liberals aren't tolerant because we won't tolerate their intolerance !!

WASHINGTON — An internal Justice Department inquiry has concluded that Bush administration lawyers committed serious lapses of judgment in writing secret memorandums authorizing brutal interrogations but that they should not be prosecuted, according to government officials briefed on its findings.

The report by the Office of Professional Responsibility, an internal ethics unit within the Justice Department, is also likely to ask state bar associations to consider possible disciplinary action, which could include reprimands or even disbarment, for some of the lawyers involved in writing the legal opinions, the officials said.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/06/us/politics/06inquire.html

PS "reprimands"???.....stop or I'll yell stop again !!!

Just an update on the democrat's willingness to ignore the constitution

That report has nothing to do with Democrats. It's from the Office of Professional Responsibility, staffed by career DOJ lawyers, and it's the by-product of an investigation begun and virtually completed under the Bush administration.

Though it hasn't been released yet, it apparently concluded that John Yoo and Jay Bybee -- at least -- engaged in wrongdoing when writing the torture memos sufficient to justify misconduct proceedings by their bars that license them to practice law. Though it does apparently conclude that prosecutions are not warranted, that conclusion is not in any way binding on Holder, and the finding itself ought to substantially help the pro-prosecution argument, since it guts a major defense of those who oppose prosecutions: that these lawyers wrote good faith legal opinions legalizing these actions.

Example: Charles Schumer.

Wow, he's a piece of work. This guy doesn't have a warm spot for the free expression of ideas, either. I seem to remember him talking about making law to limit speech he found personally objectionable or insulting of Obama.

Nice guy. Why does NY keep sending him back?

"I, too, am stunned to learn that a country with our proud heritage has refused Dr. Mandel temporary admission. I am convinced that Americans cannot be denied the opportunity to hear Dr. Mandel's views in person because their Government disapproves of his ideas. Therefore, I dissent from today's decision and would affirm the judgment of the court below."

Justice Marshall, dissenting, in KLEINDIENST v. MANDEL,* 408 U.S. 753 (1972).

An evenhanded application of liberties benefits us all. Here we have hypocrites who understand the power of such a rule, but do not feel obligated to honestly apply it.

* From the majority opinion: "Ernest E. Mandel resides in Brussels, Belgium, and is a Belgian citizen. He is a professional journalist and is editor-in-chief of the Belgian Left Socialist weekly La Gauche. He is author of a two-volume work entitled Marxist Economic Theory published in 1969. He asserted in his visa applications that he is not a member of the Communist Party. He has described himself, however, as "a revolutionary Marxist." He does not dispute, see 325 F. Supp. 620, 624, that he advocates the economic, governmental, and international doctrines of world communism."

99.99% of the people screaming yesterday about Savage being banned from the UK have absolutely no idea that the State Department routinely bars foreign nationals from entering the US based on their political views.

And when confronted on this issue or questioned about our own policy of restricting entry on this basis, a similar 99.99% of that first group will vigorously deny that we do so. "No we don't! We don't bar people like that!" Which turns into crickets after they are directed to evidence that we damn well do.

Identically, left-wing advocates of hate speech laws claim that those who spout anti-gay, anti-Muslim or other bigoted ideas "incite" violence against minorities

Do you really think they don't? I admit to being strongly influence by David Neiwert's work, at Orcinus (dneiwert.blogspot.com) and in his books, especially the new "Eliminationism". Are you saying, GG, that Neiwert is wrong and that it isn't true (to pick a the first Orcinus quote that comes to hand):

that strong words are often a thought rehearsal, a premonition of possible strong action to come. It's not that people always act on the rhetoric -- they don't. It's that when the actions do come, you find that there's usually been plenty of very hot rhetoric tossed around in the run-up, as people psych themselves up for battle.

AFAIK, Neiwert is opposed to hate speech laws, but it's not because he thinks hate speech doesn't incite violence -- he thinks it should be legal *despite* inciting violence, but not socially and politically tolerated.

Example: Charles Schumer.

Wow, he's a piece of work. This guy doesn't have a warm spot for the free expression of ideas, either. I seem to remember him talking about making law to limit speech he found personally objectionable or insulting of Obama.

Do you have any citations or links documenting where Schumer advocated such a law?

Do you really think they don't?

I think a lot of speech "incites" violence in a broad sense of that term -- I doubt anyone denies, for instance, that the pro-boycott speeches of the NAACP leaders in Claiborne inspired some of the individual members to go and commit violence against those who violated the boycott; I also don't doubt that the sermons of some Muslim preachers are heard as justifications for violence by some listeners -- but "incitement" of that sort shouldn't be and (under clear First Amendment jurisprudence) isn't sufficient to ban or punish the speech.

Anyone banned can just "show up" via internet video anyway.

A few examples:

1) Federalism went out the window when the Florida State Supreme Court made a decision that helped Gore in the 2000 recount.

2) Deficits were ok under George Bush.

3) Big government was ok under George Bush. Bill Clinton couldn't even put taggants in fertilizer after Oklahoma City, but under Bush tapping everyone's phones without a warrant was A-OK, as well as many other violations of civil liberties.

4) States Rights are bedrock principle -- unless a state wants to let people use medical marijuana or have a different drunk driving law.

5) The Rule of Law was inviolable when it came to impeaching Bill Clinton but under George Bush? Not so much.

6) When Bill Clinton sent troops to Bosnia or Haiti it was a dangerous overstepping of executive power. Bush on the other hand has legitimate monarchical power to override any law.

7) Cap&Trade energy plans were excellent public policy employing sacred free market principles according to Newt Gingrich 2 years ago. Now they are a big government tax on the middle class.