I\’ve found that in our network WAN accelerators have made a big difference…

Exceptions poker scaricabili gratis poker per pc gratis tournois de poker gratuites ganancias casinos paginas internet poquer on line

‘Malcolm Nance, an advisor on terrorism to the US departments of Homeland Security, Special Operations and Intelligence, publicly denounced the practice. He revealed that waterboarding is used in training at the US Navy’s Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape School in San Diego, and claimed to have witnessed and supervised “hundreds” of waterboarding exercises. Although these last only a few minutes and take place under medical supervision, he concluded that “waterboarding is a torture technique – period”.

The practice involves strapping the person being interrogated on to a board as pints of water are forced into his lungs through a cloth covering his face while the victim’s mouth is forced open. Its effect, according to Mr Nance, is a process of slow-motion suffocation.

“A team doctor watches the quantity of water that is ingested and for the physiological signs which show when the drowning effect goes from painful psychological experience to horrific, suffocating punishment, to the final death spiral. For the uninitiated, it is horrifying to watch.”‘

How thinking of terrorists as pirates can help win the war on terror.”

By Douglas R. Burgess Jr.
http://www.legalaffairs.org/issues/July-August-2005/feature_burgess_julaug05.msp

“INTERNATIONAL LAW LACKS A DEFINITION FOR TERRORISM as a crime. According to Secretary General Kofi Annan, this lack has hampered “the moral authority of the United Nations and its strength in condemning” the scourge.

But attempts to provide a definition have failed because of terrorists’ strangely hybrid status in the law. They are neither ordinary criminals nor recognized state actors, so there is almost no international or domestic law dealing with them. This gives an out to countries that harbor terrorists and declare them “freedom fighters.” It also lets the United States flout its own constitutional safeguards by holding suspects captive indefinitely at Guantánamo Bay. The overall situation is, in a word, anarchic.

…

Coming up with such a framework would perhaps seem impossible, except that one already exists. Dusty and anachronistic, perhaps, but viable all the same. More than 2,000 years ago, Marcus Tullius Cicero defined pirates in Roman law as hostis humani generis, “enemies of the human race.” From that day until now, pirates have held a unique status in the law as international criminals subject to universal jurisdiction—meaning that they may be captured wherever they are found, by any person who finds them. The ongoing war against pirates is the only known example of state vs. nonstate conflict until the advent of the war on terror, and its history is long and notable. More important, there are enormous potential benefits of applying this legal definition to contemporary terrorism.

AT FIRST GLANCE, THE CORRELATION BETWEEN PIRACY AND TERRORISM seems a stretch. Yet much of the basis of this skepticism can be traced to romantic and inaccurate notions about piracy. An examination of the actual history of the crime reveals startling, even astonishing, parallels to contemporary international terrorism. Viewed in its proper historical context, piracy emerges as a clear and powerful precedent. “

Read this today in a football archive that links the above story.

International law has quite a precedent in dealing with piracy, even in addressing state sponsorship of those acting outside borders…

“This was codified explicitly in the 1856 Declaration of Paris, and it has been reiterated as a guiding principle of piracy law ever since. Ironically, it is the very effectiveness of this criminalization that has marginalized piracy and made it seem an arcane and almost romantic offense. Pirates no longer terrorize the seas because a concerted effort among the European states in the 19th century almost eradicated them. It is just such a concerted effort that all states must now undertake against terrorists, until the crime of terrorism becomes as remote and obsolete as piracy.”

This matches every demand we have in dealing with the topic at this time:

If the war on terror becomes akin to war against the pirates, however, the situation would change. First, the crime of terrorism would be defined and proscribed internationally, and terrorists would be properly understood as enemies of all states. This legal status carries significant advantages, chief among them the possibility of universal jurisdiction. Terrorists, as hostis humani generis, could be captured wherever they were found, by anyone who found them. Pirates are currently the only form of criminals subject to this special jurisdiction.

Second, this definition would deter states from harboring terrorists on the grounds that they are “freedom fighters” by providing an objective distinction in law between legitimate insurgency and outright terrorism. This same objective definition could, conversely, also deter states from cracking down on political dissidents as “terrorists,” as both Russia and China have done against their dissidents.

Imagine that, by adhering tot he International Court we could actually strenghthen and reinforce Democracy. Something George W. Bush is more than pleased claim is his vision, like Johnny Appleseed, tossing Napalm, White Phosphorous, Rendition and Torture, anti personnel minds packaged similar to various relief items, and targeting of civilians all over the world. Like some legendary good tidings from am an in burlap with fruity presents for every village he wanders upon.

It takes a Village Idiot. Burlap would make fine clothing for the Boy King, seeing as now the Emporer Wears No Clothes…

Alas, all the logic that could propel such prosecution of terror is disabled by Bushco. and its policy in protecting certain persons such as Mr.Kissinger:

“Third, and perhaps most important, nations that now balk at assisting the United States in the war on terror might have fewer reservations if terrorism were defined as an international crime that could be prosecuted before the International Criminal Court.”

Et tu, AWOL?

Posted by Damozel | According to ABC News, the CIA is pretty upset with John Kiriakou. (ABC) They reportedly aren’t going to prosecute him for revealing classified information, cooler heads having prevailed, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t upset a…

from the May 2007 archives of The Spy Who Billed Me website.

Now tell me they weren’t separated at birth.

For those who were actually there, we now know the limitations of PW’s access. Goss didn’t “bring Jose with him” when he became DCI. Jose is a career DO officer who, in fact, was still a bit in the doghouse when Goss arrived because of an earlier incident. Jose was appointed DDO because he was pretty much the only top level DO officer left when Goss and the Gosslings purged the senior DO ranks and the DDO and ADDO resigned in protest.

And who is your pro-Pelosi/Harmon “anonymous source”? Those who know me are cracking up at your assertion that I’m speaking for Porter Goss.

It appears from an artical I read by Larry, that he voted for Bush in 2000…and I think he has defended Ms Wilson, as so many others people have regardless of what political views they may hold… I don’t even think of the people that refer to Ms Wilson as a “file clerk” to be Republicans. To me they are just treasonous criminals. Can we agree on that?

In the same Article I Sec. 8 listing, it notes calling forth “militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrection, and repel invasions;”

so we would have to meet a benchmark of calling the militia, in full compliance with upholding American law and international law(Article VI) for these unitary Executive powers to meet the conditions of expanded authority? That only if one or all of the three was needed(law enforcement, insurrection, invasion, which would of course adhere Geneva standards in the third case).

Sorry for spelling errors above, my spellcheck opened for a separate window.

Since the Congress is tasked maintenance of an Army, and militia activated requires pay as well, unless these items are paid for(not written on a future IOU as Dubya has done) would we be in violation of the Constitution from a literalistic perspective?

Earlier in the Section it tasks various ways of revenue maintenance, but unless it was to explicitly state so (with regard to both militias and maintenance of the Army) could we contend that anything aside from actual paid in full status was itself failing to uphold an obligation for the Constitution?

States don’t have money to help pay militia at this time, the Federal gov’t doesn’t in terms of cleared and paid for money that isn’t borrowed from China. All 50 states aren’t on notice either, it appears as close they could be to claiming ‘protection of the public’ as means of expanding the Executive’s authority and avoiding oversight would be to meet the standards of “calling the militia forward” which is another 1st Article power granted Congress.

You aren’t telling me anything I don’t know. However, the ones who own our politicans are the neocons and are in control.
For too long people were silent about what they were doing now everyone is fucked up.

It was the Dems who stuck up for Valerie Plame when your Bush buddies you seem intent on protecting threw her to the wolves. Republicans were (and to this day some still are) trying to pretend she was just a file clerk. Or have you forgotten that?

1) Pelosi was at one (1) briefing in late 2002. That briefing, per Pelosi, wasn’t particularly detailed — but a later one, which Jane Harman attended, was sufficiently disturbing to cause Harman to register a protest, in which Pelosi concurred. Of course, since the Dems were in the minority at the time, there wasn’t a lot else they could do about it.

2) Goss, who saw the 2002 and later briefings because he was the ranking GOP member of the House intel committee (just like Pelosi and Harman were the Dem members of the same committee), was tapped in 2004 to run the CIA. He brought with him a guy named Jose Rodriguez. It was Rodriguez who trashed the torture tapes in 2005 — under Goss’ watch — in direct defiance of a court order.

Think that Goss might want to deflect attention from that?

Think that he’s also aware of how easy it is to get liberals to chow down on their own?

Trust me, if Pelosi were on Goss’ side WRT torture, we wouldn’t be seeing Goss and his buddies do their damndest to try to derail her torture-tape probe with calculated smears. I fully expect before the month is out to see a bunch of hookers picked up from the Tenderloin district of San Francisco and paraded around as Pelosi’s lesbian lovers.