I was away this past week I barely had any internet access, the week however was filled with disgrace!

Israel, has shown a new facet to the world… This is how the German perceived it according to Spiegel OnLine (H/T: IMRA):

The center-left daily Suddeutsche Zeitung writes:

“The macabre Israeli-Lebanese deal, which saw living Lebanese prisoners being swapped for the bodies of Israeli soldiers, is a major success for the Shiite militia.. The prisoner exchange shows who really has the power in Lebanon and who can force archenemy Israel to make concessions: It is Hezbollah, it is Nasrallah. That elevates the radicals’ image in Lebanon, inthe Arab world and in the Muslim world.”

[…]The new and obvious reality is that Israel has in fact rewarded and strengthened Hizbullah. Some in Lebanon refuse to cheer for Samir Kuntar,, since they perceive him as nothing more than the ruthless murderer he truly is. There is nothing heroic about killing an unarmed father and bludgeoning his 4 year old daughter to death with a rifle butt, after she witnessed her father savagely assassinated. And yet, Kuntar returned mostly as a hero, as someone worthy of admiration rather than contempt. I do not blame Hizbullah on this as much as I blame Allmerde and his entourage.

For the rest of this post, check out: Freedom’s Cost

John Yoo and the Bush administration have brought shame upon America, as a result of their attempt to legally justify the torture of prisoners, writes Rick Moran. (more…)

The question of when or if deadly force can be used is an open one in the minds of many Americans. Not so in the case of Joe Horn. (more…)

Changing the procedures isn’t enough. Guantanamo Bay has to be closed and, then, the US has to make a new start with regards to how it treats terrorism suspects.

“It’s war” isn’t sufficient reason to break with the rule of law and to prevent suspects from defending themselves, nor to keep people locked up for six years without charging them with anything.

Heck, there’s never a good reason to treat suspects like that.

Here’s an example of the sort of ideological boondoggles that today’s polarized, us-against-them power struggles produce on a regular basis here in the old U.S. of A:

The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found that government support for the InnerChange Freedom Initiative at Newton Correctional Facility – a program operated by Chuck Colson’s Prison Fellowship Ministries — advances religious indoctrination at state expense.  Americans United brought the litigation against InnerChange on behalf of inmates, their families and taxpayers.

This is a fascinating ruling from the perspective of self-destructive domestic policy.

(more…)

One of the greatest political (/conservative) thinkers of the last century William F. Buckley, wrote a column for National Review in which he calls on Bush to pardon Libby. Buckley essentially argues that although Libby broke the law, he should be pardoned, because, here it comes, he caused no real harm and he is not a bad guy. O, and the ones who say that Libby should go to jail do not care about justice, they simply want to “damage the Bush administration.”

Of course, all of the above is no reason to pardon someone. Libby, Buckley admits, broke the law, lied and, by doing so “he hindered the execution of justice.” The logical, and legal result: jailtime.

It surprises me that an intellectually honest traditional conservative like Mr. Buckley - who is a firm believer in the Rule of Law - would argue that Libby should be pardoned for before mentioned ‘reasons.’ They are not ‘reasons,’ they are excuses.

Libby caused, thus writes Buckley, no damage at all, to no one. I wonder whether Mr. Buckley watched Plame’s testimony before US Congress?

I greatly respect William F. Buckley Jr., but I would hope that he would be above overly partisan politics like this.

Well, well, well, the House Judiciary Committee voted, 32 to 6, to grand immunity to former aide to US Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, Monica Goodling. The Committee also, immediately, subpoenad her, although most members (still) hope that she will be testify voluntarily (fat chance). Representative John Conyers: “I do not propose this step lightly. We can always stop the process before the court issues an order.”

Besides the House Committee, ‘the Senate Judiciary Committee was also meeting to consider subpoenas in the continuing investigation of the firings. The Senate panel voted to authorize a subpoena of Sara Taylor, the White House political affairs director, to get around what Senator Patrick J. Leahy, the Vermont Democrat who heads the panel, called White House “stonewalling”.’

It is becoming more and more serious. I repeat what I said when this story broke: if Gonzales / the White House would have admitted to having made mistakes, share (most of) what happened, etc. this controversy would have died a quick death. Now, however, the behavior of “Gonzo” et al. encouraged Democrats (the media and, yes, Republicans) to dig deeper and… well, it has already hurt Bush, Gonzales, Rove, etc. tremendously, and it will damage them / their reputation even more.

According to quite some people Goodling was at the very center of everything: she was the weakest link. She knows exactly what happened, how it happened, why it happened, who decided what, etc. If Goodling testifies, well, it seems to me that Gonzales, Bush and Rove will get very nervous.

In the past, I wrote that Goodling should not be granted immunity. I still stand by that… mostly. First and foremost, I think that it is incredibly sad that people who are supposed to do what is in the best interest of the American people, to serve them, are only willing to answer the questions of the people they are supposed, are only willing to be accountable, if they are granted immunity for everything they possibly did / are doing wrong. Second: how do they know that she won’t lie to protect, not her legal status, but her reputation? They don’t, they can’t.

That being said, it seems to be necessary to this. So, as such, if they want to know what really happened, this is the logical, albeit cynical, step to make.

Meanwhile, there seems to be a real subpoena frenzy going on now: the House Oversight Committee also approved a subpoena for Condoleezza Rice.

By 21-10, the House oversight committee voted to issue a subpoena to Rice to compel her story on the Bush administration’s claim, now discredited, that Iraq was seeking uranium from Africa.

Some would say: “finally, some real oversight,” others would say: “dear God, here comes the whitch hunt.”

And both sides would be right.

H/t Shaun.

An interesting column appeared in today’s Washington Post by Dahlia Lithwick, who covers legal affairs for Slate, about former aide to Gonzales Monica Goodling and, more generally, Pat Robertson’s Regent University Law School.

Goodling is one of 150 graduates of Regent University who have served in this administration, as Regent’s Web site proudly proclaims. Pretty impressive for a 29-year-old school. The university says that “approximately one out of every six Regent alumni is employed in some form of government work.” And that’s precisely what its founder desired. The school’s motto is “Christian Leadership to Change the World.” Former attorney general John Ashcroft teaches at Regent, and graduates have obtained senior positions in the Bush administration. The express goal is not only to tear down the wall between church and state in America but also to enmesh the two.

Jeffrey A. Brauch, the law school’s dean, urges that students reflect upon “the critical role the Christian faith should play in our legal system.” Jason Eige (Class of ‘99), senior assistant to Virginia Attorney General Bob McDonnell, puts it pithily in the alumni newsletter: “Your Résumé Is God’s Instrument.”

This legal worldview meshed perfectly with that of Ashcroft — a devout Pentecostal who forbade use of the word “pride,” as well as the phrase “no higher calling than public service,” on documents bearing his signature. No surprise that, as he began transforming the Justice Department, the Goodlings looked good to him.

A must read for all those interested in this issue.

I for one, find it quite worrisome.

H/t Shaun Mullen, more at The Reaction.

Amy Goldstein and Dan Eggen for the Washington Post:

About one-third of the nearly four dozen U.S. attorney’s jobs that have changed hands since President Bush began his second term have been filled by the White House and the Justice Department with trusted administration insiders.

The people chosen as chief federal prosecutors on a temporary or permanent basis since early 2005 include 10 senior aides to Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales, according to an analysis of government records. Several came from the White House or other government agencies. Some lacked experience as prosecutors or had no connection to the districts in which they were sent to work, the records and biographical information show.

And before Republicans start shouting “but everybody does” it, well, as Prairie weather notes, no everybody does not:

No other administration in contemporary times has had such a clear pattern of filling chief prosecutors’ jobs with its own staff members, said experts on U.S. attorney’s offices. Those experts said the emphasis in appointments traditionally has been on local roots and deference to home-state senators, whose support has been crucial to win confirmation of the nominees…

Still, academics and other experts say, the appointments appear to alter a long-standing culture of autonomy for the nation’s chief prosecutors. James Eisenstein, a Pennsylvania State University political scientist who has written a book on U.S. attorneys, said that historically, federal prosecutors have regarded operating “in a politically neutral, nonpartisan manner” as a cornerstone of their roles. Hiring people from Justice, Eisenstein said, “was very unusual.”

I do not quite see how this could not worry Americans, whether they’re Democratic or Republican. Federal prosecutors as political tools.

E.J. Dionne wrote a marvelous column for the Washington Post about the USA’s controversy.

There are too many questions that have to be answered. Bush can cry foul, or ‘partisan!’, if he wants to, but Congress’d better demand answers.

George W. Bush said that the White House was / is cooperating with Congress on the matter of the fired U.S. attorney, that White House officials are willing to testify, etc. That sounds, positive, of course. It sounds like a suggestion, or proposal, the Democrats can agree on.

The situation is, however, somewhat more problematic. Bush has, indeed, agreed to let Karl Rove, Harriet Miers, etc. testify before Congress, but not under oath. This is something the Democrats aren’t happy with, they believe that the Rove et alia should testify under oath.

The debate becomes more and more heated and partisan, which led the Washington Post to publish an editorial calling on both sides to step back and calm down.

Talk Left criticizes the editorial, especially this part:

It would not be acceptable for Mr. Bush to fire the attorneys to short-circuit prosecutions of political corruption among Republicans. So far there’s no evidence that he did, and in fact the most questionable conduct we know of originated in Congress, with New Mexico Republicans Sen. Pete Domenici and Rep. Heather Wilson.

Talk Left comments: “Wow! Did Pete Domenici and Heather Wilson fire David Iglesias? What a disgrace Hiatt is.”

CorrenteWire ain’t happy either:

Some editorial staff member at the WaPo has an image of him/her self wearing a blindfold and holding a scale aloft. That’s the only reason I can see for the editorial this a.m. of “Political Spectacle”, advising that both Congress and the executive branch should back off.

Now that makes sense. A crime seems to have been committed, the cretin in chief makes a stand that he’s not going to allow investigation of the crimes of his staff, and Congress ought to make nice? Sure, that would serve the country. We could just relax and enjoy it.

To be updated about this case, I recommend keeping an eye on TPMmuckraker.