Indeed

-iNet/Link, below, was provided – as a courtesy. It means nothing. None of us are related!

ThesaurusLegend: Synonyms Related Words Antonyms
Noun 1. putz – (Yiddish) a fool; an idiot
Yiddish – a dialect of High German including some Hebrew and other words; spoken in Europe as a vernacular by many Jews; written in the Hebrew script
fool, muggins, saphead, tomfool, sap – a person who lacks good judgment
2. putzputz – obscene terms for penis
pecker, cock, dick, peter, prick, tool, shaft
penis, phallus, member – the male organ of copulation (`member’ is a euphemism)
dirty word, vulgarism, obscenity, smut, filth – an offensive or indecent word or phrase

I loved Addington’s shrug of the use of of the term “unitary” (theory) as being attributed to him, whatsoever.

Yoo is at least smart enough to know that his interests and the government’s are not necessarily coextensive.

He’s something of a pawn in this lame game of chess.

I missed the mendacity of mediocrity himself but according to Philip Gouvrevitch, author of Standard Operating Proceedure, he could be held to account legally in an international court, even when Bush pardons him here.

Jill

http://www.law.berkeley.edu/news/2008/edley041008.html

That is scary. Dissent always has a price but some of these neo-cons want blood. I suspect the investigation into this thuggery will take years.

April 9, 2007
Constitutional scholar who criticized Bush added to terrorist ‘no-fly’ list

A top Constitutional scholar from Princeton who gave a televised speech that slammed President George W. Bush’s executive overreach was recently told that he had been added to the Transportation Security Administration’s terrorist watch list. He shared his experience this weekend at the law blog Balkinization.

Walter F. Murphy, the McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence, Emeritus, at Princeton University, attempted to check his luggage at the curbside in Albuquerque before boarding a plane to Newark, New Jersey. Murphy was told he could not use the service.

“I was denied a boarding pass because I was on the Terrorist Watch list,” he said.

When inquiring with a clerk why he was on the list, Murphy was asked if he had participated in any peace marches.

“We ban a lot of people from flying because of that,” a clerk said.

“According to a top official, Ashcroft asked aloud after one meeting: `Why are we talking about this in the White House? History will not judge this kindly.’”

The topic of that conversation was torture/interrogation techniques.

I said above that we will have to wait for a new administration to proceed on any meaningful corrective actions.

What I am worrying about is the Executive’s pardon power being used to shield the main actors, even before any action can be taken. I am unsure of the limits and will have to haul down some books…

Taxi to the Dark Side

“Powerful. One of the really pivotal documentaries of this decade.” – A.O. Scott, The New York Times

Academy Award Winner: Best Documentary Feature. Alex Gibney’s perpetually shocking documentary focuses on the Bush administration’s use of torture when dealing with political prisoners, with a particular focus on those captured in Iraq and Afghanistan. The title of Gibney’s movie is derived from the treatment meted out to an Afghani taxi driver named Dilawar, who was mistakenly fingered as a terrorist, then killed during a torture session conducted by American troops. Despite the title, Dilawar’s case is just a small part in Gibney’s jigsaw, as the director uses excruciating and comprehensive details surrounding the taxi driver’s death as a starting point in his search for the people who have permitted such incidents to occur. Gut-wrenching and fully uncensored pictures from Abu-Ghraib feature alongside interviews with military personnel (some of whom tortured Dilawar) as Gibney’s search slowly heads into the upper echelons of the military and, ultimately, into the Bush regime itself. Rated R. 106 minutes.

Official Website Trailer

Jill

http://ciponline.org/facts/art98.htm

Sound plausible to me. There are lots of side deals when alliances are formed and this war would be no different.

Sorry,

Jill

I heard this from a woman who worked at the State Dept. I have no personal knowledge as to the truth of her statement, but it doesn’t sound implausible. She said before we invaded Iraq the S.D was sent out to strong arm other countries into 1. supporting the U.S. in a “coalition of the willing” and 2. making certain that we would not prosecute any U.S. officials for war crimes. Her name is: Ann Wright and her book is: Dissent; Voices of Conscience.

I know its horribly off-topic, but can’t resist, apologies, apologies:

http://opiniojuris.org/posts/1207705553.shtml

I am unaware of anything brewing overseas. The European Parliament would, if it could, support anti-torture prosecutions, but it is being stalemated by some member states that may have some complicity themselves. Belgium is always a go-it-alone source of war crime indictments since it has a universal jurisdiction law still on the books, but in practice it has bowed to US/Brit pressures.

Outside of the EU, the US has signed well over 100 Article 98 agreements with other, primarily third-world governments, which guarantee that the signatories will not surrendor each other’s nationals to the ICC court. These facts work against Andrew’s remarks hopeful, but not supported.

The ASMPA also provides immunity from overseas prosecutions for personnel in the armed forces, and I believe, DOD contractors (although DOS contractors are a special case).

I was taken aback by Andrew Sullivan’s recent remarks on The Chris Matthews show that “Donald Rumsfeld, David Addington and John Yoo should not leave the United States any time soon. They will be at some point indicted for war crimes. They deserve to be.” Does he know something we don’t?

http://www.harpers.org/subjects/NoComment

Our temple of American law needs to be re-consecrated, it has been sadly defiled.

The one great immutable law of American History: Sooner or later everybody gets their day in court.

I agree there was a conservative cabal advocating this obsequious homage to our Chief Executive. While I understand the intellectual contortions needed to reach such an outrageous position as the “unitary executive”, I am more curious about the motivations of the actors. Normally,I would ascribe good faith to controversial positions taken for the purpose of testng existing law or advocating a modification. But this defense of the indefensible is so contrary to our national principles and the law, that the presumption of good faith is overcome in my opinion.

As for the advocates, Bybee’s reasons are straight forward enough, as ambition over principle is certainly nothing new. But for Yoo and Viet Dihn, the reasons are less clear. If we rule out ambition and error, neither of which is apparent, we are left with choices that run the gamut from fear to the more sinister of motives. Not knowing the men involved puts me at a decided disadvantage, but I am certain that their motivations will become apparent sooner rather than later. Public pressure tends to force truth from its hiding places. I eagerly await that day.

Personally, I don’t think there’s any “maybe” about it. I think EACH Presidential candidate in this election needs to have that question asked directly, with NO way to wiggle out of it. But I don’t know how that could be done now, since (to my knowledge), there are no more debates scheduled. Or are there?

I certainly don’t want another President in the White House who believes torture of any kind is acceptable, and I want to know exactly where all the candidates stand on this point. If they think torture is acceptable for one kind of person, then there’s nothing stopping them from gradually broadening that “acceptability” for other kinds of people as well. Including people whose only “crime” is questioning or dissenting from the Administration, just like in banana republic countries. And if that ever comes to pass, we will BE like those countries, with justice for none and terror for all.

Huh?

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/20/washington/20lawyers.html?ex=1358485200&en=7cbf5132f0704efd&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

I heard those chilling words attributed to Yoo before. It’s hard to
believe he didn’t know what he was advising was wrong as soon as he said it. I can only imagine that he had to have been swept up in the prevailing culture because this is what he was being tasked with producing, and so he did.

George Tenet behaved much the same way even though the CIA had been independent since its inception – and for good reasons, as well.

We’ll see how this all plays out.

Wow. JT called it what it is, namely “war crimes.” He has more guts than me to do that on a national show, although he is certainly right about it. He’s right about the dark chapter part too. I heard from a friend at U. Cal. Berkeley that the Dean of Boalt Hall Law School has been getting lots of unsolicited input on Yoo’s employment status after the memo came out. Wonder how that will work out tenure or no tenure?

Here’s a little more insight into Mr. Yoo’s ideology as recorded during a debate with Notre Dame Law professor Doug Cassell:

Cassel: If the President deems that he’s got to torture somebody, including by crushing the testicles of the person’s child, there is no law that can stop him?
Yoo: No treaty.
Cassel: Also no law by Congress. That is what you wrote in the August 2002 memo.
Yoo: I think it depends on why the President thinks he needs to do that.

Here’s the MP3 audio if you can stomach it:

http://rwor.org/downloads/file_info/download1.php?file=yoo_on_torture.mp3

If Yoo keeps this up, we’ll have to outfit him with jackboots. What the hell is he saying, and more importantly why would he say this? It’s positively tyrannical and monstrous and I want to believe he knows better.

Will do tonight.

And he talks about how it’s a dark chapter for all lawyers and the Bar.

Worth watching.

I missed him, but I will catch it on the net. Did he add anything to his comments here?

It was on this thread:

http://jonathanturley.org/2008/02/23/no-crime-just-bad-counsel-mukasey-starts-internal-ethics-review-on-the-torture-memos/

Often times if I find breaking news on a former thread topic, I will post it to the old topic. Disadvantage with this technique, is that five additional posts from others in the salon scrolls the item out of visibility.

It’s crazy-making to think about all the turmoil this President has caused, with, by, and, through, his Administration; the several players of which are still conspicuous, though now, mostly by their absences, rather than their ever-presence-with many simply having been replaced by their ilk.

JT, you should have your own ‘Countdown’ on this site.
How many days left?

Brendan over at brendancalling is trying to light a little fire in his nest.

If you are interested you might check it out and if you can get behind it, pass it on, please.

http://brendancalling.com/2008/04/02/shaming-and-shunning/

The fact that you fail to comprehend the scope of the memo’s implications is not surprising, but I’d assume you’d at least recognize the difference between accepting the things we cannot change and trying to change the things we can.

And, as a conservative, what the hell are you doing supporting someone who is literally discarding entire sections of the Constitution in favor of an executive branch power-grab? God, like you’d be half this blase if President Clinton had done a fraction of what Yoo advocated.