<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: The WaPo Did Not Scoop This Story in 2005</title>
	<atom:link href="http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2008/04/13/the-wapo-did-not-scoop-this-story-in-2005/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2008/04/13/the-wapo-did-not-scoop-this-story-in-2005/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 24 Nov 2009 02:00:06 -0600</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: skdadl</title>
		<link>http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2008/04/13/the-wapo-did-not-scoop-this-story-in-2005/comment-page-1/#comment-64190</link>
		<dc:creator>skdadl</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 14 Apr 2008 15:31:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2008/04/13/the-wapo-did-not-scoop-this-story-in-2005/#comment-64190</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;Hello, Son of Klynn. I’m an alien and no expert on these things, but one point I hope you will make if you talk about international law is how great a role American lawyers and judges played at Nuremberg in producing the jurisprudence that led to revisions of the Geneva Conventions (in 1949, I think), among many other things. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Some Americans have been encouraged to be suspicious of all international bodies and treaties, which I think is a pity, since those owe so much to the best you have produced.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hello, Son of Klynn. I’m an alien and no expert on these things, but one point I hope you will make if you talk about international law is how great a role American lawyers and judges played at Nuremberg in producing the jurisprudence that led to revisions of the Geneva Conventions (in 1949, I think), among many other things. </p>
<p>Some Americans have been encouraged to be suspicious of all international bodies and treaties, which I think is a pity, since those owe so much to the best you have produced.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: JimWhite</title>
		<link>http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2008/04/13/the-wapo-did-not-scoop-this-story-in-2005/comment-page-1/#comment-64165</link>
		<dc:creator>JimWhite</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 14 Apr 2008 14:42:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2008/04/13/the-wapo-did-not-scoop-this-story-in-2005/#comment-64165</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;I vote for the Constitution and rule of law, because without them, the others become impossible.  The MSM is failing in its job, but the blogosphere is doing what it can to pick up the slack.  If we do away with the first amendment, neither the press nor blogosphere is functional.  Similarly, Bush is trying to use Yoo to circumvent Geneva, but with proper application of the Constitution and rule of law, Yoo’s justifications will fall away and Bush and his minions will face the prospect of prosecution.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I vote for the Constitution and rule of law, because without them, the others become impossible.  The MSM is failing in its job, but the blogosphere is doing what it can to pick up the slack.  If we do away with the first amendment, neither the press nor blogosphere is functional.  Similarly, Bush is trying to use Yoo to circumvent Geneva, but with proper application of the Constitution and rule of law, Yoo’s justifications will fall away and Bush and his minions will face the prospect of prosecution.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: dopeyo</title>
		<link>http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2008/04/13/the-wapo-did-not-scoop-this-story-in-2005/comment-page-1/#comment-64149</link>
		<dc:creator>dopeyo</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 14 Apr 2008 12:33:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2008/04/13/the-wapo-did-not-scoop-this-story-in-2005/#comment-64149</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;Get back to first things: John Adams (I believe) wrote that ‘We are a nation of laws, not of men’ meaning that upholding the law was the primary obligation of the state, and to be ruled by the fiat of fallible men was to return to tyranny. If we were ruled by men, John Yoo could issue a memo declaring that the President could bite the heads off of live kittens in the Rose Garden on live TV if he found that necessary to defending America, and that such abuse is legal. I’m sure, given some Texans’ history of blowing up live animals in their youths, there is someone in Washington who might even direct John Yoo to write that memo. From there, we get to the 21st-century version of “Through the Looking-Glass” where ‘a law means what ever is say it means’. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;“Are we there yet?”, Klynn’s child asks from the back seat. Schroedinger’s Mom replies “Maybe.” John Yoo says “I’m driving there as fast as I can!” (H.T. to Good Celery.)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt; I wonder about developing the meme that there is no such &lt;em&gt;thing &lt;/em&gt; as America; America is the condition where men and women agree to live peacefully together under the rules that all are equal, all have ‘certain inalienable rights’, all have a duty to protect the rules that protect all (see ‘Constitution, U.S.’). Etc. Once you leave that condition, you are no longer a good, patriotic American. Under that scenario, Osama bin Laden can’t destroy America. Only we can. Bush and Yoo are doing their part.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Get back to first things: John Adams (I believe) wrote that ‘We are a nation of laws, not of men’ meaning that upholding the law was the primary obligation of the state, and to be ruled by the fiat of fallible men was to return to tyranny. If we were ruled by men, John Yoo could issue a memo declaring that the President could bite the heads off of live kittens in the Rose Garden on live TV if he found that necessary to defending America, and that such abuse is legal. I’m sure, given some Texans’ history of blowing up live animals in their youths, there is someone in Washington who might even direct John Yoo to write that memo. From there, we get to the 21st-century version of “Through the Looking-Glass” where ‘a law means what ever is say it means’. </p>
<p>“Are we there yet?”, Klynn’s child asks from the back seat. Schroedinger’s Mom replies “Maybe.” John Yoo says “I’m driving there as fast as I can!” (H.T. to Good Celery.)</p>
<p> I wonder about developing the meme that there is no such <em>thing </em> as America; America is the condition where men and women agree to live peacefully together under the rules that all are equal, all have ‘certain inalienable rights’, all have a duty to protect the rules that protect all (see ‘Constitution, U.S.’). Etc. Once you leave that condition, you are no longer a good, patriotic American. Under that scenario, Osama bin Laden can’t destroy America. Only we can. Bush and Yoo are doing their part.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: klynn</title>
		<link>http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2008/04/13/the-wapo-did-not-scoop-this-story-in-2005/comment-page-1/#comment-64145</link>
		<dc:creator>klynn</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 14 Apr 2008 11:38:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2008/04/13/the-wapo-did-not-scoop-this-story-in-2005/#comment-64145</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;Son of Klynn again,&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Thank you in advance to anyone who responds.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Son of Klynn again,</p>
<p>Thank you in advance to anyone who responds.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: klynn</title>
		<link>http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2008/04/13/the-wapo-did-not-scoop-this-story-in-2005/comment-page-1/#comment-64144</link>
		<dc:creator>klynn</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 14 Apr 2008 11:37:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2008/04/13/the-wapo-did-not-scoop-this-story-in-2005/#comment-64144</guid>
		<description>&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;p&gt;Gonzales, after reviewing a legal brief from the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, advised Bush verbally on Jan. 18, 2002, that he had authority to exempt the detainees from [Geneva] protections. Bush agreed, &lt;strong&gt;reversing a decades-old policy aimed in part at ensuring equal treatment for U.S. military detainees around the world&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Posted that here and in a thread by Christy a few days ago.  I was surprised at the lack of response…That concept of “equal treatment” is the foundation to upholding the Geneva Conventions.  So, it tells you what Bush thinks of our men and women in uniform. HE DOES NOT CARE.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Have fun repugs maintaining service personnel with actions and arrogance like that. It is difficult enough to make the decision to join the armed services. To think you will be filleted like a fish and have to face the worst torture imaginable if caught, quite frankly, is not convincing to sign up to serve.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;BTW everyone here at EW’s. Have been having interesting conversations with my son the last few days.  He has to present a two minute persuasive argument in a class in two days. He is trying to decide between the importance of the MSM upholding their role as the fourth estate or the importance of adhering national policy to the Geneva Conventions. I’ll let him type the rest…&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Hi EW posters, I’m “son of klynn.” Just wanted to know of the two topics my Mom mentioned in her introduction of me to all of you, which one would you find the MOST important? MSM as Fourth Estate or Upholding The Geneva Conventions? Now I will say, my Uncle served in Iraq for 4.5 years. I figured I could “local end” my points for either argument with his experience. bmaz, I hope you give your vote and perhaps your top two points you would want stated in a high school classroom to future voters. (BTW I had also considered the topic of upholding the Constitution/Rule Of Law in a Democratic Society. Throw that into the voting if anyone wants to.)&lt;/p&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<blockquote><p>Gonzales, after reviewing a legal brief from the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, advised Bush verbally on Jan. 18, 2002, that he had authority to exempt the detainees from [Geneva] protections. Bush agreed, <strong>reversing a decades-old policy aimed in part at ensuring equal treatment for U.S. military detainees around the world</strong></p>
</blockquote>
<p>Posted that here and in a thread by Christy a few days ago.  I was surprised at the lack of response…That concept of “equal treatment” is the foundation to upholding the Geneva Conventions.  So, it tells you what Bush thinks of our men and women in uniform. HE DOES NOT CARE.</p>
<p>Have fun repugs maintaining service personnel with actions and arrogance like that. It is difficult enough to make the decision to join the armed services. To think you will be filleted like a fish and have to face the worst torture imaginable if caught, quite frankly, is not convincing to sign up to serve.</p>
<p>BTW everyone here at EW’s. Have been having interesting conversations with my son the last few days.  He has to present a two minute persuasive argument in a class in two days. He is trying to decide between the importance of the MSM upholding their role as the fourth estate or the importance of adhering national policy to the Geneva Conventions. I’ll let him type the rest…</p>
<p>Hi EW posters, I’m “son of klynn.” Just wanted to know of the two topics my Mom mentioned in her introduction of me to all of you, which one would you find the MOST important? MSM as Fourth Estate or Upholding The Geneva Conventions? Now I will say, my Uncle served in Iraq for 4.5 years. I figured I could “local end” my points for either argument with his experience. bmaz, I hope you give your vote and perhaps your top two points you would want stated in a high school classroom to future voters. (BTW I had also considered the topic of upholding the Constitution/Rule Of Law in a Democratic Society. Throw that into the voting if anyone wants to.)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: al75</title>
		<link>http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2008/04/13/the-wapo-did-not-scoop-this-story-in-2005/comment-page-1/#comment-64143</link>
		<dc:creator>al75</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 14 Apr 2008 10:20:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2008/04/13/the-wapo-did-not-scoop-this-story-in-2005/#comment-64143</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;Excellent post EW.  You’re dead right, as usual.  W’s naked dishonesty is as striking, in it’s small way, as the larger legal and moral horror - but the supine posture of the MSM on this issue points to something more deeply wrong, an atmosphere of apathetic permissiveness, or fear, that makes state torture possible.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Excellent post EW.  You’re dead right, as usual.  W’s naked dishonesty is as striking, in it’s small way, as the larger legal and moral horror &#8211; but the supine posture of the MSM on this issue points to something more deeply wrong, an atmosphere of apathetic permissiveness, or fear, that makes state torture possible.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: radiofreewill</title>
		<link>http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2008/04/13/the-wapo-did-not-scoop-this-story-in-2005/comment-page-1/#comment-64141</link>
		<dc:creator>radiofreewill</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 14 Apr 2008 05:35:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2008/04/13/the-wapo-did-not-scoop-this-story-in-2005/#comment-64141</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;BillE - I hear you that We ’should’ have an expectation that Pelosi and the rest of the Dem leadership be Stand-Up People whenever they ’see’ wrong, however, there always seems to be more to the Story where Bush is involved, too - things might not be what they seem.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;For instance, imagine if Pelosi ‘knows’ that Bush has had ‘full-spectrum’ electronic surveillance of all the Key Leadership going since 911, or so? Not to mention Media, Corporations, Judges, Lawyers, and his own Cabinet? Think about it - Bush is a Torturer - what Moral Synapses are left to stop him from Spying on US, too?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In an atmosphere like that hypothetical, as long as Bush keeps the patina of ‘Legality’ for his Programs, very few (intelligent) People would challenge him openly.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;However, that’s not to suggest that behind the veneer of Law, all of Bush’s eager Henchpeople are busily stealing US blind.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;To the contrary - behind that ‘false’ wall of Banana Republic OLC Pronouncements are thousands of Good Americans in Government - restrained out of Respect for a System they aren’t willing to invalidate by Breaking it to Fix it.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Once the Wall of Hoseshit UE Law is refuted, these folks will feel like Free Americans, again, able to Speak Out without Fear of Retaliation, from Bush’s Cloaked and Secret Spies.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;I’ll bet the Only thing holding back Droves and Droves of Whistle-blowers is the Fear of getting disappeared, real or not. Bush doesn’t Lead People with Assurances of the Law, he Drives Fear into them with the Vagueness of His Unlimited Power.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a POW situation - which may not be too far from the Truth for Pelosi, et al - the best survival advice is to ‘be the gray man’ - don’t stand out, either high or low, and attract attention to yourself. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Once the Fear of Retaliation goes away - meaning Congress and the Courts regain Effective Checks and Balances with the Executive - and Bush and his HenchPeople lose their Invisibility Cloak, then the Full Ugly is going to come rushing out - and I wouldn’t be surprised in the least if the consensus long view becomes that the ‘gray man strategy’ was the correct one.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>BillE &#8211; I hear you that We ’should’ have an expectation that Pelosi and the rest of the Dem leadership be Stand-Up People whenever they ’see’ wrong, however, there always seems to be more to the Story where Bush is involved, too &#8211; things might not be what they seem.</p>
<p>For instance, imagine if Pelosi ‘knows’ that Bush has had ‘full-spectrum’ electronic surveillance of all the Key Leadership going since 911, or so? Not to mention Media, Corporations, Judges, Lawyers, and his own Cabinet? Think about it &#8211; Bush is a Torturer &#8211; what Moral Synapses are left to stop him from Spying on US, too?</p>
<p>In an atmosphere like that hypothetical, as long as Bush keeps the patina of ‘Legality’ for his Programs, very few (intelligent) People would challenge him openly.</p>
<p>However, that’s not to suggest that behind the veneer of Law, all of Bush’s eager Henchpeople are busily stealing US blind.</p>
<p>To the contrary &#8211; behind that ‘false’ wall of Banana Republic OLC Pronouncements are thousands of Good Americans in Government &#8211; restrained out of Respect for a System they aren’t willing to invalidate by Breaking it to Fix it.</p>
<p>Once the Wall of Hoseshit UE Law is refuted, these folks will feel like Free Americans, again, able to Speak Out without Fear of Retaliation, from Bush’s Cloaked and Secret Spies.</p>
<p>I’ll bet the Only thing holding back Droves and Droves of Whistle-blowers is the Fear of getting disappeared, real or not. Bush doesn’t Lead People with Assurances of the Law, he Drives Fear into them with the Vagueness of His Unlimited Power.</p>
<p>In a POW situation &#8211; which may not be too far from the Truth for Pelosi, et al &#8211; the best survival advice is to ‘be the gray man’ &#8211; don’t stand out, either high or low, and attract attention to yourself. </p>
<p>Once the Fear of Retaliation goes away &#8211; meaning Congress and the Courts regain Effective Checks and Balances with the Executive &#8211; and Bush and his HenchPeople lose their Invisibility Cloak, then the Full Ugly is going to come rushing out &#8211; and I wouldn’t be surprised in the least if the consensus long view becomes that the ‘gray man strategy’ was the correct one.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: bmaz</title>
		<link>http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2008/04/13/the-wapo-did-not-scoop-this-story-in-2005/comment-page-1/#comment-64140</link>
		<dc:creator>bmaz</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 14 Apr 2008 04:54:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2008/04/13/the-wapo-did-not-scoop-this-story-in-2005/#comment-64140</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;Bush is &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-IRS-Audits.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;still working&lt;/a&gt; for the constituents he cares about:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;p&gt;The tax audit rates of the largest companies are less than half what they were 20 years ago while more small and mid-size businesses are coming under scrutiny, according to an organization that monitors the Internal Revenue Service.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Bush is <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-IRS-Audits.html" rel="nofollow">still working</a> for the constituents he cares about:</p>
<blockquote><p>The tax audit rates of the largest companies are less than half what they were 20 years ago while more small and mid-size businesses are coming under scrutiny, according to an organization that monitors the Internal Revenue Service.</p>
</blockquote>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: prostratedragon</title>
		<link>http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2008/04/13/the-wapo-did-not-scoop-this-story-in-2005/comment-page-1/#comment-64139</link>
		<dc:creator>prostratedragon</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 14 Apr 2008 04:38:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2008/04/13/the-wapo-did-not-scoop-this-story-in-2005/#comment-64139</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;i&gt;What a total pile of junk this act is.&lt;/i&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
The abridged review, with which I heartily concur. You really have to wonder about the tangled web of a mind that could even write the thing up.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;It looks to me as if section 2004 refers to co-operation with the ICCt in the form —&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Oh Christ, later, later! I’ve said it before, and say it again, part of the strategy is to exhaust us.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><i>What a total pile of junk this act is.</i><br />
The abridged review, with which I heartily concur. You really have to wonder about the tangled web of a mind that could even write the thing up.</p>
<p>It looks to me as if section 2004 refers to co-operation with the ICCt in the form —</p>
<p>Oh Christ, later, later! I’ve said it before, and say it again, part of the strategy is to exhaust us.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: bmaz</title>
		<link>http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2008/04/13/the-wapo-did-not-scoop-this-story-in-2005/comment-page-1/#comment-64137</link>
		<dc:creator>bmaz</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 14 Apr 2008 04:08:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2008/04/13/the-wapo-did-not-scoop-this-story-in-2005/#comment-64137</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;Yeah, the way I read it (and I just scanned it, so I may have missed something) is that it allows specific designated waivers of one year by a president, that are renewable, but only as to sections 2005 and 2007, regarding UN Peacekeeping missions and military assistance to ICC respectively; but not as to any US troops or authorities.  I am not quite sure what to make of section 2011.  If you believe in the Unitary Executive theory, I guess it would allow a president to do whatever he wants; if you don’t, then I think it would not allow the next president to send any of the torture turds to the ICC.  Curiously, after saying what powers the president does have, it then winds up with a sentence saying he has no statutory permission to do that.  What a total pile of junk this act is.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The next president will not, however, be able to simply sign something to nullify this act.  It will have to either be rescinded by superseding legislation or mooted by US joinder in and ratification of the ICC treaty/agreement.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Yeah, the way I read it (and I just scanned it, so I may have missed something) is that it allows specific designated waivers of one year by a president, that are renewable, but only as to sections 2005 and 2007, regarding UN Peacekeeping missions and military assistance to ICC respectively; but not as to any US troops or authorities.  I am not quite sure what to make of section 2011.  If you believe in the Unitary Executive theory, I guess it would allow a president to do whatever he wants; if you don’t, then I think it would not allow the next president to send any of the torture turds to the ICC.  Curiously, after saying what powers the president does have, it then winds up with a sentence saying he has no statutory permission to do that.  What a total pile of junk this act is.</p>
<p>The next president will not, however, be able to simply sign something to nullify this act.  It will have to either be rescinded by superseding legislation or mooted by US joinder in and ratification of the ICC treaty/agreement.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
