From TPM, evidence that Michael Steele really has no right talking on behalf of the Republican National Committee or, in fact, any legitimate political organization that has any sense at all.

"The McChrystal incident, to me, was very comical. And I think it's a reflection of the frustration that a lot of our military leaders have with this Administration and their prosecution of the war in Afghanistan," said Steele. "Keep in mind again, federal candidates, this was a war of Obama's choosing. This is not something the United States had actively prosecuted or wanted to engage in."

Really?? Where was this guy in October 2001? Or for that matter, was he awake at any point in time between2001 and the end of 200? Really love this line also:

"Well, if [Obama is] such a student of history, has he not understood that you know that's the one thing you don't do, is engage in a land war in Afghanistan? All right, because everyone who has tried, over a thousand years of history, has failed. And there are reasons for that."

It's "never get involved in a land war in ASIA," asshole, a reference to Southeast Asia, not Central Asia. And is he seriously suggesting that the Republican position is to have our troops leave Afghanistan? as Obama's proposing to do starting in 2011? Michael Steele's spokesman later explained that Steele has also missed the numerous times where Obama has explained his strategy for Afghanistan. But hey, keep this good man at his post in the RNC. By the Republican politicians' silence, that must mean they endorse his idiotic comments. And that goes to show, once again, that the Republicans have absolutely no credibility discussing national security issues.

DOWNLOADS: (1561)

PLAYS: (1362)

Embed

Another day and another Republican jackass trying to smear President Obama and his administration on issues of our national security. The newest member of the Peter King Fan Club style is Republican asswipe Congressman Mike Rogers from Michigan, who wrote an op-ed in the NY (f'n) Post yesterday where he attacked Eric Holder for doing the job he's actually supposed to be doing after the NYC bombing failed. Holder is the Attorney General and prosecution is his game, right? We have laws and he follows them, even if jerks like Rogers want to disregard the Constitution and our legal system. Faisal Shahzad is an American citizen.

I caught Rogers on MSNBC earlier in the morning Thursday talking to Monica Novotny early in the 7am hour PDT, and he couldn't even articulate what he wrote in Murdoch's rag. Novotny tries to understand what he's saying and gets to the heart of it.

Novotny: Meanwhile, you've written an op-ed for the NY Post in which you say that Attorney General Eric Holder, that he's just too focused on gathering evidence for a court case going forward as opposed to what you say he should be doing, gathering intelligence to prevent future attacks.

Rogers: Absolutely, when you shift to a law enforcement centered rather than a counter terrorism centered approach to this, it has restrictions and it has consequences. We can talk about all the great thing our investigators are doing after the fact, but the problem is that when you go to a law enforcement approach somebody has to commit the crime first in order for them to be successful first.

Novotny: But the fact is Congressman, that this has happened already so don't they essentially have to wear two hats at the same time because while we want to gain as much intelligence on potential future attacks, we also don't want this guy walking free either.

...

Rogers: You don't want to get this guy when he's getting on the plane to Pakistan after he's left the bomb, you want to get him on the plane from Pakistan when he's on the way to the United States. Huge difference.

Novotny: You say that the government's role should be in prevention then, but do you believe they really aren't doing everything they can to prevent these attacks?

Rogers: I do know this. This administration have made changes that mean some collection activities that we used to do we no longer do and those are classified, but they've suspended certain collection activities. When you do that and they're doing as this notion of a law enforcement centered approach, when you do that you have consequences...

Novotny: You say they are gathering less intelligence and they've made choices to do that.

Rogers: I do think there are some gaps in there that I would love to fill back in so our intelligence can do what it does best.

Rogers is telling the world that the Obama administration is making a concerted effort to gather less intelligence to stop attacks which means the president doesn't care if we get hit again because he's just interested in putting them away. He cites the Ft. Hood shootings, underwear man and Path Finder bomber as his evidence that Obama just doesn't care. What a sad sack of a politician. That was the heart at what Novotny was getting at. Bush would go on TV telling the world of how many attacks he had thwarted. So WTF is he yapping on about?

Rogers said that the Obama administration had made serious changes in the way America collects intelligence on terrorists, but he didn't know what they were because they were classified. Huh? Top Secret, like very hush-hush. Is he trying to leak secrets to the media about the way we go about gathering intelligence?

Here's his moronic piece.

He almost made Rep. Peter King look somewhat coherent. Almost.

Here's a link to his email so if you have the chance, send him your thoughts.

Above the Law: Elena Kagen and Me: One semester of Civil Procedure with the new SCOTUS nominee

Grist: Political fallout from the Gulf oil spill: Hill hearings, climate-bill questions, MMS reorganizing

Miller-McCune Online: Unconscious bias amplifies anti-Obama rhetoric

A Tiny Revolution: Seymour Hersh describes "battlefield executions" by U.S. in Afghanistan

Legal Schnauzer: Insider on Siegelman prosecution fears for his life

Apoliticus: Top 10 Craziest Election Results

Alan Colmes' Liberaland: No one in this post was raped

Dissident Voice: How Ronald Reagan and Alan Greenspan pulled off the greatest fraud ever perpetrated against the American people

The Omnipotent Poobah Speaks: Bryan Fischer: Backward Christian Soldier

Crooked Timber: Nobody knows the trouble they've seen

Oliver Willis: Reagan Solicitor General: Health Care lawsuits are crap

TalkLeft: Prosecution files evidentiary submission against Rod Blagojevitch

DOWNLOADS: (1394)

PLAYS: (2788)

Embed

(h/t Heather)

Conservatives like Rudy Giuliani can change their views in a blink of an eye and act like WATB in the process. Anytime there's some Obama bashing to be done, conservatives happily join in even when they look like fools. Rudy, who was called as a witness in the trial of Moussaoui and applauded the America legal system now says that putting KSM on trial in New York is a really, really bad idea? Why? Well, because Rudy says so.

Here's what Rudy said after he testified in the 2006 trial.

"At the same time, I was in awe of our system," the former mayor continued. "It does demonstrate that we can give people a fair trial, that we are exactly what we say we are. We are a nation of law. . . . I think he's going to be a symbol of American justice."

I guess America doesn't need anymore shining examples of our justice system, right Rudy?

Chris Wallace puts up Giuliani's statements about the other WTC bombing trial which refute him, but Rudy dismissed his own views with nonsense.

Wallace:I want to take you back to what you said after the prosecution of the 1993 World Trade Center bombers. You said this, “I think it shows you put terrorism on one side, you put our legal system on the other, and our legal system comes out ahead.”

And after the 2006 trial of the so-called 20th hijacker, Zacarias Moussaoui, you said, “It shows that we can give people a fair trial, that we are exactly what we say we are. We are a nation of war (sic).” Respectfully, Mayor, you supported civilian trials for terrorists then.

GIULIANI: And if there’s no other alternative, I support civilian trials for terrorists. The reality is there is another alternative here. And this administration has created tribunals. At least five, possibly more, terrorists are going to be tried in those tribunals.

If there was no other choice, again, Chris, I support this. If there was no other choice and they had to be tried in New York, of course they should be tried in New York. But the reality is there is another choice. It is a better choice for the government. This choice of New York is a better choice for the terrorists. Why would you seek to give the terrorists a better choice than you’re giving the -- than you’re giving the public?

His decision to be against the KSM trial is because there were other alternatives? That is idiotic at best. Jack Reed came on the show right after Rudy and denounced Rudy's talking points in their entirety.

DOWNLOADS: (512)

PLAYS: (2790)

Embed

REED: Well, as you pointed out, in 2006, Moussaoui, the 20th hijacker, under the Bush administration was tried in a federal court in Alexandria, Virginia. Mayor Giuliani was one who testified in the penalty phase and he, as you indicated, claimed this was a symbol of American justice, as he said in 1993.

But this was not 1993. This was 2006. The alternative existed for a military tribunal then. The Bush administration decided to make the case in federal court. They succeeded. A hundred and ninety or so terrorists have been convicted in federal courts, only a handful -- less than 10 -- in tribunals.

There are 200 individuals serving time in federal facilities now for their terrorist crimes. So what was a statesmanlike decision by the Bush administration can’t be a political decision by this administration.

If a conservative does it, then it's awesome!

This is heartening news, and goes a long way toward breaking the culture of fear by bringing these men into our midst. Yes, I assume the security will have to be stringent, but there's something to be said for bringing this trial home:

Khalid Sheik Mohammed -- the self-proclaimed mastermind of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks -- and four co-defendants will be tried in federal court in New York instead of a military commission, a federal official said early Friday.

Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, accused of orchestrating th e bombing of the USS Cole when it was docked off the coast of Yemen in 2000, will be tried at a military commission, said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the decisions have not yet been formally announced by the Justice Department.

The long-awaited decisions on prosecution, part of President Obama's quest to close the military detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, do not affect the vast majority of the 215 prisoners held at the prison. The decisions come on the same day that White House counsel Gregory B. Craig, a key manager of Obama's Guantanamo Bay policy, is expected to announce his resignation.

[...] "I am absolutely convinced that Khalid Sheik Mohammed will be subject to the most exacting demands of justice," Obama said. "The American people insist on it, and my administration will insist on it."

DOWNLOADS: (3216)

PLAYS: (3142)

Embed

(h/t Heather)

The Villagers were up in arms Sunday morning over on the set of ABC's This Week about the possibility that Eric Holder might appoint a special someone to look into the Bush/Cheney torture practices. Watch in awe and see how the Villagers feel about trying to get accountability from the Bush years.

Why, an investigation would just trash the place. Oh, the bitterness in D.C. would be too much to handle, all because those other people (that is, non-Villagers) would like to get to the truth.

Bob Woodward, who's trying to be the next David Broder by living off his long-degraded rep as the man who uncovered Watergate, wonders how we will ever be able to keep secrets again if there is some inspection. Um, isn't that what the Bob Woodwardses are supposed to do? Uncover stuff? Nope, not anymore. He's appalled that there might be a frakking investigation.

And he was all a-giggle with the thought that the CIA could actually lie. What a joke. I didn't hear him open his mouth when Newt Gingrich went all whiggy on Nancy Pelosi.

Cokie goes "Cokie" on us for a while and then after much trepidation comes down on the rule of law. Good for her, but she better take some R&R if it happens.

ROBERTS: I must say, I have very mixed minds about this. Because on the one hand, the whole idea of a prosecution gets Washington into that kind of horrible slog where everybody hates each other and the poison just gets very thick.

DONALDSON: Unlike at the moment, right?

ROBERTS: Well, no, it hasn’t been as bad lately as it was in the last 16 years.

STEPHANOPOULOS: And it seems like they’re trying to avoid at least in the design of this, criminalizing of policy.

ROBERTS: And just the whole atmosphere of getting that way again. On the other hand, the rule of law is terribly important. And we have to have it -- you know, we cannot operate in this country without the rule of law.

DONALDSON: So which hand do you come down on?

ROBERTS: I’d probably come down on the rule of law.

Digby writes much more:

Stephanopoulos reported on This Week that the possible Holder investigation is going to be very narrow and will not pursue policy makers or anyone who took orders directly from the policymakers. He's going after "rogue interrogators" who inflicted more torture than was strictly allowed.

The Village roundtable all gasped in horror anyway because who knows where such an investigation might lead and as Cokie complained, it would mean that the whole town would be mad at each other again and nobody wants that! "Everybody hates each other and the poison gets very thick." She did finally come down on the side of following the rule of law even though it would make her uncomfortable at cocktail parties, but it was a close thing.

Bob Woodward was very upset at the idea that the government can't keep secrets because "we need them!" Besides, Holder shouldn't be like Janet Reno and just initiate investigations willy nilly. (He seems to think that Reno authorizing independent counsels to investigate her own president for trivial political reasons is the same thing as investigating whether the previous administration tortured prisoners.) They all chuckled at the notion that Holder was really independent and if he is, that means he's a rogue interrogator himself.

George Will thought it was all just a bunch of balderdash because nothing bad ever happened during the Bush administration. Sam Donaldson said that reporters should probably pursue stories and Donna Brazile added that these things were coming out anyway so they might as well be investigated.

They all snorted and giggled and laughed throughout the whole segment about how silly it was to be upset that the CIA lied because well, that's what it does. And they all thought it was a ripping good joke that Cheney kept everything secret because well, everyone knows that's what he does. Hahahahaha.

Full transcript below the fold.

Continue reading »

Spencer was at a Senate hearing and this is very disturbing.

Defense Department General Counsel Jeh Johnson moved the Obama administration into new territory from a civil liberties perspective. Asked by Sen. Mel Martinez (R-Fla.) the politically difficult but entirely fair question about whether terrorism detainees acquitted in courts could be released in the United States, Johnson said that “as a matter of legal authority,” the administration’s powers to detain someone under the law of war don’t expire for a detainee after he’s acquitted in court. “If you have authority under the law of war to detain someone” under the Supreme Court’s Hamdi ruling, “that is true irrespective of what happens on the prosecution side.”

Martinez looked surprised. “So the prosecution is moot?” he asked.

“No, no, not in my judgment,” Johnson said. But the scenario he outlined strongly suggested it is. If an administration review panel “determines this person is a security threat” and “for some reason is not convicted of a lengthy prison sentence, I think we have the authority to continue to detain someone” under “law of war authority” as granted by the September 2001 Authorization to Use Military Force, Johnson said. And beyond that source of authority “we have the authority in the first place.” I’m no lawyer, but that sounds a lot like Johnson is claiming inherent presidential authority from the Constitution to detain someone after he’s been acquitted in court if the president believes that person to be a security threat. [Update: I think I'm wrong about that. Johnson is claiming authority from the law-of-war construct for such detentions, and that doesn't stem from any constitutional interpretation of inherent power. Apologies.]

Oh, and Johnson also suggested that the U.S. detention facility at Guantanamo Bay might remain open after January 2010, since “you can’t prosecute some significant subset of 220 people before January.” He said the administration will continue to detain some of those Guantanamo detainees, “whether at Guantanamo or somewhere else.”

Glenn Greenwald has much more about the "Unjustice system."

Oopsie, I guess we really can't count this as a mark for "out of the mouth of babes", but Liz Cheney, perhaps inadvertently, admitted that part of the reason we've seen Dick Cheney more in the last two months than we did in the eight years of the Bush administration is that he is very nervous that there will be investigations and prosecutions in his future:

(M)any in the media have asked why Cheney — someone who had avoided the media at all costs during his eight years as vice president — would be airing his opinions in such a forceful and public way. Indeed, Cheney himself has answered this question, claiming he is speaking out because he believes that torture and other Bush administration anti-terror policies — many of which Obama is abandoning — were “exactly the right thing to do” and that “there isn’t anybody there on the other side to tell the truth.”

In turn, media figures have answered the question in much the same way. “I think he genuinely believes we are threatened now more because of what Obama is doing,” MSNBC’s Pat Buchanan has said. CNN’s David Gergen said, “I think Dick Cheney almost has a Churchillian view of this, and that is somebody has got to stand up and be the voice in the wilderness.” But while the narrative of Cheney’s motives focuses mainly on the righteous, it has all but ignored the selfish — that Cheney is trying to muddle the public debate with the goal of reducing public support for a criminal inquiry into the torture regime that he authorized.

Last night on CNN, however, Cheney’s daughter Liz revealed that fear of prosecution is indeed a motivating factor in the former vice president’s current media campaign:

L. CHENEY: I don’t think he planned to be doing this, you know, when they left office in January. But I think, as it became clear that President Obama was not only going to be stopping some of these policies, that he was going to be doing things like releasing the — the techniques themselves, so that the terrorists could now train to them, that he was suggesting that perhaps we would even be prosecuting former members of the Bush administration.

Sad that this "Get Daddy Out Of Jail Free" ploy seems to have all the news outlets lapping it up with nary a word on what the motives might be for a former Vice President to break with protocol and criticize a sitting President (and by doing so, implicitly admitting that Cheney--not Bush--was in charge). Can you imagine how the right wing noise machine would have gone into overdrive if Clinton had started criticizing Bush for not taking the al Qaeda threat seriously at the beginning of his presidency? By all reports, that's what happened. Richard Clarke was demoted, his reports ignored, and then 9/11 happened on their watch. And now terrorism has increased worldwide four-fold. However, even with this miserable track record (kept from the public by these media outlets eager for a Cheney appearance), Cheney thinks his opinion has any value to the discussion?

Heather has put up the larger Anderson Cooper interview at VideoCafe.

Steve Benen wonders if there isn't a more pecuniary motive to Cheney's sudden appearances (twelve in nine and a half days over four networks). Of course, Liz Cheney may also be trying to establish herself as a credible candidate in 2012 too:

The hottest Republican property out there isn't former Vice President Dick Cheney but his daughter Liz, who has taken to the airwaves to defend her dad and the whole Bush administration on national security and Guantánamo Bay issues. Liz Cheney, who followed the former veep's hard-hitting speech criticizing President Obama's policies with a CNN appearance, is becoming so popular in conservative circles that some want her to run for office. "She's awesome. Everyone wants her to run," said a close friend.

Aside from a few high-profile issues, most Supreme Court decisions are read into the casebooks without public notice. We've gone almost four full years since Bush restaffed the court with Alito and Roberts, yet there has been little examination of their impact on jurisprudence.

That's changing. As the fight over Obama's first appointment picks up and attention turns to the future of the Court, we can expect examination of the Court's present. Jeff Toobin gets the ball rolling, noting that its Chief Justice is a wingnut:

The kind of humility that Roberts favors reflects a view that the Court should almost always defer to the existing power relationships in society. In every major case since he became the nation’s seventeenth Chief Justice, Roberts has sided with the prosecution over the defendant, the state over the condemned, the executive branch over the legislative, and the corporate defendant over the individual plaintiff. Even more than Scalia, who has embodied judicial conservatism during a generation of service on the Supreme Court, Roberts has served the interests, and reflected the values, of the contemporary Republican Party.

The article is a great foundation for understanding the stakes with this nomination.