But so are my grandsons, so I gotta sneak in time.

We gotta go some leaves to chase this yummy sunny fall day.

I'm not worried bout you,cuz when you fall you always get up.

Basically: just go do it.

Check out the Center for Constitutional Rights for a (sketchy) primer.

http://www.ccr-ny.org/

They filed a complaint of war crimes against Rummy in Germany in 2006; it was dismissed; it is on appeal.

They've recently gone to the Paris Prosecutor with similar charges of war crimes and crimes against humanity including torture; Rummy fled -- to Germany! -- rather than face the risk of apprehension and prosecution.

Spain, Belgium, Germany, and other nations assert Universal Jurisdiction on crimes such as those with which Busheviks are widely associated. Complaints and charges can be brought in any of them or all of them simultaneously.

Of course the United States Government only asserts Universal Jurisdiction at its pleasure; consequently the manifest crimes of this regime are not likely to be prosecuted in this country at any time, and it is highly unlikely that the Government would assent to any other nation's jurisdiction on these matters.

But so what? The assent to trial by the defendant is not needed for there to be a trial.

Nevertheless, without substantial political will abroad -- and right now, there isn't much -- we can't expect charges and prosecutions.

But that can change.

Sure, there are plenty of Dems in congress who agree with the regime, and together with the Rs, they form a working majority. This is the main reason why Progressives are getting nowhere.

However, I don't share your belief that DiFi and Schumer agree with regime torture practices or policies. That's not the issue to them.

Because both are culpable and potentially vulnerable if Mukasey concedes the point about waterboarding -- they both knew it was going on and said and did nothing about it -- they need his ambiguity in place to preserve their own skins.

While apparently the So-Called News is making jokes about it, this torture business is really a very serious and potentially catastrophic issue for a lot of people in government, including certain elected officials. They're trying to put up as many firestops as they can to keep themselves safe. Mukasey is one of them.

No, they don't have to agree with the policy to be caught up in the potential legal consequences. Failure to intervene when they know what is going on could well be a crime in and of itself. DiFi and Shumer could also face a risk of prosecution if any AG were in office who... actually took his/her oath of office seriously. Mukasey, clearly, will not. So they're safe. For now. Which is why it is in their personal interests to consent to his appointment.

On the other hand, you could be right; they could well be enthusiasts for the Torture Program, and if that's the case, they need to be in a bullet proof glass cage in The Hague right now.

as long as he does his job. The law is written by Congress and it is interpreted by the courts, so what they think matters. Not the AG. He can be a pot smoker and still prosecute pot smokers, a sex freak who prosecutes blow jobs, a torture adept who prosecutes torturers.

The real question is whether he will be independent of the Bush Administration and my guess is, partially so. He'll be another Ashcroft, and that's bad but still better than another Gonzales.

As for the possibility that foreign courts will judge members of the Bush administration, that is of course possible, but establishing proof of a chain of responsibility will be very difficult for non-US courts since they cannot seize documents, compell witnesses, or even hope for any cooperation from the US government. My guess is that the foreign judges, who are seldom happy when saddled up with universal jurisdiction, will dismiss the cases for lack of definite proof of causation. (Certainly in France where the judiciary is not a model of independence.)

The law is written by Congress and it is interpreted by the courts

... and ignored by the executive branch. So far none of the egrigious violation of federal statutes (FISA, torture, war crimes) have been prosecuted so what the AG thinks does matter. It's not a question of whether a torture aficionado is willing to prosecute torturers, it's a matter of whether someone who finds torture personally abhorrent is willing to prosecute torturers who are on his team.

I can's speak of Sen. Schumer since I don't really know him, but DiFi is(tragically) my senator. Sen. Feinstein's husband, a defense contractor, has benefited enormously from the various wars the regime has launched. DiFi has always been rather conservative, but having launched her political career from San Francisco, she had to operate as a Democrat. With the exception of being pro-choice, there's really no difference between her and the average republican. She's quite comfortable with the wars and with their consequences-human rights abuse, torture, corruption. She and her husband had moved a couple of years ago to a 20 million dollar mansion in the posh Pacific Height neighborhood in San Francisco, purchased no doubt with blood money made off the Iraq invasion. She is voting to approve Mukasey because she feels he's on the same side she is on. People should stop thinking of her as a Democrat and be surprised at her voting record.

That Feingold read the WaPo article and it changed his mind!

http://www.fdlreporter.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071104/FON0101/71104015/1985

I will vote against the nomination of Judge Mukasey to be the next attorney general. This was a difficult decision, as Judge Mukasey has many impressive qualities. He is intelligent and experienced and appears to understand the need to depoliticize the Department of Justice and restore its credibility and reputation.

“At this point in our history, however, the country also needs an attorney general who will tell the president that he cannot ignore the laws passed by congress. Unfortunately, Judge Mukasey was unwilling to reject the extreme and dangerous theories of executive power that this administration has put forward.

“The nation’s top law enforcement officer must be able to stand up to a chief executive who thinks he is above the law. The rule of law is too important to our country’s history and to its future to compromise on that bedrock principle.”