Glenn Greenwald and others react to Rep. Silvestre Reyes' recommendation that Obama keep Bush's top intelligence officials on at the CIA in the name of "continuity." Reyes also recommended that some parts of the CIA's interrogation policies be allowed to continue, but wouldn't specify exactly which ones.
Also, reaction from the UK on the apparent withdrawal of British troops from Iraq next year.
And, reaction to the expected announcement of Steven Chu as energy secretary. Welcome back from your eight-year hibernation, science!
Glenn Greenwald at Salon reacts to Rep. Silvestre Reyes' comments on Tuesday about torture and the need for "continuity" at the CIA:
First Amendment lawyers will tell you that anyone who says: "The First Amendment is important, but . . . " does not actually believe in free speech. Analogously, someone who says: "We don't want to be known for torturing, but . . ." is not someone who believes in ending torture. And note the consummately Cheneyite dichotomy Reyes has adopted between banning torture and staying safe.
Here's the original story highlighting Reyes' comments from CongressDaily:
The House Intelligence Committee's top Democrat said Tuesday he has recommended that President-elect Barack Obama keep the country's current national intelligence director and CIA chief in place for some time to ensure continuity in U.S. intelligence programs during the transition to a new administration. Intelligence Chairman Silvestre Reyes, D-Texas, said he also recommended to Obama's transition team that some parts of the CIA's controversial alternative interrogation program should be allowed to continue. He declined to say what he specifically recommended, however.
I'm frankly quite disgusted that a Democrat - and the chair of the House Intelligence Committee, no less - was advocating this namby-pamby position on torture. Greenwald is spot on when he points out that the statement "We don't want to be known for torturing, but..." is not a step in the right direction. That is not what we voted for. Our Democrats in Congress should take a lesson from Obama and learn how to say:
America doesn't torture. And I'm gonna make sure that we don't torture.
Period!
And please note there is no but, although, or however at the end of that statement.
In Greenwald's view, Bush's policies on interrogation, detainment and torture will not be reversed without a fight, even with Democrats in power:
But, as I've been arguing for several weeks, it is unrealistic in the extreme to think that these Bush policies are going to magically vanish without a major fight now simply because Democrats are in control. There are many factions in Washington working hard to ensure that these policies remain largely in place, and many of those factions are found at the highest levels of the Democratic Congressional leadership.
Do you think it will take a major fight? I'm optimistic that Obama will honor his promises to stop torture and close Guantanamo. I envision more of a struggle with the right than within our own party, but maybe I should rethink that after reading Reyes' comments.
::::::
Spencer Ackerman of the Washington Independent reacts as well, saying that "continuity" is a poor argument for keeping Hayden and McConnell on, given their past histories. He also reacts to Reyes' statements on torture:
How charming. The chairman of the House intelligence committee just framed the debate as between effective torture and ineffective compliance with the law. Anyone who has paid the slightest bit of attention to the actual debate on torture knows how clearly fallacious this is. And yet this is the man in charge of one of the two oversight committees for the intelligence community. Maybe it shouldn’t just be those leaders who lose their jobs.
::::::
Speaking of torture, several musicians are fighting back against the U.S. military's use of loud music to "break" detainees:
Now the musicians themselves have joined the fray, furious that their songs are being used to 'break' suspected terrorists.
Bristol-based band Massive Attack and Tom Morello, guitarist with U.S. group Rage Against The Machine have joined a campaign against the practice.
According to an FBI memo, one interrogator at Guantanamo bragged that he needed only four days to 'break' someone by alternating 16 hours of loud music with just four hours of silence. The practice has been used often in the 'war on terror', with U.S. forces systematically playing loud music to hundreds of its detainees. Lt Gen Ricardo Sanchez, the former U.S. military chief in Iraq, said the aim was 'to create fear, disorient . . . and prolong capture shock'.
I would be pretty pissed too if something I created was used as a part of the Bush administration's torture policies.
::::::
There is also much talk of Britain's decision to remove their troops from Iraq in 2009. Seumas Milne, a columnist for The Guardian (UK), has the reaction:
If British troops are indeed withdrawn from Iraq by next June, it will signal the end of the most shameful and disastrous episode in modern British history. Branded only last month by Lord Bingham, until recently Britain's most senior law lord, as a "serious violation of international law", the aggression against Iraq has not only devastated an entire country and left hundreds of thousands dead - it has also been a political and military humiliation for the invading powers.
There are currently 4,100 British troops in Iraq.
::::::
Janet Raloff at ScienceNews reacts to Obama's selection of Steven Chu for energy secretary:
In other words, he’ll come to Washington with a host of ideas — and a commitment to see that science will underpin DOE’s decision making and research priorities. Indeed, just five months ago Chu was stumping on the Hill about the need to bolster federal research investments in energy — investments that he said should be grounded on science. He’ll now get the unparalleled opportunity to try and practice what he preached.
Ah, science - welcome back! Marc Ambinder comments at The Atlantic:
I believe that he'd be the first scientist to head a major executive branch department since the 1970s.
::::::
Daniel Weiss tells the San Francisco Chronicle:
"The Chu pick is exciting because (he) will bring scientific rigor to the new administration's energy policy," said Daniel J. Weiss, senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, a liberal Washington think tank. "After the anti-science Bush administration, this is like going to a Mensa meeting after eight years of being trapped in the Flat Earth Society."
I'm happy about the Chu pick and I am enthused to have an appointment of someone in the field, rather than a career politician.
::::::
And, of course, you know there is plenty of Blagojevich in the news this morning. David Broder says the Blagojevich indictment came as no surprise to people in Illinois (and maybe even those outside Illinois who were paying attention):
The brazenness and utter sleaziness of Blagojevich stunned even veteran FBI men, Fitzgerald said, but it did not surprise people in Chicago or Springfield who had been watching the governor.
Broder also thinks the whole scandal will be only a minor headache for Obama:
The criminal complaint against Blagojevich, the nominal head of Obama's home-state party, is a mild embarrassment for the president-elect. But it really does not reflect on Obama, who has kept Blagojevich at arm's length for a long time.
The New York Times, however, paints the scandal as an "early test" for the President-elect and his team. And Politico, typically, says it "raises lots of questions" for Obama.
::::::
The Chicago Tribune editorial board joins many others - including President-elect Obama - in calling for Blagojevich to resign:
This moment, though, shouldn't be all about politicians and laws. This moment should be about the serially cheated citizens of Illinois, people who pay their taxes and expect honest governance in return. They have to choose better officials. They have to demand more. They deserve more.
Right now, though, the state faces a financial crisis, a $2 billion budget shortfall and an abundance of difficult choices of what to fund and what to cut. Illinois needs a governor who can lead through this crisis. Rod Blagojevich is, more than before, the governor who cannot govern.
Governor, resign.
So is he just going to barricade himself in his office and ignore all the calls for his resignation? It must be a very interesting time to be in Chicago right now.
::::::
So do you believe Jindal when he says he is not interesting in running for President in 2012?
“Bobby Jindal — the Indian-American Louisiana governor who is widely viewed as one of the front-runners for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination — flatly said Tuesday he’s not interested in seeking the White House,” CNN tells us. ” ‘No,’ Jindal said definitively when asked if he was interested in being president.”
I actually do believe him. I think he is pretty smart and knows better than to try to go up against Obama in 2012. I predict he'll wait it out until 2016.
::::::
The AP has the full roll call of the House votes on the auto bailout bill if you're interested. 20 Democrats voted no.
::::::
TIME Magazine looks at why the auto bill might crash and burn in the Senate:
In the famously deliberative body, where the filibuster power ensures that it takes about 60 votes to get just about anything done, the Democrats' majority of 50 means they must lure at least 10 Republicans across the aisle on most bills. This hurdle is even steeper in the current lame duck Congress, given Barack Obama's resignation and the pending exits of both Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton (though sources say in extreme circumstances Biden and Clinton might consider returning for a vote). Add to that some Democrat defections, such as Montana Senator Max Baucus, who has declared his opposition to the bailout, and Democratic aides say they'll need at least 15 Republicans on board to get a bill passed.
By the end of the day it seemed hard to envision a solution. In an eerie replay of the events that led to the initial Wall St. bailout flop, congressional Democrats got the White House's blessing on a bill only to discover (yet again) that the outgoing President doesn't carry much weight on Capitol Hill.
::::::
So what's on your mind this morning?