Af/Pak & Libya News (10/30/2011)

dump...@hotmail.com

unread,

Oct 30, 2011, 6:40:16 PM10/30/11

to

SolomonW

unread,

Oct 31, 2011, 10:26:02 AM10/31/11

to

On Sun, 30 Oct 2011 15:40:16 -0700 (PDT), dump...@hotmail.com wrote:

> Transitional government prefers to try Gadhafi son in Libya:
>
> http://edition.cnn.com/2011/10/30/world/africa/libya-gadhafi-son/

After what happened to his father, if given a choice between the ICCC and
the Libyan, I am sure Saif would prefer the ICC.

Dennis

unread,

Oct 31, 2011, 4:37:48 PM10/31/11

to

It didn't last that long. I suppose he's worried about having his corpse
defecated - I mean, desecrated.

Dennis

Dennis

unread,

Oct 31, 2011, 4:38:40 PM10/31/11

to

I wonder if he's talked to the USA? After all, *we're* not a signatory to
the ICC! :-)

Dennis

SolomonW

unread,

Oct 31, 2011, 8:28:24 PM10/31/11

to

The USA would not get him out of Libya and if he can get out, why would he
go to the ICC?

SolomonW

unread,

Oct 31, 2011, 8:34:52 PM10/31/11

to

I should also add, that his punishment if convicted in the US could
depending what state gets him be either the death penalty or life
imprisonment. He would be better off with the ICCC where there is no death
penalty

William Black

unread,

Oct 31, 2011, 8:39:41 PM10/31/11

to

What on earth do you charge him with?

Being his father's son?

--
William Black

Free men have open minds
If you want loyalty, buy a dog...

Dan

unread,

Oct 31, 2011, 8:51:55 PM10/31/11

to

I don't know if the U.S. has standing to charge him with anything. If
the U.S. can charge him it will be federal, the states will have no
authority. The federal government has the death penalty.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

William Black

unread,

Oct 31, 2011, 9:57:54 PM10/31/11

to

But first you need a crime.

Dennis

unread,

Nov 1, 2011, 12:01:36 AM11/1/11

to

Well, most of his crimes were committed against his own citizens, on his
own soil. A lot of those would be crimes against humanity. Do those come
under the US Criminal Code?

His father *did* kill some US servicemen in a disco, for which we
retaliated in Operation Eldorado Canyon. There's also the Pan An 103
bombing; I believe there were some US citizens there. So those would be
good for some murder charges.

Also charges of nuclear trafficking, drug trafficking, terrorism, though
prior agreements might have excused those.

Dennis

SolomonW

unread,

Nov 1, 2011, 3:24:46 AM11/1/11

to

My understanding is that General Noriega, was tried under Florida law.

dott.Piergiorgio

unread,

Nov 1, 2011, 7:32:00 AM11/1/11

to

Il 01/11/2011 05:01, Dennis ha scritto:

> Well, most of his crimes were committed against his own citizens, on his
> own soil. A lot of those would be crimes against humanity. Do those come
> under the US Criminal Code?
>
> His father *did* kill some US servicemen in a disco, for which we
> retaliated in Operation Eldorado Canyon. There's also the Pan An 103
> bombing; I believe there were some US citizens there. So those would be
> good for some murder charges.
>
> Also charges of nuclear trafficking, drug trafficking, terrorism, though
> prior agreements might have excused those.

well, the main accusation whose can brought on by USA (and UK) is the
Lockerbie bombing, only issue, saif at that time was only 13, and this
will start a massive US-EU juridical flamefest.....

Best regards from Italy,
dott. Piergiorgio.

William Black

unread,

Nov 1, 2011, 9:36:40 AM11/1/11

to

On 01/11/11 04:01, Dennis wrote:
>
> His father *did* kill some US servicemen in a disco, for which we
> retaliated in Operation Eldorado Canyon.

His father is dead dead dead.

Even the US government won't prosecute a man for something his father did.

William Black

unread,

Nov 1, 2011, 9:37:14 AM11/1/11

to

That's because he pushed drugs in Florida...

Dan

unread,

Nov 1, 2011, 12:37:26 PM11/1/11

to

He was tried under federal law in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida. The charges were money laundering,
drug trafficking and racketeering.

Andrew Swallow

unread,

Nov 1, 2011, 4:58:09 PM11/1/11

to

Britain would simply deliver Saif to the International Criminal Court
(ICC) to be tried for crimes against humanity.
<http://www.icc-cpi.int/Menus/ICC/Situations+and+Cases/Situations/ICC0111/Situation+Index.htm>
The warrants have already been issued. The paperwork would need
modifying to action Britain rather than Libya but that is not difficult.

Andrew Swallow

Dennis

unread,

Nov 1, 2011, 6:24:56 PM11/1/11

to

William Black wrote:

> On 01/11/11 04:01, Dennis wrote:
>>
>> His father *did* kill some US servicemen in a disco, for which we
>> retaliated in Operation Eldorado Canyon.
>
> His father is dead dead dead.

And good riddance! May the desert vultures feast well on his carcass.

> Even the US government won't prosecute a man for something his father
> did.

There might be more recent crimes he was complicit in.

Dennis

William Black

unread,

Nov 1, 2011, 7:30:58 PM11/1/11

to

Over which the USA has jurisdiction?

His best move is going to a country where the International Court has no
jurisdiction and scream blue murder that there's no evidence and it's
all a plot top undermine his late father's memory.

Mind you, I also suggested that Osama's best tactic was to turn up in
the UK and claim he shouldn't be extradited.

He wasn't listening either...

Although it looks like Assange jumped the right way...

Dennis

unread,

Nov 1, 2011, 10:44:51 PM11/1/11

to

William Black wrote:

>> There might be more recent crimes he was complicit in.
>
> Over which the USA has jurisdiction?
>
> His best move is going to a country where the International Court has no
> jurisdiction and scream blue murder that there's no evidence and it's
> all a plot top undermine his late father's memory.
>
> Mind you, I also suggested that Osama's best tactic was to turn up in
> the UK and claim he shouldn't be extradited.
>
> He wasn't listening either...
>
> Although it looks like Assange jumped the right way...

Do you mean that the UK doesn't cooperate with extraditions?

Dennis

dott.Piergiorgio

unread,

Nov 1, 2011, 10:54:34 PM11/1/11

to

Il 02/11/2011 00:30, William Black ha scritto:
> On 01/11/11 22:24, Dennis wrote:

> Mind you, I also suggested that Osama's best tactic was to turn up in
> the UK and claim he shouldn't be extradited.

this was the perfect tactic for the late colonel, with Italy instead of
UK (he was born well west of Alamein few months prior of the Battle....)

Dennis

unread,

Nov 1, 2011, 11:37:17 PM11/1/11

to

dott.Piergiorgio wrote:

> Il 02/11/2011 00:30, William Black ha scritto:
>> On 01/11/11 22:24, Dennis wrote:
>
>> Mind you, I also suggested that Osama's best tactic was to turn up in
>> the UK and claim he shouldn't be extradited.
>
> this was the perfect tactic for the late colonel, with Italy instead of
> UK (he was born well west of Alamein few months prior of the Battle....)

??? Throw himself on the mercy of the court (and the Dwarf) in Italy? Non
capisco!

Dennis

Kerryn Offord

unread,

Nov 2, 2011, 5:21:17 AM11/2/11

to

They are probably more cooperative than the USA...

however... any extradition from UK to USA would require that the death
penalty not be available

SolomonW

unread,

Nov 2, 2011, 6:16:58 AM11/2/11

to

Yes you are right.

William Black

unread,

Nov 2, 2011, 7:26:46 AM11/2/11

to

They do, but they won't extradite to places that have capital punishment
or even an expectation of cruel treatment.

William Black

unread,

Nov 2, 2011, 7:29:05 AM11/2/11

to

He has a claim to Italian nationality...

Neither could he be extradited to any jurisdiction where he may face
capital punishment.

I'm not sure if Italy will even allow the extradition of an Italian
citizen outside the EC

Jeff

unread,

Nov 2, 2011, 8:19:57 AM11/2/11

to

Not quite correct; the UK will, and do, extradite to places where
there is capital punishment, just not for offences that carry the death
penalty.

Jeff

Andrew Swallow

unread,

Nov 2, 2011, 8:48:06 AM11/2/11

to

Britain only extradites to 'Nice' countries. Sweden is nice but
Gadaffi's Libya was not.

Andrew Swallow

JurassicPark

unread,

Nov 2, 2011, 10:28:23 AM11/2/11

to

"William Black" ha scritto nel messaggio
news:j8r9i1$2nv$2...@dont-email.me...

On 02/11/11 03:37, Dennis wrote:
> dott.Piergiorgio wrote:
>
>> Il 02/11/2011 00:30, William Black ha scritto:
>>> On 01/11/11 22:24, Dennis wrote:
>>
>>> Mind you, I also suggested that Osama's best tactic was to turn up
>>> in
>>> the UK and claim he shouldn't be extradited.
>>
>> this was the perfect tactic for the late colonel, with Italy
>> instead of
>> UK (he was born well west of Alamein few months prior of the
>> Battle....)
>
> ??? Throw himself on the mercy of the court (and the Dwarf) in
> Italy? Non
> capisco!

> He has a claim to Italian nationality...

No, he had not

> Neither could he be extradited to any jurisdiction where he may face
> capital punishment.

This is true , but if he somehow 'd have fled to Italy he surely 'd
have been extradited to the International Tribunal of The Hague: he 'd
have escaped impalement, but 'd have got a life sentence.

> I'm not sure if Italy will even allow the extradition of an Italian
> citizen outside the EC

Italy allows extradition of a citizen only when there is a specific
extradition convention with the State requesting it (all EC States,
for an instance); but Ghadafi was NOT an Italian citizen, nor he had
any serious claim to citizenship, so this is irrelevant.

Carlo "Jurassic Park"

William Black

unread,

Nov 2, 2011, 12:14:59 PM11/2/11

to

On 02/11/11 14:28, JurassicPark wrote:
> "William Black" ha scritto nel messaggio news:j8r9i1$2nv$2...@dont-email.me...
>
> On 02/11/11 03:37, Dennis wrote:
>> dott.Piergiorgio wrote:
>>
>>> Il 02/11/2011 00:30, William Black ha scritto:
>>>> On 01/11/11 22:24, Dennis wrote:
>>>
>>>> Mind you, I also suggested that Osama's best tactic was to turn up in
>>>> the UK and claim he shouldn't be extradited.
>>>
>>> this was the perfect tactic for the late colonel, with Italy instead of
>>> UK (he was born well west of Alamein few months prior of the Battle....)
>>
>> ??? Throw himself on the mercy of the court (and the Dwarf) in Italy? Non
>> capisco!
>
>> He has a claim to Italian nationality...
> No, he had not

As he was born in an Italian colony/province while it was still Italian
he probably has a case he can argue in court.

>
>> Neither could he be extradited to any jurisdiction where he may face
>> capital punishment.
>
> This is true , but if he somehow 'd have fled to Italy he surely 'd have
> been extradited to the International Tribunal of The Hague: he 'd have
> escaped impalement, but 'd have got a life sentence.

Ah, but he could fight that on the grounds of the immunity granted to
heads of state.

You'd have to prove a case for the 'crimes against humanity' charges.

Same problem the British had with Pinochet.

Andrew Swallow

unread,

Nov 2, 2011, 1:09:04 PM11/2/11

to

Articles 27 and 25 of the 'Rome Statute of the International Criminal
Court' remove the immunity of heads of state.
<http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Rome_Statute_of_the_International_Criminal_Court>

Article 5 brings Crimes Against Humanity within the jurisdiction of the
International Criminal court.

Andrew Swallow

William Black

unread,

Nov 2, 2011, 1:19:52 PM11/2/11

to

Then you get to make the case that he knew.

As he managed to distance himself from Lockerbie I imagine there isn't
much paper about the place proving him complicit in anything.

As the new government in Libya is busy going around slaughtering all his
old officials you may be a touch short of witnesses.

Grantland

unread,

Nov 2, 2011, 12:45:30 PM11/2/11

to

Not after the Amanda Knox fiasco. Bananas! Bananas! Sooner the Spanish Inquisition.

Grantland

Dennis

unread,

Nov 2, 2011, 4:31:06 PM11/2/11

to

I see. I guess I knew about the capital punishment issue, as it also
arises with us and Canada. Are you saying that the UK doesn't practice
'rendition'?

I once found an interesting text game called 'Rendition' when you could
play torturer yourself. The subject only spoke Arabic, given in Latin
characters. Occasionally the game gave objections based on the Geneva
Conventions, but not often. 'Kick him in the right testicle' was quite
acceptable, for instance.

Dennis

Dennis

unread,

Nov 2, 2011, 4:34:59 PM11/2/11

to

What would the USA do? How would the US handle charges of crimes against
humanity? It isn't a signatory of the ICC, but it is of the Geneva
Conventions.

Dennis

William Black

unread,

Nov 2, 2011, 5:31:38 PM11/2/11

to

On 02/11/11 20:31, Dennis wrote:
> William Black wrote:
>
>> On 02/11/11 02:44, Dennis wrote:
>>> William Black wrote:
>>>
>>>>> There might be more recent crimes he was complicit in.
>>>>
>>>> Over which the USA has jurisdiction?
>>>>
>>>> His best move is going to a country where the International Court
>>>> has no jurisdiction and scream blue murder that there's no evidence
>>>> and it's all a plot top undermine his late father's memory.
>>>>
>>>> Mind you, I also suggested that Osama's best tactic was to turn up
>>>> in the UK and claim he shouldn't be extradited.
>>>>
>>>> He wasn't listening either...
>>>>
>>>> Although it looks like Assange jumped the right way...
>>>
>>> Do you mean that the UK doesn't cooperate with extraditions?
>>>
>>
>> They do, but they won't extradite to places that have capital
>> punishment or even an expectation of cruel treatment.
>
> I see. I guess I knew about the capital punishment issue, as it also
> arises with us and Canada. Are you saying that the UK doesn't practice
> 'rendition'?

Not officially.

And this is currently causing the British government a great deal of
expense as bruised but utterly innocent UK residents who follow Islam
keep turning up claiming to have been tortured by an assortment of
people from the CIA to Pakistani government thugs, and with a British
intelligence officer or officers in attendance and asking questions.

The reasonably obvious question being asked by various people is "Why
weren't these British officials doing everything in their power to get
these totally innocent men (who all happen to be brown and have big
scary beards) out the the clutches of the vile torturers rather than
playing along with them?"

The government's answer has been to pay out some very large sums of
money indeed to the people who were undoubtedly tortured whilst all the
time claiming that paying up is the cheaper option and they're not
admitting they're a party to torture, honest....

Oh yes, and they're not going to have an enquiry either as the people
who get paid off have to sign away their rights to dragging the
government through the courts or even, it has been rumoured, talking
to the press

And yes, of course it stinks, it stinks to high heaven.

William Black

unread,

Nov 2, 2011, 5:36:43 PM11/2/11

to

On 02/11/11 20:34, Dennis wrote:
>
> What would the USA do? How would the US handle charges of crimes against
> humanity? It isn't a signatory of the ICC, but it is of the Geneva
> Conventions.

The Geneva Convention doesn't work for civil war as one side can always
claim that the other lot are just bandits.

dott.Piergiorgio

unread,

Nov 2, 2011, 6:27:59 PM11/2/11

to

Sorry for the delay, but I have haved a *REALLY* bad day...

The dwarf has all valid reasons of being merciful, and Italian court's
Polar Star being a certain Cesare Beccaria, if the Colonel (legitimely)
have asserted his rights to Italian citizenship (Libya since 1938 was
metropolitan territory, and when Gheddafi born, Jun.1942 the front line
puts that newborn baby well inside Italian sovereignty...) he will have
surrendered safely to the "right people"....

All this imply that he will be tried as Italian citizen in Italy, that
is, no hopes for (legal) rendition, esp. towards US of A)

Uncle Steve

unread,

Nov 2, 2011, 6:34:23 PM11/2/11

to

On Wed, Nov 02, 2011 at 09:36:43PM +0000, William Black wrote:
> On 02/11/11 20:34, Dennis wrote:
> >
> >What would the USA do? How would the US handle charges of crimes against
> >humanity? It isn't a signatory of the ICC, but it is of the Geneva
> >Conventions.
>
> The Geneva Convention doesn't work for civil war as one side can always
> claim that the other lot are just bandits.

Anyone can *say* anything. But what are the facts, and how do you go
about finding out what those facts are?

Regards,

Uncle Steve

--
My robot girlfriend can beat up your robot girlfriend.

dott.Piergiorgio

unread,

Nov 2, 2011, 6:36:35 PM11/2/11

to

Il 02/11/2011 12:29, William Black ha scritto:

>> ??? Throw himself on the mercy of the court (and the Dwarf) in Italy? Non
>> capisco!
>
> He has a claim to Italian nationality...
>
> Neither could he be extradited to any jurisdiction where he may face
> capital punishment.
>
> I'm not sure if Italy will even allow the extradition of an Italian
> citizen outside the EC

sure.

Italy can't extradite people neither towards death penalty trials nor
for political reasons, with the notable exception of genocide, and this
is put into the Italian *Constitution* ....

this also means that Italy can easily be a safe haven for former
dictators, provided that those don't have mass-killed people on racial
and/or religious basis.

dott.Piergiorgio

unread,

Nov 2, 2011, 6:48:58 PM11/2/11

to

Il 02/11/2011 15:28, JurassicPark ha scritto:

>> I'm not sure if Italy will even allow the extradition of an Italian
>> citizen outside the EC
>
> Italy allows extradition of a citizen only when there is a specific
> extradition convention with the State requesting it (all EC States, for
> an instance); but Ghadafi was NOT an Italian citizen, nor he had any
> serious claim to citizenship, so this is irrelevant.
>
> Carlo "Jurassic Park"

Carlo, te dovresti sapere meglio di me che la Libia era dicharata
territorio metropolitano nel 1939, e quando il fu colonnello era nato
nel 1942 la linea del fronte era attorno ad El-alamein, e date le
circostanze della perdita della Libia, potevano essere applicate le
stesse regole per un neonato istriano del 1944/5..... e non
dimentichiamoci che paradossalmente lo stesso fu colonnello ha creato il
precedente giuridico in teoria a suo favore nei primi '70, quando ha
espulso gli Italiani libici.... (per restare nel tema legislazione ad
personam...)

Mentre per l' estradizione, temo che l' ex dittatore libico, proprio in
quanto tale, non puo' venire estradato, ex costituizione, a meno che non
si dimostri senza dubbio che ha massacrato persone su basi etniche o
religiose....

For the others: no sekrit komm between Italians, only a quick
military-legal synthesis of the basis of my assertion....

Saluti, and Best regards from Italy
Dott. Piergiorgio.

P.s for carlo: ovviamente NON devi far trapelare su ICM la mia presenza
su s.m.n. eh !!

William Black

unread,

Nov 2, 2011, 6:58:51 PM11/2/11

to

On 02/11/11 22:34, Uncle Steve wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 02, 2011 at 09:36:43PM +0000, William Black wrote:
>> On 02/11/11 20:34, Dennis wrote:
>>>
>>> What would the USA do? How would the US handle charges of crimes against
>>> humanity? It isn't a signatory of the ICC, but it is of the Geneva
>>> Conventions.
>>
>> The Geneva Convention doesn't work for civil war as one side can always
>> claim that the other lot are just bandits.
>
> Anyone can *say* anything. But what are the facts, and how do you go
> about finding out what those facts are?

Ask Pinochet...

Dennis

unread,

Nov 2, 2011, 7:11:14 PM11/2/11

to

William Black wrote:

> On 02/11/11 20:34, Dennis wrote:
>>
>> What would the USA do? How would the US handle charges of crimes
>> against humanity? It isn't a signatory of the ICC, but it is of the
>> Geneva Conventions.
>
> The Geneva Convention doesn't work for civil war as one side can
> always claim that the other lot are just bandits.

I don't think that's so, since it has provisions for 'parties to armed
conflicts', so 'war' doesn't necessarily enter into it.

Dennis

Dennis

unread,

Nov 2, 2011, 7:14:32 PM11/2/11

to

but political is OK? So the Rwanda perps would not be welcome but Gaddafi
would have been?

Dennis

dott.Piergiorgio

unread,

Nov 2, 2011, 7:19:09 PM11/2/11

to

Il 03/11/2011 00:14, Dennis ha scritto:

> but political is OK? So the Rwanda perps would not be welcome but Gaddafi
> would have been?

yea, at least until the dwarf is allowed to survive....

William Black

unread,

Nov 2, 2011, 7:48:08 PM11/2/11

to

He'll say it was a riot.

He'll show you TV footage from every European and US broadcaster that
shows Libyan rebels with no distinguishing marks or uniforms and reports
from journalists that say they had no military organisation or system of
command.

Just as Assad is doing now...

Arved Sandstrom

unread,

Nov 2, 2011, 8:14:08 PM11/2/11

to

And to the degree that a party - as viewed by an experienced unbiased
observer - lacks distinguishing marks or uniforms, and has a spotty or
practically nonexistent command structure, then they are either
legitimate , illegitimate, or making enough of a good-faith attempt to
get the benefit of the doubt.

It's not all that complicated - plenty of non-government armed groups
have managed to work up simple forms of battlefield identification. And
if you can't establish a reasonable chain of command then you are, in
fact, a mob. We all know that another party to the conflict may demand
impossibly high standards, but in reality the bar is quite low.

AHS
--
You should know the problem before you try to solve it.
Example: When my son was three he cried about a problem with his hand. I
kissed it several times and asked him about the problem. He peed on his
hand.
-- Radia Perlman, inventor of spanning tree protocol

Uncle Steve

unread,

Nov 2, 2011, 8:28:24 PM11/2/11

to

On Wed, Nov 02, 2011 at 10:58:51PM +0000, William Black wrote:
> On 02/11/11 22:34, Uncle Steve wrote:
> >On Wed, Nov 02, 2011 at 09:36:43PM +0000, William Black wrote:
> >>On 02/11/11 20:34, Dennis wrote:
> >>>
> >>>What would the USA do? How would the US handle charges of crimes against
> >>>humanity? It isn't a signatory of the ICC, but it is of the Geneva
> >>>Conventions.
> >>
> >>The Geneva Convention doesn't work for civil war as one side can always
> >>claim that the other lot are just bandits.
> >
> >Anyone can *say* anything. But what are the facts, and how do you go
> >about finding out what those facts are?
>
> Ask Pinochet...

I don't have that kind of access. Any practical suggestions?

Andrew Swallow

unread,

Nov 2, 2011, 8:43:33 PM11/2/11

to

The US has signed the Geneva Conventions but not the Protocols.

Do the immigration laws ban people who are wanted for war crimes and
crimes against humanity?

Andrew Swallow

Andrew Swallow

unread,

Nov 2, 2011, 9:11:37 PM11/2/11

to

In a civil war captured combatants may (or may not) have POW status.
However the Fourth Geneva Convention applies to the civilian population.

[quote]
Art. 3. In the case of armed conflict not of an international character
occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each
Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following
provisions:
{snip}
[/quote]
<http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/FULL/380?OpenDocument>

Protocol II may apply
"Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and
relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed
Conflicts (Protocol II), 8 June 1977."
<http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/FULL/475?OpenDocument>

Andrew Swallow

William Black

unread,

Nov 2, 2011, 9:27:03 PM11/2/11

to

On 03/11/11 00:28, Uncle Steve wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 02, 2011 at 10:58:51PM +0000, William Black wrote:
>> On 02/11/11 22:34, Uncle Steve wrote:
>>> On Wed, Nov 02, 2011 at 09:36:43PM +0000, William Black wrote:
>>>> On 02/11/11 20:34, Dennis wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> What would the USA do? How would the US handle charges of crimes against
>>>>> humanity? It isn't a signatory of the ICC, but it is of the Geneva
>>>>> Conventions.
>>>>
>>>> The Geneva Convention doesn't work for civil war as one side can always
>>>> claim that the other lot are just bandits.
>>>
>>> Anyone can *say* anything. But what are the facts, and how do you go
>>> about finding out what those facts are?
>>
>> Ask Pinochet...
>
> I don't have that kind of access. Any practical suggestions?
>

Getting hold of hard evidence from a government that took the inordinate
amount of time the last Libyan tyranny took to fall will not be easy.
Most of the documentary evidence of any crimes will probably be ash or
carefully erased disk drives.

The current Libyan government seems intent of slaughtering their
predecessors.

So actually getting a conviction in a reasonably constituted court that
cares about the rules of evidence will be difficult.

William Black

unread,

Nov 2, 2011, 9:28:44 PM11/2/11

to

Depends on which side of the dock you're on.

Gadaffy's son can make a reasonable case for saying that, as far as he
could see, they were just gangsters.

Assad certainly is.

Arved Sandstrom

unread,

Nov 3, 2011, 6:09:32 AM11/3/11

to

In this case he probably can. And the victorious militias are doing
themselves no favours right now in the court of public opinion...having
gunbattles in hospitals and all.

Libya is an unsavoury situation. Just because the existing regime was
corrupt and thuggish doesn't make the opponents all sweetness and
light.To the degree that the interim government rides herd on its own
supporters should determine how much legitimacy we accord to it -
unfortunately we jumped the gun there.

> Assad certainly is.
>
As would any dictator.

Uncle Steve

unread,

Nov 3, 2011, 12:06:36 PM11/3/11

to

On Thu, Nov 03, 2011 at 01:27:03AM +0000, William Black wrote:
> On 03/11/11 00:28, Uncle Steve wrote:
> >On Wed, Nov 02, 2011 at 10:58:51PM +0000, William Black wrote:
> >>On 02/11/11 22:34, Uncle Steve wrote:
> >>>On Wed, Nov 02, 2011 at 09:36:43PM +0000, William Black wrote:
> >>>>On 02/11/11 20:34, Dennis wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>What would the USA do? How would the US handle charges of crimes
> >>>>>against
> >>>>>humanity? It isn't a signatory of the ICC, but it is of the Geneva
> >>>>>Conventions.
> >>>>
> >>>>The Geneva Convention doesn't work for civil war as one side can always
> >>>>claim that the other lot are just bandits.
> >>>
> >>>Anyone can *say* anything. But what are the facts, and how do you go
> >>>about finding out what those facts are?
> >>
> >>Ask Pinochet...
> >
> >I don't have that kind of access. Any practical suggestions?
> >
>
> Getting hold of hard evidence from a government that took the inordinate
> amount of time the last Libyan tyranny took to fall will not be easy.
> Most of the documentary evidence of any crimes will probably be ash or
> carefully erased disk drives.

You've really got a bug in your bonnet concerning the destruction of
data stored on computer systems. Correlation may only imply
causation, but when an asshat like you starts nattering on about
erased disk drives at the same time that a bunch of right-wing fuckos
(some of whom assert allegiance to the CF), attack my computer
hardware, it ought to be viewed as mildly suspicious.

Particularly in light of the allegations I've made regarding police
"misconduct". Of course, I'm not speaking of accidents such as
what might occur if a computer laptop were to be run over by a
speeding TTC vehicle. I am instead referring to coordinated small-
unit tactics.

> The current Libyan government seems intent of slaughtering their
> predecessors.
>
> So actually getting a conviction in a reasonably constituted court that
> cares about the rules of evidence will be difficult.

So convenient for any number of reasons.

> --
> William Black
>
> Free men have open minds
> If you want loyalty, buy a dog...

Too bad the Soviets did not finish the job in Afghanistan, as the
terrorist remnants of that period ended up on the ground over there
just like a land-mine for the NATO forces to stumble over. It's
ironic that had the Soviets succeeded, Al-qaeda might never have flown
those planes into the WTC.

Uncle Steve

unread,

Nov 3, 2011, 12:30:50 PM11/3/11

to

On Wed, Nov 02, 2011 at 08:28:24PM -0400, Uncle Steve wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 02, 2011 at 10:58:51PM +0000, William Black wrote:
> > On 02/11/11 22:34, Uncle Steve wrote:
> > >On Wed, Nov 02, 2011 at 09:36:43PM +0000, William Black wrote:
> > >>On 02/11/11 20:34, Dennis wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>What would the USA do? How would the US handle charges of crimes against
> > >>>humanity? It isn't a signatory of the ICC, but it is of the Geneva
> > >>>Conventions.
> > >>
> > >>The Geneva Convention doesn't work for civil war as one side can always
> > >>claim that the other lot are just bandits.
> > >
> > >Anyone can *say* anything. But what are the facts, and how do you go
> > >about finding out what those facts are?
> >
> > Ask Pinochet...
>
> I don't have that kind of access. Any practical suggestions?

No? Ok, here's how I think it works for Mr. Black.

First, you put together a team of PSYOPS veterans, and establish them
in your urban area of choice as religious figures, possibly operating
under a false flag. Then you locate some losers who have no clue
where they are, or what time it is they are living in. Pig-ignorant
specimens are ideal.

Then your brave team of psychos spring to action and 'save' those poor
unfortunates and 'show them the way'. The associated drug dependency
served as bonding influence. Fill their heads with jingoistic bullshit
like "there can be no truth without falsehood", and make sure they
believe that sort of tautological nonsense is a manifestation of God's
inscrutability.

Now you've got a bunch of useful idiots who may be tasked to do much
of your dirty-work, or at least the simple stuff that isn't too
complicated.

Then maybe you decide you wish to establish the truth about some one
or some thing. So, you send out your brave effectives to do battle
with reality, and they might go and do something like this:

Get them to converse with your target and have them say stuff which
can later be misattributed by transcription 'errors'. In my case that
might be ignorant ramblings about "all those damned immigrants", or
perhaps bigoted statements about women, etc. You would make sure to
destroy the tapes so fact-checking cannot be done on the transcripts,
all part of your SOP.

Or maybe you have an arbitrary proposition you wish to establish as
true. Well, what you do is have your bright effectives work at
bringing about a situation that proves your a priori determination of
what is true. If they somehow fail, no problem, because you can
always have them try again and again until they succeed. Since you're
mostly working with lowlifes, the whole thing is cheap to run, as
opposed to what this would cost if you worked with competent
professionals.

In this way, you can acquire whatever truth it is that you desire, and
you need not be bothered with little things like reality that only get
in the way of truth.

William Black

unread,

Nov 3, 2011, 6:11:25 PM11/3/11

to

On 03/11/11 16:06, Uncle Steve wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 03, 2011 at 01:27:03AM +0000, William Black wrote:

>> Getting hold of hard evidence from a government that took the inordinate
>> amount of time the last Libyan tyranny took to fall will not be easy.
>> Most of the documentary evidence of any crimes will probably be ash or
>> carefully erased disk drives.
>
> You've really got a bug in your bonnet concerning the destruction of
> data stored on computer systems.

Nope.

You must be thinking of someone else.

Correlation may only imply
> causation, but when an asshat like you starts nattering on about
> erased disk drives at the same time that a bunch of right-wing fuckos
> (some of whom assert allegiance to the CF), attack my computer
> hardware, it ought to be viewed as mildly suspicious.

Ah, so your own paranoia is making you slightly less than focused.

I can assure you that I have no idea who you are, where you live and
what data is stored on your computer.

Indeed you'd be hard pressed to find someone who has less interest in
you than I have.

>
> Particularly in light of the allegations I've made regarding police
> "misconduct". Of course, I'm not speaking of accidents such as
> what might occur if a computer laptop were to be run over by a
> speeding TTC vehicle. I am instead referring to coordinated small-
> unit tactics.

Nothing to do with me I'm afraid.

You're on your own here.

> Too bad the Soviets did not finish the job in Afghanistan, as the
> terrorist remnants of that period ended up on the ground over there
> just like a land-mine for the NATO forces to stumble over. It's
> ironic that had the Soviets succeeded, Al-qaeda might never have flown
> those planes into the WTC.

Well the US government shouldn't have given them all those Stingers...

William Black

unread,

Nov 3, 2011, 6:15:54 PM11/3/11

to

Well if you wish to do that first of all you're going to have to get
your funding stream authorised.

Doing stuff like that in the UK usually needs a senior elected
politician to sign off on it because the senior career civil servants
just won't.

They've got gold plated inflation proof pensions to protect...

After you've got your scheme working you've now got to work out a way to
keep it running after the leaks start.

The British police have just had a load of cases thrown out because a
couple of undercover cops 'went native' and it got into the press.

And it always does get into the press in the end.

Uncle Steve

unread,

Nov 4, 2011, 6:24:15 AM11/4/11

to

On Thu, Nov 03, 2011 at 10:11:25PM +0000, William Black wrote:
> On 03/11/11 16:06, Uncle Steve wrote:
> >On Thu, Nov 03, 2011 at 01:27:03AM +0000, William Black wrote:
>
> >>Getting hold of hard evidence from a government that took the inordinate
> >>amount of time the last Libyan tyranny took to fall will not be easy.
> >>Most of the documentary evidence of any crimes will probably be ash or
> >>carefully erased disk drives.
> >
> >You've really got a bug in your bonnet concerning the destruction of
> >data stored on computer systems.
>
> Nope.
>
> You must be thinking of someone else.

No, and you aren't admitting to reading what I have writen. Not
surprising given the allegations.

> Correlation may only imply
> >causation, but when an asshat like you starts nattering on about
> >erased disk drives at the same time that a bunch of right-wing fuckos
> >(some of whom assert allegiance to the CF), attack my computer
> >hardware, it ought to be viewed as mildly suspicious.
>
> Ah, so your own paranoia is making you slightly less than focused.
>
> I can assure you that I have no idea who you are, where you live and
> what data is stored on your computer.
>
> Indeed you'd be hard pressed to find someone who has less interest in
> you than I have.
>
>
> >
> >Particularly in light of the allegations I've made regarding police
> >"misconduct". Of course, I'm not speaking of accidents such as
> >what might occur if a computer laptop were to be run over by a
> >speeding TTC vehicle. I am instead referring to coordinated small-
> >unit tactics.
>
> Nothing to do with me I'm afraid.
>
> You're on your own here.

Again, what you say is characteristic of the type I'm referring to. I
*know* that I'm on my own here. The lovely Government of Canada has
also indicated that I am on my own here by virtue of it's agents
selective enforcement of the Criminal Code and the Charter.

Apparently the laws of the land only apply to it's citizens who are
not also military, police, professional politicians, right wing
Christian fanatics, or the friends and relatives of same. I say it
debases citizenship when police (for instance) can rob and murder
citizens without so much as a caution.

Your posturing is little more than bragging: "ha ha ha, look how big
and powerful I am. You little people can just suck it up, the Master
Race of Dumbfucks is unstoppable." Otherwise known as terrorism.

> >Too bad the Soviets did not finish the job in Afghanistan, as the
> >terrorist remnants of that period ended up on the ground over there
> >just like a land-mine for the NATO forces to stumble over. It's
> >ironic that had the Soviets succeeded, Al-qaeda might never have flown
> >those planes into the WTC.
>
> Well the US government shouldn't have given them all those Stingers...

Sure.

William Black

unread,

Nov 4, 2011, 8:32:07 AM11/4/11

to

Get professional help...

Uncle Steve

unread,

Nov 4, 2011, 8:27:00 PM11/4/11

to

I am a professional. So long as you allow for the fact that I only
get paid for manual labour work as a matter of deliberate policy.

Uncle Steve

unread,

Nov 10, 2011, 3:46:56 PM11/10/11

to

Mr. Black, or whatever your name is, it occurs to me that you don't
take this at all seriously. The imputation of mental illness is an
easy cop-out given that you don't have to address the substance of an
argument -- a hallmark of the cowardly racist. I suppose it works
most of the time as it appears your preferred inferior is someone who
is poorly educated and likely to be unable to decompose or deconstruct
the English your type employ when you go about hate-mongering.

I am (I suppose) fortunate to have read a large selection of books
over the last thirty or so years, providing a large reservoir of ideas
upon which to build an analytical framework for understanding
pathological cases such as yours. Even better, I have reproduced the
methods you use to exploit covert channels in otherwise casual prose
to communicate an artificial subtext. I find it ironic that people
like you seem only able to use that mode of communications for the
purpose of advancing your bigotry, which I call racism owing to the
fact that you have apparently arbitrarily determined that a certain
population of individual are subhuman, therefore automatically
justifying your hate crimes.

Going further I note that your approach in this regard represents
stepwise refinement in the science of hate. No longer are people like
you limited to hating and abusing people on the basis of their skin
tone, but rather have selected with 'intelligence' your objects of
denigration. I imagine you might think this makes you more evolved
than losers involved in the KKK, who are limited to hating brown
people.

Perhaps this explains what I saw when I met Raymond Heard some months
ago. As an aside, I imagine Eugene Griessel contemporaries have
extensive files on the man. While I know little of the struggle in SA
concerning Nelson Mandela, the ANC, and the uprising that took down
the apartheid regime, it occurs to me that there may be some
commonality between a person like you and Mr. Heard. Firstly, he's
clearly fucked up his kids, which whatever the specifics, seems to
serve as a club badge among the Liberal set. The political-class
hypocrites here and in the US appear to have the characteristic of
presenting as moral individuals, but whose dirty little secrets
constitutes a badge of mutual guilt, binding them together as a group.
One can only guess what sort of dirty little secret is held by Art
Eggleton. Speculation is distasteful, so I shall leave it for now.

As hypocrites, their real work (if you can call it that) seems to be
an undermining of civilized social order through decadent policy
advocacy. Mr. Heard as a principal of CTV would have used his
position to steer program selection along certain lines. I've surely
met numerous people whose morals were inculcated through programming on
the boob-tube. Women for whom the feminist movement may as well have
never existed, and who take their superiority over lesser persons as a
given. Also young black men and women who are just as bigoted as any
random KKK zealot, for whom the civil rights movement may as well have
never happened. For these people the historical record may as well
not exist as their bigoted mores evidence no understanding or empathy
for the conditions of their predecessors. There is security video
recorded this morning at my place of work that will show a perfect
example of what I am talking about here. I rather expect that these
bright young morons learned their "values" in part as a consequence of
the kind of garbage programming offered up by shitty networks like
CTV.

People like Raymond Heard are the weakest of the weak, taking job
security and influential political status in exchange for promoting
the puerile values of naive globalism and mass culture. They are
particularly dangerous as the establishment seems to exhibit a kind of
blind support for these people. You can bet that any domestic trouble
that occurs in those families does not result in arrests as would be
the case for commoners. These asshats pick up the phone and have
their political friends make criminal allegations go away. Those
favors constitute the currency of rough trade seen in certain
political circles.

As you may imagine, Mr. Black, they brainwash their kids to perpetuate
the cycle. I don't know whether they exactly read passages of Mein
Kampf to their toddlers as they sleep, but the first five years of
development is obviously rather important to the indoctrination of the
next generation, and even the morons in the KKK understand that much.
By the time their own kids grow up and have kids of their own, they
discover that newborns are tabula-rasa with respect to personality and
(of course) ideology, and realize what their own parents must have
done. But as self-identity is well established at that time, will
they break the cycle, thus invalidating belief in the 'goodness' of
their own self or will they validate their existence through the
perpetuation of their particular ideological idiocies?

Guess what happens in most cases. Well I wonder if you have children
Mr. Black, and whether you have or will inculcate in them the moronic
values that bring you here to Usenet to spew your ignorant and hateful
bile. However much of a gloss you put on that turd, it is still
always a turd.

Back to current events. What is it that has you going on about the
careful destruction of computer disks at the same time as a bunch of
retarded thugs made a planned attack on my computer system. You would
argue that is mere coincidence, however this is not an isolated
incident. You have been working inflammatory phrases and such in your
posts that are obviously deliberately designed to be orthogonal to
personal biographical material subject to observation by spies, for
instance. Even if your messages in which those statements appear are
superficially topical to some random discussion, I know how easy it is
to discuss an arbitrary topic as a vehicle for such provocation. Your
problem is that the sample size I have to work with is non-trivial,
and therefore cannot be summarily dismissed by anyone with a
functioning intellect and who is also not a total fucking moron.

Now as the policing apparatus in Canada is useless today, I doubt
there will be any 'investigation' into your espionage and sabotage, of
which you have 'admitted' involvement by virtue of your 'trolling'.
At least so long as the current policing regime maintains, but that
shall not be forever, and I assure you that I will press criminal
charges at the first opportunity. In the interim, I trust these
allegations will stick to you and cast aspersions on your Usenet
identity as you deserve a reputation as a malicious defecting git.
No-one of sense and sanity should be fooled into accepting anything
you say as being representative of reality as it is.

Your move, fatso.

Regards,

Uncle Steve

--
We can't all be intelligent, but at least we can be polite.
-- H. J. Patton, "The Modern Predicament"

William Black

unread,

Nov 10, 2011, 4:36:32 PM11/10/11

to

Paranoia...

it occurs to me that you don't
> take this at all seriously.

Well...

That's putting it mildly, but yes, it's Usenet, it isn't serious.

The imputation of mental illness is an
> easy cop-out given that you don't have to address the substance of an
> argument -- a hallmark of the cowardly racist.

In what way is not addressing the vapourings of a lunatic racist?

I suppose it works
> most of the time as it appears your preferred inferior is someone who
> is poorly educated and likely to be unable to decompose or deconstruct
> the English your type employ when you go about hate-mongering.

Again, you have managed to baffle me.

> I am (I suppose) fortunate to have read a large selection of books
> over the last thirty or so years, providing a large reservoir of ideas
> upon which to build an analytical framework for understanding
> pathological cases such as yours.

OK so far.

Even better, I have reproduced the
> methods you use to exploit covert channels in otherwise casual prose
> to communicate an artificial subtext.

Now you're becoming odd again.

I find it ironic that people
> like you seem only able to use that mode of communications for the
> purpose of advancing your bigotry, which I call racism owing to the
> fact that you have apparently arbitrarily determined that a certain
> population of individual are subhuman, therefore automatically
> justifying your hate crimes.

Who exactly have I decide are subhuman?

> Going further I note that your approach in this regard represents
> stepwise refinement in the science of hate.

Hate is not a science.

No longer are people like
> you limited to hating and abusing people on the basis of their skin
> tone, but rather have selected with 'intelligence' your objects of
> denigration.

Ah, you mean I'm biased against the 'net terribly bright', and you
include yourself in that group...

Well, if you insist...

I imagine you might think this makes you more evolved
> than losers involved in the KKK, who are limited to hating brown
> people.

More evolved?

I think it probably has a lot more to do with education.

> Perhaps this explains what I saw when I met Raymond Heard some months
> ago.

Who?

As an aside, I imagine Eugene Griessel contemporaries have
> extensive files on the man.

You confuse me with someone who cares.

While I know little of the struggle in SA
> concerning Nelson Mandela, the ANC, and the uprising that took down
> the apartheid regime, it occurs to me that there may be some
> commonality between a person like you and Mr. Heard.

I have no idea.

I've never heard of the man.

<character assassination of unknown man deleted>

> As you may imagine, Mr. Black, they brainwash their kids to perpetuate
> the cycle. I don't know whether they exactly read passages of Mein
> Kampf to their toddlers as they sleep, but the first five years of
> development is obviously rather important to the indoctrination of the
> next generation, and even the morons in the KKK understand that much.

So?

> Even if your messages in which those statements appear are
> superficially topical to some random discussion, I know how easy it is
> to discuss an arbitrary topic as a vehicle for such provocation. Your
> problem is that the sample size I have to work with is non-trivial,
> and therefore cannot be summarily dismissed by anyone with a
> functioning intellect and who is also not a total fucking moron.
>
> Now as the policing apparatus in Canada is useless today, I doubt
> there will be any 'investigation' into your espionage and sabotage, of
> which you have 'admitted' involvement by virtue of your 'trolling'.
> At least so long as the current policing regime maintains, but that
> shall not be forever, and I assure you that I will press criminal
> charges at the first opportunity. In the interim, I trust these
> allegations will stick to you and cast aspersions on your Usenet
> identity as you deserve a reputation as a malicious defecting git.
> No-one of sense and sanity should be fooled into accepting anything
> you say as being representative of reality as it is.

I'm afraid I have no idea what you're going on about.

You really will have to explain.

Especially as I live several thousand miles away from you.

Uncle Steve

unread,

Nov 10, 2011, 5:32:13 PM11/10/11

to

I'll /elaborate/ the moment someone with proper credentials presents
his or her bona fides. Rather unlikely as first person accounts rob
you of the ability to interpret what you read arbitrarily.

> Especially as I live several thousand miles away from you.

Very convenient to the purpose of evading justice. Just like the
Austrailian shitstain who posted disgusting pornography to a usenet
group that I was downloading via an automated process. Just, so as I
surmise, to place incriminating gif images on my computer as a cynical
ploy.

But otherwise, you are playing the plausible deniability gambit as
expected.

William Black

unread,

Nov 10, 2011, 6:56:24 PM11/10/11

to

What justice?

Just like the
> Austrailian shitstain who posted disgusting pornography to a usenet
> group that I was downloading via an automated process. Just, so as I
> surmise, to place incriminating gif images on my computer as a cynical
> ploy.

Ah, it's a conspiracy is it?

Any particular reason why the world has it in for you or is it something
to do with not taking your pills?

> But otherwise, you are playing the plausible deniability gambit as
> expected.

Take care or I'll have to admit my involvement with whoever it is that
is driving you bonkers.

I have a black helicopter warming up in the garden now, all I need is
my personal group of black coveralled Muslim/Hindu/Parsee/Jain/Catholic
<delete trusted religions> soldiers to have you guarded and a Jewish
doctor with the inevitable pad of forms while we work out which lunatic
asylum to have you incarcerated in.

We'll nip across the Atlantic and have you in irons prior to your
inevitable introduction to the twilight glaze of Nitrazepam addiction
before you can say "They're out to get me"...

Uncle Steve

unread,

Nov 10, 2011, 8:10:48 PM11/10/11

to

On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 11:56:24PM +0000, William Black wrote:
> On 10/11/11 22:32, Uncle Steve wrote:
> >On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 09:36:32PM +0000, William Black wrote:
>
> >>Especially as I live several thousand miles away from you.
> >
> >Very convenient to the purpose of evading justice.
>
> What justice?

My point exactly. But you knew that already, making your comment
redundant. Like a liberal politician.

> Just like the
> >Austrailian shitstain who posted disgusting pornography to a usenet
> >group that I was downloading via an automated process. Just, so as I
> >surmise, to place incriminating gif images on my computer as a cynical
> >ploy.
>
> Ah, it's a conspiracy is it?

If you say so.

> Any particular reason why the world has it in for you or is it something
> to do with not taking your pills?

Better men than you have tried to say what I think. You'll just have
to try a little harder than them to posit the truth.

> >But otherwise, you are playing the plausible deniability gambit as
> >expected.
>
> Take care or I'll have to admit my involvement with whoever it is that
> is driving you bonkers.

Sure. And pigs will grow wings and fly about the sun for your
juvenile entertainment.

> I have a black helicopter warming up in the garden now, all I need is
> my personal group of black coveralled Muslim/Hindu/Parsee/Jain/Catholic
> <delete trusted religions> soldiers to have you guarded and a Jewish
> doctor with the inevitable pad of forms while we work out which lunatic
> asylum to have you incarcerated in.

Beats dealing with facts, I guess.

> We'll nip across the Atlantic and have you in irons prior to your
> inevitable introduction to the twilight glaze of Nitrazepam addiction
> before you can say "They're out to get me"...

Nitrazepam? If my Internet connection was not suspiciously
intermittent, I would look that up. As it is, I am far beyond those
kinds of threats. When a crown prosecutor makes death threats in open
court with dozens of witnesses, it tends to make one inured against
empty threats by hollow men. Enjoy your ascendent dumbfuck order of
retarded shitstains; it will be naught but a stupid blip of
dumbfuckery on the vast sea of the whole of reality.

Regards,

Uncle Steve

--
We can't all be intelligent, but at least we can be polite.

-- H. J. Paton, "The Modern Predicament"