"Maybe torture “worked” on occasion. Probably it didn’t. But it doesn’t matter because torture is illegal under U.S. and international law, and it’s a moral abomination." No they weren't looking for real 'intelligence' that might protect Americans from Al-Q, they were torturing to produce false confessions that would lead to reasons to connect Al-Q with Saddam so that they could continue with their plan to invade Iraq. The MSM focuses on the torture, which is horrific enough, but ignores the role that Bush and Cheney and cohorts played in extracting FALSE confessions to justify their plans: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article40453.htm.
Not elevating Ed Miliband to peacemaker, but it was his refusal to vote for Britain to take part in bombing Syria that pulled the rug out of the plans to set fire yet again to the Middle East. Unwitting or not, it made everyone just sit up and say 'WTF'? Even if Blair, Kissinger and Ashdown went all 'it's a sad day for Britain [that we're not going to be America's Best Bombing Buddy this time].'
This is so, so horrible, but unlike Saddam in 1991, we have much more access media-wise to see what's going on and react to it minute by minute. I'm not saying that the revolution is dependent on Twitter, IPhones, etc., but that these instruments are very useful obviously - I know that the people facing the violence in Libya are doing just that: bravely facing horrible violence. Twenty years ago, we would've heard about this, filtered through the BBC 24 hours later (or not heard about it at all as far as US media is concerned). Gives us onlookers at chance to write to our representatives, do support demonstrations, etc. But the work on the ground is being done by incredibly brave, desperate people - and I am sick to my stomach of Western media fluctuating between 'unreasonable fanatic Arabs' (when rising up against Mubarak), and 'brave Arabs fighting a corrupt madman' (when rising up against Ghaddafi).
"Maybe torture “worked” on occasion. Probably it didn’t. But it doesn’t matter because torture is illegal under U.S. and international law, and it’s a moral abomination." No they weren't looking for real 'intelligence' that might protect Americans from Al-Q, they were torturing to produce false confessions that would lead to reasons to connect Al-Q with Saddam so that they could continue with their plan to invade Iraq. The MSM focuses on the torture, which is horrific enough, but ignores the role that Bush and Cheney and cohorts played in extracting FALSE confessions to justify their plans: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article40453.htm.
Not elevating Ed Miliband to peacemaker, but it was his refusal to vote for Britain to take part in bombing Syria that pulled the rug out of the plans to set fire yet again to the Middle East. Unwitting or not, it made everyone just sit up and say 'WTF'? Even if Blair, Kissinger and Ashdown went all 'it's a sad day for Britain [that we're not going to be America's Best Bombing Buddy this time].'
This is so, so horrible, but unlike Saddam in 1991, we have much more access media-wise to see what's going on and react to it minute by minute. I'm not saying that the revolution is dependent on Twitter, IPhones, etc., but that these instruments are very useful obviously - I know that the people facing the violence in Libya are doing just that: bravely facing horrible violence. Twenty years ago, we would've heard about this, filtered through the BBC 24 hours later (or not heard about it at all as far as US media is concerned). Gives us onlookers at chance to write to our representatives, do support demonstrations, etc. But the work on the ground is being done by incredibly brave, desperate people - and I am sick to my stomach of Western media fluctuating between 'unreasonable fanatic Arabs' (when rising up against Mubarak), and 'brave Arabs fighting a corrupt madman' (when rising up against Ghaddafi).