What can actually be done in response to the administration's torture regime?

-- Could the torturers themselves be criminally charged in America? No, because Bush's Attorney General testified in Congress, this very week, that he would not charge any interrogator who followed the order of a government official to do it. Mukasey's testimony was in direct contravention of Article 8 of the Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal. No matter.

-- Could the governmental orderers of the torture be criminally charged in America? No, because Bush's Attorney General followed his congressional testimony of this week with a letter expanding his refusal to enforce the laws against torture to apply to government executives where (as, tah dah, here) there was a "legal opinion" provided to that government official (by, wait for it, a Bush Administration lawyer) that opined torture was OK. Or that maybe torture was not really torture if the torturee was "really bad". This also ignores Article 8, and adopts as the law enforcement criterion of the United States Attorney's Office the stunning guideline that a law can be rendered wholly nugatory by an administration disagreement. I say "stunning", though it's really just an extension (to the level of US Attorney) of the premise of the President's "unitary executive" signing statements that Bush has been using to pretend he can "qualify" his constitutional obligation to assure that the laws of the United States are duly executed and enforced. Is there, however, anyone else legally entitled to file charges and prosecute criminal offenses of this nature in the United States Courts? If a Bush lawyer writes a memo telling a Treasury Officer to shoot delinquent taxpayers, is that immunity for prosecution for murder?

-- Do recall that the President has certain powers of pardon, so asking whether any of the above actors could be prosecuted after Bush leaves office basically courts attempted pardons.

-- And, um, how, exactly, is it that an International Red Cross report on American torture activities has been known to the Administration for a year but not to us? Think maybe that's what Muskasey was shown after his appointment, duh? Maybe that's why Mukasey's described "policies" are so stunningly contrary to things as elementary as Nuremberg?

-- Wholly apart from the time-consuming nature of court proceedings and the potentially problematic (and similarly time-consuming) issues mentioned about "standing" for a court proceeding, which guarantees years of protracted legal maneuvers before any actual binding determination might be reached, the fact is that the Administration is well on record as insisting that the courts should not "interfere" in a "dispute between the Legislative and Executive branches" (this is, in fact, the legal position taken on behalf of the administration, by the Department of Justice, in the Miers/Bolton contempt proceedings).

-- This leaves the remedy the Constitution itself prescribes, which is impeachment.

Seven Republican congressmen have now joined with those who already support the call for impeachment of Bush:

http://www.opednews.com/articles/1/Seven-Republican-Members-o-by-Cheryl-Biren-Wrigh-080711-38.html

The Rule of Law versus the rule of men. This is where to play it out, this is how to play it out.

Back on a post on page 34, I linked to an article referring to seven Republican congressmen calling for impeachment. I copied a link posted by a like-minded TT commenter this afternoon, having read only the first few lines.

Got had, as did my TT friend. It's a current article... but it's quoting some Republicans from, well, 1998. About Bill. The point of the article was to suggest that any consistency to the "rule of law" principles being piously invoked back then by guys still in Congress now should... Right.

Went to a movie, came home, oops. Sorry for the overzealous hopeful precipitousiousity. No, hope isn't really warranted on this front, it would seem. Maybe soon.