Mr. President-elect: Here is My Vision

"I envision a country that takes a stand against torture. It is not enough to put an end to the disastrous policies of the Bush administration. There must be investigations, and if criminal conduct is discovered, there must be prosecutions.

From a moral standpoint, we must uphold one of the founding values of this country: that no detainee shall be subjected to cruel and unusual punishment. We know that torture has occurred over the past 8 years. This is not a partisan issue. Both presidential candidates acknowledged that it occurred, and said they would stop it. If there are no prosecutions, I'm worried about the legal precedents that might be set, as well as the signals being sent to the rest of the world.

Taking a stand against torture is also vital to our national security. We know that those subjected to torture often fabricate the intelligence that they believe interrogators want to hear. Unfortunately, we know this all to well. In 2003, Colin Powell made the case for the Iraq war to the United Nations based on evidence that had been obtained through torture. Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi told interrogators that Iraq had an operational relationship with al Qaeda. Specifically, that the Iraqi regime had trained al Qaeda terrorists how to use chemical and biological weapons. As it turns out, al-Libi simply lied so the beatings, water-boarding, and lengthy confinement to small spaces would end. This "evidence" helped to justify one of largest foreign policy disasters in our history.

Mr. President-elect, today the Bush administration said it would not grant pardons to those involved in its torture policies. The current President believes that the memos drafted by his justice department provide him with all the legal cover that he needs. Don't you see what is going on here? Mr. Bush is attempting to use your mandate to repair his legacy. By not granting a blanket pardon he is asserting that no wrong doing took place. If you and your Democratic allies in the Congress do not act, you are implicitly taking the same position, and at the same time giving George W. Bush more political cover."

I hope that all of you will share your vision, whatever it may be, with the next President.

I'm Glad Paul Krugman is Around

The Case Against Joe Lieberman

I know I've been getting a little video happy lately. I'm still recuperating from the election. That being said, Rachel Maddow made a compelling case for why Joe Lieberman should be allowed to stay in the Democratic caucus, but be stripped of his Homeland Security/Government Oversight committee chairmanship. Her argument touches on the substance (Lieberman has refused to aggressively investigate the Bush administration) and the politics involved.

 

Lame Duck Watch

This is clearly unconstitutional. The fourth amendment of the constitution states that "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized". What does Bush not understand about the phrase probable cause? Only 69 days to go.

Just a Thought

Does anyone else find it amusing that conservatives are saying that Barack Obama won by running on conservative principles (e.g. tax cuts for 95% of Americans)? A week ago these same people were saying that President-elect Obama's proposed tax cuts were equivalent to socialism. Just a thought.

Right On Keith

What to Look for

Senator Jim Webb had an interesting interview with Rachel Maddow tonight. As many of you may know, on January 1st the United Nations mandate that legalizes the U.S. troop presence in Iraq expires. The Bush administration has been trying to negotiate a bilateral agreement with the Iraqis that enables U.S. troops to stay in Iraq. These negotiations are not going very well, and a deal seems unlikely at this point.

In the interview, Senator Webb talks about how this might play out in the months to come. He talks about asking the U.N. to extend the mandate until Barack Obama is sworn in as President. At that point the United States would negotiate a deal with the Iraqis that sets a clear timeline for withdrawal. Webb suggests that the Iraqi parliament and the U.S. senate should then vote on the agreement.

This is significant not just because we may see the beginning of a withdrawal from Iraq, but because of the possibility that this agreement will be sent to the Senate. All along Bush has denied that this agreement is a treaty for the simple reason that if he calls it a treaty the constitution states that it must be ratified by the Senate. If President Obama (man that feels good) follows Jim Webb's advice it will be a signal that he is willing to relinquish some of the extraordinary powers accrued by the executive branch over the past 8 years. Imagine that. A President acting in accordance with the constitution. Change is coming.

A New Poll Tax?

Here's a pretty good piece by Rachel Maddow.