Ouch!

All cartoons are posted with the artists’ express permission to TPZoo.
John Cole, Scranton, PA Times-Tribune

John Yoo ordered to testify on torture

John Yoo, the former Bush administration lawyer connected to the torture program put in place by the Bush Administration, has been ordered to testify in court about accusations that his work led to the torture of a detainee. More at ThinkProgress and Raw Story.

From Raw Story:

Former Bush administration attorney John Yoo was ordered on Friday by a federal judge in San Francisco to testify in an appeal brought by Jose Padilla, an American citizen who was held for more than three years and allegedly tortured while in U.S. military custody.

Yoo was one of several administration lawyers who authored legal memos which outlined a legal range for torture, a war crime under the Geneva Convention relative to the prisoners of war.

“Judge [Jeffrey S.] White denied most elements of Mr. Yoo’s motion and quoted a passage from the Federalist Papers that in times of war, nations, to be more safe, ‘at length become willing to run the risk of being less free,’” noted The New York Times.

Yoo, while at the Office of Legal Council in 2002, authored a majority of the department’s opinions on torture along with Jay Bybee, who now serves as a judge on the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, and Steven Bradbury, the former OLC chief who now practices law in Washington, D.C…

Read more on this story…

O’Reilly goes off the deep end..

I realize abortion (especially late-term abortion) is a really controversial topic/issue for people across the country, but do you suppose Bill O’Reilly understands JUST how utterly offensive he is, and how he comes across?

I was pretty impressed with how Joan Walsh handled herself in this ‘interview’ (ambush would have been a better description..). The longer the interview went, the deeper O’Reilly dissolved into lunacy. Facts didn’t matter.

Walsh was right when she said that they came from two different worlds – each with their own facts and figures. They weren’t going to meet in the middle or agree on anything. His purpose was to destroy her, not have a conversation or debate about an emotional, hot-button issue. He was the one who came out of the interview looking  like a rude, insulting, pompous ass. He was trying to get even with Joan Walsh for her previously referring to O’Reilly as “vile” in something she wrote after the murder of Dr. Tillman.

He didn’t do himself any favors..

I have to agree with Joan Walsh here.. Billo, you really are some piece of work…

H/T: The Huffington Post

Joan Walsh followed up her interview with this article on her blog:
Why I Went On “The O’Reilly Factor”

Stimulate this, Bro!

From Mark Fiore!

Click on graphic to view at source.

Nuclear issue

All cartoons are posted with the artists’ express permission to TPZoo.
Nick Anderson, Houston Chronicle Editorial Cartoonist and Animation Artist.
For Nick’s animations, visit Nick Anderson: Animation Archives.
For Nick’s cartoons, visit Nick Anderson.

Happy Birthday Wayne!!

Happy Birthday Wayne! Time to celebrate! I would never light sparklers on a birthday cake, but it certainly LOOKS exciting!

Hope you do something special today with that wonderful wife of yours.. 😀

Saturday Open Thread

June 13, 1971. This was the day the New York Times began publishing the Pentagon Papers.

From Wikipedia:

The Pentagon Papers, officially titled United States–Vietnam Relations, 1945–1967: A Study Prepared by the Department of Defense, were a top-secret United States Department of Defense history of the United States‘ political-military involvement in Vietnam from 1945 to 1967. Commissioned by United States Secretary of Defense Robert S. McNamara in 1967, the study was completed in 1968. The papers first surfaced on the front page on the New York Times in 1971.

The study was classified as top secret and was not intended for publication, however, contributor Daniel Ellsberg gave most of the Pentagon Papers to New York Times reporter Neil Sheehan, with Ellsberg’s friend Anthony Russo assisting in their copying. The Times began publishing excerpts in a series of articles on June 13, 1971. Street protests, political controversy and lawsuits followed.

To ensure the possibility of public debate about the content of the papers, on June 29, U.S. Senator Mike Gravel (then Democrat, Alaska) entered 4,100 pages of the Papers to the record of his Subcommittee on Public Buildings and Grounds. These portions of the Papers were subsequently published by Beacon Press, the publishing arm of the Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations.

Article I, Section 6 of the United States Constitution provides that “for any Speech or Debate in either House, [a Senator or Representative] shall not be questioned in any other Place”, thus the Senator could not be prosecuted for anything said on the Senate floor, and, by extension, for anything entered to the Congressional Record, allowing the Papers to be publicly read without threat of a treason trial and conviction.

Later, Ellsberg said the documents “demonstrated unconstitutional behavior by a succession of presidents, the violation of their oath and the violation of the oath of every one of their subordinates”, and that he had leaked the papers in the hopes of getting the nation out of “a wrongful war.”

The most damaging revelation in the papers was that the U.S. had deliberately expanded its war with carpet bombing of Cambodia and Laos, coastal raids on North Vietnam, and Marine Corps attacks — which had all gone previously unreported in the US. The revelations widened the credibility gap between the US government and the people, hurting President Richard Nixon‘s war effort.

Another controversy was that President Johnson sent combat troops to Vietnam by July 17, 1965, after pretending to consult his advisors on July 21–July 27, per the cable stating that “Deputy Secretary of Defense Cyrus Vance informs McNamara that President had approved 34 Battalion Plan and will try to push through reserve call-up.” In 1988, when that cable was declassified, it revealed “there was a continuing uncertainty as to [Johnson’s] final decision, which would have to await Secretary McNamara’s recommendation and the views of Congressional leaders, particularly the views of Senator [Richard] Russell.”

As the press rooms of the Times and the Post began to hum to the lifting of the censorship order, the journalists of America pondered with grave concern the fact that for fifteen days the ‘free press’ of the nation had been prevented from publishing an important document and for their troubles had been given an inconclusive and uninspiring ‘burden-of-proof’ decision by a sharply divided Supreme Court. There was relief, but no great rejoicing, in the editorial offices of America’s publishers and broadcasters.

Was it right to expose what the government was doing behind the curtains in regards to the Vietnam War in order to try and end it? Does the exposing abuse of powers and lies make us as a nation MORE safe, or LESS safe?

Your thoughts…