Certainly there has never been any system of justice which does not include an element of retribution and punishment for culpable conduct. Having never spent any time studying the root terminology, I would not be surprised to learn that "vengeance" and "vindicate" both come from the same latin root -- though it seems to me that the former is directed at the actor and the latter at a concept, which is why I suggest the distinction relative to motives.

I have no problem with the idea that if, in vindicating the Constitution and the Rule of Law against those who sought to diminish them, those who engaged in that destructive agenda get punished. But is that the "pure and simple" motivation for prosecuting Bush, or is there more? I think there's more. I think the vindication of the principles is more important.

Congress denied America the available "first option" to do that as an act of political will when Congress failed to impeach the President; now we can only (but still entirely legitimately) seek that vindication through that branch of our government that is dedicated to implementing Justice and defending Law: the courts. If Bush pays a price, so be it, we can call that "justice", but the principles need to be reinforced.

With all the hoo-ha over whether there were any hard feelings about how Obama had voted against Roberts' confirmation, I was surprised nobody seems to have noticed that the first time around, Roberts most definitely did not articulate the phrase "so help me God" as a statement to be recited, but with a vocal lilt that plainly turned the phrase into a question, a la "do you really mean it/ do you actually agree to swear to 'Murika's God or do you want me to say "Allah"? He said it as if to convey he was intrigued to know what the answer might be to that tough question....

The "so help me God" phraseology is not in the Constitution, of course, but it has also never before been presented as a question, I would bet. It was a classicly lame reactionary snub and it seems interesting that it hasn't been widely recognized as such.

Did he do it that way the second time through? Or by then, did he decide he would accept that Obama believes in God and doesn't pray to Allah when he prays?

Cheney's absolutely right about one thing: Scooter Libby was the victim of a serious miscarriage of justice.

Of course, the miscarriage of justice was the entire Bush Administration -- and while Libby could certainly be more properly characterized as a "cog", a "fall guy" or a "bagman" than a mere "victim", let's not quibble over details.

But a pardon for his role in it? Uh, no.

Really not much to see here, other than to thank you for taking the time to clear up her "confusion" and to confirm that her question was "uncomfortable".

Of course, her confusion was based upon apparent mendacity coupled with wilful ignorance, and the Actual Law Professor's observation that such a question might be "uncomfortable" was a recognition that demonstration of one's own idiocy can often turn out to be embarassing when placed on display. So it is here.

The point is, don't fret about having to confuse these people with facts. But don't be surprised to hear this kind of thing -- just clear it up for them as you did, and let the rest of us move on by. Thank you for that.

I presume both have published retractions or corrections by now, right?

From Glenn's post:

"You can't have different due process standards and entirely different courts that you pick and choose from based on how many rights you think you can afford to extend and still be assured of a conviction."

OK, Bushites, tell us why (and how), within the bounds of the Constitution of the United States, you disagree with that proposition.

This is a beautiful phrasing. Beat it. Go ahead, protect me.

"Next you all will be saying that repairing America's reputation on human rights and civil liberties will actually improve our ability to contribute to fighting global warming, by decreasing friction with the rest of the world".

No, but I am beginning to worry that all the reactionary hyperventilation associated with two days of presidential actions that are actually consistent with the United States Constitution might contribute too much carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, thus accelerating global warming. Maybe Limbaugh could fixate on that as a plan to help his desire to see Obama fail.

They can all just keep fearin', that's what they're good at.

You mean the Democrats held their Convention in Colorado at the same time there were FOUR convicted terrorists incarcerated in that state? Holy shit! The horror!

How is it we weren't warned by the folks now screaming about closing Gitmo? Did they hope to inflict widespread potential death and destruction upon the Democratic Party by allowing them to venture, unawares, into such a festering hive?

Thank goodness it appears they all got out alive. But your post today is going to destroy the ski season, Glenn. You watch.

Thanks for this article.

The more different examples I read of our Beltway Elite/Pundit Class/Serious people defending, excusing and advocating torture with their now-rote litany of purported explanations, the more I am reminded of the two effete goofs in Hitchcock's 1948 film "Rope". Second rate misperceptions of Nietzsche applied to self-indulgent personal non-accountablility. "Sure it's illegal, but I'm personally above such banal concepts and my friends and I can decide for the rest to do that which is truly best."

Didn't World War II largely disabuse our culture of such fantasies, with Hitchcock wryly driving a few final nails?

http://www.amazon.com/review/R21GKQ2E3OOW61/ref=cm_cr_pr_viewpnt#R21GKQ2E3OOW61