“4) He has also reportedly indicated aspects of Sharia law “in appropriate cases” could be adopted within the U.S.”

Perhaps you should do your own research rather than relying on rightwing blogs? The claim that Koh has said Sharia could be adopted in the U.S. was made by a single attendee at a talk Koh gave in 2007. The organizers and other attendees of the event deny that Koh said any such thing, and no one has turned up any other evidence that Koh is pro-Sharia.

Given that just three weeks after the event, Koh criticized sharia in his testimony before the House about human rights in Iran, which was the third Google hit for “Koh sharia” before the NY Post article hit, perhaps a little original research instead of an automaton’s recitation of the words of the rightwing media would serve you well.

Your comparisons to Hitler also are moronic — did Hitler’s ideological opponents say, as Olson did here, “I have the greatest respect for [Hitler]“?

The fact that Koh is a transnationalist, while it might be cause for concern in a Supreme Court nomination where the person’s views on how to interpret the Constitution and U.S. statutes are the primary focus, is actually a GREAT thing for someone going to the State Department.

Moreover, why are Republicans up in arms about this now, when Koh was unanimously approved by the Senate — one including Republicans! — as an assistant secretary of state in Clinton’s State Department? Something more alarming about having the same guy come back to work in the same department when it’s President Barack Hussein Obama?

Congratulations, re, your son.

1) Koh is being forwarded as the State Department’s legal advisor – i.e. relavant to international relations in general and not merely as a narrowly conceived legal advisor. As such, he will be helping to forge relations in general as well as international agreements vis-a-vis the U.N., the ICJ, other states. He will not be an advisor in the narrow and restricted sense you’re indicating.

2) Koh has demonstrated a highly pronounced ideological bent, one reflecting a tranzi – “progressivist” transnationalist – set of interests wherein American exceptionalism is denied and usurped by those ideological interests.

3) In the same spirit and according to a NYPost report, “Koh has called America’s focus on the War on Terror ‘obsessive.’ In 2004, he listed countries that flagrantly disregard international law – ‘most prominently, North Korea, Iraq, and our own country, the United States of America,’ which he branded ‘the axis of disobedience.’”

4) He has also reportedly indicated aspects of Sharia law “in appropriate cases” could be adopted within the U.S.

5) You further move on from seemingly more responsible comments to mere dismissive and far more presumptive comments, about “carping,” suggesting I’m commenting merely as a reactionary and right-winger “conservative” and “loser,” who is “desperate,” “out of touch” and “dazed and confused.”

Oh dear.

Iow, from your initial misapprehensions through to your more desperate and presumptive ad hominem attacks, you’re the one who is demonstrating the fact that you are out of touch, not I.

This sort of carping only reminds the broad mainstream (and mostly the independents) of how desperate and out-of=touch the “conservative” GOP losers are. They remind me of Lincoln’s (Abe, not Blanche) description of Gen. Rosecrans after the Battle of Chickamauga “dazed and confused, like a duck that has been hit on the head”.

I will tell you this … with these kinds of Republicans, the party really has little of a future. It’s time for Conservatives to move a third party forward and leave Republicans like Olson in the ditch.

So, once you actually understand what’s going on with this issue, you’ll see that Koh was indeed supporting a sleazy web of illegal activity and corruption.

Some background on this issue is here:

24ahead.com/s/new-haven

Not related to Koh but related to the overall issue of corrupt companies donating to politicians who’ll look the other way, the NYT almost followed the money on one such company:

24ahead.com/blog/archives/007265.html

Put that company’s name in the third search box for much more on them.

For more on corrupt banks (not specifically about Koh) see this:

http://24ahead.com/s/immigration-banks

First, citing your own blog for support is at best a weak way to prove anything (except that you crave hits). But upon arrival at this storehouse of the treasonous position of Mr. Koh we are treated to the laughable article concerning his support of a municipal id card. You have jumped the gun concerning legality, since until and unless a court determines that such an id card is “illegal and corrupt”, this represents nothing other than being a good citizen of one’s municipality.

Referring to a Heritage article is also a weak proof of anything, since this was not reporting but clear commenting. Perhaps also you could try to understand the difference between gleaning legal principals from all sources of law and actually stating the one should be subject to such laws. There’s a big difference.

But that would require taking the sunglasses off and looking around at the real world.

Try it. You may not like it, but at least it will be real.

blog.heritage.org/2009/04/01/the-latest-obama-threat-to-us-sovereignty

Go read what Koh supports in his own words. Oddly enough, the Slate article Greg Sargent links to doesn’t discuss that Heritage article, instead focusing on a weaker NYPost article. Why, it’s almost like neither Dahlia Lithwick nor Greg Sargent are simply lightweights who can’t take on a real argument.

Also, his views on int’l law aren’t the only reason to oppose him. Here at home, he’s a supporter of illegal activity and corruption:

http://24ahead.com/blog/archives/006885.html