heru-ur, the extent of what you do not know is frightening. Maybe one day, ondelette and myself can lay out a history of India after independence and the myriads of bad things that have happened. And the myriad and a half good things too.

Yes chief, you keep trying to tell yourself that. I am sure that the two of you know so very much more than the BBC at least. Of course, what you don't know is basic morality. So, I do wonder how you will get around that obstacle when you prepare your "lessons".

What will our snowflakes tell me next? That India is not perfect? Wow --- what a concept, a non-perfect government and society. But, you did not even attempt to answer how many black torture sites they have around the world. How many countries have they invaded. How many wedding parties have they bombed. How many covert government overthrows have they tried.

How many of their minorities do they have locked in steel cages as compared to here?

Any answers to those Mr. America is Wonderful??

No, they are not. Sorry, you are just wrong.

The easiest part is morality. Morality is not following the local law and/or custom. Morality is far more basic and easy to state. Do unto others as they should do unto you. Or, less biblical: never use force, fraud, or coercion except in self-defense.(*) Or, more eastern: love the other with all your being, even when he is not lovable to you.

I will not even touch economics, as it is too late on a Sunday here and I have other activities to attend to. However, someday next week I will explain that part also.

---------

(*) possibly.

Digby wrote:

He's going after "rogue interrogators" who inflicted more torture than was strictly allowed.

My money is on that outcome.

Then Obama can say that America runs on the rule of law without upsetting the elites. Just like Abu Ghraib and so many other examples from history.

QED.

Then o-cow has a cow and calls him, in effect, a hypocrite. Does anyone really think he can pass logic class with that sort of thinking? -- heru-ur

lol...Is that nincompoop still flailing around trying to get my attention? Classic.

Two words o'fer: Greasemonkey script.

Heru: I would think that if someone was interested in using Ghandi as a template, one would be also interested in the current political climate in India. This was Adnoto's response to Macgupta, who took him up on the offer; in fact, its his response when you call him to actually know anything about these NAMES. That's all they are to him, names--appeals to authority. Its quite obvious that he knows very little about the impact or history of either movement, what direct-action is, or what its history is. I imagine writing the names Bayard Rustin or Vernon Johns would send him scurrying to Wikidpedia.

Previously, you mischaracterized Macgupta's statement as proclaiming that nothing was wrong in the US. Another error, when it couldn't have been closer to being exactly the opposite. Yesterday, I caught you in an enormous fib--something I'd sooner expect from a precocious five year old. The day before that...and on, and on.

Some people say you're a dumb liar and deserve scorn and ridicule. But as we discussed yesterday, it seems much more likely that you suffer from aphasia. Don't worry, we're with you.

Adnoto: thank you for admitting that you need to use Greasemonkey to ignore my arguments. I was wondering why you were so content to always appear a clown. If you were half as good at mounting a movement as you were at being a troll, we'd live in a utopia by now.

Aside from the irrelevance of this observation -- partisan advantage is obviously not a legitimate basis for making prosecutorial decisions in an apoliticized justice system (that was supposedly the whole lesson of the Gonzales era) -- I'd really like to know the mechanism by which this is supposed to happen. How -- exactly -- would Holder's decision to prosecute torture "complicate Obama's agenda big time"?

It seems likely that whatever the majority of the American public wants from Obama's domestic agenda, it's not going to get. I don't know how aware the general public is that Obama has yet to put his shoulder behind nearly any aspect of his agenda. His reported "consensus seeking/conflict avoiding" style seems fairly well guaranteed to produce watered-down, half-baked policy as it relates to the environment, health care, and the economy. On civil liberties, as we all know, he's advancing Bush/Cheney's agenda, as opposed to rolling it back.

So, I'm not sure how well this "excuse" (Holder's decision to prosecute torture "complicate Obama's agenda) will play with the public at large, especially as the results of Obama's domestic policies become better known and understood. Which is a way of saying, the mechanism may be one of counting on the public at large to agree to tip toe around torture/war crimes investigations in the hopes that they get other domestic policies in trade. Readers have seen evidence of that in these threads.

I don't see how the threat of "complicating an agenda" involves Congress at all, except to the extent that the threat works on various constituents of Congress, and keeps the voters off their representatives backs with respect to pursuing investigations. For a public not well versed in the purpose/form/function of the DoJ, the threat - which is becoming conventional wisdom - may offer cover to the DoJ. Or, at least offer a plausible explanation to the public why investigations weren't pursued.

Obviously, there is no direct mechanism by which Holder's choices can affect Obama's domestic agenda. And, even if the argument is preserving comity with Republicans, the greater majority of the GOP have already made it plain that they will support none of Obama's domestic agenda. The Blue Dogs/Vichy Democrats only want to exercise their prerogatives for influence. In a few cases (very few, I think) some of those Blue Dogs may actually come from districts/states where their electorate is divided and their grasp on their congressional seats tenuous. Obviously, if Democrats in the House and Senate wanted a piece of legislation to pass, they have the votes to pass it. If legislation doesn't pass, they didn't want it to pass. And, none of it has anything to do with what Holder does, or doesn't do. That seems straightforward to me.

The threat of complicating Obama's agenda, it seems to me, is being read in, precisely, to complicate and confound two discussions; on Obama's domestic agenda, and on investigations of torture and war crimes. It evokes a lot of heat without contributing a single lumen, it entangles rather than clarifies, it seems to generate camps rather than shared purpose. Darkness, entangled confusions, and coalitions suspicious of each other might well be the intended purpose, because it's hard to see any other outcome.