Many of us have been alarmed by the obvious effort of the Obama staff to avoid any investigation of confirmed war crimes by the Bush Administration in the torture program. Obama and Attorney General nominee Eric Holder have been suggesting that a war crime investigation would be “uncivil” and “looking backwards.” It has not gone over well since torture is a crime under eight treaties and statutes. Now, General Michael V. Hayden claims that Obama secretly promised him that there would be no war crimes investigation or prosecution in a meeting in Chicago.
Hayden’s role in this growing controversy is particularly distressing for civil libertarians. Not only does it confirm signals coming from the Obama camp since the election, but Hayden has been a particularly dark figure in the unlawful surveillance and torture programs, including statements that have been criticized as knowingly misleading or outright false.
Hayden had a closed door meeting with Obama last month in Chicago. He said Obama made it clear that the Bush Administration and CIA staff have nothing to worry about. “He’s looking forward,” Hayden said, “and that’s very appropriate.” If true, it would be confirmation of a bait-and-switch by the democrats. For years, the Democrats insisted that they could not act on torture until they controlled Congress. Once they were given both houses of Congress, Democrats insisted that they could not do anything without control of the White House. When they won the White House, the Democrats insisted that there was not enough time before Inauguration. Now, they are insisting that they must “look to the future: and notably not to the war crimes in the immediate past.
Democrats believe that they have nothing to gain personally and politically from prosecuting war crimes. They have been trying to sell people on yet another meaningless commission as a substitute for prosecution.
Not surprisingly, Obama aides are denying the story, here.
Of course, there is a very easy way to dispel any such rumors. Obama simply needs to say that any war crimes will be investigated and, if evidence if found of such crimes, prosecuted. That is what it means when Obama and Holder repeatedly say “no one is above the law.” The fact that they have struggled to simply commit themselves to enforce the law is highly worrisome and only serves to confirm the Hayden story.
For the full story, click here.
Let’s see now, chief of CIA charged with keeping the Nation’s secrets, reveals secret conversation with incoming President to protect him and his minions from facing the music on admitted war crimes. BTW CIA chief not exactly the best at recalling things (i.e. see 4th Amendment fiasco supra). Incoming President denies the claim. Oh who to believe?
GOD BLESS HAYDEN, CHENEY, AND ESPECIALLY PRESIDENT BUSH!
So how much longer does the Obama worship go on! It has been two solid days on TV, every newspaper, even Parade Magazine. The Messiah has ARRIVED!
Did you notice Nancy Pelosi on Fox News Sunday demonstrated total jealousy and animosity towards the Obama worshippers in her party.
More proof of how utterly broken our government is and how little difference there is between our political parties. The system is broken, there is no accountability. We have abdicated any moral standing we once had in the world. We will see in the comming days what “change” really looks like. I am hopeful but realistic.
mespo,
I agree with you that Hayden is a bastard and this leak was deliberate. At this level of intelligence it’s “wheels within wheels” and it would be nearly impossible to guess what machinations lie behind the leak.
That being said, Obama’s statements before this leak match the information that Hayden said. Obama said he didn’t want CIA officers “looking over their shoulders” and “When it comes to national security, what we have to focus on is getting things right in the future, as opposed to looking at what we got wrong in the past,” (from the WP article). The prior public statements do match with the leak.
JT also addressed this issue by saying Obama need only come out publically and state he plans to investigate. So far we have not heard this from him. JT writes: “Of course, there is a very easy way to dispel any such rumors. Obama simply needs to say that any war crimes will be investigated and, if evidence if found of such crimes, prosecuted.”
We then are left with the suggestion by Mike Spinell and others that Obama is playing his cards close to the vest until he takes office. If that is the case, Obama will not mind a lot of pressure being put on him by citizens to do what he plans to do anyway. This would be a good time for every citizen of conscience to come forward and lay on the pressure. If Obama must pretend he will not prosecute until he is in office, it does not follow that citizens must remain silent. As Glenn Greenwald pointed out, the forces who are against even a mild, toothless investigation are not remaining silent. Those of us who believe, at minimum, a blue ribbon panel should be appointed, should not remain silent either.
Obama Pricey Party Will Exceed $200 Million
The price tag for President-elect Barack Obama’s inauguration gala is expected to break by records by exceeding $200 million in cost.
AP
Sunday, January 18, 2009
The price tag for President-elect Barack Obama’s inauguration gala is expected to break records, reaching $200 million.
Despite the bleak economy Democrats who called on President George W. Bush to be frugal four years ago are issuing no such demands now that an inaugural weekend of rock concerts and star-studded parties has begun for a member of their own Party.
The last thing Obama wants to happen is an attack on America under his term. He will more than likely utilize far more “questionable” tools than the Bush Administration did since he needs to skate through possibly 8 years without atttacks – a tough act to follow after President Bush kept us safe for 7.
I think it’s time people got serious about what Obama is going to do with war crimes prosecutions. Obama is bright, well educated & extremely competent. Above all else, he is a political animal through & through.
As reprehensible as this whole chapter in our history has been, Obama surely grasps this fundamental fact: a majority of the American people think torture is OK as long as it keeps them safe & happens to somebody else in places where it can’t get much attention. I think this view is all wrong factually & morally, but that doesn’t make any difference. I don’t watch “24″ either.
If Obama were truly of Lincolnesque stature, he might try to convince the people otherwise & push the prosecutions forward. But Obama has seldom if ever sacrificed politics to principle & has yet to give any indication that he will do otherwise in this matter. Hayden may be a lying S.O.B., but his leak lines up perfectly with all of Obama’s public pronouncements on this issue.
Obama is proving to be worse than President Bush. At least we can believe what President Bush tells us. So far everything Obama has said has been for political gain through and through and that won’t change 1/21/09.
Noticed on MTP this AM that coffee boy Gregory (we seem him spending more time making coffee than research) FAILED to ask Rahm Emmanual why when Geitner had been PAID the taxes due by the IMF and had signed a CERTIFICATION that he undersood the money was for tax and that he would file and send it to the IRS; why after all this, Obama still supports the tax cheat.
The closest Gregory came to anything was asking why Geitner didn’t pay the 2001 and 2002 taxes when he knew he had violated the law until after he was nominated as treasury secretary. We, of course, all know why. HE WANTED TO KEEP THE MONEY.
The Donors Who Gave Big and Often
Obama’s $200,000-Plus Backers Were Able to Contribute to Several Entities
By Kimberly Kindy and Sarah Cohen
Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, January 18, 2009; A02
Nearly 200 wealthy families and power couples contributed at least $200,000 each to help Barack Obama over the past two years, creating an elite set of donors.
The families gave to as many as five committees, records show, and 27 of the 94 families also bundled money from others, collecting millions of dollars on top of their personal donations.
Among the supporters were well-known families such as the Rockefellers, as well as lesser-known backers such as New Yorker Frank Brosens, a leader in the hedge fund industry, who raised $1,500,000 for Obama’s campaign and inauguration in addition to the $282,000 he gave with his wife, parents and three sons.
The $200,000 group stands in stark contrast to the so called grass-roots campaign that Obama’s team talked about.
Many big donors will also watch Obama be sworn in next week, but from premium seats, and will attend an inaugural ball and other private celebrations using tickets they received in exchange for their donations.
MORE AT WP.
Lunatic and MSNBCer,
Torture does not keep us safe, in fact it puts us in far more danger than remaining a country that follows the law. The idea that gwb can be believed is ludicrous. You see people on this blog who do not agree with each other. Argue your case with facts. Otherwise I’ll take it that all you’re here for is to divert attention away from the reality of cheney and bush’s war crimes.
What a conundrum. We are at a nexus where we must decide who the most corrupt, Janus-faced liar is:
1) An Air Force 4-Star General who is the outgoing head of our CIA!
Or
2) Our new president who promised “change”
We common citizens who employ these “public servants” are becoming duped fools who do not understand, cannot understand, do not care, or realize that we are powerless to contest what is occurring at the highest levels of our democracy.
Here is an excellent anaylsis of the situation presented by Glenn Greenwald in his column today.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/
FFLEO
I share your sense of disenfranchisement. Keep the powder dry, and hold fast to the knot tied to the end of your rope. We go to the mattresses some time this week.
Jill
Thanks for the important Glenn Greenwald reminder.
I touched on the whole liability exposure issue, again,
last night, briefly, re Rodriguez, head of clandestine operations following the destroyed tapes etc. This article from WaPo is from September 2006, not long after Hayden became CIA Chief in May. It’s hardly a new issue, but certainly one that has been a burr in Hayden’s saddle his entire tenure.
———–
Worried CIA Officers Buy Legal Insurance
Plans Fund Defense In Anti-Terror Cases
By R. Jeffrey Smith
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, September 11, 2006; Page A01
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/10/AR2006091001286.html
…”Robert M. McNamara Jr., the CIA’s general counsel from 1997 to November 2001, said he advised station chiefs to buy the insurance. “The problem is that we are the victims of shifting winds here,” McNamara said he told the officers. “I can’t sit here and tell you in all cases that I will be able to defend you.”
However, McNamara’s predecessor as CIA general counsel, Jeffrey H. Smith, said: “I’m deeply troubled that CIA officers have to buy insurance. . . . There should be clear rules about what the officers can and can’t do. The fault here is with more senior people who authorized interrogation techniques that amount to torture” and should now be liable, instead of “the officers who carried it out.”
I was surprised by Rachel’s suggestion that Susan J Crawford’s admission of torture in the case of Mohammed al-Qahtani
was ‘staged’ for release, this week, in particular.
As I previously mentioned, I am choosing to be encouraged that John Conyers et al are preparing to move ahead with a bill and a panel and also that Eric Holder stated in his testimony that the incoming administration believes the President works best in concert with the legislature.
I guess we’ll see. In the meantime, I am in touch with my state elected officials, as usual.
Jill,
I read Mr. Greenwald’s column on a daily basis. All of his excellent articles that I have read are precise, in-depth, and exceptionally informative.
The only means with which our democracy can return to the rule of law and ensure adherence to the U.S. Constitution is for constitutional law scholars such as Mr. Greenwald and Professor Turley et al. to continue their insistence that war crimes receive ‘investigation’ and allow legal due process the government owes the American citizens.
CCD: I guess misery does enjoy company. Unfortunately, I was not smart enough, and too trusting of my ‘big bank’, to put ‘any’ of my funds under my mattress. As long as the “no credit risk” U.S. Treasury Securities do not tank—definitely not a given with the cumulative $2 Trillion bail-out, economic stimulus package, etc—then, at least, I can pay my taxes (first!) and then eat.
In my view of life, there have always been 3 certainties—to borrow two of those from a cliché—death and taxes; and then, I used to add ‘the full faith and credit of the U.S. Government’. Well, I can apparently now discount and repudiate ‘my’ 3rd certainty in life.
Patty C: Your optimism is important; however, appearances are that we citizens must ‘force’ Mr. Obama to employ the legally and morally correct actions to ensure due process.
I fear that Bush is going to pardon himself, Cheney et al. for all war crimes. I see no reason why he won’t do this. It will be an outrage.
I have read these posts with interest because the torture issue has been a issue for me for a long time. I agree with all of you here that express your “optimism” that the Obama administration will investigate the Bush regime’s crimes. The facts that Jill linked to on Glenn Greenwald’s blog are rock solid. The new administration has no deference or prosecutorial discretion when it comes to torture and other war crimes. Once the Bush regime admitted to waterboarding 3 detainees(if you believe that small number)they admitted to torture under our laws and international law. Once Bush and Cheney admitted on national TV that they authorized the waterboarding, they provided the Obama administration video confessions of war crimes. The actions by Conyers and others and the language used by Holder are purposeful. They are telling us that actions will be taken. To my mind the only question is what type of action will be taken. Tuesday is one of the biggest days of m/our lives. It represents a new start domestically and internationally. That new start must and will include the investigation and prosecution of the Bush administration. Besides, I have to echo someone’s earlier statement here, why in the hell would anyone believe the word of Hayden? He is try to preempt the investigations that are coming and trying to lay out a defense that he was “promised” by Obama that no prosecutions will happen. I think Hayeden and his superiors should start lawyering up now.
rafflaw,
The problem with the video “evidence” is that statements therein were not spoken under any legally binding oath subject to perjury.
Former Fed,
I am not talking about perjury. Mespoo and Bob,Esq. can correct me,but the video should be able to be used as evidence that they committed the crimes of ordering torture, especially if they try to deny it later on. Plus, there are plenty of other witnesses to the orders given to corroborate. Maybe George and Dick actually put the orders in writing to satisfy the CIA demands for legal cover. I did notice my misspelling of Hayden’s in my earlier posting. I guess I am guilty of poor spelling.
I did not know about the 1994 Convention Against Torture under the conservative patron saint Ronald Reagan. What is the significance of it being signed but not ratified by the US of A? Was it ever ratified?
Lunatic and MSNBCer,
My hat goes off to the both(or one?)of you. I couldn’t withhold my laughter at the cleverness of your posts. The satiric skill shown definitely rates a 10. Where did you find the talent to seemingly portray yourself(/selves?) as disgruntled losing, neo cons, dwelling in the depth of depression over their self inflicted losses, by tossing the usual non sequitor invective at all with whom they disagree. How adroit of you to makes those points glow with the same kind of willful ignorance that those faux conservatives use to make theirs. The comment about George W. Bush being trustworthy caused a pain in my chest from the contractions of laughing so hard. You two(or one as the case may be)should look for work writing for Stephen Colbert. We need more satirists like you who know how to accurately display those stupid souls among us who really think that they represent conservative thought. Bravo!
Would the video statements fall under the Hearsay Rule in any future court proceedings and subject to all of the exemptions and exceptions that ‘might’ exclude the videos as ‘evidence’?
Could it be that Obama is trying to dupe Bush into not pardoning himself and his minions, so that he will be able to prosecute them later, by issuing statements intended to mislead the criminal president into believing his administration’s war crimes won’t be prosecuted?
President Obama will be challenged constantly by the Washington game of leaking information that is self-serving to the leaker and to those they represent. These nuggets of information and/or mis-information represent the story lines of an MSM that no longer has a clue as to how to properly do their journalistic jobs and/or has sold out long ago. The task for us who are not insiders is to search out our own sources of no-MSM polluted commentators, John Turley, Glenn Greenwald and Digby come to mind, and form our own opinions. However, before we get too far ahead of ourselves in a “reading the tea leaves” fashion, we should wait until the inauguration and the subsequent actions to decide if our new President will properly address this critical issue. I’m hopeful he will, but I am also willing to work hard in my small way to ensure that justice is done, indictments/convictions/sentencing occurs and the U.S. has firmly established the unacceptability of this Executive Branch behavior.
I have to agree with raff. Coming from Hayden it smells like flack. This does not negate the fact that failure to prosecute will result in critical domestic trouble.
If you want investigations and/or prosecutions then get to work!
I’m tired of reading these daily laments that the outgoing administration is not going to be held accountable.It’s time to stop lamenting and start persuading.
Stop typing your indignation and start getting out there and persuade people that this must happen. Otherwise, there is no political cover for this to happen.
Has polling been done on this issue? I know most people I talk to, on both sides of the political aisle, do not want to see this.
This issue has become on the Left, what the abortion issue is on the Right. Same moralizing, same absolutism, same excluding of other issues that more directly effect people’s lives.
Krkland,
I don’t know who you have been talking to, but almost everyone I know wants an investigation of some sort. Whether it be on FISA wiretaps, Torture, and a myriad of other possible crimes. I take great exception to your comparison of the left on this issue and the right on the abortion issue. The issue of torture does not fall under right or left wing headings. Torture is a crime in our country and must be handled as such and at least in the Catholic faith that I grew up in, torture would be a mortal sin. Your posting assumes that those of us on this site who are protesting about the torture are not “working” to get it solved. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Remember that Obama ran under the banner of stopping torture by the US and says now that he will end torture. The next step of prosecuting those that ordered it is the step we are working on. And when it comes to honoring our laws and international law, how does that “exclude other issues that more directly effect people’s lives”? Are you suggesting that working to make sure criminals are brought to justice doesn’t effect people’s lives directly? Who do you think suffers when we, as a country, torture? Other citizens and soldiers suffer when our enemies torture them in response. These investigations can be done while dealing with the economic issues of the day. A small part of the persuading that you suggest needs to be done is being done right here.
Say what Kirkland; …“same excluding of other issues that more directly effect (sic) people’s lives.”
The rules of law and honoring the U.S. Constitution both have paramount direct consequences affecting people’s lives by preserving the foundations of democracy that provided the lawful effects which allow people to debate and affect “this issue” and abortion.
Kirkland,
Rafflaw spoke for my thoughts and already gave you the lawyerly version, but I’m going to answer you anyway.
It’s downright idiotic to assume because we’re exchanging ideas here that we don’t also try to pressure our lawmakers to do the right thing. Personally, I’d love to see a Hallmark card with Maxine banging a pot and demanding to be listened to, but in reality the points that are made here on this blog are much more persuasive, especially when trying to convince our US senators and representatives. I treasure what I learn here on this blog.
The comparison of abortion to upholding the law is pure crap. Abortion arguments depend on metaphysics which can’t be proven. However, US law is written down for all to see including laws on torture, presidential power, congressional duties, and upholding the US Constitution –and who might be above that set of laws.
Former Fed and LindyLou,
FFLEO you hit the nail on the head when you correctly state that without the rule of law we wouldn’t be able to debate the metaphysical issues as LindyLou mentioned.
So, are we talking about the same General Michael V. Hayden that wouldn’t know the the document he’s sworn to defend, i.e. the Constitution, even if he were pissing on it?
Who could ever forget this ditty from January of 2006?
(in media res…)
JONATHAN LANDAY: Jonathan Landay with Knight Ridder. I’d like to stay on the same issue. And that has to do with the standard by which you use to target your wiretaps. I’m no lawyer, but my understanding is that the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution specifies that you must have probable cause to be able to do a search that does not violate an American’s right against unlawful searches and seizures.
GEN. MICHAEL HAYDEN: Actually, the Fourth Amendment actually protects all of us against unreasonable search and seizure. That’s what it says.
JONATHAN LANDAY: But the measure is probable cause, I believe.
GEN. MICHAEL HAYDEN: The amendment says unreasonable search and seizure.
JONATHAN LANDAY: But does it not say probable—
GEN. MICHAEL HAYDEN: No.
JONATHAN LANDAY: The court standard, the legal standard—
GEN. MICHAEL HAYDEN: The amendment says unreasonable search and seizure.
JONATHAN LANDAY: The legal standard is probable cause, General. You used the terms just a few minutes ago, “We reasonably believe.” And a FISA court, my understanding is, would not give you a warrant if you went before them and say “We reasonably believe.” You have to go to the FISA court or the Attorney General has to go to the FISA court and say, “We have probable cause.” And so what many people believe, and I would like you to respond to this, is that what you have actually done is crafted a detour around the FISA court by creating a new standard of “reasonably believe” in place of “probable cause,” because the FISA court will not give you a warrant based on reasonable belief. You have to show a probable cause. Can you respond to that, please?
GEN. MICHAEL HAYDEN: Sure. I didn’t craft the authorization. I am responding to a lawful order, alright? The Attorney General has averred to the lawfulness of the order. Just to be very clear, okay—and believe me, if there’s any amendment to the Constitution that employees at the National Security Agency is familiar with, it’s the fourth, alright? And it is a reasonableness standard in the Fourth Amendment. So, what you’ve raised to me—and I’m not a lawyer and don’t want to become one—but what you’ve raised to me is, in terms of quoting the Fourth Amendment, is an issue of the Constitution. The constitutional standard is reasonable. And we believe—I am convinced that we’re lawful because what it is we’re doing is reasonable.
http://www.democracynow.org/2006/1/24/former_nsa_head_gen_hayden_grilled
NEW YORK STATE CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE I
Section 12
[Security against unreasonable searches, seizures and interceptions]
§12. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
The right of the people to be secure against unreasonable interception of telephone and telegraph communications shall not be violated, and ex parte orders or warrants shall issue only upon oath or affirmation that there is reasonable ground to believe that evidence of crime may be thus obtained, and identifying the particular means of communication, and particularly describing the person or persons whose communications are to be intercepted and the purpose thereof. (New. Adopted by Constitutional Convention of 1938 and approved by vote of the people November 8, 1938.)
http://www.dos.state.ny.us/info/constitution.htm
Incredible; a 4-Star General who heads the CIA does not understand the legal standard of probable cause, especially given his statement:
“Just to be very clear, okay—and believe me, if there’s any amendment to the Constitution that employees at the National Security Agency is familiar with, it’s the fourth, alright? And it is a reasonableness standard in the Fourth Amendment.”
Um, General, I do not “believe” you. You have no means to wiggle out of your ignorance. A minimally informed citizen who took grade school or high school civics–no law degree required–should understand the concept of probable cause.
Thanks for the info Bobfrog.
In fairness to the 4-star General.
‘Unwarranted Criticism’
General Hayden’s reading of the Fourth Amendment is correct, and his critics are mistaken.
By Adam White
article.nationalreview.com/?q=ODgxN2VkMzA3MTFjNWFmNzZjNzZiODVlYzI3YTdiZTc=
mespo727272 1, January 18, 2009 at 8:38 am
Let’s see now, chief of CIA charged with keeping the Nation’s secrets, reveals secret conversation with incoming President to protect him and his minions from facing the music on admitted war crimes. BTW CIA chief not exactly the best at recalling things (i.e. see 4th Amendment fiasco supra). Incoming President denies the claim. Oh who to believe?
———————
As an aside, soon-to-be-former CIA chief “certainly would have considered [staying] if asked,” …
“Duh.”
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-cia16-2009jan16, 0, 7716070.story
FFLEO,
Gen. Hayden has his own reading of the Constitution and has his own reading of what is best for the country. It is fortunate for us that he is leaving office. It is unfortunate for us that he has been spying on us for far too many years. You would think that the head of the CIA would be aware of the proper standard for the 4th Amendment. Maybe he has been talking to John Yoo too much.
Perhaps this will clarify. The Constitution protects AGAINST unreasonable searches and seizures. The way to challenge a search
and/or seizure is to require the government to show probable cause.
For ‘pedestrians’, generally speaking, a ‘stop’ is considered a ‘search’ and an ‘arrest’, a ‘seizure’.
It is true that not everything that is found, for instance, in the course of a normal traffic stop requires a warrant to prosecute, but that is not the issue here. Our government was spying on it’s own citizens, presumably, without the benefit of any probable cause.
“…In October 2007, Rowe and the Attorneys General of Vermont, Connecticut, and New Jersey, along with a Commissioner of the Missouri Public Service Commission, submitted a joint statement to the Senate Judiciary Committee urging the Committee to reject any amendment to FISA that would interfere with the states’ ability to investigate whether telephone companies unlawfully disclosed their customers’ records…”
maine.gov/tools/whatsnew/index.php?topic=AGOffice_
Press&id=60134&v=article
caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment04/
U.S. Constitution: Fourth Amendment
Fourth Amendment – Search and Seizure
Amendment Text | Annotations
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
MORONS! the lot of you! Bush won’t pardon Cheney, etc and/or “himself” because HE HASN’T DONE ANYTHING WRONG! You friggin two bit losers are out there in Maddow/Olbermann BANANALAND with the rest of the 1 percenters in America.
Here is a tip: GET JOBS.
Total MORONS! the lot of you! Bush won’t pardon Cheney, etc and/or “himself” because HE HASN’T DONE ANYTHING WRONG! You friggin two bit losers are out there in Maddow/Olbermann BANANALAND with the rest of the 1 percenters in America.
Here is a tip: GET JOBS.
You are Total MORONS! the lot of you! Bush won’t pardon Cheney, etc and/or “himself” because HE HASN’T DONE ANYTHING WRONG! You friggin two bit losers are out there in Maddow/Olbermann BANANALAND with the rest of the 1 percenters in America.
Here is a tip: GET JOBS.
Get jobs? rofl
He’s a war criminal and a traitor and YOU back him.
What does that make you?
I’m not sure, but I know one thing for sure. It’s disqualifies you from having a valid opinion on what is legal or ethical. Much less a valid opinion of anyone here’s employment status.
Venezuela’s Chavez says Obama has “stench” of Bush
CAMPO CARABOBO, Venezuela (Reuters) – Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez said on Saturday Barack Obama had the “stench” of his predecessor as U.S. president.
http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSTRE50G2F420090117
Guess the world isn’t going to embrace the “Messiah”………..so that makes pretty much everybody mocking Obama; Iran, North Korea, Russia, Venezuela, the Taliban, Bin Laden, China, Yemen, oh, did I forget to mention Zimbabwe….
And for the record, I can’t stand MSNBC. Almost as much as I can’t stand spamming morons.
When I read the posts of these MSNBC trolls, for some reason I envision Karl Rove bouncing off the walls, having heard one too many Ole, Sven, and Lena joke.
I spoke with a woman today who is an expert at creating virtual identities. One way to do this is by creating a program that simulates a person. I would guess these are our trolls. We need updated, more complex simulated persons! Get moving cheneybush programmers!!!
LindyLou,
A while back I was in Ann Arbor and I swear I saw Karl Rove. He was all jumpy and ducking in and out of a portico downtown. I wonder if it was him. It sure looked like him and he seemed really nervous. Maybe he was afraid he would be extradited to Canada!
OBAMA STINKS ACCORDING TO HUGO CHAVEZ!
Venezuela’s Chavez says Obama has “stench” of Bush
CAMPO CARABOBO, Venezuela (Reuters) – Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez said on Saturday Barack Obama had the “stench” of his predecessor as U.S. president.
http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSTRE50G2F420090117
Guess the world isn’t going to embrace the “Messiah”………..so that makes pretty much everybody mocking Obama; Iran, North Korea, Russia, Venezuela, the Taliban, Bin Laden, China, Yemen, oh, did I forget to mention Zimbabwe….
‘Patty C: Your optimism is important; however, appearances are that we citizens must ‘force’ Mr. Obama to employ the legally and morally correct actions to ensure due process.’
—–
Would someone please explain to FFLEO where I stand on this particular issue?
JT? Mespo?…
p.s. Might I suggest, FFLEO, unless you live in D.C., you contact your
Representatives ie Congressional, as well as Senatorial members, Governor, AG, AND your local,’Grassroots’, Reps – especially.
Believe it or not, that’s where ‘it’ all begins…
…on the local level.
Hayden was the person who told the Senate Intelligence Committee that KSM had been waterboarded. Sometimes, lying bastards tell the truth. This is intelligence gaming at a very high level. I think it does bear keeping in mind that Obama made essentially the same claim in public before this leak, that JT is correct to point out that Obama could clear it all up with one statement, but hasn’t done so. Keep up the pressure. If Obama is having doubts, he needs to hear from us. If he is waiting to act, he needs to know the people are with him.
Underneath EVERY disappointment is something left unsaid.
AND it cuts both ways…
I happen to think ‘WE’, the people, have a better chance with this guy,
is all…
Muslim With Ties to Hamas to Address Inaugural Prayer Service
Reuters 1/18/09
A Muslim religious leader with ties to the terrorist group Hamas is scheduled to address President Barack Obama’s inaugural prayer service on Wednesday.
Given the recent hostilities in Israel surrounding Hamas, irrespective of a just-announced ceasefire, one has to wonder how much attention this matter will get from Obama-loving media which are also largely pro-Palestinian.
Although Politico is getting credit for breaking this story, the American Thinker appears to have been the first to unveil the truth behind Ingrid Mattson Saturday.
Reuters will be updating this story as more information becomes available.
The trolls are expanding their numbers. Unfortunately, even though they are good at duplicating their numbers and names, they are still best at writing nonsense.
Jill,
If my sense is correct(and that is a big IF)Obama won’t say anything until after he is sworn in. He can sit and wait for the Congressional investigations to bring up the juicy details and not get in their way. I would love to hear him say it, but I can be patient for a little longer.
Jill,
I dunno– if these are programmed trolls, they might not be enough like real human trolls if they are given too much depth. These guys are believable!
I wouldn’t be a bit surprised if that really was Rove, although I can also imagine how someone who really resembled Karl Rove would be a little afraid of going into town. If there’s a liberal who looks like Rove, that could be life of hell. Although, think of the places he could infiltrate.
rafflaw,
I hope you are right! My best to your new grandson and family!!!
LindyLou,
That is evil and very funny!!!
Jill,
Thank you and I hope I am right also.
Why does MSNBC etc. feel the need to keep repeating himself, particularly since he does not appear to have anything to say the first time around? One correction is in order. The reason Bush will not issue pardons has nothing to do with his recognition of his own crimes. It is simply that he is convinced that Congress’ complicity over the years has rendered it morally powerless to do anything.
Buddha Is Laughing:
“And for the record, I can’t stand MSNBC. Almost as much as I can’t stand spamming morons.”
…
My mind drifts back to a scene from one of my favorite episodes of The Simpsons…
[Phone rings]
Homer: Hello, is this NASA?
Scientist: Yes?
Homer: Good! Listen: I’m sick of your boring space launches. Now
I’m just an ordinary, blue-collar slob, but I know what I likes on TV.
Scientist: How did you get this number?
Homer: Shut up! And another thing: how come I can’t get no Tang ’round here?
…
[Homer's next phone call from Moe's is to the President of the United States.]
Homer: Hello, is this President Clinton? Good! I figured if anyone knew where to get some Tang, it’d be you. …Shut up!
Spamming moron.
I’d give you a better reply than that, but that’s all your lazy, weak bullshit deserves.
George Bush is a TRAITOR. The Constitutional definition of treason is providing material aid or comfort to enemies of the United States during war time. By protecting the Saudis, the actual perpetrators of 9/11 and his Daddy’s business partners, he committed treason.
That’s just his first offense.
It gets worse.
Shall I or any of the other more knowledgeable people here slam you down some more, you Neocon Copy/Paste Nazi? Because that’s all that will happen. You’ll moo some more and paste some spam and then get promptly sat back on your ass like all the other trolls you pretend to be.
Keep it up. It provides us with fuel to further demonstrate why you and your kind should be politically neutered. And that will be the final result – the political castration of Neocons. Your boys (and YOU) will be paying a price. So give up your guilty before the rest of us come searching for you house by house.
That’s not a threat. I’m just predicting the future. It’s your lot that’s making it come true.
I intend to enjoy that part of the show.
I must say that I was taken aback when I learned a few days ago how ignorant NSA and CIA Director Hayden was regarding his interpretation of the 4th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. As a retired career federal civil servant and as a former military serviceman, I place substantive weight on a person’s military and academic accomplishments, medals, and the awards received as a federal employee, when I consider character, integrity, and fitness for a public service job.
I began wondering how such an accomplished Air Force 4-star general could have had the 4th Amendment faux pas that occurred with Hayden. When I read his biography and saw his official photo, I noticed that as an Air Force general that he did not have a ‘pilot’s wings’ medal on his uniform, although he had a big chest full of many colorful medal ribbons—known in military slang as “chest candy”. Surprisingly, General Hayden even owns a Bronze Star and I wonder how in the world he received that prestigious medal as a career “intelligence” officer. From an NPR interview, I learned that General Hayden never ‘won his wings’ and therefore he was not “rated” as an Air Force aviator, which is highly unusual for Air Force generals of any rank, regardless of their number of stars. Perhaps he had bad eyesight or other physical or mental disqualifications.
Searching for explanations of how a seemingly intelligent and accomplished person such as an AF 4-star general—based on education, accomplishments, experience, dedication, etc.—could make such errors in rudimentary civics while serving as the USA’s ‘Chief Spy’, I gave General Hayden the benefit of the doubt because I assumed he was much more ‘credentialed’ than he was. Naively, I still largely assumed that high achievement and credentials equal honesty and integrity.
Regarding the National Intelligence Estimate document, regarding WMDs, NSA Director Hayden voted “YES” on the validity of the intelligence. (see 2nd Olbermann video link below) Referencing military slang again, military intelligence is known as the greatest oxymoron of all; now very similar to “Bush intelligence” and the CIA intelligence that falsely, and most likely criminally, led us into this wrong-headed and disastrous Iraq War and “justified” the associated illegal wiretapping of U.S. citizens—the latter for which General Hayden was principally responsible.
I suppose I will forever be biased in my—at least initial—assumption or assessment of any person’s character based on statuses of medals, honors, especially summa-cum-laude, stations in life, and other innumerable awards or honors. I am slowly learning now that a person’s direct actions far outweigh all of the material accolades, some of which are acquired through pompous circumstance and based on political or religious ideologies rather than through actual merit and founded on high principles.
Clearly, every citizen must meet—and preferably exceed—the established standards of any profession and we should strive to accomplish the highest academic and employment level possible; however, those achievements will not guarantee an acquisition of integrity along the way nor necessarily build the strong character essential for furthering the cause of democracy. The most important lesson I learned through 8 years of the Bush Administration is that the highest credentials bestowed on a person are worthless when possessed or worn by ideologues and demagogues.
Here is the video from an Olbermann segment of General Hayden regarding the 4th Amendment question of probable cause
youtube.com/watch?v=cGhcECnWRGM
________________
Here is General Hayden stating that he and others got the WMD “intelligence” wrong. Once you reach the site from the hyperlink, you must type “Hayden” in the SEARCH box at the bottom of the menu bar on left side of the page. You will then click on, “Hayden: We Got Iraq WMD Report Wrong”:
msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/#23867579
________________
FFLeo:
“noticed that as an Air Force general that he did not have a ‘pilot’s wings’ medal on his uniform, although he had a big chest full of many colorful medal ribbons—known in military slang as “chest candy.”
**********
My uncle, a decorated Korean War vet who served honorably in combat, told me once as I was admiring the medals that he had long since locked away, that the most important medals are the one’s you silently award to yourself. I didn’t know what he meant by that then when I was age 14, but I do know what he meant now.
FFLEO,
I respectfully disagree. Hayden knows the law as does Addington as does Cheney as does Yoo etc. They are all just trying to circumvent the law by making things up out of whole cloth should that be necessary (which it was, and they did!).
Essentially you have to pick which person, both of whom have lied in the past, is telling the truth now. Both Hayden and Obama have lied. Both Hayden and Obama have told the truth. Obama has been in this situation before, ie: telling Canada he didn’t mean what he was saying during the campaign about NAFTA, but had to say it to win votes. The same applied to the Palestinians–he had to play up support for Israel to get elected. In each of these cases, after the private conversation became public, Obama claimed he never said those things. This incident is precisely parallel. Without hearing the tape (which I’m certain exists) we have to look at other evidence to deduce who is not lying this time. We then return to these facts: 1. this situation has happened before, 2. the private statement matches the public statement which was given prior to the leak and 3. as JT points out, Obama could just come forward to clarify he means to prosecute. What I don’t think is reasonable is to believe Obama would never, could never, has never lie(d). The evidence points to Obama lying in this case. He may be lying for the reasons that rafflaw and Mike Spinell and others point to but it seems logical to assume he is lying.
Another thing to ponder is why Hayden told the truth about the govt. waterboarding KSM. He didn’t tell the truth because he’s a good guy, but he did tell the truth.
LOL! If Bush was to start pardoning anyone connected with so called “torture”…….
HE WOULD HAVE TO START WITH JAY ROCKEFELLER, NANCY PELOSI, AND EVERY OTHER DEMOCRATIC SENATOR & REPRESENTATIVE THAT HAD DIRECT KNOWLEDGE OF WHAT THE US WAS DOING TO GET INFORMATION FROM DETAINEES!
You fools here don’t think beyond the end of your noses! Do you really REALLY think that Bush would be so dumb as to not realize that the wacko left would DEMAND a new administration “investigate” his crimes and WOULD NOT BY HIMSELF INSURANCE BY KEEPING EVERY DEMOCRATIC LEADER IN CONGRESS FULLY INFORMED AND IN THE LOOP!!!!
LOL! If Bush was to start pardoning anyone connected with so called “torture”…….
HE WOULD HAVE TO START WITH JAY ROCKEFELLER, NANCY PELOSI, AND EVERY OTHER DEMOCRATIC SENATOR & REPRESENTATIVE THAT HAD DIRECT KNOWLEDGE OF WHAT THE US WAS DOING TO GET INFORMATION FROM DETAINEES!
You fools here don’t think beyond the end of your noses! Do you really REALLY think that Bush would be so dumb as to not realize that the wacko left would DEMAND a new administration “investigate” his crimes and WOULD NOT BY HIMSELF INSURANCE BY KEEPING EVERY DEMOCRATIC LEADER IN CONGRESS FULLY INFORMED AND IN THE LOOP!!!!
LOL! If Bush was to start pardoning anyone connected with so called “torture”…….
HE WOULD HAVE TO START WITH JAY ROCKEFELLER, NANCY PELOSI, AND EVERY OTHER DEMOCRATIC SENATOR & REPRESENTATIVE THAT HAD DIRECT KNOWLEDGE OF WHAT THE US WAS DOING TO GET INFORMATION FROM DETAINEES!
You fools here don’t think beyond the end of your noses! Do you really REALLY think that Bush would be so dumb as to not realize that the wacko left would DEMAND a new administration “investigate” his crimes and WOULD NOT BY HIMSELF INSURANCE BY KEEPING EVERY DEMOCRATIC LEADER IN CONGRESS FULLY INFORMED AND IN THE LOOP!!!!
Perhaps JT could do us all a favor and ban username registrations containing the word ‘msnbc’?
No mistakes permitted by the Dems or Obama… They have defined the standard that they know it all and can see the future…
From someone who knew the science/art of war, Carl Von Clausewitz “On War”
…. Read it and weep.. The Dems will be held as accountable as those they endeavor to currently hold accountable…
“If the critic wishes to distribute praise or blame, he must certainly try to put himself exactly in the position of the commander; in other words, he must assemble everything the commander knew and all the motives that affected his decision, and ignore all that he could not no or did not know, especially the outcome. An event can never look to the analysis as it to the participant. The critic will always lack much that was present in the mind of the commander. But it is even more difficult for the critic to shut off his superfluous knowledge.” Carl Von Clausewitz “On War”
“In the study of means, the critic must naturally frequently refer to military history, for in the art of war experience counts more than any amount of abstract truths. Historical proof is subject to conditions of its own.” Carl Von Clausewitz “On War”
“A critic should never use the results of a theory as law and standard, but only – as a soldier does as aids to judgment.” Carl Von Clausewitz “On War”
“Uncertainty of all information – The general unreliability of all information presents a special problem in war: all action takes place, so to speak, in a kind of twilight, which, like fog or moonlight, often tends to make things seem grotesque and larger that they really are.
Whatever is hidden from full view in this feeble light has to be guessed at by talent, or simply left to chance. So once again for lack of objective knowledge one has to trust to talent or to luck.” Carl Von Clausewitz “On War”
As Stephen Colbert said to David Gregory last week, “Shouldn’t the supposed crimes of the Bush administration be paid for by Barack Obama?”
FFLEO,
Your comment about Hayden having a Bronze Star is interesting. Does anyone know of a site that reviews or allows you to double check on the medals that people claim? For a liar like Hayden, I wouldn’t be surprised if he never earned that Bronze Star. I hope I am wrong, but I will have to check into that.
Why do the trolls get so upset when you point out the FACT that Bush committed treason? Both in word and action? And by definition?
The truth hurts, I reckon.
Enjoy being written about in history books, Bush Supporters.
Right next to Nero, the Nazis and the Khemer Rouge.
Come on, shout and copy and paste some more. Quantity is never a substitute for quality. Obfuscation and denial don’t work in the information age. Make yourself just as credible as the evil fascist bastards you follow. It’s funny. Perhaps I should clarify. It’s funny that you’re that stupid.
Clinger:
I had no idea that Carl Von Clausewitz, the product of a dictatorial, militaristic, fundamentally religious culture, had been granted divinity status in our democracy. Perhaps we should take all of his ideas to heart in our political system –like mandatory conscription, absolute warfare without regard to destruction of civilian targets,and complete lack of anything resembling respect for the will of the people or the law. “Read it and weep”–more like read it and laugh.
mespo,
You took the words right out of my mouth. Statesmanship advice from von Clausewitz is a lot like taking cooking tips from Hannibal Lechter. Except I’d take the cooking tips more seriously as they would be the better advice.
mespo727272 & mespo or whomever it applies
Carl Von Clausewitz “On War” is still a book those who have assumed the responsibility of war study as well as a more recent consideration the “Counterinsurgency Warfare: Theory and Practice,” David Galula. I’m told this is alleged to be the book Gen Petraeus used in part for his current successful methods. I offer this information well aware that unfortunately too many of these posts remind me of a story Peter Lynch told. “The early Greek philosophers were such pompous asses and thus so consumed with themselves that they believed with their self assumed superior intellect they could sit around and debate for a few days and determine the number of teeth in a horse’s mouth without ever opening its mouth.”
Do some study or go to war and then slam Clausewitz or Galula or anyone who has had the responsibility for conducting war.
“Kind-hearted people might of course think there was some ingenious way to disarm or defeat the enemy without too much bloodshed, and might imagine this is the true goal of the art of war. Pleasant as it sounds, it is a fallacy that must be exposed: war is such a dangerous business that the mistakes which come from kindness are the very worst.” Carl Von Clausewitz “On War”
That quote by the way is not one Galula endorses. But I’m sure these contrarian posts can sit around and debate for just a few sec/minutes and intuitively determine the conduct of war without ever opening a book on war and its methods.
Clinger,
Are you saying that no decision by a commander should ever be questioned in retrospect? Or do you just pull those quotes out for people who you agree with politically?
Personally I’d love to see everyone held accountable for their actions. Especially people I agree with. The idea that everyone that voted for our (soon to be) President is a partisan Democrat hack is laughable. I know that many of us will be as harsh in our judgment of President Obama as we were of President Bush. If someone breaks the law, they should be held accountable. That applies equally to the commanders on the field and the politicians back home.
I’ll make a deal with you, I’ll agree to hold the Democrats to the same standards as the GOP, if you do agree to do the reverse. Or are you just as much of the partisan apologist that you seem to think those who disagree with you are?
“…apologist as you…”
Clinger:
Military types always seem to think that war is some unique human condition divorced from politics –it isn’t. They also think that expertise in war somehow qualifies them to opine about the human interaction within a society during those lulls between wars known as peace. Clearly a case of an expert claiming expertise on a topic he knows little about. History is strewn with the carcasses of flag rank military leaders who failed miserably as peacetime leaders: Grant, Johnson, Garfield — just in our own country. That is why our Constitution embodies civilian control of our “dogs of war.”
And your derisive commentary about our Greco-Roman underpinngs suggest it is you who desperately needs a history book. Von Clauswitzs’ philosophy held sway in Prussia just long enough to usher in the rise of Kaiser Wilhelm’s agressive and impulsive foreign policy. This in turn led to Germany’s ultimate disgrace in WW1. Not exactly bragging material for our favorite major-general who had already mercifully exited the scene before the flowering of the bellicose germanic culture his works fertilized. Opining on the number of teeth in a horse’s mouth never catapulted a planet into two world wars with the loss of millions of lives, as the “brilliant” von Clauswitz’s philosophy of total war clearly did.
Finally, lest you think the idea that war is mere extension of national policy is the product of that “soft” Greco-Roman philosophy, you should know I learned that little notion from your guiding beacon who famously said: “War is nothing more than the continuation of politics by other means.” Well I guess a blind pig finds an acorn every now and again.
Mespo,
I just think it’s funny that while advocating the necessity of physical experience over pure reason Clinger demanded that we go read some books.
Gyges:
Just one of his many ironies. How are you enjoying the ceremony? Man, Aretha’s still got it!!!
Gyges
You haven’t held the Dems accountable, won’t, never have and never will.. It is OK to lie to a grand jury or keep bucks in the freezer to name a couple tolerances… This has been the Dem forte since Vietnam, actionable words equal action. For more than a decade the Dems pontificated about WMD in Iraq and Saddam should go because of that threat. They believed that and after more than 17 violations of UN sanctions someone chose action rather than just actionable words and has thus been condemned and now the UN is the Dem preferred method dictate our taxes, actions, and policies.
What I expect is an informed public that opens a book, reads, considers, and knows that what it considers may or could be wrong. But not even a blind pig could find that kinda acorn in this crowd.
Politics, moreover, is the womb in which war develops-where its outlines already exist in their hidden rudimentary form, like the characteristics of living creature in their embryos. Carl Von Clausewitz “On War”
And on your last comment of action and books. Read the books, do the action, and through the actions learn and understand what pitfalls theory yields.
“Understanding the desire to distinguish oneself as essentially political because the goods of this world, even the intellectual joys of understanding never give total satisfaction or repose. He said “Theory itself is a sort of activity fraught with restiveness, and as such not surely superior to action.”” Alexis De Tocqueville
Clinger,
I don’t presume to tell you what you’ve done and how you feel, don’t tell me what I’ve done or how I feel. I treat you as an individual, please return the favor. You see, I am an individual, not a faceless clone of some primordial “liberal.” I’m not even a Democrat. I don’t think it’s o.k. to lie to grand jury, or to hide bribes in your freezer. So take your baseless assumptions elsewhere, and speak to me as a person, not an ideology.
Corruption knows no party, neither should justice. I call for the rule of law to be upheld, no matter who the criminal may be. Will you do the same? Or will you continue to evade the issue?
Gyges:
Clinger, line von Clausewitz, recognizes only the law of the jungle. Dealing with you as an individual is time consuming and tends to humanize an opponent,and as every good Clausewitzian knows, is bad for the fighting spirit. Consider:
“All war presupposes human weakness, and seeks to exploit it.”
- Karl von Clauswitz, On War, 1832
BTW I have no idea how this applies to the Dems or anybody else. It seems to me to be the old bromide that “war is hell” and that you candy-ass thinker types need to move out of the way while we tough guys duke it out with our own rules. Who says we don’t still live with the Neanderthals?
I don’t presume to tell you what you’ve done and how you feel, don’t tell me what I’ve done or how I feel. I treat you as an individual, please return the favor. You see, I am an individual, not a faceless clone of some primordial “liberal.” I’m not even a Democrat. I don’t think it’s o.k. to lie to grand jury, or to hide bribes in your freezer. So take your baseless assumptions elsewhere, and speak to me as a person, not an ideology.
Gyges
The country is littered with Conservatives held accountable. Nixon was forced to resign because his fellow Republican’s told him to get outta dodge, Duke Cunningham is serving time is and will be forever in disgrace with the right, Gingrich was basically forced to resign, his replacement was also forced to resign, and the dude in FL for sextexting pages was run outta dodge and told not to come back. When and where have the Dems been held accountable or in jail and to the same standard they suggest for the conservatives been sought and administered to their own? What about Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dorn or Jane Fonda, Tom Hayden and then there is the prostration ring run out of a congressman’s basement. Why are they courted and not condemned? I am inclined to believe these individuals would not be supported by the right. Please note I said inclined because then there is Larry Craig. I will support no one who commits crimes and for that continued policy the Republicans are better for having done so..
And by the by did you not imply that I supported illegal acts? I have only seen ad homen and anecdotal comments supporting condemning/prosecuting the Bush administration and ideologues are the source.
“I have only seen ad homen and anecdotal comments supporting condemning/prosecuting the Bush administration and ideologues are the source.”
********
Yep Susan Crawford was quite the ideologue for admitting that we tortured Mohammed al-Qahtani at Gitmo to get his confession — a Republican ideologue, that is.
mespo727272
Military types always seem to think that war is some unique human condition divorced from politics –it isn’t. They also think that expertise in war somehow qualifies them to opine about the human interaction within a society during those lulls between wars known as peace. Clearly a case of an expert claiming expertise on a topic he knows little about. History is strewn with the carcasses of flag rank military leaders who failed miserably as peacetime leaders: Grant, Johnson, Garfield — just in our own country. That is why our Constitution embodies civilian control of our “dogs of war.”
Being kind and not calling it as I really see the comment above and all that follows that missive as <0 and a prime example of the lofty pontifications of the Greek Philosophers and Politicians so infatuated by themselves. Carl Sagan wrote that the Mesopotamian culture lived more easily than did the Greek culture and did so because the Mesopotamia’s were students of science while the Greeks were the victims of words and lofty pontifications. While the Pythagorean theorem was developed by the Greeks culture apparently the Mesopotamian unlike the Greeks used science and as an electrical engineer I have benefited and had occasion to facilitate and use the methods developed from that basic theorem. So as your worldly view suffers from you personal interpretation of your own largeness your forte to determine a profession nears not the asymptote of my profession.
And by the way the “dogs or war” was theoretically held in check by the Possee comitatus act and soldiers fear politicians more than the enemy. One has certain expectations of the enemy but of the politician it it what is in vogue.
Clinger, line von Clausewitz, recognizes only the law of the jungle. Dealing with you as an individual is time consuming and tends to humanize an opponent,and as every good Clausewitzian knows, is bad for the fighting spirit. Consider:
Again you do as the the Greeks did to determine the number of teeth in a horse’s mouth, debate and not open the book, eh mouth. If you had opened the book you would know how ridiculous you conclusion is….
Do you watch sports? Football??? Socker??? Ever go to a socker game in Europe?
Ever hear of irregular warfare??
The Clinger:
“So as your worldly view suffers from you personal interpretation of your own largeness your forte to determine a profession nears not the asymptote of my profession.”
**********
This may be the worst sentence I have ever read. Flushed with purple prose and highfalutin language, you prove my point that expertise in a technical field grants you no credentials in my generalist profession, and apparently doesn’t improve one’s English skills either. I’m sending this along to the judges of the Bulwer-Lytton Fiction Contest. I think I might win!
mespo727272
is may be the worst sentence I have ever read. Flushed with purple prose and highfalutin language, you prove my point that expertise in a technical field grants you no credentials in my generalist profession, and apparently doesn’t improve one’s English skills either. I’m sending this along to the judges of the Bulwer-Lytton Fiction Contest. I think I might win!
Thank You… Let me know if you/I win…
mespo727272
Golly… Now we are witnessing the professions you hold in such contempt. Techies and military types and possibly conservatives and/or Republicans? That De Tocqueville musta turned ya red with a bit of rage included…. Gets that way when its not all about words/theory and debating …
How bout my ATP pilots license… Does that make three counts again me?
“Understanding the desire to distinguish oneself as essentially political because the goods of this world, even the intellectual joys of understanding never give total satisfaction or repose. He said “Theory itself is a sort of activity fraught with restiveness, and as such not surely superior to action.”” Alexis De Tocqueville
Clinger:
If you really want a relevant de Tocqueville passage on my profession, here it is:
“The government of democracy is favorable to the political power of lawyers; for when the wealthy, the noble, and the prince are excluded from the government, the lawyers take possession of it, in their own right, as it were, since they are the only men of information and sagacity, beyond the sphere of the people, who can be the object of the popular choice. If, then, they are led by their tastes towards the aristocracy and the prince, they are brought in contact with the people by their interests. They like the government of democracy without participating in its propensities and without imitating its weaknesses; whence they derive a twofold authority from it and over it. The people in democratic states do not mistrust the members of the legal profession, because it is known that they are interested to serve the popular cause; and the people listen to them without irritation, because they do not attribute to them any sinister designs. The lawyers do not, indeed, wish to overthrow the institutions of democracy, but they constantly endeavor to turn it away from its real direction by means that are foreign to its nature. Lawyers belong to the people by birth and interest, and to the aristocracy by habit and taste; they may be looked upon as the connecting link between the two great classes of society.
The profession of the law is the only aristocratic element that can be amalgamated without violence with the natural elements of democracy and be advantageously and permanently combined with them. I am not ignorant of the defects inherent in the character of this body of men; but without this admixture of lawyer-like sobriety with the democratic principle, I question whether democratic institutions could long be maintained; and I cannot believe that a republic could hope to exist at the present time if the influence of lawyers in public business did not increase in proportion to the power of the people. “
Yep Susan Crawford was quite the ideologue for admitting that we tortured Mohammed al-Qahtani at Gitmo to get his confession — a Republican ideologue, that is.
Yep.. It is so easy as I sit in my warm comfortable chair enjoying the white wintry scene having discussions with individuals with Premature Cognitive Commitment complimented by the human emotion “elevation” ,however, I am even more comfortable that I do not carry the burden of protecting a nation’s citizens from some dark unknown. That too many of these citizens are unappreciative or understand the complexities of that effort is most evident but knowing that such musings will be in competition for the Bulwer-Lytton Fiction Contest does help. On 9/11, because of a basic understanding of metallurgy I suspected the towers steel structures modulus of elasticity was being severely altered by fire and I hesitatingly anticipated that the twin towers would fall. That the agencies responsible for preventing and anticipating that event were a failure was not a surprise because such is the history of governmental bureaucracies and military plans, failure. But now I find those same bureaucrats making judgments on individuals who are not always afforded anything but the time to react rather than debate and moreover, are not held accountable to anticipate and insure that such events or worse events do not occur. A Navy Seal recounted the decision by his team to not kill and release two Afghans and suspected Taliban that walked upon and discovered their team’s location. A short time later the Seal Team was assaulted by more than 100 Taliban and he debates to this day that maybe he/they should have killed these individuals and by doing his other three team members would not have been killed. He would be in jail but his team mates might still be alive.
Mohammed al-Qahtani arrived in the US Aug 2002 with a one way plane ticket, little cash and was deported back to Saudi Arabia by a suspicious Orland, FL immigration official who did not believe his story. He was later captured on an Afghanistan battlefield and then sent to Gitmo. With decades of Dem pontificating about the threat of Saddam with WMD one can only be a Monday morning quarterback and with the propensity to not consider the fog of the war or the urgency of the moment or other Intel that suggest some major event or events in progress. The accounts of this individual I have read depict restraints only when he was pulling out IV and or disruptive behavior that required MPs to react to that aggression. To presuppose and assign accusations does not do justice to those that are at the actionable scene where debate is not always the alternative. I find that discussion entirely disingenuous.
mespo727272
I question whether democratic institutions could long be maintained; and I cannot believe that a republic could hope to exist at the present time if the influence of lawyers in public business did not increase in proportion to the power of the people. “
You guys in pin strip suits, wing tip shoes, carrying leather brief cases nd actionable words and pontifications missed OBL. Ya forgot there were some others in the mix that shoulda been a part of the effort but then those dudes are not so eloquent in word or missive and are thus rendered and hidden in the embarrassment wood shed.
You can have all the laws and lawyers you want and unless and until the citizens recognize the rule of law the community is without law. Just about the time Arafat died I completed “April 1865, the Month that Saved America.” I was surprised to find that Lee ignored his staff’s advice to not surrender at Appomattox and suggested he order his Army to melt into the countryside and continue a guerrilla war. Lee understand he would win that battle but lose the war because he would have a citizenry that after a time was not inclined toward the rule of law and thus he surrendered and here we are with a black president. Arafat did not understand that and look where that whole Middle Eastern area is and those that on this post or anywhere else who convict or imply convictions before a process do not endorse what the de Tocqueville quote you provided conveyed.
“If you use laws to direct people and punishments to control them, they will merely try to evade the laws, and they will have no sense of shame. But if by virtue you guide the…there will be a sense of shame and the right.” Confucius
Same goes with business too… Its bigger than the lawyers and the government. And I know fer sure who don’t wonna believe that…
mespo727272
Lawyers belong to the people by birth and interest, and to the aristocracy by habit and taste; they may be looked upon as the connecting link between the two great classes of society.
Now let me see. Tell me where I can find the information on the legal infractions that lawyers commit like when, where they have been disbarred and how many times they have been cited? Tried just local search and just general Google search but to no avail. Can I find this information as easily as I can on the say the Medical Profession or other professions?
Since the legal guys are so inclined to my representation would it not be reasonable to expect to easily find that info and to expect they would not convict me without a trial? Never had the occasion to search for a Lawyer (Yet) but I can easily find this info on physicians.
Seems the only lawyers I have heard about being convicted were a couple of tort lawyers, was it in New Orleans where they or he was bribing judges? Those guys that get lump sums through class action suits in the multimillions and their clients get a few bucks. I will reserve comment about the aristocracy. But it is so hard to do so…
Thanks in advance for your source….
Good article, Mr. Turley! There are just a few people that I admire, and you are surely one of them. I like my fellow citizens to be patriots and I hold a special affection for patriots! You’re in very good company: Dennis Kucinich, David Swanson, Glenn Greenwald, Ari Melber, and some I can’t name off the top of my head. Thank you for your enlightenment and keep up the good work in keeping us little bone cruncher’s aware. Godspeed.
Here’s info on the law and war crimes (found in Glenn Greenwald’s column of today):
UPDATE: Harper’s Scott Horton notes that the leading U.N. official in charge of torture conventions, such as the Convention Against Torture (signed by Ronald Reagan and ratified by the U.S. Senate), just stated that the Obama administration is obligated by that treaty and by international law to criminally investigate Bush officials for torture:
In an interview on Tuesday evening with the German television program “Frontal 21,” on channel ZDF Professor Manfred Nowak, the United Nations Rapporteur responsible for torture, stated that with George W. Bush’s head of state immunity now terminated, the new government of Barack Obama was obligated by international law to commence a criminal investigation into Bush’s torture practices.
“The evidence is sitting on the table,” he stated. “There is no avoiding the fact that this was torture.” He pointed to the U.S. undertakings under the Convention Against Torture in which the country committed that it would criminally prosecute anyone who tortured, or extradite the person to a state that would prosecute him. “The government of the United States is required to take all necessary steps to bring George W. Bush and Donald Rumsfeld before a court,” Nowak said.
Manfred Nowak, an internationally renowned law professor at the University of Vienna, currently serves as an independent expert for the United Nations looking at allegations of torture affecting member states. In 2006, he undertook a special investigation of conditions at the U.S. detention facilities at Guantánamo in which he concluded that practices approved by the Bush Administration violated human rights norms, including the prohibition against torture.
mespo727272
asymptotic.
A linear asymptote is essentially a straight line to which a graphed curve becomes closer and closer but does not become identical.
The Clinger:
“A linear asymptote is essentially a straight line to which a graphed curve becomes closer and closer but does not become identical.”
***************
Thanks, I took calculus. I also took English.
Mespo,
I think he has a similar theory about his arguments that I have about my jokes. If you aren’t persuaded, it’s because you didn’t get it.
Thought they didn’t get it??
Oh no.. Never… I know this is a lawyerly site and lawyers get everything… Don’t believe that… Just askem… Just waiting with baited breath for my award and ah feared I’d been forgot…
Some of here just think Clinger’s not worth addressing since he’s a contrarian and probably suffers from BPD (borderline personality disorder, not bi-polar disorder). The more you argue with a halfwit like this, the more they like it. This is evidenced by the above snarky smartass bullshit non-response. And it matters not what you say. They’ll take the opposite position just to piss you off. It turns them on. It’s part of their mental illness. Logic has nothing to do with it.
This kind of troll you kill through starvation.
Go ahead and attack, Clinger. That is your M.O. If I cared what crazy people think I’d still be married and I’d register Republican.
Buddha Is Laughing 1, January 22, 2009 at 6:44 pm
Go ahead and attack, Clinger. That is your M.O. If I cared what crazy people think I’d still be married and I’d register Republican.
Buddha Is Laughing: I would make a reply and not one entirely laced with the purely ad homen anecdotal commentary you present as defense but your site monitor would not permit me to post your own juvenile comments and thus your monitor practices what you and your ilk practice no contrarian views considered that could possibly challenge your no jury, only for lawyers safe zone “Turley lawyerly support site.”
I’ll just monitor from now to so I can better understand those of your ilk….
“It is said that if you know your enemies and know yourself, you will not be imperiled in a hundred battles; if you do not know your enemies but do know yourself, you will win one and lose one; if you do not know your enemies nor yourself, you will be imperiled in every single battle.” Gen Sun Tzu
Ad hominem is all a troll like you deserves, sport.
And if quoting Sun is supposed to impress me? I know my enemy, fascist enabler. Otherwise, how could I so effectively get under troll skin? The fact I do with greater economy of language than any of your lot is just a testament to skill. My “incredible” or your “lack thereof”, take your pick.
The following was to another of those you chose to use your brand of defense that will remain unnamed. Believe me should you be impressed I should have to revisit the whole of my life to determine what I had done wrong and hasten to make the necessary life changes.
Apparently your juvenile ranting were just to much to be repeated and thus the missive was rejected and no attempt will be made to include this time.
To a now unnamed source:
You have provided the second opinion with information, sources, and commentary but its value is lost to many if not most participants on this post. What a shame even after you made such an excellent effort to present your argument.
Your information is of no value but will not persuade those consumed with this premature cognitive commitment mindset. The following vernacular is typical when a position is challenged. It becomes outrageously ad homen and antidotal. I find it amazing when after reading many posts revealing excellent vocabularies, intellect, composition, and rational discussion when all are in mutual agreement but when contrarian views are presented the discussion becomes entirely emotion driven invective. Quite frankly it is more than a bit frightening to see such commentary and lack of discussion from individuals who imply they honor and support and defend the rule of law which requires and demands such discussion. mespo727272 and buda is laughing know my Greek representation of this unctuous chortling. I’m sticking with it. It FITS em like a glove.
ROFL
That was nice. I’ll even stipulate it was skillful. But it’s just like your other attacks: futile and empty. You can’t name my strategies? That tell me all I need to know.