Senate Tells Justice Department Not to Investigate Torture

I picked this up off of TPM Muckraker, and it seems to have slipped my notice yesterday...

There are literally dozens of these types of stories--you never want for material when you're blogging about the state of American political discourse and policy here in the last year of the Bush Administration. No sector of our government has suffered more than the small, elite sector of "inspector generals" or IGs. These people were supposed to be fair, tough, independent and unassailable. And yes, every time you turn around, the Congress or the Executive is finding a new and creative way to stymie or block these people from doing their jobs:

From the National Law Journal:

Congress is close to enacting the most significant boost in three decades in the independence of the cadre of government watchdogs -- federal inspectors general -- but the lawmakers have retreated from a key change involving the U.S. Department of Justice.
The Senate on April 23 approved, by unanimous consent, S. 2324, the Inspector General Reform Act of 2008. But the bill passed only after the lawmakers agreed to an amendment by Senator Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., which, among other items, deleted a provision giving the Justice Department's Office of Inspector General (OIG) jurisdiction to investigate misconduct allegations against department attorneys, including its most senior officials.

Unlike all other OIGs who can investigate misconduct within their entire agency, Justice's OIG must refer allegations against department attorneys to the department's Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR). The latter office, unlike the OIG, is not statutorily independent and reports directly to the attorney general and the deputy attorney general....

President Bush had threatened to veto the House bill for a variety of reasons. The Kyl amendment to the Senate bill was seen by many as a vehicle for the White House's objections.

OPR, which reports to the attorney general, is currently conducting a variety of very sensitive investigations for the administration. The office is probing the Department's approval of the administration's warrantless wiretapping program. And recently it announced that it is investigating the Department's legal memos authorizing the use of waterboarding and other forms of torture by CIA and military interrogators.

It is conducting those probes because Inspector General Glenn Fine cannot. The bill which passed the House would have changed that, as Fine himself pointed out in a letter (pdf) to Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) and Dick Durbin (D-IL) back in February, when he told them that he could not investigate the Department's authorization of torture because "under current law, the OIG does not have jurisdiction to review the actions of DOJ attorneys acting in their capacity to provide legal advice." Fine added: "Legislation that would remove this limitation has passed the House and is pending in the Senate, but at this point the OIG does not have jurisdiction to undertake the review you request."

Now, I don't know about you, but at some point, the Republicans are going to be screaming to put that provision of investigating "senior officials" back into effect once they lose control of the Executive Branch. This kind of thing is extremely damaging to the credibility of Attorney General Michael Mukasey--is he presiding over the most corrupt Justice Department ever, as a kind of traitorous caretaker, ordered to run out the clock?

One would think he'd at least try, right? Pretend to be acting as the chief law enforcement officer of the United States of America? Instead, he's running cover like a thug, barely able to keep up with the latest outrage, and willfully ignorant to this day of what it must have been like for our enemies to be waterboarded.

Another Run of Joementum?

William the Bloody Kristol decides to weigh in on who should run for Vice President on the Republican ticket:

William Kristol [from the issue dated] 11/19/2007:
If a senator gives a speech, and no major newspaper reports it, does it matter? Joe Lieberman spoke in Washington Thursday on "the politics of national security." The next day, the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, and USA Today ignored his talk. Most Democrats will ignore it. But five guys named Rudy, John, Fred, Mitt, and Mike will read it. So should you.

Think about that for a minute--Kristol is a fairly influential commenter. He probably has what some would call "influence" among the 23% of Americans who are "dead enders" and still think we can salvage victory after all of these years of being bled dry in Iraq. Kristol is suggesting that Republicans consider Senator Joe Lieberman for the VP slot next year.

I say, go for it. I say, run, Joe, run! Nothing would drag the Republican ticket down more than a healthy dose of the same "Joementum" that failed to gain any traction at all in the 2004 Democratic Presidential primaries. Nothing would solidify the break that is long overdue between Lieberman and the Democratic Party. I know he has this "Independent" tag thing going--please. The man's career exists as a Democratic Party politician. Without them, he's nothing.

Are they any Democrats who want to hang on to Joe? And try to bring him back into the fold? I say, hell no. Joe, you gotta go. If you go and it makes for a Republican Senate, so be it. (Of course, if the Republicans ever do take back the Senate, they'll go back to whining about filibusters, won't they?)

Here's what Joe said the other day:

Iraq has become the singular litmus test for Democratic candidates. No Democratic presidential primary candidate today speaks of America's moral or strategic responsibility to stand with the Iraqi people against the totalitarian forces of radical Islam, or of the consequences of handing a victory in Iraq to al Qaeda and Iran. And if they did, their campaign would be as unsuccessful as mine was in 2006. Even as evidence has mounted that General Petraeus' new counterinsurgency strategy is succeeding, Democrats have remained emotionally invested in a narrative of defeat and retreat in Iraq, reluctant to acknowledge the progress we are now achieving. . . .

Well, where to start?

1. Ending the war is essential for preserving America's military
2. The Iraqi people have either fled the country or are acquiescing to full blown civil war
3. al Qaeda in Iraq is a figment of someone's feverish imagination as a credible threat
4. Iran has already gotten more than they ever could have hoped from this war
5. General Petraeus' actual strategy was to wait until the ethnic cleansing was complete because that would be followed by a drop in violence AND to give money and guns to Sunni leaders to get them to stop killing our troops
6. Democrats are "emotionally invested" in doing the right thing by stopping the war
7. We are pounding sand, not making any real progress
8. So long as the Mahdi Army stands down, the violence in Iraq will appear to be lessening
9. 2007 is the bloodiest year of the war
10. Even when he says "and" and "the" in a sentence, he's wrong


'Bye, Joe. Keep giving speeches that reveal your true affiliation--for Karl Rove, George Bush, Dick Cheney, and a failed war that you are clueless and confused about, from the strategic sense to the essential details. Keep telling us what you really think--which can't hide the fact that if the American people ever figure out why this war was started and why it was kept going and what your part was in the effort to ensure that the Republican Party could use a war, and use the troops who would have to fight that war, as a wedge issue against the Democratic Party to hold on to the power of the purse and to enrich wealthy donors to the Republican Party, well, would you ever be man enough to admit your guilt? Would you ever be man enough to admit you were party to a crime of monstrous proportions? Would you have the decency to admit that you shouldn't be considered for any post of responsibility?

Yes, enthusiastically, do I say, pick Lieberman. Run him as your VP, Republicans. He will serve as a reminder of just how insane your party really is. He would wrap himself and the Iraq War around your necks and drag you down. Lieberman has been a national candidate twice now, and both times, he was a barely competent disaster in the making. He failed to even win the endorsement of Al Gore in 2004 after serving as Gore's pick for VP in 2000. Gore picked Dean, and while Dean didn't get the nomination, Dean was a huge part of the resurrection of the Democratic Party. Lieberman's 2004 run is a study in self-delusion. "Joementum" turned into the turd no one wanted to find in their swimming pool.

If you want, you can let the door hit you on the ass on your way out...

Another year and a half of this? No thanks.

I wonder if the Republicans would continue with their obstructionist ways if Harry Reid pulled the “Nuclear Option” out of the dead-letters bin and blew the dust off it and reminded the Republicans how downright tyrannical they were about their treatment of the minority? Parliamentary procedures are one thing. Being obstructionist pricks just for the sake of being obstructionist pricks is another thing entirely, and I have grown utterly sick of it.

Watching this senate is like coming home to find the babysitter duct-taped to a chair, the kiddie-pool full of kool-aid, the good china being used for a tea-party in the treehouse, and god-only-knows what they did with your best percales.

As a parent, I am inclined to punish every last hooligan and miscreant about, including the babysitter who lost control. (Harry, that would be you.)

Can we get a real Majority Leader, please? Harry just doesn’t have what it takes.

So filibuster already

Dare I say it? Do I let my hopes out of the box?

Did we get Harry Reid’s damned attention when we got snippy and reminded him that we did not flunk Civics and know what the hell constitutes a filibuster, and what is just parliamentary masturbation masquerading as a filibuster?

Could be.

Think Progress is reporting that he is calling their bluff. If they don’t allow an up or down vote, on Tuesday night the cots come out:

Moments ago, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) announced that in response to conservative obstructionism, he plans to force war supporters to physically remain in the Senate and filibuster Iraq withdrawal legislation.

Reid accused conservatives of “protecting the President rather than protecting our troops” by “denying us an up or down vote on the most important issue our country faces.” He said that if a vote on the Reed/Levin Iraq legislation is not allowed today or tomorrow, he will keep the Senate in session “straight through the night on Tuesday” and force a filibuster. From Reid’s speech:

Republicans are using a filibuster to block us from even voting on an amendment that could bring the war to a responsible end. They are protecting the President rather than protecting our troops.

They are denying us an up or down — yes or no — vote on the most important issue our country faces.

I would like to inform the Republican leadership and all my colleagues that we have no intention of backing down.

If Republicans do not allow a vote on Levin/Reed today or tomorrow, we will work straight through the night on Tuesday.

The American people deserve an open and honest debate on this war, and they deserve an up or down vote on this amendment to end it.

Well, Amen and Hallelujah! This fighting Dem has just one thing to say…What took you so fucking long?

The always-excellent Bob Geiger has more.

[Cross-posted from Watching Those We Chose]

The post where I call out Harry Reid

Just about an hour ago, the U.S. House of Representatives passed legislation requiring the pull-out of American forces from Iraq. Per the House legislation, the draw down would start in 120 days, to be completed by April.

Now it goes to the Senate.

Harry Reid, you feckless dolt, don’t bend over and spread ‘em when Joe “More War!!!” Lieberman threatens to filibuster.

Calling the threat to filibuster a filibuster is just procedural masturbation - and an insult to my intelligence.

Let the fucking idiot Senator from AIPAC talk for as long as he can. Bring out the roll-away beds and make the bastard stand there until his ankles swell and his lips crack and he can’t go on another second.

But don’t you dare call for a cloture vote from the get-go and then say the bill was filibustered. That is just a lie.

Democrats, listen up: you were sent back to the majority because Americans are sick to death of this idiotic, criminal, war-of-choice started by a mendacious fool and his equally-fucked-up in the head neocon chickenhawk “advisors” – none of whom have any skin in the game.

Now, do your duty and don’t take the screwing that the Pubbies have been dishing out. They are nothing more than schoolyard bullies, and we all know that bullies are every last one cowards at their very core, and they crumble when they are called out.

So call them out.

And stop calling a parliamentary jacking-off a filibuster. Some of us didn’t sleep through Civics class, and we know you are full of shit. Which puts you a hell of a lot closer to the Pubbies in the public mind than you want to be.

So man up and call ‘em out.

Unconscionable!

As if there was any doubt left in any sentient mind that the far-right wing of the Republican party could not possibly care less about the well-being of the G.I.’s in the field, Republicans successfully filibustered the Webb amendment that would have mandated that troops receive at least as much dwell-time as they do time in the theatre of operations.

Republicans Chuck Hagel (the bill’s co-sponsor) Norm Coleman, John Sununu, Gordon Smith, John Warner, Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe crossed party lines to vote with the Democrats. Snowe is the only one of the Republican’s to support the bill who is not up for reelection in 2008.

It is no surprise that the perpetually ignoble Joe “More War!!!” Lieberman voted with the feckless republicans to kill Senator Webb’s reasoned and reasonable troop-protection amendment to the Defense Authorization Bill for FY 2008. I hope no one is too taken aback by the feckless fools Domenici and Lugar, who showed their true colors (various shades of yellow) and an unwillingness to do what is right and break ranks with the resident on this issue.

I am also deeply disappointed in Senator Bond, whose son served in Iraq as an intelligence officer. I received the following statement from his office:

"I am concerned about the burden placed upon our brave fighting men and women and their families and we are working with the military to ensure appropriate rest periods for our active, guard and reserves.

"This amendment would make a difficult situation worse, however.

"It would limit our service members and commanders in a time of war, hinder our war-time capabilities, and most importantly it would undermine unit cohesion and our ability to win."

I must disagree. A force that is receiving inadequately training and that does not receive appropriate rest and dwell-time is a greater threat to our ability to respond to threats both at home and abroad, than a statutory requirement that mandates they receive appropriate rest time.

I hope everyone who has ever served, or loved someone who did will remember this vote forevermore. A no vote here was simply unconscionable. It was beyond unconscionable. It was, in the words of my husband “repre-fucking-hensible.”