Wilkerson: ‘Let Me Waterboard Donald Rumsfeld and Then We’ll See if He Says It’s Torture or Not’
May 5, 2011 No Comment
Click here to view this media Ed Schultz asked former Colin Powell Chief of Staff Lawrence Wilkerson about Donald Rumsfeld’s repeated claims that the United States got actionable intelligence from waterboarding Khalid Sheikh Mohammad and others, and his claim that waterboarding is not torture. Wilkerson did not hold back his disdain for this torture apologist. Wilkerson reminded me a little bit of Jesse Ventura when he said this a couple of years ago about Dick Cheney — Jesse Ventura: You Give Me a Water Board, Dick Cheney and One Hour, and I’ll Have Him Confess to the Sharon Tate Murders . WILKERSON: Well my former boss Colin Powell recently said that Donald Rumsfeld was delusional and deceptive and he could prove both points. My former boss is right. And on this issue Donald Rumsfeld is more delusional than deceptive, probably than any other. First of all his last statement about hordes of intelligence is preposterous. It didn’t produce hoards of intelligence. In fact, I never saw any raw intelligence pass my desk that came from such things that was actionable, that really led to any circumstance at all that produced a result that was positive. Secondly, Donald Rumsfeld only has as knowledge what his bureaucracy gave him. He wasn’t there. He wasn’t at the site. Multiple tiers of bureaucracy gave him the information that he had. And he made damned sure that that bureaucracy was sycophants, yes men, yes women. He made sure that the people working for him told him what he wanted to hear. So one has to expect that Donald Rumsfeld heard what he just said and that was that actionable intelligence was produced by these procedures. It is preposterous. And let me say one last thing. As Christopher Hitchens said after he was actually waterboarded, this is torture, changing his view. Let me waterboard Donald Rumsfeld and then we’ll see if he says it’s torture or not. Schultz asked him why he thought Rumsfeld was doing this. WILKERSON: He’s got to. He’s got to cover his rear end. I mean there are cases in foreign countries right now being worked by lawyers there. one in Switzerland actually kept President George Bush from visiting Switzerland that will under international auspices against Cheney, Rumsfeld, Feith, Addington et al. They don’t dare resort to anything other than defending their positions because ultimately even within their lifetime they may be subject to litigation. I will predict that as I’ve said many times before, they will not travel except perhaps to Israel and Saudi Arabia. Those will be the only two countries Cheney, Rumsfeld and others will travel to. Now that’s something you don’t hear anyone remind the public of on television. Thanks Lawrence.
Continue reading …Wilkerson: ‘Let Me Waterboard Donald Rumsfeld and Then We’ll See if He Says It’s Torture or Not’
May 5, 2011 No Comment
Click here to view this media Ed Schultz asked former Colin Powell Chief of Staff Lawrence Wilkerson about Donald Rumsfeld’s repeated claims that the United States got actionable intelligence from waterboarding Khalid Sheikh Mohammad and others, and his claim that waterboarding is not torture. Wilkerson did not hold back his disdain for this torture apologist. Wilkerson reminded me a little bit of Jesse Ventura when he said this a couple of years ago about Dick Cheney — Jesse Ventura: You Give Me a Water Board, Dick Cheney and One Hour, and I’ll Have Him Confess to the Sharon Tate Murders . WILKERSON: Well my former boss Colin Powell recently said that Donald Rumsfeld was delusional and deceptive and he could prove both points. My former boss is right. And on this issue Donald Rumsfeld is more delusional than deceptive, probably than any other. First of all his last statement about hordes of intelligence is preposterous. It didn’t produce hoards of intelligence. In fact, I never saw any raw intelligence pass my desk that came from such things that was actionable, that really led to any circumstance at all that produced a result that was positive. Secondly, Donald Rumsfeld only has as knowledge what his bureaucracy gave him. He wasn’t there. He wasn’t at the site. Multiple tiers of bureaucracy gave him the information that he had. And he made damned sure that that bureaucracy was sycophants, yes men, yes women. He made sure that the people working for him told him what he wanted to hear. So one has to expect that Donald Rumsfeld heard what he just said and that was that actionable intelligence was produced by these procedures. It is preposterous. And let me say one last thing. As Christopher Hitchens said after he was actually waterboarded, this is torture, changing his view. Let me waterboard Donald Rumsfeld and then we’ll see if he says it’s torture or not. Schultz asked him why he thought Rumsfeld was doing this. WILKERSON: He’s got to. He’s got to cover his rear end. I mean there are cases in foreign countries right now being worked by lawyers there. one in Switzerland actually kept President George Bush from visiting Switzerland that will under international auspices against Cheney, Rumsfeld, Feith, Addington et al. They don’t dare resort to anything other than defending their positions because ultimately even within their lifetime they may be subject to litigation. I will predict that as I’ve said many times before, they will not travel except perhaps to Israel and Saudi Arabia. Those will be the only two countries Cheney, Rumsfeld and others will travel to. Now that’s something you don’t hear anyone remind the public of on television. Thanks Lawrence.
Continue reading …
I cower at the mere sight of fake guns in the theatre. Why must plays be peppered with this weapon of mass distraction? “Warning: shots will be fired during tonight’s performance.” Oh no. Must they be? Can’t I persuade you to reconsider? If there’s one thing I like even less than shots being fired during tonight’s performance, it’s the nervous anticipation of shots being fired during tonight’s performance. Like many a victim of hand-held weaponry before me, I put my hands up: I am scared of gunfire in the theatre. Being shot, to my mind, could scarcely be more painful. Is it just me? We should be able to identify each other easily, we fake-gun-phobes. I’m the one wriggling in discomfort, my fingers poised over my ears, eyes glued to the waggling gun-shaped prop, willing it not to go off – or to bloody well go off now and get things over with. It’s happened repeatedly in the last fortnight. (Gun crime-wise, Britain’s theatres make South Central LA look like Henley-on-Thames.) At Mamet’s Prairie du Chien at the Arcola , a gunshot warning at the auditorium entrance had me on edge throughout. When the shot was fired out of the blue, I all but went through the roof. (It’s unexpected loud noises I can’t stand; bursting balloons and champagne corks have a similar effect. Pathetic, isn’t it?) Guns fired in Little Eagles at Hampstead; guns fired in Uncle Vanya , also at the Arcola. There Vanya was, swinging his shotgun hither and yon, out to avenge some property-related slight; and in the audience, I cowered and winced. This particular episode is at least mercifully brief. Theatre-makers aren’t always so delicate. I’ve seen dozens of productions that derive the lion’s share of their drama from a brandished pistol. Sometimes, it’s justified. Often – and this is usually in sub-Tarantino tough-guy capers – it’s instant, unearned tension; a way for everyone involved to feel like Joe Pesci without doing the spadework. If you’re cursed with my phobia, it can compromise your evening. Screeds of dialogue have passed me by over the years, as I’ve sat with fingers in lugs, anticipating gunfire. That’s not irrational. If there’s a gun being toted in one’s vicinity, one seldom focuses elsewhere. And to be nervous of guns is a survival instinct, right? Just ask the actor David Birrell, accidentally shot in the eye with a fake pistol during a performance last year of Sondheim’s Passion at the Donmar . Guns – even stage ones – are dangerous things. But it’s not the danger that bothers me, it’s the ear-splitting, heart-juddering pop. In a real-life held-at-gunpoint scenario, I reckon I’d be fine – given that, if the bullet was fired, either death or extreme pain would presumably take my mind off the noise. But at the theatre, where there’s no such consolation, I’m happiest when I get less bang for my buck. Theatre Brian Logan guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Remains, which were discovered still strapped into seat, raised from Atlantic almost two years after 228 people died on flight 447 The first body to be recovered from the sunken wreckage of Air France Airbus that crashed in June 2009 en route from Rio to Paris has been retrieved from the bottom of the Atlantic, still strapped to a seat. French gendarmes said the partially decomposed remains had lain at a depth of almost 2.5 miles since flight 447 went down on 1 June, 2009. The body, brought to the surface by mini-submarines, will now be DNA tested before being taken to France. Rescuers said the search, using sea robots to recover bodies from the ocean off Brazil, is complex and “unprecedented”. Experts said that the cold and lack of oxygen at that depth could mean bodies were comparatively well preserved . But they could rapidly decompose on being moved through warmer surface waters and into the air. In the days after the crash about 50 bodies and parts of the plane were pulled from the sea by the Brazilian navy, but after that nothing was found for almost two years. Earlier this week the black boxes and cockpit voice recorder were recovered, which could help explain the crash in which all 228 people on the Airbus A330 died. The quest to recover bodies from the ocean is controversial among victims’ families. Some fear it will further traumatise relatives, others are concerned about the state of the remains two years after the crash. One relative, Corinne, whose daughter, Caroline, and her husband died in the crash, told French TV she was against the mission. “I wanted Caroline to rest in peace at the bottom of the ocean, because for me that was her final resting place and tomb. To think she could be hauled up to the surface hugely perturbs me because they are going to disturb that rest which began two years ago for her.” Other families were keen for remains to be recovered in order for closure. The brother of one victim said: “I want to be able to start the grieving process. It’s very sad to have my brother at the bottom of the ocean. I want him to be brought up to the surface so we can bury him and have a place to go to remember him.” It is unlikely that the remains of all the victims will be found. France Brazil Europe Air transport Airbus Angelique Chrisafis guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Ahhhh….Mulitple Choice Mitt, you just flipped flopped your way out of a supporter . In the 2012 presidential race, New Hampshire’s first-in-the-nation primary is make-or-break for Mitt Romney, and to win it, Romney’s campaign will need the savviest operatives it can find. But Team Romney will have to go without one key player: Bruce Keough. The New Hampshire Republican who oversaw Romney’s 2008 campaign in the Granite State says he’s no longer sure what Romney stands for. In an interview with Mother Jones , Keough, a businessman, says he declined an offer join Romney’s 2012 effort and instead is sizing up other potential candidates, including Indiana governor Mitch Daniels and former Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty . A former gubernatorial candidate in New Hampshire, Keough says Romney’s wishy-washy political identity and inability to stake out firm, consistent positions as a candidate were the reasons for his decision to cut ties with Romney. “He struggled with that in the last campaign,” Keough explains, “and to some extent I think he’s still struggling with it.” Keough isn’t the only one who thinks Romney has an identity problem. In early March, the former Massachusetts governor gave a major speech at a Lincoln Day dinner in New Hampshire. His performance was later dubbed “Romney 3.0.” The first version, or Romney 1.0, was the candidate who successfully ran for governor in 2002 as a social moderate who touted his business acumen. Then, in the 2008 presidential race, Romney moved to the right, especially on hot-button social issues like abortion and stem cell research. That was Romney 2.0. And finally there’s Romney 3.0, the latest iteration, a business-centric candidate willing to lose the necktie and hang out at NASCAR races. It’s this ever-changing persona that soured Keough on Romney. “I don’t think the voters are looking for somebody who’s going to be recasting himself,” he says. “They want somebody who’s been true to a certain set of political ideals for a while.” Personally, I think this will be less of a problem with the tea party voters Mitt is trying to woo now. Their memories are short and their support appears dependent on simply playing to some fairly basic talking points. I bet they don’t even realize that the “Obamacare” they despise is basically Romneycare federalized. However, you can’t win on tea party support solely and therein is where Mitt runs into problems. He’s been so all over the map (hence the name Multiple-choice Mitt) that I think he scares the party establishment because they don’t think they can depend on him to stay reliably conservative. Perhaps because of this hiccup to his “momentum” to his campaign, Romney has declined to participate in the upcoming Republican debate . Or maybe he’ll changed his mind later…you never know with Mitt.
Continue reading …
Incoming CBS Evening News anchor Scott Pelley was asked by the Politico's Keach Hagey for his reaction to the MRC's Profile in Bias on him and the longtime 60 Minutes correspondent, who once compared global warming skeptics to Holocaust deniers , seemed to deny the charge of liberal bias as he brushed off the issue : “CBS has been called liberal for a lot of years,” adding,
Continue reading …
Babar Ahmad tells jury he put up no resistance as officers wrestled him to the floor and punched him at his home A British Muslim accused of raising funds for terrorist organisations has told a court how he was beaten up and mocked by specialist police officers during an early morning raid at his home. Babar Ahmad said he had been in bed with his wife at around 5am when officers from the Met’s territorial support group smashed their way into his south London home in December 2003. Moments later the officers – dressed in full protective clothing – entered his bedroom, where Southwark crown court heard they began a “sustained and very violent assault”. “It was complete confusion and shock,” Ahmad told the jury. “I had just woken up and lots of things were going through my mind: ‘Why have they come up here? Have they mixed me up with someone else? Is there a robber hiding in my house or have they come to arrest me?’ All these things were going through my mind.” Ahmad said he was wrestled to the floor and repeatedly punched and sworn at, and one officer pulled his genitals. The prosecutor, Jonathan Laidlaw QC, asked if he had fought or struggled. Ahmad, 37, replied: “I was completely compliant because I had made my mind up when they came towards me I was going to co-operate and reassure them they had nothing to fear from me whatsoever … At no point did I struggle or make it difficult for them. At no point did I say anything to them other than: ‘Can you stop hitting me?’ I didn’t make it hard for them or provoke them whatsoever.” Police constables Mark Jones, Roderick James-Bowen and Nigel Cowley and Detective Constable John Donohue deny assaulting Ahmad. The officers had been told that Ahmad had received terrorist training and fought overseas in support of jihad. The arrest took place less than a year after another terror suspect, Kamel Bourgass, stabbed an anti-terror squad officer to death during a raid on a house in Manchester. Ahmad, who was accused of raising money for al-Qaida, told the jury that after the officers had entered the bedroom of the semi-detached house they had grabbed his arms, forcing him to the floor. He said that at some point his head hit the bedroom window, smashing the glass. While he was on the floor, he said, the officers continued to swear at him, and he heard a “sarcastic” voice say: “So this one’s the tough nut is he?” He said he was then kneed in the thigh by one officer before another began punching him in the head and face. The court heard he was fully restrained, lying face down with officers holding his head, arms and back, and offered no resistance to his captors, other than to ask them to stop hitting him. Ahmad said his wife had stood on the bed as the attack began, pulling up the duvet to cover herself. She was “remonstrating” with the police and asking them to let him go before being taken from the room, he said. Ahmad was released without charge shortly after his arrest. However, he was rearrested in 2004 following a request from the US over claims he helped raise money to fund terrorism. He has been in custody in the UK ever since. The hearing continues. Police Crime UK security and terrorism London Matthew Taylor guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
X Factor mogul worth £200m joins Andrew Lloyd Webber and Sir Paul McCartney in top 10 of Sunday Times music rich list Simon Cowell has soared into the top 10 of the annual Sunday Times music rich list, with an estimated fortune of £200m. It is the first time the X Factor mogul has made the top 10, reaching No 6, up from 11 last year. The ongoing success of the show, plus the deal to export it to the US this year can be credited with his spike. Clive Calder, who co-founded Zomba Records and its subsidiary Jive, tops the list with £1.3bn, with Andrew Lloyd Webber in second place with £680m. The rest of the top 10 comprises Sir Cameron Mackintosh (£675m), Sir Paul McCartney (£495m), Simon Fuller (£375m), with the four remaining places after Cowell going to Sir Elton John (£195m), Sir Mick Jagger (£190m), Sting (£180m) and Keith Richards (£175m). Cowell has increased his personal wealth by £35m this year. But Ben Cardew, news editor of Music Week, cast doubt over whether Cowell belongs in the music list at all. He told the Guardian: “I’m slightly dubious about any of these lists but whatever his actual ‘fortune’ may be, it’s clear Cowell has done well financially over the past few years. For all his success with selling music, I would imagine most of his money comes from TV.” Rich List editor Ian Coxon told Bloomberg: “Simon Cowell owns a share of the programmes he’s involved in as well as being in front of the camera. He’s busy behind the scenes and also responsible for many of the performers, so he’s taking pots of money in all directions.” Perhaps a more revealing picture of where the music industry is heading can be seen in the top 20 young music millionaires, in which the top five are all women. Classical-crossover singer Katherine Jenkins tops the list with an estimated £13m. Cheryl Cole climbs two spots to second place, shared jointly with Leona Lewis and Katie Melua (all £12m), then Joss Stone (£9m). Charlotte Church (£8m) drops to sixth place, with Adele, Lily Allen, Natasha Bedingfield, Duffy and Amy Winehouse each in joint ninth place with £6m each. Cowell recently confirmed he would not be taking a weekly judging role on the UK X Factor, with Take That singer Gary Barlow hotly tipped to replace him. However, the judging panel for the British export remains uncertain, with Cheryl Cole’s future in question. Other performers who have been variously linked to the role include Rihanna, Katy Perry, Nicole Scherzinger, Nicki Minaj and Paula Abdul. Simon Cowell Pop and rock Sunday Times Newspapers & magazines News International National newspapers Newspapers Rich lists The X Factor Television Entertainment Dan Martin guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
A selection of winners and runners-up from the Royal Geographical Society current exhibition in London
Continue reading …
Geordie star to join Simon Cowell on Fox TV show, prompting questions over whether she will stay with UK version Poll: Will Cheryl Cole be a success on the US X Factor? Simon Cowell has ended months of speculation by confirming that Cheryl Cole will join him as a judge on the US version of The X Factor. The Girls Aloud singer will join record producer Antonio “LA” Reid and one other as yet unconfirmed judge on the Fox TV show, which will begin filming on Friday. The announcement is likely to spark a whole new round of speculation over whether Cole will continue as a judge on the ITV1 version of the show. The UK show, which she joined three years ago, will return later this year. “I’m thrilled for Cheryl. She is massively excited about this show, and has been fantastic to work with,” said Cowell. “She is also a complete brat. Most importantly, this girl can spot talent.” Cole added: “I’m so excited to be taking part in the American version of The X Factor. I absolutely love it here in the UK and with the talent they have out in America, I’m sure we’re going to find someone very special. I can’t wait to get started.” Cowell quit his role as a judge on Fox’s other talent show, the Simon Fuller-produced American Idol, to launch The X Factor in the US . Cowell’s US commitments mean he will not appear on ITV1′s Britain’s Got Talent until its final week , and it remains to be seen what, if any, role he has in the final stages of The X Factor in the UK later this year . The Fox president of alternative entertainment, Mike Darnell, said: “Cheryl Cole has the whole X Factor package: She’s an incredibly talented artist and performer, as well as a style icon, and she has that special charisma that draws in fans around the world.” “Cheryl’s charm and chemistry with Simon have been a key part of the overwhelming success of The X Factor in the UK, and we can’t wait to welcome her to the US on our air.” But it remains to be seen how American viewers take to Cole’s Geordie accent. The winner of the US X Factor will win a $5m recording contract with Cowell’s Syco/Sony Music. The show will be produced by Cowell’s Syco Television and FremantleMedia North America. •
Continue reading …