Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
Funny, how a guy can get appointed to a body such as that, not to mention be the State Department's top human rights official, but can't be bothered to notice the huge pile of dead people in El Salvador that his associates left behind.
Well, you do have to allow Abrams that he knows a bit about atrocities, rapes, torture, and mass killings. I guess, a welcome contrary, "on the other hand", view....
Cheers,
I doubt Obama meant he would unilaterally "ban" earmarks. I just see him using his bully pulpit to advocate for one of his priorities. I also doubt, as Retzilian already pointed out, that he personally views the issue as simply as the campaign talking point suggests.
One of the things he said he would do is make govt. more transparent, and I would be all for any reasonable efforts he makes in that direction, even if only for the Legislative. Wasn't it Obama that either came up with or highlighted the 'google for govt.' idea? I think banning earmarks might, might, encompass far more than simply banning earmarks. I saw Obama stress the idea of the avg. Joe being able to look at exactly where all the federal money goes and who sent it there, and if that idea is realized it would be quite a sea change.
"are you being purposefully obtuse or do you derive pleasure out of posting inane comments over, and over, and over, and over, again."
Given the subject, those aren't mutually exclusive...
Glenn, when you talk to TammEither during the interview or off interview, make a suggestion that Tamm create a way for Internet donations rather than having to send a check and letter. He needs a lot of money to defend himself against taxpayer money (damn it hurts to write that), and a website and soliciting emails would give him a chance to raise considerably more funds. All the major "lefty" sites could help with a DONATE icon, including UT. -- Retired Military Patriot
You have to pay any federal taxes this year? If so, are you going to pay them?
"In an interview with The Hill, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said he would not roll over for the new president the way Republicans did for Bush.
Reid stated, "I don't believe in the executive power trumping everything... I believe in our Constitution, three separate but equal branches of government."
"If Obama steps over the bounds, I will tell him. ... I do not work for Barack Obama. I work with him," he said.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/01/07/harry-reid-i-dont-work-fo_n_155838.html
or at sig
I can't help but wonder just how far this statement will go in re-legitimizing our government, or will we have to beat Harry Reid all the way back to Searchlight over it?
Perhaps when Obama says "We" he is referring to himself AND Congress, not just himself in the royal sense. Or perhaps he is saying he will not sign bills stuffed with earmarks, unless they are explained online, are transparent. Lots of earmarks, after all, are justified and reasonable.
Glenn, while I generally agree with most of your points in this piece, and am also fairly sympathetic to Tamm's plight, I take issue with a couple of your points:
First is that you note the recent date of the December 31 letter and say that "it demands an answer from Tamm by January 7 -- just under two weeks before Obama is to be inaugurated --..." I take your implication to be that DoJ is somehow trying to quickly indict Tamm before the Bush administration leaves office.
However, the Newsweek article specifically states the opposite:
Paul Kemp, one of Tamm's lawyers, says he was recently told by the Justice Department prosecutor in charge of Tamm's case that there will be no decision about whether to prosecute until next year—after the Obama administration takes office.
You go on to say that the DoJ letter "then threateningly warns: "if I do not hear from you by that date, I will assume that Mr. Tamm is not interested in submitting to a voluntary interview or testifying before the Grand Jury": an obvious threat that he may be subpoenaed and compelled to do so."
I could be wrong about this, but as a prosecutor this sounds to me as if DoJ has moved from regarding Tamm as a possible defendant to a potential witness.
I try to keep my defendants out of the grand jury because they get to explain what they did and often you will have jury nullification - they will dismiss the case (and there's nothing the prosecutor can do about it) if they think if they think the defendant was right to do what he did, even if he did break the letter of the law. I much prefer to build my cases on other witnesses' testimony.
Also, I don't see the inclusion of the word "voluntary" in the letter (that you bolded) quite as sinister as you appear to. Obviously, he can't be compelled to incriminate himself in the grand jury. He can, however, be compelled to testify (if a judge agrees he is a material witness to a crime) but only if he is granted immunity.
Also, you say DoJ hounded Tamm to the point of depression, but the Newsweek article makes it pretty clear that Tamm and sunk into a pretty serious depression by the time the investigation really got rolling, after just one phone call from Agent Lawless that Tamm refused to take.
In sum, I agree that the whole fact that he is being investigated is wrongheaded and with the ire you express towards the ones I consider real cuplrits here - spineless Congressional Democrats - but think you somewhat unfairly characterize the investigators as more overzealous and abusive than I believe they are. But then, I only have the Newsweek article to go by; you're in touch with Tamm personally, and probably know a lot more.
More typical nitpicking from Jestaplero, I know, but it's what I do.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
219 Democrats and one Republican join in favor of the legislation, which passed by a narrow margin
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Salon headlines in your mailbox
