More on the Bernier resignation ..

Tory Blues
MediaScout - Daniel Casey

In the Bernier affair, Canada has finally produced a government scandal worthy of tabloidization. We never get the sexy stuff up here, after all. Yet today, one gets the distinct impression that the press corps has finally found what they were looking for all this time, but could not articulate: That the deepening mess over the resignation of Foreign Affairs Minister Maxime Bernier reveals that the Conservative government doesn’t know what it is doing, that Harper’s tightly controlled cabinet ministers are mostly out of their depth. Bernier’s casual attitude toward confidential documents raised eyebrows long ago, as even minor ministries, much less Foreign Affairs, keep close track of their papers. At the heart of the issue is Harper’s own judgment in appointing the inexperienced Bernier in the first place, anticipating a huge controversy over deploying the Quebec-based Royal 22^nd Regiment to Afghanistan. Harper’s handling of the missing documents and the security concerns over Bernier’s girlfriend, Julie Couillard (break-ins! bikers! bugged beds!), are also raising eyebrows and causing the government to get pummeled in Question Period. What’s more, the prime ministerial lockdown on communications only works if it works, yet after so much ministerial muzzling and emphasis on message discipline, the government has been out-spun and out-hustled by the wily Couillard—a communicator so deft and well-spoken as to have been approached by the Conservatives to actually run for Parliament (or so she claims).

The National’s At Issue panel convened on an emergency basis, peppering its hotstove with suggestions that the Ottawa press corps knew for some time that something was up. Peter Mansbridge let slip that sources in the PMO were aware of a big problem with Bernier as long ago as January, while Chantal Hébert revealed that Couillard was trying to sell her story (for a hefty sum) ten days ago, saying that she had evidence that Bernier was incompetent. For the moment, a major Cabinet shuffle is in the making, with Industry Minister Jim Prentice possibly moving up to Finance and David Emerson likely to stay in the Foreign Affairs portfolio he took over temporarily this week. Bernier and the lackluster Helena Guergis will be sent out of Cabinet, and star backbenchers James Moore, Gerald Keddy, and Rod Bruinooge are moving on up to a deluxe ministerial position. The analyses of Gilles Toupin and Vincent Marissal in La Presse today are invaluable in understanding Harper’s delicate approach to his Quebec ministers, upon whom he will rely to help win him a majority but who come from rival wings of the province’s small-c conservative bleue tendency.

—————————————————————–
THE LEADS:
THE NATIONAL: “The Fallout: What she’s alleging has the government under fire”
CTV NEWS: “Opposition demands answers on Bernier files”
GLOBE AND MAIL: “Five-week gap fuels outrage”
TORONTO STAR: “Bernier storm escalates”
NATIONAL POST: “Bernier probe demanded”
LA PRESSE: “Opposition wants to hear from Bernier”
OTTAWA CITIZEN: “Bernier scandal dogs PM overseas”

THE STRAIGHT GOODS:
Information requests are picking up and government response times are slowing down, the federal information commissioner reports. The Burmese junta waits until UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon is out of the country to formally extend the house arrest of opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi. A British Columbia judge grants a far-reaching legal reprieve to a Vancouver safe-injection site.
—————————————————————–

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION, BUT AT WHAT PACE?
The Citizen fronts, while the Star and the Post go inside with a story about documents and government secrecy. This one doesn’t involve low-cut dresses or bugged bedrooms, but it has meaningful implications for what stories you read in the paper and how they are reported. Federal Information Commissioner Robert Marleau, whose office oversees the Access to Information Act, made his annual report to Parliament yesterday and testified that complaints about requests for information are skyrocketing as delays grow longer and longer. While the government is generally required by the Act to release information within thirty days of receiving a request, officials can delay the release of official documents under various conditions, typically citing national security or confidentiality concerns. Marleau cites the “attitude” of officials towards Access to Information requests as one culprit, and the Star is more than happy to extend his appropriately circumspect comments with those of researchers and lawyers whose criticism of the Conservative government’s attitude towards government secrecy is less restrained. Ottawa lawyer Michael Drapeau says the system is “paralyzed for all intents and purposes,” and blames the controlling attitude of the Privy Council Office, the prime minister’s department, for the delays.

One of the Information Commissioner’s most significant responsibilities is acting as a referee and ombudsman for complaints lodged by the public about specific requests to government ministries. Marleau reported that more than one hundred complaints were received about requests to the departments of National Defence and Foreign Affairs over the treatment of Afghan prisoners; while the requests were denied on security grounds, a lawsuit against the government by the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association forced the government to enter the documents into evidence (in effect, releasing them) in January. While Chief of Defence Staff Rick Hillier had been reviewing requests about the possible use of torture since March, 2007, the papers showed that military officials knew since June of that year that there was a possibility prisoners transferred to the Afghan government might be tortured. Marleau defended his decision to support Defence and Foreign Affairs, saying that evidence of mistreatment of prisoners could have “put the defence of Canada or Canada’s allies at risk,” and could have harmed relations with foreign countries.

CTV.ca

Maxime Bernier resigns as foreign affairs minister
CTV.ca, Canada - 27 May 2008
Maxime Bernier has resigned as foreign affairs minister, after he acknowledged leaving sensitive government documents out in the open -- apparently at his ...

CBC.ca

Opposition demands more answers in Bernier affair CBC.ca, Canada - 6 hours ago Maxime Bernier arrives to be sworn in at Rideau Hall in August. He is accompanied by Julie Co

CL psych's timely reminder about bipolar diagnosis and a SOLUTION

Bipolar Overawareness Week Starts on Monday

It appears that the massive bipolar awareness campaigns from NAMI and various drug companies have paid off big time. The conclusions of a new study by Mark Zimmerman and colleagues in the Journal of Clinical Psychiatry state, in part:

However, our results suggest that overdiagnosis of bipolar disorder is as much, if not more, of a problem than underdiagnosis.

Say what? Well, if you've been following the mental health world, you may have noted that bipolar disorder is the new plague -- it is apparently spreading like wildfire. David Healy wrote an excellent article in PLoS Medicine in 2006 which has been validated by Zimmerman et al.'s latest study. Healy wrote in part:

One of the most famous direct-to-consumer television adverts for a drug begins with a vibrant woman dancing late into the night. A background voice says, “Your doctor probably never sees you when you feel like this.” The advert cuts to a shrunken and glum figure, and the voiceover now says, “This is who your doctor usually sees.” Cutting again to the woman, in active shopping mode, clutching bags with the latest brand names, we hear: “That's why so many people with bipolar disorder are being treated for depression and not getting any better—because depression is only half the story.” We see the woman again depressed, looking at bills that have arrived in the post before switching to seeing her again energetically painting her apartment. “That fast- talking, energetic, quick tempered, overdoing it, up-all-night you,” says the voiceover, “probably never shows up at the doctor's office, right?”

No drugs are mentioned. But viewers are encouraged to log onto www.bipolarawareness.com, which takes them to a Web site called “Bipolar Help Center,” sponsored by Lilly Pharmaceuticals, the makers of olanzapine (Zyprexa). The Web site contains a “mood disorder questionnaire” (http:/​/​www.bipolarhelpcenter.com/​resources/​mdq.jsp). In the television advert, we see our heroine logging onto www.bipolarawareness.com and finding this questionnaire. The voice encourages the viewer to follow her example: “Take the test you can take to your doctor, it can change your life….getting a correct diagnosis is the first step in treating bipolar disorder. Help your doctor to help you.”

This advert markets bipolar disorder. The advert can be read as a genuine attempt to alert people who may be suffering from one of the most debilitating and serious psychiatric diseases—manic-depressive illness. Alternatively, the advert can be read as an example of what has been termed disease mongering. Whichever it is, it will reach beyond those suffering from a mood disorder to others who will as a consequence be more likely to see aspects of their personal experiences in a new way that will lead to medical consultations and in a way that will shape the outcome of those consultations. Adverts that encourage “mood watching” risk transforming variations from an emotional even keel into potential indicators of latent or actual bipolar disorder. This advert appeared in 2002 shortly after Lilly's antipsychotic olanzapine had received a license for treating mania. The company was also running trials aimed at establishing olanzapine as a “mood stabilizer,” one of which was recently published.

Here's part of an Abilify for bipolar ad...




Back to the Zimmerman study. The researchers interviewed 700 patients with the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV (SCID). Keep in mind that the SCID is not a conservative measure. When patients receive an unstructured interview, they tend to receive fewer diagnoses than when they are interviewed with the SCID, which makes sense because the SCID sticks to asking detailed questions about DSM-IV symptoms, whereas most interviews ask questions about a variety of topics, and don't go into nearly as much depth regarding one's DSM-specific symptoms.

These 700 patients were also asked if they had been diagnosed as bipolar by a healthcare professional. 145 of the 700 patients included in the study indicated they had been diagnosed as bipolar. Then it gets interesting...

Of the 145 patients diagnosed as bipolar prior to being interviewed for the present study, only 63 (43.4%) were labeled as having bipolar disorder according to the SCID. Remember, the SCID tends to generate more diagnoses than a typical clinical interview, so it's not like the SCID is generally insensitive to picking up on DSM-IV disorders. The researchers even took the liberty of diagnosing many patients who did not officially meet bipolar I or bipolar II diagnostic standards as having bipolar NOS (not otherwise specified); about 25% of those diagnosed with bipolar according to the SCID were labeled as having bipolar NOS. In other words, the authors of the study went out of their way to be quite inclusive, to label some cases that did not quite meet DSM-IV criteria for bipolar as bipolar NOS. So one cannot reasonably state that they were being too restrictive with how they made their bipolar diagnoses.

To put it straight: Over half of the patients coming into the study with a bipolar diagnosis were not labeled as bipolar in the present study when given a thorough diagnostic interview.

Naysayers. Of course, the "bipolar spectrum" club will unite to say that this article is junky. I read an email from a psychiatrist who stated that the study was flawed because the DSM-IV model of diagnosing bipolar is wrong; it is too restrictive. But since the current researchers went past official DSM-IV criteria to make some of their bipolar diagnoses, I'm not sure that is a very valid concern. But similar points will be raised over and over again. Those in favor of expanding the boundaries of bipolar disorder will insist that all this study showed was that the DSM needs change; it needs to broaden its definition of bipolar disorder. Those who were diagnosed as having bipolar disorder but were not labeled as such according to a thorough interview based on the DSM -- those people had "subthreshold" bipolar disorder, which will be labeled as an "underdiagnosed and undertreated" condition that needs to be remedied through more Awareness Days and the like. Doubt me? A group of researchers recently stated that "subthreshold bipolar disorder" was not receiving the treatment it needed, a claim they later retracted when it was pointed out that there was not a single shred of evidence to suggest that such a "condition" received any benefit from treatment with mood stabilizers or antipsychotics.

Why did bipolar become so hip? Mark Zimmerman, lead author of the present study is no pharma hater. By that, I'm not suggesting that he's in bed with pharma either; I'm just saying that he has no axe to grind. So how did he interpret his team's findings?

The impact of marketing efforts and publicity probably also plays a role. Direct-to-consumer advertisements that refer individuals to screening questionnaires can result in patients suggesting to their treaters that they have bipolar disorder. We have seen evidence of this in our practice...

We hypothesize that the increased availability of medications that have been approved for the treatment of bipolar disorder might be influencing clinicians who are unsure whether or not a patient has bipolar disorder or borderline personality disorder to err on the side of diagnosing the disorder that is medication responsive. The bias is reinforced by the marketing message of pharmaceutical companies to physicians that has emphasized the literature on the delayed recognition and underrecognition of bipolar disorder, and may be sensitizing clinicians to avoid missing the diagnosis of bipolar disorder. The campaign against underrecognition, which is also illustrated in the titles of published articles in peer-reviewed journals, has probably resulted in some anxious, agitated, and/or irritable depressed patients who complain of insomnia and "racing thoughts" being misdiagnosed with bipolar disorder.

News flash, folks. Remember, documents seem to indicate that Lilly was pushing Zyprexa in primary care to treat watered down cases of... bipolar disorder. Cases that would not pass DSM-IV muster, but, if you stretched the diagnostic boundaries quite a bit, BAM, you've got bipolar disorder.

The Last Psychiatrist has also been duly keeping tabs on the bipolar epidemic (1, 2, 3) and I recommend reading his posts on the topic. To quote from one of them:

Yes, but even though the world agrees the symptoms are the same, the consequences of each label is very different, right? The epidemiology, the prognosis-- the meds?

But the real difference is the societal implications. Getting a diagnosis changes the way you relate to the world, and the world relates to you. The label changes your identity and how you think.

Don't agree? Try killing someone and using "pervasive ADHD" as a defense. Get it?

We pretend that psychiatry is an emerging science, and hide behind a feigned ignorance ("we don't know everything, but we're making progress!") And so no one has to take responsibility, or even admit, that psychiatry is changing the evolution of humanity, right in front of our eyes, with nothing more than words.

Right. We relabel conditions and act as if we just figured out the laws of relativity. It's not ADHD or conduct disorder or borderline personality or anger management issues or just, life sucks for you right now and you're having a difficult time adjusting to life's difficulties -- it's... bipolar disorder! Look at the progress we've made! But where is the data showing that these people who are being newly christened as bipolar are actually doing any better due to their new label and their new course of treatment? Doesn't giving someone a bipolar label impact that person? I'd probably feel differently about life if a medical authority labeled me as bipolar.

So I propose that we start a Bipolar Overawareness Week, complete with a website linking to a questionnaire that makes statements like:

• Do you know that your symptoms are probably not indicative of bipolar disorder?
• Ask your doctor if you've been misdiagnosed with bipolar.
• Find out if you are unnecessarily taking Zyprexa today.
  

Let's see if we can get the National Alliance for the Mentally Ill on board. Surely they want to make sure that patients receive the proper diagnosis. Surely drug companies, with their interest in good science and good medical practice, want to help out as well, since they want to make sure that their drugs are prescribed properly.

Daniel Goldberg said...

Good post. The jargon term for "disease mongering" is medicalization, which is such a large and influential area of study that it has even become a subdiscipline ("medicalization studies").

Peter Conrad, a sociologist at Brandeis, studied under Irving Zola, who was a pioneer in medicalization studies, and has a new book out on medicalization. Interestingly, he emphasizes that chalking medicalization up to so-called "medical imperialism" is short-sighted, because often times patients and advocates are at the forefront of urging medicalization (alcoholism and adult ADHD being two of the most prominent examples).
Wednesday, May 07, 2008 11:33:00 AM
by: PM, SN said...

This reminds me of a conversation I had with one of my older friends, a tradesman (jack-of-all) who lives on a boat in the river in my hometown. I forget the conversation that lead up to this, but he mentioned to me that for months out of the year he would feel depressed, and then for months he would feel happy. Sure, I thought, cyclic dysthymia! What I told him, though, was that his experience wasn't at all unusual, and that it's only the degree to which this experience interferes with his ability to live and work that makes the difference between a pathology and just the way we feel. He understands his own pattern, what kinds of things make him feel good and bad, and how to deal with the extremes of his existance gracefully. Some people need a little extra help with this and that's ok, but I think the emphasis on "preventative care" definately leads to overmedication and overdiagnosis.

I left my comments, which you may perhaps be able to read when/if they get posted.

There is so much SEXISM and refusal to understand TRAUMA it boggles my mind.

After 50 years of PTSD, they are STILL trying to label me bipolar and get me on addictive medications!!

I am the patient from HELL for these yuppie, uncaring
30-somethings who are still drinking
and think they can shove these pills on me!

Sure, I am not the easiest person to "deal with"
Tough.
But I'm not having anyone rot my brain!
I've paid dearly to keep it.

Sibelgate: The Heroin Lobby Part II: Yankee Doodle Dandy

The Heroin Lobby, Part 2

In the Sibel Edmonds case, the American Turkish Council (ATC) was identified as an organization that was under investigation by the FBI for its links as a front for Turkish organized crime. While working as a translator at the FBI, Edmonds encountered material implicating the ATC, and other organizations, in bribing US officials, including members of Congress from both houses and from both parties. The organized crime activities include the trafficking of nuclear secrets and of heroin.

In a post from the The BRAD BLOG we learn the following:

In the article, just filed tonight, Edmonds reveals details overheard on wiretaps she translated during her time at the FBI, just after 9/11. Her disclosures to the Times reveal a maze of nuclear black market espionage involving U.S. Defense and State Department officials, that resulted in the sale and propagation of nuclear secrets to Turkish and Israeli interests. In turn, that information was then sold to Pakistan and used by A.Q. Kahn for development of nuclear weapons. The secrets were subsequently proliferated to Iran, Libya, North Korea, and potentially al-Qaeda's Osama bin Laden, just weeks prior to September 11th, 2001.

Sibel Edmonds caught, in late 2001 and early 2002, a glimpse of how Turkish organized crime had its tentacles into the highest levels of American government, not just in Congress, but in the Executive Branch, as well -- including having key people in the FBI derail and obstruct investigations in Turkish organized crime activities.

Last fall, Sibel Edmonds offered to defy the US government gags that are on her, preventing her from talking under something called the State Secrets Privilege, supposedly to protect national security. In another post at the The BRAD BLOG, her story was described thus (see the original for extensive links):

She has met with, and told her story to, U.S. senators including Republican Charles Grassley and Democrat Patrick Leahy, both of the Senate Judiciary Committee, both who found her extremely credible. 60 Minutes producers may remember when Grassley told them, "Absolutely, she's credible...And the reason I feel she's very credible is because people within the FBI have corroborated a lot of her story."

In fact, the FBI itself has done so. Their Inspector General found her allegations, as described in the unclassified version of his report, to be "credible," "serious," and "warrant[ing] a thorough and careful review by the FBI."

As far back as 2002, Grassley and Leahy co-wrote letters on Edmonds' behalf to Attorney General John Ashcroft, FBI Director Robert Mueller, and DoJ Inspector General Glenn A. Fine, calling on all of them to take action in respect to the allegations she's made.

"Certain officials in this country are engaged in treason against the United States and its interests and its national security," she said during an August 2005 interview on Democracy Now. That comment followed 60 Minutes' revelation years before alleging that Edmonds had information revealing that a "Turkish intelligence officer" she worked with at the FBI "had spies working for him inside the US State Department and at the Pentagon."

She's briefed many legislative offices --- as well as the 9/11 Commission --- in regard to her claims, and now, she says, she's even prepared to tell the media "the names of every single Congressional office who has received the names of the witnesses" to the crimes she's detailed.

When we spoke last week, Edmonds seemed to reserve most of her frustration for Congressman Henry Waxman's office. Waxman is the Democratic Chairman of the U.S. House Government Reform and Oversight Committee.

After briefing members of his security-cleared staff "inside the SCIF" --- a high-security room in the U.S. Capitol, specially created for discussion of highly sensitive information --- Edmonds says she was told on several occasions, prior to the 2006 Election, that her case would be one of the first heard in his committee, once he became Chairman.

"I even gave names of former and current FBI agents who were willing to go to Waxman's office and give more information on all of this," she said.

"Before the elections, I had a promise from Congressman Waxman's office." She claims they told her, before the election, "the only reason they couldn't hold hearings, was because the Republicans were blocking it."

"They said 'your case will be one of the first ones we will hold investigations on,'" she told us. Now, however, since the Democrats have become the majority in the House, Waxman's office is "going mum." They won't even respond to her calls.

The congressman's office did not respond to several requests for comment on this story.

As I explained in a post entitled The Turkish Lobby, Obstruction of Justice and Henry Waxman, a big part of the reason Congressman Henry Waxman hasn't acted is because Waxman is himself implicated in receipt of bribes. In particular, Congressman Waxman, who had been fully briefed on the Sibel Edmonds case prior to the 2006 general elections, joined the Congressional Caucus of a new organization which was set up in 2007, called the Turkish Coalition of America (TCA), and which was established with the help of one G. Lincoln McCurdy. Here is part of Mr. McCurdy's biography from a page entitled Organizing in Politics:

He served as the senior advisor to the Turkish American Chamber of Commerce and Industry in New York in 2005 and 2006. McCurdy was the president and chief executive officer, 1998 - 2004, and executive director, 1989 – 1998, of the American-Turkish Council (ATC) in Washington, the leading business association in the United States devoted to the promotion of U.S.-Turkish commercial, defense and cultural relations. He received ATC’s Distinguished Career Award in 2005. Before joining ATC, Mr. McCurdy served in the American Consulate General in Istanbul as the Consul for Commercial Affairs, 1980 – 1984.

With those credentials, it is fair to assume that Mr. McCurdy was in deep with the Turkish organized crime figures who used the ATC as a front; consequently, it is reasonable to assume that the TCA is a front for Turkish organized crime, as well, especially since Congressman Waxman has both joined the TCA's Congressional Caucus and refused to hold the promised hearings into the Sibel Edmonds case.

In a Democracy Now article from August 10, 2005, entitled Did Speaker Hastert Accept Turkish Bribes to Deny Armenian Genocide and Approve Weapons Sales?, Sibel Edmonds stated:

SIBEL EDMONDS: As I said, Amy, I have been giving all the details to the appropriate channels. And they have been confirmed. And what I have said all along is the fact that as far as the 9/11 is concerned, September 11 is concerned, these departments—and when I say “these departments,” the Department of Justice, the Department of State, and the Department of Defense—have intentionally blocked the investigations of real—the real criminals in this country. And we are talking about countries involved. The Vanity Fair article points out to Turkey—countries. And it’s very interesting. To this date, we are not hearing anything about targeting, you know, certain Central Asian countries. They are not speaking about the link between the narcotics and al Qaeda. Yes, we are hearing about them coming down on some charities as the real funds behind al Qaeda, but most of al Qaeda’s funding is not through these charity organizations. It’s through narcotics. And have you heard anything to this date, anything about these issues which we have had information since 1997? And as I would again emphasize, we are talking about countries. And they are blocking this information, and also the fact that certain officials in this country are engaged in treason against the United States and its interests and its national security, be it the Department of State or certain elected officials.

Well, in addition to emphasizing that it deals not just with Turkey, but with other countries as well, and with Al Qaeda and with heroin trafficking, Sibel Edmonds also pointed out that it deals with certain elected officials in this country who are involved in treason.

(Continued in Part 3)

also posted today:

http://welcome-to-pottersville.blogspot.com/2008/03/
truth-what-gets-found-in-translation.html

FORMER FBI TRANSLATOR MAKES SHOCKING ALLEGATIONS

Sibel Edmonds alleges that in the course of her work for the government, she found evidence that the FBI, State Department, and the Pentagon had been infiltrated by a Turkish and Israeli-run intelligence network that paid high-ranking American officials to steal nuclear weapons secrets. In addition, she claims that the FBI received information in April 2001, from a reliable Iranian intelligence asset, that Osama Bin Laden was planning attacks on 4-5 cities with planes, some of the people were already in the country and the attacks would happen in a few months.

<< Speculator's new episode >>

I couldn't get any sound, maybe you can .. check his links anyway! If it clears up, I'll post the video again later.

FABULOUS SHOW, always. This is truly MY television show!!

http://submedia.tv/stimulator/

Head over and check out the webpage. You'll be glad you did.

Veeger

Garbage Wars

Category: the fuckin show | 2 Comments

This Week:
1. Bill Clinton’s stimulus package
2. Bush’s Clean Nuclear Power
3. China White
4. Naples’ Garbage Wars
5. Berlusconi eats it
6. Brain Tax
7. U.N.I.T.Y.
8. Bill Hicks

Direct Download MP4 90mb

Here are some links to Bill Hicks Bootlegs.

CIA Director: Yes, We Tortured

CIA Director: Yes, We Tortured

Related
Of Wolves and Sheep: The CIA and the International Drug Trade
---
CIA used waterboarding on three Al-Qaeda detainees: chief

1 hour ago

WASHINGTON (AFP) — CIA director Michael Hayden for the first time admitted publicly Tuesday that the agency had used "waterboarding," or simulated drowning, in interrogations of three top Al-Qaeda detainees nearly five years ago.

The technique, which critics say is tantamount to torture, was used on Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Abu Zubaydah and Abd Al-Rahim al-Nashiri at a time when further catastrophic attacks on the United States were believed to be imminent, Hayden said.

"Let me make it very clear and to state so officially in front of this committee that waterboarding has been used on only three detainees," he told members of the Senate Intelligence Committee.

"It was used on Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. It was used on Abu Zubaydah. And it was used on Nashiri."

Mohammed has claimed to be the operational mastermind of the September 11, 2001 attacks. Abu Zubaydah is alleged to have been an aide to Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden. And al-Nashiri is alleged to have been the operational commander of the suicide attack on the USS Cole in Yemen in 2000.

All three were initially held and interrogated at secret CIA-run detention centers overseas before being transferred in 2006 to a military-run detention at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Hayden's remarks were the first direct official admission that agency interrogators had used "waterboarding" in questioning "war on terror" detainees.

They came amid a long-running battle between the administration and members of Congress over so-called "enhanced" or coercive interrogation techniques used by the CIA.

Attorney General Michael Mukasy told Congress last week that the CIA no longer uses "waterboarding" and that it was not "currently" an authorized interrogation technique.

Mukasy refused to say whether waterboarding is torture.

"There are some circumstances where current law would appear clearly to prohibit waterboarding's use. Other circumstances would present a far closer question."

In testimony Tuesday, Hayden suggested that the CIA no longer needed to use "waterboarding" in interrogations because circumstances had changed since the period following the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States.

"We used it against these three high-value detainees because of the circumstances of the time. Very critical to those circumstances was the belief that additional catastrophic attacks against the homeland were imminent.

"In addition to that, my agency and our community writ large had limited knowledge about Al-Qaeda and its workings. Those two realities have changed," he said.

He said the technique had not been used in almost five years.

But Hayden defended the CIA use of coercive interrogation techniques as lawful and opposed moves by Congress to make the agency follow rules of interrogation set forth in the Army Field Manual.

He said "it would make no more sense to apply the Army Field Manual to CIA -- the Army Field Manual on interrogations -- than it would be to take the Army Field Manual on grooming and apply it to my agency, or the Army Field Manual on recruiting and apply it to my agency, or, for that matter, take the Army Field Manual on sexual orientation and apply it to my agency."

Retired Admiral Mike McConnell, the director of national intelligence, likewise suggested that the circumstances determine whether waterboarding is lawful.

"If there was a reason to use such a technique, you would have to make a judgment on the circumstances and the situation regarding the specifics of the event," he said.

Posted by CRIMES AND CORRUPTION OF THE NEW WORLD ORDER NEWS mparent7777 Marc Parent CCNWON at 12:21 PM

Now here is a lesson I learned while living in the UK. Since the National Health Service was DESIGNED to reward patients with SYMPTOMS, there was no rationale to keep people healthy.



I see the same phenomena here in Canada where the founding premises was the same. Fund looking at sickness rather than using preventative medicine.



Big Pharma has certainly learned how to take advantage of this problem over the past decades. So sad, really.



My dream is to PAY my doctor so much per year to keep me HEALTHY. If I do my part and take the suggestions, my doctor keeps the money. If I get SICK, my doctor would forgo getting paid. And don't get me wrong. I LOVE my doctor and wouldn't give her up for anything. But I'd like to pay her for all that care and attention , not for sessions for dispensing drugs.



BTW, sometimes simply drinking water to take those expensive 'scripts does MORE for your health then taking them expensive PILLS. Works wonders in herbology that you HAVE to take water to ingest most of the cures, eh what ...?



&gt; Most doctors have drug company links - study


&gt;


>


http://www.news. com.au/adelaiden ow/story/ 0,22606,21623512 -5005962, 00.html


&gt;





The healthcare system in America is in serious trouble.


The doctors are getting squeezed by insurance companies for profit, while the drug


companies hold out money and gifts. A large percentage of doctors are


ready to hang it up because they can not stand having insurance


companies be their master, but are too decent of a person to take the


drug companies handouts.





One of the biggest ripoff now happening is the rebranding of


grandfathered drugs. Drug companies are dusting off obsolete


medicines, giving them a new name and charging top dollar for the new


drug, where the drug which replaced it 50 years ago is cheaper and


more effectve, but does not command the same profit.





The only hope i see is if american healthcare system adopted the


medical homes model. Under this model, the local clinic takes charge


over patient care. Under this model, primary health care equates to


$500 per person or $1,500 per family.





Under insurance current insurance, there is no incentive for the


patient to become well.





With a $500 deductible, most people simply avoid going to the doctor.


I this case, the doctor receives no money and the patient stays sick.





Should a person meet their person $500 deduction, the doctor benefits


the more time you visit. As long as the patient does not get better,


the doctor can make more money. These are the doctors and the cases


where overpriced prescriptions come in. The greater the price of the


prescription, the less likely it is for a patient to use it, therefor


the more likely it will be that the patient will return.





In the medical homes model, the customer pays the $500 up front, which


places it in the doctors best interest to keep you healthy for the


year. Since the clinic is basically contracted to be open a fixed


number of days each week, with a predefined patient load, it really


doesn't matter taking in a very sick person as a new customer. If they


can make this person well again, he will stay as a customer.





The American academy of pediatrics was the group who founded the concept.


http://www.medicalh omeinfo.org/





This link is from the american medical association.


http://www.ama- assn.org/ amednews/ 2007/04/09/ prsc0409. htm





Medical homes represents the capitalist version of socialized


medicine. Price is calculated based on expenses plus profit, divided


by the number of patients. Doctors don't need to expense each band


aide to each patient, but instead just need to keep track of how many


band aides were used in a year. Given this structure, cash patients


are always welcome.





http://www.goprivat edoctor.com/ home





Only when doctors are put in charge of primary care, rather than


faceless insurance companies, will the prescription drug problem get


straightened out. Right now, the doctors have no problem screwing the


insurance company with overpriced drugs, then get a kickback for being


part of a study of the patients who use the overpriced drug. The


doctors i know are good people, who just want to be a doctor. The


didn't spend 12 years in school to hire a staff of medical coders.

fred

Powered by ScribeFire.