A recent meeting in Vienna, between the member states of Opec finally uncovered what the world had expected for months.

Saudi Arabia is playing politics with oil, forcing Opec to maintain its current production levels at 30m barrels per day, to force down the price.

Consequently oil prices have fallen 35% in 2014, tipping under the $70 mark for the first time since May 2010.

The question is why the Saudis would risk the goodwill of other Opec members, simultaneously emasculating the organisation and undercutting their ability to use it in the future to serve their interests.

It is a game of high-stakes poker and in the long run will cause the Saudis some harm, but that is not where their immediate thoughts lie.

Since the first oil shocks following the 1973 Middle East War, the Saudis have understood the role they can play in regional and world affairs by turning the taps on and off.

But recently, as the US upped its production, it would have been reasonable to assume that Saudi would have correspondingly cut surplus supply to maintain a healthy balance sheet.

But instead Riyadh has done the opposite.

From Riyadh the world looks a grim place, and the Saudis have a host of concerns that they feel are not being addressed adequately, either by their allies in the West or by their partners in the region.

Saudi-Iran tension

Many experts talk of a Cold War between Saudi and Iran, where on every major issue of regional concern an Iranian gain is viewed by the Saudis as a loss, and for the House of Al Saud alarm bells are ringing.

In their view the US has effectively caved in, and allowed Iran off the hook.

The Iranians were not supposed to be allowed any domestic uranium enrichment capacity, let alone get paid $7bn for the privilege.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-30289546

Why go after U.S. troops?

Why not go after Taliban,Al-Queda,ISIS,Al-Shabab, et-al?

The International Criminal Court in The Hague is tiptoeing closer to a confrontation with the United States. The key issue is U.S. detention practices, and the alleged use of torture, in Afghanistan. A report just released by the office of the court’s prosecutor, Fatou Bensouda, for the first time explicitly names U.S. forces as potential culprits.

The back story of the International Criminal Court’s (ICC’s) inquiry into possible crimes in Afghanistan extends more than a decade. Afghanistan joined the ICC in early 2003, less than a year after the court opened its doors. That move gave the international prosecutor potentially broad jurisdiction over crimes committed by all combatants on Afghan soil. Shortly thereafter, the ICC opened what it calls a “preliminary examination” of possible crimes in the country. In this phase of the court’s work, the prosecutor’s office reviews mainly outside sources of information about situations and considers whether to launch a full investigation of its own.

Year after year, the court’s inquiry on Afghanistan has remained in limbo, even as reports of abuses in Afghanistan accumulate. The United Nations estimates that about 8,000 civilians have been killed in the country since 2009 alone.

To many observers, the ICC’s sluggishness in responding to one of the world’s bloodier conflicts appeared odd, particularly as it opened multiple formal investigations in Africa. It was hard to avoid the conclusion that the ICC might be avoiding Afghanistan precisely because an investigation there would involve scrutiny of U.S. actions and otherwise complicate major-power diplomacy related to the conflict. No NATO state involved in Afghanistan has expressed support for an ICC role.

While the court’s inner workings are not easy to divine, it appears that a more assertive approach to Afghanistan developed sometime after Bensouda took over from the court’s first prosecutor, Luis Moreno-Ocampo, in mid-2012. As prosecution officials prepared an update on the Afghan situation, they gathered NGO reports of abuses by U.S. forces and material from U.S. internal inquirers to go along with much more voluminous material on Taliban crimes and alleged Afghan government abuses.

In a Foreign Policy article published in May, I detailed the heartburn that the court’s more energized inquiry was causing in Washington. In 2013, three senior State Department officials dashed to The Hague for a meeting with the deputy prosecutor, veteran Canadian lawyer James Stewart. At that meeting, the U.S. officials discouraged the prosecutor from specifically discussing alleged U.S. misconduct. It appears that Washington’s alarm had an impact; the ICC’s 2013 update on Afghanistan contained no direct references to U.S. forces. Allegations of U.S. misconduct were instead lumped into the category of “pro-government forces” and elided by the passive voice. “It has been alleged,” 2013’s report noted, “that, between 2002 and 2006, some of the detainees captured in Afghanistan were subjected to interrogation techniques which may constitute torture or inhumane treatment.”

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2014/12/03/the_war_over_us_war_crimes_in_afghanistan_is_heating_up_icc_hague?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_term=*Editors%20Picks&utm_campaign=2014_EditorsPicks12%2F3SLO

AN FRANCISCO (KPIX 5) — Police in San Francisco hope surveillance video of men suspected beating a homeless man to death will lead to their arrest.

Video…

http://http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/video?autoStart=true&topVideoCatNo=default&clipId=10910041

Read the rest@   http://dcbeacon.com/video-3-hooded-thugs-beat-homeless-man-to-death-in-san-francisco/

http://news.yahoo.com/video/suspect-arrested-video-shows-man-152458874.html

The “suspect” is 24 and has 11 previous arrests,5 of which are sealed because they were juvenile offenses.

These are the type of people who deserve to be in prison for many years-none of this “community based corrections” bullshit-lock the piece of rotten,festering garbage up for at least 10 years for this-no early release.

Colorado panel keeps lead-based bullets

GRAND JUNCTION, Colo. (AP) – The chorus of voices seeking a ban on lead-based ammunition fell flat in Colorado.

The Colorado Parks and Wildlife commission voted this month not to move forward on a citizen-raised proposal to prohibit lead ammunition for big-game hunting in Colorado.

The commission killed the petition after citing a “lack of credible scientific evidence” as to the long-term impacts of spent lead to wildlife, along with a strong lack of support from the agency itself and concern about potential impacts to hunter participation.

A study by the National Shooting Sports Foundation said banning lead bullets could raise ammo prices “on average, up to 190 percent more” than the lowest-priced traditional lead bullets.

This would “decrease the ability for citizens to participate in recreational activities,” the NSSF said.

But, like the controversy over, and eventual 1991 ban of, lead shot for waterfowl hunters, the issue of getting the lead out of hunting ammo isn’t simple, nor is it going away.

The arguments for and against banning lead-based bullets are as many as the people voicing them.

The pro-ban forces gained an advantage in 2013 when California, under siege from various factors including the anti-hunting Humane Society of the U.S., banned the use of lead ammunition for all hunting purposes.

“Lead poses a danger to wildlife. This danger has been known for a long time,” California Gov. Jerry Brown said.

Studies by the Peregrine Fund, California state researchers and others say condors were exposed to lead poisoning by eating bullet fragments when scavenging dead animals shot by hunters.

Facts…

Despite those and other studies, the California ban “has proven ineffective,” wrote guest columnist Susan Recce in a story earlier this year in The (Portland, Oregon) Oregonian.

“Despite a 99 percent compliance rate by hunters, researchers now admit that ‘lead exposures continue,’ and lead levels in condor blood have not dropped,” Recce wrote. “Supporters of lead ammunition bans continue to ignore alternative sources of lead in the environment as the primary cause of lead poisoning.”