The Strib quotes the American Prospect:
"From 1997 to 2002, Republican committee chairmen issued more than 1,000 subpoenas (to the Clinton administration) and the Republican House took 140 hours of testimony on whether Clinton had abused his Christmas card list for fundraising purposes. By contrast, the House spent a total of 12 hours on Abu Ghraib, with one subpoena issued."Hm. Could it be because the military, the Department of Defense and the executive branch already have investigative services whose job it is to deal with criminal activities by troops? That it's not really Congress' job, unlike, for example, investigating a corrupt President?
Just a thought.
Posted by Mitch at October 12, 2006 07:27 AM | TrackBack
and when the military and the Department of Defense are operating under the orders of the executive branch, who's job is it to provide oversite?
Posted by: Doug at October 12, 2006 07:48 AMIn answer to your original question:
The Latin term for "Non-Sequitor" is "Doug".
Posted by: mike at October 12, 2006 11:54 AMDoug you should familiarize yourself with the Abu Griab case as your statement indicates complete ignorace. Did the army begin an investigation at a very high level as soon as it reported? Was the investigation launched MONTHS before it was reported by the press, especially 60 minutes? Was the investigation reported to the press as soon as it was started? Where the the main culprits in the incident prison guards in thier civilian jobs? Where the troops involved with Abu Griab tried and convicted? Where those in the chain of command above the miscredeants held accountable for the poor leadership of thier troops? The answer to these questions is yes.
Also the investigation showed the whole incident was the result not of intelligence officers having them soften the prisoners for further interogation but a "party" to celebrate a birthday. The prisoners who where abused where common street thugs who had rioted in the days just before the event and where held in that section of the prison for those actions.
While like you I abhore the actions of those troops I at least understand this is NOT a representation of our troops and should not be used to to make partisan political points.
Dave
Posted by: Dave at October 12, 2006 11:55 AMIt's not a non-sequitur. The administration and the military under Mr. Rumsfeld has demonstrated that they are either unwilling or incapable of policing themselves without having the media and Congress watching them.
That's why there are all of these mysterious "leaks" to the press Dave.
Posted by: Doug at October 12, 2006 12:43 PM"The administration and the military under Mr. Rumsfeld has demonstrated that they are either unwilling or incapable of policing themselves without having the media and Congress watching them. "
Doug, as usual you are wrong.
The military investigation of Abu Ghraib was underway before the story got to the press. Those who were eventually sentenced (heavily) for their involvement were already well within the purview of the military justice system back when Doug thought "Abu Grhaib" was a brand of hummus.
You may start the customary ratcheting-back of your claims now.
Posted by: mitch at October 12, 2006 12:57 PMBear in mind that what with the new law on torture, the actions of PFC Lynndie English, et al. are now PERFECTLY LEGAL. Does anyone think they will be gotting out of prison any time soon? Pure hypocracy.
Posted by: Chunkstyle at October 12, 2006 03:14 PM"Bear in mind that what with the new law on torture, the actions of PFC Lynndie English, et al. are now PERFECTLY LEGAL."
Uh, no they aren't
PFC English et al appeared to be committing those acts of torture strictly for sick amusement, and they were punished accordingly. That said, any laws passed allowing torture would be confined to the use of interrogation techniques.
Posted by: Brad at October 12, 2006 03:56 PMMitch said,
"Doug, as usual you are wrong."
Sure Mitch. And we all know just how serious you all took it. Why, it was all just nothing more than fratboy hijinx...
Posted by: Doug at October 12, 2006 03:59 PM"And we all know just how serious you all took it."
We? Well, the military took it plenty seriously; ask the guys (and gal) who are in stockade right now.
"Why, it was all just nothing more than fratboy hijinx"
Leavenworth seems a bit drastic, if "frat boy hijinx" were the issue...
I mean, it's not like they lied under oath, or drowned someone and ran away from the scene, or conspired to blow up cops. To a typical DFLer, those are pretty much non-issues, no?
Posted by: mitch at October 12, 2006 04:08 PMMitch said,
"Well, the military took it plenty seriously;"
Really? There were a few low ranking schmucks that took the fall.
There were also CIA operatives and privately employed contractors that were involved but for them, zero consequences.
Why?
Posted by: Doug at October 12, 2006 07:43 PMHow many hours were spent looking into steroid use in MLB? How many subpeonas?
Posted by: Pants at October 12, 2006 10:18 PMDoug, you are such a dumbfxxk.
"That's why there are all of these mysterious "leaks" to the press Dave"
You magnificent moron. Those leaks were made by political hacks for political reasons. Those leakers don't like Bush, the war on terror or, most importantly America.
Posted by: Kermit at October 12, 2006 10:47 PMKermit said,
"You magnificent moron. Those leaks were made by political hacks for political reasons. Those leakers don't like Bush, the war on terror or, most importantly America."
Uh huh... Sure they were Kermit.
What's wrong? Someone take your nook?
Posted by: Doug at October 13, 2006 08:10 AM"What's wrong? Someone take your nook?"
Is that the best you've got, Doug?
Posted by: Paul at October 13, 2006 01:59 PMPaul said,
"Is that the best you've got, Doug?"
Hmmmm... Paul shows up to protect kermit from my mean taunt...
Do you help Kermit wipe too Paul?
Posted by: Doug at October 13, 2006 05:12 PMNo Doug, it was a backhanded compliment. And you can wipe me anytime.
Posted by: Kermit at October 14, 2006 09:43 AMKermit said,
"And you can wipe me anytime."
I'll pass Kermit. I wouldn't want to see poor Paul out on the street without a job.
Posted by: Doug at October 14, 2006 11:50 PM