If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Guardian)   We are very sorry but the files that document CIA's involvement in rendition flights were unfortunately eaten by the dog   (theguardian.com) divider line 33
    More: Obvious  
•       •       •

2757 clicks; posted to Main » on 10 Jul 2014 at 9:22 AM (11 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



33 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2014-07-10 08:30:41 AM
In regards to Diego Garcia isIand:

In 2000, High Court judges ruled that Chagossians could return to 65 of the islands, but not to Diego Garcia.
In 2004, the government used the royal prerogative - exercised by ministers in the Queen's name - to effectively nullify the decision.
In 2008, the court overturned that order and rejected the government argument that the royal prerogative was immune from scrutiny. The government had asked the Lords to rule on the issue.

Royal Prerogative? Ask the Lords? WTF?
British court rejects the royal prerogative and, because there is no Supreme Court, the government uses the House of Lords to make the judgement.Talk about separation of powers. Makes you want to get on a boat, let's call it the Mayflower, and start somewhere anew.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7683726.stm
 
2014-07-10 09:24:13 AM
Wow.  They must cross train with our IRS.
 
2014-07-10 09:25:45 AM
Dammit, Lois!
 
2014-07-10 09:27:56 AM
Check Lois Lerner's hard drive.  There's always lots of important stuff there.
 
2014-07-10 09:28:10 AM

hinten: In regards to Diego Garcia isIand:

In 2000, High Court judges ruled that Chagossians could return to 65 of the islands, but not to Diego Garcia.
In 2004, the government used the royal prerogative - exercised by ministers in the Queen's name - to effectively nullify the decision.
In 2008, the court overturned that order and rejected the government argument that the royal prerogative was immune from scrutiny. The government had asked the Lords to rule on the issue.

Royal Prerogative? Ask the Lords? WTF?
British court rejects the royal prerogative and, because there is no Supreme Court, the government uses the House of Lords to make the judgement.Talk about separation of powers. Makes you want to get on a boat, let's call it the Mayflower, and start somewhere anew.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7683726.stm


I think people sometimes forget what the K in UK stands for and that the Queen and hereditary nobility, while not wielding the power they had historically, still aren't just tourist attractions and tabloid fodder.
 
2014-07-10 09:30:07 AM
Blame Bush in 3,2,1...
 
2014-07-10 09:31:08 AM
The CIA, unlike most of our other government agencies. knows how to do wet work.
 
2014-07-10 09:31:13 AM
Damn dog.
 
2014-07-10 09:31:54 AM

fireclown: Wow.  They must cross train with our IRS.


Beat me to it.

/Dammit.
 
2014-07-10 09:32:19 AM
All these islands are yours except Diego Garcia, attempt no landing there.
 
2014-07-10 09:32:45 AM

Delta1212: I think people sometimes forget what the K in UK stands for and that the Queen and hereditary nobility, while not wielding the power they had historically, still aren't just tourist attractions and tabloid fodder.


The power you wield is the power you can enforce.

\a sword that cuts both ways
 
2014-07-10 09:33:41 AM
I saw a pretty good rendition of the Lion King on Broadway the other night.  There were no terrorists there.
 
2014-07-10 09:35:52 AM
1.  Stomach pump for the dog.

2.  Put out an APB (All Poop Bulletin) for every pile the dog shat out.

3.  Put a crack team of SPF (Stinky Poop Forensics) techs on the job to piece together remnants of memos, emails, notes, etc. the dog poop pile reveals.

4.  Add Mike Rowe to the team.
 
2014-07-10 09:35:59 AM

fireclown: Wow.  They must cross train with our IRS.


The Muthaship: Dammit, Lois!


Phinn: Check Lois Lerner's hard drive.  There's always lots of important stuff there.


I guess everybody sees the same joke.

So it is bad if the CIA does if, but not a problem if the IRS does it.  I am not sure if I am more frightened by an IRS or CIA probe.
 
2014-07-10 09:38:02 AM
blog.advantagediets.com

Bad Rex. Bad. Oh, the vet is going to have a rough time with this. Imagine, just trying to get you on the exam table.
 
2014-07-10 09:38:21 AM
Thanks, Bobama.
 
2014-07-10 09:51:28 AM
And that doge was unfortunately shredded.
And the shredder mysteriously burned to the ground.
Then a sinkhole swallowed the ashes.
 
2014-07-10 10:03:27 AM
Since there's nothing to refute, go ahead and must make shiat up?
 
2014-07-10 10:17:00 AM
There was a fire
 
2014-07-10 10:23:44 AM
One of the jets shown in the TV show "Criminal Minds" was used for rendition flights.
 
2014-07-10 10:39:33 AM

hinten: In regards to Diego Garcia isIand:

In 2000, High Court judges ruled that Chagossians could return to 65 of the islands, but not to Diego Garcia.
In 2004, the government used the royal prerogative - exercised by ministers in the Queen's name - to effectively nullify the decision.
In 2008, the court overturned that order and rejected the government argument that the royal prerogative was immune from scrutiny. The government had asked the Lords to rule on the issue.

Royal Prerogative? Ask the Lords? WTF?
British court rejects the royal prerogative and, because there is no Supreme Court, the government uses the House of Lords to make the judgement.Talk about separation of powers. Makes you want to get on a boat, let's call it the Mayflower, and start somewhere anew.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7683726.stm


It wasn't really "the House of Lords" it was a segment of the House of Lords of which each member must requirements including a term as a lawyer and judge. And since 2009 they have been replaced by a separate Supreme Court.
 
2014-07-10 10:58:52 AM
Did anyone else read that as "Dingo Garcia"?

/thought not...
 
2014-07-10 10:59:40 AM
I am not AT ALL saying this is the way things should operate, but when you build organizations designed to stretch national and international laws to the brink, and occasionally beyond, hoping that they are working in the best interests of your country, why the hell would you be surprised when evidence of wrongdoing is unavailable? These people deal in secrets and lies every second of every day, and you expect accurate and accountable record keeping? Really?
 
2014-07-10 11:02:25 AM

dywed88: hinten: In regards to Diego Garcia isIand:

In 2000, High Court judges ruled that Chagossians could return to 65 of the islands, but not to Diego Garcia.
In 2004, the government used the royal prerogative - exercised by ministers in the Queen's name - to effectively nullify the decision.
In 2008, the court overturned that order and rejected the government argument that the royal prerogative was immune from scrutiny. The government had asked the Lords to rule on the issue.

Royal Prerogative? Ask the Lords? WTF?
British court rejects the royal prerogative and, because there is no Supreme Court, the government uses the House of Lords to make the judgement.Talk about separation of powers. Makes you want to get on a boat, let's call it the Mayflower, and start somewhere anew.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7683726.stm

It wasn't really "the House of Lords" it was a segment of the House of Lords of which each member must requirements including a term as a lawyer and judge. And since 2009 they have been replaced by a separate Supreme Court.


Indeed. it was the "Judicial Committee of the House of Lords" which, although open to all members of the House of Lords, by convention was only attended by the Law Lords ("Lords of Appeal in Ordinary"). The only time in recent history that a non-Law Lord attended, he was completely ignored.
 
2014-07-10 11:05:27 AM

ukexpat: dywed88: hinten: In regards to Diego Garcia isIand:

In 2000, High Court judges ruled that Chagossians could return to 65 of the islands, but not to Diego Garcia.
In 2004, the government used the royal prerogative - exercised by ministers in the Queen's name - to effectively nullify the decision.
In 2008, the court overturned that order and rejected the government argument that the royal prerogative was immune from scrutiny. The government had asked the Lords to rule on the issue.

Royal Prerogative? Ask the Lords? WTF?
British court rejects the royal prerogative and, because there is no Supreme Court, the government uses the House of Lords to make the judgement.Talk about separation of powers. Makes you want to get on a boat, let's call it the Mayflower, and start somewhere anew.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7683726.stm

It wasn't really "the House of Lords" it was a segment of the House of Lords of which each member must requirements including a term as a lawyer and judge. And since 2009 they have been replaced by a separate Supreme Court.

Indeed. it was the "Judicial Committee of the House of Lords" which, although open to all members of the House of Lords, by convention was only attended by the Law Lords ("Lords of Appeal in Ordinary"). The only time in recent history that a non-Law Lord attended, he was completely ignored.


So they agreeded that torture in the UK is allowed for terror suspects?
 
2014-07-10 11:33:42 AM
Just throw them all in the clink until the documents are found.

/Seems fair to me.
 
2014-07-10 11:40:09 AM

jehovahs witness protection: Blame Bush in 3,2,1...


No no, I'm pretty sure we're back to "thanks Obama" this week.
 
2014-07-10 11:42:30 AM
... has anyone mentioned the parallels between this and the Lois Lerner missing e-mails?

;-P
 
2014-07-10 11:44:30 AM
It's a shame we live on a time when only paper records are possible. Because I'm *sure* that if we could store them as, say, electronic data, that would exist somewhere. And that fact would be so well-known that nobody would dare try the old "water damage" invention.

Sigh. If only.
 
2014-07-10 12:07:46 PM
James Hacker: How am I going to explain the missing documents to "The Mail"?

Sir Humphrey Appleby: Well, this is what we normally do in circumstnces like these.

James Hacker: [reads memo] "This file contains the complete set of papers, except for a number of secret documents, a few others which are part of still active files, some correspondence lost in the floods of 1967..." Was 1967 a particularly bad winter?

Sir Humphrey Appleby: No, a marvellous winter. We lost no end of embarrassing files. J

James Hacker: [reads] "Some records which went astray in the move to London and others when the War Office was incorporated in the Ministry of Defence, and the normal withdrawal of papers whose publication could give grounds for an action for libel or breach of confidence or cause embarrassment to friendly governments." That's pretty comprehensive. How many does that normally leave for them to look at?... How many does it actually leave? About a hundred?... Fifty?... Ten?... Five?... Four?... Three?... Two?... One?... *Zero?*

Sir Humphrey Appleby: Yes, Minister.

www.tyre-shopper.co.uk
 
2014-07-10 12:25:13 PM
ts1.mm.bing.net
We named it The Dog.
 
2014-07-10 01:38:30 PM
"Oh that incriminating evidence? Sorry, that was `accidentally destroyed` as soon as we thought you might ask for it."

I think i`ll try that next time I get asked for my financial records by some company or a court because of debt.

"Oh that money I had? That was `accidentally destroyed` on hookers and cocaine"
 
2014-07-10 01:47:43 PM
Tony Blair's "earlier explicit assurances that Diego Garcia had not been used for rendition flights" had not been correct.

Well what a surprise that the only MP who has come out as catholic turns out also to be a big fat liar.

I`m surprised he does not fark children (but there is time for that to come out yet)
 
Displayed 33 of 33 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report