News Who will turn the dark and painful page ?

[Coin]

Three thoughts.

1. Whenever Obama is trying to avoid addressing Bush-era lawbreaking, he portrays it as "putting the past behind us". This isn't about the past. It is about the future. Obama will be President for at most eight years. If there are no prosecutions-- no consequences for those who broke the law-- then as soon as Obama is out, there will be nothing to prevent the next President from breaking the law. We simply cannot "turn the page" without first doing what is necessary to ensure this does not happen again.

2. Everyone seems to be focusing on whether the individual CIA officers who enacted the torture policies will be held accountable. I think this is less important than whether the higher-ups who created the torture policies will be held accountable.

3. There is at least one case where it is possible to make this happen, at least in part, even given the apparent uncooperativeness of the Obama administration. This would be the case of Jay Bybee.

Jay Bybee was a lawyer with the OLC in 2002, and wrote the first of the four "torture memos" released last week-- the memo that was as far as I know the groundbreaking first attempt by Bush administration lawyers to gut our torture laws. A few months after this memo was written, Bush succeeded in getting Bybee appointed to the 9th circuit court of appeals. Bybee-- the man who wrote that fascinating little aside about how locking someone in a small box with insects is humane so long as you pick the right insects-- remains a federal judge today. There is a way to hold Federal officeholders responsible for crimes even if the executive branch wants to look the other way, it's called impeachment.

Both the New York Times and the Los Angeles County Democratic Party have called for Bybee's impeachment; and there is a movement trying to get the California Democratic Party to pass a resolution at its convention this month calling on the House of Representatives to impeach Bybee:

http://www.calitics.com/diary/8584/yes-we-can-impeach-jay-bybee

If you are bothered by what has happened here, then I think it is worth it to contact your congressperson about this-- and if you are in California especially, then it is worth it to check that link out and contact the CDP to urge them to pass the impeach-Bybee resolution...

 

[Ivan Seeking]

From Obama, today.

...For those who carried out some of these operations within the four corner of legal opinions or guidance that had been provided from the White House, I do not think it is appropriate for them to be prosecuted. With respect to those who formulated those legal decision, I would say that is going to be more of a decision for the attorney general within the parameters of various laws and I don't want to prejudge them...

http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2009/04/prosecution-for-torture-memos-up-to-atty-gen.html

 

[mgb_phys]

I would say that is going to be more of a decision for the attorney general within the parameters of various laws and I don't want to prejudge them

Considering that it was the previous Republican appointed attorney general who approved the torture and it will be the new Democrat appointed attorney general who decides if there is to be a trail - saying that it's not political is a bit disingenuous

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Considering that it was the previous Republican appointed attorney general who approved the torture and it will be the new Democrat appointed attorney general who decides if there is to be a trail - saying that it's not political is a bit disingenuous

Only to the extent that it was the Republicans who broke the law. Your comment suggests that only an AG from the offending party can rightfully prosecute criminals.

I hope the AG nails these guys to the wall.

 

[mgb_phys]

Your comment suggests that only an AG from the offending party can rightfully prosecute criminals.

I meant that he can't claim this isn't about politics and is purely a legal matter when the AG that approved the acts and the AG that may or may not prosecute the previous AG are both political appointees.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I meant that he can't claim this isn't about politics and is purely a legal matter when the AG that approved the acts and the AG that may or may not prosecute the previous AG are both political appointees.

I still don't see your point. A prosecution of these individuals may set the Republicans on fire, but it is still a matter of law. IMO, those who authorized these tactics are almost certainly guilty of crimes and should be prosecuted.

In this country, less the actions of the previous administration, the law takes precedence over politics.

 

[LowlyPion]

Hey. I'm not against kicking this Bybee off the court. He was supervising Yoo and those outrageous memos. Since Congress was unaware of these memos and their authorship at the time of his confirmation to the court, I see nothing out of order in straightening the fraud that he participated in. Since he has shown himself to be an obedient ideologue ahead of being a jurist then I'd say he is patently unfit to be deciding issues of public interest.

I'm not against trying Cheney either and likely even Rove for their arrogance in working to concoct these ways to flaunt the laws as well. I don't think there is any question but when all the facts are known these men will have been found to have been abusers of power to forward their agendas at the expense of the general welfare.

But you must agree that such pursuits would certainly absorb many news cycles at a time when the country should be focusing on bigger issues. And might we not as well risk precipitating an endless cycle of recriminations with each change in administration, with each change in power rummaging through the past, in order to disadvantage the vanquished even further?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

But you must agree that such pursuits would certainly absorb many news cycles at a time when the country should be focusing on bigger issues. And might we not as well risk precipitating an endless cycle of recriminations with each change in administration, with each change in power rummaging through the past, in order to disadvantage the vanquished even further?

I'm not sure there is such a thing as "bigger issues". This strikes at the heart of our values and system of goverment.

 

[mgb_phys]

In this country, less the actions of the previous administration, the law takes precedence over politics.

That's rather the point.
The previous administration appointed Mr Gonzales because of his support for their interpretation of the rules on torture.
The current administration appoints an AG who shares their views on Mr Gonzales and will decide if it is political expedient to prosecute or not.

To claim that they are not acting politically but that it is totally a matter of legal opinion is like the CIA claiming that they had no opinion on the use of torture but were waiting for Mr Gonzales to decide for them.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

That's rather the point.
The previous administration appointed Mr Gonzales because of his support for their interpretation of the rules on torture.
The current administration appoints an AG who shares their views on Mr Gonzales and will decide if it is political expedient to prosecute or not.

To claim that they are not acting politically but that it is totally a matter of legal opinion is like the CIA claiming that they had no opinion on the use of torture but were waiting for Mr Gonzales to decide for them.

Our system of government is designed such that even Presidents can be held liable for crimes. No one is above the law and politics is not a shield against legal review.

What you fail to understand is that the previous admin was a severe aberration in our system. Our legal system, which is the practical implentation of our Constitution, is designed to deal with these situations.

If anyone is convicted of a crime, it will be because, beyond any reasonable doubt, they are guilty.

 

[edward]

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, on MSNBC's The Rachel Maddow Show, said, "There's a lot of evidence that remains to be gathered. And I think no good prosecutor would make a decision about going forward until he had all the evidence in place." According to the New York Times, "CIA interrogators used waterboarding...266 times on two key prisoners from Al Qaeda, far more than had been previously reported." The Washington Post editorializes, "Now comes the revelation that CIA interrogators were far from restrained in their use of this ancient and cruel technique."

266 times on just two detainees. If water boarding was as successful as was proclaimed just what information did they expect to get after the first success?

Cheney Wants More Memos Released Former Vice President Dick Cheney, on Fox News' Hannity , said, "I know specifically of reports that I read, that I saw, that lay out what we learned through the interrogation process. ... And I've now formally asked the CIA to take steps to declassify those memos. ... Let's have an honest debate." Former Bush aide Marc A. Thiessen, in a Washington Post op-ed, writes that "Obama declared that the techniques used to question captured terrorists 'did not make us safer.' This is patently false."

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/politics/bulletin/bulletin_090421.htm

Cheney formally asked the CIA?? Someone needs to inform the CIA that Cheney can no longer formally ask for anything.

 

[humanino]

But you must agree that such pursuits would certainly absorb many news cycles at a time when the country should be focusing on bigger issues.

Like what ? Some people have been guilty of putting "security" before the respect of another human being's dignity. Now money and flaws in the financial system should be put in such priority that we forget about fundamental human rights ? If some humans out there had more dignity, your financial system might be better too BTW

 

[Coin]

But you must agree that such pursuits would certainly absorb many news cycles at a time when the country should be focusing on bigger issues.

Like Obama's dog, and something stupid Miss California said? Oh, and there is a woman on Youtube who sang a song from "Le Miz" very well. These are the things I see the news focusing on lately.

No, I disagree. There is plenty of time to handle this issue alongside the other important ones, and by my personal standards I'm not sure it's possible for an issue to be more important than this. By this same argument Obama should stop working on health care to focus on the economy, or whatever it was the Republicans were saying last week.

And might we not as well risk precipitating an endless cycle of recriminations with each change in administration, with each change in power rummaging through the past, in order to disadvantage the vanquished even further?

Actually I'm all in favor of this. If the Obama administration breaks the law, they deserve recriminations.

 

[mheslep]

I still don't see your point. A prosecution of these individuals may set the Republicans on fire, but it is still a matter of law. IMO, those who authorized these tactics are almost certainly guilty of crimes and should be prosecuted...

If that is the case (and I do not think it is), then absent a pardon, isn't the Obama administration complicit and guilty of Obstruction of Justice? That is, the implication is that the Justice Department has the option of arbitrarily deciding, based on internal political decisions, to prosecute when there is clear evidence of a crime. I assert they have no such option given your predicate of 'certainly guilty of crimes'. So either your predicate is wrong or the Justice Dept. is breaking the law.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Like what ? Some people have been guilty of putting "security" before the respect of another human being's dignity. Now money and flaws in the financial system should be put in such priority that we forget about fundamental human rights ? If some humans out there had more dignity, your financial system might be better too BTW

There are many heinous crimes which are taken to trial and only some of them receive widespread news coverage. These people need to be taken to trial based on the merit of the case and not based on how much media coverage there is or how many people want to see these people rot in jail cells based on the media coverage. We are not even certain who all could theoretically be charged let alone the merit of their individual cases. Much of the information that would tell us about the merits of the cases is classified so we can not know. We are theoretically supposed to be able to trust the current administration to do the right thing. Under Bush I would not have had such trust. Now I feel that I may be able to justifiably feel that trust.

 

[WhoWee]

266 times on just two detainees. If water boarding was as successful as was proclaimed just what information did they expect to get after the first success?



http://www.usnews.com/usnews/politics/bulletin/bulletin_090421.htm

Cheney formally asked the CIA?? Someone needs to inform the CIA that Cheney can no longer formally ask for anything.

Cheney does make a valid point
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/04/20/cheney-calls-release-memos-showing-results-interrogation-efforts-1862515294/

Telling half of the story isn't fair.

Maybe the people who escaped death by "man made disasters" would like to know the details?

As for waterboarding as a torture method...if someone was tortured 183 times in a month...it must not be very dangerous...uncomfortable/unpleasant...YES...life-threatening...apparently not.

It sounds like waterboarding as a torture is comparable to shoplifting as a crime.

There are certainly other (evil) types:
http://www.medievality.com/torture.html
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2007/0524072torture1.html
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/Dungeon/9363/history.htm

We know that we were not attacked post Sept 11...if you want to say Bush over-reacted and excessive methods will be stopped is one thing...but the procedures and tactics must be replaced with something that will yield equally safe (to us) results.

It's easy to criticize...now that all of the tactics and secrets are out of the bag...how will Obama keep us safe?

Let's hope he has an alternative plan.

 

[cristo]

As for waterboarding as a torture method...if someone was tortured 183 times in a month...it must not be very dangerous...uncomfortable/unpleasant...YES...life-threatening...apparently not.

Waterboarding (apparently) invokes the sense of imminent drowning, thus whilst it may not be life threatening in that sense, it is certainly perceived by the torturee as being life threatening. This would be classed as severe mental suffering and, as per the UN convention, be illegal.

We know that we were not attacked post Sept 11...if you want to say Bush over-reacted and excessive methods will be stopped is one thing...but the procedures and tactics must be replaced with something that will yield equally safe (to us) results.

Please, where is your proof that such aggressive methods saved you from being attacked post 9/11? Correlation does not imply causation (that's stats 101)!

 

[rootX]

Please, where is your proof that such aggressive methods saved you from being attacked post 9/11?

That made me think of ..

 

[turbo]

I don't buy the argument that Bush/Cheney and their tactics "kept the US safe". To the contrary, they have polarized much of the Muslim world against the US and made it easier for radical groups to recruit. There were NO radical fundamentalist Muslim groups operating in Iraq prior to the US invasion - Saddam wouldn't tolerate their existence. It is indisputable that there were Shi'ite groups in Iraq that were aligned with Iran, but they were kept under check by the Sunni-dominated government and were not much of a threat. Under Saddam, women in Iraq were able to pursue higher education, hold positions of responsibility, and live in a society that is far more secular and free of religious repression than most of the arab world.

 

[rootX]

As for waterboarding as a torture method...if someone was tortured 183 times in a month...it must not be very dangerous...uncomfortable/unpleasant...YES...life-threatening...apparently not.

Are you suggesting that laws are meant for your enemies only ?

 

[WhoWee]

Waterboarding (apparently) invokes the sense of imminent drowning, thus whilst it may not be life threatening in that sense, it is certainly perceived by the torturee as being life threatening. This would be classed as severe mental suffering and, as per the UN convention, be illegal.




Please, where is your proof that such aggressive methods saved you from being attacked post 9/11? Correlation does not imply causation (that's stats 101)!

First, 183/30 is roughly 6 times per day...don't you think (after the first day) the "torturee" would have figured out he wasn't going to drown?

As for specific proof...read the Cheney transcript...he's asking for those details to be released...it's my entire point.

 

[WhoWee]

I don't buy the argument that Bush/Cheney and their tactics "kept the US safe". To the contrary, they have polarized much of the Muslim world against the US and made it easier for radical groups to recruit. There were NO radical fundamentalist Muslim groups operating in Iraq prior to the US invasion - Saddam wouldn't tolerate their existence. It is indisputable that there were Shi'ite groups in Iraq that were aligned with Iran, but they were kept under check by the Sunni-dominated government and were not much of a threat. Under Saddam, women in Iraq were able to pursue higher education, hold positions of responsibility, and live in a society that is far more secular and free of religious repression than most of the arab world.

And releasing this information somehow will reduce this anger?

Obama might have just thrown fuel on the fire...and at the same time thrown away his only "firefighting gear".

 

[cristo]

First, 183/30 is roughly 6 times per day...don't you think (after the first day) the "torturee" would have figured out he wasn't going to drown?

You're trolling, right? How about I stab you in the arm 6 times a day. Don't be worried though, you won't die!

As for specific proof...read the Cheney transcript...he's asking for those details to be released...it's my entire point.

It's very convenient, isn't it? He knows those documents will never be declassified (since if they do, they prove the CIA tortured people!) so he can basically say whatever he likes!


Anyway, whether this torture worked or not is irrelevant to the main point that this all brings up. RootX got it spot on: is the law only meant for your enemies to abide by?

 

[drankin]

I think the CIA torture methods should be allowed in cases of foreign threats against our national security. Weren't these approved methods at the time?

 

[WhoWee]

Are you suggesting that laws are meant for your enemies only ?

Do you live in a port city? Are you safer now...or where you safer 2 years ago?

Do you really believe that if we know a terrorist act is underway that we should wait until the "crime" takes place before we take action? Compare your answer to the Blago situation...why didn't the prosecutor let that situation play out...to see if a crime would actually take place...because it would do harm?

As for care of prisoners, we've certainly done worse... consider Andersonville
http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/notorious_murders/classics/andersonville/1.html

Should Obama also denounce and apologize for Lincoln?

Obama said he wants to move forward...he should keep his word and focus on continuing to protect us from the REAL EVILS in this world.

 

[WhoWee]

You're trolling, right? How about I stab you in the arm 6 times a day. Don't be worried though, you won't die!



It's very convenient, isn't it? He knows those documents will never be declassified (since if they do, they prove the CIA tortured people!) so he can basically say whatever he likes!


Anyway, whether this torture worked or not is irrelevant to the main point that this all brings up. RootX got it spot on: is the law only meant for your enemies to abide by?

Apparently, YOU can say whatever you like...by the way, did you threaten me?

 

[WhoWee]

It's very convenient, isn't it? He knows those documents will never be declassified (since if they do, they prove the CIA tortured people!) so he can basically say whatever he likes!

By your logic, it's very convenient for Obama.

 

[humanino]

did you threaten me?

Look it's easy. I suggest you experience it by yourself and then come back to describe how it feels. You know it has been done right ? The videos one can find never claim it is acceptable. It feels like drowning, and only by lengthy exercise can one accept the pain and the stress to make it less horrible. It does not make the pain disappear either.

 

[turbo]

Do you live in a port city? Are you safer now...or where you safer 2 years ago?

Nobody in a port city is any safer than they were a decade ago. If you live in a port city that handles a lot of containers, you should know that exporters sending containers to the US are still not required to have the contents of those containers inspected, certified and sealed prior to shipment. The cost (and delay) of inspection are borne by the US and the companies buying the imported goods, which is absolutely wrong. Free trade should not be "reckless trade" in which foreign entities are allowed to ship uninspected cargo to the US and make us pay for the security needed to screen them. Security should be mandated at the port of origin, and the costs should be bundled into the cost of the imported products. US workers are at a disadvantage to low-wage workers in other countries already - we shouldn't have to pay more for reasonable security.

We have heard a lot about radiation monitors and dirty bombs - how about biological agents, nerve agents, or even conventional explosives? BTW, if your port city has a LNG terminal, you should know that any nut with an RPG can give everybody for miles around a VERY bad day.

 

[Proton Soup]

Our system of government is designed such that even Presidents can be held liable for crimes. No one is above the law and politics is not a shield against legal review.

What you fail to understand is that the previous admin was a severe aberration in our system. Our legal system, which is the practical implentation of our Constitution, is designed to deal with these situations.

If anyone is convicted of a crime, it will be because, beyond any reasonable doubt, they are guilty.

no, you have to impeach the president. through congress. a political process. you can drag the president before a civil court, but not a criminal one.

 

[LowlyPion]

Cheney formally asked the CIA?? Someone needs to inform the CIA that Cheney can no longer formally ask for anything.

This was apparently another Cheney lie. The CIA according to an Andrea Mitchell report has received no such request from Cheney.

My guess is the Cheney would call for the release of such information that he knows neither exists nor would be released if it did, because it most likely would qualify as Classified.

It looks to me like more of the same from Cheney.

The weasel in the field that stands up gets shot at. The one that stays low may escape the interest of the hunter. (Apparently Bush's strategy.) For someone that hunts, even though he hunts badly if you've the misfortune to be in his hunting party, apparently he hasn't learned much in the great outdoors.

If he wants to prance about in the open inviting fire, his pelt may become an object lesson for the future of the Republic, rather than any icon of public admiration.

 

[LowlyPion]

Weren't these approved methods at the time?

It's the authors of these decisions - the bogus legal foundation on which they were predicated and conducted, which they are now considering prosecuting.

Here is Obama's statements from earlier today.

Obama Open to Inquiry in Interrogation Abuses

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/22/us/politics/22intel.html?hp

 

[LowlyPion]

no, you have to impeach the president. through congress. a political process. you can drag the president before a civil court, but not a criminal one.

When he is in office this is true.

But Bush no longer has the protection of that clause of the Constitution now that he is no longer an office holder.

 

[Proton Soup]

When he is in office this is true.

But Bush no longer has the protection of that clause of the Constitution now that he is no longer an office holder.

bull****.

 

[LowlyPion]

bull****.

Since you seem so certain on the issue, I'd want to see a citation supporting your point of view.

 

[drankin]

When he is in office this is true.

But Bush no longer has the protection of that clause of the Constitution now that he is no longer an office holder.

But he was an office holder when the alleged "crimes" were committed.

 

[Proton Soup]

Since you seem so certain on the issue, I'd want to see a citation supporting your point of view.

better yet, you show me a criminal indictment against any former president for crimes committed during office.

 

[LowlyPion]

But he was an office holder when the alleged "crimes" were committed.

And what law then is the authority that would grant any President perpetual immunity for any acts of malfeasance, or high crimes and misdemeanors, when they are in office, regardless of whether they were not impeached?

 

[LowlyPion]

better yet, you show me a criminal indictment against any former president for crimes committed during office.

It's your assertion. I'm looking for the authority under which you think ex-Presidents enjoy perpetual immunity. I don't recall ever seeing such an authority. Surely you wouldn't rely on the fact that it may never have happened as proof of anything but that it hadn't happened.

 

[drankin]

And what law then is the authority that would grant any President perpetual immunity for any acts of malfeasance, or high crimes and misdemeanors, when they are in office, regardless of whether they were not impeached?

It's a legal battle that would take a loooong time I'm sure. It would probably have to go to the SC. Meanwhile, many of us don't believe there was a crime in the first place. If it does happen as you would like, then we could start digging up stuff on Clinton. That would be fun.

 

[Coin]

better yet, you show me a criminal indictment against any former president for crimes committed during office.

Nixon escaped indictment essentially only because of the blanket pardon he was granted by Ford. Jaworski's team tried very hard to find some way to avoid indicting Nixon, pushing off the decision as long as possible, but ultimately were convinced they had no choice but to; Ford then took the decision out of their hands.

Exactly under what terms and whether an ex-President can be charged for crimes while in office is to some extent an open constitutional question. But the question I'd ask here is, if it is not constitutionally possible to indict an ex-President, then why did Ford need to pardon Nixon?

 

[LowlyPion]

It's a legal battle that would take a loooong time I'm sure. It would probably have to go to the SC. Meanwhile, many of us don't believe there was a crime in the first place. If it does happen as you would like, then we could start digging up stuff on Clinton. That would be fun.

So long as we are agreed then that Cheney or Bush could in fact still be prosecuted for crimes committed in office ... I'll leave it to the particulars of any indictment as to what could or could not be accomplished in a criminal proceeding.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

It's a legal battle that would take a loooong time I'm sure. It would probably have to go to the SC. Meanwhile, many of us don't believe there was a crime in the first place. If it does happen as you would like, then we could start digging up stuff on Clinton. That would be fun.

I believe that it would first go before Congress or a congressional committee. Then, if it is a crime linked to the office of president, to a federal court. Since there seems to be little in the way of legal precident for prosecuting the president in a criminal court it will likely land in the supreme court eventually. You may be right that the likelihood of the occurance is slim but that it can not happen is just flat out wrong.

 

[Proton Soup]

Nixon escaped indictment essentially only because of the blanket pardon he was granted by Ford. Jaworski's team tried very hard to find some way to avoid indicting Nixon, pushing off the decision as long as possible, but ultimately were convinced they had no choice but to; Ford then took the decision out of their hands.

Exactly under what terms and whether an ex-President can be charged for crimes while in office is to some extent an open constitutional question. But the question I'd ask here is, if it is not constitutionally possible to indict an ex-President, then why did Ford need to pardon Nixon?

well, Nixon resigned under the knowledge that impeachment was imminent. that certainly complicates things.

if it is an open question whether an ex-president can be charged for crimes while in office, then it's an equally open question whether Ford's pardon had any effect legally beyond keeping the question open.

 

[WhoWee]

Nixon escaped indictment essentially only because of the blanket pardon he was granted by Ford. Jaworski's team tried very hard to find some way to avoid indicting Nixon, pushing off the decision as long as possible, but ultimately were convinced they had no choice but to; Ford then took the decision out of their hands.

Exactly under what terms and whether an ex-President can be charged for crimes while in office is to some extent an open constitutional question. But the question I'd ask here is, if it is not constitutionally possible to indict an ex-President, then why did Ford need to pardon Nixon?

To avoid further disgrace to our Nation...Obama needs to end this nonsense!

What next, a civil suit with damages to Khalid Sheikh Mohammad? I'm sure he'd accept 183 nuclear warheads as payment...might find them useful to complete his plan.

 

[WhoWee]

I believe that it would first go before Congress or a congressional committee. Then, if it is a crime linked to the office of president, to a federal court. Since there seems to be little in the way of legal precident for prosecuting the president in a criminal court it will likely land in the supreme court eventually. You may be right that the likelihood of the occurance is slim but that it can not happen is just flat out wrong.

When are we going to question the (Democratic) Congress role in this...who knew what and when, etc.?

 

[cristo]

I think the CIA torture methods should be allowed in cases of foreign threats against our national security.

And you would allow any other nation in the world to torture US citizens if they were deemed a threat against the other nation's national security? ... Didn't think so!
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/71/Movie_poster_team_america.jpg

 

[LowlyPion]

What next, a civil suit with damages to Khalid Sheikh Mohammad?

Not a bad idea.

I'd give him Cheney's ranch in Wyoming as compensation for the indignities he was made to suffer at the hands of Cheney's henchmen.

 

[drankin]

And you would allow any other nation in the world to torture US citizens if they were deemed a threat against the other nation's national security? ... Didn't think so!



http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/71/Movie_poster_team_america.jpg

[/URL]

Of course we wouldn't allow it to be done to us! LOL

 

[Proton Soup]

eh, i don't get it. the crimes committed in vietnam were far and away worse than anything alleged here.