Sectarian murder, torture, bloody power struggles and racketeering are what for many define their image of the Ulster Defence Association. Yet as Northern Ireland's Troubles worsened in 1971 and 1972, it emerged with a mass membership to defend Loyalist areas against the IRA and to uphold the Union with Britain. By 1974 it was able to defy the will of an elected government and it went on to formulate political strategies for working-class Loyalism.Ian S. Wood uses his specialist knowledge as well as extensive interviews to recount these events and the ruthless war waged by the UDA on the nationalist community. He explores issues such as the UDA's descent into criminality and its relationship with the 'secret war' conducted by Britain's undercover services and he assesses what impact the organisation had on the outcome of Europe's worst political and ethnic conflict between 1945 and the break-up of the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia after 1990.
Ian S. Wood uses his specialist knowledge as well as extensive interviews to recount the events of Ireland's Troubles and the ruthless war waged by the UDA on the nationalist community.
Dickinson was an ordinary working man with a family in the suburbs-- until a major international corporation threatened to destroy the union he worked for. He joined The Cause-- the crusade to save his union and the careers of its 400 members. It was a noble cause; fighting for his livelihood and his union against the global company trying to destroy both. But in Chicago, nothing is as it seems. The union had mob ties, and Dickinson's willing participation earned him a powerful position in the Chicago Mob-dominated union. This made him a target of an FBI task force commissioned to bring down the notorious union. After seven years of living in the dark, Kent asked God to deliver him from evil, and began an odyssey through years of trials and prison that revealed life's true joy and its ultimate cause.
A witty, provocative, story-filled inquiry into the indispensable virtue of loyalty—a tricky ideal that gets tangled and compromised when loyalties collide (as they inevitably do), but a virtue the author, a prizewinning columnist for The Wall Street Journal, says is as essential as it is impossible. Felten illustrates the push and pull of loyalties— from the ancient Greeks to Facebook—with stories and scenarios in which conflicting would-be moral trump cards trap the unlucky in painful ethical dilemmas. The foundation of our greatest satisfactions in life, loyalty also proves to be the root of much misery. Can we escape the excruciating predicaments when loyalties are at loggerheads? Can we avoid betraying and being betrayed? When looking for love and friendship—the things that make life worthwhile—we are looking for loyalty. Who can we count on? And who can count on us? These are the essential (and uncomfortable) questions loyalty poses. Loyalty and betrayal are the stuff of the great stories that move us: Agamemnon, Huck Finn, Brutus, Antigone, Judas. When is loyalty right, and when does the virtue become a vice? As Felten writes in his thoughtful and entertaining book, loyalty is vexing. It forces us to choose who and what counts most in our lives—from siding with one friend over another to favoring our own children over others. It forces us to confront the conflicting claims of fidelity to country, community, company, church, and even ourselves. Loyalty demands we make decisions that define who we are.
You Don't Know the Full Truth About O.J. Simpson and the Murders that Gripped a Nation. But Mike Gilbert does, and after nearly two decades of being O.J. Simpson's sports agent, business advisor, and trusted confidant, Gilbert is breaking his silence and telling the full story of the man he idolized, but now despises. Gilbert's shocking tale is unlike anything you've read before; it isn't his "version" of what happened--it's the unvarnished truth. The truth about O.J., the murders, and the infamous trial. Not as Gilbert imagined or would like it to be, but how it actually was. Gilbert doesn't spare anyone, not even himself--he helped deceive the jury and feels deeply responsible for the "Not Guilty" verdict.
At a time when age-old political structures are crumbling, civil strife abounds, and economic uncertainty permeates the air, loyalty offers us security in our relationships with associates, friends, and family. Yet loyalty is a suspect virtue. It is not impartial. It is not blind. It violates the principles of morality that have dominated Western thought for the last two hundred years. Loyalties are also thought to be irrational and contrary to the spirit of Capitalism. In a free market society, we are encouraged to move to the competition when we are not happy. This way of thinking has invaded our personal relationships and undermined our capacities for friendship and loyalty to those who do not serve our immediate interests. As George P. Fletcher writes, it is time for loyal bonds, born of history and experience, to prevail both over impartial morality and the self-interested thinking of the market trader. In this extended essay, George P. Fletcher offers an account of loyalty that illuminates its role in our relationships with family and friends, our ties to country, and the commitment of the religious to God and their community. Fletcher opposes the traditional view of the moral self as detached from context and history. He argues instead that loyalty, not impartial detachment, should be the central feature of our moral and political lives. Writing as a political "liberal," he claims that a commitment to country is necessary to improve the lot of the poor and disadvantaged. This commitment to country may well require greater reliance on patriotic rituals in education and a reconsideration of the Supreme Court's extending the First Amendment to protect flag burning. Given the worldwide currents of parochialism and political decentralization, the task for us, Fletcher argues, is to renew our commitment to a single nation united in its diversity. Bringing to bear his expertise as a law professor, Fletcher reasons that the legal systems should defer to existing relationships of loyalty. Familial, professional, and religious loyalties should be respected as relationships beyond the limits of the law. Thus surrogate mothers should not be forced to surrender and betray their children, spouses should not be required to testify against each other in court, parents should not be prevented from willing their property to their children, and the religiously committed should not be forced to act contrary to conscience. Yet the question remains: Aren't loyalty, and particularly patriotism, dangerously one-sided? Indeed, they are, but no more than are love and friendship. The challenge, Fletcher maintains, is to overcome the distorting effects of impartial morality and to develop a morality of loyalty properly suited to our emotional and spiritual lives. Justice has its sphere, as do loyalties. In this book, Fletcher provides the first step toward a new way of thinking that recognizes the complexity of our moral and political lives.
Their neighbors were Bill and Hillary Clinton. Their home was Chappaqua, the upscale New York suburb famous for its tranquility—until one dark night, when a brutal murder shattered the community. Driving home with his wife Peggy, Carlos Perez-Olivo claimed he was forced off the road by another vehicle. Entering the couple's SUV, the other driver allegedly shot and killed Peggy during a struggle. Then, while wrestling with the assailant, Carlos took a bullet in the abdomen. But disturbing facts about Carlos began to surface: He'd sent flowers to his mistress two days before Peggy's murder. He'd been recently disbarred as a criminal defense attorney. And now, he stood to inherit Peggy's life insurance policies. With each revelation, more questions were raised: Was Carlos an innocent victim? A scheming accomplice? Or a cold-blooded killer? This is what really happened...
Why do war crimes occur? Are perpetrators of war crimes always blameworthy? In an original and challenging thesis, this book argues that war crimes are often explained by perpetrators' beliefs, goals, and values, and in these cases perpetrators may be blameworthy even if they sincerely believed that they were doing the right thing.
