Assassination Politics recruits new high level supporter

this delightfully sinister US Government page doesn’t actually state that they will assassinate any of the high-profile targets named there, but it’s bleedin’ obvious that, should any “tips” they receive lead to locations in the middle of Pakistani, Yemeni or other middle eastern hinterlands conveniently far enough away from journalistic surveillance, they’ll be saying farewell to a few more drones.

I doubt they appreciate the irony of how much their technique resembles Jim Bell’s infamous proposal for controlling the world’s authoritarians and other bullies. The major difference is that the money isn’t put up anonymously by a peeved public but blatantly offered by a State that thinks it can make its own laws whenever appropriate.

And they certainly won’t appreciate or even comprehend why they’re both wrong for exactly the same reasons. And both right.

Assassination is certainly a more humane way to fight war than carpet or chemical bombing. And if the Islamist’s 9-11 attack had merely put bullets through the brains of the leading neo-cons and money-men who had already decided they needed a war, the “terrorists” would have won a lot more respect and a lot less hostility from a grateful world.

I wonder if they’ll pay out on a drone strike…

Advertisements

Conrad Black and The Rule Of Law

Until I watched this interview, I was utterly indifferent to the fate of Conrad Black. Just another rich bastard caught with his hand in the till. Who gives a shit?

Check it out. I promise you will not be disappointed. And then we’ll have a bit of a chat about it…
(Newsnight – 2012-10-22)
Let me say, up front, I have no idea whether Conrad Black is guilty or innocent.

But given this confident and spirited performance, and given that absolutely everything he has to say about the corrupt Prison State of America is pretty easy to validate, I am forced to concede that he is more plausible, by far, than his accusers and moralistic interrogators such as Jeremy Paxman.

As you’ll have noticed if you followed the link, I stopped updating that page in 2007, when it became clear that Obama was about to replace Bush and I foolishly allowed myself to believe that he would – if not sweep away the Police State – at least reverse some of it’s worst excesses. He hasn’t even slowed its progress. Reluctantly I’m going to have to fire it back up one day and add another couple of hundred examples.

Be that as it may, Conrad Black produced such a barnstorming performance that I feel obliged to hedge my bets. ONLY two kinds of individual could have performed like that. Both of them would believe with utter sincerity absolutely everything they are saying. The first would be a complete Sociopath who has no concept of rational ethical analysis and sincerely believes he is right and entitled to behave as he did. The second is genuinely innocent. I leave you to judge which category Black belongs in.

But the vastly more important point is what Paxman appeared to believe was a killer question:

“Do you not think a man who has been found guilty by due process of law ought to be slightly penitent?”

If nothing else, it demonstrates that Paxman himself is a fine actor; probably a key requirement for someone who has to try to pretend to be interested in “balance”.

It was like watching someone to whom it had never occurred that innocent people can EVER (let alone frequently) be found guilty by “due process of Law”. Such innocence is not remotely plausible on the part of a premier league political interviewer. Especially not one who has – for decades – professionally interviewed so many of the participants in so many of the high-profile cases of wrongful conviction and abuse of process that we’ve suffered here in the UK.

He obviously isn’t that naive, but he had to ask the question. Why?

Because, as I wrote only recently in reply to a question on my forum:

Moral Obligation to Obey The Law?
First, most of the laws we all still live under fail the Reciprocity test and thus, to this ethicist at least, remain entirely illicit. Instead of challenging the validity of such laws, moral philosophers have often been the keenest apologists for them. If you need a clearer example of the failure of Moral Philosophy, I can’t think of one.

But second, secular authority has taken its lead from the success of the religious model and routinely frames its edicts as though they are solutions to moral dilemmas. The over-arching meme is the one that tries to portray Obedience To The Law as a moral virtue in its own right. The mere fact that something is a Law is supposed to be enough to give it moral weight. [emphasis added]

It is rare that something happens in the real world (so soon after I’ve written something like that) which illustrates my point so clearly and so powerfully.

I’ll be coming back to this theme from time to time but the question I urge you to consider is this:
We all know that when a dictator wins an “election” with 99% of the vote, that the vote was rigged and the system is corrupt and unfair. But what about the Law? What success rate (for prosecutors) would you expect in a genuinely fair and honest legal system?

Israel Lobbyist in US: We Need a False Flag to Start War with Iran (youtube)

.

We’ve seen extraditions to the US for less than this. So how is this legal? Thanks to ScrabbleEddie for sending me to this blogger who provides a bit of background…

Hillsborough: Why Conspiracy Theories Thrive

So now we KNOW the truth. Up until today, it was just another conspiracy theory. Think about that…
And then address the question of how we might determine which of the other million or so conspiracy theories floating around the web are also entirely (or at least mostly) true.

I’ll expand on this later. (he threatened…)

The Big Lie still a favourite Authoritarian Tactic

There was, it would seem, no prospect of Gu Kailai submissively playing her part in the show trial which took place in Beijing last week. Previously, the regime would simply have held the trial in secret and announced the results to its gullible public. But appearances now matter even to those currently holding the reins within the dictatorship. So they had to put on at least a token “one day” trial to make it look like something resembling justice was being delivered. When the star of the show refuses to co-operate, however, it’s necessary to recruit an understudy.
Frankly, in the context of a totalitarian regime, which China still is, even though it has dramatically loosened up since Mao’s day, it’s not even a particularly extreme behaviour. What IS bizarre, though, is that they made so little effort to cover up their subterfuge. Given that the point was to show her confession and docile acceptance of the punishment on Television, surely they could have found a better match and surely, even with the poor match they did find, a decent stage make-up artist could have made the actress look at least close enough to suppress giggles of disbelief!

Did you notice GlaxoSmithKline’s $3 Billion Fraud Penalty?

Actually a MUCH bigger story than Barclay’s LIBOR fixing scam, yet I haven’t heard a single discussion of it on the beeb and have only spotted a couple of mainstream media covering it.

This New York Times story will fill you in.

In short, I believe it’s the biggest criminal fraud settlement in US (and, I think, global) history. Ten times bigger than the Barclay’s fine and publicly described as criminal (whereas there is an ongoing debate about whether what the banks got up to was also criminal)

In the past 24 hours, we’ve seen the 3 top executives of Barclays walking the plank. Not a peep from GSK or its shareholders. Obviously they consider such fines merely the cost of doing business. It hardly affects the bottom line, so the dividends will be safe.

You’d think, given the hours and acres of coverage being heaped on the banks’ story, we might here a minute or two about the British arm of Big Pharma, the biggest organised crime syndicate the world has ever known.

Don’t hold your breath…

Nutt demolishes latest Cannabis Lung Scare Story

Thank-you Professor Nutt. You’ve saved me the wasted time and effort of writing to the British Lung Foundation myself. I first read their latest drivel last week in the Mail. I knew it was complete bollocks; had any REAL research found such a clear conclusion it would have been headline news around the world for weeks. The authoritarians would have ensured it was fully trumpeted, around the clock, from all available rooftops.

So once the steam had cleared and I had stopped kicking the cat, I resolved to write to the BLF and ask, as politely as I could muster, where we could read this startling new evidence for ourselves. David Nutt has far more clout than I do and they’ve pointedly ignored him, so I’d have had no chance. But this is his day job. So he’s done a brilliant job here dissecting and revealing the true extent of their peculiar and obsessive duplicity.

Peculiar because I don’t understand their motives. They’re a charity f-fuxake, so they can’t have a financial interest. They have no obvious axe to grind. The Lung Cancer wards are not being clogged with cannabis smokers. Indeed their own evidence, should they ever bother analysing it will almost certainly reveal that cannabis smokers are under-represented in the statistics.

So why do they try so hard – and so consistently – to promote that ignorant and illicit authoritarian line? Could it be the price they pay for support from some of their donors? I’ve just checked their most recent audited accounts and if one or more of their donors is leaning on them, it’s certainly not obvious which one of them would give a damn. Feel free to speculate…