Yesterday four Dem Senators made a big splash by signing a letter pushing Dem leaders to pass the public option via reconciliation, suggesting the provision may have a faint pulse.
Now four more Dem Senators have added their names to the list, their spokespeople tell me, doubling the number of signatories to eight and perhaps upping the volume of the public option’s pulse ever so slightly.
The letter asks Harry Reid to stage a full Senate vote on the public option under budget reconciliation rules. It argues that there’s a history of using the technique for passing significant health care legislation and that a majority of Americans has consistently supported a public option.
We have a good bill right now. There is room for compromise right now in this bill. I remain optimistic.
This is a moment of destiny. It was Sen. Kennedy's legacy.
We believe we can get a vote for the public option if it has a trigger option as opposed to opt in or opt out. A lot of that is semantics. We need a significant public option.
If the public option ends up with a trigger mechanism, I'm not sure why he's feeling so optimistic. How can a public option be significant with that in place? Someone talk me down, please?
Sheldon Whitehouse is one senator who gets my attention in a good way. He's smart, articulate, knowledgeable, and asks the right questions at hearings.
Inhofe’s boycott — and other demands for delay by both Republican and Democraticsenators — now guarantee that a bill to tackle the climate crisis and rebuild our economy will not pass this year.
Now it's becoming a battle of definitions of torture, and whether it works. VERY rough liveblogging, but I did get a lot of it:
David Luban, Georgetown University law professor:
The word torture hadn't mysteriously changed its meaning. The statute were given the word common sense meanings. [Waterboarding] was called torture. It's the same in the 1983 dictionaries as it was in the statutes.
Lindsey Graham keeps trying to justify the concept that torture works sometimes, even though he's "against it". [Sorry, I missed who they were referring to, so I substituted with the word "someone"]
Graham:
If we put a spider in a jail cell, would that be torturing a person?
Luban:
If he believed spiders were deadly, yes. Otherwise no.
Graham:
Well, we're trying to exploit phobias here... If Bybee held a different view, is that being unethical?
Luban:
If he ignored the law, yes.
Graham:
So it comes down to your opinion?
Luban:
This case is one of many.
Graham:
The fact that you didn't tell me about a case, does that mean you were trying to hide something from me?? Did you know about the Ireland case?
Luban:
Of course I did.
Graham:
Well I'm not calling YOU unethical.
Luban:
Well, thank you.
Graham:
Can you say there was no good information? Cheney says there was good information obtained. One reason these techniques survived for hundreds of years is because they worked. Your testimony is not a complete repository of what happened during interrogations. (to Soufan)
Soufan (interrogator):
I mentioned my own personal experience.
Graham:
I have the highest regard for this gentleman, but it's not the whole story. Do you believe it would be wrong for Obama to authorize this outside the field manual if attack was imminent? Is Panetta qualified for his job?
Soufan: I believe he is [gets cut off]
Graham: [reading]
"If someone has urgent info.... who could be a ticking time bomb... we should do everything possible within the law to get that info... " Would Obama be wrong to consider a CIA request to engage...?
Soufan:
Key word from Panetta's quote: "within the law". No, the field manual is an outline for interrogation.
Graham:
Good.
Soufan wanted to say more, he kept trying, but time ran out. Soufan firmly believes that torture does not work, that more humane, non-coercive methods do, using relationship-building and deception. He got accurate results, using those techniques, with an hour. "It's about being smarter, not being harsher."
Graham:
Let's end with some agreement. I generally agree with the Geneva Convention. There's people with a different view. It doesn't make you unethical or a criminal. Waterboarding comes back to bite you. It's not necessary to win the war. But those who devised these techniques were not criminals.. they were Americans who were afraid that the next attack was on its way. If you're gonna be balanced about this, that needs to be told too. We need to look forward. Lincoln suspended habeas corpus. The techniques were shared with members of Congress who somehow can't remember what they were told. People made mistakes out of fear. The British may not have tortured people in N. Ireland, but they turned the people against them. They made a mistake in winning the people over of N. Ireland. If we restrict ourselves to the Army Field Manual, shame on us. It was written for soldiers, not to get intel about the next impending attack! [Yes, he's screaming] If we put it on the line and don't interrogate someone, we're stupid! The net was cast too large... nobody is in jail in Gitmo because Cheney said so. They're there because they're a military threat... not because we hate them, but what they did. That decision will go to the Supreme Court.... We should not unilaterally surrender, treat these people as common criminals... The principal I'm advocating: Hit them before they hit us attitude, find out what they're up to... We can do that without having to go back to the Inquisition. I'm so afraid what we're doing today will chill out future legal advice, ruining reputations of those who tried their best [paraphrased].
Now, with your permission, Paddy and I would like to take Lindsey Graham out to the woodshed, and... well, the rest is classified.
Despite Obama's assurances, a Justice Department special counsel is quietly ratcheting up his probe into a closely related subject: the CIA's destruction of hundreds of hours of videotape showing the waterboarding of two high-value Qaeda suspects. At the same time, a Senate panel is planning the first public hearing dealing with CIA interrogations, including testimony from a star witness: Ali Soufan, the former FBI agent who vigorously protested the questioning of one of the detainees, terror suspect Abu Zubaydah.
In recent weeks, prosecutor John Durham has summoned CIA operatives back from overseas to testify before a federal grand jury, according to three legal sources familiar with the case who asked not to be identified discussing sensitive matters. The sources said Durham is also seeking testimony from agency lawyers who gave advice relating to the November 2005 decision by Jose Rodriguez, then chief of the CIA's operations directorate, to destroy the tapes. [...] Durham, who declined to comment, might simply be tying up loose ends in a closely watched case. But one continuing point of inquiry could spell trouble for the agency: allegations that CIA officials may have made false statements or obstructed justice in the case of convicted Qaeda conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui.
Durham was appointed by former attorney general Michael Mukasey shortly after the December 2007 revelation about Rodriguez's decision. [...]
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, a top backer of a "truth commission" on torture, is taking matters into his own hands, starting with a May 13 hearing of a judiciary subcommittee he chairs. Along with Soufan, he also plans to call former State Department official Philip Zelikow, another internal critic. According to a Senate Democratic aide, who also asked for anonymity, Whitehouse wants to keep a public spotlight on the issue until the next bombshell: an internal Justice Department ethics report on the lawyers who wrote the interrogation memos, which could be released within the next month.
Someone please tell me why I'm hearing that Bush and Cheney would most likely never be prosecuted. I've missed the explanation twice now. And is that true? Feel free to discuss in Comments.
You all remember Dawn, right? She's the one the Rushpublics fear. She's the one who could nail BushCo. Moving along:
When the U.S. Senate reconvenes after its Spring recess Monday, will partisan sparks fly, filibusters be mounted, and confirmation fights rage over President Obama's remaining appointments that have yet to get their up-or-down confirmation vote on the Senate floor? Maybe, in the case of the President's nominee to head the Office of Legal Council in the Department of Justice, Dawn E. Johnsen.
On a conference call Friday with BuzzFlash and other Internet-based reporters, Democratic Senator Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island indicated that, if it comes to that, the Democrats are ready. "If the Republicans really do decide they're going to filibuster this nomination, I think they're leading with their chins and that gives us the chance to go on the offense," he said.
Today, the Senate Judiciary Committee is holding a hearing on the creation of a “truth commission” to investigate Bush administration wrongdoings. Sen. Pat Leahy (D-VT) has suggested that the commission may grant “blanket immunity” to Bush officials, though Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) has balked at this idea. Today on MSNBC, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) said he agreed with Pelosi and cautioned against “blanket immunity” for Bush officials.
If there was a new word for "agree strongly" I would use it. I agroo? Agraaaa? The point is, why set a terrible precedent? The country is behind the idea of (appropriate) prosecutions, Jonathan Turley (and I'm sure, others) has made the case multiple times on the Tee Vee Machine, and it seems the obvious, logical way to go.
And of course, as Whitehouse said, if prosecutors feel that immunity is warranted, then so be it.
But what was most surprising was that the Senate Republicans and their witnesses, in the process of ripping apart the idea, made the strongest case I’ve heard yet for why the Department of Justice should prosecute former senior officials of the Bush administration.
Sen. Arlen Specter, the ranking committee Republican, after noting his previous support for judicial review of the Bush administration’s terrorist surveillance program, referred to the recent disclosures of Office of Legal Counsel memos as potentially supporting the case for prosecutions. [...]
The witnesses called to present the Republican opposition to Leahy’s proposal made the same point.
David Rivkin, a former Justice Department official in the Reagan and first Bush administrations and now a partner at the law firm Baker & Hostetler, said a truth commission “is a profoundly bad idea, a dangerous idea, both for policy and for me as a lawyer for legal and constitutional reasons.”
Objecting that Congress would be improperly delegating its oversight power, and that witnesses would be called out for criminal conduct without the right to defend themselves in a trial, he said: “this is to establish a body to engage in what in essence is a criminal investigation of former Bush administration officials,” and that “the subject matter areas, which such a commission would investigate – among them the interrogation and handling of captured enemy combatants and the gathering of electronic intelligence – are heavily regulated by comprehensive criminal statutes, and ensures that the commission’s activities would inevitably invade areas traditionally the responsibility of the Department of Justice.”
Jeremy Rabkin, a law professor at George Mason University who also opposes Leahy’s idea, similarly insisted that in the United States, where we have a fully developed legal system, prosecutions — not truth commissions — are the appropriate course. [...] If people think we need to have prosecutions, we should have prosecutions.”
Proponents of the truth commission idea, meanwhile, while not ruling out the idea of prosecutions, saw a truth commission as serving a different, and broader purpose. But it was surprising that, at a hearing cautiously called to discuss “a nonpartisan commission of inquiry,” we heard the strongest case yet for the prosecution of former Bush administration officials — being made by Republicans.
Speaking on the Senate floor this morning, Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) reiterated his call to hold a truth commission to investigate Bush wrongdoings, and announced that the Senate Judiciary Committee would hold hearings on the matter next Wednesday.
I'm a big Sheldon Whitehouse fan, from what little I've seen of him. He's an effective speaker, and a good questioner during hearings.
I've said this a million times, but I hope this isn't one of those commissions that ends up being nothing more than a vehicle to placate people like me. If it opens the door to prosecutions, then I'm all for it. If not, you'll be seeing many posts typed in all caps with lots of exclamation points.
Read Leahy’s full remarks are here, and read Whitehouse’s full speech here or watch it here.
Someone Tweeted this to me, and I went right over, and voila! News:
The Senate Judiciary Committee plans to move forward with a commission to investigate torture during the Bush administration. Committee Chairman Pat Leahy, D-Vt., told Salon Tuesday that his panel would soon announce a hearing to study various commission plans. His staff said the announcement could come as early as Wednesday.
While Michigan Democrat Rep. John Conyers and North Carolina Republican Rep. Walter Jones drafted a bill to create a commission to review abuse of war powers during the Bush administration, Leahy's Senate commission would represent the first concrete steps forward toward a broad review of U.S. torture since 9/11.
Spearheading Senate efforts to establish a torture commission is Rhode Island Democrat Sheldon Whitehouse. As a member of both the Judiciary Committee and the Intelligence Committee, Whitehouse is privy to information about interrogations he can't yet share. Still, regarding a potential torture commission, he told Salon, "I am convinced it is going to happen." In fact, his fervor on the issue was palpable. When asked if there is a lot the public still does not know about these issues during the Bush administration, his eyes grew large and he nodded slowly. "Stay on this," he said. "This is going to be big."
Let's hope this leads to more than just a lot of talk.
Punk'd... or should I say, misled. And I was never happier to be talked down:
The implication of the piece is fairly clear: Holder promised Bond to eschew prosecutions, and Bond promised not to block his nomination. Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT), chairman of the Judiciary Committee -- which approved Holder today -- strongly denied that such an exchange could have occurred.
"It would be completely wrong if a senator said, 'I'll vote for you if you promise to withhold prosecution of a crime'," Leahy told me. "No senator would make a request like that. It'd be improper."
"Maybe Governor [Rod] Blagojevich [D-IL]" would have sought such an assurance, Leahy quipped. He never specifically referenced Bond, who declined to answer questions about the Times piece while leaving the Senate chamber this afternoon.
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), a Judiciary panel member and former federal prosecutor, had a similar response when questioned about the likelihood of Holder making the "assurances" that Bond believes were offered.
"It sounds a little improbable ... it's, frankly, improper for members of Congress to demand [a pre-determinative stance on] prosecutions."
Sounds like the Times report should be taken with a full shaker of salt.
Improper is an understatement. Even if it was inaccurate, let's keep our fingers crossed that Holder isn't even thinking in the direction of the Times' report.
However, Ellen Ratner's reporting is usually pretty good, so the question of Rove's "executive privilege" is still a problem.
The video is from the Young Turks, just in case you don't know who Sheldon Whitehouse is. Ohpleaseohpleaseohplease:
NPR reports that Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) says that he understands Obama’s reluctance to pursue investigations but that he may take matters into his own hands:
“I think that there’s a lot that remains to look at, and I appreciate that President Obama doesn’t want to make it his purpose as a new president, with America in real distress in many directions, to go back and look at all this, but I think we in Congress have an independent responsibility, and I fully intend to discharge that responsibility,” Whitehouse said.
In a 487-page report out today recapping Bush’s “imperial presidency,” House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers (D-MI) recommends that “the incoming Administration finally begin an independent criminal review of activities of the outgoing Administration.”
I've always liked Whitehouse (note the name). He's sharp as a tack and nearly always on the right (left) side of the issues.
After listening all the problems currently facing the country, Whitehouse asked the experts whether anyone thought drilling was the “number one issue” right now. Almost nine seconds went by with complete silence:
Now all they have to do is add, "I'm Barack Obama and I approve this message." Done. An effective ad, no attacks necessary, and the Republicans made themselves look like the fools that they are.
.jpg)