Shame of the Nation, continued.

“‘Here…comes…that famous General Taguba — of the Taguba report!’ Rumsfeld declared, in a mocking voice.” Well, the agency and the time may have changed, but it’s increasingly clear we still have a lot to answer for, thanks to the actions of those who would claim to protect our way of life. The inimitable Sy Hersh of The New Yorker (who also played a role in 1974 in getting the CIA docs released — take that, Woodward) reports in with the tale of General Antonio Taguba, the head of the Army’s original investigation into Abu Ghraib who, like so many other truth-tellers in the administration, was eventually hung out to dry for his candor. Hersh’s frightening and sadly plausible piece not only makes clear that Rumsfeld, Dubya, et al had more knowledge of the nightmare of Abu Ghraib than they’ve publicly let on, but also suggests that those repellent images we’ve all seen from the prison may only be the tip of the iceberg of the horrors that occurred in our country’s name. “Taguba said that he saw ‘a video of a male American soldier in uniform sodomizing a female detainee.’ The video was not made public in any of the subsequent court proceedings, nor has there been any public government mention of it.“

Rule of Law 1, Dubya 0.

“The President cannot eliminate constitutional protections with the stroke of a pen by proclaiming a civilian, even a criminal civilian, an enemy combatant subject to indefinite military detention…To sanction such presidential authority to order the military to seize and indefinitely detain civilians…would have disastrous consequences for the constitution — and the country.” In what should have been a no-brainer, a federal appeals court rules 2-1 in the case of al-Marri v. Wright that Dubya can’t hold US residents indefinitely on suspicion alone. [Full opinion, and the dissent by a Bush appointee.] “The panel tailored its opinion to Marri’s circumstances; it does not directly apply to the more than 300 foreign nationals held as enemy combatants in the military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. But lawyers for some captives noted that the same flaws the court found in the administration’s classification of Marri were true for Guantanamo detainees.”

Deconstructing Harvey.

“But reading Mansfield has real value for understanding the dominant right-wing movement in this country. Because he is an academic, and a quite intelligent one, he makes intellectually honest arguments, by which I mean that he does not disguise what he thinks in politically palatable slogans, but instead really describes the actual premises on which political beliefs are based. And that is Mansfield’s value; he is a clear and honest embodiment of what the Bush movement is.” Glenn Greenwald eviscerates Harvard professor Harvey Mansfield after the latter pens an op-ed for the WSJ entitled “The Case for the Strong Executive — Under some circumstances, the Rule of Law must yield to the need for Energy.” See the problem in that title? It kinda jumps out at you.

Jack Lint, Everyman?

“Gilliam came nearest to inventing his own country with Brazil (1985), one of the key political films of the late 20th century. Brazil is one of the great political films, an extraordinary mixture of Fellini and Kafka, with a complex force of synthesized images, which belongs to Gilliam alone.” In Slate, critic Clive James assesses Brazil‘s take on torture, and what Michael Palin’s Jack Lint does and doesn’t tell us about the men usually holding the implements.

Power Mad.

“In some sense, the president is now as much a prisoner of Guantanamo as the detainees…The endgame in the war on terror isn’t holding the line against terrorists. It’s holding the line on hard-fought claims to absolutely limitless presidential authority.” Slate‘s Dahlia Lithwick discerns the method in Dubya’s madness on the civil liberties front: “expanding executive power, for its own sake.“

A Bad Year.

“Whenever the courts push back against the administration’s unsupportable constitutional ideas…the Bush response is to repeat the same chorus louder: Every detainee is the worst of the worst; every action taken is legal, necessary, and secret. No mistakes, no apologies. No nuance, no regrets. This legal and intellectual intractability can create the illusion that we are standing on the same constitutional ground we stood upon in 2001, even as that ground is sliding away under our feet.” Slate‘s Dahlia Lithwick surveys the top ten most outrageous civil liberties violations of 2006.

They Have the Bodies.

Wasting no time after signing the godawful terrorism bill into law, Dubya tells the US District Court that it has lost jurisdiction over habeas corpus petitions filed by Gitmo detainees. “What’s being blocked and what the government is opposing tooth and nail is the most simple thing of all: a hearing before a district court judge,’ said Jonathan Hafetz, who handles many detainee cases for the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law. ‘The government will do anything to prevent Guantanamo detainees from being able to present evidence in court.‘”

The United States of Torture.

“We don’t blame the Democrats for being frightened. The Republicans have made it clear that they’ll use any opportunity to brand anyone who votes against this bill as a terrorist enabler. But Americans of the future won’t remember the pragmatic arguments for caving in to the administration. They’ll know that in 2006, Congress passed a tyrannical law that will be ranked with the low points in American democracy, our generation’s version of the Alien and Sedition Acts.” Abu Ghraib becomes standard operating procedure as Dubya’s terror bill — horrifying as it is — passes the House 253-168 (roll call) and the Senate 65-34 (roll call.) Twelve Senate Dems (well, eleven Senate Dems and Lieberman) voted for the bill: Carper, Johnson, Landrieu, Lautenberg, Menendez, Nelson, Nelson, Pryor, Rockefeller, Salazar, Stabenow. Chafee was the only Republican to vote against it, Snowe abstained.

Shameful, pitiful, demoralizing, pathetic. What else is there to say? As Rebecca Blood sums it up (via Medley): “We have lost the war on torture. It’s devastating.“

Judgement of Nuremberg.

“The Nuremberg trials presupposed something about the human conscience: that moral choice doesn’t take its cues solely from narrow legalisms and technicalities. The new detainee bill takes precisely the opposite stance: Technicality now triumphs over conscience, and even over common sense. The bill introduces the possibility for a new cottage industry: the jurisprudence of pain.” Also at Slate, David J. Luban argues that Dubya’s recent torture bill spells the end of the Nuremberg era, a period when the US worked hard at “codifying genuinely international humanitarian law,” to say nothing of the Great Writ.

The Founders Writhe in Torment.

“Eliminating habeas is tantamount to letting hundreds of Guantanamo prisoners rot in jail.” After striking a somewhat nonsensical compromise with the McCain-Graham faction, Dubya gets most of his desired detention and torture bill, one which gives him the authority to interpret the Geneva Conventions by fiat and disallows detainees from either invoking the Conventions or challenging their treatment in any court. “‘It replaces the old broken’ military trial system ruled illegal by the Supreme Court with ‘a new broken commission system,’ said Marine Corps Col. Dwight Sullivan, the chief defense counsel for the Defense Department’s Office of Military Commissions. He said ‘it methodically strips rights’ guaranteed by laws and treaties and appears to be unconstitutional.” Update: The House GOP get gleeful about the torture bill.