stand down, Margaret, stand down.

Hey, Christy!

In the final analysis, McCain is a bastard. My bet is that he no-shows.

Who is betting? If he doesn’t show he doesn’t have to do anything.

That’s the view at 10:37!

The no show has pretty much been his M.O. of late on any issue on which the far right and neocons might disagree with him. Which is why I’m wondering whether he’ll no show again today…

Christy, I read somewhere that passing a law now to outlaw torture would provide an ex post facto defense against the already-documented violations of the Geneva Conventions committed during the current administration. Any truth in that?

A lawyer, months back, suggested that passing a law saying torture was illegal may be the worst thing that the Senate could do. His/her reasoning was that such a law implies that it was previously legal. What do you all think?

I think you owe me a coke! :)

Not that I know of — the law was clear beforehand and if that is all they have as a defense, that’s pretty pathetic, frankly.

I think that that argument would be hard to sustain if the bill included language specifically referencing earlier legislation that it “clarifies.”

The reasoning is, as solai says @ 8, it implies that it was legal before.

Thanks, Christy.

McCain made a deal with the devil and it controls him. He has no principals. He does as he’s told. If the Big Boys tell him not to show up for the vote, he won’t show. After all, they ousted him before, they can do it again.

I do not expect McCain to do anything other than double speak and give weak lip service. His action or lack of action will support Bush etal.

I think I do. Must learn to type faster.

The army general there said that techniques under the army field manual are working and working effectively, and he didn’t think they need to do anything else. My friends, this is what America is all about.

Uh, John? Call me a hair-splitter, but actually, that’s not what America is all about. Historically, Geneva Conventionsally, we don’t even want to get close to the cross-over line. What are you thinking, man?

P.S., I just read somewhere earlier today that in the 110th Congress, out of 450 votes, McCain missed 56.7%. The writer noted that only Tim Johnson (SD) missed more, owing to his recovery from a brain hemorrhage.

But the law was already clear beforehand — there weren’t any questions about what constituted improper conduct. Hell, we courtmartialed American soldiers for waterboarding Viet Cong in Vietnam. And American lawyers championed the human rights interpretations to which we signed on as treaty obligations from Geneva and beyond.

There isn’t a lack of clarity beyond the obfuscations and dust clouds that Dick Cheney and David Addington and their ilk have attempted to manufacture for themselves. International law and domestic law has been very clear — for years — on what sort of conduct was disallowed. And the Amry Field Manual has been as well. The Bush Administraiton’s disregard of these standards and their rejection of McCain’s most recent attempt in the MCA via signing statement is what requires express repudiation., but the law itself was quite clear based on prior precedent, legislative history and the like.

I’ve been saying this for a couple weeks now, but after the last few blowouts it’s more true than ever. If Clinton doesn’t win by 20-30% in TX and OH, she should end it if she’s really concerned about the will of the people and the DemocratIC Party. If she starts slashing and burning, and playing all kinds of games with FL and MI, and superdelegates and so on, we’ll know that it’s only about her and her DLC buddies keeping power.

McCandyCain has it wrapped up, and can relax and start building the campaign’s bank account now. He’ll have Ari Fleischer’s odious PAC doing and paying for a lot of the dirty work. The longer the Dem nom drags on, the more of a head start the Repubes will have.

Starting to see more talk of this around the blogs…thankfully:

Fasten your seat belts. My guess is that we’re in for a Bette Davis kind of very bumpy ride, right up to March 4.

After that, she should gracefully withdraw. Because while those bumps won’t upset Obama’s momentum, Mr. McCain meanwhile will be roaming the land virtually unopposed. And he could sure use some exclusively focused company.

http://pmcarpenter.blogs.com/p.....2;-na.html

So far not so good. I hope this isn’t a trend. Is this why Maggie Williams took over…is she more willing to “go negative?”

http://tpmelectioncentral.talk.....new_ad.php

Sure, some “negative” ads are understandable, and this one is fairly tame, but hope this isn’t the beginning of a trend. Would be a terrible way to go out.

I’m no competition when it comes to typing - either speed or accuracy…

Per Justice Scalia:

Seems to me you have to say, as unlikely as that is, it would be absurd to say that you can’t stick something under the fingernails, smack them in the face. It would be absurd to say that you couldn’t do that. And once you acknowledge that, we’re into a different game. How close does the threat have to be and how severe can an infliction of pain be?

But Common Article 3 prohibits “cruel treatment” of detainees, and what Scalia is proposing is certainly cruel treatment — we’re talking war crimes here. And, if you read the entire article, he clearly thinks that the end justifies the means.

This is what I think too. McCain sold out to the Admin last year, and the public saw it. That’s why his numbers tanked for a while. He’s only come back in the polls now because the other Repub candidates were complete crazies and people have forgotten that he sold out.

I am not John McCain’s friend, and I wish he’d stop calling me his friend.

He’s the creepy old man of this year’s election. Stop calling me your friend, dude!

I tend to believe that this adminstration will pull a Presidential Pardon love fest in January 2009. Bush will pardon, Cheney, Yoo, Addington, Gonzales, Rove, Et Al. He will then resign and Cheney will Pardon Bush. After all, Ford was Cheney’s hero for pardoning Nixon.

Obviously IANAL. Thanks for the response, I like to think these war criminals will eventually get their comeuppance.

Scalia thinks that cruel treatment is only prohibited after conviction, not before you’ve even been charged. Think that was in Scott Horton’s analysis yesterday.
http://www.harpers.org/archive.....c-90002378

And just because the Constitution may not say it, we still have treaties with other nations that need to be obeyed, not to mention laws that have been written that say we can’t torture. Is he saying that there’s a sort of Bill of Rights for torture that explicitly permits torture, like the 1st amendment protects freedom of speech? What a sicko.

Bush can pardon himself. There’s no need for him to resign.

I agree. The man is weak. The few minutes of his speech last night that I could stand to listen to was even in a weak voice. No strength in evidence.

Good news via Raw Story:

February 12, 2008

The Honorable Glenn A. Fine
Inspector General
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C. 20530

The Honorable H. Marshall Jarrett
Counsel for Professional Responsibility
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Room 3266
Washington, D.C. 20530

Dear Inspector General Fine and Counsel Jarrett:

We request that you investigate the role of Justice Department officials in authorizing and/or overseeing the use of waterboarding by the Central Intelligence Agency.

Attorney General Michael Mukasey refuses to investigate the Administration’s authorization and use of waterboarding. CIA Director Michael Hayden has testified that the CIA waterboarded three detainees, and Attorney General Mukasey has testified that, “There are circumstances where waterboarding is clearly unlawful.” Nonetheless, the Attorney General refused Senator Durbin’s request to investigate because he does “not believe such an investigation is necessary, appropriate, or legally sustainable.”

Attorney General Mukasey admitted that, “the CIA sought advice from the Department of Justice, and the Department informed the CIA that [waterboarding’s] use would be lawful under the circumstances and within the limits and the safeguards of the program.” The Attorney General’s justification for refusing to open an investigation is that, “no one who relied in good faith on the Department’s past advice should be subject to criminal investigation for actions taken in reliance on that advice.” However, this does not address Senator Durbin’s request that “a Justice Department investigation should explore whether waterboarding was authorized and whether those who authorized it violated the law” (our emphasis).

Waterboarding has a sordid history in the annals of torture by repressive regimes, from the Spanish Inquisition to the Khmer Rouge. The United States has always repudiated waterboarding as a form of torture and prosecuted it as a war crime. The Judge Advocates General, the highest-ranking attorneys in each of the four military services, have stated unequivocally that waterboarding is illegal and violates Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions.

Yet, despite the virtually unanimous consensus of legal scholars and the overwhelming weight of legal precedent that waterboarding is illegal, certain Justice Department officials, operating behind a veil of secrecy, concluded that the use of waterboarding is lawful. We believe it is appropriate for you to investigate the conduct of these Justice Department officials. As you know, a similar investigation is underway regarding Justice Department officials who advised the National Security Agency that its warrantless surveillance program is lawful.

To restore the faith of our intelligence professionals and the American people in the Justice Department’s ability to provide accurate and honest legal advice, we request that you make your findings public.

We ask that you explore, among other things:

Did Justice Department officials who advised the CIA that waterboarding is lawful perform legal work that meets applicable standards of professional responsibility and internal Justice Department policies and standards? For example, did these officials consider all relevant legal precedents, including those that appear to contradict directly their conclusion that waterboarding is lawful? Did these officials consult with government attorneys who are experts in the relevant legal standards, e.g. Judge Advocates General who are experts in the Geneva Conventions? Was it reasonable to rely on standards found in areas such as health care reimbursement law in evaluating interrogation techniques?
Were Justice Department officials who advised the CIA that waterboarding is lawful insulated from outside pressure to reach a particular conclusion? What role did White House and/or CIA officials play in deliberations about the lawfulness of waterboarding?
We agree with Attorney General Mukasey that our intelligence professionals should be able to rely in good faith on the Justice Department’s legal advice. However, if CIA agents or contractors have been put in jeopardy by misguided counsel from the Justice Department, including legal opinions that the Administration has been forced to repudiate, and as a result they risk war crimes prosecution overseas, this is a serious matter. It also places CIA agents at risk of receiving similarly flawed advice in the future. Moreover, the Justice Department’s continued refusal to repudiate waterboarding does tremendous damage to America’s values and image in the world and places Americans at risk of being subjected to waterboarding by enemy forces. We believe it merits investigation to determine if these grievous results were the product of legal theories violating the Department’s professional standards, or improper influence violating the Department’s standards for independent legal advice.

We respectfully request that you inform us whether you plan to initiate a review as soon as possible, and no later than February 19, 2008. We also request that you inform us whether the results of your review will be provided to Congress and made public. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,
Richard J. Durbin
U.S. Senator

Sheldon Whitehouse
U.S. Senator

So here’s a question. With impeachment off Nancy’s table, it’s still possible for there to be lawsuits after the door hits Junior in the butt, right? So perhaps there’s a real advantage to waiting until a Dem president is in place to bring suit. Or am I off on another flight of fancy?

Right. And Scalia is very, very wrong in the case of international armed conflicts. He ought to study the law some time.

…even if just in the history books (considering the disgusting but likely pardons mentioned).

Oh, and I vote “no-show” for Old Lord McCain. It’s his default setting lately.

According to Scalia, international law doesn’t count.

We need to impeach Scalia. Alito, Roberts, and Thomas too.

Do not count Clinton out. That team has a mastery of old school, backroom politics that is second to none. They have many favors to call in and they’re perfectly willing to offer favors in the future.

Would the Clinton team attempt a “coup” with superdelegates? They’re already trying. They’re going negative, but how hard will they go? My bet is they’ll destroy Obama and give us a GOP president rather than lose gracefully.

Ethically, I’ve seeing very little difference between how the Clinton’s operate and how Bush operates.

Boxturtle (McBuch ran a fairly clean race. Got to give him that)

Exacly. Specifically, Article VI of the constitution makes senate-ratified treaties the “law of the land,” and the War Crimes Act of 1996 make violations of Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions federal crimes.

McCain is too old to be President. I mean, come on.

And Scalia is very, very wrong in the case of international armed conflicts. He ought to study the law some time.

What, and let that get in the way of what he knows is right? Give’m a break…

Mr. McCain meanwhile will be roaming the land virtually unopposed.

Intresting, last night. Obama did challenge McCain. He is already speaking like a presidential candidate. At this point, I don’t see any concern having Hillary in the race. I know it is frustrating for the Obama supporters but no one was talking that way when Hillary was ahead.

Let the process complete itself. The people will decide and need to cast their votes. Be patient.

But Common Article 3 prohibits “cruel treatment,” and the War Crimes Act of 1996 make violations of Common Article 3 federal crimes.

Really? I thought that was unconstitutional. How come Nixon didn’t pardon himself?

Which is why his VP choice is critical. And once again, please remember that bunches o’eyes are on MN’s governor Slickery Tim Pawlenty.

Scalia is perhaps the most arrogant schmuck I’ve ever seen.

Christy wrote:

That administration support for McCain doesn’t come cheaply, I’m sure, and I would certainly love to know the terms of the price on that. If McCain was misled by the Bush Administration on this issue — rather than simply duped — now would be the time to set that record straight.

I think the past indicates he’ll take a powder, one way or another. He’s folded every time the Bush Administration has told him to. The only question is whether he’ll vote no, vote “present”, or just quietly acquiesce when Bush writes a signing statement that amounts to “I don’t have to put up with this shit”.

I’m not defending what Scalia sez; I’m just sock puppeting him.

Frankly, he thinks the law is whatever he wants it to be. He knows better than the collected wisdom, …

Isn’t the House discussing the FISA bill right now?

Not sure, just finished getting my sick Peanut down for a nap (we’ll see if she actually sleeps…). Anyone had C-Span on this afternoon?

I still think Richard Perle is the most arrogant asshole ever.

I lean towards more sunshine now. Do you honestly believe the Senate would be caving into the Whitehouse demands on warrantless spying, SCHIP, ETC… if the Whitehouse had to defend an impeachment??? All Pelosi and Reid did by taking impeachment off the table was to embolden and empower Bush and his cronies.

Yes, they are….

Noxon was being impeached.

Article II, Section 2
…shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.

Bush can pardon himself for everything else. Nancy has pardoned him already for impeachment.

That’s never been tested, but about the time Clinton was leaving office, John Dean wrote an article at FindLaw where he said that he thinks it would work. Apparently a lot of scholars looked into it as Nixon was leaving office.

This is some powerful speak truth to power. Thanks for post it.

If you want to beat StJohn as much as I do, please watch the “no we can’t” video , if you haven’t already, and send it to everyone you know. Can’t go after him too soon.

Hmmmmm. Now that you mention it …

The Chimp is live on MSNBC talking about how the ekonumy is gonna be saved by the stimulus - signing the bill now

Don’t say McBush is too old to be president…that will create an instant comparison to Reagan which would actually HELP him. I suggest our line should be “He’s too much like Bush to be president”.

Boxturtle (We could go with “Too much like Cheney”, but that might be crossing the line :-) )

I’m sorry to hear about your beloved Peanut.

We need to impeach Scalia. Alito, Roberts, and Thomas too.

Ding!

Would lying to Congress in their confirmaton hearings be a good reason?

Just got the teevee on C-Span — looks like they are debating a 21-day extension for the FISA bill. Mike Rogers from MI is whining about the request for more time, not mentioning that the WH talled on document turnover for over a year and just in the last couple of weeks turned them over. Jackass.

AhHA. I see…good point. So if Nancy were to bring impeachment, it would prevent Bush/Cheney from pardoning themselves. Back to the point that all Nancy accomplished was to empower Bush by taking impeachment off the table.

I agree with you, but what I was wondering about was the pardoning part. Or might one safely assume (always dangerous) that impeachment proceedings would move well into a new president’s term. Not smart enough about impeachment protocol to know.

C’mon — Robert Novak, hands down.

True, it hasn’t been tested. There’s nothing stopping Bush from doing it and seeing it, at the very least, tied up in courts for years. Additionally, with the Supreme Court now loaded with Bush toadies, we can guess how they will rule.

YES. On now.

Delineating it out into black/white, good guyz/bad guyz - left/right/

Ew. They kinda look alike, and I think Novak would make a great press secretary for McBush.

Grounds to Impeach Justice Scalia and he needs to be impeached for such opinions uttered. Advocating torture is against everything our Constitution stands for!

Dear Friends at the Lake, I just received this via email. Each of us have different issues that “freak us out” because of their potential ramifications for life as we know/have known it. For me it is net neutrality, because I really fear that it will be used to shut down sites such as TPM, FDL, Kos etc. Assuming this may concern others of you, I post it here.

________________________________________
From: Timothy Karr, SavetheInternet.com [mailto:list@freepress.net]
Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2008 12:47 PM
Subject: Join the New Fight for an Open Internet

Dear Richmond,

Video: Rep. Ed Markey talks about his new bill
Take Action Now

Last night, a bill was introduced in the U.S. House that would stop Comcast, Verizon and AT&T from controlling the free flow on information on the Internet.
The only way we can stop these gatekeepers is if we all take action to support this crucial legislation:
Tell Rep. Michael Capuano to Support Internet Freedom
In 2006, your voice helped stop mighty phone and cable companies from gutting Net Neutrality. In 2007, you pried open their cell phone networks and gave users a choice.
This year, we’re going to stop Internet blocking and censorship once and for all.
Why This is Important: Reps. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) and Chip Pickering (R-Miss.) introduced the “Internet Freedom Preservation Act” (HR 5353) to stop relentless corporate attempts to set up roadblocks on the information superhighway.
It guarantees Net Neutrality by restoring it in the foundation of communications law. This bold move promises that the public — not phone and cable companies — will control the fate of the Internet.
The legislation also calls for a nationwide series of public hearings before anyone in Washington hands these gatekeepers and their lobbyists more power. (Read more about the bill here)
Take Action Now: Save the Internet
How Far We’ve Come: In 2006, more than 1.5 million Americans called on Congress to keep gatekeepers off our Internet. Last year, more than a quarter-million people sent comments to the FCC and opened up cell-phone networks to user choice and innovation.
This new bill was made possible by our amazing grassroots movement. SavetheInternet.com has brought together Democrats and Republicans, consumer groups and small businesses, bloggers and video gamers, in a new bottom-up majority that’s shaking up the status quo.
What You Can Do: For too long, communications policymaking has been rigged against us. But by taking action to support this bill, you’re telling Congress that high-priced lobbyists will no longer set the agenda.
Tell Rep. Michael Capuano : ‘Support the Internet Freedom Preservation Act’
The purpose of the Internet is to give power over information to everyone. The role of our elected leaders is to protect our basic right to communicate from those who want to take it away from us.
We’ve started a new chapter in the fight for an open Internet. We realize that it takes more than one piece of legislation to reverse decades of corrosive telecom policies.
But with this bill — and your help — we are on our way.
Thank you,
Timothy Karr
Campaign Director
SavetheInternet.com
P.S. Bloggers, activists and Internet experts are logging on to the Free Press Action Network to discuss Net Neutrality, an open Internet and people-powered broadband policy. Join the discussion at http://www.freepress.net/action/

________________________________________
Take action on this important campaign at: http://free.convio.net/site/Ad.....038;id=241
Tell your friends about this campaign at: http://free.convio.net/site/Ecard?ecard_id=1161
You (Richmond) are receiving this email as an opt-in subscriber to Free Press’ E-activist Network. You can unsubscribe or manage your account at any time.

I’d say treason for their successful coup in the cases of Scalia and Thomas. It’s a form of war against the constitution of the United States.

You’re too kind. After listening to Mike Rogers, I’m going for a walk in the windy sunshine.

Each of us HAS - Jeez, get with it!!!

It’s practically a constitutional requirement to impeach judges — and justices — for lying to Congress in their confirmation hearings. It’s just about the only thing they can be removed for, and it’s imperative that we do.

Roberts and Alito were appointed by an illegitimate preznit, as well.

I thought of him too. He’s like Richard Perle’s evil twin. He may be more arrogant, but Perle is a bigger asshole. It’s close, though.

For me it’s Henry Kissinger. He is the big mama-daddy who nursed Perle, Wolfiwitz, and the NeoCons. Amazing he’s still around as an advisor and on the Foreign Policy Board. Rasputin is an amature next to Kissinger.

Gomert: Did he REALLY say don’t have your terrorist friends call you at home if you’re an American?

I can’t take this.

Yes. Yes, he did. “If you don’t want to have a problem, don’t have your terrorist friends call you at home. It’s that simple.” I think that’s a direct quote, although I’d have to run my TIVO back to be certain.

Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely

Meaning

Literal meaning.

Origin

Lord ActonThis arose as a quotation by John Emerich Edward Dalberg Acton, first Baron Acton (1834–1902). The historian and moralist, who was otherwise known simply as Lord Acton, expressed this opinion in a letter to Bishop Mandell Creighton in 1887:

“Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men.”

I would not deign to call these moral cretins great men .
Cowards hiding behind their comfortable positions, protected from even casual contact with average Americans, they grow fat and old and bold in speech, that they forget the realities of life in this cruel time.

I thought Leo Strauss got the honor of being their mentor.

He is the Grand Daddy but Kissinger nurses the younger (under 90) crowd.

I signed already… without the internet being free we will not be able to get to the truth as to what this administration is doing and as such our voices will be stifled… SHARE with all you know. We must keep the internet free and un-fettered by both the corporatist and the government!!

Welll, the ’speaker’ there just freaked me out. I don’t know what the hell happened. As soon as I heard the words…”pursuant to the rules”…. my ear closures dropped.

I had to pull them back up - apparently now we somewhere else.

I’m sorry but is torture actually an issue? I was under the imperssion that the GOP made the decision to violate the Geneva conventions on their own… is this actually an issue here? Are you kidding me? This is as big of a non-issue as gay marriage was last election. In 20 years discriminating against homosexuals will be looked at the same way discriminating against woman and ethnic groups are looked at today. Are the republicans trying to bring us into a dark age? Why do they insist on living in our not-so-savory (in terms of human rights) past?

This looks like just another media-induced distraction from issues that are actually controversial for real reasons. The American public cannot afford to be wrapped up in discussion of issues that were already solved at Geneva Conventions, which took place at the beginning of the 20th century (torture). Why isn’t election rigging an issue? That seems like a MUCH more worthy topic of political discourse.

PS: Much support for the freepress.net post above.

That’s another phrase that cracks me up -

“I extend myself as much time as I consume.” As long as I’m talking no one can interrupt or ….

bullshit-Scalia is wrong,and in so many ways unqualified for the position he holds-what was his legal argument for this travesty of incompetence and hubris.

I give you this
http://www.internationalhero.co.uk/p/plastman.htm

Madison made it very clear in first congress that such use of pardon power should be considered impeachable offense -so congress should have papers and hearings and trial ready to go to impeach convict and remove before Bush can resign!

And there is precedent for impeachment after resignations.

I’m perplexed by his saying that this should have legal standing because the torturer suspects that the victim might be holding some information about an upcoming crime. Essentially this could be expanded to torturing anyone, based only upon the torturers “feeling”.

And in any real case of “ticking time bomb” with a really involved terrorist…that terrorist could easily stop the torture by lying…and the event would still occur. The torture fails to elicit the correct information, and the terrorist “wins”…and perhaps makes a strong case for the prosecution of the “failed torturer” as well.

In addition, for someone who really succeeds (or not) after performing such an act there is another recourse that doesn’t enshrine torture itself as a commonplace in our “justice system”. It’s called a pardon or clemency. If a person really acted to save thousands and successfully (or perhaps not) did so…I would think that the available recourse is to have the President place their Administration up to the whims of the electortate, and pardon the individual(s) involved.

In this way it’s acknowleging that the Act is and was a crime, but allowing the benefits to weigh against the actions of that individual under duress.

Ultimately I think that it’s tragic that not one Federal cent has been spent on research into non-invasive and non-pain-inducing alternatives to torture in the interrogation of suspects that might have crucial information. It’s well known that the brain processes knowingly false information differently than information that is thought to be truthful. Such distinctions can be detected by PET and CAT-Scans but only if the individuals are well-treated and NOT under duress or immediate threats.

Torture is about as accurate as the methods used by the Inquisition to get people to say they had sex with demons and devils.

Of course, perhaps Scalia, good believing Roman Catholic that he is, actually believes that the Inquisition was a GOOD THING!

The fact that such techniques are not even being funding, while billions are spent on Gitmo and forcible remission suggests that the whole issue here is not actually protecting the public by obtaining reliable information at all.