Quick update from NRO The Corner:
We now know the three questions the jury sent to the judge yesterday. This is a verbatim typed version of the foreman's handwritten note:
All three questions below relate to Count 3 (pages 74 & 75)
#1 Is the prosecution alleging that Mr. Libby did not make the statement to Cooper as presented to us in the indictment OR is the allegation that Libby did now Mrs. Wilson worked for the CIA when he spoke to the FBI on 10/14/03 or 11/26/03?
#2 Is the prosecution's allegation in Count 3, that Mr. Libby DID know that Mr. Wilson's wife worked for the CIA when he made statements to the FBI on 10/14/03 or 11/26/03 (pages 74/75 ."that Mr. Libby did not know if this was true."
#3 In determining Count 3, are we allowed to consider Mr. Libby's grand jury testimony?
This is the part of the jury instructions pages 74-75 that is hanging up the jury:
Count three of the indictment alleges that Mr. Libby falsely told the FBI on October 14 or November 16, 2003, that during a conversation with Matthew Cooper of Time magazine on July 12, 2003, Mr. Libby told Mr. Cooper that reporters were telling the administration that Mr. Wilson's wife worked for the CIA, but that Mr. Libby did not know if this was true.
It's easy to criticize the jury they can seem easily confused but the problem here is not the jury. It is the charge. This is the entirety of Count 3 (and Count 5, as well): Libby testified that he told Cooper that reporters were telling him, Libby, that Valerie Plame Wilson worked for the CIA, but that he, Libby, did not know if it was true. Cooper testified that Libby did not say that.
There are no notes, no recordings, no records, no nothing to support either man's story. Just Libby's testimony versus Cooper's testimony. And prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald has asked the jury to convict Libby of a felony, one that carries a maximum sentence of five years in prison, on that astonishingly flimsy allegation. No wonder the jury is confused.
Posted by: Steve ||
03/06/2007 10:58 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
From Drudge: Some jury room confusion about what exactly former White House aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby is accused of doing.
Amen exactly what is the crime here? Since Super Secret CIA Agent was secret what exactly what crime was Libby attempting to cover up when he gave testimony, and if there was no crime to cover up, why would someone lie? Seems to me that Fitz hit the ground running, ran right over the truth, and never noticed. Or maybe he noticed and didnt care because I (for one) was put off by his pre-trial comments when he knew for certain that the original crime for which he was pursuing never happened. It is as if he HAD to make something out of nothing. Never should have gone to trial.
#3
Former White House aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby was convicted Tuesday of obstruction, perjury and lying to the FBI an investigation into the leak of a CIA operative's identity.
Posted by: Steve ||
03/06/2007 12:04 Comments ||
Top||
#4
From Mark Levin at The Corner, watching a Fox interview of one of the jurist:
"Fair" Trial [Mark R. Levin]
The former journalist-juror also said he and his colleagues wanted to know "where's Rove?"
And then...
Dreaming [Mark R. Levin]
As I think about it, "where's Rove" tells me that the jurors wanted to convict others at the White House who hadn't been charged. It turns out this jury was a prosecutor's dream.
#6
Having been on a jury once (cut-and-dried case of drug trafficking), if I had had this much trouble understanding what the charges even were I would NEVER have voted guilty. From what I've seen, I think the jurors were remiss here too.
Politicized intelligence? This time it's for real.
By John Bolton
Washington's most important person--the Anonymous Senior Official ("ASO")--was busy last week, briefing reporters on North Korea's uranium enrichment program.
The North's pursuit of nuclear weapons through uranium enrichment, an alternative to reprocessing plutonium from spent fuel at the Yongbyon reactor, constituted both a material breach of the 1994 Agreed Framework and an enormous challenge to the hope that it could ever be negotiated out of pursuing nuclear weapons. Based, however, on one public comment and much work by Mr./Ms. ASO, the media last week set about deconstructing a critical strategic concern underlying Bush administration Korea policy. According to their breathless reporting, yet another threat to America was disappearing, revealed as simply more intelligence hype from an administration that apparently did little else in its first term.
The reports raise three separate issues. First, what exactly is the intelligence judgment about North Korea's enrichment activities, and how valid was it in 2002? Second, what are the implications for the administration's ongoing negotiations with North Korea? And third, is Mr./Ms. ASO speaking for the Bush administration, or for those elements in the permanent bureaucracy that have consistently opposed key elements of the Bush foreign policy, at least as conducted until recently?
On the first question, concerning North Korea's enrichment activities, there is actually less here than meets the eye. The only attributable public comment is from Joseph DeTrani, mission manager for North Korea for the Director of National Intelligence, who said that he now had a "mid-confidence level" about North Korea's program, down from "high confidence." Mr. DeTrani's testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee recounted how, in October 2002, the U.S. confronted Pyongyang "with information they were acquiring material sufficient for a production-scale capability of enriching uranium," and how North Korea "admitted to having such a program." Mr. DeTrani continued, "we've never walked away from that issue." Indeed, in 2002, intelligence community officials told me that new evidence erased existing, long-standing disagreements within the community about what the North was up to since the mid-1990s, producing a remarkable consensus that has not, to my knowledge, broken down since.
Neither in Mr. DeTrani's testimony, nor in any of Mr./Ms. ASO's backgrounding, is there any reversal on actual facts, only an apparent shift in the "confidence level." My understanding is that the decrease in confidence stems from the absence of significant new or contemporary information about North Korea's activities. This lack of new information may be attributable to a loss of sensitive sources and methods, or it may be attributable to the effectiveness of President Bush's Proliferation Security Initiative, or its creative financial sanctions, in drying up North Korea's procurement activity. But there has been no suggestion that the intelligence from 2002 and earlier has been contradicted or discredited. Mr. DeTrani's testimony is expressly to the contrary. Indeed, on Saturday he reiterated this precise point in a second public statement.
Moreover, as Donald Rumsfeld likes to say, "the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." If we lack new intelligence, analysts should say so explicitly, and policy makers can draw appropriate conclusions, one of which might well be that the North is simply better at concealing its clandestine nuclear activities, not that those activities don't exist. What analysts should not do is to cast doubt on earlier intelligence, or change confidence levels, if there are no other reasons to do so. In any event, there is nothing here to allow anyone to conclude that the 2002 intelligence conclusions were flawed or hyped.
This raises the second issue. Mr./Ms. ASO's backgrounding is really about the ongoing six-party talks, and less about what happened in 2002. In any arms-control negotiation, the need for verification is directly correlated to the propensity of the other side to lie, cheat and conceal its undesirable activities. In the present case, the greater the likelihood that North Korea will make commitments it has absolutely no intention of following, the more intrusive and pervasive should be the verification mechanism we insist on. Determining in this or any other case how invasive the verification process must be obviously depends in large part on the historical record.
North Korea's aggressive mendacity puts it near the top of the list, perhaps tied with Iran for the lead, of countries that need the most transparent, most intrusive, most pervasive verification systems. For America to agree to anything less would be to make our national security, and that of close friends and allies like Japan, dependent on North Korea's word--never a safe bet. And yet, it is precisely this extensive verification system that the North cannot accept, because the transparency we must require would threaten the very rock of domestic oppression on which the North Korean regime rests. North Korea's negotiators understand this contradiction. So do ours.
The only way around this problem is to conclude it doesn't exist, or is so minimal it can be "fixed" in negotiations. That's why Mr./Ms. ASO was busy, laying the foundation to argue that further deals with North Korea do not require much, if any, verification beyond what little the International Atomic Energy Agency can provide. If we continue this approach, what is already a bad deal will become a dangerous deal, whether we make it with North Korea directly or in the six-party talks. (As Nick Eberstadt has put it, a bad agreement with six parties is no better than a bad agreement with two parties.)
And that brings us to the third issue: Where exactly is the administration headed? Mr./Ms. ASO's identity is by definition unknown, but the view is spreading that this backgrounding is more than the bureaucracy's ruminations. I have my own unnamed senior officials who tell me it's not so, but the question remains. President Bush himself must speak, and sooner rather than later, to tell us what he thinks of the intelligence, and the direction of his own policy. Recent polls show his approval rating near 30%, with support among Republicans falling precipitously. If the president's conservative base erodes further, where will his support come from? From liberal editorialists enthusing about his newfound foreign policy "pragmatism"? Based on my personal experience, the president will not have both.
Mr. Bolton is a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. and the author of "Surrender Is Not an Option: Defending America at the U.N. and Abroad," forthcoming this fall from Simon & Schuster.
#1
Bear in mind that as long as both RUSSIA-CHINA adhere to anti-US-Western ASSASSINS MACE doctrines or premises, anti-democratic national policies, and as long as China per se refuses to give up on Chinese-centric. Commie-centric, Asia-Pacific hegemony, AMERICA HAS A [CONTINGENCY]INTEREST IN NORTH KOREA HAVING NUKES.
#2
America once suppor SADDAM in order to stop the perceived regional and global GREATER THREAT from the spread of Radical Islamist fundamentalism-Empirism from Iran + Ayatollah Khomeini. NO DIFFEREN FOR KIMMIE.
#3
Well, she was convinced not because she was a Democrat, but because -
Most importantly, he provided more than political diatribes that the public has learned to shut off. He leveraged his humility, humor, and passion to scare, then inspire and mobilize, the public.
I guess if I'd watch the movie, I'd be convinced, too....
Posted by: Bobby ||
03/06/2007 15:18 Comments ||
Top||
#4
I watched it. It sucked.
Posted by: Deacon Blues ||
03/06/2007 16:11 Comments ||
Top||
#5
#4 Deacon - was that on DVD at home?
'Cuz I'd think your hysterical laughter would have gotten you thrown out of the theater.... ;-p
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
03/06/2007 16:28 Comments ||
Top||
#6
I held my nose and got about 1/3 through beforre the "Religious Stink got too bad to ignore, she sounds exactly like one of those religious nuts that stand up and scream "HALLEUJAH on cue when the bible thumping tent "Revivialist" moans JeSUS,
altogether a phony "Conversion" Wailing for attention before strangers to show their "FAITH"
all in all a phony "Conversion for public notice not for "Faith". Politely put BULLSHIT.
Posted by: Redneck Jim ||
03/06/2007 20:32 Comments ||
Top||
#7
Excerpt from her "About" page:
"I'm a 3 on the Enneagram, a Gemini, and common sense isn't one of my virtues."
That about sums her up.
Why a South Carolina teen has to work his way through high school.
At 16 years old, Rontrell Matthews has a better idea than most of his peers what an education is worth. This past summer, he made his way through this rural, poor community not far outside of Charleston to show up at the doorstep of Capers Preparatory Christian Academy. In his hand was his first paycheck, a meager sum of $32.86 that he'd earned making sandwiches at the local Subway shop. Spurring him along was a determination to buy his own way out of one of the state's many failing public schools.
School choice is always controversial, and often opposed on the grounds that it will undermine public schools, subsidize middle-class parents and cherry-pick the "best" kids for a private education. After meeting Rontrell in Capers' cramped conference room on a recent afternoon, it's hard to disagree that school choice in this state would help one of the best kids get a better education. Rontrell is now excelling in school, encouraging his younger brother to study hard. He has landed a partial scholarship and continues to work at Subway to pay part of his $400-a-month tuition bill. He's a good kid.
But as South Carolina's state Legislature now debates whether to allow parents to use a modicum of government funds to send their children to a school of their choosing, public or private, it's difficult to accept the objections of school choice on their merits. Rontrell freely admits that he was a problem student in public school, acting up in class and neglecting to hit the books. He might have just as easily given up. He notes his friends from public school still tell him that he's "stupid" for turning his paychecks over to Capers.
The question was simple, the answer, direct: You joke about Islam, we will kill you. So was the pronouncement of a man calling himself "Kabli," a former board member of Amsterdam's Assoenna Mosque, who acted as an interpreter for the imam during an interview with a Dutch student newspaper, Folia.
And the response? Furor in the press. Silence from the comedians. The fear has grown so tall.
The catalyst for the entire event was the comedy act of Ewout Jansen, a 24-year-old law student, and his comic partner, Etienne Kemerink, though it is Jansen who has been at the center of the tale and of the fury. Ewout and Etienne, as the duo is known, perform regularly throughout the country, basing their act largely as many comedians do on current news and trends. In Holland, where stories about multiculturalism, Islam, and Dutch-Muslim relations blacken the country's eighty-odd newspapers, Jansen finds the topic unavoidable; and so for five minutes of his 100-minute act, he addresses it. Among his jokes is a reference to the killing of Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh, who was assassinated in 2004 after creating a documentary about the treatment of Muslim women. In the past, Jansen acknowledges, occasional performances at schools produced tense moments but nothing he ever found particularly threatening. "A kid would say something like, 'stop that, or I'll beat you up,'" he says, "but I never took it seriously (although I did sometimes think, 'well, okay, I'm prepared to take a beating.')"
Continued on Page 49
#1
The hypocrites are afraid
lest a sura should be sent down against them
telling thee what is in their hearts
Say: Mock on
Prophet pumped the car-scar
Deeper only sweeter
Loves everyone
Mock on
Yeah yeah yeah
Posted by: Tyrannosaurus Rex ||
03/06/2007 8:57 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Seeking to mend fences and to better understand the issue, Jansen then invited the imam of Assoenna and others including the Vice-Chairman of the Dutch Union of Moroccan Mosques, Driss el-Boujoufi to join him in a televised discussion over tea. The conversation was friendly and polite, but Ewout had one particular request. "Could you look into the camera," he asked the imam, "and say that people can make jokes about Islam without getting into trouble, and Ewout doesn't have to die?"
He could not. "They said, 'we have to go to a mufti, to know the answer," Ewout recalls. (A mufti is an expert who interprets sharia law.) "They could never say that I'm allowed to make jokes about Islam, because Islam itself is very clear on the matter." The imam denied, however, previous reports that a fatwa had been declared on Jansen's head, the comedian says. "He basically said, 'I'm just the imam. I don't have the authority to give a fatwa.' But he didn't say he wouldn't."
Well, *I* don't need to ask the Pope to give an authoritatve answer to that question.
#3
Ease back on the caffeine Kabli. Your underwear's a little bunched up. Get rid of the asshat, it is giving you and me a headache. Get a sense of humor and a friggin life asshole.
W.H. Auden, whose centenary fell late last month, had an extraordinary capacity to summon despairbut in such a way as to simultaneously inspire resistance to fatalism. His most beloved poem is probably September 1, 1939, in which he sees Europe toppling into a chasm of darkness. Reflecting on how this catastrophe for civilization had come about, he wrote:
Exiled Thucydides knew
All that a speech can say
About Democracy,
And what dictators do,
The elderly rubbish they talk
To an apathetic grave;
Analyzed all in his book,
The enlightenment driven away,
The habit-forming pain,
Mismanagement and grief:
We must suffer them all again.
"The enlightenment driven away " This very strong and bitter line came back to me when I saw the hostile, sneaky reviews that have been dogging the success of Ayaan Hirsi Ali's best seller Infidel, which describes the escape of a young Somali woman from sexual chattelhood to a new life in Holland and then (after the slaying of her friend Theo van Gogh) to a fresh exile in the United States. Two of our leading intellectual commentators, Timothy Garton Ash (in the New York Review of Books) and Ian Buruma, described Hirsi Ali, or those who defend her, as "Enlightenment fundamentalist[s]." In Sunday's New York Times Book Review, Buruma made a further borrowing from the language of tyranny and intolerance and described her view as an "absolutist" one.
Now, I know both Garton Ash and Buruma, and I remember what fun they used to have, in the days of the Cold War, with people who proposed a spurious "moral equivalence" between the Soviet and American sides. Much of this critique involved attention to language. Buruma was very mordant about those German leftists who referred to the "consumer terrorism" of the federal republic. You can fill in your own preferred example here; the most egregious were (and, come to think of it, still are) those who would survey the U.S. prison system and compare it to the Gulag.
In her book, Ayaan Hirsi Ali says the following: "I left the world of faith, of genital cutting and forced marriage for the world of reason and sexual emancipation. After making this voyage I know that one of these two worlds is simply better than the other. Not for its gaudy gadgetry, but for its fundamental values." This is a fairly representative quotation. She has her criticisms of the West, but she prefers it to a society where women are subordinate, censorship is pervasive, and violence is officially preached against unbelievers. As an African victim of, and escapee from, this system, she feels she has acquired the right to say so. What is "fundamentalist" about that?
The Feb. 26 edition of Newsweek takes up where Garton Ash and Buruma leave off and says, in an article by Lorraine Ali, that, "It's ironic that this would-be 'infidel' often sounds as single-minded and reactionary as the zealots she's worked so hard to oppose." I would challenge the author to give her definition of irony and also to produce a single statement from Hirsi Ali that would come close to materializing that claim. Accompanying the article is a typically superficial Newsweek Q&A sidebar, which is almost unbelievably headed: "A Bombthrower's Life." The subject of this absurd headline is a woman who has been threatened with horrific violence, by Muslims varying from moderate to extreme, ever since she was a little girl. She has more recently had to see a Dutch friend butchered in the street, been told that she is next, and now has to live with bodyguards in Washington, D.C. She has never used or advocated violence. Yet to whom does Newsweek refer as the "Bombthrower"? It's always the same with these bogus equivalences: They start by pretending loftily to find no difference between aggressor and victim, and they end up by saying that it's the victim of violence who is "really" inciting it.
Garton Ash and Buruma would once have made short work of any apologist who accused the critics of the U.S.S.R. or the People's Republic of China of "heating up the Cold War" if they made any points about human rights. Why, then, do they grant an exception to Islam, which is simultaneously the ideology of insurgent violence and of certain inflexible dictatorships? Is it because Islam is a "faith"? Or is it because it is the faithin Europe at leastof some ethnic minorities? In neither case would any special protection from criticism be justified. Faith makes huge claims, including huge claims to temporal authority over the citizen, which therefore cannot be exempt from scrutiny. And within these "minorities," there are other minorities who want to escape from the control of their ghetto leaders. (This was also the position of the Dutch Jews in the time of Spinoza.) This is a very complex question, which will require a lot of ingenuity in its handling. The pathetic oversimplification, which describes skepticism, agnosticism, and atheism as equally "fundamentalist," is of no help here. And notice what happens when Newsweek takes up the cry: The enemy of fundamentalism is defined as someone on the fringe while, before you have had time to notice the sleight of hand, the aggrieved, self-pitying Muslim has become the uncontested tenant of the middle ground.
Let me give another example of linguistic slippage. In ACLU circles, we often refer to ourselves as "First Amendment absolutists." By this we mean, ironically enough, that we prefer to interpret the words of the Founders, if you insist, literally. The literal meaning in this case seems (to us) to be that Congress cannot inhibit any speech or establish any state religion. This means that we defend all expressions of opinion including those that revolt us, and that we say that nobody can be forced to practice, or forced to foreswear, any faith. I suppose I would say that this is an inflexible principle, or even a dogma, with me. But who dares to say that's the same as the belief that criticism of religion should be censored or the belief that faith should be imposed? To flirt with this equivalence is to give in to the demagogues and to hear, underneath their yells of triumph, the dismal moan of the trahison des clercs and "the enlightenment driven away." Perhaps, though, if I said that my principles were a matter of unalterable divine revelation and that I was prepared to use random violence in order to get "respect" for them, I could hope for a more sympathetic audience from some of our intellectuals.
Ali Reza Azkari has disappeared. Gone. Vanished. No sign, no trace. The last time Azkari was seen was in Istanbul, disembarking from a plane.
Who is Ali Reza Azkari? For those who know the languages of the Middle East it is obvious from his middle name, Reza, that Ali is Iranian. Those who follow Iranian political history will know that he was a former Iranian deputy defense minister. And for many years Ali Reza Azkari was the highest ranking Iranian intelligence officer in Lebanon.
February 7th is the last time Ali Reza Azkari was sighted. Iran has sent a team to Turkey to investigate the situation. Iran has asked Interpol to intercede and help find their man. Iran has asked local Turkish authorities for their eyes, ears and assistance. To date, there are no leads. Nothing, just dead ends.
The one thing Iran has not done is issue an official statement speaking of the disappearance of one of their top officials and most valued diplomats. Iran has not yet officially recognized the disappearance, the probable kidnapping, of a man who holds - in his head - the secrets of the nation of Iran.
Azkari's plane originated in Damascus, Syria and touched down in Istanbul, Turkey. He was either grabbed from the airport or from his hotel. He was a former Iranian deputy defense minister. And for many years Ali Reza Azkari was the highest ranking Iranian intelligence officer in Lebanon.
Who would do such a thing? The Mossad.
I'll tell you who else -- the good ol' red, white and blue CIA, in a plan coordinated with the Mossad. The CIA has a vast set of resources and a large operation working out of Istanbul. The Mossad has the language skills and the cultural ease and know-how necessary to do the job.
Ali Reza Azkari has first hand knowledge that is vital to Israel. Ron Arad, an Israeli navigator was shot down and taken captive over Lebanon in 1986 -- precisely during the period when Azkari was Iran's man in Lebanon. Arad, now an Israeli icon, is still missing -- his fate and whereabouts completely unknown. If the Israelis have Azkari they have access to essential information about Arad, about where he, or his body, have been for the past twenty-one years, about why no group has ever cut a deal with Israel for his return. And there is more. If the Israelis have Azkari they have the intelligence they need about Iran's nuclear threat and Iran's real and actual interest and ability to strike at Israel.
If they have him and if they can break him.
Ali Reza Azkari holds a virtual gold mine of information for the United States. Azkari made decisions, implemented decisions and witnessed operations. Azkari was an Iranian player, a big time player. The intelligence and strategic material that Azkari has, the first-hand, hands-on, top secret and behind-closed-doors information that he was privy to is the intelligence that the United States needs in order to accurately and efficiently deal with Iran.
If they have him and if they can break him.
The disappearance of Ali Reza Azkari is Iran's worst nightmare come to life. He is a living national resource. If Azkari is broken, if he talks, the United States and Israel will know the truth about Iran's arsenal and Iran's objectives. The United States and Israel will know the truth about the threats menacing them. They will know fact from fiction.
One of the most immediate and intimidating threats facing the United States and Israel and the European world is the threat of sleeper cells. Just recently the Telegraph of London published a report maintaining that if Iran were to be attacked Iran would retaliate by hitting United States and European interests throughout the Gulf. The report quoted a former Iranian diplomat as saying that Iran has trained great numbers of operatives who now have their missions and await the message to activate their plans. The same source also said that these sleeper operatives were recruiting other Shiites in their local environments.
If it's true, it is scary, very scary. If it is true Azkari is the man who could identify the targets and identify the sleepers. Azkari has the information, he knows who is embedded and where and he knows how deep and organized each cell really is.
Ron Arad. The true Iranian nuclear threat. Sleeper cells. There is more. Ali Reza Azkari can shed light on Iran's pursuit of Al Qaeda. He has insider information about the true extent and power of Hezbollah. He knows which countries are aiding Hezbollah, he knows how much comes from Syria and how much comes from Iran.
And he can unmask Russia, the country that has been playing both sides against the middle, the country that supplies Iran and Syria and sits back and watches while Iran and Syria turn around and hand over their Russian-gotten goods to Hezbollah. In the recent war between Hezbollah and Israel, the most dangerous weapons came directly from Syria having been imported from Russia. And Russia is the power building the nuclear power plants, supplying the technology and lending the support Iran needs to develop its own nuclear program.
Most important of all, Ali Reza Azkari can answer the big question: Is Iran as brave, tough, organized and advanced as we would believe. Or is Iran a modern day former Soviet Union -- lots of bark and almost no bite, a big bluff, an emperor with no clothes. Is Iran as prepared for conflict and conquest as Iranian leadership would have us believe or is Iranian leadership more expert at propaganda than it is at military and nuclear preparedness.
The Unites States and Israel probably have Azkari. Now they need to get into his head.
Posted by: Steve ||
03/06/2007 09:22 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[6 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
My Dream is to "Return" all Russian Weapons to Russia, Them being on the receiving end, of course. Moscow as rubble should be a sufficient warning,
Posted by: Redneck Jim ||
03/06/2007 11:16 Comments ||
Top||
#5
If the Bush administration was that dangerous, Seymour Hersch would have been a grease spot on the L&N a long time ago. He is just a sensational headlines grabber, a hack.
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
03/06/2007 15:12 Comments ||
Top||
#6
...the Most Dangerous in History...
...Until, of course, the NEXT Republican administration.
Mike
Posted by: Mike Kozlowski ||
03/06/2007 16:20 Comments ||
Top||
#7
I rather Seless Hersh...or maybe Semore Hersh in the ground.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
Ali Reza Azkari has disappeared. Gone. Vanished. No sign, no trace. The last time Azkari was seen was in Istanbul, disembarking from a plane. 
