Thanks for the link; I missed that one at commondreams today.

and this works almost as well for this post too

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NJxRE7LNadI&feature=related

The U.S. Department of (In)Justice is going after a guy from Liberia, but not our own scumbags (the Chickenhawk-in-Chief, "Five Deferments Dick" Cheney, Yoo, Addington et al.) How nice.

Michael Mukasey's beneath contempt. (About

simulated drowning--er, "waterboarding": If Mukasey's uncertain about whether it's torture or not, let's inflict the process on him. Then we'll hold a press conference, and he can give an informed opinion about it.)

Memo my self: If you're gonna take a job torturing people, make sure you're an actual employee of the US government.

@Kitt

Police officers, ambulances, and Fire Department are examples of private citizens, who through the course of performing public services at their jobs sometimes do not obey traffic signals.

-- Vox Vocis res Publica

Aside from the fact that on-duty firemen, police officers and ambulance drivers are not private citizens or civilians while on duty, your totally phony comeback has absolutely nothing to do with the conversation you involved yourself with. Putting up dishonest arguments is now, unmistakeably, your recognized modus operandi.

[Sh**ter]: Taylor gets the presumption of innocence deemed inappropriate for anyone in the US. What's the matter Glenn? You've already "judged" and deemed guilty scores of Bushies, yet you're going to observe the legal niceties For the Taylor family?

This has been explained to you so many times, Sh**ter, that you're either brain-dead or wilfully obtuse (or both): Put 'em on trial, and see how the cards fall. No one has judged them; all we're saying is that theres's a prima facie case (based in part on admissions against interest) against the ruling U.S. junta. So prosecute, and let 'em put up whatever cockamamie "24"/"exigent circumstances"/"when the preznit does it, that means it's not illegal" crapola defence and see how long it takes for a proper judcge and jury to find them guilty.

Now STFU and go away until you find some new drivel to repeatr endlessly oblivious to any responses by sapient beings here. This here rotten fish of yours is so old it stinks from a mile downwind.

Cheers,

[shooter242]:

Taylor gets the presumption of innocence deemed inappropriate for anyone in the US. What's the matter Glenn?

I'm going to answer you because I actually think the point is simple enough for you to get it:

I don't believe that the desire to protect against enemies excuses or mitigates the commission of war crimes -- either for American or Liberian leaders.

Take a second, squint your eyes, concentrate really hard on those 23 words, and I'm betting you'll understand the point.

There is none so blind, Glenn, as those that will not see.

But the more subtle irony here is far beyond Sh**ter's intellectual means: That those tortured by the U.S. were themselves given no "presumption of innocence" before they were tortured (and some of them murdered). I support giving such a legal presumption to the criminals and thugs of the maladministration (as we should for all people charged with crimes, even serious ones), but it must be emphasised that these thugs didn't do the same for others.

Cheers,

Glenn, I am more than a little shocked at your response to shooter242. You really owe people a lot more respect than you show: "I'm going to answer you because I actually think the point is simple enough for you to get it". How insufferably rude of you.

I'll point out that this miasmatic efflux of yours is very rude, but I suspect that doing so would not be simple enough for you to 'get'.

Just a FYI: Glenn's quite indulgent of Sh**ter's repeated falsehoods and inanities. That indulgence is pretty much the opposite of rudeness in my book.

Cheers,

to one and all.

With special prosecutors carrying out separate investigations on torture, illegal spying, intelligence manipulation, politicization of DOJ, the destruction of records and manipulation of the financial markets, the Obama administration will be free to go about its business. The prosecutors do the work and we stop hounding him. Until then, we have to keep pushing, every day.

With special prosecutors carrying out separate investigations on torture, illegal spying, intelligence manipulation, politicization of DOJ, the destruction of records and manipulation of the financial markets

Hey, I'd love to be able to convince myself that anything whatsoever will be done under Eric Holder about the myriad criminal acts of Bush, Cheney & Co. We can all dream about war crimes trials and whirled peas. . .

I'd love to see a list of all of the people on the right and in the center that have written pieces critical of the Bush war criminals. I'm familiar with Bruce Fein, the Cato Institute and a few others but I'd really like to see more of them.

You'll find many different voices from the right and the left at antiwar.com.

BTW, I didn't mean to imply that Jane Hamsher had posted about the Birch Society. I just find it interesting that someone as "left" as Jane has common ground with a group as "right" as the JBS.

Greenwald raises some important issues, but he also omits or simply doesn't know some central facts about the Taylor case.

To call Taylor a "Liberian political official" is extraordinarily charitable. Chuckie was an American citizen who volunteered to head one of his father's security forces. Also, he didn't simply "order" torture; the testimony at trial showed that he participated in it--as well as, summary executions.

We can agree that this prosecution raises questions about the DOJ's own culpability in Bush's torture policy, but the facts are essential to understanding why the DOJ may have chosen this case and not others.

Chuckie attempted to reenter the U.S., apparently in an effort to walk away from his past. Given the crimes he's been convicted of, it's understandable why the DOJ pursued this case so aggressively. Otherwise, Chuckie may be living freely in the U.S., enjoying impunity.