home

Wednesday Afternoon Open Thread

By Jeralyn, Section Blog Related
Posted on Wed May 27, 2009 at 01:21:06 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Looks like we're all busy at work today. Here's some stuff to think about:

In the be careful what you wish for department, Bernie Kerik has been indicted in Washington for lying to the White House on his 2004 application for Homeland Security Chief. Similar charges were part of his New York indictment, but he had successfully moved to dismiss them.

In December, Kerik pleaded not guilty to another indictment in New York levying similar charges against him, but those charges were dismissed because the incident allegedly happened in Washington, officials said.

Now he faces trial on two indictments in separate districts.

This is an open thread, all topics welcome.

< Colo. To Join States Using Data-Mining Program on Criminal Suspects | White Man's Burden >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Wednesday Afternoon Open Thread | 75 comments (75 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Among those apparently changing their position (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by andgarden on Wed May 27, 2009 at 01:32:43 PM EST
    on marriage equality in the last few years is one Ted Olson. Some are cautiously optomistic about this development, while others are skeptical.

    I think it comes down to when Justice Kennedy eats for breakfast when he has to consider the issue.

    When is marriage equality (none / 0) (#3)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed May 27, 2009 at 01:57:31 PM EST
    coming before the SC?  I think marriage laws are one of those things that are pretty solidly the province of the individual states.  DOMA maybe could be challenged, but even if the SC overturns that, it won't have much of an immediate effect.

    I think this is an issue that has to be campaigned for and educated for very patiently, state by state.

    In the meantime, if you want to get married, move to New England!  Or at least get married here.  We love the business!

    Parent

    Disagree entirely (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by andgarden on Wed May 27, 2009 at 03:09:45 PM EST
    The issue is eventually going to be solved at the federal level, as Loving was wrt interracial marriage.

    Parent
    yes and at the same time... sorta (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by CST on Wed May 27, 2009 at 03:17:20 PM EST
    The key word in there is eventually.  Interracial marriage didn't go to the supreme court until most states had already legalized it.  I see the same thing happening here.  So for a while, it will be a state by state thing.  But eventually, I think you are right, it will be a supreme court decision to get the last stragglers in line.  Whether that happens in 10 yrs, 20 yrs, or 50 yrs I don't know.  I'm (unfortunately) willing to bet it's not 5 though.

    Parent
    Justice delayed. . . (none / 0) (#28)
    by andgarden on Wed May 27, 2009 at 03:32:51 PM EST


    Parent
    Not saying it's right (none / 0) (#30)
    by CST on Wed May 27, 2009 at 03:41:58 PM EST
    Just saying that it's probably how it's gonna go down.

    Parent
    I could imagine it being sped up (none / 0) (#32)
    by andgarden on Wed May 27, 2009 at 03:43:56 PM EST
    but as with most things at that level, it mostly rests on Justice Kennedy's feelings.

    Parent
    Nobody here would disagree (none / 0) (#31)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed May 27, 2009 at 03:42:22 PM EST
    with you that it's justice delayed.  Of course it is.

    Parent
    sorry (none / 0) (#24)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed May 27, 2009 at 03:14:33 PM EST
    didnt see this when I posted it below.  I agree with the optimists.  having Ted Olson on our side simply can not be a bad thing.


    Parent
    To the degree Justice Kennedy can think (none / 0) (#27)
    by andgarden on Wed May 27, 2009 at 03:29:33 PM EST
    "even Ted Olson" and vote the right way, yes. The only concern is that he has an ulterior motive to try and get a result quickly and in the wrong direction. I would not put that past the right.

    Parent
    I think Boies (none / 0) (#37)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed May 27, 2009 at 03:53:19 PM EST
    is to smart to be involved in that.

    Parent
    Boies's involvement (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by andgarden on Wed May 27, 2009 at 03:57:14 PM EST
    makes me hopeful.

    Parent
    Don't think (none / 0) (#29)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed May 27, 2009 at 03:40:16 PM EST
    this is a consummation devoutly to be wished, as the saying goes.  This is and will be for a very long time a very different Court than the one that decided Loving.  The end result will be the same, it will have to be done state by state, IMHO.

    Parent
    And then there's this: (none / 0) (#51)
    by sj on Wed May 27, 2009 at 05:50:42 PM EST
    Gay US Diplomats To Receive Equal Benefits

    These are the sorts of benefits that a recognized marriage has.  And it also kind of highlights why going state by state is problematic.  Because the rights bestowed by virtue of a recognized marriage have to carry forward beyond state lines.

    But now that makes me curious.  This decision says that the marriages that were made before the ban are still valid.  I still don't get how that translates if the couple should move to another state.

    But I can't believe this story came out on the 23rd and I'm just seeing it.  

    Parent

    It's interesting how they've done this (none / 0) (#52)
    by nycstray on Wed May 27, 2009 at 06:06:47 PM EST
    in the work place married gays can have benefits for their spouse, but the gay person at the next desk can't for their partner?

    I think the valid marriages would hold up in states that recognize them. NYS recognizes gay marriage, so if the CASC has said the marriages are valid, there shouldn't be a problem here, right? Basically, those marriages have been grandfathered in.

    Parent

    Saw that (none / 0) (#5)
    by jbindc on Wed May 27, 2009 at 02:00:20 PM EST
    His response to Byron York:

    "I personally think it is time that we as a nation get past distinguishing people on the basis of sexual orientation, and that a grave injustice is being done to people by making these distinctions," Olson told me Tuesday night.  "I thought their cause was just."

    I asked Olson about the objections of conservatives who will argue that he is asking a court to overturn the legitimately-expressed will of the people of California.  "It is our position in this case that Proposition 8, as upheld by the California Supreme Court, denies federal constitutional rights under the equal protection and due process clauses of the constitution," Olson said. "The constitution protects individuals' basic rights that cannot be taken away by a vote.  If the people of California had voted to ban interracial marriage, it would have been the responsibility of the courts to say that they cannot do that under the constitution.  We believe that denying individuals in this category the right to lasting, loving relationships through marriage is a denial to them, on an impermissible basis, of the rights that the rest of us enjoy...I also personally believe that it is wrong for us to continue to deny rights to individuals on the basis of their sexual orientation."



    Parent
    Olson didn't do this 180 (none / 0) (#33)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed May 27, 2009 at 03:44:52 PM EST
    in the abstract.  He must have a family member or cloes friend.  I've never, ever, in all these years heard him show that level of empathy and compassion for anybody other than himself.  He's discovered he hass a personal stake in this somewhere along the line.

    Parent
    Gibbs on Sotomayor (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by ruffian on Wed May 27, 2009 at 01:53:57 PM EST
    Heard this in the car at lunch, and thought it was great. Gibbs, speaking about the people criticizing Sotomayor's intellect (maybe not verbatim, but close:

    I don't know where they graduated in their class at Princeton, but I'd be willing to bet it wasn't 2nd.

    Great line!

    Gibbs on the California Supreme Court (none / 0) (#10)
    by KeysDan on Wed May 27, 2009 at 02:11:02 PM EST
    marriage equity ruling:   No comment

    Parent
    Well, one good line does not a hero make (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by ruffian on Wed May 27, 2009 at 02:32:54 PM EST


    Parent
    No, but James Carville gave a great (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Inspector Gadget on Wed May 27, 2009 at 02:39:39 PM EST
    line this morning on GMA about Sotomayer (his opposing commenter was none other than Ann Coulter).

    He said he thought Sonia had graduated summa cum laude, which was a far cry better than his graduating thank the laude.

    Ann Coulter's comment doesn't even deserve repeating.


    Parent

    That's another good one (none / 0) (#20)
    by ruffian on Wed May 27, 2009 at 02:52:25 PM EST
    Dare I hope we have coordinated talking poins among the Dems? thank the laude indeed!

    Parent
    Protests in the works when Pres. Obama (none / 0) (#22)
    by oculus on Wed May 27, 2009 at 02:58:33 PM EST
    appears in CA soon.  Meanwhile, the list of local public entities siding with the petitioners on the Prop. 8 briefs is quite lengthy.  Obama should pay more attention.

    Parent
    I think (1.00 / 0) (#42)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed May 27, 2009 at 04:16:19 PM EST
    that it would be far more productive and coherent to talk about what Sotomayer has done, why, exactly as a US Supreme Court Justice she would uphold progressive ideals, then to shout down people who call her so many euphemisms for stupid.  Those people are idiots, we've established that, maybe now establish WHY they are idiots.

    I'm starting to think the protesting is just a good way to mask the fact that she really may or may not be that progressive on choice, on gay issues, on the death penalty.  We simply don't know.

    So, I hope some people on this blog switch to talking about, showing proof about, how she's going to be a good progressive justice, not how she simply meets the minimum standard.  Face it, there are other judges with true progressive history in terms of abortion issues, gay issues, death penalty issues, who would be just as good at the job as she would be.

    I've been called a cultist because I never got over the sh*t that was pulled against women as human beings in the name of overcoming Hillary Clinton and electing Barack Obama.  Frankly sympathies really don't go out too much when the same people who called me a cultist are up in arms about what they're doing to Sotomayer.  It's just another case where people try their hardest to convince us all that racism is so much worse than sexism in this country.

    I'm with you on the question of (none / 0) (#48)
    by MyLeftMind on Wed May 27, 2009 at 05:18:54 PM EST
    whether or not Sotomayor's liberal enough. I'll be really disappointed if she votes against gay rights or some other key issue because of her religion.

    But I think you should try to get over the sexism in the primaries, not because it should be forgotten or ignored, but simply because a whole heck of a lot of feminists were Obama supporters. I think you've let a few sexist jerks affect your opinion of Obama and those who voted for him. Those in the media and on blogs who resorted to sexism are not in any way representative of the millions of Obama supporters who agree with you on most of your/our core beliefs, but in the end, simply didn't trust Clinton enough.


    Parent

    While I agree that it might not be best (none / 0) (#53)
    by tigercourse on Wed May 27, 2009 at 06:22:10 PM EST
    to hold onto all the anger of the primary, it's important to remember that women kept getting screwed over even after the election. You only have to look at the makeup of Obama's cabinet (74% male) to see that sexism is still a big issue.

    Parent
    Clearly, sexism still has a death grip (none / 0) (#56)
    by MyLeftMind on Wed May 27, 2009 at 06:28:49 PM EST
    around our necks and isn't going to stop dragging us down any time soon. However, separating sexist Obama supporters from the millions of feminists and/or non-sexist voters who supported him puts the anger where it should be directed - at specific individuals who used sexism to destroy a valid Democratic candidate.


    Parent
    I think those millions of feminist or non (none / 0) (#59)
    by tigercourse on Wed May 27, 2009 at 06:51:18 PM EST
    sexist Obama supporters are doing themselves a disservice by basically ignoring the sexism that surrounded Obama and to a certain degree still does. I kind of feel sorry for a large number of female Obama supporters who are going to turn around in 2016 and ask where the female candidate for the Democratic nomination is. They are going to be in for a nasty surprise.

    Parent
    I beg to differ. (none / 0) (#67)
    by MyLeftMind on Thu May 28, 2009 at 02:47:39 AM EST
    Recognizing the difference between non-sexist Obama supporters and the sexist jerks who revealed themselves on blogs and in the media is NOT ignoring the sexism we experienced in the primary. It's simply not labeling all Obama supporters as sexist. Doing so would not only be foolish, but is contrary to a healthy and sensible response to society's sexism.

    I don't think distrust of Clinton means we can't ever have another female presidential candidate. That's just silly. Feel sorry all you want, but the reality is that many feminists chose Obama over Hillary because they believed doing so would further our Democratic progressive agenda.


    Parent

    Where do you get the (3.50 / 2) (#73)
    by Inspector Gadget on Thu May 28, 2009 at 12:05:35 PM EST
    "distrust of Clinton" theme you keep using? Good grief. She won the primaries, and there's an ongoing question about how many of the caucuses she actually won, as well.

    Just because you decided to side elsewhere using trust as the basis, does not mean your reasoning is in harmony with the majority of people who stood with Obama.

    Parent

    The other Clinton n/t (none / 0) (#74)
    by MyLeftMind on Thu May 28, 2009 at 02:50:47 PM EST


    Parent
    Meh (none / 0) (#55)
    by waldenpond on Wed May 27, 2009 at 06:27:37 PM EST
    Past discussion for me at this point.  She's in and no way to vote her out.  Obama gets who he wants... he isn't progressive so it's unlikely his picks will be.

    Parent
    We can always dream (none / 0) (#58)
    by MyLeftMind on Wed May 27, 2009 at 06:34:32 PM EST
    Maybe she's a stealth leftie who's been biding her time just waiting for her chance to stand up for women's reproductive choice and gay rights.

    Dreamin'...

    Parent

    Sure, she is (none / 0) (#62)
    by dk on Wed May 27, 2009 at 07:34:34 PM EST
    a foregone conclusion at this point.  But shouldn't we at least all want to get informed on what she believes?  Isn't an informed society a better society?

    Parent
    Unknown (none / 0) (#63)
    by waldenpond on Wed May 27, 2009 at 07:55:11 PM EST
    I have watched the reports and done a quicky read at wiki (sigh) and with everyone else will wait to see if she holds to her current pro-business, wishy-washy position of abortion or she 'finds her voice' and changes in some way.

    Parent
    Source, please, for: (none / 0) (#64)
    by oculus on Wed May 27, 2009 at 07:58:20 PM EST
    wishy-washy position of abortion


    Parent
    Agree re this: (none / 0) (#57)
    by oculus on Wed May 27, 2009 at 06:31:28 PM EST
    she really may or may not be that progressive on choice, on gay issues, on the death penalty.  We simply don't know.

    But I don't see President Obama as progressive on choice, gay issues, and/or the death penalty either.

    Parent

    I really can't imagine Obama or any (none / 0) (#60)
    by tigercourse on Wed May 27, 2009 at 06:52:52 PM EST
    Democrat picking a nominee who isn't strong on choice. It just seems extremely unlikely.

    Parent
    Obama is looking for compromise (4.00 / 1) (#61)
    by oculus on Wed May 27, 2009 at 06:55:30 PM EST
    on choice.

    Parent
    Is compromise the word? (none / 0) (#65)
    by lilburro on Thu May 28, 2009 at 12:12:30 AM EST
    Obama is looking for a dialogue in which we all respect each other and talk about abortion and then give women the right to choose based on our wonderful opinions.

    As I've said before, I think this approach is entirely patronizing and reduces the right to privacy to something that is conditioned by our having talked about it first - private act, public conversation.  I guess it is impossible to conceive of women having a RIGHT, as undying as other rights, to control their bodies.  It has long term social effects (women can't make a decision themselves) but I guess in the short term the goal is to distract attention in the abortion conversation from abortion to the egos of pro-life people miffed that people think they are nuts.

    What do you see oculus...

    Parent

    Short version: (5.00 / 0) (#66)
    by lilburro on Thu May 28, 2009 at 12:13:46 AM EST
    Women are under the bus, and can come out when we are done talking about them.

    Parent
    I agree w/you but I suspect (none / 0) (#68)
    by oculus on Thu May 28, 2009 at 10:15:48 AM EST
    Obama's criteria for SCOTUS don!t include unwavering support for a woman's right to choose.

    PS. Just saw a bumper sticker: if Mary was pro choice we wouldn't have Christmas.

    Parent

    How do you define unwavering (none / 0) (#69)
    by lilburro on Thu May 28, 2009 at 10:19:50 AM EST
    I would hope Obama knows that if he is responsible in some way for reversing Roe v. Wade that he will go down in history as one of the worst Dems EVER.

    I saw some pretty terrible things on the cab of a guy's truck the other day..."Obama is a Marxist" and "If you can't feed em, don't breed em."  Yikes.  

    Parent

    Seems to me he is more (none / 0) (#70)
    by oculus on Thu May 28, 2009 at 10:52:57 AM EST
    Anxious the right likes him than he is about people such as you and me.  

    Parent
    I find it bizarre (none / 0) (#4)
    by Steve M on Wed May 27, 2009 at 01:59:54 PM EST
    that Kerik was indicted for, in effect, lying during a job interview.

    Wouldn't most people (none / 0) (#6)
    by jbindc on Wed May 27, 2009 at 02:04:25 PM EST
    be nailed for that?  ;)

    Parent
    If that is illegal... (none / 0) (#15)
    by kdog on Wed May 27, 2009 at 02:39:05 PM EST
    99% of us are guilty as sin...if you ain't lyin' on a job interview, you ain't tryin'.

    Parent
    I thought our language (none / 0) (#18)
    by Inspector Gadget on Wed May 27, 2009 at 02:45:36 PM EST
    included the word "embellish" to cover for things like lying in a job interview. We elect embellishers to every office in the gov't knowing full well they are not being honest.

    Parent
    Fascinating (none / 0) (#35)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed May 27, 2009 at 03:46:54 PM EST
    that he was indicted for lying to the morons who thought he was such a great candidate for Homeland Security in the first place.

    Parent
    Sotomayor is average (none / 0) (#7)
    by Dadler on Wed May 27, 2009 at 02:04:57 PM EST
    Hmm.  Okay.  Doesn't tell me anything, but I guess it's better than below average.  Would be nice, however, to see someone well above average, but this is America, we can't have that.

    I'm sure she'll be fine, since fine is a very average word.

    Good luck to her, she's worked hard, time to rise like the cream.

    ehhh, it doesn't pay anymore (none / 0) (#17)
    by of1000Kings on Wed May 27, 2009 at 02:41:01 PM EST
    in America to be above average in anything...

    and don't dare try to be great at anything...you won't be able to support yourself...you don't make money by selling the best product, you make money by selling a lower quality rip-off of the best product...

    Parent

    What about O.J. back in the news? (none / 0) (#8)
    by Mikeb302000 on Wed May 27, 2009 at 02:06:25 PM EST
    Last year I was fascinated by his trial.  I wrote then that I thought he'd been railroaded for his infamous past.  I suggested the charges were exaggerated, kidnapping they called it. I expressed the hope that his case would be overturned in the Appellate court.  Maybe that's what's happening now.  What do you think?

    I hope (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by jbindc on Wed May 27, 2009 at 02:09:08 PM EST
    he never sees the light of day again.

    If his stuff that he was trying to get back was so valuable (apparently to a dealer it was), then he should have never had it in the first place.  He was supposed to sell all his sports memorabilia to pay the settlement to Ron Goldman's family.


    Parent

    Bingo (none / 0) (#36)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed May 27, 2009 at 03:49:17 PM EST
    Which is why he rounded up a bunch of thugs to go take it back himself rather than going to the police.

    Parent
    An interesting approach (none / 0) (#40)
    by CoralGables on Wed May 27, 2009 at 04:10:49 PM EST
    So you would like him locked up for life for not selling something, that by all accounts he no longer had, because it was taken by someone else. And sorry, but even if he still possessed it no judge would lock him up for not having sold it.

    I never cease to be amazed by the vindictive nature of people.

    Parent

    Contempt? (none / 0) (#41)
    by oculus on Wed May 27, 2009 at 04:12:50 PM EST


    Parent
    And I'm guessing (none / 0) (#44)
    by CoralGables on Wed May 27, 2009 at 04:31:42 PM EST
    would just tell him to sell it or turn it over...but not jail time.

    Congrats on the Pads run.

    Parent

    Probably depends on the judge. Some (none / 0) (#45)
    by oculus on Wed May 27, 2009 at 04:35:19 PM EST
    get rather vindictive when their orders are blatantly ignored.

    Thanks re Pads.  Time to start a new streak today.

    Parent

    Didn't want to jinx you (none / 0) (#46)
    by CoralGables on Wed May 27, 2009 at 04:48:29 PM EST
    in mid-streak, so waited til it was over. After Scherzer came out last night I thought the Pads were going to do it again. You weren't hitting Scherzer so you had to wait until they went to the bullpen and almost pulled it off.

    Parent
    Scherzer is probably a sell-off from (none / 0) (#47)
    by oculus on Wed May 27, 2009 at 04:49:30 PM EST
    the Marlins, no?

    Parent
    Believe it or not (none / 0) (#50)
    by CoralGables on Wed May 27, 2009 at 05:35:33 PM EST
    he was actually drafted by the Diamondbacks. He was a 1st round draft pick a few years ago. To me, one of the better young pitchers that no one has noticed. He averages more than a strikeout an inning, with an ERA lower than Jake Peavy, and he has a losing record because the Dbacks don't score when he's on the mound.

    Parent
    Sounds familiar. (none / 0) (#54)
    by oculus on Wed May 27, 2009 at 06:23:14 PM EST


    Parent
    No (none / 0) (#71)
    by jbindc on Thu May 28, 2009 at 11:17:36 AM EST
    I'd want him locked up for life for armed robbery and kidnapping.

    Not sure why it's vindictive to want violent criminals behind bars, but whatever.

    Parent

    OJ, railroaded (none / 0) (#75)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu May 28, 2009 at 04:18:53 PM EST
    gawd.  I hope that was snark.

    Parent
    strange bedfellows (none / 0) (#11)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed May 27, 2009 at 02:23:26 PM EST
    Prop. 8 Challenge Filed in Federal Court

     In a bold move that takes a new approach to achieving marriage equality, two attorneys who argued opposing sides of the 2000 Bush v. Gore lawsuit before the U.S. Supreme Court have filed a challenge to Proposition 8 in federal court, The Advocate has learned.

    Theodore B. Olson, the U.S. solicitor general from 2001 to 2004 under President George W. Bush, and David Boies, a high-profile trial lawyer who argued on behalf of former vice president Al Gore, filed the suit May 22 in U.S. district court on behalf of two California gay couples.


    Irony? (none / 0) (#12)
    by jbindc on Wed May 27, 2009 at 02:27:13 PM EST
    "Bedfellows"?

    ;)

    Parent

    yeah (none / 0) (#13)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed May 27, 2009 at 02:32:31 PM EST
    couldnt resist.  but seriously, Ted Olsen?  I have to reevaluate.

    Parent
    Only if he expresses profound sorrow (none / 0) (#19)
    by oculus on Wed May 27, 2009 at 02:47:44 PM EST
    for his role in Bush v. Gore.

    Parent
    And the Clinton impeachment (none / 0) (#21)
    by ruffian on Wed May 27, 2009 at 02:54:28 PM EST
    I seem to remember him being pretty vocal about that too.

    Parent
    Multiple responses to Prop 8 court decision (none / 0) (#26)
    by MyLeftMind on Wed May 27, 2009 at 03:17:30 PM EST
    Multiple responses to Prop 8 court decision
    LA Times reports that a federal lawsuit challenging Prop 8 was filed in US District Court. If an injunction against the enforcement of Prop 8 is granted in this suit, same-sex couples in California would actually regain the right to marry, at least until the case is decided.

    Marriage equality supporters are circulating two petitions for ballot initiatives that could repeal CA's ban on same-sex marriage. The first initiative would replace the term 'marriage' with 'domestic partnership' under California law, thereby voiding Prop 8. The second would directly void Prop 8 by striking the article of the state constitution that states "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."

    Meanwhile, some LGBT groups are recommending against lawsuits, especially at the federal level.  http://www.freedomtomarry.org/pdfs/why_the_ballot_box.pdf  They make some very good points. I personally think the next step is for Reps and Senators from states that allow marriage/civil unions to lead Congress in recognizing those currently legal state level domestic contracts. Sen. Kennedy is an obvious person to take the lead, given Massachusetts' successful drive for equality and the Kennedy history of staunch advocacy of civil rights.

    On with the fight!

    Hold on to your hats.... (none / 0) (#34)
    by kdog on Wed May 27, 2009 at 03:45:51 PM EST
    I've got some praise for a law enforcement entity...the Suffolk County Sheriffs Dept. has written 63% less traffic tickets since they took over the Long Island Expressway racket from the Suffolk County P.D....great job not kickin' us all while we're down...Thanks Sheriffs!

    Sestak is running for Specter's seat! (none / 0) (#39)
    by ruffian on Wed May 27, 2009 at 04:01:26 PM EST
    According to TPM

    Yay!

    yes! (none / 0) (#43)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed May 27, 2009 at 04:26:38 PM EST


    Parent
    Dubya the religious fanatic (none / 0) (#49)
    by Dadler on Wed May 27, 2009 at 05:34:10 PM EST
    Old news certainly, but the elaboration makes it even more disturbingly new.  

    Unreleased torture photos (none / 0) (#72)
    by jbindc on Thu May 28, 2009 at 11:19:31 AM EST
    Apparently show rape and sex abuse.

    LONDON (Reuters) - Photographs of Iraqi prisoner abuse which U.S. President Barack Obama does not want released include images of apparent rape and sexual abuse, Britain's Daily Telegraph newspaper reported on Thursday.

    The images are among photographs included in a 2004 report into prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib prison conducted by U.S. Major General Antonio Taguba.

    Taguba included allegations of rape and sexual abuse in his report, and on Wednesday he confirmed to the Daily Telegraph that images supporting those allegations were also in the file.

    "These pictures show torture, abuse, rape and every indecency," Taguba, who retired in January 2007, was quoted as saying in the paper.

    He said he supported Obama's decision not to release them, even though Obama had previously pledged to disclose all images relating to abuses at Abu Ghraib and other U.S.-run prisons in Iraq.

    "I am not sure what purpose their release would serve other than a legal one," Taguba said. "The sequence would be to imperil our troops, the only protectors of our foreign policy, when we most need them, and British troops who are trying to build security in Afghanistan.

    "The mere depiction of these pictures is horrendous enough, take my word for it."
    Wednesday Afternoon Open Thread | 75 comments (75 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment