Letters to the Editor
-
Glenn
You don't need an underlying crime for obstruction of justice convictions.
I agree. I was just trying to voice the anticipated RWNM talking points. Of course, they are always reality-challenged.
-
OK, I HATE this crap
And yes, as for "no underlying crime" keep in mind Mukasey's waffling on the question of waterboarding. If it is not a crime, how can any of the rest of this be a crime?
I don't care how you parse it, waterboarding IS a crime and always ALWAYS has been, until now apparently. What I demand is that ANYONE who is OK with it not being called a crime also endorse, fully and with absolute conviction, the idea of a bill being passed that exonerates all the Japanese soldier/interrogators we prosecuted after WWII specifically because they waterboarded (American) prisoners. If it was a crime when they did it, it IS a crime when we do it. If it is NOT a crime when we do it, then it was NOT a crime when they did it and they have been wrongfully prosecuted and convicted and, for their family's sake and for the sake of Japan's honor, they MUST be fully exonerated and reparations made to the families of the convicted men.
I brook no inconsistency and must insist on this point.
-
@art guerilla
virtual blackout on 'psychological', 'no-touch', 'sensory deprivation' types of torture
Don't know if the irony was intentional. But you're right and wrong. It is the most insidious form of torture they're using, far worse than the waterboarding. But it isn't legal. We did append comments to the psychological parts of the treaties, and we do specify more than in the treaties, but the type of sensory deprivation they are using does have lasting psychological effects, therefore it is illegal.
Question for Glenn: Is it possible to find out if Durham is a "loyal Bushie", meaning one of the ones approved of or installed by the purge? What you say makes sense about normal U.S. attorneys, but my understanding was that some of the Gonzales/Goodling/Rove picks weren't...normal.
-
@WT, ondelette
But please, let's not blame this all on Einstein. He had some really bright friends who helped out a lot.
-
karrsic
That's it? Tis a far cry from a 9/11 conspiracy theory.
I already stated that I lack both the knowledge and the acumen to come up with an overarching theory.
What I can see is that the government theory has holes you can easily navigate a small moon through.
All I'm really left with is questions.. I know damn well that if I were in that Florida school that morning I would have been burning boot to get the hell out before another hijacked jet came at me in an effort to get the CIC. Don't forget that Ctheney was hustled into the underground bunker in the White House.
The PPU are professional paranoids, it's simply not conceivable that they did not see the risk of another hijacked plane headed at Booker elementary.
Then you have the strange behavior of AF1 the rest of the day, zigzagging over a good portion of the country avoiding what eventually was to be revealed as a totally fabricated threat. And this during the time when AF1 had fighter air cover.
-
trivia?
Pop star Madonna rang in the New Year in a remote village with her 'hubby' Guy Ritchie in the northern Indian desert state of Rajasthan.
Also~
Rove is a bibliophile?
Rove is a Jorge Luis Borges reading fan.
Vanity Fair posits himself as a bookworm.
He mentions 25 names. T.S. Eliot, Evelyn Waugh etc.,
And maybe Karl reads Doc Zeus and Glenn Greenwald?
Good night? I hope to not turn on the computer again.
Maybe tomorrow? bah. I turned down a invite to go window shopping in the NYC's Soho neighborhood district.
-
ondelette
Question for Glenn: Is it possible to find out if Durham is a "loyal Bushie", meaning one of the ones approved of or installed by the purge? What you say makes sense about normal U.S. attorneys, but my understanding was that some of the Gonzales/Goodling/Rove picks weren't...normal.
No, he's not a political appointee. He's a career prosecutor - hired by some U.S. Attorney a long time ago (since at least before the Bush administration) and then worked his way up through the normal promotion process. Janet Reno actually appointed him to investigate the FBI in a case I know very little about, but he seemed to be quite aggressive in pursuing that.
He's a Republican, apparently, but not at all one of those Bush appointees and is really more just a career prosecutor. Those types generally take very seriously their prosecutorial mandate first and foremost.
-
Aycharaych
I apologize if I've grouped you where you don't belong. You dangle questions that are not particularly compelling (IMO) w/i the context of a conspiracy thread, which insinuates the answers you are not providing tend toward the conspiracy.
-
Why this? Why now?
Maybe GG or others can address this, because I'm truly stumped.
Why all the explosive outrage over the destruction of the interrogation tapes? In the grand scheme of things, this seems like a relatively minor offense compared to the Bush regime's egregious high crimes and misdemeanors. One could even make a rational argument for the tapes' destruction.
Is there a counter-coup in the works or am I missing something?
-
@Glenn Greenwald
Mukasey was the presiding federal judge in the New York southern district in mid-2002 who heard Jose Padilla's petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Correct?
He was the one then who split hairs on the Pedilla petition, throwing out the government's motion to dismiss Padilla's motion, while affirming the president's authority to designate anyone, citizen or no, as an "enemy combatant," and then, inviting Padilla to file for habeas again.
How tainted is he?
-
Paul Rosenberg said:
"Note: Just one reason why I find the "9/11 truth" narrative patently absurd: If it was a BushCo setup, then why the heck didn't they plant evidence implicating Saddam? Why leave so much hard work ahead of them? It's simply absurd to think they'd plant all this evidence pointing at people they didn't want to tangle with (the Saudis), and nothing at all at those they did (Iraq and Iran)."
1. They wanted to go to Afghanistan.
2. Iraq and Iran would have called bullshit, and easily been able to show why it was bullshit.
3. The Saudis went along, and got some US bases out of Saudi Arabia and into Iraq.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2004/040323-enduring-bases.htm
Those bases were destabilizing for the Saudi regime. Bin Laden, the royal family, and the USG all wanted bases out of Saudi Arabia, and guess what, 9/11 allowed it to happen.
4. Who knows and who cares? The point is that evidence was obviously planted (see Seymour Hersh in the New Torker) and the buildings were obviously destroyed by explosives. Your clever little argument doesn't explain all this away.