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.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-rendition22-2009aug22,0,1840939.story?track=rss

Rule of Law!

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.

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.

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.

There’s a scene in John Adams where, after Adams agrees to defend the British soldiers who participated in the Boston Massacre, Sam, his cousin, accosts him. I’m paraphrasing, but it goes like this.

“What side are you on, John?!” Sam demands. Adams replies, “The side of the law. What other side is there?”

http://instaputz.blogspot.com/2009/08/why-does-peter-king-hate-america.html

Oh no you don’t. We’ve been round this block. You still haven’t named any law violated here.

Can you explain how Obama broke the law in any of the examples you cite?

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

To no surprise, given your combat experience.

J.

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.

Fail

I’m not, because unlike you I am an Army vet. Are you really PROUD of being totally naive?

Let’s hope so, but I think that when we finally open that can, it’s going to be full of cobras.

http://firedoglake.com/2009/08/25/holder-throws-justice-jackson-and-nuremberg-under-the-bus/