First, absorb this bit of reality and see if you're steamed enough to power a freight train:
We learned a few years ago that the CIA had video documenting the interrogation of two Qaeda operatives who'd been subjected to "severe interrogation techniques," but because of what the video showed, the agency destroyed the tapes. In effect, officials had evidence of a possible crime, so they eliminated it -- which is itself a crime.
Within a few weeks of the revelations, Bush's Justice Department appointed a prosecutor to lead a criminal investigation into the destruction of evidence.
What we didn't know until today is that a far-right senator, Pat Roberts (R) of Kansas, acting his capacity as chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, was apparently made aware of the alleged crimes in a closed briefing in 2003, and raised no objections.
That's right. This fucktarded piece of shit has no problem with crimes being committed. None. No problem, cover it up. And we're not talking minor shit, we're talking war crimes.
These people aren't amoral so much as anti-moral.
Meanwhile, John Yoo, he of the torture memos, has decided the Prez can use nukes any ol' time he likes. No limits on his power to destroy civilizations whatsoever. Totally fine with the Constitution, despite the fact the Constitution's all about the checks and balances, and despite the fact that Supreme Court precedent sez executive powers tain't so unlimited. Observe:
Indeed he is. Lying about the law, and yet Berkeley believes he's qualified to teach law. I'll never, ever, understand that one.As far back as 1804, a unanimous Supreme Court held in Little v. Barreme that Congress has sweeping authority to limit the President’s actions in wartime. That case involved an Act of Congress authorizing vessels to seize cargo ships bound for French ports. After the President also authorized vessels to seize ships headed away from French ports, the Supreme Court held this authorization unconstitutional on the grounds that Congress’ decision to allow one kind of seizure implicitly forbade other kinds of seizure. More recently, in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld and Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, the Court held that the President does not have the power to unilaterally set military policy (in those cases with respect to detention); he must comply with statutory limits on his power. Taken together, these and other cases unquestionably establish that Congress has the power to tell the President “no,” and the President must listen.
John Yoo is a moral vacuum, but he is also a constitutional law professor at one of the nation’s top law schools and a former Supreme Court clerk. It is simply impossible that Yoo is not aware of Little, Hamdi and Hamdan, or that he does not understand what they say. So when John Yoo claims that the President is not bound by Congressional limits, he is not simply ignorant or misunderstanding the law. He is lying.
Bonus outrages: selling plates of pasta to save your life (thank you, broken health care industry!) and the Cons' idea of a bipartisan dialogue on health care reform. Maybe we should hold a pasta fundraiser to see if we can whip up enough cash to get these idiots some brains.