The argument is plain and obvious. And the implications of the Holder question were plain and obvious. It was the first question asked of Holder by the first Senator to ask questions. Leahy knew what he was asking, and Holder knew what he was answering. Together, they opened a door, and they're now standing at that opened door.

This may have been Holder's version of--"yes, I agree with you, now make me do it". He needs to be pushed or pulled through the open doorway.

Well, now I'm excited and ready to be crushed back to earth.

Americans will not stand for or allow the blogging, left wing nuts to let this country self destruct.

You did it for the last 8 years. Why would now be any different?

And what should we fear, a march of colloidal silver-selling militia rednecks from Wyoming and Mississippi converging on Washington state, because you were all too stupid to read maps?

What sense does it make to have the executive branch--the one that enforces laws--police itself? That's one of the reasons congress was expressly given authority to investigate and impeach.

Further proving that point is the fact that the President has the ability to issue blanket pardons. Given that, the path you and Krugman are following is prima facie foolish.

Krugman as usual is a boneheaded idiot who's win last year put the final nail in the Nobel coffin for us normal folk.

Prosecute the lot of them, including the congress people that passed laws to make torture alright after the fact.

Just wait and see how far reaching the outrage goes. You will not be allowed to equate the Bush admin with al queda.

You and those like you will be forced to defend your point of view in the most extreme ways.

Krugman as usual is a boneheaded idiot who's win last year put the final nail in the Nobel coffin for us normal folk.

-- tonydavisnelson

Besides the election results helping to redefine "normal" away from "backwards Republican morons", allow me be proud that for all its flaws the Nobel committee (even the related economics prize) does a decent job of promoting actual achievement in ideologically diverse backgrounds, as opposed to seeking the approval of "us normal folk."

Over the last 8 years we saw America finally lose a gret deal of its fascination with lackluster idiocy as the standard of 'normal'.

The appeal of 'stupid' as a proud form of policy really took a hit with the anti-Government Republicans' handling of Katrina with their idiot failed horse-trader chosen as the 'normal' guy in charge of a crucial federal agency.

I'm not saying that there still isn't a third of our nation which will be perpetually enthralled to the idea of authoritarian nimrods being in charged and the highest ideal of public service being to try and insult the egg-heads and ivory tower and fancy 'thinking' types, but the existence of the torch & pitchfork brigades doesn't mean we should honor or give in to them, again that is.

I like your work, Glenn, but you're pissing in a hurricane. The Bush gang will dodder off to a comfortable retirement of consulting contracts and speaking fees.

What sense does it make to have the executive branch--the one that enforces laws--police itself? That's one of the reasons congress was expressly given authority to investigate and impeach.

So as you understand American law, if the President commits a crime while in office, no matter how heinous and felonious, the only remedy is to impeach him? Prosecutions, prisons and the like are not for executive branch officials. That's your understanding?

Also, how do you dismiss the requirement under the Convention Against Torture that where someone tortures, each signatory agrees to "submit the case to its competent authorities for the purpose of prosecution" -- not impeachment, but "prosecution."

Do you think the U.S. should just go ahead and ignore that?

So some politician trying to score points with a few senators so his appointment gets approved says it was torture. Not exactly the "reasonable man" test.

What would you say to a judgment by the Convening Authority of the Office of Military Commissions? It's your guy's law, your guy's court, and Susan Crawford is its top legal authority. Can you explain why her judgment should be less binding than the decision by Judge Allred to send Salim Hamdan home, given that she had the power to overrule it under your guy's legal system? Can you explain why her opinions should carry less legal weight than the OLC or the T-JAG of the Army?

You aren't credible. She said torture, that is sufficient to trigger the treaty.

I like your work, Glenn, but you're pissing in a hurricane. The Bush gang will dodder off to a comfortable retirement of consulting contracts and speaking fees.

Leaving aside the miserably defeatist and self-victimizing attitude ("it's all hopeless! We're never going to win! Our failure is inevitable! We're helpless to change anything!!!!"), even if you're right, is that a reason not to write about it and argue why it's wrong and destructive?

and I rather passionately want to see the illegalities of the Bush Administration brought to the light of day, examined and prosecuted with the perpetrators at all levels brought to justice, I have one problem with phrasing that as an obligation of the Obama administration. How do you hold Obama responsible for something that happened prior to his watch? I am comfortable phrasing it as a national responsibility and certainly as something utterly necessary to restoring our national character and international integrity, but I just cannot hold Barack Obama personally responsible for doing it.

el cid

Just wait and see how far reaching the outrage goes. You will not be allowed to equate the Bush admin with al queda.

You and those like you will be forced to defend your point of view in the most extreme ways.

-- farragut

Serious or not, you gave me the first really good laugh of the morning.

I would never equate Bush with Al Qa'ida. Instead, Bush Jr. is the guy who gave bin Laden everything he ever wanted, including his first 8 months in office where not only did Bush Jr. do nothing to safeguard American security, he and his toadies actively and hostilely discouraged anyone who did give a damn.

Maybe it all would have happened anyway, but since Bush Jr. didn't care about America and American lives and American security he did absolutely not the tiniest thing, not the tiniest hint of an expenditure of energy on American security measures, and only acted (over-reacted) when his image was threatened, who's to say?

You might ask yourself why Bush Jr. was so driven to make bin Laden happy; maybe he was just so frightened when he was running away on September 11th and hiding in military bases until Daddy Cheney could tell him what to do and he could stand in front of people without peeing his pants. I dunno. I'm not given to wonder.

I do know that if you right wingers ever, ever, ever think you're going to try to bully the rest of us, the majority of the god damned country, into going along with you're agenda, be warned:

America is tired of your shit.

Now, you don't have to take my advice. As a learning experience maybe I should encourage you to stir up as much crap as you can, since the only learning you appreciate will be the harsh smackdown you'll get.

Your loudmouth freak predecessors who tried to derail Roosevelt's the New Deal by calling him Socialist and Commie and signing up to support fascism got pretty thoroughly smacked around by Americans at the voting booth and when needed in the streets, as Americans wanted their nation working again, and not tied up by more right wing nimrod underminers.

I don't know why right wingers, and particularly Southern conservatives, are so doggedly committed to the principles of treason and destroying this nation and everything good it has ever represented, but I don't think they're going to get far pushing their agenda in the next few years, and maybe next few decades if FDR's lessons are apt.