Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Reelya]

http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/article/putin-lauds-thieves-of-us-nuke-intel/453523.html
woah Putin, thats the first strange article about you i ever seen, what happened?

First strange article about Putin? Not for me. How he came to power was extremely dubious (from documentaries i've seen on television here).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_apartment_bombings#Ryazan_incident_controversy

That's just a sample. But there's a whole lot of dodgy stuff surrounding how Putin took power, e.g :-

On 13 September, just hours after the second explosion in Moscow, Russian Duma speaker Gennadiy Seleznyov of the Communist Party made an announcement: "I have just received a report. According to information from Rostov-on-Don, an apartment building in the city of Volgodonsk was blown up last night". However, the bombing in Volgodonsk took place three days later, on 16 September. When the Volgodonsk bombing happened, Vladimir Zhirinovsky demanded an explanation in the Duma, but Seleznev turned his microphone off. Vladimir Zhirinovsky said in the Russian Duma: "Remember, Gennadiy Nikolaevich, how you told us that a house has been blown up in Volgodonsk, three days prior to the blast? How should we interpret this? The State Duma knows that the house was destroyed on Monday, and it has indeed been blown up on Thursday [same week]... How come... the state authorities of Rostov region were not warned in advance [about the future bombing], although it was reported to us? Everyone is sleeping, the house was destroyed three days later, and now we must take urgent measures..." [Seleznev turned his microphone off].
[...]
FSB defector Alexander Litvinenko described this as "the usual Kontora mess up": "Moscow-2 was on the 13th and Volgodonsk on 16th, but they got it to the speaker the other way around," he said. Investigator Mikhail Trepashkin confirmed that the man who gave Seleznev the note was indeed an FSB officer.[76]

Also, on the last bombing they caught officers of the FSB (rebadged KGB) planting the explosives. Putin was head of the FSB prior to becoming prime minister, and the bombings were the pretext for the war against Chechnya, which was used to push Putin's presidential career.

EDIT: One of the people making the claim of a cover-up was ex-KGB officer Alexander Litvinenko who you may remember was assasinated by radioactive polonium-210 :

During his time in London Litvinenko wrote two books, Blowing Up Russia: Terror from Within and Lubyanka Criminal Group, where he accused Russian secret services of staging the Russian apartment bombings and other terrorism acts in an effort to bring Vladimir Putin to power. He also accused Putin of ordering the murder of Russian journalist Anna Politkovskaya.
On 1 November 2006 Litvinenko suddenly fell ill and was hospitalised in what was established as a case of poisoning by radioactive polonium-210 and that resulted in his death on 23 November. The events leading up to his poisoning and death are a matter of controversy, spawning numerous theories relating to his poisoning and death. The British investigation into his death resulted in a failed request to Russia for the extradition of Andrey Lugovoy whom they accused of Litvinenko's murder, contributing to the further cooling of Russia–United Kingdom relations.

[Truean]

http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/article/putin-lauds-thieves-of-us-nuke-intel/453523.html
woah Putin, thats the first strange article about you i ever seen, what happened?

Particularly strange because the article title seems to insinuate he was lauding thieves that haven't been dead for a while. Incidentally, I'm kinda' down with the whole "so the states weren't the sole nuclear power" thing. Sucks that so many countries have nuclear weaponry, but it's better than just one having it But really, s'just a kind of, "Hey, dude's praising people that helped out his side of the fight." thing. Shouldn't surprise anyone, heh.

Anyway, bit of odd one, but understandable considering from whence it came. On the other paw, it's probably time we drop this whole cold war thing. US is going to get reigned in soon* enough, sure, but it innit' gonna' be Russia that does it.

*Note historical time frame. Probably still be big dog during out lifetimes, unless someone in charge does something even-more-phenomenally-stupid-than-normal.

@True: They're not all that bad...

... then again, I don't have much exposure to that particular type of dying-monkey. But yeah, hell, they can't take it with 'em, and it's not like American culture these days is putting much emphasis on giving-a-shit-about-what-happens-next-Tuesdaygeneration. Why should they give flip?

I mean, besides the thousand and one obvious reasons that come from thinking about it for like fiiive seconds but who has the time and energy for that kind of exertion when you're old!? Not that you do when you're young or in between, either.

O not all, but I mean you know what I'm talking about. that element is definitely there. Same thing with the snowbirds/old people here. They just... don't seem to feel like voting for school levies here. They don't have anymore kids so....
________________________________________________________

Also there's this soon to be farce:
http://news.yahoo.com/supreme-court-hear-corporate-human-rights-case-231247941.html

I really hope Scalia wakes the crap up but.... I'm afraid he'll say corporations have free speech, and can violently crush others when then exercise their free speech abroad....

"The justices will hear an appeal by a group of Nigerians who argue they should be allowed to proceed with a lawsuit accusing Shell of aiding the Nigerian government in human rights violations between 1992 and 1995."

"Attorneys for corporations argue that only individuals, such as company employees or managers involved in the abuse, can be sued, a position adopted by a U.S. appeals court in New York. Other courts ruled corporations can be held liable."

Corporations, people when it benefits them, not people when that benefits them. Typically calling the shots regardless.

[Loud Whispers]

Also there's this soon to be farce:
http://news.yahoo.com/supreme-court-hear-corporate-human-rights-case-231247941.html

Well it's a start.
*walks past all the other human rights violations*

Drone strikes much?

[Truean]

Also there's this soon to be farce:
http://news.yahoo.com/supreme-court-hear-corporate-human-rights-case-231247941.html

Well it's a start.
*walks past all the other human rights violations*

Drone strikes much?

Unfortunately two things:
a.) That's a whole different class of  things. Here we're talking about Dutch Shell forcibly silencing protesting of an oil spill (and paying/helping the Nigerian Government to do so) in Africa.
b.) The thing is, that's currently illegal and as it stands corporations can be sued for that (in specific instances) in the US under a federal statute. So right now we're good(ish). The problem is the Supreme Court hearing the case means that might change....

[MetalSlimeHunt]

It could just as easily change for the better too.

[Truean]

It could just as easily change for the better too.

No.... No it cannot.... See, the way it is now, both the trial court and the appeals court have said the corporations CAN be held liable for human rights violations under well established law in the US dating back to the freaking 1700s. All the precedent, is good.

Tons of cases apply to be heard in the SCOTUS, and the overwhelming majority are denied a hearing. The court only takes cases it so chose, that 4 or more justices decide to hear. That means there is some consideration of merit already. No case has the right to be heard in SCOTUS. It is a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Certiorari system.

The fact that they are hearing the case means they can either keep things as they are and let corps be sued for human rights violations they direct or give them immunity. That's really it. It literally can only stay the way it is without corporations having immunity from suit or it can get worse if they do get immunity.

So literally corporate liability immunity =

Genocide ... terrible! Genocide, Inc. ... meh we don't care.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

It could just as easily change for the better too.

No.... No it cannot.... See, the way it is now, both the trial court and the appeals court have said the corporations CAN be held liable for human rights violations under well established law in the US dating back to the freaking 1700s. All the precedent, is good.

Could the Supreme Court not hypothetically rule in a way that makes holding corporations responsible for human rights violations easier than it already is?

[Truean]

It could just as easily change for the better too.

No.... No it cannot.... See, the way it is now, both the trial court and the appeals court have said the corporations CAN be held liable for human rights violations under well established law in the US dating back to the freaking 1700s. All the precedent, is good.

Could the Supreme Court not hypothetically rule in a way that makes holding corporations responsible for human rights violations easier than it already is?

I doubt it's possible as that would be expanding on the law. They can only address issues raised and from what I'm seeing it's "is there corporate immunity or not?"

I'm not joking by the way about the stuff I said:

"Among the cases: Indonesia villagers accused Exxon Mobil Corp's security forces of murder, torture and other abuses in 1999-2001; Firestone tire company was accused of using child labor in Liberia; and Ford Motor Co and other firms were accused of aiding South Africa's apartheid system."

and the corporations are saying:

"'Even a meritless ... suit against a corporation can take years to resolve,' she said in a brief, adding that corporations may reduce their operations in less-developed nations where such abuses tend to arise."

Fuck... you.... Wow.... If the police accuse an individual of Murder for bullshit reasons, and they take it to trial, it goes on for a long time. Deal with it.... Does that mean because there are meritless murder prosecutions that somehow immunity from suit should be given to people, or just some people? Meritless? What about the meritful ones?

[Loud Whispers]

I'd much rather put the people responsible on trial, not the companies 

[Truean]

I'd much rather put the people responsible on trial, not the companies 

a.) O the people are sued too.
b.) Who do you think ordered them to do it? "Indonesia villagers accused Exxon Mobil Corp's security forces of murder, torture and other abuses in 1999-2001" <--- This case was settled, for a lot of money. Why would Exxon do that given that they love blowing these things off/having them procedurally dismissed? There must have been something that kept Exon's very expensive lawyers from not taking this seriously.
c.) None of these corporations knew anything about this? Not a bit? Boy, everybody suddenly knows nothing when a crime is committed, even and especially if they are at fault and that can be proven.... Nobody had any duty to supervise anything despite employing people as "supervisors?"

The corporation is the one calling the shots and paying these people to provide security. Dead bodies start showing up and they can be linked to the corporation, that's a problem. You go after the ringleader who is giving the orders, not just the guy on the street carrying out orders from said ringleader.... Or, if you don't, then ringleader will get another guy to follow his orders....

If we're keeping score, one stupid appeals court in New York State (not this case but another case from a long time ago) stupidly ruled that corporations can't be liable and have immunity. Nobody tried to take that case further (to the SCOTUS), then, so the ruling just sat. Every other court in the country has said there is no corporate immunity....

Hopefully, the Supreme Court is just taking this to side with the majority of appeals courts and smack down the one errant one....
______________________________________________________
Also this:
http://screen.yahoo.com/bill-maher-s-advice-for-obama-28411163.html\

I found it funny and perhaps a little true if not over-exaggerated (it is comedy). Could use some mood lightening after the human rights violation stuff....

[justinlee999]

How do you accidentally put salt in your milk? What were you trying to put in it? Do you put sugar in your milk?

Strange, I know, but some people do put sugar in milk.

Myself, I put hot milk in my sugar, or have cold milk alone.

Eh, I thought people usually put sugar in milk?

[MetalSlimeHunt]

I never put anything in milk. Y'all are crazy.

[GlyphGryph]

I put cookies in my milk.

[Truean]

http://news.yahoo.com/republican-house-bill-strip-feds-jobs-mandate-012420790.html

.... How are the democrats not having a field day with this complete with floats, streamers, and basically everything...? So some of the most influential republican lawmakers are just... completely giving up the pretense of trying to get jobs via any monetary policy....

[Nadaka]

I considered posting this in the American Election thread... But it is a Canadian election issue.

http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/02/22/racknine-inc-fraudulent-election-calls-traced/

Canada's government is illegitimate, the result of blatant voter fraud. In the last election the Canadian conservative party, who won a "majority" by a very slim margin, made robocalls to non-conservative voters informing them that the location of the polls had been changed so that they would arrive at the wrong location and be unable to vote.