Failing any implementation of Justice, perhaps the best that can be reasonably hoped for is that the next administration will see the Yoo episode for what it is--pure evil, and a dead end leading to the destruction of the Republic.

And then Clinton or Obama will repudiate it. Good for them! I certainly hope so!

And what happens then? What happens when the new Administration says: You can't do that anymore?

I think the Army (Armed Forces and contractors) say, "But Boss, we can't do it any other way!"

What happens then?

Pile on the heroic John Yoo who (did you see that, Yoo who?) only served his country bravely in a time of WAR.

War? War? When did Congress declare war? Sure, if they did it in a war, sure. But they did it as a matter of POLICY!

And that will make all the difference.

We are not in a war! We are carrying out a policy of Pre-emption. That, I believe, is the petard they will be hoisted on.

Until it does so, the United States will maintain its reputation as a country that has flouted the basic principles of justice and set a deplorable example for the world.

And I know, cause RMP told me, that all the people who cannot approve of our policy have resigned. That would lead me to believe that the ones now serving or on contract believe what they are doing is good and necessary.

So what happens when Hilarry or Obama says "Okay, you can fight the war, but those Yoo-based prisoner and suspect legal doctrines, and the procedures arising from them, have got to go"

Do the Joint Chiefs just say: "Okay, I guess you are right. Our former policy was illegal and unecessary" I doubt it.

Or do Hilary or Obama say (in a matter of speaking) "Hey Fellas, can I get down in the shit with you? Is their room for me?

And I won't even go into the political consequences- can H or O get away with the same stuff Bush can? I doubt it, they would much rather impeach Obam than win the war.

Once we're back under Democrats, nobody will give them - or the "Democrat gummint" - a break.

So where does that leave Hilarry or Obama, as far as continueing the War? Do they just dive in and continue on, braving the political consequences, or do they try to compromise, to fight the same war a different way. What the legal or personal consequences for Yoo and the others may be, I have no idea. But this consequence, that a new administration will have to decide what to do, is on the way in just a few months.

And if there is a McCain administration, do the torturers just go hog wild?

There is no First Amendment protection for acts or speech in furtherance of a criminal conspiracy.

Yeah! So you and LWM better watch out!

but if I remember those funny trials they had after WW2, aren't the people carrying out the policies just as responsible as those who gave the orders, or formulated the legal theory? In fact, those who formulated the theory, could be the least responsible. Yoo only formulated an opinion.

Nobody forced them to accept it. I don't remember any "unfunded mandate" from the Supreme Court.

Yoo, is, no doubt, an odious prick, but nobody forced Bush to accept and formilate policy from his (Yoo's) opinions.

As I see it, Yoo has the least legal problems.

I guess Yoo's legal problems might be bigger than I thought.

LWM, I'll have you know that Berkeley is where I did the research which formed the basis for my far-reaching and consequential theories on demographic gender-imbalances and their effects on the behavior of lower-classless young men (to wit, me!).

McCain, Obama or Clinton (or the others earlier) how much of Bush-Cheney's egregious assertions of executive authority would they repudiate?

Thank you so much. Isn't that really what it's all about at this point.

As far as I can see, to repudiate the "egregious assertions of executive authority" is to repudiate the War on Iraq.

Or do all the people who have been counting on Bush's protection (which he derives his ability to give from the excessive authourity) for their acts now prepared to do these things on their own responsibility? Pleading necessity, perhaps?

Ka-blooey, it all comes apart! Think about it.

War Crimes trials have been about punishing the losers

Oh, that's exactly what they'll do! Where did you get the idea that there are gonna be "winners"?

Many of the commenters here will no doubt rush to point out that the U.S. has always been an imperialist power, has always tortured the hapless, did engage in genocide and wars of conquest long before the present day. All true, but in a sense irrelevant.

Would it be fair to say, William, that in the past many imperialist things happened as a result of our actions, and of course, some basically corrupt things, arrangements between capital and government in foreign countries have happened.

But this is the first time that these things we are talking about have been the result of explicit US policy, complete with a justifying legal framework.

These are not deeds we are doing now in the dark of night, under cover of cloak and dagger, Spy vs.Spy. They are the announced and explicit policy, with attendant procedures (somebody had to manufacture those hoods and shackles, and purchase them) which we trumpet as the highest developement of Western Democracy to the World.