(cross-posted at Daily Kos)
I wanted to wait until some of the anger and violent emotion over the Freeman issue had cooled before I (very gingerly) brought this up.

First -- as a basis for the rest of this discussion, here are my views regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict:
I believe in a two-state solution and in the right of both Israel and Palestine to security and self-determination.
  
I am, and have always been, strongly opposed to Israeli occupation of the West Bank.  I think the Israeli settlements on the West Bank should be dismantled.  I think the Israeli government should agree to talks with the elected governments in both Gaza and the West Bank.  I think Israeli citizens who happen to be Arabs, and Israeli citizens who are ultra-Orthodox Jews should have the exact same rights and privileges (and obligations*) as other Israeli citizens. 
  On the other side, I think Hamas and Hezbollah should stop shooting rockets into Israel.  I think that while Hamas has done some good things for its people, it has also done tremendous harm with its repressive and violent behaviors toward its own people.  I think Fatah is a corrupt dinosaur that has done very little to further the interests of the Palestinian people.
  I think our government should tie aid to Israel and to the Palestinians first to willingness to meet and talk, and then to progress toward a peaceful resolution.

Just as I am smack in the middle on Israel and Palestine, I was smack in the middle on the appointment of Chas Freeman.  I read articles and essays that supported Freeman and ones that attacked Freeman.  And then I decided to go to the primary source, so I read what Freeman himself said [see links to his statements at the bottom of this diary].  My take-away on Freeman from his own words is that he is an excellent advocate for the point of view he represents; but he has seemingly no ability to understand those who have a different point of view.
I decided, therefore, that I would be happy if someone like Freeman were part of an advisory group on issues of China and the Middle East, that it would be good to have his views as part of the mix, but I wouldn't want him as lead person on either issue.
And this is where my question of progressives' hypocrisy comes in.  It seems to me that Freeman's criticism (for the most part justified) of Israel has won him the support of many progressives who are incensed by Israel's occupation of the West Bank and treatment of the Palestinians.  I understand that completely. 
But these same progressives, these same people who are outraged by Israel's behavior, accept Freeman's statements supporting the Chinese government suppression of dissent in their country and repression of the Tibetan independence movement. 
In the first case, with Israel, this particular group of progressives take a moral stance.  In the 2nd case, with China, they cite realism as the basis of their support for Freeman.
Freeman is praised for his ability to see events from the Chinese point of view, for understanding the Chinese government, history and culture.  But he is not criticized for his lack of understanding of the Tibetan view, or the point of view of those, often imprisoned, Chinese who have spoken out for democracy and freedom. 
Similarly, Freeman is praised for understanding the Palestinian point of view and zeroing in on the broad set of problems resulting from Israeli occupation.  But he is not taken to task for his lack of understanding of the history of Israel and the underpinnings of their aggressive stance toward their neighbors. 
I am not so inconsistent.  I think China's treatment of Tibet and their violent suppression and imprisonment of dissenters is as morally repugnant as Israel's treatment of the Palestinians.
 We might, as a country, choose to ignore the Chinese government's behavior because we need China's support right now.  And we might, as a country, choose to pressure Israel to behave better because we have the means to do this. 
But we should make those choices with eyes wide open, admitting our inconsistency and acknowledging that these are hard and complicated choices in a world full of competing interests and emotional/cultural clashes.


Links to Freeman's statements:
(Freeman speech on China & Tibet)  (see 10th full paragraph for statement on Tibet)

On China, dissidents and Tian'anmen Square
(this source is a blog supportive of Freeman which got his statements, ironically, from the Weekly Standard.  They felt that the WS had actually done a service for Freeman in that people reading these statements would end up with a high opinion of Freeman.)

 On Israel/Palestine (I agreed with almost everything Freeman said here, but he showed remarkable ignorance in understanding Israel's history and cultural imperatives):


* I cite "obligations," because so many of the ultra-Orthodox in Israel exist on government support but refuse to give anything back.

Now that we know that the infamous "torture memo" is not the only time John Yoo was intimately involved in a transgression against the Bill of Rights, shouldn't there be renewed pressure for him to be fired from the UCSF law school?  
Last spring there were numerous protests against John Yoo holding on to his faculty position at Berkeley law.  The dean, who otherwise seems to be a pretty good guy, staunchly defended keeping Yoo on. 
According to Dean Edley's statement at the time, short of a conviction for criminal behavior, Yoo could not be dismissed from the faculty.  But the dean added a personal note suggesting Yoo is not really responsible for violating constitutional rights because the politicians made him do it:
"As critical as I am of his analyses, no argument about what he did or didn't facilitate, or about his special obligations as an attorney, makes his conduct morally equivalent to that of his nominal clients, Secretary Rumsfeld, et al., or comparable to the conduct of interrogators distant in time, rank and place. Yes, it does matter that Yoo was an adviser, but President Bush and his national security appointees were the deciders."  http://www.law.berkeley.edu/news/2008/edley041008.html
 

This conclusion of the dean's strikes me as a distinction without a difference.  Since Yoo's job was to advise the White House on what is legal and what is not, advising them that they are legally allowed to torture prisoners (or use the military to break into American homes) is tantamount to approving and supporting those behaviors.  
In addition, while I am not a lawyer, my understanding is that it is considered a breach of legal ethics to advise a client to do something illegal.  And even if the dean of Berkeley Law was not concerned with legal ethics, doesn't Yoo's faulty legal reasoning (there's pretty much a consensus on this) mean that he is not qualified to be teaching?

With the recent release of horrifying memos, there is even more evidence of Yoo's involvement in pleasing his master by being willing to go to any lengths to justify violations of our Constitutional rights. I can't imagine how any decent law school can justify keeping Yoo on their faculty.

Maybe according to the University by-laws he can't be dismissed unless convicted of a crime (something that might be coming).  But everyone knows that there are ways and ways of getting rid of someone.  The other faculty and the dean could make his professional life there a living hell (though one far less hell-like than that of our prisoners in Guantanamo and other places).  

I just want to end on this note -- a particularly ironic excerpt from John Yoo's faculty profile:

"From 2001 to 2003, he served as a deputy assistant attorney general in the Office of Legal Counsel at the U.S. Department of Justice, where he worked on issues involving foreign affairs, national security and the separation of powers."

http://www.law.berkeley.edu/php-programs/faculty/facultyProfile.php?facID=235

Cross-posted at Daily Kos.

And Dahlia Lithwick, for that matter.  [And the two of them are some of my favorite people, so this criticism is not meant as a wholesale condemnation of them].
I despise the Bush administration and I challenge anyone to a contest of which of us can list the largest number of awful things Bush, Cheney et al. have done.
But ...  I don't agree with Rachel or Dahlia that now is the time for the Obama (pre-presidency) administration to pursue a criminal investigation of Bush's wrongdoing.  Rachel's feeling was that Obama correctly stated he has a mandate, and he should use some of that large political capital to bring Bush and his staffers to justice.
I just look around at what's happening in the country -- home foreclosures, rising unemployment, small businesses (like my neighbor's applicance business) in deep trouble because of the lack of money available to them, and I know that Obama is correct to focus virtually all his efforts on bringing the country back to economic stability. 
This conclusion does not come from Obama adulation and worship -- it's from a purely practical point of view.  No one person can do everything and the economy is what's directly affecting people right now.  It's what needs urgent fixing.  The daily press conferences, cabinet appointments and stated plan for the economy is exactly what should be happening.
I hope that at some point things will start to stabilize and Obama can turn his attention to the myriad other things that need to be done to rescue our country from the garbage dump into which Bush pushed us. 
And certainly one of the first things that he should tackle, after we have some economic healing, is restoring our consitutionally guaranteed civil liberties.  A big part of that is prosecuting those people in power who violated our rights and broke the law.  If sometime during Mr. Obama's first term he does not make this one of his priorities, then I will join the chorus of criticism. 
But for now, I'm happy with what he has chosen as his primary issue.

Signs that the Bush Administration is still running the government. 
So here's what we're hearing that we haven't been hearing about the economic collapse:
1.  How it's determined which institutions get money from the taxpayer bailout
2,  Who is exactly getting how much
3   And -- just revealed -- taxbreaks to companies that buy troubled banks -- tax breaks that can greatly exceed the price paid for the troubled banks.
Banks Reap Big Tax Cuts

There are so many things to correct, so many of them urgent, that I'm constantly worried something major will be overlooked. 
But the transparency issue is of particular importance.  We've lived with secretive, sleazy and self-serving political control of our government for almost 8 years.  There's been no effective oversight, not from the Congress and not from the press.
(and as an aside:  1) this is the main reason I'm concerned about Larry Summers being appointed Sec. of the Treasury.  Sure, I don't like the comments he made about women and about toxic dumping in 3rd world countries.  But what I like even less is the evidence that he isn't open to ideas from other people; that he doesn't have a clue about what he doesn't know; that his ability to communicate with others is very limited.  Do we really want another person like that in a major leadership position in this country? and 2)  it's why Lieberman should be removed as chair of the Homeland Security committee -- we need real oversight).
 

I'm reading the support for Lieberman from Obama a little differently than others seem to.  The key quote to me is:

"President-elect Obama looks forward to working with anyone to move the country forward," Cutter continued. "We'd be happy to have Sen. Lieberman caucus with the Democrats. We don't hold any grudges."

What this refers to is one of the things that Obama seems to be especially skilled at:  he can find common ground on specific issues with people who are not usually in alignment with his views.  Since Lieberman is reasonably liberal on a number of issues, I think Obama sees multiple opportunities to pull him in to an alliance and build a filibuster-proof majority for those issues.
What this statement does not say is that Lieberman has President-elect Obama's unconditional support.  I think the it leaves plenty of room for the Democratic Senate leadership to move Lieberman to a committee chairmanship that fits his "Democratic" side, and place a more appropriate person as chair of the Homeland Security commitee.

Sounds contradictory, but this prosecutor seems to have been very careful.  From what I read it looks like he thought Monegan had been fired at least partially because of not firing Wooten, but that Palin had the right to fire Monegan for any reason she saw fit.
The abuse of power comes in with her (and Todd's) interfering in an attempt to get Wooten fired. 
I'm not a lawyer, but seems to me this report gives the Troopers' union a big basis for their suit.
Anyone who want to enjoy themselves should read the part about what the judge who was presiding at Wooten's divorce said.  It's pretty funny.