Author Topic: csn holder really be that stupid?  (Read 8411 times)

cassandra and sara's daddy

  • friends
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 20,781
csn holder really be that stupid?
« on: May 14, 2010, 03:49:16 AM »
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/may/14/holder-balks-at-blaming-radical-islam/

Holder balks at blaming 'radical Islam' for terror attempts
Atty. general admits he hasn't read Arizona law he criticized

By Stephen Dinan

Despite crediting the Pakistani Taliban with fostering the recent failed car bombing in Times Square, Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. was reluctant Thursday to say radical Islam was part of the cause of that and other recent attacks.

Mr. Holder, testifying to the House Judiciary Committee, repeatedly balked at a half-dozen questions from Rep. Lamar Smith, the ranking Republican on the committee, about whether "radical Islam" was behind the attempted car bombing, last year's so-called "underpants bomber" or the killings at Fort Hood in Texas.

"There are a variety of reasons why people do these things. Some of them are potentially religious," Mr. Holder told the committee Thursday, though he would not go further than saying people who hold radical views may have "had an ability to have an impact" on Faisal Shahzad, the man the Justice Department says tried to detonate a car bomb in Times Square.

The exchange comes as President Obama and Republicans spar over whether the administration is taking a tough-enough approach to the war on terrorism. Critics want the president to hone his criticism, while he and his advisers have sought to avoid painting the conflict as a battle against a religious belief or its adherents.

"I don't know why the administration has such difficulty acknowledging the obvious, which is that radical Islam might have incited these individuals," Mr. Smith, Texas Republican, said after the hearing. "If you can't name the enemy, then you're going to have a hard time trying to respond to them."

In his near daylong appearance before the Judiciary Committee, Mr. Holder was repeatedly asked about Arizona's new immigration law, which the attorney general has criticized and suggested may run afoul of the Constitution.

Mr. Obama has asked the Justice Department to review the law to determine whether the federal government should try to block it before it takes effect at the end of July.

But Mr. Holder acknowledged to the committee that he hasn't read the law, and his criticisms were based on what he's seen on television or read in the newspapers about the law.

"I've just expressed concerns on the basis of what I've heard about the law. But I'm not in a position to say at this point, not having read the law, not having had the chance to interact with people who are doing the review, exactly what my position is," Mr. Holder said.

Last weekend, Mr. Holder told NBC's "Meet the Press" program that the Arizona law "has the possibility of leading to racial profiling." He had earlier called the law's passage "unfortunate," and questioned whether the law was unconstitutional because it tried to assume powers that may be reserved for the federal government.
Rep. Ted Poe, who had questioned Mr. Holder about the law, wondered how he could hold those opinions if he hadn't yet read the legislation.

"It's hard for me to understand how you would have concerns about something being unconstitutional if you haven't even read the law," the Texas Republican told the attorney general.

The Arizona law's backers argue that it doesn't go beyond what federal law already allows, and they say press reports have distorted the legislation. They point to provisions in the law that specifically rule out racial profiling as proof that it can be implemented without conflicting with civil rights.

But critics said giving police the power to stop those they suspect are in the country illegally is bound to lead to profiling.

Mr. Holder said he expects the Justice and Homeland Security departments will finish their review of the Arizona law soon.

Meanwhile, the failed Times Square attack is the latest incident in which the administration has found itself explaining its strategy toward terrorism.

Authorities on Thursday raided several locations in the Northeast and detained at least three people on immigration violations, Mr. Holder said.

He said they suspect the three people were involved with providing funds to the suspected bomber, though it was unclear whether they had knowledge of specific plans to try to ignite a car bomb in Times Square.

The attorney general said the Pakistani Taliban is likely responsible for the attack.

Mr. Holder also detailed his plan, raised last weekend, to try to expand the exceptions to Miranda rights warnings police are supposed to give before questioning a suspect.

Mr. Holder said there's already an exception for public safety, in which evidence is accepted if it was obtained while authorities were trying to head off immediate danger, such as asking a gunman where his gun is. The attorney general said he wants Congress to update that exception for the current fight against terrorists, so officers could ask a suspect if another attack is imminent or if other bombs have been planted.

The American Civil Liberties Union said that was a worrisome departure, and pointed to Mr. Holder's repeated testimony that reading Miranda rights hasn't hurt interrogations thus far.

"Even if the administration proposes broadening Miranda exceptions only in terrorism cases, the change is sure to bleed into non-terrorism cases, as there is no way for an arresting officer to know upfront whether or not an arrestee will be charged with terrorism-related crimes," said Laura W. Murphy, director of the ACLU's Washington legislative office.

i couldn't make it up :facepalm: :facepalm:
It is much more powerful to seek Truth for one's self.  Seeing and hearing that others seem to have found it can be a motivation.  With me, I was drawn because of much error and bad judgment on my part. Confronting one's own errors and bad judgment is a very life altering situation.  Confronting the errors and bad judgment of others is usually hypocrisy.


by someone older and wiser than I

Chester32141

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 642
Re: can holder really be that stupid?
« Reply #1 on: May 14, 2010, 08:28:35 AM »
I think the guy signing his paycheck has told him not to say anything negative about muslims ...  [popcorn]
« Last Edit: May 14, 2010, 04:54:33 PM by Chester32141 »
"The best argument against democracy is a 5 minute conversation with the average voter...... "

Photos
CBs Hawg Sauce


Monkeyleg

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 14,589
  • Tattaglia is a pimp.
    • http://www.gunshopfinder.com
Re: csn holder really be that stupid?
« Reply #2 on: May 14, 2010, 08:47:48 AM »
Quote
But Mr. Holder acknowledged to the committee that he hasn't read the law, and his criticisms were based on what he's seen on television or read in the newspapers about the law.

And the newspapers and TV are basing their stories about the law on what the administration is saying.

Is this a great country or what?  :facepalm:

kgbsquirrel

  • APS Photoshop God
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 5,466
  • Bill, slayer of threads.
Re: csn holder really be that stupid?
« Reply #3 on: May 14, 2010, 08:52:29 AM »
Quote from: OP
Can Holder really be that stupid?

Yes.

HankB

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 16,642
Re: csn holder really be that stupid?
« Reply #4 on: May 14, 2010, 08:59:22 AM »
The video makes Holder look worse than the story implies . . .

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HOQt_mP6Pgg

What a weasel . . .
Trump won in 2016. Democrats haven't been so offended since Republicans came along and freed their slaves.
Sometimes I wonder if the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on, or by imbeciles who really mean it. - Mark Twain
Government is a broker in pillage, and every election is a sort of advance auction in stolen goods. - H.L. Mencken
Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it. - Mark Twain

Tallpine

  • friends
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 23,172
  • Grumpy Old Grandpa
Re: csn holder really be that stupid?
« Reply #5 on: May 14, 2010, 10:22:44 AM »
Doesn't he like, you know - get paid to read laws ?  ;/

The idiots really are running the place  =(
Freedom is a heavy load, a great and strange burden for the spirit to undertake. It is not easy. It is not a gift given, but a choice made, and the choice may be a hard one. The road goes upward toward the light; but the laden traveller may never reach the end of it.  - Ursula Le Guin

Jocassee

  • Buster Scruggs Respecter
  • friends
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4,591
  • "First time?"
Re: csn holder really be that stupid?
« Reply #6 on: May 14, 2010, 10:59:52 AM »
Purely out of curiosity--can anyone remember a similar episode from the Bush years? I did a quick search of memory banks and came up blank, but I'm curious.
I shall not die alone, alone, but kin to all the powers,
As merry as the ancient sun and fighting like the flowers.

kgbsquirrel

  • APS Photoshop God
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 5,466
  • Bill, slayer of threads.
Re: csn holder really be that stupid?
« Reply #7 on: May 14, 2010, 11:17:49 AM »
Purely out of curiosity--can anyone remember a similar episode from the Bush years? I did a quick search of memory banks and came up blank, but I'm curious.

Just Rumsfeld being a power-freaking, micromanaging, moron. On the legal side, instead of the defense side, ummm, what about those lawyers who declared that torture was acceptable?

roo_ster

  • Kakistocracy--It's What's For Dinner.
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 21,225
  • Hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats
Re: csn holder really be that stupid?
« Reply #8 on: May 14, 2010, 11:20:53 AM »
Yes, he is that stupid, as were the multitude that railed against the AZ law without reading or understanding it.

And this is they guy who called us a nation of cowards for not engaging in a dialog about race.

...what about those lawyers who declared that torture was acceptable?

You might want to revise your statement as it is not accurate.  John Yoo's actual words on the issue might be a good place to start, since he was tagged with looking into the issue of "enhanced interrogation techniques."
Regards,

roo_ster

“Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.”
----G.K. Chesterton

kgbsquirrel

  • APS Photoshop God
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 5,466
  • Bill, slayer of threads.
Re: csn holder really be that stupid?
« Reply #9 on: May 14, 2010, 12:37:28 PM »
You might want to revise your statement as it is not accurate.  John Yoo's actual words on the issue might be a good place to start, since he was tagged with looking into the issue of "enhanced interrogation techniques."

Actually I was thinking of the Bybee Memo, though John Yoo's August 1st, 2002 letter to Alberto Gonzales and his comments to Professor Cassel do bring up some serious questions.

Specifically with the Bybee Memo however, in that lawyer's (Assistant Attorney General Jay S. Bybee) opinion, it's okay to hurt and humiliate people up to an arbitrary threshold, and only after that does it become criminal. By the opinion in this letter it would hypothetically be perfectly alright to, say, shock a prisoner of war with an electric prod every 5 minutes so long as it does not result in "serious physical injury such as death or organ failure" or a mental condition like post-traumatic stress disorder that persists for, again, an arbitrary amount of time after the event that inflicted it.

From Mister Bybee's own conclusion on the matter:

"Because the acts of inflicting torture are extreme, there is significant range of acts that though they might constitute cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment fail to rise to the level of torture.

Further, we conclude that under the circumstances of the current war against Al Qaeda and its allies, application of Section 2340A to interrogations undertaken pursuant to the President's Commander-in-Chief powers may be unconstitutional.* Finally, even if an interrogation method might violate Section 2340A, necessity or self-defense could provide justifications that would eliminate any criminal liability.
"

Bolding is mine.

*This statement asserts that the specific law prohibiting torture (Section 2340A) can not be applied to the President's orders as CIC because that would be "unconstitutional", or in layman's terms, that law can't stop the President from ordering an act that could be perceived as torture.

For those that wish to read the Bybee Memo in all it's abhorrent glory, here's a link to the PDF.
Memo from AAG Jay Bybee to AG Alberto Gonzalez

John Yoo's concurrent letter to AG Gonzalez covers more specifically the exemptions of prosecution by the ICC of any persons committing torture in the name of the United States by various means. These include "reservations" made by the United States upon signing the treaty proscribing the use of torture, by the potential acts of torture being targeted at specific individuals and not the population as a whole, and also by not bestowing upon the members of Al-Qaeda or the Taliban the legal status of Prisoner-of-War under the Geneva convention "because Al-Qaeda is a non-state terrorist organization that has not signed the Conventions."

John Yoo's letter to AG Alberto Gonzalez.


In closing I believe I will decline to revise my statement as I believe it to be absolutely accurate to the facts as I know them. If you have strong supporting evidence that repudiates my statement please post it and I will give it due consideration, I wont have it said that I can't admit when I'm wrong.  ;)
« Last Edit: May 14, 2010, 12:44:28 PM by kgbsquirrel »

longeyes

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 5,405
Re: csn holder really be that stupid?
« Reply #10 on: May 14, 2010, 12:58:46 PM »
He's smart enough to spell Wahhabism.
"Domari nolo."

Thug: What you lookin' at old man?
Walt Kowalski: Ever notice how you come across somebody once in a while you shouldn't have messed with? That's me.

Molon Labe.

roo_ster

  • Kakistocracy--It's What's For Dinner.
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 21,225
  • Hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats
Re: csn holder really be that stupid?
« Reply #11 on: May 14, 2010, 01:15:33 PM »
kgbs:

About the only person of significance in the US gov't on record as supporting torture is John effing McCain.  His position is/was such that Congress ought to specifically outlaw torture and list a bunch of particular techniques to fall under that term, but if things really got tight, he expected our men to break the law and torture the hell out of a suspect who could provide life-saving information.

I find that position risible, contemptible, and nausea-inducing.  Congress gets to preen about their high-mindedness, lecture others on their moral rectitude, and sic lawyer-critters on executive branch men & women who may cross JM's line...while expecting those same men to break the law and expose themselves to more risk if the *expletive deleted*it was really about to hit the fan. 

I can not think of a more self-serving, contemptible, and dishonest position to take on the matter, to include the "torture the hell outta all of them, early & often," position, which has the virtue of being honest & forthright in its bloodthirstiness.



On the topic of your verbiage, I think it very important to first understand the positions being taken by those involved.  We can bandy about particular definitions, nuances, implications, etc., but without first staking out what was said/written by whom, the rest of the conversation is worthless.

In this, your subsequent post makes my point for me.

I objected to this:
...what about those lawyers who declared that torture was acceptable?

...there is significant range of acts that though they might constitute cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment fail to rise to the level of torture.

These folks, by their reading of the law, were advocating neither torture nor its acceptability.  We can discuss particularities of interrogation techniques, their real intent  [tinfoil] ,interpretation of various laws, etc., but without first understanding their position, argument is against a ghost position or straw man. 

Their position is plain in that they do not advocate torture or the acceptability of torture.


Regards,

roo_ster

“Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.”
----G.K. Chesterton

PTK

  • friends
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4,318
Re: csn holder really be that stupid?
« Reply #12 on: May 14, 2010, 01:24:36 PM »
I see that you two are in agreement, just simply talking about different specific points. Read carefully over what each-other have said. ;)
"Only lucky people grow old." - Frederick L.
September 1915 - August 2008

"If you really do have cancer "this time", then this is your own fault. Like the little boy who cried wolf."

kgbsquirrel

  • APS Photoshop God
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 5,466
  • Bill, slayer of threads.
Re: csn holder really be that stupid?
« Reply #13 on: May 14, 2010, 01:37:01 PM »
About the only person of significance in the US gov't on record as supporting torture is John effing McCain.

Citation needed.  ;)


These folks, by their reading of the law, were advocating neither torture nor its acceptability.  We can discuss particularities of interrogation techniques, their real intent  [tinfoil] ,interpretation of various laws, etc., but without first understanding their position, argument is against a ghost position or straw man.  

Their position is plain in that they do not advocate torture or the acceptability of torture.

They advocated a definition of the legal term "torture" so as to allow the willful infliction of physical pain on a hapless captive and by their own words cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment. One can redefine a legal term all day long, but that will not abjure one of the reality or moral and ethical responsibilities and implications of the actions taken.

longeyes

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 5,405
Re: csn holder really be that stupid?
« Reply #14 on: May 14, 2010, 01:43:36 PM »
The real question is...

Who owns Holder?

And who owns this Administration?
"Domari nolo."

Thug: What you lookin' at old man?
Walt Kowalski: Ever notice how you come across somebody once in a while you shouldn't have messed with? That's me.

Molon Labe.

roo_ster

  • Kakistocracy--It's What's For Dinner.
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 21,225
  • Hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats
Re: csn holder really be that stupid?
« Reply #15 on: May 14, 2010, 02:21:58 PM »
Citation needed.  ;)

Here ya go:
...Those who argue the necessity of some abuses raise an important dilemma as their most compelling rationale: the ticking-time-bomb scenario. What do we do if we capture a terrorist who we have sound reasons to believe possesses specific knowledge of an imminent terrorist attack?

In such an urgent and rare instance, an interrogator might well try extreme measures to extract information that could save lives. Should he do so, and thereby save an American city or prevent another 9/11, authorities and the public would surely take this into account when judging his actions and recognize the extremely dire situation which he confronted...It is far better to embrace a standard that might be violated in extraordinary circumstances than to lower our standards to accommodate a remote contingency...

Yeah, I'm not exactly impressed with McCain's reasoning. 

Here's a (snippet of) a contemporaneous analysis by Andy McCarthy that slaps McCain's logic and assumptions like a red-headed stepchild:
...the most telling part of his essay is his wholly dissatisfying answer to the so-called ticking-time-bomb scenario. Yes, he admits, "if we capture a terrorist who we have sound reasons to believe possesses specific knowledge of an imminent terrorist attack ... an interrogator might well try extreme measures to extract information that could save lives."

But why, Senator? You just got done telling us such information would be inherently unreliable — aside from its method of extraction somehow causing our own soldiers to be tortured by the same countries that foreswore such abuse when they solemnly signed the Geneva Conventions. Why is it that we "might well" try some rough stuff?

Naturally, we might well do it because it might well work, with the result that we might well be spared thousands of slaughtered innocents.

So what's McCain's answer to the ticking-bomb dilemma? It is: Let's make such "extreme measures" illegal, but in the full expectation that the law would be broken with impunity. As he puts it: "Should [an interrogator engage in coercion,] and thereby save an American city or prevent another 9/11, authorities and the public would surely take this into account when judging his actions and recognize the extremely dire situation which he confronted." They would opt, in other words, not to prosecute.

This is the same rabbit Yale Law School Dean Harold Koh pulled out of his hat when he couldn't answer the ticking-bomb problem at Attorney General Alberto Gonzales's confirmation hearings. (See here.) It is sleight-of-hand — ducking the hard question in a way that is sure to cause more, rather than less, torture.

On one hand, it conveys the nod-and-a-wink message that the law is not serious: If the circumstances seem grim enough, go ahead and abuse the captive and we're likely to look the other way. It announces that the president, because he wields ultimate prosecutorial authority, is effectively above the law — precisely the notion Congress is supposed to be defeating when it enacts behavioral standards for executive-branch agencies.

On the other hand, it is craven.
It leaves the decision whether to violate a foolish proscription that cannot be justified in a crisis to the judgment of a lowly, young interrogator. "Our lives are in your hands, son, so do what you think is right — and, if things work out well, maybe, just maybe, we'll let you slide" — at least if you're lucky enough to have your actions come to light on that rare day when we're feeling feisty enough to face down Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, the ACLU, the New York Times and that pesky Arab Street.

Most of all, though, McCain's answer is perverse. It would be reprehensible to convert into an illegality something any responsible, good-faith government official would do — viz., try to coerce information from a morally guilty person in a real emergency with thousands of lives on the line. However noble the driving impulse, it would be a law designed to protect the physical comfort of a morally culpable person at the expense of the lives of countless innocent people whose deaths might be avoidable. That's not what we have a government for.
Regards,

roo_ster

“Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.”
----G.K. Chesterton

roo_ster

  • Kakistocracy--It's What's For Dinner.
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 21,225
  • Hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats
Re: csn holder really be that stupid?
« Reply #16 on: May 14, 2010, 02:33:39 PM »
They advocated a definition of the legal term "torture" so as to allow the willful infliction of physical pain on a hapless captive and by their own words cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment. One can redefine a legal term all day long, but that will not abjure one of the reality or moral and ethical responsibilities and implications of the actions taken.

Here's a little on how they got where they did.

Short answer: They implemented the will of Congress as of 2002, relying most heavily on the Senate as expressed when it debated the U.N. Convention Against Torture in 1994.

I think their greatest error was in not being able to divine the will of certain members of Congress in 2004-2006 and adjusting their 2002 memos accordingly.

While the definition of torture in the August 2002 memo is narrow, that was Congress' choice. When the Senate approved the U.N. Convention Against Torture in 1994, it stated its understanding of torture as an act "specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering.'' The Senate defined mental pain and suffering as "prolonged mental harm'' caused by threats of severe physical harm or death to a detainee or third person, the administration of mind-altering drugs or other procedures "calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality.'' Congress adopted this definition in a 1994 law criminalizing torture committed abroad.

The Senate also made clear that it believed the treaty's requirement that nations undertake to prevent "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment'' was too vague. The Senate declared its understanding that the United States would follow only the Constitution's prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment.

The Senate and Congress' decisions provided the basis for the Justice Department's definition of torture:

"Physical pain amounting to torture must be equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death. For purely mental pain or suffering to amount to torture (under U.S. law), it must result in significant psychological harm of significant duration, e.g., lasting for months or even years. . . . We conclude that the statute, taken as a whole, makes plain that it prohibits only extreme acts.''

Under this definition, interrogation methods that go beyond polite questioning but fall short of torture could include shouted questions, reduced sleep, stress positions (like standing for long periods of time), and isolation from other prisoners. The purpose of these techniques is not to inflict pain or harm, but simply to disorient.

On Thursday, the Justice Department responded to criticism from the summer, when the opinion leaked to the press. The department issued a new memo that superseded the August 2002 memo. Among other things, the new memo withdrew the statement that only pain equivalent to such harm as serious physical injury or organ failure constitutes torture and said, instead, that torture may consist of acts that fall short of provoking excruciating and agonizing pain.

Although some have called this a repudiation, the Justice Department's new opinion still generally relies on Congress' restrictive reasoning on what constitutes torture. Among other things, it reiterates that there is a difference between "cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment'' and torture – a distinction that many critics of the administration have ignored or misunderstood.

For example, according to press reports, the International Committee for the Red Cross has charged that interrogations at Guantánamo Bay, which included solitary confinement and exposing prisoners to temperature extremes and loud music, were "tantamount to torture.'' This expands torture beyond the United States' understanding when it ratified the U.N. Convention Against Torture and enacted the 1994 statute. Not only does the very text of the convention recognize the difference between cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment and torture, but the United States clearly chose to criminalize only torture.

Regards,

roo_ster

“Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.”
----G.K. Chesterton

roo_ster

  • Kakistocracy--It's What's For Dinner.
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 21,225
  • Hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats
Re: csn holder really be that stupid?
« Reply #17 on: May 14, 2010, 02:37:19 PM »
I see that you two are in agreement, just simply talking about different specific points. Read carefully over what each-other have said. ;)

Ayup.

I have stuck, thus far, 100% to the text and not delved into sub-text.
Regards,

roo_ster

“Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.”
----G.K. Chesterton

kgbsquirrel

  • APS Photoshop God
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 5,466
  • Bill, slayer of threads.
Re: csn holder really be that stupid?
« Reply #18 on: May 14, 2010, 03:18:21 PM »
Citation.

Yeah, my completely unqualified assessment is that McCain's view on interrogation methods in the defense of the country are a probably a bit "altered" due to his time in the Hanoi Hilton, not to say they are in any way justified.


I think their greatest error was in not being able to divine the will of certain members of Congress in 2004-2006 and adjusting their 2002 memos accordingly.

I would disagree. I think their greatest error was in sacrificing the virtue of an absolute refusal to lower our nation to physical, mental and emotional abuse to achieve our desired ends. They did this by finding a way through legal maneuvering and hair splitting to allow our people to do something under the guise of legitimacy that any reasonable person would perceive as torture and thus a foul and illicit thing. You stated that these two were not advocating anything, but simply interpreting the law. If it was not their responsibility to state that we shouldn't try to find a loophole in order to do these things, then who's is it? Who is the person designated to stand up and say no? It would seem that we have allowed our body politic to become divorced of the responsibility of position.

To borrow a discordant metaphor, "what is in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet." Legal or not, such actions, or in this case to come to such a legal opinion, is repugnant to every principle on which this nation is founded and I can not excuse someone who would try to interpret the law so as to allow it. Though those we might call the prefects of our Union may have lost their way, I still would like to believe that we as a nation of these United States are far better than this.


At this point I should note that unless you can show proof that these two explicitly spoke against intentionally causing harm to prisoners in order to obtain intelligence, however ephemeral the resultant injury may be, I am not likely to change in my position.

roo_ster

  • Kakistocracy--It's What's For Dinner.
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 21,225
  • Hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats
Re: csn holder really be that stupid?
« Reply #19 on: May 14, 2010, 04:22:02 PM »
kgbs:

My original point was, and continues to be, a point of fact.  This does not require delving into motivations or whatnot.  I am confident fact supports my contention and that your initial reply buttressed the point of fact.  No further proof necessary.

We can discuss motivations, definitions, practices, how sincere the authors were, legal ethics, ethics for the rest of us, the will of Congress in 1994/2002/2006, and such, but that would be a different discussion.  You have raised a number of interesting points along these lines.
Regards,

roo_ster

“Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.”
----G.K. Chesterton

longeyes

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 5,405
Re: csn holder really be that stupid?
« Reply #20 on: May 15, 2010, 09:27:11 AM »
The thread asked whether AG Holder can really be so stupid as to wonder aloud if radical Islam is behind the terror attacks.  Well, until Times Square I was under the impression that the terms "jihad," "radical Islam," and "terrorism" were on the verboten list of NewSpeak.  The thread's question is rhetorical.  There is no stupidity at work here, just radical contempt and schoolyard-level bluffing and bullying carried out in expensive suits.

Holder's antic performance this last week raises grave questions about not just him but about our permissive and enabling Congress and, not least, about the American people themselves.  His remarks not only profane his office and his administration, they rend and insult the intelligence of every American citizen, voter, and taxpayer.  We cannot tolerate an administration that disrespects everything essential about America and that behaves like an open and self-satisfied clown show.  Where are the demands that Holder resign???
"Domari nolo."

Thug: What you lookin' at old man?
Walt Kowalski: Ever notice how you come across somebody once in a while you shouldn't have messed with? That's me.

Molon Labe.