Let us not forget rendition began at least with the Clinton administration, possibly before.

http://www.aclu.org/safefree/extraordinaryrendition/22203res20051206.html or click sig

If Clinton was also prosecuted no one could be accused of partisanship. (Or is the issue a matter of degree?)

Someone upthread mentioned Milgram. Obiedience to Authority should be required reading for all citizens.

Chomsky was once asked by a college kid - oops I mean student - what was the first thing he would do if he was elected President. His answer: "I would hve myself indicted for the crimes I was about to commit."

Pour kerosine on a law degree.

Farmer have vacancies. no IQ.

You sing a Old SusanMc songs.

O, e.i.e.i.o. That's all you need.

No, no law diploma a necessary.

It's easy. A pumpkin pie e-maul.

No intelligence is'a requirements.

I'll grant, it's been a long time since my high school civics class. However, my admittedly limited understanding of our government is centered around the division of powers as first told to me: the Legislative branch writes the laws, the Executive branch, well, executes the laws, and the Judicial branch enforces the laws.
— Jaret Ward

Close — the legislature does make the laws and the executive does execute them, but law enforcement is a function of the executive. This is why there is the Department of Justice which includes the FBI and the system of US attorneys (prosecutors). The role of the judiciary is to interpret the law and dispense justice by hearing cases brought before it either between individuals (civil cases) or by prosecutors (criminal cases).

So broadly speaking, the legislature makes the laws, the executive executes and enforces the laws and the judiciary interprets the laws.

As I suspected would prove the case, the election of Obama is unlikely to be a substitute for a well-made reign of terror.

http://picayune.uclick.com/comics/crmlu/2008/crmlu081108.gif

Why are we listening to these after-the-fact former officials? What makes their advice valuable? There is no reason that the new administration's agenda need be compromised by a thorough fact-finding of the previous administration's admitted wrongdoings. As Glenn shows, this particular former DOJ official was quite the law and order man in his day...

To argue that all Presidents eventually leave office and that the next President might be inclined to 'get back' at his predecessor is inane. Bush has done things no other President has done. He has broken laws that no other President, except Nixon, has even considered.

The rule of law RULES. Without it we're toast.

He was one of the most vocal advocates for prohibiting government-proof encryption technology in order to preserve the Government's ability to access people's computer communications as part of criminal investigations, and was part of a Clinton DOJ that very aggressively pursued even garden-variety drug cases and used mandatory sentencing guidelines to ensure harsher sentences for common criminals.

John Ashcroft, defending the Fourth amendment against Clinton-guided encroachment:

http://usinfo.state.gov/journals/itgic/1097/ijge/gj-7.htm

My reaction:

http://phd9.blogspot.com/2007/04/re-survellance-state.html

But doing so reminds us that the battle for personal privacy cuts across party lines and that there are no shortage of Democrats who are willing to sacrifice freedom if they think it will give them "law and order" or "war on terror" cred

One of the downsides of technological advancement is that anything that can be done will be done at some point. Does everyone remember the talk of internet-enabled refrigerators?

Needless to say, the more connected we all are, the more irresistable the urge to monitor and control will become. It's just plain human nature.

There really isn't much I can add, here. I held out hope that Obama would return us to being a nation of laws. To achieve that, what better way is there than to make it clear that even presidents face the prospect of prosecution for their crimes? Rather than coming in with the knowledge that they will never be prosecuted, shouldn't the threat of prosecution be hanging over them while they are in office, making the decisions for which we elected them?

Timeline: Bush pardons Cheney on Jan. 19, 2009

US justice system can't touch Cheney who smugly returns to Halliburton.

Congress subpoenas witnesses, who reveal Cheney as war criminal.

Using Congressional evidence, International Court of Justice in the Hague creates a subpoena (or better, arrest warrant) for Cheney.

US justice system stands by and allows in International police to enter US, subpoena/arrest and extradite Cheney.

If this violates any US law, the violators face US justice and get a trial by jury, which acquits them.

Cheney is tried in the Hague and if found guilty, serves prison term in Europe.

(Alternative: Cheney flees to Paraguay, is subpoena'd there when the International Court shows the proof and requests cooperation. The US, Canada, most of Latin America & Europe use trade clout to force Paraguay to cooperate)

(I'm not a lawyer - can this work?)

I'm so late for a VA doctor date.

Do lawyers write lawyer excuses? duh.

In rural Maryland we no got mailboxes.

I'm so dismayed. Can we silly-sing in the rain?

can-can splash in a muddy puddle for therapy.

"If the Democrats do anything, it will probably structured whereby the opposition cannot present their case... (or) be given access the the "evidence"..... it will be a show trial; not really a trial at all. NotOrbitBoy

Ah, so he thinks Democrats are going to send the Bush Administration to Gitmo? Whether this idea is a delicious, schadenfruede-rich stroke of genius (unlikely) or the flat-out dumbest thing I've ever heard (considerably more likely, given its author), I can't quite decide. At any rate, it's my entry for Today's Contest.

But clearly Greenwald's revolutionary totem of choice is the guillotine.

Dems should seek bipartisanship from the Repubs, calling on them to help Dems prosecute those that have broken the law.

of the notion that all sides are equally valid. Eg. "I'm sure Bush had very good reasons for subverting the rule of law. Who are we to question it or hold him and his administration accountable?"

When all viewpoints are equally true, it's the truth that suffers.

Is that what the law has come down to now? If I'm ever arrested, can I just counter, "hey, let's not make waves. Just drop the charges and don't give it a second thought. Can't we all just get along?"

This is vile. If warrantless wire-tapping of law-abiding citizens and torture aren't "Very Important Issues," then nothing is. If we can't hold people accountable for these types of things, how can we even expect to hold them accountable for, say, proper usage of the $700 billion dollar bailout? That is one of the "Very Important Issues" that's supposed to trump subverting the rule of law, right?