Bek (#119), don’t bother.
That has been explained ad nauseum, but it still doesn’t sink in. and neither, apparently, has the fact that THIS ISN’T FEMALE FIRST.
and your reference to the “loony police” being out is spot on. it’s amazing how some people feel the need to respond directly to ANYONE who dares speak negatively about the all-holy Jolie Pitts.
while I agree there are “haters” who do simply wait for a jolie/pitt thread to jump into and bash, they’re no worse than the fans who patrol threads like this to immediately respond to anyone who comments negatively. it’s like they feel it’s their duty to defend the jolie-pitt clan at all costs.
I like Robert Pattinson, I think he’s adorable and funny and sweet. I’ve seen people on this site say things like “he looks like he has down syndrome”, or other such comments about how ugly and untalented he is, or how dirty he looks, and so on…do I freak out and comment directly to each person who bashes him? no, I don’t. because I don’t really care what OTHER people think of him. but some of these fans are so obsessed that they just can’t bear it if someone’s opinion differs.
now, I admit that I have (and I will) defended some people on here, but only when what’s written is a outright lie, or it’s an opinion based on a lie. looks, talent, etc…that’s all subjective – to each his/her own…but when the “opinion” is a falsehood, or based on one, that’s different.
Report this comment as spam or abuse
I don’t really think we are saying different things. I’m not assuming that Yoo wasn’t “ALREADY working closely with Addington to pull this off” Pretty much exactly the opposite – ? I think he was trying so hard to pull it off that he came out of the meeting and immediately went for different modes of trying to implement the affirmative defense approach.
There’s no reason for him to come up with the footnote concept at all if all he was going to do after the July 13 meeting was sit back and wait for Addington. So I don’t understand why you think he gave the footnote direction to Koester at all if you think that he wasn’t trying to plan b. And you also seem to think that it shows he was keeping alternate track going when you say: “Yes, the footnote shows that someone–or, more likely, the people working in tandem to get this done–were willing to use whatever means to protect CIA (and more importantly, Gonzales) and briefly
considered doing it via footnote.”
One of the “someones” we absolutely know about is Yoo. My comment above is partly about what knowing that does to Yoo’s claims that he was just acting as a good faith advisor. Once you’ve advised your client that he’s going to be completing the elements of a crime if he goes forward, you are not acting as a good faith advisor to then nudge him to ask you to coach him on how to spin out an affirmative defense after he commits the crime.
So I’m pretty confident that my point that Yoo came out of the Chertoff et al meeting and began to operate on multiple tracks to keep the torturers comfortable with torture has support. ?
I don’t think he had to scramble to meet with Addington – that’s the point I made about it being very important about the client change. So if what you are wanting to do is get away from the discussion I went into on Yoo and his OPR problems and also what adding the affirmative defenses does to the good faith reliance of counsel argument made later and codified even in the MCA, and instead go to, “But that doesn’t say anything about who made the decisions or any effect a footnote proposed but never written would have” that’s fine. I don’t think it means we disagree on that, as much as are focusing on different issues.
Yoo didn’t have to scramble for a meeting with Addington – but a meeting with Addington alone would only get him so far. OVP was not a possible client for the memo he wanted to generate (although later with their spec ops force control maybe – if that had started by then, maybe so). The client for the memo Yoo wanted to generate wasn’t Addington and OVP, it was Gonzales and WH or Rizzo and CIA. But if he stayed with the CIA route, he would need some kind of discussion as to what the CIA would need from WH to invoke the CIC defense. That wasn’t appealing, to say the least. For OLC to be advising CIA on what kind of a CIC authorization to get for things that were likely to be crimes, so that the CIC defense could be invoked.
So the question was, with Gonzales coming out of a meeting with multiple lawyers, including FBI GC who was strongly objecting and Chertoff saying there would be no declinations, not so much whether Yoo could get a meeting with Addington but whether Addington could deliver Gonzales.
The footnote approach would have been one way to try to cover for the WH, so that it wouldn’t be the WH asking for the OLC to coach it how to use necessity and its CIC powers for affirmative defenses to actions that OLC and Crim Div and FBI had already been warning were likely to be found to be completed elements of a crime – but rather a way for Gonzales as WHC to say- oh, well, since you guys mentioned it, why don’t you go ahead and brief that too.
OTOH, while Yoo might have thought up that approach as a possiblity, there’s no way around how bad that would have looked later. A finished OLC memo warning about how likely it is that a jury would find that the torture activity was torture and a crime, but including a footnote soliciting for OLC to be asked about affirmative defenses, followed by a new memo discussing affirmative defenses. So imo, the footnote approach was likely to have been Yoo (or Yoo and Rizzo) trying to look like he had a clever way to allow the WH to get the affirmative defense info without looking like the WH generated the idea of asking for the defense info, and a better lawyer with the power to make it happen (someone like Addington) stepping in and making sure that instead everything got handled without a paper trail in the memos and via a meeting that could effect a change in client and requested info.
I don’t agree that my summary of he went from (looks like you will have to worry about having a completed crime if a jury is involved) to (but hey, here are some affirmative defenses you can use, so go on anyway) is inaccurate. It doesn’t include all fo the things that you include, bc we are looking at different things. I do think, though, as a technical matter (and this goes to the point I made on the shift in client) that the “Orders from Addington” part of your summary isn’t completely accurate.
Whether or not Addington had de facto, I’m your daddy, ability to give Yoo orders or not, the operative facts are that an order from Addington wouldn’t have changed the memo. To effect the change in the memo, Addington had to deliver something to Yoo – and that something was Gonzales. That’s why I highlighted how important the change in the client was.
Addington had to take a WH counsel that had just been advised by FBI counsel and Crim Div DOJ counsel that what was being described was likely to be found to be criminal by a jury and so likely that FBI couldn’t even involve itself in a discussion of the activities – take that WHC and get him to show up an authorize Yoo to expand the memo that ended with “the CIA is pretty much going to be committing a crime” and have him, on behalf of the WH, explore, “but on behalf of the Dept of Justice at the WH’s request, here’s some coaching on affirmative defenses against the crimes”
That was a big delivery and I don’t think that after Chertoff’s and Levin’s possible spiels at the meeting, which had multiple witnesses who weren’t on board with the strategies, Yoo could have left that meeting confident that Addington would be able to make that delivery.
IMO, Addington probably had to arm twist a bit with Gonzales on how deep they were already in and how much he needed the affirmative defense info already. By then, you had Gonzales already saying in January 2002 that “but for” using the enemey combatant’s label, they were committing war crimes. Now you have Chertoff telling him that, even with that label, you have torture statute problems. Picture a Skeletor delivered version of “Danger Will Robinson”
To pull the WH directly into requesting from DOJ AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES to torture is asking any WHC to go pretty damn far. Ashcroft must have been laying as low as he could and sweating bullets that Cheney and Addington would pull it all off.
But as slimey as Addington may or may not be, Gonzales and Yoo have responsbility for what they did and to their positions. Addington may have pulled Yoo’s strings, but Addington wasn’t OLC counsel. Addington may have pulled Gonzales’ strings (and Addington was on WH staff as well as OVP staff) but Addington wasn’t WHC and he’s not the named drafter or named recipient of the memos and he didn’t have authority to request or draft those memos. And he’s not in the evidentiary trail as being at the warning meeting on the 13th. Yoo and Gonzales are.
I think you can make lots of very valid arguments and spec about Addington and his role or Cheney or Bush (or Ashcroft, the guy I think gets way too ignored) etc. and there’s no reason not to. I’m going a more limited route to what the info available shows about Yoo vis a vis a criminal or prof duties investigation and what it shows about Gonzales.
I don’t think it’s inconsistent to talk about the professional and other problems the footnote attempt raises for Yoo (or what the affirmative defenses inclusion does to any MCA raised good faith reliance on counsel issues or why that makes the fax that much more important by not giving the info that the WH, as opposed to the CIA torturers getting the fax, was going to be relying on a memo that significantly relied on affirmative defenses rather than the activities not meeting the elements of the crime).
I think maybe you want to discuss more the guys pulling the puppet strings than the puppets, and I want to discuss the puppets bc they were the guys who could or couldn’t make things happen and who are in the line for what they did make happen. That doesn’t mean that I don’t buy that there were puppeteers and it definitely doesn’t mean that I don’t think Yoo was already working with Addington. It just means that I’m talking about Othello and what he did, while you want to talke about Iago and how he made it happen.
Or not – fwiw.
Thermal Fax
If you have set up your home office, and you spend a reasonable amount of time working from that space, then you will probably need a printer, even if just for drafts of your work, or to produce a hard copy of a reference sheet. The problem is that there are literally hundreds of printers available on the market today, so how do you choose?
First of all, since this is for your home office, and not strictly for personal tasks, you will need a printer that can serve both aspects of your life. If you like to print photographs of your family from a digital camera, or if you produce annual newsletters to send to family members across the country, then the printer you choose should not only serve business purposes, but personal ones as well. This eliminates the need for two seperate printers, and certainly helps with your budget.
Most home office printers are used for the following purposes:
1. Correspondence from associates and clients.
2. Brochures, newsletters and letterhead.
3. Contracts & Agreements.
However, you might have other needs as well:
1. Faxes to and from primary office or clients' offices.
2. Copies of memos and intra-office material.
3. Scanning of important documents or pictures.
4. Multiple copies of correspondence or documents.
Because of these varied tasks, you might end up buying a printer, copier, scanner and fax machine seperately, which could cost you thousands of dollars! Not to mention, you have to find surface space for all of these different machines. Rather than breaking your budget and causing organization havoc, you might want to consider a multi-function printer.
I've compiled a list of the five most cost-effective machines for your home office. All of these printers enable you to perform multiple functions, but can fall well within your budget.
HP Officejet 4215 All-in-One
Price: $99.99 (online price)
Speed: 17 PPM in black; 12 ppm color
Cartridge: 56 Black Inkjet (19.99); 28 Tri-Color Inkjet ($21.99)
Functions: Color printing, color copying, color scanning, color faxing
Website: HP 4215
This compact printer also provides you with a scanner, a fax machine and a copier. It weighs just under nine pounds, and works in both black and color. It comes with a one-year limited hardware warranty, and one year of technical phone support, which can greatly simplify your need for repairs or assistance. It is compatible with both Mac and PC computers. The fax machine comes with a 33.6 Kbps modem, 80 speed dials, and automatic redial, and you can automatically resize documents and photos.
Brother MFC-210C
Price: $99.99 (online only; before $20.00 rebate)
Speed: 20 ppm (black); 15 ppm (color)
Cartridge: LC41BK, LC41C, LC41M, LC41Y
Functions: Color printing, color copying, color scanning, color faxing
Website: MFC-210C
With a one-year limited warrenty, Brother International has come out with a great, cost-effective multi-function printer. The MFC-210C is attractive with a black and gray cover and offers the highest print resolution available. It has an 8MB Memory, an NC-2200W wireless print server, and a 14.4K bps fax modem. You can also enjoy its added feature of the PhotoCapture center, with a built-in digital Media Card drive. Copies can also be enlarged or reduced by 25-500%.
Lexmark X4270
Price: $99.99
Speed: 19ppm (black); 22 ppm (color)
Cartridge: #20 / 15M0120 Color Print Cartridge, #70 / 12A1970 Black Print Cartridge
Functions: Color Fax, Print, Copy & Scan
Website: X4270
This machine reduces your space even more by providing an attractive black telephone handset along with its other specifications. Lexmark has provided a professional, functional thermal inkjet printer that will last for years, and boasts the latest technology. It is very quiet, which will allow you to work while you print, scan, fax or copy documents, and it supports all types of media, including card stock, coated paper, envelopes, labels, and transparencies.
Canon PIXMA MP130
Price: $99.99
Speed: 18 ppm black; 13 ppm color
Cartridge: unknown
Functions: Print, Copy, Scan and Direct Print Photo Card Slot
Website: MP130
Canon doesn't produce an inexpensive printer with a fax machine, but this printer does have the extremely easy-to-use Direct Print Photo Card slot. It is able to print completely borderless pictures, and it also has a sleek, modern appeal. It prints fast and quietly, and the print cartridges are said to last longer than most, which means that you won't be running to the store every other week for more ink.
Samsung SCX-4720FN
Price: $99.99 (Internet only)
Speed: 22 ppm
Cartridge: unknown
Functions: color print, copy, scan & fax
Website: SCX-4720FN
With two-sided scanning, automatic folding, clone copy capabilities and enlargements of up to 300%, this Samsung printer is the perfect home office machine for all of your needs. It is larger than some of the other models – around 28 pounds – but with its 33.6 Kbps modem and 20 speed dial capabilities, you won't even notice it's size! It also has an automatic power save function that will help with those electricity bills.
terasomebody