The Justice Department has ruled that the lawyers who wrote memos justifying torture by the United States of America were guilty of bad judgement, but not of any ethical violation.  The legal profession notoriously protects its own while building thick walls around themselves hoping to wall out competition or any oversight other than self-oversight.  In this latest ruling Associate Deputy Attorney General David Margolis continues the poor tradition.  According to this opinion there are apparently no or very few limits to the use of power by those in power as long as some stooges with a JD have written an opinion that it is legal.  For shame.

Please read Executive Editor of The Week Eric Effron’s excellent opinion piece from the March 5, 2010 issue of that publication:

Is “legal ethics” an oxymoron? Having covered legal affairs earlier in my career, that question always struck me as clever but not entirely fair. Bar associations have elaborate mechanisms for policing ethical lapses, and ethics are debated at law schools and in seminars for practicing lawyers. But the lawyer-bashers were handed fresh ammo last week when the Justice Department found that Bush administration attorneys who’d ginned up the legal rationale to justify waterboarding and other harsh interrogation techniques were guilty of nothing more than “poor judgment” (see Talking Points). The lawyers were wrong on the law, Associate Deputy Attorney General David Margolis concluded, and they obligingly told their clients exactly what they wanted to hear. But it was all, somehow, ethical.

How can this be? Margolis ruled that the federal government—unlike the private bar—has never clearly defined professional misconduct for lawyers, so it would be unfair to punish lawyers who apparently were doing what they thought was right. That’s an interesting standard. For whoever is in power, as legal analyst Andrew Cohen noted, it’s highly convenient that there are no binding ethical standards for government lawyers: You can just ask them to concoct a legal justification for some dubious policy goal—such as giving the green light to waterboarding, or ignoring the Geneva Conventions. We like to imagine that our leaders are bound by the rule of law. But if thousands of government lawyers are bound only by what they or their bosses believe is right, then “the rule of law” might be the biggest oxymoron of them all.

Eric Effron

As if we needed any more proof that Palin is a bad flashback to the popular-but-not-that-bright-and-mean-spirited-high-school-cheerleader we all knew, we have the video from her speech to the “National Tea Party Convention” and subsequent interviews where she referenced notes written in ink on the palm of her hand.

Besides being horribly unprofessional (perhaps it was, as Jon Stewart noted, a way to claim the populist position against all those fancy people who use “memory”), it was awfully ironic – nee hypocritical – since she had just excoriated Obama for using teleprompters.

To top it off, the words she had written were hardly difficult point to remember. She had written: “energy, tax cuts, lift American spirit.” That’s the stuff of oratory for the ages.

Sarah – how’s that stupid-y bush-league-y foot-in-mouth-y thing goin’ for ya?

You’ve heard that Google has threatened to pull out of China.  The reason?  Chinese hackers had broken into its servers in an attempt to gather intelligence related to political dissidents.

Good for Google.

The part of the story few are telling?  Those Chinese hackers exploited a “back door” – or a system that was created by Google at Washington’s request, giving US intelligence agents a way to spy on you.  Through the back door agents can access email and other Internet transactions.  While there are a large number of Americans (the majority in several surveys) that would willingly trade their privacy rights for perceived safety, this demonstrates what a Faustian bargain they are willing to make.

And it’s not just the Chinese who are exploiting the back door.  US intelligence agents have been discovered spying on wives, girlfriends – as well as famous figures like Bill Clinton.

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

- Benjamin Franklin, 1775

As reported on hatepalin.com previously, Palin has agreed – and now reaffirmed – her commitment to speak at the first Tea Party Convention.  The convention, however, is in disarray.  The for-profit organization who is pulling the convention together is anything but a recognized leader in the nascent movement.  The convention itself is under fire from all sides, including other tea party factions who are abandoning ship faster than abstinence pledge teenagers on prom night.  Reports of massive numbers of unsold tickets, unfilled sponsorships put the financial footing of the convention in doubt.  The convention is set to start on Thursday, February 4th.  The financial condition of the convention places doubt on the ability of Palin to collect her speaking fee, widely reported to be $100,000 or greater.

Here’s the summary printed in mainstream news aggregator The Week.

Tea Party ‘scam’: Is Palin in?

Just days away, the first national Tea Party Convention is collapsing under a cloud of scandal. Will star speaker, Sarah Palin, jump ship?

Will Sarah Palin help keep the Tea Party movement alive? (James Leynse/Corbis)

Best Opinion: Right Wing News, Melissa Cloutier, Mother Jones…

After organizers snagged Sarah Palin to headline the first national Tea Party Convention, the event’s success took on an air of inevitability. Since then, however, critics across the political spectrum have attacked the convention (scheduled to unfold Feb. 4 in Nashville) as a money-making “scam,” a disorganized “debacle” and — with its “lavish” lobster dinners and pricey tickets — a betrayal of the movement’s populist stance. Now, citing ethics concerns, other key speakers are dropping out, including Rep. Michele Bachmann, and all eyes are on Palin. So far, Palin is sticking by her commitment, for which she’ll reportedly be paid $115,000, even as the event threatens to collapse: “You betcha,” she said yesterday, “I’m going to be there.” Will she get out while she can?

No, she’s in too deep: At this point, “even if Palin would like to walk away” she can’t, says John Hawkins at Right Wing News. Without Palin, “the whole convention falls apart…and a lot of good people would be disappointed.” That’s why she’ll show, not just — as some critics charge — because she wants $115,000. Palin’s made it clear she won’t profit from the event, even if she’s been “a little fuzzy” about where exactly the money will be going.
“The problem with the Tennessee Tea Party Convention”

Palin must expose this scam by dropping out: This corrupt “ruse” of a convention is destroying the larger Tea Party movement, says grassroots organizer Tami Killmarx, as quoted by blogger Melissa Cloutier, and loyal Tea Partiers want Palin to expose it. Event planners don’t care about letting rank-and-file Tea Partiers “hear Sarah Palin” speak. They just want to “make money” and “get in bed with the GOP.” Do the right thing, Sarah!
“BREAKING: Tea Party Nation’s Judson Phillips: “I Want To Make A Million From This Movement”

Are you kidding? Palin’s the scammer: Unquestionably, the Tea Party Convention is all about making a profit, says liberal blog Prairie Weather. But don’t think that “taking a lot of money out of the pockets of populist supporters” will “faze Sarah Palin.” Sorry, but “this is what happens when political opportunists” like Palin “take over” a “loosely structured, loud, and naive” political movement “largely made up of people who proudly reject fact and reality.”
“Tea Party embarrassment and opportunity”

Maybe she should just call in ’sick’ to avoid humiliation: The $349 tickets to hear Palin speak are selling very poorly, claims Tea Party activist Anthony Shreeve, as quoted by Mother Jones. For her sake, I hope she finds a way out: “It’s going to be really embarrassing for her to walk into a half-empty room.” Contractually, “she is allowed to send a representative if she can’t make it if she’s sick or something. Maybe she’ll come down with the flu.”
“Sarah Palin’s Tea Party dinner disaster”

In a move that has many of her supporters wondering about her true loyalties – and her political judgment – Sarah Palin has accepted an invitation to speak to the first ever “National Tea Party” meeting (Feb 4-6, 2010), while earlier having passed on an invitation to speak to the much more established CPAC (Conservative Political Action Committee) two weeks later.

While it seems that Palin is trying to claim her own little niche of conservatism, it’s interesting that the sponsor of the Tea Party meeting – the Tea Party Nation – is actually not the leading player of the now very fragmented “movement.”  What it IS is a for-profit operator of a networking site for “grass-roots” anti-big government activists.  It’s unclear how they fronted the money in order to pay Palin’s “low six figure” speaking fee, but they are attempting to sell tickets for $560 each and find $50,000 sponsors for the event.  This event suffers from the same splintering tendencies, with board members resigning, and the troops of the Dick Armey “FreedomWorks” and “Americans for Prosperity” not attending or supporting the event.  The more established CPAC is smarting from the rebuff, and several GOP strategists are questioning the wisdom of such a move.  Palin is speaking at other conservative/GOP “must-do” events for those considering a presidential bid.

One thing is clear: Palin is turning a cold shoulder to the established “intellectual” conservative movement that has held her at an uncomfortable distance in favor of the populist, anti-intellectual rural “real America” zeitgeist.

Dear Pat Robertson,

I know that you know that all press is good press, so I appreciate the shout-out. And you make God look like a big mean bully who kicks people when they are down, so I’m all over that action.

But when you say that Haiti has made a pact with me, it is totally humiliating. I may be evil incarnate, but I’m no welcher. The way you put it, making a deal with me leaves folks desperate and impoverished.

Sure, in the afterlife, but when I strike bargains with people, they first get something here on earth — glamour, beauty, talent, wealth, fame, glory, a golden fiddle. Those Haitians have nothing, and I mean nothing. And that was before the earthquake. Haven’t you seen “Crossroads”? Or “Damn Yankees”?

If I had a thing going with Haiti, there’d be lots of banks, skyscrapers, SUVs, exclusive night clubs, Botox — that kind of thing. An 80 percent poverty rate is so not my style. Nothing against it — I’m just saying: Not how I roll.

You’re doing great work, Pat, and I don’t want to clip your wings — just, come on, you’re making me look bad. And not the good kind of bad. Keep blaming God. That’s working. But leave me out of it, please. Or we may need to renegotiate your own contract.

Best,

Satan

(Lily Coyle, published in the Minneapolis Star-Tribune, you’re my hero)

In a move that perhaps should be predictable for a former swimsuit-competing beauty contestant, Sarah Palin will be appearing at Caesar’s on the famed Las Vegas strip.

Oh, but if you’re expecting to see her in feathers and sequins, or to show off her new pole-dancing aerobics routine, you’ll be sadly disappointed.  Instead, she’ll be a paid speaker at a group that enc0urages – gulp – drinking!  I’m not exactly sure how that fits with her avowed evangelical faith (or is it pentecostal – I think it’s a hybrid, actually), but I guess their money is as green as the face of an 18-year old who’s had 4 glasses of freshman punch.

The Wine & Spirit Wholesalers of America says the former Alaska governor will speak at its opening general session. The convention runs April 6-8 at Caesars Palace on the Las Vegas Strip.

Cheers!

File this in your “truth is stranger than fiction” file.

Sarah Palin is now a commentator, nee “pundit,” on Fox “News.”  Forget for the moment the laughable assertion that Fox “News” is actually a news channel.  Perhaps you’ve seen the statistics about the mix between “news” and “opinion” programming, or the anemic attempt to justify the blurring of the line between news and advocacy by claiming that the audience is keenly aware of the differences in the programming slots.  More likely you haven’t.  You’ve probably heard the ridiculous claim of “fair and balanced.”  In any case, Fox has truly jumped the shark in hiring Sarah Palin to serve as commentator about politics.  The gushing of O’Reilly in her on air welcome was disgusting.  Their breathless love-fest reminded me of another O’Reilly episode – I think it had to do with offensively suggestive sexual innuendo recorded on a phone call to one of his female producers.  Maintaining that Palin finally has the chance to get her views and her side of the story out without the mean-spirited, left-leaning, anti-God, liberal elitist media, Palin said she was simply thrilled for this opportunity on Fox “News.”

The one glimmer of hope?  It is widely reported that several close members of the Murdoch family are gunning for Roger Ailes, the head of Fox “News.”  Some say it’s the joining of forces disgusted by the abandonment of all news principles by Fox “News” under Ailes with attempts to better position this set of children against that set of children in the struggle over succession in a post-Rupert world.  Read about it here:  The Daily Beast.

Yes!

Levi Johnston is probably right.  Palin took a look around, saw her popularity continue to sink, and decided that getting a ghost writer (who could actually construct sentences in English) and job as a Fox pundit sounded a lot better.

I do have to admit that Alaska’s ethics laws makes it easy to tie up an elected official with a huge burden defending against claims – both in legal bills and in energy and focus.  But we also have to look at why those claims were made.  And it’s not just because of political differences, although that surely plays a part.  Palin’s style was to go in both barrels blazing, shooting from the hip.  And she made a lot of bad decisions.  Like taking the daily stipend when she was staying at her own home.  Like having the RNC fund a shopping spree for the whole family.  Like using government money to pay for her spouse and children to travel with her.  Like using the levers of government to work through a personal vendetta against her ex-brother in law (Alaska’s own Troopergate – cool!).

So, yes, Palin brought the trouble on herself.  Now the long knives are out.  Now even the delusional Bill Kristol (thanks so much for the Iraq war, Bill) can only rise to calling her resignation a “high risk strategy” after so many months of promoting her political career.  The intellectual branch of the Republican party was never on board with her Jesus and guns anti-intellectual populism.  That fissure will continue to wrench the party so long as it entertains even the possibility that someone like Palin who has such meager capabilities and, as we now see, lacks the steady temperament to be in politics.

I’m sure the grand old party will comeback.  But it won’t happen as long as they party has to kowtow to the religious right.  And what must they be thinking as those christian-claiming members continue to reveal not only hypocrisy but bad judgement – a la South Carolina’s Mark Sanford, or Nevada’s Jim Ensign – or even Florida’s Mark Foley.  They must be grateful for the ridiculous amount of coverage given to Michael Jackson’s death, which has pushed them out of the news cycle.  Let’s hope for their sake that they, and the GOP, find a better path to redemption than MJ.

In a shocking and unprecedented development a former Vice President speaks out publicly against the administration that replaced him.  Even more shocking to many is that Dick Cheney, uniquely famous for his claims of both executive and legislative privilege and his unprecedented demand for secrecy, is now asking for the release of secret witch trial documents.

His demand is centered around one argument – not that the witch hunts were legal or desirable, but simply that they were effective.

Prior evidence of the man’s paranoid demands for secrecy abound.  Cheney developed his own secrecy stamps with an invented category “Treated as Top Secret/SCI,” in an attempt to supersede traditional secrecy standards.  The man kept a man-sized safe in his office.  He invented a pseudo “fourth branch” of government arguing that he could not be held accountable to the standards of either the Executive or Legislative branches.

Here’s an extended passage from “The Next Hurrah” that adds some context to Cheney’s secrecy:

That the Bush “administration,” and in particular the Office of the Vice President, have been extraordinarily secretive is, ironically, no secret. But in a story first reported by Mark Silva of the Chicago Tribune back in April 2006, details of the extent of the secrecy practices — if they can be called that — emerged to reveal something even darker and more disturbing than previously imagined:

As the Bush administration has dramatically accelerated the classification of information as “top secret” or “confidential,” one office is refusing to report on its annual activity in classifying documents: the office of Vice President Dick Cheney. A standing executive order, strengthened by President Bush in 2003, requires all agencies and “any other entity within the executive branch” to provide an annual accounting of their classification of documents. More than 80 agencies have collectively reported to the National Archives that they made 15.6 million decisions in 2004 to classify information, nearly double the number in 2001, but Cheney insists he is exempt. Explaining why the vice president has withheld even a tally of his office’s secrecy when offices such as the National Security Council routinely report theirs, a spokeswoman said Cheney is “not under any duty” to provide it.That Executive Order is #13292, which:

prescribes a uniform system for classifying, safeguarding, and declassifying national security information, including information relating to defense against transnational terrorism.And how is the order to be implemented? Section 5.1(a):

The Director of the Information Security Oversight Office, under the direction of the Archivist and in consultation with the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, shall issue such directives as are necessary to implement this order. These directives shall be binding upon the agencies.And who are “the agencies?” Section 6.1(b):

“Agency” means any “Executive agency,” as defined in 5 U.S.C. 105; any “Military department” as defined in 5 U.S.C. 102; and any other entity within the executive branch that comes into the possession of classified information.So what’s the problem? Well, perhaps you recall the story reported by TPM Muckracker a few weeks ago, in which Justin Rood revealed that Cheney purports to have exempted his office from the requirement of disclosing the number of political appointees in the OVP, for a directory of all executive branch positions known as the “Plum Book.” Instead, what appears in place of that required disclosure is a three paragraph statement, beginning thus (PDF):

The Vice Presidency is a unique office that is neither a part of the executive branch nor a part of the legislative branch, but is attached by the Constitution to the latter. The Vice Presidency performs functions in both the legislative branch (see Article I, section 3 of the Constitution) and in the executive branch (see Article II, and amendments XII and XXV, of the Constitution, and section 106 of title 3 of the United States Code).You read that right. The Vice Presidency is now “a unique office,” a fourth branch, if you will. If you will. But you shouldn’t. And in fact, ISOO won’t:

In an extraordinary internal challenge to the unruly Office of the Vice President (OVP), the Information Security Oversight Office (ISOO) has formally petitioned the Attorney General to direct the OVP to comply with a requirement that executive branch organizations disclose statistics on their classification and declassification activity to ISOO.But what, specifically, moved ISOO to call for this ruling? The OVP’s bizarre conception of itself as somehow exempt? Well, yeah. That, and this:

For the last three years, Vice President Cheney’s office has refused to divulge its classification statistics to ISOO, despite a seemingly explicit requirement that it do so. Prior to 2002, such information had routinely been transmitted and reported in ISOO’s annual reports to the President.

Now, in a stunning turn of events, Dick Cheney is demanding that the White House release documents that support his claim that the witch trials were effective.

Cheney said “Ah, well, we know that the trials had their intended effect because reported evidence of vivisection and nighttime flying went down.  Now tell me, do you think that’s a coincidence?  Of course not.  The trials not only removed dangerous witches from our midst, but served as a deterrent to witches not caught in the dragnets or turned in by their neighbors to go into hiding and cease their witchery.  I say to you now, we prevented another witch on a broomstick from flying a suicide mission into your house.  And you should thank me for that.”

When asked if innocent people might have been caught up in the mass hysteria, he said, “The world is not perfect.  Why don’t the loony lefties just admit that the world is a harsh nasty place, and it needs harsh, nasty people to protect everyone from that nastiness by being just as harsh and nasty or even harsher and nastier than the world already is.  Sure some innocent people were drowned or burned at the stake.  But that’s a small price to pay for your and my freedoms.  Sometimes we have to violate our principles and hurt innocent people in order to uphold our principles and way of life.  That’s just the way it is.”

When asked if witch hunts were consistent with American ideals, Cheney pointed to their historical precedence.  “Just like marriage has always been between a man and a woman since antiquity, so have witch hunts occurred.  Anything with that long a history has to be right, and has to be protected.  You probably don’t know this, but our witch trials have a long and sacred tradition.  Punishments for witchcraft date back to the first recorded laws in the Code of Hammurabi in the 18th Century BC.  They’re in the Twelve Tables of Roman Law, and of course in the Old Testament.  And then of course there were what I like to call the “tapas years” of the Spanish Inquisition.  You’ve got to hand it to them, they really perfected things with thumb screws and flaying.  So don’t try saying this was a one-time Salem kind of thing.”

He went on to say, “Why even that lovely thing Sarah Palin had to have her church pray over her so that she didn’t get infected with witchery.  And they brought in an African to do it, because if anyone knows about witches, it’s those Africans.  My god, I’d even say that Obama has cast a spell over most of America – but not REAL America, thank god.”

When asked what he said to people who said that under Cheney the nation had abandoned its principles, broken domestic and international law, lost international moral standing, and sunken to uncivilized levels unlike any before since the nation’s founding, he said those people could “go fuck themselves.”

The persecution of witches, torture.  When we act in collective hysteria we do not act as our better selves.  No, Dick Cheney, the ends do not justify the means.  And it’s unclear if the ends are any better because of the use of torture.  For certain the abandonment of our ideals has left us poorer as a people.

The arguments now being made to defend the use of torture by the United States in Guantanamo and Black Sites are so patently ridiculous that I can’t imagine that any thinking person of any decent morality who spends time understanding the situation would  attempt to make them.

It appears that most of the torture was conducted under the supervision of the CIA under specific direction of Dick Cheney and Condoleeza Rice, with now discredited legal opinions issued or overseen by the likes of John Yoo, David Addington and Alberto Gonzales.  The FBI had the good sense to realize the atrocities that were occuring and refuse to participate.  And the use of torture to extract actionable reliable intelligence, according to those closest to the subject, is NOT effective.  But even if it were, if it violates our principles and our laws and costs us our soul, puts our own service people in danger of similar treatment, and sacrifices our moral authority in the world.  It must be repudiated with full force.  Let the investigations and the recriminations and the prosecutions begin.   NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW.

And as for the argument about not going after the people on the ground who did the actual torture, we need only look to the Nuremberg trials.  “Just Following Orders” ( “Befehl ist Befehl”, literally “order is order”)   is no defense or excuse for the commitment of atrocities.  We put people to death after World War II for “just following orders.”  We also put Japanese soldiers to death for waterboarding our POW’s.  Why did the Japanese waterboard our men?  Because they were afraid of an imminent attack using WMD’s (which, of course, did come).  How eerily similar to our own circumstance.

Obama’s desire to “move forward” is understandable but wrong.  All crimes occur in the past.  Do we just forget them and “move forward?”  How ridiculous.  Full accounting is required by the law, by justice, and by basic human decency.  Let blowhards like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck bluster, let Dick Cheney fulminate.  And then let’s determine who knew what when, who did what and how, and what their punishments will be.