US Nuremberg Prosecutor: "My Government Today Prepared to Do Something for Which We Hanged Germans"

[kpete]

U.S. Nuremberg Prosecutor: "My Government Today Prepared to Do Something for Which We Hanged Germans"
Submitted by davidswanson on Tue, 2011-03-08 14:03

By Ben Ferencz

...............


So there we are. We have a difficult world, and really it's up to the young people to do something about it. Do what your heart tells you is the right thing - stop glorifying war. Do it as best you can. We are spending $2 billion every day on the military. We have a stronger military than every nation in the world combined. What for? No one wants the US to be the self-appointed policeman of he world. The country is on the verge of bankruptcy. We are denying people the elements of health and education by wasting our money on weapons of mass destruction that we cannot use. If you cannot reach and persuade politicians to reverse this disastrous policy, you may have to take to the streets. What else can we do?

America is a great democracy, and in every democracy it's normal, and it should be that way, that people have differences of opinion. But a democracy can only work if its people are being told the truth. You cannot run a country as Hitler did, feeding the public a pack of lies to frighten them that they are being threatened so it's justified to kill people you don't even know. You cannot do that. It's not logical, it's not decent, it's not moral and it's not helpful. When an unmanned bomber from a secret American airfield fires rockets into a little Pakistan or Afghan village and thereby kills or maims unknown numbers of innocent people, what is the effect of that?

Every victim will hate Americans forever and will be willing to die killing as many Americans as possible. Where there is no court of justice wild vengeance is the alternative.

I'm a law-man. I believe in the rule of law. I see that we are provoking what we condemn as dangerous terrorism. The country is terrified. The freedom from fear that President Roosevelt talked about doesn't exist in America today, Armies of airport guards check the shoes of old ladies to see if they've got a bomb hidden there. What have we come to? It's not my world any more. My future is behind me. But, for your sake, and for those who have grand-children, make up your mind. Speak up when you can. Talk to your Congressman. Talk to your friends. Talk to your enemies. It's up to the lawyers to lay down the rules and create the courts. We're doing that, slowly and with difficulty. We need help from the public. You are the public.

Good luck to you. Thank you.

the rest:
http://warisacrime.org/content/us-nuremberg-prosecutor-my-government-today-prepared-do-something-which-we-hanged-germans

[Solly Mack]

1. K&R

[walldude]

2. K&R

I hate it when they point out the obvious.

[gratuitous]

3. Oh, he's just a dirty fucking hippie who didn't get a pony!

Wait, no; he's absolutely right. We are running this country on lies, fright, and threats. It's not moral. It's not helpful. It's not sustainable. There is a small cadre of people picking the wealth of this country clean, and they don't give a tinker's damn for the United States or its citizens as long as they have their millions or billions.

[reggie the dog]

130. the rulers, the real wealthy rulers, have a gangster menatality

when i was in the university i had a friend who sold drugs to pay his way through school. He was in the gang called the SD's, used to be spanish disciples but due to demographics change in the brideport neighborhood of chicago and their acception of whites and asians they became satan's disciples. At any rate i got to meet many gangsters thanks to my friend (which helped me ace my sociology class about the role criminal gangs played in socializing urban youth led by Nilda Flores Gonzales) and i got to meet some of the high ups in their gang. Their mentality was to open a "hole" as they called it and milk it for all it was worth, a hole being an open air drug market. They didnt give a damn who they sold crack or heroin or pcp or whatnot to so long as it was not the cops, they didnt give a damn if they were harming their own people because they had to get their "ends" (make their money). They bribed police, hell cops were even in their gang and "brother"gangs. One time while i was out on bond for felony intent to deliver cannabis (i was found innocent because my lawyer went golfing with the judge and paid a bribe) and a chicago cop in uniform knocked on the door, as i was rolling joints i flipped out and made a run for it, until i heard the cops say "BGD love" (black gangster disciple love) so i knew he was friendly. He had just "busted" some Latin Kings and taken a kilo of cocaine and a pound of weed from them and was there to give it to the SD's to boil into crack and sell. He said he would be back in 10 hours for the money. The gangsters proceeded to teach me how to boil crack and make money. The 12 year olds would get 11 dime bags and be expected to bring back 100 dollars and they would twice an hour. The higher ups sat there and snorted cocaine with some of the prettiest girls in the neighborhood while we smoked as much of the weed as we could. Later on the BGD cop came back for his money, the gangsters had their money, plus they had the tax money for the gang president and the little 12 year olds had each made 100 dollars or so and got a free bag of weed. Everyone was happy including the crackheads and hell be damned how bad it was for their neighborhood and tough shit for the guy "busted" but not arrested by the cop who would likely be shot for drug debt. I can honestly say that i think that this his how large multinationals and wealthy investors work. Do you see how the wealthy class often acts? they listen to gangster rap in the night club, treat women like shit but have beautiful women who like them for their cocaine and jewelry, they dont give a damn about their people so long as they make their money, they bribe police, politicians and the like and all they really care about is running their "hole" (the usa in this case) to get their "ends" (make their money.) If more people would look into criminal gangs to try to see how they work instead of just saying they are hoodlums they would realize that we are led by gangsters, wealthy gangsters in suits, but gangsters none the less.

[xxqqqzme]

158. Which is why 'Banksters'

is a fitting description.

That is quite an experience, you relate.

[Aerows]

4. K & R n/t

[chill_wind]

5. k&r

[sudopod]

6. But his hands are tied, I tell you!

He has no choice!

[hwmnbn]

7. K&R

[FiveGoodMen]

8. Wish I could rec a thousand times.

[ProSense]

9. What is this article about? It was published in February

Original

<...>

In our military jargon, we call such assaults a "preemptive first strike", The US military policy today does not preclude first strike by the United States in order to prevent a presumed attack from another side. That Ohlendorf argument was considered by three American judges at Nuremberg, and they sentenced him and twelve others to death by hanging. So it's very disappointing to find that my government today is prepared to do something for which we hanged Germans as war criminals.

After long deliberation, I concluded that the best and perhaps the only way to prevent mass atrocities was to stop war-making itself. Stop war-making?. Well, how do you stop war-making? Is it possible?

I began to study that subject in great detail. My conclusions are laid bare in my books, articles and lectures,. They are available free on my web site. I learned that, if you want to have a peaceful society, any society, whether it is in Boca, or in the United States or in the world, you need three components. You need laws, to define what's permissible and what's not permissible; you need courts, in order to determine whether the laws have been violated and to serve as a forum for settlements and you need a system of effective enforcement.

<...>

Seems like it's talking about Bush's "preemptive first strike" policy.

[tekisui]

16. It is about our senseless wars in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Specifically, the unmanned drone strikes killing innocents in Pakistan. Which, Obama has increased. It may have been a bush preemption policy, but Obama has embraced it in Pakistan.

[jwirr]

22. I think you are correct. The Geneva Conventions forbid starting

wars like we did in Afghanistan and Iraq. It is aggression. I may be wrong about this but I do not think so. One question, who is the prosecutor who said that?

[tabasco]

28. Wrong.

We had just cause and international support for military action in Afghanistan.

Iraq, not so much.

[liberation]

31. Damn right. We really showed them Afghanis for flying them planes into our buildings...

... oh, wait.

[guruoo]

58. Afghanistan was providing safe harbor to those that 'flew them planes into our buildings' nt

[Enthusiast]

61. Afghanistan, safe harbor?

Afghanistan was a complete mess, even then. And IIRC before 9/11 Afghanistan offered to give us Ossama Bin Ladin. Correct me if I'm wrong on this.

[aikoaiko]

85. If I remember, there were conditions to the hand over.

There were face saving conditions for the Taliban if I remember correctly.

[coalition_unwilling]

122. Jesus H. Christ, the willful amnesia on this site never fails to amaze me.

Here's what the Taliban government offered: They would turn over bin Laden to the U.S. (our demand) if the U.S. presented evidence showing that bin Laden had played a role in 9-11.

You call that 'face saving conditions'. i call it what any legitimate government should do.

Think about it this way: the Taliban demands the U.S. turn you over to them because of crimes you committed against the Afghan people. The U.S. government agrees to do so, provided the Taliban shows it what evidence it has for its allegations. Would you
not want the U.S. government to insist on seeing the evidence before turning you over to the Taliban?

Bush's Junta refused to provide any evidence. Sure, Colin Powell (then U.S. Sec of State) promised at some point to offer a white paper with details of the charges and evidence against ObL. But somehow that white paper never got released.

We demanded the Taliban turn ObL over to us. We refused to offer any evidence. The Taliban (quite rightly in my opinion) refused to acede to our bullshit bullying demands.

Do you really need me to dig up the hyperlinks that support this? I can if you really need them but I'm pressed for time.

[BobbyBoring]

145. You mean

The Bin Laden confession tapes found in a cave were not enough to convince the Taliban?

[coalition_unwilling]

147. Those supposed 'confession tapes' were found long after the

U.S. invaded and occupied Afghanistan and the Taliban had been toppled. We are talking about whether the Taliban's insistence that it see the evidence prior to turning ObL over was 'face saving' (the post I was responding to) or whether its insistence was legitimate and no different than what the U.S. would have done were the situation reversed.

[aikoaiko]

163. yes, you have to dig up the links if you're going to say things like "willful amnesia".

[coalition_unwilling]

173. I apologize for the very poor choice of words in alleging "willful

amnesia". It was written in haste and heat and I hereby retract it.

As for getting the links, I'm under a lot of time pressure right now and can't go rooting around on the tubes looking for them. The reason I remember so well, though, is that I remember that it was Colin Powell offering to release the 'white paper' and then never releasing it that got me involved in the anti-war movement in November 2001.

If I get a chance I will see if I can dig up the links while this thread is still hot. May have to email you with them.

[aikoaiko]

174. Its ok, I found one that basically lays it out.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/oct/14/afghanistan.terrorism5

[defendandprotect]

116. Additionally, US/CIA created & financed Taliban/Al Qaeda up to day of 9/11 and ...

who knows for how long afterwards?

[reggie the dog]

134. taliban and al qaeda

the / makes it seem as if they were one and the same, which they were not.

[defendandprotect]

139. Al Qaeda ....

according to what I've read was a old organization which the Nazis took over --

and after WWII passed on to the CIA.

Al Qaeda may be myth and fiction combined -- but it was part of the Taliban/Al Qaeda

funding thru ISI/Pakistan and BOTH used together to defeat the Russians --

US troops went into Afghanistan 6 months before the Russians came in to "bait the Russians into

Afghanistan ... in hopes of giving them a Vietnam-type experience."



al-Qaeda - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Organization|Strategy|Etymology|Ideology... no evidence that bin Laden used the term " al- Qaeda" to ... and trained with CIA help to defeat the Russians. ... were fewer than 100 members of Al- Qaeda remaining in Afghanistan...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Qaeda - Cached

What is Al Qaeda?
... eventually defeat and expel the Russian Army from Afghanistan. ... out of Afghanistan became a major enterprise for the CIA, which used its ... invasion of Afghanistan. Al Qaeda ...
english.pravda.ru/world/asia/01-12-2008/​106767-al_qaeda-0 - Cached
Al Qaeda's Shadow Army commander outlines Afghan strategy
... operate in Pakistan and Afghanistan laid out al Qaeda and the Taliban's strategy to defeat ... Sa'id believes the Russians will ... The Taliban and al Qaeda will use the ...
www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2009/04/​al_qaedas_shadow... - Cached

."Al-Qaeda" Does Not Exist
"Al-Qaeda" Does Not Exist Did ... help from the CIA to defeat the Russians ... his CIA handlers from Afghanistan. It's worthy to conclude with Bunel's assertion that "Al-Qaeda ...
www.infowars.com/articles/terror/al_​qaeda_does_not_exist... - Cached

'Al Qaeda': How the Pentagon/ CIA Made an 'Enemy'
... trained with help from the CIA to defeat the Russians ... CIA trained assassins, who can be used ... fighting the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, spawned both Al Qaeda ...
educate-yourself.org/cn/​alqaedagenenis09jul05.shtml - Cached


According to journalsit David Rohde --

Over those months, I came to a simple realization. After seven years of reporting in the region, I did not fully understand how extreme many of the Taliban had become. Before the kidnapping, I viewed the organization as a form of “Al Qaeda lite,” a religiously motivated movement primarily focused on controlling Afghanistan.

Living side by side with the Haqqanis’ followers, I learned that the goal of the hard-line Taliban was far more ambitious. Contact with foreign militants in the tribal areas appeared to have deeply affected many young Taliban fighters. They wanted to create a fundamentalist Islamic emirate with Al Qaeda that spanned the Muslim world.

http://www.captainsjournal.com/2009/10/21/the-connection-between-the-taliban-and-al-qaeda/


Summary --

1. Mullah Mohammed Omar founded Taliban and the credit for al qaeda goes to Osama bin laden.
2. Al Qaeda consists of Sunni Muslims who practise Wahabism, which is considered to be the most extreme and violent form of Islam). The Taliban, dominated by people with Pashtun identity.
3. Al Qaeda means “the base” or “the foundation”. Taliban means talib that means “student.”

http://www.differencebetween.net/miscellaneous/difference-between-taliban-and-al-qaeda/#ixzz1G85X12lG


Here again, since Bin Laden seems to have been a CIA operative, the fiction of Al Qaeda seems

simply joined with the fiction of BL and the Taliban -- but it's all CIA.

Eventual US/CIA unhappiness with Taliban comes when they begin to seriously wage war on heroin

production in Afghanistan! As the British say, "The Americans just love to sell drugs!"

[reggie the dog]

152. 2001 taliban is not the same as 2009

our invading and attacking them made them get new allies, the taliban was an official us ally up until 911. i agree about cia influence, they run the heroin dont they?

[defendandprotect]

168. 2001 CIA is not the same as 2009 --

We FINANCED the Taliban up to 9/11 -- and we had 24/7 surveillince of them --

we also worked to create a VIOLENT strain of Islam in the Middle East --

If you remember those notorious Islamic TEXTBOOKS you heard so much about on your

TVs you should know that they were actually created -- written, printed and shipped --

by our US/CIA -- !!


Here's the info on the TEXTBOOKS --- 2nd article --

The CIA's Intervention in Afghanistan
Interview with Zbigniew Brzezinski,
President Jimmy Carter's National Security Adviser

Le Nouvel Observateur, Paris, 15-21 January 1998

Question: The former director of the CIA, Robert Gates, stated in his memoirs <"From the Shadows">, that American intelligence services began to aid the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan 6 months before the Soviet intervention. In this period you were the national security adviser to President Carter. You therefore played a role in this affair. Is that correct?

Brzezinski: Yes. According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention.

Q: Despite this risk, you were an advocate of this covert action. But perhaps you yourself desired this Soviet entry into war and looked to provoke it?

B: It isn't quite that. We didn't push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would.

Q: When the Soviets justified their intervention by asserting that they intended to fight against a secret involvement of the United States in Afghanistan, people didn't believe them. However, there was a basis of truth. You don't regret anything today?

Q: Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter. We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war. Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a war unsupportable by the government, a conflict that brought about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire.

Q: And neither do you regret having supported the Islamic fundamentalism, having given arms and advice to future terrorists?

Q: What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?

http://www.takeoverworld.info/brzezinski_interview_shor...

AND --


The US spent $100's of millions shooting down Soviet helicopters yet didn't spend a penny helping Afghanis rebuild their infrastructure and institutions.

They also spent millions producing jihad preaching, fundamentalist textbooks and shipping them off to Afghanistan. These were the same text books the Western media discussed in shocked tones and told their audiences were used by fundamentalist teachers to brainwash their charges and to inculcate in young Afghanis a jihad mindset, hatred of foreigners and non-Muslims etc.



Have you heard about the Afghan Jihad schoolbook scandal?

Or perhaps I should say, "Have you heard about the Afghan Jihad schoolbook scandal that's waiting to happen?"

Because it has been almost unreported in the Western media that the US government shipped, and continues to ship, millions of Islamist textbooks into Afghanistan.

Only one English-speaking newspaper we could find has investigated this issue: the Washington Post. The story appeared March 23rd.

Washington Post investigators report that during the past twenty years the US has spent millions of dollars producing fanatical schoolbooks, which were then distributed in Afghanistan.

"The primers, which were filled with talk of jihad and featured drawings of guns, bullets, soldiers and mines, have served since then as the Afghan school system's core curriculum. Even the Taliban used the American-produced books..." -- Washington Post, 23 March 2002 (1)

According to the Post the U.S. is now "...wrestling with the unintended consequences of its successful strategy of stirring Islamic fervor to fight communism."

So the books made up the core curriculum in Afghan schools. And what were the unintended consequences? The Post reports that according to unnamed officials the schoolbooks "steeped a generation in violence."

How could this result have been unintended? Did they expect that giving fundamentalist schoolbooks to schoolchildren would make them moderate Muslims?

Nobody with normal intelligence could expect to distribute millions of violent Islamist schoolbooks without influencing school children towards violent Islamism. Therefore one would assume that the unnamed US officials who, we are told, are distressed at these "unintended consequences" must previously have been unaware of the Islamist content of the schoolbooks.

But surely someone was aware. The US government can't write, edit, print and ship millions of violent, Muslim fundamentalist primers into Afghanistan without high officials in the US government approving those primers.

http://www.tenc.net/articles/jared/jihad.htm

[rhett o rick]

87. Yeah I get it. And we are punishing them by killing their woman and children.

And sending the US economy into the toilet. Whose winning?

[guruoo]

101. The tragic result of 100 years or more of flawed foreign policy,

brought to you by the same cast that gave us the red scare.

[liberation]

100. How exactly do you provide "safe harbor" to people who are dead?

Also remind me again how many Afghanis were on those planes flown into our buildings?

[frylock]

105. so was clairmont mesa here in san diego

[defendandprotect]

114. Mississippi harbored and sheltered members of the KKK .. should we have bombed ALL of Mississippi?

And what of Saudi Arabia -- something like 14 of the 19 alleged hijackers were

Saudis -- should we have bombed ALL of Saudi Arabia?

[spooked911]

115. Bull

9/11 was an inside job.

[reggie the dog]

135. including help from cia operative bin laden

the three towers that fell in NYC were all rigged up with explosives as per many many physics phd holders in the usa and around the world.

[guruoo]

169. Sorry, but I'm with LIHOP nt

[reggie the dog]

133. a cease fire with al quida

while fighting a hot war against 5 other groups is not safe harbor, it just means that they had too many fronts in their war already and when al quida said "let us be and we wont attack you," the taliban agreed.

[russspeakeasy]

107. It was the Mexicans, can't you get anything right?

[TBF]

33. Only because Bush was president for the Iraq invasion and Afghanistan

is Obama's war. So transparent ...

[tabasco]

81. No

Because it's the truth.

I don't give a shit whose war it is.

You don't seem to be very knowledgeable about recent history.

[TBF]

86. Nah, we're just all sitting around jacking off -

we don't know nuthin about no current events.

Grow up.

[defendandprotect]

35. Because the nation was lied to by Bush -- as was the rest of the world ... including UN -- !!

9/11 -- MIHOP --

[rhett o rick]

88. You have to be joking. His lies were so transparent the whole world saw thru them.

Only the gullible fell for his lies. And politicians that were bought and paid for by the war profiteers.

[defendandprotect]

117. Can't help agreeing with that -- but nonetheless, Bush lied -- and that's the story ...

i.e, that a "gullible" Congress believed what Bush said!!

Colin Powell lied everywhere -- including in front of a covered over "Guernica" at UN!!

9/11 MIHOP!!

[rhett o rick]

172. You want to put all the blame on Bush. Maybe it is easier for your conscience.

Of course he lied but I knew it then and most people with a conscience did also. Those in Congress that went along with him were not fooled, they did it because they were cowards and afraid for their political lives if they didnt appear patriot. The evidence Bush gave was so pathetic and most was openly debunked before the invasion. As far as the rest of the world, they openly spoke out against the lies.

[ArcticFox]

50. No

It was Saudis who attacked. Even if their planning occurred in Afghanistan, that gives us no right to be lobbing missiles into wedding parties nine years later.

[tabasco]

82. Sorry

but the international community disagrees with you.

The US had justification, as defined in current international law, to intervene in Afghanistan.

You might disagree with the status of international law, but that's the way it is.

[reggie the dog]

136. they may have had just cause to go after al queda

but how was it legal for them to go after their own allies, the taliban? plus dont you think that the taliban cutting heroin and hash supply to near zero is the real reason for the invasion? now afghanistan produces heroin for the whole world again and hash. I am smoking afghan hash stamped shariff right now and it is easier to find here in france than hash from north africa. The CIA MI5 french secret goons and the like need black market money, the taliban thought the money they were getting to fight the war on drugs was really to eradicate drugs not just rip up some to drive up price.....

[BobbyBoring]

146. WOW!

I'm movin to France!

[reggie the dog]

155. sharrif afghanistan super quality stamped in gold on the kilos ten times

so each 100 gram chunk has it. plus there is the name of the guy who grow it, but i only had part of the 100 grams so when we cut it up my buddy got the guys name. it sells for between 5 and 7 euros a gram in bulk (100grams at a time) and from 6 to 10 euros a gram in ten gram chunks depending on the dealer, you dont always get the stamped in gold hash, but afghan black is all over and not too badly priced at 21 euros an eighth.

[bvar22]

159. What "International Community" are you speaking for?

The Global Corporations?

The Western MIC?

G-20?

The IMF?

[frylock]

162. the international community is packing their shit and bugging out of afghanistan..

meanwhile, obama is doubling down, because, well umm, that's what he said he would do.

[Enthusiast]

118. Might makes right.

:sarcasm:

[tomp]

62. wrong.

when we have completed a thorough investigation of 9/11 then, maybe, we could say we have a case. but not until that happens and, decidedly, that investigation has not yet occurred.

[tabasco]

83. Because you say so.

Got it!

[Enthusiast]

121. Because it's true.

I watched Rice squirm on the witness stand as she lied about how intelligence was ignored. Bush and Cheney didn't testify under oath? Are you kidding me?

[tomp]

171. there are hundreds of important questions....

....that remain unanswered regarding 9/11, which call into serious question the outrageously insufficient official story. when you have the answers you can be flippant with me.

and if you don't know those questions you're just hopelessly uninformed.

[Jakes Progress]

96. That's the propaganda line.

We only went into Afghanistan because some of the bad guys were there. The government cared so little about Afghanistan that they didn't even catch Bin Laden (remember him?).

No the war we started was with Iraq. bush and company already had plans to invade Iraq before 9/11. That crisis just gave them the shock for their doctrine. It was an illegal war. Afghanistan was a little bit of theater to get support.

Okay. No one here would disagree with that, but the problem is that we are still there. We are still killing Afghans. We are still spending billions. We all know the wars were wrong, so why do we keep them up? Why continue the killing? The timid way this was undertaken by the administration has given the republicans cover. Now it is Obama's war. The day after inauguration, Obama should have called the war immoral. He should have set up a commission to find the guilty parties and prosecuted. He should have taken a stand for the right thing. We would have reparations to make. We would have had cooperation from many nations to right this wrong. Instead, hesitation and hubris has made an illegal and unsupportable war the fault and property of the United States.

[reggie the dog]

137. 2 "h" words, heroin and hashish

that is why afghanistan was invaded, they cut supply to near zero, the cia and their equals across the world are the biggest drug smugglers (iran contra affair) afghanistan did not realize that they were supposed to take our money and eradicate some drugs to drive up price and make good photo ops like they do in morocco, they actually cut production to near zero. now europe is awash in cheap good quality heroin and cheap excellent quality hashish...

[haikugal]

99. Just cause??

Give me a break. When were we invaded?

[reggie the dog]

132. Just cause? to attack our former allies the taliban?

the taliban who was our ally in the war on drugs and cut heroin production to near zero? The taliban who was not allied with al quida but meerely had a cease fire with them? the cia and mi5 need heroin to make money, the taliban thought they were really supposed to eradicate ALL of it, not just enough to drive the price up so they got hit.

[BobbyBoring]

144. Horse manure

We did have international support but just cause? Both wars were on the books WAY B4 9/11. What was needed was a "New Pearl Harbor" to get the American public and the "International Supporters" to go along. The PNAC was just waiting for someone as dumb and pliable as W to be selected POTUS.

Everything was going according to plan after The Afghans won our proxy war with the USSR. We were actually working with the Taliban to secure a pipe line across Afghanistan to the Caspian Sea. Somehow, an Argentine concern "Bridas Corp. made them a better deal so we were out and Bridas was in. Just like Iraq, this war is about oil too.

[nadinbrzezinski]

36. reaching for that hat due to ... what I did for years

Afghanistan was not a preemptive war and actually was very legal under article 51 of the UN Convention... a nation state CAN defend itself when attacked. 9.11, whether we like it or not, is an attack.

Now Iraq... is a war of agression, with crimes against humanity and a conspiracy. aka three our of the four terms of the indictment for Nuremberg, the only one missing is genocide. Hey, not bad for our Neocons... three out of four.

[jwirr]

37. Thanks, I wasn't sure.

[Luminous Animal]

43. Ah ha! And their are a slew of very smart international lega scholars that will

argue very convincingly that George Bush misused and abused Article 51. Your post is no more a justification than George Bush's and the PNAC's reasons for attacking Afghanistan.

[nadinbrzezinski]

46. He did, re Iraq, clearly he did

but Afghanistan, people are really torn on that one. You will find people on both sides of that battle

I would have much preferred a POLICE action, the best way to deal with crime syndicates, but to say there was no attack is just stupid.

On and if the war came to an end at Tora Bora (see Iraq) like it could have, we would not be having this discussion.

[Enthusiast]

63. For the sake of argument,

Afghanistan, as a nation state, did not plan and execute attacks that took place on 9/11.

[tomp]

64. wow, i thought you were smarter than that.

as i said upstream, only after we have conducted a thorough investigation of 9/11 can we speak of invading anyone as a response to that attack.

[coalition_unwilling]

126. Well, I agree with you way more often than I diasgree. Unfortunately,

this is one of the latter instances.

A nation state can defend itself when attacked . . . by another nation state. If you accept the official narrative, 9-11 was a criminal act, not an act of war by a nation declared upon the U.S. If 9-11 were an act of war justifying self-defense, we should have bombed Saudi Arabia, as that is where 14 of the 19 alleged hijackers' passports originated. There were no, repeat 0, Afghans on any of the hijacked 9-11 planes. Even if you do accept the official narrative, the only thing Afghanistan did was to provide a place of residence for some of the plotters. That's the sum total of Afghanistan's role in 9-11.

So how exactly is our invasion and occupation of Afghanistan 'legal' under article 51 of the UN charter?

[reggie the dog]

140. If a militia composed of hondurans trained in the usa

then went to mexico and killed 1000 rival drug smugglers would mexico have the legal right to attack the usa?

[coalition_unwilling]

149. Unclear and ambiguous. Did the hypothetical hondurans 'train'

in the USA with the hypothetical foreknowledge and connivance of said hypothetical U.S. government? No one disputes that ObL resided in Afghanistan. What is under dispute is the kind and degree of Taliban foreknowledge and connivance with his plans (assuming one accepts the official narrative at face value, even though Bush and Cheney managed to get out of testifying under oath to the 9-11 commission in a case involving the deaths of 3,000 of their fellow citizens).

[reggie the dog]

156. imagining that the administration simply said

people can form militias, nothing illegal, and just thought they were your average right wing nut job militia so they did nothing.

[reggie the dog]

138. neither afghanistan, nor their taliban leaders attacked us

a criminal organization attacked us. did we ever attack italy because the mafia did hits on people in the usa?

[Luminous Animal]

41. It also forbids attacking Pakistan. Which Obama does regularly.

As for the prosecutor? Did you read the OP or follow the link?

[Luminous Animal]

39. I said, "Didn't you have any qualms about killing all these people, little children and all that?"

"No," he said, "because we relied on the head of state, Hitler. He had more information than I had, and he told us that the Soviets planned to attack, so it was necessary in presumed self-defense."

In our military jargon, we call such assaults a "preemptive first strike", The US military policy today does not preclude first strike by the United States in order to prevent a presumed attack from another side. That Ohlendorf argument was considered by three American judges at Nuremberg, and they sentenced him and twelve others to death by hanging. So it's very disappointing to find that my government today is prepared to do something for which we hanged Germans as war criminals.

Substitute Pakistan.

[sabrina 1]

45. There are none so blind ...

He's talking about many things, but he singles out DRONES. This administration has illegally slaughtered hundreds of men, women and children with DRONES over the past two years.

You must have missed the parts that deal with the current administration's continuation of the Bush policies and worse, their enhancement of them.

They have so religiously adapted and enhanced Bush's policies, that Republicans, like Dick Cheney are finally 'pleased' with what they are doing. Slaughtering people in Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iraq.

I suggest you reread the article. He is 100% correct and I am for one will NOT be a part of these war crimes, no matter whether it is a Democrat of a Republican who is responsible.

Nine little boys slaughtered this week, and for what?? That wasn't Bush this time was it?

[Mimosa]

75. Some will claim 'we didn't know'

BTW, everybody ought to see the classic movie Judgement at Nuremberg. It will make you curious to learn more and read the transcripts of the trials.

[sabrina 1]

143. I have seen it. It is an excellent movie

It should be shown on a regular basis so that the message from that horrific time is not forgotten, as sometimes I believe it is.

And yes, people will claim they did not know, and our media will make it possible for them to make that claim.

[libmom74]

56. Afghanistan, Yemen

Pakistan, preemtive strikes, drone attacks, following the rule of law. The article applies just as equally to Obama's actions as it does to Bush's regardless of when it was written.

[meow2u3]

84. "Preemptive first strike" translated

Kill innocent people before potential aggressors can kill you. Nothing more, nothing less. Better known as bullying on an international level.

[L0oniX]

10. ...more like 3 billion a day.

For the 2010 fiscal year, the president's base budget of the Department of Defense rose to $533.8 billion. Adding spending on "overseas contingency operations" brings the sum to $663.8 billion.<1><2>

When the budget was signed into law on October 28, 2009, the final size of the Department of Defense's budget was $680 billion, $16 billion more than President Obama had requested.<3> An additional $37 billion supplemental bill to support the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan was expected to pass in the spring of 2010, but has been delayed by the House of Representatives after passing the Senate.<4><5> Defense-related expenditures outside of the Department of Defense constitute between $319 billion and $654 billion in additional spending, bringing the total for defense spending to between $1.01 and $1.35 trillion in fiscal year 2010.<6>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States

...and then add 30 billion more for this year ...so far.

quote:
$1.35 trillion in fiscal year 2010
$1.35 trillion in fiscal year 2010
$1.35 trillion in fiscal year 2010
$1.35 trillion in fiscal year 2010
$1.35 trillion in fiscal year 2010
$1.35 trillion in fiscal year 2010
$1.35 trillion in fiscal year 2010
$1.35 trillion in fiscal year 2010
$1.35 trillion in fiscal year 2010
$1.35 trillion in fiscal year 2010
$1.35 trillion in fiscal year 2010
$1.35 trillion in fiscal year 2010
$1.35 trillion in fiscal year 2010
$1.35 trillion in fiscal year 2010
$1.35 trillion in fiscal year 2010
$1.35 trillion in fiscal year 2010
$1.35 trillion in fiscal year 2010
$1.35 trillion in fiscal year 2010
$1.35 trillion in fiscal year 2010
$1.35 trillion in fiscal year 2010
$1.35 trillion in fiscal year 2010
$1.35 trillion in fiscal year 2010
$1.35 trillion in fiscal year 2010
$1.35 trillion in fiscal year 2010
$1.35 trillion in fiscal year 2010
$1.35 trillion in fiscal year 2010
$1.35 trillion in fiscal year 2010
$1.35 trillion in fiscal year 2010
$1.35 trillion in fiscal year 2010
$1.35 trillion in fiscal year 2010
$1.35 trillion in fiscal year 2010
$1.35 trillion in fiscal year 2010
$1.35 trillion in fiscal year 2010
$1.35 trillion in fiscal year 2010
$1.35 trillion in fiscal year 2010
$1.35 trillion in fiscal year 2010
$1.35 trillion in fiscal year 2010
$1.35 trillion in fiscal year 2010
$1.35 trillion in fiscal year 2010
$1.35 trillion in fiscal year 2010
$1.35 trillion in fiscal year 2010
$1.35 trillion in fiscal year 2010
$1.35 trillion in fiscal year 2010
$1.35 trillion in fiscal year 2010
$1.35 trillion in fiscal year 2010
$1.35 trillion in fiscal year 2010
$1.35 trillion in fiscal year 2010
$1.35 trillion in fiscal year 2010
$1.35 trillion in fiscal year 2010
$1.35 trillion in fiscal year 2010
$1.35 trillion in fiscal year 2010

[davidthegnome]

12. $1.35 trillion....

They talk about budget crisis and shared sacrifice... 1.35 trillion...? With the State and federal budgets in so much trouble right now - with poverty and homelessness spreading at an alarming rate - all manner of social programs getting the axe... we just had to give the richest people in the Country tax cuts to top it all off... and $1.35 trillion is what we spent in the fiscal year 2010 for the DOD budget. People, that's not a budget, we've been robbed blind.

[Mimosa]

76. And that's why our people can't have health care...

or any other pretty ponies!

[DinahMoeHum]

11. Here's the bio on Benjamin Ferencz.

http://www.benferencz.org/index.php?id=3

(snip)
The U.S. had decided to prosecute a broad cross section of Nazi criminals once the trial against Goering and his henchmen was over. General Telford Taylor was assigned as Chief of Counsel for 12 subsequent trials. Ferencz was sent with about fifty researchers to Berlin to scour Nazi offices and archives. In their hands lay overwhelming evidence of Nazi genocide by German doctors, lawyers, judges, generals, industrialists, and others who played leading roles in organizing or perpetrating Nazi brutalities. Without pity or remorse, the SS murder squads killed every Jewish man, woman, and child they could lay their hands on. Gypsies, communist functionaries, and Soviet intellectuals suffered the same fate. It was tabulated that over a million persons were deliberately murdered by these special "action groups."

Ferencz became Chief Prosecutor for the United States in The Einsatzgruppen Case, which the Associated Press called "the biggest murder trial in history." Twenty-two defendants were charged with murdering over a million people. He was only twenty-seven years old. It was his first case.

All of the defendants were convicted. Thirteen were sentenced to death. The verdict was hailed as a great success for the prosecution. Ferencz's primary objective had been to establish a legal precedent that would encourage a more humane and secure world in the future.
(snip)

[snagglepuss]

42. A great and good man. Thank you for posting.

[highplainsdem]

13. K&R

[eShirl]

14. Sometimes the truth hurts.

Watch them metaphorically "shoot the messenger."

(or try to)

[Octafish]

15. ''Impeachment is off the table.''

Why? Oh, yeah, that's right. The guy was never elected in the first place.

No American should rest until these psychotic greedhead warmongering traitors are under arrest, awaiting trial.

K&R until then.

[sabrina 1]

47. I agree with you 100%. We are complicit if we do not

speak out, no matter which party is responsible. There has been a deafening silence from the 'left' since a Democrat took over the war machine. It wasn't easy at first to have to acknowledge that nothing has changed as far as the war crimes are concerned. But no decent person can go on denying what is going on. Without being complicit.

[Octafish]

79. It's not a democracy when people vote for peace and we continue to make war.

What it resembles is empire, if one is polite; fascism, if one is realistic.

Either way, if we don't return to democracy, We the People are in deep doo-doo.

[russspeakeasy]

110. What do you mean, nothing has changed?

He changed the------o.k. never mind.

[sabrina 1]

131. Lol! n/t

[tomp]

65. ya got that right. nt

[Octafish]

80. Chalmers Johnson noted it in 2007...

...with Harry Kreisler for "Conversations with History" at UC Berkeley.

[Canuckistanian]

17. Jesus, he's right

"My future is behind me" There's no progress to look forward to. Only regression. Back to the Dark Ages.

I think social historians may now look back at BOTH the Bush and Obama administrations as a blot on the American record of jurisprudence and social justice.

[reggie the dog]

142. we can look forward to doing drugs, i want some soma

[Hannah Bell]

18. kr

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

19. K&R

[Occulus]

20. K&R; I just sent him an email asking him to post this elsewhere online

Specifically, over at Kos. I hope he does; this lecture in particular needs more eyeballs and lot of discussion.

[LiberalAndProud]

21. K&R and bookmarked.

I wish he had and audience in D.C. I think there will come a day when we will be called to account for our crimes. And we will say, "But what could we have done?"

[Initech]

23. Prosecute the whole fucking lot of 'em. Wall St., the GOP, the MIC, Fox, they're all guilty.

[tomp]

66. but they own the system.

prosecutions of these criminals, including obama, will not happen within the system as we know it.

[reggie the dog]

151. what did they do in france when the system was corrupt

and they were told to eat cake?

[leftstreet]

24. K&R

[pacalo]

25. K&R -- bookmarking.

[lunasun]

26. except for food still on the plates here in US, so we are a little better off,

this excerpt from above could be about North Korea .....

"The country is on the verge of bankruptcy. We are denying people the elements of health and education by wasting our money on weapons of mass destruction that we cannot use."

WE have seen the enemy and it is us?
Perhaps self destruction before any outside source really has a chance to destroy us is a valid possibility but we make new enemies every day by our misdeeds
So although I hope none of the above is a future scenario I do have worries
and all of this is very sad considering how much different the path could have been for America
I try to think the future is good but as stated in the article > It is not my world anymore!

[Angry Dragon]

27. I really like this guy

[Ikonoklast]

29. We slaughtered civilians by the hundreds of thousands in WWII.

I guess he missed that.

[tomp]

67. true. nt

[reggie the dog]

166. Germany's ally in warmaking, Japan, attacked us

so we attacked Japan and their ally in war making, Germany. Neither Pakistan nor Afghanistan ever declared war on us.

[Initech]

30. Kind of makes you wonder who really won WWII doesn't it?

[Capitalocracy]

51. To take it back even further

I sometimes wonder who won the Civil War.

[russspeakeasy]

113. It was a draw.

[coalition_unwilling]

127. LOL. Ask a Southerner how he or she feels about Sherman's march.

The squeals of outrage you hear will tell you who won :)

[Initech]

157. Touché.

[Enthusiast]

68. .)

[tomp]

69. u.s. imperialism won WWII. nt

[Beartracks]

32. And neocon apologists chafe at the Nazi comparison. pfft.

Even someone who actually knew Nazis up close and personal can see the comparison is valid.

-------------------------------

[defendandprotect]

34. When do Americans begin rising up against this fascism which has taken over here?

[blackspade]

38. Great info as always Kpete

K&R

[steve2470]

40. another excerpt:

I said, "Didn't you have any qualms about killing all these people, little children and all that?"

"No," he (The lead defendant, Dr. General Otto Ohlendorf) said, "because we relied on the head of state, Hitler. He had more information than I had, and he told us that the Soviets planned to attack, so it was necessary in presumed self-defense."

In our military jargon, we call such assaults a "preemptive first strike", The US military policy today does not preclude first strike by the United States in order to prevent a presumed attack from another side. That Ohlendorf argument was considered by three American judges at Nuremberg, and they sentenced him and twelve others to death by hanging. So it's very disappointing to find that my government today is prepared to do something for which we hanged Germans as war criminals.

Hmmmm, where have we heard the rationale for preemptive first strike before ?

[Stardust]

44. K&R

[grahamhgreen]

48. Warmongers are sick people, no matter what party they belong to.

[JoseGaspar]

49. The most amazing thing about this thread...

...is how few people seem to know who Ben Ferencz is. He is a tiny little old man, in comparison to whom the "giants" of the present day qualify as mice.

More than that, he is a camera into the New Deal mentality - with its ideals, principles, and morality - which today might as well originate on Venus.

And he is far from alone. Ferencz has spoken for and alongside a dozen other surviving prosecutors from those trials. To complete the irony, most of them were originally very conservative Democrats and Republicans, chosen mainly to deflect right-wing criticism of the Truman administration.

Ferencz is a major embarrassment: a living reminder of all that has been lost...

Luckily, he is an old man who will die soon, and with him will die any trace of the pre-Roman Coliseum stage of American ideology.

[Mimosa]

77. ^ Recommending Jose's post ^

Jose, those are great points.

And KPete, you have posted the most important topic on Democratic Underground in many months. Thank you for reminding us of the paragons of our history.

[stevenleser]

52. This logic is completely convoluted. He may have been a good prosecutor 60 years ago but this does

not make sense at all.

[Major Hogwash]

59. I know. It's like now we're the Nazis and yet he used to prosecute them.

Like somehow we have all changed places and went back in time.
Up is down, black is white, Americans are Nazis.

Because?

And that's where it goes into the rabbit hole.

[tomp]

70. u.s. imperialism IS fascist.

that is a valid comparison to hitler and the nazis. don't know what you guys are missing.

[stevenleser]

94. It doesnt matter how many times you try to force that meme. It still doesnt hold water. n/t

[liberation]

102. Well, who can disagree with that "logic?"

Care to let us know how exactly invading a country, for completely arbitrary and one-sided reasons, can't possibly be considered an act of "imperialism?"

[tomp]

170. says you. nt

[Name removed]

108. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

112. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Zoeisright]

53. You can add Reagan, Bush, Bush, and Cheney to that list.

Just like Hitler did, they lied continuously to frighten people into getting behind illegal wars.

[avaistheone1]

54. Bookmarked and recommended

k&r


:kick:

[indimuse]

55. KNR! n/t

[Douglas Carpenter]

57. kick and recommend!!

[Enthusiast]

60. K&R!

Thank you for telling the truth. All this nation needs is truth. We could be alright if we only allowed the truth to be told.

[Azathoth]

71. It is headlines like this which completely marginalize the antiwar movement

And to be frank, it's not worth arguing with anyone who is so fringe that they cannot understand why equating US operations in Afghanistan with Nazi Germany's systematic extermination of millions of children, Jews, Poles, Soviets, Gypsies, and countless others is unimaginably offensive to rational people.

With that said, our hostility toward the ICC has been shameful.

[hobbit709]

74. "unimaginably offensive"?

When someone sees the same lies, the same attitudes, and some of the same attacks on people just because of who they are, then it's not unimaginable at all to a person that lived through that.
My mother would consider it unimaginably offensive to not compare the current trends to what she lived through for 7 years.

[mike_c]

89. I believe you missed the point ENTIRELY....

Try reading it again and focusing on what it actually says. Stop trying to defend crimes against humanity. In short, stop being such a "good German."

[JoseGaspar]

90. It is a lucky thing that you are around to correct Ferencz...

Wer seine Schwiegermutter totschlägt, wird geköpft. Das ist ein uralter verständlicher Brauch. Wer aber Hunderttausende umbringt, erhält ein Denkmal.

[liberation]

104. You know Erich Kastner would have a field day...

... seeing the logical and moral desperation of some Americans, who have to recourse to trash a Nuremberg prosecutor in order to save the face of their president.

[frylock]

109. fuckin-a

[JoseGaspar]

123. It's been a long time since I thought about Kastner...

... thank you.

Kennst du das Land, wo die Kanonen blühen?
Du kennst es nicht? Du wirst es kennenlernen!

Do you know the country where the cannons bloom?
You do not know it? You will get to know it!

[coalition_unwilling]

129. 25% of Iraq's population of 27 million has been either killed, wounded,

and/or displaced internally or externally (according to demographics by institutions like The Lancet and Johns Hopkins U.). To take that 25% figure and place it into perspective, that would equate to some 65 million Americans killed, wounded or displaced had Iraq invaded us for our undeniable weapons of mass destruction (which we have used and may well use again).

And you say it is 'unimaginably offensive'? Methinks you need to work on cultivating your sympathetic imagination a bit, because you come across like a Robert McNamara wanna-be.

[BobbyBoring]

148. The worst part of that is

Other than all the deaths is Iraqs "Brain Trust" has either left or been wiped out.

I'm a firm believer in Karma and this is going to get even worse for us.

[coalition_unwilling]

150. Yes, few Americans knew or cared to know that prior to 1990, Iraq

had the highest per-captia standard of living in the Middle East aside from Israel. Even fewer Americans knew or cared to know that Reagan sent Rumsfeld to Iraq ca. 1983 (after Hussein had supposedly used poison gas on the Kurds) to re-establish relations with Hussein in the interests of countering the Iranian threat to Saudi Arabia. Even fewer Americans knew that S. Hussein's brother-in-law had defected to Jordan ca. 1993 where he was debriefed by U.S. and Israeli intelligence and convinced them that all of Iraq's WMDs and capabilities had been dismantled. I could go on, but why bother?

I'm a shaky believer in karma (used to be a practicing Buddhist but quit practicing because evil motherfuckers like Bush continued to prosper as far as I could see with no karmic payback in my lifetime). Hell, we still owe a serious karmic debt for the 2-3 million southeast Asians we eliminated from the planet during the Vietnam era. And Kissinger et. al. walk around as free men. In the next life, I foresee Kissinger coming back as a slug, no offense to slugs.

[LawnKorn]

72. K&R

[Hubert Flottz]

73. K&R

[RoccoR5955]

78. All this glorification of war has got to stop! n/t

[DirkGently]

91. Yes. We are insuring generations of anti-American hatred. OBAMA must be called out here.

[Hubert Flottz]

92. The PNAC/BushCo gang should be rounded up and tried for war crimes.

Otherwise we are not a "Nation Of Laws" or "A Champion for Human Rights" anymore.

[Octafish]

103. + 1776

That's why we dumped that kinky George fellah.

[himynameiss3an]

93. Truth

Another great post to start off my morning.

[raouldukelives]

95. K&R

[RedCloud]

97. This military, I fear, will be used against us once all wise up to what's going on.

[nomb]

111. I think you underestimate the depth of conviction that carries a 19 year old American into combat.

They'll do as they're told, yes. And they can work with almost any stretched piece of convoluted logic programmed in, and they can even in the margins be capable of evil barbarity and immoral killing of anything that breathes.

That is just fact. But turning the entire machine on the people? Not this army, not in this nation and not even at this time. Absolutely unimaginable, not even in the realm of possibility.

I've always had the feeling that the desire for the Armageddon resides in some people first without a name - and then only later does their desire to see the apocalypse manifest itself in a cause. The sad part is that one finds these end-of-times people randomly placed in varying doses throughout all sides of every cause. Myself, I prefer to side with causes that reject these voices of fear and divisiveness.

If I didn't believe in the base decency of 'man' as a being then nothing in this society would have any value to me whatsoever.

[davidswanson]

98. Want to See the Video of This Speech?

http://warisacrime.org/node/56899

It's the third one down.
First is Sandy Davies.
Then me.
Then Ferencz.
Then we all take questions together in #4.

[earcandle]

106. thanks, kpete!

[blindpig]

119. That's a bit confused

One part he gets right, 'you may have to take to the streets'. Then he turns around and calls on the law and lawyers. That make no sense, the law is made by and for the ruling class and will be twisted like a pretzel as required. When there was at least partial disagreement between the conservative and liberal teams of ruling class politicians there might have been some adversarial back and forth. But it seems that the teams are pretty much in agreement when it comes to the issues important to the ruling class. There is nothing for us there but a screwing.

[JoseGaspar]

128. Exactly right...

He is the prototype New Dealer. On the one hand, he believes in the power of the people. On the other hand he believes in the law, and "democracy" as standing above society and the war of the classes. This was clearly in dispute in his own time, but what is striking is that people like Ferencz were able to reconcile it in their own time... and to act on that reconciliation.

Today, he might as well be talking about "the Power of Apollo" or speaking in one of those ancient Hindu languages which "simply don't translate".

[GeorgeGist]

120. Hang 'em high.

[RainDog]

124. kick n/t

[femrap]

125. K and R

We are not even a shadow of our former selves.

[AKDavy]

141. Not enough recs for this one

A war crime is a war crime. "Exceptionalism" is always the assumption of the criminals.

Unfortunately, Bush's wars and policies and now Obama's wars and policies, and so are the war crimes shared.

[Uncle Joe]

153. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, kpete.

[Vehl]

154. K&R nt

[Name removed]

160. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bvar22]

161. The USA executed Japanese for waterboarding after WW2.

Thats right.
Waterboarding was TORTURE punishable by DEATH after WW2.
Now, its just a Fraternity Prank, and it is better to just look the other way...
or "Look Forward"...or something.


How far we have fallen.
:cry:



Who represents THIS American Majority?
Their words, promises, or excuses mean NOTHING.
"By their WORKS you will know them."

[colsohlibgal]

164. Game,Set, Match!

It is such an enormous elephant in the room that it's more like 2 enormous elephants. The maybe good news is that this may be one of those issues where we can forge a temporary alliance with tea party types. But then there is Obama, who seems to have bought into the hawk philosophy.

It's just insane that people in our congress vote to keep producing planes we don't need but vote against aid to disadvantaged people.

[Blue Owl]

165. K&R

THIS is our fucking problem -- not unions, teachers, or federal/state employees.

[Dokkie]

167. K&R

Am speechless.