My experience of the show is that Moyers can, from time to time, attempt to lead a guest, but that overall, he gives ample room for his guests to breathe, er, speak. Should be a good setting and I look forward to viewing the program.

Second what Reality Kid said. Glad you were able to get it scheduled. Certainly lots of ground to cover.

Some things he's said in the past:

“We should be embracing Common Article 3 and shouting it from the rooftops,” Admiral Hutson said. “They can’t try to write us out of this, because that means every two-bit dictator could do the same.”

He said it was “unbecoming for America to have people say, ‘We’re going to try to work our way around this because we find it to be inconvenient.’ ”

“If you don’t apply it when it’s inconvenient,” he said, “it’s not a rule of law.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/11/world/11cnd-detain.html?_r=1

Rear Adm. John D. Hutson, a former judge advocate general of the Navy who is now the president of the Franklin Pierce Law Center in Concord, N.H., told the senators they would be winning a “military victory’’ if they managed to preserve habeas corpus rights for detainees.

Terrorists “want to bring us down to their level,’’ he said. “Military doctrine says you have to hold the high ground.’’

http://select.nytimes.com/mem/tnt.html?emc=tnt&tntget=2006/09/25/washington/25cnd-detain.html&tntemail0=y

“I know from the military that if you tell someone they can do a little of this for the country’s good, some people will do a lot of it for the country’s better,” Mr. Hutson said.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/04/washington/04interrogate.html?hp=&pagewanted=print

The general described a navy policy, by which an accident investigation involves both a public and private version.

He said that in the private version of the investigation, witnesses can testify without any danger of self-incrimination. That seems like an awfully strange legal paradigm; certainly one I'm not familiar with.

There are cases, of course, where particular witnesses are offered immunity from the prosecution of a particular crime in exchange for their public testimony... but is the general suggesting that a pilot accused of bombing civilians, say, can be cleared of wrongdoing in a public investigation, while confessing to the homicides in secret and without fear of repercussion? How could that legally be structured? Who would hear this non-confession? Would the secret investigator also have to be sworn to secrecy?

I think this is particularly relevant if the general is suggesting a similar approach for his desired torture investigation. I wouldn't be very satisfied if the instigators of our torture policy revealed everything, in secret, and without fear of prosecution. That accomplishes neither accountability NOR transparency.

Good luck with the MSM. I thought it was interesting that Moyers, like NPR etc., apparently didn't see the value of presenting an alternative perspective from someone like Ralph Nader during the presidential campaign.

Like NPR, I suspect he not only knows what most Americans think but knows what's best for them too.

"by and large, the more famous you are, the less of a journalist you are."

Terrorists “want to bring us down to their level,’’ he said. “Military doctrine says you have to hold the high ground.’’

If there's one thing that's been made bundantly clear by having Dick Cheney and born-again Christian George W Bush at the helm, it is that they and their underlings are certainly are no better - morally or ethically - than terrorists. Even if Obama doesn't turn out to be a great president, at least he isn't a morally bankrupt piece of filth in the eyes of the world like Bush/Cheney. Hopefully, he'll maintain that.

By the way, I'm amazed that John Hutson is a Republican (at least according to his Wikipedia entry). He actually understands the need for maintaining the high ground.

For a flavor of the real-world, real human, consequences of the abhorent practices Admiral Hutson is (admirably...) opposing, listen to Arar's appeal today, being aired live by C-SPAN (both TV and streaming online, at least for high-speed connections, I believe), which was scheduled to begin at 3 p.m. ET in New York:

http://c-span.org/Watch/watch.aspx?MediaId=HP-R-13240

This hearing should also be available later for replaying on the C-SPAN website.

http://c-span.org/

Thanks for the reminder. C-Span is still broadcasting something else at the link you provided. The Arar hearing can be watched online here: http://c-span.org/Watch/C-SPAN3_wm.aspx (and at sig).

That was encouraging, especially Hutson's enthusiasm with Holder and his impressions of the Obama selections for justice. Yet, there again was that ubiquitous reticence for the need to investigate, prosecute and punish those who violated international and domestic laws.

Although he eventually agreed that there could be that sort of pursuit, he seemed reluctant to endorse it.

With regard to having two separate investigations (?) I, too, found that curious. Love to see some of those files. Imagine what we don't know.

I haven't had a chance to hear the interview yet, but was there any discussion on why all these important messages were nearly totally suppressed over the last six years? Were the officers ordered not to speak out, or if they did what happened?

Sorry to inject this into a thread about another subject but I don't know if I'll be able to wait for an appropriate venue for this subject.

---------------------------------------------------

Sunday night, GOP Minority Leader, John Boehner, blew more smoke out of his ass than most politicians can exhale in a week.

In a release titled “The Future is Cao,” Boehner wrote that “the Cao victory is a symbol of what can be achieved when we think big, present a positive alternative and win the trust of the American people.” (link at sig)

Bullshit.

Cao won because the political power structure in New Orleans decided that they would not back indicted US Rep. "Dollar" Bill Jefferson and thus allow the seat to go to the new kid on the block, Anh “Joseph” Cao, a Vietnamese American. I explained New Orleans politics in another thread a couple days ago but I'll give the short version....and the short version is that (R) and (D) designations carry absolutely no weight in elections in Orleans Parish, Louisiana. None whatsoever. In fact, in most elections, candidates there don't even bother telling the voters which party (if any) they belong to.

Most New Orleanians probably didn't even know Cao is a Republican but they did know he isn't Bill Jefferson. Jefferson and his family have been mired in the political muck that is New Orleans to an extent that is, even by New Orleans standards, putrid. The voters didn't elect Cao, they unelected Jefferson.

Ultimately, in two years, the seat will revert to whoever the New Orleans political power decides it will do to, and that will NOT be Cao. He has NO base.

What's so ludicrous about Boehner's declaration is that had people like him had their way in the 60's and 70's, it's probable that Cao would never have become eligible to run for the seat and instead would possibly have become yet another casuality of the Vietnam War.

Future of the GOP my ass.