Surely, if a powerful House member "has proven himself to be ethically unfit" we know "the burden" indeed "falls upon" his party to oust him. In such a case, party leaders would obviously ask: "Do they want to remove the ethical cloud that hangs over the Capitol?"
So Pelosi explained in October 2004. The subject was Tom DeLay. The House ethics committee had admonished the Republican majority leader. DeLay used the Federal Aviation Administration to track Democratic state rivals. He hosted a fundraiser with energy lobbyists while energy legislation was under consideration.
December 16, 2009
Simply analyzing the growth in total paid compensation fails to capture the true explosion in benefits paid to federal workers.
08/25/09 By Charles Hakes 'Inhumane' CIA terror tactics spur criminal probe (AP)
AP - The Obama administration launched a criminal investigation Monday into harsh questioning of detainees during President George W. Bush's war on terrorism, revealing CIA interrogators' threats to kill one suspect's children and to force another to watch his mother sexually assaulted.
Of course, Holder's in charge of this.
This is no doubt an ugly business however you slice it. But the two worst things that can come of it are:
1. A public expose` of the terrorist interrogation methods that worked will make the methods less effective.. Some methods were based on fear. Terrorists thought they might be killed. Now they will know that they won't be killed.
It's too bad that any of this had to happen, of course, It's even worse that 3,000 people on 9/11 thought were going to die, and then did die at the hands of terrorists.
Terrorists suffered anguish from lies they were told during interrogation. Tough! The survivors of those 3,000 victims suffered anguish and will do so for the remainder of their days. The terrorists could talk and rid themselves of the anguish they were suffering. There could be no surcease of anguish for the survivors.
2. Public humiliation and perhaps prosecution of Americans who did their duty and kept us all safe is shameful treatment for them. Whatever was done was effective. Further attacks were thwarted because of intelligence. We had no more attacks.
I don't know if what our interrogators did was legal or moral. I think we must entertain the notion that, considerations of legality and morality aside, it was effective. It would have been immoral to lose more American lives to terrorists if that were possible to avoid. If there is a choice to be made between protecting terrorists and protecting American citizens Holder needs to understand that his duty is to protect Americans and not terrorists.
So we need to give our interrogators -- those American patriots who did the dirty work that had to be done -- some quiet attaboys instead of prosecutions, and then leave them alone. They performed a duty that Holder and his unpatriotic lackeys can't even fathom.
Also I don't care about the legality or morality of our interrogation methods because I would prefer terrorists to be roasting on Beelzebub's spits in hell.
But then I thought perhaps Holder should be given the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps he has some special abilities when it comes to determining what is just treatment for terrorists. So I did a quick on-line review of Wikipedia. I expected to find some military service, perhaps in intelligence, that might qualify him. There was nothing -- no military, no intelligence. (Oops!)
These are Holder's special qualifications: (quoted from Wikipedia)
Terrorist experience #1: Holder was involved in Clinton 's decision to reduce the criminal sentences of 16 members of the Boricua Popular Army, an organization that has been categorized by the FBI as a terrorist organization. The clemency request was initially opposed in 1996 by U.S. Pardons Attorney Margaret Love. When Holder was elevated to Deputy Attorney General in 1997, he was asked to reexamine the issue by three members of Congress. In July 1999, Holder recommended clemency to Clinton with a report from then U.S. Pardons Attorney Roger Adams that neither supported nor opposed clemency. A month later, Clinton granted the clemency. According to The Hartford Courant, the clemency was unusual because it was opposed by the FBI, the federal prosecutor and the victims. According to the newspaper, it was also unusual because, before the commutations, the Boricua Popular Army members were not required to repudiate their actions, and they were not asked to provide any information concerning the whereabouts of Victor Manuel Gerena, a co-conspirator and one of the FBI Ten Most Wanted Fugitives, or the millions of dollars stolen by the group in a 1983 robbery of Wells Fargo in West Hartford, Connecticut
So Holder's first terrorist experience that I could find was his role in the pardon of 16 terrorists, which he did in exchange for absolutely nothing. That is, nothing we know about.
Score: Terrorists 1, America 0.
Terrorist experience #2: In 2004, Holder helped negotiate an agreement with the Justice Department for Chiquita Brands International in a case that involved Chiquita's payment of "protection money" to the United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia, a group on the U.S. government's list of terrorist organizations.[22][23] In the agreement, Chiquita's officials pleaded guilty and paid a fine of $25 million. Holder represented Chiquita in the civil action that grew out of this criminal case.[23]
This thinking seems more convoluted than the contents of a gut wagon down at the slaughterhouse in mid-July. It also smells about the same. Let's see if I can straighten this out. Chiquita was getting shook down by a Latin-American terrorist organization for "worker protection." The Justice Department jumped in on this and instead of saying that the terrorists were wrong for shaking down Chiquita that Chiquita was wrong for getting shook down. The Justice Dept probably made the case that Chiquita was bribing the terrorists instead of the terrorists shaking down Chiquita. If you look at it that way, the payoffs were criminal, even if a necessary cost of doing business. So Chiquita was fined $25 million by the Justice Department for getting shook down. Holder negotiated that agreement. Wow. He may be a bad enemy but it sounds like he could be a worse friend.
Anyhow, that's terrorist experience #2 for Holder. Score: Terrorists 2, America 0.
Here's terrorism experience #3: Holder favors closing the Guantanamo Bay detention camp,[28] although he has said that the detainees are not technically entitled to Geneva Convention protections.[29] He is opposed to the Bush administration's implementation of the Patriot Act, saying it is "bad ultimately for law enforcement and will cost us the support of the American people."[30][31] He has been critical of Enhanced interrogation techniques and the NSA warrantless surveillance program, accusing the Bush administration of a "disrespect for the rule of law... [that is] not only wrong, it is destructive in our struggle against terrorism."[32]
Without belaboring the point, Holder not only misconstrues the mindset of the American people toward anti-terrorism measures but goes so far as to say that intelligence methods are destructive in the struggle against terrorism. He has no experience that would make this a qualified opinion.
Terrorists 3, America 0.
Where does Holder see the threat to the safety of Americans?
It's not from terrorists, it is from American citizens themselves.
While D.C. v. Heller was being heard by the Supreme Court in 2008, Holder joined the Reno-led amicus brief, which urged the Supreme Court to uphold Washington, D.C.'s handgun ban and said the position of the Department of Justice, from Franklin Roosevelt through Clinton, was that the Second Amendment does not protect an individual right to keep and bear arms for purposes unrelated to a State’s operation of a well-regulated militia.[25] Holder said that overturning the 1976 law "opens the door to more people having more access to guns and putting guns on the streets."[26]
Holder may or may not be correct about the position of the Department of Justice. The position of the Department of Justice shouldn't matter in our democratic republic. It is the position of the American people on the matter that should dictate the position of the Department of Justice. It doesn't appear that Holder understands this. He seems to think that the DOJ makes rules for the governance of citizens.
Holder says Americans cannot be trusted with guns. I say Holder cannot be trusted to deal with any matters involving the protection of American citizens from threats originating within or without our nation.
Just who in hell does he think the enemy is?
|
Many of us witnessed the arrogance of Barbara Boxer as she admonished a brigadier general because he addressed her as "ma'am" and not "Senator" before a Senate hearing. This letter is from a National Guard aviator and Captain for Alaska Airlines. I wonder what he would have said if he were really angry.
Babs:
You were so right on when you scolded the general on TV for using the term, "ma'am," instead of "Senator". After all, in the military, "ma'am" is a term of respect when addressing a female of superior rank or position. The general was totally wrong. You are not a person of superior rank or position. You are a member of one of the world's most corrupt organizations, the U.S. Senate, equalled only by the U.S. House of Representatives.
Congress is a cesspool of liars, thieves, inside traders, traitors, drunks (one who killed a staffer, yet is still revered), criminals, and other low level swine who, as individuals (not all, but many), will do anything to enhance their lives, fortunes and power, all at the expense of the People of the United States and its Constitution, in order to be continually re-elected. Many democrats even want American troops killed by releasing photographs. How many of you could honestly say, "We pledge our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor"? None? One? Two?
Your reaction to the general shows several things. First is your abysmal ignorance of all things military. Your treatment of the general shows you to be an elitist of the worst kind. When the general entered the military (as most of us who served) he wrote the government a blank check, offering his life to protect your derriere, now safely and comfortably ensconced in a 20 thousand dollar leather chair, paid for by the general's taxes. You repaid him for this by humiliating him in front of millions.
Second is your puerile character, lack of sophistication, and arrogance which borders on the hubristic. This display of brattish behavior shows you to be a virago, termagant, harridan, nag, scold or shrew, unfit for your position, regardless of the support of the unwashed, uneducated masses who have made California into the laughing stock of the nation.
What I am writing, Senator, are the same thoughts countless millions of Americans have toward Congress, but who lack the energy, ability or time to convey them. Under the democrats, some don't even have the 44 cents to buy the stamp. Regardless of their thoughts, most realize that politicians are pretty much the same, and will vote for the one who will bring home the most bacon, even if they do consider how corrupt that person is. Lord Acton (1834 - 1902) so aptly charged, "Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely." Unbeknownst to you and your colleagues, "Mr. Power" has had his way with all of you, and we are all the worse for it.
Finally Senator, I, too, have a title. It is "Right Wing Extremist Potential Terrorist Threat." It is not of my choosing, but was given to me by your Secretary of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano. And you were offended by "ma'am"?
Have a fine day. Cheers!
Jim Hill
16808 - 103rd Avenue Court East
South Hill, WA 98374
Please circulate this to remind every voter that the "cesspools" MUST be pumped out when we go to the polls in November, 2010. Honoring and respecting the voters is a thing of the past for many of those in our congress and senate.We need to vote their arrogant, self serving asses out of office if America is to get on the long road back from the devastation that these self serving cowards have brought upon us.
