August 4, 2014

UK Accused of 'CENSORING' Torture Report to HIDE OWN ROLE in Secret Renditions

The British government is being accused of pushing to "censor" the U.S. Senate report on CIA torture to hide its own role in unlawful secret renditions. Due to be partially declassified in the coming days, the report is said to be the most comprehensive account of the U.S. government's post 9/11 torture and unlawful detention of people in secret prisons across the globe. Former British Foreign Secretary William Hague admitted to the legal charity Reprieve that the U.K. government has been engaged in discussions with the U.S. about the information that will be revealed in the report, in what Reprieve charges is a bid to conceal information about British complicity.



“We have made representations to seek assurance that ordinary procedures for clearance of UK material will be followed in the event that UK material provide [sic] to the Senate Committee were to be disclosed,” Hague wrote in a letter to Reprieve, according to a statement released by the charity on Sunday. “This shows that the UK Government is attempting to censor the US Senate’s torture report," said Reprieve Director Cori Crider. "In plain English, it is a request to the US to keep Britain’s role in rendition out of the public domain."



The Senate report contains evidence that Diego Garcia—an atoll in the Indian Ocean to which the British government lays claim—was used by the CIA for black sites with the "full cooperation" of the British government, according to anonymous officials who viewed the full report, Al Jazeera America reports. The report may also contain information about joint U.S. and U.K. rendition and torture of Gaddafi opponents in Libyan prisons in 2004, according to Reprieve.




cont'

http://www.commondreams.org/news/2014/08/03/uk-accused-censoring-torture-report-hide-own-role-secret-renditions

August 4, 2014

State Dept: Israeli Shelling 'Disgraceful'

The State Department issued a statement Sunday condemning Israel's "disgraceful" shelling of a United Nations school sheltering civilians in Gaza, saying that the United States is "appalled" by the attack which left 10 people dead. "The United States is appalled by today's disgraceful shelling outside an UNRWA school in Rafah sheltering some 3,000 displaced persons, in which ten more Palestinian civilians were tragically killed," reads the statement from State Department spokesperson Jen Psaki. "We once again stress that Israel do more to meet its own standards and avoid civilian casualties." Psaki continues: "UN facilities, especially those sheltering civilians, must be protected, and must not be used as bases from which to launch attacks. The suspicion that militants are operating nearby does not justify strikes that put at risk the lives of so many innocent civilians."


In language that was rare in its directness and severity, the U.S. denounced in a statement issued Sunday the attack earlier in the day that killed 10 people, noting that the school had been designated a protected location. "The coordinates of the school, like all UN facilities in Gaza, have been repeatedly communicated to the Israel Defense Forces," State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki said in the statement. "We once again stress that Israel must do more to meet its own standards and avoid civilian casualties." The U.S. condemnation follows one by U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, who depicted the shelling near the Rafah school as both "a moral outrage and a criminal act."



More from the Associated Press:






cont'

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/03/un-school-shelling-_n_5645771.html#785_most-israeli-ground-troops-withdrawn-from-gaza-strip

August 3, 2014

Hey President Obama, How Does All That NETANYAHU EGG On Your Face Feel?

DailyKos:



After Netanyahu played you like a cheap fiddle you said:

When you said this the Israeli media and IDF were still saying the soldier was 'missing in Gaza' and 'feared taken captive'.

I wrote about this in 'Gaza: A Tale of Two Missing Soldiers'.

And today the IDF announces:



And if you read a bit more of the article you'll see that it seems that it was the IDF who initiated the 'breach of the humanitarian ceasefire', not the other way round as so loudly claimed by Netanyahu.





Let me ask again - Hey President Obama, how does all that Netanyahu egg on your face feel?






http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/08/03/1318747/-Hey-President-Obama-how-does-all-that-Netanyahu-egg-on-your-face-feel

August 3, 2014

Liz Cheney Whines: President Obama Is ‘Slandering Patriots’ Like Her War Criminal Dad

Liz Cheney Whines: President Obama Is ‘Slandering Patriots’ Like Her War Criminal Dad By Admitting America Used Torture





Despicable Liz-ard protecting her lying, war-criminal father...Darth!...............




Liz Cheney has another bone to pick with President Obama and she promptly embarrassed herself on Fox News to whine about it. During an interview on Hannity with fill-in host Monica Crowley to discuss President Obama’s recent remarks about torture being used by the Bush Administration in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, Cheney accused Obama of “slandering” people like her war criminal daddy Dick Cheney. She also claimed that what “patriots” like her father did to Guantanamo prisoners wasn’t torture and that the activities kept America safe. “You know Monica, this president is an utter disgrace,” Cheney said.






President Obama delivered the remarks that Cheney is angrily referring to during a White House press conference. “We did a whole lot of things that were right, but we tortured some folks,” Obama said in advance of a US Senate report on CIA torture tactics that is due for release soon. “We did some things that were contrary to our values.” As we all remember, President Bush and Vice President Cheney signed off on using so-called “enhanced interrogation” techniques such as water boarding. According to Encyclopedia Britannica, waterbording is described as a “method of torture in which water is poured into the nose and mouth of a victim who lies on his back on an inclined platform, with his feet above his head.”






We’re talking about a torture method that was used against Americans by the Japanese during World War II. Dozens of Japanese soldiers and officials who used waterboarding were convicted of war crimes following the surrender of Japan. The United States decried the use of the torture method and prosecuted and executing Japanese war criminals for their crimes. And by using it, Bush Administration officials blackened America’s reputation and moral standing among the international community. In addition, the Khmer Rouge also used waterboarding and it was also used during the Spanish Inquisition. Despite being a torture method banned by the Geneva Conventions and the United Nations Conventions, both of which includes the United States as a signatory nation, the Bush Administration authorized its use in 2002. Other torture methods used during the Bush years include “sleep deprivation, isolation, exposure to extreme temperatures, enclosure in tiny spaces, bombardment with agonizing sounds at extremely damaging decibel levels, and religious and sexual humiliation.”

Furthermore, Republican Senator John McCain, himself a victim of torture during the Vietnam War, has said on multiple occasions that waterboarding is torture.





cont'


http://www.addictinginfo.org/2014/08/03/liz-cheney-whines-president-obama-is-slandering-patriots-like-her-war-criminal-dad-by-admitting-america-used-torture-video/

August 3, 2014

BOOM!!- In a BLISTERING SPEECH Alison Lundergan Grimes EVISCERATES Mitch McConnell At Fancy Farm

Alison Lundergan Grimes carpet bombs Mitch at Fancy Farm.........................





Grimes began by calling the Fancy Farms Picnic Mitch McConnell’s retirement party. She immediately took a shot a McConnell for calling her an empty dress. She brought up McConnell’s Duke ad gaffe. She accused McConnell of forgetting about Kentucky. She said, “Thirty-five is my age, but it is also Mitch McConnell’s approval rating.” She said, “If Mitch McConnell were a TV show he would be Mad Men.” She said that thanks to McConnell, D.C. stands for doesn’t care. Grimes slammed McConnell for opposing the minimum wage. She adopted the doesn’t care call and refrain with the crowd.


Grimes slammed McConnell and said that McConnell doesn’t care about women, students, jobs, coal miners. She pledged that bringing jobs to the Commonwealth would be her number one priority. She said, “One of us represents the establishment. One of us represents Kentucky.” Grimes hammered home the issue of jobs. Her point was, “Gridlock has consequences.” She called out McConnell directly for not wanting to appear with her or debate her. She said, “Senator, you can run from your failed record, and I intend to hold you accountable.”


Sen. McConnell followed Grimes and said, “This is the place where Republicans tell it like it is.” McConnell immediately began by bashing President Obama for not going down to visit the border. McConnell kept running against the Obama. His whole campaign can be summed up with him saying, “By any standard, Barack Obama has been a disaster for the country.” McConnell went on to compare Grimes to Obama, and claimed that Grimes is inexperienced like Obama and like Obama when she gets in trouble calls Bill Clinton.





cont'

http://www.politicususa.com/2014/08/02/blistering-speech-alison-lundergan-grimes-eviscerates-mitch-mcconnell-fancy-farm.html

August 2, 2014

Sovereign Citizens Now Considered TOP TERRORIST THREAT In The United States

A consortium of law enforcement intelligence agencies has ranked various terrorist threats in terms of the perception of those that pose the greatest current national security risks. Sovereign citizens topped the list, shifting from Islamic extremists in prior years.

From the report (PDF):



That's troubling, especially when considered in terms of the extremists threatening abortion doctors and clinics around the nation. This, too, concerns me:

The change is interesting as there was significant concern about the resurgence of the radical far right (as evidenced by the 2006-07 survey, as well as additional concerns raised after the 2008 election of President Barack Obama), but it appears as though law enforcement is, at present, less concerned about these groups.

I would argue that there's very little daylight between the self-dubbed sovereign citizens like Cliven Bundy and the groups they mention in the first paragraph. I think it's a mistake to separate the two and pretend there's no overlap, particularly in the context of law enforcement agency perceptions.


h/t BreitbartUnmasked





http://crooksandliars.com/2014/08/sovereign-citizens-now-top-terrorist

August 2, 2014

UN Officials DEBUNK Israeli Lies - No Weapons Found In UN Facilities

" CENSORED BY BBC CNN AND FOX "

August 2, 2014

Clinton vs. Warren: BIG Differences, Despite Claims to the Contrary

Hillary Clinton's political allies want Democratic primary voters to believe that the former secretary of state is just like populist Massachusetts senator Elizabeth Warren, and they've been claiming that there are no differences between the two possible presidential contenders. There's just one problem: That's not true. Clinton last week filled in for George W. Bush at an Ameriprise conference, continuing a speaking tour that is raking in big money from Wall Street. One of her aides later downplayed the idea that Clinton's relationship with the financial sector could be a political liability for her, should she face Warren in the 2016 Democratic presidential primaries. The aide defiantly insisted that the two are exactly the same. "Ask any so-called 'left' or 'liberal' critic of Hillary to name a single vote or position (on) which Elizabeth Warren and Hillary would disagree," said the Clinton strategist to The Hill newspaper. OK, fine. I'll take the challenge -- there are many differences between these two politicians.



For example, in her book, "The Two Income Trap," Warren slammed Clinton for casting a Senate vote in 2001 for a bankruptcy bill that ultimately passed in 2005. That legislation makes it more difficult for credit card customers to renegotiate their debts, even as it allows the wealthy to protect their second homes and yachts from creditors. According to a 2009 study by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, the bankruptcy bill's provisions changing debt payback provisions played a central role in the foreclosure crisis, as the new law forced homeowners to pay off credit card debts before paying their mortgage. "As first lady, Mrs. Clinton had been persuaded that the bill was bad for families, and she was willing to fight for her beliefs," Warren wrote. "As New York's newest senator, however, it seems that Hillary Clinton could not afford such a principled position. ... The bill was essentially the same, but Hillary Rodham Clinton was not." Additionally, Warren has been a critic of so-called free trade deals, which create regulatory protections for patents and copyrights, but remove such protections for workers, consumers and the environment. Clinton, by contrast, was a key backer of NAFTA and voted for various free trade pacts during her Senate tenure.



Clinton was also a prominent supporter of the 1996 welfare reform legislation that made it more difficult for poor families to receive government benefits. With a new study from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities showing that law coinciding with a rise in extreme childhood poverty, Clinton's position may open her up to criticism from Warren, who has positioned herself as a champion of the poor. There is also Clinton's vote for the Iraq War. During her 2012 Senate campaign, Warren was an outspoken critic of the war. As a senator, Warren is a co-sponsor of a new bill to repeal the original authorization for war in Iraq that Clinton supported. Clinton, of course, has attempted to distance herself from her previous positions. In 2008, she said, "I should not have voted for that bankruptcy law." That year, she also said she believes the NAFTA free trade model needs to be "adjusted." And in her 2014 book, "Hard Choices," Clinton says of her Iraq War vote: "I wasn't alone in getting it wrong. But I still got it wrong. Plain and simple."





cont'

http://www.opednews.com/articles/Clinton-vs-Warren-Big-Di-by-David-Sirota-Democratic_Elizabeth-Warren_Hillary-Clinton_Issues-140801-832.html

August 1, 2014

Government’s OWN DATA Proves That ALCOHOL IS MORE DANGEROUS Than Marijuana

For the longest time, people opposed to the legalization of marijuana have argued that marijuana is more likely to send someone to the emergency room than even the most dangerous of drugs. For example, the Drug Enforcement Administration once published a report called “Dangers and Consequences of Marijuana Abuse,” which stated that marijuana accounted for almost 500,000 visits to the E.R. An ONDCP fact sheet also stated “mentions of marijuana use in emergency room visits have risen 176 percent since 1994, surpassing those of heroin.” However, none of these reports consider that marijuana use is about 70 times more widespread than heroine in the U.S. - so it’s logical that there would be more E.R. visits related to marijuana than lesser used drugs. Because the government has failed to provide accurate comparisons regarding marijuana, Washington Post data journalist Christopher Ingraham took it upon himself to run some numbers. Here’s a graph that illustrates what he found:





Ingraham used data from 2010, as this was the last available year with complete alcohol data. The numbers of regular users were grabbed from the National Survey on Drug Use and Health and the number of E.R. visits were taken from the Drug Abuse Warning Network, a reporting system that holds data for all E.R. visits involving a drug. E.R. visits involving alcohol were taken from a 2010 National Institutes of Health report. Ingraham’s data shows that per user, marijuana is least likely to send you to the E.R. when compared to heroin, cocaine, meth, prescription drugs and alcohol. Prescriptive drugs were found to cause 75% more trips to the E.R. Most surprisingly, it was found that alcohol was 30% more likely to send someone to the E.R. than marijuana. For reference, here are the raw numbers that Ingraham used for his data:









cont'

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2014/08/01/governments-own-data-proves-that-alcohol-is-more-dangerous-than-marijuana/

August 1, 2014

Does Hillary Clinton's Iraq War Vote STILL Matter?

Last month on Sunday Kos, I noticed an interesting juxtaposition of front page diaries.




Ian Reifowitz began a diary by stating:

That was followed by Meteor Blades holding that labeling it a "mistake" minimizes the wrongness that was war in Iraq.





There was a time when I thought that any Democrat with any degree of complicity in that crime would be tarred and feathered by the hard left, but then John Kerry happened. Still, I thought there would be more public hang-wringing about Hillary Clinton's foreign policy and how having her as the Democratic standard-bearer in 2016 diminishes the argument that you should vote for Democrats because they are less likely to drag us into stupid wars. This is, after all, a politician who wanted to arm Syrian rebels (just like John McCain) but was overruled by President Obama.


Has the initial invasion of Iraq faded far enough into the past that Hillary Clinton's Iraq vote no longer matters? Is it less of a priority? Is it more of a forgivable sin than it seemed back then? Or does it seem like less of a sin? Has she rehabilitated herself? Do you think she has changed? If so, why? If you believed she voted for the AUMF out of political expediency with an eye towards 2008, why do you think she wouldn't support military action as president if she thought it would help her re-election in 2020? Does the narrative of inevitability make you resigned to her candidacy? Are you reluctant to see heavy criticism over this point in the absence of a credible primary opponent because you are worried about costing her votes and losing the presidency to the Republicans?


What if the only way to create space for a primary opponent with a better record on this issue is to criticize her enough to harm her public perception and make her seem less inevitable? If you wait until primary season to ask these questions, it will be too late to affect anything.




http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/07/31/1315752/-Does-Hillary-Clinton-s-Iraq-War-Vote-Still-Matter