Sign Up | Log In
REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS
There goes prosecuting the torturers
Saturday, February 20, 2010 8:22 AM
NIKI2
Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...
Quote:DOJ: No misconduct for Bush interrogation lawyers Justice Department lawyers showed “poor judgment” but did not commit professional misconduct when they authorized CIA interrogators to use waterboarding and other harsh tactics at the height of the U.S. war on terrorism, an internal review released Friday found. The decision closes the book on one of the major lingering investigations into the counterterrorism policies of George W. Bush’s administration. President Barack Obama campaigned on abolishing the simulated drowning technique of waterboarding and other tactics that he called torture, but he left open the question of whether anyone would be punished for authorizing such methods. Liberal Democrats had pressed for action against the authors of the so-called torture memos, and they indicated they aren’t finished discussing the matter. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., said he was “deeply offended” by the legal memos and planned to hold a hearing Feb. 26. An initial review by the Justice Department’s internal affairs unit found that former government lawyers Jay Bybee and John Yoo had committed professional misconduct, a conclusion that could have cost them their law licenses. But, underscoring just how controversial and legally thorny the memos have become, the Justice Department’s top career lawyer reviewed the matter and disagreed. “This decision should not be viewed as an endorsement of the legal work that underlies those memoranda,” Assistant Deputy Attorney General David Margolis wrote in a memo released Friday. Margolis, the top nonpolitical Justice Department lawyer and a veteran of several administrations, called the legal memos “flawed” and said that, at every opportunity, they gave interrogators as much leeway as possible under U.S. torture laws. But he said Yoo and Bybee were not reckless and did not knowingly give incorrect advice, the standard for misconduct. The Office of Professional Responsibility, led by another veteran career prosecutor, Mary Patrice Brown, disagreed. “Situations of great stress, danger and fear do not relieve department attorneys of their duty to provide thorough, objective and candid legal advice, even if that advice is not what the client wants to hear,” her team wrote in a report that criticized the memos for a “lack of thoroughness, objectivity and candor.”
Saturday, February 20, 2010 8:28 AM
CHRISISALL
Saturday, February 20, 2010 8:57 AM
KWICKO
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)
Saturday, February 20, 2010 9:35 AM
GINOBIFFARONI
Saturday, February 20, 2010 10:41 AM
LITTLEBIRD
Saturday, February 20, 2010 2:36 PM
AURAPTOR
America loves a winner!
Saturday, February 20, 2010 3:43 PM
FREMDFIRMA
Sunday, February 21, 2010 9:12 AM
Sunday, February 21, 2010 10:32 AM
RUE
I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!
Sunday, February 21, 2010 10:39 AM
Sunday, February 21, 2010 10:46 AM
Sunday, February 21, 2010 10:49 AM
Sunday, February 21, 2010 11:12 AM
Quote:Originally posted by Niki2: Oh, my, don't I WISH! We should send them invitations to other countries, or maybe it's still too early for that... Hey Mike (or anyone); I'm trying to change my avatar, but it only comes up a URL! I did it exactly the same way I put up the last one, AND my signature, and no bigger...any suggestions?
Sunday, February 21, 2010 11:18 AM
Sunday, February 21, 2010 12:02 PM
Quote:Originally posted by Niki2:Oh, my, don't I WISH! We should send them invitations to other countries, or maybe it's still too early for that...
Sunday, February 21, 2010 12:27 PM
GEEZER
Keep the Shiny side up
Quote:Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni: The only place to do this is through the ICC,
Sunday, February 21, 2010 12:50 PM
Quote:Originally posted by Niki2: Oooo, festival...better yet, how about something which was going to give them an award or medal or something? They LOVE shit like that! Or a speaking engagement that pays lots and lots of money? Any ideas on the avatar? I'm really stuck. sigh...computers!
Sunday, February 21, 2010 12:55 PM
Quote:Originally posted by Geezer: Quote:Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni: The only place to do this is through the ICC, Probably not really likely. As outraged as folks are about the memos, they're not too significant when weighed against the stuff the ICC is currently trying, such as genocide, extermination, conscripting child soldiers, sexual slavery, murder, rape, pillaging, etc. http://www.icc-cpi.int/Menus/ICC/Situations+and+Cases/Cases/ "Keep the Shiny side up"
Sunday, February 21, 2010 1:06 PM
Quote:Or is international justice only good for the third world despots the US doesn't like?
Sunday, February 21, 2010 2:02 PM
Quote:Originally posted by Niki2: Gino, now you're being absurd--and unfair. Of COURSE what anyone does is worth investigating. But up against "genocide, extermination, conscripting child soldiers, sexual slavery, murder, rape, pillaging"? Seriously? Hopefully they'll get around to it in time, I sincerely hope so.Quote:Or is international justice only good for the third world despots the US doesn't like?You know that isn't true for the majority of people, inside or outside the US. We want them brought to justice; if the ICC is too busy, there ought to be other ways, but I don't fault them for dealing with those horrors FIRST, or we find another way! You've got an awful lot of hate toward America; is your country pure as the driven snow, or do you just pay most of your attention to ours?
Sunday, February 21, 2010 3:38 PM
Sunday, February 21, 2010 4:00 PM
Sunday, February 21, 2010 4:54 PM
Quote:Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni: so no law but the law you make,
Sunday, February 21, 2010 5:10 PM
Quote:note to self... buy stock in rope factory
Sunday, February 21, 2010 5:31 PM
Quote:Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni: So you are arguing that the US did some stuff, but it is too small to worry about...
Sunday, February 21, 2010 5:37 PM
Sunday, February 21, 2010 6:06 PM
Sunday, February 21, 2010 6:18 PM
Quote:Originally posted by Geezer: Quote:Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni: So you are arguing that the US did some stuff, but it is too small to worry about... Too small for the ICC, with limited time and resources, to move to - or near - the top of their list. Then again, I haven't seen them going after the Al Qaeda and Taliban commanders who order suicide bombing attacks on civilians, murder of teachers, destruction of schools, etc, which would seem to me to be more egregious crimes than saying waterboarding was acceptable. "Keep the Shiny side up"
Sunday, February 21, 2010 9:01 PM
Monday, February 22, 2010 1:53 AM
Monday, February 22, 2010 3:29 AM
Quote:Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni: Excellent point, hand all your Bagram and Gitmo prisoners over to the Hague, with all documentation, and they can trials for them too.
Monday, February 22, 2010 6:09 AM
ELVISCHRIST
Quote:Originally posted by AURaptor: I just find it amusing and a bit sad at all the thought,time and effort some here are putting forth for such a clearly ridiculous and pointless mind exercise. And that's all it is, and all it'll EVER be. I like fantasy and fiction as much as anyone, but geeze....c'mon. Bones: "Don't 'rawr' her!" Booth: "What? she'rawred' me first.
Monday, February 22, 2010 6:54 AM
Quote:Millions of people have died as a result of Britain’s foreign policy. Mark Curtis calls these victims Unpeople – those whose lives are seen as expendable in the pursuit of governments’ economic and political goals. In Unpeople, Mark Curtis shows the Blair government’s continuing support for many of the world’s most repressive regimes and, using unearthed evidence from formerly secret documents, reveals for the first time the hidden history of unethical British policies, including: support for the massacres in Iraq in 1963; Britain’s extraordinary private backing of the US in its aggression against Vietnam; support for the rise of Ugandan dictator Idi Amin; the prosecution of a covert, ‘dirty war’ in Yemen in the 1960s; Britain’s backing of apartheid regimes in South Africa; secret campaigns with the US to overthrow the governments of Indonesia and British Guiana; the welcoming of General Pinochet’s brutal coup in Chile in 1973; and much more. This explosive new book, from the author of Web of Deceit, shows the reality of the Blair government’s policies since the invasion of Iraq, revealing that our military is poised for a new phase of global intervention in alliance with the US, while an extraordinary government propaganda campaign is being mounted to obscure the reality of this policy from the public.
Quote:In seeking to justify the war preparations of Washington and London, much has been made of the alleged stockpiles of chemical weapons held by the Iraqi regime. In fact the first government to use chemical weapons against the Iraqi people was the British, under the direction of Winston Churchill, along with many other assaults on Iraqi sovereignty. Faced by a growing popular insurrection against its imperial dominance of Iraq in 1920, London carried out an aerial bombing campaign of civilian villages, described by one anonymous cabinet member at the time as the bombing of the women and children of the villages. A year earlier, the high command of the Royal Air Force (RAF) had suggested to Churchill, then Secretary of State for War, that chemicals be used against recalcitrant Arabs as [an] experiment. Churchill readily agreed. I do not understand this squeamishness about the use of gas<.q> Churchill said. I am strongly in favor of using poisoned gas against uncivilized tribes.. It is not necessary to use only the most deadly gases: gases can be used which cause great inconvenience and would spread a lively terror and yet would leave no serious permanent effects on most of those affected. The use of troops and extreme brutality has characterized the British rulers' whole relation with Iraq and the rest of the Gulf region. Their intervention in Iraq began in the mid-19th century, as popular opposition to the Ottoman empire opened an opportunity to seize it from the Turkish rulers.
Monday, February 22, 2010 7:34 AM
BYTEMITE
Monday, February 22, 2010 9:02 AM
Quote:Originally posted by Niki2: Morning...sorta. Gino, I didn't go through your long list; I don't have to. I KNOW what you're saying, and I agree with it. I know enough of America's bullshit to know there are many; I don't have to know each one. My ONLY remark was about the ICC--and Geezer answered that for me. So we have no argument, except that the ICC is the wrong venue...and the fact that we can't do anything about any of that. When you say "YOU", you're talking about our government, not "US" the people. The day your government engages in such things and you are able to stop or prosecute them for it, we'll have a basis for discussion. I do what I can, protest what I can, vote and contact my representatives. What else do you suggest? If someone wanted to go back through history and list all of Britain's covert operations, I'm sure the list would be a least as long, if not longer. There's a book available on Amazon on just that; the blurb says:Quote:Millions of people have died as a result of Britain’s foreign policy. Mark Curtis calls these victims Unpeople – those whose lives are seen as expendable in the pursuit of governments’ economic and political goals. In Unpeople, Mark Curtis shows the Blair government’s continuing support for many of the world’s most repressive regimes and, using unearthed evidence from formerly secret documents, reveals for the first time the hidden history of unethical British policies, including: support for the massacres in Iraq in 1963; Britain’s extraordinary private backing of the US in its aggression against Vietnam; support for the rise of Ugandan dictator Idi Amin; the prosecution of a covert, ‘dirty war’ in Yemen in the 1960s; Britain’s backing of apartheid regimes in South Africa; secret campaigns with the US to overthrow the governments of Indonesia and British Guiana; the welcoming of General Pinochet’s brutal coup in Chile in 1973; and much more. This explosive new book, from the author of Web of Deceit, shows the reality of the Blair government’s policies since the invasion of Iraq, revealing that our military is poised for a new phase of global intervention in alliance with the US, while an extraordinary government propaganda campaign is being mounted to obscure the reality of this policy from the public. Given your country's history is hundreds of years older than ours, surely you can extrapolate that their (not YOUR) covert policies and foreign policy blunders probably outweigh ours. The blurb begins: "When a nation's foreign policy is not subject to its citizens or humanitarian standards ..." It's true for both our countries. Have your people been any more successful at stopping or prosecuting them than we have? You want to be angry at a country, please start with your own before you blanket condemn ours, okay? Nobody here disagrees with you that many VERY wrong things have been done by both. Everything seems geared to recent history that I can find in a quick search, and I'm not willing to search harder. I found this as just a place to start:Quote:In seeking to justify the war preparations of Washington and London, much has been made of the alleged stockpiles of chemical weapons held by the Iraqi regime. In fact the first government to use chemical weapons against the Iraqi people was the British, under the direction of Winston Churchill, along with many other assaults on Iraqi sovereignty. Faced by a growing popular insurrection against its imperial dominance of Iraq in 1920, London carried out an aerial bombing campaign of civilian villages, described by one anonymous cabinet member at the time as the bombing of the women and children of the villages. A year earlier, the high command of the Royal Air Force (RAF) had suggested to Churchill, then Secretary of State for War, that chemicals be used against recalcitrant Arabs as [an] experiment. Churchill readily agreed. I do not understand this squeamishness about the use of gas<.q> Churchill said. I am strongly in favor of using poisoned gas against uncivilized tribes.. It is not necessary to use only the most deadly gases: gases can be used which cause great inconvenience and would spread a lively terror and yet would leave no serious permanent effects on most of those affected. The use of troops and extreme brutality has characterized the British rulers' whole relation with Iraq and the rest of the Gulf region. Their intervention in Iraq began in the mid-19th century, as popular opposition to the Ottoman empire opened an opportunity to seize it from the Turkish rulers. http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/51/215.html Let's not compare atrocities, shall we? Both countries have their fair share. Doesn't make one any better or worse than the other, or more in need of prosecution. And it won't happen in either case. End of story. Elvis: Excellent point.
Monday, February 22, 2010 9:08 AM
Quote:Originally posted by Bytemite: Oh, I figure eventually some back door deal will be made and someone will be sold up the creek. None of the big guys though. If we want to go after the big guys in administrations and members of congress and the industrial/military/intelligence community, we probably can't do so within the structure they've built to prop themselves up. So, we've got two options, 1) the American people actually stand up and start taking our government apart to cut out the corruption, or 2) we wait for TPTB to run everything into the ground, and THEN we have ourselves a trial. As much as I'd like to believe there's still a possibility for one, mostly because I don't like to sit on my hands, feels a bit too much like being complicit, I suspect that everything is probably too entrenched and well equipped for the people to make a stand. But I'd like to put an end to some of the abuses and human rights violations NOW, before it gets worse/we do more, so we definitely got to keep trying. Even within that same system, because some people are damn scared of what might happen if we take it all away, and it's not fair for us to make that judgment for them. But I have to say, seeing that I think number two might be inevitable no matter how much good people try to fight it, two might be the best option if it's justice you're looking for. In the event of a collapse, basic human decency might maintain laws regarding human rights for the general population, but I think I could make a pretty good argument as to the people who like to violate those same laws being exempt from those protections. >)
Monday, February 22, 2010 9:25 AM
Quote:Canadian spies have been conducting "covert" operations in foreign countries to gather information about threats to national security, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service admitted for the first time on the weekend. "Events have increasingly required us ... to operate abroad," CSIS director Ward Elcock told a Vancouver security conference. "As a result, working covertly abroad has become an integral part of the service's operations." CSIS "has been conducting operations abroad for many years," Mr. Elcock said, but such work has become more important now that the most troublesome threats to Canada's security originate outside the country. "Extremists respect no barriers, either international or moral." The admission comes amid continuing calls in the Commons and elsewhere for Ottawa to consider creating a foreign intelligence service like the CIA to operate secretly around the world, gathering information on terrorist groups. In the past, Mr. Elcock has responded to such proposals by saying a new foreign spy service is unnecessary because CSIS is already capable of working internationally and that it gets foreign intelligence from its allies. CSIS has never before confirmed publicly what it said this weekend -- that its agents have been running covert spy missions in other countries, and that such operations have become a central part of the agency's work. The statement came Friday night in Mr. Elcock's speech to the Canadian Association of Security Intelligence Studies, but it was initially muddied by uncertainty over exactly what he had said. Several people in the audience of intelligence academics and government security officials thought he had said CSIS was working "covertly" abroad, but the text of his address said "overtly." Senior officials told the National Post, however, that the version of the speech posted on the CSIS Internet site contained a typo, and that Mr. Elcock had indeed said the agency was conducting "covert" foreign operations, although they insisted that should not come as a surprise.
Quote:In the wake of the attacks on America on 11 September 2001, the Canadian government increased CANSOF’s budget by some $119 million5 as an integral part of Canada’s participation in the Global War on Terrorism (GWOT), with an intent to double the size of this unit to a reported goal of 600 personnel. Considering the size of the regular CF, as well as the demanding selection requirements for those individuals who aspire to become SOF operators, this is a most difficult challenge.6 The CF might have to shift the SOF recruiting and selection process, looking instead to reservists and to Canadians who already have the identified skills and capabilities. The creation of a reserve CANSOF squadron, paralleling a move made by a number of our allies, would provide a trained and operationally ready cadre of SOF operators, support personnel and staff able to augment CANSOF when required. Tact and persuasive skills are also important for those involved in advising and training foreign militaries. Those not sensitive to the socio-cultural milieu in which they are operating will hold little local influence over foreign officers and their NCOs, many of whom might have had more practical experience. As one Special Air Service (SAS) operator noted: “You may advise the wily Afghan how to orchestrate a better ambush, but never say that they do not have experience in conducting ambushes.” By their very nature, SOF operations are low-visibility, utilizing speed, surprise, audacity and deception to minimize the associated risks, while maximizing the results. These tactics, techniques and procedures (TTPs) enable SOF forces to accomplish missions that, in many cases, conventional military forces could likely accomplish, albeit with greater difficulty. Hence, they are a “force of choice.” In addition, CANSOF-conducted initiatives, while requiring a relatively small outlay in personnel and material, would contribute strategically to nation building, democratization and regime stabilization in nascent democracies. Canadian participation in FID and military assistance programs would enhance Canada’s international stature while providing a viable and attractive option for those nations that might not seek assistance from the British or Americans.
Monday, February 22, 2010 10:32 AM
Quote:Originally posted by ElvisChrist: could of said the same for CPAC
Tuesday, February 23, 2010 1:16 AM
YOUR OPTIONS
NEW POSTS TODAY
OTHER TOPICS
FFF.NET SOCIAL