LawTalkers

LawTalkers (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/index.php)
-   Politics (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=16)
-   -   My God, you are an idiot. (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=861)

Tyrone Slothrop 09-13-2011 12:37 PM

Re: My God, you are an idiot.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by ironweed (Post 459132)
I'm not ducking anything. To the extent Obama has backed off initial efforts to change Bush administration policies he's doing it because he wants to be a centrist, which is another thing I dislike about him. He didn't change his mind about closing Gitmo because someone brought him a secret dossier about the dangerous supervillians there. He did it because idiot public opinion stoked by idiot politicians (not all Rs, btw) was that TERRORISTS WILL KILL US ALL if they ever set foot in the continental US.

And also because Congress has enacted stuff which makes it very difficult to do what he said he'd do. One difference between Bush and Obama is that the latter is much less inclined to act unilaterally, for better or worse.

Tyrone Slothrop 09-13-2011 12:44 PM

Re: My God, you are an idiot.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 459137)
Obama could have easily ... slowly closed Gitmo in stages. He didn't do so because he looked at the intelligence, and thought, as most would, "There's a threat. Why risk it?"

If only it were so simple. We can't close Gitmo without finding another place to put the people there, and there are big barriers to that which Obama cannot simply wish away.

Quote:

Sixteen months after the Obama administration ordered the closure of the U.S. military detention camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, more than 180 detainees remain at the base, stuck in political and legal limbo that appears likely to persist at least through the end of the year.

Congress and the administration, facing the realities of election-year politics and a litany of legal and security concerns, remain at an impasse about what do to with the dozens of detainees cleared for release abroad, those slated for prosecution in military or civilian courts and others to be held indefinitely without charge.

"Numerically speaking, the Obama administration has made some progress toward closing Guantanamo by transferring and releasing detainees abroad," said Matthew Waxman, who served as deputy assistant secretary of defense for detainee affairs in the George W. Bush administration. "But, legislatively, they've been losing ground and are now worse off than when they started because of congressional restrictions."

The pending 2011 Defense Authorization Bill, which is the latest flash point in the Guantanamo debate, would slow the transfer of detainees to their home or third-party countries, hinder a future transfer of detainees to U.S. soil and block funds to buy or build a replacement for Guantanamo in the United States.

But Congress' tight hold on the purse strings isn't the only roadblock to closing Guantanamo. Here are five more:

Holding and Trying Detainees: Not in My Backyard

One of the key unresolved questions is where to try and hold the 36 detainees the administration plans to prosecute in military and civilian courts.

Attorney General Eric Holder said late last year that the trial of 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four other alleged terrorists held at Guantanamo would take place in U.S. federal court in New York City. But the decision came under immediate fire -- even from friends of the administration -- by critics who believed that sending the men to the scene of the crime for trial raised too many financial and security concerns. The administration has now taken the issue back under consideration.

Meanwhile, the administration's plans to acquire the Thomson Correctional Center in Illinois to house some of the detainees from Guantanamo Bay, which critics have assailed as "Gitmo North," remain stalled in Congress, which has rejected funding for the prison and remains reluctant to change a law that prohibits uncharged detainees from being brought to U.S. soil.

While Illinois Gov. Pat Quinn was pleased with the decision and the economic opportunity it could provide for a depressed area of Illinois, others have worried that bringing the accused terrorists to America's heartland would effectively put a bull's-eye there for terrorists.

Still, the White House says it intends to eventually utilize the facility, citing the precedent of more than 350 convicted terrorists already serving time in U.S. prisons and the economic advantage such a facility would provide.

"The Department of Defense currently spends approximately $150 million per year for detention operations at Guantanamo ... operating costs will be cut in half at Thomson," national security adviser Gen. James Jones wrote in a letter to Congress last week.

Cleared for Release but Nowhere to Go

The Obama administration has managed to resettle 33 detainees in 13 different countries since taking over management of Guantanamo in 2009. A panel of intelligence officials approved the detainees' release either because there was scant evidence of their involvement with terrorist groups or they were deemed low-level foreign fighters.

Dozens more are expected to follow when officials can find them homes.

But a looming dilemma is what to do with the 30 Yemenis whose release had been cleared but later put on hold in the wake of the attempted Christmas Day bombing of Northwest Flight 253 by Nigerian Umar Abdulmutallab, who is believed to have received al-Qaeda training in Yemen.

The administration halted the repatriation of all Yemenis from Guantanamo amid concerns about the country's security and record of breeding terrorism. Tom Malinowski of Human Rights Watch says this is a potential problem.

"If Gitmo stays open as a camp that is mostly for Yemenis, I can't imagine a better gift to al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula," he said.

Back to Battle: The High Recidivism Rate

Lawmakers have also expressed concern with the number of former Guantanamo detainees returning to the battlefield. While the exact number is unclear, the Pentagon estimated in January a 20 percent recidivism rate, up from 14 percent six months before.

Republicans alarmed by the rising number say it's one reason Guantanamo should be left open. But the Obama administration has countered that all of the former detainees who have returned to terrorist activities were released or transferred under the Bush administration.

Furthermore, the administration says it has instituted a comprehensive review process involving multiple agencies to monitor detainees. Still, the prospect of released detainees returning to the battlefield at all instills more than a little uneasiness among policymakers who are weighing just that.

Indefinite Hold: Objections to Imprisoning 48 Without Charge

Another sticking point revolves around 48 prisoners the administration says it will hold indefinitely under the laws of war. U.S. law forbids the transfer of such uncharged individuals to U.S. soil but the administration wants Congress to change the law.

Human rights groups are opposed to the idea of bringing the uncharged detainees to Thomson Prison or any other facility inside the United States for fear that it will start a new legal precedent.

"It's bad enough that indefinite detention without charge is going on in places like Guantanamo and Afghanistan, but to bring it to U.S. shores creates a whole other level of problems," Chris Anders of the American Civil Liberties Union said. "Right now in the United States, there are zero people being held indefinitely without charge. If the 48 are brought to Thomson it will make it easier for the U.S. to add to that number."

Malinowski of Human Rights Watch agreed, saying he's concerned the administration might "institutionalize the problem" of the uncharged 48 by "making detention without charge a permanent feature of the fight against terrorism."

Furthermore, these groups say, under the Geneva Convention rules for treatment of prisoners during war, the detainees who remained uncharged are supposed to be free from detention in an environment consistent with a near lockdown of a supermax penitentiary.

"The detaining power shall encourage the practice of intellectual, educational, and recreational pursuits, sports and games amongst prisoners, and shall take the measures necessary to ensure the exercise thereof by providing them with adequate premises and necessary equipment," Article 38 of the Conventions reads.

Crowded Election-Year Agenda

Finally, as the administration struggles with the devastating oil leak off the Gulf Coast, the fluctuating economy and a full congressional agenda, including the upcoming Supreme Court confirmation hearing for Elena Kagan, many believe President Obama's initial goal of prioritizing the closure of Guantanamo is wavering.

"The administration has had other priorities and has let the republicans control the air waves," the ACLU's Anders said. "The politics in Congress are complicated by the administration's hesitancy to publicly push back on the issue."
ABC News, June 2010

Hank Chinaski 09-13-2011 12:54 PM

Re: My God, you are an idiot.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by ironweed (Post 459143)
You I don't even know what planet.

if paigow were still here, and if she'd starting posting here, she'd say I was simply voicing a "foul truth."

Hank Chinaski 09-13-2011 12:56 PM

Re: My God, you are an idiot.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 459145)
If only it were so simple. We can't close Gitmo without finding another place to put the people there, and there are big barriers to that which Obama cannot simply wish away.



ABC News, June 2010

I'll give him this, he's not putting more people in Gitmo. Instead he blows them up along with anyone within 100 feet of them.

Tyrone Slothrop 09-13-2011 12:58 PM

Re: My God, you are an idiot.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 459148)
I'll give him this, he's not putting more people in Gitmo. Instead he blows them up along with anyone within 100 feet of them.

I think I've been pretty clear in saying that I don't like the drone strikes for a variety of reasons. However, you will ignore that I've said this and continue with your usual routine.

Hank Chinaski 09-13-2011 01:05 PM

Re: My God, you are an idiot.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 459149)
I think I've been pretty clear in saying that I don't like the drone strikes for a variety of reasons. However, you will ignore that I've said this and continue with your usual routine.

I know you guys are bothered, not my point. a man who promised to stop W's rights abuses decided not to. that means something. either he is a complete weakling to the public (which I don't see because he wouldn't have campaigned on the issue) or he has seen some things that changed his mind.

That you or ironweed would not pull the trigger on the drone murders is besides the point.

and again, you may disagree with the above but surely there is a valid point there, and all these Dems attacked me as idiotic for making it. Why can't this board treat people who disagree with respect?

Sidd Finch 09-13-2011 01:28 PM

Re: My God, you are an idiot.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 459123)
And Gitmo is still open, and did you see the documentary/news story on the Osama murder? There are operations like that going on most evenings not to mention drone attacks.

I've said for years that the problems Bush created in Gitmo could not be easily resolved, and is likely intractable. You can't turn the prisoners loose, you can't try them when they've been tortured, and I seem to recall a certain obstacle to transferring them elsewhere.

As for drone attacks and killing Osama, those are acts of war committed on the battlefield. I have no issue with that. It doesn't justify torturing prisoners, creating secret prisons, or jailing people without charge or trial forever (i.e., the intractable problem Bush created), any more than a police officer's right to shoot a suspect under certain circumstances entitles the state to torture or imprison other suspects without trial.

Adder 09-13-2011 01:38 PM

Re: My God, you are an idiot.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 459095)
But when a President says "We have to do some extraordinary things that will take away rights some terrorists may have," and the next President runs on a platform of stopping all of that, then, once he understands the facts, goes beyond what the first president did, how is that not evidence that Bush had good reason, maybe you wouldn't make the same decision if you know what he knew, but it seems Obama has made the same decision.

ask those still at gitmo if Obama decided to "go farther."

Adder 09-13-2011 01:40 PM

Re: My God, you are an idiot.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by ironweed (Post 459125)
I will freely admit that I got halfway through that before I got tired of unpacking all of the backpedlaing double-negative qualifiers. But if your position is that there's some secret stuff that only Bush/Obama knows, and it makes human rights violations by the Bush/Obama administrations OK, and who are we to question without knowing all the facts, then that's pretty fucking sad.

I read something like that at a museum outside Nurnberg last week.

Adder 09-13-2011 01:44 PM

Re: My God, you are an idiot.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 459140)
On the issue of caging these people like animals and denying them rights, something he could have rectified quietly in stages the media would have missed above.

yeah, right. You've never tuned to fox?

Hank Chinaski 09-13-2011 01:46 PM

Re: My God, you are an idiot.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Adder (Post 459158)
ask those still at gitmo if Obama decided to "go farther."

because being jailed w/o trial for 6 years makes the next 8 a piece of cake?

Adder 09-13-2011 01:50 PM

Re: My God, you are an idiot.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 459165)
because being jailed w/o trial for 6 years makes the next 8 a piece of cake?

Better than being tortured.

Btw, the museum at Dachau unambiguously describes some of Cheney's techniques as torture. 170 people, I think, were tried for war crimes. Too bad for them they lost and didn't have John Yoo on their side.

Hank Chinaski 09-13-2011 01:50 PM

Re: My God, you are an idiot.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch (Post 459153)
I've said for years that the problems Bush created in Gitmo could not be easily resolved, and is likely intractable. You can't turn the prisoners loose, you can't try them when they've been tortured, and I seem to recall a certain obstacle to transferring them elsewhere.

few were tortured. Why not try or release the others? I think it's because they're really fucking evil, but there is no real crime they can be charged with.

Quote:

As for drone attacks and killing Osama, those are acts of war committed on the battlefield.
and intentionally killing bystanders is okay too? and what battle field? There is no war with Pakistan. didn't Nixon get impeached for taking a war across a national boundary into another country?

I have no problem with him doing it, but to justify it by saying it's war is a result driven argument.

Hank Chinaski 09-13-2011 01:52 PM

Re: My God, you are an idiot.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Adder (Post 459167)
Better than being tortured.

Btw, the museum at Dachau unambiguously describes some of Cheney's techniques as torture. 170 people, I think, were tried for war crimes. Too bad for them they lost and didn't have John Yoo on their side.

I don't know who you think you're arguing with, and what you're arguing about, but comparing people to the Nazi means you've lost to whoever it may be.

Greedy,Greedy,Greedy 09-13-2011 02:13 PM

Re: My God, you are an idiot.
 
Those of you who follow me on twitter may have seen already seen me retweet this from one of my old friends, but it is just too great not to watch twice. Spree: foul language in lyrics. And at least one photo that will break your heart.

Fugee 09-13-2011 02:44 PM

Re: My God, you are an idiot.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 459168)
didn't Nixon get impeached for taking a war across a national boundary into another country?

I thought it was for having his henchmen break into the Watergate & then covering it up.

Sidd Finch 09-13-2011 03:08 PM

Re: My God, you are an idiot.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 459168)
few were tortured. Why not try or release the others? I think it's because they're really fucking evil, but there is no real crime they can be charged with.

Not sure what your basis is for saying that few were tortured. But I agree, the situation W created is intractable.

But if you believe -- I mean, really believe, not Hank-wants-to-argue-believe -- that Obama has "gone beyond" Bush on this, then tell me -- how many more prisoners have been sent to Gitmo under Obama? Or did Bush just manage to get rid of all the evil people in the world?



Quote:

and intentionally killing bystanders is okay too? and what battle field? There is no war with Pakistan. didn't Nixon get impeached for taking a war across a national boundary into another country?

I have no problem with him doing it, but to justify it by saying it's war is a result driven argument.
Actually, yes -- intentional killing of bystanders is okay too. Not all of it or always, but in many instances in a war, yes. See, e.g., Hiroshima.

Nixon took an invasoin into another country. Long before he did that, there were targetted kilings, and even bombings, in Cambodia and Laos. But it was the massive movement of ground troops into Cambodia that caused the real uproar. The problem with the others wasn't the acts in themselves, but that they were in support of a stupid war.

Put differently, would you have objected to killing Goering and his driver if they happened to be in Switzerland?

Tyrone Slothrop 09-13-2011 03:48 PM

Re: My God, you are an idiot.
 
"We have an imaginary deficit in this country where the source of that deficit, that imaginary deficit, is waste, fraud, and abuse, foreign aid, oil subsidies, and Nancy Pelosi's airplane.... The real deficit and the real causes of our deficit are a couple things. First of all we spend twice as much as any other developed country on health care, and that's true whether you look at it as a percentage of GDP or a per capita basis...the second is that we spend more than the next 14 largest countries combined on our national defense, and that simply is not sustainable, and it also causes like a hollowing out of the country because there's not the resources available to invest in things like education and infrastructure and high-value added research. And the third is that we give away half of the tax income in deductions and credits."

Erskine Bowles

Greedy,Greedy,Greedy 09-13-2011 04:25 PM

Re: My God, you are an idiot.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 459178)
"We have an imaginary deficit in this country where the source of that deficit, that imaginary deficit, is waste, fraud, and abuse, foreign aid, oil subsidies, and Nancy Pelosi's airplane.... The real deficit and the real causes of our deficit are a couple things. First of all we spend twice as much as any other developed country on health care, and that's true whether you look at it as a percentage of GDP or a per capita basis...the second is that we spend more than the next 14 largest countries combined on our national defense, and that simply is not sustainable, and it also causes like a hollowing out of the country because there's not the resources available to invest in things like education and infrastructure and high-value added research. And the third is that we give away half of the tax income in deductions and credits."

Erskine Bowles

You know, we get some benefits from each of those expenses. Pharmaceuticals are our fourth largest category of export products (after aircraft, cars and semiconductors), and the defense net we provide butresses our strong economic as well as defense position in the world. I'd question the idea that some degree of heightened defense spending compared to other countries is unsustainable, though I'd note it need not be quite so heightened as it is.

Tyrone Slothrop 09-13-2011 05:11 PM

Re: My God, you are an idiot.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 459168)
few were tortured. Why not try or release the others? I think it's because they're really fucking evil, but there is no real crime they can be charged with.

I guess I find it odd that you are always pointing out that none of us can really know anything well enough to form an opinion, but you then seem to assume that policymakers have something like perfect information. If we can't charge them with a crime, how would we have enough information to know that they're really evil?

Tyrone Slothrop 09-13-2011 05:12 PM

Re: My God, you are an idiot.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 459179)
You know, we get some benefits from each of those expenses.

Of course we do. If there were no benefits, we wouldn't be doing it. It is exactly those benefits that make it so difficult for our political system to change course.

Hank Chinaski 09-13-2011 05:33 PM

Re: My God, you are an idiot.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 459180)
I guess I find it odd that you are always pointing out that none of us can really know anything well enough to form an opinion, but you then seem to assume that policymakers have something like perfect information. If we can't charge them with a crime, how would we have enough information to know that they're really evil?

suppose we had caught Atta and the other 17 with box cutters on the morning of 9/11. What would you charge them with? There is a good deal of things these people do that are clearly evil, but not yet criminal.

Example, the 9/11 plotter trials haven't gone well have they, (say the ones in Europe)?

Tyrone Slothrop 09-13-2011 05:44 PM

Still not going to end well.
 
Wow. This is insane:

Quote:

Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman plans to hold meetings with the head of the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), a group which has maintained an armed struggle against the Turkish government since 1984 and is internationally recognized as a terrorist organization. Word of the meeting was published on Ynet.com which also suggested that the the PKK might ask Lieberman for military aid. The proposed meeting, which would add additional stress to Israel’s tense relationship with Turkey following Turkey’s recent decision to expel Israel’s ambassador from Ankara, was met by cautious remarks from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s office. Haaretz reports that the Prime Minister’s office did not confirm or deny Lieberman’s retaliatory plan but called for restraint with regards to statements concerning Israel’s relationship with Turkey, stating, “Our policy was and remains to prevent a breakdown of relations with Turkey and easing the tensions between the countries.”

link

Tyrone Slothrop 09-13-2011 05:45 PM

Re: My God, you are an idiot.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 459183)
suppose we had caught Atta and the other 17 with box cutters on the morning of 9/11. What would you charge them with? There is a good deal of things these people do that are clearly evil, but not yet criminal.

Example, the 9/11 plotter trials haven't gone well have they, (say the ones in Europe)?

I get your point, but it's not clear to me that you get mine. Now you're just asking me to assume ("suppose") the sort of facts I think policyholders may not know.

Hank Chinaski 09-13-2011 05:57 PM

Re: My God, you are an idiot.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 459185)
I get your point, but it's not clear to me that you get mine. Now you're just asking me to assume ("suppose") the sort of facts I think policyholders may not know.

Ty. everyone gets your points. You are extremely transparent. But why not tell me, in Ironweed's third grade style, what point i missed?

Hank Chinaski 09-13-2011 05:58 PM

Re: Still not going to end well.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 459184)
Wow. This is insane:



link

damn. that seems almost Onion worthy. What's Hil doing about all this?

futbol fan 09-13-2011 06:04 PM

Re: My God, you are an idiot.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 459183)
suppose we had caught Atta and the other 17 with box cutters on the morning of 9/11. What would you charge them with? There is a good deal of things these people do that are clearly evil, but not yet criminal.

Example, the 9/11 plotter trials haven't gone well have they, (say the ones in Europe)?

Suppose we found you in a middle school bathroom? What would we charge you with?

Hank Chinaski 09-13-2011 06:08 PM

Re: My God, you are an idiot.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by ironweed (Post 459189)
Suppose we found you in a middle school bathroom? What would we charge you with?

google covington middle school and my real name. that was an ironclad indictment, my lawyer said, said the plea was a good deal.

futbol fan 09-13-2011 06:17 PM

Re: My God, you are an idiot.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 459190)
google covington middle school and my real name. that was an ironclad indictment, my lawyer said, said the plea was a good deal.

If you make it a crime to hang around school bathrooms, only criminals etc.

Hank Chinaski 09-13-2011 08:42 PM

Re: My God, you are an idiot.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by ironweed (Post 459192)
If you make it a crime to hang around school bathrooms, only criminals etc.

I know, right? I mean if they had a "trench coat mafia" thing, you know it could only help to have someone like me hiding in the bathroom.

LessinSF 09-13-2011 11:01 PM

Re: Still not going to end well.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 459184)
Wow. This is insane:



link

Really?!?! Can the Kurds be worse than the Turks?

Adder 09-14-2011 03:36 AM

Re: My God, you are an idiot.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 459183)
suppose we had caught Atta and the other 17 with box cutters on the morning of 9/11. What would you charge them with? There is a good deal of things these people do that are clearly evil, but not yet criminal.

Example, the 9/11 plotter trials haven't gone well have they, (say the ones in Europe)?

Attempted hijacking, attempted murder, conspiracy to both, probably lots of lesser included and terror-specific charges.

If you mean had they just been turned away instead of arrested, yeah, that's the way a justice system works. You can have the evilest of hearts but if you don't do anything it's no tragedy that you don't get punished. And, of course, we probably would have heard nothing from those guys again.

Hank Chinaski 09-14-2011 07:48 AM

Re: My God, you are an idiot.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Adder (Post 459196)
Attempted hijacking, attempted murder, conspiracy to both, probably lots of lesser included and terror-specific charges.

probably not any of those. Surely not attempted hijacking or murder.

to be honest, in a way, I'm starting to think letting all but the worst out of Gitmo isn't such a bad idea. There are plenty of bad guys out there now, and if we release some more and they go back to being bad we can just blow them up.

Adder 09-14-2011 11:01 AM

Re: My God, you are an idiot.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 459197)
probably not any of those. Surely not attempted hijacking or murder.

you honestly think they would be disciplined enough that none of them would talk? What were there, 17? Prisoners but not much of a dilemma.

Hank Chinaski 09-14-2011 11:07 AM

Re: My God, you are an idiot.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Adder (Post 459198)
you honestly think they would be disciplined enough that none of them would talk? What were there, 17? Prisoners but not much of a dilemma.

I think it's really tough to prosecute inchoate crimes (I don't know fuck all about criminal law so that may be wrong) and most conspiracy prosecutions involve conspiracies that have actually committed some. I do know that England has several anti-terrorism laws that couldn't stand here (more unconstitutional than the Obama HCR). There is a reason for those laws and it involves the basic difficulty I mention.

Adder 09-14-2011 11:13 AM

Re: My God, you are an idiot.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 459201)
I think it's really tough to prosecute inchoate crimes (I don't know fuck all about criminal law so that may be wrong) and most conspiracy prosecutions involve conspiracies that have actually committed some. I do know that England has several anti-terrorism laws that couldn't stand here (more unconstitutional than the Obama HCR). There is a reason for those laws and it involves the basic difficulty I mention.

You are right but if three of the say, "we were going to fly planes into buildings" the charges happen.

Of course this is fantasy land because there is zero chance of ever arresting them all. Instead, the best case scenario is their box cutters get taken away and no one is the wiser.

Tyrone Slothrop 09-14-2011 01:00 PM

Re: My God, you are an idiot.
 

Five myths about the Solyndra collapse
.

sgtclub 09-14-2011 02:13 PM

Re: My God, you are an idiot.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 459206)

You should read the WaPo article that goes into the details on the situation. Looks like at a minimum there was pressure put on OMB to approve prior to the agency finishing its diligence and being comfortable. Unclear how high up the pressure was coming from.

Tyrone Slothrop 09-14-2011 02:16 PM

Re: My God, you are an idiot.
 
I would support legislation to remove Heath Shuler's head from his ass.

Tyrone Slothrop 09-14-2011 02:17 PM

Re: My God, you are an idiot.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by sgtclub (Post 459207)
You should read the WaPo article that goes into the details on the situation. Looks like at a minimum there was pressure put on OMB to approve prior to the agency finishing its diligence and being comfortable. Unclear how high up the pressure was coming from.

That's why I posted what I posted (which is from the WaPo). It says:

Quote:

[E]vidence is mounting that there was something irregular about the way the Solyndra deal got greenlighted. My colleagues Joe Stephens and Carol D. Leonnig have obtained e-mails showing that the White House pressed the Office of Management and Budget to hurry up in finalizing the deal (note that this came after the Energy Department had already approved the loan), even as OMB officials voiced concern about being rushed.

Does that prove the White House engaged in cronyism, shoveling cash toward a political ally? Not necessarily. Democrats have pointed out that Solyndra’s loan process was initiated by the Bush administration and that many key investors were Republicans. Still, there could have been other reasons the deal was hastened. As a former Clinton energy aide stressed to me, it was arguably a mistake to sell the loan guarantees as job-creating stimulus (the program was expanded as part of the 2009 stimulus bill). “It means you try to force huge amounts of money quickly through processes that aren’t quite ready yet,” the aide said. “It’d be better to have a calmer, steadier source of funding.”


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:47 PM.

Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Limited.
Hosted By: URLJet.com