If the US is indeed still a nation of laws, a Yoo indictment is an obvious necessity.

The real question is: Is The United States Still A Nation Of Laws?

by William Whitten (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 4880 comments [1686 recommended, 28 rejected]) on Friday, Dec 5, 2008 at 1:37:50 PM

  (0+)

That would be a yes, and add Addington, Haynes, Gonzalez and a few others into the mix in the docket.

by Jack Harrington (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 676 comments [70 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Dec 5, 2008 at 3:09:04 PM

  (0+)

The question then becomes what does one do about it. Clearly if one propagates the illusion and the delusion that one already has a nation of laws then one does not help make a nation of laws one just adds to the problem. The non impeachment of Bush shows that the United States is not a nation of laws. When George W Bush can conspicuously get away with mass murder because he murders and tortures under the protection of other Americans motivated more by a desire to preserve their own privileges then the people of the world can see that the united states is not a nation of laws and that its body politic is not lawful but opportunistic. It (the United States) constitutes a conspiracy by 5 percent of the worlds population to deprive non Americans (the other 95 percent) of human rights such as the right not to be murdered. Protect American jobs. Protect American privilege translates, in a world where Americans won't keep their highest promises and duties - the duty not to kill unlawfully (ie against their word on treaties) into a call to protect privileges by making other human beings inferior.

by Brett Paatsch (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 23 diaries, 1308 comments) on Friday, Dec 5, 2008 at 5:17:26 PM

  (0+)

It would START to make us whole again by prosecuting these anti-American thugs.

by David Hastings (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 116 comments [5 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Dec 5, 2008 at 6:36:33 PM

  (0+)

Yoo claimed in 2005 that a president has the right to enhance an interrogation by crushing the testicles of someone's child.

Is that just the President of the United States or any president? Does the United States have a sort of shared divine mandate now where each of god/allahs 300 million Americans together get to determine what is right?

Beyond the law are questions of practical philosophy and politics and human rights.

What sort of president exactly has the right to crush the testicles of say Yoo's mothers child?

Obviously many bullies and thugs and perhaps others like Yoo or smarter than Yoo could obtain the practical earthly power to crush the testicles of Yoos mothers child if they thought it sufficiently important to make such a thing a goal for themselves.

Yoo's uncrushed testicles are not infinitely valuable as a resource to be protected so directing more resources to the task of crushing them then protecting them would result in their being crushed. Isn't that right Yoo?

As an aside I wonder what career alternatives Yoo might have. Which group of people things female genital mutilation is better than its alternative of non female genital mutilation. Perhaps Yoo can offer his legal services and show by what natural Right they mutilate female genitalia.  

by Brett Paatsch (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 23 diaries, 1308 comments) on Friday, Dec 5, 2008 at 10:00:43 PM

  (0+)