Sargent concludes
Meanwhile, it still remains unclear exactly why the leadership suddenly declared at 6:30 P.M that there would be a vote — and that it would have to happen by midnight at the latest.
Sargent also confirms a guess I made earlier:
“They would have gotten 60,” the leadership source says, adding: “Some on the Democratic side honestly fundamentally don’t believe in filibustering cabinet secretaries. We are on the cusp of a new administration, and we think it will be a Democratic one. Filibustering here would have set a bad precedent.”
While I might have guessed their motives, they are not good motives. On the Carpet Bagger Report, Steve Benen points out that the Republican caucus has decided to use the filibuster to deny the Democrats any legislative success:
I had a Republican colleague tell me it is the Republican strategy to try to prevent any accomplishment of the Democratic Congress. That is set in their caucus openly and directly that they don’t intend to allow Democrats to have any legislative successes, and they intend to do it by repeated filibuster.
It sounds to me as if 60% of the problem is “centrism” among Democrats — particularly among a small minority of Senators and House members. This centrism means that Democrats can only use the backbone they have for posturing not for winning votes.
Another factor here appears to be the institution of the Senate with its traditions and expectations about how holds, filibusters, schedules, and the like work. The new super-partisan Republicans have stepped over a lot of these niceties, it seems, without the Democrats fully recognizing that the old rules don’t fully apply.
Finally, it sounds to me as if progressives didn’t really have a good answer to the argument both Schumer and Spector were making, viz., that the Department of Justice was desparate for leadership after Gonzales. Schumer’s also said that a recess appointment or retaining the interim head would be worse. We needed respectful, solid answers to these concerns — answers that had a chance of convincing or swaying waiverers. Progressive should have had answers ready to that concern a week in advance of the vote. It should have been on loudly articulated.
I agree with the argument that an attorney general that can’t recognize the illegality of torture should seek employment at a Banana Republic.
What you or I agree with though isn’t good enough. Why didn’t that argument convince Feinstein? We need to start finding what would convince her.
after all, we can’t even be sure if it’s torture.
Glenn Greenwald has recently published an article in Salon on Feinstein. A previous article of his lists these prior votes:
The Southwick vote got warm comments from Trent Lott:
For a hint as how wretched that was see Laurel’s post.
<
p>
Greenwald suggests that some of her voting may be explained by her husband’s business interests. He cites 2 sources there which do suggest that might be something to that. (Example: “Senator Feinstein’s Iraq Conflict: As a member of the Military Construction Appropriations subcommittee, Sen. Feinstein voted for appropriations worth billions to her husband’s firms”)
Maybe she does…
<
p>
So, waterboarding her to find out isn’t bad, is it? Not if it may save innocent lives.
<
p>
To the waterboard!
Feinberg and Schumer to
<
p>
drip, drip, drip. since they are in favor of water torture. Get rid of them.
It is only logical to express our anti-torture bona fides by torturing people with whom we disagree.
…adige about turnabout being fair play.
<
p>
You may believe Feinstein’s and Schumer’s rationales for supporting Muckasey (misspelling intentional), but I do not.
I firmly believe the central rationale for voting for Mukasey is to ensure that anything that happens re:torture or law enforcement can be hung around the neck of the Republican Party.
<
p>
If no AG were confirmed, Justice mistakes would be the Dems’ fault. Now it’s the Republicans’.
Be very afaid…
The Republicans certainly haven’t. If they think that by avoiding a filibuster here that Republicans won’t filibuster, they’re both insanely stupid and really just don’t understand the psychology behind most “leaders” in the Republican Party. The Republicans won’t play nice; the American people are continually suffering because Democrats keep thinking that those Grand Old Dogs can learn new tricks. Yo – Reid, Pelosi – they won’t. So don’t deal with them, just break them.
Or complicit?
like nobody’s business.
<
p>
Just as in 1993 and 1994, they know that if a Democratic President & Senate legislate guaranteed health insurance for every citizen, the Democratic party will have strengthened its brand with a new generation, and started them on a habit of voting D by default.
<
p>
And they can’t let that loss of power happen.
<
p>
If Reagan could “speak the language” of Southern racists to achieve the White House, then the GOP will feel no shame in filibustering every bit of legislation that would give a little security to ordinary people.
Thank you joelpatterson for the link to Krugman’s blog. One too easily forgets about Reagan’s many appeals to Southern racists.
I’ve heard the right wingers come forth and expound their views. They have zero problems with torture.
<
p>
What is does do for us though is to bring up the subject all over again. It smears the image of the US all over again in the eyes of the world. Abu Grahib all over again, and again.
<
p>
And as the right wingers boldly endorse things like torture they fail to mention the increasing frequency of the thug like attitudes Homeboy Security have given law enforcement in this country.
And another 82 year old gets Tazered.
Both Schumer and Feinstein realize that consequence of an apocalyptic attack on say Wall Street or Washington DC and if we (the US Government per se) can get a heads up, by any means necessary, then we could forestall or prevent an economic or political collapse.
<
p>
Any one think about the consequence of that 757 striking the nations Capitol rather than burying itself in Pennsylvania.
<
p>
As far as I’m concerned they can use whatever coercive means they want to obtain information. A US Army colonel was retired early and demoted by threatening to blow an insurgents roof off, but he saved many men from certain death. Is one insurgents life or well being worth one American? Not in my book. This is not bean bag we are playing with these people. If Al Qaeda deemed it prudent to eliminate all the ranking democrats in Congress and it could be prevented by water boarding some POS you would object on humanitarian and legal grounds? I wonder what Kennedy, Clinton, Dodd, Edwards, Reid, Scumer and Feinstin think about that?
This, my friends, is species #2.
but torture has never been proven as more effective than other means of pursuasion. What it ends up doing is sending us on wild goose chases, wasting time and money following up on ‘evidence’ given by tortured people who would say anything to make it stop. If you don’t believe that’s a problem, a lot of the so-called ‘smoking gun’ evidence from Iraq came from people who were renditioned, tortured and gave faulty, unsubstantiated evidence that ended up being very, very false, yet was used to justify a war.
However if forestalling an event that is time sensitive the US Government may not have the luxury of using bribery or appealing to basic humanity. Just as a hypothetical: Would torture have been warranted to prevent 9/11? I hate the word torture because it conjures up images of the Inquisition. The man who was primarily responsible for planning and executing 9/11 (name escapes me) gave up the information in less than two minutes after using water. None the worse for wear he is langusishing in Gitmo.
<
p>
In todays world, unlike past conflict, apoclyptic and immediate devastation may be set in motion by only a few people. Our society is fragile. If Washington or Wall Street goes, the nation would be on the ropes. Nanny state has left over half our population absolutely dependent on government (see Katrina) To a large extent this is all moot, because I firmly believe that if push came to shove that our government and/or its agents would do what they had to do and let the chips fall where they may. If given the choice between sacrificing thousands of Americans or breaking every bone in an enemies body, the enemy had better know a very good orthopedist. That’s just the way it is. We have people in this country who are very good people. They have signed death warrants and executed people. They did what they had to do.
The individual who was the largest contributor to false information that led to the iraq incursion was an Iraqi living in —dare I say it—-Germany. This Iraqi fed George Tenet a line of BS and Tenet bought it hook line and sinker, even after German Intel told hime to be carefull, traed lightly and finally that it was all BS. Tenets subordinates state that aforementioned is accurate. Tenet in his infinite wisdom, or through some incredible diabolical plot, took thios information to the White House and SecDef and certified it as accurate. Aformentioned nitwits bought into it and the rest is history.
<
p>
No torture involved—just avarice, greed, revenge and stupidity.
Bush was fishing for evidence and Tenet delivered.
<
p>
There were plenty of people skeptical over it, but Bush ignored that. Just ask Colin Powell how he feels over those issues, now?
<
p>
Unfortunately, this administration chose to take the word of an exiled, ambitious, highly-paid asshat without thinking that, perhaps, he could just have an agenda. When you have someone telling you exactly what you want to hear – and you’re fishing for a war – you don’t seriously examine the bait.
<
p>
Believe me when I say this, your added comment right now doesn’t help your cause. LOL. This little debate was over before it started. You lose.
The individual who was the largest contributor to false information that led to the iraq incursion was an Iraqi living in —dare I say it—-Germany.
<
p>
…but only if you admit that the BND (BundesNachrichtenDienst, the German analog to the CIA) had previously told the US’s CIA that the information from the “informant” was likely to be false. It was the idiot Tenet who chose to believe the information. I wonder why (/sarcasm).
<
p>
On the substance of your two comments above, let me repeat yet again
<
p>
The Germans (and the French, and the Italians) have been living with terrorism since at least the 1970s. In Germany in the 1970s it was the RAF (Rote Armee Fraktion, a/k/a the Baader Meinhof gang), in Italy it was the Red Brigades. They were handled using conventional law enforcement procedures, which did not include torture.
<
p>
In Germany in the 1980s it was the PKK, the Kurdish Peoples Party, who were fighting their war against Turkey on German soil. Again, they were handled using conventional law enforcement procedures, which did not include torture.
<
p>
Fast forward to the early 21st century. It is well known that there was a muslim terrorist cell operating out of Hamburg. The Germans were trying to use conventional law enforcement procedures with the cell, and they were probably quite capable of doing so, but the American government was unwilling to cooperate.
<
p>
So, remind me again, which country has more experience in dealing with terroism, the US or Germany? The US government has a lot of recent experience in breaking things, but that doesn’t deal with terrorism.
Let’s reduce this to the most common denominator, a concept even idiots could understand. Some scary brown people from Saudi Arabia just got off the airplane! The must have a bomb! The CIA has them on the terrorist list and just learned, not 30 seconds ago, that they’ve planted a super-big-explosive-bomb somewhere in New York, but we just don’t know where. The only thing we know is the bomb goes off in 1 hour. Luckily, we scooped up those terrorists and brought Jack Bauer in, giving him a wink and nod, letting him know he’ll be alone in the interview room. Bauer strip searches them, bashes their faces in, pulls out their finger nails and then they finally give in, with 5 minutes left to take apart the bomb before it explodes. They tell him it’s at the Empire State Building. 10,000 cops and trained CIA agents go to untangle the dirty bomb.
<
p>
Except, it was in San Francisco all the time. There goes the Golden Gate Bridge. The sad part is that if those 10,000 agents and cops were scanning all the luggage coming in a week ago, they probably would have noticed the real scary people bringing the weapons in. But we don’t scan all the luggage coming in, we’re too waterboarding the same people that’ve been in Guatanimo for a very long time (or worse).
<
p>
My point is if there’s ever a last-second scenario where we desperately need evidence that a terrorist has, it’s waaaay too friggin late. We’re screwed already. We couldn’t count on the evidence if we got it. Sadly, that’s part of living in a free society; there are risks crossing the street. The point is that you want to set policies that aren’t going to create miniacal people willing to cross the Atlantic to plant dirty bombs, because if you have those policies, there’s no stopping it.
<
p>
Furthermore, ask yourself this question: is that how we’re torturing people now? You set up a crazy scenario that doesn’t exist. I gave you a real one – we used evidence from renditioned and tortured prisoners to invade a country. There was no desperate timing there, our President just wanted an excuse and we pulled someone’s fingernails apart long enough to get them – even if they were false and innacurate and we knew it all along. You’ve watched too many episodes of 24, I’m living in the real world where that just doesn’t happen. You advocate for something that’s COUNTERPRODUCTIVE, useless and sending our reputation as a country down the shitter. I think there’s a better way. Maybe, if we were getting something out all these costs in return, it could be worth it. But all we have is awful 24 reruns and a country falling apart at the seams, with people like you saying “heckuva job, Bushie.”
False information.
<
p>
We tortured Sheik al-Libi. He gave us intelligence on Saddam’s WMDs that was inserted into Powell’s UN speech. It turns out he lied and the CIA has since disavowed al-Libi’s confession.
<
p>
So it looks like we coerced FALSE information via torture and the Bush administration peddled those lies to the world to start the Iraq War.
<
p>
<
p>
LOL! This isn’t a movie.
The willingness to use torture, especially torture upon the logic used to justify, is a pathology. There is no rationale for torture that is not a contortion and a flinging of crap, leaping forth from sinister minds and twisted souls bent not on information but infliction. Sad, sick, tiny people so scared and un-imaginative, they inflict their revenge fantasies on the world, all the while exposing their motives like so much vomit after excess.
<
p>
In short: torture is sick. Those who are going to great lengths to justify torture, including the use of tortured logic justifying the use of the constitution to wipe their dirty asses, are likewise sick. It’s just that simple.