It is virtually a foregone conclusion that Mr Obama will retain the partial recovery of pre Watergate executive power that Mr. Bush wrangled back.

The questions are instead whether Obama will use his powers, whether the press will leak those usages with the abandon they did during the Bush Administration and whether Mr. Bush's critics on the left will criticize Mr. Obama as they did Mr. Bush.
 

While JB has focused on the national security state, Bush has also eliminated dissenting voices within the executive. We have seen this at EPA, NASA, NIH, CDC, Fish & Wildlife, Weather Bureau, NIST, and other technical/scientific agencies. His primary tool in this has been the OMB, which has been growing in size and power since the Nixon Administration, under both Republicans and Clinton. From the discussion of the Chief of Staff position at the Brookings Institution on C-SPAN, it appears that this will continue. In addition, Bush has put political commisars deep within the executive branch (the policiticization of Justice being only the most glaring example, but the Lysenkoism of the administration's approach to sex education is inexcusable). With the Supreme Court's Garcetti decision having authorized the suppression of work-related speech by government employees, if a president chooses to do so he can completely bury uncomfortable truths. MR. OBAMA, CAST OFF THAT RING!!
 

" It is virtually a foregone conclusion that Mr Obama will retain the partial recovery of pre Watergate executive power that Mr. Bush wrangled back."

Can little Lisa's bro tell us what the "full" pre Watergate executive power consisted of to compare with George W's "partial recovery"? Is he suggesting that Obama should go for the gold for "full" pre Watergate executive power?
 

Bart, I think Obama should go for John Adams-like powers and ban the seditious stuff being said about him on Fox News.
 

Maybe Obama should go for Full-Nixon (comparable to the Full-Monty) that Veep Cheney would have preferred. (Now for nightmares in picturing a Full-Monty Cheney.)
 

"The questions are instead whether Obama will use his powers, whether the press will leak those usages with the abandon they did during the Bush Administration and whether Mr. Bush's critics on the left will criticize Mr. Obama as they did Mr. Bush."


A better question is whether Bart will condone or condemn unConsitutional or illegal actions of President Obama that he would excuse were Bush still the actor.
 

A better question is whether Bart will condone or condemn unConsitutional or illegal actions of President Obama that he would excuse were Bush still the actor.

# posted by Robert Cook : 11:39 AM


Is a "better question" one that we already know the answer to?
 

shag from brookline said...

BD: " It is virtually a foregone conclusion that Mr Obama will retain the partial recovery of pre Watergate executive power that Mr. Bush wrangled back."

Can little Lisa's bro tell us what the "full" pre Watergate executive power consisted of to compare with George W's "partial recovery"?

Read the DOJ briefs and various historical accounts of the scope of power exercised by FDR, JFK, LBJ and Nixon.

To tick off a few examples of Executive power which Mr. Bush has not fully recovered...

1) The plenary Article II CiC power to direct foreign intelligence gathering.

2) The shared power with Congress to set rules for Captures,

3) The plenary Article II CiC power to hold a foreign enemy operating in the United States as a POW.

#3 is still in contention, but I have no faith that Mr, Obama will press the al Marri case to conclusion.

Is he suggesting that Obama should go for the gold for "full" pre Watergate executive power?

Most certainly yes. If Obama fully assumes the mantle of CiC, I may vote for him in 2012.
 

robert cook said...

A better question is whether Bart will condone or condemn unConsitutional or illegal actions of President Obama that he would excuse were Bush still the actor.

I fully support Mr. Obama continuing Mr. Bush's exercises of executive and CiC power. I doubt he has the sand to do so, though.
 

@r.friedman,

Yeah, there's a lot of cake under that icing. What's worse, as JB points out, it can be hard to get rid of power. Attempts to do so are usually seen as evidence of incompetence and almost always result in a scramble to annex the power being relinquished. So it's a huge job, even assuming Mr. Obama has the will.

And, in the international interracial intellectual spirit of the day, let me thank you for circulating the word "Lysenkoism, which, let's face it, just doesn't see light of day often enough.

What do you suggest we do to hold the great man's feet to the fire? How shall we help him cast off that ring?
 

It bears repeating each and every time we see the conversation framed and channeled to suit a local troll:

Time for a Change:

We, the "Balkinization Comments Community", loose knit and unofficial as we are, need to fill the space while the blog re-adjusts to the realities of life under the President Elect. Let's set some guidelines and rules. Let's self regulate. And let's build that initiative to the point where we develop a consistent mindful cadre who assiduously ignore overtly partisan trolls, a group whose members make the extra effort to engage each other and any new voices even arguably open to reasoned discourse.

Absent a will on the part of our hosts to moderate these comments we need to do something on our own if we want better. Exciting times lie ahead and it would be a real shame if the discourse here continued to revolve in a reactionary manner around the determined vandalism of a small few voices.

Think it over. Then make post your comment stating you agree in principle. Then pick three names of "regulars" who really deserve your time and attention, and make it a real point to talk to them and any newcomers.

This is doable, it is worth the effort, and not only is there no time like the present but this particular present already subsumes a shift from our hosts being generally opposition voices to perhaps even occasionally administration supporters. Let's not waste the moment.
 

Most certainly yes. If Obama fully assumes the mantle of CiC, I may vote for him in 2012.

# posted by Bart DePalma : 12:57 PM

Baghdad, Obama is not going to invade Iran.
 

Most certainly yes. If Obama fully assumes the mantle of CiC, I may vote for him in 2012.

# posted by Bart DePalma : 12:57 PM

Given that the President is ONLY CiC over the military, and only when the military is engaged in war, it sure sounds as if Bart desires Obama to continue Bush's criminal campaign of mass murder and maiming. (This is, of course, sick.) Unfortunately, I think Obama will continue to do so, though whether with lesser, greater, or equal troop levels and number of continuing murders remains to be discovered.

"Baghdad, Obama is not going to invade Iran."

Let's hope not, but I'm not so confident he won't. His recent oath of fealty to Israel and his dark warnings about Iran lead me to worry.
 

I'm with you 100% Robert. We can't stop the trolls from making noise, but we sure don't have to encourage them. [ Aside -- Having done some actual wrangling, let me note in passing that rustling ain't exactly the same thing. ]

And on this particular post, I have a bone to pick with Jack, which is pretty simple...

This op-ed is one of many posing questions and speculating about what the administration might do.

There seems to be a lot of "let's not get our hopes up too much" in many such pieces, as well as a good bit of "Obama is going to be worse than Bush was" sour grapes from the ranks of the defeated neo-fascists.

All of which interests me not at all. We'll get a chance to see what Obama does soon enough, and it's pretty clear the Obama is capable of expressing himself with remarkable clarity when he wants to.

So while I have nothing but respect and admiration for Jack, I have to say it --

I'd be a lot more interested in hearing what you think he should do than I am in listening to more idle speculation on what he might do. I can tell you exactly what I think he should do in a single sentence:

He should restore the rule of law in the United States.
 

Robert:

The President is CiC and enjoys the full range of the powers of that position in peacetime as well as during wars.

Iran and Hamas are thrilled with the election of Mr. Obama because they do not believe he will take any affirmative action to stop their terrorist predations and nuclear weapon development, and may even end up supporting their agendas.
 

Charles Gittings: "I'd be a lot more interested in hearing what you think he should do..."

Hear, hear!

Stipulating "reinstate the rule of law" is a little vague, where would you start? I assume you, of all people, are pleased about motions towards shutting down gitmo.
 

@Robert Cook, Please Don't Feed The Troll

I'm with you on concerns about an Obama adminstration's approach to Iran. The presence of Brzezinski on his team does little to allay those concerns.
 

It may make you feel high and oh so mighty to call someone a troll, but really, no one really addressed the substance of the issue: will those on the left worried about Bush's abuse of executive power speak out if Obama continues with that particular trend? Calling people trolls is so insanely distracting...
 

@amandainsjc,

Howdy. Don't think we've met.

You ask, "...will those on the left worried about Bush's abuse of executive power speak out if Obama continues with that particular trend?"

I think you can be sure of it. Folks like myself and Charles Gittings on this thread are not alone. And if our host, Professor Balkin, is a touch more urbane about it, even reserved at present, I think a cursory reading of his posts here will convince you that he can be counted on to hold an Obama administration's feet to the fire. There are no free passes, just a reasonable hope for improvement.

Peace,

rl
 

"the next president holds the fate of the country in his hands"

That seems awfully overwrought. The country has survived presidents who launched tax evasion prosecutions of their political enemies, who were incapacitated by strokes so that their wives had to make the decisions, who committed perjury in federal court, etc. And that's just the Democrats! I am confident that we will survive the worst that President Obama can do, and will remain the wonder of the ages and the admiration of mankind.
 

Where would I start?

The news reports suggest the Obama folks are planning to deal with Gitmo much the way I've been calling for since I filed my amicus brief in the Hamdi case. I'm confident they understand the problems well, so they have my support.

I think the Gitmo naval base should also be closed and returned to Cuba, and that relations with Cuba normalized.

Then there's DOJ, and the first thing I'd do there would be to make public EVERY secret memorandum issued by OLC since Bush came into office. The second thing I'd do would be to revoke any OLC memo that's unlawful / fraudulent, such as the 2001.09.25 memo on Presidential "war powers" by John Yoo.

The personnel are of equal importance, and DOJ needs to be purged, especially in places like OLC, the Civil Division, and the Solicitor General's office. That has to be done carefully, but in principle, I'd be prepared to fire everyone hired since January 2001.

Concurrent to that process, a internal task force should be set up to begin a criminal investigation of every aspect to DOJ, starting with the activities of all three Bush Attorney Generals, but especially the last two.

The messiest part will be figuring out how to transition all the pending litigation when there is going to be a huge change in legal policy in many of the most contentious issues, the detainee cases being a perfect example. There is no way an Obama DOJ will support the positions the Bush administration has taken in these cases -- the difference is that between the majority and the dissenters in Boumediene, and it's day v. night, rule of law v. the Fuhrer Prinzip.

Then there's DoD, it's a huge topic, and there's a certain inertia to things that is going to make improvements difficult.

For starters, you have the same problem as DOJ: the department is riddled with corrupt Republicans, and unlike some, I'm not under any illusions about Mr. Gates.

I know what I think needs to be done, but I don't think the Obama folks will probably agree with me on the details.

For one thing, there isn't a doubt in my mind that the military needs to be down-sized across the board, and I think that can be done in a way that that actually increases the deployable combat force. The way you do that is by drastically reducing needless overseas deployments, especailly in places like Korea, Japan, and Germany.

Iraq should simply be evacuated ASAP, the embassy included; we have no business being in Iraq. I'd be looking to get everyone out in 16 weeks, not 16 months.

In Afghanistan, I think they need to either deal with Pakistan and then get out, or otherwise, just get out. I don't want to get into the details of what I think they should do. Some of what I'm seeing in the press suggests that they are thinking in the right direction, but I'll say this much: it isn't a matter of more troops, but of doing what needs to be done in the right way. The other thing I'll say is that I'd fire GEN Petraeus and recall ADM Fallon.

I'd also ask Congress to repeal both AUMF's, and repudiate the concept of the "war on terrorism", on the grounds that terrorism is just a crime and the "global war on terror" is just an excuse for Bush and Cheney to practice terrorism under a false pretense.
 

It has been said in some places (but I'm too lazy to find the links):

Iran and Hamas are thrilled with the election of Mr. Obama because they do not believe he will take any affirmative action to stop their terrorist predations and nuclear weapon development, and may even end up supporting their agendas.

It sure would be terrible if Obama were to sit down and try to settle differences with two political entities that the U.S. helped install. Seems only fair, dontcha think? That this prospect is amenable to them as well should be a cause for optimism.

Cheers,
 

Robert Link:

I assume you, of all people, are pleased about motions towards shutting down gitmo.

I know I am. I've been wearing my "Shut Down Guantánamo" T-shirt often since I got it as a present. I'll look forward to the day I can put it out to pasture, though. There's some other new ones that need air time as well.

Cheers,
 

amandainsjc:

It may make you feel high and oh so mighty to call someone a troll, but really, no one really addressed the substance of the issue: will those on the left worried about Bush's abuse of executive power speak out if Obama continues with that particular trend?

"Here be trolls", as the auld maps say. But in answer to your question: Yes. You might check out Glenn Greenwald's blog (albeit Greenwald himself is hardly a "leftist").

Cheers,
 

JB:

"Indeed, the more we find out about the excesses of the Bush years, the louder will be the demands for investigating and prosecuting Bush administration officials for violating national and international law.

Charles Gittings:

"[Obama] should restore the rule of law in the United States."

Indeed, investigating and prosecuting Bush administration officials for violating national and international law is part and parcel of restoring the rule of law in the United States.

Yay team!
 

A bit OT, but I remain confused about Dubya's pardon powers as may be applied to "everyone hired since January 2001 [at DOJ]," and every other Administration flak and toady engaged in the massive Bush/Cheney criminal conspiracy and enterprise -- re: planning and initiating an aggressive war, torture policy, warrantless surveillance, etc., etc.

Was heartened by Majorie Cohn's waving of the "jus cogens" banner before Congress last May:

"What does torture have in common with genocide, slavery, and wars of aggression? They are all 'jus cogens.' That’s Latin for 'higher law' or 'compelling law.' This means that no country can ever pass a law that allows torture. There can be no immunity from criminal liability for violation of a 'jus cogens' prohibition."

Can we step up and actually enforce the nominal prohibitions against aggressive war and torture established since the end of World War II, codified in the Nuremberg Principles, the Geneva Conventions, the UN Convention Against Torture, etc., etc., or not?

What? "We didn't really mean it.," when we established these laws? Or, because of the current political climate, "These laws don't actually apply to us?"

It's the the law, for christsake!!!

Restore the "Full Nixon," re: executive power?

Let's reclaim the legal and moral heritage bequeathed to us by the "greatest generation;" by Justices like Robert H. Jackson, who stated:

"To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole."

Heck, let's really crank up the wayback machine and resurrect the rotting, 800 year-old remains of habeus frickin' corpus.

"Investigating and prosecuting Bush administration officials for violating national and international law" would mean one thing: the law is the law. Otherwise, it's a fiction, a fairy tale, a joke.

How can there be any debate?
 

I asked in the opening post whether Mr. Bush's critics on the left will criticize Mr. Obama as they did Mr. Bush.

In this vein, I notice all following posts calling for the firing and criminal trials of those who supported or facilitated the Bush war effort only target Republicans in the Administration. There is not even a peep about prosecuting the legion of Dems in Congress who supported and facilitated the very same "war crimes." Indeed, many of you probably voted for these Dems earlier in the month.

Very telling.
 

"Bart" DeBugblatter:

There is not even a peep about prosecuting the legion of Dems in Congress who supported and facilitated the very same "war crimes."

Show any Democrats that were complicit in the war crimes of the Dubya maladministration, and I will ask that they be prosecuted as well. Find one that ordered (or conducted) torture. Find one that ordered the illegal invasion of a sovereign country. Please explain what you mean by "supported and facilitated", explain how said actions amount to legal culpability, and provide your evidence that they did so.

Cheers,
 

arne:

Start with the Dem leadership who approved of the TSP and the CIA interrogation program.
 

This Salon article may be of interest: Mark Benjamin: Obama's plans for probing Bush torture.

There is a ticking clock affecting both the Bush Administration and the incoming Obama Administration. Firstly, there are still about 250 detainees at Guantanamo Bay. Nearly all of them are involved in litigation now wending its way through the Courts and that timetable cannot be stopped by the Bush Administration otherwise than by releasing detainees.

Immediately thereafter, the incoming Administration has to pick up and run with the cases. On what basis?

Then there is the farce of the show trials before the Military Commissions. Although there has been talk of inventing a new jurisdiction, I suspect the choice is going to come down between the Federal District Courts and Courts Martial (sitting as Military Commissions but applying established procedure).

Either way, there is a good prospect that the truth is going to come out in one way or another and to those who participated to a greater or lesser extent, it must seem like they are sitting under a five ton block suspended by a rope, the strands of which are unravelling rather fast.

In short, there is a whole can of worms and I suspect many of the worms are going to be wriggling like mad during the coming weeks to see if they can get out from under the block which threatens to crush them.

The issue of a mass pardon is interesting. Bush cannot pardon himself. Would there be a quick resignation so that a 20 minute pardoned President Cheney could then pardon ex-President Bush? What kind of public legacy would an en-masse or even a particularised and very public pardon leave?

In any event, even if the pardons were effective within the USA, there remains the issue of crimes which are ius cogens where the pardon would be of no avail before a foreign or an international jurisdiction.

Methinks this can of worms is something of a disaster waiting to happen.
 

NPR had a segment on reality concerning Gitmo hitting the Obama team in the head as they ticked off the problems with each option to close Gitmo:

1) The Obama folks thought that they would be so beloved by the world that nations would step forward willing to take the Gitmo terrorists off their hands. No such luck. It also appears that no Dem congressional rep wants al Qaeda moved into their districts. Thus, Team Obama is left with considering a Bush plan to move these terrorists to a new prison being built next to Bagram AFB in Afghanistan. Of course, the courts and the enemy's attorneys will do their best to block that option. Thus, we are back to Gitmo.

2) As to the trials, Team Obama is beginning to realize that the federal civilian criminal courts cannot handle classified evidence and they fear that such trials would degenerate into a series of propaganda circuses like the ICC trials. However, they campaigned against the military tribunals. Thus, they are considering essentially duplicating the military tribunal system in a new civilian court to save face.

In sum, it appears that not much of substance is going to change - only the format and venue.
 

Baghdad, your record on predicting how things are going to proceed has been really shitty lately.
 

"Bart" DeBugblatter:

Start with the Dem leadership who approved of the TSP and the CIA interrogation program.

No. You "start with the Dem leadership who 'approved' of the TSP and the CIA interrogation program."

That would be a good start ... but only a start ... for you.

Then do as I asked. Show how what they (allegedly) did is a crime. And put forth your evidence. If you make a showing of probable cause, I'll be glad (really!) to call for their indictment and prosecution as well. Have at it, "Bart". I look forward to your exposé.

But do keep in mind that if you find such, you should be just as much in favour of the prosecution, conviction, and just punishment of the actual perps ... not just the (alleged) "enablers".

Cheers,
 

"Bart" DeBugblatter:

1) The Obama folks thought that they would be so beloved by the world that nations would step forward willing to take the Gitmo terrorists off their hands. No such luck....

Your evidence for this bald unsupported assertion?

2) As to the trials, Team Obama is beginning to realize that the federal civilian criminal courts cannot handle classified evidence and they fear that such trials would degenerate into a series of propaganda circuses like the ICC trials.

Your evidence for this bald unsupported assertion.

FWIW, though, previous administrations (including Clinton's) have had no problem in dealing with such prosecutions within the parameters of the U.S. judicial system ... and have also gotten the deserved convictions of some really bad guys (including al Qaeda members).

The only fly in the soup here is the extra-legal (if not illegal) measures used by the Dubya maladministration, which may have irreparably poisoned the potential prosecutions of a fair number of the HVD under conventional judicial procedure. That may be something that Obama can't fix ... but that is hardly Obama's fault. If fault there be, leave it on the steps of Chteney, Addington, and Dubya ... and the Founders and defenders of this liberal and just country. If we are to honour the principles on which this country was founded (which we should), it may be that we will be forced -- again -- to pay the price for the Dubya maladministration's lawlessness. But it is a price that we can -- and should -- afford. What's left is only to make sure that the miscreants from the Dubya maladministration also pay for their misbehaviour.

Cheers,
 

"The President is CiC and enjoys the full range of the powers of that position in peacetime as well as during wars."

Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution: "The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States...."

The "full range of powers of that position" is explicitly limited to "the Army and Navy...and...the (state) militia(s). In short, the President is NOT my CiC or Congress's Cic, or anybody's CiC, except for the military.

Moreover, when the military is NOT "called into the actual service of the United States," (i.e., when engaged in combat), what, exactly, would the President's role be vis a vis the military? That is, what would you expect the President to do in peacetime to exercise his CiC powers?

If you would eagerly support Mr. Obama's continued use of Bush's CiC powers, what does that mean other than that you desire him to continue Bush's criminal campaigns of mass murder and destruction?
 

Robert, I believe the fairest reading of the "called into actual service" clause refers only to the miltia. The army and navy are always "in actual service", but the militia is not except under Art. I, Sec. 8, cl. 15.
 

arne:

BD: Start with the Dem leadership who approved of the TSP and the CIA interrogation program.

Show how what they (allegedly) did is a crime.

Compadre, I do not think than any of executive and congressional actions in prosecuting these wars were crimes.

My observation was that the folks on the left seeking to criminally prosecute and/or fire GOP administration members for supporting and prosecuting the wars are completely silent as to the extensive Dem participation in these efforts.

My point is that these self appointed prosecutors are cowardly hypocrites acting in partisan bad faith as are their witch hunting Dem representatives in Congress.
 

the extensive Dem participation in these efforts.

Perhaps it would help your case if you detailed some of this "extensive Dem participation."
 

robert said...

In short, the President is NOT my CiC or Congress's Cic, or anybody's CiC, except for the military.

I do not believe anyone claimed otherwise. Is there a point here? Has the President attempted to give you an order as CiC?

Moreover, when the military is NOT "called into the actual service of the United States," (i.e., when engaged in combat), what, exactly, would the President's role be vis a vis the military? That is, what would you expect the President to do in peacetime to exercise his CiC powers?

The military is always in actual service of the United States. The President as CiC performs the same duties in peacetime as he does during war apart from ordering the forces into action. During peacetime, the forces need to be stationed, maintained, supplied, trained and commanders at all levels chosen.

If you would eagerly support Mr. Obama's continued use of Bush's CiC powers, what does that mean other than that you desire him to continue Bush's criminal campaigns of mass murder and destruction?

As President and CiC, Mr. Obama has the duty to use all means to defend the United States and its interests, including if need be to go to war. If Mr. Obama's conscience will not allow him to go to war to defend the United States and its interests, he should resign.
 

Mark,

I'm conscious of that reading, although I think it can be debated, (as, where in the Constitution does it say America will maintain a standing Army or Navy, absent which there is no military for the President to be CiC of), which is why I also asked Bart what he considered to be the proper duties of the President as CiC in peacetime? As Bart desires to see Obama exercise his CiC powers as vigorously as did Bush, what does that mean if not that he wishes to see Obama carry on with Bush's wars? More generally, when we are not at war, how does the President display or exercise his CiC powers? It seems that, unless called upon to make command decisions in wartime, the President's CiC powers are latent. Certainly, with respect to any non-military person or body, (such as Congress), they are nonexistent.
 

As President and CiC, Mr. Obama has the duty to use all means to defend the United States and its interests, including if need be to go to war. If Mr. Obama's conscience will not allow him to go to war to defend the United States and its interests, he should resign.

# posted by Bart DePalma : 4:20 PM


Sadly, you seem to think that war is the solution to every problem.
 

"If Obama fully assumes the mantle of CiC, I may vote for him in 2012.

12:57 PM

"I fully support Mr. Obama continuing Mr. Bush's exercises of executive and CiC power. I doubt he has the sand to do so, though.

12:58 PM

"I do not believe anyone claimed (that the President is CiC of anyone other than the military). Is there a point here?

4:20 PM"

I don't say you're necessarily arguing this. (However, the constant references by all and sundry to our President as "our CiC" seems to reveal a misunderstanding of the phrase, or a desire to see the President attain a CiC role over the country at large.)Which is why I asked: absent a military at war to command, what are the President's CiC duties? As the answer is obviously "none," I read your first two remarks to mean that you wish to see Obama continue with Bush's campaigns of mass murder, torture, kidnapping, and destruction. What we are doing in the Middle East has zero to do with defending the United States, but certainly much to do with defending, as you put it, "its interests."

Unfortunately, starting a war to defend our purported (or purloined) property interests abroad, under the false mantle of defending our safety at home, is a criminal affair.
 

"Bart" DeBugblatter:

["Bart"]: Start with the Dem leadership who approved of the TSP and the CIA interrogation program.

[Arne]: Show how what they (allegedly) did is a crime.

Compadre, I do not think than any of executive and congressional actions in prosecuting these wars were crimes.

As has been pointed out here, torture is a crime. Assault is a crime. Killing detainees is a crime. Detention without charges is illegal. Warrantless wiretapping is a crime, a felony punishable by up to five years imprisonment. Waging war on other sovereign nations is a jus cogens crime, and one under which the Allies punished the Axis in WWII. All of these have been done by the Dubya maladministration. As is well established, those who give the orders to do so are as culpable as those that carry out the orders.

Under this analysis, we should prosecute many in the Dubya maladministration (and others as well).

But you fail to show how the Democrats in Congress ever gave the orders to do any of these things, or did such things themselves.

My observation was that the folks on the left seeking to criminally prosecute and/or fire GOP administration members for supporting and prosecuting the wars are completely silent as to the extensive Dem participation in these efforts.

Nonsense. If they have done such as I've described above, please, out with the evidence.

My point is that these self appointed prosecutors are cowardly hypocrites acting in partisan bad faith as are their witch hunting Dem representatives in Congress.

Huh? I (and such as Glenn Greenwald) would be more that happy to call for the prosecution of any Democrat that has engaged in war crimes, or other illegality, here.

You pretend it's a "witch hunt" because it's the Rethuglican maladministration that has been committing the crimes, so only Rethuglicans (or their hires, flunkies, thugs, and underlings) are at risk of prosecution. But you ignore that it is the Rethuglicans that have run the executive these last eight years, so they're the only ones eligible for prosecution. You want your chance for "bipartisan" prosecutions, wait until (and if) Omama's administration breaks any laws, m'kay?

If you think that Democrats in Congress aided and abetted any illegal behaviour, out with your evidence. Believe me, there are some Democrats in Congress that I think are rotten, but you'll have to do some work to convince me that they crossed the line to actual criminality. Do it. Or STFU about this supposed "hypocrisy".

Cheers,
 

Bartbuster:

Perhaps it would help your case if you detailed some of this "extensive Dem participation."

They wrote (but did not disclose) letters of objection, or objected privately by not vehemently enough.

Not very brave, but I'm not sure it rises to the level of criminal participation in the conspiracy. I believe that you most commit an overt act in furtherance to be an accessory.

But it's possible that The All-Seeing "Bart" knows more that we do. All he has to do is lay his knowledge on the table....

Cheers,
 

Robert:

I agree with you when it comes to the vast majority of us who are non-military.

I do think, though, that our armed forces have duties even in peacetime (e.g., training), and that the President remains the CinC for those purposes as well. The tradition of civilian control of the military is so important that we need to reinforce it at all times.
 

Robert:

I second Mark. The point of having the President be CinC is to retain civilian control over the military at all times. The ability to review high-level military decisions, even in peacetime, is a critical function of the office.
 

Over at the Volokov Conpiracy, a new thread has just been opened by Professor Paul Cassell relating to a colloquy which is being conducted in the Northwestern Law Review.

The opening article by Professor McNeal Beyond Guantanamo, Obstacles and Options was followed by Colonel Morris Davis USAF, the former Chief Prosecutor at Guantanamo The Influence of Ex Parte Quirin and Courts-Martial on Military Commissions and then by Professor Benjamin Davis No Third
Class Process for Foreigners.

The article Professor Cassell was drawing to the attention of VC bloggers is by his colleague Professor Amos Guiora . Professor Guiora's contribution is entitled Military Commissions and National Security Courts after Guantanamo.

Before reading Professor Guiora's contribution, it is worth reading his Testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee on 4th June 2008 and his article Interrogation of Detainees: Extending a Hand or a Boot? [PDF download from SSRN].

Professor Guiora advocates a "terror court" [sic] comprised solely of a bench of judges that would allow for an in camera ex parte review of confidential intelligence information presented by the prosecutor and a representative of the intelligence services. Were the Court to determine the evidence relevant, it would not be seen either by the defendant nor his counsel but:

"In such cases, the judge would permit the prosecutor to present the evidence to the court without the defendant being present. The judge would then act as both judge and defense attorney, questioning the evidence as would be done during cross-examination."

Professor Guiora concludes with this masterpiece of causistry:

"My proposed domestic terror court is not problem-free. It will allow, however, for suspected terrorists to receive a trial in a court of law that simultaneously balances their constitutional rights and addresses legitimate national security concerns."

Since the Professor served in the Israeli JAG Corps for 19 years without resigning in protest at the excesses of the IDF in Gaza and the Occupied Territories, I suppose it must be expected that he feels able to argue with a straight face that a defendant convicted on the basis of intelligence information neither he nor his attorneys have seen has had his human rights to a fair trial respected.

Seeing the argument in print reminded me of some of the very questionable sentences handed down by colonial courts in Malaya, Cyprus and other British colonies during insurrections, by French courts in Algeria, by Spanish courts under Franco and of just how easily a justice system may be perverted by well-meaning lawyers so that it becomes just one more instrument of oppression, a court of terror, rather than a court for suspected terrorists.

Professor Ben Davis ends his well-reasoned contribution to the debate with this eloquent plea:-

"... having good people acting as judges does not make a judicial process consistent with core American values. Rather, it adds the United States to a long list of countries that use ersatz mechanisms to try their perceived enemies. This brief Essay is my modest way to speak to my fellow citizens and ask them to ponder what America is losing in terms of reputation and stature by these third class processes that dissimulate crimes of torture rather than condemn them. For this American citizen, this third class process is not good enough, for it renews with the worst of prior American judicial process, not the best. Would that this plea be heard."

I sincerely hope that readers in a position to influence the incoming administration will, like Professor Davis, argue for an approach of principle rather than one of expediency.

The rest of the world needs the United States once again to become a example to follow.
 

PMS Chicago,

Like Mark, I think you have missed my real point, which may be due to my insufficient skill at presenting it. I understand and agree with the imporatance of maintaining civilian control of the military. I'm really asking Bart what HE would consider to be acts or behavior by President Obama that would satisfy him that "...Mr. Obama (is) continuing Mr. Bush's exercises of...CiC power" sufficiently to show him that..."Obama(has)fully assume(d) the mantle of CiC," such that..."(he) may vote for (Obama) in 2012."

In the context of current events, I can only infer from this that he wants to see Obama continue Bush's illegal terror wars of mass murder and torture. If Obama were to order immediate cessation of our criminal wars, Bart would disdain him for his lack of "sand."

After all, in peacetime, who ever is overtly concerned with the President's CiC powers?
 

I detect from a certain contributor to this forum (a particular DWI attorney in Colorado) the implication that some among us, here, are knee-jerk, liberal, simpletons, who may, on a good day, manage to distinguish our asses from our elbows, but fail to grasp the august imperatives of a Commander-in-Chief engaged in waging a "global war on terror."

Today, I feel moved to confess that I resemble that aspersion.

I doubtless fail to possess the acumen, agility, nuance, and expansive of mind necessary to unravel what I have derided here as the massive, ongoing, Bush/Cheney criminal conspiracy and enterprise (as above) -- so huge, has it been, in its staggering depth and breadth of dereliction. I can scarcely begin to assembly the catalog of Constitutional Amendments, federal regulations, international treaties and covenants implicated, infringed, and violated by this Administration's dictates and deeds, never mind my deficient aptitude to, further, "argue the case."

I could note that, just yesterday, I set upon reviewing, again, the keys points of Professor Balkin's article here (increase of presidential power; Guantanamo; secret opinions and orders; investigating and prosecuting Bush administration officials for violating national and international law; ever-expanding national surveillance state; etc.), and pulled but a single thread from Bush & Company's colorful, criminal tapestry:

. . . the decision (since rebuked?) that evidence obtained by torture prior to some date in 2005 would be admissible in the Cuba kangaroo courts (as would "hearsay" evidence), but evidence obtained by torture after that date would not . . . Huh?

Yep! This feeble mind tilted -- pegged a "10" on the "boggle meter" -- too big, too crazy, too complicated for the weak, besotted goo between these ears to handle. Just tugged on this one thread in this colossal, gordion knot of a crime spree, and I'm toast! Woot! Over my head! Boing!

Anyway, in tandem with my confession (yeah, basically, I am a knee-jerk liberal), I wondered if that certain forum contributor might also cop to another implication in some of what he has said here. He notes, among other things:

"[F]olks on the left seeking to criminally prosecute and/or fire GOP administration members for supporting and prosecuting the wars are completely silent as to the extensive Dem participation in these efforts."

Hmmm. And he variously asks if we liberal lackeys can be counted on to condemn the new Chief Executive should his conduct significantly mirror the current one.

Is there some glimmer of acknowledgment there that CiC Bush and friends have, Constitution-wise, been coloring outside the lines -- with or without "Dem" complicity? Can we wheedle a note of affirmation from his able lips, added to our "amen chorus," that Bush and Cheney have, indeed, broken the law? Like, "in service to a higher purpose," perhaps, but, yeah, they've more or less used the Magna Carta, the Bills of Rights, and numerous international treaties and conventions like toilet paper?

Another token of "across-the-aisle" commiseration:

"As President and CiC, Mr. Obama has the duty to use all means to defend the United States and its interests, including if need be to go to war. If Mr. Obama's conscience will not allow him to go to war to defend the United States and its interests, he should resign."

I couldn't agree more. Well said!

It is also my hope that CiC Obama may exhibit an even greater fealty to other equally fundamental imperatives of the Presidency: that he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, against all enemies, foreign AND domestic.
 

Robert,

Trust me: I agree with your estimation of the aforementioned person's attitude in this matter! However, I think that Mark and I objected to the idea that it was "obvious" that there were no peacetime duties of a CinC. There are plenty of day-to-day duties that involve interfacing with the military's leaders; war isn't a necessary prerequisite for talking with/to/at the Secretary of Defense.

My concern is whether there will ever be a "peacetime" with which to contrast wartime; how does one end a war that has been deemed "endless"? Can an administration that strives for warmer relations across the globe be anything more than an interstadial?
 

Related --

Balkinization contributor, Scott Horton's recent blog post:

"A Ticket to The Hague for Dick Cheney?

Gene Burns is one of the nation’s most popular talk radio hosts. For years he has dismissed accounts of torture; America, he has said, does not torture. But last night, after watching Torturing Democracy and realizing that he had not understood how important and serious an issue torture had become, Burns abruptly changed his tune. Here’s a transcript of his remarks.

I now believe that some international human rights organization ought to open an investigation of the Bush Administration, I think focused on Vice President Dick Cheney, and attempt to bring charges against Cheney in the international court of justice at The Hague, for war crimes. . ."

See complete post, here.

"Some international human rights organization?" Hmmm. Like maybe the US State Department's Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor?

According to the Bureau's main web page --

Because the promotion of human rights is an important national interest, the United States seeks to:

* Hold governments accountable to their obligations under universal human rights norms and international human rights instruments;

* Promote greater respect for human rights, including freedom from torture, freedom of expression, press freedom, women's rights, children's rights, and the protection of minorities;

* Promote the rule of law, seek accountability, and change cultures of impunity;

[snip]

Whoa! How 'bout that last one: "change cultures of impunity?"

These are truly American values, human values, of the highest order.

Lead, President-Elect Obama! Lead on these values! Humankind is hungry for leadership on these values.

And where better to start than here at home? Where better to start than with King George, Lord Bruce, and the whole Addington, Haynes, Bybee, Yoo, DePalma axis?

Holding our government accountable for our obligations . . . Promoting greater respect for human rights, including, especially, freedom from torture . . . Promoting the rule of law, seeking accountability, and changing the Bush/Cheney culture of impunity . . . There's a project I hope to see "the most powerful president in history" get behind.

Perhaps, because the crimes committed in our name have been so grave and so jarring, some cower, and avert their eyes, and hope, somehow, to simply muddle past this. Rather, because the crimes committed in our name -- people have been tortured to death in our prisons -- have been so grave and so jarring, we must face them head on, with the utmost of courage and conviction.
 

PMS Chicago wrote:-

"My concern is whether there will ever be a "peacetime" with which to contrast wartime; how does one end a war that has been deemed "endless"? Can an administration that strives for warmer relations across the globe be anything more than an interstadial?"

Which brings us back to what I think was the subject of one of my first posts ever on this site. The United States of America is not at war.

War, whether declared or not, takes place between two sovereign states. Thus, the invasion of Afghanistan and the "Enterprise of Iraq" were wars. Both of them were illegal as a matter of international law. I express no view on the position as a matter of US law. But both of those wars are over. There is now a sovereign government in Afghanistan and a sovereign government in Iraq. Both governments are recognised as legitimate by the UN and the USA. The USA has diplomatic relations with both countries. Therefore, in relation to both states, the USA is no longer at war.

So far as Iraq is concerned, the US and other forces are now legitimately there pursuant to a UN Mandate made with the consent of the Iraqi government and which happens to expire at the end of this year. Unless an extension of the UN Mandate is agreed by the UN Security Council, or a bilateral status of forces agreement negotiated with the Iraqi government, US forces will, once again, be there unlawfully after 31st December 2008 - hence the frenetic negotiations between the Bush Administration and the Iraqi Government. I forget when the current Afghanistan UN Mandate expires, but the legal position is similar.

If it had not had such serious consequences, the expression "Global War on Terror" would have been recognised for what it is: politician's hyperbole. Regrettably, with the demise of respect for the English language, this happens all the time. Politicians speak all the time of "a war on drugs", a "war on poverty", just as they invest minor functionaries with absurd titles - "Drugs Tsar", being a good example.

There is not, and cannot be, a state of war against "Al Quaida" or "terrorists" because legally there cannot be a war with an entity which is not a sovereign state.

Once that distinction is understood, then a number of pieces fall into place. For example, a number of the Guantanamo Bay detainees have unquestionably been held illegally.

Take the case of the six Algerians, Mustafa Aït Idir, Hadj Boudella, Mohammed Nechla, Lakhdar Boumediène, Belkacem Bensayeh et Saber Lahmar, were arrested in Bosnia in October 2001. Five of them had Bosnian nationality, the 6th was a permanent resident of Bosnia. They were suspected of an attack against the US and British embassies in Sarajevo. After a 3 month enquiry in Bosnia, supervised by Interpol and assisted by the US and the UK, no evidence of terrorist activity was discovered and they were ordered to be released by a decision of the Bosnian Supreme Court on 17th January 2002. They were at that point illegally removed from Bosnia by the USA and taken to Guantanamo Bay where they remain today. The former Prime Minister of Bosnia and the former Interior Minister, Tomislav Limov, are both facing charges in Bosnia for their part in their unlawful arrest and detention. There is also a case pending in the European Court of Human Rights against the Bosnian state.

Habeas Corpus proceedings are now pending in the DC Circuit Court. Needless to say, in those proceedings, the US Government is resisting the release of these detainees, but the last public information before the Court went into closed session was that the US Government had delivered to the Judge a sealed bundle of documents (which it claimed were too secret even to be shown to the defence) - to be read in the event that the evidence filed on the return to the application (already being held in closed session) did not suffice to show that there was cause for the detention.

What the US government has not thus far publicly acknowledged is that it has been asking the Algerian government for some time to take these detainees back. However, the President of the Algerian National Consultative Commission on Human Rights, Maître Farouk Ksentini, has disclosed that the Algerian government has refused because the conditions the USA is seeking to impose are that the Algerian government should withdraw the passports of the detainees, place them under arrest and commence proceedings against them. The Algerian government is refusing to countenance these conditions which are a clear breach of its national sovereignty.

Note that the offer was to return these detainees to Algeria, not to Bosnia where they now have their families. Would that be because if they were to be returned to Bosnia and their families, it would make the criminal proceedings in Bosnia that much easier to prosecute and possibly involve some additional defendants whose extradition might be sought?

This is just one example of the sort of imbroglio the "cowboy" approach of the Bush Administration has created and is going to bequeath to his successor.

I do not envy the task of those who are going to assume control of these matters at the Department of Justice.
 

It appears that Obama is having second thoughts about restricting CIA interrogations to the Army Interrogation Manual, which implies that the incoming Administration is thinking about preserving the CIA coercive interrogation program in some form.

I will not hold my breath waiting for the opponents of "torture" here to protest the decision of The One.
 

"Bart" DeBugblatter:

It appears that Obama is having second thoughts about restricting CIA interrogations to the Army Interrogation Manual...

It appears that Obama is offering John McInsane the Secretary of Sate position as well. Who knew?

Hint for you, "Bart": not everything you read is true, much as it is for everything you say.

FWIW, your linked article doesn't even say what you say it says.

Cheers,
 

arne:

Although Obama issued a statement during the campaign supporting the idea of applying the Army field manual interrogation standard to all agencies, not just the Pentagon, a senior campaign adviser to Obama left the door open to applying another standard.

“He [believes] torture not be allowed in any form or fashion in any part of the federal government, and he would make sure that was the case,” said John Brennan, who served under former CIA chief George J. Tenet in a variety of capacities at a time when the agency has since acknowledged it waterboarded a small number of terror suspects.

“Whether the Army field manual is comprehensive enough to cover all those tactics and techniques, that’s something I think he’d look to his national security advisers for,” Brennan said in an interview with CQ in August.

The Wall Street Journal, citing a “current government official familiar with the transition,” reported this week that “Obama may decide he wants to keep the road open in certain cases for the CIA to use techniques not approved by the military, but with much greater oversight.”

Opponents of using the Army field manual standard at the CIA said that interrogators there are more experienced than Pentagon interrogators and therefore are better equipped to apply techniques not listed in the manual.

This sounds precisely like the Bush Administration defense of the CIA coercive interrogation program against attempts to limit interrogation to those techniques allowed by the Army Interrogation Manual.

As for the credibility of the source, this is an actual named member of the Obama team, not the anonymous sources the Dem media generally relies upon when reporting upon the Bush Administration.
 

Now that their preferred party is in power, critics of the Bush Administration policy detaining foreign terrorists and their supporters as prisoners of war for the duration of the conflict pursuant to the law of war are now arguing that Mr. Obama should seek a statute authorizing indefinite detention.

But what about al Qaeda's constitutional rights?
 

A further confession of my limitations . . .

I fail to imagine any combination of consonants and vowels I might assemble here, with my overwrought, community-college english, that could persuade a torture apologist, a torture enthusiast of the err of their ways. There is something long remiss in the heart and mind of an individual who continues to prevaricate about this most vile, human depravity by whipping out the quotations marks:

[quote]torture[unquote]

There's been some failure of such an individual's moral and intellectual training; something unattended to by their mentors, their church, their community . . . There was, way back when, something Mommie did or did not do, something Daddie did or did not do that is, sadly and almost certainly, unamenable to any aruguments put forward here in this forum, least-wise anything this word-hack might say.

Maybe it's "genetic." The die is cast. The architecture of sucn an individual's "moral-clarity-reuptake-inhibitors" is askew. Maybe some critical "wrinkle" in their pre-frontal lobe failed to form. Still, some genetic predipositions are amenable to self-examination, self-education, and simple will. Perhaps not this.

Some among are, simply, wicked -- some by their deeds; some by their complacence and complicity -- some redeemable; some not.

Perhaps some ardent "prayer" . . . I'll give it a go.
 

Manonfyre,

Bingo, but don't lose any sleep over it -- he's just total waste of time and oxygen.

Have you ever seen him try to actually discuss anything with anyone?

It's never anything but circular reasoning, hot air, and lies.
 

Bingo, back at ya, Mr. G.

Anticipating a dimissive, "ad hominem!" brush off, if anything.

But how else to find a crack in that segment of "the culture of impugnity" this fellow carries within himself?
 

Well my theory is that we simply have to defeat them -- you can't reason with them any more than you could with the KKK about civil rights and racial equality. You have to deal with them as what they are: criminals.

The most important thing now is to bring the facts fully out into the open and prosecute their leaders for their crimes.
 

"Bart" DeBugblatter:

"The Wall Street Journal, citing a 'current government official familiar with the transition,' reported this week that 'Obama may decide he wants to keep the road open in certain cases for the CIA to use techniques not approved by the military, but with much greater oversight.'"

Citing current gummint officials for what Obama is going to do isn't too persuasive. And even they say "may"...

If Obama doesn't repudiate the lawlessness of the Ctheney maladministration, rest assured he'll hear from me (and many others).

Cheers,
 

"Bart" DeBugblatter:

"Opponents of using the Army field manual standard at the CIA said that interrogators there are more experienced than Pentagon interrogators and therefore are better equipped to apply techniques not listed in the manual."

Why, yes, of course they are. I've read A.W. McCoy's "A Question of Torture". Have you?

Cheers,
 

Charles:

You are such a transparently partisan hypocrite.

When the Bush Administration argued for coercive interrogation beyond the limits of the Army Interrogation manual, you demanded that they be tried as war criminals.

However, when a servant of The One makes the same exact argument, you attack the messenger.

Pathetic.
 

Bart,

Excuse me?

You'll have to show me where I've ever said anything one way or the other about the Army interrogation manual in regard to prosecutions. My position hasn't varied for seven years now, and it's based on Hague IV 1907, the IMT Charter (London 1945), Geneva 1949, 18 USC 2441, 18 USC 371, and 18 USC 113.

This is just one more example of you maliciously LYING about what someone else says or believes.
 

However, when a servant of The One makes the same exact argument

Leaving aside that an advisor is not a "servant", and may even be speaking without any specific authorization, Mr. Brennan clearly said nothing of the sort which you allege. Indeed, his quoted remarks could as easily be interpreted as a suggestion that the AFM be re-written to specifically prohibit certain procedures.

It is a shame, Bart, that your reasoning is systematically distorted and defective, but that's just the way it is.
 

This sounds precisely like the Bush Administration defense of the CIA coercive interrogation program against attempts to limit interrogation to those techniques allowed by the Army Interrogation Manual.

# posted by Bart DePalma : 1:47 PM


That is probably because it is a Bush Administration official who is making the claim, you imbecile.
 

Charles:

The Army Interrogation Manual covers every non-coercive interrogation technique we use. When Team Obama is talking about allowing the CIA to go beyond the techniques in the Manual, they are discussing the continuation of some part of the CIA coercive interrogation program. There is no other non-coercive interrogation program outside of the Army Interrogation Manual to which Team Obama could be referring.

You have repeatedly argued that any coercive interrogation technique is illegal and demanded criminal prosecution of those who implemented the CIA coercive interrogation program.

However, given your vigorous spin to avoid confronting the apparently imminent Obama coercive interrogation program, it appears that you only support criminal prosecution of Republicans who conduct coercive interrogation.

Until, you are willing to confront your party and its President, there is no reason to believe that your arguments are anything more than hypocritical partisan attacks.
 

Baghdad, your blog is still broken. Nothing I post there is showing up. Please have that fixed. Thanks!
 

Reading some of the comments here it would appear that some people think Obama is already president.

At this point, we have more questions than answers. Blowing rumors and a few proposed staff picks out of all proportion doesn't give any real idea of the actions of a future President Obama.

We have, on the other hand, the clear and unequivocal statements by Obama on 60 Minutes. I, for one, expect him to carry through on these assurances.

Charles, until Obama fails miserably to carry through on these assurances, and until you have spent the next eight years as an apologist for the heinous crimes that result, you need not consider yourself to have much to explain to Bart.
 

Until, you are willing to confront your party and its President, there is no reason to believe that your arguments are anything more than hypocritical partisan attacks.

# posted by Bart DePalma : 9:59 AM


Baghdad, if he acts like you have acted for the past last 8 years, then you might be justified in calling him a hypocritical partisan hack. Until then, you are still the king. And I suspect you will be consolidating your kingdom over the next 8 years of Obama rule.
 

Bart,

That's BS. I only make assumptions when I have to, and like I said, my position on this stuff hasn't changed in seven years. What about that statement is unclear to you?
 

"Bart" DeTorquemada

However, given your vigorous spin to avoid confronting the apparently imminent Obama coercive interrogation program, it appears that you only support criminal prosecution of Republicans who conduct coercive interrogation.

Did you watch "60 Minutes"?

I'd appreciate responses to my objections to your 'thinking' above, as well. In particular, I'd like your reasoned response to my allusion to A.W. McCoy's book detailing the long and sordid (and pretty much unproductive) history of the CIA with interrogation and torture, "A Question of Torture". In it, he addresses the question of whether the CIA, by dint of its 'expertise', is better at torturing people than are untrained military interrogators....

Until, you are willing to confront your party and its President, there is no reason to believe that your arguments are anything more than hypocritical partisan attacks.

On the contrary, "Bart", until you actually see some 'hypocrisy' that you can point to (and I'm not talking your prognostications based on the words of the Dubya maladministration as to what an Obama administration might do in the future), I think it would be wise for you to simply STFU with your spewing charges of "hypocri[sy]" and "partisan[ship]". That's really a pretty serious charge (to those of us that try and conduct ourselves with honour), and it's -- well, almost 'hypocritical' -- for you to make such charges against any of us absent any evidence..

Cheers,
 

Little Lisa's bro seems to have adopted a variation of the Bush Doctrine of pre-emption with his attacks on the President-elect before January 20th next. Little Lisa's bro's hindsight (which for many can be 20-20) sucks even worse than his forecasting going back to Bush's Iraq attack.
 

The first stage of grief is denial.

The next couple years are going to be fun as Mr. Obama betrays the left on national defense as the Dem Congress has repeatedly done and listening to the folks here try to deny or excuse The One's flips and flops.
 

The first stage of grief is denial.

Like trying to pretend that the side that kicked your ass in the last election is going to govern just like your side "governed"?

The next couple years are going to be fun as Mr. Obama betrays the left on national defense as the Dem Congress has repeatedly done and listening to the folks here try to deny or excuse The One's flips and flops.

# posted by Bart DePalma : 3:06 PM


I'll bet the next 8 years are going to be a lot more fun for us than it will be for you.
 

" The first stage of grief is denial."

Has a death or its equivalent occurred? (Consider that John McCain met with Obama today to see what he could do to help.) Day one of Obama's presidency awaits January 20th. Forecasting grief? Charlie Brown would respond to little Lisa's bro: "Good grief."

Or is this confessional of little Lisa's bro's personal grief, which he may be denying. When can we expect him to engage the second stage? I recommend he shed his backpack of lies.
 

The first stage of grief is denial.

This is still cracking me up.

Until now I had not realized that I should feel sad when I vote for the winning candidate.
 

As for the credibility of the source, this is an actual named member of the Obama team, not the anonymous sources the Dem media generally relies upon when reporting upon the Bush Administration.

Sorry, but I have to chime in derisively. Mr. Link will certainly chide me, but I'd love to hear this phrase:

"The court recognizes Mr. Current Government Official Familiar With the Transition..."
 

"Bart" DeBugblatter:

The first stage of grief is denial.

Coming from you, that's fuuuhhh-neeee!!! The world simply doesn't contain enough mirrors for the RW authoritarians to be able to see themselves clearly. Some physicists have postulated that such would be in fact an impossibility, as it would require a charge-conjugation parity violation of such magnitude that it would destroy all of current physical law.

Cheers,
 

Bartbuster:

["Bart"]: The first stage of grief is denial.

Like trying to pretend that the side that kicked your ass in the last election is going to govern just like your side "governed"?

More like pretending (as "Bart" did even through the election evening) that his side's a$$ wasn't going to get kicked. I think that hasn't sunk in yet, so he's still pretending he (and his policies) 'won'.

Cheers,
 

"America doesn't torture."

Current Chump-in-Chief Bush, candidate McCain, and PE Obama have, of late, all made equally definitive statements regarding torture.

Yet, has any modern US president completed a term in office in which every foreign and domestic operation of the US government under their purview was absolutely, 100% torture-free?

Recall the Office of Public Safety, the Phoenix Program, and, especially, our citadel of cooperative sadism, the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation (formerly, the School of the Americas). Since the end of WWII, the United States of America has, to some extent, variously engaged in, trained, suborned, exported, and outsourced the methods and means of torture, virtually without interruption.

Clearly, the Bush/Cheney Administration is the only [co-] presidency to ever openly argue in favor of, and widely implement, a policy of torture. Indeed, crowning the "success" of their ideology in this regard, Bush & Company even managed to wildly expand the opportunities for private companies to torture for profit!!!

McCain's position is an open admission of the de facto policy of every other modern president -- the gaping, backdoor, "no"-we-won't-but-yes-yes-"secretly"-we-will policy of torture:

"Our grunts will [once again] be kept on a leash, per the Army Field Manual, but our super-duper 'professional' sadists can and will continue to engage in, train, suborn, export, and outsource the methods and means of torture."

"Yes" and "no" to torture, by degrees. Let's not kid ourselves.

What does the man soon to be "the most powerful president in history" mean when he says America doesn't torture?

We'll see.
 

Sorry, but it appears that Obama has no interest in conducting Charles' partisan witch hunt trials of those who authorized and implemented the CIA coercive interrogation program.

Given that Mr. Obama reportedly wishes to retain his own ability to use coercive interrogation methods, it would be rather awkward to try our war fighters for using coercive interrogation during the previous administration.
 

Given that Mr. Obama reportedly wishes to retain his own ability to use coercive interrogation methods,

# posted by Bart DePalma : 9:56 AM


Baghdad, the delusional rantings of wingnuts like you do not count as "reports".
 

Obama is poised to join the ranks of Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, et al. as a war criminal if he does not--as we know he will not--immediately order cessation of our illegal aggression and occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan. That he reportedly does not plan to investigate or prosecute those who planned and executed this war, or those who planned and ordered and carried out torture, considered aside his votes with the Bush administration on various criminal matters, (i.e., voting to continue funding the wars, voting for the revised FISA bill, etc.), does not leave much doubt as to whether Obama will confound our worst expectations. I don't expect Obama will continue torture as a policy, and he has asserted so unambiguously that he will close Guantanamo that I expect he will do so, but these niceties are insufficient to remedy the ongoing crimes of state.

For that matter, the number of members of Congress who should be prosecuted for complicity in war crimes far outnumbers those who would be exempt. One can say with accuracy that our Congress represents, in toto, a criminal class.
 

Scott Horton on,

AP: Obama Will Not Prosecute War Crimes
 

Friendship is unnecessary, like philosophy, like art…. It has no survival value; rather it is one of those things which give value to survival.
Agen Judi Online Terpercaya