|
Written by joni
|
|
Thursday, 11 March 2010 22:37 |
|
Even I think this is far fetched, but The Independent is reporting that the former head of MI5 implied that the TV show 24 influenced the Bush administrations torture policy:
In her speech, highly critical of the US's conduct during the war on terror, the former secret service chief implied that the leadership in Washington was inspired by watching the TV espionage thriller 24. She said: "Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld certainly watched 24". Dame Eliza said: "The Americans were very keen that people like us did not discover what they were doing." She insisted that she had been unaware of what was going on until her retirement in 2007.
Oh come on, the TV show 24 influenced their decisions?
But then again - perhaps it was the other way around. The Bush administration used TV to soften the public for the use of torture. And it seems that I am not the only one to think this. Archie Bland has an opinion piece in the same paper where he says:
It's likely that this is the wrong way round. The whole point about the neocons, after all, is that they've been itching to get their hands on a bucket of water and a fishy-looking foreigner since about 1987. 24 has simply caught up.
Could it be that Wag the Dog is not fiction after all?
|
|
|
Written by joni
|
|
Thursday, 11 March 2010 16:43 |
|
I actually shed a little tear when I saw this article hit SMH.
The federal parliament today passed laws that ensure the death penalty can never be reintroduced by any state or territory in Australia.
A great day for Australia.
|
|
Written by joni
|
|
Tuesday, 09 March 2010 22:35 |
|
I challenge anyone to read this article in Salon in full and to still maintain that waterboarding that the CIA used was not torture.
Interrogators pumped detainees full of so much water that the CIA turned to a special saline solution to minimize the risk of death, the documents show. The agency used a gurney "specially designed" to tilt backwards at a perfect angle to maximize the water entering the prisoner's nose and mouth, intensifying the sense of choking – and to be lifted upright quickly in the event that a prisoner stopped breathing.
Some on here started with a position that no torture took place as it was only the "hearsay" of inmates. When the evidence became substantiated by officials, the defence changed to "what is torture'. Let's stop that meme in it's tracks.
In 1947, the U.S. charged a Japanese officer, Yukio Asano, with war crimes for waterboarding a U.S. civilian. Asano was sentenced to 15 years of hard labor.
If the US thought it was a "war crime" then, it must be a war crime now.
Let's remember that Cheney thought that a "dunk in the water" was OK. Also remember that the Army Field Manual says that waterboarding is "cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment". Not my words, the Army Field Manual's words.
The evidence in the article is clear. Absolutely clear. It is not hearsay from "goat herders". It is the CIA's own accounts.
These acts were torture, and those who authorised, condoned and permitted the torture should be held accountable.
Will those who asked for evidence now admit that it was torture? |
|
|
Written by joni
|
|
Monday, 08 March 2010 13:44 |
|
I had no idea that homosexuality could be a threat to someone who is comfortable with their sexuality.
But it seems that Tony Abbott is:
Asked about his views on homosexuality he replied: "I probably feel a bit threatened, as so many people do... (but) it's a fact of life. I try to treat people as people and not to put them in pigeon holes.''
I wonder if this is like the politicians in the US who are vehemently opposed to homosexuality and then get caught in, um, compromising situations.
(hat tips to Min and ME) |
|
Written by joni
|
|
Thursday, 04 March 2010 11:58 |
|
Pink News (in the UK) is reporting on the Lithuanian law that was passed past week that "bans the promotion of gay marriage". Yep - just mentioning gay marriage in Lithuania can get you into trouble now.
The law now classifies any information which "denigrates family values" or which "encourages a concept of marriage and family other than stipulated in the Constitution" as detrimental to children and bans it from places accessible to them.
John Dalhuisen, Amnesty International's expert on discrimination, said: "This law will violate the freedom of expression and will directly discriminate against people on account of their sexual orientation or gender identity".
And what is the punishment for breaking the law? No one knows because the law does not define the punishment.
So just as Fiji decriminalised homosexuality, Lithuania takes a backward step. |
|
|
|
|
<< Start < Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next > End >>
|
|
Page 1 of 15 |
