Je zal het mij niet vaak horen zeggen

... maar ik ben het eens met Geert Wilders. Al-Qaida heeft blijkbaar opgeroepen tot een jihad tegen hem, stond in de krant vandaag.

"Ik had verwacht dat Jan-Peter Balkenende de oproep van Al-Qaida zou veroordelen, maar hij doet helemaal niets."

"Balkenende verkondigt een crisis terwijl niemand de inhoud van de film kent."

bron

Turkey invades northern Iraq

So, it finally happened.
This should not be a huge surprise to anyone, right? It was one of the nightmare scenarios held up by anti-war wimps even before the USA invaded Iraq.
Those poor poor bastards living in those mountains, like their lives are not hard enough already.

Turkey has lately been softening up public opinion and the news media by the sorties and bombings in northern Iraq and lo and behold, they barely caused a ripple in the press. Very positive for the hawks!

Now they went in all guns blazing. Thousands of troops. This is a full-on invasion.

There go the Kurds... I wonder if their fierce loyalty to the USA is about to be rewarded now.
(I'm being cynical here - I don't expect Turkey did this without getting the okay from the USA first)

The US and the Iraqi government are eager to play down the extent of the invasion. Rear Admiral Gregory Smith, a US spokesman for Iraq, said: "We understand [it] is an operation of limited duration to specifically target PKK terrorists in that region." The Iraqi Foreign minister, Hoshyar Zebari, claimed that only a few hundred Turkish troops were in Iraq.
Source

A few hundred troops. Riiiight.

How can they possibly hold this trial?

How can they possibly justify holding a trial by military tribunal over the 9-11 attacks??? With people who have been imprisoned without representation for so many years! Who were interrogated without any kind of oversight.
At least one of them were waterboarded, it was admitted. Who knows, what has not been admitted yet...

I swear, it totally cheapens the lives of all the people who died on that day or afterwards, as a result of that terrible attack.
It's so offensive, it's worthy of a banana republic, this kind of justice.
Not of the USA.

I get so mad when i read this kind of thing
It's propaganda, nothing more.

One official who has been briefed on the case said the military prosecutors were considering seeking the death penalty for Mr. Mohammed, although no final decision appears to have been made.

Story source

Yes. That is the Mr. Mohammed that they admitted to have subjected to waterboarding.

Offensive is too good a word.

Is waterboarding now a legal interrogation method in USA?

Looks that way to me, if I read through the waffle correctly.

I understand this briefing to say that IN America, if you are suspected of terrorist activities, it is acceptable for you to be waterboarded during interrogation. Depending on the circumstances (undefined, of course), that is.

Q And earlier you suggested that it would not be ruled out for possible use in the future?

MR. FRATTO: Again, I think I'd refer you to the testimony yesterday where the intelligence chiefs didn't rule anything out. What I did talk about was the process whereby the administration would consider any enhanced interrogation techniques. And that process includes the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency bringing a proposal to the Attorney General, where a review would be conducted to determine if the plan would be legal and effective. At that point, the proposal would go to the President, the President would listen to the determinations of his advisors, and make a decision.

If he made a decision to authorize a specific interrogation technique, part of that process also involves going to the House and Senate Intelligence Committees, and the Chairmen and ranking members of the Judiciary Committees, and to inform them that a change in the program has taken place.

Q But the fact the process exists suggests that it could be used again; you're not ruling it out.

MR. FRATTO: I'm not speculating at all on what circumstances in the future would cause the Director of the CIA to make a proposal in that way. That's something for Director Hayden to address.

What we do know is that they are taking -- they take this, the interrogation program, very seriously. They understand that it must be done with safeguards and under the rule of law. Every interrogation technique used in this program was brought to the Department of Justice, and Department of Justice made a determination as to its lawfulness, and that allowed the Central Intelligence Agency to move forward with their program. Any change would follow the process that I just outlined.

Q But does the administration maintain that waterboarding is not torture, or that any method of interrogation that it uses is not torture?

MR. FRATTO: Yes, torture is illegal. We don't torture -- we maintain and as we have said many times that the programs have been reviewed, and the Department of Justice has determined them to be legal.

Q But the General, himself, said in a recent interview that he thinks it's probably torture, and he has said that we have used it.

MR. FRATTO: I don't think that's accurate.

Q Yes, well, he said it seemed like it would be to him.

MR. FRATTO: I'm sorry, to Director McConnell?

Q McConnell, sorry, not --

MR. FRATTO: In The New Yorker -- and I think Director McConnell in his testimony yesterday in a conversation with Senator Feinstein I think explained those comments, and explained how they were out of context.

Q General Mukasey has been -- in his confirmation hearing was so adamant about not talking about this, and all of a sudden yesterday and today the administration is willing to talk about it. Why is that?

MR. FRATTO: Well, I think it is unfortunate. The Attorney General, Mukasey, he made a commitment to the Senate Judiciary Committee to talk about the legality and his review of the current program. And so that's what he did. He conducted a thorough review. He looked at the legal memoranda, and how the program works, and what components of the program are currently authorized. That is what the Attorney General discussed in his testimony, and that's what he had committed to do.

What the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency did was talk about the specific use of an interrogation technique. And again, as a reminder, he also talked about the intelligence that was gathered from this program, the valuable intelligence that was actionable that allowed us to locate al Qaeda operatives, to locate their plans, and to greatly increase how much knowledge we had of how this organization works in ways that help us to prevent attacks and to find other leaders in the organization.

Q So is waterboarding currently authorized?

MR. FRATTO: No, it's not. It's not, and I think that was mentioned yesterday, and the Attorney General Mukasey last week also made clear it is not currently authorized in this program.

Mike.

Q But, Tony, if a big enough fish is captured, the President could authorize the intelligence community to waterboard based on the belief that there may be actionable intelligence there; is that accurate?

MR. FRATTO: What I have said is -- first, I'm not going to speculate on what the President may or may not do or on what proposal the Director of the CIA will bring to the Attorney General and to the President.

What I have said is that any change in the enhanced interrogation techniques that may be used will follow the process that I outlined, which includes a legal review and notification of Congress.

Q Just to clarify, so you're saying that it's not torture and you're saying it's effective -- then why is it not currently authorized, waterboarding?

MR. FRATTO: General Hayden addressed that, he talked about any technique that you use, you use it under certain circumstances. It was something that they felt at that time was necessary and they sought legal guidance to make sure that it was legal and that it was effective. What he has said is that the program has evolved and the knowledge of the enemy has evolved. And their knowledge of how to interrogate in effective ways has evolved also.

So they're the professionals, they determine what is effective and what gets the information that we need to keep the nation safe. So it is a decision that the agency made. I could refer you to them, to see if they can explain it further; but it was their decision, they're the professionals.

Q Tony, Senator Durbin, who has been talking about this on the floor says, look, this technique has been used since the Spanish Inquisition; for five centuries it's been known as torture, American prosecutors actually obtained convictions against Japanese after World War II because of what they did to American captives. What about it makes it not torture now? Is it just the circumstances?

MR. FRATTO: I don't think that's a question I can answer. But that is a question that the Department of Justice answered on behalf of the CIA when they reviewed the components of the program. So I don't -- I wouldn't purport to be an expert on the technique and how it's used and the legal backing, so I would refer you to DOJ on that. But they did go through a process of determining the legality of it.

Q So they have basically changed the definition of torture because of the requirements of U.S. --

MR. FRATTO: I don't think that's accurate, no.

Q -- of the moment?

MR. FRATTO: No, I don't think that's the case at all, and I don't think that's the way DOJ would explain it. I think they -- going back again to the Attorney General's testimony last week, what the Attorney General said was that any use of any enhanced interrogation technique depends on the circumstances: who is carrying out the interrogation; who the target of interrogation is; what the threat environment is; what is the information that you're attempting to seek.

These are all the kinds of things that factor into how they make a decision as to which technique is appropriate to use. And then there is a review in terms of the legality of it. And that has been reviewed a number of times by a number of different people at the Department of Justice, and it was a determination that they made that it was legal.

Q So it -- just one more. Senator Durbin has asked for an investigation. You don't think it's necessary?

MR. FRATTO: I leave that decision to the Department of Justice. I think they have carried out their review and they have spoken to the issue.

Source

In 1947, a Japanese officer was sentenced to 15 years hard labor for the crime of waterboarding an American citizen.
During the Vietnam war, an American soldier would (and were!) be court-martialled if he or she used this torture method.
(source)

How times change....

Holy shit at WHAT point are these people to be brought to account?
Or is it not possible to do so any more?
The coming elections won't do it. People generally don't give up power once they acquired it. I think the signing statements will carry on merrily no matter who is the winner of the coming elections, it's a handy tradition for a king president who does not like the decisions of the people. Human nature being what it is, this torture method will be used. And outside of America, damn right it will be eagerly used as excuse.

I believe, our world changed, right here, for the worse. Again.
That seems to have happened a lot, these past years.
(how easily it went)
I wonder what comes next, training manuals for police?

hahahahaha

hahahaha

HAHAHAHAHA


HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!

Oh die is goed!!!!!
Ik heb in tijden niet zo hard gelachen om een cartoon!




bron

Watching Joran van der Sloot's confession

entails getting absolutely saturated with advertising!!!!!

Oh hell. I'll watch this to the end now because I started, but next time I'll wait for the recap on TV or watch it online on Uitzending Gemist or watch the relevant clips on YouTube. Even better, read a transcript somewhere online.

I had forgotten how totally saturated with adverts the Dutch TV had become.
Yuck.

Oh, as for Natalee Holloway, to me it looks as if she died from alcohol poisoning (or went into a coma) and he panicked. Stupid. He should have called an ambulance.
Anyhow, his ass is toast. Pieter R de Vries will be the man of the hour in America as well as over here. His Oprah date has already been set. If at all possible, his head will grow even bigger. I hope someone somewhere will think about why the barriers were that high, that he did not feel safe in calling police or ambulance. It would have saved so much misery all round, had he come forward. Probably, nothing would have happened to him in that case. One thing is for sure, that is one self-absorbed, odious young man. What bothers me very much is that he did not even think of calling an ambulance when it just happened. And, that both these young men did not check for sure if she was dead. She could have been in an alcohol-induced coma. If she was, that would make this murder.

Closure for her parents, that's perhaps the best that comes out of this horrible spectacle.

Added Feb 9: Looks like he fabricated quite a bit of that story. Was some of it true? Could be. But he is an ice cold liar, that young man, he slipped in enough lies that would for sure show up as lies to cover his ass with this confession. The pay phone, he never could have used it because it's only for international calls and always was. Same thing with the name of his accomplice. Who was out of the country at the time of her disappearance, and that can be verified! Plus, the story of his shoes does not ring true. There was no reason for him to ditch them under the original story. He's one of those people who will lie automatically. I think part of his story was true. A good liar always tells just enough truth to not get caught out as a fabricator, by getting the facts mixed up. He's a stupendous liar. So I expect the core of his tale is more or less correct.
Unless she is found, I predict that he will never see a prison cell as a convict.
All one can wish for, is that his life will be punishment enough. This should follow him to his grave.

Geen blowende agenten meer....

OH PULEEZE!!!

Minister Guusje ter Horst (Binnenlandse Zaken) vindt dat agenten in hun vrije tijd geen softdrugs moeten gebruiken. Het drugsgebruik kan de uitstraling en het gezag van politieagenten schaden, aldus de minister.
bron

Ik neem aan dat de volgende stap is, dat ze niet meer een slok op mogen hebben in hun vrije tijd. Want een aangeschoten agent is ook niet echt een voorbeeld voor hun onschuldige publiek, he?!

Doe es normaal!
Wat een agent doet in zijn of haar vrije tijd, is zijn of haar zaak. Tenzij het strafbaar is, dan moeten zij zich verantwoorden, precies zoals iedere andere burger.

Dit is hoe je de Amerikaanse systeem bij ons door de strot duwt: eerst moeten alle agenten plassen in een potje want tja, hoe ga je het anders controleren, he? Dan volgt onderwijzers want ja die hebben ook een voorbeeldfunctie. Artsen dan, die moeten ook te alle tijden sober zijn, toch? En, wat van buschauffeurs, piloten, verpleegsters... eigenlijk iedereen die ooit een auto of fiets pakt zou moeten worden gecontroleerd of ze niet een snuifje of pufje illegaliteit in hun lijf hebben genomen.

Voor je je ogen uitveegt, piest heel Nederland ook in een potje zoals in Amerika al helemaal gewoon is.
Daar pas ik voor.

Ik heb nog nooit het idee gehad dat onze politiemacht all snuivend en blowend rondstruinde. Als ze in hun vrije tijd een biertje of een toke doen, dat is hun eigen zaak. Laten zoals het is, dat is wat ik denk. De puriteinen aan de top zijn toch al veels te invloedrijk, laat ze in hemelsnaam stoppen met dit nonsens!