If, as Scott Horton reports, the Rethugs are threatening to "go nuclear" and filibuster over the proposed appointment of Dawn Johnsen to head OLC -- because of these shameful memos -- then I say make 'em. And that, in turn, will set the table for international prosecution of Bush for war crimes.

If the leadership of the "opposition party" is so publicly bent on advocacy of torture and the protection of those who ordered it from legal consequence, there will be no reason for the international community to further await the American response to the clear demands of international law.

If the Rethugs press this "threat", then Obama should appoint Ms. Johnsen to a non-confirmable position as a Deputy Assistant Attorney General, assigned with the formation of a task force to coordinate the administration's compliance with international tribunal inquiries concerning torture and other war crimes. Cooperate with the international tribunals. These subject memos ultimately will come out, of course, but even without them a competent authority could and will reach a just evaluation of the conduct.

I would really, really like to see an actual public debate in which some of these Rethugs get their "first swing" to mug about "moving forward" and "good intentions", then somebody with half a brain asks them how they respond to the specific articulations of the applicable legal principles which prohibit torture and decidedly reject, point by point, all the stupid excuses that the right has been offering.

I have a question for the debate: why do these people think that the nations of the world have gotten together to issue international principles banning torture and rejecting exactly the excuses ("they meant well") that are being suggested here in America now? Do these people think that the motivation behind the world's governments agreeing to ban torture is to prohibit torture in business transactions? [Remember Steve Martin's maid being shot by firing squad as a "substantial penalty for early withdrawal" from a savings account in "The Jerk"?] These laws exist to restrict governmental action, first and foremost. So exactly what is the Rethugs' point when they argue that America's government is somehow exempt from such clearly-stated principles, on any ground whatsoever?

Obama must not cave on this. Take them to the mat. There is no justification whatsoever for torture. There is less justification for any Rethug taking a concerted position that a commitment to enforcing the laws -- including those against torture -- is a basis for engaging in a filibuster. Make them do it. It's disgraceful and they can't do it for long without demonstrating just how morally and intellectually indefensible this is.

And in related news, the sky is still up.

Arrest them. Try them. Convict them. Imprison them.

It has always struck me that there is nothing more blindly narcissistic than the penchant of right wing talking heads, who have been retained to write regular columns in "liberal" papers, to complain about "media bias". It isn't that the "liberal press" shuns them, seeing as how they're all on staff or retainer -- it must just be that they're offended that the "liberal press" doesn't feature their tripe every single day and is thus depriving the country of their indisputable wisdom on a wider swath of topics. How can we live without their advice on the days they aren't already paid to provide it? What an evil consipiracy.

It pisses me off with regularity to have to wade through my LA Times op-ed pages when there is some bile bylined by Jonah Goldberg daring me to ruin my morning by reading it; if my LA Times is "liberal biased", why the hell do I have to put up with this?

Once again, Woody Allen put this all in perspective -- while wandering a bookstore in Annie Hall: "I heard Commentary and Dissent have merged and formed Dissentary". Couldn't help but think of that when hearing about Kristol's new "think" tank to replace his wildly, wildly pathetic neocon circle jerk "foundation" from the Bush days.

Sorry, there's only one "ing" in breathtakingly.

And, I know, "don't call me Shirley."

How breathtakingingly Unserious. Surely you meant to write "our government's patriotic criminality"? So much for credibility.

And we're supposed to emulate the British in their quaint legalisms? Isn't that the county that recognized habeas corpus as a meaningful right? What can we learn from them?

Again, good job. Congratulations on the awards, too.

Bingo.

And the New York Times doesn't even comment on the release of the long-rumored Red Cross report on US torture activities in the "news" section of the paper. Move along, nothing to see here.

The Press Secretary's observations were entirely consistent with Vice President Biden's debate observation that Dick Cheney has been the "most dangerous Vice President in the Nation's history". That Cheney is now only a former vice president is a good thing, but neither the Obama Administration nor the Nation owes him any reverence - and if Cheney wants to take gloves off first and engage in the kind of historically disfavored sniping that he's going out of his way to do, then all bets are off and let's see how he likes having his bluffs called.

Indict his ass. Enough of this "but he's our man" crap.

Make every AIG executive who wants to receive a bonus appear before the congressional oversight committee to explain what they did to deserve it -- how the deal they structured was legit and ought to be rewarded. Not "everyone was doing it", rather what the deal was, what the "bet" was, who was involved.

Sunshine is supposed to be a pretty good disinfectant.