in the context Obama's remarks, consider the following. Only a short lead-in of the summaries are quoted for brevity, please follow the links to see the full articles

Posts Tagged ‘Immediate Reaction Force’ - Media Unconcerned with Real Torturers Still at Gitmo
May 23, 2009, Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting [FAIR]
http://www.fair.org/blog/tag/immediate-reaction-f...
-
Amy Goodman recently interviewed independent journalist Jeremy Scahill on her Democracy Now! show (5/19/09) regarding the fact that, in Scahill's words, "while much of the focus has been on the tactical use of torture at Guantánamo, almost no attention had been paid to a parallel force" known as the Immediate Reaction Force.
-

Torture Continues at Guantánamo Bay
Pulse Media, "ludek", May 20, 2009
http://pulsemedia.org/2009/05/20/torture-continue...
-
... based on new evidence obtained by the Spanish court which initiated criminal proceedings against John Yoo, Jay Bybee, David Addington, Alberto Gonzales, William Haynes and Douglas Feith several weeks ago, prisoners speak of routine terror which include breaking bones, gouging eyes, squeezing testicles, and “dousing” them with chemicals. The repression is said to have only intensified since Obama got into office, who reinstated the use of ‘military commissions‘ last week, deemed unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court.
-

Jeremy Scahill: “Little Known Military Thug Squad Still Brutalizing Prisoners at Gitmo Under Obama”
May 19, 2009, Democracy Now!
http://www.democracynow.org/2009/5/19/jeremy_scah...
-
Jeremy Scahill reports the Obama administration is continuing to use a notorious military police unit at Guantanamo that regularly brutalizes unarmed prisoners, including gang-beating them, breaking their bones, gouging their eyes and dousing them with chemicals. This force, officially known as the Immediate Reaction Force, has been labeled the “Extreme Repression Force” by Guantanamo prisoners, and human rights lawyers call their actions illegal.
-

Little Known Military Thug Squad Still Brutalizing Prisoners at Gitmo Under Obama
May 15, 2009, Jeremy Scahill, AlterNet
http://www.alternet.org/rights/140022/little_know...
-
The 'Black Shirts' of Guantanamo routinely terrorize prisoners, breaking bones, gouging eyes, squeezing testicles, and 'dousing' them with chemicals.
-

(Sleep Deprivation) Tactic Used After It Was Banned
Center for the Study of Human Rights in the Americas
August 8, 2008, Josh White, Washington Post
http://humanrights.ucdavis.edu/projects/the-guant...
-
At least 17 detainees held at Guantanamo Bay were subjected to a program that moved them repeatedly from cell to cell to cause sleep deprivation and disorientation as punishment and to soften detainees for subsequent interrogation, according to U.S. military documents.
-
download Senate Armed Services Committee report
http://armed-services.senate.gov/Publications/Det...

---
SEE MORE on this topic at We Surround Them blog "Obama's 'Moral High Ground'" at
http://wesurroundthemusa.ning.com/profiles/blogs/...
----

note the following summary of Obama's moral positions as stated in his National Security speech

Obama’s Remarks on National Security
National Archives, May 21, 2009
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/white-house-watc...
--
"our most fundamental values ... liberty and justice in this country, and a light that shines for all who seek freedom, fairness, equality, and dignity around the world"

"where terrorists offer only the injustice of disorder and destruction, America must demonstrate that our values and our institutions are more resilient than a hateful ideology"

"brutal methods ... did not advance our war and counterterrorism efforts -- they undermined them"

"I can ... say without exception or equivocation that we do not torture"

"ultimately we have held fast to the principles that have been the source of our strength and a beacon to the world"
--

I assert that the materials I am about to present far depict a reality that provides stark contrast. Assuming he is sincere, what changes in policy and practice will be required to resolve these inconsistencies?

... with respect to our stance and conduct as a nation?
... with respect to the conduct of every individual we empower to wield force over others?
... with respect to the human, personal experience of everyone who either wields, is subjected to, or bears witness to that force?

surely we have a long way to go before his characterization "beacon to the world" has legitimacy. Whatever promise we might offer the world and its people, it is overshadowed by our clear lack of scruples

... our relationship to the earth and it's ecosystems is yet another issue, but I'll leave that to another time

check out these inspirational videos ...

Adam Kokesh's speech (Revolution March)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yuBv6WhejGQ

Red Skelton Pledge Story
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ioIkqKVztYg

John Wayne "America Why I Love Her"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sekHkR5BKOY

John Wayne's Message to Young Americans
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TqC_iWJCOL8

thanks to Madison at The Patriotic Resistance (ResistNet) for passing this information around!
http://www.resistnet.com/forum/topics/amazing-spe...

more media coverage on Shariah and the "west":

A Bishop Pleads for Islamic Law [excerpted]
February 12, 2008, Mathieu von Rohr, Spiegel.net GmbH
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,...
--
With his plea for recognition of the Muslim legal system in Britain, the archbishop of Canterbury has outraged his people. In doing so, he has driven a wedge into the center of a passionate national debate.

... the archbishop said that it seemed "unavoidable" to him and that it could help bring about a better degree of social cohesion in the country. He sees "a bit of danger" in the fact that, in principle, there is only one set of laws that applies to everyone, and he believes that laws should not "(square) up with people's religious consciences." He stressed that, of course, "nobody in their right mind would want to see in this country the kind of inhumanity that has sometimes been associated with the practice of the law in some Islamic states," such as the stoning of adulterers and cutting off the hands of thieves.

The archbishop's ideas are not shared by many. "The prime minister believes British law should apply in this country, based on British values," the spokesperson for Prime Minister Gordon Brown coolly commented. Culture Secretary Andy Burnham labeled it "a recipe for disaster." Meanwhile, prominent Muslims said the comments would do little more than cause confusion.
--

also see the associated opinion piece:

Shariah Is for Everyone!
February 12, 2008, Henryk M. Broder, Spiegel.net GmbH
http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518...

should the US continue in it's direction to ratify and make binding UN resolutions, we embark on yet another slippery slope:

EDITORIAL: The U.N. tackles religion
Resolution could provide justification for oppression
March 27, 2009, The Washington Times
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/mar/27/t...
--
Will the United Nations soon be issuing fatwas? Today the U.N. Human Rights Council is expected to vote on a resolution introduced by Pakistan on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference to combat defamation of religion, in particular Islam. This resolution is part of an effort begun in 1999 to establish an international framework that would in practice legitimize religious oppression. It is an assault on the rights of the individual and freedom of conscience.

The language of the resolution seems benign enough, condemning stereotyping, inflammatory statements and so forth. But very troubling is the elasticity of the term "defamation." It is used to silence social critics and other liberal voices in countries where the law is captive of the official religion. "Anti-blasphemy" statutes in Shariah-based legal systems squelch debate over the rights of women, the right to free speech and expression, privacy, criminal justice and a variety of other off-limits issues. This U.N. resolution would give further international sanction to every authoritarian regime that hides its oppression behind the veil of faith.

The OIC also plans to introduce binding resolutions that will require states to punish religious defamers. In practice this could target almost anyone with an opinion. Recent experience has shown that, particularly in the Muslim world, almost any comment can be tarred as defamatory and incite fatal violence. Publication of caricatures of Mohammed in the Danish Jyllands-Poste in 2005 sparked riots. Salman Rushdie was threatened with death for discussing irregularities in the history of the Koran in his novel . There were even protests in 1963 when U.S. Ambassador to India John Kenneth Galbraith named his family cat "Ahmed," one of the forms of the name "Mohammed."

It is fully appropriate for the public, the media, and even in some cases public officials to speak out if they feel speech or actions defame faith. But the OIC wants to establish an international framework for punitive government action against even legitimate criticism of religion. This is a dangerous evolution of international law wholly at odds with the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which enshrined the individual's "right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion" including "freedom to change his religion or belief" and to publicly "manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance." However according to the OIC's 1990 Cairo Declaration, any such rights are ultimately "subject to the Islamic Shariah."

Islam is the only religion mentioned in the OIC resolution, and can profitably be examined under the proposal's criteria. The resolution decries "negative stereotyping and defamation of religions." But the Koran and other Muslim holy works are rife with defamatory comments about Jews, Christians, pagans and other "apes and swine." The resolution deplores "all acts of psychological and physical violence and assaults."

But missionaries and converts are subjected to death sentences in many Shariah-based legal systems. The resolution condemns the type of "defamation of religion and incitement to religious hatred." But this would be familiar to anyone in the region when the talk turns to Israel, India or the West. By all means, let us apply these standards to some of the member states of the OIC and make an honest accounting of the true sources of intolerance.
--

media coverage, threat of crucifixion under Shariah law:

'I faced crucifixion' claims Scot freed from Saudi jail
September 7, 2003, News Scotsman
--
SANDY Mitchell, the Scot placed under sentence of death in Saudi Arabia, has revealed he was due to be executed by crucifixion, writes Christopher Claire.

Mitchell said he was told by his Saudi lawyer that the sentence called for the victim’s head to be "partially" severed and the body fixed to an X-shaped cross in public view for three days.

Public beheadings are routine in Saudi Arabia, but crucifixion is reserved as an exemplary punishment under sharia (Islamic) law for crimes of the utmost severity. Two highway robbers have been executed in this way in the past 20 years.

Mitchell was one of six Britons arrested in Riyadh after a series of bomb attacks on westerners three years ago. They were set free from captivity after lobbying by the British government and the Prince of Wales.

Mitchell, 44, said yesterday that he was tortured into confessing crimes that he did not commit. He was arrested in 2000 after Christopher Rodway, a British engineer, had been killed in the first attack and his wife injured.

Mitchell said he was made to stand for nine days with his hands chained above his head and prevented from sleeping.

He added that each night he was tethered hand and foot and suspended with a metal bar behind his legs to expose his buttocks and the soles of his feet. He also claimed he was beaten with an axe handle until he gave the answers his jailers were looking for.

He said: "It went on and on. I used to consider myself a strong person but everybody has their breaking point. I was alone and in pain and if it wasn’t me being beaten it was others and I could hear their screams."

He eventually confessed to being part of a bomb plot masterminded by the British embassy. "It was a ridiculous story, but that was what they wanted," he said.

The bombings are believed to have been the work of Saudi dissidents, but the local authorities had insisted they were part of a turf war between gangs of bootleggers. Alcohol is strictly forbidden in Saudi Arabia, but private bars in western compounds were common. The Saudi police had traditionally turned a blind eye to drinking by westerners as long as it was done behind closed doors.

Mitchell said: "The turf war did not exist. That was made up by the Saudi secret police to justify their own existence."

He was locked away in solitary confinement for almost a year before he saw a lawyer.

When he eventually was given access to a legal representative he discovered he had already been sentenced to death without a trial. No evidence other than his confession was ever brought forward. About 45 people were executed in Saudi Arabia last year and 75 in 2001.

Mitchell said his Saudi lawyer had told him he had been singled out for crucifixion - the ultimate punishment allowed under sharia law. Mitchell said: "I used to think. you can take my head but you can’t take my soul."

He added that a police captain had told him that he would go "insane" if he did not confess.
--

Fox News report:

Islamic Law's Influence in America a Growing Concern
March 29, 2009, David Lewkowict , Fox News
--
As America's Muslim population grows, so too does the influence of Islamic law, or Shariah, in daily life in the U.S.

"Shariah Law is the totality of the Muslim's obligation," said Abdullahi An-Na'im, a professor of law at Emory University in Atlanta. According to An-Na'im, Shariah is similar to Jewish Talmudic Law or Catholic Canon Law in that it guides an adherent's moral conduct.

"As a citizen, I am a subject of the United States," An-Na'im said. "I owe allegiance to the United States, to the Constitution of the United States. That is not inconsistent with observing a religious code in terms of my own personal behavior."

While many view this as a testament to the "great American melting pot," others see Islamic law's growing influence as a threat. Shariah's critics point to cases such as the airport in Minneapolis, where some Shariah-adherent taxi drivers made headlines in 2006 for refusing to pick up passengers they suspected of carrying liquor. The drivers' aversion to alcohol stemmed from a verse in the Qur'an that describes "intoxicants and gambling" as "an abomination of Satan's handiwork."

Last year, a Tyson Foods plant in Shelbyville, Tenn. replaced its traditional Labor Day holiday with paid time off on Eid al-Fitr, the Muslim festival — marking the end of fasting during Ramadan. A labor union had requested the change on behalf of hundreds of Muslim employees— many of them were immigrants from Somalia.

But public outcry over the decision to dismiss Labor Day quickly prompted the company and union to negotiate a new contract that makes accommodations for both holidays.

In 2007, the University of Michigan installed ritual foot baths to accommodate Islamic tradition. "These things are beginning to percolate up as Shariah-adherent Muslims insist that their preferences and practices be accommodated by the rest of the population," said Frank Gaffney, founder and president of the Center for Security Policy — a Washington think tank.

Gaffney predicted the U.S. could soon face problems similar to some Western European countries, where the religious values of Muslim immigrants sometimes clash with their highly secular host cultures.

But Professor An-Na'im believes it will be different in America. "The variety of American secularism — which is much more receptive of public displays of religion and a public role for religion — is, in fact, more conducive for Muslims to be citizens and to be comfortable with their religious values and citizenship than European countries," An-Na'im said.
--

Islamic Shariah versus U.S. Constitutional Law - contrasts of freedoms of speech and religion:

Shariah is fundamentally incompatible with the Bill of Rights, and Islam as a state religion is diametrically opposed to the notion of liberty expressed in the Declaration of Independence

U.S. under the the Constitution

the Declaration of Independence] asserts as 'self evident fact' that God has endowed Man with the right to self-government, and that the purpose of government is to safeguard liberty. Due in no small measure to the separation of church and state, religious freedom is a hallmark of America. Renouncement of a previously held religion; e.g. a Muslim renouncing Islam, or anyone criticizing or proselytizing for any religion is an exercise of their rights to freedom of religion and freedom of speech under the Constitution. Irish Quakers, Jews, Roman Catholics, Huguenots (French Protestants), Puritans, German Pietists and others fleeing religious persecution in Europe settled in the American Colonies. All religions are free to flourish without governmental interference and immigration for both political and religious reasons continues to the present day.

Islam under Shariah

Islam maintains that Man has no right to self-government since Islam, as a religion which encompasses state functions, has been ordained "for all of mankind". The purpose of government is to safeguard and [b]enforce[/b] the practice of Islam, or exact penalties from non-Muslims. Islam aspires to a theocracy; integrating both church [Islam] and state. Apostasy towards Islam and of other faiths are capital offenses under Shariah. During several periods in history the presence of religions other than Islam, Judaism and monotheistic Christianity was not tolerated in Muslim lands, and practitioners of Hinduism and other faiths were executed if they failed to renounce their faith. In Muslim dominated countries expansion of non-Muslim faiths is sharply curtailed, with severe restrictions placed on new construction of places of worship, and exposing religious icons, artifacts and other demonstrations of faith to the general public. One never hears of anyone relocating to an Islamic republic to enjoy it's political and religious tolerance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostasy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proselytism]proselyt...

also see Wiki on Democracy and Human Rights, Freedom of Speech, and status of Women in Islam
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shariah#Democracy_an...

jenco said "I am nauseated by the fact that O bowed down to the Saudi King."

my understanding is that adherents to Islam have as their most detestable act worship of anything or anyone other than God (Allah). Although reverence is shown to Mohamed, his family, and the early rulers (caliphs), all would be horrified at any "obeisance" such as what Obama performed for the Saudi King. This shows his lack of understanding of the culture. I'm sure that while outwardly awkward for the Saudi observers, they were not amused. They would regard him as an unbeliever (infidel), as well as see his deference to them as the act of a fool. Whatever status he hoped to gain with that gesture, he blew it.

thanks to Roger and Karen, for this very timely story!

Rahm Emanuel said "You never want a serious crisis to go to waste, and what I mean by that is an opportunity to do things that you didn't think you could do before". The Obama/Pelosi/Reid regime and their media sycophants continue to fabricate urgency out of thin air. As in England, fear is used to incrementally erode our rights, and if we are not vigilant we will face the same situation Roger and Karen have related so well.

FOX News Reports On The Myth Of "90 percent"
http://www.nraila.org/legislation/read.aspx?id=47...
--
In a story that looks at the reality of firearms seized from Mexican drug cartels, Fox News has found that the truth does not match the rhetoric of anti-gun politicians and journalists.

In a story entitled "The Myth of 90 Percent: Only a Small Fraction of Guns in Mexico Come From U.S." Fox reporters William La Jeunesse and Maxim Lott found that the 90% number far overstates the number of U.S. origin guns that are in the hands of the cartels. In fact, the story reports that the number is actually closer to 17%.

NRA-ILA Executive Director Chris Cox, quoted in the story said "Reporter after politician after news anchor just disregards the truth on this. The numbers are intentionally used to weaken the Second Amendment."
--

read the entire FoxNews original article:

The Myth of 90 Percent: Only a Small Fraction of Guns in Mexico Come From U.S.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/04/02/myth-p...

for more news on threats to our second amendment right, see the National Rifle Association's Legislative Alerts page
http://www.nra.org/Stories.aspx?sid=13