PBS Now recently interviewed Lt. Col. Stuart Couch on our treatment of detainees and the dangers of the slippery slope of torture. Couch is incredibly honest and open in the interview, and it makes for some compelling viewing.

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.

The full transcript from yesterday’s Citizens United arguments has been released by SCOTUS.  SCOTUSblog has links to both the transcript and the tape of oral argument, made available from PBS Newshour.

Depending on the outcome of the case, there could be a reversal of laws which sought to balance speech rights against a compelling interest to prevent public corruption that go all the way back to Taft-Hartley and beyond.

Nina Totenberg hit the nugget of the day squarely in her NPR reporting: "When Olson argued that Congress must have a compelling reason to limit corporate speech, Justice Stephen Breyer said the compelling argument is that "people think representatives are being bought."

Lyle Denniston has some excellent analysis as well, including:

Kennedy was less aggressive in his questioning, but openly voiced concern that government arguments for leaving intact the two precedents against corporate political spending would undercut the Court’s 1976 decision in Buckley v. Valeo, finding constitutional free speech rights in political spending by all sources, corporations included. And he said those precedents meant that corporations would be “silenced” when they had contributions to make to public policy by speaking out during campaigns.

The core problem with those prior rulings, Kennedy said, was that they “chill expression” based on the speaker. “There is no place where an ongoing chill is more dangerous than in the election context,” he commented.

As in every case the last few years that has had a close divide, satisfying Kennedy’s concerns will likely be the path to the majority.

Reading through the transcript, several things jumped out at me including the gulf between core beliefs of the Justices, and the weighing of the public’s interest in curbing corruption versus the corporate interests. It’s fascinating stuff.

See if you can guess which justices said each of the following from the SCOTUS bench: (more…)

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…)

Some people are ruled by courage and justice, and some are ruled by fear and petty personal ambition. See if you can tell which is which between Sen. Lindsey Graham and Lt. Col. Darrel Vandeveld.

First, via Spencer, Lt. Col Vandeveld:…“If someone is acquitted, then, as we do today, we should release him,” Vandeveld says.