This blog started its web presence during the revelations about Abu Ghraib. A special circle of hell will be set aside for the people who gradually, cynically, acted to shift public perceptions about torture and abuse as necessary parts of the “global war on terror.” It is a legacy that will tar Bush and his minions for generations to come, I hope.
Finally a Bush officer starts to talk openly about the decision to rationalize torture, and little by little reveals the kind of thinking that led us to this point
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/065260.php
[David Kurtz] In the view of the Justice Department, there is no categorical prohibition against the torture of detainees, even under the Detainee Treatment Act.
http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/005177.php
[Paul Kiel] Michael Mukasey finally got into the nitty gritty of how he thinks about torture, and he seemed to finally show his hand.
Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE) said that he'd been getting the impression that Mukasey really thought about torture in relative terms, and wanted to know if that was so. Is it OK to waterboard someone if a nuclear weapon was hidden -- the Jack Bauer scenario -- but not OK to waterboard someone for more pedestrian information?
Mukasey responded that it was "not simply a relative issue," but there "is a statute where it is a relative issue," he added, citing the Detainee Treatment Act. That law engages the "shocks the conscience" standard, he explained, and you have to "balance the value of doing something against the cost of doing it." . . .
Biden responded, "You're the first I've ever heard to say what you just said.... It shocks my conscience a little bit."
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/1/30/111154/705
[Kagro X] In his appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee today, "Attorney General" cardboard cutout Michael Mukasey had an exchange with Sen. Joe Biden in which he redefined the (admittedly and purposefully vague) line that has in many ways separated "torture" from "not-torture," or more specifically, conduct that violates substantive due process. That is, it is violative of due process guarantees enshrined in the Constitution to engage in behavior that "shocks the conscience."
To normal people, that means you judge the behavior. Does recovering evidence swallowed by a perpetrator apprehended by police by shoving a feeding tube down his throat, force feeding him an emetic, and causing him to vomit the evidence into a bucket "shock the conscience?" The decision of the Supreme Court in the 1953 case Rochin v. California was that it did.
But Michael Mukasey is no normal person. . . . And today, he told Senator Biden that what "shocks the conscience" depends not on what the actual behavior is, but rather on the value of the information being extracted with that behavior.
http://balkin.blogspot.com/2008/01/how-can-legality-of-waterboarding.html
[Marty Lederman] How Can the Legality of Waterboarding Depend on the Circumstances? . . . [read on]
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2008/01/it-depends-on-what-definition-of.html
[Digby] It's really hard for me to believe that someone who used to be a federal judge can blow that sophistry in a congressional hearing with a straight face. . . . [read on]
http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/005176.php
[Paul Kiel] Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA) had a long wind up before delivering his punch. . . . "Would waterboarding be torture if done to you?"
"I would feel that it was," Mukasey replied.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/065260.php
[David Kurtz] Mukasey basically put Congress on notice that they have to outlaw waterboarding or quit asking questions about it.
http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/005178.php
[Paul Kiel] Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) pressed the point that the Senate had, on a broad bipartisan basis, prohibited "such practices with the McCain amendment" (the 2005 Detainee Treatment Act).
But the Senate had also "voted down a bill that would prohibit waterboarding," Mukasey replied.
"You still think that the jury is out on whether the Senate believes that waterboarding is torture?" Durbin wanted to know.
"The question... is whether the Senate has spoken clearly enough in the legislation that it has passed...."
"Where is the lack of clarity in the McCain legislation?"
The "words of the legislation... are words that are general and upon which people on both sides of the debate have already disagreed. To point to this language or that language, it seems to me, is to pick nits at this point. People have disagreed about the generality of the language and said that it can be read two ways." . . .
Repugnant
http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/005179.php
[Paul Kiel] Sen. Chuck Schumer's (D-NY) . . . question was simple. You've said that waterboarding is "repugnant." So, if it is repugnant, don't you think that a ban of waterboarding is a good thing? Wouldn't you support that? . . . [read on]
http://www.slate.com/id/2183165
Dick Durbin, D-Ill., gets off the best line of the day when—citing Mukasey's statement that "reasonable people can disagree" about the legality of water-boarding—he asks the attorney general to name some on the pro side.
Here’s their position, if you can believe it: we used to waterboard, but we stopped doing it, so there’s no point in discussing its legality. We’re not doing it now, so stop asking. And we reserve the right to do it again in the future, but there’s no point in asking about the legality of that either, because we haven’t done it yet. Shorter version: STFU
http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/005170.php
"[I] have concluded that the interrogation techniques currently authorized in the CIA program comply with the law.... I have been authorized to disclose publicly that waterboarding is not among those methods.”
http://www.slate.com/id/2183165
[Dahlia Lithwick] As you'll recall, last October, nominee Mukasey promised the Senate that while he couldn't yet offer an opinion on the legality of the alternative interrogation technique called water-boarding, he'd be able to do so once he was "read into the program." As you may also recall, that nonanswer came close to scuttling his nomination. Last night, Gen. Mukasey let the Senate know in a sort of constitutional Dear John letter that he wouldn't opine on water-boarding today either, both because we stopped doing it and because it's "not an easy question."
In other words, having set about diligently to scrutinize the legality of the interrogation program, its legal justifications, and its applications, the nation's top lawyer has come up with this lawyerly answer: It depends. . . [read on]
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/01/31/mukasey/index.html
[Glenn Greenwald] Yesterday's Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, featuring day-long testimony from Attorney General Michael Mukasey, was extraordinary for only one reason: for our country, what happened in the hearing is now completely ordinary . . . [read on]
More: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/1/30/12138/9366
Will the investigation of the destruction of CIA torture tapes also deal with the illegal acts they disclosed? I seriously doubt it
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/065244.php
http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/005180.php
http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/005173.php
[NB: It's an interesting conundrum, because the people who destroyed the torture tapes clearly did so to avoid prosecution, so THEY believed that what was being done was illegal, or at least could be found so.]
The Nuremberg Defense
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/1/30/154358/393
Torture wasn’t all they talked about
http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/005175.php
[Paul Kiel] Michael Mukasey is not a man to live in the past. It's a much more difficult place.
Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) started his questions by asking about the President's Article II powers under the Constitution. Do you think that the President can break any law he pleases because he's the President -- including, say, statutes banning torture?
"I can't contemplate any situation in which this president would assert Article II authority to do something that the law forbids," Mukasey shot back.
"Well, he did just that when he violated the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act" Specter responded. "Didn't he?"
Well, "both of those issues have been brought within statutes," Mukasey responded, apparently hoping that he wouldn't have to discuss the stickier past.
"That's not the point," Specter pressed. "The point is that he acted in violation of statutes, didn't he?"
"I don't know," Mukasey conceded. Awkward.
"There's no dispute about that," isn't there? The law says you have to go to court to get a warrant for wiretapping and the administration didn't do that. . . .
The FISA fight – it’s not just about telecom amnesty
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/1/30/115312/346
http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2008/01/30/not-just-immunity/
http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/002767.php
Is there a deal in the works? http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/005174.php
Wow. Just wow
www.washingtonindependent.com/view/did-rove-influence
[Jefferson Morley] Philip Zelikow, the executive director of the 9/11 Commission, communicated secretly with White House political strategist Karl Rove and other Bush administration officials, reports independent scholar Max Holland, citing an audio version of a forthcoming book by a New York Times reporter.
On his Web site, Washington Decoded, Holland reports that Philip Shenon, who led the Times coverage of the Commission, has written a “blistering account” of Zelikow’s role overseeing the 20-month investigation . . .
More: http://www.washingtondecoded.com/site/2008/01/commission-conf.html
http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2008/01/30/yet-more-communications-dirty-business-karl-rove-and-philip-zelikow/
Bush demolishes the principle of balance of powers
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2008/01/30/BL2008013001912.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/30/opinion/30wed1.html
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2008_01/013013.php
http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/01/no_laws_for_you.php
http://www.samefacts.com/archives/gwb_the_beloved_leader_/2008/01/george_w_cataline.php
People hate the war in Iraq more than ever
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/28/speaking-of-not-getting-credit/
The dogs of war
http://www.washingtonindependent.com/view/more-on-detainee
[Spencer Ackerman] Julian Barnes at the Los Angeles Times picks up on the story we noted Monday about soldiers from the 1st Infantry Division apparently killing Iraqi detainees. . . .
A white elephant in Baghdad
http://www.washingtonindependent.com/view/u-s-embassy-in

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/horsesmouth/2008/01/retrospective_e.php
http://firedoglake.com/2008/01/30/the-heart-of-the-democratic-party/
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/matthew_yglesias/2008/01/john_edwardss_indelible_mark.html
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/1/30/223358/948
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/1/31/14240/0972
Watch: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/1/30/1544/31454
Who does Edwards’s departure help? (Short answer: no one really knows)
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/065284.php
http://tpmelectioncentral.com/2008/01/top_edwards_adviser_trippi_on_hillary_and_obama_theyre_banging_down_the_doors_for_our_endorsement.php
http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/14412.html
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2008/01/edwards_to_leave_presidential.html
http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=3524
http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=whither_edwards_supporters
http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/1/30/235933/332
http://www.slate.com/id/2182563/
The Republican war against John McCain
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_013008/content/01125106.guest.html
http://firedoglake.com/2008/01/30/mark-steyn-needs-a-hug/
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2008_01/013012.php
http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/14410.html
If anyone wants to see more “bipartisanship” in D.C., start with the source of the problem
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/1/30/10456/8783
http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/14417.html
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/01/30/bipartisanship/index.html
As far as I know, there is no obligation for one house of Congress to automatically ratify what the other comes up with. The Senate can take a different tack on a stimulus package, then work it out in a conference committee. But the Republicans, of course, only want the version Bush worked out with Pelosi and Boehner on the House side – so will they now filibuster a bipartisan bill designed to give rebates to needy people?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/30/AR2008013003651.html
Poor Alice
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/01/29/perino-asked-is-the-country-better-off-now-than-seven-years-ago/
Perino asked: ‘Is the country better off now than seven years ago?’ . . . [read on]
It’s simple, isn’t it? Fox News’s ratings reflect people’s willingness to be deluged with Republican talking points
http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/14416.html
[Steve Benen] I’ll admit it; I have a special fondness for news about Fox News’ declining ratings. There’s just something about the drop in numbers that helps restore my faith in the American political system. . .
***If you enjoy PBD and support what we are doing, you can help by forwarding a copy of this issue to your friends (using the envelope link below) or by sending them a copy of its URL (http://pbd.blogspot.com).
I don't get anything personally out of this project, except the satisfaction of doing it (I don't run ads, etc). The credit really all goes to the people whose material I copy and redistribute. But if I do have a "mission," it is to get this information into the hands of as many people as I can.***