On Jan 27, 2009, at 12:33 PM, 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.
I disagree. There is certainly enough evidence to appoint a prosecutor right now. Convening a grand jury is part of 'prosecution'. As has been pointed out before, there is no question that crimes were committed. Low level people have already been convicted and sentenced. The only question is how far up the chain of command this should be pursued. That is more a question of policy than a question of fact. I think that there are serious arguments to be made pro an con and there is no really good course of action. There is, however, a really bad course of action and that is to go after Cheney and Rumsfeld while giving Pelosi, Rockefeller and other leading congressional Democrats a pass. -- It is an ironic habit of human beings to run faster when we have lost our way. -Rollo May _______________________________________________ OSX-Nutters mailing list | [email protected] http://lists.tit-wank.com/mailman/listinfo/osx-nutters List hosted at http://cat5.org/
