Aboard Air Force One on the way to Philadelphia today, the White House spokesman, Mr. Snow, said that, contrary to the Democrats’ assertions, Mr. Gonzales has been consistent and that “the president supports him.” Mr. Snow suggested that what some see as deliberate inconsistencies in Mr. Gonzales’s accounts may be a reflection of the complexity of the issues being discussed.

---------------

Gus: If a liar supports you when you support him, it does make you a liar doesn't it? And the complexity of the issues? Hey, this is not rocket science... The issue is about wiretapping...

---------------

The dispute over the truthfulness of Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales reached a new intensity today as the F.B.I. Director, Robert S. Mueller 3rd, contradicted Mr. Gonzales’s sworn testimony before a Senate committee.

Mr. Mueller told the House Judiciary Committee that the Bush administration’s secret eavesdropping program was the main topic at an encounter in the hospital room of then-Attorney General John Ashcroft on March 10, 2004, contrary to what Mr. Gonzales told a Senate panel on Tuesday.

At the time, Mr. Gonzales was the White House counsel, and Mr. Ashcroft was recovering from gall bladder surgery. That March night, Mr. Gonzales went to the hospital room with Andrew H. Card Jr., then White House chief of staff.

In his testimony before the Senate panel on Tuesday, Mr. Gonzales said the subject in the hospital room was “intelligence activities” under debate in the administration, but not the secret eavesdropping program.

But Mr. Mueller contradicted that version of events today, several hours after four Senate Democrats called for the appointment of a special counsel to investigate whether Mr. Gonzales perjured himself before Congress.

 

In the proverb "The Neanderthal with the biggest stick shall win the philosophical contest" I will adapt it to "The smartest with the biggest stick and the deepest pocket shall win the philosophical contest" in :

 

My hat to Mr Murdoch

Seven loses C7 case

The Seven television network has suffered an enormous blow, losing its long-running legal battle in the C7 case.

Seven had argued a number of parties, including News Corporation, Publishing and Broadcasting Limited (PBL), Foxtel had acted anti-competitively in securing the rights to broadcast sporting events.

But Justice Ronald Sackville dismissed Seven's case on all its grounds, saying there was "more than a hint of hypocrisy" in many of Seven's contentions.

Before handing down his decision, Justice Sackville detailed the enormous resources that the case had required.

The case took up 120 hearing days and an electronic database comprising of just over 85,000 documents was generated by the parties.

Justice Sackville says the case is best described as "mega litigation" which has placed a very large burden on the court, and through it, the community.

----------------------

Gus: What follows is only my opinion of what I think I remember from those heady times with a memory that leaks like a hole in the ozone layer... Thus, I may be wrong and may have forgotten or misunderstood a few bits of info which could change my view... But from my little sand castle and the deck of a beached freighter, I can see that no matter what, the viewing public had not even noticed the difference, apart from not knowing where an Australian football match was ever to be broadcast... Was it Channel 10, or nine or Foxtel... Hey, morons, follow the full-on guide (including Foxtel) and bob was your uncle... But had the public not noticed something?

It is always hard to "prove" a conspiracy... Anyone who associate to get rid of little Johnnee could be presented to be conspirators but are they really?... They can express a valid concensus of shared opinion without having to be a conspiracy to do whatever...

So, as the AFL television contracts were up for grab, the main contenders were Channel Seven and a conglomeration of other channels that bided just a bit more to get the gig... Conspiracy? Well, if all your opponent combine to win a crucial contract that would make you viable, is it a conspiracy? C7 was going to be the equivalent to Foxtel on Optus cable. But losing the AFL contract was the death knell of C7.

For any pay-TV channel to work, they need sport and more sport... C7 needed some "exclusive" sport events of magnitude 6 that it could have shared with Channel Seven... But how far could you go with pledging money to this venture of whatever, before ending up in your underwear, begging for food in the street? If my recollection is correct, Optus had weak knees and was not prepared to battle with Mr Murdoch. Who would, apart from insane and loaded media barons prepared to bet more than they have in the bank? My lid to Mr Murdoch

If my pigeon loft is not full of poop, I remember that, at the time, the battle between South Sydney and News Limited was in full swing... The result of which the little guy won, surprisingly but fairly in the appeal's court... But hold on for a few seconds. In order to wipe this blot off the legal landscape, News Limited decided to accept the appeal's court decision against News and let the Rabbitohs play in the big game again (very smart decision on their part to let the older club back into the comp — bring back the fans they were loosing) — but then go to a higher court and get this result quashed, of all things fully by using the then Rabbitohs main lawyer to now fight on News Limited behalf... Isn't it smart or what? Win-win isn't it? So of course, all ends well in the best of the world... No record of bad will against News limited and the public can view their cherished rabbitohs... Excellent. Voltaire would have been proud.

If my memory is correct, at the time, C7 could have grabbed the ARL and formed its own Rugby League competition but that would have proven difficult for many reasons... Most of the greater player had been contracted to News Limited rather than "Super League" Clubs, a smart move by News, stopping any of these clubs from defecting away from "Super League"... If my flunky memory is correct, on top of that, Mr Murdoch kitty was prepared to loose up to a billion dollar to get what it wanted (his kitty lost about 750 millions) and, in the fog of my spinal fluids, I vaguely remember there were some double agents with feet in both camps, making life difficult for C7... My memory is quite blurry there, but was it possible that some people at the ARL were feeding in both trough, the ARL and News Limited "Super League"? Hum... No matter what, C7 was not going to get any sportish event of value to put on the box... End of story.

Yeah, if my memorialisation is correct, the Rabbitohs were prepared to fight to the death since basically, they had been deaden by News Limited action to not include them in the comp, under the new NRL banner, controlled 50 per cent by News Limited (with a bottomless kitty) and an ARL that was more than broke... Thus, what news limited said was gospel.

Any person prepared to take on News Limited needs more than guts and evidence of whatever... If my brain paste is still fluid in parts, a few years ago, a European firm, Vivendi, was conned by News Limited and there was nothing Vivendi could do about it... It's a long story, but in short, one of Vivendi's subsidiary discovered that a Cable TV channel in Italy belonging to Vivendi was being undermined by an outfit set up in Israel that supplied readily the secret codes to many illegal subscribers to the said channel, thus making it lose many millions of dollars in revenue... If my bird-bath I use for brains is still full of stale algae-ed water, the French Channel Canal + had "evidence" of the deed but further more, had "evidence" that the outfit in Israel was working for uncle Rupert... Oulala... So they said, I have no idea....

Vivendi thus took Uncle Rupert to a Californian court for damages to the tune of one billion US dollars... More oulala.. Problem was Vivendi was broke and News Limited resources were bottomless...

A day before the case was due in court, Uncle Rupert made Vivendi an offer Vivendi could not refuse: News would buy the Italian Cable network for something like half a billion bucks, Canal plus had to destroy all the "evidence" it had — and life would be sweet for all... Well, Vivendi, being in debt, had little choice. A court case could have dragged on for years, and while it could have won in the end, it would have gone bankrupt before the result and did not have the resources to fight...

My hat to Mr Murdoch for being extraordinarily smart and having the most powerful "philosophical" stick in hand but my sincere thanks to Kerry Stokes for being brave enough to take on an adversary bigger than the world itself...

Kerry you deserve a medal.

And my memory is still as unreliable as fish paste... So I may be wrong on all of this.

Revealed: MI5's role in torture flight hell

· British source tells of betrayal to CIA
· 'I was stripped and hauled to US base'

David Rose
Sunday July 29, 2007
The Observer

An Iraqi who was a key source of intelligence for MI5 has given the first ever full insider's account of being seized by the CIA and bundled on to an illegal 'torture flight' under the programme known as extraordinary rendition.

In a remarkable interview for The Observer, British resident Bisher al-Rawi has told how he was betrayed by the security service despite having helped keep track of Abu Qatada, the Muslim cleric accused of being Osama bin Laden's 'ambassador in Europe'. He was abducted and stripped naked by US agents, clad in nappies, a tracksuit and shackles, blindfolded and forced to wear ear mufflers, then strapped to a stretcher on board a plane bound for a CIA 'black site' jail near Kabul in Afghanistan.

Berlusconi Spars With Murdoch Over Pay TV

 

PARIS — One is a media mogul with an interest in politics. The other is a politician with media interests. So when Rupert Murdoch and Silvio Berlusconi clashed, it probably was inevitable that the dispute would play out over multiple platforms.

That is what is happening in Italy, where Mr. Berlusconi, the prime minister, used an interview on one of his own television channels to accuse Mr. Murdoch of mounting a personal attack on him via a newspaper owned by News Corp., which Mr. Murdoch controls.

The articles and editorials in question, in The Times of London, have examined the nature of the relationship between Mr. Berlusconi and an 18-year-old model, Noemi Letizia. Mr. Murdoch, appearing on a television channel owned by News Corp., has called the allegations by Mr. Berlusconi “nonsense,” noting that other newspapers, not owned by his company, have been even more critical of the prime minister.

On that level, the dispute may seem as farcical as the antics on an Italian variety show. But on another level, the rivalry between the men is serious business, and it is heating up.

------------------

see comments above... but my memory is fuzzy...

The true depth of British involvement in the torture of terrorism suspects overseas and the manner in which that complicity is concealed behind a cloak of courtroom secrecy was laid bare last night when David Davis MP detailed the way in which one counter-terrorism operation led directly to a man suffering brutal mistreatment.

In a dramatic intervention using the protection of parliamentary privilege, the former shadow home secretary revealed how MI5 and Greater Manchester police effectively sub-contracted the torture of Rangzieb Ahmed to a Pakistani intelligence agency, the Inter-Services Intelligence Directorate (ISI), whose routine use of torture has been widely documented.

This is the first time that the information has entered the public domain. Previously it has been suppressed through the process of secret court hearings and, had the Guardian or other media organisations reported it, they would have exposed themselves to the risk of prosecution for contempt of court.

Davis told MPs that although sufficient evidence had been gathered to ensure Ahmed could be prosecuted for serious terrorism offences, he was permitted to fly from Manchester to Islamabad, the Pakistani capital, in 2006 while under surveillance. He then detailed the way in which the British authorities:

  Tipped off the ISI that Ahmed was on his way.

  Told the ISI he was a terrorist and suggested that he should be detained.

  Were aware of the methods used by the ISI while questioning terrorism suspects.

  Drew up a list of questions for the ISI to put to Ahmed.

  Questioned him themselves after he had been in ISI custody for around 13 days.

The officers from MI5 and MI6 who interrogated Ahmed should have known his detention was unlawful because he had not been brought before a court. Ahmed says he told these officers he was being tortured and that signs of his mistreatment would have been evident.

He says he was whipped, beaten, deprived of sleep and sexually humiliated. At one point three fingernails were ripped out of his left hand. He says this was done slowly, over a period of days, while he was being asked questions which he believes were handed to the ISI by British and US authorities.

Addressing the Commons last night, Davis said: "A more obvious case of outsourcing of torture, a more obvious case of passive rendition, I cannot imagine. He should have been arrested by the UK in 2006. He was not. The authorities knew he intended to travel to Pakistan, so they should have prevented that. Instead, they suggested the ISI arrest him. They knew he would be tortured, and they organised to construct a list of questions and provide it to the ISI."

Ahmed was deported to the UK after 13 months in Pakistani custody, prosecuted largely on the basis of evidence gathered before he had travelled to that country, and jailed for life after being found guilty of membership of al-Qaida and directing a terrorist organisation. The jury at Manchester crown court was not told he had been tortured, and some details of the police and MI5 counter-terrorism operation that resulted in his torture would have been heard in camera, before his trial began and after the media and the public had been excluded from court.

Yesterday the Guardian reported that Ahmed alleges he was recently visited by an MI5 officer and a police officer who said they could arrange for his sentence to be reduced, or for him to be paid money, if he withdrew his complaints about torture during his forthcoming appeal and during civil proceedings in which he is suing the British government. Davis said if this claim was true it was "frankly monstrous".

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jul/08/mi5-torture-evidence-david-davis

An Israeli hacker claims to have broken the copyright protection on Amazon's Kindle e-reader, reports say.

The hack will allow the ebooks stored on the reader to be transferred as pdf files to any other device.

The hacker, known as Labba, responded to a challenge posted on Israeli hacking forum, hacking.org.

It is the latest in a series of Digital Rights Management hacks, the most famous being the reverse engineering of iTunes.

The Kindle e-book reader has been very successful since it was launched in the US in 2007.

---------------

For those who are conspiracy theorists (re israelis), read the comment above re hubris... see the toon at top.