Tuesday, September 20, 2016

MEDIA: Fred Kaplan and other Scurrilous Whores

There's something especially scurrilous about a whore named Fred Kaplan.

He's whored so long and so devoutly, it's a real shame his desired reward will never come: TV fame.

When you've got no chin, a fat face, and sport what appears to be a Toni home perm, you're never going to make it on to TV.

Kappy first started humping the so-called 'intelligence' industry in college..  That's what led him to US House Rep. Les Aspin -- one of the Democrats worst pieces of elected Congressional trash up until Dianne Feinstein.  It's also what led him to loose lips Brooke Gladstone who has always been so good over the years about keeping tabs on other reporters.

Call her a one woman clearing house but show her sympathy, she has to crawl into bed with the whore named Fred.

And Fred's highly excitable.

In fact, he hasn't been so high strung since he feared Senator Pat Roberts was about to dismantle the CIA.

Abolish the CIA!!!!

Not while Fred had a mortgage to pay.

Today, Fred's back on the street, if not the beat, peddling it yet again for the so-called 'intelligence' community.

Fred's goal?

Paste a cum facial onto the film SNOWDEN and it's director Oliver Stone.


Fred fails at that assignment for a number of reasons including that he's working with tiny equipment.

Is it unfair to point out that when Fred saw SNOWDEN he was said to be repeatedly ogling "Joseph Gordon-Levitt's horse cock"?

This was repeated to us by someone who loathes -- despises 100% -- Whore Fred.

So maybe we shouldn't repeat it because you're not supposed to give anonymity to someone's enemy so that they can launch character attacks.

But isn't that just what Fred does in his latest whoring at SLATE?

Anonymous members of the 'intelligence' community disagree with the film and whistle-blower Ed Snowden -- big surprise.

The 'intelligence' community was breaking the law.

Ed Snowden exposed the government.

Only an idiot would take these same criminals to be impartial and trusted voices.

Fred gives them all the time in the world to trash Ed so we won't worry about repeating what one of his peers had to say about Fred.

Besides, if we hadn't heard the tale before seeing the film ourselves, we wouldn't have been clued in to the whole watch-it-wiggle-see-it-jiggle fun of Gordon-Levitt in loose fitting pants.

Fred spends the bulk of a column insisting that the biography of whistle-blower Ed Snowden, as portrayed in SNOWDEN, is incorrect.

Next up, Whore Fred tackles Kazan's EAST OF EDEN and reveals, shocker!, the film basically begins on page 450 of Steinbeck's novel.

Then he goes after LADY SINGS THE BLUES for the historical inaccuracies in the Motown  film starring Diana Ross in an Academy Award nominated performance.

It was Berry Gordy, a man with far more integrity than Kaplan, who once said, "The picture is honest but it's not necessarily true."

And that's the reality of feature films.

They're not documentaries.

We defended ZERO DARK THIRTY because it's a great film, yes.

But also because with a true story, you face limitations.

For screenwriter Mark Boal, he was limited by what was shared with him.

That's true of any film.

Oliver Stone (whom we know) met with Ed Snowden several times, he purchased the rights to Luke Harding's THE SNOWDEN FILES and Anatoly Kucherena's TIME OF THE OCTOPUS. He researched the published articles and spoke to a variety of players in the story.

That's not good enough for a whore like Kaplan.

"Officials have told me," the whore intones in one part of his dull, dull article.

Unnamed officials.

Unnamed officials in the "intelligence" community disagree with what the film SNOWDEN says happened.


There's a shocker.

That's about as shocking as Kaplan yet again whoring for the CIA.

It's been a long relationship for the two.

Kaplan goes on to attack this in the film and that in the film and some stuff really appears to have only played out in his head and missed the screen completely.

SNOWDEN is a piece of film making.

Images and music, editing and sound, all the things that add up to a visual experience -- that's SNOWDEN.

It's also a good film.

Fred Kaplan feels the relationship anchoring the film (Ed Snowden and Lindsay Mills) is "cliched."

We didn't find it cliched at all.

Now granted, she didn't put on a strap on and take him from behind.

But the film's entitled SNOWDEN, not KAPLAN.

What we expected from SNOWDEN was a riveting film and we weren't let down.

There's a scene, right before THE GUARDIAN starts publishing Ed's revelations about the US government spying on everyone, where Joely Richardson, playing GUARDIAN editor Janine Gibson, is explaining that everything's too technical and too jargon-laden so she's got to edit to make it understandable.

Glenn Greenwald (played by Zachary Quinto) insists the first article has to be about Verizon.

And that's a smart move because people understand Verizon.

People did not understand PRISM.

When we saw SNOWDEN, we spoke to 10 other adults at the screening about this point.

The film explains PRISM.

It needed a film to truly get that program across, it requires more than words on paper or words spoken on a public affairs program, it requires images and meanings and Oliver Stone supplies those.

The film seems to bother Kaplan most because it portrays Ed Snowden as a hero.

We happen to believe he is one.

But even so, what did Kaplan think he was going to get going into a film entitled SNOWDEN?

We like the film.

Is it perfect?


It seems to suggest that, outside of the initial classroom Ed's in, women are not involved in the 'intelligence' community (other than to operate a drone -- one woman  appears on a computer screen briefly).  This is not surprising, it's an Oliver Stone film.

And he has made a riveting film.

Fred Kaplan disagrees with that as well and writes:

Oliver Stone’s movie entertains no such notions, nor does it dabble in the slightest ambiguities about his hero’s nobility or the intelligence agencies’ evil. What about the movie as movie? It lacks the zest of JFK or Nixon (much less Born on the Fourth of July or Natural Born Killers). Half of the plot is a love story, about Snowden and his girlfriend Lindsay Mills (who now lives with him in Moscow), which might be fine, but the situations and dialogue are clichéd, and the two actors (Joseph Gordon-Levitt, who plays his part very convincingly and charmingly, and Shailene Woodley, who doesn’t) have no chemistry. The scenes at the CIA and NSA manage at once to be overblown and undramatic. It’s a bore.

If he'd stuck to reviewing the film, we might have been okay with him.

We disagree with what he says in that paragraph, but that's fine.

He's entitled to his opinion.

But he's not about expressing an opinion.

He's about destroying SNOWDEN, burying it.

This isn't surprising.

Glenda Jackson is a two-time Academy Award winning actress.

She's won one for a dramatic performance and one for a comedic performance.

But one of her comedic masterpieces was only released in August of 2014 after a long campaign to get it on DVD (it's still not on Blu Ray).

Let's be clear, Jane Fonda, in real time, talked about how great it was to do the 1977 film JULIA because she got to act opposite a woman (Vanessa Redgrave in an Academy Award winning performance) and how rare that was at that time.

The same year saw THE TURNING POINT starring Shirley MacLaine and Anne Bancroft.

More importantly, it saw a film starring Glenda Jackson.

And Melina Mercouri.

And Sandy Dennis.

And Geraldine Page.

And Anne Meara.

And Anne Jackson.

And Edith Evans.

Among others.

 NASTY HABITS is a satire of Watergate.

Pauline Kael (NEW YORKER) said in real time, "At its best -- high wit and inspired silliness -- it's a dream of a satire, reminiscent of Bea Lillie's brand of madness." Rex Reed (NEW YORK DAILY NEWS) called it "a bit of hilarious Heavenly Hash" but, more importantly, he noted: "The Catholic Church has gone up in smoke over NASTY HABITS, bringing pressure against THE NEW YORK TIMES to remove all ads showng nuns with concealed tape recorders under their habits."

There are always interested parties -- interested in suppressing films, discrediting them.


Whores pre-date Fred Kaplan.

And, goodness, did the whores turn out to slam THE CHINA SYNDROME -- unreal, not factual (did they forget it was a movie) -- and then Three Mile Island demonstrated just how accurate the film was.

In fact, there's a long, long history of institutions attempting to attack films to kill the message.

Kaplan knows all about that.

For example, he went after Brian De Palma's REDACTED -- see "Fred Kaplan falls off his pony."

He's fallen off again as he tries to dispute what a whistle-blower is or isn't -- and fails.

He fails repeatedly over and over.

But highly determined, he keeps jerking that tiny nub -- it's just nothing ever comes out.

He can't even convincingly fake a climax.


Ava and C.I. note: We're publishing this now.  It's Tuesday morning.  We wrote this Sunday.  Other content may or may not go up but this needed to be up Sunday and we're not waiting any longer.  Go see SNOWDEN, it's a great film.

Monday, September 12, 2016

Truest statement of the week

If you understand her history, her ideological orientation, you know that she is lying. She is a neoliberal capitalist and she supports TPP.

-- Green Party vice presidential candidate Ajuma Baraka discussing Hillary Clinton's supposed rejection of TPP on BLACK AGENDA RADIO.

Truest statement of the week II

Whether it is Democrat Hillary Clinton or Republican Donald Trump who occupies the White House, the next administration will be one of war, economic austerity and the violent repression of democratic rights.

-- Joseph Kishore, "Two months until the US elections: The political issues facing the working class" (WSWS).

A note to our readers

Hey --

Monday -- just barely.

Let's thank all who participated this edition which includes Dallas and the following:

The Third Estate Sunday Review's Jim, Dona, Ty, and Ava,
Rebecca of Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude,
Betty of Thomas Friedman Is a Great Man,
C.I. of The Common Ills and The Third Estate Sunday Review,
Kat of Kat's Korner (of The Common Ills),
Mike of Mikey Likes It!,
Elaine of Like Maria Said Paz),
Cedric of Cedric's Big Mix,
Ruth of Ruth's Report,
Wally of The Daily Jot,
Trina of Trina's Kitchen,
Stan of Oh Boy It Never Ends,
Isaiah of The World Today Just Nuts,
and Ann of Ann's Mega Dub.

And what did we come up with?

So that's what we came up with.


-- Jim, Dona, Ty,  Ava and C.I

Editorial: The wars drag on


The once-huge international press corps here has shrunken significantly, with many verteran war correspondents decamped to Afghanistan. Major U.S. TV networks have pulled out, or are in the process of doing so. Other news organizations are hanging on until after the elections, which have been delayed from January to at least late February or March. (McClatchy, I am proud to say, plans to maintain a presence in Baghdad).

Or noted.

Noted back in December of 2009.

And what followed?

From them?

A month later they did "On hold" -- and the problems with that is that a "hold" doesn't usually last over six years and if "McClatchy, I am proud to say, plans to maintain a presence in Baghdad" then why weren't they ever able to update BAGHDAD OBSERVER.

Corey Dickstein (STARS & STRIPES) reports on US House Reps. Seth Moulton and Ryan Zinke's efforts to pass legislation to create a national war memorial for the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars:

 “Unlike most monuments that are built post-conflict, this would be a memorial that recognizes not only those that we have lost, but it is also a memorial that recognizes that this is a nation that remains at war,” Zinke said Monday. “The global war on terrorism is far from over, but building this memorial to those who have fought and those who will fight in the future would be an impressive message both for veterans and for America.”

We support the memorial.

But we especially support it as a reminder to citizens and especially to the media that both wars continue.

To citizens, the media and to politicians.

  1. Clinton: "We are not putting ground troops into Iraq ever again, and we're not putting ground troops into Syria."

    Hillary Clinton: 'We Are Not Putting Ground Troops into Iraq Ever...
    At the Commander in Chief Forum in New York City, Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton said she would not put troops back in Iraq or in Syria - Watch more on NBCNews.com
  2. No ground troops in Iraq ever again, Hillary says. There are thousands of US ground troops in Iraq now.

There are thousands of US ground troops in Iraq now.

Hillary appears to forget reality far too often.

TV: NBC airs abstract art

With his wars on civil liberties, the Constitution, civilians, whistle-blowers, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and so much more, is it any surprise that President Barack Obama has also waged a war on the arts?

His proposal to fund the arts was so low in the last fiscal year, Mike Boehm (THE LOS ANGELES TIMES) observed, "The total federal arts allocation would be somewhat less than the Air Force would expect to pay for two new long-range bombers, which carry an estimated price tag of $810 million each."

Boehm further pointed out:

The president also aims to keep the Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts’ allocation unchanged at $22 million, reserving his entire proposed arts increase for museums -- the National Gallery of Art and the Smithsonian Institution, both of which offer free admission and serve as tourist magnets.

As many hours of SCANDAL taught America, the Smithsonian is a front for the CIA -- a detail the Smithsonian strangely leaves off of its pages charting its fictional media appearances.

The 2016 fiscal year proposal also called for an increase funding for the Smithsonian.

In this climate, hostile to the arts, maybe we should all be grateful NBC served up an hour of abstract art last week?

But if gratitude is what NBC was hoping for, they came up short.

hillary clinton

The network's news department teamed with Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America for a so-called commander-in-chief forum.

For some stupid reason Andrew Bacevich, of all people, denounced the forum afterwards.

In an attention getting column for THE BOSTON GLOBE entitled, "I was held prisoner on an American aircraft carrier," the former military colonel took swipes at IAVA and its president Paul Reikhoff ("Rieckhoff preened") while lamenting that:

Questions posed by IAVA members tended to focus narrowly on the needs -- one might even say the grievances -- of young veterans. Perhaps this was to be expected. Just as dairy farmers want to know what a prospective president will do to support the price of milk, veterans want to know what a president will do to deliver on matters effecting them directly. Yet it was as if they were auditioning someone to head the VA.

Why was he so surprised?

A) IAVA is a veterans' organization.

B) They had repeatedly noted that veterans issues would play a large part of the forum -- repeatedly in one press release after another -- including in one released the day before the event which opened:

Tomorrow, Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump will take the stage in New York City for the IAVA Commander in Chief Forum focusing on national security, military affairs, and veterans issues. Hosted by IAVA and NBC News, and simulcast in primetime on NBC and MSNBC, the forum will engage a live audience of primarily veterans, servicemembers, and military family members to ask questions of both candidates on the issues that are most important to our community. TODAY co-anchor Matt Lauer will moderate the Commander in Chief Forum and the candidates will appear on stage back-to-back from 8:00 to 9:00 PM ET.

Bacevich goes on to say that some treated veterans -- or their questions -- as though criticism to them was off limits.

We'd argue Bacevich had already done that when he'd agreed to participate and assumed "national security" was a topic to only be explored by veterans and the military.

Does he not grasp that there is civilian control over the military?

That the nationally elected (via the electoral college) president of the United States is over every bit of military brass and flash and not the other way around?

He doesn't appear to grasp that and seems to do just what accuses others of doing.

A real forum on national security would have to represent Americans -- not just those in the military.

And a real forum on national security in a democracy would absolutely have to include the voices of peace.

It's a fact that Bacevich overlooked.

In doing so, he was like so many others who chose to interpret the forum -- to treat it as abstract art -- as opposed to what it was.

What was it?

Really bad television.

We're not talking about Matt Lauer, we're talking the forum and the format itself.

It was decided that the candidates would be reduced to two: Democratic Party nominee Hillary Clinton and Republican Party nominee Donald Trump.

Gary Johnson, Jill Stein, Gloria La Riva, Jerry White and others were rendered invisible.

"Jill only polls at 2%!  Gary only polls at 5%!" -- or whatever the number the media insists is factual.

So over 6 million are represented by Jill Stein?

That's a sizable amount.

She should have been invited.

And this notion that you would do 30 minutes with each candidate -- minus commercials?

You could have justified that if you'd invited more presidential candidates.

But with only two, why weren't you doing an hour with each?

And why the need for commercials anyway?

Aren't the networks still required to provide programming to the public that informs the public?

No one wanted to criticize that apparently.

They looked at the abstract art that was the forum and accepted all those aspects without comment.

It was as though they were gazing upon Maredno Muller's TULIP OF SPINES and felt that it had to be accepted without question -- you know, like Bacevich's critique of the veterans' questions and comments?

But if we're critiquing Lee Krasner's art, isn't part of that critique about how she's exploring different styles and forms throughout her work?

Art is subjective -- especially true of abstract art.

Art is also often autobiographical or self-referential.

But in the underfunded art world of the US, in a country where art is not at all appreciated or really taught in most public schools, critiques and interpretations became not about the art on display but about what festered inside the complainer.

Complainer's aren't critics, they don't have the tools to be.

Heading up the uneducated was novelist Siri Hustvedt who charged Matt Lauer, the host/moderator, with sexism in a seriously flawed piece of writing at SLATE.

Many complained like Siri.

We at least think she was sincere in her complaints.

She just wasn't accurate.

Matt was sexist, she insisted, because he interrupted Hillary Clinton.

Is Hillary not supposed to be interrupted because she's a woman?

As this nonsense that Hillary was interrupted -- and interrupted more often than Donald -- popped up over and over, we were compelled to rewatch the broadcast and to review the transcript.

They were both interrupted the same amount of time.

Actually, one of Hillary's interruptions was typical of any live program -- when Matt Lauer let her know they only had 30 more seconds left so she needed to wrap up the answer.

Hillary and Donald were both interrupted, repeatedly, the same amount.

Matt Lauer played fair.

For Siri, she wanted to heap centuries of oppression of women onto Matt's very narrow shoulders when he hadn't done anything sexist at all.

But within herself, when a woman does poorly -- and Hillary did poorly -- it can only be due to sexism.

We're being very kind to Siri.

In 2008, Hillary was the subject of repeat sexism.

We called it out here.

That sexism even included remarks of the Christ-child Barack Obama.

We called him out for them too.

Women like Siri?

We didn't hear from them in 2008, did we?

2008 was vile and disgusting.

It's amazing how many that were silent -- or  supportive -- of sexism in 2008 are now rushing to pin every losing argument or failed performance by Hillary as the outcome of sexism.

A lot of it is because she's the nominee -- the Democratic Party nominee.

So the complaining is nothing but partisan whoring intended to 'work the refs.'

It's not real.

It does real damage though.

And it's funny how Matt went after Donald Trump on his ridiculous stance that men and women serving in the military explains assault.

As though rape is a norm?

Matt went after him.

Yet all the complainers whining about sexism against Hillary didn't really acknowledge that.

Which would suggest this has nothing to do with sexism but everything to do with Queen Bee-ism -- where one woman is elevated to a higher stature than every other woman because she's the 'exception.'

Which would suggest that it was the complainers on behalf of Hillary who were sporting sexism.

We also found it interesting how no one wanted to note that Hillary broke the rules of the forum.

No one noticed that?

Matt Lauer:  Let me ask you something ahead of time that I'll ask Mr. Trump in a half an hour. To the best of your ability tonight, can we talk about your qualities and your qualifications to be commander-in-chief and not use this as an opportunity to attack Mr. Trump, all right? And I'll ask him the exact same thing.

Hillary Clinton: I think that's an exactly right way to proceed.


Because it's not how she proceeded.

She couldn't follow the rule, could she?

Matt Lauer: Sir, thank you. Thank you very much for your question. Secretary Clinton, let's talk about your vote in favor of the war in Iraq. You’ve since said it was a mistake.

Hillary Clinton:  Mm-hmm.

Matt Lauer:  Obviously, it was not something you said you would do again. I asked before for people to raise their hand if you served in Iraq. Can you do it again? How do you think these people feel when the person running to be their commander-in-chief says her vote to go to war in Iraq was a mistake?

Hillary Clinton: Look, I think that the decision to go to war in Iraq was a mistake. And I have said that my voting to give President Bush that authority was, from my perspective, my mistake. I also believe that it is imperative that we learn from the mistakes, like after- action reports are supposed to do, and so we must learn what led us down that path so that it never happens again. I think I'm in the best possible position to be able to understand that and prevent it. But I will say this. I'm asking to be judged on the totality of my record, what I've done for our veterans as first lady, as senator, what I’ve done for Gold Star Families, working with them to increase the death benefit from $12,000 to $100,000, working with Republicans, like Lindsey Graham, to get TRICARE for our National Guard members who didn’t have health care unless they were deployed, working to provide more support for the care of our veterans, those who are wounded, working with the Fisher family, now into the third generation of caring for our fallen heroes, working with John McCain to raise money for Brooke Medical Center's Intrepid Center to take care of those who are coming back with profound injuries, working on TBI and PTSD and so much more, working with groups to end veteran suicide, like TAPS. So, yes…

Matt Lauer:  I'm going to get on to that subject in a second.

Hillary Clinton:  There was -- there was a mistake. Now, my opponent was for the war in Iraq. He says he wasn't. You can go back and look at the record. He supported it. He told Howard Stern he supported it. So he supported it before it happened, he supported it as it was happening, and he is on record as supporting it after it happened. I have taken responsibility for my decision.

Matt Lauer: Let me go to another…

Hillary Clinton:  He refuses to take responsibility for his support. That is a judgment issue.

Matt was attacked for not correcting Trump's record on the Iraq War in his segment with him.

But Hillary had already given a version of his record.

It wasn't accurate.

But she gave it.

When Donald wasn't accurate about Hillary and the VA, Matt stopped him and gave the full quote from Hillary.

Trump may have supported it before the war started and before the Congress voted for it.

It's a September 11, 2002 interview where he responds "I guess so" to Howard Stern's question.

After the war stars, in its first weeks, he's expressing different views.

Hillary and her cult love to pretend otherwise and love to lie.

That's reality.

Here's some more reality that wasn't noted about Hillary.

She doesn't take responsibility.

She voted for the Iraq War.

She can't even be honest about that.

I was wrong.
Almost three years ago we went into Iraq to remove what we were told -- and what many of us believed and argued -- was a threat to America. But in fact we now know that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction when our forces invaded Iraq in 2003. The intelligence was deeply flawed and, in some cases, manipulated to fit a political agenda.
It was a mistake to vote for this war in 2002. I take responsibility for that mistake. It has been hard to say these words because those who didn't make a mistake -- the men and women of our armed forces and their families -- have performed heroically and paid a dear price.
The world desperately needs moral leadership from America, and the foundation for moral leadership is telling the truth.

Before you say, "Good for Hillary," that's not Hillary.

That's John Edwards penning a 2005 column for THE WASHINGTON POST.

"I was wrong."

"It was a mistake to vote for this war in 2002."

"I take responsibility for that mistake."

And here's Hillary:

Hillary Clinton: Look, I think that the decision to go to war in Iraq was a mistake. And I have said that my voting to give President Bush that authority was, from my perspective, my mistake. 

Going to war was a mistake, she insists.

But the only mistake she'll admit was giving Bully Boy "Bush that authority."

She's not taking responsibility.

She's bring up Bully Boy Bush, she's bringing up her opponent, she's doing everything but taking responsibility.

She won't own her mistake and she clearly won't learn from it.

We support the arts.

But we support facts too.

And the facts are that Hillary has not taken accountability for her vote.

She continues to bring up others to minimize her actions.

She looked like an idiot and a liar at the forum not because Matt Lauer interrupted her but because she is an idiot and a liar.

All these years later, she can't admit her mistake and own it.

Instead of fessing up she wants everyone to know Little Johnny down the street broke a window once too.

NBC's format and forum was all wrong.

But once everyone signed off on it, the fault is not Matt Lauer's, NBC, IAVA or anyone else.

What was aired was what took place.

And if you're embarrassed for Hillary it's because she embarrassed herself.

White House moment of the week


President Barack Obama, confronted with 76-year-old Nancy Pelosi's ridiculous wig, strains to keep a straight face and not stare.

The toilet floaters who support Hillary

Yes, you've seen them in the news.  Most likely, you first saw them in a public bathroom when you went into a stall and discovered the person before you hadn't flushed.

They are Toilet Floaters for Hillary!

Take retired Col -- but forever Creep -- Morris Davis.

Cheney's bad heart, Bush 41 spewed, FDR had polio ... but a lady gets the vapors & it's a crisis.

The vapors?

She supposedly has pneumonia.

He defends her with sexism (vapors = depressed or hysterical).

But who would want Davis on their side to begin with?

Fired by Barack Obama in December of 2009, he has a shameful history.

WIKIPEDIA notes of his time as the Chief Prosecutor of the Guantanamo military commissions:

On February 28, 2006 Davis spoke out again regarding the commissions, saying:[5]
"Remember if you dragged Dracula out into the sunlight he melted? Well, that's kind of the way it is trying to drag a detainee into the courtroom."
As Candace Gorman, a defense attorney representing a Guantanamo detainee, noted, this was an odd statement from Davis since it was the military's fault that so few cases had come to trial before the military commissions. By early 2007, only David Hicks, an Australian citizen, was being tried, and all but one of the charges against him had been dropped before trial for lack of evidence.[10]
In March 2007 Davis challenged Major Michael Mori, the military defense counsel assigned to Hicks' case, by threatening him with prosecution for violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. He claimed that Mori had acted improperly in criticizing the military commissions while in Australia gathering evidence for the defense.[6][10][11][12] Mori responded angrily, "Are they trying to intimidate me?"[6]
Col. Dwight Sullivan, the Chief Defense Counsel for the military commissions, said that Major Mori’s behavior as defense counsel was “absolutely proper.”[6] He said that, “a military defense lawyer is supposed to provide the same level of representation as a civilian lawyer.” He said that in pressing Mr. Hicks’s case in Australia, “Major Mori is fulfilling his duty as an officer and as an attorney.”[6]

"The Guantánamo I Know"[edit]

On June 26, 2007 an op-ed by Davis, entitled "The Guantanamo I know", was published in the New York Times.[3] In it, Davis argued that the Guantánamo Bay detention center is humane, professional, and operating in compliance with international law.

Supreme court to hear challenges to the Military Commissions Act[edit]

Congress authorized the military commission system under the Military Commissions Act of 2006, to create an alternative to the existing federal and military system. It restricted detainees as enemy combatants and those whose review was pending, to the military commission process; it prohibited their use of federal courts. The government stayed pending writs of habeas corpus.
On June 29, 2007 the Supreme Court agreed to hear some outstanding claims of habeas corpus., opening up the possibility that they might overturn some or all of the Military Commissions Act.[13]
Davis called the Supreme Court's intention to review the MCA "meddling": [14]

These are the typical piece of human s**t that support Hillary.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported License.
Poll1 { display:none; }