seems quite concerned about what someone may "believe" to be correct.

That doesn't matter.

What matters is what *IS* correct. If we are a nation of laws, then "the Law is King" so to speak.

As GG said

“The laws of war aren't applicable only in times of peace, to be waived away in times of war or crisis.”

And as his recent guest John D. Hutson said:

“If you don’t apply it when it’s inconvenient,it’s not a rule of law.”

According to Justice Louis Brandeis:

“In a government of laws, existence of the government will be imperiled if it fails to observe the law scrupulously. Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher; .it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law. . .”

"[Alberto] Mora acknowledged that he could imagine “ticking bomb” scenarios, in which it might be moral—though still not legal—to torture a suspect."-Jane Mayer

“A state of war is not a blank check for the President.”-Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, 2004

None of these statements has anything to do with "belief".

There are no excuses. If Bush and the Cheney Gang feel their actions were correct, they should be able to defend them in a court of law.

when your number one objective is to enforce the law your first question always becomes: how do we accomplish what we want to do legally.

And the unambiguous answer is clearly to make sure that "we ha[ve]the Justice Department issue the requisite opinions" to make what we want to do have the patina of legality. [What Cheney really meant, 12/15/08]

Violence in self-defense different than pre-meditated torture.

in the previous post.

I'm not even arguing that torture was the right thing to do.

And I'm arguing that torture is never the legal thing to do.

I hope to not sound narcissistic, too.

It has been a balm to me

here, in the land of the living

that “what happened” was not:

“thrown on the heaven of potsherds”

two months ago. (She smiles)

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2008/02/bashos-trail/howard-norman-text/1

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/geopedia/Matsuo_Basho

"[...] We expect Mr. Obama to keep the promise he made over and over in the campaign [...] He said one of his first acts as president would be to order a review of all of Mr. Bush’s executive orders and reverse those that eroded civil liberties and the rule of law. [...]"-NYT Editorial

I have seen your post above and will be sending revisions/additions to Jebbie in the next day or two.

Thank you very much! That is indeed very important!

If you're around, I would like to thank you for telling me about the timeline website...A lot to go through there. I'm working on it.

[from the Truthout article Kitt linked to]

Did Obama ever say "democratic change" or "progressive change"? I don't remember hearing that.

On another note...you guys had me snorting into my hankie trying to keep from LOL and waking the whole house during your conversation with GBT. I actually had to turn off the computer, because I couldn't take it any more...so, thanks for helping me get some sleep.

I very much dislike that word.

That's what I thought, but I just looked it up...it IS a word...from the 14th century...kind of like The Inquisition.

that Obama "plans on ending up with a watered down, decidedly un-Progressive final legislation."

[But since Bebop-o just mentioned Mark Twain- I read this this morning:]- -

by Mark Twain

“Its occupant has one privilege which is not exercised by any living person: free speech. […] Free speech is the privilege of the dead, the monopoly of the dead. They can speak their honest minds without offending. […]For it would be found that in matters of opinion no departed person was exactly what he had passed for in life; that out of fear, or out of calculated wisdom, or out of reluctance to wound friends, he had kept to himself certain views not suspected by his little world, and had carried them unuttered to the grave. […] Now there is hardly one of us but would dearly like to reveal these secrets of ours; we know we cannot do it in life, then why not do it from the grave, and have the satisfaction of it? Why not put these things in our diaries, instead of so discreetly leaving them out? […] For free speech is a desirable thing. […] And most particularly I feel it every week or two when I want to print something that a fine discretion tells me I mustn’t. Sometimes my feelings are so hot that I have to take to the pen and pour them out on paper to keep them from setting me afire inside; then all that ink and labor are wasted, because I can’t print the result. I have just finished an article of this kind, and it satisfies me entirely. It does my weather-beaten soul good to read it, and admire the trouble it would make for me and the family. I will leave it behind, and utter it from the grave. There is free speech there, and no harm to the family.”

From this week's New Yorker

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/12/22/081222fa_fact_twain

I wonder what unsuspected view this was which went unuttered to the grave?