Democrats cave... AGAIN... on torture.

Today Andrew Sullivan had an essay on how obviously illegal torture was, and how horrible it is that we're even having conversations on whether or not it's illegal:

The whole point of Geneva and the UN Convention and US domestic law is that the infliction of "severe mental or physical pain or suffering" to extract confessions is illegal under any circumstances, especially military emergencies. Anything that comes anywhere near this kind of treatment is barred. Much that falls short of torture is barred as well. Categorically. The expansiveness of the law is not the same thing as vagueness. It is a declaration that this is a third rail never to be gone near.

Somehow, no one had this debate about the lack of legal clarity about torture or inhumane treatment in the US before 2002. No one. Why? Because it was unthinkable.

What changed is that for the first time in American history a president of the United States chose to cross the Rubicon and under his sole and secret authority decided to torture prisoners under the mistaken belief that this was a way to get accurate intelligence. He did this not in the classic ticking nuclear bomb scenario as an emergency exception to the clear rule - but as an ongoing program with respect to individuals seized with no due process, innocent and guilty, in a war without end. This was not a close or even faintly ambiguous legal call.

Unfortunately, Andrew is, in this case, wrong. The legality of torture is very vague indeed these days... and the Republicans are still working to keep it that way.

In fact, the Republicans browbeat the Democrats into withdrawing an amendment to a spending bill which would have clearly criminalized specific tortures and set terms of imprisonment for the crime:

House Republicans were still hammering away at Democrats on Friday, one day after pressuring the majority to withdraw a controversial amendment to an intelligence funding bill that would have criminally punished intelligence officers for conducting harsh interrogations.

. . .

Earlier this week, the House Rules Committee added several amendments to the intelligence funding bill, including an 11-page provision that specifies criminal penalties for "any officer or employee of the intelligence community who, in the course of or in anticipation of a covered interrogation, knowingly commits, attempts to commit, or conspires to commit an act of cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment."

The acts defined in the amendment include beatings, electric shock, waterboarding, deprivation of food, water or sleep and violations of the suspects religious beliefs. The intelligence officers would face up to 15 years in prison or life behind bars if the detainee dies.

When Republicans discovered the amendment Thursday during floor debate on the overall bill, they went on the offense.

(Texas Republican Mac) Thornberry said it was a "topsy-turvy land where we forget who the good guys are, who are trying to keep us safe, and who the bad guys are."

Rep. Michael Rogers, R-Michigan, said the amendment is too vague, failing to define such things as what constitutes lack of sleep or an infringement on religious beliefs. He maintained that it "will absolutely freeze the intelligence community's ability to go out and get information that they need."

. . .

After the provision was pulled, Jim McDermott, D-Washington, explained that his amendment "would have expanded upon the president's Executive Order to clearly define what constitutes cruel, inhuman or degrading interrogation so that it is unmistakable what kinds of techniques are unacceptable."

So why did the Democrats decide to strike the amendment? . . . (Republican ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee Peter) Hoekstra said the Democrats did not have enough votes within their own party to pass the bill.

That last sentence is almost certainly true... and depressing. Certainly Obama did not lift a finger in defense of this amendment, or anything like it. Obama has never called for the repeal of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, which among its provisions gives the President sole and exclusive power both to define what torture is and to prevent any federal official from being prosecuted for torture.

Obama's sole gesture towards ending torture was to overturn the executive orders of George W. Bush and order torture stopped- a measure which can, with a single stroke of a pen, be undone by any president who follows him. In every other respect Obama has acted to preserve torture- principally by preserving those who ordered it from any consequences for their actions.

But Obama's utter lack of leadership on making torture unambiguously illegal again does not excuse the Democratic leadership in the House. This vote should have happened. Every Congressperson should have been put on the record as clearly pro-torture or anti-torture.

Instead the Democrats chickened out.

There are only three Democrats who come out of this looking good. Jim McDermott authored the amendment- at least he made the attempt. Silvestre Reyes (of Texas- hooray, we're not all evil pro-torture bastards!) and Jan Schakowsky at least tried to defend it- when no other Democrats would. (Granted, Reyes was almost certainly the one who ordered the amendment's withdrawal, so he loses points there.)

But certainly every Democrat on the Intelligence Committee, if not the whole damn Congress, who remained silent when this went on deserves our utter contempt.

Cowards, all.

And torture, for all practical purposes, remains legal in the United States.

GOP Committee Chairs Hate Term Limits They Enacted

Back in 1994, the Contract with America included a proposal for term limits on Congresspeople. As soon as Newt Gingrich, Tom DeLay and their crew took power, of course, that pledge was thrown away- "How can I serve my constituents if I leave just as I'm getting things done?"

On one point, though, they fulfilled their pledge: they imposed term limits on chairmanships (or, if in the minority, the ranking party member) for Congressional committees. This was done not from idealism, but from pragmatism- it got rid of old chairmen so they could be replaced with people loyal to the lockstep, zero-dissent tactics Gingrich and DeLay used, and which the Republican Party has continued to use, to advance their own agenda and destroy any other.

And now even this feeble gesture to what Republicans claimed as an ideal is proving too onerous for them to sustain.

Texas Rep. Joe Barton, the top Republican on the Energy and Commerce Committee who would be term-limited out of a chairmanship, called the limits that apply to ranking members “counterproductive.”

“Don’t ask me to do a good job in the minority and make a rule that says you can’t continue to do a good job as chairman,” said Barton.

Leaving aside the fact that Joe Barton is a birther and a known nutcase even by Republican standards, he speaks for most of the ranking Republican members of various Congressional committees. However, fear not: House Minority Leader John Boehner has announced that some exceptions will be made to the rule.

Exceptions, he does not have to say, solely for Republicans who are utterly loyal to him, who are utterly in lockstep with his commands.

Irony: that a measure purported to help prevent corruption and abuse of power is being used by the party that enacted it to ADVANCE corruption and abuse of power...

Privilege 1, Justice 0

Well, I'm home and sick as a dog after this past weekend's business trip.

I'm not much up to blogging on stuff today, but I really do have to mention the Supreme Court's refusal to hear the case regarding the FBI search of Rep. William Jefferson's Congressional office.

Rep. Jefferson (D-LA) is currently under indictment on bribery and corruption charges. The New Orleans representative commandeered a helicopter during the Hurricane Katrina relief effort, ordered the pilot to fly him over his home, and then ordered the chopper directly back to base, doing nothing whatever to help his constituents who were still stranded in the flooded area. Later, an FBI investigation found evidence that he had accepted over $500,000 in bribes, including $90,000 they found in a warranted search of his home.

The court case involves a search, with warrant, of his Washington, D. C. office. This office is paid for by the federal government. According to lawyers for Rep. Jefferson and Congress, the search was unConstitutional under the clause that prohibits any prosecution or penalty for anything said during debate on the floor of Congress.

The Supreme Court's dodge of the case means that the appeals court ruling stands- namely, that no search may be made of Congressional offices for any purpose without prior notice to and approval of Congress. In effect, Congresspeople would be able to conduct illegal business in their tax-funded offices, keep incriminating documents there, etc. and be able to stop any effort from outside to get access, even with a warrant.

Obviously Republicans are not the only party who believe that responsibility and accountability are only for the little people... and, sadly, the Supreme Court seems inclined to agree.


(P. S. Obama's magic superdelegate number, as of today, is 109. I'm making no adjustments yet for the second round of Texas caucusing, but after a weekend of up-and-down for Obama, my five-source average superdelegate estimate is Clinton 249, Obama 215.)

Republicans Trying to Shut Down House

C-SPAN reports that Republican Minority Leader John Boehner has led a walkout of Republican Congresspersons in an attempt to deny quorum, as a protest against Democrat unwillingness to approve a version of the Protect America Act which grants retroactive immunity to telecommunications corporations who cooperated with the White House's extralegal wiretapping operations from 2001 to 2007.

Majority leader Steny Hoyer has announced that a Democratic bill which authorizes wiretaps- but under the sole authority of the Foriegn Intelligence Surveillance Act courts, and with no immunity for the telecoms- will be put to a vote on Thursday.

As I type this the fourth vote is being taken on whether or not to adjourn the House for lack of quorum. Considering that there are nearly 300 votes against adjournment, I can only conclude that Boehner's walkout is not particularly successful.

What annoys me is that none of my regular sources of news is covering this story- not CNN, not MSNBC, not the Houston Chronicle, none of my preferred blogs, NOBODY. Not even Fox News.

I should have thought that Republicans trying to shut down the federal government again would be news, dammit... but all I can find is goddamn Eliot Spitzer crap.

UPDATE: The fourth motion to adjourn got only four votes versus well over three hundred in opposition. The reason I flipped over to C-SPAN in the first place- an attempt by the House to override Bush's veto of a ban on torture- will go forward, and almost certainly fail against united Republican support of torturing those unable to resist President George W. Bush.

John McCain, Torturer

... or, at least, supporter of torture.

Today the Senate voted on a bill which, among other things, would hold all federal agencies to the code of conduct in the Army Field Manual in regard to questioning prisoners. In other words, waterboarding and other forms of torture would be clearly and plainly illegal.

The Republicans in the Senate had threatened to block the vote, but they decided to let it go. Part of the reason was that George W. Bush has promised to veto the bill. Another reason, as speculated on by Paul Kiel at TPMMuckraker, is that a cloture vote would force John McCain, a long-time vocal opponent of torture, to either vote to filibuster the bill and betray his principles... or else vote for the bill and go against his party, which is pretty much unified as gung-ho for torture. Without a cloture vote- with a straight up-down majority vote- McCain could abstain or vote "Present" or just not be there for the vote, thereby avoiding damage.

Well, that speculation on Kiel's part didn't hold up so well.

The final vote was 51-45. The bill goes to Bush for his inevitable veto.

McCain voted against it.

Repeating: McCain voted against a bill that would make it illegal for the FBI, CIA, etc. to use torture.

Which means McCain voted in FAVOR of torture.

Straight talk, yessir- straight like a two-lane West Virginia road.

(Other notable votes: Clinton and Obama were both out on the stump and did not vote. Republicans Susan Collins (ME), Chuck Hagel (NE), Wossname Lugar (IN), Idunno Smith (OR), Olympia Snow (ME) all voted Yea. Democrat Bill Nelson (NE) voted Nay. Independent Joe Lieberman (CT) voted Nay. Independent Bernie Sanders (VT) voted Yea.
All other Democrats voted Yea and Republicans Nay, except for those not voting.)

Bush to Veto Defense Budget...

... because, apparently, his victory over the anti-war Democrats wasn't large enough.

Bush claims he's vetoing the bill because of a provision to allow victims of Saddam Hussein's regime to sue for damages. What those victims are supposed to do without this provision Bush doesn't say- but I personally suspect that this issue, brought up at the very last minute before the budget would become law without Bush's signature, is only an excuse.

The real issue is this: Bush wanted $180 billion for Iraq and Afghanistan, with no restrictions or oversight. After a token resistance, the Democrats allowed a budget to pass that funded the wars by only $70 billion- but with no restrictions or oversight.

For Bush, this is not enough.

Bush wants it ALL.

George W. Bush views Congress as nothing more than a rubber stamp for his elective monarchy. He, as the Great Decider, makes all the decisions; Congress has no option but to endorse them. Any resistance, even the minimal resistance of not giving him all the money he wants, is unacceptable.

Bush says he'll work with Congress to produce a new bill, one that gives troops a pay raise and fully funds the military. In the past, whenever Bush has said, "work with Congress," he's actually meant, "tell Congress what they're going to do, to hell with anyone and anything else."

Why should things be different now?