’)
Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. has decided to appoint a prosecutor to examine nearly a dozen cases in which CIA interrogators and contractors may have violated anti-torture laws and other statutes when they allegedly threatened terrorism suspects, according to two sources familiar with the move.
Holder is poised to name John Durham, a career Justice Department prosecutor from Connecticut, to lead the inquiry, according to the sources, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the process is not complete.
Amen.
Rule of Law! More, please.
Yeah, now there’s a hot topic on the minds of Americans and a true morale-builder for the folks at the CIA.
The reality is that this is nothing but a head-fake designed to distract the Health Care debate and toss a little bit of red-meat to lefty folks like the ones that hang around here.
Oh, I see Oliver already took a bite.
Sit! Roll over! Play dead!
Good boy!
The reality is that this is nothing but a head-fake designed to distract the Health Care debate and toss a little bit of red-meat to lefty folks like the ones that hang around here.
Yeah, that’s the ticked!
The reality is that you will say anything to excuse Torture, as evidenced by your above words.
Rule.
of.
Law.
Republicans could never hope to do as much damage to Obama as he’s about to do himself. DOJ is going to prosecute CIA agents for threatening dangerous terrorists?
Yep, that sounds like winner.
The reality is that this is nothing but a head-fake designed to distract the Health Care debate and toss a little bit of red-meat to lefty folks like the ones that hang around here.
As Fox News’ reporter just reported a few minutes ago, the DOJ was responding to ACLU lawsuits that required a response by today.
GOPConspiracyFail. Again.
Republicans could never hope to do as much damage to Obama as he’s about to do himself. DOJ is going to prosecute CIA agents for threatening
dangerous terroristsrandom people accused of terrorism?Fixed.
I mean, if you guys are SO sure that they’re the real deal, then why were you so opposed to giving them a trial?
Another Obama Administration promise has reached it’s expiration date. Don’t these guys EVER tell the truth?!?
Zython, could you please show me in the Constitution where it grants Commander-in-Chief powers to anyone in the Judicial Branch? I’ll wait…
Hahahaha! Good one Farris!
A “promise” made in private to a Republican Senator as reported to the Washington Times?
Sounds ironclad to me! Where could anything possible get distorted?
So what’s wrong with torturing somebody to get them to “confess” whatever you suspected them of anyways? Didn’t the Spanish Inquisition yield results? We all know those towelheads are nothing but evil, right?
Zython, could you please show me in the Constitution where it grants Commander-in-Chief powers to anyone in the Judicial Branch? I’ll wait…
While you’re waiting, perhaps you could refresh our memories about the place in the Constitution that gives the C-in-C the power to declare anyone an “illegal combatant” based only on his say-so.
Meanwhile back at the Vineyard.
President Obama planned to go golfing Monday with Rep. James Clyburn (D-S.C.), the House majority whip, along with trip director Marvin Nicholson and UBS CEO Robert Wolf.
Wolf, an Obama campaign donor, heads the Swiss bank under scrutiny for its role as a shelter for American tax evaders.
OBAMA AN UBS CEO Playing golf.
How do ya’ll like that?
OBAMA AN UBS CEO Playing golf.
How do ya’ll like that?
That’s rather overt trolling, don’t you think? The topic of this post is the DOJ prosecutor. Who Mr. Obama plays golf with has no bearing on the subject at all.
Quaker, Article II, Section 2
Oh, so THAT’S why the Obama Justice Department punted the Black Panther voter intimidation case they had already won. Those lawyers were needed to
persecuteprosecute CIA officers who may have been too dedicated to protecting Americans.It all makes perfect sense now…
J.
Adjust your tinfoil tight Jay Tea.
Zython, could you please show me in the Constitution where it grants Commander-in-Chief powers to anyone in the Judicial Branch? I’ll wait…Zython, could you please show me in the Constitution where it grants Commander-in-Chief powers to anyone in the Judicial Branch? I’ll wait…
Uh, what the hell are you talking about? I’m pretty sure the Judicial Branch already has the power to hold trials.
Quaker, Article II, Section 2
Where exactly does it give the President that power?
Oh, so THAT’S why the Obama Justice Department punted the Black Panther voter intimidation case they had already won. Those lawyers were needed to prosecute CIA officers who may have been too dedicated to
protecting Americanssatisfying their desire for vengeance.Fixed.
Those lawyers were needed to persecute prosecute CIA officers who may have been too dedicated to protecting Americans.
Protecting Americans? By going even farther than the already permissive standards set by Yoo and Gonzales?
Apparently Mr. Tea believes Americans are justified in doing absolutely anything to anyone.
Quaker, Article II, Section 2
Sorry, Farris. I don’t have my special invisible text goggles on me. Could you be a little more specific?
Where’s the part that says the Prexy can declare someone an illegal combatant or enemy combatant anytime, anywhere?
joaquin: Yeah, now there’s a hot topic on the minds of Americans and a true morale-builder for the folks at the CIA.
Since when is “it isn’t what people are thinking about” and “it might hurt someone’s feelings” valid reasons for NOT enforcing the law?
The reality is that this is nothing but a head-fake designed to distract the Health Care debate and toss a little bit of red-meat to lefty folks like the ones that hang around here.
Even if that were true, again, it isn’t a reason for not enforcing the law.
SaveFarris: Another Obama Administration promise has reached it’s expiration date. Don’t these guys EVER tell the truth?!?
Oh, another SaveFarris-provided link! I wonder what this one will show?
Ah! That seventeen GOP Senators might not have voted for an Attorney General who would try to uphold the law. That seventeen GOP Senators might only vote for an AG who would promise not to prosecute criminals.
And Farris thinks that’s a good thing.
wingnut law and order, ladies and gents.
SaveFarris: Quaker, Article II, Section 2
Article II, Section 2:
Nope. Nothing there granting the President authority to ignore Amendments IV, V or VI.
Another Farris flail.
The President shall have power to fill up all vacancies
Maybe Farris thinks this….nah!
Appointing a prosecutor to investigate “possible” CIA abuse and freeing a terrorist from Gitmo all in one day. If I didn’t know any better, I might think this administration is actively working against Americas best interests.
Appointing a prosecutor to investigate “possible” CIA abuse and freeing a terrorist from Gitmo all in one day.
Rule.
of.
Law.
Why is this so difficult to understand?
william: Appointing a prosecutor to investigate “possible” CIA abuse and freeing a terrorist from Gitmo all in one day. If I didn’t know any better, I might think this administration is actively working against Americas best interests.
Investigating possible law breaking is what the DOJ does. Would you rather have them just act without an investigation?
That leads to things like, oh, 14-year-olds getting sent to Gitmo without any charges of terrorism being filed.
Yeah, that’s in America’s best interest.
Appointing a prosecutor to investigate “possible” CIA abuse and freeing a terrorist from Gitmo all in one day. If I didn’t know any better, I might think this administration is actively working against Americas best interests.
Really difficult to know if that’s parody or not.
The real story, as is often the case, is here. But that’s too tough for many here to understand. I still champion the Rule of Law. What that were actually the case.
SaveFarris: Another Obama Administration promise has reached it’s expiration date. Don’t these guys EVER tell the truth?!?
From Farris’s link:
From Holder’s statement:
Frankly, I didn’t think he could continue to do it but, once again, Farris posts a link to something that not only doesn’t show what he said but basically proves the exact opposite of what he claims.
That’s, like, what, seven or eight times in a row now?
So, then, why the fuck did an Obama political appointee pull the plug on the New Black Panther Party voter intimidation case in Philadelphia AFTER they’d won a default judgment?
Maybe at the next election, the tea party people can put on military fatigues and hang out in front of polling places with clubs and talk about how the liberals are gonna get their asses handed to them… after all, the precedent has been set.
J.
Sean, would that be the 14-year-old who chucked a grenade at US troops in Afghanistan?
That makes him a combatant, not a criminal. That gets him detained, not sent to Afghan Juvie. And he doesn’t get Mirandized.
J.
Once again, rather obvious trolling. The New Black Panther Party case isn’t the topic.
If you’d like to post something about it, Mr. Tea, perhaps your friends at Wizbang will have you back.
Again, I love how the ultra-cons are SO sure that every single person detained in Gitmo is a terrorist, but are afraid to give them a trial. Why do you guys hate the American justice system so much?
Investigating CIA interrogators is going to open up a big can of worms.
Zython, why do you seem to think that “a guy in Afghanistan throwing a grenade at US forces” constitutes a matter for US courts?
Let’s play this out, shall we?
First up, we’ll have to bring back the attacked troops to testify. Presuming they’re still alive, that is. We’ll yank them off the battlefield and have them ready for the trial — whenever the defendant’s lawyer stops filing motions for delays.
Then we’ll have to have the MPs who held the terrorist there to testify that they read him his Miranda rights, made sure he understood them, and testify as to his treatment while in captivity.
I wouldn’t be a bit surprised if the defendant’s lawyer also wanted to question under oath damned near every member of the attacked unit’s chain of command to ascertain just what they were doing in the place where they were attacked. If that means they have to testify as to what secret intelligence led them to think that there might be enemy forces in that area, so be it — the rights of the defendant take precedence.
Oh, and we’ll also need to collect fragments from said grenade and other evidence showing that the attack really did happen.
Hey, what if the defense wants the jury to visit the crime scene? So they can see for themselves how the attack took place. Let’s load up the entire jury panel and ship them off to a war zone.
Bush tried to address this with military tribunals to do the “triage” work — separate out those who would stand trial in military courts, or refer them to civilian courts, or release them. That was perfectly in the spirit of the Geneva Conventions, but that got torn apart.
The simplest lesson out of this is an ugly one: taking prisoners simply doesn’t pay, in the long term. So why bother?
And Quaker, if you could point me to a more relevant thread for the New Black Panther Party case, I’ll gladly MoveOn over there…
J.
So just because we can’t give them a civilian trial (even though some of the people in Gitmo are civilians), means that it’s OK to detain them forever? What a tool.
The simplest lesson out of this is an ugly one: taking prisoners simply doesn’t pay, in the long term. So why bother?
That’s just it. We ARE taking them prisoner and we ARE torturing them for no good reason. Note that this is an exclusive “we”. I am in no way responsible for this.
Bush tried to address this with military tribunals to do the “triage” work — separate out those who would stand trial in military courts, or refer them to civilian courts, or release them. That was perfectly in the spirit of the Geneva Conventions, but that got torn apart.
You mean these “military tribunals”?
And Quaker, if you could point me to a more relevant thread for the New Black Panther Party case, I’ll gladly MoveOn over there…
You could talk about it on Wizbang. Or at least you could have, if you hadn’t gotten yourself fired.
Jay Tea: So, then, why the fuck did an Obama political appointee pull the plug on the New Black Panther Party voter intimidation case in Philadelphia AFTER they’d won a default judgment?
Why don’t you actually put forth some facts, Jay. All you seem to provide is unsubstantiated speculation.
Look, over there, Soros made some good investments and it’s clearly not just a coincidence!
Look, over there! Prosecutors dropped a case and it’s clearly political payback!
Jay Tea: Sean, would that be the 14-year-old who chucked a grenade at US troops in Afghanistan?
That would be the 41-year-old who was tourtured, threatened with death and ended up not being classified as an enemy combatant because the DoJ finally agreed it didn’t have any evidence to justify holding him as one.
This trust you have that the gov’t is always right is impressive, Jay Tea. Amazing how it vanished on 1/20.
SDM: That would be the
4114-year-old who was…Fixed.
(Damn, my typing sucks today.)
Tech: Investigating CIA interrogators is going to open up a big can of worms.
As it should if it determines there are worms there.
Jay Tea: First up, we’ll have to bring back the attacked troops to testify. Presuming they’re still alive, that is. We’ll yank them off the battlefield and have them ready for the trial
So you’re all for actual trials, as long as they’re not to inconvenient.
whenever the defendant’s lawyer stops filing motions for delays.
Fabrication. Lawyers have been working to get him out, not prolong his incarceration. But even if the process was slowed due to defense motions, I see you’re against following legal procedures.
Then we’ll have to have the MPs who held the terrorist there to testify that they read him his Miranda rights, made sure he understood them, and testify as to his treatment while in captivity.
And you’re against doing any investigating before having a trial. Kangaroo courts more what you’re looking for?
I wouldn’t be a bit surprised if the defendant’s lawyer also wanted to question under oath damned near every member of the attacked unit’s chain of command to ascertain just what they were doing in the place where they were attacked. If that means they have to testify as to what secret intelligence led them to think that there might be enemy forces in that area, so be it
Ah, so finally acknowledging plainly that you have no real case to make you start making shit up out of whole cloth to have some straw man to complain about. How typically wingnut of you.
The simplest lesson out of this is an ugly one: taking prisoners simply doesn’t pay, in the long term.
I’d see a different lesson: Don’t start grabbing anyone and everyone, throw them into indefinite detention and start torturing them just because you’re pissed.
And Quaker, if you could point me to a more relevant thread for the New Black Panther Party case,
If you want one, start one. Blogs are free. But hijacking the thread is bad manners.
The simplest lesson out of this is an ugly one: taking prisoners simply doesn’t pay, in the long term.
A better lesson: Don’t declare war against never-ending entities like “terror” because you’ll never reach a point when the war is over and you can send the POW’s back home. These people should have been interrogated, detained for a few months or a year, then left on the outskirts of Baghdad/Kabul with $10 in their pocket and instructions to keep walking till they’re out of rifle range. UNLESS, that is, their captors had enough evidence to carry out a full judicial process.
Rule of law – love it or leave. One of the consequences of the rule of law is that we can’t do whatever we like to people we don’t like, no matter how yucky it makes us feel that we can’t do what we like. Republicans seem to have a particularly hard time with that one. Probably because a lot of them are petulant children who never grew up.
Also, it’s charming how Jay thinks that the same government that cant keep from screwing up Medicare and Cash for Clunkers can so unerringly identify which urchin in mufti is an enemy combatant.
Also, it’s charming how Jay thinks that the same government that cant keep from screwing up Medicare and Cash for Clunkers can so unerringly identify which urchin in mufti is an enemy combatant.
No, I’m willing to put my trust in the US troops on the battlefield to be honest and say that “this is the shit who tossed that grenade at us.”
And isn’t it remarkable that this decision came out just as Obama said “oops — the deficit’s two TRILLION more than I said — now I’m going on vacation!”
ANOTHER story Oliver seems to have no interest in, either…
J.
Hey Quaker, what are you Oliver’s beat/blog cop? GEEEEZ!
No, I’m willing to put my trust in the US troops on the battlefield to be honest and say that “this is the shit who tossed that grenade at us.”
Absolutely. The wrong people never get caught and are never tortured. Nope. Nothing to see here.
Oh, PD. If you’d only READ what you link to.
He was arrested by Bosnian police in October 2001 and charged with conspiring to blow up the U.S. and British Embassies.
Thanks for helping me make my point:
No, I’m willing to put my trust in the US troops on the battlefield to be honest and say that “this is the shit who tossed that grenade at us.
Dang it, I probably should have included the bit about “Bosnian police.”
J.
Oh, PD. If you’d only READ what you link to.
I do, fuckwit:
“Oddly, Boumediene said no one at Gitmo ever asked him about the alleged plot to blow up the embassies in Sarajevo. They wanted to know what he knew about al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden, he recounted, which was nothing. ”
He was arrested by Bosnian police in October 2001 and charged with conspiring to blow up the U.S. and British Embassies.
“Judge Leon ruled that the evidence against Boumediene was weak — a “thin reed,” he called it — and ordered his release from Guantanamo.”
Dang it, I probably should have included the bit about “Bosnian police.”
Bosinans run Guantanamo?
Quite amazing any light escapes my monitor from your event horizon of stupid.
PD, I said I would trust the American troops who captured alleged terrorists and combatants.
You cited an example of one turned in by Bosnian police.
My point stands.
Yours, it seems, is captured by your own event horizon of density.
J.
Jay, a lot of the captured “alleged terrorists and enemy combatants” were random foreigners rounded up by the Northern Alliance to collect the nice bounty we offered–some locals were also turned in to settle grudges as well. Oddly enough, if you offer dirt poor people lots of money to turn in “terrorists”, some of them will discover lots more terrorists than actually exist. Example #1: those Uighurs who were released to Bermuda, and who the right wingers made such a fuss about.
mike, I’m talking about the one particular guy who was released by Obama recently — the one that US forces said tossed a grenade at them. That’s the case at hand.
And the reason I, personally, was irritated about the Uighur release is that Obama cut that deal in secret, keeping Great Britain in the dark — when Bermuda’s foreign policy is the responsibility of Great Britain. Obama, without trying, toppled the governor of Bermuda. Smooth move there, sport.
J.
A reminder that it’s worse than it seems–it often is (I’m still for Rule of Law, but for all…):
http://firedoglake.com/2009/08/25/holder-throws-justice-jackson-and-nuremberg-under-the-bus/
Investigating CIA interrogators is going to open up a big can of worms.
Let’s hope so, but I think that when we finally open that can, it’s going to be full of cobras.
I’m willing to put my trust in the US troops on the battlefield to be honest and say that “this is the shit who tossed that grenade at us.”
I’m not, because unlike you I am an Army vet. Are you really PROUD of being totally naive?
My point stands.
Fail
PD, where in that ACLU press release is there a single word calling into question the word of the troops who captured him in the first place?
Oh, I see, war is just like fishing. “We caught this guy attacking us, but he’s too young. We gotta throw him back.”
J.
To mix sports metaphors, PD, that’s strike two. Wanna go for a hat trick?
J.
“Oh, I see, war is just like fishing.
To no surprise, given your combat experience.
LOL,
Many proponents of the rule of law here. It will be telling to see if their adherence to such is the wave of the future, it has not been so in the past. Can anyone think of a few examples when the rule of law has been an inconvenience to the rule of Obama?
Changing management at GM
Bondholders vs UAW
Black Panthers
Just a few examples. Anyone foolish enough to think this isn’t a politically motivated inquiry might be foolish enough to believe that the government can lower the price of healthcare while maintaining the same high quality and expanding coverage.
Jay Tea: No, I’m willing to put my trust in the US troops on the battlefield to be honest and say that “this is the shit who tossed that grenade at us.”
Because in the heat and confusion of battle just after you’ve had a grenade thrown at you is the best time to calmly identify which of several people is definitely the one who did it.
Because all of the troops can be completely trusted to
never do anything wrong
never do anything wrong and they never make mistakes.
And isn’t it remarkable that this decision came out just as Obama said “oops — the deficit’s two TRILLION more than I said — now I’m going on vacation!”
And isn’t it remarkable that Jay can come up with three “but.. but.. what about this completely ridiculous unsubstantiated speculation” in as many days, but still not one thing to support them other than his own insecure paranoia?
Jay Tea: Oh, PD. If you’d only READ what you link to.
He was arrested by Bosnian police in October 2001 and charged with conspiring to blow up the U.S. and British Embassies.
Thanks for helping me make my point:
Oh, JT. If you’d UNDERSTOOD what you read.
The charges were dropped, and the Bosnian courts ordered him and five others freed.
…
To this day, officials of the Bush administration have provided no credible evidence to back up that accusation. [plotting to bomb US embassy]
…
The 43-year-old Algerian is now back with his wife and two daughters, a free man in France after a Republican judge found the evidence against Boumediene lacking.
Case dismissed for complete lack of evidence. Twice. But, sure, torturing him was OK with you.
wingnut Rule of Law, ladies and gents.
Jay Tea: PD, I said I would trust the American troops who captured alleged terrorists and combatants.
You cited an example of one turned in by Bosnian police.
So you’d be willing to free those held at Gitmo who were not captured by US troops?
Jay Tea: PD, where in that ACLU press release is there a single word calling into question the word of the troops who captured him in the first place?
It was determined that there was no credible evidence against him.
No credible evidence.
The courts found that the word of the troops who captured him in the first place was not credible.
Your point fails.
Amused 0: Can anyone think of a few examples when the rule of law has been an inconvenience to the rule of Obama?
Can you explain how Obama broke the law in any of the examples you cite?
Bondholders vs UAW
Oh no you don’t. We’ve been round this block. You still haven’t named any law violated here.
From Instaputz:
http://instaputz.blogspot.com/2009/08/why-does-peter-king-hate-america.html
Sean, let’s look at those examples you cited:
1) Drunken naval aviators, off duty, at a convention.
B) Four troops being tried by the military for their alleged misdeeds.
III) A riot triggered by a motor vehicle accident.
Let me toss one more on to the pile: the so-called “Haditha massacre,” where it turned out that there were no atrocities committed — John Murtha’s declarations of his brother Marines’ guilt notwithstanding.
And still no one is directly challenging the troops who caught the guy in the first place.
Odd how you have those lists of alleged atrocities so readily at hand, Sean. What prompts your interest in accusations of misdeeds of our military at hand? Are you trying to make certain that the false ones are quickly discredited, to protect our troops?
J.
Jay Tea: Odd how you have those lists of alleged atrocities so readily at hand, Sean. What prompts your interest in accusations of misdeeds of our military at hand?
Odd? Hardly. Google is usually so difficult to get to.
As for my interest, wow. You really can’t go more than three posts without pointing at something and them claiming, out of whole cloth, that there must be something suspect there. There just must be, because!
Could my interest possibly have been prompted by your declaration that you implicitly trust the US troops to always get the right guy?
Oh, I know, you’re claiming you’re only talking about those specific troops who captured that specific boy claiming he was the one who threw the grenade at them. I’m sure veterans all over are glad to hear you don’t think they are trustworthy.
the so-called “Haditha massacre,” where it turned out that there were no atrocities committed
You mean all those Iraqi civilians weren’t killed after all?
You overreach, Mr. Tea. There were indeed killings at Haditha. Military juries have been reluctant to call those killings murder.
A little rendition and torture by the Obama admin –
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-rendition22-2009aug22,0,1840939.story?track=rss
Rule of Law!
william: Rule of Law!
People on the left here have criticized Obama several times when he has done or supported things they found objectionable.
You’re doing so will carry more weight (i.e., any weight) when you similarly criticize Bush, Cheney, et al for their crimes.