Site Presented By
Saturday, Nov 7, 2009
Thanks the gods, finally Obama gives me some hope.
A partner in OUTRAGE at OLC!
Her understanding of "OLC's core job description": "to DARE to say "NO" to the President" is spot on.
Glenn,
This is just tremendous news. And thank goodness for the blockquote feature; otherwise, I would be hard-pressed to distinguish Johnsen's writing from yours. If Johnsen is allowed to follow through on her outrage and to ferret out the groundwork for the Bush regime's criminal actions, our government, and the world, will be much better off. If prosecutions follow, then it will be time to celebrate restoration of the rule of law.
Gosh, an OLC head who publishes outrage in Slate! Could it be that she's one us? [By us, I mean those of us who hang out at UT as one of the last bastions of the rule of law and the power of the Constitution.]
LOL-I was thinking of writing something like: dare I hope?, but decided to squelch my cynicism for a change...
Just, WOW.
Johnsen does indeed sound very much like GG. :-)
I am very glad to see this appointment. Thanks to Glenn for providing details concerning her stance. Now let's see if there is a will to go where she wants the administration to go.
This morning, to my astonishment, the op ed page of the New York Times gave over a very large space to John Bolton and John Yoo to lecture President elect Obama concerning the Constitution and treaty power. While Bolton is bad enough as an intellectual fraud, to my knowledge he has not committed the crimes that Yoo has in providing legal cover for torture. What a sign of willingness to simply "move on." So I wrote to the Times basically the following:
I was interested to see that the New York Times has seen fit to give space to John Yoo, he of the infamous torture memos, to lecture the president elect on constitutional matters. What is next? Giving David Duke space to advice Obama on race relations?
Will this appointment require Senate confirmation?
Johnson sounds great. We sure need some hope right now.
Please have Dawn Johnsen contact your blog and its readers any time her supply of outrage runs low. We can help.
Rachel, Amy, Naomi and now Dawn. Women who know their place.
Maybe Dawn can help PE Obama rethink his FISA vote?
I've been a law student at Indiana for the past several years, and though I've never had the pleasure of taking a course with Prof. Johnsen, I have listened to her speak on the subject of Executive power. She is knowledgeable about the subject, and passionate about ensuring that the president remains within his or her legal authority. Furthermore, she appears to be self-possessed enough to withstand the not-inconsiderable social and institutional pressure to conform to a president's desires.
Based on my (admittedly limited) exposure, I would be surprised if she were anything less than vigilant and vocal in ensuring that we don't see a repeat of the last 8 years under the Obama administration.
I liked this part,
"...We must avoid any temptation simply to move on. We must instead be honest with ourselves and the world as we condemn our nation's past transgressions and reject Bush's corruption of our American ideals. Our constitutional democracy cannot survive with a government shrouded in secrecy, nor can our nation's honor be restored without full disclosure."
I like this because in order to move on we have to acknowledge and set right the transgressions of the past. One cannot just say, well, we made a mistake, sorry, and go on like we were innocent and trustworthy. The transgressions of the past are evidence to others that we are not innocent or trustworthy.
I have thought that Obama's vote for FISA was part of his deal with Bush that said he would not investigate or prosecute Bush or the corporations involved in Bush's criminal enterprises, in exchange for Bush not pushing his "suppress the vote" operations.
I have been therefore doubtful that any real effort to investigate and prosecute Bush will ever occur. So, the question is whether this appointment will lead to real investigations and prosecutions, or just the appearence of them.
...but am I the only one who would love to see him interview this woman? Boy, howdy, that would be an interesting 15 minutes.
It sounds like plagiarism ... but it probably wasn't.
bah!
From the Boston Herald link:
"These individuals bring the integrity, depth of experience and tenacity that the Department of Justice demands in these uncertain times. I have the fullest confidence that they will ensure that the Department of Justice once again fulfills its highest purpose: to uphold the Constitution and protect the American people. I look forward to working with them in the months and years ahead," Obama said in a statement.
When Obama describes DOJ's "highest purpose", he starts off wonderfully by saying these appointees will "uphold the Constitution". But that second part brought me up short. Should I be concerned about the "protect the American people" part?
I realize that normally, one would just impute this to the function of prosecution of those accused of violating Federal law, and although that is "protecting us", I think of protection as coming more from DOD. However, with the "protecting us from the terrists" excuse the Bushies used for the very Constitutional violations Johnsen rails against, this one disturbs me.
I hope that my caution here turns out to be misguided.
Will this appointment require Senate confirmation?
Yes. In one of the very few good acts of the Senate Democrats, they repeatedly blocked confirmation of Stephen Bradbury to this post, even staying in session to prevent a "recess" appointment, because of Bradbury's role in authoring key torture memos:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-12-26-quick-senate_N.htm
It is neccessary, but not sufficient. Ms. Johnsen's appointment appears to be an excellent first step. But that step will have no lasting impact on long term executive behavior and meaningful reinforcement of the rule of law unless this actually happens:
"We must avoid any temptation simply to move on."
If the incoming administration 'moves on', then Ms. Johnsen's appointment looks more like window dressing.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The Maine fight was supposed to be the dress rehearsal for repealing California's Prop. 8 -- but gay marriage lost
Once one obtains Seriousness credentials in the Washington media, they are irrevocable no matter one's conduct.
Salon headlines in your mailbox
