Recag/C4_22 · Datasets at Hugging Face

text stringlengths 12 49.6k
O'Neill was dealt a blow when he was forced to replace striker Nicklas Bendtner with teenager Connor Wickham after the Dane had been accidentally caught in the face by Angel Rangel's boot.
But Sunderland might have fallen behind within seconds of the newcomer's arrival when Gylfi Sigurdsson, not for the first-time, slipped the ball in behind full-back Richardson for Nathan Dyer to deliver a low cross.
Danny Graham failed to make contact in front of goal, but the ball ran to Scott Sinclair behind the far post and he skied his effort well over.
The visitors were made to pay within seconds when Sessegnon cut inside from the left and after exchanging passes with James McClean, curled a deft right-foot shot across keeper Michel Vorm and high into the top corner.
David Vaughan blazed over from 22 yards five minutes later as the home side threatened to kill the game off, but as the initial storm abated, the visitors belatedly found their feet.
Icelandic international Sigurdsson and Joe Allen started to get to grips with the midfield battle and as Sunderland repeatedly surrendered possession far too cheaply, it was the Welsh side who started to dominate.
Graham was unable to direct Sigurdsson's 26th-minute cross at goal, but keeper Simon Mignolet was grateful to see the midfielder's dipping effort from distance drop just wide five minutes later.
Sigurdsson saw a 39th-minute shot blocked by Lee Cattermole and scuffed a second straight at Mignolet seconds later with Sunderland pinned back deep inside their own half.
O'Neill was clearly unhappy with his side's performance as the half drew to a close, and the whistle arrived as something of a relief.
His side returned in far more positive mood to put the visitors under pressure, and they almost broke through again with 51 minutes gone.
Sessegnon's enterprising run allowed him to feed Larsson on the right and when the Swede sent in an inviting cross, the former only just failed to connect with an overhead kick.
The ball broke to Wickham, whose effort was blocked, as was Vaughan's follow-up, and Swansea eventually managed to scramble clear.
But once again, the visitors responded and after Sigurdsson had wasted a 55th-minute free-kick, he forced a good save from Mignolet with a second three minutes later.
Loan signing Josh McEachran arrived as a 66th-minute replacement for Sigurdsson with his side labouring in the search for an equaliser.
They came close to falling further behind 15 minutes from time when Sessegnon dived to meet McClean's cross with a firm header, but the ball flew just wide.
Wayne Routledge and Gardner arrived as 78th-minute replacements for Leon Britton and David Vaughan as Brendan Rodgers looked for greater creativity and O'Neill attempted to tighten things up.
Wickham came close to cementing the victory when he fired just wide from the loose ball after getting the better of an aerial challenge with Ashley Williams, but Gardner wrapped up the points with a fine volley five minutes from time.
The Weekly Standard Editor William Kristol leads a discussion at the National Press Club on Oct. 3, 2011 in Washington, DC.
For months, Donald Trump has kept the third-party embers burning, hinting that if he decided Republican officials were treating him “unfairly,” he’d abandon the GOP’s nominating process and explore an independent bid for the presidency. What few considered is the inverse: Republicans launching a third-party effort against Trump.
Whether Republicans are totally committed to him is an entirely different question.
In some cases, GOP officials and even rival presidential candidates have hedged on whether they’re ready to support Trump if he were to win the Republican nomination. Bill Kristol, “a member of the Republican firmament,” took this sentiment to Twitter last week, asking what to name the new political party insiders will have to create if Trump is the Republican nominee.
ABC News asked Kristol if he was serious.
ABC: Would you leave the Republican Party if he does win the nomination?
KRISTOL: I was semi-serious. I don’t think Trump will be the nominee, so I don’t expect it to be an issue. But since I don’t think I could support Trump, and I’d like to have someone to vote for, if Trump were to be the nominee, I’d be open to a new party, probably for 2016 only – but you never know.
Note, the Weekly Standard editor wasn’t predicting the creation of a separate Republican Party to take on a possible Trump-led ticket, which is important – because everything Kristol predicts is invariably proven wrong.
Rather, this was a GOP insider kicking around the idea – in public, on the record, more than once – of leaving his party, temporarily, in order to take on the Republican nominee, in the event Trump prevails in the primary process.
Let’s be very clear: Trump may be the frontrunner, but we’re not even close to the point where anyone can characterize him as the likely nominee. Before anyone starts talking that way, actual Republican voters will have to start, you know, voting.
But even putting this aside for now, consider the related question: how severe is the panic inside the GOP establishment? Bill Kristol – Bill Kristol! – is so concerned about the idea of a Trump nomination, he’s “semi-serious” about the creation of new entity that would exist to challenge his own party’s nominee.
The Washington Post’s Philip Bump had a piece yesterday explaining why such an effort would not go well for the breakaway Republican entity. It’s a fact Kristol no doubt understands well, and which is why it probably won’t happen.
But as 2015 comes to an end, who would have guessed over the summer that we’d be at this point?
Does The U.S. Support Torturing Terror Suspects?
This is a partial transcript from "The O'Reilly Factor," September 12, 2006, that has been edited for clarity.
BILL O'REILLY, HOST: Now for the top story tonight. Opposing point of view joining us from Washington. Katherine Newell-Bierman, a former captain in the Air Force, present counsel for Human Rights Watch. This is crazy, right? Red Hot Chili Peppers blaring in on Zubaydah? This is nuts.
KATHERINE NEWELL-BIERMAN, HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH: Not if it's long enough and loud enough. The noise sounds like that in a cold room. Things that might sound pretty minor if they're long enough and loud enough and it's cold enough can cause severe pain and suffering. That's the bottom line.
O'REILLY: Severe pain and suffering. So you consider cold room and the Chili Peppers torture?
NEWELL-BIERMAN: Let me put it this way, Bill, when an interrogator sets out to use techniques like this to talk, you're not talking a few minutes of sounds or not talking a nippy 68 degrees. They're going to use them to the extent the person is being caused pain.
O'REILLY: Discomfort. I don't know about pain but I guess you could make an argument that having to listen to the Chili Peppers blaring in a cold room could cause pain.
NEWELL-BIERMAN: Well, Bill, we've seen this in torture chambers around the world. These kinds of techniques are not uncommon.
O'REILLY: So this is a torture chamber according to you and Human Rights Watch. This is torture.
NEWELL-BIERMAN: These techniques if used a certain away can amount to torture.
O'REILLY: OK. Now that to me is just nuts. Torture is taking my fingers off, disfiguring me, taking my eye out — not keeping me in a cold room and uncomfortable with blaring rock music.
NEWELL-BIERMAN: Let me ask you this, though.
O'REILLY: This is the debate. Now you have to understand this is the debate. This guy broke, Zubaydah — according to this article. I wasn't there. According to the article he broke because of this treatment and he gave up Khalid Sheikh Muhammad.
NEWELL-BIERMAN: He told us stuff we already knew, Bill. He told us Khalid Sheikh .
O'REILLY: That's what you say. Not what the CIA says.
NEWELL-BIERMAN: President Bush used him as a poster boy for these techniques and he said that Abu Zubaydah told us Khalid Sheikh Muhammad was actually Muqtar. According to the 9/11 Commission the CIA knew that in 2001.
O'REILLY: According to this article .
NEWELL-BIERMAN: I think President Bush's speechwriters gave him the most poignant example he could use and that's the one he used. That's pretty sad.
O'REILLY: If you can read then you read this article and according to the article the government official unnamed — I will admit we don't like unnamed sources — said that they broke Zubaydah and Zubaydah gave them up all the names that they need to get to prevent further terror attacks. Now I'm going to believe that unless you can prove it differently and you can't.
NEWELL-BIERMAN: Bill, tell you what, I'm going to suggest you have another guest on your show. That's Ron Suskind, someone who has had perhaps more access to people in the CIA than anybody else and has a book called "The One Percent Solution." And he goes into exactly what happens with Abu Zubaydah and what kind of information he gave up and the fact that Abu Zubaydah was a crazy man. He was writing diaries in the voices of three different people who were all living in his head.
O'REILLY: You don't believe, then, this New York Times.
NEWELL-BIERMAN: Bottom line is President Bush described Americans abusing and coercing interrogation from a crazy man who told us stuff we already knew or told us stuff we didn't know and we had to find out that wasn't true. That's the story behind the story.
O'REILLY: You don't believe the story then, because the story makes no mention of what you just said. The story basically says the FBI wanted a soft interrogation, the CIA wanted tough. Tough included the Red Hot Chili Peppers and a cold room.
NEWELL-BIERMAN: The story said that.
O'REILLY: And then at the end of the story, which should have been the lead paragraph but The Times is going to bury that all day long, the government official says, look, we broke the guy. The guy gave us very useful information and protected Americans. You say that's bull. You're just flat out .
NEWELL-BIERMAN: Bill, I'm telling you there's more information, OK? Here is the bottom line. OK? From day one through year five the U.S. military and the FBI have been saying coercive interrogation techniques get you garbage and come at a high cost.
O'REILLY: I don't believe that at a second.
NEWELL-BIERMAN: General Timmons said it at the Pentagon.
O'REILLY: I talked to the interrogators at Guantanamo. You may have seen that. I went down there.
O'REILLY: I talked to head interrogator Bob Rum in Afghanistan. These are the hands-on guys that do it every day.
NEWELL-BIERMAN: You're saying the interrogators told you torture is an effective technique to get good information?
O'REILLY: I'm telling you that coerced interrogation, you ask any police department in the United States, it works on most, not all, but most. It works.
NEWELL-BIERMAN: Works for what? They say what they want to say to get you to stop hurting them. I'm not going to argue this point with you. Let's look at the cost of these techniques.
O'REILLY: There's no end to the argument. Let me pose a very simple question to you.
NEWELL-BIERMAN: Let's look at the costs of these techniques. It makes a big difference.
O'REILLY: All you want to protect your family and my family is name, rank, and jihad number. That's all you want. You don't want any other techniques.
NEWELL-BIERMAN: You don't know that.
NEWELL-BIERMAN: Come on. Let's get real here. You said you want to talk about reality? Let's talk reality, OK?
O'REILLY: No, straight-on interrogation, Captain.
O'REILLY: I talked to them face-to-face. I talked to him face-to- face. He told me a totally different story.
NEWELL-BIERMAN: Get General Timmons up here. Get the military up here to testify before Congress.
O'REILLY: Very simple, OK, name, rank, jihad number. Anything else that you require from these guys?
NEWELL-BIERMAN: Bill, that's not our position and you know it.
O'REILLY: What's your position? State it.
NEWELL-BIERMAN: Our position is that abusive interrogation techniques which cause severe mental and physical pain and suffering are unlawful and really, really stupid.
O'REILLY: Captain, you got nothing and the Red Hot Chili Peppers isn't torture. Hate to break it to you. We appreciate you coming on the program.
Copy: Content and Programming Copyright 2006 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Transcription Copyright 2006 Voxant, Inc. (www.voxant.com), which takes sole responsibility for the accuracy of the transcription. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. No license is granted to the user of this material except for the user's personal or internal use and, in such case, only one copy may be printed, nor shall user use any material for commercial purposes or in any fashion that may infringe upon Fox News Network, LLC'S and Voxant, Inc.'s copyrights or other proprietary rights or interests in the material. This is not a legal transcript for purposes of litigation.
The RCMP and other police forces arrested 15 people Monday in a series of raids in Montreal and Toronto targeting what investigators say is an extensive international money laundering network with ties to organized crime.
The RCMP, working with the Canada Revenue Agency, began the probe dubbed “Collector” in 2016 and wrapped it up last spring before launching raids Monday at around 6 a.m. More than 300 RCMP officers in Ontario and Quebec took part in Monday’s operation, aided by officers from the Montreal, Laval and Toronto police forces.
RCMP Cpl. Genevieve Byrne said the raids — which involved 11 search warrants in Montreal and Toronto — continued throughout the day. Byrne said the warrants target 19 people, but only 15 had been arrested.
The four others being sought are Victor Vargotskii, 56, of Montreal, Mohamad Jaber, 51, of Laval, Que., Frederick Rayman, 71, of Toronto and Francisco Javier Jimenez Guerrero, 35, who place of residence is not known.
RCMP Sgt. Luc Thibault said Monday’s operation “targets individuals who facilitated the collection of money from criminal groups in Montreal and laundered the proceeds of their illicit activities.” He said in an interview that most of the money was drug-related but would not give details about the network’s operations.
Thibault also declined to say what other countries were involved in the network or where the allegedly laundered money ended up. The RCMP has scheduled a news conference to provide more details Tuesday in Montreal.
Thibault said the suspects arrested Monday were transported for detention in Laval, just north of Montreal. An RCMP plane landed around 10:15 a.m. at the St-Hubert airport in the Montreal suburb of Longueuil carrying several suspects arrested in the Toronto area. The remaining people arrested in Ontario were expected to be brought to Laval later in the day.
Police seized large quantities of cannabis, cocaine and methamphetamine and $1.7 million in Canadian and foreign currency. Thibault said the Canada Revenue Agency seized properties “owned by network members” valued at $15 million.
The RCMP is not releasing the names of the suspects arrested Monday but said they will likely face charges including conspiracy, trafficking and laundering the proceeds of crime.
The RCMP estimates that between $5 billion and $15 billion is laundered every year in Canada, but International Monetary Fund figures suggest the problem is much larger.
“If we extrapolate (from international figures) for Canada, it could be a $100-billion problem,” said Denis Meunier, a former senior executive with the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada who now works as a consultant.
He said tactics for covering the traces of illicit funds are becoming increasingly sophisticated.
“They use lawyers and accountants to create shell companies, limited companies. And then these companies are multiplied,” Meunier said. Ownership becomes harder to track with each new layer added, making it hard for investigators to identify who is responsible.
A report published last year by an international organization combating money laundering revealed that criminal groups were laundering $1 billion a year in British Columbia through legal and illegal casinos. Meunier said the situation is no better elsewhere in Canada.
“If the governments don’t take their heads out of the sand, it is going to continue, and it is going to get even worse in all cities,” he said.
What tactical setups will both manager adopt in Liverpool vs Man City?
The two most exciting teams in England - maybe even Europe - play each other on Sunday. Two thrilling sides full of creativity, pace, skill, made up of individuals determined to play open, fast football.
It's the Premier League's record points scorers vs their very real, very frightening rivals. The 'tactical genius' vs the manager who keeps beating him.
What message would a win deliver for the victors? What effect might a defeat have? And more importantly - how will the game be decided?
In all four meetings between these clubs last season both teams played a 4-3-3, with Liverpool's shape a 4-5-1 in defensive phases, and City's a 4-1-4-1.
Pretoria - Finance Minister Pravin Gordhan has the daunting task of delivering perhaps the most crucial budget in South Africa’s 22 years of democratic government, said Dr Chris Harmse, chief economist at Rebalance Fund Managers.
Although he faces immense pressure from social inequalities, the “free for all” student protests, ailing government parastatals and looming municipal elections, far more is at stake and a true “no return” budget speech (Rubicon) is needed as never before, in Harmse's view.
"The normal 'accounting' exercise of balancing the books and fine tuning the expenditure and income sides of the budget simply will not work this time. The normal laughable announcement of higher taxes on liquor and tobacco this time also will not be enough," he said.

O'Neill was dealt a blow when he was forced to replace striker Nicklas Bendtner with teenager Connor Wickham after the Dane had been accidentally caught in the face by Angel Rangel's boot.

But Sunderland might have fallen behind within seconds of the newcomer's arrival when Gylfi Sigurdsson, not for the first-time, slipped the ball in behind full-back Richardson for Nathan Dyer to deliver a low cross.

Danny Graham failed to make contact in front of goal, but the ball ran to Scott Sinclair behind the far post and he skied his effort well over.

The visitors were made to pay within seconds when Sessegnon cut inside from the left and after exchanging passes with James McClean, curled a deft right-foot shot across keeper Michel Vorm and high into the top corner.

David Vaughan blazed over from 22 yards five minutes later as the home side threatened to kill the game off, but as the initial storm abated, the visitors belatedly found their feet.

Icelandic international Sigurdsson and Joe Allen started to get to grips with the midfield battle and as Sunderland repeatedly surrendered possession far too cheaply, it was the Welsh side who started to dominate.

Graham was unable to direct Sigurdsson's 26th-minute cross at goal, but keeper Simon Mignolet was grateful to see the midfielder's dipping effort from distance drop just wide five minutes later.

Sigurdsson saw a 39th-minute shot blocked by Lee Cattermole and scuffed a second straight at Mignolet seconds later with Sunderland pinned back deep inside their own half.

O'Neill was clearly unhappy with his side's performance as the half drew to a close, and the whistle arrived as something of a relief.

His side returned in far more positive mood to put the visitors under pressure, and they almost broke through again with 51 minutes gone.

Sessegnon's enterprising run allowed him to feed Larsson on the right and when the Swede sent in an inviting cross, the former only just failed to connect with an overhead kick.

The ball broke to Wickham, whose effort was blocked, as was Vaughan's follow-up, and Swansea eventually managed to scramble clear.

But once again, the visitors responded and after Sigurdsson had wasted a 55th-minute free-kick, he forced a good save from Mignolet with a second three minutes later.

Loan signing Josh McEachran arrived as a 66th-minute replacement for Sigurdsson with his side labouring in the search for an equaliser.

They came close to falling further behind 15 minutes from time when Sessegnon dived to meet McClean's cross with a firm header, but the ball flew just wide.

Wayne Routledge and Gardner arrived as 78th-minute replacements for Leon Britton and David Vaughan as Brendan Rodgers looked for greater creativity and O'Neill attempted to tighten things up.

Wickham came close to cementing the victory when he fired just wide from the loose ball after getting the better of an aerial challenge with Ashley Williams, but Gardner wrapped up the points with a fine volley five minutes from time.

The Weekly Standard Editor William Kristol leads a discussion at the National Press Club on Oct. 3, 2011 in Washington, DC.

For months, Donald Trump has kept the third-party embers burning, hinting that if he decided Republican officials were treating him “unfairly,” he’d abandon the GOP’s nominating process and explore an independent bid for the presidency. What few considered is the inverse: Republicans launching a third-party effort against Trump.

Whether Republicans are totally committed to him is an entirely different question.

In some cases, GOP officials and even rival presidential candidates have hedged on whether they’re ready to support Trump if he were to win the Republican nomination. Bill Kristol, “a member of the Republican firmament,” took this sentiment to Twitter last week, asking what to name the new political party insiders will have to create if Trump is the Republican nominee.

ABC News asked Kristol if he was serious.

ABC: Would you leave the Republican Party if he does win the nomination?

KRISTOL: I was semi-serious. I don’t think Trump will be the nominee, so I don’t expect it to be an issue. But since I don’t think I could support Trump, and I’d like to have someone to vote for, if Trump were to be the nominee, I’d be open to a new party, probably for 2016 only – but you never know.

Note, the Weekly Standard editor wasn’t predicting the creation of a separate Republican Party to take on a possible Trump-led ticket, which is important – because everything Kristol predicts is invariably proven wrong.

Rather, this was a GOP insider kicking around the idea – in public, on the record, more than once – of leaving his party, temporarily, in order to take on the Republican nominee, in the event Trump prevails in the primary process.

Let’s be very clear: Trump may be the frontrunner, but we’re not even close to the point where anyone can characterize him as the likely nominee. Before anyone starts talking that way, actual Republican voters will have to start, you know, voting.

But even putting this aside for now, consider the related question: how severe is the panic inside the GOP establishment? Bill Kristol – Bill Kristol! – is so concerned about the idea of a Trump nomination, he’s “semi-serious” about the creation of new entity that would exist to challenge his own party’s nominee.

The Washington Post’s Philip Bump had a piece yesterday explaining why such an effort would not go well for the breakaway Republican entity. It’s a fact Kristol no doubt understands well, and which is why it probably won’t happen.

But as 2015 comes to an end, who would have guessed over the summer that we’d be at this point?

Does The U.S. Support Torturing Terror Suspects?

This is a partial transcript from "The O'Reilly Factor," September 12, 2006, that has been edited for clarity.

BILL O'REILLY, HOST: Now for the top story tonight. Opposing point of view joining us from Washington. Katherine Newell-Bierman, a former captain in the Air Force, present counsel for Human Rights Watch. This is crazy, right? Red Hot Chili Peppers blaring in on Zubaydah? This is nuts.

KATHERINE NEWELL-BIERMAN, HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH: Not if it's long enough and loud enough. The noise sounds like that in a cold room. Things that might sound pretty minor if they're long enough and loud enough and it's cold enough can cause severe pain and suffering. That's the bottom line.

O'REILLY: Severe pain and suffering. So you consider cold room and the Chili Peppers torture?

NEWELL-BIERMAN: Let me put it this way, Bill, when an interrogator sets out to use techniques like this to talk, you're not talking a few minutes of sounds or not talking a nippy 68 degrees. They're going to use them to the extent the person is being caused pain.

O'REILLY: Discomfort. I don't know about pain but I guess you could make an argument that having to listen to the Chili Peppers blaring in a cold room could cause pain.

NEWELL-BIERMAN: Well, Bill, we've seen this in torture chambers around the world. These kinds of techniques are not uncommon.

O'REILLY: So this is a torture chamber according to you and Human Rights Watch. This is torture.

NEWELL-BIERMAN: These techniques if used a certain away can amount to torture.

O'REILLY: OK. Now that to me is just nuts. Torture is taking my fingers off, disfiguring me, taking my eye out — not keeping me in a cold room and uncomfortable with blaring rock music.

NEWELL-BIERMAN: Let me ask you this, though.

O'REILLY: This is the debate. Now you have to understand this is the debate. This guy broke, Zubaydah — according to this article. I wasn't there. According to the article he broke because of this treatment and he gave up Khalid Sheikh Muhammad.

NEWELL-BIERMAN: He told us stuff we already knew, Bill. He told us Khalid Sheikh .

O'REILLY: That's what you say. Not what the CIA says.

NEWELL-BIERMAN: President Bush used him as a poster boy for these techniques and he said that Abu Zubaydah told us Khalid Sheikh Muhammad was actually Muqtar. According to the 9/11 Commission the CIA knew that in 2001.

O'REILLY: According to this article .

NEWELL-BIERMAN: I think President Bush's speechwriters gave him the most poignant example he could use and that's the one he used. That's pretty sad.

O'REILLY: If you can read then you read this article and according to the article the government official unnamed — I will admit we don't like unnamed sources — said that they broke Zubaydah and Zubaydah gave them up all the names that they need to get to prevent further terror attacks. Now I'm going to believe that unless you can prove it differently and you can't.

NEWELL-BIERMAN: Bill, tell you what, I'm going to suggest you have another guest on your show. That's Ron Suskind, someone who has had perhaps more access to people in the CIA than anybody else and has a book called "The One Percent Solution." And he goes into exactly what happens with Abu Zubaydah and what kind of information he gave up and the fact that Abu Zubaydah was a crazy man. He was writing diaries in the voices of three different people who were all living in his head.

O'REILLY: You don't believe, then, this New York Times.

NEWELL-BIERMAN: Bottom line is President Bush described Americans abusing and coercing interrogation from a crazy man who told us stuff we already knew or told us stuff we didn't know and we had to find out that wasn't true. That's the story behind the story.

O'REILLY: You don't believe the story then, because the story makes no mention of what you just said. The story basically says the FBI wanted a soft interrogation, the CIA wanted tough. Tough included the Red Hot Chili Peppers and a cold room.

NEWELL-BIERMAN: The story said that.

O'REILLY: And then at the end of the story, which should have been the lead paragraph but The Times is going to bury that all day long, the government official says, look, we broke the guy. The guy gave us very useful information and protected Americans. You say that's bull. You're just flat out .

NEWELL-BIERMAN: Bill, I'm telling you there's more information, OK? Here is the bottom line. OK? From day one through year five the U.S. military and the FBI have been saying coercive interrogation techniques get you garbage and come at a high cost.

O'REILLY: I don't believe that at a second.

NEWELL-BIERMAN: General Timmons said it at the Pentagon.

O'REILLY: I talked to the interrogators at Guantanamo. You may have seen that. I went down there.

O'REILLY: I talked to head interrogator Bob Rum in Afghanistan. These are the hands-on guys that do it every day.

NEWELL-BIERMAN: You're saying the interrogators told you torture is an effective technique to get good information?

O'REILLY: I'm telling you that coerced interrogation, you ask any police department in the United States, it works on most, not all, but most. It works.

NEWELL-BIERMAN: Works for what? They say what they want to say to get you to stop hurting them. I'm not going to argue this point with you. Let's look at the cost of these techniques.

O'REILLY: There's no end to the argument. Let me pose a very simple question to you.

NEWELL-BIERMAN: Let's look at the costs of these techniques. It makes a big difference.

O'REILLY: All you want to protect your family and my family is name, rank, and jihad number. That's all you want. You don't want any other techniques.

NEWELL-BIERMAN: You don't know that.

NEWELL-BIERMAN: Come on. Let's get real here. You said you want to talk about reality? Let's talk reality, OK?

O'REILLY: No, straight-on interrogation, Captain.

O'REILLY: I talked to them face-to-face. I talked to him face-to- face. He told me a totally different story.

NEWELL-BIERMAN: Get General Timmons up here. Get the military up here to testify before Congress.

O'REILLY: Very simple, OK, name, rank, jihad number. Anything else that you require from these guys?

NEWELL-BIERMAN: Bill, that's not our position and you know it.

O'REILLY: What's your position? State it.

NEWELL-BIERMAN: Our position is that abusive interrogation techniques which cause severe mental and physical pain and suffering are unlawful and really, really stupid.

O'REILLY: Captain, you got nothing and the Red Hot Chili Peppers isn't torture. Hate to break it to you. We appreciate you coming on the program.

Copy: Content and Programming Copyright 2006 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Transcription Copyright 2006 Voxant, Inc. (www.voxant.com), which takes sole responsibility for the accuracy of the transcription. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. No license is granted to the user of this material except for the user's personal or internal use and, in such case, only one copy may be printed, nor shall user use any material for commercial purposes or in any fashion that may infringe upon Fox News Network, LLC'S and Voxant, Inc.'s copyrights or other proprietary rights or interests in the material. This is not a legal transcript for purposes of litigation.

The RCMP and other police forces arrested 15 people Monday in a series of raids in Montreal and Toronto targeting what investigators say is an extensive international money laundering network with ties to organized crime.

The RCMP, working with the Canada Revenue Agency, began the probe dubbed “Collector” in 2016 and wrapped it up last spring before launching raids Monday at around 6 a.m. More than 300 RCMP officers in Ontario and Quebec took part in Monday’s operation, aided by officers from the Montreal, Laval and Toronto police forces.

RCMP Cpl. Genevieve Byrne said the raids — which involved 11 search warrants in Montreal and Toronto — continued throughout the day. Byrne said the warrants target 19 people, but only 15 had been arrested.

The four others being sought are Victor Vargotskii, 56, of Montreal, Mohamad Jaber, 51, of Laval, Que., Frederick Rayman, 71, of Toronto and Francisco Javier Jimenez Guerrero, 35, who place of residence is not known.

RCMP Sgt. Luc Thibault said Monday’s operation “targets individuals who facilitated the collection of money from criminal groups in Montreal and laundered the proceeds of their illicit activities.” He said in an interview that most of the money was drug-related but would not give details about the network’s operations.

Thibault also declined to say what other countries were involved in the network or where the allegedly laundered money ended up. The RCMP has scheduled a news conference to provide more details Tuesday in Montreal.

Thibault said the suspects arrested Monday were transported for detention in Laval, just north of Montreal. An RCMP plane landed around 10:15 a.m. at the St-Hubert airport in the Montreal suburb of Longueuil carrying several suspects arrested in the Toronto area. The remaining people arrested in Ontario were expected to be brought to Laval later in the day.

Police seized large quantities of cannabis, cocaine and methamphetamine and $1.7 million in Canadian and foreign currency. Thibault said the Canada Revenue Agency seized properties “owned by network members” valued at $15 million.

The RCMP is not releasing the names of the suspects arrested Monday but said they will likely face charges including conspiracy, trafficking and laundering the proceeds of crime.

The RCMP estimates that between $5 billion and $15 billion is laundered every year in Canada, but International Monetary Fund figures suggest the problem is much larger.

“If we extrapolate (from international figures) for Canada, it could be a $100-billion problem,” said Denis Meunier, a former senior executive with the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada who now works as a consultant.

He said tactics for covering the traces of illicit funds are becoming increasingly sophisticated.

“They use lawyers and accountants to create shell companies, limited companies. And then these companies are multiplied,” Meunier said. Ownership becomes harder to track with each new layer added, making it hard for investigators to identify who is responsible.

A report published last year by an international organization combating money laundering revealed that criminal groups were laundering $1 billion a year in British Columbia through legal and illegal casinos. Meunier said the situation is no better elsewhere in Canada.

“If the governments don’t take their heads out of the sand, it is going to continue, and it is going to get even worse in all cities,” he said.

What tactical setups will both manager adopt in Liverpool vs Man City?

The two most exciting teams in England - maybe even Europe - play each other on Sunday. Two thrilling sides full of creativity, pace, skill, made up of individuals determined to play open, fast football.

It's the Premier League's record points scorers vs their very real, very frightening rivals. The 'tactical genius' vs the manager who keeps beating him.

What message would a win deliver for the victors? What effect might a defeat have? And more importantly - how will the game be decided?

In all four meetings between these clubs last season both teams played a 4-3-3, with Liverpool's shape a 4-5-1 in defensive phases, and City's a 4-1-4-1.

Pretoria - Finance Minister Pravin Gordhan has the daunting task of delivering perhaps the most crucial budget in South Africa’s 22 years of democratic government, said Dr Chris Harmse, chief economist at Rebalance Fund Managers.

Although he faces immense pressure from social inequalities, the “free for all” student protests, ailing government parastatals and looming municipal elections, far more is at stake and a true “no return” budget speech (Rubicon) is needed as never before, in Harmse's view.

"The normal 'accounting' exercise of balancing the books and fine tuning the expenditure and income sides of the budget simply will not work this time. The normal laughable announcement of higher taxes on liquor and tobacco this time also will not be enough," he said.