Another New Month, and Still No OPR Report
John Yoo has spent the last several weeks insisting he did not give George W Bush a blow job–while admitting that sometimes, he just had to play favorites with the President.
Were you close to George Bush?
No, I’ve never met him. I don’t know Cheney either. I have not gone hunting with him, which is probably a good thing for me.
[snip]
So you’re saying you were just one notch above an intern, you and Monica Lewinsky?
She was much closer to the president than I ever was.
[snip]
When you say you had “a client,” do you mean President Bush?
Yes, I mean the president, but also the U.S. government as a whole.
But isn’t a lawyer in the Department of Justice there to serve the people of this country?
Yes, I think you are quite right, when the government is executing the laws, but if there’s a conflict between the president and the Congress, then you have to pick one or the other.
Meanwhile, it has been 48 days since Eric Holder said the OPR Report on John Yoo and other OLC lawyers would be released by the end of November. And yet we still don’t have that report.
That’s particularly interesting because–as I pointed out a month ago, just days after Holder promised the OPR report imminently, the lawyers for Jose Padilla got an extension on their appellate response to Yoo and the government’s claim that Padilla couldn’t sue Yoo for all the bad lawyering he did. Their deadline? January 15, now just 11 days away.
In the government’s amicus brief in this suit, they boasted that Padilla didn’t need to sue Yoo personally, because the government had means to punish him for bad lawyering on its own. One means they boasted of? An OPR investigation.
In addition to potential discipline by a state bar, Department of Justice attorneys are also subject to investigation by the Office of Professional Responsibility (“OPR”), see 28 C.F.R. 0.39 and the Office of the Inspector General, 5 U.S.C. App. §8E. Section 1001 of the USA Patriot Act directs the Department of Justice Inspector General to review information and receive complaints alleging abuses of civil rights and civil liberties by Department of Justice employees. See Pub. L. 107-56, § 1001, 115 Stat. 391 (2001). OPR and the Office of the Inspector General have broad investigatory powers and can recommend discipline and even criminal prosecution, where appropriate. [my emphasis]
At the rate we’re going, Padilla’s lawyers will have to file their response to the boast that OPR can offer adequate discipline in cases like this, without yet learning what OPR did in this particular case.
I’m increasingly convinced that’s by design.
Cover=up of the crime is always worse than the crime itself. Holder’s DOJ is an ongoing criminal enterprise.
Yoo gives the expression “executing the laws” an entirely new meaning.
We were just discussing Horton’s interview on DemocracyNow regarding the recent history of intentional screw ups at DOJ in FDL’s Morning Swim.
I mentioned that the “intentional screw-ups” at DOJ would make a nice timeline and perhaps set the stage for an investigation of DOJ outside of DOJ.
I STILL caution people on putting the Stevens case in the “intentionally tanked” category. To me, the actions of the prosecutors is far more consistent with prosecutors breaking the rules in an attempt to win; not with an idea of tanking. If they wanted to tank it, there were far better ways to have done it without putting their asses, futures, bar cards and everything else on the line.
I agree with you. They wanted to win and went over the line. But like the other screw-ups, has there been any punishment? Will there be?
Maybe. The court itself has had a special prosecutor, independent of the DOJ, working on this quietly for a while.
You give the Bush DOJ a pass on intentionally tanking, but not the Colts?
/s
Perhaps then, it might be the case that the same kind of “exuberance” that wins cases against people without really deep pockets won’t work with the rich. If that is the case, then simply following the standard playbook could produce the same result.
Justice may claim to be blind but wealth usually holds the best cards.
Well, yes, the timing in the Padilla case could well be related, but I was also under the impression that our chess grandmasters wanted to sit on the report until after they get all those Republican votes they are anticipating on the conference version of the health care bill. Can’t be losing those votes, you know. Even though they have no intention of any sort of punishment, they probably view the report as “embarassing” to their friends across the aisle.
My disgust has no bounds…
Pick one. As an employee of the Office of Legal Counsel, I am responsible to:
a) provide sound legal opinions to the Office of the President.
b) provide sound legal opinions to the Attorney General.
c) provide sound legal opinions to the Department of Justice.
d) all of the above.
e) none of the above.
I think that the observation that Yoo was one step below Monica Lewinski, inflates his value, on any scale. She was at least personable, and as far as anybody can tell, didn’t help to get anybody killed.
This morning you could ask your questions about Yoo etc on the Diane Rehm show. Live now. [email protected]…..1800-433-8850
Diane just said “we are glad the first decade in this century is over” tee hee
1-800-433-8850
Ew would put money on it that you could get a question about Yoo through
http://wamu.org/programs/dr/
10:00National Issues Outlook
Health care, deficit reduction, job creation and Congressional mid-term elections: Political analysts weigh in on issues likely to drive national debate in 2010
Guests
E.J. Dionne, senior fellow at The Brookings Institution, Washington Post columnist, and author of “Souled Out: Reclaiming Faith and Politics After the Religious Right” and of “Stand Up Fight Back.”
Norman Ornstein, is resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute; coauthor with Thomas Mann of “The Broken Branch: How Congress Is Failing America and How to Get It Back on Track.”
Larry Sabato, founder and director of the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia and author of some 20 books.
SECOND HOUR ON INTERNATIONAL ISSUES
I’ll be trying to get on to ask why her guest think there was absolutely no coverage of the Gaza Freedom March by the so called liberal media? Will ask (if I get on) If they these protesters should hold their protest in Iran so Rachel,Keith and the rest would give them a few seconds of coverage.
Would also like to ask Diane why she has yet to cover the Goldstone Report
Just sent this one to the DR show
We hear many in the Obama administration and Republicans repeat “move forward, next chapter, turn the page, do not be about vengeance, retribution, no witch hunts” etc. Can anyone explain to me at what point over the last nine years did holding people accountable for very serious crimes including false pre war intelligence, hundreds of thousands dead, injured and millions displaced, along with torture etc start being defined as “retribution” instead of ENFORCING THE LAW?
When did this happen? And will we witness individuals in the Bush administraition held accountable for these serious crimes?
How can we really move forward without accountability. Just too many dead people that we would be crawling over
TELL IT!
If the OPR report doesn’t come out soon, Padilla’s lawyers will have a field day addressing the powerful investigatory authority of the OPR in their filing.
If I were writing it, I’d think about including something like this:
The questions don’t have to reveal all the outlines of the Padilla team’s case, but should lay out the obvious things that everyone knows will be asked.
The list will also have the effect of keeping Yoo’s conduct front and center, even while pushing the Obama DOJ to get their act together.
Interesting thought.
The conflict is between the president and the
CongressConstitution. Fixed it.Huff Po headline
Link? That’s not the headline I see, alan.
It’s too early in the morning to be handed the image of John Yoo giving Bush a blow. Not that any time of the day is good to have to imagine that!
But that is exactly where this question was going, wasn’t it?
Yoo had a nice comeback, but he must be seeing the truth inherent in the connection.
Geez, Marcy, you and blowjobs again.
Seriously, though, can’t we at least get this guy disbarred or get his tenure at UC-Berkeley revoked? I mean, even Alberto Gonzales was complaining that he couldn’t find a job for while there.
Obama Administration Defends Torture Memo Author John Yoo
Which just goes to show, not only does the United States torture it has aided and abetted war criminals.
It does suggest Mr. Obama sees that representation has presenting no conflict between Mr. Yoo and his DoJ. An odd conclusion.
David Dayen has a fresh cross-post available: “Notes On The Obama Disconnect”
Let’s face it folks. The Obama administration IS NOT going to do anything to anybody who was part of the Bush/Cheney republican terrorist cell – or it’s sleeper cells of subversive plants left behind at the DoJ to torpedo anything they try to do.
My knickers are in a knot about it but what’s a guy to do when you have a president and his administration who is only “forward looking” when it comes to crimes against the constitution. Once again Bushie and the boys dodge another leagal bullet and get a free pass. It’s obvious that “justice” for elected officials and their appointees is for campaign rhetorical flourish and promises only and never does apply to members of either party in real life.
Does Obama and his posse really think the rethuglicons are gonna do that to him after they leave office? If so he’s more of a political chump than I give him credit for.
These actions – or lack thereof – is why the country thinks that the dems are a bunch of pussies. If the rethugs were in charge they would be on it like stink on shit…
Wait. You can say “Blow” in a headline? Just a heads up. That’s gonna piss off David Shuster…
I actually think Shuster found what Ew said on his program spot on. He almost choked with glee when EW told the truth.
Our leaders are more concerned about “blowjobs” than “intelligence snowjobs” and “torture” Yes they are. Shuster knows Ew said it like it is
IMHO, the suppression of the OPR report — because what else can we call it at this point, having been promised imminent release since last May? — is really about protecting Rizzo and the CIA (still). This is something, EW, you made a point about last June. I think you were right then, and by stretching the point, right now.
What has delayed the OPR report was the release of the CIA OIG report, IMO. Too many puzzle pieces to put together, if OPR is released. So they’re going to sit on it a long time, or wait for the most auspicious, that is most inauspicious from our point of view, time to release it. From all accounts, it’s not the conclusion of the OPR report that will be so awful, or what happens to Yoo’s ass, or Bradbury, or Bybee, but the over 200 pages of detail (emails, etc.) that will allow the near-full impact of the conspiracy to be delineated.
By the way, whatever happened to that Senate Intelligence Committee investigation on the treatment and interrogation of “high-value detainees”? Just askin’.
Well dang – I start a comment, then go off and feed the German Shepherds and come back and finish, only to see the point was already made after I post and refresh.
No, no, no, Mary. Your comment had much more to offer than mine, and not just your wonderful “tone”.
Btw, MSNBC has a new story up on the Khost suicide bomber. They identify him as a Jordanian-Al Qaeda double agent, “Humam Khalil Abu-Mulal al-Balawi, 36, an al-Qaida sympathizer from the town of Zarqa, which is also the hometown of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the Jordanian militant Islamist responsible for several devastating attacks in Iraq.”
Al Balawi was supposedly turned by the Jordanians, who have a small but important force in Afghanistan. Al Balawi was supposed to be a key figure in the hunt for Zawahiri, and apparently had come to the CIA base with “urgent” info on the #2 Al Qaeda leader, but came instead with a bomb around his chest. His Jordanian handler, Sharif Ali bin Zeid, said to be related to the Jordanian king, was also killed.
The Jordanians are reported to be quite in bed with U.S. intelligence:
Well, well, well… so the U.S. likes to play with the torturers. We knew this from all the rendition business, but didn’t know they were sending advisers into U.S. operations. You’ll notice I call the Jordanian General Intelligence Department (GID), or mukhabarat, torturers. There’s a lot of precedence for that, as NGOs have been making and documenting such charges for years. I also have first hand experience working with people who were tortured and even “turned” by the Jordanians. They love to do the latter, and this time, it blew up in their faces, literally.
Here’s the Christian Science Monitor on Jordan’s torture record recently:
If anything, the U.S. alliances in Afghanistan will make the corrupt and questionable alliances forged in Iraq look like a Sunday school Quaker meeting by comparison. First it was mass murder killers like Dostum, now it’s torturing mideast intelligence agencies. Gee, aren’t we glad to have a smiling Nobel Peace Prize icon like Obama standing up to represent American ideals in Afghanistan?
Thanks for that additional info – I hadn’t seen the ties to Jordan. I think they gave the US the heads up, way back when (before 9-11) that Saudi Arabian intelligence guys has pics of Bin Laden as their screen savers.
The fact that we’ve managed to dump a few hundred thousand or so Iraqi refugees into Jordan – with no real prospects that they’ll be repatriated – pretty much forces that much closer an affiliation with Jordan’s intel community, doesn’t it? I mean, it’s not like anyone is doing anything to decrease the impact on Jordan and Syria of the couple million or so famililes with pretty significant grudges that have been dumped over boarders.
Oh wait – silly me – I keep forgetting that Iraq is our success story.
Apologies to B. Traven and John Huston, but one can imagine the U.S. rulers saying, “Refugees? We don’t need to hear about no stinkin’ refugees!”
We’ve been in bed with Jordanian intelligence since Clinton (indeed, that was surely a part of our free trade relationship with them). Remember that much of the intell we had to justify our false belief that Abu Zubaydah was the ringleader of AQ came from Jordanian intelligence related to attacks in 2000 (including the millenium attack and an attack in Jordan itself).
Of course, even then we knew that Jordan tortured, so it may be that our entire basis of knowledge about AZ was based on torture.
Plus, we also know that Jordan has long been a drop off point for ghost detainees, particularly in teh program’s early years.
Thanks for that info.
You are, of course, correct. What appears new to me, but it may not be, is that the GID is working with the Yanks in CIA/Special Ops operations in theater. Shouldn’t be a surprise (to me), but it is.
How much of the whole “war on terror” isn’t blowback from torture? (Remember, Zawahiri was tortured by the [U.S. backed] Egyptians, turning him to even more “radical” modes of action.)
Qutb was tortured, Zawahiri used the Clinton era snatches with shipments to Egyptian torture/killing as the ostensible “justification” for the embassy bombings, …
I feel like I’m stuck on the same loop today.
One wishes for a Lenny Bruce to give a routine on the whole thing…….
There’s Lenny, with his jive schtick: “So Zawahiri was tortured, no, man, it was Qutb, I swear. Bush, Clinton, oh what the fuck! I can’t remember who was tortured anymore, just a lot of them, those Muslims. That’s what they call them, or Islamists? I like Muslims. Eat your Cheerios or the Muslims will come and get you. We’ll torture you. Eat your goddamn cereal or we’ll send you to Afghanistan. How you’re going to get to college anyway reading those fucking blogs all day? You want torture? There’s torture everywhere, so shut your yap!”
Or something like that. (Warning: You have to read the above with Lenny’s voice in your head.)
Thanks – I wasn’t very specific, but I did know about the ties with the Jordanian intel in general, including the role in the Clinton years and the shipment of Maher Arar etc. Wright deals with that some as well. But I hadn’t seen the tie to Jordan vis a vis the CIA bomber.
I’ve never had a good handle for how much of the AZ info was really US obtained but laundered as coming from Jordan vs. what came from Jordan. We were already engaged in some nifty Clinton era at sea interrogations and snatches to send to torture/death.
Then there’s this:
http://abcnews.go.com/WN/cia-resolved-avenge-agents-deaths/story?id=9462165
The CIA wants vengenance. Understandable (think Obama is going to tell them to just look forward instead?) but just another curve on the circle. Bin Laden want vengence for US bases in Saudi Arabia and support for dicators, US wants revenge for 9/11, Taliban and jihadis and increasingly large pools of home-grown-terrorists across the world’s homes want revenge for Iraq invasion and Bagram and Abu Ghraib and bombings of civilians, CIA wants revenge for its agents killed, and it goes round and round.
Vegenance based foreign and military and intelligence policy – that’s all we need to solve things more better.
That story also has this blurb that I guess kind of ties to my earlier comment
Obama has dug his hole deeper now.
My comment on looking into the abyss, made in my Seminal diary on the Ghazi Khan murders, is the appropriate response to your observation about the cycles of vengeance killings the U.S. is now embroiled in.
I’d only add that these kinds of violent, fruitless and endless affairs have soaked up a good bit of human history. Western civilization gets its start in working against such self-defeating communal actions. If one doesn’t believe me, read (or re-read) Aeschylus’s the Orestia, and most particularly it’s third installment, The Eumenides.
Does no one in government read the classics anymore? Who will play Athena’s role in terror-addled America?
Thanks for the very interesting comments, y’all. I bow in your virtual directions.
@Jeff Kaye: Many thanks. As a poet, I feel like I’m supposed to go all goo-goo eyed over Aeschylus, but he doesn’t speak to me anything like Lenny Bruce does. It’s so dated, so biblical, in tone and lexicon. Plus, forced rhyme just doesn’t do it for me.
I’m sure people are reading the classics. Too many, I fear, are reading them for how they can be weaponized.
That’s what I suspect has been done with Joseph Campbell’s lessons on the power of myth (to shape the cosmos in which we believe ourselves to be acting). As a result of his decades of lectures for State’s Foreign Service Institute, beginning in 1956, it’s clear to me that someone is using them to play patriarchal war god the world over.
I think we’ve deliberately demythologized the religions of the Levant and converted them into weapons-grade propaganda. After all, what jacked us to war in Iraq: myths of mythical WMD, or facts about mythical WMD? What has jacked our health care reform debate, myths, or well reasoned arguments grounded in facts?
And when I say we, I mean psychologists specifically. As one with a BA in that fair scientific art, I want to thank you for your heroic efforts.
I mean that in the classical Campbellian sense of heroism: going to hell and back for love of your community, then returning to successfully deliver a salvific boon. Jumping however high you’re commanded, killing others or being killed, does not a hero make. It’s not enough to shed blood, it’s how you deliver the boon.
Even earlier than Aeschylus’s Eumenides, the lesson of the last books of the Iliad is how, even in war, one must obey the customary rules that limit violence. Achilles went too far by mutilating Hector’s body and refusing to allow his burial, and he is taught that this was wrong.
By the way, with respect to Aeschylus’s Oresteia, Father Owen Lee’s Athena Sings is about the deep effect Aeschylus — and the Oresteia in particular — had on Richard Wagner. He even discusses at some length the chorus that you cite from the Eumenides.
By the way, the NYT has a nice editorial today about the illegality of torture. I will say this however, they seem to confuse criminal illegality with the right to the government in tort for damages, and they are two vastly different things, which was the basis of the 2nd Circuit’s opinion and, undoubtedly, the Supremes’ denial of cert.
Torture is a crime, and torturing would be illegal, but the NYT has a history of refusing to call what this government does torture. I’d call that enhanced reporting.
Love that picture. The Yoo-man’s eyes have that glassy, faraway look, common to the Borg and Gary Lockwood’s villain in the Star Trek episode, Where No Man Has Gone Before. Touched by an unseen force, he thinks he’s become a god. It did not end well for him or Icarus, nor will it for Mr. Yoo.
“by design”
Ya think? *g* BTW, I think we should all chip in an buy Yoo a Berkley Beret he can wear while he contemplates his role at OLC.
@9 – Good question.
@10 – I kind of think the observation that the report after all these months and promises is still dead in the water pretty much answers the question of whether gov can competently address matters.
I’m going back to the spec I had when the delays were first becoming obvious, quite a bit ago. IMO, that OPR report is going to be done to let DOJ, insitutionally and its friends-pals-colleagues individually, as much off the hook as possible. No big surprise there.
But when you look at the mechanics of how that is done, the best way it is accomplished is by hanging Yoo’s estwhile “clients” out to dry. Which is a big issue, esp with the many lawsuits out there (quite a few of which, at least, have the benefit of expiring SOLs, but since death of *detainees* is also an issue, and since there are possible trials on que now where DOJ is going to have to [I would think] concede that many of the “fact” recitations in the torture memos were inaccurate.
IOW, the OPR report drafters are going to have one set of pressures to construe the Yoo memos as narrowly as possible – that they were “carefully limited” to the specific facts recited in them, etc. That, though, leaves the CIA agents and Boeing employees and military involved in kidnappings to foreign torture, etc. twisting. If DOJ argues Yoo’s opinions, while bad, were carefully narrowed to the CIA facts provided (that Abu Zubaydah was a high value al-Qaeda operations officer, etc.) and the actions described therein (length of waterboarding, length of isolation, etc.) then the CIA officers* facilitating anal assaults, drugging, handoffs to foreign torture, genital mutiliation, , etc. or even participating in the “authorized” activities of stripping and freezing and sleep deprivation within the parameters, but with respect to people who were not as “described” to Yoo, are left w/o cover.
So who to give that cover to? I’m thinking DOJ will go for itself, for many reasons, one or two even halfway good. But what does that do for the many outstanding cases, then? Where DOJ is defending its toturers? WHo have now been cut loose? That’s a lot of competing interests and right now CIA has just had one of its most horrific losses of life in its history. For the calculating politicians who were hoping to run out SOLs and for there to be an opportune time to slide their report out, the truth is that with the delays, the timing just gets worse and worse for them.
With the frontline CIA officers killed in Afghanistan, targets bc of their participation in the current President’s legally questionable drone assassination/collateral civilian killing program (haven’t there been reports that the bomber was someone who had helped the CIA target the drone bombings and then turned?) who wants to trot over to CIA with a report that may hang other operatives out to dry? I think the political calculations have gone from bad to much worse, but then, I think that’s what probably should happen to political calculations when we have the kind of problems that we have had for the last 8 years.
BTW, my * above with CIA officers goes to something that I think I saw earlier. One of the recent GITMO habeas decisions that was declassified had a section on Binyam Mohamed, bc supposedly info given by him was a part of the evidence against a detainee. I only briefly skimmed parts of it and meant to go back, but never have. However, I’m almost sure that I remember the opinion mentioning that it was MILITARY (not CIA)) personnel who were picking Mohamed up at Morocco and who stripped him and took pictures of his mutilated body.
You and me both, honey.
Happy New Year folks.
This was an interesting and lengthy story in the NYT magazine published today by Peter Baker (if you haven’t already seen/discussed it): “Inside Obama’s War on Terrorism”
On the one hand it tries to paint Brennan as a sympathetic figure (at least in my opinion) and quotes ex-Bushies as saying Obama isn’t different from Bush at all on issues related to counterrorism/national security:
And on the issue of torture Baker writes that Obama felt this was already dealt with by Bush:
It’s worth a read and there are some good quotes by Anthony Romero/ACLU and Stephen Soldz.
Peter Baker’s Jan. 4th piece is a big wet kiss to John Brennan, a lingering goodbye to Team Bush, and a Bob Woodward come hither look to Team Obama. His treatment of their critics mirrors his selection of this quote, referring to President Obama, from the ACLU’s Anthony Romero (emphasis added):
I would say that’s damning with faint praise by Baker of the ACLU, Romero and its and his valid concerns about Obama institutionalizing so many of Bush’s excesses.
See below.
Baker is sticking to the meme of Obama the Pragmatic, the statesman who splits the difference between Dick Cheney and the ACLU (Baker’s choices), as if they represented encompassing and equally legitimate, informed and responsible but opposing views.
Two quotes by Baker show how generous his story is to the establishment. The first responds to the claim that Obama has accepted and institutionalized the substance, if not all of the phraseology, of Bush’s War on Terror. Baker gives it to Republican Sen. Susan Collins of Maine:
Collins’ quote is a nicely double-pronged political characterization. It allows that Bush’s policies could be all wrong, but viciously hard to disentangle, thereby forcing their continuation. Baker positions the quote to mean its first alternative, that the policies were, in fact, well chosen.
The second quote concerns widespread criticism about the killing and wounding of civilians as a result of Obama’s increasing reliance on drone air strikes in Afghanistan, Pakistan and now Yemen (emphasis added):
Note the use of percentages rather than the actual number of innocents killed and wounded, which paint the program in light favorable to the government, without any pesky counter-arguments from opponents. Baker ends this segment with a quote supporting the drone attacks from a guy who shares responsibility for implementing them. A reporter could be more objective or less credulous, but not Woodward wannabe Peter Baker.
Your analysis is far superior to my brief summarization. Thanks for taking the time to do that.
I especially like Baker’s stenography here, which could have come from virtually any government press release before or since the Vietnam war:
Baker implies that the government officials referred to are Americans, the ones who authorized drone aircraft attacks that killed innocents and occasionally criminals (correct ones?) on the ground. Baker does not quote from foreign government officials whose citizens are being killed and wounded by those strikes.
As for the percentages Baker quotes, it would have been helpful in a nine page article had he given actual numbers. He uses a three year-average, drone attacks for 2006-08. That may be a high base, making the drop in the percentage of innocents killed and wounded still unacceptably high (over or under the magic number 30?). That choice also sidesteps a more accurate trend analysis: 2009 may be higher than the casualties in 2007 or 2008.
I was waiting for the “But” after reading that statement. “But, according to …. the number is…” yet it was nowhere to be found. Of course government officials are going to insist it’s low. I really can’t believe he didn’t follow it up with the latest stats, which are readily available.
I don’t know what the actual numbers are, but Baker leaves himself and his reporting open to criticism because he hasn’t used them. If Baker has those percentages, he has the real numbers, too. Given how artfully he has used the related quotes, I assume that’s because the numbers are less persuasive in advocating his position. Besides, anonymous percentages always raise fewer popular objections than any real number of killed and wounded.
Thanks for the link Jason. Good Catholics – that’s pretty funny. The born babies who have died for the games those “good Catholics” chose to play are the testament to just how good they are, indeed. It’s also especially nice to have the article – which is in part going out to the Muslim world that is suffering the *civilian casualties* – highlight for them that it’s American Christians – Catholics in particular, who are deciding whether it is “worth it” (to them) to kill Muslim civilians. There’s a great message to send out.
I guess the increasing tide of “home grown” Muslim conviction in countries throughout the world (not just Yemen, Somalia, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, etc.) that the US has no justice for Muslims is the proof they need for just how “necessary” their torture-assassination-depravity programs have been. So necessary that now, of course, it’s necessary to kill more Muslims to avenge the assassinations of the CIA agents who were plotting out the assassinations of Muslim insurgents as vengence for the …
Yeah, I’ve been there in this thread already – sorry.