Argue With My Dad

It just won’t stop raining here in Northern Illinois, but I am hoping for a nice dry weekend so I can finally get my lawn mowed before the neighborhood kids get lost in it.  We have made it to another Friday Free For All and I can’t wait to see what the readers want to talk about this week.  As usual I will make a couple of suggestions for possible topics, but it is you the reader who will decide what we discuss this week.

My first suggested topic is one that I just saw today.  It seems that the  former Secretary of State, Condoleeza Rice, has resurrected President Nixon’s famous words, “When the President does it,that means that it is not illegal”. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ejvyDn1TPr8.  The You Tube video provides evidence of Nixon’s shocker.  Now,  Condi Rice, in response to a question from a Stanford student, had this interesting exchange,

“Q: Okay. Is waterboarding torture in your opinion?

RICE: I just said, the United States was told, we were told, nothing that violates our obligations under the Convention Against Torture. And so by definition, if it was authorized by the president, it did not violate our obligations under the Convention Against Torture. “  http://jonathanturley.org/2009/04/30/condoleezza-rice-asserts-a-nixonesque-defense-that-nothing-the-president-ordered-could-be-a-war-crime/.  Did I just wake up from a 30 + year coma or did she actually say that?  By definition, if the Prez authorized it, it must be ok!  To me it looks like Rice is beginning to set up her defense for future war crime trials.  What do you think of her statement?  Can the President really do anything he or she wants and make the blatantly illegal act legal?  That might be an interesting topic to throw around for awhile.

My second suggested topic is from a story that came out a few days ago.  It has to do with Sen. Arlen Specter’s switch from the Republican Party to the Democratic Party.  It was big news and even Specter admitted that the Republican Party is getting so radical that they are forcing moderates out of the party.  I am not sure that I am happy that Specter is a Democrat, but then I did remember that he switched once before so he has some experience in this kind of change.  What do you think of the change?  Will Specter vote with the Dems often enought to make a difference?  I think a frank discussion about the importance of Sen. Specter’s switch would be a great topic.  But, as I always say on Fridays, It is you, the Reader of arguewithmydad.com who will decide what we talk about today.

So get to work and let me know what you want to talk about.  Don’t dilly dally and don’t be shy.  I want to hear from every member of the AWMD nation.  I am looking forward to seeing what issues are on our readers minds.  Don’t hesitate because this is the one and only day where you can decide what we discuss.  The clock is ticking!

Not that the rain finally stopped, the weekend is over and we are staring at a new work week.  It was a busy weekend, but now we have to get ready to get to work again.  Of course, that also means that it is time for our regular Monday Musings.  The one story that keeps turning up on every cable new channel and on every main stream media outlet is the torture story.  Everywhere you look there is another Republican talking head clamoring that the left is trying to get retribution against the poor, down on their luck Bush administration officials who authored the memos or the higher ups who authorized the torture.  Of course, there must be another reason why the usual rule of law advocates in the Republican party are decrying the investigation into war crimes of torturing detainees.   I wonder what is worrying them?

I had actually forgotten how the UN Convention against Torture actually became U. S. law.  As this quote from the CNN program, Reliable Sources, as quoted on Crooks and Liars, tells us, “Ronald Reagan signed the 1988 U.N. Convention Against Torture where we committed ourselves to prosecuting people who torture. It’s the law.”  http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/joan-walsh-torture-illegal-whether-it-work.  So it is really Ronald Reagan’s fault that we have this silly law that outlaws torture.  I am a little confused.  If Reagan signed this into law, why are all of the Republicans against the enforcement of this law?  Does this mean that they don’t like Reagan anymore? 

Now that we know that Reagan was in favor of outlawing torture,why won’t the Republicans get behind the Democrat’s calls for investigations and prosecutions?  Of course, we have already discussed their tired claim that actually enforcing this law is just retribution.  There must be something else that is causing the Republicans to cry wolf.  I think I know what is causing this distress for them.  They are worried.  That must be it.  They are worried that the Bush officials have violated the laws against torture and they know that there is no excuse or defense to it.  They are trying the “the torture worked” fiction.  They are also using the “the torture saved lives lies” falsehood.  They are even attempting to continue the ruse that waterboarding is not torture.  I bet old Ronald Reagan is turning over in his grave when he hears that one.

The bottom line here is that the Bush administration made a pact with the devil and Lucifer is now calling in their debt.  They knew that they were trampling the law when they wrote the memos because the logic in the memos is sophmoric.  Actually, to call their logic sophmoric is an insult to Sophmores everywhere. These memos were obviously designed and written as “get out of jail cards” for the CIA and for the officials who authorized the torture.  Those officials include Rumsfield, Rice, Cheney and even good old George W.  Bush.  Now that the memos are out of the bag, the whole country knows the score.  What is the score, you ask.  The score is the Rule of Law 1 and the Bush torturers zero!  We are a country of laws and not of men and the Bush officials should be investigated and if the evidence shows that they violated the laws against torture, then it is an easy decision.  The rule of law applies to all.  Even Republican ex-Presidents.  President Obama needs to get out of the way and allow the Attorney General to do his job and to not attach any preconditions to that job.  If the Bush officials broke the law, then they must do the time.

Once again, the work week has flown by.  We find ourselves once again at our Friday Free For All event where our readers decide which topics we discuss on arguewithmydad.com.  I will make a couple of suggestions, but they are just suggestions for topics.  You, the reader will determine what we discuss today.  The only rule here is that you have to find one other reader who wants to discuss your topic.  Once you have found someone to argue with you, the floor is yours.  I do have a couple of suggested topics that we could discuss.  Here is the first one.

The first suggestion that I have is the story in the New York Times( http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/23/us/politics/23detain.html?_r=1&hp) which discusses whether the Bush torture tactics actually garnered good intelligence that saved lives and/or disrupted terrorist plots.  Of course, whether interrogation tactics are torture or not is not decided on the results of that torture.  Torture is illegal no matter why it is used and no matter who it is used on.  The New York Times article quotes a Vanity Fair article from last year that asked the FBI director if he thought that the torture had disrupted any plots and Mueller said ”

In an interview with Vanity Fair last year, the F.B.I. director since 2001, Robert S. Mueller III, was asked whether any attacks had been disrupted because of intelligence obtained through the coercive methods. “I don’t believe that has been the case,” Mr. Mueller said. (A spokesman for Mr. Mueller, John Miller, said on Tuesday, “The quote is accurate.”)”   As you can see from the follow-up on Tuesday, Mueller still states that there were no attacks that were disrupted by the intelligence derived from the torture tactics of the Bush regime.  So, even if you incorrectly believe that torture works and if it works it must be legal, the head of the FBI just burst your bubble.  So, tell me, what do you think?

My last suggested topic is another one based on the latest news about the torture program authorized and operated by the Bush Administration.  I know that is two torture topics that I have suggested, but there isn’t much else in the news lately.  Besides, it is a huge issue.  It seems that the Bush regime has been caught again in their usual case of hypocrisy. As reported in this Truthout article, http://www.truthout.org/042009J, the Bush Administration’s latest example of hpocrisy is on display.  Truthout informs us that “Indeed, while US government officials were preaching to Iraqis about the rules of war, the Bush administration was seven months into a secret interrogation program that authorized CIA interrogators to question Afghan and al-Qaeda detainees using brutal methods.”  I think that one sentence is a quick reminder of how the jaded mind of a Bush official works.  We can torture and harm our prisoners, but you better not harm our soldiers.   

Now that you have two suggested topics from me, I need to hear from all of our readers.  Let’s try to set a record for the total number of different readers who comment on these topics or suggest their own.  I am looking forward to reading what you, the reader want to discuss.  Don’t be shy.  It is time to express yourself.  It is time to get to work!

Is it just a coincidence that the day after I wrote that President Obama must take a stand against torture and those who ordered it, he announces that he is in favor of investigations to discover the truth?  I think not.  The only rationale answer is that President Obama is reading this site and many other progressive blog sites and he has heard the call for the truth. 

I realize that he didn’t order investigations, but he put his political seal on them by announcing in public that Attorney General Holder is responsible to make sure that our laws have not been broken.  In this Think Progress article, http://thinkprogress.org/2009/04/21/obama-holder-prosecutions/, President Obama is quoted as saying, “With respect to those who formulated those legal decisions, I would say that is going to be more of a decision for the Attorney General within the parameters of various laws, and I don’t want to prejudge that. ” In that very same article, the testimony that then Attorney General nominee, Eric Holder, gave to Senator Patrick Leahy at his confirmation hearing went as follows:

“Obama is effectively putting the ball in Holder’s court. Recall, during his Senate confirmation hearing, Holder said that the President cannot “immunize” torture and must enforce the law in all cases:LEAHY: Do you believe that the president of the United States has authority to exercise a commander-in-chief override and immunize acts of torture? I ask that because we did not get a satisfactory answer from Former Attorney General Gonzales on that.  HOLDER: Mr. Chairman, no one is above the law. The president has a constitutional obligation to faithfully execute the laws of the United States. There are obligations that we have as a result of treaties that we have signed — obligations, obviously, in the Constitution. Where Congress has passed a law, it is the obligation of the president, or the commander-in-chief, to follow those laws. [...]If one looks at the various statutes that have been passed, it is my belief that the president does not have the power that you’ve indicated.”

Now all we have to do is make sure Attorney General Holder is also reading arguewithmydad.com and the other progressive blogs that have been holding President Obama’s feet to the the political fire and convince him that it is time to name an independent prosecutor and honor his word. This is a small victory in the battle for justice to any and all who ordered and authorized torture in our name.  The United States of America has never stood for torture until the George W. Bush regime.  Maybe now, the rule of law will mean something to Bush and Cheney and the rest of their cabal. 

The weekend is over and here in Northern Illinois we are enjoying an all day and all night rain.  At least we had two good days before that.  Since the weekend is over, it must be time again for another edition of Monday Musings.  This edition is going to discuss just one major issue that is at the forefront of the news.  Those veteran readers of arguewithmydad.com know that one of my consistent issues over the past few years is the torture that was planned and authorized by the Bush regime.  With the latest disclosure of 4 of the secret OLC memos by the Obama Justice Department, we have learned why these memos were kept secret. This Think Progress article discusses the memos and has a link to the full memos. http://thinkprogress.org/2009/04/17/door-open-for-torture-prosecutions/ 

While it is commendable that the Obama administration actually disclosed these long secret memos it was initially believed by some that the announcement by Obama meant that he would not allow any CIA operatives or officials to be prosecuted, this same Think Progress article also provided some hope that the Obama Administration has not exempted all CIA and Bush Administration officials from possible prosecution.  There have been several articles written that actually detail exactly what did these memos approve. One of those articles was this article on Professor Jonathan Turley’s website, http://jonathanturley.org/2009/04/19/released-memo-bush-administration-tortured-khalid-sheikh-mohammed-183-times/.  In this article we learn that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was waterboarded 183 times!  The sheer number of times that this detainee was subjected to the illegal waterboard technique shows that the CIA wasn’t getting the information that they claim and it also proves that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was not broken as the Bush Administration had claimed earlier. 

We have subsequently learned that the Obama Administration may block prosecutions against any and all officials that were involved in the illegal torture techniques.  In this Crooks and Liars article, Rahm Emmanuel is quoted on George Stephanopoulous’ ABC This Week show that the Obama Administration will not investigate any Bush regime officials for their part in ordering and authorizing torture. http://crooksandliars.com/john-amato/rahm-emanuel-sez-no-bush-officals-shoul.  This comment by Emmanuel is an extraordinary statement.  If Emmanuel is correct, Obama has no intention in following the law by investigating and prosecuting any and all officials that were involved in the torturing of our prisoners and detainees.  This would be a departure from Obama’s comments during the campaign.  It might also be a violation of the law. 

With the Obama administration’s refusal to investigate interrogation activities that they have called torture, they have violated the law.  The United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture, Professor Manfred Nowak, has gone on the record to state that as a signor of the United Nations Convention against Torture, the US is required to investigate and prosecute any citizens for engaging in torture. http://thinkprogress.org/2009/04/19/obama-violated-int-law/ .  According to Professor Nowak, President Obama cannot refuse to investigate alleged torture incidents without violating international law.  This is an incredible situation that Obama has gotten himself into.  If he had done the right thing, he would not have this legal violation staring him in the face.  Of course, he would have the radical right jumping like crazy if he did authorize the investigations, but if we are a country that believes in the rule of law, it is an easy decision. This same article informs us that that same UN Convention Against Torture legislates that the “I was only following orders” defense is not a valid excuse. Obama’s claim that these CIA operatives were only following orders is not only a hollow defense, it is not legal.  

We didn’t elect Barack Obama for him to prohibit any legitimate investigations into the illegal activities of the Bush administration.  Why would he be taking this approach?  Is he afraid of the political fallout of investigations that prove that Bush and CIA officials were guilty of illegal torture?  If that is the reason why he won’t follow the law, then he needs to be shown the error of his ways.  If he made a bargain with the devil by assuring Bush officials that he would not go after them, then he has made a deal that he is not allowed to make.  This UN Convention became US law once it was confirmed by the Senate and it is very clear in requiring investigations.  I can only hope that Emmanuel’s statements earlier today were purposely set out as a political trial balloon to see what the fallout would be.  Then Obama can save face by saying that Emmanuel did not have the authority to say what he did.  I only wish I could say that I believe that theory.    However, I hope that this theory is correct  for Obama’s sake and more importantly, for the sake of our country that is supposed to be governed by laws and not by men.   

President Obama, it is time to stop listening to advisors like Emmanuel and do the right thing.  Follow the law and investigate and prosecute these unlawful acts by the Bush officials and the CIA operatives.  Not only will you be violating the law if you don’t, you will also lose the support of many progressive Democrats that supported your candidacy.   What other laws will you violate for political expediency if you will not prosecute obvious instances of torture?

You read the title correctly.  It is time again for our weekly Friday Free For All.  This is the one time of the week that the readers of arguewithmydad.com can decide what topics we are going to discuss.  As long as you can get someone else to discuss your topic, you are in control of the discussion.  I will make a couple of suggestions for topics, but they are only suggestions.  You are in control.  

My first suggested topic was the big news of the day.  The Obama administration agreed to disclose several Bush-era legal memos that were used to validate the torture that was ordered by George W. Bush. Here is a link to an ACLU blog that discusses exactly what was disclosed in court and it even includes a link to the released memos themselves. http://blog.aclu.org/2009/04/16/bush-era-torture-memos-released-to-aclu/.  The memos are an easy read and it is obvious to any reader that the memos are mere window dressing.  http://www.aclu.org/safefree/general/olc_memos.html.  They are not legal memos in the true sense. These memos were simply written “get out of jail” cards for anyone considering torture.  There was also a discussion of these memos on Jonathan Turley’s blog here http://jonathanturley.org/2009/04/16/obama-orders-release-of-secret-memos-but-strongly-signals-that-he-will-block-any-war-crimes-investigation/.  I have given you my take on this topic, if it interests you, let’s hear your take on them.

My second suggested topic is the interesting suggestion that Texas Governor Rick Perry made yesterday.  It seems he stated that maybe Texas should consider seceding from the Union.  This Think Progress article discusses what Gov. Perry said and what it means. http://thinkprogress.org/2009/04/16/delay-secede/.  I am of the opinion that one of the best things we could do for the country would be to let Texas secede from the Union.  What would we be losing?  We would be losing far too many right wing religious wackos and some of the worst judges in the country.  I am not saying that all Texans are bad.  There are millions of decent citizens in Texas.  Unfortunately, they are held captive by the nutcases that far too often run the state.  I think we could have a serious discussion into exactly what would the country lose if Texas was its own Republic once again.  What do you think? 

Remember, you are the deciding vote on what topic we are going to discuss on Friday Free For All.  It could be one of the two suggested topics above, or any other topic that you, the arguewithmydad.com reader, want to discuss.  I am looking forward to hearing what you decide and which topic or topics we discuss.  Don’t hesitate and don’t be shy.  This weekly feature only works if you come up with the topic.  I will be waiting to see what the AWMD nation decides to talk about.  Let’s get busy!

The Easter weekend is over and I am wondering how many pounds I have gained since Friday.  It was a great weekend and I am looking forward to the work week.  A couple of stories caught my eye over the weekend that I want to share with the readers of arguewithmydad.com. The first story broke on Easter Sunday.  

The U.S. Navy was successful in rescuing the U.S. merchant ship captain that was kidnapped by Somali pirates a few days ago. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30178013/.  The reports tell us that U.S. Navy Seal snipers killed the three pirates that were holding the captain in the lifeboat,while a fourth pirate was in custody on the the Navy ship that had been on the scene.  I can’t tell you how many emails I had received from conservative friends who were up in arms because President Obama wasn’t protecting U.S. citizens.  Although they had no evidence to prove their wild Fox News claims, they were all expecting President Obama to fail in dealing with these pirates.  Of course, I have not seen any additional emails since the news broke that the U.S. Navy had used deadly force to protect our citizen and they had been authorized to use that force by the President.  http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/africa/04/12/somalia.pirates/index.html.  What will Fox News say now?  How will they try to spin the facts?  It should be fun to see how they will attempt to lie about the rescue in their feeble attempt to embarrass the Obama administration.  Who knows, maybe they will surprise me and actually admit that the administration had handled the situation perfectly and that the U.S. Navy Seals had shown the pirates that their tactics will not go unanswered.  The Somalia pirates aren’t out of business, but they now know that they are not safe anywhere. 

The next story that caught my eye was the disclosure that the chemical companies had sent a letter to First Lady Michelle Obama to notify her of their disappointment that she was not using any chemicals in her Organic Garden on the White House grounds. http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/first-ladys-organic-garden-concerns-chemical-companies-2009-04-09.html.  I first learned of this story when I read this posting on the blogsite of Professor Jonathan Turley, of George Washington University Law School, http://jonathanturley.org/2009/04/11/michele-michele-how-does-your-garden-grow/.  I was shocked to see that anyone might have a problem with the First Lady planting and promoting an organic vegetable and fruit garden.  Of course, I do not think like a neocon or a conservative corporate executive, but it still amazes me that this healthy gardening experience was being labeled as a dangerous precedent. According to the article in the Hill linked above,  ”But MACA, which represents agribusinesses like Monsanto, Dow AgroSciences and DuPont Crop Protection, is rather less thrilled about the fact that no chemicals will be used to grow the crops. The group is worried that the decision may give consumers the wrong impression about conventionally grown food.”  I was stunned.  MACA was worried that the First Lady’s organic garden could give people the wrong idea about how their food is grown.  Isn’t that the whole idea of organic gardening?  Isn’t organic farming and gardening done in order to prevent the ingestion of unnatural chemicals and substances?  I guess maybe I was looking at this situation too logically.   Maybe their next step in fighting this dangerous garden will be an imagined “swift tractor story” that claims that the First Lady is actually using illegal aliens in digging and planting the garden.  The only problem with that type of false attack is that there are too many media pictures that show the First Lady digging the garden with elementary school children.  Karl Rove and Rush Limbaugh will have to really put their thinking caps on in order to figure out a response to the latest organic tactics used by the Obama Administration.  Maybe Fox News will run a story on how dangerous organic vegetables really are and that they are just another step toward Socialism!  It should be fun watching this garden grow.

I want to wish all of the readers of arguewithmydad.com a Happy Easter.  I also want to wish all of my Jewish readers a Happy Passover and to the rest of you, Happy Weekend!  I hope that covers you all and that I haven’t missed anyone. Enjoy the day with your family, if possible, and don’t eat too many chocolate Easter eggs or jelly beans.  On second thought, go ahead and eat as many as you like.  I hope that you are able to celebrate with your family and friends and that the weather wherever you are, is sunny and mild.  See you on Monday.

Another week has flown by and it is time once again for another Friday Free For All.  This is the one time in the week that the readers get to decide which topic we will discuss.  All you have to do is to convince another reader to respond to your topic.  I will suggest some possible topics, but as I say every Friday, they are only suggestions.  You, the reader, are in control of the discussion.  Here we go.

My first suggestion for a topic this week is a very interesting story about a Texas legislator who thinks that Asian Americans should change their names in order for the rest of us to be able to pronounce it.  http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/6365320.html.  I first saw this story on the blog of George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley. http://jonathanturley.org/2009/04/09/texas-legislator-wants-asian-americans-to-adopt-names-that-are-easier-to-pronounce/.  As some of you might expect, I think that Texas State Rep. Betty Brown is a racist who doesn’t belong in the legislature of any state.  Does it surprise you that Betty is a Republican?  What should Texas do with Rep. Brown?

My second suggested topic to discuss is the protests in Baghdad today marking the 6th anniversary of our illegal attack on Iraq in 2003.  This Christian Science Monitor article details the protests by tens of thousands of Iraqis who want the United States out of Iraq now.  http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0409/p06s07-wogn.html.  Do you think we should leave Iraq more quickly than what President Obama has directed?  I believe that the sooner we leave the better it will be in the long run for the Iraqis, but we do have to be careful to make sure that we protect our troops on the way out.  What do you think should be done?

My final suggested topic is this story that I saw in the New York Times concerning the CIA’s decision to close their secret Black Site prisons.  http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/10/world/10detain.html?_r=1.  It is about time that the CIA closed these illegal and immoral sites, but the story also discusses Panetta’s statements that CIA officials should not be prosecuted for their torture because they were told it was legal.  Where have I heard that argument before??  Oh, now I remember.  I read about that excuse when it was used by Nazi’s in the Nuremberg trials after World War II.  What do you think of the CIA closing these sites and what do you think of Panetta’s lame excuse for CIA officials who cooperated with the Bush Administration in their torture program?  I think this topic could really be fun to “discuss”. 

Those are my suggestions, but I will be waiting to see what the arguewithmydad.com nation comes up with.  This is your show so lets hear what you think and let’s hear what you want to discuss.  Don’t be shy and let’s get busy.

What is it about Sunday nights that brings such good weather to Northern Illinois.  Last week there was 7 inches of snow on the ground and we may get 5 more inches tonight.  Isn’t Spring wonderful?  The Weekend is behind us and it is time for our weekly Monday Musings feature.  I have been thinking about a few issues that have been burning my backside and now is as good a time as any to discuss them.

The first issue that I need to discuss concerns a topic that I do not normally address on arguewithmydad.com.  It seems that our good Cardinal Francis George of Chicago has been busy opening his pie hole about the University of Notre Dame’s invitation to President Obama to speak to its students.  Cardinal George stated that Notre Dame is a little “less Catholic” for inviting a President who is Pro-Choice.  He also is encouraging Catholics to write Notre Dame to try to convince them to un-invite Obama. It seems that Cardinal George has forgotten that Notre Dame has a tradition of inviting sitting Presidents to speak to their students.  George Bush was invited, Clinton and George Bush the First were also invited.  I have some information for the good Cardinal.  I remember the good Benedictine Sisters telling me that the death penalty was also a sin of the Catholic faith.  Since the Nuns never lied to us, how could the Cardinal not be upset when Presidents who supported the death penalty were invited to speak at the venerable NotreDame?  The Cardinal needs to keep his religion out of politics and he needs to get a refresher course in Catholic teachings from the same Benedictines that taught me.  Why is it that fervent religion almost always runs smack dab into Hypocrisy?

The next issue that needs to be discussed is the continuing efforts by the Republican party to hold up President Obama’s appointees for political reasons.  We already know that the Republicans have set records in the number of filibusters that they have used to hold up Democratic legislation.  Here is a link to an article in the American, the Journal of the American Enterprise Institute, a Conservative think tank, that describes the unbelievable number of filibusters and procedural holds the the Republicans have been using to gum up the works in the Senate.  http://www.american.com/archive/2008/march-april-magazine-contents/our-broken-senate.  Take a look at the article because it will amaze you.  The following Think Progress article describes just several of the appointments being choked by the Republicans.  http://thinkprogress.org/2009/04/04/nominees-held-up/.  The Republicans are holding up disabled and decorated war hero, Tammy Duckworth’s appointment as an assistant secretary at the Department of Veterans Affairs.  The Republicans are also holding up law Professor, Dawn Johnsen’s nomination as head of the Office of Legal Counsel.  That office came to national attention due to some infamous memos penned by John Yoo.  Our good friend, Sen. John Cornyn is one of the reasons why Johnsen’s appointment has been put on hold.  What is Senator Cornyn afraid of? I think Cornyn is afraid of the memos that Johnsen may uncover and disclose from the Bush/Yoo era of the OLC.  Johnsen was a vocal critic of the Bush OLC and having a law professor with experience in the OLC heading the office just scares the hell out of Cornyn.  If she scares Cornyn, I am even more interested in making sure Johnsen and the other appointees are allowed to do the job that they were appointed to do.  But as the American Enterprise article linked above noted, the purpose of the Republicans is to make sure the these appointments are not successful.  It doesn’t matter what is best for the country.  It is only politics that Cornyn and his other slime ball Republicants are concerned with. 

The final issue that I want to discuss is the fact that we need to investigate who was tortured and who authorized the torture of detainees and prisoners.  We already know that George W. Bush and Dick Cheney both admitted publicly to authorizing the waterboarding of at least one detainee.  President Obama has a duty to determine who broke the law and to punish anyone who authorized the illegal torture of these prisoners.  He has been reticent to do it so far, but I believe that Attorney General Holder is in favor of investigating and punishing anyone who has broken the law.  I also believe that if she is confirmed, OLC appointee Dawn Johnsen will uncover the torture memos that are still being withheld from public scrutiny.  In this FireDogLake article, http://firedoglake.com/2009/04/05/obama-rules-must-be-binding-violations-must-be-punished-ok/, concerning President Obama’s speech today in Prague, he is quoted as saying “Rules must be binding. Violations must be punished. Words must mean something.”  Those words are very important because that is what we have been saying since inauguration day.  It is time to make sure that President Obama is held to his words.  Check out this ACLU link and sign their online petition demanding that Attorney General Holder appoint a special prosecutor to investigate the torture policies in the Bush administration. There is no other issue that is as important to the United States in repairing its standing in the world than investigating the torture allegations and punishing any and all involved in the illegal torture of detainees.  President Obama was correct today when he said it in Prague,  ” Rules must be binding. Violations must be punished….”