``I would be careful about how seriously I took this stuff.....The allegations are anonymous and part of a lawsuit that frankly is pretty shaky with some wilder stuff re: child prostitution etc. Norfolk wrote it because its in their yard, but their story was pretty lukewarm. This is not the same as someone publically saying this stuff happened...''
``So we have unnamed accusers, no names or circumstances for alleged victims etc. , lawyers who have been really pushing the limits of credibility and Jeremy Scahill who has made a career out of sensationalizing.... worth digging at, but there isn't even a small piece of solid evidence to support this stuff.''
--------
Wow. What to name thee? Myopia. Brain-wipe. Comatose? Jerk-off. Idiot? I do like idea of calling Scahill sensational. Is that a statement of dismissal or admission of jealousy?
``There isn't even a small piece of solid evidence to support this stuff''
Are you guys from another planet?
Dear gentlemen of the press, think here. Why is there an absence of court documentary evidence or testimony in this particular story?
Here's a hint. The case hasn't gone to discovery or trial.
The material is from a petition filed in court. And before I go further, I might add, at least name the fucking case, so the rest of us can do the background journalism you seem imcapable of performing. In June 2009 it was captioned Abtan v. Prince.
The judge will decided if the petition, which is sworn testimony (in I am not sure what forum) is sufficient to procede to discovery and trial. The same testimony and other documents were sent to the Dept of Justice where AG Eric Holder has yet to decide if a special prosecutor should be appointed. Holder is stalling.
Back to the Virginia court. Part of discovery is deposing key people on a witness list. That's where you get the kind of `solid evidence'. And since when did the press need court testimony for evidence? You guys write newspaper stories, not legal briefs.
If you want to check the crediability of the petition that makes these allegations, you can always back track to the source. In this case the source is the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR), a non-profit organization doing what it says, pursuing civil and human rights cases. Here is today's press release:
Below is the case timeline:
``June 2, 2009: Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the case from the District of Columbia and filed a new complaint against Blackwater et al in the Eastern District of Virginia (EDVA), captioned "Abtan v. Prince et al." The case was assigned to Judge Leonie M. Brinkema.
July 1, 2009: Plaintiffs file first amended complaint, adding RICO count.
July 17, 2009: Judge T.S. Ellis consolidated this case with the other four cases against Blackwater et al. pending in EDVA for all pretrial purposes, including discovery and dispositive motions.
July 22, 2009: Blackwater filed a motion seeking to enjoin the parties and their counsel from making extrajudicial statements regarding this litigation.
July 24, 2009: Consolidated motion to dismiss filed by Defendants.
July 31, 2009: Plaintiffs' opposition to defendants' motion to bar all extrajudicial statements (with exhibits)
August 3, 2009: Plaintiffs' opposition to Defendants' motion to dismiss filed (with exhibits).
August 7, 2009: Hearing scheduled in EDVA before Judge Ellis on Defendants' motion to enjoin the parties from making any extrajudicial statements at 10am.''
The real story here leads straight into presidential and cabinet level unconstitutional acts and conduct, war crimes, illegal domestic surveilance, reprisals against individuals, and massive civil and human rights abuses by US state power, and the near total corruption of the Bush executive branch.
The political leadership of both parties is firmly committed to paving over these state crimes by covering up the evidence and refusing to investigate in the desparate hope the US public will simply forget.
Considering the state of denial by the US public, we never knew what we now have to deny in the first place. This is real nazis Germany surrealism. It would be farce, if it was not accompanied by millions of people's deaths and ruined families, scarred men, women, and children who well never recover.
For some reason I still can't figure out, why is it guys like Price and Seibel can't see the news story of the century?
Just start with background on the case, where evidently the press corp needs a court conviction before they will believe what's right in front of their face. Excuse me, but since when did US journalism set evidentury standards so high?
There is an interesting sort of theoretical level transformation going on here. Now the US press plays Nixon's role in stonewall, parsing language as if news people were lawyers, and generally engages in deposition techniques to freeze witnesses into testimonial positions that are actually contrary to the freely given speech they provided.
The press didn't do its job in the build up to war on Iraq, nor the mass bombing raids on Afghanistan, nor the corruption of the Bush White House, nor the abuses of the intelligence community, the military, and on and on. So now they wonder why they are going broke? Who is supposed to buy newspapers that don't contain news?
As a last note, Scahill's Blackwater book arrived yesterday. It's got 45 pages of notes in 8pt text that provides the documentary evidence complete with names, dates, and sources.
CG