Charles Taylor is not happy about conditions in the Hague jail he was moved to last month, his lawyer said on Friday as the former Liberian president appeared in court for the first time since he left Sierra Leone. Defense lawyer Karim Khan told the U.N.-backed Special Court for Sierra Leone, which will try Taylor for war crimes, that his client could not make phone calls as freely as he could in Freetown, lockdown hours were more draconian and he was unhappy about the food in the "rather Eurocentric" facility.
"Antelope, goddammit! I want antelope! What the hell's this schnitzel stuff?"
"Mr Taylor should be afforded the same rights and the same regime that are afforded to all other detained persons (in Sierra Leone)," Khan said.
"And that means he gets antelope!"
"Pieter, go get those antlers from the hallway trophy and put them on the schnitzel ... either side yust like so ... yah, yah, just go do it ..."
Taylor, wearing a grey suit to the procedural hearing, also asked the court through his lawyer to speed visas for his family to visit him in The Hague. Taylor's wife is six months pregnant. The Sierra Leone special court moved Taylor to The Hague because of fears a trial in Freetown could spur unrest in Sierra Leone or Liberia. Proceedings are being held in the premises of the International Criminal Court (ICC). Judge Richard Lussick said he did not want people to have the impression Freetown was "the Riviera of detention" but said he hoped the court's registrar would address Taylor's concerns.
Posted by: Fred ||
07/22/2006 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
maybe he will be happier when his lovers Saddamn and Chaves join him.
Apparently volunteers for Hugo Chavez's proposed expansion to Venezuela's security forces is running into some problems. Volunteers for the new armed militia have not been forthcoming in sufficient numbers to meet goal of two million troops.
As a result, proposals for a draft are being floated. Venezuela currently has a draft, and the active forces, which number 85,000, normally include 30,000 short-term conscripts. With that small number of conscripts required (less than twenty percent of the young men coming of age each year), exemptions and deferrals can be easily had.
This results in no significant opposition to conscription. But once you start eliminating all that slack, and taking a lot of people who don't want to go, unrest grows. But, then, maybe not. Chavez's militia is basically a part-time operation whose main purpose is keeping Chavez in power.
#2
Volunteers for the new armed militia have not been forthcoming in sufficient numbers to meet goal of two million troops.
Might have something to do with all those horror stories about the Imperialist Yankee killers in Iraq. When you keep talking up the drivel about how the Yankee is going to invade and they see all the terrible things the BBC says about them doing to anyone raising a RPG against them, even peasants think twice.
#3
Venezuelan military will stop a bus, order all the conscription age boys off and ship them all to a military camp.
There are many tales of mothers going to training facilities to retrieve their under-age sons, picked up from the street corner, head shaved and put in army green.
Posted by: john ||
07/22/2006 9:31 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Good god. the fat little man with delusions of adequacy has... revived the ancient and honorable tradion of the press gang!
Way to go, Hugo, straight back to the 18th century. Your mother will be so proud.
Floyd rode a great time trial, finishing third, but he more than made up the 30 seconds he was trailing Pererio & Sastre.
Floyd Landis paced himself perfectly in the final major rendezvous of the 2006 Tour de France. He didnt waiver from his plan at the start of the day and wasnt tempted to try and catch the dominant Serhiy Honchar who won his second successive Tour de France time trial. Floyd knew that the most important thing was to finish over half a minute ahead of Oscar Pereiro; he did just that and tomorrow hell arrive in Paris as the fourth American winner.
The fourth? This is Landis' fourth yellow jersey this year, but fourth American in Paris? You guys sure about that? Lemond, Armstrong & Landis - who am I missing here?
#2
This is embarrasing. First a man with cancer and one ball wins seven times in a row. Now a crippled man who will undergo hip replacement surgery wins. What's next, a parapalegic?
Posted by: ed ||
07/22/2006 12:40 Comments ||
Top||
The Potomac, Maryland home of the vice president of Nigeria
A couple comments about this article/headline/coverage of this story:
1. Dear WaPo, I'm not crying any crocodile tears over the gentlemen's "entanglement" with a corrupt Donk Congresscritter. All the money in Nigeria is dirty and bloodstained, every blessed penny of it.
2. Take a look at his US "starter castle." The one he owns with only one of his four (!) wives. The wife who's getting her PhD at American University. Pfui.
3. This man is running for president of Nigeria. Gah.
The corruption investigation of Rep. William J. Jefferson (D-La.) has taken many strange twists: an FBI sting that caught the lawmaker on videotape accepting a large payoff; a subsequent raid that turned up $90,000 of that cash in his apartment freezer; and a weekend FBI search of his congressional office that triggered a constitutional uproar.
But one of the most puzzling and intriguing facets of the case is Jefferson's ties to Atiku Abubakar, the vice president of Nigeria. Abubakar, a wealthy businessman and one of the leading candidates in next year's race for president of Nigeria, divides his time between his homeland and Potomac, Md., where he and one of his four wives maintain a $2.2 million mansion. Abubakar, a multimillionaire, owns several large businesses, a $3 million home in Nigeria's capital and a $5 million home in northern Nigeria, as well as his seven-bedroom, embassy-style gated mansion and gardens in Potomac. Moreover, he put up more than $25 million to start ABTI-American University of Nigeria in his home town of Yola through American University, according to the university in Yola.
Jefferson, who was a member of a House Ways and Means trade subcommittee, got to know Abubakar after the Nigerian was elected vice president in 1999. Later, Jefferson turned to Abubakar for help in winning a lucrative Nigerian telecommunications contract for a high-tech firm in Kentucky that was paying Jefferson bribes, according to an FBI affidavit. Jefferson told a business associate in a secretly taped conversation that Abubakar was "corrupt" and needed a hefty bribe and a cut of the profits in return for his help -- allegations Abubakar has strongly denied. Abubakar's involvement in the case has created a buzz in Washington's diplomatic circles and generated intense political controversy and media attention in Nigeria -- a country that is trying to shed its long-standing reputation for corrupt government.
Madison Ave. ad execs are so bent on taking control of America's children, they'd put computer chips in kids' brains if they could, Sen. Hillary Clinton said yesterday.
Saying advertisers have found so many new ways to get at kids through video games and the Internet, Clinton warned that we're verging on a society out of a grim science fiction novel.
"At the rate that technology is advancing, people will be implanting chips in our children to advertise directly into their brains and tell them what kind of products to buy," Clinton said at the Kaiser Family Foundation.
The New York Democrat said the country was performing a "massive experiment" on kids who average more than six hours a day with media and advertising, soaking it up through TV, computers, games and iPods. She said the fastest growing advertising market is the 6- and under set, and that children's health is already being hurt by products like Camel's candy-flavored cigarettes and junk food sold with tips for video games - used to sell more junk food.
"People are spending billions and billions of dollars enticing children basically to be obsessed with food," she said. "These foods are almost universally unhealthy." Clinton has offered legislation to study the effects of the "advertising-saturated, media-intense" world on kids.
Robert Thompson, a professor of pop culture at Syracuse University, said Clinton and other politicians like to attack advertising because it's easier than trying to ban bad food products or fund broad education programs.
"To go after advertising really makes no sense," he said. "It's sort of a backdoor tack, but it's the safer one politically."
Building fences along high-traffic areas of the U.S. border with Mexico dramatically reduces crime, the president of the Border Patrol union told Congress yesterday. "Drug smuggling was rampant" in the border area just south of San Diego, said T.J. Bonner, national president of the National Border Patrol Council, before a fence was constructed. "Anarchy reigned, and there was no semblance of control over that section of the border." Mr. Bonner said that after the fence was built, with surplus military steel landing mats, drug seizures tapered off and the crime rate fell sharply.
Most Congress members at the joint hearing yesterday seemed to agree on the need for fencing, but at least one worried that it would endanger the lives of those trying to sneak into the country. "Individuals who attempt to cross the border are determined," said Rep. Elijah E. Cummings, Maryland Democrat. Of course. Cuts into his potential voters. Tall fences in high-traffic areas would force the illegal aliens deep into the desert, where they could face "starvation, rape and murder," he said. "Those who are not deterred will become increasingly dependent upon profit-minded coyotes and criminal traffickers in order to cross the border in remote areas." And those who are deterred will be in no danger at all.
The hearing was part of a series of House hearings into the Senate immigration amnesty reform bill, which House Republicans say would grant "amnesty" to the estimated 12 million to 20 million illegal aliens in the U.S. The Senate bill also has a guest-worker plan that supporters say will ease illegal entry. Though the fences curb crime, Mr. Bonner said they will do little to stop illegal entry if supplementary efforts are not undertaken. The only way to control the borders, he said, is to increase the number of Border Patrol agents and remove the magnet of potential U.S. employment. "Even with significant increases in staffing, the overall level of smuggling activity has grown and will continue to do so until the root cause of illegal immigration is addressed," Mr. Bonner said. "As long as destitute illegal aliens can find work in the United States, millions of them will cross our borders ever year."
As part of Republican efforts to focus on the issue of immigration, House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert of Illinois will lead a delegation to the southern border this weekend. It's 110 or so in Tucson, probably another 10-15 higher out west, slight lower to the southeast. The low was 85. While in Arizona and Texas, the lawmakers will meet with members of the National Guard whom President Bush dispatched to the border, visit Camp Grip in the remote desert and travel the border at night with night-vision goggles and get shot at by Mexican troops supporting smugglers.
#3
East of San Diego the terrain gets ugly in a hurry. South of the border is northern Baja, which has nothing east of Tijuana/Ensenada until you get to Yuma.
Southeast of Yuma is the "tortured desert", in which even the Indians never lived. Northeast is the Barry M. Goldwater proving range, through which passes the infamous "Hell's trail". It is damned near impassable even in winter, and the few people there are killers. The US government hires a handful of full-blood Apaches to police the place--no questions asked.
No water, no food, no roads or trails. The only ones who even try to cross there are crazy drug smugglers. Damn few make it out alive.
The bottom line is that there are small corridors through which almost all the illegals pass. If you block those, only a few hundred would even attempt going overland. Not a bad drop from hundreds of thousands.
The Peshawar High Court (PHC) expressed concern on Friday over the practice of selling women to men from other provinces on the pretext of marriage.
Mmmm! Comely Pashtun maidens!
Chief Justice Tariq Pervez made this observation while hearing a bail application of a man, Ihsanullah Khan, accused of selling a 70-year-old woman to a man from Punjab by making him believe that he was purchasing a 16-year-old girl for marriage.
Hmmm... Comely Pashtun maidens in all-enveloping burkas. Y'gotta look at the hands before you buy, bub...
The court said that it was the provincial governments responsibility to curb the practice, as several women had moved the court after escaping the custody of their husband buyers, who frequently prostituted them after marriage for income.
"Lookin' fer a good time, buddy?"
"Sheesh! Lookit them hands! She must be 70!"
The court said that brutal fathers, uncles and even brothers had been involved in selling their daughters and sisters on the pretext of marriage. There are cases where fathers have sold their daughters several times over to criminals for the sake of money, the court said. Ihsanullah Khan, a resident of Nowshera, had allegedly sold a 70-year-old woman for Rs 120,000 to Haji Mohammad Bakhsh of Sargodha by tricking him into believing that he was purchasing a 16-year-old girl.
And him a haji! Tusk tusk!
Bakhsh then returned to Nowshera and lodged a first information report (FIR) against Ihsanullah, who was arrested on May 4. Bakhsh said that he was shown a teenage girl and then tricked into marrying the old woman.
Bet that made for an interesting honeymoon...
The court approved Ihsanullahs bail on the grounds that the complainant had lodged the FIR seven months after the incident occurred, while the police had not interrogated the woman involved in the incident either. However, two other men accused along with Ihsanullah were still in custody.
Posted by: Fred ||
07/22/2006 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[7 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Sorry guy, this is a UNION shop and she's got senority!
Posted by: bruce ||
07/22/2006 9:54 Comments ||
Top||
GENEVA - The US delegation appearing before the UN Human Rights Committee was on Friday publicly rebuked for its supercilious attitude by the committees president.
Did y'all hear anything?
Speaking to journalists during a briefing, Committee President Christine Chanet said the US delegation seemed to think that international law on matters of human rights did not apply to them beyond their territory.
However, said Chanet, the International Court of Justice and more recently the Supreme Court in the United States had clarified the applicability of international law on the United States.
There's a faint buzzing sound in the background ...
The Committee, responsible for examining how each of the 156 UN member states adheres to the pact signed on civil and political rights, is currently scrutinizing the United States until the end of the month.
... sounds like the echoes of faint, derisive laughter ...
One of the issues being examined is the US detention centre at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba. The US delegation had first refused to answer questions put to them and had then made it difficult for the Committee by providing answers at the last minute only in English, said Chanet.
Good job Mr. Bolton, I like your work ...
The international jurist considered the Americans isolated in their unilateral interpretation of international treaty law.
Because the international community so often isolates us ...
I also told them that the Committee is not just a recording chamber, she added. It is not just there to receive a report and record it like a court stenographer.
No, you're not a recording chamber, you're an echo chamber ...
The Committee is due to publish a full report when the hearing ends at the end of July.
Sure to be a best-seller at Daily Kos and the other mouth-breathers on the Left ...
Posted by: Steve White ||
07/22/2006 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
Posted by: Captain America ||
07/22/2006 1:01 Comments ||
Top||
#3
That was a great album, Captain America. Me and my friends probably listened to it 100 times in the summer of '72. I can still recite whole routines by heart.
#5
Au contraire. We are not isolated in our opinion of your international law. We simply don't give a rat's ass about your opinions. You can stickem' where the sun don't shine. just as you expected.
#6
Did't one of our Presidents once state, when he had a clash with a Supreme Court Justice, something to the extent of "He has his opinion, now let him enforce it."?
I know the quote and the participants, but right now I'm drawing a blank.
I'd like to see this supercilious retard try to enforce her "international law".
Bring it on, babe, but, you see, a lot of us here in the USA have guns - a lot of guns.
So, send in the blue helmets to enforce your international law. It'll be an interesting couple of days.
#7
Check out Christine's resume... She's a lifelong parasite and snob, Charter member of the Chattering Class, and now a Great High Muckety-Muck of the Vulture Elite. Pushing people like this on the UN is how France keeps unemployment below 80%.
#10
it's all so quaint - that 20th century chatter about blaming the US imperialist occupiers. They asked the question, what if you have a war and no one shows up - well we have an answer to that now - women and children get rounded up and the young men are slaughtered by the thousands in fields of daisies.
#12
Speaking to journalists during a briefing, Committee President Christine Chanet said the US delegation seemed to think that international law on matters of human rights did not apply to them beyond their territory.
And the other political entity in Cuba does? The entire committee is AWOL from the daily human rights violations by Havana. Now tell me about this proportionality thingy?
UN = Holy Roman Empire. Useless relic of the past.
#13
As long as the delegates are in one place, I would like to arrange a showing of "Hotel Rwanda" or "How The UN Allowed Indiscriminate Slaughter, Without Really Trying."
#14
Enforcement of international law, involves devolving national sovereignty into what is referred to as: "Statutes of the Tribunal." The US has participated in processes where Tribunal operations are consistent with US values. But who wants their country pillorized by socialist overachievers who resent America's success and deny Euro-stagnation?
That was Andrew Jackson on Chief Justice Madison, I believe.
Posted by: Eric Jablow ||
07/22/2006 13:07 Comments ||
Top||
#18
Yup. The subject was the confiscation of Cherokee lands where gold had been found in Georgia, and the forced removal of the Cherokee nation to Oklahoma by the US army.
It's known as the Trail of Tears because over 2/3 of them died on the walk.
#20
Last time I checked we have a constitution, that was designed to protect the people from foreign governments forcing their will on us. The UN is nothing more than a group of foreign governments trying to force its collective will on us. Bolten is doing a great job of telling them to FOAD.
Posted by: 49 Pan ||
07/22/2006 14:51 Comments ||
Top||
#21
Swamp Blonde, How about sign language? I know one 'sign' (or gesture) which I think everyone here will be willing to give the UN...
In addition to the compressor stalls that recently caused a V-22 Osprey to make an emergency landing in Iceland, other V-22s last week experienced compressor surges that were imperceptible to pilots at the time and officials are investigating whether all of these problems are related.
I figure this program is one more crash away from being cancelled
Two V-22 Ospreys departed July 10 from Goose Bay, Canada, for what was supposed to be a nine-hour, direct flight to Farnborough, England. About halfway through the trip, however, there was an incident that forced one of the V-22s to land in Keflavik, Iceland. The other V-22, meanwhile, continued on to Farnborough and landed there about four hours later. But it turns out this aircraft's flight was not entirely uneventful. At press time (July 14), Navy V-22 spokesman James Darcy said officials learned from computer data that this V-22 experienced a compressor surge that was imperceptible during the flight.
Also, officials learned that another V-22, which had been in Goose Bay as a backup aircraft, similarly experienced an imperceptible compressor surge during its return flight to New River, NC. Like a compressor stall, a compressor surge is a disruption of the air flow to the compressor, but it is not as serious, said Darcy. There may be a link between the problems experienced by these various V-22s. At press time, however, Darcy said the investigation is ongoing and would not comment further. The Osprey that landed in Iceland June 10 had its right engine replaced before flying to Farnborough, where it landed safely July 13 in the early afternoon, said Darcy.
Officials are still investigating what caused the problems that forced the landing in Iceland. Darcy said the first sign of trouble was a compressor stall in the right engine, but he had no details on when this happened. The compressor stall led the right engine to flame out, meaning it stopped providing propulsion, he said. Both of the aircraft's two proprotors continued turning under the power of the remaining engine, he said. After about 10 seconds, the pilot was able to relight the engine, said Darcy. Subsequently, however, the same engine experienced another compressor stall, prompting the pilot to land in Iceland at about 2 p.m. Greenwich Mean Time.
Bell Helicopter Textron and Boeing make the Osprey, which can take off and land like a helicopter, but can also fly like a plane. Bell spokesman Bob Leder downplayed the July 10 incident that led to the landing in Iceland, which he called a common event with turbine-powered aircraft.
But the Iceland incident was clearly not what V-22 program officials had in mind last month when they issued a press release boasting the Osprey was writing the book on long-range deployments. The statement predicted two V-22s would fly July 10 directly from Goose Bay to Farnborough, along with two tankers. This will be the first time that an assault support aircraft has ever flown across the Atlantic, said V-22 program manager Col. Bill Taylor, in the press release. Unlike conventional rotary wing aircraft, which must be transported into overseas theaters of operation aboard amphibious shipping or heavy lift transport planes, the V-22 can self-deploy thousands of miles over water to get itself to the fight, Taylor said in the statement.
Both Ospreys participating in the air show are part of the Marine Corps V-22 squadron based in New River, NC. The V-22 that stopped in Iceland is production model No. 59, known in the squadron as Osprey No. 23, Darcy said. The other aircraft is production model No. 58, known in the squadron as Osprey No. 22.
Posted by: Steve ||
07/22/2006 11:52 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I'd rather go to Iraq then get on one of these things.
#4
#2 Is a V-22 really worth 3 CH-47s just to get a 50% speed increase?
Unlike conventional rotary wing aircraft, which must be transported into overseas theaters of operation aboard amphibious shipping or heavy lift transport planes, the V-22 can self-deploy thousands of miles over water to get itself to the fight, Taylor said in the statement.
#5
Great. But it isn't going to assault over thousands of miles. The land assault range is listed at 200nm, amphib assault range 50nm, remarkably similar to the CH-47F.
Posted by: ed ||
07/22/2006 14:07 Comments ||
Top||
#6
It takes 12 CH-47s to move 180 marines 70 miles and the time required is 2 Hours and 15 Minutes.
It will take 8 V-22s to move the same 180 marines and will only take 17 minutes to cover the 70 miles...
Less time in the air means less death for our boys on the ground...
#7
V-22 will be like the CH-47. Deployed by ship and self deploy only in an emergency, both V-22 and MH-47 can self depoly. After all those hours for self deployment the scheduled maintenance will ground both aircraft and take nearly as much time to repair as it would to ship it. Only in a crisis event where a few could be sent ahead and others to follow will work for this self deployment myth.
As for the compressor stall/surges these are really not as big a deal as it sounds. It is common and they will figure out the inlet or bleed air issues with it. The engines seem to have some issues with compressor blade erosion requiring frequent engine replacement. This is something that can get fixed.
The aircraft still has fundemental flight control issues. These will not get fixed as easy as the engine issues. My vote goes with Ed. We could by a number of 47's for the cost of one V-22. Once the V-22 gets into theater it is limited in mission profile, HUMVV wont fit in it but they will fit into a 47. I believe a 47 will haul more troops as well. This thing is going to turn into an herring.
Posted by: 49 Pan ||
07/22/2006 14:15 Comments ||
Top||
#8
BV, probably need to redo your math. 70 miles is a hop in both airframes. More like the difference between 20 and 30 minutes here. The real safety issue is when they get to the objective site. The 47 you can fast rope from. CV-22 is still a must land event, this takes time and under fire is critical. The 22 can not get into the confined spaces that a 47 can, I know were talking confined spaces for giant aircraft here. But it can not land on a two lane road and can not let the Marines fast rope from it either.
Posted by: 49 Pan ||
07/22/2006 14:22 Comments ||
Top||
#9
Huh?
CH-47s: 70 miles and the time required is 2 Hours and 15 Minutes = 31mph. Cruise speed is listed as 143knots. Did you mean 28 minutes? V-22s will only take 17 minutes = 247mph. Cruise speed is listed as 240knots
Also, the CH-47F lists a higher gross vertical takeoff weight (54,000 lbs, http://www.boeing.com/rotorcraft/military/ch47d/docs/CH-47F_overview.pdf) than a V-22 (47,500 lb, http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/v-22.htm)
For the cost of 8 V-22s, 24 CH-47s can be bought. That means twice as many troops landed in the same time, or money left over to buy equipment to suppress enemy defenses. Maybe I am naive, but we seem to be getting to point where we have so few assets can no longer afford losses, whether combat, accidents or maintenance down time.
Posted by: ed ||
07/22/2006 14:32 Comments ||
Top||
#10
49Pan, do you fly CH-47s? I'm not sure the compressor blade erosion problems can be fixed. The engines looks like they have such large air requirements that they cannot use filters, unlike helicopters. During low hover or landing the engines have to be sucking in mass quantities of bad things.
Posted by: ed ||
07/22/2006 14:44 Comments ||
Top||
#11
Nope, I flew MH-6's. But I've been blown aroud by them on many occasions! The inlet on the V-22 looks to me like an airplane design with that bottom inlet, and your right a giant dirt sucking device. Your right on the second point also, a barrier filter would be a monster. Time for the engineers to get back to work. I would expect until they can fix it they will limit the bird to hard stand take offs and landings. I heard they are going through compressor sections at a surprising rate. I really don't think they will ever kill this aircraft program. I think it will take a few generations of engeneering to get it combat ready and I think the combat roll will slide away from Direct Action to Logistical Support.
Posted by: 49 Pan ||
07/22/2006 15:00 Comments ||
Top||
#12
I think the combat roll will slide away from Direct Action to Logistical Support
Interesting. Thanks for sharing your experience.
Posted by: ed ||
07/22/2006 15:20 Comments ||
Top||
#14
Ooopss I also see that the article I was referring too...was talking about the CH-46s and not the CH-47's which are a lot larger... man I got to quit drinking so much coffee.
#15
No worries. The real issue is that the Marines, who from my Army perspective deserve nothing but the very best. I'm afraid they will get the V-22 instead. We can all do better than this.
Posted by: 49 Pan ||
07/22/2006 21:00 Comments ||
Top||
#16
Sounds like a variable stator vane or variable bleed valve problem disrupting airflow through the compressor.
After decades of turning a blind eye to the Burmese junta's authoritarian abuses, south-east Asian countries announced yesterday that they could no longer defend the indefensible.
What took you so long?
Malaysia's foreign minister, Syed Hamid Albar, the chairman of the Association of South-East Asian Nations (Asean), said the group's fortunes were being held hostage by Burma, which has refused to initiate a transition to democracy despite repeated pledges to do so.
"Asean now has reached a stage where it is not possible to defend its member when that member is not making an attempt to cooperate," Mr Syed Hamid said at a conference of Asean legislators.
So take care of it. You don't need us. Handle this one yourselves.
He also urged China and India - who are investing in Burma, with little regard to its human rights record - to further pressure the junta, and said that although Asean would not intervene in Burma it would approve of UN action.
"We'd like someone else to do the heavy lifting."
The UN security council has twice discussed Burma in the past few months, but Chinese objections prevent a formal resolution being passed. The Philippines president, Gloria Arroyo, has already stated she wants to see tougher global action.
Don't you have problems closer to home, Gloria?
Posted by: Steve White ||
07/22/2006 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
A former military chief of Cambodia's notorious Khmer Rouge "killing fields" regime and alleged perpetrator of many of its worst atrocities, Ta Mok, died yesterday in hospital in the capital, Phnom Penh.
The death of the one-legged fighter known as "the Butcher", who replaced the Maoist movement's leader, Pol Pot, in a 1997 putsch, is a blow to the international tribunal that started work this month to try the regime's surviving leaders.
It could be worse, at least Carla's still in Europe.
Ta Mok, born Ung Choeun, was arrested on genocide and crimes against humanity charges in 1999. He was one of only two Khmer Rouge cadres in detention awaiting trial. His lawyer said he fell into a coma last week after suffering from high blood pressure, tuberculosis and respiratory complications. A military doctor said Ta Mok, who is thought to have been about 82, "died of natural causes, given his poor health and respiratory problems".
He's 82 friggin' years old! You expected him to last til the end of the trial?
Youk Chhang, the head of the Documentation Centre of Cambodia, which has spent decades gathering evidence about the 1975-1979 regime in which 1.7 million Cambodians - a quarter of the population - were either killed or worked and starved to death, said both the Cambodian government and United Nations should take some responsibility for his death. "The government has denied access or adequate services to take care of him while the tribunal did not make any effort to engage with him for the sake of the victims," he told the Guardian.
There's no need to make a spectacle of the man. Hang him before he's dead.
Reach Sambath, a tribunal spokesman, said he did not want to comment on individuals. "The aim is to try the whole regime," he said. "We're focusing on the most senior leaders and most responsible people."
"We'll get around to it, don't worry!"
Ta Mok was in charge of many of the most brutal crackdowns, dispatched troops to areas which had not yet adopted the regime's "year zero" philosophy and initiated some internal purges in later years.
The only Khmer Rouge commander now in detention is Kaing Khek Lev, who ran the notorious Toul Sleng, or S-21, prison in Phnom Penh.
And he's as old as Moses.
Posted by: Steve White ||
07/22/2006 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Yet another example of the international legal system's back-door approach to capital punishment. That makes three now, does it not?
#4
Really, its an old game the lawyers play. The longer they can drag out the proceedings the longer they have an income. There is no incentive like a requirement for a 'speed trial' to move this crap along. In order for 'international law' to have legitimacy, its got to deliver. It has and it isn't.
#6
Arrested in '99 and he hadn't gone to trial yet?
I'll remember that the next time I hear the "international community" screeching about Guantanamo.
Don't kill the job, right, international justice seekers?
While we weren't looking Congress along with some extreme feminist groups used the "backdoor" to strip you of your right to choose whom you wish to date and marry by implementing the International Marriage Broker Regulation Act (IMBRA). The new law severely limits a man's ability to date and marry foreign women. These "International marriages" have lower divorce rates than the 50 percent average for all US citizens.
The new law will affect veterans and others - 60,000 marriages occur each year between veterans and foreign women. The stated purpose of the new law was to protect foreign immigrant women from violence stemming from a few unfortunate cases of foreign immigrant women who were abused by their husbands. Everyone agrees protecting women from violence is important, but IMBRA is a senseless law creating an "iron curtain" that actually increases violence against women.
The provisions of the new law are draconian, requiring clients of International marriage agencies ("marriage brokers") to provide sensitive background information (personal and criminal) to marriage brokers before sending love letters to foreign women. Since when are Americans required to provide documents just for the purpose of writing a love letter?
Another provision amends the application form for so-called "fiance Visas" with numerous questions including: Whether or not the romance was arranged by an international broker and if the U.S. citizen has ever been accused of various crimes including alcohol offenses. IMBRA is a confusing bureaucratic nightmare.
Recently the Department of Homeland Security missed a deadline to revise the old petition forms, resulting in 10,000 "indefinite delays" trashing and destroying those marriages. Many of those affected by the recall are veterans. While these American servicemen have been fighting for their country, these extreme feminist groups made "backdoor" arrangements with YOUR legislators creating IMBRA and preventing them from marrying the person they love.
Proponents of IMBRA were unable to get much support for IMBRA when the law was introduced in 2003. Most legislators felt the controversial law was a severe impingement of men's privacy rights. The manner in which IMBRA passed was an atrocity reminiscent of the old Soviet Politburo, being passed by an undemocratic voice vote with no debate, no questions answered and no violence statistics presented comparing violence rates. IMBRA reeks of political corruption and scandal on a massive level.
Ironically, the largest international dating agencies are exempt from IMBRA for suspicious reasons. Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Washington) desperately presented false and misleading testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on July 14, 2004 (falsely) claiming international marriage brokers were involved in human trafficking of women into the United States. A DOJ study had already concluded no such correlation.
Clients of IMBs are essentially a "politically unpopular group." The collective "mass psychological" behavior of human beings sometimes dictates totally irrational responses to events similar to mob anger mentality. Japanese Americans during World War II, a politically unpopular group, were placed in internment camps having done nothing wrong.
The proponents continue to use deception , distortion and exaggeration, all of which are a form of lying (political McCarthyism). They carefully engineer "one sided" media interviews with no opposing point of view.
IMBRA proponents sensationalize the three foreign immigrant women killed by American men in "mail order bride arrangements" in 10 years, masking the ugly American fact that 14,000 American women citizens have been killed by their intimate partner in the same time frame. The only problem with these "International marriages" is a false perception created by IMBRA proponents.
IMBRA is a violation of the rights of people living in America. People living everywhere should have the right to choose whom they marry without government interference. Fellow citizens, please contact your elected representatives and ask for repeal of The "International Marriage Broker Regulation Act of 2005." Please contact your fellow veterans also.
#1
The author here isn't exactly on top of things in regards to the law. Punch "IMBRA" into Google, and two of the top stories are about how a judge put a temporary restraining order on Immigration keeping them from enforcing the law back in March. It is still in effect.
Another link, still on the same first page of sources when I typed it in, comes from an immigration lawyer who's been representing clients since 1994. She says it requires a potential foreign spouse to be notified of any criminal history of the American spouse, and that marriage brokers have to do a background check. The potential foreign spouse also gets information regarding our domestic violence laws. It also caps the lifetime limit of fiancee visas to three and prohibits more than one fiancee visa at a time. (Yes, it's possible to do that....wonder why that's been allowed up till now, but it has.)
Other things that have to be disclosed are whether or not the US prospective fiance is currently legally married, how many times he or she has been married, has ever committed a violent crime like a homicide, kidnapping or rape, child abuse convictions, and if he or she has ever had a restraining order put on him or her. Read the act for yourself, which apparently this writer couldn't be bothered to do. Typical journalist.
In spite of all that, if the fiancee still wishes to come to the US and meet his or her soon-to-be spouse and get married, this act does not keep that from happening. All it does is force the US party to provide information, and to make sure it is provided in the fiance's native language by the marriage broker and/or the consular officer. Big farking deal.
Look, Immigration is a total pain in the ass. But I wouldn't have had a problem disclosing my criminal history (all two driving tickets), and the other requirements under this law to my sweetie before we said "I do" even though it wasn't required.
The ones hyperventilating about it and distorting what it actually says probably do have some crap in their backgrounds that they correctly believe would turn off their prospective sweeties if they knew about it. The only group I can see that it might hurt are American men and women who were hoping that their foreign honeys wouldn't find out about their disreputable pasts until it was too late.
Maria Cantwell might be the looniest moonbat around, but this doesn't seem like a horrible law to me at all.
#3
What's nonsense, GK? What I wrote or what the other guy did? Five minutes on Google, ten to write the post. I'll spend my coffee break any way I wanna! ;)
#5
Remember if you have a monopoly and competition shows up, do you offer better services or products or do you seek people in power to restrict by law, by regulation, by other means to keep the monopoly?
The whole IMBRA is indeed a shame. The backers failed to show that the violence to foreigners was significantly any greater than domestic partners. It was based upon anecdotal events. Just like MSM, if it bleeds, it leads. I guess we need to restrict the import of foreign cars because of all the accidents theyve been involved in too without regard to actual performance compared to other models.
And who does it effort most - try your military. Go to any military installation. You'll find one of the greatest examples of integration created by marriages to locals from their overseas assignments.
Oh, and in your research did you come across the financial obligation the native citizen is held for if the marriage fails. I'd like to see the 'equal before the law' application of that to domestic marriages as well. Wait for the outcry on that little bit of imposition by the state.
#7
Oh, and in your research did you come across the financial obligation the native citizen is held for if the marriage fails. I'd like to see the 'equal before the law' application of that to domestic marriages as well. Wait for the outcry on that little bit of imposition by the state.
SS4450, I didn't need to do any research on that. I signed that paper stating I would financially support my sweetie for the next 10 years, regardless of whether our marriage lasted or failed. I've had to provide more documentation about my background to Immigration than you can imagine. They literally know more about me than some of my close friends.
It sucks, but it's the law and my sweetie was worth it. I'd do it again, and furthermore, I'd use it as an example to my little boy someday if he wants to get married (as in, if this was the law for your marriage, would you be willing to sign such a document on behalf of your fiancee? If not, don't get hitched. You don't have what it takes to make it work with this person.)
I understand the reasoning behind that financial paperwork and support it. Unless you don't mind supporting my sweetie with your tax dollars, SS4450, I can't see what your problem is with it.
There may not be a lot of statistics to back up the domestic violence angle, true. But based on my past life as a civilian with a major city police department, that could be because many of these women (most are women, not guys....we bucked the trend) don't know that certain behaviors acceptable in their home countries (like beating the crap out of them for the crime of pissing off a man) are violations of the law until they become more Americanized. When combined with the fact that many of them didn't speak English, how many domestic violence incidents do you think get reported? Not a lot unless their American neighbors call it in.....and good luck in some departments finding someone who can speak the abused spouse's language.
Most of the men who marry foreigners are honorable in their intentions and behavior. But you would have to be sorely mistaken to think there is not a sizable group who think that the women's unfamiliarity with their basic legal rights here is not a bug but a feature, and they do take advantage of it.
If you don't have anything bad in your background, why the hell would you be afraid of this law? Yes, it would affect military personnel most. However, all of the military personnel I have known have been honorable, even to the point of Caesar's wife standards, so this isn't going to be a huge burden for the decent ones to shoulder.
#8
CF8268, I was a blonde with a dark red Corvette. The other details are between me and the great state of Arizona. I paid my fine, got no time. Although I could have been eligible.... ;)
Let's just say that the Corvette is a fine example of American engineering and competitiveness in the world of high performance automobiles. Trust me on this.
#9
"Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Washington) desperately presented false and misleading testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on July 14, 2004 (falsely) claiming international marriage brokers were involved in human trafficking of women into the United States. A DOJ study had already concluded no such correlation."
Funny. If one looks at the DoD Trafficking in Persons (TiP) briefing, marriage brokers are listed among the 'agents in trafficking'.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
Apparently volunteers for Hugo Chavez's proposed expansion to Venezuela's security forces is running into some problems. Volunteers for the new armed militia have not been forthcoming in sufficient numbers to meet goal of two million troops. 
Madison Ave. ad execs are so bent on taking control of America's children, they'd put computer chips in kids' brains if they could, Sen. Hillary Clinton said yesterday.
The Peshawar High Court (PHC) expressed concern on Friday over the practice of selling women to men from other provinces on the pretext of marriage.
GENEVA - The US delegation appearing before the UN Human Rights Committee was on Friday publicly rebuked for its supercilious attitude by the committees president.
After decades of turning a blind eye to the Burmese junta's authoritarian abuses, south-east Asian countries announced yesterday that they could no longer defend the indefensible.
