Venezuela's strongman Hugo Chavez recently warned that the "winds of war" were blowing in South America, and called on his military to "prepare for combat" against neighboring Colombia, a U.S. ally. Should we take his prediction seriously, or is this another cry of "wolf" by the loud lieutenant colonel? And how worried should be the American government be in either case?
An overt Venezuela-Colombia war is unlikely. To be sure, saber-rattling by someone who wears battle fatigues in public cannot be ignored.
I should have realized that when trailing daughter #1 was running around in real U.S. army camouflage pants in her school colours -- red, black and white. I'd have been more respectful.
But Chavez's generals are in no mood to face the Colombians or anyone else. Corruption and politicization have weakened Venezuela's military, despite its acquisition of billions of dollars of Russian and other foreign weaponry. Plus, in his 10 years in power, Chavez has only ever pointed his guns at defenseless Venezuelan civilians. Bullies like him do not forewarn their intended victims. He does not fight openly, preferring to intervene covertly -- either directly or through his regional "anti-imperialist" alliance, the Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas (ALBA), a collection of the highest-decibel, lowest performing leaders in the region,
Oh my.
from countries including Cuba, Bolivia, Nicaragua, Ecuador, and, until June, Honduras.
Honduras has been the most recent target of Chavez's subversion. There, he convinced a gullible follower, Manuel Zelaya, to retain his office through ALBA's so-far successful modus operandi: After reaching power democratically, change the rules, neutralizing the legislative and judicial systems so that no opposition leader can ever rise democratically again. Chavez has guided this strategy in Bolivia and Ecuador, and ALBA member Daniel Ortega is attempting the same in Nicaragua. Thankfully, however, Honduras's institutions of democracy -- the justice system and legislature -- proved too strong. The Supreme Court unanimously found Zelaya guilty of high crimes and ordered the military to remove him from office.
Losing Zelaya -- the first reversal in the drive to spread "21st Century Socialism" in the region -- has driven Chavez to near hysteria. He has repeatedly promised to "overthrow" the new Honduran president, Roberto Micheletti, who was constitutionally appointed to office by an overwhelming congressional vote. (All but three members of Zelaya's own party voted for Micheletti.) No Chavez soldiers have been spotted in Honduras, but there are reports that Venezuelan and Cuban intelligence operatives are fomenting violence in order to damage the government's image, a common tactic in Latin America.
In Colombia, Chavez cries wolf to disguise his concealed aggression, such as his support for the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), internationally condemned as a "narco-terrorist organization." The discovery of Venezuelan support for terrorists has routinely triggered Chavez's public tantrums. In March 2008, for example, Colombian Special Forces raided a FARC command and training camp situated more than a mile inside Ecuador. They captured laptops belonging to the FARC's second-in-command, Raul Reyes, who was killed in the assault. The computers revealed Chavez's long-standing financial, political, diplomatic, and military aid to the FARC. They documented Chavez's offer of $300 million for the FARC in Colombia and for other Marxist groups in Latin America, as well as collaboration with and political contributions to Ecuadorian President (and ALBA cheerleader) Rafael Correa, one of Chavez's most vocal allies. Correa and other leftist leaders condemned Colombia for its "violation of Ecuador's sovereignty" -- rather than denouncing the presence of a transnational terrorist camp, which must have existed with government acquiescence.
Posted by: Fred ||
08/30/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
After reaching power democratically, change the rules, neutralizing the legislative and judicial systems so that no opposition leader can ever rise democratically again
Well thank goodness that could never happen here in the USA. Right?
Sweden's foreign minister, Carl Bildt, has refused to condemn a "blood libel" published by one of Sweden's leading newspapers, Aftonbladet. The article outrageously claims that Jewish soldiers in Israel killed Palestinians to harvest their organs.
According to the New York Times, the writer of the article, Donald Bostrom, has acknowledged that "he has no idea whether the accusations are true." Yet a widely-read Swedish newspaper was prepared to publish this undocumented and highly volatile accusation without requiring its author to present any credible evidence.
Not merely prepared, but eagerly and unblushingly did so.
Not only has foreign minister Bildt refused to issue to a personal condemnation of the current "organ libel," his foreign ministry explicitly disavowed the denunciation issued by Sweden's Ambassador to Israel, who had called the article "shocking and appalling."
In a self-righteous statement, Mr. Bildt claimed that condemnation of the article would be inappropriate because freedom of expression is a part of the Swedish Constitution.
This is a bogus and ignorant argument, as anyone who understands freedom of speech will attest. I have devoted much of my life to defending freedom of speech, and consider myself something of an expert on the matter. Nobody is talking about censoring the Swedish press or imprisoning the writer of the absurd article.
What we are talking about is expanding the marketplace of ideas to include a completely warranted condemnation of sloppy journalism
Calling it sloppy journalism is entirely too kind. I'd call it pseudo-journalistic propaganda, myself...
and outrageous accusations that foment anti-Semitism in Sweden, which is already on the rise. Freedom of speech is based on an open and vibrant marketplace of ideas. No journalist is immune from criticism for bigotry and defamation, even from high ranking government officials.
Recall that virtually every government official in Europe went out of their way to condemn the perfectly innocent cartoons that offended some Muslims by portraying Mohammed. (More recently, the Yale Press withdrew these cartoons and other classic art depicting Mohammed out of fear of violent reaction.) Muslims murder "offenders", Jews try to reason with their enemies.
Without getting into the business of comparative offensiveness, no reasonable person could argue that depicting a long-dead religious figure comes anywhere close to falsely accusing contemporary Jews of murdering innocent Palestinians to steal their organs.
The reality is that the Swedish government, long known for its cowardice, simply does not want to get into a fight with the Muslim world, much like it didn't want to get into a fight with the Nazis during the Second World War.
Sweden is perfectly willing to sell out the Jews in the name of neutrality, or in this case, in the false name of freedom of expression. Its silence is beneath contempt. Next step: a Muslim child disappears, and later fond dead---much later a police investigation discovers that her family is responsible. Meanwhile Muslims, and quite a few native Swedes, vent their "righteous wrath" on the neares Jewish Community---while the Swedish police watch from sidelines
Everyone no doubt would be piously sorry after about the injuries, destruction and deaths that happened -- somehow -- to the innocent Jewish victims of the pogrom. But really, you know, the rampagers' anger is understandable under the circumstances.
#1
Yet a widely-read Swedish newspaper was prepared to publish this undocumented and highly volatile accusation without requiring its author to present any credible evidence.
A producer's job awaits at CBS for such creative skills.
#3
Officer badly needs both diciplining then firing, his own words condemn him.
Posted by: Redneck Jim ||
08/30/2009 14:08 Comments ||
Top||
#4
from Theodoresworld.net
Whan called Fairfax County Police, Reston District 703-478-0904 hit 0 for Operator. Operator confirms there is no Officer Wesley Cheeks, Jr.
Fairfax County Public Schools Security Services and they confirmed he works for them !!!!
Fairfax County Public Schools Safety And Security
http://www.fcps.edu/fts/safety-security/
Link to pages with information about director of security - patrol service
(Reuters) - A decision by the U.S. attorney general to probe deeper into alleged CIA abuse of captured terrorism suspects may not land anyone in jail, and it could just produce more headaches for President Barack Obama.
A report issued by the Central Intelligence Agency's inspector general this week offered a possible road map for building cases. It gave graphic details about interrogations going beyond approved techniques, recounting threats to kill prisoners' families, a fake execution, a use of a power drill to scare a prisoner and the fact that accused September 11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was "waterboarded" 183 times.
We could always compare to what al-Qaeda does to the people it captures ...
But legal experts say special prosecutor John Durham, named by Attorney General Eric Holder to lead the investigation, will face high hurdles to sending anyone to jail. "I think it's going to be pretty challenging because if you look at the torture statute it is very narrowly drafted," said Thomas McDonnell, a law professor at Pace University in New York. "Even using the drill as a threat, according to the torture statute, there was no physical harm so there has to be severe mental harm. But the statute then defines as it having to be prolonged mental harm," he said. "So unless you can show that it produced severe and long mental harm, it may not even fit."
Demonstrating that we caused 'prolonged mental harm' to a terrorist -- is that even possible?
But regardless of whether charges are filed or not, Obama will likely face criticism from more liberal Democratic supporters who want former Bush officials prosecuted. Republicans, including former Vice President Dick Cheney, have criticized the investigation as undermining national security. "It's almost a no-win," said Larry Sabato, a political science professor at the University of Virginia. "This is bound to be a moderate-sized to massive controversy depending on what the recommendations are."
Another legal complication in the prisoner abuse cases is that some of the interrogations were done outside the United States, and many were done years ago which raises questions of whether they can still be prosecuted. Glen Donath, a former federal prosecutor and now a partner at the law firm Sonnenschein Nath and Rosenthal, said that the prisoners would also have a motive to complain after being held for so long under such conditions.
Al-Qaeda terrs are taught to complain from the get-go so as to use our system against us. Bet Holder never considered that ...
"All of these things would be firing off against wanting to prosecute this unless the evidence was compelling," Donath said, adding that it would have to be along the lines of an interrogator trying to kill someone or trying to inflict harm "with no motive of gathering intelligence."
One of the biggest hurdles Durham likely faces is that Bush Justice Department lawyers wrote lengthy memos authorizing the CIA to use coercive techniques. Interrogators could use those memos as a defense. The ACLU has also called for prosecuting the attorneys who offered extensive legal backing for the techniques, Steven Bradbury, Jay Bybee and John Yoo.
Thus criminalizing the act of giving legal advice ...
But that too poses problems for Durham. "I think it's pretty much close to impossible to prove that in their minds and heart of hearts they understood that the law provided otherwise but they were just doing what their masters wanted," Donath said.
#3
Just because the law in force at the time doesn't make it illegal, doesn't mean the CIA employees can't be prosecuted and convicted. If necessary, Obama could issue an Executive Order to make it illegal, or Congress could pass a law making it illegal retroactively.
Yes, I know that there is that pesky thing in the Constitution about ex-post-facto laws, but so what? What these people did was MEAN. So we should prosecute them.
/liberal "logic"
Posted by: Rambler in Virginia ||
08/30/2009 18:38 Comments ||
Top||
This is in the San Fran Chronicle. When the White House loses the Chronicle, it's just lost ...
Debra J. Saunders
When he served as deputy attorney general, now Attorney General Eric Holder gave a "neutral leaning positive" recommendation that led to President Bill Clinton's pardoning of gazillionaire fugitive Marc Rich, who was on the lam in Switzerland hiding from federal charges of fraud, evading more than $48 million in taxes, racketeering and trading oil with Iran in violation of a U.S. embargo.
Holder also had a role in the 1999 Clinton pardons of 16 Puerto Rico independence terrorists - members of the bomb-happy FALN or the splinter group Los Macheteros - who had been convicted on such charges as bank robbery, possession of explosives and participating in a seditious conspiracy - even though none of the 16 had applied for clemency. As the Los Angeles Times reported, two of the 16 refused to accept the pardon - as it required them to renounce violence - while another later was killed in a shootout with federal agents.
During his confirmation hearing in January, Holder refused to explain why the Clinton Department of Justice changed its earlier position against the 16 commutations - citing Clinton's claim of executive privilege.
So you'll forgive me if I don't buy into the argument that, as a simple lawman, Holder had no choice but to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate alleged abuses during CIA interrogations of high-value detainees.
Posted by: Steve White ||
08/30/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[6 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
No, he should not pardon them. He shouldn't prosecute or investigate them (again) in the first place.
A LOT of good people are going to die someday because interrogators will be afraid to do anything more than ask nicely if the captives know anything about future attacks. Even if their methods currently meet the Army Field Manual, even if their questioning is sanctioned by the Geneva Conventions, the UN, every treaty and law in force at the time, and common sense, interrogators will have to worry that, based on this precedent, a future administration will prosecute them.
As a result, all a prisoner has to do is to ask for his lawyer and the questioning will end. And many Americans (and others) will die.
Posted by: Rambler in Virginia ||
08/30/2009 0:57 Comments ||
Top||
#2
I agree with that. The CIA is sufficiently dysfunctional at its upper levels, and has been for so long, it's a wonder that the field agents get anything done.
The whole point of this exercise is to intimidate and cow the field officers and mid-level ops people. You and I don't know all the details of what these folks have done in Afghanistan, the Middle East, Latin America, etc., but rest assured some of the most liberal Dhimmicrats do. They're the ones rattling the chains on this.
It's all about their narrative, and dead Americans matter not at all.
Posted by: Steve White ||
08/30/2009 1:13 Comments ||
Top||
#3
I'm not sure he has lost the Chronicle. Pardoning them implies they are guilty of a crime. Perhaps this is just sugar to help the medicine go down.
#4
...of course in the meantime, the DoJ has decided NOT to go forward with prosecution of Gov. Richardson (D-NM). Do I discern a pattern here? /rhetorical question.
Note well the whining and crying when the government has transitioned and these decision makers become 'former' as well and are subject to prosecution for their acts or failure to act during their tenure. This is the seed that grows that leads to the point where the loser will not give up power because the consequences are just as great as destroying the entire system for them and their retention of power.
#5
Debra Saunders is a real conservative columnist (eg not David Brooks) for the Chronicle -- to their credit -- and should have the disclaimer "Ms. Saunders' views do not necessarily reflect the looney left tinfoil hat wearing views of this fish wrap."
And a pardon should not be necessary: BO pulls the wires on Holder, who is a weak man and opportunitist, and is using the AG to further his agenda.
Posted by: regular joe ||
08/30/2009 11:13 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Saunders is the SFChron's house conservative (i.e.: "sane voice") - kinda like Jeff Jacoby at the Boston Globe. I agree - they did nothing wrong so there's no need for a pardon. The criminal charges should happen to Holder, Pelosi, Reid, et al, when the next attack happens on American soil or kills Americans abroad. Traitorous scum.
Posted by: Frank G ||
08/30/2009 11:14 Comments ||
Top||
#7
...BO pulls the wires on Holder, who is a weak man and opportunist, and is using the AG to further his agenda.
Joe, do you honestly think Bambi has the cojones/stones to oppose
the loony left's agenda? He is as weak and opportunistic (if not more so) as Holder or any other of his appointees.
As Steve White succinctly put it...
It's all about their narrative, and dead Americans matter not at all.
Posted by: Steve White 2009-08-30 01:13
#9
WolfDog we're on the same page. My point, though awkwardly made is the AG is following BO's agenda
Posted by: regular joe ||
08/30/2009 14:55 Comments ||
Top||
#10
When KSM is waterboarded as many time as people he is responsible for killing, thus feeling like he was dieing 3K plus times, then I might feel they have done enough. Until then as far as I'm concerned they need to get out the hose and go back to work...
Posted by: 49 Pan ||
08/30/2009 21:26 Comments ||
Top||
#11
We have a Marxist clique in power who treat American citizens alternately as enemies and mushrooms and our enemies like their superiors and celebrities. But then, every Marxist regime has done far more damage internally than to external enemies.
I believe we should have shoved a fire hose up each and every one of those murdering muslim asses until they truly believed they were fountain fairies. Then get downright mean on their families, clan and tribe.
Posted by: ed ||
08/30/2009 22:18 Comments ||
Top||
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.
Venezuela's strongman Hugo Chavez recently warned that the "winds of war" were blowing in South America, and called on his military to "prepare for combat" against neighboring Colombia, a U.S. ally. Should we take his prediction seriously, or is this another cry of "wolf" by the loud lieutenant colonel? And how worried should be the American government be in either case?
