Recently in Gulaggate/Torturegate Category

"Interrogators were instructed to start pouring water right after a detainee exhaled, to ensure he inhaled water, not air, in his next breath. They could use their hands to "dam the runoff" and prevent water from spilling out of a detainee's mouth...[T]o keep detainees alive even if they inhaled their own vomit during a session - a not-uncommon side effect of waterboarding - the prisoners were kept on a liquid diet. The agency recommended Ensure Plus."

But it's not torture or anything: Recently-released CIA documents explain exactly how we went about waterboarding suspects during the Dubya era. "'It does not simulate drowning, as the lungs are actually filling with water,' Nance wrote in the New York Daily News. There is no way to simulate that. The victim is drowning."

Update: Oh, by the way, Karl Rove is "proud" of these despicable acts.

"As news of the deaths emerged the following day, the camp quickly went into lockdown. The authorities ordered nearly all the reporters at Guantánamo to leave and those en route to turn back. The commander at Guantánamo, Rear Admiral Harry Harris, then declared the deaths 'suicides.' In an unusual move, he also used the announcement to attack the dead men. "I believe this was not an act of desperation," he said, 'but an act of asymmetrical warfare waged against us.'"

In Gitmo, no one can here you scream. After chatting with four members of a military intelligence unit on the premises, Harper's writer Scott Horton makes a compelling case that three Gitmo suicides in 2006 were in fact covered-up murders, occurring as a result of the Dubya-era torture regime. "All four soldiers say they were ordered by their commanding officer not to speak out, and all four soldiers provide evidence that authorities initiated a cover-up within hours of the prisoners' deaths."

Update: Slate's Dahlia Lithwick calls out the press for its deafening silence. "The fact that three Guantanamo prisoners--none of whom had any links to terrorism and two of whom had already been cleared for release--may have been killed there and the deaths covered up, should be front-page news. That brand-new evidence of this possible atrocity from military guards was given only the most cursory investigation by the Obama administration should warrant some kind of blowback. But changing what we allow ourselves to believe about torture would change the way we have reconciled ourselves to torture. Nobody in this country is prepared to do that. So we have opted to ignore it."

"The Obama administration has clung for so long to the Bush administration's expansive claims of national security and executive power that it is in danger of turning President George W. Bush's cover-up of abuses committed in the name of fighting terrorism into President Barack Obama's cover-up." In an editorial applauded by Salon's Glenn Greenwald, the NYT calls out the Obama administration for their appalling and Dubyaesque record on civil liberties.

As Greenwald well notes: "All of this vividly underscores a vital point. There is simply no way that a person with even the most minimal levels of intellectual integrity could have objected to these actions during the Bush years yet defend them now that Obama is doing them, or even refrain from objecting just as loudly."

See also Sen. Feingold's recent and angry post on dKos this month (coupled with this statement on the Senate Judiciary committee) on the hamstringing of his attempts to revise the Patriot Act. Far too many ostensible civil libertarians in the Democratic Party have been rolling over for this administration since January -- The time for giving the benefit of the doubt has passed. On this -- and other crucial issues before us -- it's time to put this admin's feet to the fire and hold the president to his word.

"Guantanamo may be Dick Cheney's idea of America, but it's not mine,' Morello said in a statement announcing the effort. 'The fact that music I helped create was used in crimes against humanity sickens me.'" A group of musicians including Tom Morello of Rage Against the Machine, Trent Reznor of Nine Inch Nails, R.E.M., Billy Bragg, Pearl Jam, the Roots, Rosanne Cash, and David Byrne demand that Gitmo close, and that their music stop being used for torture. "If there are any legal options that can be realistically taken they will be aggressively pursued," Reznor promised."

More recent signs of the freefall of journalistic integrity in the Beltway:

* Marc Ambinder, a thoroughly lousy blogging "journalist" in the Atlantic stable, chalks up prescient criticism of the Bush administration's gaming of security alerts as solely the result of liberal fringe-hippy "gut hatred." Says Ambinder in a burst of CYA blather: "Information asymmetry is always going to exist, and, living as we do in a Democratic system, most journalists are going to give the government the benefit of some doubt, even having learned lessons about giving the government that benefit." Way to speak truth to power, Marc. In other words, suck-up, spit-down, and let's not let the facts -- or god forbid, any attempted acts of daily journalism -- get in the way of our obsequious administration boot-licking.

FWIW, after getting roundly slammed for this ridiculous understanding of what constitutes journalism, Ambinder walked back his comments...some. (It hasn't caused him to deviate from his usual m.o., however, which is acting as stenographer to people in power and parsing the day's news to find that exact comfortable midpoint where the CW resides. And sadly,he's not even the worst blogger over at the Atlantic -- that would be the former Jane Galt, Megan McArdle.)

* TIME's Joe Klein has been on a bit of a losing streak lately. Ostensibly a "liberal" -- at least the Village's town crier, Howard Kurtz, considers him one -- Klein is, like Ambinder and so many other of his ostensibly lefty pundit colleagues -- really just an establishmentarian. He rolls over for the powerful and spends most of his copy and television appearances simply honing his "I'm a lefty, but I'm one of the sane ones" schtick. Take any given issue, look over Klein's output, and you'll usually find him, a la Howard Fineman, staking out that comfortable middle where roadkill dies and TV pundits thrive. (Most recent case in point: health care reform, where's he's for...something...but lately could really take or leave that goofy public option.)

Anyway, Klein recently made the mistake of mouthing off about those crazy lefties, and particularly Glenn Greenwald -- whom he weirdly deems a "civil liberties absolutist" -- in front of a very able blogger (and in a bit of grand historical irony, the granddaughter of I.F. Stone), who cut him short in hilarious fashion. Klein then took his anti-Greenwald crusade to Journolist, where his angry screeds and troubles with facts didn't seem particularly well-received either.

So, now Klein has taken to ranting on Swampland about his recent troubles. Arguing that Greenwald indulges in "intemperate attacks in which he questions the character of -- no, it's worse than that: he slimes -- anyone who has the temerity to disagree with him," Klein also deems Aimai, the aforementioned partygoer/blogger, a "rather pathetic woman acolyte of Greenwald" -- a bit intemperate, don'tcha think? As for Greenwald himself, Klein considers him "thoroughly dishonorable," as well as -- I kid you not -- insufficiently pro-military. "I have never seen him write a positive sentence about the US military," Klein declaims, a paragraph or so before he admits that "I am not a religious reader of Greenwald."

Now, putting aside whether Klein's blatant and bizarre Cheneyism is true -- it isn't -- as well as Klein's self-evident buffoonery here, how would penning enthusiastic copy about the US armed forces be in any way a reasonable evaluator of journalistic integrity? It's like these pundits have so talked themselves into ignoring the grotesquely under-reported Pentagon pundit scandal that they're starting to believe their own talking points. Screaming "You don't love the troops!!" is a naked and craven attempt at ad hominem obfuscation pretty much every time a politician engages in it. But coming from the pen of a journalist, and a purported "lefty" one at that, it's just plain ridiculous.

(By the way, Greenwald's own thoughts on this are here, although the Swampland commenters do just as solid a job of eviscerating Klein for this disastrous posting. As does Aimai the Acolyte, who in her response gets in this certifiable zinger: "He's not a public intellectual -- he's a f**king wind sock. And he knows it.")

* Moving to another purported lefty of the establishment press, calling out the WP's Richard Cohen for dim reasoning and faulty logic these days is like calling the sky blue -- it's just the way it is. Nevertheless, his piece on torture today was particularly vile, and it's a textbook case of two standard operating Beltway-pundit presumptions, also witnessed in the cases of Ambinder and Klein: [1] Establishment journalists are exceedingly special people, and [2] the height of wisdom is always to be found in the exact middle-of-the-road.

To take point one first, Cohen frets about Attorney General Holder's new weaksauce-as-intended inquiry into CIA torture because of the outrageous and despicable violations of civil liberties committed upon...Judith Miller. He writes: "Special prosecutors are often themselves like interrogators -- they don't know when to stop. They go on and on because, well, they can go on and on. One of them managed to put Judith Miller of The New York Times in jail -- a wee bit of torture right there." Uh, no.

A few years after getting absolutely played by the powers-that-be and reporting lies about the existence of WMD in Iraq in the paper of record, NYT reporter Judith Miller spent three months in a comparatively nice prison cell because she refused to testify in the Plame investigation about one of those very same powerful people, Scooter Libby. Now, however you feel about what happened with Ms. Miller, she was not tortured. She was not waterboarded dozens or hundreds of times. She was not tortured for refusing to assert a false positive. She was never given the Room 101 treatment. And she did not die in our custody. So that truly bizarre analogy breaks down pretty quickly.

Even more irritating, however, is the hemming-and-hawing, "pox on both your houses" attempt at moderation Cohen tries to employ through the rest of this piece. "This business of what constitutes torture is a complicated matter. It is further complicated by questions about its efficacy: Does it sometimes work? Does it never work? Is it always immoral? What about torture that saves lives? What if it saves many lives? What if one of those lives is your child's?" Cohen asks these questions as if they're unanswerable profundities...or as if all of the considerable data showing torture is completely ineffective does not exist.

Then he plays the 24 game: "Ah yes, the interrogator must build rapport with the captured terrorist. That might work, but it would take time. It could take a lot of time." Again, Cohen ignores the fact that the ticking-time-bomb scenario is a comic book fantasy with absolutely no application to the real world.

And he saves his worst for last: Torture, Cohen writes, "cannot be the subject of an ideological tug of war, both sides taking extreme and illogical positions -- torture never works, torture always works, torture is always immoral, torture is moral if it saves lives. Torture always is ugly. So, though, is the hole in the ground where the World Trade Center once stood. " Did you catch that? Before Cohen took us to commercial with a resounding chorus of 9/11, 9/11, 9/11, he deemed that "torture never works" and "torture is always immoral" are now "extreme and illogical positions," right on a par with "torture always works." Say what?

It is exactly these types of false equivalencies, usually fostered by columnists these days to CYA and prostrate before power, that is killing what's left of journalistic integrity in the Beltway. For some reason or another -- most likely so as not to lose their privileged place of influence in the hive -- "journalists" like Ambinder, Klein, and Cohen seem to think it's their job finding, and then reporting from, the safe, non-threatening and perfectly vanilla midpoint between opposing political sides. The whole "holding up claims to independent, verifiable facts" aspect of journalism is a completely lost art among far too many of today's pundit class. It gets in the way of their lazy sense of entitlement, I guess, and I'm sure it really cuts back on the talking out of one's ass on TV for a living.

Put another way, it's Paul Begala's "Neil Armstrong principle all over again: "If John McCain and Sarah Palin were to say the moon was made of green cheese, we can be certain that Barack Obama and Joe Biden would pounce on it, and point out it's actually made of rock. And you just know the headline in the paper the next day would read: 'CANDIDATES CLASH ON LUNAR LANDSCAPE.'"

For all of Ambinder, Klein, and Cohen's many faults, the problem with establishment journalism today is bigger than any of them -- they're just useful case studies in a diseased system. The values ostensibly undergirding the punditocracy -- speak truth to power; check your sources, resort to facts; have some clue what you're talking about -- have been corrupted, and the whole rotten enterprise is now in an advanced state of decay. (For yet another example, see MSNBC's Chuck Todd, who -- as soon as he moved up a few pegs in the Beltway regime -- started laughing off torture investigations as cable news "catnip.")

This long post may just read like sarcastic score-settling, but this is no small matter. The desiccated values and m.o. of today's Beltway pundit class are helping to kill off health care reform. They're helping Dubya-era criminals get away with torture. And they're going to derail any meaningful attempts at systemic political reform in the future...unless we start holding their feet to the fire. A republic needs no courtiers -- it damn well needs good journalists.

The story of our journalistic establishment over the past thirty years is basically Bob Woodward, writ large: Beltway journalists and pundits used to challenge the politicians in power and serve as the public's vital and necessary watchdogs. Now, like any old mutt, far too many just want to sit next to the masters, bark at those who would deign to threaten them, and try to get rewarded for their servility with an occasional scratch behind the ears. This will not do.

"Holder has fallen prey to the sort of magical legal thinking that seeps through the whole CIA report: the presumption that if there's a legal memo, it must be legal...In other words, we are now protecting the good-faith torturers. That isn't just wrong, it's outrageous. It ratifies the most toxic aspect of the whole legal war on terror: that anything becomes permissible if it's served up with a side of memo. Paper your misconduct with footnotes and justifications--even after the fact--and you can do as you please."

Slate's Dahlia Lithwick explains the fundamental problem with the Justice Department's new inquiry into Dubya-era torture: "Pretending we are investigating and curtailing a torture program isn't all that different from pretending we didn't torture in the first place."

Meanwhile -- hold on to your hats, people -- Slate's Tim Noah discovers that Dick Cheney hasn't been entirely truthful about what's in the theoretically exculpatory CIA memos. "Portions have been redacted, so perhaps the evidence Cheney claims that enhanced interrogation saved American lives has been blacked out. But judging from what's visible to the naked eye, the documents do not provide anything like the vindication that Cheney claims." (Of course, even if they did provide said vindication, the question of whether or not torture is effective -- 24 notwithstanding, we're pretty sure it isn't -- is a completely separate question from whether or not torture is legal -- it isn't.)

"Eventually, the agency's network would encompass at least eight detention centers, including one in the Middle East, one each in Iraq and Afghanistan and a maximum-security long-term site at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, that was dubbed Strawberry Fields, officials said. (It was named after a Beatles song after C.I.A. officials joked that the detainees would be held there, as the lyric put it, 'forever.')"

Charming. The NYT gets a window into the CIA's top-secret "black sites" program courtesy of former #3 man Dusty Foggo, who -- irony alert -- is currently serving a three-year term in a Kentucky jail on fraud charges associated with Duke Cunningham. (I presume Kentucky's finest have yet to break out the "enhanced interrogation techniques" on this joker. Speaking of which, "[n]othing exotic was required for the infamous waterboards -- they were built on the spot from locally available materials...The cells were constructed with special features to prevent injury to the prisoners during interrogations: nonslip floors and flexible, plywood-covered walls to soften the impact of being slammed into the wall.")

"'An investigation that focuses only on low-ranking operators would be, I think, worse than doing nothing at all,' said Tom Malinowski, Washington advocacy director for Human Rights Watch." Per both the WP's recommendation and an earlier trial balloon of a few weeks ago, Attorney General Eric Holder announces he's considering a ridiculously abbreviated investigation into the Dubya era torture regime, one that will focus only on "'whether people went beyond the techniques that were authorized' in Bush administration memos that liberally interpreted anti-torture laws."

In other words, Attorney General Holder's big plan appears to be snag a Jack Lint (re: Lynndie England) or two, while retroactively legitimizing the real criminals who set these thoroughly un-American torture policies in motion, and then call it a day. This is not justice, nor is it change we can believe in.

Civil libertarians across the board are livid at today's news, and for good reason. Worse, this is just the most recent chapter in the Obama administration's blatantly terrible record on civil liberties issues over these past six months. The President's nudge, nudge, wink wink stance on all this last April -- these aren't "really" our policies" -- looks ever more mealymouthed and insulting with each new revelation. That dog won't hunt anymore.

Whatever happens with health insurance reform, and let's hope it passes with real teeth, the president's civil liberties record thus far counts as a real moral failure for this administration. Their enthusiastic continuation of Dubya-era policies on this front does violence not only to the reasons why many of us voted for Obama in the first place, but to the founding principles of our increasingly aggrieved republic. For shame.

"Some of the 13 manipulated the federal bureaucracy and the legal process to 'preauthorize' torture in the days after 9/11. Others helped implement torture, and still others helped write the memos that provided the Bush administration with a legal fig leaf after torture had already begun...Between 9/11 and the end of 2002, the Torture 13 decided to torture, then reverse-engineered the techniques, and then crafted the legal cover. Here's who they are and what they did."

Triskaidecaphobics, beware: From the bookmarks and in her debut for Salon, blogger Marcy Wheeler lists the thirteen officials most responsible for the Dubya-era torture regime. A baker's dozen of orange jumpsuits, please.

"Any legitimate terror suspect, she said, would almost certainly be held in remote, high-security 'supermax' federal prisons, which are already home to convicted terrorists like British shoe bomber Richard Reid and Zacarias Moussaoui, the alleged 20th hijacker of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. That's what these prisons are designed for." The WP's Dan Froomkin surveys the most recent idiocy being spouted by Republicans -- as well as FBI director Robert Mueller and far too many Senate Democrats: that moving detainees from Gitmo into maximum security prisons would represent a clear and present danger to the republic. (As always, see also Glenn Greenwald on this ridiculous subject.)

I'm unclear as to what the GOP thinks will happen if we move these detainees into our regular prison system (other than that it'll probably be harder to waterboard them.) What kind of fantasyland do these yokels reside in? These detainees aren't Lex Luthor or the Joker. They have no vast army of misguided goons waiting to help them in the Big House. (In fact, I think they'll find they don't have much in common with your run-of-the-mill hard time lifer.) Nor have they concocted any diabolical master plans to escape from these extremely secure institutions. Newsflash: Those supercriminal types you read about in comics don't actually exist. (And, while we're debunking conservative fantasies, forget what you saw Jack Bauer do: "ticking time bomb" scenarios don't in fact happen either, and, even if they did, torture is in no way effective as a means of obtaining the information you'd need. Not that its efficacy matters anyway, because it's a war crime regardless.)

Absurd. Blatantly absurd. And altogether irritating that, once again, too many Democrats in Congress are not only taking these inchoate lunacies seriously, but grimly echoing them as if there's even a modicum of sound reasoning going on here. Can these conservatives and their Dem enablers distinguish between the Real World and their bizarre, half-baked realm of nightmares anymore? At this point, I half-expect Chuck Grassley and Harry Reid to tell me they're imprisoning Zubadayah, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, et al in a pane of glass and shooting them into the far reaches of space. I mean, it worked for General Zod in Superman II, right?

"To paraphrase Al Pacino in 'Godfather III,' just when we thought we were out, the Bush mob keeps pulling us back in. And will keep doing so. No matter how hard President Obama tries to turn the page on the previous administration, he can't. Until there is true transparency and true accountability, revelations of that unresolved eight-year nightmare will keep raining down drip by drip, disrupting the new administration's high ambitions." In today's NYT, Frank Rich makes the case for a full investigation into Dubya-era crimes (as, in a switch, does Maureen Dowd -- with some unattributed help from TPM's Josh Marshall.)

Also linked in Rich's piece is a damning profile of Donald Rumsfeld's tenure at Defense by GQ's Robert Draper, which happens to include these bizarre and, diplomatically speaking, blatantly idiotic Christian-minded cover sheets created especially for Dubya's briefings. "This mixing of Crusades-like messaging with war imagery, which until now has not been revealed, had become routine...At least one Muslim analyst in the building had been greatly offended; others privately worried that if these covers were leaked during a war conducted in an Islamic nation, the fallout--as one Pentagon staffer would later say -- 'would be as bad as Abu Ghraib.' But the Pentagon's top officials were apparently unconcerned about the effect such a disclosure might have on the conduct of the war or on Bush's public standing...Rumsfeld likely saw the Scriptures as a way of making a personal connection with a president who frequently quoted the Bible."

As most everyone keeping up on current events these days knows, the people around the president, as well as the president himself, spend a good bit of time emphasizing the pragmatic nature of this administration. One senior administration official recently deemed the president a "devout nonideologue", and Obama himself has argued several times that he aims to tackle the myriad problems before us with a "ruthless pragmatism." Now, we've seen nothing to indicate that Obama's pragmatic nature is an act. If anything, from installing Sen. Clinton as his Secretary of State to keeping Sec. Gates at Defense, it's clear that pragmatism, accommodation, and inclusiveness are his temperamental instincts as a politician. Nevertheless, it's also clear that comparisons to Franklin Roosevelt, and the "bold, persistent experimentation" Roosevelt promised in 1932 -- and subsequently followed through on over the course of the decade -- aren't entirely undesired by the White House.

Well, I've been traveling over the past few days, and thus haven't been following the news as closely as usual. Still, even given President Obama's health care announcement on Monday (highly reminiscent of the NRA in that it purports to let the big players in the health care industry help write the codes, so to speak) and the welcome declaration on Wednesday that the administration would soon seek a new regulatory apparatus for derivatives markets, Franklin Roosevelt was not the first president that came to mind as a point of reference for Obama this week.

No, that would be Gerald Ford, who, most historians agree, was an honorable man thrust into a thorny dilemma by the crimes of his predecessor, and who grievously hamstrung his own brief administration by deciding to pardon Richard Nixon. And now, it seems, history gets dangerously close to repeating itself. For, it's moved beyond obvious that the Dubya administration not only willfully engaged in torture -- clearly, bad enough -- but did so to compel false confessions of an Iraq-9/11 connection that they knew never existed. And yet, we've already witnessed the ungainly sight of President Obama equivocating on the question of prosecutions in the name of some dubious "time for reflection, not retribution." (Never mind that, as President Obama reminds us on other matters, wounds, like corruption, fester in the dark.)

This week, President Obama has compounded his recent error -- twice. In the first of two eleventh-hour reversals, Obama -- who has promised us "an unprecedented level of openness in government" many times over -- instead chose to side with the publicists of the Pentagon and block the court-ordered release of new photographs detailing detainee abuse: "'The publication of these photos would not add any additional benefit to our understanding of what was carried out in the past by a small number of individuals,' Obama said yesterday. 'In fact, the most direct consequence of releasing them, I believe, would be to further inflame anti-American opinion and to put our troops in danger.'" (How bad are they? If Sy Hersh is correct, and there's no reason to think he isn't, they could be very, very bad.)

Then, today, the Obama administration announced they will continue using extra-legal military tribunals, not federal courts or military courts martial, for Gitmo suspects. "'Military commissions have a long tradition in the United States,' said Obama in a statement. 'They are appropriate for trying enemies who violate the laws of war, provided that they are properly structured and administered.'" (The key line of the WP story: "In recent weeks, however, the administration appears to have bowed to fears articulated by the Pentagon that bringing some detainees before regular courts presented enormous legal hurdles and could risk acquittals.)"

Obama's statements aside, the arguments -- re: excuses -- in favor of blocking the release of these no-doubt-horrifying photos and maintaining extralegal tribunals -- now with 33% less illegality! -- are the thin gruel you might expect. The WP's Dan Froomkin already eviscerated the former quite devastatingly, while Salon's Glenn Greenwald, laudable as usual, has taken point on the idiocy of the latter: "[W]e'll give due process as long as we're sure we can win, and if we can't, we'll give you something less." In both cases, the principle animating the advice given to President Obama seems mainly to be the usual self-serving, CYA behavior of Dubya holdovers at the Pentagon.

But that doesn't absolve President Obama of his failures here. For whatever reason -- perhaps he's trying to smooth things over in these areas so he can focus on the considerable domestic problems on his plate -- Obama is increasingly making the exact same mistake as Gerald Ford. As other commentators have pointed out, by shoving the rampant illegalities of the GWoT under the rug -- or worse, perpetuating them -- Obama is dangerously close to making his administration retroactively complicit in the crimes of the previous administration.

Now, I'd like to move on to fixing the economy and universal health care -- not to mention voting, lobbying, and campaign finance reform -- as much as the next guy., But sidestepping the tough choices on torture and the imperial presidency, as Paul Krugman (whom I've had issues with but am in complete lockstep with here) noted a few weeks ago, is simply not an option, if we are to maintain anything resembling our national soul after this egregious wallowing in torture and illegality.

Speaking of which, a quick comment on the emerging question of what and when Speaker Pelosi knew about torture (which the Republicans have shamelessly latched onto like a life raft -- see in particular Karl Rove frantically pointing at her to save his own skin the other day. You can almost smell the desperate flop sweat exuding from his every pore.) Well, let's look into it. Commissions, investigations, prosecutions -- let's quit screwing around and start getting to the bottom of this fiasco. I can't believe I have to keep writing this like it's even a bone of contention, but look: If we can't get it together enough to collectively agree that torture is both immoral and illegal, and that those who designed and orchestrated these war crimes during the Dubya administration be subject to investigation, prosecution, and punishment, then we might as well call this whole "rule of law" thing off. As ethicist David Luban noted yesterday in congressional testimony, the relevant case law here is not oblique. Either the laws apply to those at the very top, or they don't -- in which case, it's hard to see why anyone else should feel bound to respect them either.

Which brings me back to pragmatism. Hey, in general, I'm all for it, particularly when you consider all the many imbecilities thrust upon the world by the blind ideological purity of the neocons of late. But, let's remember, the limits of pragmatism as a guiding national philosophy were exposed before all the world before Obama, or even FDR, ever took office. When, after several years of trying to stay well out of the whole mess, Woodrow Wilson entered America into World War I in 1917, the very fathers of Pragmatism, most notably philosopher of education John Dewey, convinced themselves war was now the correct call and exhorted their fellow progressives, usually in the pages of The New Republic, to get behind it. (Many did, but others -- such as Jane Addams and Nation editor Oswald Villard -- did not.) War went from being a moral abomination to a great and necessary opportunity for national renewal. Given it was a done deal, the pragmatic thing to do now was to go with the flow.

Aghast at this 180-degree shift in the thinking of people he greatly admired, a young writer named Randolph Bourne called shenanigans on this "pragmatic" turnaround, and excoriated his former mentors for their lapse into war fervor. "It must never be forgotten that in every community it was the least liberal and least democratic elements among whom the preparedness and later the war sentiment was found," Bourne wrote. "The intellectuals, in other words, have identified themselves with the least democratic forces in American life. They have assumed the leadership for war of those very classes whom the American democracy had been immemorially fighting. Only in a world where irony was dead could an intellectual class enter war at the head of such illiberal cohorts in the avowed cause of world-liberalism and world-democracy."

Now, you'd be hard-pressed to find a bigger cheerleader for the progressives than I. But the fact remains that Bourne, who perished soon thereafter in the 1918 influenza epidemic, was prescient in a way that many of the leading progressive thinkers were not. The emotions unleashed by the Great War and its aftermath (as well as the sight of the accompanying Russian Revolution) soon fractured completely the progressive movement in America, and proved exceedingly fertile soil for the reascendancy of the most reactionary elements around. (Back then "Bolshevik" and "anarchist" were preferred as the favorite epithets of the "One Hundred Percent American" right-wing, although "socialist," then as now, was also in vogue. At least then they had real socialists around, tho'.) And the pragmatic writers and thinkers of TNR, who thought they could ride the mad tiger through a "war to end all wars," instead found their hopes and dreams chewed up and mangled beyond recognition. They wanted a "world made safe for democracy" and they ended up with the Red Scare, Warren Harding, and an interstitial peace at Versailles that lasted less than a generation.

The point being: however laudable a virtue in most circumstances, pragmatism for pragmatism's sake can lead one into serious trouble. And, as a guiding light of national moral principle, it occasionally reeks. As Dewey and his TNR compatriots discovered to their everlasting chagrin, you can talk yourself into pretty much anything and deem it "pragmatic," when it's in fact just the path of least resistance. And, when your guiding philosophy of leadership is to always view intense opposing sides as Scylla and Charybdis, and then to steer through them by finding the calm, healthy middle, you can bet dollars-to-donuts that the conservative freaks of the industry will always be pushing that "center" as far right as possible, regardless of the issues involved. And, eventually, without a guiding moral imperative at work -- like, I dunno, torture is illegal, immoral, and criminal, or the rule of law applies to everyone -- you may discover that that middle channel is no longer in the middle at all, but has diverted strongly to the right. In which case, welcome to Gerald Ford territory.

Nobody wants that, of course. We -- on the left, at least -- all want to remember the Obama administration not as a well-meaning dupe notable mainly for its unfortunate rubberstamping of Dubya-era atrocities, but as a transformational presidency akin to those of Lincoln and the two Roosevelts. To accomplish this goal, it would behoove the White House to remember that Lincoln, pragmatic that he was, came to abolition gradually, but come to abolition he did. Or consider that Franklin Roosevelt, pragmatic that he was, eventually chose his side as well. "I should like to have it said of my first Administration that in it the forces of selfishness and of lust for power met their match," FDR said in his renomination speech of 1936. "I should like to have it said of my second Administration that in it these forces met their master."

I should like to have it said of President Obama's administration as well. The alternative -- Obama's sad, "pragmatic" capitulation to Dubya-era criminals -- is too depressing to contemplate. But the picture below (found here) gives you a pretty good sense of what it'll mean for America if we don't get to the bottom of this, and soon.

"I actually think that the state secret doctrine should be modified. I think right how it's over-broad. But keep in mind what happens is, we come into office, we're in for a week -- and suddenly we've got a court filing that's coming up. And so we don't have the time to effectively think through what, exactly, should a overarching reform of that doctrine take. We've got to respond to the immediate case in front of us."

In case you missed it last night -- I'll concede, I'd forgotten about the presser and was watching the NBA playoffs -- President Obama was finally asked about his troubling continuation of Dubya's state secrets policy during his "100 Days" press conference last night. [Full transcript.] And his answer -- basically, the justice department turns like a battleship, but we're on the case -- is somewhat heartening, I guess, in that the president seems to concede anew that the privilege has been abused of late, even under his own administration. But, as Salon's Glenn Greenwald reminds us today, the Obama/Holder JD has done a good bit more than just "stay the course" on states' secrets since coming into office, and last night's excuse -- well, despite our actions over 100 days, this isn't *really* our policy -- isn't going to hold water for much longer.

Also last night, while sort of pressed into it by ABC News' Jake Tapper, President Obama said in no uncertain terms both that waterboarding is torture (correct) and that, as we all know, his predecessor's administration sanctioned it: "I believe that waterboarding was torture. And I think that the -- whatever legal rationales were used, it was a mistake." Now, it isn't the president's call to move forward on an investigation and possible prosecutions at this point -- that task falls to Attorney General Holder. Still, if what the president said last night is true, and it obviously is, then AG Holder has only one choice moving forward. It's time to get to the bottom of this.

Hard to believe, but, this morning, the recent grisly revelations of Dubya-era torture practices became even more horrifying. As we've gleaned more info over the past few days, certain obvious and troubling questions kept popping up. Why, as indicated here, would higher-ups insist on additional waterboarding sessions for Zubadayah, even after the CIA agents at hand thought the suspect "had given up all the information he had"? Also: Mind you, even one session of torture is reprehensible -- and illegal -- enough. But what more did the powers-that-be think they were going to get out of these suspects after ten waterboardings? Twenty? One hundred?

Well, now we know. Not only did Dubya apparachiks conceive a torture regime well before it was approved (and before they had any prisoners on hand -- see also the new and unredacted Armed Services Committee report), but they tortured their suspects into the ground because they were trying to prove a false positive, i.e. that there was some serious operational link between Iraq and Al Qaeda that could be used to sell the second Gulf War. (See also the forged Habbush letter.)

"'There were two reasons why these interrogations were so persistent, and why extreme methods were used,' the former senior intelligence official said on condition of anonymity because of the issue's sensitivity. 'The main one is that everyone was worried about some kind of follow-up attack (after 9/11). But for most of 2002 and into 2003, Cheney and Rumsfeld, especially, were also demanding proof of the links between al Qaida and Iraq that (former Iraqi exile leader Ahmed) Chalabi and others had told them were there.'"

So, in short, it would seem the suspects held by the CIA were tortured over and over again because they would not concede that two plus two equals five.

Really, how much lower can these assholes sink? What could they possibly do that would cause more violence to our ideals, or that would make our cherished role as a beacon of freedom seem any more ridiculous in the eyes of the world, than what they've already done?

Once again, I'm reminded of Lincoln's famous remark to the Indiana 14th: "'Whenever I hear anyone arguing for slavery, I feel a strong impulse to see it tried on him personally.'" At the very least, somebody, or somebodies, better go to jail for a loooong time for this. Anything less is simply unacceptable.

"The Times article, based on information from former intelligence officers who spoke on condition of anonymity, said Abu Zubaydah had revealed a great deal of information before harsh methods were used and after his captors stripped him of clothes, kept him in a cold cell and kept him awake at night. The article said interrogators at the secret prison in Thailand believed he had given up all the information he had, but officials at headquarters ordered them to use waterboarding." Perusing last week's sordid torture memos, eagle-eyed blogger Marcy Wheeler discovered an unsettling statistic: two suspects -- Abu Zubaydah and Khalid Shaikh Mohammed -- were waterboarded by the CIA 266 times. Zubaydah "revealed no new information after being waterboarded, the article said, a conclusion that appears to be supported by a footnote to a 2005 Justice Department memo saying the use of the harshest methods appeared to have been 'unnecessary' in his case."

Meanwhile, as right-wing stooges like former CIA director Michael Hayden and Mike Allen's anonymous friend excoriate the president for breaking tradition and revealing the illegalities of the Dubya era, Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel ventured onto the Sunday shows to tamp down talk of any prosecutions, even for the higher-ups. "[P]eople in good faith were operating with the guidance they were provided. They shouldn't be prosecuted...those who devised policy, he [Obama] believes that they were -- should not be prosecuted either, and that's not the place that we go -- as he said in that letter."

Wrong answer, Rahm. And, unless President Obama were to grant full pardons to the architects of Dubya-era torture, it's not even his call whether or not they should be prosecuted. In fact, choosing not to prosecute them would constitute a violation of international law.

Update: The White House doesn't necessarily agree with Rahm. "[A]dministration officials said Monday that Mr. Emanuel had meant the officials who ordered the policies carried out, not the lawyers who provided the legal rationale. Three Bush administration lawyers who signed memos, John C. Yoo, Jay S. Bybee and Steven G. Bradbury, are the subjects of a coming report by the Justice Department's ethics office that officials say is sharply critical of their work. The ethics office has the power to recommend disbarment or other professional penalties or, less likely, to refer cases for criminal prosecution."

Update 2: "With respect to those who formulated those legal decisions, I would say that that is going to be more of a decision for the attorney general within the parameters of various laws, and I don't want to prejudge that." President Obama opens the door further for prosecution.

And, sometimes, here in our own Room 101, it's insects. As breaking everywhere this afternoon, the President authorizes the release of four long-awaited CIA memos that detail the rationalizing and application of Bush-era torture policies. [No. 1 | No. 2, No. 3a/3b | 4a/4b.] And, as Salon's Glenn Greenwald notes, they seem to suggest that even the parties-that-be knew what they were doing constituted torture. ("Each year, in the State Department's Country Reports on Human Rights Practices, the United States condemns coercive interrogation techniques and other practices employed by other countries. Certain of the techniques the United States has condemned appear to bear resemblance to some of the CIA interrogation techniques...The State Department's inclusion of nudity, water dousing, sleep deprivation, and food deprivation among the conduct it condemns is significant and provides some indication of an executive foreign relations tradition condemning the use of these techniques.") But, they approved these already-condemned practices as legal anyway, with the caveat that they "cannot predict with confidence whether a court would agree with this conclusion." Yeah, you think?

Well, let's hope the courts get a chance to decide either way. While releasing these documents today, Pres. Obama and Attorney General Holder also made clear that the CIA interrogators involved will not be prosecuted for these acts. "'It would be unfair to prosecute dedicated men and women working to protect America for conduct that was sanctioned in advance by the Justice Department,' he said in a statement." Um, I'm of the opinion that it would be unfair to get strung up in a, cough, "stress position" by a bunch of Cheney-authorized CIA yahoos and then see no legal recourse for it. (And, hey, "just following orders" -- what a novel legal defense. Who were the ad wizards that came up with that one?)

On the other hand, as the WP points out: "Today's carefully worded statement left open the possibility, however, that agents and higher-level officials who may have ventured beyond the strategies approved by Bush lawyers could face legal jeopardy for their actions." That still closes too many legal doors, imho. The strategies approved by Bush lawyers are horrible -- and illegal -- enough. But, at least we can still hold out the minute possibility that the real, top-level architects of Dubya-era torture policy will face some sort of prosecution for their crimes, above and beyond their inevitable condemnation in the history books. (President Obama may argue that "[t]his is a time for reflection, not retribution," but, the law is the law. And, as he should know, pardoning Nixon didn't do Gerald Ford any favors.)

Either way, let's be clear: These memos prove beyond a shadow of a doubt -- as if there were any doubt left -- that it was the stated and directed policy of the Dubya-era CIA to engage in acts they knew to be torture. That is unacceptable, completely antithetical to our ideals, and exceedingly worthy of a criminal investigation. If, in the name of national unity or CIA morale or whatever, the president wants to give a pass to the flunkies who actually held the victims down as they flailed, choked, or writhed in agony...well, that just means somebody else higher-up has to pay. Fine. But, if the rule of law means anything anymore, and I believe it does, the people responsible must be held to account.

"Rather than vengeance, we need a fair-minded pursuit of what actually happened." Judiciary Committee chairman Senator Patrick Leahy calls for a "truth commission" to investigate Dubya-era abuses. "'We need to be able to read the page before we turn the page,' Leahy said. 'We need to come to a shared understanding of the failures of the recent past." Ok, sounds grand...but perhaps we should stop perpetuating those abuses while we're at it.

"Eric Holder's Justice Department stood up in court today and said that it would continue the Bush policy of invoking state secrets to hide the reprehensible history of torture, rendition and the most grievous human rights violations committed by the American government. This is not change. This is definitely more of the same." Meet the new boss, same as the old boss? The Obama administration and Holder Justice Dept. uphold Dubya's dubious use of a "state secrets" privilege to put the kibosh on a lawsuit put forward by five men "extraordinarily rendered" by the CIA.

See also a livid Glenn Greenwald for the details: "The entire claim of 'state secrets' in this case is based on two sworn Declarations from CIA Director Michael Hayden -- one public and one filed secretly with the court. In them, Hayden argues that courts cannot adjudicate this case because to do so would be to disclose and thus degrade key CIA programs of rendition and interrogation -- the very policies which Obama, in his first week in office, ordered shall no longer exist. How, then, could continuation of this case possibly jeopardize national security when the rendition and interrogation practices which gave rise to these lawsuits are the very ones that the U.S. Government, under the new administration, claims to have banned?"

Update: Sensing the likely blowback, one presumes, the Justice Dept. announces it'll be reviewing Dubya's "state secrets" claims in due course. "It's vital that we protect information that if released could jeopardize national security, but the Justice Department will ensure the privilege is not invoked to hide from the American people information about their government's actions that they have a right to know." So apparently, the ugly details of our now-defunct(?) extraordinary rendition policy aren't among the actions we should have any clue about. Ugh...this one definitely goes in the Carcetti file.

"It is precisely our ideals which give us the strength and moral high ground to deal with the unthinking violence that we see emanating from terrorism organizations around the world...We are going to win this fight, we are going to win it on our terms." As hinted soon after the election, it's finally on its way out: One day after putting a hold on all Gitmo tribunals, the president orders the closing of the national embarrassment at Guantanamo within the year.

"[T]he orders [also] bring to an end a Central Intelligence Agency program that kept terrorism suspects in secret custody for months or years, a practice that has brought fierce criticism from foreign governments and human rights activists. They will also prohibit the C.I.A. from using coercive interrogation methods, requiring the agency to follow the same rules used by the military in interrogating terrorism suspects, government officials said."

And there was much rejoicing! We can all breathe a little easier and stand a little taller now that America is actually starting to act like America again. (And, trust me, I won't shed any tears over dropping the gulag and torture news category here at GitM.)

Btw, the "new sheriff in town" pic above is via The Big Picture's very worthwhile inaugural collection, as seen at Webgoddess.

"Waterboarding is torture." True story. In his confirmation hearings before the Senate, Obama's nominee for Attorney General, Eric Holder, states the obvious. Then again, it's been several years since the obvious had a seat anywhere near the table at OAG, so this is cause for rejoicing. As Sen. Dick Durbin put it, ""In three words, the world changed."

"We hope the new vice president will not reverse his commitment to the Senate’s constitutional authority." Uh, the new one? What about the old one? First it was Karl Rove discovering the virtues of executive transparency. Now the walrus and the carpenter of Dubya apparachiks, Johns "Bomb Iran" Bolton and "Torture at will" Yoo respectively, actually have the temerity to sing the praises of congressional oversight in foreign policy. "If Mr. Obama were to submit either of these agreements for approval by a simple majority of the House and Senate, his actions would pose a serious challenge to American principles of law and democratic governance." Oh, a "serious challenge" to law and democracy, eh? These assholes have no shame.

"'The abuse of detainees in U.S. custody cannot simply be attributed to the actions of "a few bad apples" acting on their own,' the panel concludes. 'The fact is that senior officials in the United States government solicited information on how to use aggressive techniques, redefined the law to create the appearance of their legality, and authorized their use against detainees." A new bipartisan report by the Senate Armed Services Committee lays the blame for detainee abuse squarely on Donald Rumsfeld and his top deputies. "Those efforts damaged our ability to collect accurate intelligence that could save lives, strengthened the hand of our enemies, and compromised our moral authority."

Also of note, the statement today by Sen. John McCain, the ranking GOP member who signed off on the investigation: "The committee’s report details the inexcusable link between abusive interrogation techniques used by our enemies who ignored the Geneva Conventions and interrogation policy for detainees in U.S. custody. These policies are wrong and must never be repeated." It's good to be on the same page again, Senator.

"On an island under military occupation at the edge of an empire, the armed forces of a global superpower detain hundreds and sometimes even thousands of allegedly unlawful combatants. The powerful nation consigns the detainees to a legal limbo, subjecting them to treatment that critics around the world decry as inhumane, unenlightened, and ultimately self-defeating. That may sound like a history of Guantanamo. Yet the year was 1776, the superpower was Great Britain, and the setting was New York City. The 'unlawful' combatants were American revolutionaries."

in a mixed review of Edwin Burrows' Forgotten Patriots, friend and Columbia prof John Witt notes "eerie" parallels between Guantanamo Bay and revolutionary-era Manhattan, and offers choice advice for President-elect Obama. "To succeed, he will have to reunite the twin American traditions of interest and idealism. They are traditions his predecessor tore apart, but they are the true legacy of the Revolution."

"Announcing the closure of the controversial detention facility would be among the most potent signals the incoming administration could send of its sharp break with the Bush era, according to the advisers, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they are not authorized to speak for the president-elect. They believe the move would create a global wave of diplomatic and popular goodwill that could accelerate the transfer of some detainees to other countries." In the WP today, unnamed Obama advisors make the case for the president-elect closing the Gitmo gulag next-to-immediately. (The ACLU has echoed similarly, and the UN Human Rights Commission suggested thus back in 2006.)

Nevertheless, while agreeing Gitmo is a catastrophic mistake that needs to be rectified pronto, Slate's Jonathan Mahler and Newsweek's Dan Ephron sense some implementation problems ahead. "[T]he prisoner mess created by Bush with the stroke of a pen in November 2001, and made messier over seven years, will take time and resourcefulness to clean up...[T]he controversial facility will probably still be open for business a year from now."

However the national embarrassment at Guantanamo is handled by the new administration, it seems a safe bet that some of the intelligence officials that have carried water for Dubya on Gitmo, torture, warrantless wiretaps, and other issues will soon be sent packing, namely Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell and CIA head Michael Hayden. "McConnell and Hayden, both career intelligence professionals, interpret the Obama team not reaching out to them as a sign that they will not be kept on, intelligence officials said." But, hey, heck of a job, Mikeys.

"You may have read by now the official lie about this treatment, which is that it 'simulates' the feeling of drowning. This is not the case. You feel that you are drowning because you are drowning -- or, rather, being drowned, albeit slowly and under controlled conditions and at the mercy (or otherwise) of those who are applying the pressure." By way of Dangerous Meta, Hitch gets waterboarded. [Video.]

"Also, in case it’s of interest, I have since woken up trying to push the bedcovers off my face, and if I do anything that makes me short of breath I find myself clawing at the air with a horrible sensation of smothering and claustrophobia...[I]f waterboarding does not constitute torture, then there is no such thing as torture."

"The military trainers who came to Guantánamo Bay in December 2002 based an entire interrogation class on a chart showing the effects of 'coercive management techniques' for possible use on prisoners, including 'sleep deprivation,' 'prolonged constraint,' and 'exposure.' What the trainers did not say, and may not have known, was that their chart had been copied verbatim from a 1957 Air Force study of Chinese Communist techniques used during the Korean War to obtain confessions, many of them false, from American prisoners...The only change made in the chart presented at Guantánamo was to drop its original title: 'Communist Coercive Methods for Eliciting Individual Compliance.'"

How low have we sunk under Dubya? Apparently, under this administration, we've actually been plagiarizing Maoist torture techniques for use in the Gitmo gulag. "'What makes this document doubly stunning is that these were techniques to get false confessions,' Levin said. 'People say we need intelligence, and we do. But we don't need false intelligence.'"

"The laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times," Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for a five-member majority clearly impatient that some prisoners have been held for six years without a hearing." In a setback for the Dubya administration and a victory for the American way of life, the Supreme Court grants habeas corpus rights to Guantanamo detainees. (The decision in Boumediene v. Bush is now the fourth time the Court has reaffirmed the rule of law over Dubya's monarchial anti-terror policies.)

In vicious dissent, the conservative bloc: Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, and Alito, with Scalia in particular scowling and ranting like a Batman villain. "'America is at war with radical Islamists,' he wrote, adding that the decision 'will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed.' He went on to say: 'The Nation will live to regret what the court has done today.'" To which I say, "Get over it." I highly doubt we'll regret it as much as your being put on the Court in the first place, Justice Scalia.

"Our previous opinions make clear that customary international law is not federal law and that the president is free to override it at his discretion," said the memo written by John Yoo, who was then deputy assistant attorney general for the Office of Legal Counsel." (Nor, apparently, does the Fourth Amendment apply.) An unsettling memorandum by Dubya stooge John Yoo which advocates both dictatorial rule and the legality of torture is released to the public, five years later. "'The whole point of the memo is obviously to nullify every possible legal restraint on the president's wartime authority,' Jaffer said. 'The memo was meant to allow torture, and that's exactly what it did.'"

More than anything, I'm reminded of Lincoln's remarks to the Indiana fourteenth: "'Whenever I hear anyone arguing over slavery, I feel a strong impulse to see it tried on him personally.'"

And, just in case anyone was under the impression that this sort of thing only happened in the dark days of 2003, witness Attorney General Mukasey last week getting publicly verklempt and making up 9/11 tales as he goes along, all to help preserve the NSA's warrantless wiretaps. At this point, Chuck Schumer has a lot to answer for.

We're adding a little something to this month's sales contest. As you all know, first prize is a Cadillac Eldorado. Anybody want to see second prize? Second prize is a set of steak knives. Third prize is you're waterboarded. Uh...As part of a "team-building exercise," a Provo-based motivational speaker apparently held a waterboarding "in front of his sales team to demonstrate that they should work as hard on sales as the employee had worked to breathe." We just took a big step closer to Brazil. (Via TPM.)

"The situational forces that were going on in [Abu Ghraib] -- the dehumanization, the lack of personal accountability, the lack of surveillance, the permission to get away with anti-social actions -- it was like the Stanford prison study, but in spades." New scenes of vileness and depravity emerge from Abu Ghraib. NSFW, and, in any case, no way to start your day.

The Senate bans waterboarding by a vote of 51-45 and, surprisingly enough, straight-talker John McCain votes against the bill. "McCain sided with the Bush administration yesterday on the waterboarding ban passed by the Senate, saying in a statement that the measure goes too far by applying military standards to intelligence agencies. He also said current laws already forbid waterboarding, and he urged the administration to declare it illegal." God forbid we take too strong a stance against torture, eh, Senator? For shame.

"I think what I said was that we could not investigate or prosecute somebody for acting in reliance on a Justice Department opinion." The honeymoon is way over. In congressional testimony yesterday, Attorney General and theoretical straight-shooter Michael Mukasey announces he won't look into waterboarding, won't look into the warrantless wiretaps, and won't enforce the persecuted prosecutor contempt citations. His rationale for all this? If the Justice Department says it's ok, it's not illegal. "That would mean that the same department that authorized the program would now consider prosecuting somebody who followed that advice." Sigh...it's enough to make one miss Alberto Gonzales. Ok, not really.

"Hayden said Khalid Sheik Mohammed, Abu Zubayda and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri were waterboarded in 2002 and 2003. Hayden banned the technique in 2006, but National Intelligence Director Mike McConnell told senators during the same hearing Tuesday that waterboarding remains in the CIA arsenal -- so long as it as the specific consent of the president and legal approval of the attorney general."

Not to be lost in the Super Tuesday shuffle (as intended): CIA Director Michael Hayden admits that we've waterboarded at least three high-level detainees. "Human Rights Watch, which has been calling on the government to outlaw waterboarding as a form of illegal torture, called Hayden's testimony 'an explicit admission of criminal activity.'"

"'I think he represents the kind of leader that we need for the future of the country,' Sebelius told The Associated Press. 'I think he brings the hope and optimism that we really need to restore our place in the world, as well as to bring this country together and really tackle the challenges that we have.'" Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius endorses Barack Obama for president. (Sebelius also gave the Democratic SOTU response last night, and her upcoming endorsement was one of DC's worst-kept secrets last week.)

And another intriguing endorsement via the Daily Dish: Obama gets the support of 80 volunteer lawyers of Gitmo detainees: "Some politicians are all talk and no action. But we know from first-hand experience that Senator Obama has demonstrated extraordinary leadership on this critical and controversial issue." (Their full statement is here.)

"Bush and Cheney are clearly guilty of numerous impeachable offenses. They have repeatedly violated the Constitution. They have transgressed national and international law. They have lied to the American people time after time. Their conduct and their barbaric policies have reduced our beloved country to a historic low in the eyes of people around the world. These are truly 'high crimes and misdemeanors,' to use the constitutional standard." Not to be lost in the New Hampshire shuffle: Former Senator and presidential candidate George McGovern makes the case anew for Dubya's impeachment.

"There could have been absolutely no doubt in the mind of anyone at the C.I.A. -- or the White House -- of the commission’s interest in any and all information related to Qaeda detainees involved in the 9/11 plot. Yet no one in the administration ever told the commission of the existence of videotapes of detainee interrogations." From a few days ago, 9/11 Commission Chairs Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton angrily accuse the CIA and Dubya White House of stonewalling their investigation. "As a legal matter, it is not up to us to examine the C.I.A.’s failure to disclose the existence of these tapes. That is for others. What we do know is that government officials decided not to inform a lawfully constituted body, created by Congress and the president, to investigate one the greatest tragedies to confront this country. We call that obstruction."

"Following a preliminary inquiry into the destruction by CIA personnel of videotapes of detainee interrogations, the Department's National Security Division has recommended, and I have concluded, that there is a basis for initiating a criminal investigation of this matter." Gee, you think? Attorney General Michael Mukasey announces a federal criminal probe into the matter of the destroyed CIA torture tapes. It will be headed by John H. Durham, currently "the second-in-command at the U.S. attorney's office in Connecticut."

"The grim truth is, not much has changed. The Bush administration continues to limit our basic freedoms, conceal its own worst behavior, and insist that it does all this in order to make us more free." As a follow-up to her 2006 list of civil liberties violations, Slate's Dahlia Lithwick surveys The Bush Administration's Top 10 Stupidest Legal Arguments of 2007.

"In order to make effective these apprehensions, the proclamation suspends the Writ of Habeas Corpus for apprehensions made pursuant to it." Taking a page from his earlier mentor, A. Mitchell Palmer, FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover, recently declassified documents reveal, floated the idea of interning 12,000 Americans he suspected of disloyalty in 1950, during the Korean War. [Hoover's letter.] "Hoover wanted President Harry S. Truman to proclaim the mass arrests necessary to 'protect the country against treason, espionage and sabotage.' The F.B.I would 'apprehend all individuals potentially dangerous' to national security, Hoover’s proposal said." Thank goodness our intelligence community is past such retrograde thinking and kneejerk trampling on civil liberties today...uh, right?

"'I believe we will keep the White House,' he said twice at a pre-holiday news conference in the White House briefing room. 'I believe ours is the party that understands the nature of the world in which we live and that the government's primary responsibility is to protect the American citizens from harm...I'm confident we can pick up seats in both the Senate and the Congress.'" Hey, Mr. President, how is the weather on Mars? At a news conference today, Dubya predicted a GOP presidential victory and GOP congressional gains come next November. (He also refused to comment on the CIA tapes debacle.) The good news here for the rest of us is that this man has been wrong about pretty much everything for the past seven years. Why stop now?

So much for those early, hopeful signs of independence...Attorney General Michael Mukasey tries to stonewall both a Congressional investigation and a Judicial investigation into the destroyed CIA tapes, arguing it would impede the Justice Department's own inquiry into the matter. "'We are stunned that the Justice Department would move to block our investigation,' Reps. Silvestre Reyes (D-Tex.) and Peter Hoekstra (R-Mich.) said in the [responding] statement. 'Parallel investigations occur all of the time, and there is no basis upon which the Attorney General can stand in the way of our work.'"

And, in somewhat related news, conservative judge Royce Lamberth, who earlier butted heads with the administration over FISA, rules that -- despite what Dick Cheney thinks on the matter -- White House visitor logs are public records, meaning visits from "Casino Jack" Abramoff and/or religious conservatives can no longer be kept secret on account of (dubious appeals to) "national security." Looks like it's win-some, lose-some for Dubya's imperial pretensions this week.

"[H]ere's a different thought experiment: How would the national debate over torture have changed if we'd known about the CIA tapes all along? How would our big terror trials and Supreme Court cases have played out? Yes, this is also a speculative enterprise, but it's critical to understanding the extent of the CIA's wrongdoing here." In light of the recent revelation that the CIA destroyed video evidence of their abusive interogation procedures in 2005, well after they'd become relevant both in many different legal cases and in the national discussion about torture, Slate's Emily Bazelon and Dahlia Lithwick survey the wreckage the CIA has made of our legal process. "Video of hours of repetitive torture could have had a similarly significant impact -- the truism about the power of images holds. If we are right about that -- and we think we are -- this evidence that has been destroyed would have fundamentally changed the legal and policy backdrop for the war on terror in ways we've only begun to figure out." If nothing else, an independent counsel should be named immediately. Even given the criminality and contempt for the rule of law we've come to expect from this administration, this sort of thuggish, gangland behavior is shocking news.

"'I hear you're looking for me,' he said. 'You wanna go mano a mano right here?'" In excerpts from his new book, Fall of the House of Bush, published in Salon, Craig Unger examines the ideological divide between Bush father and son and tells the true story of Dubya's coming to Jesus. "One way of examining the growing crisis could be found in the prism of the elder Bush's relationship with his son, a relationship fraught with ancient conflicts, ideological differences, and their profound failure to communicate with each other...According to the Bushes' conservative biographers, Peter and Rochelle Schweizer, family members could see [Bush 41's] torment. When his sister, Nancy Ellis, asked him what he thought about his son's plan for the war, Bush 41 replied, 'But do they have an exit strategy?'" This goes a long way toward explaining the elder Bush's recent spate of (really depressing and hard to watch) public crying jags. (See also Joan Walsh.)

"Will we join that gloomy historical line leading from the Inquisition, through the prisons of tyrant regimes, through gulags and dark cells, and through Saddam Hussein's torture chambers? Will that be the path we choose?" As a result of his continued inability to define waterboarding as torture, Michael Mukasey's chances of becoming AG grow murkier. "'If we are going to restore the image of the United States of America, the highest law enforcement officer should be clear, firm, unequivocal: that waterboarding and torture are unacceptable, un-American, illegal and unconstitutional,' Durbin said." Update: But, of course, key Dems capitulate, namely Senators Schumer and Feinstein. Good God, our party is pathetic at times.

"All other considerations aside, any person who cannot say, plainly and unambiguously, that water-boarding is torture and is both immoral and illegal should not be the attorney general of the United States. Period." After the nominee's hemming and hawing about waterboarding, Slate's Frank Bowman makes the case against Michael Mukasey's confirmation as AG. "If the Senate is foolish enough to ratify the replacement of a bumbling toady with an accomplished apostle of the gospel of executive supremacy, it will deserve every snub this and future presidents inflict. But the rest of us deserve better."

"'The administration can't have it both ways,' Rockefeller said in a statement. 'I'm tired of these games. They can't say that Congress has been fully briefed while refusing to turn over key documents used to justify the legality of the program." Claiming only that the US "does not torture people," the White House refuses to turn over Justice Department documents on torture policy, "contending that their disclosure would give terrorist groups too much information about U.S. interrogation tactics." Those documents, announced by the NYT on Thursday, "provided explicit authorization to barrage terror suspects with a combination of painful physical and psychological tactics, including head-slapping, simulated drowning and frigid temperatures, and "show how the White House has succeeded in preserving the broadest possible legal latitude for harsh tactics."

“'I don’t think of myself as a liberal at all,' he told me during a recent interview in his chambers, laughing and shaking his head. 'I think as part of my general politics, I’m pretty darn conservative." A holdover link from last weekend (and a follow-up of sorts to this 2006 post): Jeffrey Rosen profiles Justice John Paul Stevens in the NYT Magazine. "In criminal-law and death-penalty cases, Stevens has voted against the government and in favor of the individual more frequently than any other sitting justice. He files more dissents and separate opinions than any of his colleagues. He is the court’s most outspoken defender of the need for judicial oversight of executive power. And in recent years, he has written majority opinions in two of the most important cases ruling against the Bush administration’s treatment of suspected enemy combatants in the war on terror."

"We're going to push and push and push until some larger force makes us stop," Addington said at one point." The Terror Presidency, a new book by disgusted conservative and former Justice Department official Jack Goldsmith, further details the role played by Cheney henchman David Addington in this administration's rolling back of the rule of law."'We're one bomb away from getting rid of that obnoxious [FISA] court,' Goldsmith recalls Addington telling him in February 2004."

In the big news this past week, the wheels continue to come off over at Team Dubya. First Karl Rove jumped ship. Then Tony Snow told us he'll be off soon to make some money. And now, at long last, Alberto Gonzales has announced his resignation as Attorney General. "[W]ithin the past week, Justice aides and other officials said, Gonzales concluded that his credibility with Congress, his employees and the public was so shattered that he could not promise to remain through the end of Bush's term, as the White House chief of staff had demanded of Cabinet officers." Well, that, and there's the matter of continuing investigations into Gonzales, which the Dems say will continue (and should, since there's solid evidence he's perjured himself.) At any rate, good riddance, Gonzales. Like too many Dubya appointments, you've embarrassed the nation, with your justifications for torture and illegal wiretapping as much as with your tortured evasions and denials. Frankly, this should've happened months ago.

"In grasping and exercising presidential powers, Cheney has dulled political accountability and concocted theories for evading the law and Constitution that would have embarrassed King George III...As Alexander Hamilton advised in the Federalist Papers, an impeachable offense is a political crime against the nation. Cheney's multiple crimes against the Constitution clearly qualify." Former Reagan Assistant Attorney General Bruce Fein makes the conservative case for Dick Cheney's impeachment in Slate.

"'Here...comes...that famous General Taguba -- of the Taguba report!' Rumsfeld declared, in a mocking voice." Well, the agency and the time may have changed, but it's increasingly clear we still have a lot to answer for, thanks to the actions of those who would claim to protect our way of life. The inimitable Sy Hersh of The New Yorker (who also played a role in 1974 in getting the CIA docs released -- take that, Woodward) reports in with the tale of General Antonio Taguba, the head of the Army's original investigation into Abu Ghraib who, like so many other truth-tellers in the administration, was eventually hung out to dry for his candor. Hersh's frightening and sadly plausible piece not only makes clear that Rumsfeld, Dubya, et al had more knowledge of the nightmare of Abu Ghraib than they've publicly let on, but also suggests that those repellent images we've all seen from the prison may only be the tip of the iceberg of the horrors that occurred in our country's name. "Taguba said that he saw 'a video of a male American soldier in uniform sodomizing a female detainee.' The video was not made public in any of the subsequent court proceedings, nor has there been any public government mention of it."

"He's saying he's above the law...It just seems to me this is arrogant and shows bad judgment." Also in related news, historians probably shouldn't expect a similar classified document dump a quarter-century from now: Word leaks from a congressional committee that Cheney has refused to comply with the National Archives in preserving classified documents over the past four years and even tried to abolish the office responsible for enforcing the law. "Cheney's office declined to discuss what it called internal matters...The Justice Department confirmed yesterday that it is looking into the issue." Another day, another imperial prerogative attempted by these lawless yokels in the White House.

Think I'm being shrill? Ok, here's another: After listening to former Attorney General John Ashcroft discuss internal differences over Dubya's illegal surveillance program yesterday, the Senate Judiciary Committee voted 13-3 to issue subpoenas for White House and Justice Department documents regarding the eavesdropping system. "The White House made no move to comply."

It's not just Karl. Newly released information finds that as many as 88 officials in the Dubya White House have been (illegally) using RNC e-mail addresses as a back-door way to discuss official business off the record. "'As a result of these policies, potentially hundreds of thousands of White House e-mails have been destroyed, many of which may be presidential records,' the report said."

"The President cannot eliminate constitutional protections with the stroke of a pen by proclaiming a civilian, even a criminal civilian, an enemy combatant subject to indefinite military detention...To sanction such presidential authority to order the military to seize and indefinitely detain civilians...would have disastrous consequences for the constitution -- and the country." In what should have been a no-brainer, a federal appeals court rules 2-1 in the case of al-Marri v. Wright that Dubya can't hold US residents indefinitely on suspicion alone. [Full opinion, and the dissent by a Bush appointee.] "The panel tailored its opinion to Marri's circumstances; it does not directly apply to the more than 300 foreign nationals held as enemy combatants in the military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. But lawyers for some captives noted that the same flaws the court found in the administration's classification of Marri were true for Guantanamo detainees."

"Renzi -- now, was that the guy with the skeezy land deal? Or the woman Paul Wolfowitz promoted?" To help keep track of them all, Slate offers a handy illustrated guide to GOP scandals.

"Gilliam came nearest to inventing his own country with Brazil (1985), one of the key political films of the late 20th century. Brazil is one of the great political films, an extraordinary mixture of Fellini and Kafka, with a complex force of synthesized images, which belongs to Gilliam alone." In Slate, critic Clive James assesses Brazil's take on torture, and what Michael Palin's Jack Lint does and doesn't tell us about the men usually holding the implements.

"In some sense, the president is now as much a prisoner of Guantanamo as the detainees...The endgame in the war on terror isn't holding the line against terrorists. It's holding the line on hard-fought claims to absolutely limitless presidential authority." Slate's Dahlia Lithwick discerns the method in Dubya's madness on the civil liberties front: "expanding executive power, for its own sake."

Good riddance to the do-nothing 109th Congress, which wheedled its way into the history books last weekend. (And sayonara also to Donald Rumsfeld, who closed up shop yesterday.) A word of warning to the Dubya White House: Don't expect the 110th to play as nice...

"It's something that's been bothering me for quite some time, the direction in which the party has been going more and more toward big government and disregard toward privacy and civil liberties." Staunch conservative, defender of civil liberties, and Borat cameo Bob Barr leaves the Republican Party (for the Libertarians.) Now if only Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe would follow his example...

Wasting no time after signing the godawful terrorism bill into law, Dubya tells the US District Court that it has lost jurisdiction over habeas corpus petitions filed by Gitmo detainees. "What's being blocked and what the government is opposing tooth and nail is the most simple thing of all: a hearing before a district court judge,' said Jonathan Hafetz, who handles many detainee cases for the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law. 'The government will do anything to prevent Guantanamo detainees from being able to present evidence in court.'"

"We don't blame the Democrats for being frightened. The Republicans have made it clear that they'll use any opportunity to brand anyone who votes against this bill as a terrorist enabler. But Americans of the future won't remember the pragmatic arguments for caving in to the administration. They'll know that in 2006, Congress passed a tyrannical law that will be ranked with the low points in American democracy, our generation's version of the Alien and Sedition Acts." Abu Ghraib becomes standard operating procedure as Dubya's terror bill -- horrifying as it is -- passes the House 253-168 (roll call) and the Senate 65-34 (roll call.) Twelve Senate Dems (well, eleven Senate Dems and Lieberman) voted for the bill: Carper, Johnson, Landrieu, Lautenberg, Menendez, Nelson, Nelson, Pryor, Rockefeller, Salazar, Stabenow. Chafee was the only Republican to vote against it, Snowe abstained.

Shameful, pitiful, demoralizing, pathetic. What else is there to say? As Rebecca Blood sums it up (via Medley): "We have lost the war on torture. It's devastating."

"The Nuremberg trials presupposed something about the human conscience: that moral choice doesn't take its cues solely from narrow legalisms and technicalities. The new detainee bill takes precisely the opposite stance: Technicality now triumphs over conscience, and even over common sense. The bill introduces the possibility for a new cottage industry: the jurisprudence of pain." Also at Slate, David J. Luban argues that Dubya's recent torture bill spells the end of the Nuremberg era, a period when the US worked hard at "codifying genuinely international humanitarian law," to say nothing of the Great Writ.

"Eliminating habeas is tantamount to letting hundreds of Guantanamo prisoners rot in jail." After striking a somewhat nonsensical compromise with the McCain-Graham faction, Dubya gets most of his desired detention and torture bill, one which gives him the authority to interpret the Geneva Conventions by fiat and disallows detainees from either invoking the Conventions or challenging their treatment in any court. "'It replaces the old broken' military trial system ruled illegal by the Supreme Court with 'a new broken commission system,' said Marine Corps Col. Dwight Sullivan, the chief defense counsel for the Defense Department's Office of Military Commissions. He said 'it methodically strips rights' guaranteed by laws and treaties and appears to be unconstitutional." Update: The House GOP get gleeful about the torture bill.

"Purely from a strategic point of view, this is another mess...Every time Republicans think they have an issue to unite them and divide the Democrats, the Republicans end up spending most of the time fighting among themselves." As fear-mongering and falling oil prices perhaps help the GOP get back in the race this November, the WP surveys the political implications of the recent stand of principle by Senators Warner, McCain, Graham, and Snowe against Dubya's grotesque tribunal plan. Politics or no, Dubya's proposed gutting of the Geneva Conventions must be stopped: "'What is being billed as "clarifying" our treaty obligations will be seen as "withdrawing" from the treaty obligations,' Graham said. 'It will set precedent which could come back to haunt us.'"

After fierce debate among the neocons, Dubya comes clean about the CIA's secret prisons (outed by the Post last November) and moves the detainees held therein to Gitmo. But don't think this moment of clarity means King George is playing it straight just yet: He's also asking Congress to sidestep recent court decisions and grant him power to continue wiretapping without warrants and to torture alleged evildoers with impunity. And even moderate Republicans and military lawyers have issues with his recent attempts to deny suspected terrorists due process.

Update: Slate's Dahlia Lithwick has more: "The speech teemed with all the rhetorical wizardry you might expect of a do-over. Bush justified torture and extraordinary rendition while denying that they exist. He stuck a fork in the eye of the Supreme Court while agreeing to be bound by the majority's decision. He conceded that Congress should play a role in creating military tribunals while demanding that it greenlight his plan."

"This report raises serious concerns crucial to the survival of our democracy...If left unchecked, the president's practice does grave harm to the separation of powers doctrine, and the system of checks and balances that have sustained our democracy for more than two centuries." Then, again, I could be sold on the merits of bar associations...if they continue to call out Dubya for trampling on our Constitution.

"If another nation's leader adopted such positions, the United States would be quick to condemn him or her for violating fundamental tenets of the rule of law, human rights, and the separation of powers. But President Bush has largely gotten away with it, at least at home, for at least three reasons. His party holds a decisive majority in Congress, making effective political checks by that branch highly unlikely. The Democratic Party has shied away from directly challenging the president for fear that it will be viewed as soft on terrorism. And the American public has for the most part offered only muted objections. These realities make the Supreme Court's decision in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, issued on the last day of its 2005-2006 term, in equal parts stunning and crucial." In related news, as seen at both Salon and Mother Jones (as well as the New York Review of Books), author and law professor David Cole underlines the importance of the Hamdan decision in preserving the rule of law and throttling Dubya's unchecked power grabs of late.

As the legislative and judicial branches struggle to rein in Dubya's excesses, recent Senate testimony on the treatment of Gitmo detainees reveals fissues within the administration's approach to the Hamdan ruling: "The testimony has shown that the Justice Department -- which had insisted on the legality of the existing policy -- is eager to sharply limit the impact of the Supreme Court's decision, while military lawyers and some other Pentagon officials are celebrating it as a vindication of their long-held concerns about U.S. detainee policy." Update: "The President is always right?" (Via Looka.)

In a happy day for the rule of law, and following the Supreme Court's recent decision in Hamdan, the Dubya White House and Pentagon reverse themselves and announce that the Geneva Conventions will now apply to Guantanamo detainees. Yes, good news indeed...Still, given that this administration can so rarely be taken at its word, vigilance will be required to see if the treatment of detainees actually changes at all: "Neither the White House nor the Pentagon provided any immediate details as to what would be done differently or how the decision would effect the controversial policies on interrogation, which have provoked an international outcry as well as considerable domestic controversy."

In a blow to the monarchial presidency that may also affect future rulings on warrantless wiretaps and torture policy, the Supreme Court strongly rebukes Dubya for his Gitmo tribunals, declaring they "were not authorized by any act of Congress and that their structure and procedures violate the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and the four Geneva Conventions signed in 1949." As Justice Stephen Breyer summed it up in a concurring opinion: "The Court's conclusion ultimately rests upon a single ground: Congress has not issued the Executive a 'blank check.'"

Listen up, Cornyn: "There never was a more vicious or insidious doctrine announced for the consideration of a free people than the doctrine that our constitution or any part of it is suspended during a state of war. Our constitution was made for war as well as peace. Equally vicious is the doctrine that you must disregard the guarantees of the constitution and trample upon our civil liberties in order to save the constitution...[W]e can never get anywhere if we resort to the theory that the minority has no rights which the majority is bound to respect or that the constitutional rights of the citizen must give way to some supposed emergency. I think the greatest service the true American can render to the cause of orderly liberty is to demonstrate in this critical situation that we can deal with every confronting situation and meet every emergency without violating or disregarding to the individual citizen any of his rights under our constitution. If we have reached the point where we cannot take care of the situation without resorting to arbitrary methods, to undefined official discretion, then the enemies of this government may well say that our system has proved a failure." -- Sen. William E. Borah, "Letter to Austin Simmons," January 21, 1920.

"This is an act of desperation because they have no way to prove their innocence. A system without justice is a system without hope." Three detainees at Guantanamo commit suicide by hanging themselves in their cells, a tragedy to which the U.S. camp commander, Rear Adm. Harry Harris, responds with freakishly bizarre war-on-terror gibberish: "They have no regard for life, either ours or their own. I believe this was not an act of desperation, but an act of asymmetrical warfare waged against us." Say what? "'They are smart. They are creative, they are committed," he said." Um, they're dead, by their own hand, after being indefinitely detained for years. How about a little perspective here?

"Saying, 'Bring it on'; kind of tough talk, you know, that sent the wrong signal to people. I learned some lessons about expressing myself maybe in a little more sophisticated manner, you know. 'Wanted, dead or alive'; that kind of talk. I think in certain parts of the world it was misinterpreted. And so I learned from that." In a joint press conference, Dubya and Tony Blair own up to some mistakes in Iraq, including Abu Ghraib -- "the biggest mistake", according to Dubya -- and de-Baathification, according to Blair. "The prime minister's examples appeared to be a direct rebuke of both the Pentagon's insistence that a detailed "nation-building" plan was unnecessary before the invasion and the push by key members of Bush's administration for broad de-Baathification."

"The State party should cease to detain any person at Guantanamo Bay and close this detention facility, permit access by the detainees to judicial process or release them as soon as possible, ensuring that they are not returned to any State where they could face a real risk of being tortured, in order to comply with its obligations under the Convention." A day after an ugly prisoner uprising, the UN Committee Against Torture implores the US to close the prison at Gitmo. The report (PDF) also calls for the US "to expressly ban controversial interrogation techniques, and to halt the transfer of detainees to countries with a history of abuse and torture."

"''When the president nominated Porter Goss [as CIA director in September 2004], he sent Goss over to get a rogue agency under control,' Steven Simon, a colleague of McCarthy's at the National Security Council from 1994 to 1999, said Goss's aides told him. Simon said McCarthy's unusually public firing appeared intended not only to block leaks but also to suppress the dissent that has 'led to these leaks. The aim was to have a chilling effect, and it will probably work for a while.'" The WP delves deeper into the firing of CIA officer Mary McCarthy last month, and discovers it may well have been due to both her opposition to secret gulags and her anger over CIA lies on the subject.

"The most important aspect of the president's comment isn't just that he acknowledged, at least tacitly, that Gitmo is a disaster and must be closed; or even that he acknowledged that detainees have a basic right to some adjudicatory process. These two concessions are momentous, but they pale next to his admission that he is in any way bound by the decision of the high court -- that the court will have the last word on anything to do with the war on terror." Slate's Dahlia Lithwick dissects some surprising recent comments by Dubya on Guantanamo Bay, and ponders the future of the Gitmo Gulag. "[Recent] silent mass releases do suggest that Donald Rumsfeld's famous 2002 claim, that the then-760 prisoners at Guantanamo were 'the worst of the worst,' was something of an overstatement. They were probably closer to 'the best of the worst,' or as I've suggested, 'the least lucky of the middling.' The actual worst of the worst have been relegated to a whole other secret prison system that actually makes Guantanamo look rather attractive."

"'The current debate over our national security by a series of retired generals -- some critical, some supportive of the present leadership in the Department of Defense -- is an important exercise of the right to freedom of speech,' he said. 'Another valued tenet is the right of the president to select the members of his own Cabinet.'" Senate Armed Service Committee chairman John Warner (R-VA) makes noise about holding Senate hearings on Rumsfeld. I'll believe it when I see it.

US officials find repeated instances of detainee abuse at six more Iraqi prisons, and -- unlike last time -- are not removing all the tortured prisoners from their place of custody, thus violating a promise made by Joint Chiefs chairman Peter Pace last November. "Pace said at a news conference Nov. 29 with Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, 'It is absolutely the responsibility of every U.S. service member, if they see inhumane treatment being conducted, to intervene to stop it.' Turning to Pace, Rumsfeld responded: 'I don't think you mean they have an obligation to physically stop it; it's to report it.'" Now, why make that distinction, Rummy?

"[Y]ou have somebody being fired from the CIA for allegedly telling the truth, and you have no one fired from the White House for revealing a CIA agent in order to support a lie. That underscores what's really wrong in Washington, D.C." Following the recent dismissal of CIA historian and Africa specialist Mary McCarthy for telling the Post about our secret gulags, several Dems, including John Kerry and Rep. Jane Harman, question the Dubya double standard regarding leaks. Update: Was it not McCarthy after all?

As you likely heard, the 2006 Pulitzer Prizes were announced yesterday. Special kudos go to the WP team of Susan Schmidt, James Grimaldi, and R. Jeffrey Smith for helping to expose Casino Jack; to the Post's Dana Priest for disclosing Dubya's secret gulags; to the NYT's Nicholas Kristof for his consistently excellent commentary on world issues that merit more US (and GitM) attention; to historians David Oshinsky, Kai Bird, and Martin Sherwin for their recent books on polio and J. Robert Oppenheimer respectively; and to the inimitable Edmund Morgan -- one of my favorite historians -- who won a special citation for his "creative and deeply influential body of work" over the last half-century.

"Secretary Rumsfeld's energetic and steady leadership is exactly what is needed at this critical period. He has my full support and deepest appreciation." In response to the growing calls for Rumsfeld's resignation among retired top brass, Dubya chooses instead, as per his usual M.O., to hug Rummy tighter to his breast. (full text.) And, in related news, Salon's Michael Scherer and Mark Benjamin argue that Rumsfeld was "personally involved" in at least one questionable interrogation at Gitmo in 2002.

'Even if the Court were to rule in Padilla's favor,' Kennedy went on, 'his present custody status would be unaffected. Padilla is scheduled to be tried on criminal charges. Any consideration of what rights he might be able to assert if he were returned to military custody would be hypothetical, and to no effect, at this stage of the proceedings." By a margin of 6-3 (Ginsburg, Breyer, and Souter dissenting), the Supreme Court punts on Padilla, on the grounds that Padilla's dilemma has been rendered "hypothetical" now that he's been transferrred into the normal justice system.

Justice Ginsburg disagrees: "This case...raises a question of profound importance to the Nation. Does the President have authority to imprison indefinitely a United States citizen arrested on United States soil distant from a zone of combat, based on an Executive declaration that the citizen was, at the time of his arrest, an 'enemy combatant'? It is a question the Court heard, and should have decided, two years ago. Nothing the Government has yet done purports to retract the assertion of Executive power Padilla protests."

"The president's consistent refusal to try the Guantanamo detainees before criminal courts or courts-martial leads a reasonable observer to conclude that the government's case would fail if it were subjected to scrutiny by an impartial adjudicator. And if that is the only justification for military tribunals, it must be rejected. No one denies that the war on terror presents new challenges to the rule of law. But prosecuting someone with a crime that does not exist, before a commission that does not have rules, simply does not constitute justice under any set of circumstances." Slate files several dispatches on the important case of Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, which the Supreme Court (without Chief Justice Roberts, who has recused himself...as should probably Scalia) will hear today. Emily Bazelon finds that GOP Senators Kyl and Graham seem to have tried to deceive the Court about the legislative history of their Detainee Treatment Act, while Ariel Lavinbuk suggests a compromise solution: the Supreme Court could "find that 'conspiracy' -- the only charge against Hamdan -- does not violate the law of war."

Update: The Court hears the case, and it seems a majority -- Scalia and Alito notwithstanding -- are not amused with the Dubya administration: "Without Chief Justice John Roberts...the argument seemed lopsided against the government." Still, as was expected to be the norm on the Roberts Court,"the outcome of the case will likely turn on moderate Justice Anthony M. Kennedy."

"Placards posted by soldiers at the detention area advised, 'NO BLOOD, NO FOUL.' The slogan, as one Defense Department official explained, reflected an adage adopted by Task Force 6-26: 'If you don't make them bleed, they can't prosecute for it.'" In related news, the NY Times exposes more allegations of shameful and disturbing Abu Ghraib-like detainee abuse conducted by "a shadowy military unit known as Task Force 6-26." "Task Force 6-26 was a creation of the Pentagon's post-Sept. 11 campaign against terrorism, and it quickly became the model for how the military would gain intelligence and battle insurgents in the future...Military and legal experts say the full breadth of abuses committed by Task Force 6-26 may never be known because of the secrecy surrounding the unit."

By way of a friend, the State Department releases its mandated yearly human rights report for 2005 (here), finding cause for alarm in Iran, Russia, China, Venezuela, Burma, North Korea, Belarus and Zimbabwe and (surprise, surprise) progress in Iraq and Afghanistan. The report doesn't delve into human rights violations here at home (although China tries to fill that gap in response every year), but it does unequivocally state -- in bold, no less -- that "countries in which power is concentrated in the hands of unaccountable rulers tend to be the world's most systematic human rights violators." Hey y'all might be on to something. Deadpans the head of Amnesty International: "The Bush administration's practice of transferring detainees in the 'war on terror' to countries cited by the State Department for their appalling human rights records actually turns the report into a manual for the outsourcing of torture."

"I am only a chicken farmer in Pakistan." With the recent release of detainee names, the NYT looks more closely at exactly who's being held at Guantanamo Bay, including several folks, it seems, who were guilty of the heinous crime of wearing the wrong timepiece, a "Casio model F-91W watch. According to evidentiary summaries in those cases, such watches have 'been used in bombings linked to Al Qaeda.'"

"'These allegations...describe disgusting treatment, that if proven, is treatment that is cruel, profoundly disturbing and violative of' U.S. and foreign treaties banning torture, [U.S. District Judge Gladys] Kessler told the government's lawyers." So what happened to "we don't torture?" Lawyers for the administration fight allegations of abuse at Gitmo (involving force-feeding and a restraint chair) -- not by saying it didn't happen -- but by arguing instead that the recent McCain bill doesn't apply there. "'Unfortunately, I think the government's right; it's a correct reading of the law,' said Tom Malinowski, Washington advocacy director for Human Rights Watch. 'The law says you can't torture detainees at Guantanamo, but it also says you can't enforce that law in the courts.'"

"It is important, likewise, that the habits of thinking in a free country should inspire caution in those entrusted with its administration, to confine themselves within their respective constitutional spheres, avoiding in the exercise of the powers of one department to encroach upon another. The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments in one, and thus to create, whatever the form of government, a real despotism...The necessity of reciprocal checks in the exercise of political power, by dividing and distributing it into different depositaries, and constituting each the guardian of the public weal against invasions by the others, has been evinced by experiments ancient and modern; some of them in our country and under our own eyes. To preserve them must be as necessary as to institute them...let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. The precedent must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient benefit, which the use can at any time yield." -- George Washington, Farewell Address, 1796.

"Whenever I hear any one arguing for slavery I feel a strong impulse to see it tried on him personally." -- Abraham Lincoln, "Speech to One Hundred Fortieth Indiana Regiment" (March 17, 1865)

"Few men have virtue to withstand the highest bidder." -- George Washington

"It is said an Eastern monarch once charged his wise men to invent him a sentence to be ever in view, and which should be true and appropriate in all times and situations. They presented him the words: 'And this, too, shall pass away.' How much it expresses! How chastening in the hour of pride! How consoling in the depths of affliction!" -- Abraham Lincoln, "Address Before the Wisconsin State Agricultural Society, Milwaukee, Wisconsin" (September 30, 1859)

To the consternation of the Dubya administration, the Sydney Morning Herald posts more horrifying and previously unpublished pictures from Abu Ghraib. (Warning: They're grisly, as you might expect.) Why doesn't Cheney want to ban this flagrantly unAmerican behavior again? He must realize this type of national disgrace makes us hypocrites before the world. [First seen at Ed Rants/Blivet.] Update: Walter Shapiro: "Abu Ghraib is not an issue of partisan sound bites or refighting the decision to invade Iraq. Grotesque violations of every value that America proclaims occurred within the walls of that prison." Salon has more.

"Not since 1994 has the party in power -- in this case the Republicans -- faced such a discouraging landscape in a midterm election...The result is a midterm already headed toward what appears to be an inevitable conclusion: Democrats are poised to gain seats in the House and in the Senate for the first time since 2000. The difference between modest gains (a few seats in the Senate and fewer than 10 in the House) and significant gains (half a dozen in the Senate and well more than a dozen in the House) is where the battle for control of Congress will be fought." The WP previews the midterm electoral landscape. Excellent news...but still, if anyone's shown an amazing capacity to spin gold into straw, it's our current crop of Dems.

"While it's true that O'Connor has tended to vote with the majority more frequently than Kennedy, and that she has done so in some big 5-4 decisions, it's also true that in other extremely contentious areas, it is Kennedy, not O'Connor, who has swung the court leftward." As Dem begin to announce their no votes for Alito (while downplaying the likelihood of a filibuster), Dahlia Lithwick -- who is concerned about Alito's judgment in the relatively precedent-less world of anti-terror-law -- gives us hope for the Court's future in highlighting Anthony Kennedy as the new swing vote. (Clearly, the psycho-right despises him, which speaks well of his jurisprudence in my book.)

With most of their arguments already rendered false or nonsensical, "Big Time" Dick Cheney invokes an old standby to justify the illegal NSA wiretaps (which, it turns out, may have begun before White House authorization): 9/11, 9/11, 9/11. And, also in the King George department, Dubya in effect announces he'll bypass the new torture ban whenever he feels like it. Says one legal expert: "The signing statement is saying 'I will only comply with this law when I want to, and if something arises in the war on terrorism where I think it's important to torture or engage in cruel, inhuman, and degrading conduct, I have the authority to do so and nothing in this law is going to stop me.'" (Media Matters link via Looka.) Update: The FISA court judges want answers, and a possible NSA whistleblower steps up.

Passed over thrice for a Dubya high court nomination, conservative appeals court judge J. Michael Luttig today got the chance to exercise his wrath upon the administration in a decision regarding Jose Padilla, and for good reason. "The appeals court opinion reflected a tone of anger that is rare for a federal court addressing the United States government...Luttig said the government's actions created the appearance 'that the government may be attempting to avoid' Supreme Court review in a matter of 'especial national importance.' He also suggested that the government's actions in the Padilla case may possibly have had negative consequences for 'the public perception of the war on terror' and 'also for the government's credibility before the courts in litigation ancillary to that war.'"

An ugly day for American values around the world: In Iraq, an investigation inaugurated after the recent discovery of secret prisons in Baghdad uncovers at least 120 victims of torture and/or abuse in prisons run by the new Iraq Interior Ministry. "Prisoners had their bones broken and their fingernails pulled out, were subjected to electric shocks and had burning cigarettes crushed into their necks and backs, said the Iraqi official." And, elsewhere, a European investigation suggests that the CIA were in fact holding prisoners illegally in Europe, until they were surreptitiously moved to North Africa after the story broke. Charming. So is this what Dubya meant when he said "we are determined to show the meaning and promise of liberty" to the world? If so, I'd remind him of the Lincoln quote he used in the same inaugural address: "Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves; and, under the rule of a just God, cannot long retain it."

As the State Department stalls for time, the European Union considers suspending the voting rights of those member nations which were home to secret CIA gulags. (Human Rights Watch has said that Poland and Romania are the most likely suspects, although many other nations may have witnessed CIA flights go to and fro.)

"This was a huge 'Congress getting into the ballgame' week,' Mr. Graham said. Mr. Warner said wryly, 'You know, Congress is a co-equal branch.'" Well, make no mistake: They're no Clay, Calhoun, and Webster. Still, the NYT takes a gander at the self-named "Little Triumvirate" of John McCain, Lindsey Graham, and John Warner, three "Gang of 14" members who've become the locus of GOP discontent with Dubya in the Senate.

Another week, another secret torture center...anyone else sensing a pattern? Tensions in Iraq simmer to a boil as a secret prison holding 173 Sunnis is uncovered in Baghdad. "The discovery...created a new aura of crisis for American officials and Iraqi politicians who hold power in the Shiite-led transitional government. For many Iraqis, the episode carried heavy overtones of the brutality associated with Saddam Hussein and his Sunni-dominated government."

Whatsmore, the head of the Badr Organization, a Shiite militia suspected of pulling the strings and wielding the implements in this center, says: "This bunker is run by the Interior Ministry, the Americans are there every day." Whether or not that's true (and for the love of Pete, let's hope not), it's obvious that recent events, from Abu Ghraib to the Frist-sanctioned CIA black sites to the al-Jamadi murder, have seriously damaged our credibility as opponents of torture, in this prison and around the world.

"Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist says he is more concerned about the leak of information regarding secret CIA detention centers than activity in the prisons themselves...'I am not concerned about what goes on [in the prisons] and I'm not going to comment about the nature of that,' Frist replied." Unbelievable. The same guy who blew a gasket over a closed-door Senate session last week couldn't care less what goes on behind closed doors in secret, illegal CIA gulags. (I guess he figures it couldn't be much worse than your average day at the Frist family animal shelter.)

"Two years ago, at Abu Ghraib prison, outside Baghdad, an Iraqi prisoner in [C.I.A. officer Mark] Swanner's custody, Manadel al-Jamadi, died during an interrogation. His head had been covered with a plastic bag, and he was shackled in a crucifixion-like pose that inhibited his ability to breathe; according to forensic pathologists who have examined the case, he asphyxiated...Swanner has not been charged with a crime and continues to work for the agency." So, as the New Yorker's Jane Mayer reports, "we do not torture"...we just crucify. Sweet merciful Jesus, what have we become? (Via Malice Aforethought.)

Republicans...they never stop surprising me. The nation discovers that, contrary to our most basic principles, the CIA has a series of secret, illegal gulags around the world, and how do GOP leaders respond? They want to know who told the press. (Mind you, this is after stonewalling investigations into prewar intelligence and the Plamegate leak for many a year.)

To be fair, not all GOP Senators are with them on this. Said Gang of 14 member Lindsey Graham (R-SC): "Talk about not seeing the forest for the trees. The real story is those jails...I'd like to know why we've got secret prisons and what oversight precautions we have." And Trent Lott (R-MS) believes that a Republican is likely responsible for the leak, after hearing about the prisons from Mr. Torture himself, Big Time Dick Cheney. "'Every word that was said in there went right to the newspaper,' Lott said. 'We can't keep our mouths shut.'" But, perhaps Catkiller knows this, and suspects one of his probable primary opponents? (LA Times story via Quiddity.) Update: Wheels within wheels...Was the leak investigation letter accidentally leaked? Regardless, Pat Roberts has put the kibosh on a congressional investigation...for now.

Typical Dubya Doublespeak: Just as Bush tells the world, "We do not torture," his vice-president continues his quest to exempt the CIA from a congressional torture ban, which would obviously be an unnecessary action were Dubya's remarks truthful. In related news, the Dems want a wide-ranging inquiry into pre-war intelligence, and members of both parties are concerned about increased "terrorism" inquiries under the Patriot Act.

"After President Bush's disastrous visit to Latin America, it's unnerving to realize that his presidency still has more than three years to run. An administration with no agenda and no competence would be hard enough to live with on the domestic front. But the rest of the world simply can't afford an American government this bad for that long." The NY Times editorial staff come out swinging against Dubya.

As the Cheney-Addington gang work to strip the Geneva Convention from prisoner treatment manuals, the Washington Post uncovers an overseas network of CIA "black sites," a.k.a. gulags, some of which actually use old Soviet compounds in Eastern Europe(!) "It is illegal for the government to hold prisoners in such isolation in secret prisons in the United States, which is why the CIA placed them overseas...Legal experts and intelligence officials said that the CIA's internment practices also would be considered illegal under the laws of several host countries, where detainees have rights to have a lawyer or to mount a defense against allegations of wrongdoing."

Whatsmore, these gulags, created under this administration since 9/11, "were built and are maintained with congressionally appropriated funds, but the White House has refused to allow the CIA to brief anyone except the House and Senate intelligence committees' chairmen and vice chairmen on the program's generalities." There's no other way to look at this: By appropriating the tactics of our enemies, as John McCain warned earlier this month, we have abandoned our most fundamental principles and shamed our nation. Evildoers? Please. Dubya need look no further than his own White House and CIA. Update: Congress and the EU want answers.

Much to the consternation of the Dubya White House, a handful of GOP Senators, including Gang of 14'ers John McCain (R-AZ) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC), are trying to establish congressional oversight over prisoner treatment at Guantanamo and elsewhere. McCain's proposed amendments include restricting interrogation techniques to what's in the Army field manual, stopping the practice of "extraordinary rendition," forcing the government to register all detainees with the Red Cross, and prohibiting "cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment of prisoners in U.S. custody no matter where they are held." For his part, Graham's amendment appears just to rubber-stamp the current Dubya policies...but apparently even that's too much legislative oversight for Cheney, Rummy, and the rest of the admin whip-hands, who are trying to enlist their Senate allies to offer up a watered-down, smoke-and-mirrors version instead. For shame.

"'Reasonable people always suspected these techniques weren't invented in the backwoods of West Virginia,' said Tom Malinowski, the Washington director of Human Rights Watch. 'It's never been more clear than in this investigation.'" A new report by military investigators finds the tactics of Abu Ghraib in full use at Guantanamo. "The report's findings are the strongest indication yet that the abusive practices seen in photographs at Abu Ghraib were not the invention of a small group of thrill-seeking military police officers...they were used on Qahtani several months before the United States invaded Iraq."

Last Friday, the Pentagon admitted that a Quran -- and detainee -- were in fact urinated on by a guard at Guantanamo. But, according to the eagerly dismissive White House, there's no need to court-martial anybody or anything. (Heck, you should hear about Dubya's crazy pledge days.) In the meantime, Senator Joe Biden (D-DE) took time off from castigating Howard Dean to call for the closing of Guantanamo.

"Now in terms of the requests for the documents, I view that as just another stall tactic, another way to delay, another way not to allow Bolton to get an up or down vote." As per his usual my-way-or-the-highway approach, Dubya announced he's decided to stonewall the Dems by withholding the requested intelligence documents bearing on Bolton. Given that this UN appointment seems a done deal in terms of votes, you'd think our "uniter, not a divider" prez might've relished an opportunity to appear magnanimous and thus replenish some of his squandered political capital. But perhaps he didn't want to put another feather in McCain's cap so soon after the nuclear compromise...or perhaps these documents confirm anew that Bolton is unfit for his post. (Video link via Freakgirl.)

Even more troubling, in keeping with the administration's attempts to make Amnesty International this week's Newsweek, our president also put the blame for the "absurd" recent Amnesty report about our dismaying recent proclivity for torture squarely on the shoulders of "people who hate America." As Sidney Blumenthal notes, "It may be of minor ironic interest that before the invasion of Iraq, the Bush administration cited Amnesty International's reports on Saddam Hussein's violations of human rights as unimpeachable texts. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld often claimed Amnesty as his ultimate authority."

"'Frankly, I was offended by it,' Cheney said in the videotaped interview. 'For Amnesty International to suggest that somehow the United States is a violator of human rights, I frankly just don't take them seriously.'" Awww. Our thin-skinned veep's feelings are hurt by an Amnesty International report claiming all is not kosher at Guantanamo Bay. Well, as a colleague of mine noted, perhaps someone should fill Dick in on Abu Ghraib (or, for that matter, countless other episodes in US history, from chattel slavery to the Trail of Tears.) For his part, the president of Amnesty responded: "It doesn't matter whether he takes Amnesty International seriously. He doesn't take torture seriously; he doesn't take the Geneva Convention seriously; he doesn't take due process rights seriously; and he doesn't take international law seriously. And that is more important than whether he takes Amnesty International seriously." Touche. (That being said, the WP cried foul as well.)

While the toilet incident that got Newsweek in trouble was emphatically denied, the Pentagon announces -- after the release of FBI interviews obtained by the ACLU -- that there have in fact been incidents of Koran mistreatment at Gitmo. (Surprise, surprise.) While "the interviews underscore that U.S. government officials were made aware of allegations of prisoner abuse and Koran mistreatment within months of the opening of Guantanamo Bay in early 2002", just last week "Pentagon spokesman Lawrence T. Di Rita said the Defense Department had received no credible claims of such abuse."

In a boon for civil liberties, federal judge Joyce Hens Green declares that the incarcerations at Guantanamo are illegal, since the military tribunals set up by the Bushies violated due process. "In today's decision, Green said the hearings, called Combatant Status Review Tribunals, are stacked against the detainees, and deny them crucial rights. She said some detainees may indeed be guilty and pose a danger to the United States, but the government must first give them a lawful hearing on the evidence against them." The judge also called out the Gitmo Gulag on its torture policies and excessively broad definition of "enemy combatant."

Rick Perlstein's recent comparison of Dubya and The Sopranos is given more credence with the revelation that Homeland Security nominee Michael Chertoff also vetted torture law for the Bushies in 2002-2003. "While the details remain classified, one method that he opposed appeared to violate a ban in the law against using a 'threat of imminent death'...But Mr. Chertoff left the door open to the use of a different set of far harsher techniques proposed by the C.I.A." Hmmm...and you thought Tom Ridge knew some crazy uses for duct tape.

A NYT report finds mistreatment of prisoners at Guantanamo is much more widespread than earlier suggested by Rumsfeld and other administration officials. "One regular procedure...was making uncooperative prisoners strip to their underwear, having them sit in a chair while shackled hand and foot to a bolt in the floor, and forcing them to endure strobe lights and screamingly loud rock and rap music played through two close loudspeakers, while the air-conditioning was turned up to maximum levels...Such sessions could last up to 14 hours with breaks."

"Although these events concern different legal issues and different sets of detainees, they share a common denominator: a legal strategy to keep the rule of law out of the war on terrorism by whatever procedural, legal, or administrative means are available." According to Slate's Phillip Carter, the Dubya administration is obstructing and/or ignoring the recent Supreme Court decisions on the Gitmo Gulag. Sadly, I guess we couldn't expect any less from this crowd.

The NYT reports that the prisoners of the Gitmo Gulag are at best small potatoes -- most having nothing to do with Al Qaeda at all -- and that the Pentagon and Dubya administration have continually overstated the detainees' level of knowledge about Al Qaeda in order to justify the continued existence of the Guantanamo camp. "'It's like going to a prison in upstate to find out what's happening on the streets of New York,' a counterterrorism official with knowledge of Guantánamo intelligence said. 'The guys in there might know some stuff. But they haven't been part of what's going on for a few years.'" When it comes to the War on Terror, is there anything the Bush administration doesn't lie about anymore?

While authorization for attack dog intimidation techniques implicate intelligence higher-ups in the horrors of Abu Ghraib, Bush gets legalistic to (not) explain the pro-torture policies emanating from his administration. Hmmm. I bet the White House is wishing Reagan could die every week right now.

I missed most of the recent discoveries about Dubya's pro-torture policy changes during my cable outage, but Value Judgment has birddogged a nice Washington Post editorial that sums up the story so far. "There is no justification, legal or moral, for the judgments made by Mr. Bush's political appointees at the Justice and Defense departments. Theirs is the logic of criminal regimes, of dictatorships around the world that sanction torture on grounds of 'national security.'"

Jan 25, 2002: "'As you have said, the war against terrorism is a new kind of war,' Gonzales wrote to Bush. 'The nature of the new war places a high premium on other factors, such as the ability to quickly obtain information from captured terrorists and their sponsors in order to avoid further atrocities against American civilians.' Gonzales concluded in stark terms: 'In my judgment, this new paradigm renders obsolete Geneva's strict limitations on questioning of enemy prisoners and renders quaint some of its provisions.' Dismissing the Geneva Conventions, two full years before the atrocities at Abu Ghreib? That giant sucking sound you hear is the void left by White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales's incredible imploding Supreme Court bid. He's probably got less chance now than Ken Starr of taking the nation's highest bench, and for good reason.

I don't know how we will ever recover from this. Medley aptly sums up my stomach-churning disgust at the Iraq atrocity photos now circulating around the world. If there wasn't a connection between Dubya's carnival sideshow in Iraq and the war in terror before, there assuredly is now. And if a picture is worth a thousand words, just think how many possible US-hating terrorists have been born with each one of these vile and grotesque snapshots. Our entire nation and way of life have been shamed by these depravities, perhaps to fatal effect.

Slate's Dahlia Lithwick reports in on the Bush administration's twin attempts before the Supreme Court to lock up US citizens and hide their shady energy deals indefinitely. Update: The Times and Post weigh in as well.

Despite Justice Scalia carrying water for Ted Olson and the Bush team as per usual, it seems that a majority of the Supreme Court may not be amused by Dubya's defense of the Gitmo gulag.

Nat Hentoff files another dispatch on Guantanamo, and it ain't pretty. "The authority to unilaterally keep a defendant locked up?conceivably for the rest of his or her life?used to be reserved solely for kings, who could ignore any part of the realm's legal system. This monarchical power?as I've indicated in reporting on the indefinite imprisonment, without charges, of American citizens Yaser Hamdi and Jose Padilla?has been expanded by George W. Bush to include defendants at Guantᮡmo."