This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
The Justice Department Plays Fast and Loose with the Law
While the Justice Department has loudly tooted its horn about it's ability to prosecute bad guys, it hasn't really done much recently.
For example,the Department's "crackdown" on Wall Street is just a P.R. stunt targeting small-time crooks.
And former counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke said of all the publicity surrounding the handful of terrorism prosecutions since 9/11:
A lot of the cases after 9/11 were manufactured or enormously exaggerated and were announced with great trumpets by the attorney general and the FBI director so that we felt that they were doing something when, in fact, what they were doing was not helpful, not relevant, not needed.
The DOJ famously refused to prosecute high-level officials who ordered torture, or illegal spying, or other criminal acts, or those who destroyed evidence and obstructed justice, even though top conservative and liberal legal scholars said that crimes had clearly been committed. It appears that Justice is playing politics to protect Bush, Cheney and the gang. See this and this.
Instead of prosecuting the big fish and protecting the little guy, the Department of Justice is bending over backwards to protect giant corporations. For example, the Justice Department - along with the Department of Homeland Security - has been using its national security powers to help big businesses. For example:
As the ACLU notes, Fusion Centers - a hybrid of military, intelligence agency, police and private corporations set up in centers throughout the country, and run by the Department of Justice and Department of Homeland Security - allow big businesses like Boeing to get access to classified information which gives them an unfair advantage over smaller competitors.
Moreover, the Justice Department has itself been playing fast and loose with justice.
For example, an ATF agent told CBS News yesterday that Justice Department ordered the ATF to let guns cross into Mexico. The guns went to the Mexican drug cartels, which have used them to terrorize the locals and kill American agents:
And see this.
And documents leaked a couple of weeks ago show that - instead of following leads showing criminal wrongdoing by the big banks - the Department of Justice is instead working to crush whistleblowers who have the goods on the white collar criminals.
For example - in an effort to protect Bank of America from the threatened Wikileaks expose of wrongdoing - the Department of Justice told Bank of America to a hire a specific hardball-playing law firm to assemble a team to take down WikiLeaks. As a leaked email states:
DOJ called the GC [general counsel] of BofA and told them to hire Hunton and Williams, specifically to hire Richard Wyatt who I'm beginning to think is the emperor. They want to present to the bank a team capable of doing a comprehensive investigation into the data leak. Currently they are recommending:
-Hire H&W as outside council on retainer
***
-Use Berico/HBGary to analyze wikileaks the organization (people, history, where they are located)....
HB Gary, of course, proposed smearing journalists with forged documents and otherwise pressuring journalists to avoid WikiLeaks. See this and this.
Of course, the Justice Department's fast and loose behavior is not new under the current administration.
As I wrote in August:
Jon Eisenberg is a very well-known California lawyer. Eisenberg literally wrote the book on California appellate practice.
In a new interview, Eisenberg ... reveals the games played by the Department of Justice:
[Interviewer] You have written "effectively ... President George W. Bush is a felon." Why, and do you ever think he'll be brought to justice?
[Eisenberg] President Bush has freely admitted that his administration committed warrantless electronic surveillance, violating the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978. That's a felony, according to title 50, section 1809 of the United States Code. So President Bush is a felon. It's that simple.
Will he ever be brought to justice? Evidently not by a criminal prosecution, in which the Obama administration seems to have little interest...
[Interviewer] During [a lawsuit against the Bush administration concerning illegal spying,] you wrote a response to a government brief that you were not allowed to see. How does one go about doing that?
[Eisenberg] It was quite a challenge. It wasn't just that we had to speculate as to what might be in the secret DOJ brief; the conditions under which we wrote our secret response were onerous, approaching the bizarre: We were required to write the brief under guard in the U.S. Attorney's office in San Francisco; we were forbidden from preparing any notes for the brief-writing session; the DOJ retained sole possession of the brief we produced; and the DOJ has refused to allow us to review the brief since we wrote it. Litigation doesn't get any weirder than that.
There is no justifiable reason why the Department of Justice would refuse to allow the opposing counsel to see DOJ's brief, force the attorney to write his response brief under armed guard and without being able to use any notes, and then bury that brief without even letting the attorney who wrote it have a copy.
Attorney General Ashcroft approved torture, as did high-level Justice Department officials such as Assistant deputy Attorney General John Yoo. Promotion of torture is not just an ethical breach: it also constitutes a war crime under U.S. and international law. See this, this, this, and this. Yoo xsxseealso wrote memos defending illegal spying.
Former Attorney General Michael Mukasey supported illegal wiretapping, torture and indefinite detention (and see this).
Congressional Quarterly, Glenn Greenwald, Raw Story, FireDogLake and others point out that Attorney General Alberto Gonzales virtually blackmailed Congresswoman Harman into support illegal warrantless spying on Americans by threatening to prosecute her for her AIPAC shenanigans if she didn't play ball.
And former constitutional law teacher Glenn Greenwald says that - in it's defense of state secrecy, illegal spying, preventative detention, and other positions - Obama's Department of Justice under Eric Holder is even worse than under Bush.
Given the above, it's worth asking: how much justice does the DOJ actually dispense?
- advertisements -
I would be curious to hear the authors view on the Justice Department's refusal to prosecute the Philadelphia voter intimidation by the New Black Panther party as well as the proven widespread coordinated voter fraud by ACORN. It would seem that attacks to our voting process would rise to the same level as the argument made in this post.
Ag-we all might be curious, but, well, surprised? Not so much. - Ned
Eric Holder is in my opinion the worsed attorney general the US has ever had represent the Justice Department. To not prosecute the US banking system leadership after the collapse is the greatest single failure among many others. This omission is also by design and shows the incredible tight relationship the Obama administrtion has with the banking crowd. It also shows that Holder is not independant in his administration of the law as he is sworn to be as the head of justice.
David Codrea http://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-in-national/david-codreahttp://sipseystreetirregulars.blogspot.com/Mike Vanderboegh
These are the men that have made the effort to bring ATFs progect Gunrunner to light.
Much thanks for the effort.
The WHAT department?
Give me a break, the only crimes enforced/prosecuted are crimes against the rich, all else is social grandstanding.
Everything else rewards fraud with bonuses on the back of incorporated government bought and paid for!
I'm not worried, the punishment starts from the states, and it's coming faster than most realize. Succession is just a fancy word for f--k the Fed, and the clock is ticking.
Time for your crotch scan citizen, for protection of the rich (who don't get them) by disarming the poor.
Did anyone hear that Montana (or Wyoming?) passed conceal to carry? Everyone can conceal a firearm with no legal tangles whatsoever (barring felons or domestic violence convictions)... scan that Supreme Court Inc, rights will be taken, not declared or marginalized by a bunch of judicial gold-diggers sucking corporate-dick for constitution in name only.
"The Country lacks common sense" so proven by the comments to this editorial. Bush in the 2000 campaign stated,
"our nation is chosen by God and commissioned by history to be a model to the world" .
Reagan stated in his Shining city upon a hill speech,"We are not a warlike people. Nor is our history filled with tales of aggressive adventures and imperialism, ...In 1630 off the Massachusetts coast, John Winthrop said, ""We will be as a city upon a hill. The eyes of all people are upon us, so that if we deal falsely with our God in this work we have undertaken and so cause Him to withdraw His present help from us, we shall be made a story and a byword throughout the world.""
The United States needs only to await the asterick besides its name. The nation that forgot the golden rule but called itself a christian nation.
That asterisk is the first state to fall off the flag.
If you think that $787B in TARP bonuses for racketeering on fraud street is going to pass quietly at the dinner table you're a fool.
States will take what is theirs, and the Federal Government is anything but the "people's."
You refer confidently to what you call torture, but this was no case of "electrodes to the balls" torture, and nearly all of these guys are alive and well and living in relative comfort to this day if they have not been set free to go back to the battle field.
In the interest of pretending to be objective, you might change your line to "What some people would contend is torture rising to a standard covered by international law" since it is only an allegation at best.
Since I am a rank plagarist ...
"Behind all the political rhetoric being hurled at us from abroad, we are bringing home one unassailable fact - [terrorism is] a crime by any civilized standard, committed against innocent people, away from the scene of a political conflict, and must be dealt with as a crime...
[I]n our recognition of the nature of terrorism as a crime lies our best hope of dealing with it...
[L]et us use the tools we have. Let us invoke the cooperation we have the right to expect around the world, and with that cooperation let us shrink the dark and dank areas of sanctuary until these cowardly mauraders are held to answer as criminals in an open and public trial for the crimes they have committed, and receive the punishment they so richly deserve."
- William H. Webster, Director, FBI. October 15, 1985.
Or this one ...
I've talked to a number of prosecutors who personally feel that it's very, very hard to do these cases with our system, because of different evidentiary constraints and because of the degree of disclosure you have to make of sensitive information. What I don't understand about the civil libertarians is, if our boys did something wrong in this conflict, they'd be tried in a military court. An Al Qaeda terrorist shouldn't have any claim to different procedures.
- William P. Barr - The New York Times (17 November 2001)
Real justice, be it military, civil or legislative in the case of impeachment affords the accused the opportunity of the due process of law. What is happening now is the perversion of this process for the sake of expediency. Just like our national leaders attempting to sell us on the prospect that justice as an institution must be forward looking with key elements of society. It's hog wash. Everyone, be they terrorist, anarchist, dissident, executive, public or private official or regular everyday Any O. Citizen should be covered under the color of due process or the terrorists & anarchists have already won their largest victory regardless of which clothing they wear or fail to or which flag or lack of same they operate under.
In this I suppose the; DOJ, terrorists, political leaders of all stripes and many, if not most of those that populate the institution of justice have one overriding point of view when it comes to the rule of law and its application .. The question remains IF there is anyone within the institution of justice with the balls to wield its power? So far it doesn't look promising
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FNhYJgDdCu4
No small wonder we are witnessing the deterioration of global order on such an epic scale.
<Rant off>
Miles:
wimp! You included citations to the source(s). To be really rank, you need to represent the plagiarism as your own work! That'll do the trick.
Just trying to improve your quality ;-)
- Ned
{and there is a website for everything; http://www.plagiarismchecker.com/ }
Ya, well, some folks seem to think I bbq really well. I suppose that's why my meat, new or otherwise doesn't spoil so quickly ;)
Unlike those Milli Vanilli's hangin' around that refuse to quit on the skip
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=udS5qBrBFqE
Cheers Ned -- and thanx for the hot new lead for me
And former CT "czar" Richard Clarke? Another tool who was part of the problem.
in banana republics, the attorney general would be the minister of the interior. and the ministry of the interior would be the secret police, the ohkrana, the mvd, the kgb, et alia.
not seekers, promoters of justice - but imposers of injustice.
1902:
The "Water Cure"
Senator George Hoar demands an investigation as evidence mounts of U.S. war crimes in the Philippines.
Theodore Roosevelt resists Hoar’s demands and growing public opposition to the racist, imperialist war against the people of the Philippines and persistent reports of war crimes, atrocities and torture by American troops.
Sergeant Charles S. Riley testifies about entire villages being burned by U.S. forces and described the "water cure" torture carried out by U.S. troops against Filipinos.
Private William L Smith corroborates Sergeant Riley's testimony and admits that he had assisted in the complete destruction by burning of the town of Igbaras, a town of ten thousand people. Sergeant Edward J. Davis related other incidents of torture by U.S. forces and the burning of another town of twelve thousand people. Other witnesses recounted similar incidents.
By a strict party vote, the Committee refuses to call other proposed witnesses, calling witnesses instead from a "safe" list created by the U.S. War Department. The attempt to hide the truth of what the U.S. is doing to the Filipino people backfires when the veterans on the safe list begin lecturing the anti-imperialist members of the Committee on the need to shoot and/or burn all Filipinos because of their "inability to appreciate human kindness."
thank you george for reporting truth....
i was a jurror on a trial which was ultimately dismissed charging some foreigner with a drug crime....you would not believe the despicable 10-year-old-kid prosecution case the fbi and federal government made against this kid....it proved to me that the federal government is made up of liars, hooligans, and thugs....they are exactly the same as mobsters and nazi germany....
i never saw such low rent scheming deceitful intellects in my life.
oh, and did i mention that eric holder is a moronic piece of shit who would make an outstanding member of the ku klux klan?
President Bush has freely admitted that his administration committed warrantless electronic surveillance, violating the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978. That's a felony, according to title 50, section 1809 of the United States Code. So President Bush is a felon. It's that simple.
Will he ever be brought to justice? Evidently not by a criminal prosecution, in which the Obama administration seems to have little interest...
*******************************************************************************
Obama has extended or done everything in his power to extend Bush's programs of warrantless taps... Obama is lil Bush part duex in technicolor.. there is no difference between the two.. except maybe that Bush was more liberal.
Determinism is the name of this clever game.
If you did not own a gun before watching reading this / watching the video... you are out of excuses not too now.
The Law Enforcement in this Country is a Joke and then compounded by the fact that the COPS are being cut in numbers in some places as much as half..
So the COPS on the Street are losing thier jobs so scumbag politicians can keep thiers... so much better a mouth piece keeps thier job but the guy who works for a living keeping Mom's, Sisters and Children safe... fuck him!! fire him!! we need the politicain talking in our ear so much more than the guy who works for a living.
This Country has no fucking common sense and it is going to bite all of us in the ass.
How does keeping politicians paid and in thier job help keep our Streets safe for the people we love?
I dont need a COP for any reason, but I like the idea that my Grand Mother, Mother and or other people in my Family have them around... I want COPS around more than the politicians who do nothing and anyone who doesnt get that needs to be shipped to Mexico or Africa.
US Waterboarding was medically supervised and was not included in the US definition of torture prior to 9-11. Only after it was debated, and voted on, was it included and hasn't been done since. That's how the system works. I'm just glad we had a couple of pricks on our side to even things up.
Let's not forget the silence after WaPo reported on 12-2007 that democratic members of the house and senate intelligence committees were fully briefed in 2002 on waterboarding and approved it, and even specifically asked if they could do more. The members: D-Nancy Pelosi, D-Jane Harmon, D-Sen. Jay Rockefeller.
Hill Briefed on Waterboarding in 2002 - washingtonpost.com
But where's the outrage against the medieval bastards that are trying to kill us? GW, you need to see it for yourself before you pass judgment on anybody else. If you care so much you shouldn't be AWOL on this. Watch a woman getting stoned to death (disturbing):
Video surfaces of Taliban stoning woman in northwest Pakistan - Jihad Watch
Now watch a helpless victim Nick Berg get his head cut off with a knife.... then cry me river over over the 3 bastards who got waterboarded. They're still laughing that was the worst we could do to them and how the contrived controversy helped get their US sympathizers elected. (warning disturbing video):
Nick Berg Beheading Video and Death Conspiracy | Best Gore
Here is a succinct executive summary regarding torture:
Georgie.. you are the BEST!!!
;-)
And yet, when torture is by consent, as in some San Francisco dungeon, it's perfectly fine.
Odd.
You do know our troops are waterboarded as part of SERE don't you?...and it's impossible to drown from it don't you?
nmewn,
Your missing the point. There are many tortures you can survive. Is that supposed to be the standard? Survival?
Torture by consent would be completely different. How is that odd?
You seem to be going out of your way to give bush and cheney a free pass for criminal actions. Of course, every president that I have studied is a criminal, starting with George Washington himself. Still, it does not mean we should violate laws on torture we have agreed to uphold and respect.
"You seem to be going out of your way to give bush and cheney a free pass for criminal actions."
I have not seen any criminal indictments and I never will.
I don't know how to explain it any better than what I have already.
Any law requires everyone who wishes to be a part of that law to abide by all of it or they are in violation of it.
What we are talking about is terrorists who do not abide any law but their own. Furthermore, no one has been able to produce this law of theirs because it does not exist.
A simple fact. They are international terrorists proclaiming themselves outside all nations laws.
They purposely target civilians knowing it's against any law of nations without being in uniform. Uniforms are a way of documenting atrocities by those in a uniform. This is also common knowledge.
In the old days terrorists who were caught out of uniform were treated however the captor wished to...a much better "process" if you want to call it that.
And the terrorist knew what it meant to be captured before he ever started in his new occupation...it was his choice to move outside the bounds of uniform, code, justice, law...he freely consented to the consequence of his actions.
Our civilian law does not apply to foreign terrorists only domestic criminals. We have military law for that. And it's a hell of a lot better than whatever law they are used to.
Done.
Now, I'm confused. Are you saying because bush, cheney and obama don't wear uniforms they are terrorists? Because they don't abide by the law and function outside the law we do not have to treat them according to our own laws.
Are you saying we have shoot on site or torture anyway we want, even if they die? They freely consented to these actions when they decided to move outside the bounds of uniform, code, justice and law?
Here's where I'm confused: since they are domestic terrorists, killing and terrorizing citizens in a foreign land, do we use military law or civilian law? Or does it just matter where we catch them?
You see, the last time I checked, people who defend their own land from the usurpations of invaders are not terrorists.
I guess we should go point by point.
"Now, I'm confused. Are you saying because bush, cheney and obama don't wear uniforms they are terrorists?"
I don't believe I said any of the three were "terrorists"...if you can point to where I did I will retract it...but you will be hard pressed to find it.
"Because they don't abide by the law and function outside the law we do not have to treat them according to our own laws."
We do mostly.
It has to do with how they are captured. It's called military law vs civilian law. No islamic terrorist, who is also a US citizen, has ever been tried in a military court to my knowledge.
Meanwhile, two that I know of, (the shoe & the panty bomber) who were captured by civilian law enforcement and were/are being tried in civilian court...I don't get your point here...but I will say again, if the military gets them they are not Mirandized if that was your point...because it is not a civilian matter by virtue it being the military who captured them...and again, they are out of uniform and can be shot dead, no questions asked. The military takes a pretty dim view of people, dressed as civilians shooting at them or planting IED's to kill or maim them or civilians...there are no cops on the battlefield directing traffic...just sayin.
"Are you saying we have shoot on site or torture anyway we want, even if they die?"
No one has been tortured to death. Your engaging in hyperbole.
"They freely consented to these actions when they decided to move outside the bounds of uniform, code, justice and law?"
Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. They can and are shot on sight daily...without any trial or remorse. They are after all rabid dogs.
I will pause and ask again...where is the comparable "terrorist law book" housed and how can I get a copy?...LOL.
"Here's where I'm confused: since they are domestic terrorists, killing and terrorizing citizens in a foreign land, do we use military law or civilian law? Or does it just matter where we catch them?"
Already stated my opinion above...it matters how & where they are captured.
"You see, the last time I checked, people who defend their own land from the usurpations of invaders are not terrorists."
That is why the Sunni Awakening combined with the surge was so successful in Iraq.
They (the Sunni) became enraged with the foreign invaders (the terrorists) killing them...you know, like slicing their faces off with piano wire and sticking crying & screaming Sunni children into ovens and placing them on the table in front of the parents in order to intimidate them into joining or supporting the foreign fighters dressed as civilians pouring over the border.
Don't think I don't see what your trying to do here Sean...on a moral or ethical sliding scale there is no comparison between us and them.
We are doing the best we can in a complicated situation.
So, are you up to telling me how your honed sense of justice, law & morality would hold up if you knew there was a bio or nuke weapon set to go off tomorrow in Atlanta or NY and you had captured one of the ring leaders?
You can't defer the decision as I've appointed you "top guy" or move only your family out of harms way and let the rest be slaughtered...what will you do Sean?
NMewn, you want to discard the law whenever it is inconvenient. We either uphold our treaty agreements or we violate them and become criminals. You are attempting to create an ethical dilemma that will allow you to function outside the law.
You want to be remain the knight in shining armor, even after a blood stained night in the torture chamber. You can't have it both ways.
As for my post, I was tweaking your nose a little bit. The terrorists are us. Our presidents that continue to authorize the murder of innocents under contrived circumstances to justify the seizure of resources and influence over territory. The soldiers that follow orders, just as any nazi did in WWII. While we required they have a conscience, we will continue to be excused as long as we win.
As for people being tortured to death, you have no idea and neither do I. The claims have been made and I can see where that happens. However, I was pushing you further- to find out if you had a line you drew in the sand. Instead, you choose to stick your head in the sand. It was okay as long as no one dies and you assume that no one will.
We are not doing the best we can in a complicated situation. We murder the Afgani's, we invade Iraq for no reason and murder her people, We give Israel a free hand no matter what she does, if you believe Webster Tarpley- we have instigated the unrest in the Middle East, we kill our own (World Trade Center) and then there is our history of militarism for the sake of resource control (panama, venezuela, chile, nacaragua, phillipines and china). We are THE terrorist state. Us and our sidekick- Britain.
You asked for an answer to your ethical question: I believe war to be anathema. Therefore, I would practice it without any restraints whatsoever. I would peel the guys skin. I would never take prisoners. I would never rebuild the enemies infrastructure. I would destroy the greatest treasures of any country that even thought to attack mine. Mecca would have been history- for example.
I would also respect the sovereignty of others. I would be a force for cooperation in the course of the many disasters that face us collectively as humans. I would have a nation of free markets, common law and sound money with zero taxation. I would have a defensive military only. I would require that the cost of production would be transparent and conclusive. I would place the needs of the individual before the community.
I'm having a little trouble understanding what you think I said;
"NMewn, you want to discard the law whenever it is inconvenient. We either uphold our treaty agreements or we violate them and become criminals. You are attempting to create an ethical dilemma that will allow you to function outside the law."
I said nothing about treaty's between nations, just as I said nothing about Bush, Cheney and Obama being terrorists...those both popped up out your mind not mine...you cannot misrepresent or transfer what you said to me...because it's all right there in black & white and unlike GW, when I edit something, I say I edited it, and why I'm editing it. I haven't touched my posts. I don't need to.
And then you go on to tell me this is how you would make war with sovereign nations, not terrorists;
"Therefore, I would practice it without any restraints whatsoever. I would peel the guys skin. I would never take prisoners. I would never rebuild the enemies infrastructure. I would destroy the greatest treasures of any country that even thought to attack mine. Mecca would have been history- for example."
Our nations military fights with honor against any other nations military. It does not shoot POW's. Terrorists are not POW's. The terrorists we are talking about do not have infrastructure or treasures to destroy, as they are stateless entities and wear no identifiable uniform.
And then end with this;
"I would also respect the sovereignty of others. I would be a force for cooperation in the course of the many disasters that face us collectively as humans. I would have a nation of free markets, common law and sound money with zero taxation. I would have a defensive military only. I would require that the cost of production would be transparent and conclusive. I would place the needs of the individual before the community."
Now I'm the one confused over the issue of sovereignty.
But again, every GW article and the comments under them is an adventure for me. It's like trying to nail jello on a tree with most of it and I put absolutely no stock in what Tarpley (alias Geopol) says. And "we" did not do the World Trade Center...people from across the political, ethnic and cultural spectrum have destroyed that fallacy. It was terrorists. No nano explosives, no faked cell phone calls...just gross government incompetence in visa issuance and rabid religious lunatics.
I would offer some advise if you'll take it...always be critical of what you read on the net until you can verify it from several different, often opposing sources to find truth.
SeeYa
Torture of enemy combatants is covered under the Geneva Convention, therefore it is part of the argument. President's might want to interpret it anyway they can, but that does not make their actions any less illegal.
I said they are terrorists, it is my belief and conviction.
There is no difference to me between terrorists and sovereign nations- none.
There is a difference between sovereign nations and individual sovereignty- see your dictionary.
No nation fights with honor when it is an aggressor. That is why we never fight with honor. We are killers- there is nothing honorable about that.
Webster Tarpley broke a story on CIA and their new strategy on the middle east- two weeks before the "revolutions" broke out. Perfect cause and effect? No, but way to accurate to make me feel comfortable.
The evidence on the world trade center is irrefutable at this point. It was a false flag. No jet liner ever hit the Pentagon- the pictures prove it. You have to be certifiable to believe it was a terrorist attack at this juncture.
As for GW, I always take what George says with a couple of grains of salt, however, the waterboarding and torture at Abu Gharib is very well documented. Sometimes the Georges are overjealous, but I find much of his material to be solid- as least when you consider the kind of reporting he is doing.
"There is no difference to me between terrorists and sovereign nations- none."
Ahhh but there is.
Sovereign nations have rules of engagement and created the very same Geneva Conventions you now cite for the protection of civilians caught in war zones, for an example.
Until recently terrorists were not part of the conventions for the simple fact they did not sign as a group. For the conventions to be valid for them they have to commit to it. Political correctness of adding them to the accord (which they did not sign or commit to abide by) is an affront to the concept of a contract law.
There is nothing presient about Tarpley looking out over the ME and seeing the mass of teeming humanity living in abject poverty while the monarchs above them live a life of plenty and luxury...many have observed this before for the unhealthy thing that it is. His blaming everything imaginable under the sun on the CIA is as predictable as the very same sun rising in the east every morning. My only hope is that enough people in the ME have learned enough of this thing called democracy & republics that they will not return to dictators and monarchs afterwards.
There is no evidence that 911 was anything other than what it was...we will disagree...I'm bored with the subject as there is no there there.
We do agree on Georgies posts...except I have to down an entire salt shaker most of the time...LOL.
Time for work.
SeeYa
Senator: Government Used Communist Torture Techniques Aimed at Extracting FALSE Confessions
Senator Levin, in commenting on the Senate Armed Services Committee report on torture declassified today, drops the following bombshell:
With last week's release of the Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) opinions, it is now widely known that Bush administration officials distorted Survival Evasion Resistance and Escape "SERE" training - a legitimate program used by the military to train our troops to resist abusive enemy interrogations - by authorizing abusive techniques from SERE for use in detainee interrogations. Those decisions conveyed the message that abusive treatment was appropriate for detainees in U.S. custody. They were also an affront to the values articulated by General Petraeus.
In SERE training, U.S. troops are briefly exposed, in a highly controlled setting, to abusive interrogation techniques used by enemies that refuse to follow the Geneva Conventions. The techniques are based on tactics used by Chinese Communists against American soldiers during the Korean War for the purpose of eliciting false confessions for propaganda purposes. Techniques used in SERE training include stripping trainees of their clothing, placing them in stress positions, putting hoods over their heads, subjecting them to face and body slaps, depriving them of sleep, throwing them up against
Don't copy and paste me George...talk to me, in your words.
Don't copy/paste me about law when one party has no respect for any law but their own twisted means.
You do know we're talking about KSM here don't you?...and his two prick nephews right?...the guy who sawed off Danny Pearls head...on video...and broadcast his last dying agony across the planet...right?
Let me tell you something George...as much as I have respect for the rule of law, I would have no problem with putting this man through much worse than he's been through to date.
If I were Danny's dad and had control over KSM he would have met the same fate as his son...without the video...waterboarding would be the least of his worries or ours.
Law is a malleable thing, it can change, if it is not respected by all parties (like terrorists) they are not subject to it by their own consent.
Their problem not mine.
You see it right now with drone strikes in the sovereign nation of Pakistan, who we are not at war with, so go tell Barry about the rule of law and get back to me.
In your words next time.
SeeYa
In my own words - putting aside ethical considerations - the world's top interrogation experts, including the top military and intelligence interrogators (many of whom are very conservative) say that torture doesn't work.
KSM himself said he told the interrogators whatever they wanted to hear, to stop the torture. He told them he did things which he COULDN"T have done.
Successful WWII interrogators played chess with the Nazi enemy, to gain his trust.
This is NOT a wimp versus tough thing. It is a works-versus-dosen't work thing.
I greatly respect people serving in the military. Have you ever served? You write like you have.
If you have, in fact, served, I think you'll agree that doing what WORKS is good. Torture doesn't work, never has, never will.
GW:
'pends on what u mean by "work".
In John McCain's [ed. words and book] (and Cdr Doss, and others I've spoken to)--they all say "torture worked on me-I broke." But depends on the objective and timing. Especially if there are control questions and ability to confirm answers.
- Ned
"KSM himself said he told the interrogators whatever they wanted to hear, to stop the torture. He told them he did things which he COULDN"T have done."
No George, it was in fact KSM who slaughtered Danny Pearl.
http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2011/01/new_investigation_in.php
Not for being a spy. Not for being a reporter. Not for being an American. He did it, with the calculating malice of a madman because he was a Jew.
He admitted to it again long afterwards and the vein mapping corroborates it.
While I agree if you torture the truth long enough it will admit to anything...LOL...in this case they had the right guys.
And I say again, it is a good thing to have laws and a good thing that people (all people, especially politicians) abide by them as it provides for the bedrock of a civil society.
And I also say, again, that if I were Danny Pearl's father and I had control over KSM I would break the law with forethought and become just as bad as KSM...I would show no mercy, in fact I might enjoy the fact I was extinguishing evil.
As for who I am, what I have done, what I do now or will do in the future should be of no concern to what we are discussing here...but there are at least two respected, long time members of ZH who know all this and that's enough for me.
What is your past & present GW?
Read Christopher Bollyn's work regarding KSM. The KSM we have in custody needs a translator and barely speaks English. Likely a feeble-minded stooge. KSM graduated from an American university years ago and, as a Pakistani who studied for years in USA starting at college age, would speak perfect English. Bollyn contacted one of KSM's professors in USA and the professor advised he's never seen the "KSM" we have in custody. The American public has never seen him, ostensibly because it's too dangerous (ahem) to have a trial.
So when the shit hits the fan, we should be able to water board the politicians.. with a doctor present of course to supervise that we dont kill them, that they live on for the next group who wants to water board them some more.. and on and on until everyone in America who wanted too.. had a chance too, then we could hang them on the white house lawn for treason.
That sound very reasonable to me and fair to my fellow Americans.
Oops, cant say that... i mean if I was Sarah fucking Palin I could put a bulls eye over thier picture but just so much as a regular civilian doesnt say such things as my speech is not protected in a public venue.
The leadership in this country resembles a crime syndicate.
That works better for me -- how 'bout you?
US GOVT and TBTF Banks are Sheenesque.
At some point someone is gonna snap.
The world seems to be getting very very close to a tipping-point.
Nice piece GW. I'm not sure why we are so blind to the totalitarian government here in America. The criminal behavior of politicians, bankers, judges and corporations.
Funny thing, if we were to just ignore the government: no voting, no payment of taxes, refuse to appear in courts, drive cars without license or regulation, etc. Oh, and it caught on, without violence, and spread across all of society. Started using our own money and getting local loans. Ignore regulations and fees.
Just retreat to our local communities and band together as neighbors and friends. Kind of an anarchy by agreement.
How do you control 300 million people who put the problems of their neighbors ahead of the government and media? You can't...
Who will be the first to bear the brunt of the federal jackboot on their neck? We have a legal means by booting out all of the career politicians, but too many Americans are busy feeding at the government trough.
Actually we don't. All candidates are approved by local and state level democratic and republican party machines or they don't receive any support. There is no difference between parties, candidates or the result.
You buy the propaganda at your own detriment.
The Justice Department is lawless, they have devolved into criminal abettors.
Only the lower class is held to account.The super villains walk free.
Bradley Manning (Wikileaks) remains in solitary confinement still having been charged with no crime. His lawyer has filed a request for Manning to be removed from solitary- no response from the pentagon. They want to break this kid so as to scare others from doing anything that might rattle our military/MIC.
His petulance for a cause (not the cause he stands accused of) was his undoing...stupidity is not a virtue.
Assange will likely walk, Manning will not.
Where can I get a gun without a permit? I want an assault weapon! WTF? No second amendment for Americans, but boatloads of guns for the Mexicans!
How do we protect ourselves from the drug cartels when our government provides them with the big weapons, but leaves us with only pea shooters?
(Note to the NSA: I have no gun, want no gun, but defend the second amendment as it was written so that the public could protect themselves from criminals and from a government gone wild [which are often one and the same]).
"Where can I get a gun without a permit? I want an assault weapon! WTF?"
Most papers in the South & West (excluding the coast of the "west"...LOL) advertise daily. No permit required...as it should be, they are someones personal property for sale.
Your larger point is well taken by me.
Government selling or allowing or promoting sales through commercial retail channels is a no no...the word entrapment comes to mind, just like a 25yr old Pamela Anderson standing on a street corner in a bawdy neighborhood with $10.00 dollars written on her forehead...what young male could resist ;-)
My thoughts on it from last night;
http://www.zerohedge.com/article/about-jobs-improvement-under-president-obama#comment-1021417
Gun laws in NY are somewhat more strict than other parts of the country though many criminals seem to carry.
So, what is all this about Pam charging $10? Has she increased her rate?
"So, what is all this about Pam charging $10? Has she increased her rate?"
LOL...thanks I needed that.
Yeah, it's weird how criminals don't obey laws...only the the law abiding do ;-)
In the end, only the law abiding have their rights infringed upon...not the criminal.