US to sanction Russia over nerve agent poisoning

a reply to: oldcarpy

Yes, I get it's an ongoing inquiry but yet again the UK looks to be lacking both transparency and actual evidence.

I'm sure I recall reading somewhere that the UK police 'thought' they knew who actually carried out the attacks but they doubted they would ever have actual evidence to prove they did so and even less chance of definitely tying those individuals to the Russian state.

I admit I can't find the article mentioned so it all seems to be developing into suppositions and educated guesses - we can not allow foreign policy and international relations to be determined by such measures.

Those involved and the people of Salisbury in general deserve to see justice being done, but that has to be reliant and in accordance with factual evidence.

a reply to: Freeborn


As I said before, we would not expect to see actual evidence yet. We saw plenty of it in the Litvinenko Public Inquiry and I expect that this case will be no different.

They obviously do have a fair bit of evidence as they are considering a formal extradition request for the suspects.

a reply to: oldcarpy

They obviously do have a fair bit of evidence as they are considering a formal extradition request for the suspects.

We'll see.

Something else will grab the publics attention, this will drop off the front pages and gradually become nothing more than a vague memory.
Then we'll see how much evidence they have or are willing to make public.

But still, none of that detracts from the fact that Trump's sanctions have made the UK look weak and indecisive, a common occurrence under Theresa May.

a reply to: Freeborn


I seriously doubt that this will go away. Look up the Litvinenko Inquiry - that could not have been more public.

Was it Trump's or the State Department's sanctions?

a reply to: oldcarpy

I hope it doesn't go away, maybe I'm becoming too cynical and disbelieving with the advancing years.

Was it Trump's or the State Department's sanctions?

Like saying is something Theresa May's doing or Jeremy Hunt?

I can't imagine the State Department imposing sanctions on a country like Russia without the explicit say so of Donald Trump.
Trump would have the final say, so the sanctions are Trumps.

a reply to: Freeborn


From the CNN thingy I posted it seems that it was the State Dept who had to do this under US law but as I said I don't know how things work over the pond. Did they need trump's permission? I don't know.

a reply to: oldcarpy

I had a quick skim through the CNN article - got my grandson today until pub o'clock - I'll try give it a more in depth read some other time.

If the State Department - and by extension the US government of which Trump is the leader - is legally bound to impose sanctions then I'm absolutely certain that Trump must have been informed before hand and must have Ok'd it.

a reply to: Freeborn


Seems likely but I just don't know.

Happy pub o'clock!

originally posted by: Metallicus
Is this really a reason to risk nuclear war?

I don't want to get involved in a war simply because two foreign spooks die. How many members on ATS are willing to escalate tensions with Russia over these two people? Is it worth war?

It's flipping sanctions, half arsed ones at that, not a bloody war.

Britain has followed you loyally into worse, like TWO ACTUALL WARS and a myriad bombing campaigns. Least you guys can do is write a letter of complaint, which is all these sanctions are.

a reply to: gortex


And the media will report this as though it is fact. Dear Lord, it is no wonder the American people are so well indoctrinated.

a reply to: Salander

And the media will report this as though it is fact.

It is fact , the US administration is sanctioning Russia because on the evidence they have Russia are responsible for the attack , that's the story , no spin , hence the link I used.

Dear Lord, it is no wonder the American people are so well indoctrinated.

Lol , never more so than today.
It really is quite shocking.

a reply to: gortex


Yes, "the evidence they have" has been kept secret. They have not shown any evidence to support their hints and allegations.

The pictures early on showed damage consistent with cannon fire.

a reply to: Salander

Yes, "the evidence they have" has been kept secret. They have not shown any evidence to support their hints and allegations.

Is that unusual ?
Evidence in cases like this is kept confidential for good reason.

a reply to: gortex


I'm gonna bet "for national security"

Which, of course, is horse manure. That's just another way of saying "we have stuff to hide from the public".