Why has no one been fired?

[Yonivore]

Sure there was. The torture that the military currently calls, well, torture.

If conducted by soldiers subject to the UCMJ, maybe. But, again, that is only true if the military's definition of torture includes the definition of the enhanced interrogation technique known as "waterboarding."

Sure.

Get started.

Then we can continue with whoever authorized the secret NSA wiretaps,

Not illegal either. But the NYTimes duo that exposed it are criminals.

...the snitch that outed a CIA agent, etc.

If, in fact, Valerie Plame enjoyed protection of the specific law cited, which I don't think is a slam dunk, Richard Armitage should be prosecuted.

[ElNono]

If conducted by soldiers subject to the UCMJ, maybe.

Waterboarding was torture before the US military "defined" it.
Waterboarding is still torture now under whatever the definition was then.

Not illegal either. But the NYTimes duo that exposed it are criminals.

Illegal under FISA law, passed right after Nixon to stop those abuses. That's the reason that FISA law had to be modified, and immunity granted to telecoms.

The NYTimes defended your rights. You should be thankful. And the ers that authorized it prosecuted.

If

Indict them. Let's see what the court finds out. That's why we have a justice system in place, so idiots like you or Wild Cobra don't have to go "interpreting" the law and talking out of their asses.

[ElNono]

Plenty to prosecute in both administrations. Heck, I'm not even asking to skip a fair trial.

No "state secrets" bull , and just a fair trial, with appeals and the whole nine yards.

[Yonivore]

Waterboarding was torture before the US military "defined" it.
Waterboarding is still torture now under whatever the definition was then.

Where is the exact technique, employed by the intelligence services on the four detainees identified, defined as torture. Just cite the law that says, waterboarding, as defined and practiced by the Bush administration on four detainees, is torture or even illegal? , I'd settle for a court finding that the Justice Departments' two reviews of the practice, in 2002 or 2004, finding them within the law and not cons uting torture, are wrong.

Illegal under FISA law, passed right after Nixon to stop those abuses. That's the reason that FISA law had to be modified, and immunity granted to telecoms.

The NYTimes defended your rights. You should be thankful. And the ers that authorized it prosecuted.

It's not worth going through the entire argument, all over again, but the administration's defense is that they only authorized surveillance of communications traffic originating outside the U.S. which wasn't subject to FISA and that any purely domestic interceptions were unintentional and not authorized by the President's executive order.

No, I don't think any laws were broken, except by the New York Times.

Indict them. Let's see what the court finds out. That's why we have a justice system in place, so idiots like you or Wild Cobra don't have to go "interpreting" the law and talking out of their asses.

Indict them? I believe Richard Armitage is the only person implicated in the case.

[LnGrrrR]

, why wasn't he fired? Instead, they promoted him to an inaccessible position in Washington.

Because that's what happens if you're a political elite today. , look at Abu Gonzalez. That guy had no clue what was going on in his office per his testimony, and nothing happened to him. They put a private in jail for Abu Ghraib, but AFAIK, nobody in charge lost rank.

They'll find some small-time scapegoat to take the heat, like they always do.

[Yonivore]

They'll find some small-time scapegoat to take the heat, like they always do.

The two that were promoted and whisked away to Washington were small-time in comparison to the level suggested in your unrelated rant about Abu Ghraib which, by the way, did result in a General and Colonel being relieved of their commands and some military punishment.

[ElNono]

Where is the exact technique, employed by the intelligence services on the four detainees identified, defined as torture.
Just cite the law that says, waterboarding, as defined and practiced by the Bush administration on four detainees, is torture or even illegal?

Already did. Both US Code and Military law. You can use the search function.

, I'd settle for a court finding that the Justice Departments' two reviews of the practice, in 2002 or 2004, finding them within the law and not cons uting torture, are wrong.

That it wasn't tried doesn't make it legal. That would be a monumentally re ed argument. It would also answer the question that started this thread. Since nobody was tried, it's all legal, right? Why are you outraged?

It's not worth going through the entire argument, all over again

Of course there's no argument. There would be no need for retroactive immunity if no crime was committed. The granted immunity speaks for itself.

No, I don't think any laws were broken, except by the New York Times.

Indict them? I believe Richard Armitage is the only person implicated in the case.

What you think is, frankly, irrelevant. If what I wanted was your opinion, nobody would need to be indicted. Let the professionals do their job, and see what they can find, while you keep acting like a 6 year old.

[ElNono]

Oh, and while we're indicting, lets also add the fellas at MMS during the last administration.

[LnGrrrR]

The two that were promoted and whisked away to Washington were small-time in comparison to the level suggested in your unrelated rant about Abu Ghraib which, by the way, did result in a General and Colonel being relieved of their commands and some military punishment.

Relieved of command, big whoop. The private got jail time. What did the Colonel get?

http://www.military.com/NewContent/0...05_Abu,00.html

Non-judicial punishment and an $8,000 fine, which according to this chart, is about a month's pay. http://www.militaryfactory.com/2005_..._pay_scale.asp

That's nothing. I've seen airmen who get DUIs that get worse than that.

At least the General got reduced a rank.

Last week, Brig. Gen. Janis Karpinski was reduced to the rank of colonel and forced to relinquish command of the 800th Military Police Brigade, part of the Army Reserve.

Still, no jail time for either, no court-martial.

And it's not unrelated. Look at anyone in a position of power in the executive/political levels. Look at the bankers who control the financial strings. They get free money, no strings attached, no punishments. It's the system.

[ElNono]

And it's not unrelated. Look at anyone in a position of power in the executive/political levels. Look at the bankers who control the financial strings. They get free money, no strings attached, no punishments. It's the system.

Probably for the same reason they've stonewalled investigations in the past: politics.

[Yonivore]

Already did. Both US Code and Military law. You can use the search function.

Administration made the determination their technique did not violate the U.S. Cod and it wasn't subject to the UCMJ. Don't need to search unless you have a court case that says otherwise.

That it wasn't tried doesn't make it legal. That would be a monumentally re ed argument. It would also answer the question that started this thread. Since nobody was tried, it's all legal, right? Why are you outraged?

Certainly doesn't support your argument is was illegal, either. Maybe it wasn't tried because all the rhetoric, claiming it was, was just that - rhetoric.

Of course there's no argument. There would be no need for retroactive immunity if no crime was committed. The granted immunity speaks for itself.

I don't jump to that conclusion. If I saw a bunch of rabid dogs (liberals) at the gate wanting a piece of me just for helping the government conduct surveillance -- I'd ask for immunity, as well. At the time, the whole NSA program was being declared a travesty and illegal. However, if conducted pursuant to the President's executive order, it was perfectly legal.

The problem seems to be when the telecommunications companies inadvertently captured purely domestic communications. They claim is was accidental, the administration claims it wasn't authorized in the executive order. Granting immunity seems logical to me.

What you think is, frankly, irrelevant. If what I wanted was your opinion, nobody would need to be indicted. Let the professionals do their job, and see what they can find, while you keep acting like a 6 year old.

Apparently, I'm not the only person who thinks that way. Now, get someone to tuck you into bed and read you a story.

[Yonivore]

Meanwhile, back on topic...

Related...

‘Every Single One’ Fallout: Justice Dept. in Turmoil From PJMedia Series

Following the Justice Department’s long-delayed compliance with a Freedom of Information Act request, PJMedia recently published content from the resumes of each career attorney hired to the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division under Attorney General Eric Holder. The articles were written by two former Civil Rights Division attorneys — J. Christian Adams and Hans von Spakovsky — and PJMedia Editor Richard Pollock.

The Justice Department is forbidden by federal law from hiring employees based on political affiliation. Yet the resumes revealed the following ideological breakdown among the new hires:

Leftist lawyers: 113

Moderate, non-ideological, or conservative lawyers: 0.

Hmmm....how does that happen if you follow the law and don't consider political affiliation?

Part 12 of a 12 part (and counting) series on Justice Department scandals.

The legacy media appears uninterested.

[ElNono]

Administration made the determination their technique did not violate the U.S. Cod and it wasn't subject to the UCMJ.

Administration subsequently made the determination that their technique qualified as torture.

Certainly doesn't support your argument is was illegal, either.

My argument is supported by the current reality. Ultimately my argument is that the responsible people stand on trial and let the people in charge of administering justice to do their job.

Why do you oppose justice?

I don't jump to that conclusion.

You already jumped to a conclusion, idiot.

The problem seems to be when the telecommunications companies inadvertently

There was nothing inadvertent about NSA equipment installed at telcos. Obviously, once again, you're not familiar with that you're talking about.
Ultimately, you don't have the knowledge or authority to determine what was legal or not.

Apparently, I'm not the only person who thinks that way.

Apparently, I wasn't clear the first time. What you think is irrelevant. I didn't ask for your opinion. You asked what should they be tried for, and I provided a list.

Surprised you didn't play ankle-biter with excuses for MMS... yet.

[Wild Cobra]

Why is it that when relevant questions to current events are asked to be discussed, you lib s try to throw the discussion off with unrelated tangents of the past?

Shame on you.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Why is it that when relevant questions to current events are asked to be discussed, you lib s try to throw the discussion off with unrelated tangents of the past?

Shame on you.

it's because you guys are hypocites

[LnGrrrR]

Why is it that when relevant questions to current events are asked to be discussed, you lib s try to throw the discussion off with unrelated tangents of the past?

Shame on you.

Could you be more specific?

[LnGrrrR]

Hmmm....how does that happen if you follow the law and don't consider political affiliation?

Part 12 of a 12 part (and counting) series on Justice Department scandals.

The legacy media appears uninterested.

For one, lol powerline and pajamasmedia. I'm pretty sure their idea of left-leaning is everyone that doesn't agree with them on every issue.

Second, ideological viewpoints are different from political affiliation. He's not allowed to say, "You're a Republican so I'm not hiring you" but he can say, "I don't think you're right for this job."

[Wild Cobra]

Could you be more specific?

No. I'm intentionally non specific to make people think.

[ElNono]

No. I'm intentionally non specific to make people think.

You make people speculate, not think when you bring no specifics.

smh

[boutons_deux]

More evidence that the plutocracy and bureaucracy is not held accountable for malfeasance and even outright crimes by their organizations.

Outsize Severance Continues for Executives, Even After Failed Tenures

[IMG]http://199.239.138.183/h/Ucndih5oE6gOFUJ7vdXy02Y8agrylPtMTKAtA6tgZPIj6z8drL T0U2XihV4isB0TLw5DDOwoae6z-CXtlRiHHe-d--Lkb3qxtrn7sivJ3L5tEJsuL5aSA2YSNLP4RyARJvZpn3DesPFT hS0nDivLEZxdC_U*.cr[/IMG]

The golden goodbye has not gone away.

Just last week, Léo Apotheker was shown the door after a tumultuous 11-month run atop Hewlett-Packard. His reward? $13.2 million in cash and stock severance, in addition to a sign-on package worth about $10 million, according to a corporate filing on Thursday.

At the end of August, Robert P. Kelly was handed severance worth $17.2 million in cash and stock when he was ousted as chief executive of Bank of New York Mellon after clashing with board members and senior managers.

A few days later, Carol A. Bartz took home nearly $10 million from Yahoo after being fired from the troubled search giant.

A hallmark of the gilded era of just a few short years ago, the eye-popping severance package continues to thrive in spite of the measures put in place in the wake of the financial crisis to crack down on excessive pay.

Critics have long complained about outsize compensation packages that dwarf ordinary workers' paychecks, but they voice particular ire over pay-for-failure.

Much of Wall Street and corporate America has shifted a bigger portion of pay into longer-term stock awards and established policies to claw back bonuses.

And while fuller disclosure of exit packages several years ago has helped ratchet down the size of the biggest severance deals, efforts by shareholders and regulators to further restrict payouts have had less success.

"We repeatedly see companies' assets go out the door to reward failure," said Scott Zdrazil, the director of corporate governance for Amalgamated Bank's $11 billion Longview Fund, a labor-affiliated investment fund that sought to tighten the restrictions on severance plans at three oil companies last year.

"Investors are frustrated that boards haven't prevented such windfalls."

http://mobile.nytimes.com/article?a=848218&f=19

Just another reason why a CEO recruits friends (well-paid for their board "work") to his board.

But we never hear right-wingers here trashing rip-off pay to corporate execs, only about the joyous firing of teachers, fireman, police, union-busting, etc.

[Yonivore]

ATF Death Watch 89: 40 Fast and Furious Firearms “Found” in Dallas
Somebody needs to go to jail.

[boutons_deux]

6000+ dead US military in Repug-phony, Repug-botched Iraq/Afgha wars.

Somebody need to go to jail.

[Yonivore]

Did our esteemed Attorney General lie to Congress?

ATF Fast and Furious: New do ents show Attorney General Eric Holder was briefed in July 2010

On May 3, 2011, Holder told a Judiciary Committee hearing, "I'm not sure of the exact date, but I probably heard about Fast and Furious for the first time over the last few weeks."

Unless "few" = 40 (10 months), I'm thinking he was being less than forthcoming in his testimony.



Again, what was the legitimate law enforcement purpose of "Fast & Furious'" gunwalker scheme?

[LnGrrrR]

Yoni, could you boil down this case for me?

[Yonivore]

Yoni, could you boil down this case for me?

The administration needs to answer why they purchased and armed narco-terrorists and then allowed them to walk the guns across the border into Mexico and elsewhere.

By the way, "Fast and Furious" is only one of two named operations (the other being "Wide Receiver" operated out of New Mexico), and possibly other unnamed operations (out of Dallas and Houston and Florida) all designed to do the same as "Fast and Furious;" allow guns to walk into criminal hands and across international borders.