On Jan 27, 2009, at 11:33 AM, Roger Howard wrote: > On Tue, January 27, 2009 10:38 am, Chris Gehlker wrote: > >> >> I'm confused. Why investigate something that is not in dispute. >> Apparently the UN and the US senate agree on what Rumsfeld did. What >> is there to investigate? > > Maybe I'm misunderstanding your question, but surely you understand > the > need to have a proper investigation to establish the facts of the > matter > and to support any prosecution. Just because two groups appear to > agree > that something bad happened doesn't mean there's enough, yet, for a > full > prosecution. > > We're at the pre-grand jury stage it seems - several groups believe > we've > got a strong enough case for an indictment; but there are likely > many gaps > to fill in before a prosecution can move forwrd. > > Particularly because any investigations now have largely been > outside the > process - enough to establish possible wrong-doing, but there will > have to > be a massive investigation to support what will no doubt be a massive > trial if one were to occur.
and, there can't be any mistakes made in the process or it can all be thrown out It appears Obama is continuing to appoint people who have previously taken strong stands against torture. It appears he's preparing to do what's right and necessary. K _______________________________________________ OSX-Nutters mailing list | [email protected] http://lists.tit-wank.com/mailman/listinfo/osx-nutters List hosted at http://cat5.org/
