Damn Lawyers!!

Considering 2GL's fondness for attorneys, I found this amusing.

A lawyer runs a stop sign and is pulled over by a cop. He thinks that he is smarter than the cop because he has a higher education. He decides to prove this to himself and have some fun at the cops expense.

Cop says, "License and registration, please."

Lawyer says, "What for?"

Cop says, "You didn't come to a complete stop at the stop sign."

Lawyer says, "I slowed down, and no one was coming."

Cop says, "You still didn't come to a
complete stop. License and registration, please."

Lawyer says, "What's the difference?"

Cop says, "The difference is, you have to come to a complete stop, that's the law.

License and registration, please!"

Lawyer says, "If you can show me the legal difference between slow down and stop, I'll give you my license and registration and you give me the ticket, if not you let me go and no ticket."

Cop says, "Exit your vehicle, sir."
At this point, the cop takes out his nightstick and starts beating the ever-loving crap out of the Lawyer and says:

"Do you want me to stop, or just slow down?"

Sweet Judy Big House

Is poor Ms. Miller, now rotting in jail for contempt of court, perhaps more than a passive recipient of information in Treasongate? Is there something besides her "deep principles of journalistic integrity" that keeps her from testifying, as ordered by the court? Huff gives some context.

True Military Honor

As the torture of detainees by our military has been exposed over the past two years, Americans proud of our honorable military history have raised their voices against such abuse. Others, in defense of inhumane tactics, were quick to accuse us of smearing the military.

Then, it became clear that the instructions to abuse detainees came directly from the White House.

Still, when a United States Senator raised his voice against abusive tactics by our military, he was shouted down by the right wing noise machine for his inartful choice of words. And the right wing continues to excuse and condone the abuse, because it was directed by their cherished far-right president.

Today, I can hardly overemphasize my pride in the United States Military. When the White House was requesting legal justification for torturing detainees, the Justice Department was more than willing to get right to work parsing words and talking about pain that accompanies organ failure. On the other hand, the military attorneys objected. Read these excerpts from memos prepared by attorneys in the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines, and be proud:

Several of the more extreme interrogation techniques, on their face, amount to violations of domestic criminal law and the UCMJ (e.g., assault). Applying the more extreme techniques during the interrogation of detainees places the interrogators and the chain of command at risk of criminal accusations domestically.

Treating OEF detainees inconsistently with the Conventions arguably "lowers the bar" for the treatment of U.S. POWs in future conflicts. Even where nations agree with the President's status determination, many would view the more extreme interrogation techniques as violative of other international law (other treaties or customary international law) and perhaps violative of their own domestic law.

Finally, the use of the more extreme interrogation techniques simply is not how the U.S. armed forces have operated in recent history. We have taken the legal and Moral (ht: arm) "high-road" in the conduct of our military operations regardless of how others may operate. Our forces are trained in this legal and moral mindset beginning the day they enter active duty. It should be noted that law of armed conflict and code of conduct training have been mandated by Congress and emphasized since the Viet Nam conflict when our POWs were subjected to torture by their captors. We need to consider the overall impact of approving extreme interrogation techniques as giving official approval and legal sanction to the application of interrogation techniques that U.S. forces have consistently been trained are unlawful.

More broadly, while we may have found a unique situation in GTMO where the protections of the Geneva Conventions, U.S. statutes, and even the Constitution do not apply, will the American people find we have missed the forest for the trees by condoning practices that, while technically legal, are inconsistent with our most fundamental values? How would such perceptions affect our ability to prosecute the Global War on Terrorism?

We nonetheless recommend that the Working Group product accurately portray the services' concerns that the authorization of aggressive counter-resistance techniques by servicemembers will adversely impact the following:

a. Treatment of U.S. Servicemembers by Captors and compliance with International Law.

b. Criminal and Civil Liability of DOD Military and Civilian Personnel in Domestic, Foreign, and International Forums.

c. U.S. and International Public Support and Respect of U.S. Armed Forces.

d. Pride, Discipline, and Self-Respect within the U.S. Armed Forces.

e. Human Intelligence Exploitation and Surrender of Foreign Enemy Forces, and Cooperation and Support of Friendly Nations.

The simple decency of these military men seems profound when compared to the machinations of our Commander in Chief. Americans can now be sure: like all decent Americans, the members of our Armed Services did not support torture. They were merely following orders.

So, to sum up:

(1) Bush requests legal justification for torture of detainees;

(2) Justice Department gladly obliges;

(3) Military objects, says torture is against American values;

(4) Bush goes with Justice Department;

(5) Torture is ordered;

(6) Decent Americans object to torture, says it is against American values;

(7) Right wingers claim decent Americans are attacking the military.

My friends, this is a dark, dark chapter in the history of the Republican party.

More here.

Bush To London Bombers: 'Bring It On'

WASHINGTON, DC—President Bush officially responded to the latest round of London transit bombings Monday, challenging terrorists to "do their worst." Said Bush, in a televised statement from the Oval Office: "The proud and resilient people
of London can take anything the forces of evil and cowardice can throw at them. They will never live in fear of you. Bring it on." Prime Minister Tony Blair thanked Bush for his comments, inviting him to visit London and ride the Underground in a show of solidarity.

A joke, obviously.

Bush Fought The Law, and... result to be determined

Contempt of court - it's so hot right now. First Judith Miller's "principles" would not allow her to disclose who in the Bush Administration was trying to slime the Wilson family. Now, a federal judge has ORDERED the Bush Administration to release certain pictures taken at Abu Ghraib, and our government is refusing to abide by the court's order.

Yep. Simply refusing. No legal grounds for it. Just decided they don't want to.

UPDATE- the NYT runs a correction. They dropped the ball on this one.
Hat Tip - Soup or Star?

Rove is a Traitor

Rove should be tried for treason......he has undermined the security of this country at a time of war.

Contribute to the GOP III

It pays dividends! Big dividends!

Donate to the GOP II

They're getting screwed by their insurance company!!

The Republican Party of Virginia has sued Union Insurance Co. for $950,000 in Federal Court, claiming the insurer refused to fulfill its obligation to defend the GOP in a lawsuit settlement in which the Party acknowledged it had secretly listened to a conference call conducted by the Democratic Caucus of Virginia. The complaint states that although the Party and its operatives acknowledged five violations of federal wiretap law in that case, no criminal charges were filed, so Union has a duty to defend. Plaintiff seeks the $750,000 it paid to settle the lawsuit, plus $200,000 in attorneys’ fees.

Donate To the GOP

Help defend felonious election riggers!!

Rove Must Go....Obviously

I am still waiting at what our so called leader will do about Rove breaking the law by outing a CIA operative. I find it despicable that the media is not pressing this story further and that W. has not acted like a leader by firing Rove. Funny how Republicans still protect this guy who undermines our government by adhering to a anything goes policy of politics. He is a Rush Limbaugh with power......scary....Wonder if he is a drug addict too?

The Plame Leak Through The Eyes Of Intelligence Officials

Read it. Then think to yourself: how will the Bush Administration smear these people.

JUSTICE ROBERTS?

Seems like a sensible choice to me. Conservative, but of course the pick was going to be conservative. He's tabula rasa, as far as his judicial philosophy, but he's uniformly regarded as a brilliant judicial mind. I have little earspace for objections to positions Roberts may have taken as an advocate in the past.

So, I look forward to the hearings. Given Roberts' years of legendary advocacy before the Supreme Court, I doubt any Senators will get him flustered or off message.

Thus, I predict -- and indeed hope for -- a quick confirmation.

UPDATE: It is very likely that the recent decision of a three-judge panel (including Roberts) of the D.C. Circuit granting the Bush Administration virtually unlimited power to try military detainees as the administration sees fit will be appealed to the Supreme Court.

Query: If the case is before the Court after Roberts is appointed, will he recuse himself? Can a Supreme Court Justice rule on whether one of his opinions in a lower court was constitutional?

Just curious.

Onward Christian Soldiers

I've always been confused by war-hungry Christians. The justness of killing other people for your cause just seems like the last thing one could derive from the teachings of Christ. Some have quite effectively mocked the current enthusiasm for the American Christian Warrior image.

On the other hand, others have actually been there, have tried to square the love of Christ in their hearts with their participation in "systems of violence" and have come out of it deeply affected. You must read this, about a former interrogator at Abu Ghraib (and the brother of a friend). Unbelievably thought provoking.

I am no pacifist. At some point, every nation must defend itself. If a nation "turns the other cheek" for too long, there will likely be another nation ready to not only smack both cheeks, but lop off the head and start collecting booty. I think that we, as Americans, have long realized this, and have recognized that we must respond to imminent, serious threats with force.

We also now realize, as a nation, that Iraq posed no such threat.

Downtime with the Trib

My bus broke down on Lake Shore drive today, so I had a little extra time to read the paper while we waited for a replacement. Big news is that the wall the Bush Administration has attempted to construct between the actions of the"few goons on the night shift" at Abu Ghraib and the senior administration officials continues to crumble. As Andrew Sullivan says, "This was Bush's choice. The line from Abu Ghraib and Gitmo to the White House is perfectly straight."

The most surprising thing about the increasing evidence that the White House is directly responsible for the abuse of inmates by our military is that Republicans seem to think that's just peachy. Well, I guess they'll be able to tell their grandkids about how they were statestide cheerleaders for torture.

In a bit of fantastic news, it appears that more Muslims in Indonesia, Jordan, Lebanon, Pakistan, Turkey and Morocco are rejecting the violent ideology of Bin Laden and are alarmed about Muslim extremism. It's hard to know what the root of this shifting ideology is. Perhaps as terrorist violence increases worldwide, more Muslims see how reprehensible it is to kill innocents. In any event, it's encouraging.

In the same article, though, a bit of bad news.

Yet solid majorities in five of the six Muslim countries surveyed -- Indonesia, Jordan, Lebanon, Pakistan and Turkey -- also now have unfavorable views of the U.S. In the sixth, Morocco, views are evenly divided.

Interesting. As Muslims turn away from Bin Laden, they are also turning away from the United States. You would expect quite the opposite, wouldn't you?

In a final bit of news, the Cubs started off the second half of the season right yesterday. We're back at .500 with the lineup we've been waiting for all year: Prior, Wood, Zambrano and Maddux. I'll be at the Friendly Confines this afternoon, having a good time for myself, and watching the Pirates go down.

It Wouldn't Be Fair

...to email this all over the office without providing a hat tip and link to the not-always-very-seriously-outraged guys at CC.

Tip: you can throw her with your mouse.

Sincere Apology Fetches Right Wing Forgiveness --- j/k ;) lol

Molly Ivins went overboard in a recent critique of the War in Iraq. She... well hell, I'll let her explain it:

CROW EATEN HERE: This is a horror. In a column written June 28, I asserted that more Iraqis (civilians) had now been killed in this war than had been killed by Saddam Hussein over his 24-year rule. WRONG. Really, really wrong.
...
Ha! I could hardly have been more wrong, no matter how you count Saddam's killing of civilians. According to Human Rights Watch, Hussein killed several hundred thousand of his fellow citizens.
...
In 1991, following the first Gulf War, both the Kurds and the Shiites rebelled. The allied forces did not intervene, and Saddam brutally suppressed both uprisings and drained the southern marshes that had been home to a local population for more than 5,000 years.
Saddam's regime left 271 mass graves, with more still being discovered. That figure alone was the source for my original mistaken estimate of 20,000. Saddam's widespread use of systematic torture, including rape, has been verified by the U.N. Committee on Human Rights and other human rights groups over the years.
...
There have been estimates as high as 1 million civilians killed by Saddam, though most agree on the 300,000 to 400,000 range, making my comparison to 20,000 civilian dead in this war pathetically wrong.
I was certainly under no illusions regarding Saddam Hussein, whom I have opposed through human rights work for decades. My sincere apologies. It is unforgivable of me not have checked. I am so sorry.

Nice. You don't see that kind of forthright apology often in today's editorialists -- although their errors are pointed out more and more frequently by internet opinion enthusiasts. Typically, today's partisans (perhaps taking their cue from good President Bush) refuse to back off from any statement or admit any error. So, cheers Ivins. Now get it right next time.

Ever wonder why more people don't just simply admit their mistakes, purify the dialogue of mis-stated facts, and move on? Here's your answer. Ah, the screeches of the right wing -- HEY, YOU'RE RIGHT... YOU WERE WRONG!! Featuring such crisp, choice articulations as:

What a complete idiot

The comparison is so ungodly stupid on its face

The comparison of this behaviour to our US military's itself is disgustingly inapposite

Read Ivins, then read CC's response and be warned. This is the bile you can expect from Bush loyalists if you admit a numerical mistake. Lesson two: if you're looking for civility from our good friends over at CC, you'll have to follow their hat tip to Sullivan. His response to Ivin's apology?

Good for her.

Rove's Brain

Josh has an interesting story about Rove's attorney, Robert "Gold Bar" Luskin.

WWWD?

Well, it's out. Rove ratted out Wilson's wife as a CIA agent because he was pissed that Wilson criticized false White House claims about Iraq.

Funny thing, nobody from either side of the aisle is much surprised by this. Everyone knows that Rove is a political sleazebag. What is surprising, at least to me, is the willingness of decent conservatives to eagerly kiss Rove's ring as he rammed his filthy brand of politics into our country for the last ten years. Will righties continue to defend him after this? Will they argue that leaking the name of a covert CIA operative for vengeance against a man who was speaking the truth is good for America?

Of course, the bigger question: What Will W. Do? Everyone paying attention now recognizes that his earnest declaration that he "welcomed the investigation" and wanted to "get to the bottom" of who leaked Plame's identity is a joke. We now know he could have simply asked his buddy Karl - "d'ja do it?" I think we recognized that back when Bush lawyered up (let's not forget, either, Bush's words at the time: "this is a criminal matter, it's a serious matter")

Now that we know that Mr. Rove did, in fact, leak Plame's identity, Bush should fire him. Can there be any question about that? Is that even up for debate? Does it even matter if Rove's sleazy attacks on the Wilson family were legal?


UPDATE: One right wing response. Let's see if the rest of the Bush Loyalists jump to Rove's defense this eagerly, or if they will condemn his thuggish political sleaziness. Let's see what sort of character these folks have.

We Are All Londoners

"This was not a terrorist attack against the mighty and the powerful; it is not aimed at presidents or prime ministers; it was aimed at ordinary working class Londoners, black and white, Muslim and Christians, Hindu and Jew, young and old, indiscriminate attempt at slaughter irrespective of any considerations, of age, of class, of religion, whatever, that isn't an ideology, it isn't even a perverted faith, it's just indiscriminate attempt at mass murder, and we know what the objective is, they seek to divide London. They seek to turn Londoners against each other and Londoners will not be divided by this cowardly attack... I wish to speak through you directly, to those who came to London to claim lives, nothing you do, how many of us you kill will stop that flight to our cities where freedom is strong and where people can live in harmony with one another, whatever you do, how many you kill, you will fail."

-Ken Livingstone, Mayor of London

UPDATE: It makes me want to throw up that anyone would attempt to ridicule Mr. Livingstone for the above statement, but it seems some folks have no depth to which they won't stoop.

UPDATE II: This attack is not a result of our invasion of Iraq. As our friends at CC point out (although without abandoning their usual leftward finger pointing . . . even on a day like this fellas? come on) terrorist attacks were happening long before we took military action in Iraq or Afghanistan.

Nor can our invasion of Iraq, misguided as it may have been and as many innocent lives as it has claimed, be morally equated in any way with this horrific act of terrorism in London. Any on the far left who make any such suggestion is as wrong as those on the far right who think this attack somehow justifies our invasion of Iraq.

This, quite simply, has nothing to do with Iraq.

Ju Ju, Judy Juday Juday Juday...

I have to say that there is a certain poetic justice to Judith Miller being sent to the big house for covering for the vindictive trash politics of the Bush Administration.

Replacing Sandy

My prediction: the "war" everyone is preparing for will not happen. I think people are misunderestimating both sides. I think that Bush will prepare a list of ten judges he is considering, then will consult with Leahy (as Clinton consulted with Hatch). Leahy will recommend the judge most palatable to the left (of course, they will all likely be conservative, but some will not be from the far right), and the confirmation process will be rigorous, as it should be, but without a filibuster. In the end, Bush's selection (after consulting with Leahy) will be easily confirmed, with less than 15 votes against him or her.

I stand ready to be proven wrong by either the right or the left. I will be disappointed in either side if they don't do something along the lines of what I've described.

So who can we expect? Well, Bush has told the nation that he wants Justices like Thomas and Scalia. Of course, he has also said that he deplores "judicial activists," which Thomas and Scalia clearly are. Bush has also said that he prefers "strict constructionists" who attempt to devine the original intent of the Constitution. But, that sort of backward-looking jurisprudence is largely a sham. So, he will likely nominate more activist judges who happen to follow his right-wing ideology.

In any event, I predict that, despite all the money accumulating within interest groups on the right and the left, this "war" will blow over quickly.

Ohio Politics

Getting stranger and stranger.

Happy B-Day W.

Happy Birthday to our 43rd President--New Haven, Connecticut is his birth city, not Texas. But, the Wild West image suited him well in politics.

Meanwhile, Back in Big Sky Country

WTF?

But in late 2004, county employees began complaining about Kuyath's management style, and in December commissioners shifted his duties and took some departments out from under his supervision.

Then in April, Kuyath showed up at a budget hearing in a Darth Vader costume, and used a "Star Wars" theme for his presentation.

According to minutes from that hearing, Kuyath's presentation began, "A band of rebels began a movement to improve and enhance the efficiency, effectiveness and productivity of every county function."

The empire has been trying for some time to hunt down these rebels, but the force is strong within this county. ... The CAO is currently being 'interrogated' by the emperor's 'specialists' concerning his part in this rebellious activity."

Shortly after that episode, commissioners put Kuyath on paid administrative leave. Since then he has continued to receive full pay.

The county will issue a statement when the matter is resolved, Murdock said.

HT: Wulfgar!

Rovegate

Uh oh, big boy Karl Rove is in deep doo-doo.......and there is a paper trail showing the crime he committed. How will they respond? Lets take a look down the cultural issue dividers, uh, right to life? No. How about this trusty ol one, "liberal media bias"? Perfect. Great, we can now take the attention off of the sleeze that is Karl Rove. You live by it, you die by it......

Happy 4th of July!

Happy Independence Day from those of us here at 2GL. Thanks to all the brave men and women in the armed forces for serving this great country.

Conservative Think Tankers

"Some of the finest conservatives in America today do their work in the Heritage Foundation. For those of you new to all this, The Heritage Foundation is America's leading conservative think-tank."–
Rush Limbaugh

"Keep up the wonderful work of truth which emanates from Heritage."–

John Ashcroft

*shove*
Ted E. Schelenski, of the Heritage Foundation