From me, thank you for reading. It sometimes seems like a battle fought in a vacuum. When I was in England for a summer a dozen years ago, I always enjoyed the banter at the dinner table among the fellows at Cambridge who sat at the head of the hall. It was high honor to be asked to sit with them and purely out of cross-Atlantic comity, I was asked to do so on a very few occasions. They were brilliant advocates who could rip your argument to shreds without so much as a smile. I thought it mean at first, but came to understand that the deadpan, understated replies and uncomplimentary compliments served the purpose of getting me to think critically and free from the veneer that our culture wraps around our minds. As one of the few Americans, I was constantly on the defensive, but I must say they were gracious and treated me as much like a peer as their temperament and senior status would allow. I still hear from one or two today by email. If our little salon reproduces that in any small way, we have done everyone a service. I am guessing Professor Turley may feel this way too. I am not trying to be mean-spirited or haughty in my replies, but I find a slight pinprick to the ego gets the juices running and puts the rational mind into drive.

Jokes don’t match arguments, and you would do well to remember that there is plenty of shade around Bush’s White House too. I hear the Saudi’s like it.

Cuz the German soldiers like to march in the shade.

It’s a hoot seeing the difference between these guys and the lawyers. The difference is eons of evolution.

I can’t express how much pleasure I get from the classy replies of Jill, Mespo, Bob,Esq.

You obviously don’t “have the balls” to torture someone with that attitude. I suggest a few days at Big Al’s Academy for torture and assertiveness training.

Jill

Sorry. Patty C and I are like code breakers in WW2. But instead of Navajo we’re using a language those macho Bushies would never think of speaking.

Je suis en retard pour Law and Order: CI. Bonsoir.

That’s “freedom” fry to the uneducated neo-con. Merci beaucoup!

“A better fit for you I am sure. Try France. Coward central. They don’t have to balls to torture anyone.”
**********************

One more item to prove how hopelessly blind to history your thinking has become:

“General’s Confessions Of Torture Stun France
By Barry James
Published: SATURDAY, MAY 5, 2001

PARIS: A retired French Army general’s confession that he and others tortured and murdered victims as a matter of routine during the Algerian civil war is shaking the highest level of state in France, with President Jacques Chirac stating Friday that he was “horrified” by the revelations and disposed to punish the 83-year-old former officer.

Mr. Chirac ordered the removal of General Paul Aussaresses from the Legion of Honor, an award for service or achievement, and said he had asked the defense minister, Alain Richard, to propose possible disciplinary action. A statement from the Elysee Palace said the president was horrified by the disclosures and that nothing could justify such acts.”

That’s simply to disprove your naive theory that only we have psychopaths running our intelligence gathering. You may even note the distinction in consequence between the actions of a civilized, humane Administration and our own. And one final word from history: the French had “the balls” (as you so inelegantly stated) to turn the tide at Yorktown thus winning our independence, and to spread their influence over most of the Western World from the age of Charlemagne until WW1. You’d find little support for your condescending derision of the French fighting spirit among the American Expeditionary Force who fought alongside them during the early spring and summer of 1918 culminating in the decisive Battle of Amiens which signaled the end of Germany’s aggression. Likewise, for the brave resistance fighters in WW2 and Charles de Gaulle’s army in exile.

By why waste facts on those who will not see. Bask in your ignorance of history and current affairs.

“A person who airs his countries dirty laundry in public and who criticizes our government for torturing these animals that want us dead to get info that may save American lives. You have no idea what a patriot is.”
******************

translation: A patriot to Big Al is someone who is a liar, a jingoist,and one who suppresses his reason and morality to save his skin and that of his countrymen. Concentration camps are the necessary result of such warped thinking. Sounds very much like our Teutonic brothers circa 1939. Americans are a different breed whether Big Al knows it or not. Maybe Teddy Roosevelt, a man’s man by anyone’s definition even to these Cretans who think martial valor is the only kind, said it best:

“To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.” –Theodore Roosevelt

Now tell me Big Al, the man who stormed San Juan Hill,and who presided over a golden age of this Nation just called you and everyone like you a traitor. Who am I to believe? You or a true patriot?

You are not a patriot. Not even close.

Execute them all today!:)

My comment “Hahaha, too funny there are 2 Jakes. No wonder I had no idea what the hell you were talking about.”

Your comment: Convenient.

I made it perfectly clear very early on that there was another Jake posting. Why do you think I kept asking what you were talking about? You were attempting to engage me and I kept reading MY posts to see what you were referring to.

If those were my comments I would defend them, but they are not.

Esq.
Noun 1. Esq – a title of respect for a member of the English gentry ranking just below a knight; placed after the name

Whatever Mr. EGO!

Sincerely,
Sir Jake

Convenient.

I think your polling comments are on point. Most people would vote for Lassie if she were running against an incumbent. But it’s always the party in the White House that takes the hit.

Hahaha, too funny there are 2 Jakes. No wonder I had no idea what the hell you were talking about.

I made this comment right after I noticed the 2 Jakes:

1, June 18, 2008 at 10:20 am
FYI: There are 2 “Jake’s” on this. At least we have similar views.

After reading his comment again, I have to say we do not have similar views. He is a little out there.

Your methods & ideals aid and abet the first and foremost enemy of the constitution.

Thus…

I find your lack of fealty greatly disturbing.

http://www.76house.com/history_tavern.html

“My reply: What words????? Please site your source.”

Why Jake, you’re getting awfully fussy over a sarcastic aside directed at your comment on June 18, 2008 at 10:10 am.

Ain’t ya at least gonna rebut a major or minor premise?

http://jonathanturley.org/2008/06/18/medical-reports-finds-evidence-of-torture-of-detainees-later-found-to-be-innocent/#comment-14876

And ya never did tell us why you’re so eager to have ‘the terrorists’ like you.

Excerpt from Washington Post article:

Poll Watch
Harris Interactive reports: “The latest Harris Poll finds the nation in a foul political mood. President George W. Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice all register their worst ratings ever. More people than ever also think the country is on the wrong track. . . .

“President Bush’s latest ratings are 24 percent positive and fully 75 percent negative. Previously, his worst numbers were 26 percent positive and 72 percent negative in April of this year. His ratings are substantially worse than those of any president, except for Jimmy Carter (22%-77% in July 1980), since Harris first started measuring them in 1963.

“Vice President Cheney’s ratings are even worse, 18 percent positive and 74 percent negative, compared to his previous low of 21 percent positive, 74 percent negative last July.”

My comments:
Then on the last page of the article I clicked on the Harris Interactive Poll and read the report. The next paragraph in the article should have included the following paragraph from this report, just to keep things in perspective. In my eyes this totally discredits the entire article. What else was left out to fit the agenda??

http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=915

Next paragraph in the report:
“However, this dismal news for the administration has done nothing to help the Democrats. Most people seem to wish “a plague on all your houses”. Congress, which of course is controlled by the Democrats, gets its worst ratings ever, only 13 percent positive and fully 83 percent negative. Its previous low point was in December of last year when it was rated 17 percent positive and 79 percent negative. And, Speaker Pelosi’s ratings have fallen to 24 percent positive, 57 percent negative compared to her previous low of 25 percent positive and 61 percent negative in February.”

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91684540

“The two-star general who led an Army investigation into the horrific detainee abuse at Abu Ghraib has accused the Bush administration of war crimes and is calling for accountability.

In his 2004 report on Abu Ghraib, then-Major General Anthony Taguba concluded that “numerous incidents of sadistic, blatant, and wanton criminal abuses were inflicted on several detainees.” He called the abuse “systemic and illegal.” And, as Seymour M. Hersh reported in the New Yorker, he was rewarded for his honesty by being forced into retirement. ”

That massive flock of chickens you see overhead is tracking to the Potomac, and here’s the cite to the article:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2008/06/18/BL2008061801546.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

Just a little correction on the economy during the Clinton years. While no President can take full credit or blame for an economy, the following facts are true:

1. In the 8 years of the Clinton Presidency economic growth averaged 4.0 percent per year, compared to average growth of 2.8 percent during the Reagan-Bush years. The economy grew for 116 consecutive months, the most in history.

2. The economy created more than 22.5 million jobs in less than eight years—the most jobs ever created under a single administration, and more than were created in the previous 12 years. Of the total new jobs, 20.7 million, or 92 percent, are in the private sector.

That’s prosperity by any measure, and coupled with mostly peace abroad, stands in stark contrast to today’s environment.

I like fiery debate, just with less heat and more light. I agree the Repubs have made some progress and their emphasis on national defense will find few detractors. The issue isn’t goals, it’s means. No one has all the answers. Right now, my side looks like its getting a chance to perform. We’ll see what happens.

Not to worry. I consider this a friendly debate. I understand the need to have at least 2 sides for balance. Do you?

As for power. What have the Democrats done since 2006? Have they proposed any changes worth proposing? This is government. So to blame the Republicans for all the failures between 1994-2006, then you must give them credit for all the successes. Right?? Boy the economy was great during Clinton’s first 7 years. Good thing for the Republican domination and control.

Jake:
“I never said that I cared?”

Question your own words often?

My reply: What words????? Please site your source.

I think you did just fine and likely inspired us both to get involved. As for larger issues, we lawyers think about them all the time, despite what you read in the press.

You have restored my faith in the abiltiy of the American public to think about larger issues of Constitutional protections and the rule of law. I could not believe the willful ignorance that I came across in the comments section yesterday, especially given the great and learned legal mind of your host. The two of you have eloquently stated everything that I wanted to but, obviously, failed to get across. Thank you.

I’m sure the good Pennsylvania Justice did too.

Again you missed my point. Everything right up to torture is fair game. The gray area is defining that line.

Your shepherd Al Gore (this is only one of many articles):
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/column.aspx?UrlTitle=a_convenient_lie&ns=JohnStossel&dt=07/05/2006&page=full&comments=true

Your other shepherd Michael Moore (again, this is only one of many articles):
http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:KfAWCHfwexoJ:www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm+michael+moore+9/11+lies&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us

Your comment:
“When 9/11 happened on George W’s watch, Clinton was blamed by the right so we are used to it. The 9/11 commission did point out things that Clinton should have done, but when the first attack on the Trade center happened, the Clinton administration found the guy responsible(the Blind Sheik) and put him through the justice system and convicted him without torture and without stripping him of constitutional guarantees.”

My reply: So you’re saying Democrats are just like Republicans? Blame the other guy. Guess we are very similar in many ways. Hurts doesn’t it. I’ll stop calling people Liberal and just call them Neolib….since that isn’t name calling.

Also, there are differences with the first attack and second. Most of the people we have rounded up were in the “war zone” and not US soil. They are enemy combatants and not just someone arrested in the US.

“It’s from an opinion in the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in a case I read in law school. I forgot the cite.”

That’s O.K.; I heard it borrowed from Shakespeare.

Question your own words often?

“Some of these guys in this forum believe that a terrorist that is willing to walk into a crowded market and detonate a bomb, should have rights. The only rights that they should have are 40 virgins, in a male prison.”

Unfortunately Jake, your methods & ideals aid and abet the first and foremost enemy of the constitution.

I find your lack of fealty greatly disturbing.

http://www.76house.com/history_tavern.html

Calm down. Personal animus is the mark of a losing advocate too. Let’s see now, I made an accurate description of your political views, which you find offensive despite its neutral denotation, and you resort to such edifying words as “hypocrit,” and “Hitler, and then imply obsequiousness on the part of me and rafflaw by referring to us as needing shepherds and being “followers.” I can assure you liberals are no such thing, and most of us have held our views long before Gore and Moore, but it is a peculiar trapping of conservatism that its adherents believe that the world of political thought began the day they were born and everyone else is simply wrong. Liberals, if you must use the label of the intellectually lazy, have as much claim to the credit for the founding of this Republic as conservatives, and given the conservatives fondness for authoritarianism, probably more credit is due the liberals. No sane person can argue this Country is not in a mess of the conservatives own making, especially in view of their domination of all branches of government from 1994 -2006. Take your medicine like a man, and just get it through your mind that your crowd has had its chance, utterly failed, and now must come hat-in- hand to the “liberals” to fix your mess. We’re up to the task. We’ve won WW2, forced us out of that hell hole in ‘Nam, and insured the rights of most Americans through law and social change–all that in just the last 70 years. You dinosaurs can come back around in 30 years or so and divide the Nation again on such “crucial” issues as school prayer, abortion, flag burning, gay marriage and on and on, once we have things in order. Inept conservative whining about liberals always reminds me of the famous comment about Winston Churchill before WW2: “…all it took was one big scare and we were on our knees to Winston Churchill.” Today all it takes is one across-the-board disaster of a President, and the Nation looks again to the liberal adults to reign in the conservative kids who just want to play “cowboys and indians” with our foreign policy,and “Monopoly” with our economy. Talk to me again in 2009, and we’ll see if your dire predictions come to pass, or if, like most of your brethren, you’ll slink back into the woodwork awaiting the next chance to rise and criticize. There is one thing that may provide you some hope. Many people, as they intellectually mature, become more liberal in their outlook–certainly the most educated do and hence Bush & the neo-con’s appeal to those with the least education. Maybe with a little intellectual elbow grease, time is on your side.

Enlighten yourselves…….

I never said that I cared? Some of these guys in this forum believe that a terrorist that is willing to walk into a crowded market and detonate a bomb, should have rights. The only rights that they should have are 40 virgins, in a male prison.

“Believe me the guy calling names is always losing the argument as is evident here. And the use of euphemisms to mask torture is positively Bushonian.”

My reply: You have called me a neocon a few times. So who is name calling, hypocrite. Let me ask you this, do you actually believe that “everything” that you believe is correct or right? I’m getting that impression, Hitler.

Also, I am not masking torture. Aggressive interrogation techniques lead right up to torture. That is why this is such a gray area.

“Don’t waste any more time on these neocons.”
“One of the Jakes is obviously a right wing plant.”

My reply: Can a conservative have a strong opinion and voice it in the same forum as a liberal? Why am a right wing plant?? What are you? Sounds like paranoia to me. Oh yeah, paranoia is alive and well on the left.

“They don’t bother with facts and just try to keep yelling stop the terrorist any way that you can. ”

My reply: We should stop the terrorist any way we can. AS for facts, let me see, liberals “follow” Al Gore and Michael Moore like they are righteous Gods. They are only propaganda whores making a profit. Using half truths to fit their agenda. Who needs enemies when you have shepherds to lead the liberal blind. So what are you talking about?

“One more thing, you may want to read the 9/11 commission report to actually find out about George W. sitting on his hands and ignoring the threats.”

My reply: And what did it say about Bill Clinton? If his balls were not in Monica’s hands, he may have stopped the 9/11 attack well before it ever happened. But I’m sure when a Democrat is in office and a terrorist attack happens, you wing nuts will blame it on Bush. How convenient.

It’s from an opinion in the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in a case I read in law school. I forgot the cite.

You never told us why you’re so eager to have ‘the terrorists’ like you.

Please regale us.

“Why try to teach a pig to sing, it’s impossible and annoys the pig.”

I’ve used a similar quote for almost twenty years, and the only source I have is my former college roommate meandering around the dorm drunk off his a$$. It was his response to the RA when he told us to be quiet.

Vincent Bugliosi: “Personally, I have no animus for Democrats or Republicans. But my contempt for the right-wing of the Republican party has no boundaries. The right wing of the Republican Party, of course, is the group that always likes to loudly proclaim its patriotism. But if they had a patriotic bone in their body, which they do not, then, for example, they would want the president of the United States, even though he’s a Democrat, to do well. Why? Because if the president does well, the entire country does well. But they only want the country to do well if one of their own people is in office. If not, they’ll do everything to destroy the president, whether he’s Clinton or any other Democrat.

…

“I should add that those whom I find particularly nauseating and disgusting are the many liberals in the media who cater to the far right-and therefore, aid and abet their cause-while quietly detesting them. These physiological marvels are somehow able to sit and stand erect in front of a camera without a spine.”

“My point: Aggressive interogation techniques should be used to protect “our country” from “terrorists”.”

“I agree, who gives a damn about how these terrorists are treated.”

‘They hate us for our freedoms’

‘The war on terror should not be restrained by the constitution.’

‘The restraints of the constitution are inapplicable during ‘the war on terror.’

‘The judicial branch should have no say or checking power against the executive in his war on terror– e.g. no habeas corpus’

N.B.

“The principle of the separation of the powers of government is fundamental to the very existence of constitutional government as established in the United States. The division of governmental powers into executive, legislative, and judicial represents probably the most important principle of government declaring and guaranteeing the liberties of the people. It prevents the exercise of autocratic power, is a matter of fundamental necessity, and is essential to the maintenance of a Republican Form Of Government. In short, this division of power provision serves to create a governmental structure “resistant to the forces of TYRANNY… Although there may be a blending of powers in certain respects, in a broad sense the safety of our institutions depends in no small degree on the strict observance of the independence of the several departments. Each constitutes a check or balance upon the exercise of its power by any other department, and, accordingly, a concentration of power in the hands of one person or class is prevented, and a commingling of essentially different powers in the same hands is precluded.” (SEPARATION OF GOVERNMENTAL POWERS, Importance and purpose of [the] principle, 16A Am Jur 2d CONSTITUTIONAL LAW § 247)

“In short, [the separation of powers] serves to create a governmental structure “resistant to the forces of TYRANNY”

‘They hate us for our freedoms.’

‘The ‘separation of powers’ doctrine is the only portion of the constitution that truly makes us free.’ (See Lord Scalia’s Separation of Powers opinions; e.g. Minestretta, et. al.)

‘The most effective way to fight the war on terror is to disregard the constitution.’

‘Disregarding the restraints OF specifically enumerated powers in the constitution makes us less free.’

‘If they hate us for our freedoms then disregarding the document that makes us free will therefore make us less hated by terrorists.’

‘The less terrorists hate us the less likely they’ll be to attack us.’

‘Therefore, the best way to protect ourselves from terrorists and fight the war on terror is to hate freedom as much as terrorists and be more hateful of the document that makes us free; e.g by setting up a government unfettered by “constitutional restraints” or any other ‘division of power provisions’ formerly serving to create a governmental structure “resistant to the forces of TYRANNY.’

After all…

911 changed everything.

posted on Tuesday, June 17, 2008 from McClatchy news:

Documents confirm U.S. hid detainees from Red Cross.

The far right used to be more courageous. “Better dead than red.” Now it’s, “better safe, make others sorry”!