Saturday, 7 May 2011

Johann Hari: The real meaning of Bin Laden's death

Scramble the film backwards. Rewind. Go back to the day 10 years ago when the air here in Manhattan was thick with ash and Osama bin Laden was gloating. There were two options for the US government – to pick up a scalpel, or to pick up a blowtorch. With the scalpel, you go after the fundamentalist murderers responsible with patient policing and intelligence work, and steadily drain them of their support. With the blowtorch, you invade a slew of countries and embark on slaughter and torture, and swell the army of enraged jihadis determined to kill. History branched in two possible directions that day.
We know which Osama bin Laden preferred. He wanted to draw the West into endless bloody wars that haemorrhaged billions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of lives. He told his supporters: "We conducted a war of attrition against Russia for 10 years until they went bankrupt. We are continuing in the same policy, to make America bleed profusely to the point of bankruptcy." To achieve this, "all we have to do is send two mujahideen [to a remote, irrelevant area] and raise a piece of cloth on which is written "al-Qa'ida" in order to make the [US] generals race there, to cause America to suffer human, economic, and political losses." He knew that every ramped-up attack would appear to vindicate his narrative about the "evil" West waging "war on Islam", and swell his army of recruits. 
When Bin Laden's favourite son, Omar, defected, he told many unflattering stories about his father – including that he tortured his pets to death. So it's highly unlikely to be a double bluff when he explained that the day George W Bush was elected, "my father was so happy. This is the kind of president he needs, one who will attack and spend money and break [his own] country".
The West reacted to 9/11 by giving Bin Laden precisely what he wanted. We tossed aside our best values, making them seem a hollow charade. And each time we did it, the number of jihadis grew. Studies by terrorism experts Peter Bergen and Paul Cruickshank found that the invasion of Iraq, and the torture used there, caused a seven-fold increase in global jihadism...
 Continue reading
ReutersBreakingNews
Al Qaeda statement on Islamist forums says will soon release voice recording of Osama bin Laden made week before death

Friday, 6 May 2011

Did Two Profs Find Osama From Space? Nope, Sorry

owni

Greg Mitchell
Sen. Saxby Chambliss inadvertently blurts out that "executive order" for OBL raid was to "take him out."

Marijuana cuts lung cancer tumor growth in half, Harvard study shows

Oil’d

Info
Clausewitz and World War IV

♪♫ DJ John Collins - Yeah

UR313

Researchers Say WSJ’s WikiLeaks Copycat Is Full Of Holes

A Syrian Man-In-The-Middle Attack against Facebook

A tragicomedy: when one man's death becomes another man's punchline

Assange right to slam Swedish courts: lawyers

    Nearly one third of lawyers in Sweden, including best-selling author and lawyer Jens Lapidus, believe that criticism directed at the country's legal system by WikiLeaks' founder Julian Assange is warranted, according to a new survey.
    "He is partially right about the Swedish legal system," writes Lapidus, a defence attorney and author of the best selling 2006 crime novel "Snabba Cash" ('Easy Money'), along with prominent defence lawyer Johan Åkermark, in an article published on Thursday in the Dagens Nyheter (DN) newspaper.
     The authors reference a study published in Legally Yours, a trade publication for the legal profession in Sweden, which surveyed 9,000 lawyers.The survey, known as the Juristbarometern, revealed that 31.9 percent of lawyers answered yes when asked if they agreed with Assange's criticism of the Swedish legal system.
    According to Lapidus and Åkermark, both of whom are partners in the same law firm as Assange's Swedish attorney Björn Hurtig, the WikiLeaks' founder is justified in taking issue with several aspects of the Swedish criminal justice system.
    Writing in DN, the two lawyers explain that Assange is warranted in questioning Sweden's rules on remanding suspects in custody, which often prevent defence attorneys from having a chance to review material used as the basis for remand decisions until minutes before prosecutors present the evidence to a judge.
    "We're of the opinion that remand in Sweden is used in a way that many other states governed by the rule of law would find unfamiliar," they write.
    Speaking to Legally Yours, Hurtig said the statistics cited by Lapidus and Åkermark show that "mistrust of our legal system is greater than many believe".
    "The system is built up so that, in principal, the suspect doesn't have any insight into the preliminary investigation," he said.
    In addition, Lapidus and Åkermark share Assange's concerns about having lay judges, many of whom are retired politicians rather than trained legal professionals, preside over trials in Swedish courtrooms.
    Also problematic for Assange is the possibility that, were he ever to face trial in Sweden, it would likely be held behind closed doors, a common practices when it comes to sex crime cases in Sweden.
    While Lapidus and Åkermark admitted they didn't have any statistics on closed-door trials, "our impression is that proceedings are held behind closed doors more often in Sweden in many other states governed by the rule of law".
    The authors are quick to point out, however that "Sweden has is a well functioning state based on the rule of law and in many respects is a model internationally".
    Lapidus and Åkermark emphasise that, while they "don't care specifically about Julian Assange" or the question of his innocence or guilt, they feel a responsibility to "remove the stains that exist in our system" which Assange's criticism has highlighted.
    In February, a London court ruled that Assange could be extradited to Sweden to face questioning over sex crimes allegations stemming an August 2010 visit to Sweden by the WikiLeaks founder.
    Assange's lawyers appealed the ruling in early March and his appeal is scheduled to be heard on July 12th.
    @'The Local'

    GOP presidential candidate Gary Johnson says:

    So going back to 1999, I came to the conclusion… that 90% of the drug problem is prohibition-related, not use-related. That’s not to discount the problems with use and abuse, but that ought to be the focus. So in 1999, I advocated then, I advocate it now. Legalize marijuana. Control it, regulate it, tax it.It’s never going to be legal to smoke pot, become impaired, get behind the wheel of a car, do harm to others. It’s never going to be legal for kids to smoke pot or buy pot. And under which scenario is it going to be easier for kids to smoke pot or buy pot? The situation that exists today, where it’s virtually available anywhere, and the person that sells pot also sells harder drugs? Or a situation where to purchase it, you would have to produce an ID in a controlled environment, like alcohol, to be able to buy it. I think you can make the case that it would be harder to buy it, in that controlled environment.
    Via

    How to End the Madness in Mexico

    Vaughan
    U.S. Army War College Information Operation Manual. pdf: