The War Crimes Trial Of Charles Taylor
A chilling story over at doubleplusundead. I would have linked directly to the story and just given the hat-tip, but dpu has a humorous story just below this one that will get your mind off warcrimes. Check out both and enjoy.
1
Required reading for those who believe everyone is inherently good.
Posted by: DRJ at 13 March 2008@20:54:47 (wE7Og)
2
I believe people are inherently good... it's just that not everyone is people. This is what I'd call a monster, not some prostitute who got caught up in a scandal.
Posted by: Stashiu3 at 13 March 2008@22:24:26 (Q5ggV)
This Would Be Awesome For Our Military
New technologies are often developed specifically for the battlefield, then adapted for commercial use. I don't see any mention of a military application in this article, but it would be a nice tool for Special Forces and other trigger-pullers.
Users have to specifically think about voicing words for them to be
picked up by the band, but it saves them from saying potentially
sensitive things while on a cellphone in public.
Or maybe just before an assault? Granted, once the bullets start flying... noise discipline is very low priority. But for the setup and coordination phase? Definitely something to look at.
Venezuela Finally "Disturbing" United States
I've written about the South American thug Hugo Chavez more than once and still believe there is a strong possibility he'll move on Colombia soon. Although the State Department has now said that the information found on laptops used by FARC leaders was "disturbing", they're not ready to add Venezuela to the list of state sponsors of terrorism.
"The information that has emerged so far is worrisome. I
would even call it disturbing because it does seem to indicate
a degree of dialogue and discussion between members of the
government of Venezuela and the FARC that have to be
explained," he told reporters. "But ... we are very early in
the process and it would be a mistake to jump to conclusions."
Let's recap a bit to see if we're feeling froggy. First, Chavez buddies up with known sponsors of terror like Ahmadinejad and Castro. Second, the FARC computers. Third, constantly attacks the United States in speeches and at the United Nations, calling our President "the devil". Fourth, gets really angry when a terrorist buddy is killed in another country... mad enough to cut off diplomatic relations and send troops to the border. Fifth, threatens to cut off sales of oil to the United States even though nobody else will buy it. Sixth, tries to nationalize a private company from the United States and refuses to consider any compensation for the theft. Seventh...
Screw it, hell yes I'm feeling froggy. I think I'll just go ahead and jump to the fat, juicy conclusion that this guy is a sponsor of terrorists, is a terrorist himself, and is probably impotent... ok, maybe I won't jump to that last one. But, it would explain a lot, wouldn't it? Put him on the list Condoleezza... make the jump, it's not that far.
1
I agree with you but I also think the Bush Administration can't, even if it agrees with us. This is another in a long line of consequences from the "Bush lied, people died" meme: The Bush Administration can't take the lead in identifying terrorism. Instead, it has to wait until others (the public, the Democrats, France/Britain, etc.) clamor for something and only then can the Administration "reluctantly" acquiesce.
Of course, that doesn't stop the Administration from working behind the scenes to deal with Chavez and I assume/hope they are.
Posted by: DRJ at 13 March 2008@11:47:24 (wE7Og)
2
On one level you're right of course... that would be the politically wise thing for the administration. One of the things I like about President Bush is that he has the moral courage to make a decision and go forward if he believes it to be the right thing.
Not so great when I disagree with him... but I can respect it.
Posted by: Stashiu3 at 13 March 2008@12:16:42 (Q5ggV)
3
There is this argument against putting Chavez on the terrorism list: http://www.miamiherald.com/news/columnists/andres_oppenheimer/story/454645.html
Oppenheimer isn't exactly a fan of Bush--he's criticized almost everything the Administration has done regarding Latin America, most often basing himself on the idea that they are not paying the region enough attention--but he loathes Chavez.
Posted by: kishnevi at 13 March 2008@20:31:07 (FFHuv)
4
A fair argument and maybe correct. I don't think so though. By putting them on the list, we stop buying their oil. Stop buying their oil, their economy takes the hit. The economy takes the hit, the people take a more active role in removing the problem, which is Chavez.
If they're already disaffected with his policies because it screws up their lives, they're going to become more disaffected if continuing his policies screw up their lives even further. Nationalism isn't going to save him because he's beaten that horse to death already. Besides, they are a state sponsor of terrorism, let's call it as we see it and let the chips fall where they may. That's the morally courageous path.
Posted by: Stashiu3 at 13 March 2008@22:18:51 (Q5ggV)
Detainee Wants To Boycott Trial
The Afghan detainee accused of throwing a grenade at U.S. soldiers, severely injuring them and an accompanying translator, wants to boycott his trial at Guantanamo Bay.
The hearing inside the hilltop courthouse overlooking the Caribbean was
delayed more than two and a half hours after Jawak initially refused to
attend.Kohlmann ordered his ankles to remain shackled during the
hearing because he was not cooperating fully.
The judge told him that he could still be tried, convicted, and sentenced, even if he didn't attend. There were, of course, the usual claims of torture, abuse, and being innocent... blah, blah, blah. Maybe he'll be more compliant after he gets to call home?
To hell with this punk. Try him whether he's there or not. Then lock him up for the rest of his natural life. His place in Hell is already assured and he will never cease being a danger to the United States and our allies. Never. There are some there that might give up the fight... he's not one of them.
Can You Hear Me Now? *UPDATED* *UPDATED X2*
Detainees at Guantanamo Bay are to be allowed regular phone calls to family. This is a welcome surprise and I hope it's implemented soon. As many of you may know, I don't have a lot of sympathy for the detainees. The stories you hear about staff and guards being assaulted are true... if anything, they're under-reported.
A Pentagon spokesman, Navy Cmdr. Jeffrey Gordon, said the telephone policy reflects a
commitment to maintaining the health and well-being of Guantanamo
detainees. No start date has been set for the program.
So why is this a good thing? Three reasons right off the top of my head.
First, since most of them have been there for 4-6 years, contact with family may help them realize what they're missing. This will encourage cooperation and reduce some of the rationally-based stress of confinement. It won't do anything for the irrationally-based ones, but not much will.
Second, I'm sure these calls will be monitored and either the detainee or their family may let some valuable intelligence slip into the conversation. It may even be that family members will provide new intelligence willingly in order to facilitate a detainee's release back to their own country. They might still be confined there, but would probably be allowed family visits. This could be a very strong incentive for cooperation.
Third, maybe the military folks there won't have to spend so much damn money on phone cards to talk with their own families. If jihadis get to talk with their family for free, wouldn't it make sense to provide the same consideration for the hard-working guards and staff? They have "Morale Calls" available now (or they used to), but I don't know anybody who used them because it was such a pain. IIRC, it was two 15-minute (or portion thereof) calls a week which had to be made from a military phone, going through an operator, using an access code, when it worked. It just wasn't worth it for 15 minutes or less, especially if you called and found out nobody was home.
There are probably many more (and better) reasons for this, these were just the ones that first came to mind. I think the drawbacks are obvious and have already been considered if it's taken this long to approve.
*UPDATE* Looks like I may be on the opposite side of the argument from a few folks. Oh well, not the first time. *UPDATE X2* Thanks to Patterico for the link!
Shocking News - Human Rights Group Condemns Guantanamo Trials
Hasn't it already been established that only three high-level terrorists were waterboarded? Via Patterico's, this link from ABC News says so:
For all the debate over waterboarding, it has been used on only three
al Qaeda figures, according to current and former U.S. intelligence
officials.
So how many trials are tainted by this? According to Human Rights First, all of them:
U.S. military commission trials of
Guantanamo terrorism suspects will be tainted by coercive
tactics such as waterboarding used to obtain evidence and
should be scrapped, human rights groups said on Monday.
There was no systematic "torture and inhuman treatment" at Guantanamo and I don't believe there has been anywhere else. The interrogators I met while in the Army all spoke of incentive-based interrogation being the best long-term tool. The only reason to use harsh interrogation methods is for time-sensitive intelligence. Many detainees would come back a little worse-for-wear because they smoked too much (link is from my interview with Patterico in 2006) and ate too much pizza, never from physical interrogation.
This is just another attempt to smear the military, the administration, and the United States by an anti-American "rights group" and the MSM.
1
You've read the criticism of lawyers at Patterico's blog. I sympathize with those who don't like lawyers or what they do. I'll even admit some of the criticism is deserved.
But all those complaints pale compared to the injustices perpetrated by some of the volunteer GTMO defense lawyers, who seemingly will spend and do anything to free the detained terrorists. I understand the detainees are entitled to representation but they aren't entitled to rewrite the rules of war or to have better treatment and attorneys than most Americans could ever afford.
Posted by: DRJ at 11 March 2008@15:09:27 (wE7Og)
2
You've got liberal and conservative people in every profession. I would give the benefit of the doubt in most cases that those attorneys believe they are doing the right thing... they may even believe their client's claims of torture and abuse despite how often it has been debunked.
There are also the sponsors who pay some of these attorneys, either individuals who hate the U.S., or governments who do. I would say most of them know these claims are false and encourage the lies because it serves the sponsors purpose.
I don't have a problem with lawyers, just with society being "over-lawyered". You could easily say the same about Social Workers, Psychologists, and politicians. Fortunately, you can never have enough Nurses... heh.
Posted by: Stashiu3 at 11 March 2008@15:19:42 (Q5ggV)
It's official. The UN Security Council has no crediblity left. The final nail in the coffin? Not this...
Mottaki said that the new round of sanctions lacked "technical and legal," justification and would discredit the Security Council.
But this:
At the prodding of the U.S. and its European allies, the U.N. Security Council passed a third round of sanctions on Iran Monday ordering assets to be frozen of additional Iranian officials and companies with links to the country's nuclear and missile program, and for the first time banned trade with Iran in some goods that have both civilian and military use. [emphasis mine]
The first time? Really? So that means that Russia, China, France, and whoever else is making money from Iran will have to start ignoring a ban just now? Because we know how well that worked with Saddam. Did they ever stop ignoring the trade bans with him? Seems like Saddam was getting weapons and equipment after several Security Council bans.
I'd say their credibility has been gone... events with Iran just keep confirming that.
I'll Be Right Back... I Have To Go To The Bathroom
Good thing nobody tried this in Guantanamo. Just a brilliant escape plan with outstanding execution.
Authorities say Mas Selamat, 47, had been taken from his cell to a room where he was waiting for his family to make a scheduled visit. He fled after being granted permission to visit the washroom.
1
Sounds like an inside job to me, similar to the Pakistani terrorist who escaped last month when he was being transferred and the guards let him stop at a mosque to pray. But given your "/sarcasm off" sign, my guess is you already knew that and I'm just stating the obvious.
Posted by: DRJ at 09 March 2008@22:12:26 (wE7Og)
2
You mean the idea that it could have worked at Guantanamo didn't give me away? I must be slipping, heh.
Posted by: Stashiu3 at 09 March 2008@22:23:55 (Q5ggV)
Teen Wants to Stay in UK Because Iran Will Kill Him For Being Gay *UPDATED 11 Mar 08*
Why is this even a question? From this story it seems pretty clear that going back to Iran is a death sentence.
"But in the past few months my situation back home has changed. The Iranian authorities have found out that I am a homosexual and they are looking for me."
How did the Iranian authorities find out? During the interrogation of his boyfriend... just before the Iranians executed the boyfriend by hanging him. Whether you agree with homosexuality or not, granting him asylum should be a no-brainer.
The kid is now in the Netherlands because his asylum request was already refused once by UK authorities. He's trying to keep from being sent back to the UK because he fears they will deport him to Iran for execution. I hope the Netherlands and/or the UK do the right thing here.
*UPDATE* The Netherlands is sending him back to Britain on a technicality.
Upholding a ruling by the Dutch
government, the Council of State said Britain is responsible for
Kazemi's case because he applied for asylum there first. European Union
rules say the member state where an asylum seeker first enters the bloc
is responsible for processing that person's claim.
The good news is that a British official seems to be hinting that the asylum will be granted.
However, Britain's Border and
Immigration Agency has issued a statement that could give Kazemi hope:
"We examine with great care each individual case before removal and we
will not remove anyone who we believe is at risk on their return."
I hope so. I also hope Britain tells the Iranians they thought there weren't any homosexuals in Iran. Isn't that what Ahmadinejad said?
1
I share your concern. If there's any hesitation, my guess is he or a relative have shown up on a watch list and the authorities are understandably reluctant to let him in under an asylum exception. Maybe everything he's said is true. Then again, maybe his claim that he will be persecuted, or even his homosexuality, is a sham.
Posted by: DRJ at 09 March 2008@19:01:59 (wE7Og)
2
don't recall off the top of my head, but isn't the UK one of those countries which don't extradite people to the US if they are charged with a capital crime?
My own gut feeling is that the UK officials felt the claim of homosexuality is a sham, and that he simply doesn't want to return to Iran.
Posted by: kishnevi at 09 March 2008@20:16:09 (HkEJ7)
DRJ, I had some of the same thoughts... that maybe we weren't getting the whole story. If we accept the premise though, it is a shameful situation that he was denied once already and had to flee. I suspect his story is true and the denial was based on an assumption that he came for asylum instead of schooling and the authorities didn't believe his circumstances had changed.
kishnevi, I know Mexico is one that won't extradite, but I'm not sure about the UK. The fact is that since the boy isn't really charged with anything, extradition is moot. Neither the UK nor Mexico has a problem deporting someone home who is not facing charges, much less a capital sentence. If the story is a sham, that's one thing... but I'm not sure how you'd go about proving the truth or falsity of it. Apparently the statements by the father are not sufficient.
Posted by: Stashiu3 at 09 March 2008@20:52:22 (Q5ggV)
Sites are added to the Moronosphere and Gerbil Nation blogrolls by request. I got everyone on there who was there when they were made, so email me if you know of a new addition. Some of these are on the main blogroll as well and will remain duplicated.
The main blogroll is at my own discretion. I gratefully accept suggestions by email, but I don't do blogroll exchanges. If a site is there, it's because I personally recommend it. If it's one that is not updated often, check out the archives and you'll probably see why it's there. I will rarely remove a site from the main blogroll once it's there.
Recent Comments
sillyblindharper
*rustle, rustle* **looks around empty thread** SQUEaK! entry
Comments are not moderated and users are not registered. This means that I have little to no control over who posts a comment or the content of that comment. Therefore, comments other than my own do not reflect any viewpoint of mine, no matter how long it appears as I will likely remove comments that cross the line of decency. If a comment is removed, a notation that the comment was there will be inserted. Any questions or concerns about posts, comments, copyright, or other issues may be addressed by emailing me at "stashiu3 AT gmail DOT com" replacing the AT with @ and DOT with a period. If that's too complicated, maybe you shouldn't be on the internet without supervision. Just sayin'
Blog Notes
If you have suggestions for the blog, put them in a comment to the original welcome post, a comment to any other post, or email me at the contact below. Be well.
Stash
About Me
I am a Psychiatric Nurse who retired from the Army after 24 years total service. I started out as a Private E-1, made Sergeant E-5 in 23 months, then went to nursing school and ROTC to get commissioned. I am interested in politics where I lean heavily conservative, movies, music, and books. Hopefully you will enjoy what you see and come back often.
Contact me
Stashiu3 AT gmail DOT com
(Replace the "AT" with "@" and the "DOT" with ".")
