Do this: Get Olbermann's interview with Senator Dodd rolling then slide the button to the right, to 3:15.

Read the excerpt from Dodd's book….

Whoa, right? But that's not what caused my fall from the couch.

Now – to skip Dodd's useless, candy-ass blah blahing, slide it over to 1:10 and get a load of Olbermann's blurt about a "Nuremberg trial."

Back?

In case your mind wandered, here it is:

"…leads me to a question I… I... I think has been asked a lot on the internet but I've never seen it in print or on television or on broadcast radio, any of these things… Do you think there's a possibility, even if it's just by history, that some of our leaders today might face in a courtroom or just by history a kind of Nuremberg trial for what has been done in the name of this country in the last six years?"

Having had a premonition about where Olbermann was going with this, I was already on the edge of my couch and inching further toward the TV screen… then "a kind of Nuremberg trial" plus gravity did the rest.

But back up for a moment:

"…a question I… I... I think has been asked a lot on the internet but I've never seen it in print or on television or on broadcast radio, any of these things…"

Translation: We're living in a country with a censored media. (I'm not used to hearing Olbermann stutter, like with the "I... I... I..." It was like he couldn't quite pull the trigger on this one.)

That is what he's saying, isn't it? (It's a self-censored media, but what's the difference? Me, I'd prefer outright, brute totalitarian censorship. At least then we have an excuse. As it is, what we have is Georgie O's optimism.)

No, you don't think Olbermann is saying this?

Okay, we'll come back to that one.

"…some of our leaders today might face in a courtroom or just by history a kind of Nuremberg trial for what has been done in the name of this country in the last six years?"

Translation: Cheney/Bush and Co. are no different from the Nazis and could/should be tried in an international court of law in the same manner as Nuremberg.

This is Olbermann's view. No argument there, I hope.

But HUYA!? Or in this case HUOA! (Head Up Olbermann's Ass, which I think is pronounced ‘Hu-oooooh-ahhhh!)

Maybe HUYA!/HUOA! is why you don't think that Olbermann is saying the media is censored: In other words, the Nuremberg blurt is so far out there in left (so to speak) field – that's why you've never heard it in the media before. It's just too nuts. (Olbermann goes out of his way to define them all, names all the culprits, the censored media; print, television, even lowly radio. Hint: by radio he's means good old NPR.)

I have news. The reason Olbermann's Nuremberg blurt is a first for the media is this: It's absolutely, inarguably true.

That's why it's off limits. If they mentioned it at all, people might actually look into it, and find out it's true. The expression a can of worms comes to mind.

Don't believe me, right? HUYA!, right?

Click here to go to what some West Point graduates have to say about this subject. (external link).

Here's some stuff from the West Pointers' site:

”It’s just a goddamn piece of paper!” Take a wild stab at who said that.

The U. S. Constitution, Art. VI, para. 2, makes treaties adopted by the U.S. part of the "law of the land." Thus, a violation of the U. N. Charter, Hague IV, Geneva Conventions, etc. is also a violation of U.S. federal law. [The supreme law of the land is the way it's commonly phrased, since it's federal law.]

U.S. Federal Law 18 U.S.C. § 2441 (War Crimes Act of 1996) makes committing a war crime, defined as: "…a grave breach in any of the international conventions signed at Geneva 12 August 1949, or any protocol to such convention to which the United States is a party…" punishable by fine, imprisonment, or death.

…punishable by… death. Whoa!

. U.N. Gen. Assembly Res. 3314
Defines the crime of aggression as "... the use of armed force by a State against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another State…or in any other manner inconsistent with the Charter of the United Nations…"

Translation: If you attack a country that is not actively attacking you, you are guilty of the ultimate war crime, waging a war of aggression.

Cheney/Bush committed the ultimate war crime according to the supreme law of the land when they attacked Iraq. Period. That's it. End of story.

But that Cheney/Bush is guilty of the ultimate war crime according to U.S. law is so obvious that it's of little interest to me.

What's of interest to me is Olbermann's first point: We live in a country with a censored media.

Still don't buy it?

I'll rephrase.

Now that you know the law (via the West Pointer's site), see if you can honestly disagree with this: Assuming that the U.S. is a country with an uncensored press (and assuming that the U.S. is a country that believes in rule of law), shouldn't Olbermann's point about a Nuremberg trial for Cheney/Bush & Co. at least be debated?

A related issue: Don't you think it's news that a bunch of West Point graduates figure the Iraq war is illegal?

No? Okay. How about that the ultimate neocon hawk admitted that the invasion was illegal? Here's the quote, from The Guardian, a British newspaper:

In a startling break with the official White House and Downing Street lines, (Richard) Perle told an audience in London: (Referring to the invasion of Iraq) "I think in this case international law stood in the way of doing the right thing." (Italics mine)

…But Mr Perle, a key member of the defense policy board, which advises the US defense secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, said that "international law ... would have required us to leave Saddam Hussein alone", and this would have been morally unacceptable. (Italics mine)

Doing the right thing. Morally unacceptable. You gotta love that, since Perle was part of the U.S. regime that armed Saddam to the teeth throughout the decade of the 1980s, when it was common knowledge that he was committing genocide with the arms provided. (Use Back Button to return.)

A question: How come you had to hear about this shit from a foreign newspaper, or, for that matter, from me, an ex-criminal who'd rather be surfing? Hold on. What right does an ex-criminal [who'd rather be surfing] have to go off about international law? I dunno. Let me think... (use the Back Button)... Instead of getting twenty to life, Ollie got to be a pundit.

But are you starting to get the idea about lies by omission? Or about Orwell's optimism?

I'll rephrase one more time.

In the four plus years of the Iraq war, why hasn't one, just one, journalist asked Cheney or Bush or Rumsfeld or Rice or any of them if the war in Iraq is illegal? Just asked the fucking question?

"…a question I… I... I think has been asked a lot on the internet but I've never seen it in print or on television or in broadcast radio, any of these things."

"… on the internet…"

Here we are, on the internet, folks. (For now at least. You can bet your sweet ass the shitball motherfuckers are trying to figure out how to prevent pissed off people like me from saying this stuff.)

Keep an eye on Keith Olbermann (as opposed to Blitzer, Brokaw, and Brit, just to stick to the ‘B's), see if he lasts at NBC. (Remember what happened to Phil Donohue?)

In fact, keep an eye on me, too. See if I last on the internet.

#

Are you outraged? (If so, who at? Me? That's intelligent!) Confused? Don't give a flying fuck? Rather be surfing?

Hit the forum.

---

Orwell Was an Optimist Why Bob Woodward Is Going To Rot In Writer Hell