Bin Laden death 'not an assassination' - Eric Holder

[The Northerner]

US Attorney General Eric Holder has said that the raid on Osama Bin Laden's hideout, in which the al-Qaeda leader was killed, was "not an assassination".

Mr Holder told the BBC the operation was a "kill or capture mission" and that Bin Laden's surrender would have been accepted if offered.

The protection of the Navy Seals who carried out the raid was "uppermost in our minds", he added.

Bin Laden was shot dead on 2 May in his compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan.

Read more: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-13370919

[ixion]

1. Well, yeah, it was, actually, Mr. Holder

No matter how you'd like to try and spin it.

[LoZoccolo]

2. No, it wasn't.

[ixion]

37. whatever

:eyes:

[Xicano]

56. So the President sent Navy Seals there to serve an arrest warrant?

- "Knock, knock, knock"

- "Who is it?"

- "U.S. Navy Seals!"

- "What do you want?"

- "Is Osama there?"

- "Yeah"

- "So, we're here to serve an arrest warrant"

[stevenleser]

93. So, the military taking prisoners is a foreign concept to you? n/t

[HereSince1628]

18. It was a homicide by shooting, it eliminated a state enemy,

It was a killing.

The death was predetermined to be one of several acceptable outcomes.

What we don't really know, but each of us deems ourselves ready to assign is the motives that were at work. Motives after all seem to be what we rely on to find separation between killing as a military necessity,political assassination and murder.

The most obvious motivations seem to have been either or both the protection of a nation from a dangerous enemy and avenging of the killing of thousands of Americans.

The repeated release of information suggesting that OBL was actively planning additional attacks on Americans and 'the West' suggests that the administration would prefer weight be given to the protection of the nation argument.

[stevenleser]

120. Motive is always a big issue in a killing and makes all the difference in prosecution/punishment

If you kill someone and it is self defense, you go free. If you premeditatedly kill someone you will get life in prison or something close to it or the death penalty.

[HereSince1628]

121. As I see it part of the problem is that Obama referred to 'justice'

being done in Osama's death.

Justice and Military requirements don't always square up very well and require different 'due process'. Justice without a 'Justice'/judge being involved raises questions with respect to the division of power and authority provided by the US Constitution and international law.

I personally wish that Obama had just said that Osama's killing was a matter a military necessity and was expedient as a protection of lives in the United States.

[JDPriestly]

28. They probably made videos of it, so whether it was or not will becomeA

a part of the historical record sooner or later.

I suspect that the order was to protect the lives of the Seals. I would be very surprised if there was no resistance to the entry of the Seals. It's remotely possible, but unlikely.

The only reason that Bin Laden would have been unprotected and living in an unarmed household would be if he believed that the Pakistani authorities or some powerful force in Pakistan was protecting him. If he thought there was some agreement that as long as he stayed in that house, he would be safe, he might have lived without security. I doubt that was the case.

[ecstatic]

59. Too bad you weren't a member of that Seal team. You could have personally

put the cuffs on OBL and brought him back to justice. I mean, you're such an expert--you would have known better than everyone else what to do in the circumstances. Is it too late for you to join? There's bound to be number twos and threes that need to be captured. http://www.sealswcc.com/ :sarcasm: :eyes:

[EFerrari]

67. So now you have to be a Navy SEAL to have an opinion?

What is you excuse then?

[ecstatic]

70. No, but I take Holder at his word when he says they were open to capture

For whatever the reason, the Seals felt threatened and killed the guy. Anyone who thinks s/he would have had the wisdom and skills to capture Bin Laden alive should probably join the Seals to help out on future missions.

[ixion]

71. LOL... not a chance

Nothing, and I mean NOTHING a government official says is ever true. There is always framing.

[SDuderstadt]

73. "Nothing, and I mean NOTHING a government official says is ever true"

LOL!

Too funny.

[stevenleser]

94. Ron Paul agrees with the assassination meme and he is a government official, so I guess that person

will have to change their mind to some other point of view. Not sure what's left, but I am sure that person will come up with something.

[ixion]

116. It may be funny, but it is also true.

And if you are too naive to realize that, well, that's your problem, not mine.

Ya know, it's interesting. I've been on this board for 10 years, and never had people telling me I ought to believe BushCo. Suddenly, because it's a different person, I ought to believe everything.

That is moral/ethical relativity, and I'll have no part of it. I'm curious: Where were you then? You have a high post count, so I assume you've been here for some time, and I don't remember you ever mocking me because I said I wouldn't believe Rice, Bush, Rummy, etc.

Which means you believed everything BushCo said, correct? According to your mockery, it would appear so.

[SDuderstadt]

118. "which means you believed everything Bushco said, correct?

Umm, no and I never said anything remotely like that.

But, the claim that no politician ever tells the truth is patently wrong on its face. Duh.

[ecstatic]

79. I understand the need to be skeptical, but people who automatically believe Bin Laden's son

and/or Pakistan's side of things seem to have an agenda as well.

[ixion]

115. Your statement implies that I said I believe bin Laden. This is incorrect.

And I'll thank you not to put context to my posts.

Simply because I don't believe Holder doesn't automatically mean I believe someone else. Nice try, though. :eyes:

[EFerrari]

75. It is a little silly to think McChystal's assassination program

ever actually assassinates anyone? That's what they train for. It's their job.

[aquart]

3. I think of it as good, clean fun.

But I know others disagree.

[Solomon]

4. As I said:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1088497

[EFerrari]

8. No one objected to our worldwide torture program either.

In fact, a lot of them helped with it.

[Solomon]

12. Now that is just not true. Even England's foreign secretary, among others,

condemned waterboarding as illegal torture.

[EFerrari]

14. The UK helped with rendition so their position isn't transparent, is it?

[Spider Jerusalem]

38. England has no foreign secretary.

You mean "the United Kingdom". And if you're talking about Jackboots Straw, well. He happens to've authored a memorandum to the head of MI6 authorising use of intelligence obtained through torture, and to've arranged for rendition flights. See here, for instance: http://euobserver.com/9/21401

[Enrique]

5. because assassinations are legally problematic

despite what I've been reading here at DU, that assassinations are just fine and that it was the only option anyway.

[Leopolds Ghost]

10. Isn't it odd that top Democratic leaders are the only people taking our concern seriously?

Not "flush em out of their holes" pontificators in the Scoop Jackson rank and file?

If armchair quarterbacks feel we should handle it all thru the Seals and not through espionage and police work, why aren't they participating (as they asked of Bush?) Some folks almost sound like Rumsfeld, praising a thin red line of Navy Seals for being the only tool we have to deal with terrorists, in our arsenal.

After all, we went to the trouble of facing him down alive. We had him alive. It's not like Hitler, or Awlaki, inaccessible in some unknown bunker in enemy territory.

It's more like the Hutu Interahamwe (a point NO ONE has taken me up on.)

The SEALS are a tool, which can be used in various ways.

And may I point out that the Admin seems to care more about the legalities here than the people on this board who are like:

"Kill bin Laden. That's all this was about for the past 10 years. Now we can go home."

[Uncle Joe]

6. I want to believe them but for PR purposes I would suggest they reverse the term

from "kill or capture" to "capture or kill."

Thanks for the thread, The Northerner.

[Gregorian]

7. I don't know what it was. I do know a "LIVE" Bin Laden would be a big problem.

Only the Seals know what really happened.

[EFerrari]

9. That settles it, then.

[Canuckistanian]

11. What's he been smoking?

Oh, wait...

[Mnemosyne]

13. No, Eric, it was an execution. n/t

[LoZoccolo]

15. No, it wasn't an execution.

[Mnemosyne]

48. Believe whatever spin you wish. n/t

[coalition_unwilling]

16. The only reason Holder is even saying this is that the administration

is getting some heat.

That heat would also explain that very fishy story of the 2 teams (one for OBL if dead and one for OBL if captured) published in the NY Times five days after the events in question.

As opposed to reporting in multiple respectable print media outlets that the orders were to "kill, NOT capture" OBL. Makes it an extra-judicial execution and a big-time war crime.

Holder is dissembling.

[SDuderstadt]

17. "big time war crime"

Prove it, dude.

[coalition_unwilling]

19. Buh-bye, dude. - n/t

[SDuderstadt]

20. In other words...

you can't prove it.

Thought so.

[sabrina 1]

24. Prove it wasn't!

[coalition_unwilling]

26. The burdent of proof is on he or she who makes the accusation (in this

case, me). Except SDuderstadt knows full well that I lack any subpoena power and am not a member of the judiciary. So his dictate to me to "Prove it!" is absurd and undeserving of a reply. There's really nothing further to discuss with SDuderstadt.

[SDuderstadt]

30. Which is longhand for...

"I cannot prove my claim".

Thanks for the confession.

[sabrina 1]

32. Yes, that was my thought also. You were clearly offering

your opinion. The response you got only served to raise again, the question of why the British Government is using Due Process regarding the crime of terror, while the US claims they cannot.

His demand for proof can only be met when the US emulates the Brits and returns to the use of the rule of law. What he did was highlight all that is wrong with NOT abiding by the rule of law. It demonstrates beyond a doubt that using execution without trial leaves the American people in a position of never being able to answer the question he asked or the one I asked him.

And that is why I asked him to prove you wrong. He cannot. Because we no longer abide by the law which allows citizens see to the evidence, making it possible for them to offer not just an opinion, as he is doing, but facts. We, as he clearly demonstrated, are being denied that option.

I envy the Brits who when questioned as I questioned him, will be able to respond with facts, which neither he nor you can.

[coalition_unwilling]

34. If SDuderstadt really believes Obama has nothing to hide and is

beyond reproach, then I'm sure he will be the first to call for the appointment of a special counsel to investigate just what orders were given and who gave them.

But he (SDuderstadt) will probably hide behind the cloak of "executive privilege," "national security," or other such nonsense.

I don't really care and am not interested enough to find out. As I said, nothing further to discuss.

[sabrina 1]

39. Yes I agree, pointless to discuss issues with anyone who

is coming from the pov that there is no room for discussion.

[SDuderstadt]

51. Maybe spirited and vigorous debate just isn't...

for you.

[sabrina 1]

52. Lol!

From the guy who refuses to 'play' when things aren't going his way.

Which seems to be fairly often here ...

[SDuderstadt]

53. "things aren't going his way"

Translation: "he won't respond to our stupid strawman arguments accusing him of 'supporting the deaths of innocent people' "

[sabrina 1]

57. Support for drone attacks = Support for the deaths of innocent people!

I sympathize, it is literally impossible to deny so I guess the best thing to do is take the fifth. (Wait! Can we still do that?) Some things simply cannot be defended.

I know that people loyal to a political party have to do all kinds of mental gymnastics to try to explain how, on the one hand, they have morals and principles, yet why otoh, they are willing to set those principles aside out of party loyalty. After all, to stick to principles could give the other team an advantage. That's a hard one.

It's been interesting watching the reaction from the 'left' to all the killing and dying and surging and drone attacks that once upon a time they felt so free to loudly denounce openly, as they should. But what to do when your team is now in charge and doing exactly the same things you railed against so courageously not so long ago?

I guess you try to find justifications you simply couldn't find when the other team was doing it. You refuse to talk about it maybe, denounce those who ask you to explain. Uncomfortable questions are not welcome. How dare anyone throw cold water on your party? Don't they understand that getting one over on the other team, showing them that your leader is NOT a wimp like they said, is of the utmost importance?

That's why sticking to principles is always easier. It's simpler. Less complicated.

Drones are a war crime. That's what we said when Bush was using them, and they are not magically less brutal and deadly to the innocents they kill than they were when Bush was president. That's the mental gymnastics I'm talking about. How a deadly drone turns into a humanitarian drone when our team is using them.

Better that you don't play. I agree.

[Name removed]

58. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[sabrina 1]

60. Then go ahead and do it. n/t

[Name removed]

63. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[sabrina 1]

66. You have provided no proof that your support of the use of drones

is not supporting the killing of innocent bystanders. You have claimed that you never say something that you cannot back up. Drones kill innocent people. If you do not support the killing of innocent people, you cannot support the use of drones. If you can prove that wrong, then do so.

[Name removed]

72. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SDuderstadt]

76. Last time, Sabrina...

Your claim is "begging the question". I don't have to disprove it. YOU have to prove it.

In the meantime, I can disprove it. Your claim is that it's impossible to support drone attacks without supporting the deaths of innocent people. If it's "impossible", all I have to do is provide one example where it didn't happen. Remember this?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1088650

The Obama administration launched a drone strike in Yemen last week in an attempt to assassinate a U.S.-born Muslim cleric who has never been convicted of a crime. Anwar al-Awlaki survived the attack, but two suspected members of al-Qaeda died.

Could you point to the deaths of innocent people in that drone attack?

[sabrina 1]

86. Two people whose ids we do not know, but some 'official' claims

were 'members of Al Queda'?? Do you know how many times they have claimed they 'only killed millitants' only to be proven wrong?

Just yesterday the US 'named' the 'new Al Queda Leader', as if the US gets to do that. Minutes after reading two reports in major US media describing this 'new Al Queda leader' a DUer found another report from two years ago in an AP article that a 'drone attack had killed' that same Al Queda leader. So did they kill him or not? All reports, his killing and his apparent resurrection were reported in 'credible' US media outlets.

We are lied to all the time. I want trials not murky, shady activities passed off as 'justice' resulting in thousands of dead, innocent civilians besides. America should be ashamed.

As far as I am concerned, and in accordance with our system of justice, those two men were innocent. If you have evidence of what crimes they committed, then provide it. We do NOT accept allegations about nameless individuals, from nameless 'officials' as convictions worthy of the death penalty. I cannot believe that this country has come to this. It truly is frightening.

Hundreds of attacks have occurred and in every case innocent people, including women and children have died. The ratio is said to be 1 in 10 killed may be a suspected terrorist. So the odds, even if you were granted this one incident for argument's sake, are that 99.9% of the time, drones are going to kill innocent people. With those odds, no decent person would take that risk. And that is aside from all the other issues surrounding these weapons.

They depend on 'human intelligence' to 'target' individuals. Are you aware that warring factions are using the US to kill people they are in disputes with, or to kill their families? Pretending they are 'terrorists' when often they are just neighbors they do not like.

So no, this does not prove your point, it does not make a case for the use of those despicable, cowardly weapons, not by a long shot.

[SDuderstadt]

88. Do you have evidence that they were....

"innocent people"?

Yes or no. Turnabout is fair play, no?

[LiberalLovinLug]

95. Wosh

Do you even understand the American system of justice?

Your arguments are hilarious if they weren't so tragic. So in your world you shoot first and when someone questions you whether you had proof they were actually guilty of a capital crime you respond with "Do you have evidence they were innocent"?

:crazy:

[SDuderstadt]

97. Maybe you should read the...

entire exchange.

I'm just using Sabrina's tactics back against her.

[sabrina 1]

100. You have no evidence. No one is fooled by your games of avoidance.

You have proven to everyone reading these exchanges that you have a frightening lack of knowledge of our judicial system, which explains completely why you support the execution of individuals without charges, trial and conviction.

[SDuderstadt]

101. No, I'm playing by your rules...

now, get it?

I don't have to prove my claim; you have to disprove it or it's true. Or, are you going to be hypocritical?

[sabrina 1]

102. No, you don't have to. But you would if you could and that is

what is clear to everyone reading this exchange.

[Name removed]

103. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[sabrina 1]

108. I play by the rule of law.

I would love to claim credit for that beautiful document called the US Constitution, but no, it was not my work. Not my rules, but I do really respect them.

[SDuderstadt]

109. I do, too...

You realize that Obama did play by the rule of law, right?

[sabrina 1]

110. Yes, Bush's law, sadly!

[SDuderstadt]

111. Nope...

Congress authorized the use of force against the terrorists.

[SDuderstadt]

113. Obama plays by the rule of law....

I guess you missed this:

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2010cv1469-31

[Name removed]

106. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SDuderstadt]

107. I see you don't like....

your own rules. It's fun to watch you forced to switch sides.

You have to disprove my claims, remember?

[sabrina 1]

98. What are their names? Who are they? How old were they?

You claimed they were guilty. Post your evidence or I will assume you have none.

[Name removed]

99. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SDuderstadt]

114. Their names are...

Bill and Fred. They used to work at the Sanaa McDonald's before they joined al Qaeda. They were 36 and 42. We miss them terribly. So does al-Awlaki (who goes by "Steve").

[Name removed]

90. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

117. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SDuderstadt]

81. "pov that there is no room for discussion"

Translation: "People who hold views opposed to mine who express those views strongly"

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[sabrina 1]

35. I did not expect any proof since we have had no trials

where evidence is presented, as the Brits are doing, making it impossible for anyone to offer proof.

The truth is that when we put a suspect to death without the benefit of due process, no one can answer convincingly that they actually were guilty of anything. Not you, not the commenter from whom you ridiculously, considering the circumstances, demanded 'proof'. Where, might I ask, should s/he get that proof? Or you?

Thank you for helping me make that very important point. For those who care about the rule of law.

[SDuderstadt]

42. That's really brilliant, Sabrina!

Can I use that? If I make a claim, when challenged for proof, I'll just say, "Well, that's my opinion. I didn't intend for it to be taken factually".

Brilliant!

[sabrina 1]

43. Isn't that what you have been saying all along?

Except for the part 'I didn't intend for it to be taken factually'? I think you actually did. With not a shred of proof for any of your 'opinions'!

:rofl:

You ARE entertaining, I'll say that for you.

[SDuderstadt]

44. Umm, no...

When I make a statement of fact, I expect to back it up with evidence.

You're thinking of yourself.

[sabrina 1]

49. I guess I missed all that evidence then?

'not playing' is not evidence, just FYI!

[SDuderstadt]

50. "Not playing" = "not responding to stupid strawman arguments"

Hope that clears the confusion up.

In the meantime, if you can find an example where I made a statement of fact and refused to back it up, please share it with us. Take your time.

[Swede]

46. Uh-oh,now you've done it. You are now in coalition_unwilling's ignore list.

Welcome!!!! :hi::party::toast::beer:

[SDuderstadt]

77. I wear it as...

a badge of honor.

My only regret is that I cannot be on the list twice.

[Bluebear]

55. Maybe he just doesn't want to engage with you. I don't blame him.

[Name removed]

64. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Bluebear]

54. +

[ecstatic]

80. Don't waste your time: “Liberal” Sock Puppets – Right Wing/Corporate Operatives Attacking Democrats

From the Left."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x967422

It's always useful to return to that article when things get really out of control around here!

[tritsofme]

62. Give me a break. OBL was a legitimate military target.

The 2001 AUMF gave the president explicit authorization to carry out the operation.

Is the administration flaking a bit on getting all facts together? Sure, it was a fast moving highly classified military operation. But given the 2001 AUMF, I struggle to see how there is any legal ambiguity.

[coalition_unwilling]

91. Even the White House now admits OBL was unarmed. He may have

been a 'legitimate military target,' but that's not really the question. The question is whether the SEALs executed OBL extra-judicially, in violation of the Geneva Conventions. And whether disposing of the corpse in an unmarked grave at sea further violates the Geneva Conventions. The AUMF may authorize a multitude of actions, but none of them can violate Geneva which has the power of the law of the land.

I will note that there is some question as to whether the Geneva Conventions apply to a stateless force of irregulars like al Quaeda. I only became aware of this question of 'jurisdiction' yesterday and have not had time yet to research it more fully.

In short, there is a lot of legal ambiguity. Why do you think Holder told the BBC that the mission wasn't an assassination? The instant he conceded that it was, he would be legally bound to appoint a special counsel. Something to consider.

Edited for typos and clarity.

[EFerrari]

105. Common Article 3 applies unambiguously.

http://www.icrc.org/eng/war-and-law/treaties-customary-law/geneva-conventions/overview-geneva-conventions.htm

The argument against it is from the likes of BushCo.

[Fly by night]

21. One in the chest, one in the head. Good thing he wasn't armed: might have shot himself a 3rd time.

Sorta reminds me of all the Black male gunshot (in the back) victims in Mississippi in the 60s whose deaths were ruled "suicides". I wonder if Mr. Holder is old enough to remember those.

[Fla_Democrat]

22. Water boarding; 'not torture' - Alberto Gonzales

:shrug:




:smoke:

[ProSense]

23. United Nations Special Rapporteurs statement on bin Laden

United Nations Special Rapporteurs statement on bin Laden

[leveymg]

25. Okay. Let's call it an "enhanced immobilization technique", not two in the eye at close range.

:eyes:

[EOTE]

36. Yep, pretty much.

You can take any illegal activity, throw in the word "enhanced" and BOOM, it's legal. I'm guessing Yoo was consulted on this one.

[LiberalLovinLug]

27. LOL

Lets see, you have Bin Laden surrounded by Navy Seals. Once you got outside his room I'm sure 95% or more of his cohorts were shot. So you had him outnumbered like 30 to 1 or more with highly trained soldiers. So unless BL shot himself, which was never claimed, you did assassinate him. You're telling me you couldn't have thrown in a stun bomb, or tear gas and stormed in? and if you had to shoot you couldn't aim for the legs? Are the Navy Seals than inept? I don't think so.

Clearly an assassination meant to avoid a public trial where all kinds of embarrassing information may be revealed on American complicity in a whole range of topics. Too bad for the families of the victims than will never see the closure they deserve.

It was a "make sure you kill him dead" mission.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

40. You got it! He shot himself!

Once in the chest, once in the head. A truly bad-ass double-tap suicide.

Maybe they could convene something like the Warren Commission to investigate and then determine once and for all that it was not an assassination.

[nichomachus]

29. It was just a multi-level marketing call gone horribly wrong

[coalition_unwilling]

33. Now your post is seriously deserving of a DUzy. Wickedly brilliant, or

should I say, brilliantly wicked? Awesome

[azul]

41. Like UN statment said, it sets a precedent if left to stand as acceptable.

And perhaps in 10 years, Russia or China will send killer drones or hit teams into the US to assassinate whoever the hell they feel like is threatening their whatever. And our military will be owned by China and Korea and Japan and will not be able to come into play. We will soon enough need the rule of law when we become bankrupt from these military adventures.


And, if the protection of the military special forces was "uppermost in our minds", then they should have kept them on their safe bases and let the FBI and Interpol do their thing, as would have been the correct and legal option. The world was ready to help the US after the 2001 attacks to eliminate this source of violence, instead we have radicalized more people into conflict and alienated most other countries in our spirited if lawless fight against an emotion: GWOT.

[MadHound]

45. I see Holder has been excelling at those courses in Advanced Bushspeak.

Pretty soon, if he keeps this up, he will graduate to Rumsfeld level.

[Swede]

47. Of course it wasn't.

nt

[PurityOfEssence]

61. Enhanced Suppression

and precedent. Nice, clean, cheap policy. Proud yet?

[tekisui]

65. "No one in the main building got off a shot or was even armed"

There was not one shot fired from bin Laden's home. Not one person was armed. The on;y firefight was with one man from the guesthouse, before they got to OBL's home.

This was a summary execution, an assassination. It is a same that the administration can't just own up to it and defend the legality. They are not being honest with the scenario they are presenting now.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/05/12/eveningnews/main20062410.shtml#ixzz1MBaMWYkj

[coalition_unwilling]

96. It's not the summary execution that gets you, it's the cover-up. (My

shoutout to Watergate buffs.)

[Exilednight]

68. "Waterboarding is not torture:" - John Woo Anyone else notice

a pattern?

[tekisui]

69. Yep. It's not illegal when the President's man say it isn't'.

[ProgressIn2008]

74. Pretty much. nt

[deaniac21]

78. Holder in March 2010....

Al-Qaeda mastermind Osama bin Laden "will never appear in an American courtroom," Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. told lawmakers at a hearing Tuesday.

"Let's deal with the reality here," Holder said in response to aggressive questioning by Rep. John Culberson (R-Tex.). "The reality is we will be reading Miranda rights to a corpse."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/16/AR2010031603484.html

[hulka38]

89. That's a great find.

It's as if some Dems are literally incapable of coming to the realization that the Obama administration is lying here.

[Leopolds Ghost]

112. Interesting. What does Holder have to say about "read rights to a corpse" in light of remarks above?

[hulka38]

82. Pure bullshit. n/t

[Ramulux]

83. I was unaware...

that the attorney general had the authority to redefine words. Its amazing how this administration seems to think that if you simply say horrible things in a nice sounding way that makes it totally cool.

We aren't at "war" with Libya, we are engaged in a "limited military surveillance operation".

We didn't "assassinate" Bin Ladin we simply carried out a "kill or capture mission".

We didn't "torture" Bradley Manning we simply "made accommodations to ensure his own safety".

Its frightening sometimes to think about how prescient 1984 was in regards to the changing and manipulation of language by authority figures.

[themadstork]

87. It's weird that the executive branch has become its own oversight.

"What we're doing is right because some other one of us said so."

[Amonester]

84. I agree.

After all, that compound walls COULD have been FILLED with loads of TNT.... 'suicide bomber' style.

Know watta mean...

[themadstork]

85. Well,

that certainly clears it all up. Not like he has any vested interest in the matter.

[Bonobo]

92. And enhanced interrogation is not torture according to John Yoo nt

[Warren DeMontague]

104. How can that be? We shot a sweet, "gently smiling", "little old man in his jammies"

who "gave bunny rabbits to his neighbors".

and HE WAS UNARMED! GOOD GOD, MAN, HE WAS UNARMED!!!

[mmonk]

119. He wasn't armed. He resisted. He was shot.

[gratuitous]

122. This is the same AG who ended the Ensign investigation

Thank you for your opinion, Mr. Holder. We'll certainly give your concern all the consideration it deserves. Right now, I'm a bit preoccupied with the case of a guy who killed his roommate because of a dispute over a hit of meth. He presents an argument every bit as compelling as yours.