AG REPORT Tapped
Spencer Ackerman has an article out on recently released documents that give us the military's lawyer's view of U.S. interrogation policy:

The JAGs were commenting on the report of a Pentagon working group, convened in January 2003, to review interrogation policy changes. But a common theme in their memos is the concern that the legal rationales employed by the working group were imported wholesale from the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel (OLC)--whose writing on the question of torture was memorably described by Yale Law School Dean Harold Koh as "perhaps the most clearly legally erroneous opinion I have ever read." (What the Justice Department lawyers actually gave to the Defense Department remains, inexplicably, classified, despite months of congressional demands.)

Major General Thomas Romig, the Army JAG, essentially concurred. He denounced OLC's central contention--that any law restricting the president's ability to wage war is unconstitutional--writing caustically: "I question whether this theory would ultimately prevail in either the U.S. courts or in any international forum. ... This view runs contrary to the historic position taken by the United States Government concerning such laws and, in our opinion, could adversely impact DOD interests worldwide."

Brigadier General Kevin Sandkuhler, the Marine JAG, was more specific about how adopting OLC's argument would harm the military:

Spencer Ackerman has an article out on recently released documents that give us the military's lawyer's view of U.S. interrogation policy:

The JAGs were commenting on the report of a Pentagon working group, convened in January 2003, to review interrogation policy changes. But a common theme in their memos is the concern that the legal rationales employed by the working group were imported wholesale from the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel (OLC)--whose writing on the question of torture was memorably described by Yale Law School Dean Harold Koh as "perhaps the most clearly legally erroneous opinion I have ever read." (What the Justice Department lawyers actually gave to the Defense Department remains, inexplicably, classified, despite months of congressional demands.)

Major General Thomas Romig, the Army JAG, essentially concurred. He denounced OLC's central contention--that any law restricting the president's ability to wage war is unconstitutional--writing caustically: "I question whether this theory would ultimately prevail in either the U.S. courts or in any international forum. ... This view runs contrary to the historic position taken by the United States Government concerning such laws and, in our opinion, could adversely impact DOD interests worldwide."

Brigadier General Kevin Sandkuhler, the Marine JAG, was more specific about how adopting OLC's argument would harm the military: "Comprehensive protection is lacking for DOD personnel who may be tried by other nations and/or international bodies for violations of international law."

"U.S. Armed Forces are continuously trained to take the legal and moral 'high road' in the conduct of our military operations regardless of how others may operate," wrote the Air Force's deputy JAG, Major General Jack Rives. "Approving exceptional interrogation techniques may be seen as giving official approval and legal sanction to the application of interrogation techniques that U.S. Armed Forces have heretofore been trained are unlawful." Sandkuhler starkly warned about a breakdown in uniformed "pride, discipline and self-respect."

You can see the memos themselves here and Marty Lederman has further commentary on the subject.

Th "Comprehensive protection is lacking for DOD personnel who may be tried by other nations and/or international bodies for violations of international law."

"U.S. Armed Forces are continuously trained to take the legal and moral 'high road' in the conduct of our military operations regardless of how others may operate," wrote the Air Force's deputy JAG, Major General Jack Rives. "Approving exceptional interrogation techniques may be seen as giving official approval and legal sanction to the application of interrogation techniques that U.S. Armed Forces have heretofore been trained are unlawful." Sandkuhler starkly warned about a breakdown in uniformed "pride, discipline and self-respect."

You can see the memos themselves here and Marty Lederman has further commentary on the subject.

Th. They are written by JAGs from the Air Force, Navy, Army and Marines. As Senator Graham put it on Monday, these folks "are not from the ACLU. These are not from people who are soft on terrorism, who want to coddle foreign terrorists. These are all professional military lawyers who have dedicated their lives, with 20-plus year careers, to serving the men and women in uniform and protecting their Nation. They were giving a warning shot across the bow of the policymakers that there are certain corners you cannot afford to cut because you will wind up meeting yourself."

It is fair to say that these accounts reflected sustained, uniform and passionate opposition to the OLC legal theories that were being foisted upon the military. Indeed, the tone of the memos is one of barely concealed incredulity, and outrage--disbelief--that a young legal academic from DOJ could sweep right in and so quickly overturn decades of carefully wrought military policy, using legal analysis that almost certainly would not withstand scrutiny outside the Administration and around the world. ...

Department of "Huh?" Brad DeLong
The U.S. government doesn't already offer protection to foreign diplomats in Iraq? Why not?
WSJ.com - U.S. May Offer Protection To Foreign Diplomats in Iraqe memos are extraordinary. They are written by JAGs from the Air Force, Navy, Army and Marines. As Senator Graham put it on Monday, these folks "are not from the ACLU. These are not from people who are soft on terrorism, who want to coddle foreign terrorists. These are all professional military lawyers who have dedicated their lives, with 20-plus year careers, to serving the men and women in uniform and protecting their Nation. They were giving a warning shot across the bow of the policymakers that there are certain corners you cannot afford to cut because you will wind up meeting yourself."

It is fair to say that these accounts reflected sustained, uniform and passionate opposition to the OLC legal theories that were being foisted upon the military. Indeed, the tone of the memos is one of barely concealed incredulity, and outrage--disbelief--that a young legal academic from DOJ could sweep right in and so quickly overturn decades of carefully wrought military policy, using legal analysis that almost certainly would not withstand scrutiny outside the Administration and around the world. ...

And I Say It Began In The Garden Of Eden...Our New Issue from Hullabaloo

This could be the one, folks, where we prove our bona fides to the red states:

A suburban American school board found itself in court Monday after it tried to placate Christian fundamentalist parents by placing a sticker on its science textbooks saying evolution was "a theory, not a fact."

Atlanta's Cobb County School Board, the second largest board in Georgia, added the sticker two years ago after a 2,300-strong petition attacked the presentation of "Darwinism unchallenged." Some parents wanted creationism -- the theory that God created humans as related in the Bible -- to be taught alongside evolution. The board says the stickers were motivated by a desire to establish a greater understanding of different viewpoints. "They improve the curriculum, while also promoting an attitude of tolerance for those with different religious beliefs," said Linwood Gunn, a lawyer for Cobb County schools.

The controversy began when the school board's textbook selection committee ordered $8 million worth of the science books in March 2002. Marjorie Rogers, a parent who does not believe in evolution, protested and petitioned the board to add a sticker and an insert setting out other explanations for the origins of life. "It is unconstitutional to teach only evolution," she said. "The school board must allow the teaching of both theories of origin."

Liberals bi-coastal elites once again show that they don't have proper respect for middle America by insisting that science and religion are two different subjects. Until we learn to stop condescending and quit showing this kind of contempt for heartland beliefs we will lose.

Again, I say this should be OUR issue. Let's run on a national pro-creationism ticket in 2006. Then maybe they will let us back into America. So what else is new? We are dealing with an absolutist culture that demands total capitulation or nothing. Compromise will not work and it certainly will not work on these "values" issues. (Indeed, I think it's part of what makes us look weak to some other factions who might be willing to vote for us.) This is the same old shit over and over and over again. We backed off on the death penalty, gun control, welfare, affirmative action and here we are with a new slate of issues about gays. Tomorrow it will be creationism. Until we realize that their condition is that we FULLY EMBRACE their cultural dominance in both word and deed, they will not be satisfied.

It is not enough that they be left alone to do what they choose. We must join them and do it thoroughly and with fervor. No amount of tweaking will work. Their real beef is psychological and tribal. Issues are fungible.

Let's see where this goes now. I really hate the California proposition process in the first place (it's decimated the public school system there, for one thing) but to put minority rights up for a vote? That's why we have a Bill of Rights in the first place - to protect minorities against mob rule:

SAN FRANCISCO — In a sharp rebuke to supporters of a contested state ballot measure that banned same-sex marriage, the California attorney general said Friday that the measure was constitutionally indefensible and should be overturned.

The attorney general, Jerry Brown, had previously hinted of his opposition to the measure, Proposition 8, but made his legal opinion concrete on Friday in a brief to the California Supreme Court, which is reviewing the measure. “Proposition 8 must be invalidated because the amendment process cannot be used to extinguish fundamental constitutional rights without compelling justification,” Mr. Brown said in a statement.

Opponents have argued that the proposition fundamentally altered the state Constitution by taking away the right to marry from same-sex couples, who had been free to do so since May, when the California Supreme Court legalized such marriages. Proposition 8 overturned that decision by defining marriage in California as between only men and women.

Supporters of Proposition 8 asked the court in a separate legal brief filed Friday to invalidate the approximately 18,000 same-sex weddings performed before the ban was passed.

American Civil Liberties Union: The Senate passed an unconstitutional spying bill and granted sweeping immunity to phone companies. Obama had promised to filibuster this measure. He didn't. Let's do something!

Freewayblogger: Gas pump blogging

Mugsy's Rap Sheet: High gas prices may prove to be just another tool for stealing elections.

Consortiumnews: Mukaskey is Bush's new Mr. Coverup. He acts more like a crime family consigliere than the chief law enforcement officer of the US.

Where's the Outrage? For everyone over the age of 25, we've been here before. In late 1970s, as oil prices began to skyrocket, we had a debate in this country over oil and energy independence.

Blue Jersey: More confirmation that the GOP and cohort aren't merely insensitive to overt racism when lauding Helms. It's a defining characteristic of the party.

Cynics' Party: Obama panders to religious fanatics and promises a Jesus-crazy administration. He shouldn't promising to expand the corrupt and unconstitutional Office of Faith-Based Initiatives, he should be promising to investigate their rampant cronyism and close 'em down. Our friend Pastor Dan, takes a slightly different view.

mandroppings: The Department of Homeland Security has deployed 181 'terrorism liaison officers' in Colorado to keep a watchful eye out for anyone engaging in 'suspicious activity.'

TVNews Lies: Yankee Doodle Deadly

Democurmudgeon: Atom Smasher, Black Holes, Strangelets To Swallow The World?

The Satirical Political Report: Citing his Vietnam experience, Forrest Gump announces his candidacy for President.

Go read Addiction: Buying the Cure at Passages Malibu, by frequent Crooks and Liars contributor, Mark Groubert. It's terrific.

The Washington Independent: The Bush administration has no intention of withdrawing from Iraq and is negotiating to keep troops there for years, even decades, after G-Dub leaves office.

TPM Election Central: Clinton fat cats threaten Pelosi.

Labor Notes: Is it illegal for an activist group or union to criticize a company's business practices?

MyDD: Michigan state primary law ruled unconstitutional

Angry Bear...New Century Financial...Another Enron?

HOLY CRAP: Hardball politics in the church...Christvertising...Amendment to FLA. constitution proposed to use tax dollars to fund religion...Generation Squeeb...The Fear of a Mortal Empire...Crazyass Pastor Manning bashed Obama in a "sermon" but DJ Excel remixed the churchman with hilarious results...Bill Moyers and Margaret Atwood discuss religion and the dangers of theocracy

I'm Manila Ryce from The Largest Minority and you're not. Lucky you.

Solar Power Rocks has a graph comparing the cost of research and development investments of different types of energy. Since this is an energy comparison, pretend the bar called "Iraq" is labeled "oil" with the R&D expenditures put into that energy in the form of bombs.

When they're not eating babies, that unconstitutional agency known as the FCC is working against the public interest for the benefit of the corporate media. There's precious little time to tell them to fuck off. Sorry. I mean, there's precious little time to express your opposition to media consolidation. Josh from The Seminal tells you how.

While the lesser known Democratic presidential candidates might all live together in a van down by the river, our media-appointed candidates enjoy quite lavish livings and the celebrity worship that comes with them. Moving to the White House might actually be a step down for some. Logically, the candidate with the most money is least likely to want more, right?

Pow! Bam! Zap! Bort! Once again, Tengrain proves that sodomy is infinitely more hilarious in comic book form. Prove me wrong.

Terrorism and traffic are two topics most politicians are afraid to touch. Well not Jim Gilmore. Being stuck in traffic is a challenge he's ready to address in a very boring video. Not to dwell too much on the previous link, but perhaps a little animated action would pull me out of the white noise which is Gilmore's voice. Senate2008Guru gives us a line by line critique.

Email me submissions: John (dot) William (dot) Harrison (at) Gmail (dot) com

Sen. Larry "I am not gay, I have never been gay" Craig's legal team has opted for a new tactic, given that their initial attempt to have Craig's guilty plea withdrawn was essentially laughed out of court. Now they are opting to try to invoke something that Republicans haven't seemed too concerned about in the last few years: constitutionality.

MN Star-Tribune: Sen. Larry Craig will argue before an appeals court that Minnesota's disorderly conduct law is unconstitutional as it applies to his conviction in a bathroom sex sting, according to a new court filing.

This is the first time Craig's attorneys have raised that issue. However, an earlier friend-of-the-court filing by the American Civil Liberties Union argued that Craig's foot-tapping and hand gesture under a stall divider at the Minneapolis airport are protected by the First Amendment.

Funny thing about that Free Speech argument, you never know who is going to use it...like maybe a man who described a rather crude and fumbling assignation with Craig twenty years ago, culminating in Craig taking out a twenty dollar bill and saying

‘Remember, I can buy and sell your ass ten thousand times over. You were never here. Don't try to come back here. You don't know me.'

Charming to the last, Larry.

Download | play Download | play

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas was interviewed on 60 Minutes yesterday to promote his book, My Grandfather's Son, and he had some just odd things to say about his critics. When asked why there was so much controversy about his nomination to the highest court in the land, his answer: abortion. Huh? While he is correct that there was an overriding concern amongst Democrats of the time that a conservative majority would result in the overturning of Roe v. Wade, I think it's a vast oversimplification to put the focus solely on that.

But then again, Thomas has a habit of making strange oversimplifications and assertions. As Marty Kaplan recounts:

But no less an authority than arch-conservative fellow Associate Justice Antonin Scalia told Thomas' biographer, Ken Foskett, that Thomas "doesn't believe in stare decisis, period." If you think nutcase is too strong a word to summarize that view, listen again to Scalia, as quoted in this Terry Gross interview with Jeff Toobin about his new Supreme Court book, The Nine:

TOOBIN: Clarence Thomas is not just the most conservative member of the Rehnquist court or the Roberts court. He's the most conservative justice to serve on the court since the 1930s. If you take what Thomas says seriously, if you read his opinions, particularly about issues like the scope of the federal government, he basically thinks that the entire work of the New Deal is unconstitutional. He really believes in a conception of the federal government that hasn't been supported by the justices since Franklin Roosevelt made his appointments to the court. You know, I went to a speech that Justice Scalia gave at a synagogue here in New York a couple of years ago, and someone asked him, `What's the difference between your judicial philosophy and Justice Thomas?' I thought a very good question. And Scalia talked for a while and he said, `Look, I'm a conservative. I'm a texturalist. I'm an originalist. But I'm not a nut.'

From the Center for Constitutional Rights' website:

On August 9, 2007, the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) appeared before Federal District Judge Vaughn R. Walker to argue that the NSA's program of warrantless surveillance is unconstitutional and should be struck down. The argument in CCR v. Bush comes days after Congress and the Bush administration passed the Protect America Act of 2007 which broadly expands the government's power to spy on Americans without getting court approval.

According to attorneys, there are substantial questions about whether the new law, which is temporary and due to expire in six months, is constitutional, and they will seek permission to file additional legal papers to that effect today. The law effectively removes oversight for spying from the FISA court and leaves it up to the Executive Branch to monitor itself, with Attorney General Gonzales having the primary responsibility for oversight. For that reason, CCR attorneys will argue in court today that the new law violates the Fourth Amendment's requirement that judges approve warrants for surveillance and do so only on evidence of probable cause.