UPDATE Thursday, December 03, 2009: I had told Google Blog Search that if they stopped censoring me, I'd say so on this Blog. As of this "UPDATE," Google Blog Search is now showing 1,967 posts as indexed and linked. () That's up again from only 4 at one point. Therefore, I'm adding this update.
1,967 is not all of the posts, but it seems that perhaps they are slowly re-indexing the site. I give them the benefit of the doubt. I haven't looked to see if they are avoiding "controversial" posts.
CIA Used Gun, Drill in Interrogation
IG Report Describes Tactics Against Alleged Cole Mastermind
By Joby Warrick and R. Jeffrey Smith
Washington Post Staff Writers
Saturday, August 22, 2009
CIA interrogators used a handgun and an electric drill to try to frighten a captured al-Qaeda commander into giving up information, according to a long-concealed agency report due to be made public next week, former and current U.S. officials who have read the document said Friday.
The federal torture statute prohibits a U.S. national from threatening anyone in his or her custody with imminent death.
Three months before Nashiri's capture, the head of the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel — Jay S. Bybee, now a federal judge — advised the CIA in an August 2002 memo that threats of "imminent death" were not illegal unless they deliberately produced prolonged mental harm. ...
The CIA declined late Friday to comment on the contents of the report, but an agency spokesman noted that all the incidents described in the document have been reviewed in detail by government prosecutors.
"The CIA in no way endorsed behavior — no matter how infrequent — that went beyond formal guidance," said the spokesman, Paul Gimigliano. [paid liar]
You will note that it rightly says such threats are illegal while Jay Bybee, who told the CIA that it is not (just what the CIA insisted upon), is still sitting as a federal judge. Under international and domestic law, that makes the U.S. the enemy of human kind. Other nation-states have engaged in torture (and this treatment described in the article is mild compare with what happened elsewhere that all came out before, during, and shortly after Abu Ghraib but has been avoided as much as possible by the major corporate media in the U.S.), but that doesn't excuse the U.S. engaging in it, contrary to neocon lies.
My generation was taught to hate the Chinese Communist Party because they tortured people. What changed? Why are American youth being taught that torture is okay? Why are TV shows like "24" on FOX a hit? Who let that fascist, Rupert Murdoch, into the country? Who let him have a license to broadcast and then buy up large swaths of the U.S. media?
Oh, I'm using his logic on him. I wish he'd see the light before he dies and goes to Hell. He actually calls himself a follower of Jesus while putting on "24."
Rupert, Jesus hates "24." Everyone of the 24-spirit is not going to be allowed into Jesus's Heaven. It's a fact, Rupert. Wake up! You are in the dark. You're working on the dark side. It's going to catch up with you. It has to. That's the way it is. Stop working iniquity. Turn and repent. Atone, Rupert, atone.
What were those CIA agents doing? Were they preserving, protecting, and defending the Constitution of the United States? Righteous people don't want that kind of protection. They'd rather die and go to Heaven.
Such tactics only harden hearts on all sides. You only made things worse. You didn't help. You didn't save anybody. Woe.
Sweden flatly rejects Israeli request for media quiet
Fri, 21 Aug 2009 15:06:41 GMT
Sweden has turned down a demand that it condemn the recent publication of an article that links Israeli soldiers to the death of Palestinian civilians with the motive of obtaining their organs.
In an article published earlier in the week, Sweden's best-selling daily Aftonbladet recounted grotesque incidents dating as far back as 1992 in which Israeli soldiers allegedly abducted Palestinian youths and returned their bodies mutilated a few days later.
Well, that sent me looking. When I searched, "IDF organs body parts Sweden Aftonbladet," on Google News search, I was offered up 2 results of 38. I hate it when they do that. To see the 38, one has to click again on "all 534 news articles." That's right, it says 38 but also says "534 news articles." Clicking on that, gets a page with more sectioning. The top section has no label but has 3 Israeli links up top all condemning the Swedish article. There are 113 in the linked section one must click to. Then the next is Blogs. It is there where I actually found an English translation of the full Swedish article. That's what I really wanted to begin with rather then just Israel's reactions to the story.
"," by Gilad Atzmon. Palestine Think Tank. August 19, 2009. Now that gives not only Gilad Atzmon's view but also the whole story translated. Unlike the Israeli rants about "blood libel" (proper use of the term rant there; it has been an abused term), Gilad ties together all the atrocities carried out by his fellow Jews, many of whom who have labeled Gilad "a self-hating Jew" because Gilad hates the evil and doesn't hesitate to expose it. Gilad, you're always welcome to become a Real Liberal Christian. You're closer to it than most self-styled Christians I've read.
Anyway, Gilad is right to point to all those atrocities and lies and to reproduce that whole article in English. He's also exactly right to call up the illegal organ traffickers who were recently busted in the U.S. working between the U.S. and Israel — many rabbi gangsters, frankly.
Gilad says clearly, as does the original Swedish author, that the story of the Palestinians are allegations. There is nothing wrong with reporting allegations as allegations. It is via such means that investigations often begin that do in fact exposed lies, such as the lies the Israelis told about pretty much everything that had to do with there attack on Gaza. The Palestinians hadn't started it. The Israelis broke the lull in violence. There were no tunnels into Israel. The Israelis did use illegal weapons. They did target innocents. They did use teenage boys as human shields. They did attack U.N. compounds. They did refuse international reporters to go into Palestine. Only Al Jazeera was there on the ground. They had violated the term of the lull in violence with their extremely heavy-handed sanctions. It was a blockade and still is. They had gone in and knocked down houses, closed down schools and orphanages, and destroyed businesses. The list goes on and on and on: "blood libel"? (hardly libel, just hard, documented facts) Even IDF soldiers have testified to the world that it's true. Bless their real courage.
So, who do you trust? I don't believe everything the Palestinians say, but I sure don't believe the Likudniks. They've been impeached in their testimonies over and over and over. When caught red handed, I've never heard them apologize for flat out deliberately and very knowingly having lied about huge issues.
Oh, by the way, when you ask Google to translate http://www.aftonbladet.se/kultur/article5652583.ab from Swedish to English, Google claims it's unable to do it. Well, I've been censored by Google, so what do you think I think about that? Could it be censorship? Of course it could. In fact, it's likely.
Here's some more:
Oh by the way, the other sections on Google News besides the top one that is almost entirely Israeli (without and name) and "Blogs" are:
Tel Aviv, Israel
The Swedish sites are mostly the apologetic ones. Notice that there isn't a "Palestinian" or "Arab" or "Middle Eastern" other than Israeli amongst all those "Israel" sections.
The fascist, ethnic cleansing, Israeli Foreign Minister, Avigdor Lieberman, gets huge coverage. We're supposed to be convinced by that Lieberman that the Palestinians are lying about their children being executed for throwing stones and their body parts being harvested.
Why are they keeping the bodies for up to five days before they let us bury them? What happened to the bodies during that time? Why are they performing autops[ies], against our will, when the cause of death is obvious? Why are the bodies returned at night? Why is it done with a military escort? Why is the area closed off during the funeral? Why is the electricity interrupted?
Islam doesn't allow for autopsies and digging up bodies for postmortems as forensic evidence of crimes. The Israelis know this. Besides, the Israelis wouldn't accept any evidence coming from Palestinians. They never do.
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)