lostboy

Oh, I know what a racist is. We have one in the White House as we speak.

Reverse racism is not a thing. It does not exist in a world where racism is defined as a system of advantages based on race, also known as White Privilege. Non-whites do not benefit from systemic, institutionalised racism, so consequently such people cannot be defined as racist.

White-victimhood now from the extreme white right. The embodiment of crass.

Have you ever heard of a country formerly called Rhodesia, which was the breadbasket of Africa?

After "independence", the name was changed to Zimbabwe.

Do you know what happened there to the white farmers?

Under my structuralist approach to the understanding of racism, laws put in place by the black leadership of Zimbabwe against whites are racist. I do not defend such laws. I do not defend the action of black Zimbabweans against white Zimbabweans, many of whom have left the country. I agree that such laws and actions are racist. Remember though, the interpretation of such events is complex. In this case, you need to include the issue of post colonialism and the redress of injustices that occurred during the colonial period. This is why many black Africans continue to support Mugabe as a liberator, particularly those in the ANC.

I do not believe that your use of the case of Zimbabwe alters the validity of my interpretation of racism.

.

Tell you what. Put on your junior rocket scientist hat and find one post where I have been a racist. I've made over 10,000 so there is plenty of material. Find one.

As far as my comment about Obama, look at the record and then try to defend his actions.

If you don't believe black people can be racists then you are not living in the real world.

The only reason I gave you one of these is because, unlike this last post, you didn't deserve two of them

No need for 1950's accoutrement straight out of Howdy Doody. Are we regressing in our old age? The post in question is neatly embedded as the initiating post in the nested posts above (deleted for space unfortunately). You call the first black President of the United States a racist. Didn't even have to go back to post 9,999.

Minority voices speaking against whites is not racism. it is legitimate protest against oppression. Are minorities racist? By your definition, yes. But you define racism as bigotry. I define racism as systemic; a system that denied opportunities to minorities because of their race. Take a typical comment from Al Sharpton:

“So (if) some cracker come and tell you ‘Well, my mother and father blood go back to the Mayflower,’ you better hold your pocket. That ain’t nothing to be proud of. That means their forefathers was crooks.”http://www.infowars.com/the-hilarious-racism-of-al-sharpton/

You should appreciate this coming from one of your right wing sources. You will no doubt, like Infowars.com brand this as racist. I see it as a legitimate protest against the ability of one racial group to control the socio-economic and cultural levers of a society.

It does not matter how many thousands of posts you have made or how many times you fall down laughing. You purposefully choose not to hear the voices of minorities. You substitute scorn for engagement. You believe that mere bigotry overshadows real and actual discrimination against minorities. Your White Privilege blinds you to any sense of comprehension of minority voices. You dare to accuse the first black President of the United States of being a racist. There is no defence of that. You entirely miss the point. You have nothing to contribute on the issue of racism, discrimination or equality of opportunity. These concepts do not enter the metaphor that you call your existence.

After reading over 200 posts on this thread, I am bemused by something that some of you might be able to clear up.

My question is directed towards the Europeans and Aussies that might have posted on this thread.

Precisely which decisions made by Justice Scalia have had a direct impact on the Europeans and Australians that have contributed?

How have his decisions affected you personally?

Anybody?

Lawrence v Texas https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-102.ZD.html In the dissent in the case that decriminalised LGBT people having sex in private, Scalia wrote "Texas Penal Code Ann. §21.06(a) (2003) undoubtedly imposes constraints on liberty. So do laws prohibiting prostitution, recreational use of heroin, and, for that matter, working more than 60 hours per week in a bakery."

Scalia is using constructionism to deny human rights as a direct result of his personal bigotry.

Scalia equated LGBT people falling in love with activities that are prohibited for being detrimental to society. He has made a number of similar stupid, bigoted comments on LGBT issues. While many countries approved marriage equality ahead of the US, some western countries still have not. Remarks like those of Scalia, promote bigotry and the ongoing denial of universal human rights to all citizens of a country.

This petty chauvinism of objecting to non Americans commenting on American related issues that clearly have universal significance is pathetic. It demonstrates an intellectual bankruptcy that puts nativist cultural bias over the free flow of ideas and critique.

Here is a Scalia quote that I wish all SC members, members of Congress and the POTUS would get through their heads. If people want to change society, rather than finding new and spurious interpretations of the Constitution, they should amend it. No member of the SC should be there based on ideology.

"That’s the argument of flexibility and it goes something like this: The Constitution is over 200 years old and societies change. It has to change with society, like a living organism, or it will become brittle and break. But you would have to be an idiot to believe that. The Constitution is not a living organism, it is a legal document. It says something and doesn’t say other things." - Scalia

This is what you post to demonstrate Scalia as a 'giant' of the Supreme Court, to use another posters words? He sounds like a right wing TVF poster, calling people who don't agree with him idiots and making puerile comments and assertions. This quote demonstrates him as a clown with no concept of humanity. It puts him with the fetishisers of the Founding Fathers and Founding Documents. It further demonstrates why the old guard Republicans continue to lose relevance. I fully expect this fact to be confirmed by the outcome of the 2016 Presidential election.

The Constitution says some things and doesn't say other things! What a giant of a legal scholar to pass on this particular BS. Let's all go back to wearing tricorn hat and owning slaves then.

Oh, I know what a racist is. We have one in the White House as we speak.

Reverse racism is not a thing. It does not exist in a world where racism is defined as a system of advantages based on race, also known as White Privilege. Non-whites do not benefit from systemic, institutionalised racism, so consequently such people cannot be defined as racist.

White-victimhood now from the extreme white right. The embodiment of crass.

Thank you Charles for confirming that you have entirely no business making any comment on racism. Crassness personified. Enjoy your White Privilege.

Oh, I know what a racist is. We have one in the White House as we speak.

Reverse racism is not a thing. It does not exist in a world where racism is defined as a system of advantages based on race, also known as White Privilege. Non-whites do not benefit from systemic, institutionalised racism, so consequently such people cannot be defined as racist.

White-victimhood now from the extreme white right. The embodiment of crass.

Scalia was a towering figure of the Conservative theology and it's too bad the Left have already started spewing their invictive. Typical.

Any bets Scalia was Vince Fostered, eh?

The Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution, together with related material such as the Federalist Papers comprise one of the greatest expressions of humanism in history. The formation of the US Republic was a direct result of the concept of the sovereignty of human kind and not of some Diety. Conservatism is not a theology. It is its direct opposite. The extreme right religious types are already deifying this reactionary denier of human rights. Typical.

Medieval religious hallucinations caused by ergot poisoning seem to be back among us. Please consult a physician.

A Prime Minister may defend his wife but he may not use the public purse to do so. This is corrupt behaviour. Further, the force of government was brought to bear on the complainant, whose allegations turned out to be true. This is also corrupt. Some may argue that it is defensible but I still believe it is corrupt.

I see our esteemed members are attempting to out do one another as to who can make the biggest presumption fallacy.

I guess all of your interactions with the outside world can be deducted from the behavior of your wives or girlfriends.

The OP states that the PM's Office dismissed the allegation as evil, skewed gossip.

This raises it beyond the personal and into the realm of public policy and governance. Government resources pay for the functioning of the PM's Office. If they involve themselves in such a matter then it becomes a reflection of the Leadership both in tone and style.

I await your response on the issue of child sexual abuse and your allegation that Professor Shiner is a pedophile with entirely no interest at all. I know you cannot justify or defend your words. You are shooting blanks. In more areas than one. Please keep bumping this thread.

I never made any allegation or inference that Phil Shiner was involved in child sexual abuse or of being a paedophile. That is a figment of your imagination.

I have shot many things, including blanks, it is called dry training.

You then direct me to consult Professor Alexis Jay's Report on Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Exploitation in Rotherham 1997 - 2013 http://www.rotherham...se_in_rotherham

Why?

Quite simply because it highlights the utter failings by the Police, Local Councils, Child Protection Services along with others. It also highlights quite clearly the reasons for those failings. Those failings and reasons might be specific to Rotherham, but they are equally applicable to every Town and City that has been through the same experience. My specific inference was that Phil Shiner, who worked for Bradford City Council, may well have been a part of these failings. A reasonable assumption. Just like I would like to see others investigated and jailed as part of this endemic cover up.

Just to keep it on topic.

IHAT / 134

This case concerned the alleged unlawful killing of Mr Lafteh Ahmed Awdeh in September 2003. IHAT investigators have examined the claim that Mr Awdeh was killed in a road traffic collision involving a British Army truck but can find no evidence, such as records of British troops being in or near the area at the time, to support the allegation. Requests to PIL to supply further information have not been answered and so with no reasonable or proportionate lines of enquiry identified, it has been decided to discontinue the investigation.

Another fantastic piece of fantasy by the great legal eagle that is Phil Shiner.

What imaginary figment? Your words again - " Phil Shiner, the big boss at PIL ... previously worked for Bradford City Council ... Perhaps he should be getting investigated. We all know what went on that neck of the woods..."

What inference then are we meant to make of your statement? Of what do you believe Professor Shiner should be investigated? Littering? Jay Walking? Driving cattle through the streets of Bradford between the hours of 10am and 5pm in breach of the Metropolitan Streets Act 1867? In what criminal activity do you think Professor Shiner was involved? And if it has nothing to do with Child Sexual Abuse, then why make the connection with Bradford City Council?

If I have drawn incorrect conclusions, then why not clarify exactly what you are alleging? It would also be useful to understand how such alleged criminal activity bears on Professor Shiners work at Public Interest Lawyers or his many other roles including Visiting Professor at the London School of Economics.

Again, I await with abject un-anticipation at the next non-answer response that will not doubt include further status reports of the work of IHAT in clearing cases as evidence of unfair attacks on the poor innocents who went to Iraq to kill Iraqi people..

lostboy, on 10 Feb 2016 - 21:30, said:

There is a long, ignoble tradition of people in closed, repressive organisational cultures of using bullying, intimidation and criminal libel to cover up misdeeds or prevent investigation and examination of their culture. Jack Nicholson expressed that culture impressively in one of his movies. The military, unions, even gentlemen's associations/clubs - they are all involved in this. So lets just examine the depths of depravity to which subscribers to this kind of anti-social culture descend.

Who is Phil Shiner? He is a senior lawyer at Public Interest Lawyers. He is a Professor of Law. He is a visiting Fellow at the London School of Economics. He has other achievements. http://pil.uk.net/?service=prof-phil-shiner What is the connection between Phil Shiner and Bradford City Council. Well it seems there was a child abuse scandal there. http://www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/news/11535556.Team_investigating_historic_child_sex_abuse_in_Bradford_may_approach_Government_for_extra_funding/?ref=mr So what then is the intention to link a high achieving professional who has worked in the public interest for much of his life with the Bradford City Council. The inference is clear. It need not be stated. Here is the bully tactic. Here is the innuendo. Here is the despicable and cowardly act of character assassination.

Why? Well it is very clear. The culture of impunity that has reigned for generations allowing misdeeds and crimes to go unpunished is being forced open. How? Not, as alleged by the cowards and bullies by individuals like Phil Shiner but by government commitments to international law. The same international law that governs armed conflict and requires signatories to take actions to investigate and punish war crimes.

Is Phil Shiner a kiddy-fiddler? Well some of the cream of UK society who have washed up on our exotic shores have no problem in making an inference, of course they are too gutless to make an actual accusation.

The same with Leigh Day & Co. You can read their statement in relation to Solicitor's Disciplinary Tribunal https://www.leighday.co.uk/News/News-2016/January-2016/Statement-in-relation-to-referral-to-Solicitors-Di

The same with UK Shadow Defence Minister Emily Thornberry. Look up here indiscretions. You won't find anything outside the right wing, rabble rousing, disgusting tabloid press. Believe this trash if you want but weigh up the preponderance of information. On one side you have a bellicose mob with pitchforks and on the other side you have people with real achievements who are being tarnished because they dare to call for transparency and investigation into alleged wrong doings.

The Guardian wrote about the Shiner situation in March last year.

In sending a dossier to the Solicitors Regulatory Authority the government is not only trespassing on an important separation of powers. It is risking the same over-identification between lawyer and client that led to the Finucane murder and the eventual Cameron apology http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/mar/09/guardian-view-assault-on-human-rights-law

This is a very thought provoking article. Should the Establishment be allowed such impunity? Should these mates be protected by other mates and organisational culture and tradition? Should people who call for accountability and transparency be subject to such disgraceful conduct by cowards and bullies; from slurs to actual physical attacks and murder?

I am not surprised at all that such posters are 'surprised', 'confounded', 'confused' by calls for such basic human rights. Since the powers that be frown on directed posts, I have kept this post in the realm of the general, but I will state specifically that Australians are not self appointed, whatever silly slur was meant by that reference. Most of us descended from people who arrived in boats. We are learning to live together respectively with indigenous Australians and new Australians, some of whom also arrive by boats and believe in different religions.

Your lack of knowledge is highly evident by the manner that you unwittingly interlink your first 2 paragraphs. It would perhaps be best to do a little more research before commenting. It is striding off topic. If you really want to understand the culture of cover - ups, bullying, prevention of investigation and examination of culture. I strongly suggest that you start with Professor Jay's report, you can find it online, then go through the varies linked articles, that should give you about 6 months reading and then, you might just be in a position to comment with a degree of validity.

Phil Shiner, a man you went to great lengths to highlight his qualities. Epic fail. As evidenced by the spurious accusations above, as a senior lawyer, he is not very good at his job. That is why legal proceedings are now being brought against his firm PIL and Leigh and Day, for the recover of £31 million.

You are very good at banging the drum for human rights. Sadly this does not extend to the innocent British Soldiers that are being hounded. Not forgetting that everyone in the UK is innocent until proven guilty. How many convictions ?

Still you ignore the serious abuses that are alleged to have taken place in the links I provided above.

There is no need to explain yourself why. The answer is obvious. You posted it here.

Quote

Why do you need to try and trivialise them with puerile, childish insults? Clearly you will never walk a mile in their shoes. Enjoy your white privilege. While it lasts.

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/887702-calls-for-boycott-of-oscars-grow-over-diversity-of-nominees/page-6

In the highly unlikely event that anyone is convicted due to this witch - hunt. I will be quite happy to discuss the matter further.

Your words in Post #189:

"On a separate note. It has been brought to my attention that Phil Shiner, the big boss at PIL, who are about to be dragged into court by the MOD to recover costs over the Al-Sweady farce, previously worked for Bradford City Council, in conjuction with Bernardo's as a community development worker.

Perhaps he should be getting investigated. We all know what went on that neck of the woods, and why it was covered up."

You associate Professor Shiner with Bradford City Council. You insinuate that the child sexual abuse in that location has some relationship to Professor Shiner. You suggest Professor Shiner be investigated. For what? Child sexual abuse?

What evidence do you have that Professor Shiner is a pedophile?

I post links to Professor Shiner's academic and career achievements. No defence needed. No defence offered. Merely sharing links to publicly available information. Your response? Silence on this matter. You threw out the connections for people to make the inference. Why? What relationship is there between an unsupported allegation that Professor Shiner is a pedophile and his role in defending human rights by representing accusers of misconduct in legal proceedings? Does Professor Shiner's sexual predilections have bearing on this? If not why make the allegation?

We all know why. And when you are fronted on this disgusting tactic, there is silence.

You then direct me to consult Professor Alexis Jay's Report on Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Exploitation in Rotherham 1997 - 2013 http://www.rotherham.gov.uk/downloads/file/1407/independent_inquiry_cse_in_rotherham

Why?

The issues that I have been arguing on this thread is the commitment of the UK government under international law to investigation allegations of misconduct by UK combatants in the Iraq War. How is this related to child sexual exploitation in Rotherham 1997 - 2013? Why is it necessary to spend 6 months reading this report and its associated links?

Some coherent, relevant link between investigating alleged war crimes, the sexual predilection of one lawyer representing accusers of perpetrators of alleged war crimes, and the child sexual exploitation in Rotherham is needed for anything that you say to be taken seriously.

What are you doing? Everyone can see. It is so transparent and ham fisted to be a joke. But it is not funny. The bullying. The slurs. The disgusting inferences of child sexual abuse allegedly committed by people against whom you have an ideological difference. There can be only one conclusion and it is not flattering.

Please continue to trawl through my previous posts if you have nothing better to do. As usual, you misunderstand the situation. You have no say in what I write or when I write it. You may comment or not as you wish. You have no authority to demand I answer or not answer, justify or not justify. You may not make any demand that I comment or not comment on any topic or any issue. In effect you are entirely powerless to direct anyone to do anything. You live and die by your words on this forum. Your slow death on this issue is pitiful to watch.

I await your response on the issue of child sexual abuse and your allegation that Professor Shiner is a pedophile with entirely no interest at all. I know you cannot justify or defend your words. You are shooting blanks. In more areas than one. Please keep bumping this thread.

lostboy, on 10 Feb 2016 - 00:07, said:

SgtRock, on 09 Feb 2016 - 13:40, said:

An example of the contempt that some of the UK Politicians have for the troops that THEY send into battle.

Quote

Will my Right Honourable Friend agree with me that it's more than a matter of regret that the new shadow secretary of state for defence has seen fit to take a donation from the immoral, thieving and ambulance chasing lawyers Leigh Day, who together with public interest lawyers specialise in hounding our brave service personal in Iraq on spurious claims

Conservative MP Stewart Jackson

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/12084846/David-Cameron-Questions-to-answer-over-Emily-Thornberrys-links-to-condemned-law-firm-Leigh-Day.html

The Labour Shadow Defence Minister. Beyond belief.

On a separate note. It has been brought to my attention that Phil Shiner, the big boss at PIL, who are about to be dragged into court by the MOD to recover costs over the Al-Sweady farce, previously worked for Bradford City Council, in conjuction with Bernardo's as a community development worker.

Perhaps he should be getting investigated. We all know what went on that neck of the woods, and why it was covered up.

There is no depth to which you will not descend to push your grubby agenda. It brings shame to those who really served.

How bizarre that you appear to think that I have an agenda and feel that it is acceptable to attack the poster and not the content of the post.

The only people bringing shame to those who served are the chief ambulance chasing lawyer by the name of Phil Shiner and his Company PIL. You can also add the CURRENT Shadow Defence Minister who took donations from Leigh Day.

It is also strange that you appear to support these ambulance chasers and a bent Politician. Each to their own.

I also find it strange that as a self appointed Aussie that this is of any interest to you. After all the following were not deemed worthy of your pearls of wisdom.

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/892912-top-un-human-rights-official-begins-talks-in-sri-lanka/

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/892812-former-soldiers-clash-with-protesters-in-haiti;-1-dead/

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/891013-car-un-official-emotional-as-new-child-sex-abuse-allegations-revealed/

I would certainly have thought that number 1 and 3 would have had you bashing your keyboard like a man possessed. Let me guess. No Brits involved.

There is a long, ignoble tradition of people in closed, repressive organisational cultures of using bullying, intimidation and criminal libel to cover up misdeeds or prevent investigation and examination of their culture. Jack Nicholson expressed that culture impressively in one of his movies. The military, unions, even gentlemen's associations/clubs - they are all involved in this. So lets just examine the depths of depravity to which subscribers to this kind of anti-social culture descend.

Who is Phil Shiner? He is a senior lawyer at Public Interest Lawyers. He is a Professor of Law. He is a visiting Fellow at the London School of Economics. He has other achievements. http://pil.uk.net/?service=prof-phil-shiner What is the connection between Phil Shiner and Bradford City Council. Well it seems there was a child abuse scandal there. http://www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/news/11535556.Team_investigating_historic_child_sex_abuse_in_Bradford_may_approach_Government_for_extra_funding/?ref=mr So what then is the intention to link a high achieving professional who has worked in the public interest for much of his life with the Bradford City Council. The inference is clear. It need not be stated. Here is the bully tactic. Here is the innuendo. Here is the despicable and cowardly act of character assassination.

Why? Well it is very clear. The culture of impunity that has reigned for generations allowing misdeeds and crimes to go unpunished is being forced open. How? Not, as alleged by the cowards and bullies by individuals like Phil Shiner but by government commitments to international law. The same international law that governs armed conflict and requires signatories to take actions to investigate and punish war crimes.

Is Phil Shiner a kiddy-fiddler? Well some of the cream of UK society who have washed up on our exotic shores have no problem in making an inference, of course they are too gutless to make an actual accusation.

The same with Leigh Day & Co. You can read their statement in relation to Solicitor's Disciplinary Tribunal https://www.leighday.co.uk/News/News-2016/January-2016/Statement-in-relation-to-referral-to-Solicitors-Di

The same with UK Shadow Defence Minister Emily Thornberry. Look up here indiscretions. You won't find anything outside the right wing, rabble rousing, disgusting tabloid press. Believe this trash if you want but weigh up the preponderance of information. On one side you have a bellicose mob with pitchforks and on the other side you have people with real achievements who are being tarnished because they dare to call for transparency and investigation into alleged wrong doings.

The Guardian wrote about the Shiner situation in March last year.

In sending a dossier to the Solicitors Regulatory Authority the government is not only trespassing on an important separation of powers. It is risking the same over-identification between lawyer and client that led to the Finucane murder and the eventual Cameron apology http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/mar/09/guardian-view-assault-on-human-rights-law

This is a very thought provoking article. Should the Establishment be allowed such impunity? Should these mates be protected by other mates and organisational culture and tradition? Should people who call for accountability and transparency be subject to such disgraceful conduct by cowards and bullies; from slurs to actual physical attacks and murder?

I am not surprised at all that such posters are 'surprised', 'confounded', 'confused' by calls for such basic human rights. Since the powers that be frown on directed posts, I have kept this post in the realm of the general, but I will state specifically that Australians are not self appointed, whatever silly slur was meant by that reference. Most of us descended from people who arrived in boats. We are learning to live together respectively with indigenous Australians and new Australians, some of whom also arrive by boats and believe in different religions.

We are being swamped by people who don't share our values and who will eventually impose their own values on us, or, at least try.

Bullshit

An example of the contempt that some of the UK Politicians have for the troops that THEY send into battle.

Will my Right Honourable Friend agree with me that it's more than a matter of regret that the new shadow secretary of state for defence has seen fit to take a donation from the immoral, thieving and ambulance chasing lawyers Leigh Day, who together with public interest lawyers specialise in hounding our brave service personal in Iraq on spurious claims

Conservative MP Stewart Jackson

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/12084846/David-Cameron-Questions-to-answer-over-Emily-Thornberrys-links-to-condemned-law-firm-Leigh-Day.html

The Labour Shadow Defence Minister. Beyond belief.

On a separate note. It has been brought to my attention that Phil Shiner, the big boss at PIL, who are about to be dragged into court by the MOD to recover costs over the Al-Sweady farce, previously worked for Bradford City Council, in conjuction with Bernardo's as a community development worker.

Perhaps he should be getting investigated. We all know what went on that neck of the woods, and why it was covered up.

There is no depth to which you will not descend to push your grubby agenda. It brings shame to those who really served.

 

Once in a while a statement comes along without facts. The statement is instead arbitrary, broad, of no depth or informational value.

Conversely, there are facts....

Julian Assange Starts Talk Show on Russian TV

www.nytimes.com/2012/04/18/arts/television/julian...

Julian Assange, Edward Snowden hypocrites over Vladimir Putin ...

www.smh.com.au/comment/julian-assange...putin...2wx5n.html

There is much to be said for the biblical injunction ''You shall know them by their fruits''. The warning is appropriate to Julian Assange and Edward Snowden, who ...

Julian Assange Live, brought to you by the Kremlin

"It was all a bit rich: Assange, self-described defender of the free flow of information, working in the service of the Kremlin, which has been notorious in its suppression of the media and demonstrations for greater freedom of expression."

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/arts/television/julian-assange-live-brought-to-you-by-the-kremlin/article4100800/

WikiLeaks' Julian Assange and Kremlin TV:...

blogs.voanews.com/russia-watch/2012/01/27/wikileaks...

Julian Assange, the WikiLeaks transparency advocate and leaker of about 115,000 confidential U.S. government emails, has found a new home: a talk show on RT, or ...

Reading your posts on these issues ever since the Snowdon affair, it is no surprise that you do not extend to Julian Assange the same respect to which other journalists are entitled. I am surprised that you take an ideological slant on this. I can accept nativism but I do believe there are more universal issues at play here. Privacy, freedom of information, freedom of journalists, over-reach by the national security state etc. I do believe a number of these are being lost in your attacks on Assange as I think they were in your attacks on Snowdon.

Assange is a Putin operative.

I'd pointed this out in the current threads on the most recent developments of the Assange self-imprisonment.

Wikileaks escorted Edward Snowden to Moscow from his having been hidden in Hong Kong after he fled the United States where he is charged with espionage.

Assange, Putin, Wikileaks, Snowden. The CCP Dictators in Beijing got the very hot potato Snowden out of their baileywick of HKG asap so Snowden only made a drop off of documents there.

Consequently, all of this presently centered on Julian Assange is classic state security and national security. This instance and the major principals do not rise to the level of concern over a security state in the contemporary meaning of the term. It is a plain old fashioned basic case of national security and espionage by a self-appointed mole who escaped to the other side.

Assange fled; Snowden fled. Moscow and Beijing have their secrets. In the instance of Assange and Wikileaks, they are secrets disclosed. In respect of Snowden, vital top secret national security data, programs, policies are in Moscow and Beijing. This is not Big Brother. It is parenticide.

I will not argue these points although I do not support your view. It could be argued that Putin is Assange's tool. I have read about his life and his objectives and i believe he represents far more than you allow. Similarly with Snowden and Chelsea Manning. I believe your focus on this as espionage is too reductionist and leading you down blind alleys and cut-de-sacs.

I take comfort that some legitimate international organisations agree with me.

Once in a while a statement comes along without facts. The statement is instead arbitrary, broad, of no depth or informational value.

Conversely, there are facts....

Julian Assange Starts Talk Show on Russian TV

www.nytimes.com/2012/04/18/arts/television/julian...

Julian Assange, Edward Snowden hypocrites over Vladimir Putin ...

www.smh.com.au/comment/julian-assange...putin...2wx5n.html

There is much to be said for the biblical injunction ''You shall know them by their fruits''. The warning is appropriate to Julian Assange and Edward Snowden, who ...

Julian Assange Live, brought to you by the Kremlin

"It was all a bit rich: Assange, self-described defender of the free flow of information, working in the service of the Kremlin, which has been notorious in its suppression of the media and demonstrations for greater freedom of expression."

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/arts/television/julian-assange-live-brought-to-you-by-the-kremlin/article4100800/

WikiLeaks' Julian Assange and Kremlin TV:...

blogs.voanews.com/russia-watch/2012/01/27/wikileaks...

Julian Assange, the WikiLeaks transparency advocate and leaker of about 115,000 confidential U.S. government emails, has found a new home: a talk show on RT, or ...

Reading your posts on these issues ever since the Snowdon affair, it is no surprise that you do not extend to Julian Assange the same respect to which other journalists are entitled. I am surprised that you take an ideological slant on this. I can accept nativism but I do believe there are more universal issues at play here. Privacy, freedom of information, freedom of journalists, over-reach by the national security state etc. I do believe a number of these are being lost in your attacks on Assange as I think they were in your attacks on Snowdon.

Battlefield conditions were frequently situations where the enemy Iraqi irregulars places women and children as shields, send women and children as suicide bombers, forced women, children and old people to remain in buildings that were being bombed, placed offensive weapons near and even inside hospitals... All this was done deliberately to gain favorable media coverage as the near sighted media could not / would not discern the real story and significance of the battle or skirmish... These dastardly deliberate actions to put innocent non combatants into harms way is more often the war crime than the action of the Coalition Soldiers who fired on these emplacements. This does not account for all that might be accused - but it accounts for many...

Also far too often the crippling ROE "Rules of Engagement' that was placed upon Coalition soldiers put all concerned in jeopardy ... practically causing Coalition soldiers to forewarn the enemy of patrols setting Coalition soldiers up for ambush and resultant indiscriminate hell fire being used to escape with their lives and these incidents at times resulted in killing of innocents. Prime example - the shooting of enemy scouts who were following Coalition troop movements and were reporting it to the enemy waiting up the road. - resulted in at least one soldier being prosecuted.

Politicians - should stay out of combat ... their indecision and sometimes idiotic interference has caused both Coalition soldiers and civilians to be killed.

Your lexicon is that of the antagonist, the invader, the oppressor. It is littered with technical jargon that avoids the reality of killing. You use phrases that avoid any personalisation of the act of killing. Did these Iraqi people have no business in defending their homeland from invaders? Was not the capability of the uniformed forces so weak that soldiers surrendered to television news crews in the First Gulf War. Were not the Iraqi people defending their homeland with the weapons and tactics available to them? Clearly your sympathies do not lie with the Iraqi defenders. That is apparent by the words you use. Irrespective of this, the topic and issue is about the demand to investigate allegations of breaches of international law by participants in this armed conflict. Soldiers are not above the law. Any allegation of abuse should be investigated and if proven, the guilty person punished. This principle must apply whether you agree with the cause of the conflict or not.

I think you have lost the perspective ... The Iraqis that chose to fight could indeed do so ... Nothing I said justified any soldier being above the law. Firefights are not refereed events, fighting your way out of an ambush is not done by Hoyle's book of card rules... you fight to survive and indiscriminate gun fire often occurs and kills innocents ... it cannot classified be as wanton recklessness as some anti-war people who want to hang soldiers after the fact. The perspective I spoke of intentionally did not talk of what political leaders did to start wars... but when politicians start wars they have to also bear the burden of who gets killed. But I do not see these punishment groups going after any politicians -- only the soldier. When politicians get hung up with political correctness and force ridiculous rules of engagement on the battlefield it only creates opportunities for tragedy. WWII fought against a beyond awful regime would have never been won with the political interference applied in nearly every modern war starting with the Vietnam war. These breaches of international law are being decided by anti-war zealots....

I agree that I have lost your perspective. I will start by happily agreeing with your comment about being anti-war, although the zealot thing is a bit rich coming from such a pro 2A guy. I also do not argue about actions of combatants in battlefield operations or complying with legally authorised laws and instructions. And I also agree with statements about all persons including decision makers being held accountable.

For argument's sake, I draw a distinction between conflict arising from the defence of one's homeland in the face of an invading force and conflicts entered into because of geopolitical adventurism. It is ironic that the Iraq war was a case of the latter and the Iraqi combatants were acting in defence of their homeland.

You reference WWII. That is long past. There are now international bodies that administer international law. That law was breached by the invasion of Iraq. At an operational level, instances of abuse occurred and were exposed as in the case of Abu Ghraib. There are allegations of further breaches of law at the operational level. These must be investigated. It is the duty of each government to do so under their commitments to international law. If found to be baseless, then no charges are applied. If found to be valid, then prosecutions must occur. Attempts by individuals to interfere with this process including the demonisation of accusers and their representatives is abhorrent and the act of a bully. Such people should be silenced by law.

Please count me as anti-war. Who on earth would claim otherwise, except the most sociopathic, unethical and inhuman kind of person.

Battlefield conditions were frequently situations where the enemy Iraqi irregulars places women and children as shields, send women and children as suicide bombers, forced women, children and old people to remain in buildings that were being bombed, placed offensive weapons near and even inside hospitals... All this was done deliberately to gain favorable media coverage as the near sighted media could not / would not discern the real story and significance of the battle or skirmish... These dastardly deliberate actions to put innocent non combatants into harms way is more often the war crime than the action of the Coalition Soldiers who fired on these emplacements. This does not account for all that might be accused - but it accounts for many...

Also far too often the crippling ROE "Rules of Engagement' that was placed upon Coalition soldiers put all concerned in jeopardy ... practically causing Coalition soldiers to forewarn the enemy of patrols setting Coalition soldiers up for ambush and resultant indiscriminate hell fire being used to escape with their lives and these incidents at times resulted in killing of innocents. Prime example - the shooting of enemy scouts who were following Coalition troop movements and were reporting it to the enemy waiting up the road. - resulted in at least one soldier being prosecuted.

Politicians - should stay out of combat ... their indecision and sometimes idiotic interference has caused both Coalition soldiers and civilians to be killed.

Your lexicon is that of the antagonist, the invader, the oppressor. It is littered with technical jargon that avoids the reality of killing. You use phrases that avoid any personalisation of the act of killing. Did these Iraqi people have no business in defending their homeland from invaders? Was not the capability of the uniformed forces so weak that soldiers surrendered to television news crews in the First Gulf War. Were not the Iraqi people defending their homeland with the weapons and tactics available to them? Clearly your sympathies do not lie with the Iraqi defenders. That is apparent by the words you use. Irrespective of this, the topic and issue is about the demand to investigate allegations of breaches of international law by participants in this armed conflict. Soldiers are not above the law. Any allegation of abuse should be investigated and if proven, the guilty person punished. This principle must apply whether you agree with the cause of the conflict or not.

Your mistake is placing blame for the war on the soldiers who were sent their by their governments while being lied to about the purpose.

You take an 18 year old boy off the farm and send him to boot camp. You tell him he's to be a killer and you train him to be a killer. You teach him that to survive he must kill first. You succeed in making a killer. That's necessary for countries to do to prepare for a possible defense of their homeland or even that of an ally.

Being in a war produces emotional trauma. People see things that no one should ever see. They do things that no one should ever have to do. They do it to survive.

After a while the traumatized human psyche gets pissed at everything that appears in front of him. Whether he's in an A10 or on the ground he's either being shot at or afraid of being shot at and his warped surroundings get to him. He lashes out.

Then the armchair quarterbacks arrive ten or twenty years later and of course they are perfect as they sit in their ivory towers.

Screw them.

Cheers.

I do not disagree with much of what you wrote, which is a way of saying that I agree with you. Keeping the discussion at the operational level, I still believe that an individual's actions is guided by both ethics and law. There is international law that covers armed conflict. Actions that breach such law should be prosecuted if found valid. The capacity of an individual soldier to resolve ethical dilemmas in war is constrained by a number of factors that you and others have identified, including battlefield conditions, military hierarchy and culture and the need for self preservation. However, a soldier remains ethically responsible. The exigencies of war have often been used to mask unethical and illegal conduct, either individually or by the body corporate.

I do not believe this is a case of ex-post armchair quarterbacking. It is the application of established law and the moral and ethical code that Western democracies claim as an outcome of their society's progress.

Battlefield conditions were frequently situations where the enemy Iraqi irregulars places women and children as shields, send women and children as suicide bombers, forced women, children and old people to remain in buildings that were being bombed, placed offensive weapons near and even inside hospitals... All this was done deliberately to gain favorable media coverage as the near sighted media could not / would not discern the real story and significance of the battle or skirmish... These dastardly deliberate actions to put innocent non combatants into harms way is more often the war crime than the action of the Coalition Soldiers who fired on these emplacements. This does not account for all that might be accused - but it accounts for many...

Also far too often the crippling ROE "Rules of Engagement' that was placed upon Coalition soldiers put all concerned in jeopardy ... practically causing Coalition soldiers to forewarn the enemy of patrols setting Coalition soldiers up for ambush and resultant indiscriminate hell fire being used to escape with their lives and these incidents at times resulted in killing of innocents. Prime example - the shooting of enemy scouts who were following Coalition troop movements and were reporting it to the enemy waiting up the road. - resulted in at least one soldier being prosecuted.

Politicians - should stay out of combat ... their indecision and sometimes idiotic interference has caused both Coalition soldiers and civilians to be killed.

Your lexicon is that of the antagonist, the invader, the oppressor. It is littered with technical jargon that avoids the reality of killing. You use phrases that avoid any personalisation of the act of killing. Did these Iraqi people have no business in defending their homeland from invaders? Was not the capability of the uniformed forces so weak that soldiers surrendered to television news crews in the First Gulf War. Were not the Iraqi people defending their homeland with the weapons and tactics available to them? Clearly your sympathies do not lie with the Iraqi defenders. That is apparent by the words you use. Irrespective of this, the topic and issue is about the demand to investigate allegations of breaches of international law by participants in this armed conflict. Soldiers are not above the law. Any allegation of abuse should be investigated and if proven, the guilty person punished. This principle must apply whether you agree with the cause of the conflict or not.

US of A, you have made your bed, now lie in in it,

I get sick of the USA bashing on here.

Too bad your puny country can't invent the drugs and equipment and procedures the USA does, eh?

It is often the profit motive that drives these discoveries and then other "more civilized" but tiny, inconsequential yet incompetent countries leach off them.

(You asked for it.)

Cheers.

Not surprising that you support the ugly face of capitalism. Patent trolling and predatory pricing are outcomes of either market or regulatory failure. Yes, Pyrimethamine was discovered in America by a scientist working for a pharmaceutical corporation, Burroughs-Welcome but that corporation has since been bought out and the new owners sold the patent which was subsequently sold twice more ending up in the hands of Turing. The narrow base of consumers for the drug has not attracted either competition or makers of generic drugs to enter the market. The medical insurance system has further encouraged predatory pricing.

All of this does not take into account the humanitarian issues of people in need of the medication.

A simpleton may claim that the profit motive is the entirety of the capitalist system but most others understand that there are complexities involved. The idea that a leach like Shkreli can enter the financial system and exploit its loopholes by virtue of specialised knowledge to enrich himself and others while not actually producing anything is a disgrace. Yet you call citizens of other countries who benefit from medical discoveries in the US, leeches. Not all good things were discovered in the US and most certainly not all good things were discovered by corporate R&D. Many discoveries that have changed the world emerged from publicly funded research and academic institutions.

Individuals enriching themselves from flaws in the capital market, including information asymmetries is a necessary part of the system. Such people help discipline the markets and such flaws are dealt with by changes in market rules or actions by regulators. This is not such a case. It is pure exploitation. it is unfair, unjust and unethical. It is a direct outcome of the Republican fetish for unfettered deregulation and exposes the Republican ideology as economically bankrupt. Only in America.

Of course, for the Liberal, hand wringing Lefties, a totally pointless, not to say unproductive investigation, will have a truly positive effect. It will have a negative effect on future recruitment to the British Army, which will be a fantastic achievement for those that have never served, expect others to protect them, and then cry like babies when that protection is no longer available.

Protection? Where? Maybe lower recruitment will finally demonstrated to what is now a third rate force that they should no longer be sticking their noses in other people's business.

British soldiers killing Iraqi people did absolutely nothing to protect British citizens.

Leave the services for the sociopaths who enjoy that life and can be restrained in their barracks under command of their betters.

The values statement of IHAT is https://www.gov.uk/government/groups/iraq-historic-allegations-team-ihat. All allegations of abuse in war must be investigated no matter the time and no matter the cost. Those officials who resist and do not cooperate should be likewise charged and prosecuted. The UK's obligations to the European Court of Human Rights may just well result in those puffed up, uniformed buffoons to reconsider their military adventurism in the name of an empire that ceased to exist generations ago. My rights and freedoms have in no way been protected by British militants killing Iraqis. The wall you stand only exists in your imagination.

Did it ever occur to you that if the UK governments had not invaded Iraq, Afghanistan etc on the direct orders of the British government at the time, that none of this would have happened. I quote you here

"those puffed up, uniformed buffoons to reconsider their military adventurism in the name of an empire that ceased to exist generations ago." NEVER start wars on their own.

They are sent there on the direct orders of the CIVILIAN government of the day to satisfy the vanity of the powers that be. They are generally under supplied and underfunded and expected to put their lives on the line and if necessary to die or be crippled for life to pull the politicians nuts out of the fire.

So when you blame the military, ask yourself who put them in that spot and assign the blame where it truly belongs.

Your apology for the UK forces involvement in Iraq does not answer the question of what business did they have being there. National armed forces exist for the defence of the nation. The idea that the UK had national interests in Iraq that required defending by force was and is absurdly anachronistic. Hence my statement. Irrespective of this issue, your apology does not go any where near the point of this topic which is the behaviour of armed forces in conflict and the quite reasonable and necessary need for such conduct to be accountable to international laws. UK soldiers and their various masters are no longer above the law. Their imperial past has passed.

Richard:

What you are letting slide is she was where the buck stopped in the State Department for four years.

Certainly she did not make routine decisions as to what was classified and what wasn't. I never claimed she did.

My position and, hopefully, the position of the grand jury, is that as an approving authority she had the knowledge and the responsibility to know what was classified or not regardless of whether it was marked or not.

I am dead certain, in my own feeble mind, that she knew what was classified and what was not. She very simply thought she would get away with having her own personal server and she would never hear of it after leaving office.

Now the only thing she has is a defense about the markings and the alleged bias of the IG that inspected her. She screwed the pooch this time and it is going to be difficult for the Clinton political machine to dig her out.

She is barely beating a 73 year old socialist in Iowa now. It's a long road ahead for her.

Perhaps you can enlighten us further by informing us exactly what Grand Jury you are talking about. I cannot find any reference to any Grand Jury. Are you privy to special information?

The grand tradition of the Right. A serial adulterer leads a lynch mob to try and impeach HRC's husband for some meaningless sex act and the Security State wastes energy and resources on compiling a list of regulations, guidelines and administrative procedures that HRC is supposed to have breached. The Patriots continue to bring glory to the Land of the Free.

Keep your TV tuned to Fox News. You will be the first to know.

You're still an Aussie, right?

Don't get Fox News at home. Do enjoy watching it when I travel. Very energetic. So I take it that this Grand Jury is just a fantasy? I think old men's fantasies are a dime a dozen in this place. So prosaic.

My apologies. I didn't realise this thread was for natural born Americans. I guess Ted Cruz and I will have to find other threads to post on.

Richard:

What you are letting slide is she was where the buck stopped in the State Department for four years.

Certainly she did not make routine decisions as to what was classified and what wasn't. I never claimed she did.

My position and, hopefully, the position of the grand jury, is that as an approving authority she had the knowledge and the responsibility to know what was classified or not regardless of whether it was marked or not.

I am dead certain, in my own feeble mind, that she knew what was classified and what was not. She very simply thought she would get away with having her own personal server and she would never hear of it after leaving office.

Now the only thing she has is a defense about the markings and the alleged bias of the IG that inspected her. She screwed the pooch this time and it is going to be difficult for the Clinton political machine to dig her out.

She is barely beating a 73 year old socialist in Iowa now. It's a long road ahead for her.

Perhaps you can enlighten us further by informing us exactly what Grand Jury you are talking about. I cannot find any reference to any Grand Jury. Are you privy to special information?

The grand tradition of the Right. A serial adulterer leads a lynch mob to try and impeach HRC's husband for some meaningless sex act and the Security State wastes energy and resources on compiling a list of regulations, guidelines and administrative procedures that HRC is supposed to have breached. The Patriots continue to bring glory to the Land of the Free.

It's actually very frightening to read some posts of people who are so blindly committed to "their" party and its representatives, that they don't realise that it's exactly their blindness, which enables the state (including its bureaucrats and state approved politicians) to always get away with their crimes; Again and again and again. They hardly ever argue based on moral principles, and if they do so once in a while, sooner or later they are back in their favourite, one-dimensional game, where they feel so much more comfortable:

- The ignorant, stupid, <fill in whatever offences come to mind> fanboys of the other team, Left vs. Right that is, are responsible and enablers of all the evil that counts, or

- The information comes from the wrong channel / mouth piece, so it must be a lie - of half-lie at least, or

- Politicians and bureaucrats from the other team do and did it too, so... bla, bla, bla.

And yes, they are absolutely right. What they just don't see, is, that they, with their unconditional party allegiance, are also part of the problem as they are themselves the tools and enablers of exactly this inherently corrupt system. They identify themselves so much with a party, that they are even defending the worst deeds of the state, if, and only if, one of "their own" team players was responsible for or even committed it.

If the things they enable with their blind loyalty weren't so bad and evil, their arguments would have at least a certain entertainment value. But, unfortunately, they aren't.

Intellectual dishonesty is a failure to apply standards of rational evaluation equally or in a self serving fashion. it is judging others more critically than oneself.

Any real discussion on corruption, governance, checks and balances, abuses of power cannot be seriously entertained in an intellectually dishonest environment. It will become a never ending kindergarten tit-for-tat of Yes It Is! and No It Isn't!

There is nothing in the post above that cannot be applied to each end of the political divide. It is merely polemic and does not rise to the level of dialectic. As such, no allegations or observations can really be taken seriously. There is a need, however for rational discussion on the corrupting influences of power and its affect on the behaviour of the people who want to run the World's remaining super power. This clearly is not the venue for such discussion.

You may continue in your fear and outrage of polemic. The rest of the World will go about its business.

And yet another left whiner ignores the SF-312 matter.

And regardless of what Polittifo says, the FBI isn't much into investigating equipment, unless it has been illegally handling classified materials.

Give that a little thought while you are picking the lint out of your mavel.

Pettifogging and nitpicking. Straight out of Dickens' Pickwick Papers or Bleak House. The minutiae of bureaucrats, administrators and lawyers. The mere fact that lesser persons at the fringe and margins of the security state are bound by officious regulations and absurdly anal paranoic methods is irrelevant to those who occupy High Office in the US Federal Bureaucracy. While they are clearly not above the law, they are the ones who are served by subordinate regulations, not constrained by them. You were bound by these rules. High Officials are the ones who design and modify them. It is called Authority.

There has been a blizzard of small minds encircling the Clintons for decades. Trying to bring them down for anything. She was entirely justified in keeping and maintaining a separate server to help keep sensitive information out of the hands of her political enemies. Any regulations, such as they are, and in the US system, they are legion, must fit to the requirements of a High Official to maintain such insulation from ideologically driven foes. The same applies to the other side of the fence.

The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy will not be bringing down HRC through non-compliance with a piece of paper.