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…)

The President himself has said he doesn’t want to look backwards, but now he’s allowing his Attorney General to do just that.

Leaving aside the disturbing Pre-Crime connotations straight out of Phillip K. Dick’s Minority Report, Steele’s utter ignorance of how DOJ is supposed to properly function is stunning. Or it’s deliberately feigned obtuseness, I can’t decide.

Fortunately, the DOJ has internal guidelines and rules which, when followed, outline exactly how and why political interference with the adinistration of justice is frowned upon in legal circles.

For the why of this, we can refer back to an earlier era when the rule of law wasn’t cast out detritus on the GOP’s floor.

. . .there is a decided emphasis on DOJ leadership and prosecutors being the ones who determine whether an investigation or prosecution is warranted — and no one else.

The memo references Berger v. US, wherein SCOTUS laid out the primary obligation of government attorneys:

…they are representatives "not of an ordinary party to a controversy, but of a sovereignty whose obligation to govern impartially is as compelling as its obligation to govern at all; and whose interest, therefore, in criminal prosecution is not that it shall win a case, but that justice shall be done.

Guidelines are then laid out [PDF] for communications with the President on particular prosecutions where the national policy interests are implicated. Such communications shall be initiated by the DOJ only where appropriate, and only to the extent that prosecutorial discretion considerations allow.

There are expressly written guidelines on communications with members of the WH staff, monitoring by supervisors, and details which types of communications are or are not appropriate.

Had Steele bothered to have anyone on his staff check, they’d have found that these guidelines [PDF] have been in effect since last spring. And that this has been internal DOJ policy since the 1940s, with the exception of…wait for it…the Bush years.

News flash to Steele — you don’t investigate until after a bad act has been alleged, but don’t let a little thing like probable cause stand in your way. I suggest reading beyond Dick Cheney’s talking points.

You could learn a few things just picking up the Federalist Papers — try Fed. 51 for starters.

Justice is the end of government. It is the end of civil society. It ever has been and ever will be pursued until it be obtained, or until liberty be lost in the pursuit.

There is a very good reason the Founders were suspicious of concentrating power in any one branch. Because back then they knew balance and the rule of law was necessary to prevent corruption and overreach.

Why is it that we have to keep learning those lessons over and over again…

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…)

Listen my children and you shall hear, of the continued obstruction and gooberish fear… The Grand Obstruction Party and weak-kneed Democratic leadership. Still at it: Still unconfirmed are three circuit court nominees and four nominees for assistant attorney general positions, including Dawn Johnsen for the Office of Legal Counsel.

The Senate finally got to some debate on the Sotomayor SCOTUS nomination late yesterday, after an interminable wrangle on the agriculture bill. The Senate is expected to gavel back into session at 9:30 am ET this morning.

After morning business concludes, the SCOTUS debate should resume with a vote likely sometime late today or early tomorrow.

C-Span has been keeping a handy, alphabetized tally of Senator’s public statements on voting

The full Senate will take up debate on the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor to the SCOTUS, with a vote likely sooner rather than later since a filibuster or other lengthy opposition strategy is not expected.

It’s almost as though the GOP wants to rush the vote off the floor. Too bad Sen.

This line from Gilbert & Sullivan’s H.M.S. Pinafore sums up the Beltway whole mess, doesn’t it?I grew so rich that I was sent by a pocket borough into Parliament. I always voted at my Party’s call and I never thought of thinking for myself at all.I had forgotten how much I love a Gilbert and Sullivan farce until I was reminded of them over the weekend by, of all people,

Scott Roeder, who shot Dr. George Tiller, links himself to Operation Rescue in a jailhouse interview. Color me shocked:In a phone interview Friday, Roeder said he was upset at the president of Operation Rescue, Troy Newman, who had condemned the killing and said his organization had nothing to do with Roeder.