January 10, 2008

Article III folds. But wait! Is that a sign of life in Article I?

by Kagro X

The story so far: CIA tortures terror suspects, videotapes it, tells 9/11 Commission tapes don't exist, tells courts tapes don't exist, tapes do exist, court orders government not to destroy tapes, government destroys tapes. And now?

Judge Won't Inquire Into CIA Tapes Case
AP NewsBreak: Judge Refuses to Investigate the Destruction of CIA Interrogation Videos
By MATT APUZZO
The Associated Press

WASHINGTON

A federal judge refused on Wednesday to delve into the destruction of CIA interrogation videos, saying there was no evidence the Bush administration violated a court order and the Justice Department deserved time to conduct its own investigation.

The decision by U.S. District Judge Henry H. Kennedy was a victory for the Bush administration, which had urged the courts not to wade into a politically charged issue already being investigated by the Justice Department, CIA and Congress.

The CIA has acknowledged last month that in 2005 it destroyed videos of officers using tough interrogation methods while questioning two al-Qaida suspects. Lawyers for other terrorism suspects quickly asked Kennedy to hold hearings, saying the executive branch had proved itself unreliable and could not be trusted to investigate its own potential wrongdoing.

Kennedy disagreed, ruling that attorneys hadn't "presented anything to cause this court to question whether the Department of Justice will follow the facts wherever they may lead and live up to the assurances it made to this court."

Oh yeah! Of course! The DOJ is a fantastic self-policer! Absolutely!

Continue reading "Article III folds. But wait! Is that a sign of life in Article I?" »

November 19, 2007

Fran Townsend Resigns

by emptywheel

News via TP. Actually, you should click through and read the AP report, which is stark in its brevity (at least as of 8:49 today). I think they had to use a soft return to get the announcement long enough to take up two lines.

Which suggests it's not clear WTF to think of this. Recall that before she was appointed, Libby (back in his halcyon pre-felon days) and Addington launched a smear campaign to get Bush to appoint someone else. They were worried that Townsend might oppose some of their more, um, creative methods, particularly extraordinary rendition. But apparently she had no such moral qualms.

But don't worry about Townsend. Given that Homeland Security is the most frequent career path for White House employees turned lobbyists, I'm sure she'll land on her feet in the burgeoning Homeland Security industry. I'm just curious who they'll get to do Dick's dirty work.

November 17, 2007

Ten Years and Counting

By Mimikatz

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has released its fourth report (summary here), which synthesizes for policymakers attending the forthcoming UN conference in Bali  the three reports that it issued earlier this year as part of its Fourth Assessment Report.  Some of its conclusions are that

climate change is "unequivocal", that humankind's emissions of greenhouse gases are more than 90% likely to be the main cause, and that impacts can be reduced at reasonable cost.

But climate change may also bring about "abrupt and irreversible impacts" such as glacial melting and extinction of species.

"Approximately 20-30% of species assessed so far are likely to be at increased risk of extinction if increases in global average temperature exceed 1.5-2.5C (relative to the 1980-1999 average)," the summary concludes.

Other potential impacts highlighted in the text include:

  • between 75m and 250m people are projected to have scarcer fresh water supplies than at present
  • yields from rain-fed agriculture could be halved
  • food security is likely to be further compromised in Africa
  • there will be widespread impacts on coral reefs

One problem with the IPPC consensus process is that it takes a great deal of time, and thus it is not clear whether the newest report takes into account the accelerated arctic melting seen this year.  But it is clear that things are happening faster than anticipated, the BBC reports:

"If you look at the overall picture of impacts, both those occurring now and those projected for the future, they appear to be both larger and appearing earlier than we thought [in our 2001 report]," Martin Parry, co-chair of the impacts working group, told BBC News.

"Some of the changes that we previously projected for around 2020 or 2030 are occurring now, such as the Arctic melt and shifts in the locations of various species."

There are indications that projected increases in droughts are also happening earlier than expected, he said, though that was less certain.

Interestingly, the IPPC finds that absent human factors, the climate would have cooled over the last 50 years (due to volcanoes and solar changes); only models that simulate human effects produce warming over this period.  Warming is greatest in the northern polar regions and then in the north temperate and tropical zones (with the exception of the ocean area influenced by the jet stream).  It is least in the southern temperate zone and southern seas.  Human influences are "very likely" to have led to sea level increases.

The IPPC consensus now exhibits greater confidence in projections about droughts, heatwaves and floods, and their adverse consequences, plus stronger evidence of adverse impacts now on vulnerable ecosystems, such as polar and high-mountain regions and coral reefs. 

In the ffuture, as temperatures rise, Africa and Asia will be particularly hard hit, in part because they already face shortages of good water and areas of extreme drought.  Overall dry areas will become drier, low-lying areas will be wetter, smaller islands will be imperiled.  Arctic areas will be transformed.  Climate and weather will become more extreme.  The widely-held impression that North America will suffer the least seems to be somewhat true, although serious effects are anticipated in cities that already experience heat waves, as are water shortages in the West, significant variability in agricultural impacts, increased intensity of Atlantic hurricanes and stress on coastal areas generally.    

Projected changes are accelerating, and will persist for a millenium even if changes are made, raising the specter of whether, and how soon, we are facing irreversible changes or a "tipping point."  Most serious seems to be accelerating Arctic ice melting, as this could cause meters of sea level increases, beyond what the models anticipate.  The Jet Stream looks safe to the end of the century, despite some slowing, which will help moderate rising temperatures in Europe.  (In case you were wondering, Dubai's spectacular islands have been designed to withstand at least a half meter rise in sea level, which was the high end anticipated by the end of this century.  Some projections are now for three times that.) 

Dealing with climate change has costs, but so does failing to deal with climate change, given the near certainty of the trajectory of change.  The report concludes that

There is high agreement and much evidence that all stabilisation levels can be achieved by deployment of a portfolio of technologies that are either currently available or expected to be commercialised in coming decades, assuming appropriate and effective incentives are in place for their development, acquisition, deployment and diffusion and addressing related barriers.

But we need "substantial investment flows" and "effective technology transfer," meaning lots of money and getting the solutions to where they are needed.  The longer we wait, the harder it is, because we need to begin to reverse that nasty increasing trendline, and the longer we wait, not only is it getting steeper, but because of the persistence of greenhouse gases, the stabilization level, and the attendant changes (such as temperature and sea level increases), will be higher.  It looks from the chart like we have about ten years if we want things to stabilize at or near 2005 levels of greenhouse gases.  If the CO2 peak comes after the 2010-2030 period, the resulting world will look very different from what we have now.

Update:

Surprise, surprise.  The US representative tried to water the report down.   More of the Bush/Cheney regime's attempts to make policy by denying reality.  By contrast, the UN chief Ban Ki-moon calls for action.

November 15, 2007

You're still still not getting your oversight.

by Kagro X

Six months have passed since I told you that a year had passed since I told you you weren't getting your oversight.

And you're not. Because Rahm Emanuel says so:

House Democrats have postponed a vote until December on contempt resolutions against White House chief of staff Josh Bolten and former White House counsel Harriet Miers, delaying for now any constitutional showdown with the White House over the president’s power to resist congressional subpoenas.

Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.) has been pushing for the contempt vote, arguing that the White House must be held accountable for ignoring subpoenas issued by his panel as part of the U.S. attorney firing scandal. Other top Democrats, including Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel (Ill.), have argued that the House should put off that fight while debates over Iraq funding and electronic eavesdropping dominate the floor. The contempt vote had been tentatively scheduled for Friday before Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.) informed his colleagues that it was being delayed.

“[Emanuel] has been saying that this week is not the time to do this, that it will step on our message on Iraq and FISA,” said a top House Democratic leadership aide.

Only guess what? The message on Iraq and FISA and these subpoenas is all the same: George W. Bush thinks there are no Congressional checks and balances against his "inherent powers."

Continue reading "You're still still not getting your oversight." »

November 14, 2007

California Shows the Way

By Mimikatz

This morning's paper reveals that California has made real progress in both reducing energy consumption and reducing greenhouse gas emissions since 1990, while at the same time enjoying overall growth in per capita GDP.  The California Green Innovation Index, a report detailing the state's efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, contains some stunning data:

-- The amount of greenhouse gases produced for every Californian has dropped since 1990. At the same time, California's per-capita gross domestic product - the value of the services and goods produced in the state - has risen. The state's economy, in other words, has been thriving despite the reduction in per-person emissions.

-- California emits less greenhouse gas per person than any other state except Rhode Island. California's economy produces fewer greenhouse gas emissions for every dollar of gross domestic product than Germany, Japan or the United Kingdom.

-- Californians pay less on their monthly electricity bills than do residents of many other states. In 2005, for example, California's average monthly electricity bill was $74, compared with $135 in Texas. Although mild weather plays a part, so do tough energy-efficiency standards adopted in the 1970s for buildings and appliances.

-- Those energy-efficiency standards saved California residents and businesses $56 billion between 1975 and 2003.

-- About 22,000 Californians were directly employed by green-tech companies in 2006. In the same year, California's green-tech businesses soaked up 36 percent of all the money venture capitalists spent on the industry within the United States.

My morning paper contains a stunning graph (not in the online version) showing that since 1990 per capita emissions have dropped almost 10 percent while per capita GDP growth has increased 20 percent, despite downturns in 1992-3 and 2001-2002.  Other surprises:  Californians drive less per person than the national average and miles driven per person has dropped since 2002. 

In other words, solid public programs and creative but stringent and science-based, innovative regulation can have a salutary effect.  It is not only possible to have solid economic growth and make progress on environmental issues, the two may just go hand in hand. 

While the report notes that much more needs to be done to make a real dent in global warming, it should help reinforce the idea that improvements in emissions and energy usage can be good economically as well as environmentally.

Meanwhile, in another part of the forest, the natives are praying for rain.  For those not aware of it, the southeast, not the west, is the region hardest hit by drought in the US.

November 09, 2007

Mukasey Confirmed

by emptywheel

From which we can take the following lessons:

  • It's unclear that our political system has the fortitude to save itself anymore.
  • If you're running for President, it's dangerous to take a stand against torture--even if, like John McCain, you've been tortured yourself.
  • It takes a real beating--like the one Alberto Gonzales gave Richard (one good reason not to blog before coffee) Mark Pryor when he AGAG appointed Tim Griffin and attempted to "gum to death" that nomination--to convince a Senator that these votes matter (Pryor voted against confirmation).

And consider this: Muksaey, who played the same word games Gonzales did in his nomination hearings and who refused to say waterboarding is illegal, had a much greater margin of comfort than Gonzales had when he was approved for the same position (the difference is mostly due to the Presidentials not voting).

Update: pronoun clarified per JGabriel.

November 07, 2007

Pakistan and the Serious People, One

by emptywheel

I'm going to do a series on Pakistan--and how the blindness of the "serious people" got us into big trouble there. I'm going to use Matt Bai's inaccurate slam on me as a foil to show how the serious people allowed themselves to get distracted from a brewing crisis that carries real consequences. I'll start, then, by showing you the slam, and explaining what Matt got wrong. MissLaura (who wrote an insightful review of this exchange) sent along this excerpt from Matt's book; I haven't read the book, so if you have, let me know if there's more to this. [Update: This exchange happened at a post-keynote bloggers chat with former VA Governor and likely future VA Senator Mark Warner.]

Marcy Wheeler, who blogged as "emptywheel" on Daily Kos, jumped in first.  Why, she wanted to know, had Warner pointed to Iran as such a big threat to national security?  Wasn't Pakistan a bigger problem? After all, they already had nukes.

Warner had been spending hours in private tutoring sessions on foreign policy, and he talked confidently about Iran's president, Mahmoud Amahdinejad, and his "whole approach toward regional hegemony."  This made him dangerous, Warner said.

"On what grounds?" Marcy demanded.  She had short hair and glasses and a serious demeanor.  She reminded me, strangely, of Marcy from Peanuts.  I wondered if she got that a lot.

Warner mentioned Ahmadinejad's explicit threat to Israel.

"I've heard Pakistan described as Iran in 1978, except it's Iran with a nuclear bomb," Marcy retorted, as if she'd just stepped off a plane from the region.  There were nods and murmured assents all around. "Maybe I'm crazy."

"I hope you're crazy," Warner said testily.  This had caught him completely off guard.  He had just given the most confrontational, partisan speech he knew how to give, and he had expected the bloggers to appreciate it.  Instead, he was getting hammered on Iran.  Why were they seizing on this one line?  What he didn't understand was that this was the one place in his speech where he had agreed with Bush on something, and thus it had to be probed.  To the bloggers, if Bush said the sky was blue, then it was green.  If he said the world was round, it had to be flat.  And if Bush thought Iran was the most serious threat out there, then no Democratic candidate could think that too. Warner was clearly buying into the right-wing spin. [my emphasis]

Now, compare Bai's description with my own description.

I asked the first question, which went something like:

I'm going to ask the Iran question, but I'm going to get at it sideways. You said that Iran is the biggest WMD threat out there. But Pakistan is a tremendously unstable country right now. And if Musharraf fell, Al Qaeda could get the bomb within 6 weeks. And al-Baradei has just said that Iran does not now have the bomb. So why is Iran the biggest threat?

He then listed several reasons why Iran was a threat: Ahmadenijad's nuttiness, a "regional strategy," support for terrorism. I pointed out that none of those things were WMDs.

Do you see what Matt left out? Warner had called Iran the biggest WMD threat--not the biggest threat, as Matt inaccurately reported it. And I'm not sure (I'm still looking for a video), but I believe I effectively agreed with Warner's assessment of why Iran was a threat--Ahmadinejad's threats, Iran's hegemonic pretensions, and Iran's support for Hezbollah. My point was not that Iran wasn't (and isn't) a threat. My point was that Warner was claiming it was a WMD threat, even while the three things he pointed to to support that argument had nothing to do with WMD.

Matt rewrote the story to transform my challenge to Warner from a serious critique of his logic into a frivolous objection to his agreement with Bush. While Matt's move is clearly shitty reporting (though it served his narrative well), I believe it captures the blindness of the serious people quite well.

Oh, and for the record, Matt? No, I never get comparisons with Marcie from Peanuts.

November 06, 2007

Mukasey Gets the Nod From Senate Judiciary

By Mimikatz

The nomination of Michael Mukasey for Attorney General has just been approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee by a vote of 11-8.  Senators Feinstein and Schumer were the only Dems voting aye.

With his confirmation now assured, we will get to see whether having Mukasey instead of an acting loyal Bushie in charge really makes any difference.  Somehow I doubt it, as long as David Addinton is the legal consigliere for the Bush/Cheney regime.

DiFi's website seems to be down, indicating perhaps some incoming criticism of her.  I had intended to suggest she redeem her recent transgressions by voting against the Unhealthy Diet Promotion Act, aka the current Farm Bill.  It subsidizes the large producers of corn for high-fructose corn syrup and corn-fed beef, while giving only a buy-off to producers of the fruits and vegetables we are all supposed to be eating to improve our health and contributing to the coninued impoverishment of third-world farmers.  One of the largest recipients of federal largesse is a cotton-growing enterprise in California's Central Valley.  At last report neither DiFi nor Barbara Boxer had declared on the bill or it's alternative, the Fresh Act.  IN an ironic twist, Bush threatens a veto because the bloated bill is fiscally irresponsible and would violate various WTO agreements.  Sure to be another triumph of party over principle and money over good policy.

November 01, 2007

Bush and Schumer

by emptywheel

David Kurtz reports that the Mukasey nomination will come down to the Senate Judiciary Committee vote (and TPM is tracking votes so far). I believe this sets up some really interesting tension between Bush and Chuck Schumer.

You see, events thus far have made it very important for Bush to get Mukasey approved. While David Addington may have thought it in Bush's best interest to push Mukasey to adopt the party line, they're now at the place where, if Mukasey is rejected, it will be because of Bush's torture policy. (Frankly, this is unfortunate from a principled perspective, since it means that the Senators don't care about the unitary executive more generally, but it works to our advantage politically.) The press has spun the rising tension to be entirely about the issue of torture, which makes it inconceivable that, if Mukasey is rejected, the narrative will be anything but torture. Which will shine a bright light on the torture policy itself, and some Soccer Moms who might otherwise be ignorant that men are being tortured in their names may just discover that their government is doing reprehensible things.

Which is why Bush is so pissy about the doubts about Mukasey's appointment.

President Bush today sought to ratchet up pressure on Senate Democrats considering his nomination of Michael B. Mukasey to be attorney general, saying that it was unfair and unwise of lawmakers to require the nominee to opine on details of a classified interrogation program.

Bush, in his most forceful remarks to date on the troubled nomination, strongly defended Mukasey for refusing to say whether he believed that coercive interrogation techniques, including waterboarding, were illegal torture. The issue has become the defining question for Senate Democrats in advance of Tuesday's Senate Judiciary Committee vote on whether to confirm the retired federal judge to succeed Alberto R. Gonzales.

[snip]

Bush today said it was wrong of Democrats to make the confirmation dependent upon "details of a classified program he has not been briefed on."

Though his temper tantrum is only going to make it worse--it's going to make a Mukasey vote an upperdown vote on torture.

Unfortunately, I'm still pessimistic it'll go the way we'd like.

That's partly because DiFi pretty consistently disappoints Democrats at times like these.

But it's also because of the underlying tension regarding Chuck Schumer's role in this whole process. Chuck Schumer, of course, suggested Mukasey's name in the first place--Mukasey was Schumer's nominee first, and Bush's only afterwards. Which will make it very difficult for him to vote against Mukasey, not least because he no doubt represented to the White House that Mukasey--unlike Ted Olson and Laurence Silberman--would be confirmed. For now, Schumer's not showing his hand.

Most conspicuously silent was Mukasey’s fellow New Yorker,  Charles E. Schumer , who initially offered unusually warm praise for the nominee and did not come out against him this week as other Democrats attacked. Asked Wednesday about the nomination, Schumer would say only, “I’m reading the letter, going over it.”

But Schumer is a natural deal-maker. He's in the position where his role as dealmaker on judicial nominations will be in question if Mukasey is rejected. I suspect he's as troubled by Mukasey's head fake on torture as the other Senators (indeed, I suspect he'd be more concerned about the unitary executive issues than some other Senators). But he's also got his own honor at stake.

Let's hope he lets the Constitution trump his honor, just this once.

Who Vetted Mukasey?

by emptywheel

Here's an interesting question from Dick Durbin to Mukasey. It addresses whom the Administration felt it needed to give buy-in before nominating Judge Mukasey:

11. According to the Washington Post, before you were confirmed you "spent part of the weekend meeting with leading figures in the conservative world, seeking to allay their concerns about [your] philosophy and suitability for running [the] Justice Department."

a. With whom did you meet?

ANSWER: Prior to the announcement of my nomination, I met with former Attorney General Edwin Meese III, Lee Casey, Leonard Leo, David Rivkin, Jay Sekulow, and Edward Whelan.

b. Who asked you to take these meetings?

ANSWER: Officials within the White House. I cannot remember the specific individuals.

So:

  • A former Attorney General implicated in Iran-Contra and additional corruption allegations.
  • Casey and Rivkin, a one-two team serving as the public intellectuals defending the unitary executive
  • Leo, the Executive VP of the Federalist Society alleged to have been involved in the Civil Rights Division politicization
  • Sekulow, the Chief Counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice, one of the brains behind the Terry Schiavo circus, and someone with his own ethical challenges
  • Ed Whelan, himself a bit of a public intellectual for the right, not to mention a former OLC lawyer when most of the crap was written and--my personal favorite--a former Senior Vice President of Verizon

Mind you, Addington the White House can ask Mukasey to meet with whomever they want--I'm not alleging this is in any way improper. Still, it's interesting to see who the select few who get to vet an Attorney General candidate are.

Recent Posts

Where We Met

Blog powered by TypePad