Happy Hour Roundup: Pelosi To Slap Down Detainee Photo Release Ban
* Big win for liberals: In an interview set to air on Ed Schultz’s show tonight, Nancy Pelosi will make it official: She’s opposed to allowing the measure banning the release of detainee photos to remain in the final war spending bill.
“I don’t think Congress should make an exception to FOIA,” Pelosi will say, her spokesperson, Brendan Daly, confirms to me.
Meanwhile, Dem Rep Louise Slaughter confirmed today that the final bill definitely will not contain the measure, which is an amendment first proposed by Joe Lieberman and Lindsey Graham that would give the President the power to bar FOIA releases of detainee photos in the name of national security. It passed the Senate and was sought by the White House, but House liberals balked.
The stripping of the measure is a big victory for liberals and civil libertarians, and puts the House Dem leadership at odds with the White House on a highly sensitive national security and civil liberties issue. It also sets up a major confrontation with Lieberman.
********************************************
* Has the Obama Justice Department ordered FBI agents to adopt a new policy of reading Miranda rights to high value detainees held at facilities in Afghanistan? The Weekly Standard reports that this is what’s happening, and Drudge is going nuts.
But Justice spokesperson Dean Boyd emails our reporter, Amanda Erickson, that while some of this has been going on, there’s been no overall policy change. He says:
“There has been no policy change and nor blanket instruction issued for FBI agents to Mirandize detainees overseas. While there have been specific cases in which FBI agents have Mirandized suspects overseas, at both Bagram and in other situations, in order to preserve the quality of evidence obtained, there has been no overall policy change with respect to detainees.”
********************************************
* Hmmm. Not great timing. On the day we learn that the suspected D.C. shooter may have been a “birther,” Rush Limbaugh appears to have pushed the birth certificate nonsense, too.
* Fox News, which endlessly hyped the DHS “right wing extremist” report tale, concedes that the shooting should make us see that report in a “different light.”
* More from Sam Stein on the prescience of the DHS report.
* An awfully good question: Will the Senate torture probe scrutinize the torture briefings Dick Cheney personally gave to members of Congress? Senate Dems leading the probe are refusing to say.
* And CBS News casts Drudge bait, gets rewarded.
The homepage of this blog is here. RSS feed here. Twitter feed here. Email me here.
Wow. Two ridiculous Drudge fantasies bite the dust in one day!
No, it’s not a victory for liberals- it’s a victory for those who believe in the rule of law. By saying “liberals” , you perpetuate the media meme that only the left cares about rule of law.
I don’t think that’s true or terribly accurate. The President hasn’t argued in court that state secrets applies or that this is a matter of national security strictly speaking, this has always been about the claim that it would “endanger the troops”, which is not a valid FOIA exemption, which is why the courts have turned back such claims unanimously thus far.
This is not and has not been claimed to be a national security issue, it has always been about government transparency and the President’s refusal to make his campaign promises on transparency real.
For the Bush administration, of course, it was always a matter of just ignoring laws that they didn’t like.
Librarian,
“No, it’s not a victory for liberals- it’s a victory for those who believe in the rule of law. By saying “liberals” , you perpetuate the media meme that only the left cares about rule of law.”
Question: How many civilians and soldiers will need to die in order to meet your definition of “the rule of law?” I’ve got a son and a daughter-in-law in the Army–in your view are they expendable?
Think real f***ing hard before you answer, fool.
It has nothing to do with soldiers an civilians being expendable. Just because the FOIA exception is not included in the bill, doesn’t mean the photos will automatically be published. This issue is about process. If Obama thinks those photos should be withheld, he can take it to court on a case-by-case. But the president should not have unchecked powers to unilaterally withhold information from the American people on his say-so alone. This isn’t a dictatorship.
I did just read that the senate reversed itself on letting Gitmo detainees into the country to be tried here.
As for the photos – I wish there was perfect transparency, but if they aren’t released publicly, it doesn’t mean they can’t be used in an investigation/hearing/another trial – which is where they came from originally, I believe.
MarkJ,
If I understand your implication correctly, you seem to be in support of torture and unlawful detention because you believe they make your children safer. Two things:
1. I dispute the assertion that torture and unlawful detention make anyone safer. I think there is a stronger case to be made that they incite more anger and violence than they prevent. In either case, it is speculation; this is not something that can easily be proven one way or the other.
2. I won’t pretend to know anything about your children, but I suspect that many members of our military (hopefully most) would support upholding the rule of law even if it did diminish their own, and our, safety. They chose to put their lives at risk to fight for their country; it would be a travesty to invoke their names to transform their country into one they can no longer be proud of.
” Has the Obama Justice Department ordered FBI agents to adopt a new policy of reading Miranda rights to high value detainees held at facilities in Afghanistan? The Weekly Standard reports that this is what’s happening, and Drudge is going nuts.”
No, really?
I don’t want to hear much more complaining about his DOJ being “just like Bush” cause it isn’t.
Tena:
Agreed, the “Obama DOJ is just like Bush” stuff is nonsense. However, it is true that on some issues it has continued and even extended Bush policies. Any wholistic view of the DOJ or the administration is doomed from the start; it is better to examine single issues and actions one by one and respond to each on its own merit, with praise or condemnation as appropriate.
Eeewww…feel the power.
Consider – Enhanced interrogation Techniques (EIT), or “torture” for people of your view, does provide an effective tool for extracting valuable intelligence. This has been confirmed by former CIA Director George Tenet AND Obama’s intelligence Director. Nothing works all the time but effective interrogation is about options and upping the pressure. I realize the anti-torture group needs to believe EIT don’t work and continues to play the “it only makes us less safe” card, but that’s just rhetoric, or denial or pathology in the service of political opinion.
People like you will continue to argue for tying our hands behind our back in the face of a determined enemy. If we yield to such foolishness we will pay for it blood. I can respect—with determined effort on my part—your opinion. But I fervently pray people like you are not in charge of our security.
Bush and his DOJ were incompetent. Obama and his DOJ is worse. We’ve traded Tweedle-Dee-Dumb for Tweedle-Dee-CompleteFrickingIdiot.
If “MarkJ” were serious about protecting his relatives in the military he would be the first to repudiate torture.
.
Torture used on the enemy means that torture will be used on American troops if they are captured.
.
Republican torture crimes have made America and American troops less safe.
I guess “Reconsider” has had access to the classified documents Dick Cheney cites in claiming that torture saved American lives. Nice that you can be so sure of your unimpeachable opinions. Thanks for putting up with the rest of us who aren’t quite sure that Cheney, Tenet, et al are to be trusted.
That reminds me, how did that whole WMDs in Iraq thing turn out?
There is only one thing Islamic terrorists and people of the Arab culture respect and that is violent brutality and strength. This was verified by Saddam himself in several statements he made during the Iraq invasion.