Tea Partiers Sue over Party Name

By GottaLaff

Let's see if we can follow this: The Party of No unifies around a message of obstruction. But the Tea Baggers are obstructing too, only they're blocking each other. They aren't joining in each other's reindeer games. And within the Tea Bagger gang, there are a couple of different Tea Bagger gangs who sit at different lunch tables and won't share Twinkies with their brethren. But they do have the words "tea" and "party" in common.

And that turns out to be a problem:

On April 14, a U.S. District Court in West Palm Beach, Florida, saw papers filed from more than one faction of the fractious movement each claiming the intellectual property rights to the name "Tea Party."

Intellectual? That must be a typo. There is nothing "intellectual" about Tea Tantrumers.

Let's recap:

The unruly group within a larger unruly group that won't play with the other unruly group but shares a common name wants control of the name that the various unruly groups claim ownership of as opposed to affiliating themselves with the GOP.

Clear?

Short version: They're going to federal court over the name "Tea Party".

That would be the same federal court that is "organized under the Constitution and laws of the federal government of the United States." The very same one that infringes on the Tea Tantrumers' liberties. Yeah, that one.

Will you excuse me for a minute? I need some popcorn and a refreshing beverage with a bendy straw.

And because it just wouldn't be millennial politics, or legal actions for that matter, without a little mud-slinging, each side is calling the other's political loyalties into question.

See how amusing splitting the Republican vote can be?

More here.

H/t: Coopster04

attorneys General from 13 states file lawsuit over health care legislation

By GottaLaff

UPDATE:(CORRECTION: AP NewsAlert, which said 13 GOP attorneys general. Louisiana's is a Democrat.) Blog title changed to reflect correction.


Way to be on the wrong side of an issue. Watch the very effective, on target Rachel Maddow video about that very thing here.

Go ahead, guys, open up grandma's doughnut hole again:

Attorney General Bill McCollum filed a lawsuit on Tuesday against the Federal Government, alleging the Health Care Reform Law signed by the President Barack Obama is unconstitutional, his office said.

Several other State Attorneys General piled on.

Trying to repeal the very things America needs, great idea! Let's remind the 30 million people who will be newly covered of that as often as possible.

H/t: Gr8RDH

Scandal Watch: Scott Brown Accused of Harassment in 1998

By GottaLaff

But will the Senate ethics committee investigate? Don't be silly:

Jennifer Firth, a local mortgage banker who was elected to the Board of Selectmen in 1999, filed a civil defamation suit against Brown in July of 2000, alleging that he had harassed her when she worked on his campaign in 1998, and then tried to smear her reputation around town with forged letters and emails.

I can see the attraction, what with his affinity for the pink leather shorts and all. Who could resist a guy like that?

She also alleged that Brown told several people that he'd had an "intimate relationship" with her and that he had a stack of sexually explicit letters that Firth had sent him. In her suit, Firth says that she'd never been sexually intimate with Brown, nor did she ever send him the aforementioned letters. A 2000 article in the local paper, the Sun Chronicle reported that Brown had denied the charges; for her part, Firth said she felt that filing the suit was "the only way I could stop this."

Allegedly.

But wait! There's more! Two days later....

Two days after the lawsuit was filed, Jennifer Firth's lawyer, Harvey Schwartz, filed a motion to withdraw as her counsel, saying that "to the best of [Schwartz's] knowledge, information and belief, the above allegations [by Firth] are not supported by 'good grounds.'" The next day, Jennifer Firth withdrew her suit. It was dismissed with prejudice, which means it can never be re-filed. Brown told a local newspaper that her lawyer had decided to withdraw after he was presented with letters and e-mail messages that proved she'd been harassing Brown.

Maybe Firth should go before the ethics committee.

Come to think of it, maybe the ethics committee should go before the ethics committee.

Who paid Firth off, I wonder... Or maybe she had no case. Or maybe ... Or maybe...

Rushpublics are so good at making a lot out of allegations and conjecture, enough to ruin careers. Dems on the other hand....

More details, speculation, and the court documents here.

Torture Suit Naming Rumsfeld Clears Hurdle

By GottaLaff

Heavens to Betsy! Land-o'-Goshen! My stars!

A federal judge refused Friday to dismiss a civil lawsuit accusing former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld of responsibility for the alleged torture by U.S. forces of two Americans who worked for an Iraqi contracting firm.

U.S. District Judge Wayne R. Andersen's ruling did not say the two contractors had proven any of their claims. But it did say they had alleged enough specific mistreatment to warrant hearing evidence of exactly what happened.

Boy howdy! Cheese and crackers! Gracious!

While in custody, they were subjected to sleep deprivation, long hours of interrogation, blasting music, threats, hunger and a practice known as "walling" in which subjects are blindfolded and walked into walls, according to the suit.

The suit describes such practices as forms of torture and alleges Rumsfeld personally took part in determining such methods were acceptable for use by the military in Iraq.

Good night! Good gosh 'n' golly! Good call.

Yoo asked for it

By GottaLaff

Yoo hooooo!

As reports circulate that the Justice Department has softened its criticism of attorney John Yoo for memos approving the Bush administration's treatment of terrorism suspects, several prominent lawyers are urging a federal appeals court in San Francisco to hold Yoo accountable.

They have submitted arguments opposing dismissal of a prisoner's lawsuit that accuses the former Justice Department attorney of providing a legal cover for torture. The suit covers much of the same ground as the department's ethics investigation of Yoo. [...]

Yoo says he always gave good-faith legal advice and denies authorizing torture. Those claims could be tested in a San Francisco federal court, however, unless Yoo can persuade a court to dismiss Jose Padilla's lawsuit. [...]

Yoo has appealed, saying the suit would interfere with presidential war-making authority. The Obama administration has taken his side, arguing that courts should not meddle in questions of national security.

But in filings over the last 10 days, groups of constitutional law professors, legal ethics scholars and former government attorneys urged the court to keep Padilla's suit alive.

They argue that this is not a dispute over legal advice, as Yoo contends, but the case of a lawyer who allegedly stepped out of his role to take part in planning detention and interrogation policies, and then devised legal opinions to justify those policies.

And who are some of these very principled, very learned, very ethical lawyers who support the novel concept of upholding the-- What's it called again? Oh yeah-- U.S. Constitution? Here's who:

Erwin Chemerinsky, law school dean at UC Irvine; Alan Morrison, an assistant law dean at George Washington and former director of Public Citizen Litigation Group; and Norman Dorsen of New York University, former president of the American Civil Liberties Union.

Also, Stanford's Deborah Rhode and former California Supreme Court Justice Cruz Reynoso, not to mention Bruce Fein, special assistant to the director of the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel in President Ronald Reagan's administration.

They stressed the importance of applying ethical standards to lawyers who advise the president on constitutional issues.

There is much more here. (h/t: VNDNBRG)

And here:

*****

All my previous posts on this subject matter can be found here; That link includes one specific to only Fayiz al-Kandari's story here. Here are audio and video interviews with Lt. Col. Wingard, one by David Shuster, one by Ana Marie Cox, and more. My guest commentary at BuzzFlash is here.

Lt. Col. Barry Wingard is a military attorney who represents Fayiz Al-Kandari in the Military Commission process and in no way represents the opinions of his home state. When not on active duty, Colonel Wingard is a public defender in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

If you are inclined to help rectify these injustices: Twitterers, use the hashtag #FreeFayiz. We have organized a team to get these stories out. If you are interested in helping Fayiz out, e-mail me at The Political Carnival, address in sidebar to the right; or tweet me at @GottaLaff.

If you'd like to see other ways you can take action, go here and scroll down to the end of the article.

Then read Jane Mayer's book The Dark Side. You'll have a much greater understanding of why I post endlessly about this, and why I'm all over the CIA deception issues, too.

More of Fayiz's story here, at Answers.com.

VIDEO- Boston Legal's Alan Shore: "Enough of this Freedom of Religion Crap"

By GottaLaff

This was tweeted to me in response to my previous post, Christians claim Matthew Shepard hate crimes law "criminalizes the Bible":



You can't "license persecution":

Alan Shore (James Spader) of Boston Legal argues to cut down on freedom of religion.

H/t: Nanotyrnns

Christians claim Matthew Shepard hate crimes law "criminalizes the Bible"

By GottaLaff

:sdrawkcab denmad os era elpoep esehT

A Christian group in Michigan has filed a lawsuit alleging that a package of hate crimes laws named after murder victim Matthew Shepard is an affront to their religious freedom.

Conversely, Shepard's murder was an affront to his, you know, life.

Filed by the Thomas More Law Center -- which bills itself as the religious answer to the American Civil Liberties Union -- the complaint claims that protecting gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered people "is an effort to eradicate religious beliefs opposing the homosexual agenda from the marketplace of ideas by demonizing, vilifying, and criminalizing such beliefs as a matter of federal law and policy."

Thomas More chief counsel Richard Thompson:

"Of the 1.38 million violent crimes reported in the U.S. by the FBI in 2008, only 243 were considered as motivated by the victim’s sexual orientation," he wrote on the group's Web site. "The sole purpose of this law is to criminalize the Bible and use the threat of federal prosecutions and long jail sentences to silence Christians from expressing their Biblically-based religious belief that homosexual conduct is a sin."

So... silencing a life because of sexual orientation is okay. Laws making that illegal aren't. .sdrawkcaB

However, the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act clearly stipulates that it does not apply to constitutionally protected speech.

See, what the actual act stipulates doesn't matter. Legalities don't matter. Justice doesn't matter. Bigotry, hatred, homophobia, and "belief" trumps law, decency, and ethics.

It's the naciremA yaw.

Iraqis want Blackwater deal voided

By GottaLaff

The other day, I posted about Blackwater cutting a deal with Iraqis, a deal that didn't go over too well with many of them. They're not too fond of their family members and friends being murdered by mercenaries, followed by hearing that their lives were worth a few lousy bucks, that poor wittle Blackwater was about to become penniless, and finally, being told to just go away.

In fact, now we discover that they were forced into a deal:

Several victims of a 2007 shooting involving American private security guards employed by the firm formerly known as Blackwater alleged Sunday that they were coerced into reaching settlements, and they demanded that the Iraqi government intervene to have the agreements nullified.

The Iraqis said they were pressured by their own attorneys into accepting what they now believe are inadequate settlements because they were told the company was about to file for bankruptcy, that its chairman was going to be arrested and that the U.S. government was about to confiscate all of the firm's assets. This would be their last chance to get any compensation, the victims said they were told.

When criminal charges against the guards were dismissed by a U.S. federal judge on Dec. 31, the Iraqis concluded that they had been duped and that Blackwater, now called Xe, was not in the kind of legal and financial trouble they had been led to believe. [...]

The settlements were reached last fall in meetings at Baghdad's Rasheed Hotel, where the claimants say they were required to sign a paper, written in English, and make videotaped testimony in Arabic, relinquishing all future claims against the company.

Short version: We get to kill your loved ones indiscriminately, shove a few dollars at you, lie to you, and tell you to shut up and get lost.

Xe worst.

Blackwater to Iraqis: Your lives are worth $100K, take it or leave it

By GottaLaff

It's nice to know Blackwater values life so highly. And here I thought a human being's life was worth only a couple of hundred dollars. What was I thinking?

The security firm formerly known as Blackwater has reached a settlement in seven civil lawsuits filed against it by families of Iraqis killed during what the suits called "senseless slaughter" by company guards. [...]

In Baghdad on Thursday, a shooting victim who has not settled said he still wanted the guards prosecuted in criminal court.

"Iraqi blood is not that cheap," said Mehdi Abu Zaman, 45, who said he lost his sight after being shot. "The civil suit is not enough. There is no justification for this. If they gave me all the money in the world, my vision will not come back."

Another wounded man, Sami Hawas Hamoud Abu Iz, told the Associated Press that the company had offered $100,000 to each family of a person who died and $30,000 to those wounded. He said plaintiffs' lawyers told victims they might not receive anything if they did not agree to a settlement.

Brown lives are on special, apparently. As for wounded brown people? They're worth less than a Ford Taurus.

That Xe, er, Blackwater, er, Xe... they just ooze generosity and love of their fellow man:

The civil suits alleged that Blackwater "fostered a culture of lawlessness amongst its employees, encouraging them to act in the company's financial interests at the expense of innocent human life."

The suits alleged that some of the "shooters," as the plaintiffs said the guards were known, were "chemically influenced by steroids and other judgment-altering substances."

The suits accused Prince of making "a series of verbal and written statements that evidenced his support of the wanton killing of those of the Islamic faith."

Their consistent high regard for human life is illustrated here, too, via Jeremy Scahill.

Go here for more.

Iraq regrets Blackwater case dismissal, may sue

By GottaLaff

Giving Blackwater thugs immunity, great idea. That worked out well, didn't it?

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Iraq expressed its disappointment on Friday with a U.S. federal court ruling that threw out all charges against five Blackwater Worldwide security guards accused of gunning down Iraqi civilians in 2007.

Government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh said the five men had committed a "serious crime" in the September 2007 shooting in Baghdad, which strained U.S.-Iraqi relations and became a symbol for many Iraqis of foreign disregard for local life.

Dabbagh said Iraq may sue the private security company, now known as Xe Services.

New Years resolution: Cut Blackwater off. Xe ya later.

Obama administration settles Indian trust account lawsuit

Seems to be the right thing to do, but how long before they start maumaing, "How can he stand up to terrorists if he can't even stand up to Native Americans*?"

Reporting from Denver - The Obama administration today announced it was settling an epic, 13-year-old class-action lawsuit which contended the federal government has mismanaged 300,000 Indian trust accounts for more than a century.

The $3.4-billion settlement ends a legal battle that led to 22 separate judicial decisions and 10 hearings before various courts of appeal.

The dispute stemmed from a 19th century decision to grant parcels of Indian land to individual tribal members and place the properties in trust accounts. For more than a century, the plaintiffs contended, the account holders were cheated out of their share of revenue the federal government collects for leasing that land.

(snip)

The settlement, finalized Monday night after months of intense negotiations, provides for a $1,000 cash payment to every individual with a trust account and $2 billion for the federal government to buy back the parcels, some of which have been subdivided so much over the decades as to become almost worthless.

* I'm sure they'll find more juvenile terms to use to describe the Native Americans.

Oklahoma abortion law ‘like undressing women in public’

By GottaLaff

OK is not OK:

As of November 1, doctors in Oklahoma will be compelled -- under penalty of criminal prosecution -- to post the details of each abortion they perform online. Among the details to be posted for every abortion is the patient's age, marital status and race; her financial condition; her education; and the total number of her previous pregnancies.

Race? Not that any of those details are relevant, but ... race?

"A friend said it best: It's like undressing women in public, exposing their most personal issues on the Internet," Lora Joyce Davis, one of the plaintiffs suing to prevent the law from coming into effect, told ABC News.

Undressing women? More like rape, if you ask me, I mean, since we're talkin' "invasive".

So this law is supposed to make women so uncomfortable and squirmy that they'll throw up their hands and change their minds? Really? Did that work in the pre-Roe dark ages? Would they prefer the coat hanger attempts of yesteryear?

The answer to that is yes, by the way.

And if someone feels strongly enough to get an abortion-- which is a highly personal decision, and a constitutional right-- do these so-called lawmakers actually believe that public humiliation will deter them from a life-changing, heart-wrenching, carefully considered decision?

Davis, along with former state Rep. Wanda Jo Stapleton, filed the lawsuit with the help of the Center for Reproductive Rights. The lawsuit seeks to have the law declared unconstitutional under the Oklahoma Constitution because it covers more than one subject.

Chipping away at choice, whether it be through backwards-thinking, privacy-invading laws or Pro-Life Cupcakes, means chipping away at our existing legal rights, and some of these methods threaten our democracy.

According to CCR, nearly one-quarter of women in the United States have to travel more than 50 miles for an abortion.

Now that's a crime.

Sharpton threatens suit against Limbaugh

By GottaLaff

Boss Limpdong is a big fat idiot:

Reverend Al Sharpton and his lawyers say they are preparing to file a defamation lawsuit against conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh for an op-ed published Saturday, which Sharpton alleges "erroneously" characterizes his (Sharpton's) role in a string of violent incidents in New York in the early 90's.

In the op-ed published in Saturday's Wall Street Journal Limbaugh writes Sharpton "played a leading role in the 1991 Crown Heights riot (he called neighborhood Jews ‘diamond merchants’) and 1995 Freddie's Fashion Mart riot." [...]

According to a statement put out by Sharpton’s media consultant, a study New York Governor Mario Cuomo commissioned showed Sharpton was not involved in the Crown Heights incident until after the rioting concluded. [...]

Sharpton said unless Limbaugh apologizes or clarifies his remarks, the Reverend’s attorneys will move forward with a lawsuit.

Follow the link for the details.

Two very vocal, gigantic personalities at each other's throats. Yep. Just another news day.

Obama artist Shepard Fairey admits to wrongdoing in AP lawsuit

By GottaLaff

Hopeless:

Fairey said in a statement issued late Friday that he knowingly submitted false images and deleted others in the legal proceedings, in an attempt to conceal the fact that the AP had correctly identified the photo that Fairey had used as a reference for his "Hope" poster of then-Sen. Barack Obama.

Well now, that's disappointing.

He added: "I am very sorry to have hurt and disappointed colleagues, friends, and family who have supported me in this difficult case and trying time in my life."

Fairey's statement said he regretted that his actions would distract from the issue of fair use for artists. "Regardless of which of the two images was used, the fair use issue should be the same," he said.

ACORN sues filmmakers

By GottaLaff


Here's one video I didn't post yesterday.

Yesterday I posted extensively about James O'Keefe's little escapades and sleazy history. It wasn't pretty. ACORN doesn't appreciate their methods, and is taking action:

ACORN filed suit Wednesday in Baltimore, Maryland, against two filmmakers who secretly recorded videos embarrassing to the agency, claiming the pair violated state law by recording their conversations without permission of the employees involved.

The lawsuit seeks an injunction preventing the further distribution of the videos.

The recordings represented "clear violations of Maryland law that were intended to inflict maximum damage to the reputation of ACORN," the community organizer's attorney, Arthur Schwartz, said. " … Unfortunately, they succeeded." [...]

The two Baltimore [ACORN] employees — Shera Williams and Tonja Thompson, who were fired — are co-plaintiffs in the lawsuit.

"Although we do not condone what our former employees did, no matter how entrapped they were, we are also committed to our 500,000 members that we will hold the defendants civilly and criminally responsible for their violations of Maryland laws and for the damages inflicted upon ACORN's reputation," said Bertha Lewis, the organization's chief organizer.

Maybe O'Keefe will secretly film his own legal proceedings.

ACLU sues Defense, State Dep't., DoJ, CIA for files on Bagram prisoners

By GottaLaff

Go get 'em, ACLU!

After months of asking politely and being refused, the American Civil Liberties Union has sued the U.S. Departments of Defense, State and Justice, along with the Central Intelligence Agency, to obtain files on prisoners in U.S. custody at the Bagram detention center in Afghanistan.

"There is growing concern that Bagram has become the new Guantánamo – except with hundreds more prisoners, held indefinitely in reportedly harsher conditions, with no access to lawyers or courts," said Melissa Goodman, staff attorney with the ACLU National Security Project, in a media advisory. "Yet the public is still in the dark when it comes to basic facts such as whom our military is holding there, for how long and on what grounds, and the rules that govern their detention, release and treatment. As long as the Bagram prison is shrouded in secrecy, there is no way to know the truth or begin to address the problems that may exist."

Sound familiar? It should (see bottom of post). I write about this nearly every day. Why? Because, as we say about the Rushpublics, repetition, repetition, repetition works. We need to pay attention to these injustices and not let up until we see real change.

But unlike the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay -- the US naval base in Cuba where over 200 "war on terror" detainees are still held -- the Bagram inmates have had no access to lawyers, no right to hear the allegations against them and only rudimentary reviews of their status as "enemy combatants."

President Barack Obama's administration argued in a filing with the US Court of Appeals in Washington that terror suspects at Bagram should not be allowed to challenge their decision in US courts, a right the Supreme Court has granted to Guantanamo detainees.

US District Judge John Bates ruled in April that foreign prisoners held at Bagram should also be provided that right, enshrined in the writ of habeas corpus. [...]

"When prisoners are in American custody and under American control, no matter the location, our values and commitment to the rule of law are at stake," said Jonathan Hafetz, staff attorney with the ACLU National Security Project, in an April press release. "Now that President Obama has taken the positive step of ordering Guantánamo shut down, it is critical that we don't permit ‘other Gitmos' to continue elsewhere."

It's time for President Obama to take positive leaps, not steps. From what I've been hearing from reliable sources, DoJ isn't doing the Gitmo prisoners any favors, either.

****

All my previous posts on this subject matter can be found here; That link includes one specific to only Fayiz al-Kandari's story here. Here are audio and video interviews with Lt. Col. Wingard, one by David Shuster, one by Ana Marie Cox, and more. My guest commentary at BuzzFlash is here.

If you are inclined to help rectify these injustices: Twitterers, use the hashtag #FreeFayiz. We have organized a team to get these stories out. If you are interested in helping Fayiz out, e-mail me at The Political Carnival, address in sidebar to the right; or tweet me at @GottaLaff.

If you'd like to see other ways you can take action, go here and scroll down to the end of the article.

Then read Jane Mayer's book The Dark Side. You'll have a much greater understanding of why I post endlessly about this, and why I'm all over the CIA deception issues, too.

More of Fayiz's story here, at Answers.com.

Torture Victim May Get His Day in (Inter-American) Court

By GottaLaff

I have posted several times about Mohammed Jawad, the very young detainee whose testimony was ruled inadmissible by two U.S. judges because it was coerced. He was tortured and his attorney, Lt. Col. Darrel Vandeveld, quit over Jawad's treatment and asked that he be released.

Jawad is in the news again:

If You’re Old Enough to Be Tortured, You’re Old Enough to Sue for Being Tortured

Adam Serwer talks to his lawyer in Kabul:

Lawyers for Mohammed Jawad, the Afghan national who was a minor when he was first detained by the U.S. government and was recently released to Afghanistan after spending seven years in detention based on evidence gained through torture, intend to sue the U.S. government in part to prevent torture from being ever used again.

Speaking from Kabul, Maj. Eric Montalvo, Jawad’s military commissions defense lawyer, said that “From a policy standpoint, it’s a disincentive for the United States to engage in that type of conduct…you have punitive damages, you have a lawsuit that creates precedent…and it may create a pause for the U.S. government should they decide to do this in the future.”

And he's not the only one who wants his day in court:

From a newly released statement:

The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) has accepted a petition filed by the American Civil Liberties Union on behalf of Khaled El-Masri, an innocent victim of the CIA’s extraordinary rendition program. The U.S. government has two months to respond to allegations of kidnapping and torture summarily rejected by U.S. courts in 2007.

“The United States has an opportunity to reverse one of the most shameful legacies of the Bush administration and finally give an innocent victim of the extraordinary rendition program his day in court,” said Steven Watt, senior staff attorney with the ACLU Human Rights Program. “The State Department should fully engage in this process and comprehensively address the gross violation of El-Masri’s human rights, including his forcible disappearance and torture. To date, the United States hasn’t so much as acknowledged its involvement in El-Masri’s extraordinary rendition.”

Meantime, Fayiz al-Kandari (see below) is still waiting for his day in court. But, hey, no biggie. It's only been about eight years.

****************

All my previous posts on this subject matter can be found here; That link includes one specific to only Fayiz al-Kandari's story here. Here are audio and video interviews with Lt. Col. Wingard, one by David Shuster, one by Ana Marie Cox, and more. My guest commentary at BuzzFlash is here.

If you are inclined to help rectify these injustices: Twitterers, use the hashtag #FreeFayiz. We have organized a team to get these stories out. If you are interested in helping Fayiz out, e-mail me at The Political Carnival, address in sidebar to the right; or tweet me at @GottaLaff.

If you'd like to see other ways you can take action, go here and scroll down to the end of the article.

Then read Jane Mayer's book The Dark Side. You'll have a much greater understanding of why I post endlessly about this, and why I'm all over the CIA deception issues, too.

More of Fayiz's story here, at Answers.com.

Judge: Ex-Bush lawyer John Yoo can be sued over torture

By GottaLaff

Last night I posted about John Yoo being ordered to testify about his handywork leading to torture. Here's an update:

A prisoner who says he was tortured while being held for nearly four years as a suspected terrorist can sue former Bush administration lawyer John Yoo for coming up with the legal theories that justified his alleged treatment, a federal judge in San Francisco ruled Friday.

U.S. District Judge Jeffrey White's decision marks the first time a government lawyer has been held potentially responsible for the abuse of detainees.

"Like any other government official, government lawyers are responsible for the foreseeable consequences of their conduct," White said in refusing to dismiss Jose Padilla's lawsuit against Yoo.

If Padilla, now serving a 17-year prison sentence on terrorism charges, can prove his allegations, he can show that Yoo "set in motion a series of events that resulted in the deprivation of Padilla's constitutional rights," White said.

That's a big "if".

John Eastman, law school dean at Chapman University in Orange County, where Yoo taught for the past year, [...] predicted that the Justice Department will file an immediate appeal, going to the Supreme Court if necessary. [...]

Declared an enemy combatant, Padilla was held in a Navy brig for three years and eight months and was denied all contact with the outside world for the first half of that period, his suit said. He was then taken out of the brig and charged with taking part in an unrelated conspiracy to provide money and supplies to Islamic extremist groups. He was convicted and has appealed.

His suit against Yoo covers his time in the brig. He says he was detained illegally, held for lengthy periods in darkness and blinding light, subjected to temperature extremes and sleep deprivation, confined in painful stress positions, and threatened with death to himself, harm to his family and transfer to a nation where he would be tortured.

The suit said Yoo - who has acknowledged being a member of an administration planning group known as the "war council" - personally reviewed and approved Padilla's detention in the brig and provided the legal cover for his treatment.

At a hearing in March, Justice Department lawyer Mary Mason told White that courts had no power to scrutinize high-level government decision-making, especially in wartime.

But White said Friday that Padilla had a right to sue "the alleged architect of the government policy" on enemy combatants. He said an examination of Yoo's publicly disclosed writings would not damage national security, and an inquiry into "allegations of unconstitutional treatment of an American citizen on American soil" would not affect foreign relations.

Union Suing Palin Administration

By GottaLaff

Good golly don'tcha know and how you betcha, one more lawsuit say it ain't so too also:

The Alaska Correctional Officers Association filed a lawsuit today against Governor Palin’s administration. They claim the administration purposefully dragged their feet in getting the legislature to appropriate pay increases thereby sabotaging new contract arbitration.

Sarah Louise? Anti-union? Who could have ever guessed such a thing?

The Palin Administration says their introduction of the funding request was late in the session, but that there was plenty of time to act. The state claims the arbitrator’s findings are now null and void and must be restarted. The money was not included in the governor’s budget.

Oh em gee, wouldn't it be just so kewl if, like, one of Sarah Louise's ex-bfs was totally third in line to be governor and stuff?

Last year, Corrections Commissioner Joe Schmidt earned a union vote of no-confidence. Schmidt allegedly dated Sarah Palin in high school. He is now second in line for the highest office in Alaska behind Lieutenant Governor Sean Parnell should Palin be unable to finish her term. Palin appointed him to replace Walt Monegan of Troopergate fame. The no-confidence vote came as a result of correctional officers’ exposure to the MRSA virus and hours being cut for essential prison guards.

Union president Sgt. Danny Colang told Jason Moore of KTUU:

“[...] I always think there is an underlying issue there with that no-confidence vote that was taken last year, and I think they still hold that against us. There is still some vengeance, because we had a no confidence vote against one of (Palin’s) good friends from high school, who is now our commissioner.”

If Palin’s track record were void of vengeance and retribution on a regular basis, this wouldn’t be a story.

Sarah Louise is such a total mean girl, fer sure.

Look who's uniting to launch federal challenge to Prop 8

By GottaLaff

I looked up to the sky, and zomg! What did I see? I saw a piggy with wings:

Oh boy, now the Obama administration will have to take its head out of the sand as the stakes have been raised by an outfit called the American Foundation for Equal Rights.

Two of the nation's top litigators who opposed each other in the Bush v. Gore election challenge in 2000 have joined forces to seek federal court intervention in California's gay marriage controversy.

Theodore B. Olson and David Boies have filed a U.S. District Court lawsuit on behalf of two gay men and two gay women, arguing that the California constitutional amendment eliminating the right of gay couples to marry violates the U.S. constitutional guarantee of equal protection and due process.

The LAT:

Their suit, to be filed in U.S. District Court in California, calls for an injunction against the proposition, allowing immediate reinstatement of marriage rights for same-sex couples.

...Legal scholars have observed that proponents of gay marriage have avoided taking the issue to federal court so far because of the dominance of conservative judges and justices on the federal bench after the eight-year tenure of President George W. Bush.

The Advocate begs to differ:

As for the timing of the suit, Olson said that recent decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court "make it clear that individuals are entitled to be treated equally under the Constitution. I'm reasonably confident that this is the right time for these [injustices] to be vindicated."

...Olson said his law firm and others also are contributing resources pro bono. [...] Olson and his representatives declined to specify who was funding the campaign.

You say potato, I say po-tah-to....