From Raw Story: "In an interview posted Monday, former Bush Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said that because use of torture 'may be necessary' in the future, the Obama administration erred in disclosing the Bush administration’s 'enhanced interrogation' techniques.
"Gonzales was taking part in an interview by MSNBC’s Dan Abrams along with former Bush Attorney General John Ashcroft. The session was conducted at American Jewish University Apr. 27. The full transcript is available here.
"Abrams repeatedly asked Gonzales if the techniques the Bush administration approved amounted to torture, and whether President Barack Obama was correct in releasing them. Gonzales said he disagreed with Obama’s decision.
“'It does provide, in my judgment, important information to the enemy,' Gonzales quipped. Then he provided a more notable remark.
“'And then secondly, to say that we have now discontinued these techniques,' he continued, 'they may be necessary in the future. And by disclosing it, means you take them off the table and they can never be used again.'
"Asked if the techniques the CIA used on detainees — which included partial drowning, keeping detainees up for days and hurling them against plywood walls — were torture, Gonzales demurred."
Coming just after that other recently sighted swine, Condi Rice, was spotted prevaricating at Stanford and at a Jewish Elementary School, I think this from a person commenting on the Raw Story above is very apropos:
"Every time I become complacent and reluctantly support the Presidents policy of looking forward and not pursuing prosecution of the many crimes committed by the Bush administration somebody like Rove, or Cheney, and now those worms, Gonzalez and Ashcroft, make provocative comments that force the conclusion that this shit isn’t going to’ go away. The only way to put an end to it is to drag them through rigorous investigatona and or trials and force them to testify under oath and put an end to this tarnished chapter in our history." [misspellings in the original]
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Dr Stuart Jeanne Bramhall
Watching Frogs Boil
Karen McKim
Erica K
Jennifer Prestholdt
Julie Morse
Salon.com
Comments
Keep mentioning that you consider "not prosecuting" to be a failing of the Obama administration.
People like Rice, Ashcroft, Cheney, and Gonzales love your help!
I am a member of Amnesty International. As such, I wrote letters to officials who authorized disappearances, torture, imprisonment for political or religious beliefs, and whatnot. None of that stuff is moral or even legal. The things your heroes did were not moral, nor legal, either.
All we did was write a respectful letter asking that the victim of these parctices be released and the people who did the crime to them be properly investigated and prosecuted if need be. Any of the people we wrote to could have simply ignored the letters, but the letters went to show that people all over the world knew all about what immoral criminals they were, or what immoral criminals they were sheltering. We knew, everyone knew.
And behold, the prisoners were released. How could this work? Yet it did, over and over.
The key thing is impunity, here. Impunity enables these things, and removing impunity stops them. Advocacy such as yours, for impunity, makes the world less safe, less free, less happy-- less American, not more.
I hope that the publicity will finally do the thing. To have the torturers prosecuted. If the case in the law court could be seen in tv all over the world it might change the behavior of some people.
Frank: You write - "Keep mentioning that you consider 'not prosecuting' to be a failing of the Obama administration.
People like Rice, Ashcroft, Cheney, and Gonzales love your help!"
I/we do not "consider" it a "failing" of the Obama administration to prosecute. The Obama administration itself has been refusing to prosecute and said so repeatedly that they don't want to do it, don't think it's right, ad nauseum. It's a fact. You really should come to terms with that and decide whether or not your desire to defend Obama no matter what he's doing exceeds the fact that these torturers need to be punished for their monstrous policies.
Philos777: You are too funny!
Dave: Thanks much for what you bring to the table!
Hannu: Yes, it would change the behavior of some people to have these war criminals brought before the court of world opinion and their dirty laundry aired for all to see.
I had in mind a different title for this posting: Parade of Prevaricating Pigs.
scanner: the pressure needs to continue and increase. May 28th is the national day to demand justice be done and torturers held to account.
Tom: Indeed - as you say correctly. I like, by the way, the Gonzaliar monikor. It's interesting that in this interview he had no trouble remembering anything...
Saturday over 200 of us, with two sound systems, large banners and signs, marched a mile through suburban streets and into the Franklin Mills Mall in NE Philadelphia. We were loud outside, and louder inside, determined to resist the Army's recruiting of youth through video games and war simulations.
We were stopped by rows of police and security guards from entering the Army Experience Center. We read aloud a criminal complaint against the AEC and the owners of the mall, for conspiring to draw people into the commission of war crimes. I explained what war crimes are. We chanted "Shut It Down!" "War is NOT a Game!" and "What are they recruiting for? Murder, rape, torture, war!"
Sue Niederer of Pennington, NJ, whose son 2nd Lt. Seth Dvorin was killed near Iskandariyah, Iraq on February 3, 2004, wore a t-shirt saying "Recruiters Lied!" She got on the bullhorn to suggest we all take a public tour of the center. The police spokesperson announced, "you're not going to be going on the tour because this center is closed down now!" Oh -- he didn't say that! We chanted "shut it down" all the louder.
Before the police warning to leave, some of the peace activists went outside to have a vigil on the road. But most of us stayed, attracting shoppers, and rows of young kids holding skateboards, from the skate park next door. Some of us sat down. We weren't tired, but you've got to teach people how to sit down as resistance.
Check out this video from a professional gamers website: http://www.gamepolitics.com/2009/05/03/protesters-arrested-army039s-video-game-recruitment-center
Thanks to Op Ed News who headlined an article by Elaine Brower. http://www.opednews.com/articles/Criminal-Complaint-Served-by-Elaine-Brower-090503-749.html
Editor Rob Krall called the action "very well organized." Thanks to dozens of Veterans for Peace; to Pat Elder of the National Network Opposing the Militarization of Youth; Iraq Veterans Against the War; Code Pinkers and Grannies of all kinds, Peace Action, the Brandywine Peace Community, and activists from all over the east coast. Special thanks to the Activists Response Team, who did the March of the Dead, and took 7 arrests for disorderly conduct, which we will help fight.
Elaine Brower of World Can't Wait, one of the 7 pictured in white masks who were arrested at the end of the action, wrote, "It seemed to me that the recruiters were becoming a bit unnerved, and the police were becoming extremely impatient. This was a peaceful protest, as we were not only exercising our first amendment right of 'freedom of speech', but trying to get our youth de-militarized, and away from the clutches of bloody war games. Of course, since the AEC is open to the 'public' many demanded to go inside, but weren't allowed. Ret. Army Col. Ann Wright at that point was speaking directly to the kids who had gathered to witness what we were doing and told them not to 'buy the recruiters' stories' of patriotic glory."
A middle school teacher brought 4 of his students to the protest. They had already taken the tour of the AEC, and brought copies of the letters they sent to David & Melvin Simon, owners of the mall which leases to the Army.
Manny, who was about to speak to the crowd just as the arrests started, and was hustled out by his teacher (sorry Manny) wrote, in part:
"Do you believe money is worth more than human lives? You just probably said to yourself, 'No, of course not.' Well, now you are unknowingly answering 'yes' because of the space you have leased out to the Army. They have recently opened an Army Experience Center. They are supposedly not recruiting kids. They have video games set up for kids to play and have the 'army experience.' Last time I checked arcades don't ask for your social security number....
The Army does not change a single cent for this. They don't charge admission; they don't charge you for playing either. Instead, they give you an ID card that you have to swipe in order to play. They record this in their database. They see how many times you played the Humvee simulation. They see how many times you rode in the Black Hawk Helicopter. Then they decide what field to place the child in once he/she turns 18. The recruiters will come to the child's home and ask them to take a test. The recruiters will not be regular run-of-the-mill men. They will pick strong, well built men who will try everything to convince them to take the test and join the Army. They will be sent to a war we don't even belong in. We, the U.S., are like the strong kid who thinks he can beat everyone at the playground. We pick fights for no reason. Then we walk away not caring who got hurt or who died."
Credit to Eric Anderson & the US Army for photos.
Debra Sweet, Director, The World Can't Wait - Drive Out the Bush Regime
World Can't Wait - info@worldcantwait.org - 866.973.4463 - 305 W. Broadway #185, NY, NY 10013
http://www.opednews.com/articles/An-Iraq-Veteran-s-Reasons-by-Jesse-Hamilton-090505-668.html
Your reply to me doesn’t make sense.
You quoted me saying that “…you consider ‘not prosecuting’ to be a failing…and then talk as though I had said you consider it a failing of the Obama administration TO PROSECUTE.
Obviously you think Obama is failing the United States and your inflated sense of morality by NOT PROSECUTING.
I am saying it makes more sense right now to go along with his plan of NOT PROSECUTING because he sees that tactic to be the one that helps him right the ship of state…a ship that was left seriously listing by these horrible people we allowed to captain it.
The point I was making is that your constant attacks on Obama on this matter brings happiness to the people on the right…the people who think these bastards did no harm to our country.
Sorry you cannot see that…and even more sorry you cannot see that backing Obama on this issue right now does more good for our country than agitating for the prosecutions.
Dennis, you have an inflated estimation of the good that would come from the prosecutions at this time. I think you are dead wrong. Tom Cordle probably put it best in his post. These miscreants will not learn…period. Whether we prosecute or not…they will not learn.
What we have to do is to keep scum like that out of office. And the best way to do that is to have administrations like this one…do an effective job.
You…and others like you…constantly assailing him on this issue are not helping in that direction. In fact, I charge that you are doing a disservice to Obama…and by extension, to our country and the world.
Obama could sodomize a five year old on stage and Apisa would insist the kid was asking for it.
He will defend any action and decision of Obama no matter how blatantly illegal or ill advised.
Apisa is so high on hopium that when he eventually sobers up and realizes he has been had his betrayal will be far worse than his current brainless, obnoxious chearleading.
You write that I have an "inflated sense of morality" because of what? Because I insist that torturers and murderers be brought up on charges?
Are you at all aware that you are the one who is siding with the Right here by defending Obama's refusal to prosecute them for crimes against humanity?
It is you who is giving comfort to the Bush regime and their apologists, not me.
If you go back and fight us in certain named locations, then a Seal caps you.
Otherwise, we do what the Saudis do, and give you a job, a nice little apartment, and most importantly, a girl, which is the real problem lots of times, and again, you leave the suburbs to go to say Chechnya or wherever, your ass is underground real quick.
“You write that I have an "inflated sense of morality" because of what? Because I insist that torturers and murderers be brought up on charges? “
No! And I suspect you know that.
I see you as having an inflated sense of morality, Dennis, because you are unwilling to see that Obama has made a decision that the cost (in terms of willingness of the Republicans to work with him) of prosecuting at this time is simply too great considering the ambitious agenda he is setting before the nation.
You are not willing to allow him the space to make that decision. You want him to do what your inflated sense of morality says has to be done right now.
I am willing to give him that space.
You wrote: “Are you at all aware that you are the one who is siding with the Right here by defending Obama's refusal to prosecute them for crimes against humanity? It is you who is giving comfort to the Bush regime and their apologists, not me.”
Are you aware that that is a crock of shit?
Right now, the far right wants as much antagonism toward Obama as possible. They realize the best way to get that is for him to be a hardliner on this matter. My guess is that the nutball right is more than willing to sacrifice people like Cheney and Rove and the memo writers…in order to galvanize their people.
You, Dennis, are playing into their hands. Or at least, that is my opinion. Frankly, only history will tell us which of us is correct.
I realize you’ve got some insightful, reasonable, intelligent people like Behind Blue Eyes in your camp. I am sure you are proud of that. You may even agree with her that I am high on opium…and that if Obama sodomized a five year old on stage, I would insist the kid was asking for it.
No telling what is going on with you.
But I respectfully suggest you rethink your position on this issue…and see if you are not letting a runaway ego dictate your agenda.
However they do provide food; bacon and ham - and what BBQ shack can be complete without the ribs? Their droppings are prized fertilizer. Aside from those items there's the story of the three little pigs; teaching good lessons to children everywhere.
I am afraid that comparing such an animal with a pseudo-educated self serving thug such as Gonzales is demeaning to pigs everywhere. He produces no ham nor bacon - and some trully terrible lessons.
Aside from that small detail your article was informative and quite appropiate, thanks.
Under that
You have posted a number of comments on various posts of mine in which you have been fevered in your determination to protect Obama against any and all criticisms. You have also, unfortunately, engaged in quite a few personal insults of me.
I don't mind if people engaged in strong language as long as it's based on some evidence and substance. That evidence and substance can then be examined and considered as to its worth.
Your insults aren't based on any substance other than an ad hominem defense of Obama. Your "logic" is not reasonable: i.e., you accuse me of helping the Right by the fact that I criticize Obama.
First of all, is it your view of the American presidency that the president is above any and all criticism?
Second, you apparently do not realize that the right wing that you oppose is on YOUR SIDE in opposing the prosecution of their torture policies, not me.
Thirdly, I can accept bad manners in comments to some extent and I can also accept illogical and non-evidence based arguments to some extent. But I can't accept both from the same person, repeatedly. I would prefer that you take your vendetta against me elsewhere and not on my blog. You are free to wax your indignation about me on your own blog.
If you decide at some point to provide evidence for your arguments and can refrain from your personal attacks on me, then I would welcome you back with open arms.
Look, Frank has a valid point. The remaining Republicans (as opposed to the men and women referred to in this article of yours, who are merely squirming to avoid being nailed for their crimes), the ones still holding senate seats, governorships, house seats, and so on, along with their party leadership, have a tactic. That tactic is not simply to say no. It is more subtle than that, and it is nearly foolproof.
Do they expect to deflect Obama by convincing anyone? Not particularly. Consider the way Boehner's speeches have been-- not even internally consistent, not even a day at a time! That stuff isn't going to win anyone over, because it doesn't even have a message. But! the way that it is consistent is in its unrelenting objection to Obama's people's moves, no matter what they are (except the Wall Street people-- the banks he loves).
The thing these men and women are waiting for is a misstep, a flubbed play, a bad break-- and this is the real world; soon or late, some project of the Obama people will fall flat.
When it does, they can point to the undeniable fact that they told everyone it would not work. They told us all it was wrong, and especially that it was misguided, naive, incompetent. They can be very sure they'll be able to say this, because they say that same shit about every last thing anyone in the executive does or says.
That's what they are doing. That's why Frank is begging us all not to play into their hands.
Also, it might be as well to notice that no court case can go forward this week or next. There needs to be investigation first, testimony-- it could be a couple of years, even if a special prosecutor starts tomorrow.
Francisco: Yes, I know. It's unfair to the actual pigs to compare them to Bush and his gang.
Dave: I'm going to reply more at length about the content of your posting later on.
As for whether Frank has a point or not, all he keeps doing is telling me to stop it, stop it, and he's now started to accuse me of an overinflated ego, etc., and taking sides against the country and the planet. It's absurd. He doesn't make an argument and provide evidence, he's just insulting me as if this was some kind of argument. As I said, if you want to provide evidence and are willing to consider a discussion about the evidence and related issues, then great. In the absence of that, it just becomes a diatribe without substance.
Furthermore, the very notion that any president is above criticism is on its face wrong-headed.
As to Dave's posting in which he says that the following is a "nearly foolproof" strategy:
"The thing these [GOP] men and women are waiting for is a misstep, a flubbed play, a bad break-- and this is the real world; soon or late, some project of the Obama people will fall flat.
"When it does, they can point to the undeniable fact that they told everyone it would not work…
"That's what they are doing. That's why Frank is begging us all not to play into their hands."
I’m going to try to concentrate on the heart of the logic of this argument.
What it is saying is that you must not criticize the president because in doing so you are giving comfort to the enemy (i.e., the GOP).
When did we become a monarchy, I want to know, where you dare not criticize the king?
If Obama secretly wants to prosecute those responsible for crimes against humanity (and let’s not mince words here, that is what the Bush gang is guilty of), but is biding his time till the time is ripe then I have two things to say.
First, if he really is preparing the ground to do this, then why is he making it MORE DIFFICULT to do this later on by filing briefs in court and making public statements in which his administration is BUILDING UP the argument that these criminals DO NOT deserve punishment? If you really want to run a race and it’s critical to you to win that race, why would you spend your time in the meantime digging yourself deeper and deeper into a hole and stubbing your toes till they bleed?
If you aren’t aware of what Obama’s DOJ has been arguing for in court and what Obama has been saying on the public record (e.g., lauding the past administration for their great intentions and admiring them for this and saying that he doesn’t want to “lawyer them up,” etc.,) then please read some of my past posts about these matters. Read what the Center for Constitutional Rights has said. Read what the ACLU and Glenn Greenwald have been saying.
You don’t make arguments before the court and then a year or two down the road say: “Those arguments we made to you before, about how these officials couldn’t have been expected to know that what they were doing was torture and illegal, we didn’t mean them. We actually meant the opposite of that.”
Second, if Obama really WANTS to prosecute these criminals for war crimes, then he could use all of our help in helping to make the case for the fact that they are indeed war criminals. He could use our help in pushing for this and making it easier for him to say to the GOP: “Look, I want to give the Bush White House a pass, but the public is forcing my hand. I can’t afford to not prosecute. My social base is demanding it. The people are threatening to get out of control. I can’t resist this tide of public sentiment.”
The way you give HIM that help, if you really DO think that Obama’s a man of justice and wants to do the right thing, is you don’t stop demanding justice and you don’t stop exposing the crimes and hypocrisy of the Bush war criminals.
You don’t have to agree with me that Obama’s a hypocrite. All you have to do is fight for the truth to come out and fight to make what is already on the public record known to more and more people so they will also be as outraged as you are about the monstrously immoral actions of Bush et al.
If you don’t do this and you say, I trust Obama that he will get around to doing this eventually, you are also saying that these towering crimes are just not that big a deal.
It’s more important that Americans get back to work in larger numbers than that torturers and murderers who violate the letter and spirit of the law be held to account for the people they’ve done grave wrongs to. It’s more important to us that the economy get better than that the 1.3 million Iraqis who died because of these bastards and the tens of thousands of American soldiers who needlessly died (4k plus in official casualties and at least 30k in suicides) be avenged for their deaths.
In my opinion the first thing Americans should do is to change their international politics based on the criminal wars. That policy was started already a long time ago, but went much worse during Bush' administration.
If America instead of fighting wars, destroying and occupying foreign countries, would start working as a reliable partner to build the better and more secure world with other countries then the economy would become better, too.
The reality is that nowadays America is among the best of the world only in war industries. The best industries of Americans are nowadays making their biggest incomes by making weapons and America is by far the biggest exporter of weapons in the world. It is the high time to start converting these industries into civil industries.
The whole world needs new energy systems, hundreds of millions hungry people in the world don't have enough food, most of the people of the world don't have communication means to speak with us in the Internet about these issues.
The reputation of Americans has gone down a lot during the years. If justice would be done, if the illegally tortured prisoners could openly speak out, what has happened behind the bars, if the torturers would come to the law court to speak out what they did and why, the things would for sure get better. It is better to try making things clear instead of hiding them.
"The reality is that nowadays America is among the best of the world only in war industries. The best industries of Americans are nowadays making their biggest incomes by making weapons and America is by far the biggest exporter of weapons in the world."
As the morons who are fond of repeating 9/11, 9/11, 9/11 in response to every indignity that the repugnican't swine, with MUCH significant democraptic complicity use to justify barbaric and TOTALLY incomprehensible behavior contrary to International law, the Geneva Conventions, and the Constitution.
These words of yours need echo inside each and every empty cranium of the blockhead brigades who offer facile defenses of the unacceptable, unforgivable, and irredeemable indignities committed in our name and with OUR dollars.
I have never suggested that the American president, Obama or any other president, should be “above criticism.”
I did say: “I am saying it makes more sense right now to go along with his plan of NOT PROSECUTING because he sees that tactic to be the one that helps him right the ship of state…a ship that was left seriously listing by these horrible people we allowed to captain it. “
I stand by that.
I’ve re-read my comments here, Dennis, and I see no horrible stridency…certainly not nearly enough to require all the indignation you are showing. Most of my remarks have been measured…and clearly labeled as opinion.
For you to deliver a lecture to me on “bad manners” and “insults” in a thread with a title calling a fellow human being a “swine” really is beyond absurd.
I have made it perfectly clear that I consider people who are agitating for Obama to prosecute right now to be doing a disservice to this country. You are agitating in that direction. I think it is well within my right…and the objectives of Open Salon…to call this to your attention.
Your arguments that these people have to be prosecuted remind me of the Republicans who argued with equal passion that Bill Clinton simply had to be prosecuted for lying about an affair…that the Republic would be endangered if we did not impeach him.
They were full of soup. In my opinion…so are you.
I said that you have become insulting ("strident" was Dave's word for you, not mine, by the way) and that you do not provide real arguments and evidence to back up your statements.
In the absence of both of these in your comments - manners and substance - it is not only a waste of time to read your comments, but you leave a bad taste in the mouth by your constant carping at me.
It is bad form for you to ignore this request.
If it were the case that you had the ability to be in any way objective about what you say on OS, then we might have grounds to continue a conversation or debate. You don't even recognize what you say and your statements are self-contradictory. Trying to reason with you based on sense and evidence has proven useless.
I say that not as a dig at you, merely as an unfortunate fact.
I did today take the time to look over your OS postings (mostly the titles, a few the actual contents) and noticed that you have not once even broached the fact that the Bush regime has tortured people and that they are continuing to try to cover this up. If you were to redirect your dislike of me towards those who REALLY are criminals and sadists, your time would be better spent.
I don't wish to further engage with you. The one true thing that you did say in your last post is that this is a theatre of the absurd. I ask again that you not further this ongoing fight with me. I bear you no particular animus other than being annoyed at your persistent desire to go at me when there are real enemies out there to deal with. When you say that the left is guilty of eating its own, you are, I'm afraid, guilty of that yourself in your continuing sniping at me.
As I said in my last message to you, if you were to cease your personal attacks upon me and were to provide substantive remarks, then I would welcome that with open arms.
I realize that this is probably going to fall on deaf ears. Perhaps I will be surprised. I hope so.
Unless you do modify what you do, I will not be responding to you further and while I have never deleted anyone's comments before, I am putting you on notice that I reserve the right to make an exception in your case. (You will note, in case you didn't see this, that I didn't even delete Philos777's red-baiting attack on me a few weeks ago.)
If you want to continue to bury your head in the sand about what Obama is actually doing and are content to go about your business while terrible things are being done, and reserve your bile for me in particular, the messenger, rather than those awful deeds themselves, then it's your right. Just don't do it on my blog please.
ye belligerent ones that here we see how a MAN acts.
I sometimes wish I could emulate The Professor's tenor and mode, but I am old(e) and have TOTALLY lost patience with those who will not comply with even the most minimal standards of decency in discourse.
The Professor, like many here consistently lays out his thoughts in a linear manner that anyone with even a tad of schooling or appropriate upbringing should be able to understand.
Even in this cease and desist message, there is not the slightest lack of clarity. Perhaps, it is this clarity, after years of opaque obtuseness which confuse some.
Just what is it you don't understand???
(needs to be a way to re-rate blog posts, or to rate comments such as the previous one.)
Obama already sent more troops to Afghanistan, he made the laws protecting president's office to spy American citizens stronger, he has protected torturers in prisons.
In my opinion Obama is worse than Bush. They made him popular by promising changes in health care systems of Americans, promising to save working places, to protect American citizens from the collapsing economy. That is just smog and light illusions under black clouds. To prevent people seeing what the politicians are doing outside the bubble using citizens votes and money to kill more people in the wars.
What's interesting in all of Frank's fulminating about people like me being "traitors" and that I really need to "shut up" is that he hasn't once spoken to the question of whether or not what I (and others like Glenn Greenwald) have been saying is factually true or not.
I haven't made up what I'm saying about Obama. I haven't invented his actions, his policies, or his (and those of his DOJ) statements to the public or in court. Those are Obama's actions and words, not mine.
Since Frank's feverish defense of Obama is based on taking Obama at his words - some of his words, not all of his words - and choosing to believe that Obama secretly does want to and intend to prosecute the Bush criminals, then what his stance comes down to is that the role of the people is to trust their leaders and never hold them to account. That's not democracy. That's blind faith.
If Obama is so great, then why exactly can't he take some criticism?
The problem with the right's criticism's of Obama, for one thing, is that it's made up of bogus "facts," such as that Obama's a socialist. The other problem with their attack on him is their ideology.
But if the criticism, regardless of who is doing it, is based on what Obama is actually doing it, isn't this healthy?
Otherwise, you have the "left" equivalent of Bush's defenders who upheld what he was doing and trusted that he was doing the right thing, regardless of the facts.
Those whose desire to believe in Obama is so great that they have lost touch with facts are trying to shut up those whose observations niggle at their preferred view of reality.
Blue Roses: Do you mean that you think Obama's DOJ is trying to pave the way for int'l prosecutions and not carry it out themselves?
If you are going to continue to take shots at me in it...I am going to add one more charge to my indictment of you: COWARD!
If you want to mention my name or comment on what I have said...even in this strawman way you do...grow the balls to invite me back to engage you.
You have just demonstrated once again why I disinvited you to be on my blog. You have taken the opportunity, and previously been taking the opportunity, which I explicitly told you previously is your perfect right to do, and I in fact INVITED you to do so, to say whatever you want about me on your blog. I asked you to stop coming to my blog. That was the request.
You are a hypocrite if you call me a coward because I have brought up your name here when you have repeatedly done so on your own blog. (For the record, I did so in response to Padraig's invitation for me to look at what has been going on at your blog that involves me - i.e., my name is brought up several times by you in it, including your assertion there that I am a "traitor.")
If it's not ok to bring up your name on my blog, according to you, then how come it's ok for you to do it on your blog? If you do it it's not cowardice?
This is yet another demonstration of your inability to be consistent intellectually about anything at all. You are just as bad a defender of Obama as those who blindly follow the GOP and declare that whatever they do is fine and dandy.
Apparently, for you, if the politician has a D after their name instead of an R, then whatever they're doing is alright by you. The killings in the illegal and immoral wars that started under Bush are now ok by you since they're being carried out now by Obama.
You have no principles. I have no interest in debating you. The stand you take, on the other hand, is representative of a certain thread out there in the society.
If you can't take having your name used in the course of discussing that thread, then I will be happy to not ever use your name again. In fact, I will do my very best to never use your name again. If I should slip, be assured, that isn't because I am a "coward."
If you think, as you said, that this is a "theatre of the absurd," then why do you insist on coming onto my blog and leaving your rubbish here on my lawn, so to speak?
I will delete any future comments of yours. I am keeping up your latest comment on me so that others can see more just what kind of person you are.
In my blog...YOU ARE MORE THAN INVITED. PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE STOP BY AND SAY ANYTHING YOU WANT TO SAY.
Here...you are telling me to stay away.
Do you honestly not see the difference?
Is there anyone who can help Dennis with this????
...you are a coward.
Your language is offensive to me and at least to some others. Your saying that my head is up my ass is illustrative of that, calling me a traitor and coward, etc., etc.. Please, I do not want you coming to my blog and insulting me further. It's unsightly. Do you not understand that?
You can say what you want about me on your blog if you choose to continue to do so. Just don't come here.
Calling me a coward further demonstrates that a) you have no sense of propriety, b) you have no sense of proportion, and c) that you cannot reason your way through anything more complicated than a yelling contest.
Do you think that it is cowardly to stand up for the rights of those who have been unjustly tortured (including tortured to death)? Do you think that it is cowardly to tell the truth about what's going on even if that means speaking out against your own government? Do you think that someone who is a coward would write a book called "Impeach the President"? Has it ever occurred to you what kind of calumny and danger that can put someone in? You, on the other hand, have the courage of your convictions to call people all kinds of names who are brave enough to speak truth to power while you wile away your time playing golf among the rich...
If I really was interested in stroking my own ego, as you have previously claimed, then don't you think that it would make much more sense to align myself with the powers that be? I do, after all, have Harvard degree. It would be much easier and rewarding for me personally if I was to sing the praises of Obama and the government and seek a well-paying job doing their work. THAT would be ego-gratifying.
I apologize for this tardy reply, but I got caught up in the dust-up on this thread. Whew. You can certainly say that your posts, indeed, spark commentary much of which is productive. Some of that discourse, though, gets side-tracked somehow leaving doubt and hard feelings all the way around. I wish it could be avoided, when tempers flare maybe it's just not possible.
Maybe it's the moon.
Here's my original question:
Could it be that the Obama & Co. know that prosecution of the United States may be led by the International Court of Justice? Could it be as well, that attorneys & DOJ are orchestrating a level of deniability in the event?
Blue Roses: Do you mean that you think Obama's DOJ is trying to pave the way for int'l prosecutions and not carry it out themselves?
Yes, naively maybe, but that's what I was trying to ask and got lost in the shuffle: whether or not the US will be able to maintain Deniability through their current legal posturing?