The ABA Journal's "Blawg 100" (list of the 100 best legal blogs) has UT as one of the 100 under the category of "Politics for Sport."

It's not much of an honor, though, as others listed included Hugh Hewitt, Instapundit (no, really!) and NRO's Bench Memos (at the risk of repeating myself, no, really!)

Link @ sig.

The front and center story on Yahoo's main page for most of the day has been about a guy who owes over $80,000 in parking tickets. On the other hand, way down the page, buried in other stories is this headline: "Cheney says Guantanamo should stay open, waterboarding OK."

Another proverbial "yawn" from the media, I guess.

Cheney also said he helped authorize interrogation methods used on Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, an Al-Qaeda operative detained in Pakistan and sent to Guantanamo who has confessed to being a top planner of the September 11, 2001 terror attacks in the United States.

Sheikh Mohammed was subjected to a forced interrogation method that simulates drowning known as waterboarding.

"I was aware of the program, certainly, and involved in helping get the process cleared, as the agency in effect came in and wanted to know what they could and couldn't do," Cheney said.

"And they talked to me, as well as others, to explain what they wanted to do. And I supported it," Cheney said.

ABC asked him if in hindsight he thought the tactics went too far. "I don't," Cheney said.

The Cheney interview is to air on ABC late Monday and early Tuesday, the network said, as it released an advanced transcript of the questions and answers.

Man, that takes cajones. This is a dude who thinks he is absolutely above the law and will never have to answer for anything he's done. Sadly, he's probably right.

I guess the resident GOP hacks will be back to argue that waterboarding isn't torture. It's really appalling what has happened to this country.

Or point me to the SCOTUS caselaw that says the executive branch may break the law during time of war. I believe you'll find the recent line of cases on that question went against the executive.

-- Jestaplero

Article 6:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

[My emphasis.]

I don't see anything in there where it says the President can ignore treaties in a "time of war."

Of course, the GOP hacks have just decided that the Geneva Conventions, for example, don't apply to whatever they're doing. Speaking of the SCOTUS, however, Hamdan would say differently.

It's starting to appear that being a defender of the Bush administration and living in a reality-based world are mutually exclusive.

Like I said before, there are no crimes.

-- shooter242

Shooter also believes in Santa Claus.

Each day, more quotes from experts, including interrogators themselves, come out discussing the fact that -- aside from its depravity and illegality -- torture might be the least efficient or productive way to gain information. (Andrew Sullivan has collected some great ones this week.) Furthermore, aside from its other problems, torture has great consequences for our troops.

So, are those who pushed torture as a policy mere idiots, or are they are they depraved lovers of violence? And, even if one accepted that they were doing what they thought was right for the country (which I don't - hello, war profiteering!), don't those same people wonder why they would choose a violent, disgusting and ineffective method to carry out their purpose?

So is all self-defense exceptionalism?

-- DaveL

Please quote from the post where Glenn said that. I must have missed it.

Clearly he is dismissing any attempt to understand the extreme actions of the Bush administration as genuinely believing they were trying to defend our country and then saying even if that were true it wouldn't be legitimate and drawing defending one's nation as a moral equivalent of all tyranny and brutality.

So a reasonable follow up question would be, is there no such thing as self-defense?

-- DaveL

Your question isn't reasonable at all, because it's based on a misstatement of Glenn's point (in other words, a strawman). You might want to go re-read the post.

There's a world of difference between legitimate self-defense and war crimes. The point here is that there is no excuse for war crimes (the other point being that it's narcissistic exceptionalism to support your own country's war crimes and then be outraged when another government commits the same crimes). That's why they are crimes. Not that there is no legitimate reason for a country to engage in self-defense. Of course, if you think that torture, wars of aggression and extraordinary rendition are the same as self-defense, then of course you wouldn't understand Glenn's point.

Whew. I'm glad that's over. File those dissonant thoughts away as "resolved".

-- Chris Sinnard

The funny thing is that Glenn's post basically assumes that the intention was to "protect" the country. Then he goes on to say he doesn't care. That war crimes are war crimes are war crimes, and the reason for committing them is completely irrelevant.

If someone robs a bank at gunpoint and someone dies, even if he didn't pull the trigger, he's going to get charged with 1st degree felony murder. No one's going to care that he did it because his house was foreclosed upon and his children were going to end up homeless. Yes, his intention was to protect his children, but that doesn't make his actions in the name of protecting his children any less of a crime.