Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Exonerating Servicemen Convicted of War Crimes

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post

    Show me where Republicans in the House or Senate hired foreign nationals to run their computer systems, gave them access to basically everything on them, and did so knowing or not that those foreign nationals weren't even really qualified to be network managers. Show me where the Republicans didn't hold the minimum annual checks required by government regulation for the actual presence of inventoried and tagged equipment?

    One example of the type used:



    Inventoried property has to have one and minimally, once a year, an audit is required to make sure that equipment is really still where it should be. Yet, the Awan family managed to steal dozens of government owned computers and do who knows what with them.



    https://www.washingtonpost.com/inves...b0d_story.html

    That's a felony in itself.

    The FBI found out about it when a US Army officer bought the home the Awan's lived in in Virginia and he found the garage full of government tagged computers and hard drives. The FBI took it all but as far as anyone can tell nothing more happened. Why not?

    My guess is that since upwards of 40+ Democrats were using these scammer Pakistanis to do their IT work, they quickly and quietly with full complicity of the MSM keeping quiet, quashed all attempts to look into this matter in anything approaching a legal and thorough way. It is likely that had that happened, the Democrats knew that they'd lose 10 to 20 seats in the House due either to resignation or voter anger.


    "found no evidence that [Awan] illegally removed House data from the House network or from House Members' offices, stole the House Democratic Caucus Server, stole or destroyed House information technology equipment, or improperly accessed or transferred government information, including classified or sensitive information."

    Yawn

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by inevtiab1e View Post
      Sounds like another conspiracy theory. From your article.



      So Awan sells him home with all this equipment still left in the garage right? Does that make sense?
      Sure it does. Analogy is the rat deserting the sinking ship...time to skedaddle...gettin' outta Dodge...beat feet. Whomever was signed off on the device according to the ID number is responsible for the equipment that was found there and, if that equipment was compromised, they should be held to account. Do you think that will ever happen?
      ARRRR! International Talk Like A Pirate Day - September 19th
      IN MARE IN COELO

      Comment


      • #18
        Now back to the point of the original poster...please check out the link...

        https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List...y_Barack_Obama
        ARRRR! International Talk Like A Pirate Day - September 19th
        IN MARE IN COELO

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post

          I held a Secret clearance for 27 years, a Sensitive Positions clearance for 23 and underwent 5 year background checks (the neighbors asked why the FBI was asking them about me, etc.) repeatedly.

          I know with 200% certainty, no question about it, if I did what Hillary did I'd have gotten 10 to 15 years in prison for it. The feds would have swept in and confiscated every electronic device I owned in a nanosecond, no waiting involved. They'd likely have hauled off every shred of paper in my house and office at work as well.
          I've seen people get time for taking a low level classified manual home to study for work and qualifications with absolutely no intent to misuse it other than remove it from a secure area get time for doing so.

          Hillary is absolutely and completely guilty and a knowing, willing, felonious criminal in her e-mail scandal. There is ZERO doubt of that, and I'd bet you would have an extremely hard time getting anyone who ever held a government security clearance or even worked on government computer systems to say anything else.
          Just be happy that you weren't Jason Brezler.

          No matter how much classified material is found in her personal email server, Hillary Clinton will no doubt continue campaigning to become our next president.

          Meanwhile, a decorated Marine officer who has deployed four times faces being discharged from the corps he loves because he used his personal email to send a single classified report as an urgent warning when lives were at stake.

          The stateside message from Marine Reserves Major Jason Brezler to Forward Operating Base Delhi in Now Zad, Helmand Province, Afghanistan, went unheeded. Three young Marines were shot to death as they worked out in a gym by an Afghan teen brought on the base by the same corrupt and double-dealing pedophile police chief whom Brezler had declared to be an immediate threat.

          Yet the only person to be investigated in connection with the killings is Brezler, the Marine who sought to prevent them.

          To compound the injustice, the two generals who ruled against Brezler based their decision on a Board of Inquiry transcript whose 451 pages contain 1,548 sections marked “[inaudible].” And those gaps are accompanied by an astonishing number of errors.

          One witness who was critical to the defense reported that he found 47 mistakes in his testimony and could have found more but the “incredible number of ‘inaudible’ and outright errors was so great that I did not correct ones where I had no idea what was said exactly.”

          Other witnesses said much the same, with one declaring himself “disgusted with the transcript,” adding that the “record is so bad I can barely make out what I was saying and it’s my testimony.”

          Brezler’s last hope is that Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus will set the decision aside. Mabus certainly has considerable reason to do so beyond the rank injustice of the proceedings.

          Brezler, a Naval Academy graduate who went from serving in the most dangerous province in Iraq to serving in the most dangerous province in Afghanistan, left active duty to continue public service as a Marine reservist and as a firefighter with the New York City Fire Department’s elite Rescue 2.

          He also continued his education. He was in a graduate school class on July 25, 2012, with his laptop open when he received an email in his Yahoo account from Marine Major Andrew Terrell. Brezler had served with Terrell at FOB Delhi in 2010.

          “IMPORTANT: SARWAR JAN IS BACK!!!” the subject line read.

          Jan had been a district police chief of the very worst sort. Brezler and Terrell had determined that Jan was involved in narcotics and arms trafficking, as well as facilitating attacks by the Taliban, even selling Afghan police uniforms to the enemy.

          Jan also was alleged to be what Brezler’s lawyer would later call “a systematic child rapist” who allegedly ran a child kidnapping ring and acquired “chai boys” with the help of U.S. taxpayer job development money.

          As the protégé of an accused drug lord with connections to then-Afghan President Hamid Karzai, Jan might have imagined himself untouchable. But Brezler and Terrell kept pushing and were finally able to pressure the provincial governor into removing Jan from his post, a rare and notable bright spot in the bloodiest province in the bloodiest year of the war.

          Now here was that name in the subject line.

          “My reaction was visceral, and just seeing his name brought me great concern,” Brezler later testified.

          The accompanying message from Terrell read, “Jason, I just got an email from one of my friends in Afghanistan; he just met Sarwar Jan. He is looking for anything we have on him. Do you still have that paper Larissa wrote on this guy in Now Zad? It could be very helpful. Anything you can think of would be useful. Thanks brother, Andrew.”

          Larissa Mihalisko was a Marine intelligence officer who had prepared a report on Jan with information provided by Brezler and Terrell. Brezler had kept a copy along with other necessary operation reports on the personal laptop he used in the war zone, the Marines not having provided him one.

          Now, in the moments after he received the urgent message from Terrell, Brezler decided it was great luck that he had downloaded the hard drive from that laptop onto his new one.

          “I immediately typed ‘search’ and ‘Sarwar Jan’ and uploaded the document,” he would recall in court papers.

          In the next instant, he sent the report to the email address that Terrell had provided for another Marine in Afghanistan. He gave no thought to the document’s classification.

          “I just reacted the same way that I would in a gunfight; the same way I would at a fire,” he said in the court papers. “I just immediately reacted.” . . . .

          "Hero Marine Nailed for Secret Email: What Did He Do That Hillary Didn’t?," by Michael Daly, The Daily Beast, 12 Jul 2017
          What we're talking about here is a two-tiered system of justice: for the same offense, some nobody faces criminal prosecution, while a political somebody runs for higher office. It's a dichotomy that's just too hard to ignore.
          I was married for two ******* years! Hell would be like Club Med! - Sam Kinison

          Comment


          • #20
            Maybe Belzer wouldn't have been charged if he was a registered Democrat and contributed to Hillary's campaign... Although that's flippant, I think it has a ring of truth to it too. The Democrats are that corrupt and dirty across the board that trusting just about any of them is a mistake these days.

            Comment


            • #21
              No, it doesn't. There's no ring of truth in it at all.

              You're suggesting that the armed forces are partisan politically which is rubbish.

              And the party that is demonstrating being 'corrupt and dirty' as well as being nothing more than lackeys to a corrupt and inept president.

              Your argument such as it is, is nothing but partisan nonsense.
              We are not now that strength which in old days
              Moved earth and heaven; that which we are we are; One equal temper of heroic hearts
              Made weak by time and fate but strong in will
              To strive to seek to find and not to yield.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Massena View Post
                No, it doesn't. There's no ring of truth in it at all.

                You're suggesting that the armed forces are partisan politically which is rubbish.
                Maybe not the Armed Forces as a body, but the leadership is rather . . . . political in conduct, if not partisan in passion. How else can one explain the sham prosecutions of Winnick and Wuterich, which in both cases investigators and/or prosecutors withheld exculpatory evidence? Who were they trying to impress -- 'cause clearly the evidence indicates that they tried awfully hard.
                I was married for two ******* years! Hell would be like Club Med! - Sam Kinison

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by slick_miester View Post

                  Just be happy that you weren't Jason Brezler.



                  What we're talking about here is a two-tiered system of justice: for the same offense, some nobody faces criminal prosecution, while a political somebody runs for higher office. It's a dichotomy that's just too hard to ignore.
                  And at the top of this system is a memo from the DOJ which lets a sitting president get away with anything without being indicted. Trump's behavior is rooted on this corrupt system of justice.
                  Epstein is another aspect of that two-tiered system.
                  And with respect to war crimes, I would put people like Cheney and all those who started a war based on lies at the top of the list and well above a soldier who killed a POW. Of course, this does not give an excuse to dismiss the crimes of the soldier.

                  And actually in the case of the Navy Seal where he was acquitted of the murder, his sentence was already a scandal. Those who have followed the case and how the prosecutor managed to create a BS deal with a key witness can understand what I say.

                  In short, there were fellow navy seals who testified against their commander who was accused of a war crime.Then out of the blue, another navy seal testified late during the trial under an immunity deal that it was him who killed the prisoner. So, in the end the jury was left with enough doubt about the identity of the murderer to refuse to convict the navy seal commander and because of the immunity deal the witness who admitted his crime also could not be prosecuted. Eventually, the seal who was acquitted of murder was convicted for posing with the dead corp and was demoted. it was THIS sentence that was pardoned by Trump and the demotion was reversed.
                  Last edited by pamak; 18 Nov 19, 15:39.
                  My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by pamak View Post

                    And at the top of this system is a memo from the DOJ which lets a sitting president get away with anything without being indicted. Trump's behavior is rooted on this corrupt system of justice.
                    Trump, Trump, Trump . . . .

                    Trump didn't invent this two-tiered system. I have no doubt that he's profited -- and profited handsomely -- from it, but you and I both know that he didn't invent it, and he wasn't the first to take advantage of it.

                    Question: how many current Democratic member of Congress were Congressmen/Senators back when Bill Clinton was facing impeachment, and for far easier to prove charges?

                    You can't tell me straight-faced that this impeachment drive against Trump isn't purely partisan in nature. So for example, current House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerold Nadler (NY-D) voted against all but one of the impeachment articles against Bill Clinton back in '99. When did perjury among government officials become not a crime? Clearly the precedent is set: partisans don't hold their own accountable for their actions. It's just that simple. Given the recent past, Republicans would not be out of line to ask, "why should setting such a precedent start with one of our guys? Why didn't it start with one of your guys when you had the chance?"

                    It's a stupid argument, I know -- except when one takes into account the crass numbers game that is modern democracy. Then the logic is inescapable.
                    I was married for two ******* years! Hell would be like Club Med! - Sam Kinison

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by slick_miester View Post

                      Trump, Trump, Trump . . . .

                      Trump didn't invent this two-tiered system. I have no doubt that he's profited -- and profited handsomely -- from it, but you and I both know that he didn't invent it, and he wasn't the first to take advantage of it.

                      Question: how many current Democratic member of Congress were Congressmen/Senators back when Bill Clinton was facing impeachment, and for far easier to prove charges?

                      You can't tell me straight-faced that this impeachment drive against Trump isn't purely partisan in nature. So for example, current House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerold Nadler (NY-D) voted against all but one of the impeachment articles against Bill Clinton back in '99. When did perjury among government officials become not a crime? Clearly the precedent is set: partisans don't hold their own accountable for their actions. It's just that simple. Given the recent past, Republicans would not be out of line to ask, "why should setting such a precedent start with one of our guys? Why didn't it start with one of your guys when you had the chance?"

                      It's a stupid argument, I know -- except when one takes into account the crass numbers game that is modern democracy. Then the logic is inescapable.
                      I mentioned him (and in brief) in response to your "Clinton...Clinton...Clinton" who also did not invent the system.
                      And you cannot say that the Clinton investigation was not purely partisan in nature.

                      I do not give a f*** what the partisans will claim. So, I am not interested in justifying their logic. The issue is what is right and what is wrong for somebody who is more interested about the long term consequences of the republic than the short term partisan interests of his party.

                      Meanwhile, I suggest that you actually read more about the case of the Navy Seal to see how in this case, even a regular person got a very sweet deal by the system of justice. It is also more appropriate for this thread for continuing the discussion As I said, I mentioned Trump in brief to counter your fixation with Clinton.
                      My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by slick_miester View Post

                        Trump, Trump, Trump . . . .

                        Trump didn't invent this two-tiered system. I have no doubt that he's profited -- and profited handsomely -- from it, but you and I both know that he didn't invent it, and he wasn't the first to take advantage of it.

                        Question: how many current Democratic member of Congress were Congressmen/Senators back when Bill Clinton was facing impeachment, and for far easier to prove charges?

                        You can't tell me straight-faced that this impeachment drive against Trump isn't purely partisan in nature. So for example, current House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerold Nadler (NY-D) voted against all but one of the impeachment articles against Bill Clinton back in '99. When did perjury among government officials become not a crime? Clearly the precedent is set: partisans don't hold their own accountable for their actions. It's just that simple. Given the recent past, Republicans would not be out of line to ask, "why should setting such a precedent start with one of our guys? Why didn't it start with one of your guys when you had the chance?"

                        It's a stupid argument, I know -- except when one takes into account the crass numbers game that is modern democracy. Then the logic is inescapable.
                        I'd say they do when it's obvious enough, and bad enough, but the Democrats are far more reluctant and slow to do so than the Republicans are when it comes to that. At the same time, the Democrats are far more willing to attack Republicans to get them out of office than the other way around.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by pamak View Post

                          I mentioned him (and in brief) in response to your "Clinton...Clinton...Clinton" who also did not invent the system.
                          And you cannot say that the Clinton investigation was not purely partisan in nature.
                          Yeah it was. The Paula Jones case never should have been pursued. It was a partisan circus from go.

                          Originally posted by pamak View Post
                          I do not give a f*** what the partisans will claim.
                          You should. They're the ones running the show -- on Capitol Hill, at the various party organizations, in the media. You somehow think that your opinion counts. Like as not it's not even yours, It was fed to you, long ago, by countless hours of good government classes in school and bullsh*t media coverage. You've been conditioned, like one of Pavlov's dogs. Those a$$holes somehow got you believing that there's a substantive difference between "Republican" and "Democrat." There isn't, and I can't recall when there was. Yeah, they talk different, but where the rubber meets the road, they do remarkably similar things. Maybe that's why Tavis Smiley criticized Barack Obama as not a real progressive -- and the only thing that got . . . . certain demographics ( ) all up in arms about Obama wasn't the policies which he pursued, but the color of his skin. Paint Obama white and he could've been corporatist Bill Clinton, or corporatist Ronald Reagan, or corporatist Lyndon Johnson, or corporatist Richard Nixon, or corporatist Dwight Eisenhower . . . . You catching on yet?

                          Originally posted by pamak View Post
                          So, I am not interested in justifying their logic. The issue is what is right and what is wrong for somebody who is more interested about the long term consequences of the republic than the short term partisan interests of his party.


                          Who is this creature of whom you speak, "who is more interested about the long term consequences of the republic than the short term partisan interests of his party"? Such an animal certainly cannot be found in Washington DC, or your state capital, or your city hall. Such creatures avoid those political institutions like grim death. Either that, or they get chewed up and left by the side of the road. Just ask any number of political interns and what not. Start with Chandra Levy. Or Mary Jo Kopechne.

                          Originally posted by pamak View Post
                          I suggest that you actually read more about the case of the Navy Seal to see how in this case, even a regular person got a very sweet deal by the system of justice. It is also more appropriate for this thread for continuing the discussion As I said, I mentioned Trump in brief to counter your fixation with Clinton.
                          Last time I checked a President is empowered by the Constitution to issue pardons -- just like Clinton did for Marc Rich, for at least a sweet $1 mil, and likely more.

                          Money talks, and bullsh*t walks. Power talks more than money and bullsh*t combined. Since you have neither money nor power, nobody cares what you think -- at least those who actually formulate public policy. You have no entrée with them, and you never will. Your only "power" is the opportunity to entertain your fellow nobodies with interesting conversation, and occasionally enlighten us with a new fact or two. That's it. You might as well reconcile yourself to that fact, 'cause you can't change it. And you never will. Keep pegging away, though, and you'll end up a Billy Joel punchline.

                          I was married for two ******* years! Hell would be like Club Med! - Sam Kinison

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post

                            I'd say they do when it's obvious enough, and bad enough, but the Democrats are far more reluctant and slow to do so than the Republicans are when it comes to that. At the same time, the Democrats are far more willing to attack Republicans to get them out of office than the other way around.
                            Usually they only turn on their own -- Republican or Democrat -- when the offender in question has stepped on too many toes. For Democrats, turning on Elliot Spitzer was easy: he tried to "fcking steamroll" (his words, not mine) Democrats in the legislature, going so far as to campaign against a couple of them in the years before his downfall. Same for Sheldon Silver: he'd pi$$ed off Chuck Schumer once too often, defending Madison Square Garden against Schumer's new Penn Station -- so Schumer sicked his boy -- fmr US Attorney for the Southern District NY Preet Bharaha -- on him. Now the former big shot is fighting for his life, and burning through his nest egg, trying to stay out of prison. At least he's short a son-in-law: Bharaha's office got him sentenced to two years in Federal stir.
                            I was married for two ******* years! Hell would be like Club Med! - Sam Kinison

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by slick_miester View Post

                              Yeah it was. The Paula Jones case never should have been pursued. It was a partisan circus from go.



                              You should. They're the ones running the show -- on Capitol Hill, at the various party organizations, in the media. You somehow think that your opinion counts. Like as not it's not even yours, It was fed to you, long ago, by countless hours of good government classes in school and bullsh*t media coverage. You've been conditioned, like one of Pavlov's dogs. Those a$$holes somehow got you believing that there's a substantive difference between "Republican" and "Democrat." There isn't, and I can't recall when there was. Yeah, they talk different, but where the rubber meets the road, they do remarkably similar things. Maybe that's why Tavis Smiley criticized Barack Obama as not a real progressive -- and the only thing that got . . . . certain demographics ( ) all up in arms about Obama wasn't the policies which he pursued, but the color of his skin. Paint Obama white and he could've been corporatist Bill Clinton, or corporatist Ronald Reagan, or corporatist Lyndon Johnson, or corporatist Richard Nixon, or corporatist Dwight Eisenhower . . . . You catching on yet?





                              Who is this creature of whom you speak, "who is more interested about the long term consequences of the republic than the short term partisan interests of his party"? Such an animal certainly cannot be found in Washington DC, or your state capital, or your city hall. Such creatures avoid those political institutions like grim death. Either that, or they get chewed up and left by the side of the road. Just ask any number of political interns and what not. Start with Chandra Levy. Or Mary Jo Kopechne.



                              Last time I checked a President is empowered by the Constitution to issue pardons -- just like Clinton did for Marc Rich, for at least a sweet $1 mil, and likely more.

                              Money talks, and bullsh*t walks. Power talks more than money and bullsh*t combined. Since you have neither money nor power, nobody cares what you think -- at least those who actually formulate public policy. You have no entrée with them, and you never will. Your only "power" is the opportunity to entertain your fellow nobodies with interesting conversation, and occasionally enlighten us with a new fact or two. That's it. You might as well reconcile yourself to that fact, 'cause you can't change it. And you never will. Keep pegging away, though, and you'll end up a Billy Joel punchline.

                              Is your position that a person (voter or not) cannot have an independent opinion? I am speaking about all those who at least try not to be partisans and I just reject the thesis that somehow such people have to accept a partisan's logic simply because the partisans run the show. And no politics is more complicated than how you describe it. Nobody cared about the black voters too at some point in time. But things can change as long as there are people who refuse to accept your logic that their opinion does not matter. Plus even when a voter does not get the result he wishes, he can still earn the right to say that at least he did not contribute to the weakening of the republic.

                              And speaking about pardons let's not forget the one Ford gave to Nixon.
                              My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by pamak View Post
                                Is your position that a person (voter or not) cannot have an independent opinion?
                                You're proof of that. I don't hate Trump with an appropriate level of vigor, so you're all over me like I was William Barr. I just dislike him is all -- but I at least acknowledge that Trump's vices and flaws as President are not of his own manufacture, but are part of a continuum, a series of precedents that have been built upon generation after generation, going back quite a long way. The ills that Trump represents will not be cured by Trump's impeachment, any more than the ills that Bill Clinton represented were cured by Clinton's impeachment. This is just theater, a post-modern political version of the gladiatorial games of antiquity. The disease that is Homo sapiens' conception of politics as an endeavor will continue unabated. Put it this way: if the revolution doesn't take place between your ears, then it's not a revolution, just a bloodbath.

                                Originally posted by pamak View Post
                                I am speaking about all those who at least try not to be partisans and I just reject the thesis that somehow such people have to accept a partisan's logic simply because the partisans run the show.
                                You can accept what you want. For now, I accept that you're a Churchillian fanatic: "one who can't change his mind, and won't change the subject."

                                Originally posted by pamak View Post
                                And no politics is more complicated than how you describe it. Nobody cared about the black voters too at some point in time.
                                People only started to care about black voters when blacks got the right to vote. In order to vote, they had to leave the South and migrate North. Only then did political organizations make a real play for blacks' votes. "Moonlight & Magnolia" Lyndon Johnson only started caring about black votes when he figured that several million of them were necessary for him to secure a presidential nomination. Nixon had the same concern, at roughly the same time -- hence the competition to draft and pass civil rights legislation in the late '50s. But when they were running for lower offices, however, Johnson in particular was not only indifferent to blacks' interests, he was downright hostile. It was only when he needed something that he expressed any interest at all. Whatever change he proposed it wasn't exactly predicated on his college-boy morality.

                                Originally posted by pamak View Post
                                But things can change as long as there are people who refuse to accept your logic that their opinion does not matter.
                                When will human politics change? Has it changed since the days of Caesar? Of Thucydides? I mean, can't Trump stand in for Alcibiades or Cleon? When will human politics stop being about wealth and power disguised as schoolboy morality?

                                Originally posted by pamak View Post
                                And speaking about pardons let's not forget the one Ford gave to Nixon.
                                A low water mark in this republic's history, to be sure. Would have been an ideal starting point for holding our "betters" accountable. Could have made a real house cleaning after that.
                                I was married for two ******* years! Hell would be like Club Med! - Sam Kinison

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X