Sure, I'll do that

Then fucking get on with it or here and now I'm calling you Renegade_Iconclast a fucking liar.

Now, it's down to you to make take it back.

ADDRESS WHERE HE WAS BORN AND DELIVERY DOCTORS NAME.

You left out the part where I said: "As soon as you show it's in any way relevant to the discussion."

You do that, and then I'll do my part. Classic trollish behavior though, to quote me out of context. I give you props for that.

Right thats it you Renegade_Iconclast are a fucking liar. In spite of your constant squirming and prevarication you do not in fact have any more of an idea of the address in Hawaii where Obama was born and who delivered him. And I can say that with full cofidence because of your refusal to produce the goods. Yet you have all along pretended you knew. You are the type of liar that causes people to be suspicious of not only Obama supporters but Obama himself.

You lose and my point about Obamas background still being shrouded in murk remains.

If you thought you were doing your case any good you in fact did excatly the opposite.

When asked a simple question I give a simple answe.r I do not presume to impose conditions on the questioner first. Only the dis honest with something to hide needing to buy time in order to wheedle out of answering at all do that.

You left out the part where I said: "As soon as you show it's in any way relevant to the discussion."

You do that, and then I'll do my part.

Exactly who gave you authorisation to limit access to what must after all be public knowledge? You don't personally "own" the knowledge of Obamas birth place do you? So therefore you shouldn't presume ownership by imposing conditions on its distribution should you?

You see everything you are saying is just showing you up to be the liar you are isn't it?

Thanks, Mr. Greenwald, for setting the records clear in your article, “Establishment view of Obama’s civil liberties record.” These self-proclaimed progressives who denounced Bush/Cheney for torture programs and for other gross violations of human rights relating to the detainees and of civil rights in domestic surveillance but who now say they approve of the same policies adopted by Obama, are largely confused amateurs or else professional politicians and their opportunistic cohorts who will do anything to take political advantage but never for moral reasons or for reasons of national interest.

By the same token, it is becoming frighteningly clear that we the people, or at least those true progressives who enthusiastically supported Obama in last year’s election and who had high hopes of seeing a real change in our government, have been badly deceived by non other than Obama himself. His specific policies formally adopted since his inauguration in all these relevant fields cannot be explained in any other way. He, who was so eloquent and moving when he gave speeches on the values and ideals of the American heritage, certainly is not doing his best in any of these relevant fields where he knows he is expected to support the so-called “American Values” vigorously and to make a clean break with the horrors of the Bush/Cheney era.

While he says that these “American Values” need not be sacrificed for reasons of national security, he does not seem to mind at all to sacrifice these values for his perceived political convenience. Even on purely domestic/economic issues, such as national health care reform, his approach falls short of real commitment to the most essential part of the reform: the public plan option. But we all know that he is not an idiot or a hopelessly confused person, as perhaps George W. Bush may have been, and that he is really too smart to not know this profound discrepancy between his words and his acts on all or nearly all policy issues across the board. Sadly, there is no denying that his failure to live up to his words must be intentional. If that is not an intentional deception, I don’t know what is. Even in the most charitable interpretation, Obama is turning out to be just like any other typical politician in the past, who will continue to deceive the people as long as he thinks he can get away from it.

If some people protest by saying that Obama is still a great improvement over the Bush/Cheney administration, our answer will be: Perhaps. But is “better than W” even remotely good enough, when we should realize that the Bush/Cheney admin. was essentially a cabal of criminals?

And for your detailed follow-ups to The Reality Kid. This is a basic point long neglected and misunderstood - as Congress well knows and helps facilitate - with regard to our foreign "detainee" policy, due largely to the absence or misdirection of media coverage of the issue, and the failure of Members of Congress to fill the resulting void.

My obvious lack of precision, and omission of the legitimacy of voluntary provision of information by POWs, reveals what U.S. "interrogation" abroad to me now means, by default: coercive interrogation - as that seems to be the only kind the U.S. now employs when Muslims are our captives and no independent oversight exists.

Since all meaningful, traditional safeguards against "coercion" in interrogation seem to have been thrown out the window by the U.S. military and CIA abroad, with the collusion of Congress (at least as far as we know, given the blanket of "state secrecy"), I assume that the impulse to coercively interrogate our Muslim captives is and was a driving force - along with the desire not to provide material comforts or personal dignity to Muslim terrorism suspects - behind the U.S. refusal to classify its foreign detainees as formal "prisoners of war." Of course, another contributing disincentive for assigning POW status is the fact that - in this "asymmetrical" conflict - we basically have no soldiers/POWs of our own in hostile foreign detention whose treatment standards we are concerned about.

Consider: We are prosecuting what's become a ten-year war (or "use of military force") abroad, yet apparently we have yet to formally detain a single "prisoner of war." Some "war."

In belated response to some common misconceptions stated earlier in this thread, I want to reference an article I noted once before, which gives the only perspective I've seen in the media from actual victims of our detainee abuse, with regard to the release of the suppressed photos (which will only be released with judge-approved redactions concealing the faces of the victims and any perpetrators).

Suppressed photos, again, which originated from sites in Iraq beyond Abu Ghraib, and in Afghanistan - per the government's own court filings - and which Obama himself is on record as saying are not "much worse" than those already seen - in conduct at least. It's the apparent location of, and the repercussions (or lack thereof) for, the documented abuse that seem to be the real issues motivating those trying to suppress the photos.

Of course, suppressing evidence of wrongdoing and wrongdoers while ignoring those in the ranks who resisted or refused to condone that wrongdoing or tried to whistleblow it, is the worst sort of incentive, and the most insidious sort of "leadership," guaranteed to bring down unit morale.

Here's what a couple of our Iraqi victims had to say:

Sammarrai, a senior Foreign Ministry official under Saddam Hussein, said he was stripped naked, had cold water thrown over him in winter and was repeatedly beaten and electrocuted.

He says there are still pits in his elbows and knees where the electrodes were attached.

[...]

"But deciding to cover the photos up in order to manipulate world opinion ... I believe this is another crime against the Iraqi people and humanity in general."

Mohammed Ali, 23, is another person who says he was abused by U.S. military. Speaking from Falluja in Anbar province, he recalled hearing U.S. soldiers take photos while he was beaten, a bag shoved over his head. He needed two operations to repair damage to his stomach, he said.

"I was sat on the floor. (They) would beat me two at a time. They put cigarettes out on me and threw cold water on me. That lasted for two days," he said.

"I think it's better for the pictures to be released so those in the Middle East and the West can see what happened."

http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSTRE54S01F20090529?sp=true

Solicitor General Kagan's application to the Supreme Court for a filing delay (promptly granted) gives further detail [as does the US Attorney's filing with the Second Circuit to recall its mandate - also granted - as I excerpted here: http://letters.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/06/13/lieberman/permalink/a6eeeeaf095b75210ca2f9820d2067cf.html]:

As is relevant here, respondents [ACLU] seek the disclosure of photographs in military investigatory files concerning the military's investigation of allegations of detainee abuse. At issue is the application of FOIA Exemptions 7(C) and 7(F), which exempt law-enforcement records from mandatory disclosure if their release "could reasonably be expected" either "to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy," 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(7)(C), or "to endanger the life or physical safety of any individual," 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(7)(F).

A different set of photographs concerning detainee abuse at Abu Ghraib prison (known as the "Darby photos") were initially at issue in this litigation. The government argued that they should be exempt from disclosure on the ground that release of the images could reasonably be expected to invade the detainees' privacy (Exemption 7(C)) and to endanger the lives of American and coalition forces, as well as civilians, in the combat and insurgency areas (Exemption 7(F)). The district court rejected both arguments and ordered the release of the records. The government appealed, but its appeal was mooted shortly before oral argument by the publication of the Darby photos on a website (salon.com).

The litigation then turned to the 21 additional photographs of detainees presently at issue.2 Those photos are contained in Reports of Investigation conducted by the Army's Criminal Investigation Division into allegations of misconduct in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Footnote 2: A substantial number of additional photographs exist, in addition to the 21 photographs, that are the subject of this case in district court.

- United States Solicitor General Elena Kagan, May 29, 2009

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/aclu_v_dod-application_for_extn_final.pdf