As Couch Says:

We cannot compromise our respect for the dignity of every human being. And that goes to somebody that is alleged to have committed heinous crimes against citizens of this country. That doesn’t change the immutable characteristic that they’re still a human being, and it’s a slippery slope that in the name of national security we decide to compromise that. If we compromise that, then al-Qaeda has been able to affect much more of an impact on this country than they have by driving a couple of planes into the World Trade Center or crashing one into the Pentagon. Because they’ve torn at the very fabric of who we are as Americans.

I’ve been saying this for a long time: if we sacrifice the rule of law for a false sense of security, then we have cravenly given up our souls to pretend we are safe. Which means we hand Osama Bin Laden the victory he was seeking by our own hands.

As Philippe Sands says in his part of the full show:

The U.S. has a unique position around the world. There is no country that is more closely associated with the rule of law. That has given the United States, for good and for bad, a tremendous moral authority around the world. If the U.S. loses that moral authority, it will become that much more difficult for the United States…to protect itself.

In an era where we have yet to fully own up to what has been done in our name, and where the Obama administration is currently fighting to keep some of the evidence of this misconduct hidden from public scrutiny, there will always be questions about what was done and by whose orders.

It is an ugly truth that whatever has been done will eventually come out, and the damage from those illegal actions will be enormous. But if we try to hold it in and cover it up? That will only allow that damage to fester and speculation to run even more rampant — which means when it does come out much later, things will be far worse.

Behold the America that Dick Cheney wrought by making decisions forged in fear and not in law. No matter how many changes we make in our current policies, the ghosts of illegal decisions past haunt us still.

Much more from ProPublica.

It’s been the subject of a LOT of discussion, controversy and invective over the terror alert bit — but there is so much more on policy and internal wrangling in the book that deserves a wider, thorough airing.

And I know you all have lots of questions to ask, don’t you?

The magical mystery book tour on which Tom Ridge still finds himself took another turn yesterday evening on Rachel Maddow’s show.

At right, you can see the very end of the interview where Ridge compliments Rachel for asking her detailed and fact-based questions in a polite manner after she pins him down on Iraq excuses.

Have to say, Rachel’s consistent, persistent style and thorough preparedness is so much more effective than the servile and/or barely conversant in the facts bobbleheads we usually get, isn’t it?

But it was the back and forth on terror alerts and politics that got me.

Watching the Q&A, I was struck by Ridge’s vehemence on "at no time, at no time, at NO time did politics enter into anybody’s equation — these are tough judgment calls…."

And yet? The particular occasion he’s discussing was the weekend before the election in 2004. How could politics not be on anyone’s mind.  And how could anyone know for certain what might be an internal motivating factor for anyone else’s arguments?

Why the continued back and forth?  And why are we only hearing about this now?

Because this is what Ridge himself wrote in his book:

A vigorous, some might say dramatic, discussion ensured. Ashcroft strongly urged an increase in the threat level and was supported by Rumsfeld. There was absolutely no support for that position within our department. None. I wondered, “Is this about security or politics?” Post-election analysis demonstrated a significant increase in the president’s approval rating in the days after the raising of the threat level. … I consider the episode to be not only a dramatic moment in Washington’s recent history, but another illustration of the intersection of politics, fear, credibility and security.

Since it came out, he has variously tried to downplay, backpedal, or explain away that paragraph that has been seized on by commentators on the left and right and all over the media.  But the questions still linger, as well they should. (more…)

Patterns via -sel-. Gorgeous macro detail and color.

Today, it’s another inane installment of the continuing saga of the GOP’s longest-running program wherein the buck stops anywhere but here.

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you the overwrought and not-so-dulcet tones of Kit Bond and friends, in Accountability For Thee, But Not For Me:

U.S. Senate Republican Whip Jon Kyl (Ariz.) was joined by U.S. Senator Kit Bond (R-Mo.), Vice Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, U.S. Senator Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and other senators today to express concern about recent reports that U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder intends to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate CIA officials who interrogated al Qaeda terrorists.

“We are deeply concerned by recent news reports that you are ‘poised to appoint a special prosecutor’ to investigate CIA officials who interrogated al Qaeda terrorists. Such an investigation could have a number of serious consequences, not just for the honorable members of the intelligence community, but also for the security of all Americans,” the senators wrote in a letter to Holder.

Shorter GOP: "No matter what illegal and unethical policies we may have championed or enabled, no matter what illegal activities may have been perpetrated, no matter what agencies of the federal government we have helped to corrupt, manipulate or mangle…accountability is only for the other guys. Never, ever for us."

If they were at least manning up to the need for investigations of illegality that reach however high such misconduct may have occurred, I might have the slightest glimmer of respect for them. Because, frankly, leaving line agents holding the bag for Dick Cheney, David Addington and the neocon crew isn’t exactly appropriate, now is it?

But nope, that’s not their point.

It’s bad enough that the special prosecutor mandate doesn’t seem broad enough at this juncture to encompass policy making at all levels. Because that sends a signal that if you hold power, you aren’t held to account. Only the little guy is.

Is it any wonder that so many things in this country are a mess right now when "look the other way" is considered appropriate behavior from our leadership?

I wouldn’t condone that as an excuse from my 6 year old. And I’m sure as hell not going to accept it from a sitting Senator who takes an oath to uphold the laws of this country and its constitution.

Emptywheel, Spencer, CCR, Glenn and the ALCU have more on the CIA docs.  I’m still reading through — looks like it will be a highlighter and post-its kinda week. (more…)

What do you get when you cross political hacks, rules and regs that aren’t respected and a disregarded sense of ethics and the rule of law? A big fat continuing headache at the DOJ, that’s what…

I wondered how long we’d have to wait after the Time Bush/Cheney legacy article a coupla weeks ago before there was crossfire.

Lo, and behold. Shooter fires back using Barton Gellman as a conduit for carefully worded scattershots. (yeah, bad pun.)

Anyone else feel like the whole fricking nation is stuck in an angry Alanis Morrisette song with those two just certain their 15 minutes never, ever ends?

More fun with

Outtake from Farenheit 9/11.No idea why, but this just makes me smile:The witnesses recently called by the special prosecutor, former government officials said, include the agency’s top officer in London and Porter J. Goss, who was C.I.A. director when the tapes were destroyed in November 2005.

Destruction of evidence is not something you should just forgive and forget.

Justice may be blind, but law enforcement is not. Where questions of laws being deliberately and knowingly broken by high-level officials are raised, with no legal accountability enforced?

Imagine how that ripples out across the broad spectrum of public law enforcement institutions as the example set.

Watching President Obama’s press conference last night, I was struck by a number of things.

Here is the difference in thought process between Dick Cheney and his true-believing supporters and rabid family defenders versus anyone who dares to doubt them (in this instance, represented by President Barack Obama). Let’s call it “delusion, in a nutshell.”