Tuesday, February 8, 2011

Assange, Beck, Bush And Assorted War Criminals Scurry Around Trying To Re-Write History.

Assange, Beck, Bush And Assorted War Criminals Scurry Around Trying To Re-Write History.

(Just In: House Unexpectedly Defeats Patriot Act

Fox News (blog) - Chad Pergram - 34 minutes ago
So Republicans brought the Patriot Act to the floor under a special procedure that requires a two-thirds vote for passage. It's a maneuver that's typically ...

- CNN International
- Washington Post

 America turned its back on idealism 40 years ago, and so did most of the Left. The consequences are all around you, the government is controlled by corporate crime syndicates, the Constitution has been shredded, the rule of law is gone, our economy has been shattered, and the middle class is dying.

Abandoning idealism got us into this mess; restoring idealism is the only way out. Anyone who doesn’t understand that, anyone who needs it explained to them needs to go look for their soul, because they’ve lost it somewhere along the way.”


Julian Assange Extradition Hearing – Day Two Live Updates

The WikiLeaks founder begins the second and last day of his extradition hearing over allegations of rape and sexual assault in Sweden

This Page Will Update Automatically Every Minute: On | Off

Assange’s criticisms come as the New York Times is considering building its own leak portal, what executive editor Bill Keller has called an “EZ-pass lane for leakers.” Assange may be right that the Times won’t have the technical knowledge to properly build security into that system to keep sources anonymous. His criticism of how the Times and the Guardian communicated about State Department documents over insecure channels seems intended to show the newspapers’ general lack of security savvy.

In fact, the only mainstream media outlet to launch such a leak portal so far is Al Jazeera: its so-called Transparency Unit. And though Al Jazeera’s site allows the use of PGP encryption to send documents and recommends the Tor anonymity service, those features remain largely hidden on the site and could easily be missed by a leaker.

A Swedish journalist who knows WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange and the two Swedish women who have accused him of sexual assault is raising questions about the veracity of one of the women's claims.

It is the first time any of the witnesses in the Swedish police investigation has spoken publicly about the case.

Donald Bostrom, 56, a veteran foreign correspondent for newspapers like Sweden's Aftonbladet, told AOL News this week that Anna Ardin, one of Assange's accusers, told him two very different versions of her relationship with Assange and then told police a third version.

He said Ardin admitted "lying" to him.

Bostrom's claims come as Assange's lawyers prepare for a hearing Monday in London on whether he will be extradited to Sweden for questioning on sexual misconduct allegations made by Ardin and another woman. One accusation is defined as third-degree rape under Swedish law.

Bostrom's account as explained to AOL News matches some statements made to police by another Swedish journalist who also knows Assange and the two women. The statements were part of a 100-page police report recently leaked online. Bostrom's statements to police were also similar to the other journalist's statements.

"It smelled really wrong, all of it from beginning to end," that journalist said, according to the police report. "Because there was something there that didn't add up."

Bostrom helped organize media coverage of the event when Assange visited Sweden for a lecture last August. Ardin volunteered her apartment to Assange, saying she was going to be away, but then returned almost immediately, and the two lived together for a week after their disputed sexual encounter.

Bostrom said Ardin deliberately lied to him about the nature of their relationship at the start of the week, before there was any hint of trouble or any police investigation.

"First she voluntarily told me that Assange had wanted to go to bed with her but that she turned him down," Bostrom said during a lengthy telephone interview Thursday from Sweden.

Bostrom said Ardin made the remarks, unprompted, on Monday, Aug. 16, during an office meeting with two other people present.

"Then, a few days later, she said that she had been lying to me and that she did have sex with Julian. She'd had sex with him right away. She said that she had the hottest man on the planet, and she was proud of it."

But just hours later, on Aug. 20, after Ardin compared notes on the phone with the other woman about their separate sexual encounters with Assange, the two went to the police, and allegations of rape were lodged against Assange.

"I was shocked when I heard," said Bostrom. The other journalist stated that he was "shocked" as well when he heard the news.

Bostrom said he had acted as a mediator between Assange and the two women in the hours before they went to police. The two women wanted Assange to take an HIV test, but by the time he agreed, the testing places had closed for the weekend.

Ardin told police that Assange had been rough with her during sex, had pinned her arms down at one point and had torn a condom, deliberately she believed. Pictures of a torn condom were included in the police report.

"I thought it was very strange that she saved a condom," Bostrom said, referring to Ardin's actions after her first sexual encounter with Assange. "That troubles me, and so do the three different versions of her story. What's key to me is that she continued letting him sleep in her bed."

Bostrom also said Ardin told him she went to the police only to support the other woman and did not consider that she had a strong case against Assange.

Swedish attorney Claes Borgstrom, who represents Ardin and the other woman, told AOL News today that he will not comment on the substance of the two journalists' accounts, but said he didn't think they will have much bearing on the Assange case.

Borgstrom added that Swedish prosecutor Marianne Ny has told him that there are other witnesses in the case whose information is not included in the police report leaked online.

Bostrom had his own brush with controversy in 2009 when an article he wrote suggesting that Israeli troops harvested the organs of dead Palestinian fighters led to a brief diplomatic crisis between Israel and Sweden. Israel wanted the Swedish government to condemn the article because of some unsubstantiated claims; the Swedish Foreign Ministry refused.

Both Bostrom and the other journalist warned Assange on separate occasions that his frequent flings with women admirers posed a security risk to him.

"Assange was like Mick Jagger," Bostrom said. "The overwhelming majority of women I saw fell head over heels for him. I think he hurt a lot of women who thought they were special to him. Nothing is black and white, but I think that may have happened in this case."

Bostrom said he does not believe Assange raped either woman, but noted he finds the second woman's accounts more credible. The second woman, who invited Assange to her home the night of Aug. 16, told police they had sex several times with a condom and then she had woken up to find Assange had penetrated her without a condom.

"I think it's possible Julian might have abused her in some way," he said.

The allegations that eventually led to an Interpol red notice warrant for Assange's arrest in late November involve a 10-day period after Assange arrived in Sweden on Aug. 11, a Wednesday.

Ardin told police that she offered Assange her apartment because she was supposed to be away. However, she returned to her place on Friday, Aug. 13, and she and Assange stayed together there for another week.

During that time, Assange had sex with the second woman, who attended the lecture he gave on Saturday, Aug. 14. When the two went to the police on Friday, Aug. 20, they both gave information about their sexual encounters with him that led a prosecutor to decide there had been sexual assault.

Bostrom told AOL News that he had been in daily contact with Ardin during Assange's visit and that she never mentioned that he had been violent or inappropriate with her.

"It's a tricky situation," Bostrom said. "I like Anna. If a woman says she's been abused, you want to take it seriously. But in this case I have to wonder: It's as if she catches the hottest man on the planet, she thinks, and then she finds out he's dating another woman."

Bostrom was one of several witnesses interviewed by Swedish investigators in the aftermath of the allegations the two women made against Assange.

Bostrom said that Ardin "happily" made plans to have a crayfish party at her home on Saturday, Aug. 14, just 24 hours after she would later tell police she was assaulted by Assange.

What most confused both Bostrom and the other journalist, after they found out about the sexual assault allegations, was that Ardin willingly let Assange remain in her apartment with her after the alleged attack took place.

Bostrom said he came to the crayfish party with two WikiLeaks supporters who planned to bring Assange back to their home to stay.

"But Anna agreed to let Julian stay with her, so the two of them left with me," Bostrom said. "She seemed happy and relaxed around him, perfectly normal."

The other journalist, who was also at the crayfish party, told police that he had also offered Assange a place to stay.

"I asked Anna if it was OK if he stayed at her place or if she wanted me to [take] him to my place," he told police. "She said, 'No problem, he can stay with me.'"

He told police that he continued to check with Ardin during the week about whether she was OK with Assange staying with her.

"I actually asked her every day," he said in his statement. He said Ardin would tell him, "It's OK, it's no problem."

AOL News first identified Ardin in a story in December, after mainstream media outlets such as MSNBC and CBS News identified her. Ardin's name, along with that of the other accuser, have been widely available on the Internet since the scandal broke in August.

The Swedish lawyer representing WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has said his client faces one of the "weakest" cases he has ever seen in his career.

Stockholm-based Bjorn Hurtig, 45, said contradictory messages posted on Twitter and a blog suggest the two alleged victims may have a "hidden agenda".

The lawyer added that it was "outrageous" for a prosecutor to publicly confirm the 39-year-old Australian was under investigation for rape.

In a statement submitted to London's Belmarsh Magistrates' Court ahead of the hearing on Tuesday, Mr Hurtig attacked Assange's treatment at the hands of the Swedish authorities.

He said: "In my opinion, having studied the case file, as well as other material I was permitted to inspect but not to take copies or notes of (SMS/text messages from the complainants' mobile telephones) the case is one of the weakest I have ever seen in my professional career.

"Even leaving to one side evidential problems, I can see from the SMS/text messages, in which the complainants speak of 'revenge', obtaining money and speaking about Mr Assange in the press, that they may have a hidden agenda, which casts serious doubt on their accusations and their trustworthiness."

Assange faces three charges of sexually assaulting one woman and one charge of raping another during a week-long visit to Stockholm last August.

He arrived at the south east London courthouse on Tuesday for the second and final day of a hearing to decide whether he should be extradited to face prosecution.

Court officials said District Judge Howard Riddle, who transferred the case from Westminster because of the massive press interest, is likely to reserve his decision to another date.

Assange's legal team fear a move to Sweden could lead to him being taken against his will to the United States, detained at Guantanamo Bay and ultimately executed for spying.

Wikileaks: Israel's Secret Hotline To The Man Tipped To Replace Mubarak

The new vice-president of Egypt, Omar Suleiman, is a long-standing favourite of Israel's who spoke daily to the Tel Aviv government via a secret "hotline" to Cairo, leaked documents disclose.

Mr Suleiman, who is widely tipped to take over from Hosni Mubarak as president, was named as Israel's preferred candidate for the job after discussions with American officials in 2008. 

As a key figure working for Middle East peace, he once suggested that Israeli troops would be "welcome" to invade Egypt to stop weapons being smuggled to Hamas terrorists in neighbouring Gaza. 

The details, which emerged in secret files obtained by WikiLeaks and passed to The Daily Telegraph, come after Mr Suleiman began talks with opposition groups on the future for Egypt's government. 

On Saturday, Mr Suleiman won the backing of Hillary Clinton, the US Secretary of State, to lead the "transition" to democracy after two weeks of demonstrations calling for President Mubarak to resign. 

David Cameron, the Prime Minister, spoke to Mr Suleiman yesterday and urged him to take "bold and credible steps" to show the world that Egypt is embarking on an "irreversible, urgent and real" transition.

WikiLeaks Founder Returns to Court to Fight Extradition

Ron Paul Enters Evidence of Bush War Crimes in Congressional ...
By mosesman
Both father and son are war criminals and pathological liars! Saddam Hussein was a CIA asset who later kicked the Anglo-American Illuminist cabal out when he gained power. He basically nationalized (ie. he kept the winnings to himself) ...
Socio-Economics History Blog - http://socioecohistory.wordpress.com/
Bush Cancels Swiss Pow Wow Due To War Criminal Warrants ...
By dublinmick
TORTURE AND EVANGELICAL ZIONISM, WAR CRIMINALS IN THE PULPIT. Torture was “sold” to congress, to the troops, to the American public as “Christian righteousness,” part of a “clash of cultures.” Half “crusade” and half “inquisition,” ...Dublinmick's Blog - http://dublinmick.wordpress.com/                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              
 Open Your Eyes News » Nearly 400 Suspected War Criminals Living As ...
By dodi
ANI - Hundreds of suspected war criminals are living in Britain, despite recommendations by a UK Border Agency unit that action be taken against them. According to the Guardian, the unit has recommended action against 495 individuals in ...
Open Your Eyes News - http://www.openyoureyesnews.com/     

Is It Time Possibly To Consider The Possibility That Glenn Beck Has Become Totally Unhinged?

February 05, 2011 5:49 pm ET — 26 Comments

In a recent column, Weekly Standard editor William Kristol criticized "talk radio hosts" and conservatives for "sid[ing] with the dictator" Hosni Mubarak. Indeed, numerous conservatives, including Rush Limbaugh and Dick Morris, have argued that the United States should be supporting Mubarak

[Beck's "Apocalyptic" Egypt "Hysteria" Triggers New Round Of Conservative Condemnation

Bill Kristol and other media conservatives have recently denounced Glenn Beck for using "hysteria" and "apocalyptic conspiracy terms" in his commentary about the uprising in Egypt. This is the latest case in which Beck's violent rhetoric and conspiratorial fearmongering have triggered criticism from Republicans and right-wing media figures. 

Republicans And Media Conservatives Criticized Beck For "Hysteria" Over Uprising In Egypt
Kristol: Beck Is "Marginalizing Himself" Through His "Hysteria." In his February 14, 2011, column for the upcoming edition of The Weekly Standard, Fox News contributor Bill Kristol wrote of Beck's reaction to the Egyptian protests:]

Kristol: Conservative Support For Mubarak Is "A Sign Of Fearfulness...Short-Sightedness" And "Excuse Making." From Kristol's column:

[I]t's a sign of health that a political and intellectual movement does not respond to a complicated set of developments with one voice.
But hysteria is not a sign of health. When Glenn Beck rants about the caliphate taking over the Middle East from Morocco to the Philippines, and lists (invents?) the connections between caliphate-promoters and the American left, he brings to mind no one so much as Robert Welch and the John Birch Society. He's marginalizing himself, just as his predecessors did back in the early 1960s.
Nor is it a sign of health when other American conservatives are so fearful of a popular awakening that they side with the dictator against the democrats. Rather, it's a sign of fearfulness unworthy of Americans, of short-sightedness uncharacteristic of conservatives, of excuse-making for thuggery unworthy of the American conservative tradition.
It was not so long ago, after all, when conservatives understood that Middle Eastern dictatorships such as Mubarak's help spawn global terrorism.
 We needn't remind our readers that the most famous of the 9/11 hijackers, Mohammed Atta, was an Egyptian, as is al Qaeda's number two, Ayman al Zawahiri. The idea that democracy produces radical Islam is false: Whether in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, the Palestinian territories, or Egypt, it is the dictatorships that have promoted and abetted Islamic radicalism. (Hamas, lest we forget, established its tyranny in Gaza through nondemocratic means.) Nor is it in any way "realist" to suggest that backing Mubarak during this crisis would promote "stability." To the contrary: The situation is growing more unstable because of Mubarak's unwillingness to abdicate. 
Helping him cling to power now would only pour fuel on the revolutionary fire, and push the Egyptian people in a more anti-American direction.
Let's hope that as talk radio hosts find time for reflection, and commentators step back to take a deep breath, they will recall that one of the most hopeful aspects of the current conservative revival is its reclamation of the American constitutionalist tradition. That tradition is anchored even beyond the Constitution, of course, in the Declaration of Independence. And that document, let's not forget, proclaims that, "Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends [life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness], it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it." [Weekly Standard2/14]
Numerous Conservatives Have Argued That The U.S. Should Support Mubarak
Limbaugh: "If You Are Concerned About U.S. National Interests, Mubarak Seems To Be Who To Root For." On the February 4 edition of his syndicated radio show, Rush Limbaugh responded to a caller's question regarding which side of the Egyptian protests he should support by stating:
LIMBAUGH: Nobody knows who to root for right now. But I'm going to tell you something. I have, I have taken the counsel of people wiser than I who, scholars who have paid attention to this part of the world. And have studied our relationship with allies who are dictators. Allies who maybe not pass the moral smell test, but balanced out, and - I tell you, there are a lot of people who would think on this we need to be rooting for Mubarak.
CALLER:  And I'm inclined to agree with you –
LIMBAUGH: We need to be rooting for –
LIMBAUGH: If you are concerned about U.S. national interests, Mubarak seems to be who to root for. And that's, I think that's why that you see so many people dumping on Mubarak. Both in the U.S. media. There's so many people. This is a -- portraying this is a big democracy movement, that's why we, the U.S., we stand for democracy. You know, we gotta behind -- the Muslim Brotherhood does not equal democracy to me, I'm sorry, I don't, it just, I don't get there. They want an Islamic state. Muslim Brotherhood wants an Islamic State. I don't -- Iran, half of Iran? I don't know. This is all aimed at Israel. Everybody's got their ammo aimed at Israel over there, that's what this is all about. [Premiere Radio Networks, The Rush Limbaugh Show2/4/11]

Morris: Mubarak, Obama Should Be "Aggressively Confronting" Egyptian Protesters. During Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, Fox News contributor Dick Morris stated:
MORRIS: I think it's an illusion to say that there's a secular liberal democratic faction that can be dominant in Egypt. I think that's a mirage and a camouflage being used -- a front man being used by the Muslim Brotherhood so that they can take power and essentially create an Egyptian-Iranian alliance that will control 45 percent of the population of North Africa and the Middle East in those two countries.
And I think that what Mubarak should be doing and what the Obama administration should be doing is aggressively confronting the demonstrators. I think that if we encourage the military to stand down, if we encourage the Mubarak supporters to refrain from controversy or even from violence, we really are opening the door to Islamic fundamentalist domination.
If Obama's so concerned about this, where was he when they were doing the same stuff in Iran? In Iran, he didn't lift a finger, and there were these massive street demonstrations. What, does he only oppose America's allies and not our enemies? [Fox News, The O'Reilly Factor2/2/11]

Morris & McGann: "Obama should be backing Mubarak." In their February 3 column, Morris and Eileen McGann wrote:
By failing to back Mubarak, Obama is committing the same sin that Eisenhower did in Cuba and Carter did in Iran. He needs to understand that the radical Islamists mean us ill, and any effort to appease them is bound to fail.

If Egypt falls, Obama will have permanently damaged America's vital interests. Look at what Carter's abandonment of the shah has already cost the world and is likely to cost it in the future. We now face the possibility that a radicalized Egypt could be Obama's gift to the globe.

Remember that Iran has a population of 79 million and Egypt has 75 million. Together, their 154 million almost equal the combined population of all the other nations in North Africa and the Middle East. If Egypt and Iran were to work in tandem, they could control the region.

By failing to back Mubarak and telling the Egyptian military to pull its punches and let the demonstrators take over the streets, the Obama administration has come to own responsibility for the outcome of the Egyptian revolution. If it goes south and leads to a disastrous outcome, it will be his foreign policy that will rightly shoulder the blame.

Obama should be backing Mubarak. Remember that Egypt was the first Arab nation to sign a peace deal with Israel and the only one to work with the Jewish state. It was in pursuit of peace that Anwar Sadat, Mubarak's predecessor, gave his life. [Newsmax.com, 2/3/11]

Geller: "Mubarak Has Been A US Ally For Decades...Knowing Obama, He Will Throw Another Ally Under The Bus." From a January 28 post on Atlas Shrugs by conservative blogger Pamela Geller:
Mubarak has been a US ally for decades. We send three billion dollars a year to Egypt. And Egypt made a peace deal with Israel. But knowing Obama, he will throw another ally under the bus. Yes, Mubarak needs to institute democratic reform. I pray Mubarak doesn't brutally respond to the uprising like Iran did -- they slaughtered their people and crushed the Iranian revolution.
I am all for political freedom. Will Islamic jihad allow for anything but the sharia? Never. As bad as Mubarak was ......... Islamic law is far worse. May free men prevail. The battle is between the secularists and Islamic supremacists; they are united only in their hate for Israel, as mandated by the qur'an (sic):
And as we now see, all of its possible secular and Islamist successors either reject outright Egypt's peace treaty with Israel or will owe their political power to the support of those who reject the peace with the Jewish state. (Caroline Glick)
The cries of allahu akbar in the streets do not instill confidence in the outcome. All that military aid in the hands of the Muslim Brotherhood would change everything. [Atlas Shrugs,1/28/11]

Wash Times' Blankley: "Support Mr. Mubarak. Down with the revolution. Up With Orderly Progress." In a January 31 column, Washington Times columnist Tony Blankley wrote:
Whatever may happen in the hours after I write this column, two things are certain: The next chapter in the magnificent and ancient civilization of the Nile is yet to be known. The role that America plays in Egypt's great, unfolding story also remains in doubt.
Once in a while - as in our Revolution - the cry of the street slogans becomes the principle of the government that follows - but usually not.
If the revolution in Egypt results in the fall of the existing governmental order, what are the chances that the people will be governed subsequently by a more just system? And what are the chances that America's interests will be advanced by that result?
Will the Suez Canal no longer be open and safe for its vast commerce?
Will the Middle East tilt further in the evil direction of radical Islamist forces? Will our ally Israel be further isolated from its neighbors and its right to exist?
If the Suez Canal is threatened by an anti-Western regime, is it likely that we will find ourselves forced to occupy and protect the canal for world commerce?
Providing public and private support of President Hosni Mubarak and helping to keep some semblance of the status quo (perhaps in the form of an army-led regime) is likely to serve both our immediate geopolitical interests and our ability to shape that regime in the interest of the Egyptian people.
Mr. Obama had a chance in 2009 to respond with strong support for Iran's Green Revolution - but his near silence crushed the hope of many young Iranians and surely aided (inadvertently) the hated enemy Iranian regime.
Now the president risks getting it wrong in the other direction: undercutting a friendly regime by sincere but ill-considered support for a revolution that is more likely to result in a government adverse to our - and the Egyptian people's - interests.
As Ari Shavit wrote in Israel's leading liberal paper, Haaretz, the failure to support Mr. Mubarak "symbolizes the betrayal of every strategic ally in the Third World. Throughout Asia, Africa and South America, leaders are now looking at what is going on between Washington and Cairo."
"Everyone grasps the message: America's word is worthless; an alliance with America is unreliable; American has lost it. A result of this understanding will be a turn toward China, Russia and regional powers such as Iran, Turkey and Brazil. The second result of this insight will be a series of international conflagrations that will result from the loss of America's deterrent power."
So, for both our reputation and our interests in the Middle East and beyond: Support Mr. Mubarak. Down with the revolution. Up with orderly progress. [The Washington Times, Tony Blankley, 1/31/11]

WND's Klayman: Obama "Regrettably" Supported The Protesters. From a February 5 column, headlined, "Oppose Obama's grand Islamic plan," by WorldNetDaily columnist Larry Klayman:
So, regrettably if not tragically, it came as no surprise when the "mullah in chief" wasted no time supporting the protesters in Egypt by literally throwing President Hosni Mubarak, a 30-year ally of the United States and Israel, under the proverbial bus. In the mold of former President Jimmy Carter's days of undermining the shah of Iran in the late 1970s, Obama and his secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, attacked Mubarak for his attempts to allow for a smooth transition of power over the next months, branding attempts to deal with violence in Cairo "outrageous and deplorable." And, to top it all off, the administration not only demanded that Mubarak get out of "Dodge" immediately, but then effectively endorsed a new government with "non-secular" parties - meaning that the granddaddy of terrorist groups, the Muslim Brotherhood, which includes al-Qaida as a subsidiary, should be included. For cover, Obama and company pushed European leaders - to use the term loosely - to heed his call; a feat which it does not take much to achieve, given their pacifist if now cowardly tendencies. [WorldNetDaily, 2/5/11]

Hoft: "Obama & Muslim Brotherhood Agree: Mubarak Must Begin To Transition Power Now." In a February 1 post, headlined, "Obama & Muslim Brotherhood Agree: Mubarak Must Begin To Transition Power Now," Jim Hoft equated the Obama administration's stance towards Mubarak with that of the Muslim Brotherhood.  From the post:
Remember: The difference between a Democrat president and a Republican president is that when a Republican president is in charge, anti-American regimes are overthrown. When a Democrat president is in charge, pro-American regimes are overthrown....and anti-American regimes thrive.
Barack Obama agreed.

The transition of power in Egypt must begin immediately.
The Atlantic reported:
We have spoken out on the need for change. After his speech tonight, I spoke directly to president Mubarak. He recognizes that the status quo is not sustainable and that a change must take place. Indeed all of us who are privileged to serve in political positions of power do so at the will of our people. Through thousands of years Egypt has known many moments of transformation. The voices of the Egyptian people tell us this is one of those moments; this is one of those times.
Now, it is not the role of any other country to determine Egypt's leaders, only the Egyptian people can do that. What is clear and what I indicated tonight to President Mubarak is my belief that an orderly transition must be meaningful, it must be peaceful, and it must begin now.

Coincidence? [Gateway Pundit, 2/1/11]
Britain home to nearly 400 war crimes suspects
The Guardian
A special war crimes unit within the immigration agency has recommended action against 495 individuals in the last five years believed to have taken part in ...See all stories on this topic »

Never before seen courtroom footage now available in "Nuremberg"
Made for the War Department and US Military Government by Stuart Schulberg, a veteran of John Ford's OSS War Crimes film team, it was distributed in Germany ...See all stories on this topic »

Truth to Power: A Blunt Assessment of US Crimes in Iraq : One ...
By OPS_admin
War crimes(a) Offense.— Whoever, whether inside or outside the United States, commits a war crime, in any of the circumstances described in subsection (b), shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for life or any term of years, ...One Penny Sheet - http://www.onepennysheet.com/



No comments: