This is frightening... people who'd scream to the four winds

[nadinbrzezinski]

if bush said no to prosecution are essentially giving a free pass because this is a democratic president.

I know that some folk are fine imperial citizens, but they were following orders is not a valid excuse, no-matter how many torturous "legal" arguments are made

Nuremberg is a standard we imposed...and it applies here...

And to all of you who are willing to make excuses, we truly part company...

[cali]

1. oh, for the love of reason.

First of all, very few if any people here are arguing that Obama should be given a free pass. Secondly, the parallel you're attempting to construct between bush and Obama is misplaced. Of course, bush didn't prosecute. He was the one who approved torture. duh. Your accusations that if people don't march in lockstep with sainted you, are "fine imperialist citizens" is inane,pompous crap. Lastly, pointing out the legal arguments is not agreeing with those arguments.

[MADem]

19. Four lines...and you hit it out of the park!

Home run! Score! Good job. Great argument.

[cali]

24. Why thanks, MADem

nothing like taking a good solid whack at a strawman.

[roguevalley]

57. no one gets a pass on this. bush protected them. if Obama does

too he is risking a terrible stain on his legacy and ours too.

[blindpig]

69. No, they don't say 'lock step'

Rather, we are given some convoluted bullshit that amounts to the same thing but in some minds amounts to good reasons. It ain't lock-step, more like the 'hokey-pokey'.

[Doremus]

2. I have a problem with nailing the grunts while letting the ringleaders off scot-free.

It's pathetic and cowardly.

Sorry if that bothers you but it's my opinion and I'm entitled to voice it.

[Echo In Light]

4. However, if the ball even began going in that direction it may yield HARSH public outrage...

Which is what's needed here - nevermind the brainwashed teabag BS

[nadinbrzezinski]

6. Care to tell me who was tried at Nuremberg?

the grunts

:sarcasm:

Now later trials... yep they were

[cali]

20. actually, the focus of the trials- and the first trial- was on the bigwigs

Subsequent trials focused on medical personnel, judges, industrialist such as Krupp and Farbenl, generals and other people who were decidedly not grunts. The closest one comes to the prosecution of grunts is the Einsatzgruppen trial in which SS officers were tried. Most were found guilty, some weren't.

But as usual, you simply make a vague and essentially incorrect and incomplete statement. shoddy, scholarship, Ms. Historian.

[nadinbrzezinski]

22. You expanded on what I just said

mrs perfeta

Now you want to tell me why you are so against prosecuting these assholes?

Oh wait... never mind mrs. imperial citizen.

[cali]

23. what's with the pathological need to put words in my mouth, dear?

Au contraire, I am for prosecuting the CIA agents who tortured. I am even more pro prosecuting assholes like Bybee and those up the food chain, all the way to bush and cheney.

Is that clear enough for you, sweetie?

And hate to break this to you, Ms. Morally Superior, but you too are a citizen of the Empire.

Oh, and no, my post did not elaborate on yours. It contradicted it and your claim about grunts being prosecuted. Fact is, very, very few were prosecuted.

[nadinbrzezinski]

26. Changed your views... GOOD

now time to again ignore what you have to say

By the by... glad to see you changed your views from this morning

As to who is putting words Dearie,that is you

And this is a classic by the way

Good bye...snuckums

[cali]

33. wrong once again. nope. my views are exactly the same as they've ever been

just do a search. I absolutely did not say this morning that I was against prosecution of CIA agents who tortured. I tried explainging to you what the legal arguments were. That you can't discern that explaining something is not a de facto endorsement, nadine, is just, well, pathetic.

And really, sweetums, your lack of intellectual dishonesty, is tiresome.

but your pretentious crap, is always good for a laugh or two.

:rofl:

[EFerrari]

15. I agree that the grunts usually are forced to take the fall. But,

in this case, we're not really talking about grunts. We're talking about CIA officers who slammed heads into walls and sodomized people and deprived prisoners of sleep for days, who hung them from the ceiling from their arms.

Those people are guilty.

[Doremus]

32. I don't necessarily disagree.

However, unless and until we start issuing subpoenas to those who gave the orders I will not support the prosection of those who followed them.

Going after the foot soldiers and turning a blind eye to the masterminds is not my idea of justice. If it occurs simultaneously, I'm all for it.

[bvar22]

36. You have it backwards.

You DO go after the little guys, and let them off after the agree to testify agasinst the Big Guys.
Otherwise, you have NO leverage.

[RufusTFirefly]

37. Exactly. The grunts make deals and lead you to the Big Guys. n/t

[Doremus]

38. Unless there's no intention of getting the big guys.

In which case it's all for show.

As I said above, such a scenario is cowardly and the antithesis of justice.

[alarimer]

35. And the CIA is not military either.

It's probably a lot easier to quit. It's like working for IBM; you can always just walk away if you don't like what they want you to do. It's not as if there will be a court-martial if you refuse. Or at least that's how I guess it would work.

But the CIA has been guilty of many horrible things. My guess is that they have tortured people for years, memos or no memos. They have been behind the assassinations of many leaders we happened not to like. In reality, it is an outlaw organization that really has no place in a democratic society.

I am betting that the torture and rendition will continue, no matter what the President or Panetta has to say about it. Always has, always will.

The CIA is not even the worst organization out there. There are many covert agencies in our government, all of them committing the same crimes in the name of national security.

The release of the torture memos is a sop to the critics on the left. Meanwhile, business as usual continues, as it has under Bush, Clinton, Reagan and every other President since these organizations were created.

[T Wolf]

3. My interpretation of this (and every other) issue is that many DUers are so tired of being

"out of power" that they do not want to do anything to jeopardize the (perceived) influence "we" now have by saying anything negative against the White House. Interesting - that loyalty does not extend as far into Congress. The mantra is now that the power they think the Dems have cannot be weakened by any criticism.

The younger loyalists have lived their entire life under rethug (or DLC) rule. The older ones are just fatigued with being in the minority and want to be in charge for a change.

How else to explain the widespread willingness to condone torture, expanded war, abandonment of universal healthcare, bailout of the financial thieves, compromising the civil rights of some "others", etc., etc., etc.....?

[sui generis]

5. you're a humanist

How else indeed: I would replace Post Dramatic Bush Disorder with myopia, plain and simple. Disregard for consequence.

[Echo In Light]

7. Those arguing objectivity/legalities is one thing - it's the smug semantical oneupmanship

...being used by some that reveal an entirely different intention, and of course provokes a heated reaction. That's the sort of blowhard assholism that I don't quite get here...it's almost as if some of the pro-status quo folks are happy there's yet another issue that angers the "loony left." Some of the posts are dripping with sneers and condescension.

[Bluerthanblue]

13. i can understand your perspective, however

even though i'm 'loony left' I'm not about to dump my support for Obama, nor exaggerate the statement he made to try and say that no one will ever be held accountable, and pretend that's just fine.

I'm sure my own heated responses demonstrate my own assholeness, - just remember that things look very different- (or maybe very similar in reverse) from our own perspective.

The tone of the OP is rather sneering and condesending IMO-

I'm not 'happy' with everything that Obama's doin, but I never expected to be, and he's FAR from done, by my reckoning.

I'm not ever happy with issues that divide us.

peace~

[omega minimo]

9. Ironically, that's how "we" got into power.

"they do not want to do anything to jeopardize the (perceived) influence "we" now have by saying anything negative against the White House...."

when Impeachment Was Off The Table.


"How else to explain the widespread willingness to condone torture, expanded war, abandonment of universal healthcare, bailout of the financial thieves, compromising the civil rights of some "others", etc., etc., etc.....?"

The same tendency to procrastinate, not take a stand when it matters and gamble on future events.

[Laelth]

29. That's insightful and quite interesting. Thanks. n/t

:dem:

-Laelth

[Bluerthanblue]

8. oh bullshit-

the memo's have been public for HOW LONG???
You are reading a hell of lot more into what Obama has said than his actual statement.

If no one is EVER held accountable for what was done I'll join you in the outrage- but I'm not so fuckin impatient that I'm about to write anyone off yet-

You wanta write me off - that's your prerogative.

If you can do so much better than those trying to piece this nation together, I suggest you run for office, or work harder to get your perfect- ideal administration in place.

And I wish you luck- cause you are going to need it.

[nadinbrzezinski]

11. the last batch, RELEASED yesterday

was known for how long?

so what is your security clearance? and why the heck did you have a need to know?

[Bluerthanblue]

16. sorry- I'm NOT

understanding you.???

None of us would have known if Obama hadn't made the decision (one that would have been a HELL of a lot easier for him on the surface) To make them public.

I can assure you there are many people who would have just burried the the ugly truth.

[nadinbrzezinski]

21. Ok, I will put this plaintly

we are not going to prosecute since these CIA agents were obeying orders

The last time that was used as a valid defense, (and thrown out) was both Tokyo and Nuremberg

Plain enough?

[omega minimo]

10. the flames have started but I know how much this pains you and I'm sorry.

:hug:

[winyanstaz]

12. I just read the article pointing out that by Obama letting the little guys off the hook

he may be laying the groundwork to go after the big guys for a change. I hope so. Because if he doesn't even try to prosecute for these evils I shall have to give up on him.
The article I am talking about is:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=5473960&mesg_id=5473960

(edited to add link)

[EFerrari]

17. Those "little guys" are the hands on torturers. n/t

[Solly Mack]

31. The CIA is the "little guy"?

Who knew...

[flyarm]

58. "This is the first time in the history of this republic that an Attorney general has said :

I am not going to investigate,
It reverses the precedent we created in Nuremberg"



Countdown: Waterboarding Constitutes The Legal Definition Of Torture!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=385&topic_id=298704&mesg_id=298704

"This is the first time in the history of this republic that an Attorney general has said I am not going to investigate,
It reverses the precedent we created in Nuremberg"

"You are not allowed to make this choice, it is a war crime"

"What is new is it is a legal analysis"

"A well defined premeditated war crime"

"President Obama is preventing the appointment of a Special Prosecutor"

[NEOhiodemocrat]

14. Hey, I called the white house today about this very issue

even brought up Nuremberg to them. The lady I talked to said she had been receiving a lot of calls about the torture issue, especially not holding anyone responsible. What makes you think we are all willing to make excuses for this?

[nadinbrzezinski]

18. Fer chrisakes, you are not making excuses

neither have I.

Care to read this site, you will find plenty of excuses...

I sent letters to congress, which is pissing in the wind truly

:-)

[Spike89]

25. Establishing/fixing the circumstances

Releasing the memos, along with many of Obama's other "subtle" actions and inactions, especially the "I'm not going after the little guys" decision all point to the start of a reformist slate rather than a punitive agenda. The difference is that the punitive route although pleasing to the base, doesn't really work to stop it from happening again...we all know that threat of punishment doesn't work well or the death penalty would prevent murders. A reformist slate requires getting the ugliness out and in front of the public and ensuring that the laws that were "bent, broken, and preverted" are strengthened and adapted to prevent the next republican (or evil democrat) from exploiting them.

If we don't challenge and explicitly deny the validity of practices like bogus legal memos, presidential signing ammmendments, and all the quasi-legal crap the Bush administration used to avoid having their policies hit the courts--we haven't solved a damned thing by putting anyone on trial. The way to get checks and balances put back on the presidency, and new ones in place to cover the "loopholes" is to force congress and the courts to take the powers away. Obama can make all the executive calls he wants, but the next Bush can just as easily toss them all out.

I don't know that Obama is following this path, I can only hope. I do know it isn't true that the only way to improve ourselves is to follow one path.

[nadinbrzezinski]

27. Only problem with this is that certain things have to be confronted

we didn't confront slavery... you know where that led

After reconstruction we didn't insist on AA being treated as equals... well you know where that led

The only situation where this reform language worked... was the admission and reparations over internment of Japanese Americans

but our record does not tell me that short of prosecution we will be able to clean house

Also, this is not about the base... but ethics and law... and if we don't do it... war crimes have universal jurisdiction... somebody else will

[Spike89]

28. I agree, just differ on the timing and preparation

I think we need to haul the trash out and cleanup the sleazy "secret" rules and firmly establish what and what isn't within a president's authority. We screwed up by not doing this back in Watergate. I want and demand an accounting from the people that set up this horrible shadow justice system. Am I glad the lower level guys seem to be getting off? No. But if it means that it helps build support for serious reform and the prosecution of the ones who made the calls, well, I'll take that.

[Fire1]

62. Best post yet! Kudos.

[HughMoran]

30. Lots of people here felt bad that the grunts took the fall for Abu Ghraib

I think there is a feeling that it's more important to get those at the top who concocted these "laws". Also, if you look at cases in the international courts, it can take up to 20 years to finally prosecute ruthless dictators that slaughtered 100,000's of people. It may take more than 3 months to put together a case after all the burying of evidence that Bushco did. It could take 1 year, 3 years - who knows? Is there some sort of hurry here? This is not an excuse, it's simple practical reality as it exists today. Add to that the worst economic collapse in over 30 years and you've got a bunch of busy people trying to undo what Bush did and get the economy going at the same time, never mind managing 2 overseas conflicts.

[nadinbrzezinski]

39. The problem wiht abu graib, I know will get technical

is that the sergeant rightfully took the fall. He should have known better, and under the Geneva Convention he should have demanded for those ilegal orders in writing and refused to follow them

He was an E-5... check the UCMJ as well

Now Private England, under that pesky Nuremberg standard could and should have gotten a pass. She is at the point that you salute a can if told to. Yes, she was under E-3...

That said, those who gave the orders should have faced prosecution as well

I know getting technical

[HughMoran]

44. Getting technical is what it's all about here

If you're willing to get "technical" about the abu ghraib torture scandal, then why not get technical when it comes to who can practically be prosecuted in the CIA torture scandal? Shouldn't we always be pragmatic? If the government brings a case and loses it because they don't have their ducks lined up, isn't that worse than if they took a little longer and only prosecuted where convictions would be likely. Flailing about does not a successful politician make.

[nadinbrzezinski]

45. Ok it is very simple

the CIA analyst is not a private in the army... he \ she is not an E-3 or bellow, but the equivalent of an officer.

Under that pesky standard of law we helped establish... that individual can and should be tried for following those orders.

OTOH, so should the people giving the orders

The analyst who followed orders is equally responsible under the law, as the Director of CIA, or the President of the United States.

Again, we established, or helped the world establish, that protocol for war crimes.

Unfortunately, yes it is that simple

Everybody in that chain, from President of the United States on down to E-4 in the military and GS whatever level are liable

[HughMoran]

48. Should we give up a small fish to get the big fish?

It happens all the time in the real world, no? Is it all or nothing in your opinion? Does the chance of a conviction (and the utter humiliation of bringing charges and losing) play any role in decision making or am I just a "pragmatist" like the President?

[nadinbrzezinski]

49. It hasn't under war crimes tribunals

since nuremberg

The first trials were the big fish... both at Tokyo and Nuremberg, after that even really small fish... see Mindyanuk (sp I know) who was just extradited to Germany to face charges. He was a sergeant, a really small fish.

We don't go after the small fish, somebody else will. The other standard... universal jurisdiction

To add... they are not going after anybody in the US, so it will remain for foreign courts to do the job

That alone speaks volumes

[HughMoran]

52. Yet

I'm not a mind reader or psychic. We may not be prosecuting small fish so we can get reliable testimony to prosecute the big fish (or I'm all wet - lol.) Let's give 'em a piece of our minds and some time to think about it. I have a feeling they will cave to the pressure eventually.

[nadinbrzezinski]

54. Unfortunately I have the feeling that every time I call

my critters on this issue, I am spitting towards the wind...

Sorry if my faith has completely been shaken by this... or rather my belief that the Empire will do what the Empire will do... regardless of what we the people want.

Suffice it to say that it is really a small minority of imperial citizens that even have a clue of what we are talking about.

Oh and make no mistake, outside the US people are aware that we are an empire

[HughMoran]

56. Well, your calls added to KO's rant and Turley's unwavering surety

...can't be going unnoticed by the Administration. The thing I don't get is why Obama is even involved in this? The AG should be calling the shots here and the President should not interfere other than to perhaps inject a little political calculus - i.e. the timing of the investigations. For all we know, that's exactly what's happening here.

[flyarm]

34. I COULD NOT AGREE WITH YOU MORE nadinbrzezinski..THANK YOU DEAR!!

MY HEART BREAKS ..everytime i hear or read these so called democrats spit all over my democratic values and principles by claiming they are democrats, and making excuses for democratic leaders letting any of the criminals responsible for committing torture , walk scott free!

from my files..I have not forgotten what was done in my name and i want each and everyone responsible from the top down held accountable to our laws and to the people of this nation that was predicated on the rule of law.

fly


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6988054/

Reports detail Abu Ghraib prison death; was it torture?
By Seth Hettena

updated 4:57 p.m. ET, Thurs., Feb. 17, 2005
Iraqi had been suspended by his handcuffed wrists, guards tell investigators
SAN DIEGO - An Iraqi whose corpse was photographed with grinning U.S. soldiers at Abu Ghraib died under CIA interrogation while in a position condemned by human rights groups as torture — suspended by his wrists, with his hands cuffed behind his back, according to reports reviewed by The Associated Press.

The death of the prisoner, Manadel al-Jamadi, became known last year when the Abu Ghraib scandal broke. The U.S. military said back then that it had been ruled a homicide. But the exact circumstances of the death were not disclosed at the time.

The prisoner died in a position known as “Palestinian hanging,” the documents reviewed by The AP show. It is unclear whether that position was approved by the Bush administration for use in CIA interrogations.


XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
America admits suspects died in interrogations

By Andrew Gumbel in Los Angeles


Friday, 7 March 2003

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/politics/america-admits-suspects-died-in-interrogations-599744.html


American military officials acknowledged yesterday that two prisoners captured in Afghanistan in December had been killed while under interrogation at Bagram air base north of Kabul – reviving concerns that the US is resorting to torture in its treatment of Taliban fighters and suspected al-Qa'ida operatives.


American military officials acknowledged yesterday that two prisoners captured in Afghanistan in December had been killed while under interrogation at Bagram air base north of Kabul – reviving concerns that the US is resorting to torture in its treatment of Taliban fighters and suspected al-Qa'ida operatives.

A spokesman for the air base confirmed that the official cause of death of the two men was "homicide", contradicting earlier accounts that one had died of a heart attack and the other from a pulmonary embolism.

The men's death certificates, made public earlier this week, showed that one captive, known only as Dilawar, 22, from the Khost region, died from "blunt force injuries to lower extremities complicating coronary artery disease" while another captive, Mullah Habibullah, 30, suffered from blood clot in the lung that was exacerbated by a "blunt force injury".

US officials previously admitted using "stress and duress" on prisoners including sleep deprivation, denial of medication for battle injuries, forcing them to stand or kneel for hours on end with hoods on, subjecting them to loud noises and sudden flashes of light and engaging in culturally humiliating practices such as having them kicked by female officers.

While the US claims this still constitutes "humane" treatment, human rights groups including Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have denounced it as torture as defined by international treaty. The US has also come under heavy criticism for its reported policy of handing suspects over to countries such as Jordan, Egypt or Morocco, where torture techniques are an established part of the security apparatus. Legally, Human Rights Watch says, there is no distinction between using torture directly and subcontracting it out.

[nadinbrzezinski]

40. hugs my dear

We've been at this since at least 2002, we go back a long while

[flyarm]

46. ahh yes dear ..we have been at this a long time..and we still wait for truth don't we?

we have seen more than our share of bushbots and their excuses for lies and evil doing's ..and now i see the same damn thing here..it really makes me sick to my stomach..it's like the movie groundhog day..we see the same crap repeated over and over and over again..the excuses and the false hope in nothing but bullshit and propaganda..and paid pigs who are selling out our country and her countrymen/women..but more important they are selling out our children and the children of the future of this once porud nation..

I am so beyond disgusted.

Thank god you still fight for truth Nadin , as i knew you always have..but there are so many i see here that i used to believe had real democratic princples..that i know today are and were nothing but frauds!

Nadin i thought we had come a long way since 2001-2002..but we have come nowhere it seems..but a damn lot of people here have shown their true colors..and that really makes me sick..

I knew when i went to Iowa we do not have two parties any longer..only one party with one damn big money pot in the middle..and a bunch of crooks around that money pot..and many in what i thought were democrats were all for sale..in fact i sat for 4 days after going to Iowa and working and i cried..i cried for 4 days and i knew it was over then..

I am sick of fighting for people who refuse to stand up for democracy and for their own salvation within a democracy and that have sold their values and principles out so cheaply!!

But they sold mine out as well and that of my children and grandchildren to come..and that of those who come behind us...for generations to come.

I am tired of trying to educate people who are so willing to piss away their rights and their own best interests..that of living in a democratic nation.

It is a sad reality to come to ..

Dear keep up your fight for truth..I will as well..but i can't do this much longer, when so few really give a damn!! And so few really have the values they so professed to have had.

My kindest thoughts to you and yours..you know i care ..and hope your family is well!!..:)

fly

[flyarm]

50. oh and check this out..

Scott Horton on Democracy Now! today:

There’s a very strange factual issue here. President Obama says that we shouldn’t prosecute them because they relied on these memos. But a factual review is going to show that the CIA was using these techniques from April 2002, and these memos were commissioned and written, the first of them, in August of 2002. So it’s quite clear in fact that CIA agents were out in the field doing these things, not relying on these memos, with the memos not even being in contemplation.”

**********We know from the ICRC report this technique had been used, three years before Bradbury wrote his OLC memos, with Abu Zubaydah.

[nadinbrzezinski]

51. I spat in the wind today... aka sent letters to Congress

anymore I believe this is spitting in the wind... but I can sleep better at night. NOt well, just better

[Generator]

41. What amazes me

Is the faith anyone on this board STILL puts in politicians. (and some sweet souls are hoping Obama will prosecute-oh vey-they really haven't been paying attention) After the last eight years. I came to this board a believer in 2004. And now I believe in none of them. NONE. I find it hilarious that there will never be a valid time to criticize Obama because it goes like this:

Impeachment is off the table (to get any Dem elected, then get Obama elected-worse mistake this country will have ever made in it's entire history-to not investigate and prosecute the suspension of our Democracy and all international laws, not to mention stolen elections, in the years of 2001-2008)

Who would you rather have? McCain/Palin?

He's not even been inaugurated yet.

He's only been president for three months.

He's only been president for two years.

He's only been-WAIT midterms. WE MUST have control of Congress with Dems that have D's behind their names but sabotage not only Obama but every Democratic principle we've ever had. WE call this winning! YEAH.

ELECTION 2012 ELECTION 2012 ELECTION 2012 MUST VOTE OBAMA no matter what he's not done or dome because you don't want fill in idiot Republicon name do YOU?

Obama wins! Legacy:

He did his best. YEAH, and the Iraq war will still be going on-though Obama was clever enough to re-name it and not one, I repeat not one, Bush admin official will have been subject to justice in any way by the Obama administration. (PRAY FOR SPAIN!)

Legacy: unknown future for America with no clear line in the sand about not letting presidential power be absolute.

Bookmark this, kay?

[HughMoran]

42. Signed sealed deliverered,

you hate Obama. Nice!

[nadinbrzezinski]

43. Distrust of politicians is an american tradition

and I can trust them as far as I can throw them.}

Some are better than other...

[G_j]

47. the Nuremberg Tribunals were "quaint"

just like the Geneva Conventions

:sarcasm:

[nadinbrzezinski]

53. Yep, I missed the memo

when my job for ten years was to enforce the damn thing...

Imagine all the headaches, and chiefly nightmares, that memo would have saved me

:-)

[geek tragedy]

55. No, Bush TORTURED. Understand the difference?

That's why he was wrong. Because he was the criminal, not the insufficiently vigilant prosecutor.

And enough with the poseur stand that all noble and free thinking people agree with you. It's a fascist form of commentary.

[nadinbrzezinski]

59. Ok so when exactly is the trial?

and what is the venue?

Has the jury been convened yet?

Thank you for answering these questions.

[geek tragedy]

60. Not all crimes get prosecuted.

People act as if that's news.

[nadinbrzezinski]

63. So in your view war crimes should not be prosecuted

got it.

Here is a little piece of news that it appears the American people are dense in getting

We don't, somebody else will

War crimes, torture, genocide, and others, have universal jurisdiction

Personally I'd rather we prosecute our own than have other nations do it, even in-absentia

[geek tragedy]

64. I think the decision as to whether to prosecute

each individual is enormously complex--likelihood of conviction, severity of offense, political impact (would it make health care reform less likely?0, effect on the intelligence agencies as an institution, etc etc.

It's not the "either you're with the outraged truthseekers or against them" Manichean struggle it is made out to be on the Intertubes.

[cali]

65. please don't add critical thinking and nuance to

the outrage and mindless shrieking.

[nadinbrzezinski]

67. From the environment of law, perhaps then we should not prosecute bank

robbers either, after all, we have more evidence on this, than in some bank robberies

Fer pete's sake we even have an admission by a certain VP.

Regardless, universal jurisdiction is still in-play here, and unless the Empire is willing to exercise its power over other states, it will happen

Ironic at multiple levels, given that we established that concept

[Individualist]

61. K&R

[LWolf]

66. How dare you

expose the partisan hypocrisy so many prefer to keep in the closet?


:thumbsup: :thumbsup:

[nadinbrzezinski]

68. Somebody has to

this is not a football game, even if some treat it as such.

:-)