The right war for the right reasons . . .

. . . all done according the manual. Riiiight. On a related note, I'm enjoying Tom Bingham's book, The Rule of Law. As many commentators have noted, the most compelling part of Bingham's book is his chapter on the Iraq war:

"It is not at all clear to me what, if any, legal justification of its action the US government relied on . . . If I am right and the invasion of Iraq . . . was unauthorised by the security council, there was a serious violation of international law and the rule of law . . . It is, as has been said, 'the difference between the role of world policeman and world vigilante.' "

Some interesting statements here from Tom about the Chilcot inquiry.

She clerked for Thomas . . .

. . . and a member of the Federalist society to boot! Quel surprise.

Two years out of law school and writing memos about the president's limitless power, unconstrained by quaint relics like the constitution.

Outstanding!

I've just decided I won't be retaining Kirkland any time soon.

"Sure"

Why not?

The problems with Yoo's patently ridiculous comparison to Hiroshima and Nagasaki:

1) Previous to the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention in 1949, there was no treaty against targeting civilians. So, at the time, it would not have been unlawful for the president to order the "massacre of a civilian village". It would have been wrong, but not unlawful.

2) The means of production of weapons is - sadly - a legitimate target in time of war. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were military staging areas and major industrial centers producing munitions. The only reason targeting them is questioned is because people are squeamish about the use of nuclear weapons. If they had been fire-bombed it would have been just another epic tragedy, no more or less noteworthy than any other firebombing perpetrated by McNamara or Churchill.

The real issue is this: Yoo and his boss told the president he is not bound by U.S. law.

A little more color on the torture memo . . .

Margolis overruled OPR, the bastard.

Late update:

If I have lost my job, and am short on funds, context dictates that I am justified in knocking off the liquor store down the street. I'm sure the authorities will understand. You see, this would be an unprecedented situation never experienced by me before - one which threatens my very survival.

Anything is justified, by Mr. Margolis' reckoning.

National Monuments?

Not sure this is a good idea. Not sure I want to see bus tours to Cedar Mesa . . .

Not sure I want wheel-chair ramps here . . .

So much for Justice . . .

These boys got off light, given the extent to which they betrayed their fundamental obligations as lawyers:

The report said “situations of great stress, danger and fear do not relieve department attorneys of their duty to provide thorough, objective, and candid legal advice, even if that advice is not what the clients want to hear.”

Sadly, the Obama White House's timidity in the face of so enormous a betrayal of our most basic concepts of justice does not come as a surprise.

And of course, this was the tip of the iceberg - the three detainees involved happened to be bona fide al qaeda. There were also innocents who were caught up in this travesty, who were subsequently released.

Another sad day for lawyers who give a shit about the constitution.

Next up . . .

. . . more good times ahead.

Gotta love our sophisticated risk management models.

Cry me a freakin' river

I'm not ordinarily given to emotional excess but, oh, how this guy gets me going . . . every time I see him now on the tee-vee I feel like Mr. Furious transforming into a "ticking timebomb of fury":

"rage . . . taking over . . ."

Yes, Alastair, the poor dear, has been through a lot - it's a real tragedy how this sensitive soul has been "vilified" those who are only out to "settle scores".

I wonder if Alastair includes the 300,000-600,000 Iraqi dead in that particular calculation. Well, at least he can take comfort that someone will offer a shoulder to cry on - after Dubbya, Dick, Wolfie and Rummy, no one provided a better recruiting tool for al qaeda than Alastair and Tony. It's the least they can do.

Late Update:

This article puts a little more precision around the number of Iraqi dead, which may be of interest to some, though I continue to struggle with who in the west those people who care might actually be. Not very popular dinner party conversation, I guess.

From TPM . . .

The red bars are the accelerating rate of job loss during President Bush's last year in office; the blue bars are the decelerating rate of job loss during President Obama's first year of office.

The chart was put together by the House Democratic leadership. Click the graph to see the full image.

Same old story . . .

If the left-wing media lost the Viet Nam war, and etc., how does Pajamas Media explain this?

Guess I'm not the only one

It seems others are also underwhelmed by the Chilcot Posse. I like the Guardian's lead editorial today, except, I'm sorry, this isn't just about Tony's poor judgment. Wrong. If a leader sells a war on a false prospectus to the people, especially with such dire consequences, it's more than about judgement: it's about abuse of process, mendacity and "crimes and misdemeanors". Andrew Rawnsley get much closer to the nub of the problem, and he puts his finger on what may prove to be the most tragic consequence of all:

I am instinctively a liberal interventionist who thought that Tony Blair played a creditable role when British forces saved Sierra Leone from sadistic thugs and did so again when Slobodan Milosevic was stopped from ethnic cleansing in Kosovo.

One of the many tragedies of the Iraq war is that it will be hugely more difficult for any future British leader to persuade his country that there are times when it is not just right but an obligation to intervene when tyrannical states threaten their neighbours or their own people.

The same might be said of the U.S., only moreso.

David Davis does a good job calling the lie on the core premise of Tony's defense.

The old Rope-a-Dope

Tony, unrepentant. It would be nice if the media actually focused on the real issues instead of allowing unaccountable politicians to dissemble and prevaricate at will.

Mr. Blair's testimony yesterday serves as a reminder that without proper inquiry, complete with penetrating questions and thorough follow-up (i.e., a proper cross-examination), he and others who were responsible for the Iraq travesty will never be held to account for their manifest abuse of the people's trust.

The sad truth is the media has not raised its game, at least not nearly enough. Even today, after all this time, the media continue to dutifully toe the line by framing this as about whether Mr. Blair and Mr. Bush really, truly, crossed-their-hearts-and-hoped-to-die, saw Saddam as an honest-to-goodness threat. Herein lies the central conceit which continues to serve as the foundation of the Big Lie.

As has been repeatedly said by many, including me, no one is seriously questioning Bush/Blair's earnest belief that Saddam was a really bad guy, most likely with really bad intentions (like many other bad guys in the world). Yet the media continue to enthusiastically allow politicians to frame the debate in this way. Witness Peter Hain angrily demanding (at 2:20) whether Chris Huhne is "questioning [his] honesty" on the BBC's Question Time. Have a look.

It's an old politician's trick - a form of misdirection. Simply put, it's all about going on the offensive on an imaginary issue - a slightly more sophisticated version of "when did you stop beating your wife". It forces one's antagonist to fight a battle other than the one you know you're going to lose. The media falls for it every time.

Tony, of course, is a consummate master, and his skills were on full display yesterday. Once again it makes me weep for what might have been had his power to control messaging and dictate the terms of the debate been used for good and not evil.

In any case, by allowing those who would avoid accountability to control the discussion, we allow them to create an impression that any revelation is "old news" and just more fodder for those whose minds are already made up. It's a careful, cynical calculation, calibrated with a precision that befits Alistair Campbell.

It would be nice if we, the People - or our representatives, were permitted to ask some reasonable questions - not about what Tony and Dubbya "believed" - but rather about the process by which they took us to war. After all, the bottom line is this: the process is supposed to serve in the interest of our democracies, not in the interest of what Tony and Dubbya "believe" to be "right" and "true".

To repeat: the problem here was the process: the people - not Mr. Blair (contrary to his assertions yesterday) - were asked to make a judgment based on evidence that proved to be cherry-picked or of highly dubious provenance. There is ample evidence of this. It is difficult to forget about the existence of Dick and Rummey's Office of Special Plans, the "stove-piping" of favourable intelligence to support pre-ordained conclusions, including from a source whose credibility could be guessed at by its codename: "Curveball".

This is the issue. It goes to the core of our democratic principles - a fact that so many in the media fail to recognise.

Chris Matthews is white

What a great post . . . I knew Chris Matthews was a tool, but couldn't quite put my finger on why (probably because I'm white, too). But now I understand.

Two in a row

I hate to admit Calwell may well be right - especially when it's twice in a row. But it's hard not to agree that the Dems have made a catastrophic miscalculation on perceived priorities.

Newsflash

Iraq war illegal!

No shit.

Don't say I didn't warn 'ya

Ruth's earnest concern about Citizens United leaves me shaking my head.

For some time now I've been the guy standing on the street-corner yelling at cars - you know, the one you cross the street to avoid - about the danger to democracy that is Justice Scalia. Here's another example. And another. There are others - I confess I do obsess.

Thanks to Dubbya, in addition to the incredibly useless Clarence Thomas, Scalia now has more like-minded brethren on the Court, and only now other people are finally staring to throw hissy-fits.

Well, it's a little late, damn it, but as I seem to have been ahead of the curve on this all along, I guess I'll be the first to start shouting "impeach the bastards" at the cars.

More seriously, it is an option - which looks to be increasingly likely I think.

I can't believe we have to have this discussion all over again

On the one hand, Obama's decision to reinstate some vague notion of the old Glass-Steagall barriers separating commercial banking from investment banking is a disaster that misapprehends the causes of the financial crisis and will lead to higher, not less, systemic risk. On the other hand, while Obama is entirely correct that prop-trading indeed was a cause of the financial crisis, he isn't going nearly far enough and should require banks to spin off their asset management businesses, too.

The truth is somewhere in the middle.

The fine line between commercial banking and the securities business has always been ever-shifting - but the debate was far more sophisticated thirty years ago. None of this is new.

Okay, joke's over

The Republic surely wouldn't let people like these have lifetime tenure on the highest court in the land, would they? Here's a pretty balanced review of the Citizens' United decision. Here's one that's probably more accurate.

The latest candidate for a special place in hell

. . . step right up, Jack Straw. You lied quite convincingly over the last seven years . . .

It's possible I may hate him more than Dubbya or Tony, since he clearly knew better - sorta like Collin Powell.

God help me . . .

. . . lo, for I have linked approvingly to an article by Christopher Caldwell.

There must be something in the water: it cannot be denied he gets it right by linking to Haldane's paper, citing as follows:

A considerably more disturbing thought, though, was provoked by the Bank of England economists Andrew Haldane and Piergiorgio Alessandri. They noted in an influential paper delivered in Chicago in September that, in the UK at least, higher leverage fully – fully! – accounted for UK banks’ rise in returns on equity until 2007. This will plant a disturbing syllogism in the mind of the average voter: If (a) payment to bankers is based on returns, and if (b) returns in the past decade were due to increased leverage, then (c) bankers, when all is said and done, were being paid to increase risk – not to assess it expertly, just to increase it. In retrospect, the world might have been better off, and richer, if this work hadn’t been undertaken at all. The public may well assess the real value of the work done by investment bankers at zero.