Comments on: The Changing Story on Past Torture Investigations

By: OlsonNa

OlsonNa — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 13:57:39 +0000

The crazy thing is that I’m not always sure the people discussed in this article– and the general public, for that matter– even understand IHL and the Geneva Conventions.

Maybe if we taught youth about IHL in schools there wouldn’t be so much confusion about what it all means. There’s a petition out now– Protect the Vulnerable in War: Teach the Geneva Conventions– found at http://bit.ly/RCpetition

After all, can you really expect people to know what they are/aren’t allowed to do in war when they don’t understand the rules? Sign Today.

By: bmaz

bmaz — Tue, 21 Jul 2009 20:37:17 +0000

I have been writing, along with LHP at FDL and others, about Holder for at least a year now. Google yourself. Secondly, the limited nature of the scope of Durham’s investigation as laid out by Mukasey, the fact that an in the tank malefactor like Mukasey would pick him in the first place, the fact that at one point Big Bull Durham announced he was wrapping his investigation with findings of no criminal behavior (it is impossible that there was no criminal behavior, only a question of whether you can charge it) all coupled with the fact that I do not trust a guy so close to the guy Alberto Gonzales hand selected as his right hand man. Lastly, none of this internal shit from the DOJ, which is hopelessly conflicted, has ever amounted to a hill of beans. But, hey, my thoughts and positions have been laid out here and elsewhere for years, you are free to go check it out if you want more detail than I have provided here. Where is your support?

By: alinaustex

alinaustex — Tue, 21 Jul 2009 20:18:50 +0000

bmaz@122
where is your evidence that Holder is the stooge you say he is =
where is your evidence that Durham’s investigation is a whitewash smoke screen
I guess maybe I am sort of like some paid MSM semi informed minions -down here in Central Texas I speak to at least two former gwb43 ‘ers that wish not to be publically identified -and then I try to assimilate whats being said here and elsewhere-and then give my opinion ,,
and again time will tell who has made the best guess with his or her opinions…
ps senator whitehouse’s subcommitte is looking at the former osd - go google it if you want too…

By: phred

phred — Tue, 21 Jul 2009 14:49:46 +0000

Good thanks : ) Summer is my busy season, so I’m in and out around here these days… Hope all is well with you!

By: bmaz

bmaz — Tue, 21 Jul 2009 13:55:12 +0000

I have engaged in no ad hominem attacks of you. I have consistently challenged you to put up any factual and/or tangible basis for the pie in the sky claims you make. But you never do. You seem to believe that Eric Holder is a man that time and time again over a decade and a half of history he has proven himself not to be. You say Whitehouse has some big gig going against Rumsfeld – where is your evidence of that? Is it some secret star chamber we cannot know about but you do? Tell us. Don’t stand in the corner and tease the rest of us like you are some sage all knowing soothsayer lording your special knowledge over us, explain yourself. But you refuse. There has been a tsunami of information and evidence for years, but now you feel there is a “rising tide”. Well I do not think your statements even hold water without the support and facts you either refuse to or cannot produce. That is not an ad hominem attack, that is a request for a rational and factual basis. Got any?

By: alinaustex

alinaustex — Tue, 21 Jul 2009 09:51:53 +0000

drational@21,
I do not take bmaz ad hominen attacks seriously - but I do take his advice to heart -regarding posting here - paraphrasing the b maz meister ,,’”protective eyewear required ” or something to that effect as is bmaz ’s hallmark “snarkey-tude.”
I also take seriously that there is a whole lot more going on besides Durham being a buddy of O’Connor -
I do earnestly belive that in the end justice will be done -and those down the chain at OSD for former SecDef Rumsfeld have already started that mojo moving forward .Senator Whitehouse is ACTIVELY investigating this former OSD criminal wrongdoing.
From the early days of CIA torturing to Camp Nama to what appears to be still ongoing abuse at Bagram this is all part and parcel of cheneyBush ’s walk on the darkside…
Alabama is also correct in his assertion that there is a mounting tide of evidence that will make it impossible for Holder not to move forward with prosecution -But then again my belief is that Team Obama has always wanted to move against gwb 43 ’s lawlessness - ( and this has nothing to do with eleven dimensional chess..)

By: MarkH

MarkH — Tue, 21 Jul 2009 02:18:17 +0000

(after unfortunately having to cancel his pizza party for DOJ, where I guess they were going to see if Pepsico could come up with a Torture Lovers pizza specially for DOJ)

and what precisely would we find on THAT kind of pizza? Little bits of this and that…

By: MarkH

MarkH — Tue, 21 Jul 2009 02:03:44 +0000

Does the axe man (executioner) who has the King’s blessing have clean hands? I think what we want is the Rule of Law instead of a dictatorship or some other kind of Executive who/which was not selected by a broad swath of the country’s people.

By: MarkH

MarkH — Tue, 21 Jul 2009 01:59:10 +0000

I think that aside from the obvious disrespect for any law(s) written by Democrats or any law(s) which bind the Executive, especially in war time, there is an idea of the far Right that Law itself is questionable because words can be misinterpreted, bent twisted or misrepresented, so that they are really impossible to pin down.

This is evident to some extent in the supposed ‘literalism’ and ‘textualism’ and ‘plain reading’ phrases we often hear from SC Justice Scalia and others. It also explains in part how they can overturn ancient precedents without admitting it. They say it’s just their interpretation.

They are fundamentally anarchists who refuse to be bound by anyone outside their group. This makes them not traitors, but self-inflicted exiles who live within our Society, but without admitting to it’s authority. Then they take it to the next level by winning an election and going into positions of authority. Thus, George W. Bush was heard to exclaim to one of his friends after the 2000 selection (something like) “Can you believe this, that I’m going to be President?” Most people would be exclaiming their good luck, but I think Bush meant it was outrageous to think that someone like him who so opposes our Society and Law should be put in charge of it. No, I could not believe it.

By: MadDog

MadDog — Tue, 21 Jul 2009 01:55:41 +0000

I agree with Gitcheegumee!

I’ve not seen your handle here before, but I hope we all will see far more of it in the future.