Kill the Lawyers, redux

The Arizona Daily Star ran an Associated Press update today quoting White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel as saying the administration was not intending to prosecute any Bush administration officials for the acts of torture they officially sanctioned.

Not surprisingly, this position was happily accepted by Republicans. Quoting the article:

GOP Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said the idea of “criminalizing legal advice after one administration is out of the office is a very bad precedent. ... I think it would be disaster to go back and try to prosecute a lawyer for giving legal advice that you disagreed with to a former president.”

The problem with this is it creates a backdoor by which the administrative branch can claim unlimited power. Want to spy on any US citizen without a warrant? Simply have a friendly OLC lawyer devise some half-assed argument supporting it. Want to drop a nuke on Canada because you can't stand the way they keeping adding 'eh?' to the end of every sentence? Call in the OLC! Nothing is so far out there we can't find some flimsy justification for it.

So what if, after the fact, the legal reasoning is found to be childish, amateurish, completely lacking of any professional standard - you got done what you wanted to get done. It's time to focus on the future, not look backwards to the past.

Supposedly, lawyers have professional standards, and if those standards are not met, or it is, at best, questionable those standards are met, then it is entrely appropriate to prosecute the lawyers who give such poor advice. The fact we are talking about lawyers making legal decisions which impact policy decisions for our entire nation makes this more imperative, not less.

If no other Bush administration official is prosecuted for these atrocities, at an absolute minimum the lawyers who provided the flimsy cover of legality which Bush, Cheney et. al. used as justification for their heinous acts must be. Otherwise, we are can no longer claim to be a nation of laws, only a nation of legal justifications.

Maybe it's for the best

I had intended to make a post today lamenting the lingering, slow death of print journalism in this country. With the Seattle Post-Intelligencer publishing its final print edition today to go to a pure online format (a step taken late last year by the sorely under-rated Christian Science Monitor), and the Tucson Citizen closing up shop this weekend ... well, rumors of the death of newspapers may be exaggerated, but not by much. The patient is gout-ridden, racked by fever and cough, and clearly on the deathbed.

Instead, I find myself stunned at the reaction of various members of the Washington press corps to the exchange of words between Dick Cheney and White House press secretary Robin Gibbs.

For those who might possibly have missed it, Cheney was on the air last weekend busily deeming the Obama administration a failure, and ranting about how his decisions, particularly vis-a-vis Guantanamo, had weakened America's security. Considering he was in office when the greatest terrorist attack on American soil ocurred, one might recognize him as an expert on weak security ... but that's neither here nor there.

When asked about it during a press briefing yesterday, Gibbs responded "I guess Rush Limbaugh was busy, so they trotted out the next most popular member of the Republican cabal." He subsequently added shots about how Bush and Cheney had failed in their duty to bring swift justice to the 9/11 perpetrators, and the importance of not taking advice from Cheney on the economy.

The admittedly sarcastic tone Gibbs used was immediately sized upon by various reporters, who complained about the manner in which the former Vice President was being addressed. Those complaining included Chip Reid of CBS and Rick Klein of ABC.

Seriously??!! I mean, seriously?? For years these folks allowed Cheney to oversee the virtual destruction of our Bill of Rights as well as instigating a wide-spread regime of torture, just two name two of the hideous innovations he was instrumental in instroducing to our country, yet hardly a peep could be heard. If anyone deserves to be treated with a distinct lack of respect, Cheney is near the top of the list, yet apparently it's more important to defend his dignity than to defend our nation's integrity.

I'm embarassed for my former profession ... all-in-all, maybe it's for the best it's a dying field.

Update: Shortly after posting this, I saw via Tedski at R-cubed the Citizen has been granted at least a temporary stay of execution.

Boy, was Biden ever right

During the vice presidential candidates debate last October, Joseph Biden referred to Dick as "the most dangerous Vice President in our country's history".

This past week or 10 days, as he looks forward to leaving office next month, Cheney has been appearing in different venues unapologetically defending his views and the actions of the Bush administration for the last eight years, pressing the notion of the "unitary executive". He claims it was wrong for the Supreme Court to allow Guantanamo detainees to be allowed to challenge their continuing detention without charge in US courtrooms (since the SC is the ultimate arbiter of such matters, this claim is wrong by definition). He claims the US has not tortured prisoners, while subsequently admitting to a major role in causing prisoners to be water-boarded.

One of his claims in the Wallace interview which has been the subject of outrage is the following:

"(The President) could launch a kind of devastating attack the world's never seen. He doesn't have to check with anybody. He doesn't have to call the Congress. He doesn't have to check with the courts. He has that authority because of the nature of the world we live in."

This looks worse than it is, since the preceding paragraph has generally been left out. Here is the comment again, in full:

"The president of the United States now for 50 years is followed at all times, 24 hours a day, by a military aide carrying a football that contains the nuclear codes that he would use and be authorized to use in the event of a nuclear attack on the United States.

He could launch a kind of devastating attack the world's never seen. He doesn't have to check with anybody. He doesn't have to call the Congress. He doesn't have to check with the courts. He has that authority because of the nature of the world we live in."

I think most people would agree that if our nation was hit with a massive nuclear attack there is not going to be time for Congress to meet before determining our response. However, this statement does do a lot to help explain Cheney's mindset - he's pushing the idea the nation has been in a constant state of emergency since 9/11, a state where the President essentially has ultimate power on all decisions.

This belief is, of course, horse shit.

The administration, largely at Cheney's urging, has consistently engaged in illegal activities, ranging from torture to illicit wiretaps. Cheney's recent appearances are almost brazenly daring his successor to do anything about these actions.

It's a challenge which must be accepted, or Biden will have been proven more correct than even he knew.

VP of Torture

It came out this past week Vice President Vader was ultimately responsible for signing off on and even "micromanaging" the use of "enhanced interrogation techniques" against suspected terrorist agents during a series of meetings in 2002 and 2003 which included, among others, such noted figures as Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice, and then CIA Director George Tenet.

What's remarkable is the sheer lack of newsworthiness about the revelation. It's been something everyone has "known" for years, it's just a question of the details being confirmed.

The torture inflicted involved more than dressing Condi up in kinky latex and whips, and even more than tying the terrorists to chairs, propping their eyes open with toothpicks and forcing them to watch around-the-clock reality television (which would either have forced confessions, true or not, or reduced the participant to the blithering state many of our fellow citizens sadly reside in). No, we're talking about all forms of physical abuse, up to and including sleep deprivation and water boarding.

For those who brush off the effects of water-boarding, or like to hide it behind euphemisms such as "enhanced interrogation techniques" or "simulated drowning", I encourage you to read this thread, written by someone who decided to find out for himself what the process was like last December. It's worth noting that, prior to conducting the experiment, the author favored the use of the technique. His thoughts after the experiment I leave for you to discover.

Don't just read the initial post ... there are a number of interesting questions and responses by the author throughout.

As has been noted, here and elsewhere, many, many times, these are techniques applied to individuals who have been found guilty of absolutely nothing. They have not been tried. They have not had a chance to confront their accusers in an open court. Many of them have been arrested under rather flimsy circumstances. A number which have been found to be innocent have been released.

This week a number of protests were organized around the world to highlight China's human rights' abuses, timed to coincide with the running of the Olympic torch prior to the Beijing Olympics this summer. Some of those protests were planned for San Francisco and the Golden Gate bridge ... something I am sure the Chinese government found quite hypocritical. Why should they be asked to adhere to standards we clearly refuse to hold ourselves to?

Eight years ago we were a beacon for the world, not perfect, but at least striving to be better, and encouraging other nations to join us in that search. Today, we are a bully who threatens and bullies smaller nations and takes away their lunch money if they don't mold their foreign policy to fit our self-interest.

I am not a pacifist ... there are just wars, and our presence in Afghanistan is, in my mind, fully justified. The leaders of that nation knowingly provided safe haven to a coterie of people who viciously attacked and killed our citizens. By doing so, it provided a legitimate cassus belli.

However, there are unjust wars as well, and Iraq unquestionably falls in that category (as will our future war with Iran, should McCain win election this fall ... but that's another issue). Our presence there, our continuing unjust occupation, and our continuing violation of basic privacy and civil liberties, both abroad and at home, have destroyed our nation's credibility for a generation, at least ... if we can ever regain it at all.

When trust is violated, it's rare to ever get it all back, no matter how contrite and sincere the subsequent remorse ... and this administration hasn't just violated trust, it's thrown it on the ground, ground it's heels on it, spat and shat upon it ...

Ultimately, it's not just the prisoners of Guantanamo, or those individuals who have suffered rendition, who have been wrongfully abused by this administration, it's all of us, the nation in it's entirety. When this leadership team came into the White House there was a great deal of talk and blather about the new "CEO" administration. I wish they had stuck with that ... at least then they might have limited their torture to our economy.

Extremist != Disagreement

Fellow blogger ThinkRight has a post up proclaiming Giffords isn't a moderate, but rather an extreme left-wing wactivist who wants to take away all our guns, open our borders to anyone who wants to visit, raise the taxes to 110% of income and destroy all industry so we can revert back to living in harmony with nature.

Well, he doesn't go quite that far. In making his case, however, he cites the fact she supported the resolution by Dennis Kucinich to impeach Dick Cheney last week as an example of an "extremist" position.

Polling results from just this month indicate 43% of voters feel Cheney should be impeached. A further 9% feel he has committed impeachable offenses, but should not be impeached. Let's see ... 43+9 = 52. Hey, what do you know - a majority of voters in this country think Cheney has committed impeachable offenses. For the record, that's far more than ever felt that way about Clinton, which didn't stop Republicans from, you know, actually impeaching him.

In all fairness, TR was against impeaching Clinton, so he's consistent at least.

However, this does bring up the matter of what qualifies as "extremist". I mean, when your position is actually in line with the majority view it certainly can't be labeled as "extreme", but must, at least, be labeled as "mainstream". I don't see how this can even be quibbled with, debated, or even "agree to disagree" - when your view is the majority view, labeling it "extreme" is simply ... well ... wrong.

Still, is there some metric to be applied? Without any real thought at all, it seems to me that I tend to (unconsciously) use the following metrics:

If there is a matter where one position garners more than 50% support, then any view which has less than 25% support is "extreme". Any view with less than 10% support is "fringe".

That seems pretty crude, though, and I am sure if I thought about it long enough I could come up with counter-examples from my past which disprove it. It does seem like an accurate rough guide to my thought process, though.

In the end, I may disagree with TR's views regarding Cheney impeachment, but his opinion is, by no means, extremist. After all, 48% of voters don't think Cheney should be impeached.

Same song, second verse

McClatchey newspapers reported last week that the neo-con wing of the administration, led by Darth Cheney himself, are ardently agitating for an airstrike against alleged terrorist training camps inside Iran.

Just what we need - open hostilities with another Islamic nation. What, two isn't enough? For all the shouts of "jihadists" coming from some quarters, it almost seems like some elements of our government are determined on creating a crusade of their own.

This all ties in with the recent chorus of claims that Iran is providing material support to Iraqi insurgents. Of course, this creates an odd catch-22 for the administration - all this supposed aid from Iran is directed to Shiite factions, and attacks from Shiite organizations are on the uprise. Shiite factions are most assuredly not associated with al-Qaeda. Meanwhile, the administration has been busily trying to conflate all insurgent attacks in Iraq with al-Qaeda in Iraq, which itself is supposedly "the same people from 9/11". Except for the fact al-Qaeda in Iraq never existed prior to 9/11.

But what's a few blatant logical inconsistencies between friends ...

What makes this article especially worrisome to me are two items:

1. Warren Strobel, one of the authors of the McClatchy piece, was one of the few journalists who consistently got things right in the run up to the Iraq war, challenging administration claims about WMDs in Iraq, alleged nuclear programs, etc. On every matter, Strobel (and his co-author on many of those pieces, Jonathan Landy, was eventually shown to be right.

There is nothing new about neo-cons such as Cheney, Norman Podhoretz and others of their ilk pushing for new and better wars. However, the fact Strobel put his name to this recent article just makes it all the more credible that, even though Cheney hasn't had his way on the issue yet, he may in the near future.

2. The military is pushing the whole "these devices must have come from Iran" angle, despite having found a factory in Iraq making them as far back as last February. This is exactly the type of misinformation and propaganda used to stampede us into invading Iraq in the first place.

When in trouble, people revert back to what they know ... and apparently what certain significant portions of this administration know is "nuke em til they glow".

I can't believe I am saying this, but I am desperately hoping Condi prevails in this matter. Even as our troops continue to die in Iraq while the Iraqi government teeters on the edge of collapse, Cheney continues doing his damnedest to prove yet again he can always make things worse.

Success? This is Success?

Last month, "only" 80 US soldiers were killed in Iraq, down from 101 in June and a high of 126 in May. The administration and various war-supporters are already touting this as near irrefutable proof the surge is working, and if we just wait yet another six more months the true genius of Our Glorious Leader (and Dubya too!) will finally be revealed for all to see, even liberals.

Being the spoil-sport I am, however, I wanted to look at a few more of the numbers, which are available here. In looking at them, two things stand out:

1. The 80 deaths last month are essentially identical to the 83, 81 and 81 in January, February and March of this year respectively. That's when the surge was initiated. Put another way, there has been effectively no drop in US casualties per month since the start of the surge.

2. For whatever reason, possibly the onset of the stifling summer heat, both 2005 and 2006 saw low casualty figures for US troops in July when compared to adjacent months.

June 2005: 78
July 2005: 54
August 2005: 85

June 2006: 61
July 2006: 43
August 2006: 65

With 20 casualties so far in August, we are on pace for 88 or 89 more dead soldiers this month. I am sure the same set of people will find some way to explain to the heathen unbelievers such as myself why an uptick in the death count (if the pace continues) would also be evidence the surge is working.

The surge can't fail, only the rationale can fail. If the rationale fails, simply change the rationale. Long live the surge! ¡Desea vivo la oleada! Long live the Emperor! Er ... uhm ... we mean the Vice President of course.

Even if one looks at the numbers, though, and somehow manages to talk himself into believing the surge is succeeding militarily, what Lord Cheney, Prime Minion Bush and others induced to spread the gospel of Success In Iraq hope your forget - really, they need you to forget - is that the military aspect was always the least important part of the surge.

The whole point of placing additional troops in Iraq was to help create "breathing space" for the Iraqi government, which in turn was supposed to achieve certain political "benchmarks". The military aspects have always been secondary to the political ones.

Needless to say, however mediocre (at best) progress might be on the military front, it gets an A+ grade compared to the political situation.

Despite no progress whatsoever on meeting the desired benchmarks, the entire Iraqi parliament has opted to take a month break. In the interim, the largest Sunni block resigned at the start of the month, five more cabinet members announced yesterday they would boycott government meetings (an action one described as "first step toward withdrawal" from the government), and six ministers from Moqtada al-Sadr's faction, who walked out in April, show no sign of coming back.

Meanwhile, as the British prepare to pull out of Basra, Shiites there are pushing for more independence.

As we approach the mid-September date for the much-awaited report on the effects of the surge the Iraqi government, on whose behalf the surge was allegedly initiated in the first place, the government which is supposed to be making progress toward a new Constitution, agreeable power-sharing and financial arrangements, the government we have sent 30,000 more young Americans over to fight and possibly die for ... that government is on the verge of collapse.

Apparently I am overdue for my administration-sponsored brainwashing. No matter how hard I squint, no matter how rosy I tint my glasses, no matter how often I chant happy mantras to myself ("Mission accomplished!" "Greeted with flowers!"), no matter how much effort I expend in positive thinking ... I just can't make this look like progress.

A bite to choke on

The immigration bill failed in a senate vote today, 53-46. The result is not a huge surprise, although Framer, despite predicting it's ultimate failure for weeks, found the final margin to be wider than he anticipated. Kudos for him for being on top of this from the get go. In particular, he noted early on the level of Democratic unhappiness with the bill (which did not get wide media coverage), and in the end 15 Democrats voted against it.

While the bill tried to provide something for everyone to like, it ended up providing something for everyone to hate instead. The border-wall bunch hated the entire route to citizenship proposal, and were concerned the enforcement provisions in the bill would never actually be ... well ... enforced. Given our history of (not) enforcing existing provisions, you can't really say their fears were unfounded.

Liberals, meanwhile, ended up seeing the provisions for guest-workers as a means to create an underclass within the labor force. Also, I suspect (as I noted before, and Framer did as well) there was a lack of enthusiasm for Democratic lawmakers to vote for a bill the President was so openly hoping to see come up for his signature. For anyone "on the fence", throwing the President such a lifeline when his popularity is at near-historic lows would have been a strong disincentive for voting in favor of the bill.

The vote outcome itself just reinforces how weak the President's position has become -- does anyone really think if this bill had come up for a vote three years ago, it would not have passed? I would say this really hurts the Bush administration, except it's hurting so much already how much more does yest another setback, even one of this magnitude, really mean?

So the status quo remains, which everyone seems to agree is not working, but which most everyone seems to prefer to the recently scuttled alternative. Apparently everyone felt things really could get worse after all. So what's next?

X4mr suggests trying to break the bill up into smaller chucks, focusing on pieces that might be passed. I am not sure I see this as being any better though. Both sides of the debate aren't going to give something to the other side without getting something back in return, of course ... so pieces have to be tied together. "I'll trade you more border security agents for a route to citizenship" for example. The problem is, certain pieces become very intertwined -- border agents, increased capacity to hold aliens, etc., and it may not make sense to pass some parts without others ... but then if a bigger chunk for one side gets proposed, the other side demands more in return, and the whole thing becomes too big to swallow again.

So the whole thing gets tabled, for this year at least, and it's hard to see either side agreeing to anything next year, when what looks to be a very heated Presidential race moves front-and-center. I expect it will be 2009 before we see the matter seriously addressed again.

Meanwhile, maybe we can all focus on something less divisive, such as impeaching Darth Cheney.

Why don't all the rules apply?

There's been a great deal of discussion about Vice President Cheney's novel understanding as to exactly which branch or branches of government his office belongs to. Recently he's been claiming that, because his office's sole Constitutional responsibility is legislative (to sit in on Senate discussion and break ties), Executive orders such as those involving audits of the manner in which classified materials are handled don't apply to him or his staff. (X4mr has a post with his views here).

It's worth noting, however, that Cheney's understanding as to which branch of government his office falls under has shifted in the last three years. Back in 2004, when one of the big issues in the national eye was whether or not Congress could force disclosure of Energy Task Force records, Cheney was adamantly claiming the records were protected via Executive privilege, and talking about how important it was the Executive branch defend itself against "continual encroachment by Congress". The Supreme Court eventually ruled in his favor.

Now, I may be just a wee bit confused here, but if one is going to claim something such as "Executive privilege", doesn't that imply one is, well ... part of the Executive branch? If not, the privilege doesn't apply. (Not to mention the budget for the VP's office is within the Executive branch, not the Legislative, but what's a few millions dollars here or there?)

Cheney is obviously doing his utmost to shoehorn his position into some no-man's land that resides partly within the Executive branch (which is where every previous administration and VP would have placed it) and partly within the Legislative, and then trying to emphasize whichever role will allow him to get away with whatever underhanded, dirty little secret he is trying to hide from public scrutiny at the time. You can't really blame him -- he's a disgusting little weasel, so weaselly behavior is just part of his nature.

If, however, he wants to continue to have it both ways, then he can have it both ways ... meaning all rules apply instead of none of them. So, Mr. Cheney, why don't you start acceding to those Presidentially ordered audit requests (which the VP office did, in fact, accede to for the first two years, establishing a precedent if nothing else), and while you're at it you might want to find all those task force records your colleagues in the Legislative branch were asking for. I mean, since you are part of their branch (as you, yourself, have recently argued), you no longer have grounds to deny the requests.