Uh, About the Torture Thing...

NY Times: Secret U.S. Endorsement of Severe Interrogations

WASHINGTON, Oct. 3 — When the Justice Department publicly declared torture “abhorrent” in a legal opinion in December 2004, the Bush administration appeared to have abandoned its assertion of nearly unlimited presidential authority to order brutal interrogations.

But soon after Alberto R. Gonzales’s arrival as attorney general in February 2005, the Justice Department issued another opinion, this one in secret. It was a very different document, according to officials briefed on it, an expansive endorsement of the harshest interrogation techniques ever used by the Central Intelligence Agency.

The new opinion, the officials said, for the first time provided explicit authorization to barrage terror suspects with a combination of painful physical and psychological tactics, including head-slapping, simulated drowning and frigid temperatures.

Mr. Gonzales approved the legal memorandum on “combined effects” over the objections of James B. Comey, the deputy attorney general, who was leaving his job after bruising clashes with the White House. Disagreeing with what he viewed as the opinion’s overreaching legal reasoning, Mr. Comey told colleagues at the department that they would all be “ashamed” when the world eventually learned of it.

Later that year, as Congress moved toward outlawing “cruel, inhuman and degrading” treatment, the Justice Department issued another secret opinion, one most lawmakers did not know existed, current and former officials said. The Justice Department document declared that none of the C.I.A. interrogation methods violated that standard.

The classified opinions, never previously disclosed, are a hidden legacy of President Bush’s second term and Mr. Gonzales’s tenure at the Justice Department, where he moved quickly to align it with the White House after a 2004 rebellion by staff lawyers that had thrown policies on surveillance and detention into turmoil.

Congress and the Supreme Court have intervened repeatedly in the last two years to impose limits on interrogations, and the administration has responded as a policy matter by dropping the most extreme techniques. But the 2005 Justice Department opinions remain in effect, and their legal conclusions have been confirmed by several more recent memorandums, officials said. They show how the White House has succeeded in preserving the broadest possible legal latitude for harsh tactics.

A White House spokesman, Tony Fratto, said Wednesday that he would not comment on any legal opinion related to interrogations. Mr. Fratto added, “We have gone to great lengths, including statutory efforts and the recent executive order, to make it clear that the intelligence community and our practices fall within U.S. law” and international agreements.

More than two dozen current and former officials involved in counterterrorism were interviewed over the past three months about the opinions and the deliberations on interrogation policy. Most officials would speak only on the condition of anonymity because of the secrecy of the documents and the C.I.A. detention operations they govern. More

Bush Going Down with the SCHIP

A NY Times editorial spells out the misinformation that the White House is pushing to justify President Bush's vetoing of the SCHIP bill. Over the past decade, SCHIP has reduced, by one-third, the number of uninsured children in low income households a drop from 22 percent to 15 percent, according to a report by the Commonwealth Fund (report).

Trying to justify his ideologically driven veto of a bill to expand the State Children’s Health Insurance Program, President Bush and his staff have fired a barrage of misinformation about this valuable program. Before the House votes on whether to override the veto, all members — especially those from Mr. Bush’s party who say they are concerned about millions of uninsured children — must "look behind the rhetoric.


A couple of quotable statements from the editorial:

"The White House declined overtures to join in consultations while the bill was being framed, according to Senator Charles Grassley, a Republican sponsor. Like so many other things that Mr. Bush has gotten disastrously wrong, he’d already made up his mind and had no interest in listening to others’ arguments."

"Perhaps the most eye-catching argument from the president is that the vetoed bill would have allowed S-chip to cover children in families earning $83,000 a year. That claim hangs on the extremely flimsy thread that New York — where insurance and living costs are higher than in many other parts of the country — has proposed extending the eligibility level to 400 percent of poverty, or $82,600 for a family of four. As far as most states are concerned, the bill would discourage covering such children, by allowing the enhanced S-chip match only up to 300 percent of the poverty level."

Though the program officially expired on Sept. 30, emergency funds currently allow the program to continue at least for the time being.

Clinton Cackles Raise Hackles

In the latest non-story of the 2008 campaign, Hillary Clinton's laugh is getting more press than Mike Gravel, Chris Dodd, Joe Biden, and Dennis Kucinich combined. Certainly, Fox News, the Daily Show, and the NY Times have spent time and column inches dissecting the ramifications of it.

The implication is that Clinton is a) insensitive b) out of touch c) off-balance e) the Wicked Witch of the West e) all of the above.

Whether or not Clinton receives the nomination should be determined by what voters think of her policies, not her laugh. It seems a little schoolgirlish, even coming from the media.

Stats Quo

In a New York Times/CBS News poll conducted over the weekend, 42 percent of Americans said that looking back, taking military action in Iraq was the right thing to do, while 51 percent said the United States should have stayed out of Iraq.

But two-thirds of those polled said the United States should reduce its forces in Iraq, or remove them altogether. Support for the invasion had been at an all-time low in May, when only 35 percent of Americans said the invasion of Iraq was the right thing and 61 percent said the United States should have stayed out. The latest poll made clear that a two-thirds majority of Americans continue to say the war is going badly.

However, the number of people who say the war is going “very badly” has fallen from 45 percent earlier in July to a current reading of 35 percent, and of those who say it is going well, 29 percent now describe it as “somewhat well” compared with 23 percent just last week.

Another Statistic - Number of American troops killed through today: 3636

Two More Years in Iraq?

The NY Times reports:

While Washington is mired in political debate over the future of Iraq, the American command here has prepared a detailed plan that foresees a significant American role for the next two years.

The classified plan, which represents the coordinated strategy of the top American commander and the American ambassador, calls for restoring security in local areas, including Baghdad, by the summer of 2008. “Sustainable security” is to be established on a nationwide basis by the summer of 2009, according to American officials familiar with the document.

The detailed document, known as the Joint Campaign Plan, is an elaboration of the new strategy President Bush signaled in January when he decided to send five additional American combat brigades and other units to Iraq. That signaled a shift from the previous strategy, which emphasized transferring to Iraqis the responsibility for safeguarding their security. More

Friday Quick Hits

Five U.S. soldiers were killed when a "very large" roadside bomb exploded near their combat patrol in southern Baghdad, a U.S. general said Friday.

A combination of small-arms fire and rocket-propelled grenades followed the blast Thursday, said Army Maj. Gen. Joseph F. Fil Jr., who described the attack as "showing a level of sophistication that we have not often seen so far" during the period of the so-called "surge" in U.S. forces.

Fil said four soldiers were killed initially. Seven others were wounded, he said, and one of those later died.


The New York Times has a new poll out. Here's a clue, it wouldn't be in this blog if it wasn't saying something I would not agree with.

What Women See in Hillary (or not)
from the Nation via Zogby

"I love [Hillary Clinton] so completely that, honestly, she would have to burn down the White House before I would say anything bad about her!" exclaimed Nora Ephron in a 1993 Newsday interview. Three years later, she told the Wellesley class of 1996, "Understand: Every attack on Hillary Clinton for not knowing her place is an attack on you." Come late 2006, however, Ephron was the one on the attack as one of the self-described "Hillary resisters" -- those who believe that "she will do anything to win, who believe she doesn't really take a position unless it's completely safe," as she wrote on her Huffington Post blog, "who believe she has taken the concept of triangulation and pushed it to a geometric level never achieved by anyone including her own husband, who can't stand her position on the war, who don't trust her as far as you can spit."

Hey Guantanamo Detainees, The Court's in Your Favor
The Supreme Court said today that it would review the rights of Guantanamo Bay detainees to challenge their confinements in federal court, reversing a decision in April not to take up that issue.

A Syria-ous Charge
President George W. Bush on Friday banned Syrian and Lebanese officials whom Washington accuses of undermining the Lebanese government from entering the United States, the White House said.

Free Air Better Than Fair Air?
The House voted Thursday to bar the Federal Communications Commission from reinstating the broadcast “fairness doctrine” even though there are no legislative or regulatory proposals to bring back the rule. The bill which was adopted, 309-115, puts the House on record as favoring “freedom on the public airwaves.” This is great news for Rush, Sean, Ann, and less good news for equal press. With consolidation of the airwaves, this points to the need for community radio.

Veggie Booty Might Make You a Sicko
Food poisoning isn't progressive so be aware a recall is underway for snack food Veggie Booty which may have a type of salmonella in it.

Bush "Putin" on the Ritz in Kennebunkport This Weekend For Russian Leader
Caviar from the Caspian Sea will be flown in to the land of lobster as what might be the final meeting between Presidents Bush and Vladimir Putin gets underway in Kennebunkport, Maine.

Dems Challenge Invocation of Executive Privilege
In a letter to White House counsel Fred Fielding, the heads of the Senate and House Judiciary committees demanded an explanation in 10 days of why the White House claimed executive privilege on subpoenaed documents and vowed to invoke "the full force of law."

Homeland's Chertoff: He Don't Like, He Don't Like, He Don't Like--Propane
A long way to go for a pun, but Charles Grassley and Tom Harkin saw problems with new propane regulations proposed by the Department of Homeland Security. The proposal would list propane as a chemical of interest when kept in quantities greater than 7,500 pounds, forcing a costly risk assessment.

Elizabeth Edwards, Tipton, and the New York Times

On the Campaign Trail With Elizabeth Edwards
By ADAM NAGOURNEY

Elizabeth Edwards was holding court in the sweltering basement at the Cedar County Courthouse in Tipton, Iowa, where local Democrats fanned themselves under fluorescent light.

Her husband, John Edwards, watched and winced as Mrs. Edwards quizzed her audience about what they knew about the biography of her husband, who is making his second bid for the presidency.

“How many know how many members of his family went to college before he did?” Mrs. Edwards inquired.

The correct response emerged in the form of murmured guesses from a few members of the audience: None.

Mrs. Edwards nodded approvingly, and went on to question No. 2.
“How many people know what his father did?”

Again, the correct response could be heard from a few people in the audience who recalled the stock line from Mr. Edwards’ 2004 campaign speech: Worked in a mill.

Mrs. Edwards nodded proudly, so she moved in for the final question.

“How many people know the price of his most expensive haircut?”

The room burst out in a roar of laughter. Mr. Edwards grinned, barely if gamely, at the reference at the $400 hair cut that made him the subject of some derision here.

“She’s been doing this joke all day,” Mr. Edwards said to the audience.

Mrs. Elizabeth was laughing at her husband with her audience. “I’m having fun,” she said. “How about you guys?” More