Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
ha, fair point. But then i think anyone who is a member of any political party is a sucker and a partisan.
Anyway, in all seriousness (well not all) my initial point meant to convey that it doesn't prove all that much if someone is haranguing (sp?) a member of the opposite party. If John Yoo comes out with an eloquent piece against an Obama power grab - even if Mr Yoo is correct (meaning i agree with him!) it doesn't prove he's against excess presidential power, it merely proves he's against it when a Dem does it.
Now maybe that's not the case with Ms Johnsen, but until proved otherwise, it's safer to bet she's gonna support whatever fakakta decision Obama makes.
Oh, let's all get off Israel/Gaza in this string, there's plenty of other strings to endlessly discuss that great big goat-f&ck.
(Also posted at NYT.)
Office of Legal Counsel, which has become controversial because of its legal defense of practices bordering on torture.
"Bordering on" torture? Are you kidding? Is there anything you would consider a legal defense of torture as opposed to "practices bordering on" torture?
Look at the Bybee torture memo issued by the OLC with the definition of physical pain as needing to "be equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death." And even then the OLC allowed for necessity and self-defense exemptions in case a government interrogator did inflict such intense pain. Yoo, the head of the OLC (now gracing the Times' Op-Ed page BTW), famously argued that the President could (depending on the circumstances) authorize crushing the testicles of the son of a suspect. Does that merely border on torture? Waterboarding and inducing hypothermia were in the past condemned as (and at least in the case of waterboarding, prosecuted as) torture when practiced by other countries. But in your view they're not quite torture when they're authorized by the OLC?
The main concern I have is that Eric Holder, the AG nominee, is hardly a libertarian. Unless he's changed, which is possible. Of course, Obama will have the final say on DOJ policy anyway but it still makes me nervous. We'll see. In any event, it's nice to see the light again.
Among a list of other things, I would say bombing aspirin factories in the Sudan, and erforming "extrodinary rendition" as illegal, both happened under Clinton's watch.
Please provide proof that mistargeting (by someone) is a violation of law. Had that asprin factory been a chemical weapons factory, would its bombing have been illegal?
Please provide similar proof that the "extrodinary" (sic) renditions which occured under the Clinton administration were against the law realizing, of course, that the term extraordinary rendition pertains to both legal and illegal renditions.
Would you care to try some of the "among other things"?
"....you reveal yourself in their usage to be more the lawyer than the journalist."
Wow, you're kidding with that one, right?
I was able to open Jim's link and grab the file. My computer didn't much appreciate the transaction, however. It's 539 KB and 21 pages.
She went to Yale. She knows that and will almost certainly act act accordingly.
She'll continue to lose football games to Harvard?
Had that asprin [sic] factory been a chemical weapons factory, would its bombing have been illegal?
Sigh, i'd say yes, but then i think invading Iraq even if it had WMDs would have been illegal. And I think the endless bombing of Iraq by Clinton was illegal. And yes, i think extraordinary renditioning is illegal even when Clinton did it.
Fortunately, Mr Obama is smarter than his critics on the left. Which is why he can throw them a milkbone and accomplish his goals without a bunch of left wing critics getting in the way.-- ehillesum
You know how smart Obama is?
You know who his critics are?
You know how smart they are?
You know that what his [Obama's] goals are?
You know what a "left wing critic" is?
And, finally, you know that Obama sees his "critics" as "getting in the way" as opposed to adding to the converastiion?
In short: Better trolls, please!
In a blunt statement to the press, Feinstein said that the CIA should be headed by a Intelligence professional at this time.
She also indicated that she was not informed of the decision to nominate Leon Panetta as director. I would imagine either Obama has made a political misstep, or Ms Feinstein needs a serious kick in the ass. What impact Feinstein may have on this appointment is unknown. I've been looking for a Feinstein comeuppance for some time now, should Obama elect to rub Dianne's nose in it, I will be personally overjoyed.
According to Clinton administration official Richard Clarke:
“ 'extraordinary renditions', were operations to apprehend terrorists abroad, usually without the knowledge of and almost always without public acknowledgment of the host government…. The first time I proposed a snatch, in 1993, the White House Counsel, Lloyd Cutler, demanded a meeting with the President to explain how it violated international law. Clinton had seemed to be siding with Cutler until Al Gore belatedly joined the meeting, having just flown overnight from South Africa. Clinton recapped the arguments on both sides for Gore: "Lloyd says this. Dick says that. Gore laughed and said, 'That's a no-brainer. Of course it's a violation of international law, that's why it's a covert action. The guy is a terrorist. Go grab his ass.'" [15] ”
In a New Yorker interview with CIA veteran Michael Scheuer, an author of the rendition program under the Clinton administration, writer Jane Mayer noted, "In 1995, American agents proposed the rendition program to Egypt, making clear that it had the resources to track, capture, and transport terrorist suspects globally — including access to a small fleet of aircraft. Egypt embraced the idea... 'What was clever was that some of the senior people in Al Qaeda were Egyptian,' Scheuer said. 'It served American purposes to get these people arrested, and Egyptian purposes to get these people back, where they could be interrogated.' Technically, U.S. law requires the CIA to seek 'assurances' from foreign governments that rendered suspects won’t be tortured. Scheuer told me that this was done, but he was 'not sure' if any documents confirming the arrangement were signed."[16] However, Scheuer testified before Congress that no such assurances were received.[17] He further acknowledged that treatment of prisoners may not have been "up to U.S. standards." However, he stated,
This is a matter of no concern as the Rendition Program’s goal was to protect America, and the rendered fighters delivered to Middle Eastern governments are now either dead or in places from which they cannot harm America. Mission accomplished, as the saying goes.[18]
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 survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Once seen as a lunatic fringe, reactionary anti-women groups are courting respectability
Salon headlines in your mailbox
