Skip to main content

Markos links to ReddHedd's post on John Yoo where she says:

The WaPo has a lengthy profile of Berkeley Law Professor and architect of the Bush Administration's legal vision of absolute authority, John Yoo. In it, Yoo defends his legal interpretations by saying you can't judge him or his scholarship based on the results of his legal advice, but merely on the validity of his legal interpretation of black letter law.

Unfortunately for Mr. Yoo, he fails on multiple counts. Not the least of which because he failed to follow the cardinal rule of lawyering: present all sides of the issue, not just the ones your client wants to hear -- because it is the bad news that can be the most important thing in decision-making in any enterprise.

ReddHedd is entirely too kind to Yoo. Why? Because while Yoo may truly believe the Constitution should provide for unfettered power of the President acting as Commander in Chief, he is not a stupid man. He knows the Constitution does not provide such power to the President. It really is not a debatable point. Yoo was a lawyer with a conclusion seeking a justification. In short, a Legal Realist. That his lawyering was used to serve a theory repugnant to one of the central tenets of our government - that of a separation of power to provide checks and balances to the federal government - is precisely what one would expect from the likes of a Yoo, a Roberts, a ScAlito.

The most disappointment I have suffered in the legal mumbo jumbo surrounding these almost obscene defenses of Bush's trampling of the Constitution results from the inexplicable statements of Professor Cass Sunstein, who has twisted logic, facts, history and legal reasoning not only to defend the indefensible but to do it in horrendous fashion. Hell, Yoo is incredibly subtle and clever compared to the gross mistakes committed by Sunstein. And my question is WTF is up with that?

Originally posted to Armando on Mon Dec 26, 2005 at 04:54 PM PST.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  or, as we say up 'heah in (4.00)
    Cowhampsha ...

    Moo Yoo !

    "Rovus Vulgaris Americanus" nasty soon-to-be-indicted co-conspirator. -7.63, -9.59

    by shpilk on Mon Dec 26, 2005 at 04:54:29 PM PST

    •  we can say it in Wisconsin too! (4.00)
      Moo EWE!

      Seriously, his contention that we "cannot judge him" is really funny!  Once something or someone becomes public, the public has EVERY RIGHT to make judgments.

      Sounds like EWE is not used to criticism.  He wants an all-powerful executive (and perpetual conservativism!) with the rest of us to be simple peons, just lapping up the pablum.  That he is responding to the criticism indicates it is getting to him.

      He may be ensconced in a Law School.  But he's been "outed" by his own writings and now will have to live with them - and our criticism of him and them - for the rest of life!

      Likely he was hoping he'd be promoted up to the SCOTUS, like his mentor, Thomas.  And he can probably sense now that his time will never come!

  •  oh, and the legal cases cited are more (4.00)
    like Harry Houdini's escape routine, rather than based upon established case law.

    "Rovus Vulgaris Americanus" nasty soon-to-be-indicted co-conspirator. -7.63, -9.59

    by shpilk on Mon Dec 26, 2005 at 04:56:23 PM PST

    •  Yeah, but we know they don't (4.00)
      give a shit about stare decisis.

      I AM paying attention, and I am so fucking outraged I can't see straight. Besides, TORTURE and ILLEGAL SPYING ON AMERICANS are not family values!

      by caseynm on Mon Dec 26, 2005 at 05:47:31 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Analogies are good (4.00)
      I like the one you used.  An escape route, trickery, illusions, etc.

      Analogies are good - especially right now, and especially when dealing with technicalities, legal issues, etc.  It helps people connect with the concepts at hand, because we already know that most will not take the time to understand the details.

      I've seen more analogies and metaphors used on the floor of the House and Senate lately.  Not only that, we've even seen parody and poetry.  It will get reported more by our lazy media.  This is what it's going to take to get the point across to more people.  It's a great educational tool.  Not only is it "in your face" but it grabs attention in an "information overload" world.

      "Let him that would move the world first move himself." --Socrates

      by joanneleon on Mon Dec 26, 2005 at 06:26:18 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Pretty arcane (4.00)
    I know, but geeky lawyers like me care.

    The SCOTUS is extraordinary.

    by Armando on Mon Dec 26, 2005 at 04:59:36 PM PST

    •  Actually not so arcane. (4.00)
      There may be legal subtleties here I miss, but there's an intellectual honesty issue that transcends the law.  As you say, he had a conclusion and went looking for the argument.  I'm a sociologist - we're not supposed to do that.  People in other academic disciplines aren't, either.  I suspect that it's the same for a lot of professions, that there's a basic expectation that you be at least minimally open to conclusions that you don't like, that the outcome of your work not be predetermined by your political or personal or other desires.  And it says a lot about this administration that they embrace this strategy (maybe it doesn't say anything we don't have ample evidence of already, but another data point is always useful, right?).
      •  I'm a psychologist and we too are cautious (4.00)
        Our watchword is to stay within the bounds of acceptable professional practice.  And when confronted with an ethical quandry we seek consultation - widely if necessary.

        And yes, when coming to a conclusion, you need a variety of different pieces of confirmatory data - not simply make it up as you go along.

        Imagine if a "diagnosis" was simply what the professional wanted it to be and the facts were fixed around the desired end result.

        That this man is complaining about our complaints about him boggles the mind!  

        •  Your analogy nails it. (4.00)

           You write:

          "Imagine if a "diagnosis" was simply what the professional wanted it to be and the facts were fixed around the desired end result."

           That's Yoo "to a T".

          I write essentially the same thing below, but coming from a legal standpoint.  But your analogy is very easy to understand and underscores the vacuousness and cynicism and disingenuiness of Yoo's "scholarship."  

          BenGoshi
          ___________________

          . . . religion is not a syllogism, but a poem. H.L. Mencken

          by BenGoshi on Mon Dec 26, 2005 at 06:32:41 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Umm (4.00)
          Imagine if a "diagnosis" was simply what the professional wanted it to be and the facts were fixed around the desired end result.

          Isn't that what Frist did with the Shiavo case?

          Bush - the ultimate example of the Peter Principle.

          by PatsBard on Mon Dec 26, 2005 at 06:53:09 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Possibly the only exception... (none)
          Is computer programming, where you do this in reverse. (Find the result, then design the program to create it.)

          Don't ask me how that's relevant, but there you have it.

          The Shapeshifter's Blog -- Politics, Philosophy, and Madness!

          by Shapeshifter on Mon Dec 26, 2005 at 08:05:41 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  I Disagree (4.00)
      I disagree with your statement.  If you'd substitute "intellectually honest" for "geeky" then I'd agree. :)

      Or, maybe you're right and intellectual honesty and fidelity to the Constitution has fallen into the "geeky" camp, or perhaps it's even "elitist."  

      •  Geek = Elitist = Right-wing frame (4.00)
        Don't fall for it.

        Come see TV from the reality-based community at RealityBasedTV.com

        by MarkInSanFran on Mon Dec 26, 2005 at 07:22:25 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Elitists (none)
          with brown bag lunches.  

          I'd trust a geek before a politician, or many other professionals, anyday.

          "Let him that would move the world first move himself." --Socrates

          by joanneleon on Mon Dec 26, 2005 at 08:06:00 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Geeks maybe... (none)
            ... but those nerds.. you've gotta watch them like a hawk.  

            :)  Just kidding.  

            In my pantheon of people that I "trust", geeks are pretty high up there, since they are probably masters or in the process of mastering some area of knowledge.  I may not agree with them, but I won't often question their honesty about an area they know, if only because destroying their intellectual credibility in that area would harm a large chunk of their personal identity.

            People who rigorously follow some version of the scientific method (which is, in theory, applied in an abstract way to legal though: legal theory to evidence or precedent to legal conclusion, to paraphrase) have moved a long way to credibility in my mind.  But the ability to fix evidence (broadly speaking) around a pre-determined outcome by very clever people who act in bad faith serves as a warning not to accept declarations blindly.

            (in other news, my meaningless rambling quotient is very, very high tonight... sigh..)

            You can never ask too many questions.

            by socratic on Mon Dec 26, 2005 at 10:00:59 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

  •  John Yoo - Law Talkin' Guy (4.00)
    Plenary C-in-C powers or your pizza's free!

    Image hosted by Photobucket.com

    Works on contingency?  No!  Money down!

  •  The "national security" exemption (3.95)
    It's been used to justify everything from extraordinary rendition to flouting the FISA statute to lying about Iraq.

    It reminds me of the old Soviet constitution, which guaranteed its citizens all kinds of rights but contained a catch-all provision making those rights subject to the exigent needs of the state.

    •  "The Constitution is not a Suicide Pact" (3.93)
      Funny that when we faced thermonuclear war with the Soviet Union, the measures BushCo finds necessary were still unconstitutional.

      Just the biggest group of bullshitters ever.

      The SCOTUS is extraordinary.

      by Armando on Mon Dec 26, 2005 at 05:08:43 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Did Bush Say It's To Fight Terrorism? (4.00)
        He meant, it's to keep our children safe. Bad people want to hurt our children. Therefore, anything goes (including that Liberal Plot, the Bill of Rights).

        Fox News is a propaganda outlet of the Republican Party - DNC Chair Howard Dean

        by easong on Mon Dec 26, 2005 at 05:20:41 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  easong (4.00)
          "Won't someone think of the children?"

          There is nothing more stimulating than a case where everything goes against you. -- Sherlock Holmes

          by Carnacki on Mon Dec 26, 2005 at 05:50:44 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  When is this country going to grow up? (4.00)
          I keep waiting for the average American to see the dissonance, the hypocrisy, and grow up.  Grow up, start thinking and stop allowing the blatant lies and abuse of power.

          I no longer think it's about waking up.  I think it's about growing up.  Thus, I am even more concerned.

          It's not about being fooled anymore.  It may have been true before, but not anymore.  Gullibility isn't forgiveable after 5 years.  Now it's about allowing oneself to be fooled because the alternative is too uncomfortable.  Now it's about allowing our ourselves to be abused.

          "Let him that would move the world first move himself." --Socrates

          by joanneleon on Mon Dec 26, 2005 at 06:18:36 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Good Question! (4.00)
            Why is it that so many people have sentenced themselves to live without minds, without thinking, without making decisons themselves?

            I often wonder if fundamentalism (and this is reaching deeply into many, many denominations where the conservatives are trying to enforce what they call "orthodoxy")  - so to back up - I often wonder if fundamentalism has led people to stop thinking.  The bible tells you so - but the "orthodox" are in the know.  

            The other thing that may be contributing to this is the number of people who have to work two jobs just to keep body and soul together.  Just like fundamentalism this fits perfectly with the conservative (neo-con really) agenda.  Keep people poor and so busy, so needy, that they have no time to think about larger issues and simply accept the pablum doled out by the latest talking-points robots.

            It's not enough to blame people for not growing up.  We need to really wonder what's going on.  How can you have a democratic republic, where citizens act in their own best interests, if you teach them intelligent design instead of science, keep them from having good healthcare, set the economic priorities so that those on the bottom have no time to think and have nothing but work to do, just to get along?  Keep them happy at the malls.  Get them to run up debt but have no bankruptcy.

            I could go on and on.  But I keep wondering how the current policies are affecting the lives of people to the point where thinking is such a luxury only some of us have the time for it.

          •  it's not just the US .. it's the whole planet (none)
            .. and if we don't grow up fast, we may not get out of the 'terrible twos'.

            That is where the whole world is, right now.
            It isn't just Bush and our little problems here in the USA.

            Just like a two year old that wants everything, right now. Does not understand limits and throws temper tantrums.

            We as a species fail pre-school:

            • we fail to 'paly reasonably with others
            • refuse to share
            • the way we handle industrial waste and pollution, we even fail potty training

            Truly, this American 'disease' is just a reflection of yet a bigger problem.

            "Rovus Vulgaris Americanus" nasty soon-to-be-indicted co-conspirator. -7.63, -9.59

            by shpilk on Mon Dec 26, 2005 at 10:10:07 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  Is it just me, (none)
        or is "the Constitution is not a suicide pact" the biggest bullshit line ever to show up in a Supreme Court decision?

        I would think that the Supreme Court would be familiar with the process for ammending the Constitution, and the purposes this process was intended for.

        congratulations on your foreskin -- osteriser

        by bartman on Mon Dec 26, 2005 at 09:36:54 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Especially since (none)
          It is not the government's job to protect us from within. That's our job. It's why we are supposed to have "well formed militias". It's why we have guns.

          Down here in Texas when a Republican tries to use that "Well, don't hold the constitution over my head when there are terrorists on the loose" I say back "If any terrorist tries to do jack shit in this state, there are gonna be several million people with guns on the streets ready to kick some ass. What the hell are you so afraid of?"

    •  911 used for tax cuts, call GWB critics terrorists (4.00)
      ... grease through pet agendas for cronies, bury admin-fluffing having nothing to do with nat'l security, have Terra Ops etc. etc.
      .
      GWB abused exec power to circumvent oversight. It's demonstrably made people LESS safe (eg, GWB's eek-eek campaign stumps sucked homeland security & first responder dollars at the local level, which the GOP never paid back.) The War on Whatever? It's like the cola wars or burger wars.
      .

      Treason's Greetings, Karl Rove (DOB Xmas Day, 1950), the grinch who stole freedom.

      by Peanut on Mon Dec 26, 2005 at 05:30:40 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Homeland Security- what happened to that? (4.00)
        Agree with your statements.

        About homeland security:  Shouldn't that be our top priority if we indeed are so worried about terrorism and preventing another 9/11?

        To me, this has to be an issue that shows even the most poorly informed average American that something's wrong with this picture.  There has been little or no progress made with Homeland Security.  

        If Bush's top priority is protecting the American people from terrorism, why is Homeland Security such a low priority?  Why would he tolerate such low performance from this specially created department?  It's so obvious that it's a slap in the face.  Don't know why this isn't keeping people up at night if they are fearful of terrorists.  

        Oh that's right, we have to fight them over there, so we don't have to fight them over here.  Gee, how's that going for us?

        "Let him that would move the world first move himself." --Socrates

        by joanneleon on Mon Dec 26, 2005 at 06:07:37 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  yay (none)
    another fuggin scapegoat
  •  Yoo (4.00)
    can be a model citizen of North Korea.


    If a cow laughed, would milk come out her nose?

    by sheep in wolf clothing on Mon Dec 26, 2005 at 05:30:23 PM PST

  •  He's a "Strict Constructionist" (4.00)

     That is, he constructs all legal opinions, the Constitution, doctrine, statutes, legislative history, &etc. around his pre-conceived and pre-ordained opinion that, in sum, may be stated thusly:

     1.  More -- ever, ever, ever more -- power to Bush.

     2.  The people are proles with, in the end, no civil rights to speak of.

     3.  Bush is the State.

     4.  Bill of Rights?  What Bill of Rights?

     5.  When no Constitutional authority or precedent exists, make up some shit.

    BenGoshi
    __________________

    . . . religion is not a syllogism, but a poem. H.L. Mencken

    by BenGoshi on Mon Dec 26, 2005 at 05:30:41 PM PST

    •  You're on a roll today BG :) n/t (none)

      "Let him that would move the world first move himself." --Socrates

      by joanneleon on Mon Dec 26, 2005 at 06:47:10 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  You're a witness to my . . . (4.00)

         . . . procrastination.  

         Actually, in between snarky comments I've been working on "a deal" with a Central American country.  Really.  I'll give it a 1-in-5 chance of success, but nothing ventured...

         Then I've got a very nasty letter to send to one of my "brothers at the bar" tomorrow, that could have been drafted today but those kinds of things always make my stomach knot up.  And, when I say "very nasty," I mean it will be very polite and professional but, in a polite and professional and very cordial way, rip him a new one.  Selah.

         And I've got to sort through photos for and exhibition I'm trying to pull together (let's give that one a 1-in-3 shot); meeting with the guy that's going to likely "make or break" that sometime tomorrow afternoon.  And a letter to the USDA Civil Rights Division that has to go out this week.  That's no real biggee.  And a few other projects.  And Friday's shot due to a seminar I've got to attend.  Complain, complain.  

         Oh, and have to clean up the house and have company coming over tomorrow and a lunch appointment tomorrow that has to be prepped for.  Do I have an ironed shirt?

         That's just the stuff I remember.

         BenNeedingToCallItANightGoshi
        __________________

        . . . religion is not a syllogism, but a poem. H.L. Mencken

        by BenGoshi on Mon Dec 26, 2005 at 06:55:38 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Boo Yoo! (none)
    sorry, couldn't resist.

    Fear will keep the local systems in line. -Grand Moff Tarkin Survivor Left Blogistan

    by boran2 on Mon Dec 26, 2005 at 05:34:25 PM PST

  •  DKos auction marquee item to rake in megabux (none)
    Armando will have lunch with Yoo.

    (Highest bidder gets to sit in hearing range at next table.)
    .

    Treason's Greetings, Karl Rove (DOB Xmas Day, 1950), the grinch who stole freedom.

    by Peanut on Mon Dec 26, 2005 at 05:35:39 PM PST

    •  Torturing Yoo (4.00)
      would be on the menu.

      The SCOTUS is extraordinary.

      by Armando on Mon Dec 26, 2005 at 06:11:48 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Now that you bring that up (4.00)
        it has honestly occurred to me that all those who advocate torture should have a try at it!  If they still believe in it after they've had a near-death experience due to near organ failure, then we talk more about that.

        If they do like it, I for one have a diagnosis!

        •  You assume they have organs! (none)
          Hell, I'd be content with hiring someone to angrily recite the Golden Rule at them 24/7.  Failing that, convince some retiring senator to introduce the Taking the High Road Act of 2006 as a stunt: We the People of the United States want to be a beacon of hope in the world, so we will not not not ever ever ever engage in actions that are just mean and despicable (especially ones that are not known to be particularly effective at getting usefulhonest outcomes).

          I want my American spirit, dream, and identity back from these people who are using it as a bumper-rag.

          You can never ask too many questions.

          by socratic on Mon Dec 26, 2005 at 10:08:17 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  The Constitution (4.00)
      (for what it's worth these days) forbids cruel and unusual punishments--even for Armando.  As usual with Constitutional Law we have to balance things: Your desire to be a fly on the wall vs. Armando's self control and likely deep annoyance vs. the possibility of the Manslaughter by verbal attack on Yoo.

      Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on or by imbeciles who really mean it. - Mark Twain

      by Rolfyboy6 on Mon Dec 26, 2005 at 06:17:36 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Couldn't we just eavesdrop? n/t (none)

        "Let him that would move the world first move himself." --Socrates

        by joanneleon on Mon Dec 26, 2005 at 06:51:15 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  You'll have to get a (4.00)
          Warrant.  Hmmm, let's see what can we allege under tha law and have sufficient surrounding evidence and circumstances that a warrant would issue?  What would the affidavit to be presented to the magistrate say?  C'mon guys, you can do it!

          Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on or by imbeciles who really mean it. - Mark Twain

          by Rolfyboy6 on Mon Dec 26, 2005 at 07:18:58 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  Peanut (4.00)
      What do ya mean "hearing range at the next table"? I have a feeling you could hear the conversation while sitting in an parked car with the radio on. :)
  •  You Armando! (4.00)
    Can I take you  out to dinner.......LOL! Saw you on the auction block. What a prize. It would be a gas to converse with you, albiet intimidating. What if I slurped! Ha!

    And I agree WTF. I see these folks are  expanding and shrinking  constitutional powers to on a whim.  Or perhaps a partisan agenda. Hmmm! Idiots!

    inspire change...don't back down

    by missliberties on Mon Dec 26, 2005 at 05:36:14 PM PST

    •  I'm buying (none)
      The lunch is on me.

      The SCOTUS is extraordinary.

      by Armando on Mon Dec 26, 2005 at 06:11:15 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Well, it should be on you (none)
        if you are being auctioned.  The only issue would be would I need Tums before or after the meal (I'm kidding).

        I'm beginning to wonder if they are dragging out the "war" so they can keep trying to cover themselves with their completely invented doctrine of the unrestricted power of the Commander in Chief.  You know if we ever leave Iraq or Afghanistan, they don't get to play this game anymore.  I believe that in late 2001 or early 2002, the cloak of vast and unlimited powers given by the President's alleged power as a Commander in Chief looked all shiny and new to them, and sellable. Not in a Court, of course, but anywhere but a court. However, four years later, it is bullet-ridden and falling apart each time it is scrutinized by a Court.

        They knew when they started this it wasn't legal -  they dressed the turkey up to look like it had actually had a process to it.  "We told Congress, the AG said it was ok: the White House Counsel said it was ok, and the President has to sign it again every 45 days".  Only one problem.  NO COURT said it was okay. The rest is merely sham.

        It is amazing to me that in nearly five years, people have been "extraordinaly renditioned", never to be heard from or seen again.  People are held without charge for years, with no access to counsel. People have been tortured, even though any expert on interrogation will tell you how useless it is.  And now, they are listening to our phone coversations, even though they have the ultimate "star chamber" the FISA Court.  To get approval, they merely have to stop by and ask, since a mere handful of applications have ever been denied. But they wouldn't even do that.  Absolute power does corrupt.

        It's funny - my sister and I were talking a few months ago, and the conversation turned to the use of torture.  My sister said to me that it isn't that bad because look at the people they are torturing - terrorists. I said "We don't do that.  We are the United States of America. It is fundamentally wrong for us to engage in torture."

        But I fear that a lot of people thought that way.  However, I find that people really don't like the idea that the government can arbitrarily listen to their conversations and search their houses without a warrant. That issue may be getting some traction.

        Actually, Armando, I am a fan of Legal Realism, opposed to Formalism (probably because I was taught by that school).  I do tend to look for the result that advances my client's interests.  I think judges - good, honest, decent judges- decide on a fair and just result and then look for the way to say it so they don't get reversed (and I know immediately if I am in front of one of the vast majority of honest judges, and a man or woman who's wearing a robe, but has no decency, no soul). To me, that's why I'm in law, not medicine.

        But these idiots aren't legal realists.  They are thieves and scoundrels.  I sitll believe the grand ship that is our country will right herself, but I am horrified by the fact that she is tipping so far to the right.
         

        We do not rent rooms to Republicans.

        by Mary Julia on Mon Dec 26, 2005 at 10:10:01 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Another example of how (4.00)
    it's all just a game with no rules to them. They have no concept of right and wrong. It's simply a matter of what they can get away with.

    Life & death of others have no meaning to those who don't feel.

    -4.25, -6.87: Someday, after the forest fire of the Right has died we'll say "Whew, I'm happy that's over."

    by CanYouBeAngryAndStillDream on Mon Dec 26, 2005 at 05:37:02 PM PST

  •  why does berkeley employ this guy? (none)
    Berkeley of all places!

    I re-did my website! See how pretty DailyGranola.com is now.

    by OrangeClouds115 on Mon Dec 26, 2005 at 05:37:31 PM PST

  •  wtf (4.00)
    It's more than an ideal time for evolvefish's wtf sticker on my Texas car.  So glad someone gifted it to me.

    Maybe I should write on it:  "Armando wants to know:"

    jotter's Lists of High Impact Diaries: daily and weekly archives (bring your own bendy straws)

    by sele on Mon Dec 26, 2005 at 05:37:43 PM PST

  •  Libertarian Panic?!! (none)
    So that's what my concern about warrantless searches is & just a bit not even a lot! Wow, now I feel better! Who are these people with this fast & loose interpretation of the Constitution?

    Excellent couple of diaries, BTW!

    Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought- John F. Kennedy

    by vcmvo2 on Mon Dec 26, 2005 at 05:38:36 PM PST

  •  It seems to me Congress (4.00)
    needs to view this thru a self-preservation lens.  If they accept Yoo's argument and essentially cede the president authority to disregard laws under the C-in-C powers, don't they in turn reduce their own powers?  That would clearly be the opposite of original intent. Correct me if I'm wrong but wouldn't that fundamentally alter the system to resemble more of a parliament than a congress?

    "This ain't no party, this ain't no disco, this ain't no foolin' around!"

    by demkat620 on Mon Dec 26, 2005 at 05:40:45 PM PST

    •  Actually (none)
      More like a dictatorship.

      A parliamnetary system has no Executive Branch per se - the Chief Executive heads the parliament.

      The SCOTUS is extraordinary.

      by Armando on Mon Dec 26, 2005 at 06:27:28 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  No. It would alter the system (none)
      to make Congress like one of those earlier rudimentary tries at parliaments, the ones who didn't yet have quite enough power to rein in their King. Things have changed a wee bit since you had your Revolution.

      Parliaments in modern nations run the country. It is the official Head of State who is reduced to a token role.

      Folly is fractal: the closer you look at it, the more of it there is. - TNH

      by Canadian Reader on Mon Dec 26, 2005 at 06:43:27 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Is Blair a good example of this? (none)
        I have a hard time understanding the govt. in the UK at times, both in design and practical application.

        "Let him that would move the world first move himself." --Socrates

        by joanneleon on Mon Dec 26, 2005 at 07:07:08 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  What I wouldn't give... (none)
          ... for the President to have to undergo Question Time every couple of weeks.  Prime-time.  With play-by-play.  

          You can never ask too many questions.

          by socratic on Mon Dec 26, 2005 at 10:12:48 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Love it (none)
            One of my favorite things to watch.  Everytime I do, I wish the same thing.  Please, please make our President do Question Time.  In fact, he should be required to do it here, and also, every so often we should throw him to the Brits and have them do Question Time with him.

            Arrggghhhh (response from the benches of the House of Commons)

            Actually, the night that Mean Jean trashed Murtha, our own House sounded a bit like that.

            "Let him that would move the world first move himself." --Socrates

            by joanneleon on Mon Dec 26, 2005 at 10:41:19 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  Blair is not the Head of State. (none)
          He's a working politician. He's not entitled to any patriotic loyalty or reverence. He's the head of one particular political party that just happens to be a majority in Parliament at the moment. More like Dennis Hastert, say, if Hastert actually had some real power. Nobody ever puts their hand over their heart and with a tear in their eye shouts, "Hail to Dennis Hastert!"... right? It would be totally ridiculous.

          The Head of State for Britain (and for most Commonwealth countries, too) is Queen Elizabeth II.

          Blair's power is the power of the House of Commons. Of Parliament, in other words.

          See, Britain stumbled backwards into a wonderful, accidental discovery: you really honestly don't want your Head of State to have any power. You need someone to fill a ritual role, some human being who can personify all the emotions of patriotism and proud nationalism that people naturally feel towards their native land. But it is extremely dangerous for that person to be permitted to use those emotions politically.

          This separation evolved as a protection against the Divine Right of Kings. It turns out to protect quite well, also, against the emergence of "strong man" dictators like Hitler, Stalin, or Mussolini.

          Folly is fractal: the closer you look at it, the more of it there is. - TNH

          by Canadian Reader on Tue Dec 27, 2005 at 07:35:20 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  Those of us who have ... (4.00)
    ...seen domestic government spying previously were none too surprised by the recent revelations that Yoo and others are trying to craft legal defenses for. We expected it. But it is still so. fucking. annoying. that The New York Times stood silent and let the regime continue for 16 or more months knowing full well what these armband-wearers were up to.
    •  Color me naive (none)
      These warrantless domestic searches - in clear contravention of law - surprised me.

      The SCOTUS is extraordinary.

      by Armando on Mon Dec 26, 2005 at 06:05:15 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  My experience too (4.00)
        We all learn one day that few things which we brush aside without batting an eyelid as tin foil stuff are actually true.


        If a cow laughed, would milk come out her nose?

        by sheep in wolf clothing on Mon Dec 26, 2005 at 06:23:58 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Yeah (none)
          MB's not too bad for an old guy . . .

          The SCOTUS is extraordinary.

          by Armando on Mon Dec 26, 2005 at 07:51:46 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Then why did it happen? (none)
            Is it really the case that GWB wants dictatorial power, and, if so, that those who surround him are okay with that?

            Is it the case that it is just hubris and those who surround him are syncophants too compliant to point out the overreaching?

            Is it messianic self aggrandizing and those who surround him are caught up in his cult of personality?

            Or is there some greater disconnect here? Does GWB really believe so fervently and completely in his cause and in his crusade for it? Do those who surround him believe it as well? Do they believe that they have seen the face of evil and that these extraordnary measures are the only tools they have to defeat it? This is perhaps the scariest scenario of all.

            There is nothing natural about the abomination of modern factory farming and its attempt to reduce living, feeling beings to machines. -Stephen Walsh, Ph.D.

            by timerigger on Mon Dec 26, 2005 at 08:27:28 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Those around him (none)
              want unlimited money and power.  They figured they found a guy in Bush who could be both fervent and manipulated in his zeal, with a host of psychological Mommy and Daddy issues to keep the fires stoked as long as they need him.  The people in charge -- Carlyle Group, House of Saud, the American contractors -- are all about big money loans (IMF, World Bank) that are eventually leveraged into political and geographic control -- empire buildling.  I honestly don't think they give a rat's ass about Bush, and I don't think he has any idea what the rights and responsibilities of the American president are.
      •  Well, I had the advantage ... (4.00)
        ...of reading The Invisible Government in 1964, being a regional member of another NSA - the National Student Association - in 1967 when CIA infiltration was uncovered by Robert Scheer at Ramparts magazine, and being a target of Cointelpro in the 1960s and '70s. Such experiences tend to buff the naivete off anyone.  
  •  Another one of Bush's stable of slick (4.00)
    tightie-rightie robo-lawyers there to rationalize and justify in very thin veneer of law, any of their outrageous actions, policies, and behaviors.
  •  Fuck Yoo (4.00)
    A slogan seriously asking to be made into a t-shirt.

    Here's my problem with Yoo. Yoo was tasked with justifying a policy. It didn't matter if it was legally sound, it just needed a legal foundation. It was as though he was the guy to 'fix the facts around the policy' in order to strengthen the administration's viewpoint. That is equally, if not more contemptible than the policymakers' vision itself.

    'You can't begin to imagine how effective the Big Lie is.' N. Mailer 'TNatD'

    by jorndorff on Mon Dec 26, 2005 at 05:55:17 PM PST

    •  damn (none)
      That was the first phrase I thought when I read the diary.  You beat me too it  ;-)

      "Whatever you do will be insignificant, but it is very important that you do it." -Gandhi

      by midvalley on Mon Dec 26, 2005 at 06:23:49 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  heh (none)
      Yoo was tasked with justifying a policy. It didn't matter if it was legally sound, it just needed a legal foundation. It was as though he was the guy to 'fix the facts around the policy' in order to strengthen the administration's viewpoint.

      I believe that is the ancient martial art known as Yuck Foo.

      You can never ask too many questions.

      by socratic on Mon Dec 26, 2005 at 10:14:35 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  I posted my fantasy comeuppance for Yoo (none)
    right here.  NYT readers may recognize large chunks of it.

    And yes, it's on topic, goddammit.

    Sixteen scandals in my heart will glow: A is for Abramoff

    by Major Danby on Mon Dec 26, 2005 at 05:55:25 PM PST

  •  I thought a lawyer was judged by the results (none)
    so if Bush is impeached, they'll both be wrong.  Like prisoner's chained together thrown into the briny deep.
  •  Sunstein's Position Is Inexplicable... (4.00)
    and reminds me of a similarly inexplicable position he took shortly after Sept. 11, 2001.  He appeared as part of a panel at the U. of Chgo Law School discussing the President's power to avoid civilian courts in the "war on terror."

    Sunstein agreed, to the dismay of many in the audience, with the unanimous panel members that the President had such authority.  During the Q&A my understanding of Sunstein's position was that the attacks were of such a scale that they were not properly characterized as "crimes."  When directly asked how effective public policy could be made from a position of fear, my recollection is that he never really answered.

    The real problem here is that we are not in any meaningful sense at "war" as that term has been defined and/or understood by military professionals.

    The 1993 revision of (Army) FM 100-5 defines war as "a state of open and declared armed hostile conflict between political units such as states or nations; may be limited or general in nature."[13] Yet there is no definition of war in joint doctrine, and that is intentional.[14] The FM 100-5 definition, moreover, is hopelessly at odds with the 1993 operational continuum of peace, conflict, and war.

    http://www.carlisle.army.mil/...

    Until we correct/reconstruct/revise the 'war' formulation and really educate people on the threat we face, our constitution remains in jeopardy.

  •  His parents are shrinks? (none)
    They sure screwed him up. Read Alice Miller to find out what makes him tick. Bone-chilling.

    The War on Terror is terrorism

    by Halcyon on Mon Dec 26, 2005 at 06:11:06 PM PST

  •  I feel sorry for Yoo (4.00)
    He has to be the loneliest person in Berkeley.  When he sits down to lunch in the Golden Bear Cafeteria every day, I imagine he must be alone at his table, surrounded by a cordon of empty tables as the students endeavor to put him and his Soviet-era ideas in strict quarantine. Poor guy.

    In loving memory: Sophie, June 1, 1993-January 17, 2005. My huckleberry friend.

    by Paul in Berkeley on Mon Dec 26, 2005 at 06:14:05 PM PST

    •  Oh I dunno (none)
      There's probably a few wingnuts among the undergrad population who see him as one of their own. Maybe the freaks who run Cal Patriot provide his lunch company.

      I'm not part of a redneck agenda - Green Day

      by eugene on Mon Dec 26, 2005 at 06:39:01 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  He has his hubris -- (4.00)

       -- to keep him company.  And you, Paul, you and Kos are his neighbors!  His "c'mon over and let's grill out this weekend" neighbors!  C'mon, be honest:  y'all are buds!  You and Yoo and Kos and Ann Coulter and, when he's in town, Brit Hume, all get together, hot tub, eat cavier and swap martini recipes.  And sometimes Tom Hayden, Angela Davis and Bob Dornan, Arnold and Maria drop by with a bottle of Napa V Pinot Grigio and an "oz." of "fine Co.lum.bi.an." and make tonight a wonderful thing . . . say it again . . .

       Come clean.

       BenGoshi
      __________________

      . . . religion is not a syllogism, but a poem. H.L. Mencken

      by BenGoshi on Mon Dec 26, 2005 at 06:44:33 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Oh, you a-hole!! (4.00)
        Just the thought of Brit Hume climbing into the hot tub!  Eeeeek!! Now if that isn't the anti-Viagra, I don't know what is!

        As for the rest of it, all true.

        In loving memory: Sophie, June 1, 1993-January 17, 2005. My huckleberry friend.

        by Paul in Berkeley on Mon Dec 26, 2005 at 07:48:55 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Let's see (4.00)
    John C. Yoo was deputy assistant attorney general.

    So he, too, took the oath of office:

    link

    Every officer in
    the executive branch (and indeed all employees in the federal
    government, save a few rare instances that are Constitutionally or
    otherwise statutorily differentiated -- i.e. the President, and
    Supreme Court justices) recite the following oath:

    "I (name), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and
    defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies,
    foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to
    the same; that I take this obligation freely without any mental
    reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully
    discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So
    help me God."

    This requirement dates back to the period immediately following the
    initial ratification of the United States, but it was expanded greatly
    at the behest of Abraham Lincoln, who "ordered all federal civilian
    employees within the executive branch to take an expanded oath."
    Indeed, even postal employees take this same oath.
     (39 U.S.C.A. §
    1011)

    It gets to me, really gets to me, that the likes of Yoo, Gonzales are sworn in -- then discard the oath they've taken.

    Against silence. Which is slavery. - Czeslaw Milosz

    by Caneel on Mon Dec 26, 2005 at 06:17:16 PM PST

  •  Yoo's not alone (3.91)
    Fuck Alan The Case for Torture Dershowitz too.  Luckily,  people like he and Yoo are in the minority in the legal profession.  

    Most folks don't realize how bad things would be if lawyers and judges hadn't stood up to Bush's tyranny during the past four years.  

    Two special heroes to me include -
    Jessalyn Radack, the former DOJ ethics lawyer who threw a monkey wrench into the Lindh case by revealing unconstitutional conduct by the FBI and DOJ.
    Hon. Leonie Brinkema, the federal judge in charge of the Moussaoui case who prevented the dog and pony trial of the 21st century.

    Support my Global Exchange trip in March to Afghanistan - small donations appreciated. Donate thru Paypal to sjumpe01@baker.edu. Donations are tax deductible.

    by Sharon Jumper on Mon Dec 26, 2005 at 06:25:07 PM PST

  •  Yoo Is Suffering from Park Chung-Hee Nostalgia (4.00)
    John Yoo is a Korean-American and he is definitely nostalgic for Korea's ruthless former military dictators like Park Chung-hee and Chun Doo-hwan.  Why does he want to bring Korea's dead military dictatorship to the United States?  John Yoo is a disgrace for both the United States and Korea.  John Yoo has insulted Americans who fought and died for freedom and Koreans who fought and died for democracy.  And John Yoo is UNFIT to be an American citizen.

    Reform the American Media!

    by Gorestro on Mon Dec 26, 2005 at 06:27:42 PM PST

  •  Ridin' the Storm Out (none)
    As loathe as I am to quote REO Speedwagon, "Ridin' the Storm Out" defines the administration's strategy perfectly.  Just as with torture, the whole story on spying was (is) held back, put out in dribs and drabs, and all manner of excuses are put forward to defend the policy.

    Sure, we've seen some decent (yet sparse) news coverage, and the Barron's article was nice.  But, it all seems to be falling by the wayside, quicker than Jenna's skirt after happy hour.  

    As pissed off as I am about the spying and torture, and the mockery they make out of my country and its Constitution, I see grim reality staring me in the face - the majority of Americans don't care.  The attitude is, "Well, I haven't been spied on or tortured, and I haven't seen another 9/11, so what's the big deal?  Yeah, maybe the Bush administration hasn't followed the letter of the law, but they all do it."  

    No, they don't all do this, Bubba.  And by the way, "Those who would trade...."  Blah blah blah.  It all falls on deaf ears.  

    So far, I've resisted the urge to emigrate.  I want to stay and fight for my country.  But, this frog is starting to notice bubbles (and brushing up on his Canadian history, as well).  

    If the Bush administration's torture policy and revived COINTELPRO are not thwarted, this country is absolutely fucked.  These events will be noted as occuring near the beginning of the destruction of the Constitution, and will by no means be the end the horror.  It cannot - it will not - end well.

  •  Yoo, the defender of torture, seems so... (none)
    ...inoffensive? innocent? honest? and yet he has done more to ruin America's moral standing than most.

    Free Image Hosting at www.ImageShack.us

    Wikipedia on this $#% &*%@

    Dailykos.com; an oasis of truth. -1.75 -7.23

    by Shockwave on Mon Dec 26, 2005 at 06:50:28 PM PST

  •  asdfasdf (none)
    MARY BONO (R-Ca.):


    How can anyone look their children in the eye and tell them that they must tell truth, after they see the president of the United States lie to the entire nation on television?  [Like lying about getting warrants for every wire tap - April 2004 - Buffalo NY?]
    ...
    Another concern that is very scary is the effect the president's behavior will have on our national security. Just a few months ago, I found myself, along with many other Americans and even the media, wondering if our strike against terrorism was life imitating art or a genuine response to a terrorist organization. Just the thought that the possibility existed that the president was engaging in a "Wag the Dog" scenario was chilling and profoundly disappointing. As a nation, we deserve better.  

    They questioned Clinton's power/right/motives in wartime...

    No American left behind - in civil rights, in health care, in the economy.

    by JLFinch on Mon Dec 26, 2005 at 07:16:35 PM PST

  •  Attorney's like Yoo are why judges are (none)
    so crucial. As a good friend once told me " I don't pay lawyers to tell me what I can't do. I pay them to tell me how to do it."

    Lawyers will always look for an argument that will substantiate their client's position. This is exactly what Gonzales, and Yoo, and the rest of the paid help did.

    It is the judges that must hold them to the law. WHich is why these federal appointments are so important and not just the SCOTUS.

    To sin by silence when they should protest makes cowards of men~~ Abraham Lincoln

    by Tanya on Mon Dec 26, 2005 at 07:18:08 PM PST

    •  especially in your system of justice (none)
      Lawyers will always look for an argument that will substantiate their client's position.

      People overseas say it's system inherent, not lawyers or people inherent.
    •  I can't count how many (none)
      times Bush and Rice have said...."...well, I'm not a lawyer"...so just who the hell is calling the shots? The lawyers?

      Spending out-of-control & massive debt in order to sell our public lands! How long before Bushco files for bankruptcy?

      by mattes on Mon Dec 26, 2005 at 07:42:19 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Armando: (none)
    They're pushing the limits of acceptability in discourse.

    Even debating "unfettered" power in the executive branch does a disservice to the constitution.  

    It's incremental annihilation.

    Fuckin sucks.

  •  Closing our borders (2.50)
    Any "terrorist" can enter out country though Mexico.  I do support closing our borders.  That seems so elemental.  

    "Until they become conscious they will never rebel, and until after they have rebelled they cannot become conscious" - 1984 - George Orwell

    by elveta on Mon Dec 26, 2005 at 07:27:25 PM PST

    •  What makes you think (4.00)
      they don't come via Canada? This border would be impossible to fence.

      Spending out-of-control & massive debt in order to sell our public lands! How long before Bushco files for bankruptcy?

      by mattes on Mon Dec 26, 2005 at 07:40:01 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  At the very least (4.00)
      the borders should be managed more effectively.  It makes little sense to dump a gazillion dollars into airport security when the borders are wide open, and the shipping containers aren't inspected nearly as much as they need to be, and a hundred other holes exist.

      "Let him that would move the world first move himself." --Socrates

      by joanneleon on Mon Dec 26, 2005 at 07:59:12 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Agreed (none)
        I think that the biggest threat will come from our borders. I hate that we are in this position.  It plays right into the Bush/Rove playbook.

        "Until they become conscious they will never rebel, and until after they have rebelled they cannot become conscious" - 1984 - George Orwell

        by elveta on Mon Dec 26, 2005 at 08:16:23 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  I do not support (none)
      a border closing initiative.  A proper response via police and FBI/CIA (pre-bush CIA) style tactics coupled with close cooperation with other affected countries would be effective enough if this total wackjob of an Administration had not alienated the rest of our possible partners.  If they do succeed in finding a way to close both borders, the velvet glove will come off the iron fist the next day.
      •  No win (4.00)
        You make a good argument too.  This seems like a "no win" situation.  Not surprising that it will be used as a priority issue in GOP campaigns for 2006 and 2008.

        Still, the border security thing is a total mess.  And the issue with shipping containers bothers me, big time - I am very suspicious of this issue.  I wonder what the "corporate" position is on border security, hmm.

        We're never going to be able to really close any borders.  The coastlines are borders too, don't forget.  

        Up until now, our security was in large part due to the fact that the world viewed us positively, and as you pointed out, due to the cooperation between nations.  Now, all bets are off.

        No good answers.  I still think we could manage the borders more effectively but I don't trust this administration to make the judgement calls that must be made to do this in our best interest.  So, the border security issue is best handled when we have a more trustworthy admin. in place.

        Plus, I hate to even think about this, but border security isn't just about getting into the country, it's also about getting out.

        "Let him that would move the world first move himself." --Socrates

        by joanneleon on Mon Dec 26, 2005 at 08:55:26 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  You're right. (none)
          There are no good options here.  If there was any real thought to security, the shipping containers would all be checked.
          Unlike the deliberate conflation the House of Shrub is maintaining, border security and illegal immigration are two mostly seperate issues.  If a real attempt was made to target and place a meaningful penalty on the major employers of same and a minimum wage was set at a level that meant that one didn't need blackmail-able workers to get the jobs filled, the draw from this end might be reduced quite a bit.  This would also allow the Border Patrol types to work a bit more on security issues and a bit less on people herding.
          Coastlines.  Very good point.  If I do see the Coast Guard and local Navy levels being massively raised, then that might be a red flag to investigate (per your last comment).
    •  too late .. (none)
      whatever Osama has, it's already in place.

      And who says terrorism has to be an external thing, anyway? How quickly we seem to forget Tim McVeigh.

      If McVeigh had a nuclear weapon, do you think he would have hesitated in using it?

      "Rovus Vulgaris Americanus" nasty soon-to-be-indicted co-conspirator. -7.63, -9.59

      by shpilk on Mon Dec 26, 2005 at 10:13:56 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  I Am A Korean-American And I Just Can't Sleep... (4.00)
    ...thinking about all those Korean college students and activists who in the 70s and 80s fought for the democracy against military dictatorship in their country and got tortured and killed by the ruthless Korean military government.  They were not wealthy and nearly all of them could not even dream of attending schools like Harvard or Yale but they believed in democracy like, if not more than, other decent-minded American students believed in and took extra courage to fight against the evils of Korea's military dictatorship so that Korea can become a democracy like America has been.

    Among those victims were even the former director of Korean CIA Kim Jae-kyu and his six subordinates who was supposed to protect the dictatorship but ended up killing the dictator Park Chung-hee and his chief security guard (and de facto political advisor) Cha Ji-chul in an attempt to save innocent lives and restore democracy in Korea.

    Now, thanks to their extraordinary courage and sacrifice, Korea is a model democracy in the world.  Yet, the evils of the Korean military regime continue to live on even in the United States as we see this dirty Korean-American pig named John Yoo who brought into the United States the old garbages of the evil methods the Korean military regime used to sustain its evil dictatorship.  I will never forgive this dirty  pig and I ask all of you to condemn him and his ultra-conservative parent pigs who made him what he is today.  

    I am so mad that I don't think I will be able to sleep tonight.  The faces of those Koreans who fought and died for democracy and freedom and the face of this dirty pig cross in front of my eyes.  This dirty pig and his parent pigs should take the time machine and go back to the 70's Korea where their dear leader Park Chung-hee ruled the country with ruthless iron-fists.

    Reform the American Media!

    by Gorestro on Mon Dec 26, 2005 at 07:59:01 PM PST

  •  Armando (none)
    You need to explain yourself.  My post on another diary:  "Armando has pissed me off. I just realized tonight that I have never received a rating or a comment from Armando.  I now understand why so many people dislike Armando. Actually, I do not dislike him.  I just don't understand him."

    "Until they become conscious they will never rebel, and until after they have rebelled they cannot become conscious" - 1984 - George Orwell

    by elveta on Mon Dec 26, 2005 at 08:08:46 PM PST

    •  Heh (none)
      I just recommended DH use this, so I have to pull it out for my own personal use:

      Dicen que soy
      que soy dominante
      Que soy arrogante
      Eso dicen

      Ya a mi no me importa

      Ya a mi no me importa

      La la la la la la ah
      Mucha espina poca rosa y poca cosa
      Poca cosa
      Dicen que soy
      Que sigan hablando de mi
      Por que eso me hace feliz
      Oh oh oh

      And I'll rate you now.

      The SCOTUS is extraordinary.

      by Armando on Mon Dec 26, 2005 at 08:28:57 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Sorry (none)
        Don't understand Spanish, at least I think it is Spanish.  In spite of my name, I am not Spanish.  I got this wierd name, "Elveta," becaue I was named after my grandmother.  Had something to do with a can of tomatoes called "Veta" and just evolved from there.  

        "Until they become conscious they will never rebel, and until after they have rebelled they cannot become conscious" - 1984 - George Orwell

        by elveta on Mon Dec 26, 2005 at 08:46:13 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Eres usted (none)
        Un hombre sincero, de donde crecen las palmas?

        Let all the poisons that lurk in the mud hatch out -- Emperor Claudius

        by Upper West on Mon Dec 26, 2005 at 08:47:01 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Trying to translate (none)
        "Ya a mi no me importa"  I would guess that you are telling me that I am not important,or not "important to you."  Why are you so mean?  What makes you think you are so fucking hot?  

        "Until they become conscious they will never rebel, and until after they have rebelled they cannot become conscious" - 1984 - George Orwell

        by elveta on Mon Dec 26, 2005 at 08:50:54 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  No (none)
          You mistranslated.

          No me importa - I don't care that people say bad things about me.  

          It's from a song - essentially it means I can;t worry what people say about me.

          The SCOTUS is extraordinary.

          by Armando on Mon Dec 26, 2005 at 09:08:58 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  Given that Californians pay Yoo's salary, (none)
     does anyone besides me think a campaign of public protest worthwhile,  with the goal that the law school at Berkeley should divest itself of this said Yoo?  The notion first occurred to me some months back, while listening to him defend his torture memo (so called) to Terry Gross.  With apologies to Hannah Arendt, the phrase  'banality of evil' is inapplicable to so silky a casuist.
  •  "Sealed Case" and Rule 11 Analogy (none)
    We know that Sealed Case is a poorly reasoned case, primarily because it ignores Youngstown and appears to say that the President's "inherent power" permits him to ignore a statute like FISA.  From what I've seen it's the main Bush defense.  (I don't think much of the war resolution defense, especially with Daschle's testimony.)

    But I've been thinking about impeachment and Rule 11, and whether, much as I'd like to see Bush impeached, does Sealed Case give him an out.

    Rule 11 provides, in relevant part:

    the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions therein are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law or the establishment of new law.

    In other words, if Sealed Case provides some basis in "existing" law (although dicta) for Bush's position, and the position is therefore not frivolous, can he be impeached for (supposedly) relying on it?

    However, if it's merely non-frivolous, but nonetheless clearly wrong under much better precedent than Sealed Case, shouldn't it be possible to request an injunction of the non-FISA searches?  Would Congress have standing?  The ACLU? PETA?

    Let all the poisons that lurk in the mud hatch out -- Emperor Claudius

    by Upper West on Mon Dec 26, 2005 at 08:44:55 PM PST

  •  The real thing underlying (none)
    these actions is contempt for the American people and political opponents.  These people are pathological in their defense of Bush.  Since there are so many of them, I would call this a mass case of megalomania.  They believe they can do whatever they want based on the thinnest pretext and the American people will accept it without question and their political opponents will roll over and play dead.

    The ...Bushies... don't make policies to deal with problems. ...It's all about how can we spin what's happening out there to do what we want to do. Krugman

    by mikepridmore on Mon Dec 26, 2005 at 08:56:47 PM PST

  •  Need a search... (none)
    Someone should look up Drs. John H. Yoo and Sook Hee Yoo, both of Pennsylvania, the incubus' parents.

    I wonder if psychiatrists like his folks have ingrained a love of fascism in their son.  

  •  The Words "Necessary and Appropriate" (none)
    Will never mean the same thing to me again when I use them in a legal document.  Professor Yoo may revolutionize the world of corporate law (along with the Presidency) if his views of Congressional legislation are correct.

    And Professor Sunstein should be embarassed.  Too many law professors fall into the trap of thinking that because a position can be argued that it actually makes sense.  How can Congress be expected to function if the President acts secretly and informs only a very small number of legislators who face the choice of violating national security or exercising their legislative prerogatives?  This is a position that President Bush has openly espoused and its effects now are being seen.

  •  Can Yoo Be Stripped Off of US Citizenship... (none)
    ...and be deported to North Korea (since South Korea is already a democracy)?  His parents may be better off in North Korea than in the United States also.

    Anyway, it would be very nice for everyone in the United States to never talk to Yoo and his family so they can be lonely forevermore.  Loneliness can be very devastating psychologically and his parents should know it better than anyone because they are psychiatrists.

    Korea's currently ruling progressive politicians expressed serious concern on the Korean communities in the United States because a large number of Koreans and Korean-Americans in the United States are ultra-conservative anti-communists who lean heavily toward ultra-conservative politicians in the United States and Korea.  I know this is true because I am a Korean-American (and a liberal progressive, not conservative).  And those progressive Korean politicians were talking about the kinds of John Yoo.

    And here, I curse John Yoo and those group of Korean-Americans who are militant and ultra-conservative and brought the evil spirit of Korea's heinous military dictatorship into the United States.  Curse on them and their descendents forever (unless they repent and change)!

    Reform the American Media!

    by Gorestro on Tue Dec 27, 2005 at 03:14:03 AM PST

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site