Detainees, Torture, Etc.

President Bush and Senate Republicans seem to have reached a compromise in the dispute over the treatment of detained terror suspects. The compromise allows the CIA interrogation program, which may or may not involve torture to go on and seems to open the door to military trail of terror suspects.
This agreement means nothing because of the circumstances of the War on Terror. If our troops or agents capture a top Al Qaeda leader whom they suspect of planning something really bad they are going to do whatever it takes to get that man to talk no matter what Congress says. That's the nature of the war we fight, no US Agent is going to put the rights real or imagined of terrorists above the lives of Americans. Anymore than any British or French agent is going to put British subjects or French citizens' lives at risk by respecting terrorists' rights.
Even if the US decides not to torture, etc., we can simply turn the terrorist over to somebody who will. If the CIA grabs a senior terrorist and can't use any means necessary to make him talk, they'll turn to somebody else for help.
The plane carrying the terrorist to Guantanamo Bay will develop "engine trouble" and set down in say China or Russia. Once on the ground the terrorist will "escape" and immediately be captured by the local secret police who just happen to be waiting at the airfield. And note escape might mean being thrown out of the plane by a couple of burly Marines.
Once in the secret police's hands the terrorist will be taken to security headquarters and interogated. American agents will be in the room to get the information they need and if somebody questions what's going on. They'll act just like the French police chief in Casablanca. They'll be shocked to see that torture is going on and recommend that anybody who is shocked should file a complaint with Amnesty International.
So let's face the truth folks, since Sept. 11 and the Anthrax attacks terrorists and their leaders have only one right: once in custody the right to cooperate. Until Al Qaeda and its allies renounce brutal attacks against civilians that's the way it will have to be.

Is the UN A Threat To World Peace and Security?

The United Nations may now be a threat to the very things it was set up to ensure: the world’s peace and security.
There are several ways in which the UN undermines global peace but the most obvious and destructive role it serves is as an enabler for international conflict. This happens because in the past few years, the UN has degenerated into a forum which world leaders use to justify their behaviors.
The most glaring example of this was the 2003 Iraq War, President Bush, Prime Minister Blair and their allies needed a justification for the invasion of Iraq. To justify their war they went to the UN, Iraq had violated some UN Security Council Directives (as has virtually every other nation on Earth including the US and Britain) and demanded action. The Security Council eventually gave a rubber stamp to their war even though many of its members opposed the war. The UN enabled the war in Iraq as it has enabled other conflicts in the past.
More recently the UN has virtually created the conflicts with Iran and North Korea over nuclear weapons. There is no evidence that the possession of nuclear weapons by fourth rate powers such as Iran and North Korea would be a threat to anybody. The nuclear weapons programs would probably weaken those regimes by being a waste of their limited money and resources. The nuclear bombs themselves would ultimately prove useless because the United States and other countries possess a nuclear deterrent. Like the Soviet Union, which possessed the largest nuclear arsenal in history, those governments will eventually collapse whether they have nukes or not.
The best course of action for the UN, the US and the major powers would be to simply ignore Iran and North Korea. Since those nations are no military threat to anyway their rhetoric is nothing but hot air which will do nothing but bore their populations.
Yet that doesn’t happen because the UN bureaucracy has to justify its existence and Secretary General Kofi Anan has to justify his job. So an “international crisis” is manufactured, the International Atomic Energy Agency swings into action and dutifully finds evidence of nuclear weapons development. Press releases are sent out and action is demanded, so the Security Council meets to address the crisis. Sanctions are demanded and warmongers in the US and other countries see their moronic demands for preemptive war justified.
Another terrible example of the United Nations’ conflict generation is the Arab Israeli conflict. The UN gives anti-Semitic extremists a forum in which to attack Israel and condemn its efforts at self defense (remember the UN resolution stating that Zionism was racism back in the 70s?). Arab and Islamic leaders get to justify their cause and spread propaganda (which they themselves don’t believe) to distract their people from their own incompetence and corruption. International relations are poisoned and war and conflict generated. Israel, a peaceful modern and democratic state is turned into an international pariah by gutter level third world thugs who get to play statesman at the UN. Conveniently located in New York so the scum can collect bribe money from big business while condemning Israeli colonialism.
The whole tragedy of the UN is made worse by the charade of UN peace keeping. Token military forces; which lack the authority and firepower to do anything, are dispatched to international trouble spots, once there they sit around and watch while the bad guys kill and hurt innocent people or the war wages on. UN negotiators and mediators then appear and work out an agreement which is usually giving the side with the superior firepower whatever it wants.
Note I haven’t even mentioned the UN’s dismal human rights records, the Human Rights Commission on which representatives of the worst gangster regimes on earth sit. In other words the UN endorses and promotes gangsterism and dictatorship - two things that always lead to war – by giving such criminals respectability.
What can be done about the UN, I really don’t know? My guess is that real reform of the UN won’t be possible until China becomes democratic, and a US withdrawal from the organization will only make the situation at the UN worse.
Perhaps the only real answer to the UN is to work within the present organization and try to alleviate or at least moderate the damage it does. One good place to start would be for Americans of all political persuasions to learn to distinguish between the ugly reality at the UN and the noble ideals behind the organization - ideals that have become a sick joke because of the UN’s failure to even try to live up to them.

Is a War Between Catholics and Muslims Brewing?

Just when it seems that the conflict between Islamic extremists of various stripes and the rest of the world couldn't get any worse some Moslems are trying to pick a fight with the world's billion or so Catholics.
Muslims are outraged at Pope Benedict who quoted an obscure Medieval Byzantine text that called some of Mohamad's teachings evil and inhumane. The usual collection of demagogic Islamic preachers and politicians has crawled out of the woodwork and launched tirades against the pope. Some extremists have gone farther, already churches in the West Bank have been firebombed and I imagine Catholic churches in Western Europe will be next.
I also imagine that some terrorists, probably Al Qaeda; will target Catholic leaders and shrines for attack. I also imagine that some extremists will use the Pope's remarks to justify attacks on the Italian led peacekeeping force in Lebanon. Italy's capitol is after all Rome, which is also the location of the Vatican. The Islamic extremists will claim that the peacekeepers are crusaders trying to reconquer part of the lands occupied by the Medieval Crusaders, which Southern Lebanon was.
The great danger from radical Islamic attacks on Catholicism will be the Catholic reaction. Historically, Catholics haven't been very passive in the face of Islamic aggression. Remember the Crusades they were basically a Catholic counterattack against Islam. So was the Reconquista in which Spanish Catholics retook their homeland and destroyed a great outpost of Islamic civilization in the process.
These wars were as violent and destructive as anything launched by Moslems against their enemies.
The reaction of Western Europe's spiritually dead Catholics to renewed Islamic aggression will be to roll over and play dead but what about Latin America and Eastern Europe? Or Poland and Romania where the church is the dominant national institution? What about all the Mexicans who drive around in pick up trucks with pictures of the Virgin on them? All the Latin Americans who make regular pilgrimages to Catholic shrines? What would their reaction be if some Islamic terrorist blows up the Vatican or kills the Pope?
My guess is that there would be grassroots demands for some sort of counterstrike throughout Latin America.
Locally, there would probably be attacks on Moslems and Mosques in that part of the world. I wouldn't want to be a Moslem in Mexico or heavily Hispanic areas of the US if word of an attack on the Vatican comes over the news.
I imagine that there would be a lot of talk of reconquesta and crusades in Latin America. How much of it would translate into action? Well, Brazil is a major military power with a large army and modern weapons. Several Latin Countries have excellent armies so some sort of military action perhaps in alliance with Israel might be possible.
A worse scenario would be freelance military action in other words terrorism by groups of Catholics against the Islamic world. There is lots of historic precedent for this sort of thing remember the Knights Templar, Knights of Malta and other orders of crusading knights from Medieval times. They were indepedent paramilitary organizations much like modern terrorist groups that waged private wars on Moslems and other enemies of the faith, real and imagined. If governments and the church fail to respond to Islamic aggression such groups might arise particularly in Europe.
Judging by the number of novels featuring the Templars as heroes and glorifying their exploits on sale these days there is a great deal of popular interest in those blood soaked conquerors.
There is also some recent history of such groups, there are many right wing paramilitary groups in Latin America, many with close connections to militaries, law enforcement, intelligence organizations and the drug cartels in Latin America. These are the notorious death squads responsible for the atrocities of the 1970s and 80s American leftists wrongly blame on the CIA. The members of most of these organizations are staunchly Catholic. These groups arose in reaction Communism which they saw correctly as a threat to the church, their solution to Communism was to torture and murder anybody they suspected of being a a Communist or Communist sympathizer. How will they react to Islamic terrorism directed against the Church? They might strike back hard and their activities wouldn't be confined to Latin America. In the 1970s, and 1980s, Operation Condor a shadowy alliance of anti Communist intelligence agencies and military officers committed murders and other crimes in several South American countries and even extended its activities to the United States. A modern day Operation Condor with financing from the drug cartels could easily expand it's activities to Europe and even the Middle East. One reaction to an attack on Vatican would be an attack on Mecca.
In Europe we have the example of the Order of the Archangel Gabriel the Romanian fascist army of the 1930s and 40s or Iron Brigades. They were fascists whose goal was to proect the church, a revival of such organizations is likely in the face of Radical Islam.
Hoepfully, the current brew hah hah over Pope Benedict's remarks will blow over but I don't think it will. Unfortunately, these ill advised remarks by a man of peace could be what triggers a very nasty and very dirty war between people of faith.

Is the UN a Threat To World Peace and Security

The United Nations may now be a threat to the very things it was set up to ensure: the world’s peace and security.
There are several ways in which the UN undermines global peace but the most obvious and destructive role it serves is as an enabler for international conflict. This happens because in the past few years, the UN has degenerated into a forum which world leaders use to justify their behaviors.
The most glaring example of this was the 2003 Iraq War, President Bush, Prime Minister Blair and their allies needed a justification for the invasion of Iraq. To justify their war they went to the UN, Iraq had violated some UN Security Council Directives (as has virtually every other nation on Earth including the US and Britain) and demanded action. The Security Council eventually gave a rubber stamp to their war even though many of its members opposed the war. The UN enabled the war in Iraq as it has enabled other conflicts in the past.
More recently the UN has virtually created the conflicts with Iran and North Korea over nuclear weapons. There is no evidence that the possession of nuclear weapons by fourth rate powers such as Iran and North Korea would be a threat to anybody. The nuclear weapons programs would probably weaken those regimes by being a waste of their limited money and resources. The nuclear bombs themselves would ultimately prove useless because the United States and other countries possess a nuclear deterrent. Like the Soviet Union, which possessed the largest nuclear arsenal in history, those governments will eventually collapse whether they have nukes or not.
The best course of action for the UN, the US and the major powers would be to simply ignore Iran and North Korea. Since those nations are no military threat to anyway their rhetoric is nothing but hot air which will do nothing but bore their populations.
Yet that doesn’t happen because the UN bureaucracy has to justify its existence and Secretary General Kofi Anan has to justify his job. So an “international crisis” is manufactured, the International Atomic Energy Agency swings into action and dutifully finds evidence of nuclear weapons development. Press releases are sent out and action is demanded, so the Security Council meets to address the crisis. Sanctions are demanded and warmongers in the US and other countries see their moronic demands for preemptive war justified.
Another terrible example of the United Nations’ conflict generation is the Arab Israeli conflict. The UN gives anti-Semitic extremists a forum in which to attack Israel and condemn its efforts at self defense (remember the UN resolution stating that Zionism was racism back in the 70s). Arab and Islamic leaders get to justify their cause and spread propaganda (which they themselves don’t believe) to distract their people from their own incompetence and corruption. International relations are poisoned and war and conflict generated. Israel, a peaceful modern and democratic state is turned into an international pariah by gutter level third world thugs who get to play statesman at the UN. Conveniently located in New York so the scum can collect bribe money from big business while condemning Israeli colonialism.
The whole tragedy of the UN is made worse by the charade of UN peace keeping. Token military forces; which lack the authority and firepower to do anything, are dispatched to international trouble spots, once there they sit around and watch while the bad guys kill and hurt innocent people or the war wages on. UN negotiators and mediators then appear and work out an agreement which is usually giving the side with the superior firepower whatever it wants.
Note I haven’t even mentioned the UN’s dismal human rights records, the Human Rights Commission on which representatives of the worst gangster regimes on earth sit. In other words the UN endorses and promotes gangsterism and dictatorship - two things that always lead to war – by giving such criminals respectability.
What can be done about the UN, I really don’t know? My guess is that real reform of the UN won’t be possible until China becomes democratic, and a US withdrawal from the organization will only make the situation at the UN worse.
Perhaps the only real answer to the UN is to work within the present organization and try to alleviate or at least moderate the damage it does. One good place to start would be for Americans of all political persuasions to learn to distinguish between the ugly reality at the UN and the noble ideals behind the organization - ideals that have become a sick joke because of the UN’s failure to even try to live up to them.

9-11: Five Years Later

It’s hard to believe but it’s been five years since that dark day in September, 2001, when our world changed forever. As Americans pause to remember the greatest horror to befall our nation since Pearl Harbor we ask ourselves the all important questions: are we safer, can it happen again and when the War on Terror end?
To the safer question the answer is obviously yes because we are taking the menace of terrorism seriously. Before Sept. 11, Americans thought of terrorism as the stuff of comic books, paperback thrillers and action movies rather than a deadly reality. Today we know that terrorism particularly Islamic terrorism is a threat and we are prepared to face it.
The government has taken a lot of precautions against terrorism, some of them effective and some of them little more than window dressing. On the positive side President Bush’s offensive against terrorism seems to have worked the aggressive CIA roundup of terror suspects, the secret prisons, electronic eavesdropping, the invasion of Afghanistan have broken up Al Qaeda and stopped its outrages even the invasion of Iraq which has gotten Al Qaeda bogged down in a war in that country.
On the negative side here at home the War Terror seems to have degenerated into an excuse for pork-barrel spending and bureaucratic empire building. Most of the precautions taken here at home are a waste of time and money. The Department of Homeland Security serves no real purpose, the security precautions at the airports will keep our planes safe by deterring the terrorists who will simply direct their attacks elsewhere. The proposals for increased security at ports and other places seem more like a corporate welfare scheme for the private security industry than genuine plans for defense. Meanwhile real efforts such as electronic eavesdropping and plain clothes air marshals on airliners are hobbled by politics and bureaucratic stupidity.
To the can it happen again question, the answer is more complex. I seriously doubt anybody will be able to hijack an airliner and crash it into a city like the Sept. 11 monsters did. The minute a nut gets up on a plane and tries to hijack it in the future he’ll be mobbed or perhaps lynched by the passengers.
Another major terrorist attack using different tactics is probably inevitable. It hasn’t happened yet because the CIA and the Pentagon have effectively dismantled Al Qaeda and Al Qaeda’s resources simply aren’t as great as we were led to believe. On the other hand there are lot of would be Islamic fanatics out there who want to hurt and kill us sooner or later enough of them will get sufficient funding and organization to launch another catastrophic attack against the US, India, Israel or Europe it probably won’t happen next week but it’ll happen someday.
The final question is how long will the war on terror last and when will it end? My answer is this the War on Terror will end the Islamic extremism that drives the terrorists is discredited as an ideology. That will only happen after the Islamic extremists have suffered catastrophic defeats on the battlefield as the Nazis and Japanese Imperialists did or they have held power for awhile and have been exposed as the tyrants and gangsters they really are as the Communists were. My guess is that won’t happen for years probably until around the year 2020.
So strap yourselves in folks it’s going to be a long and ugly war in which we’ll see many more Sept. 11 anniversaries.

Iranian President is really clone of Adolph Hitler!!

Experts agree that Iranian President Mahoud Ahmadinejad is obviously a clone of Adolph Hitler.
Several top geneticists agreed that after examining pictures of Ahamdinejad and Hitler that the Iranian leader is obviously a clone of the dreaded Nazi Fuhrer. The geneticists spoke in anonymity because they are afraid of assassination by Nazi fanatics such as the Red Skull.
However, it is a well documented historical fact that Hitler provided genetic material to mad scientist Joseph Mengale shortly before his death. Mengale used this material to create dozens of Hitler clones which he placed with families all over the world. Most of the Hitler clones have been eliminated by American, British and Israeli secret agents but a number are believed to still be in existence. According to experts Ahamdinejad is obviously one of those clones programmed to carry out Hitler's holy mission of waging unlimited war on the Jewish people.
Allegations of being a Hitler clone have plagued several world leaders including U.S. President George W. Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair. In 2004 bloggers debunked false documents leaked to CBS News by a Kerry campaign worker that insinuated that Bush was a Hitler clone.
Rumors that clones of other evil dictators such as Mao Zedong and Joseph Stalin exist have not been proven. However, it is rumored that Dr. Mengale died in Beijing in 1980 where he was doing special research for the Chinese government. Genetic tests on Saddam's sons were inclusive but some experts believe they were clones of the Iraqi leader and not natural sons. In a related story, the Cuban government has long denied rumors that Elian Gonzalez is really a Fidel Castro clone being groomed to take the bearded one's place

Bin Laden is No Fascist

Nothing demonstrates just how ignorant our so-called political leaders and their self-appointed critics in the media than the popular acceptance of the term Islasmo Fascism to describe Bin Laden and his ilk.
President Bush is the latest person to start using this stupid term in what seems to be an effort to prove that all the liberal commentators portraying him as a dummy are right. Hopefully, President Bush’s use of Islamo Fascism will totally discredit this moronic idea and make it go away.
The idea behind Islamo Fascism is that Bin Laden & company are somehow the ideological heirs of Hitler and perhaps of Lenin (who was a Communist). To be correct, Hitler wasn’t a fascist he was a Nazi or National Socialist, that was a political movement distinctive to Germany and Austria in the 1920s and 30s.
Fascism was a political movement formed by Benito Mussolini in Italy in the 1920s. Fascism was basically nationalism on steroids, fascists believed that the nation was everything the highest ideal was to sacrifice one’s life for the nation on the battlefield, the economy should be socialist and run by the national government, freedom of speech should be suppressed and only entertainment and art that glorifies the nation should be allowed, every man should be forced to serve in the military or perform some sort of national service. Everything in society including the church must be subservient to the national government and its dictator.
Hitler certainly qualified as a fascist by these criteria but so do Stalin, Lenin, Mao, Saddam Hussein, Juan Peron and Fidel Castro. Unfortunately Bin Laden and most modern Islamic radicals do not. Bin Laden has turned his back upon his nation, Saudi Arabia, and now fights to destroy it.
This isn’t to say that Bin Laden isn’t evil and dangerous he certainly is but in a very different sort of way. Osama Bin Laden is many things, all of them horrendous but he is certainly no fascist.
Fascism like Nazism and Communism was a thoroughly modern movement of the Twentieth Century. The goal of Fascism like Nazism and Communism was to destroy the corrupt old order and create a utopia based on modern science and technology.
Bin Laden’s goal is the reverse to destroy the modern world and recreate something long vanished the Arab Empire or Caliphate that existed in Medieval times. Bin Laden embraces modern technology but he wishes to abolish modern society and replace it with something older and simpler.
Modern Islamic radicalism is a thoroughly anti nationalist movement, it seeks to abolish the nation state and replace it with a traditional Islamic Empire that will encompass the entire world. Bin Laden even calls himself Caliph or Emperor, Osama has abandoned his nation and family to fight for this cause. The goal is a religious one to create a new world order based upon his interpretation of the Koran.
Fascism like Communism was a thoroughly secular movement that sought to replace traditional religion with the worship of the state and its leaders. Heaven was to be replaced with some sort of utopia that would exist in the future if the party line were followed religiously.
The goal of modern Islamic radicalism is to restore the Medieval civilization when God and faith were the center of life. It is to destroy modern civilization but not modern science and technology or for that matter economics which Bin Laden and company are totally comfortable with. This is not the goal of fascism, although some fascists, Heinrich Himmler in particular, wanted to restore feudalism (with themselves as the nobility not the peasants), a goal that the Communists nearly achieved.
The goal of the post modern Islamic radical is a thoroughly post modern one to create a truly post modern civilization in which men can live like feudal lords while enjoying all the benefits of post modern life. Like the fascists the Islamic militants want martial glory but they also want I-pods, stock portfolios, video games, action movies, professional sports, pornography and SUVs. They also want a degree of individualism Hitler or Mussolini would never have tolerated among their followers.
Islamo Fascism, isn’t a description of America’s modern enemies, it’s a term that shows how ignorant our so called leaders are of both our enemies and history.

End Drug Eradication in Afghanistan Now
By Daniel G. Jennings
The War on Drugs may deprive America and its allies of victory in one of the most important battlegrounds in the War on Terror: Afghanistan.
Al Qaeda’s mercenary army; the Taliban, is making a come back in Afghanistan because of American efforts to eradicate the opium poppy which is the raw ingredient in heroin. Opium poppies are about the only cash crop that Afghan farmers (some of the world’s poorest people) can grow and opium is about the only industry in Afghanistan. American and allied forces are trying to destroy the livelihood of average Afghans while the Taliban is protecting the poppy growers get the picture here.
The common sense thing for America to do would be to simply end the opium eradication program in Afghanistan and let the Afghans grow the poppies. Yes, this would be a setback in the war on drugs, but drugs including heroin are an evil we’ve lived with for generations. Modern terrorism, as Sept. 11 demonstrated, is a horror that could turn our cities into waste lands. Compared to Al Qaeda and the Taliban, the drug trade is certainly the lesser of two evils.
If we were to allow opium production we’d get most of the tribal leaders and local politicians in Afghanistan on our side. Make a deal with local Afghan leaders, oppose the Taliban and Al Qaeda and we won’t interfere in your opium farming.
Instead of supporting the Taliban the Afghan druglords and their private armies could be out hunting down Bin Laden, Al Qaeda and the Taliban. My guess is that these guys would jump at the chance to get arms and military training from US forces. That way American, Canadian and European troops wouldn’t have to risk their lives in the Afghan mountains and money could be saved. Equipping an Afghan tribesman and deploying him in the field would be far cheaper than deploying Western soldiers and potentially more effective.
The money brought in by the drug trade could also form an important economic resource that could be used to finance Afghanistan’s rebuilding. That way American tax money wouldn’t have to wasted on foreign aid projects that make bureaucrats feel good but do little to help average people.
If the idea of allowing the drug trade and doing business with drug lords is too unsettling there is another alternative. Instead of wasting our tax money on foreign aid schemes simply buy the opium directly from the Afghan farmers for cash. Once we buy the opium we can process it into pharmaceuticals or simply pile it up on the tarmac at the US Air base and burn it.
An opium purchase scheme would give average Afghans a reason to support US forces and to oppose the Taliban. It would also inject all important cash into the Afghan economy and put that cash into the hands of average Afghans instead of bureaucrats or warlords. The money could form the basis of a modern economy in Afghanistan which is the only thing that will defeat the Taliban in the long run.
Doing business with drug lords and opium purchase schemes are examples of the kind of out of the box thinking we’ll need to win this war on terror. Unfortunately such thinking involves difficult and potentially politically unpopular decisions so I doubt we’ll see such creativity in our national strategy until we’ve suffered a really humiliating defeat in Afghanistan.

A Fantastic Story

Every once in awhile a story too fantastic to be believed by anybody who isn't tripping out on LSD hits the media. This week it is the moronic claim that the Pakistani government is going to let Osama Bin Laden live in peace in Pakistan a story even ABC News wants to beleive. http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/09/bin_laden_gets_.html
This story is unbelievable for if it were true the United States would attack Pakistan to get Bin Laden. Remember what happened to Afghanistan when it was sheltering Bin Laden? Nobody in Pakistan wants war with the United States, particularly because Pakistan's archenemy India would seize upon such a conflict to occupy all of Pakistan long before US troops got there.
So what 's really going on here? One of two things, either A) some sort of sleazy deal has been cut with the leaders of Waziristan the region of Pakistan where Bin Laden is supposedly has been cut so they will turn Bin Laden over to the US. One strong possibility American forces will land there find Bin Laden and some of his henchmen capture them and take them to Guantanamo. The local tribal chieftan in Waziristan then issues a statement condemning American aggression while counting all the fresh new US dollars he just recieved from the CIA for turning Bin Laden in. Then goes home to watch his speech on Al Jazeera on his new Plasma screen TV received through his new satellite dish, he'll drive home in his New Hummer.
Possibility two is that Bin Laden isn't it in Pakistan or the mountainous region between Pakistan and Afghanistan and hasn't been there for a long time. The Pakistani government knows it so they don't care, Bin Laden is long gone.
So where is he? My guess would be Europe. Bin Laden is hiding out in some enlightened liberal Europe country like Holland, he's shaved his beard and may even be pretending to be a Christian. Where's the last place you'd look for Bin Laden? Praying down at the local cathedral. That way if Bin Laden sees the CIA capture squad coming for him he just calls the media on his cell phone, runs down to the local police station, turns himself in and screams you can't turn me into the evil Americans they'll give me the death penalty. That way Bin Laden stays in some country club prison in Europe running his terror outfit and directing the war while America tries to extradite him and fails. No US politician would bring Bin Laden into an American court without the death penalty on the table, no European pol would extradite Bin Laden to face Death in the USA.
Either way something else is going on here. Mark my word for it this whole thing is hookum. What it covers up I don't know but somethng's going on...

Denver’s Civic Center Park: Symptom of Urban Decline

Anybody who wonders why America’s population is fleeing the cities at an unprecedented rate despite an urban renaissance and a falling crime rate only needs to look at the Tragicomedy being played out in Denver’s Civic Center Park.
Civic Center Park is the park located between Denver’s City and County Building (City Hall) and the Colorado State Capitol at the center of the Mile High City. It’s an impressive location surrounded by monumental early 20th Century Architecture especially our capitol and the towering skyscrapers put up in the oil boom of the 80s. It’s also a disgraceful blight, a beautiful Greco Roman theater filled with drug dealers and bums (okay homeless people to you politically correct types).
Civic Center Park has been declared an area of urban blight, so a group of self appointed do-gooders called the Civic Center Conservancy have gotten together and given that architectural charlatan Daniel Libskend (if you want to know about this Wunderkind look him up on the Internet) $75,000 to redesign the park. At a press conference on August 31, Libskend appeared happy (wouldn’t you be happy if somebody handed you a $75,000 check for a pretty picture and a power point presentation?) as he showed off his grandiose redesign of the park.
This basically means putting a piece of ugly statuary in the middle of the park, destroying its classical beauty, and covering the old Greek Theater with glass. There’s only one problem that’s not necessary, there’s nothing wrong with Civic Center Park it’s a beautiful old monument that ought to be preserved as it is. The Greek Theater is a wonderful civic monument, the State Capitol and City and County Building echoes of our more sensible past.
The only real problem with Civic Center Park is that it is filled with bums and drug dealers. This problem could be solved by having a couple of Denver City police officers walk the beat through the park. Okay that would be tough for Denver cops they’d have to get in their squad car and drive two blocks east from their headquarters. Once they got out they’d have to actually exercise which might be a challenge for them but I’m sure their doctor recommends they’d get some. Maybe some drunk would throw up on them and they might actually have to use their nightsticks tough luck, when their grandfathers walked the beat back in the 30s they didn’t flinch at that stuff.
Now, I’ve observed the bums and drug dealers in Civic Center Park many times they are hardly desperate characters. A couple of Boy Scouts with sticks could probably run them off if they really wanted to so some real cops ought to be able to clear the place out and make it safe for office workers to have lunch with one or two arrests. The bums are hiding in Civic Center Park because the working class Mexicans on Denver’s west side would run them off if they venture west of the Platte. The dealers who are in the park are criminal failures whom the Mexican Mafia which runs our city’s drug trade wants nothing to do with them. The Mexican Mob actually demands that its members have balls and actually work standards too high for the Civic Center Park crowd.
Cleaning out Civic Center Park could be easily be done, the Denver Police work for the fraud known as Mayor Hickenlooper geologist turned brewer turned real estate developer. Although I doubt Hickenlooper would actually order them to do anything that might offend the cops ex football jocks, whom he’s probably afraid of them. Hickenlooper looks like the kind of nerd who forked over his lunch money to the class bully in his second year of college. If Hick were really a crook he’d slip the Mexican mob a few bucks and have them come to the park someday and do a little work and presto the bums would never be seen there again but he has neither the balls or imagination for that. There might be a little blood on one of the stone steps but who’d notice? Of course the only conversation our Mayor has with a Latino male is to tell him which table to clear so this won’t happen. So Mayor Hick, won’t do a thing and Civic Center Park will be destroyed so Herr Libskend can buy a new Mercedes to drive on the Autobahn.
The new Civic Center Park will be ugly and still filled with bums and drug dealers. Meanwhile the real political leaders who built the great buildings around it the state Capitol and the City and County Building will roll over in their graves and ask why didn’t that that asshole Hickenlooper just have the cops run the trash out of the park we built? Even as Mayor Hickenlooper asks why is the Middle Class moving out of my city? Hint: you’re not doing your job and making the place ugly in the process.