Justice sneaks in - on little cat feet (Updated)
Justice can behave like a cat. Cats, being hunters, bide their time.
They sit and wait quietly. They are patient. As I watch patiently for
Justice - to sit, to listen, to track, to watch and wait, to spring and
pounce only when the time is right - here are the latest signs I notice:
First is an article which Glenn Greenwald links to:
There's more. Read it all. And be sure to read what Glenn has to say as well.
Then, there's this. Right here at TPM, written by our own Lars Thorwald last week. In a very important blog he tells us to be careful and not misread the Obama administration's assertion of state secrets in a particular case:
We are watching things play out. We can see Whitehouse setting the table within the Congress. We have seen Obama appoint people like Holder, and Johnsen, and others, within DoJ who are on record stating that torture occurred and must be investigated, that we are obliged to investigate allegations of war crimes. Plus, Nancy Pelosi has stated: "If you have a case against someone, you bring a case." And is even more forthcoming today! And we have the advice of Mr. Thorwald to:
Update:
This just posted by Glenn Greenwald (via Rachel Maddow, to air tonight) while I was working on this blog:
Addendum: As many of you know, I have written a lot related to justice and torture. I won't torture you with all the links, but if you're missed the early signs or want to refresh your memory, just click my name and go back through the blogs. You'll find enough links to keep you busy.
First is an article which Glenn Greenwald links to:
Spearheading Senate efforts to establish a torture commission is Rhode Island Democrat Sheldon Whitehouse. As a member of both the Judiciary Committee and the Intelligence Committee, Whitehouse is privy to information about interrogations he can't yet share. Still, regarding a potential torture commission, he told Salon, "I am convinced it is going to happen." In fact, his fervor on the issue was palpable. When asked if there is a lot the public still does not know about these issues during the Bush administration, his eyes grew large and he nodded slowly. "Stay on this," he said. "This is going to be big."
.......
According to Whitehouse, current politics dictate that Congress should take the lead on establishing a torture commission.
.......
"When push comes to shove, we are the legislative branch of government. We have oversight responsibilities. And we don't need the executive branch's approval to look into these things just as a constitutional matter."
.........
"We have this American government, which has an architecture and a shape and a system that drives it and constrains it and that keeps it honest," he said. "And what happened is that the Bush administration figured out a lot of ways to tunnel through the walls and sneak over the fences. So now we need to go back and say, 'We have got to plant those walls deeper so you can not tunnel under them.' We've got to spotlight how they did it," Whitehouse explained. "The ultimate goal in this is to protect and enhance American democracy."
There's more. Read it all. And be sure to read what Glenn has to say as well.
Then, there's this. Right here at TPM, written by our own Lars Thorwald last week. In a very important blog he tells us to be careful and not misread the Obama administration's assertion of state secrets in a particular case:
I am inside the DOJ, and I can tell you that when the DOJ attorney stood before the Ninth Circuit and said that the Department would stand by the assertion of the state secrets privilege in that case, he meant what he said: that the Department would stand by the assertion of the states secret privilege in that case. That was the position he was told to take, but people mistakenly conflate the position a trial attorney is told to take at a particular moment under particular circumstances as the assertion of broad policy by the Department regarding torture and/or state secrets, world without end, amen.
...............
The trial attorney did the right thing in the Boeing case; the acting associate and acting deputy AGs did the right thing in taking a prudent course that would not tie this Administration's hands in the future (while leaving open the possibility in a change in the assertion of the privilege). The cautious approach is the correct one.
.........
Because, you see, it is far, far easier to later waive the privilege if you decide it is unwarranted than it is to assert a privilege you have stood up and waived.
........
... one action taken in a limited manner at a time of transition does not portend the shape of policy for an entire presidency ...
We are watching things play out. We can see Whitehouse setting the table within the Congress. We have seen Obama appoint people like Holder, and Johnsen, and others, within DoJ who are on record stating that torture occurred and must be investigated, that we are obliged to investigate allegations of war crimes. Plus, Nancy Pelosi has stated: "If you have a case against someone, you bring a case." And is even more forthcoming today! And we have the advice of Mr. Thorwald to:
Chill out. Be patient. Stay tuned.I, for one, am staying tuned.
Update:
This just posted by Glenn Greenwald (via Rachel Maddow, to air tonight) while I was working on this blog:
This is no house cat here! This thing seems to be gathering steam. Go read Glenn!PELOSI: No one is above the law. I think I have said that.
MADDOW: ... you support a call for a criminal investigation, potential investigation.
PELOSI: Absolutely.
Addendum: As many of you know, I have written a lot related to justice and torture. I won't torture you with all the links, but if you're missed the early signs or want to refresh your memory, just click my name and go back through the blogs. You'll find enough links to keep you busy.
Advertisement
First thing I did was bookmark Glenn today. Read the piece and reread the piece. Conyers and Leahy and Whitehouse, they are hot on this. I should not omit the Speaker.
I was heartened that there will be a commission and that we will be able to have a book we can cite everytime some idiot says: This never happened or it happened this way.....We can cite the investigation.
But the commission's conclusions will be used to indict felons.
Oh I am losing temp space. See ya later.
February 25, 2009 3:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, very heartening. I so agree!
February 25, 2009 3:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
I do not want the reader to overlook this post by Carol Gee, which provides so many links that are related to this and also attempts to assess the degree of commitment within the Obama administration for pursuing these topics. In my view the links and quotes above outweigh concerns that people are dragging their feet. But check out Carol's post if you want further reading beyond what I've recommended:
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/carol_gee/2009/02/its-a-puzzlement.php
February 25, 2009 3:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the nice ad, TheraP.
Your post with these developments here has made my day. I had not yet done my reading, which always includes Greenwald. And I am a big Whitehouse fan. He is a great questioner in committee hearings. He is from the class of 2006 and it did not take him long to earn the respect of several of his committee chairmen for his good work.
Stick with "justice," you do the subject justice.
February 26, 2009 3:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Whitehouse takes on the White House?! Yikes.
Here's a bit of philosophy of jsutice: The path comes down to three things: Evidence, theory, and will.
Except for outright evidenced violations of law, it really comes down to a question of will: Was X done with a good will?
In practice it will come down to matters of degree, was the firing purely political, was the treatment of prisoner/suspects outside of some standard, did Z stonewall too much, issues like those. There are also questions of complicity - if you let a crime happen and don't speak up (or legislate against it immediately), are you guilty of a crime (since we're talking justice here, not truth per se)?
Outside of core philosophy, there will be theatre and politics-as-usual.
I hope Whitehouse has got the will for it.
February 25, 2009 4:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Whitehouse is not taking on the White House.
And if you read all the way down, Pelosi comes out tonight in an interview with Rachel Maddow as also in favor of investigations/prosecutions.
This is taking up the responsibility under the Geneva Conventions and the Torture Statute. Under international law and US law we are mandated to investigate and all the signs indicate we are moving inexorably in that direction.
Your comment suggests maybe you may not have been paying close enough attention. Or made use of the links above. Please do so before carelessly posting a comment.
February 25, 2009 5:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wrong side of the bed today, TheraP?
I read two of Greenwald's columns. Neither contradicts my comment. Maybe you have, again, misread what I wrote. Feel free to ask instead of attacking, if you want clarification of something I wrote.
If Whitehouse is not aiming to take on the White House, what's he up to, mere grandstanding? Note that I did not say "Obama", but since Obama is so far following along with many Bush policies which some consider objectionable, we can talk about the Bush White House or the Obama White House, if the distinction it important to you in this context.
Please take your angst or whatever out on someone closer to you, TheraP.
February 25, 2009 5:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Go in Peace. I have nothing further to say.
February 25, 2009 5:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
"We have oversight responsibilities. And we don't need the executive branch's approval"
So how is that not taking on the White House? Who is going to be the target of this oversight if not primarily the Executive Branch and its agents?
Are you angry??
February 25, 2009 8:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Very simply, what Whitehouse is up to is asserting the rights and prerogatives of the legislative branch. I think Whitehouse's comment makes that clear. In and of itself, the legislative branch excercising it's lawful power is not a challenge to the White House.
February 26, 2009 12:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
What are you people drinking today??
February 26, 2009 4:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
.
What the hell's it to you?
The majority of the folks here are adults and they can drink whatever they please.
BTW --- Have you figured out the difference between the Preamble and the actual body of the Constitution and which one of those is the power of law?
QUACK! QUACK! QUACK! QUACK!
~OGD~
February 26, 2009 5:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hi. Why the invective?
It's just a gentle question as a prod to point out a lack of common sense in a couple of replies to my comments. Since the lack didn't look funny, I figure I'm missing the joke or they have drunk some kool-aid etc.
You closed off your thread. You killed the discussion, don't ask me to revive it for you.
February 26, 2009 4:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
One of the clear and completely undisputed duties of the Congress is oversight of the Executive. As we have a form of government that is structured to check and balance the three branches in a formalistic system there is always tension between legislators performing oversight and the executive branch's implementation of policies. But that tension is not always, nor is it intended to be, a way to "go after" the White House. That can be the case, but in this case there's no such evidence of wanting a confrontation or going "after" the White House or challenging the White House.
We have had years of Congress failing to perform it's oversight function responsibly so as the legislative branch gets back to doing it's job perhaps the very act of oversight appears to be a challenge in comparison to the submissive behavior we have become accustomed to. But that isn't what's going on. All Whitehouse is doing is restoring that function. It is not an invitation to conflict or a means of challenging the White House anymore than the confirmation of cabinet officers is. It can happen, but the confirmation process is not in and of itself a challenge to the executive branch. Neither is establishment of a torture commission. It's purely a means of oversight and an avenue for Congress to voice it's legitimate policy concerns to the executive branch in the implementation of US policies.
February 26, 2009 10:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
The oversight that Whitehouse is seeking, in any case, is directed at the previous occupant of the White House and his minions. The current occupant well knows the importance of Rule of Law and that his job is to chart the course for the future, while the other two branches do their work in coming to grips with the past, so as to punish wrong-doing by leaders and strengthen regulation to prevent wrong-doing in future. That and carrying out the legislative program to place on nation on a more secure and equitable future. Amen!
February 26, 2009 11:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed. It is also aimed at future tyrants.
February 26, 2009 1:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are more optimistic than I am about the current WH, but it now seems you accept the serious part of Whitehouse going after the WH.
"directed at the previous occupant of the White House and his minions" and your comments about improving the checks and balances for the future...
If Whitehouse wants more internal oversight of Congress, I haven't seen that indicated.
February 26, 2009 4:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
oleeb, you seem to think that "checks and balances" is not a contact sport, or maybe you just need to write a lot of bull to avoid the simple truth, sheesh!
February 26, 2009 4:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
The simple truth here is that you are wrong.
February 27, 2009 1:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's not wrong to have an opinion based on facts.
If you meant something else, why not say it simply?
We might all be wrong, but so what? Do you enjoy being wrong, wallow in the luxury of your fallacies and illusions?
February 27, 2009 3:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
eds, the question is, "What have you (eds) been drinking" these past eight years? Oleeb points this out quite nicely. I think you have a bead on it when you suggested defining "which" White House, w or Obama. To a frightened and weak President, w, the issue is taking him on. To Obama, the issue is merely part of the process and he understands the Congress must do what it is responsible for doing, checking the executive power. w took his power personally, believing all things emanante from him. Obama realizes the power of democracy lies in three branches counterbalancing each other. E pluribus unum and all that.
Obama is taking a contrary role to Congress because he is the President and has some responsibility to preserve the power the office has developed under w. It is preferable for Congress to rise up and diminish the powers w created from nothing then it is for Obama to merely give them up. To let them go would appear weak and perpetuate the Dictatorship-Lite brand the Republicans fabricated from nothing Constitutional. By this I mean, in a shadowy kinduva way, it is not Obama's to give up. It was not the President's to take, so equally, it is not his to give up.
The manner in which Congress will disassemble the Bush regime's Theory of Unitary Executive, which sounds pretty dictatorial to me, will proportionally raise the perception of Congress, a Democratic Congress in need of some good PR.
Chess, my friends, chess. Watch and learn from the master. He's four moves ahead of the rest of us. Obama wants to rebuild the nation and that requires a strong Congress as well as a strong Presidency.
February 26, 2009 11:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Masterfully said, Gregor Z. I have the only thing eds is doing on this thread is bringing out the best of TPM - to underscore the constitutionally constructed balance of power. Which needs restoration. And I completely agree with your analysis here - that were Obama the one to "hand" Congress their power, that would only prove the executive was in charge. But when Congress stands up and voices its rights and duties and pursues them, then Congress has indeed taken back what rightly belongs to them. I agree with the chess analogy. And the brilliance of the game we're watching may even revive the game of chess itself!
February 26, 2009 12:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
We can only hope!
February 26, 2009 12:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Brilliant proposition, Gregor. It sounds like the strategy a pragmatic constitutional lawyer would do, who has faith in the centuries old system.
February 26, 2009 3:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
"eds, the question is, "What have you (eds) been drinking" these past eight years? Oleeb points this out quite nicely."
Except for that, you seem to have got my original and elaborated points just fine, GZ. Dunno what TheraP and oleeb were on...
February 27, 2009 3:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
While we're making wishes, could you take your snotty condescension somewhere else, too?
February 26, 2009 1:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
You surely meant your comment for TheraP who wrote
That could easily be taken as rude condescension on her part (if not merely errant reading or a bad hair day for her). If you see something like that in my reply, think about the source, brantlamb, and practice what you preach while you're at it.
February 27, 2009 3:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Whitehouse takes on the White House?! Yikes.
Here's a bit of philosophy of jsutice (that's spelled justice, bonehead, and it's about law, not "justice", primarily, as all of these people could and were supposed to, have availed themselves of legal advice)): The path comes down to three things: Evidence, theory, and will. (No, wrong again bonehead.)
Except for outright evidenced violations of law, it really comes down to a question of will: Was X done with a good will? Wrong again, bonehead, it first and last comes down to outright, provable violations of the law, nothing more nothing less.
In practice it will come down to matters of degree, was the firing purely political, was the treatment of prisoner/suspects outside of some standard, did Z stonewall too much, issues like those. (No, bonehead, see the previous, it'll be about direct contravention of the law.) There are also questions of complicity - if you let a crime happen and don't speak up (or legislate against it immediately), are you guilty of a crime (since we're talking justice here, not truth per se)? See the previous, it's about legality.
Outside of core philosophy, there will be theatre and politics-as-usual.
I hope Whitehouse has got the will for it."
I hope someone drags you back to semantics and logic classes.
February 26, 2009 1:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good luck with your anger management issues, elsewhere. I suggest you start with Schopenhauer on the stages of truth.
February 27, 2009 3:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
At one time when I was sure the Dems would lose, I was pushing for a Lincoln/Whitehouse ticket. Who would vote against a Lincoln/Whitehouse ticket?
Chase was a good man but in the wrong party. Whitehouse has already proven himself to be a mover and a shaker. He has a lot of fine qualities. Leahy, you can tell he was sick and tired of being in the minority and being in the twilight zone of a 49-49 tie with two independents.
That is good. A lot of Dems feel like Leahy. And Leahy will communicate as a reasonable man. He is good at that having to use so much tact just to survive the last eight years. In the Senate and in the House since the House Dems watched their legislation being lost in the Senate or vetoed.
This gives the energy necessary to get things done. Leahy personally witnessed felonies as testified to in front of his committee.
I am really hopeful about this. I see it as less philosophical. Power and pragmatism worked for the forces of evil for eight years.
I'm sorry but WHAT WORKS FOR THE FORCES OF EVIL CAN NOW WORK FOR THE FORCES OF GOOD.
February 25, 2009 5:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
(I accidentally locked myself out of TPM for an hour or so... of panic!!!)
dd, it looks to me like this is starting to be a snowball going downhill.
News is coming fast and furiously this week.
February 25, 2009 5:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just out of curiosity, how does one lock one's self out of TPM? Just sose I can avoid it...
February 25, 2009 5:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
First Stilli, never say anything bad about Dikkday.
Ok Then always recommend everything written by dd
Always tell your friends how good dd is
Never argue with dd
Or strange things will happen.
February 25, 2009 5:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, yeah...like Mom EVER says anything bad about YOU! thhhhhhhh (with tongue sticking out!)
February 25, 2009 5:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ok, well, first the cat will pounce on ....
Ok, let me try again, somehow I logged myself out. And somehow after that I also locked my cookie manager. So, somehow I was in an endless loop of trying to sign in and then getting locked out. Over and over. Together with over and over trying to reset my password.
But finally, down in the corner of the screen, I noticed the little cookie icon was "locked!"
So, first of all, stilli - DO NOT SIGN OFF! Then, hope your family is patient as you're slowly going nuts and not making dinner. And then, hope that miraculously your prayers are answered and you can get back in!
February 25, 2009 5:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
ok, I'm laughing at the visual! Do not log off...got it!
February 25, 2009 5:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, the best offense is a good defense - or something like that!
February 25, 2009 5:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
TP,
♪ or ♫
Just wanted you to see these I will use one to address from now on!!
☺
February 26, 2009 1:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
{{{{ ♫ ♪ How Creative! ♪ ♫ }}}}
February 26, 2009 3:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is justice through public exposure of and accountability for past governmental actions. There is also a type of justice that comes from attempting to stop the same reprehensible acts from occurring in the future.
Of note is a bill introduced on the House Floor January 15, 2009, by David Price (D-NC 4th):
H.R.591: To improve United States capabilities for gathering human intelligence through the effective interrogation and detention of terrorist suspects and for bringing terrorists to justice through effective prosecution in accordance with the principles and values set forth in the Constitution and other laws.
Congressional Research Service Summary of Bill:
Cosponsors
Not One Republican House Member had the temerity to cosponsor the codification of a non-torture interrogation policy in legislation. They are serving party over country.
February 25, 2009 5:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well Done, PCA!
This is the best of TPM, when we work together to assemble things like this. This is so helpful and hopeful and seems in accord with the words of Whitehouse (above):
February 25, 2009 5:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Pseudo, another find exposition. Great bill. But my goodness gracious, where are the repug names on this bill?
I wonder. Maybe it is just too difficult to read.
February 25, 2009 6:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
PCA, very nice addition. I was not aware of this effort. Rosa DeLauro, Rush Holt and Jan Shakowsky are all fierce civil libertarians.
February 26, 2009 3:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
I like the slant to this in regards to Obama not having to get involved, and Congress taking up the responsibility to investigate. Our government is slowly creeping back to life, and doing its job. Long time coming.
Great post TP!
February 25, 2009 5:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree. All along I've thought that he was putting his DoJ team in place and the Congress folks were gathering their strength and courage, all the while Obama looked forward to heal the nation and solve our longstanding problems. And, wow! I can now envision the fruit on the vine, even though there is much work to be done, hoeing and planting and watering and weeding and reaping.
February 25, 2009 7:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
So when they say "look what the cat dragged in" they are talking of Justice (with cap J), no? I like that. ;)
February 25, 2009 5:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Won't that be fun? Umhmmmmm... good image!
Remember that old crime show called Drag Net? Well, maybe you don't! But, you get the idea of how law enforcement can cast a wide net and then slowly pull it in. (I use that image in a reply to OGD below.)
February 25, 2009 7:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thera, I missed a blog by OGD on the ninth.
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/oldengoldendecoy/2007/02/cooked-intel-so-the-stovepipe.php#comment-3389087
If you have an hour hahhahaha this link is the best discussion of how we got lied into the war. And statutes are cited with regard to criminal charges.
A fascinating Expose'
February 25, 2009 6:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
.
Hey!
Were you reading my mind?
Hope you didn't get into the fantasy section of it if you did. Don't want you to pass out.
~OGD~
February 25, 2009 6:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
.
Oh and . . .
That was February 9 .... 2007.
~OGD~
February 25, 2009 6:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Olden, I feel so much better. I thought how in the hell did I miss this? I did not get on line until Oct 2009
February 25, 2009 6:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Arthur...have you been drinking again? Oct. 2009 isn't here yet!
February 26, 2009 2:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
yeah, I can't wait. By then I will be on line!!!
February 26, 2009 2:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
.
Geez ...
Wow ... Thera
They're still working on finding out where the "stovepipe" ends?
See my blog from February 2007.
Cooked Intel: So the 'Stovepipe' Stops Where?
There are quite a few links that are still active within the comments there that may be helpful in jogging the memory.
Anyone remember U.S. Air Force, Lieutenant Colonel Karen Kwiatkowski? Or, how about Greg Thielmann? Or ... Elizabeth de la Vega who wrote the book, "United States v. George W. Bush, et al."? There is also a good link from Colonel Pat Lang's "Drinking the Kool Aid" Middle East Policy Council. There one may find one of the best complete rundowns from the spring of 2000, including info on policy-making, all the way through to March 19, 2003 when the bombs began to fall... An invaluable reference for anyone who's memory has slipped from the "fog of war" and time. . .
And then there's a connection between Steven Hadley and Nicolo Pollari about the Niger uranium dealio. And down the comment thread there is a State Department analyst named Simon Dodge who had determined that the evidence for the claim was likely fraudulent. With a letter from Waxman to Condi Rice about Simon Dodge not being allowed to come before the committee.
It is quite an intereseting thread to go back through, if you can keep from being sidetracked with all the gov/techno banter by old Howard Berkowitz and the yammering disassembling of Ellen.
Keep at Thera . . .
~OGD~
February 25, 2009 6:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
I certainly recall Kwiatkowski. And the TPM bloggers you mention and some of the other names.
I think we're looking at something like one of those huge nets they use to catch fish in the ocean. Where they lay a net for miles. We'll be looking backward. We'll need timelines. We'll need ways to assemble so much information. So I appreciate you linking your 2007 blog.
It looks to me like Obama has put a DoJ team in place that indicates a strong desire to obey the law, uphold the Constitution and follow the crime trails wherever they lead. What is particularly interesting to me about Whitehouse is his record of very strong speeches, indicating a huge longstanding commitment to the Constutition, as well as his prosecutorial background. And a passion for pursuing things doggedly.
I think we see the 3 branches of government here getting ready to step up to the plate. And when you couple that with the consortium of organizations, 18 in all I believe, calling for investigations and prosecutions, together with the polling data for doing that, then I think we are looking at a concerted effort.
It must be a lawful effort.
It must be a deliberate effort.
It must be an effort which hews completely to all the legal protections that victims of torture and other crimes were denied.
We must keep letting our representatives and our duly sworn legal bloodhounds know that we support their efforts to get the truth out, to find the evidence, to prosecute those at the highest levels who designed, authorized, and provided a paper-trail of tears for outrageous acts which shock the conscience of every law-abiding American.
February 25, 2009 7:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Perusing your post - Pandora's Box is like those Russian dolls! Mysteries within mysteries! Thanks for reminding us how many myteries and how entangled they all were in that criminal enterprise masquerading as government!
February 25, 2009 9:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Rec'd for the Sandburg reference alone.
The rest is heartening. Thanks, Thera!
February 25, 2009 7:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
For those unfamiliar with the poem bwak has correctly identified (Paging dd! we need another daily award!):
February 25, 2009 9:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
I daresay that Sandberg is paraphrasing T.S. Eliot:
The yellow fog that rubs its back upon the window-panes,
The yellow smoke that rubs its muzzle on the window-panes
Licked its tongue into the corners of the evening,
Lingered upon the pools that stand in drains,
Let fall upon its back the soot that falls from chimneys
Slipped by the terrace, made a sudden leap,
And seeing that it was a soft October night,
Curled once about the house, and fell asleep.
February 26, 2009 9:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oooh, we're on a poetry roll! I love it! :-)
February 26, 2009 11:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Very good TheraP and all who added more information. I was just explaining to a friend why Obama could not come in office and attack the previous president but he could allow the DOJ and Congress to act - not covertly, but there was no need to scream from the roof tops. I am concerned about protecting our constitution and preventing criminal activity in our government from continuing. While I would love to see Bush, Chaney, Rumsfeld, Rove and gang placed in public stocks, I realize that is a fantasy of my childish side. It is more important that accusations of criminal activity by govenment officials are airtight. And I am willing to wait for that.
February 25, 2009 11:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes splashy!!! The President can act nobly and above the fray. Whilst the soldiers do their work.
I think that has a lot to do with it. And one of the problems with the last Administration was that they would cut through protocol.
President Obama will call and speak with Holden. But He will never tell Holden what to do!!!
There is a difference. And everything will be properly documented.
February 26, 2009 12:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
bluesplashy, I am with you 100%. Actually, I have the kind of roof one could scream from. With flat portions where it's safe to walk and not very steep even on the slanted places. But I doubt screaming from my rooftop would have much effect. So instead I'm screaming from my computer.
I agree about Obama. It is clear that he has put in people in charge of DoJ and OLC, who are staunch defenders of the Constitution, the Rule of Law, and the place of our 3 branches of government. Obama will pursue his role of charting a course and making sure all hands are on deck to keep everything ship shape and bring us to safe harbor, educated, healthy, and saving the planet while abiding by our commitments to treaties and the welfare of all people. At the same time, Congress is taking back its regulatory and oversight responsibilities. And DoJ is getting ready to follow the evidence wherever it leads, whether that means business leaders or the principals of the bush administration and the lackeys who designed their devious and inhumane policies and procedures.
Keep cracking, bluesplashy!
February 26, 2009 9:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
I would like to point out that the Obama administration is not continuing Bush policies. The Obama administration is attempting to avoid the politicization of the DOJ. There were several court cases that were like loaded guns pointed at the executive branch. All of them dealt with so-called executive privilege and how it was abused by the Cheney administration.
Bush and Cheney politicized the DOJ to do hatchet work on opponents. They also used the DOJ as a fig leaf to obscure the public view from rendition/torture policies. Finally, they used the DOJ to protect white house correspondence (and the destruction thereof) as privileged acts.
The Obama administration is not (at least not yet) undermining the rule of law by defending the use of executive privilege. There is a case to made for executive privilege, odious as it can be. That case is that there are legal "watchdog" groups (such as Judicial Watch) that abuse the FOIA in order to file frivolous lawsuits. This was what lead to Kenneth Starr.
Now, here is the "stress test" of the Obama administration's commitment to oversight:
1. The legislative branch must be allowed to investigate without obstruction.
2. Any information should be delivered to the media via named sources.
3. The public must be kept abreast of every step of the process.
4. The leaders behind the policy must be brought to justice, not actors under orders. No scapegoats.
Those of us who are informed citizens are well aware of the rabbit-hole pattern that came with the last administration. Most citizens are not aware and have a jaundiced post-9/11 view of torture. We can not project our informed sense of moral outrage on the rest of the population and expect the wheels of justice to grind. The DOJ hsa to uphold executive privilege and leave the prosecution to the Congress. Let checks and balances work and not lawsuits that can upend the system and leave it hostage to well-funded rightwing Pepperdine scenthounds.
February 26, 2009 10:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
A great summary, especially your 4-point plan! May I amend one thing? You say to leave the "prosecution" to the Congress. I bet you meant the "oversight" to the Congress and the "prosecution" to DoJ. A tiny point - but I bet that's what you meant. :)
February 26, 2009 12:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, that is what I meant. Also, I would prefer if an independent counsel were brought on specifically for this matter so as to even further extricate politics from the DOJ.
February 26, 2009 12:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm with you on the need for special counsel. Yes, we are finally getting up and walking after 8 crippling years. And a special counsel, with a grand jury empowered to turn over any rocks and look behind locked doors and into prison cells and servers holding info (likely on all of us!) - yes, we must have a special counsel.
February 26, 2009 12:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
oh good lord, so you peel grapes and read poetry. How special. I've fucked a couple of American chicks, god they were awful. No, Americans really do not know how to fuck, and are unbelievably unromantic to boot. Of course, not surprising for a country where American football and golf are popular sports, and where people read as little as you do. Seriously, in the course of human history, what the CIA has done is tiddly-winks. And before you get all weepy about KSM and few other people who, with one xception, deserved much worse than waterboarding, shed a tear (with you "lover") for the hunddreds of thousands of prisoners in your jails who get raped. Oh that's right, they're not cute enough, not like an Al-Qaeda member who wants to kill people.
I read The Dark Side, and what struck me was how limited the "enhanced interrogations" were.
Man, you people remind me of that dumb bint Naomi Wolf, bleeting about Cheney and Palin were planning a military coup.
Repeat: get a hobby you people. Better yet, travel, read some real history, and some econ too. Get beyond your silly little worldview.
February 26, 2009 12:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
I do not weep for guilty parties, especially those who engage in mass murder. However, torture does not work. DOES. NOT. WORK. No matter how much you want to make the bastards bleed, the proven methods for extracting information are empathy, positive resinforcement, and exploiting Stockholm Syndrome. Your own thirst for blood and vengeance is hindering the very real need to defend our nation from attack.
Further, why bring the prison system into this argument? It makes no difference how I feel about prisoner rape to the argument of justice for "enemy detainees." The facts are that we have a very real system built on international law on how to handle these detainees. The facts are that we flouted international law, which only sets an example that allows our enemies to torture and murder US citizens and soldiers. How this relates to the domestic prison system escapes me.
Finally, why are you so willing to presume guilt upon these detainees? There is already a proven record that several of them were innocent, so why isn't your sense of justice enflamed?
February 26, 2009 1:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
sure it works. and sure, you'll get bad info as well as good, but that's better than nothing.
And my point about prison rape is this: you people get all weepy about Arabs and Uzbeks, or the couple hundred really bad people on death row, but for garden variety evil that is much closer to you, you really don't give a shit, because it's not a glamour issue like Gitmo.
Hey, I thought that Lind kid got railroaded, but you know what? You get picked up on a battlefield in Afghanistan, tough luck Chuck
February 26, 2009 1:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
WOW! They yanked my post! Never seen that before now. I'm not talking about Americans, you bigot. You have this monocultural vision of all Americans with no sense for our diversity. It's no wonder you're all in for the torture thing and support it. You have a fascist mindset. Who are you anyway? They yanked Zima's post too!?!
Well I suppose it all comes down to there being nothing useful to come from a presumptuous asshat like you. I will write this because I predict it will come down too. I have travelled and you have no cloue what my worldview is, really, except that I loathe the attitude Zima brought to this thread, and yours too, for that matter. I was referencing the Left, which is a segment of the US population not to be ignored. You must be young to think that the last eight years is a reflection of who we are. It was a reflection of some of us that cast a poor light on all of us. The matter is not yet resolved. It happened. Now see what we do about it.
February 26, 2009 1:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
oh, my GF is Tatar, and I've lived in six very different countries, and been in about 50, including Syria and Turkmenistan, so I've seen a very broad range of life, and I work hard at understanding the world as it is, not idly jerking off like you morons : )
February 26, 2009 1:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your claim of not being American is unbelievable for many reasons (left unsaid, because trolling for the win can only be self-realised).
Your transparent attempt to sockPuppet it to TPM is laughably lame (a brand puppet_spanking new member who comprehended intuitively the bug/workaround for enabling their dashboard, and immediately followed 1 other user is a criticality of lameness befitting a gastropod in a salt mine with delusions of l33t).
You played copy/pasta X 5 with a racism-baited hook alluding to (hypothetically, of course) a Roland Burris who went crazy-primate, ripping off the House Speaker's face (poor quality useless for even one throwaway, VainWannabe FlamerBoi).
Your now handful of comments spew expectorate of female derogations (dude, your pitiful babeless existence is not part of a liberal conspricacy, it's your personal problem, not mine,. but I'm feeling magnanimous today, so will drop a pearl of cluefullness your way: yeah, i realise that you truly believe fluoride is an Anti-American conspiracy, but seriously, if you want date, you need to brush you teeth at least once a day; so here's that dastardly secret liberal workaround; when brushing, always remember to spit, not swallow).
Please just go away, gnat who is troll in his own mind only, and come back some future day, after discovering methods less trifling.
February 26, 2009 3:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, we had such great comments. But obviously TPM was so concerned about the comments to which we made responses, and maybe our comments were so persuasive... that down came the bad comments! And unfortunately our great responses right along with them.
What impresses me is how easy it is to tell which topics scare the other side. On the other hand, the level of response they are capable of mustering is pretty low. Bad prognosticator for the repubs. They are limping... they are sorely wounded - by "friendly fire" (their own hands). Kind of strange to see people bent upon their own self-destructive ends. Boggles the mind, it does!
February 26, 2009 1:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
oh believe me, I won't waste my time taking you seriously. I'm busy watching Jackass, much more edifying than TPM
February 26, 2009 2:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you lived in the US, which I am happy to hear you do not wish to do, you would be a Republican. That's clear because while you say you would not waste your time, you just keep posting!!! You're laughable, really. A loud mouthed wind bag with nothing constructive. Of you've lived all over the world. You're a miserable human being who cannot run far enough away from himself. Whereever you go, there you are! I'm sure the countries you left are grateful.
February 26, 2009 2:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
oh I've never voted for a Republican in my life. The only American politicians I've liked have been the Clintons, despite their sleaziness, and Howard Dean. And having worked in DC, I know things about them you fools certainly do not.
February 26, 2009 2:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're from all these other places.
How do you vote, silly?
February 26, 2009 2:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
I read The Dark Side, and what struck me was how limited the "enhanced interrogations" were.
Equivocator of Torture.
I've fucked a couple of American chicks, god they were awful...Repeat: get a hobby you people. Better yet, travel, read some real history, and some econ too. Get beyond your silly little worldview.
Misogynist.
James Inhofe, is it you?
February 26, 2009 1:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
A hypothetical scenario: if Roland Burris went ape-shit, so to speak, and starting shrieking and jumping up and down, and ripped off Nancy Pelosi's face, would the Senate eject him? I can't think of anything less that would make them get rid of that disgraceful clown, can you?
February 26, 2009 12:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Watch and learn. You seem to think you already have answers to things you don't.
February 26, 2009 1:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Letom's suffering from moral relativity, too many countries, too big a passport. Hey, Tamerlane was worse than this, buddy, whatcha whining about? It's all good fun till someone puts an eye out, isn't it.
February 26, 2009 2:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, I don't believe in anything you could morality. There's law, and custom, and reciprocity, that's it. And maybe gratuitous kindness.
And if you clowns spent some time abroad, and I don;t mean junior year in Paris, your horizons would be a lot broader. Seriously, people around the world admire America, but they think of Americans as fools, you as much as people like W.
February 26, 2009 2:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe they never lived here, these people who think of us as fools. Or maybe they are like Osama bin Laden, the ones you hang with, who think of us as fools and then destroy things when they have nothing to replace them. They are able to tear somethings down and call people foolish, but they have nothing to offer society or their fellow man.
It's curious to you reference law, custom and reciprocity. Two ways that pretty much expect a behavior, and the third that expects someone else to go first. Be courageous, try giving first, especially something meaningful, instead of showing up here and suggesting Americans are fools and you know something about sex.
February 26, 2009 2:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Look, jackass, you don't know where I live or what my passport looks like or what I've experienced, so take a suppository and call me in the morning, hopefully it will have cleared out some of the brain stoppage.
February 26, 2009 3:37 PM | Reply | Permalink