, the word become is used twice to indicate that this is an ongoing experience of learning and growing.

So what did Jesus find so compelling about childlikeness? He specifically mentioned humility. How are children humble? They exhibit a trusting curiosity. They are full of questions for which they really want answers. Their questions don’t hide an unwillingness to believe. They want to learn! As a child trusts a loving parent, so a citizen in the Kingdom of Heaven deeply trusts the heavenly Father.

From the moment we turn from our sins, we begin the lifelong learning experience of growing in deep trust of our heavenly Father.

WISE WAYS The next chance you get, watch a child playing or talking with a loving parent. Use your observations to think about your relationship with your heavenly Father.

Lord, becoming like a trusting little child in your presence will develop a humility that pleases you. Help me become more childlike..

Tweet This Post

Australian David Hicks has entered a guilty plea to one of two counts against him, that of supporting a terrorist organization.

He was taken to court late at night and his civilian attorneys were tossed off the case by the presiding judge, one because she was not a serving member of the military and the other because he refused to sign form demanded by the court saying he would conform to the regulations governing proceedings.

David Hicks has pleaded guilty to one count of supporting a terrorist organisation.

He pleaded guilty to a late night specially convened military commission after an apparent deal was reached between his defence attorney and the prosecution.

Major Michael Mori, Hicks’s military lawyer, entered the plea to the charge of material support for terrorism, which was broken into two counts or specifications.

Major Mori said Hicks pled guilty on specification one, and not guilty on specification two.

Specification one of the charge detailed Hicks’s links to terrorist organisations and his activities in Afghanistan where he met Osama bin Laden and completed al-Qaeda training courses.

Specification two simply alleged that Hicks entered Afghanistan from about December 2000 to December 2001 to provide support for terrorism and that he did so in “the context of and was associated with an armed conflict namely al-Qaeda, or its associated forces against the United States or its coalition partners”.

The plea raises the prospect that he will soon return to Australia.

It is unclear what sentence he will have to serve. There was no mention of how long he will have to serve, or if he will serve it in Australia.

The Military Commission will reconvene tomorrow (Tuesday) to enter a formal verdict.

Hicks was asked to stand when he entered his guilty plea. He showed little emotion, but at the end of the hearing he turned around and said to one of his supporters: “Good to see, mate.”

His father is reported to have left Guantanamo Bay before he entered the plea. Terry Hicks was told there was a late night hearing but declined to attend.

Maybe we’ll hear what his sentence is and where it will be served, but if he pled guilty to supporting Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and trained with them I would consider him to be a terrorist.

Military justice is not like civilian justice and we must all remember that. We must also remember he pled guilty to one charge and that charge is serious.

Tweet This Post

According to this report:

Monica Goodling, a senior Justice Department official involved in the firings of federal prosecutors, will refuse to answer questions at upcoming Senate hearings, citing Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination, her lawyer said Monday.

“The potential for legal jeopardy for Ms. Goodling from even her most truthful and accurate testimony under these circumstances is very real,” said the lawyer, John Dowd.

“One need look no further than the recent circumstances and proceedings involving Lewis Libby,” he said, a reference to the recent conviction of Vice President Dick Cheney’s former chief of staff in the CIA leak case.

The White House, meanwhile, continued to stand by Attorney General Alberto Gonzales despite new calls over the weekend for his resignation and documents that indicate he may have been more involved in the dismissals than he has previously acknowledged.

Democrats have accused the Justice Department and the White House of purging the prosecutors for political reasons. The Bush administration maintains the firings were not improper because U.S. attorneys are political appointees.

…

There have been questions about whether Goodling and others misinformed Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty about the firings just before he testified before the Senate committee in February.

Dowd said that since then a senior Justice Department official had privately told a member of the Senate committee that he was misled by Goodling and others before testifying.

Gonzales’ truthfulness about the firings of seven prosecutors on Dec. 7 and another one months earlier also have been questioned. On March 13 at a news conference, Gonzales denied that he participated in discussions or saw any documents about the firings, despite documents that show he attended a Nov. 27 meeting with senior aides on the topic, where he approved a detailed plan to carry out the dismissals.

Goodling was one of five senior Justice Department aides who met with Gonzales for that Nov. 27 discussion. Department documents released Friday to Capitol Hill show she attended multiple meetings about the dismissals for months.

It sounds like she got good legal advice and if a case is to be built to prosecute her it will have to be done the old-fashioned way.

I just wish this issue would go away. There was no crime committed in firing the US Attorneys. It is perfectly legal for any administration to fire any political appointee at any time for any or no reason.

Tweet This Post

Why would a sitting United States Senator feel the need to carry a loaded pistol and two full magazines with him to work?

WASHINGTON — U.S. Capitol Police arrested a top aide to Sen. Jim Webb on Monday after he tried to enter a Senate office building carrying a loaded pistol and two fully loaded magazines that belonged to the senator.

Phillip Thompson sent a bag through the X-ray machine at Russell Senate Office Building, where Webb’s office is located. It detected the weapon and Capitol Police say they determined that Thompson didn’t have a license to carry the gun in Washington, D.C. Thompson was arrested and charged with carrying a pistol without a license and possession of an unregistered firearm and unregistered ammunition.

A senior Democratic aide said Webb gave the bag that contained the gun to Thompson when the aide drove the senator to the airport. Thompson said he forgot it was in the bag when he took it into the office building.

“To our knowledge, this incident was an oversight by the senator’s aide Phillip Thompson is a former Marine, a long-term friend and trusted employee of the senator. We are still awaiting facts,” Webb Communications Director Jessica Smith said in a statement.

My uncle is also a former Marine and he doesn’t carry a fully loaded weapon with two full magazines besides.

I sometimes enjoy going to the shooting range just for fun, but my pistol is unloaded and locked while on the way to and from the range and I don’t keep a full clip on me all the time either.

There are capitol police and so many other levels of security at the Capitol I just wonder why anyone would think he needs to be that heavily armed.

He is legal in Virginia (the Senator, that is) but it is illegal to carry a weapon in Washington D.C.

It will be interesting to hear the explanation of why a senator thinks he should be carrying or having loaded weapons in his possession or near his person while serving in the US Senate building.

Tweet This Post

My pear tree is in full bloom.

This is the top part of my garden at the edge of the driveway. I couldn’t get the view from the bottom because the sun would have been in my face instead of at my back.

The winter flowers are still in bloom, but alas, the yard man, a full-blooded American, will change them out in a couple of weeks to petunias or something. And, no, that’s not a snake in the flowers. It’s a soaker hose.

Kind of a shot of the freshly cut grass in my yard. You can see the tree in my neighbor’s yard just beginning to bloom.

Yep, pretty soon the sprinklers will be turned on and the water bill will go up. I wonder if I can buy some kind of offsets for that.

I hope spring gets to you soon too if it hasn’t already. Everyone should have green cars and the sneezes.

Tweet This Post

From this report:

LONDON — Iran said Monday it was interrogating 15 detained British sailors and marines to determine whether they intentionally entered Iranian waters — an indication the country might be seeking a way out of the confrontation with Britain.

Britain denies its personnel had left Iraqi territory when they were captured and detained by Iran — a contention backed by Iraq’s foreign minister, who called on Iran to release the group.

In comments read out by a newscaster, Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Mehzi Mostafavi did not say what Iran plans to do with the British sailors, but he said they were being interrogated.

“It should become clear whether their entry (into Iran) was intentional or unintentional. After that is clarified, the necessary decision will be made,” Mostafavi said.

Britain and the United States have said the sailors and marines were intercepted Friday just after they completed a search of a civilian vessel in the Iraqi part of the Shatt al-Arab waterway leading to the Persian Gulf, where the border with Iran has historically been disputed.

Separately, Iran’s ambassador to Iraq, Hassan Kazemi Qomi, told The Associated Press in a telephone interview from Baghdad that there was no connection between the seizures of the 15 and any other issues between the West and Iran. He, like Mostafavi, denied any aim for a prisoner swap. [And if you believe that I have a bridge to sell you in the middle of the desert in Arizona. Ed.]

“They entered Iranian territorial waters and were arrested and are undergoing the process of investigation and interrogation. It has nothing to do with other issues,” he said.

The United States holds at least five Iranians taken captive in Iraq, claiming they part of an Iranian Revolutionary Guard force that provides funds, weapons and training to Shiite militias in Iraq.

The question of where exactly the 15 Britons were when detained has proved impossible to confirm independently, with Britain asserting they were in Iraqi waters but refusing to release precise geographical data and Iran asserting the opposite.

British Prime Minister Tony Blair’s office sought to play down fears that the incident would deepen tensions with Iran, which threatened to charge the 15 with illegally entering its territory.

The seizure of the British service personnel has deepened troubles between Iran and the West, which is concerned about Iran’s nuclear program and accused the country of interfering with the U.S.-led war in Iraq.

Blair’s spokesman said he intended to treat the seizure as a distinct issue. “This is a matter that should be dealt with on its own merits,” he said.

Iran rejected British requests to visit the group.

Let us pray that these men and woman return safely very soon.

Tweet This Post