In this case it was legalizing torture. So some poor bastard doing his job is going to get hung out to dry, the right wingers will say, there was no torture, they were just blowing smoke in their faces.

Just don’t get caught lying about a blowjob, unless you are republican. Actually, if you want to get some head, sell some weapons to a terrorist state, take a pair of rusty pliers to someones nuts, and no one will ever question the blow job, or anything else for that Clinton just didn’t have the rigt lawyers.

“But just as was true for the Abu Ghraib abuses, many of the worst instances of detainee abuse cannot be extricated from — but rather are directly attributable to — the torture policies authorized at the highest levels of the government. To target low-level interrogators while shielding high-level policy makers would further bolster America’s two-tiered system of justice, in which ordinary Americans are subjected to merciless punishment while the most powerful elites are vested with virtual immunity from the consequences of their lawbreaking. As Hilzoy put it:

I’d give up all hope of any prosecutions of CIA officials for prosecution of the people who set policy — people like Cheney and Addington. They created the Bush administration’s interrogation policy. They decided to set aside law, morality, and basic humanity. They should bear the consequences.

Prosecuting only obscure “rogue” interrogators while immunizing powerful, high-level officials would not be an act of courage but of cowardice. It would not strengthen the rule of law but would pervert it further. And rather than deter future lawbreaking, it would signal — yet again — that our most powerful political officials are free to break the law with impunity. If Holder is too frightened to include the parties truly responsible for America’s torture regime in the scope of the investigation he orders, then he ought simply to appoint a strong and independent prosecutor with the mandate to investigate anyone and everyone who might have broken our nation’s torture laws, and leave it to the prosecutor to make all decisions without interference (and if a well-regarded prosecutor decided based on standard factors of prosecutorial discretion, rather than as a matter of pre-ordained DOJ “fairness” policy, that the DOJ memos made prosecution too difficult as a practical matter, then so be it). But whatever else is true, the tactics authorized by George Bush and Dick Cheney were patently criminal regardless of how many memos they directed John Yoo to write.”

Yes. And the scheduled “Gettin’ the CIA” theme has a thematic recurrence after bad poll news and such for Obama. Lefty blogs starting to quack there might be something to the “death panels” after all—distract with CIA news! Invoke Cheney! Visions of Sarah Palin!

If anything, Obama is quick on the counter-spin. I first saw this when Rezko counterdicted Obama’s story about no house visit.

Thankfully we have mid term elections.

I see the rats losing 100 plus seats

This administration has zero concern for true justice, they are far more occupied with the siezure and consolidation of unprecedented power, and the complete transformation of this country into a fascist dictatorship.

Except that the American people are on to them and will not allow them to go forward..

The possiblity of Constitutional Congress has been on my mind. So was glad to see that a legal group was getting prepared for the possiblity.

They have the ACLU we need lawyers too maybe the The United States Justice Foundation can be the one. It appears the usual suspects may try and rewrite the Constitution. We all know what will happen if they succeed.

The email in part:

BARACK OBAMA AND HIS ALLIES ARE TRYING
TO CHANGE THE U.S. CONSTITUTION

The United States Justice Foundation is launching a major campaign to STOP a “Con Con” from taking place — WE MUST CREATE a tremendous outpouring of publicity and public scrutiny to be given to this danger, so that Barack Obama and his radical liberal allies can’t “sneak this past us” without anyone noticing, until it’s too late. Right now, our staff is conducting legal and historical research, and preparing legal opinions, to submit to every state legislature, if necessary, and we’ll be offering to represent any state, or state legislator, in fighting the Con-Con based on those documents.

We’re also going to be leading a grassroots effort to attack this issue at both the state and federal levels: At the state level, leading the charge in every state to either NOT VOTE for a “Con Con” (if they haven’t voted yet) or to RESCIND their past vote in favor (if they have). And, at the federal level, we’ll be mobilizing citizens across the country to contact their Representatives and Senators to DEMAND that they come out, NOW, and announce their support for a state’s right to rescind, and that they won’t support a call for a “Con-Con.” In addition, we’ll be calling on the Attorney General of the United States, and the Attorney General of each and every State that has passed a “Con-Con” resolution, to issue an official Opinion on the legality of rescission.

THIS DANGER IS REAL. The Constitutional Convention of 1787 was called for the exclusive purpose of amending the Articles of Confederation. Once the Founding Fathers assembled in Philadelphia, however, they threw out the Articles of Confederation and wrote an entirely new Constitution, and even changed the ratification procedure so they could get it adopted more easily. The 1787 Convention is the only precedent we have for a national Constitutional Convention.

There’s no guarantee that all of the changes to our Constitution passed at a Constitutional Convention would need to be ratified by 34 states this time — if a “Con Con” can change our structure of government as defined in Articles I, II, and III, of the Constitution, then it can also change the Article V requirement that three-fourths of the states are needed to ratify any changes. The Convention of 1787 reduced the number of states required to ratify a change from 100% of the states to 75%, and a Convention today could “follow their example” and reduce it further, to 66%, or 60%, or even 51%!
President Barack Obama has already expressed his belief that the U.S. Constitution needs to be interpreted in the context of current affairs and events. Can you imagine what he and his supporters would DO to that document if given the chance to re-write it completely? Our Bill of Rights could disappear overnight!

In fact, all the way back in 2006, Obama already had his lawyers researching how someone could get around the eligibility requirements to serve as U.S. President — these people simply don’t CARE about whether we preserve the supreme law of the land!

http://usjf.net/ Home page of United States Justice Foundation
http://www.wnd.com/ World Net Daily

If you were to ask an average German in 1950 “Who was a greater threat, the Jews or the Nazis?”, I think there is little doubt what the answer would have been.

If Holder were SO concerned about justice, and prosecuting bad guys, why did he pardon Mark Rich and domestic terrorists in 2000, and why did he drop the charges on the New Black Panther thugs that violated voter rights in Philidelphia?

This administration has zero concern for true justice, they are far more occupied with the siezure and consolidation of unprecedented power, and the complete transformation of this country into a fascist dictatorship.