Blair's comments to the CIA about torture

For several days various right-wingers have been claiming that Admiral Blair's memo to CIA staff justifies the Bush Administration's use of torture. I think Blair's comments are being overblown. He said this: "High value information came from interrogations in which those methods were used and provided a deeper understanding of the al Qa'ida organization that was attacking this country"

I don't read that as a claim that attacks were thwarted or that lives were saved. I read that as a claim that the "high value information" was all or mostly background. A "deeper understanding" could justly be described as "high value", but it is decidedly not what those pushing for torture claimed that torture was needed to provide.

Let's not forget, this was a memo to CIA staff, and so we can expect that he would not directly attack the people who work for him. Given that, I read the statement as the most positive spin possible to put on the facts -- and presumably he is in a position to know if somebody gave up information that thwarted an attack as a result of being tortured.

I find another of his statements revealing, too -- the one that "... I will absolutely defend those who carried out the interrogations within the orders they were given." Since we know that interrogators frequently exceeded even the wide latitude that the torture memos allowed them, this looks to me like a statement that he would not oppose prosecutions of those who didn't keep to the letter of the memos.

Torture CYA?

Hilzoy makes another valuable contribution to the discussion of the torture memos, and observes that "not a single one of the cases in which the United States has prosecuted people for waterboarding turns up in these memos".

There's also some interesting CYA going on in the footnote on page 44 of the PDF that cites Hilao v. Estate of Marcos, a civil suit. First, there's the weaselly, "The court reached no conclusion that the technique by itself constituted torture." But the footnote continues, "However, the fact that a Federal appellate court would even colloquially describe a technique that may share some [of the] characteristics of the waterboard as 'water torture' counsels continued care and careful monitoring in the use of this technique."

Clearly, this is a "don't come crying to me if you get dinged" warning.

But the case cited is interesting. A description of the case begins: "The district court instructed the jury that it could find the Estate liable if it found either that (1) Marcos directed, ordered, conspired with, or aided the military in torture, summary execution, and 'disappearance' or (2) if Marcos knew of such conduct by the military and failed to use his power to prevent it. The Estate challenges the latter basis for liability ... ". Certainly the memo constitutes at least aiding the CIA in the practice of waterboarding. And it does not take very much to conclude that it constitutes conspiring with them to evade the law. Could Bradbury have felt a bit nervous about his possible personal civil liability if any of the victims managed to gain access to the courts? Could he have been attempting to establish a pre-emptive "they didn't heed my warnings" defense?

Making lemonade

Let's hope that the granting of immunity from prosecution for war crimes to CIA operatives leads to some serious investigation of exactly what happened in those black sites and in Gitmo. Because if you can't be prosecuted, you can't refuse to cooperate with an investigation.

Bill Ayers and John McCain

The right-wing hyperventilating about Bill Ayers is clearly counterproductive -- we don't need today's NYT poll results to tell us that. Most people know instinctively that the attacks on Obama for knowing and working with Ayers are simply bullshit.

But the attacks keep on coming, in part because of the strong right-wing need to divide sheep from goats. Over and over we see the need, from the right side of the spectrum, to create pariah classes. Various Red Scares are prime examples, especially the blacklisting fad of the 1940s and 1950s. Then drugs became the new Communism, especially with the adoption of expensive and useless (for their ostensible purpose) drug testing regimes among employers. Then it wasn't your political associations that made one an outcast, it was the contents of one's urine.

Now we're back to associations again, with Sarah Palin's "palling around with terrorists" line.

But Ayers' journey really illustrates some of the best features of American society.

After a decade underground, Ayers surfaced, turned himself in, and faced the legal consequences of his acts. It certainly isn't his fault that the FBI and the Nixon Administration screwed up any chance the government had of prosecuting him under the law. Nor is that a fault in the system -- indeed, it's one of the system's strengths, as we know all the more clearly today, when we look on the actions of a government willing to ignore those laws.

And Ayers has led a law-abiding life ever since, by all accounts. He has become nationally known as an education reformer and done significant work in his community. People around the country have no problem with him personally or with the work he has done in recent decades. It is possible in America to reenter the society and to do constructive work within it (on the less hopeful side, it certainly helps things to have a family with money, and it hurts when you don't).

But a few people are unable to see the entire man and his entire life -- they prefer to focus exclusively on a few years and a few acts (which didn't cause any serious injuries or deaths -- the most the right wing can try to pin on Ayers is the accidental deaths of his own comrades when he wasn't even present). A lot of these people claim to be guided by religion, yet they have a significant problem with recognizing amends and offering forgiveness. The need to declare someone an outcast takes precedence, even when the object of their scorn has clearly done more good than harm over a lifetime.

If McCain is stupid enough to invoke Ayers at tonight's debate, the pettiness of his position will become much clearer.

Ironically, the right makes Ayers the anti-McCain. Ayers is supposed to be fully defined by a short period of his life when he broke the law. McCain is supposed to be fully defined by the short period of his life when he was a prisoner of war (had you heard he was a POW?). Neither is to be judged by the totality of his life so far -- only by a tiny segment of it.

And while Ayers has grown, McCain has shrunk. The reality never even came close to the myth, but over the course of the last few months McCain has thrown away most of what he has claimed to believe in. He has made common cause with the people who maligned him in 2000. He has abandoned a lot of long-held positions. I guess McCain has to hope that people do only remember one or two facts about a man's life -- because there's a lot he needs us to forget. Too bad that his worst time, like Ayers' best, is recent.

Update: Thomas Frank weighs in.

McCain on Palin

The man has no shame at all.

He gave an interview on NPR yesterday, and here's a bit of it:

Q. Given what you've said, senator, is there an occasion where you could imagine turning to Gov. Palin for advice in a foreign policy crisis?

McCain: I've turned to her advice many times in the past.

Jesus H. Christ! Aside from a short encounter at the National Governors Association meeting in February, he has only been in touch with her for a bit over a month! Does he really expect us to believe that he turns to her for _foreign policy_ advice at all, much less "many times"?

And, take note, he was talking about foreign policy advice, because his very next words are:

McCain: I can't imagine turning to Sen. Obama or Sen. Biden, because they've been wrong. They were wrong about Iraq, they were wrong about Russia. Sen. Biden wanted to divide Iraq into three different countries. He voted against the first Gulf War. Sen. Obama has no experience whatsoever and has been wrong in the issues that he's been involved in.

Good grief.

A Tale of Two Bridges, Indeed

Delroy Murdock takes on the Obama/Biden votes on the Bridge to Nowhere:

Obama and Biden had an excellent opportunity to do the right thing. Just seven weeks after Hurricane Katrina, Senator Tom Coburn (R., Okla.) proposed to transfer $125 million from the notorious Bridge’s budget and instead devote it to rebuilding the Interstate 10 Twin Spans Bridge between New Orleans and St. Tammany’s Parish. The storm chopped up the bridge.

“We have the largest natural catastrophe we have ever seen in our history,” Coburn said on the Senate floor on October 20, 2005. “It is time we reassess the priorities we utilize in this body as we think about our obligations at home.”

Coburn’s amendment failed 15-82. Obama and Biden were among the “nays.” They and 80 other senators preferred to protect the earmarking tradition than to assist Katrina’s tempest-tossed citizens.

Obama and Biden put pork first and people second. While the residents of New Orleans and southern Louisiana endured perhaps their greatest challenge since the Civil War, Obama and Biden both turned their backs on these embattled Americans.

Well, let's take a quick look at the debate on that amendment (well, to be fair, let's look at the entire debate on the amendment) [Congressional Record, October 20, 2005, page S11636]:

AMENDMENT NO. 2165, AS MODIFIED

Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, the purpose of my amendment does not have that much to do with Alaska as it does with priorities in our country. We put forward $600 billion of debt to our children last year ending September 30. We have a war going on. We have the largest natural catastrophe we have ever seen in our history. We have a hurricane coming on Florida. We are at war. It is time we reassess the priorities we utilize in this body as we think about our obligations at home.

The purpose of my amendment is to move $125 million out of above-the-line money--not program money, not formula money--to be used for this. I understand there is going to be another amendment. My hope is the American public will see how we are spending money and encourage us to spend it in a way that is more frugal and consistent with the heritage we have in the country, and that is making sacrifices today for the future of our country and for the next generation.

I reserve the remainder of my time.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?

The Senator from Oklahoma.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I do not have a better friend than my colleague from Oklahoma, but it does not mean we always agree with each other. I have had a policy in voting for amendments on bills that I have adhered to for a long time, and it is if a Senator has a bill or an amendment that takes authority from an elected official and places it in the hands of an unelected bureaucrat and it does not save money, then I think it is not good policy. Unfortunately, I think that is what this does.

My good friend Senator Coburn and I have talked about this. I know it is a difficult thing for a lot of people to understand. Many people are watching this. I happen to be the person with the No. 1 most conservative rating in the Senate and yet I am not about to put myself in a position where I am going to take authority away from someone who has to stand for election in a particular State and give it to someone who does not have to stand for election, period.

I do not think that is a good idea. If it were something that saved money, I would have a different position on it, but in that respect I will oppose this.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.

Mr. COBURN. How much time do I have remaining?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. One minute 11 seconds.

Mr. COBURN. Was Senator Inhofe's time taken from my time?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. It was not.

Mr. COBURN. I would say to my friend, whom I love dearly as a friend and a brother, this amendment is about changing the priorities in this country. We can reject that or we can accept it. I gave a speech this morning about the rumble that is out there in this country. We need to listen to that rumble. The rumble is the American people want us to start doing a better job of prioritizing how we spend money. I respect his position on this. I have no ill feelings that he will oppose me on this amendment.

This is an amendment that is good for the country.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?

The Senator from Alaska.

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, the Senator from Oklahoma who has just spoken, who is the author of this amendment, has indicated we need to be making sacrifices. I do not think anyone in the State of Alaska feels we should not be contributing, but we do not feel in the State of Alaska that it should be coming entirely from one State. This amendment puts the sacrifice on one State.

I urge rejection of this amendment.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?

Mr. STEVENS. How much time remains?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska has 1 minute remaining.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I would add to my colleague's comment to say this concept is a concept that every State should think about because if it can be done on a bridge, why not do it on any type of event where a Senator would like to have money for their State, but they say take it from another State because they do not need it. I made a statement earlier today that in my 37 years I have never seen this. I have never seen a request that money for a disaster be taken solely from a project in one State to help a disaster in other States.

We are a disaster-prone State. We have more disasters than any other State in the Union. Remember our 1964 earthquake. We have tsunamis. We have all types of disasters. But we have never tried to take moneys from other States to meet our costs.

I urge the Senate not to start this process.

I yield back the time.

Mr. BOND. I ask for the yeas and nays.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?

There appears to be a sufficient second.

The question is on agreeing to Coburn amendment No. 2165, as modified.

The yeas and nays have been ordered.

The clerk will call the roll.

The legislative clerk called the roll.

Mr. MCCONNELL. The following Senator was necessarily absent: the Senator from Arizona (Mr. MCCAIN).

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Corzine) and the Senator from New York (Mr. Schumer) are necessarily absent.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber desiring to vote?

The result was announced--yeas 15, nays 82, as follows:

[roll call follows]

Much as I hate to admit it, Stevens made a decent point with "Mr. President, I would add to my colleague's comment to say this concept is a concept that every State should think about because if it can be done on a bridge, why not do it on any type of event where a Senator would like to have money for their State, but they say take it from another State because they do not need it."

But that's not the most interesting thing here.

Here's something more interesting, a US Department of Transportation press release:

DOT 127-05
Contact: Brian Turmail
Monday, September 12, 2005
Tel.: (202) 366-4570

Repairs Begin Today on I-10 Twin Span Bridge in New Orleans

Work began today to repair the hurricane-damaged Twin Span Bridge that carries Interstate 10 traffic between New Orleans and Slidell, LA, U.S. Transportation Secretary Norman Y. Mineta said.

"Restoring this critical eastward link for New Orleans will speed recovery of the city and the entire Gulf region," Secretary Mineta said. "Every day we're getting road work started to reconnect the region and help people rebuild."

On Friday, a contract was awarded to Boh Brothers Construction of New Orleans to repair damage inflicted by Hurricane Katrina. In order to quickly restore two-way traffic, the eastbound span will be repaired first, providing one lane of traffic in each direction, Mineta said. The contract requires work to be completed within 45 days. The second phase of the work will result in repair of the westbound span which, along with the eastbound span, will provide two-lane traffic in each direction within 120 days.

The contract includes a $50,000 per-day incentive to complete the work ahead of schedule, as well as penalties if the repairs are not done on time, Mineta added.

Work also began Friday on a temporary replacement road for U.S. 90 in Mississippi, to be completed within 90 days. Parts of the road will be opened as work progresses, with full completion of the highway from Pass Christian to Biloxi scheduled for Dec. 9.

Wait a minute. This says that construction on the bridge was already under way weeks before the amendment was considered!

But there's more -- a press release from the Louisiana Department of Transportation:

Eastbound “twin span” on Interstate 10 to open on Friday

Contact: MARK LAMBERT, (225) 379-1221

October 13, 2005

Louisiana DOTD Secretary Johnny B. Bradberry announced that one of the Hurricane Katrina-damaged twin spans that crosses Lake Pontchartrain on I-10 between New Orleans and Slidell will open to two-way traffic on Friday afternoon, well ahead of schedule.

“Governor (Kathleen) Blanco directed that we restore traffic on this vital route as quickly as possible,” Bradberry said. “We are happy to get traffic moving again on I-10 17 days early at a substantial savings to the state.”

Storm surge from Katrina caused extensive damage to both spans of the bridge, knocking 435 concrete segments out of alignment.

All interstate traffic between Slidell and New Orleans has been routed onto the U.S. 11 bridge since Katrina struck on Aug. 29, causing long traffic delays. Reopening one span of the I-10 bridge “should give everyone a little breathing room,” Bradberry said. “Even though it’s just two-way traffic for now, we hope opening this span will help drivers move a little faster.”

To accommodate two-way traffic on the I-10 bridge, a traffic crossover has been constructed to allow I-10 westbound traffic in Slidell to move onto one lane of the repaired span. Another crossover on the New Orleans side of the bridge will allow those westbound drivers to transfer back to the regular westbound interstate lanes.

Boh Brothers, a Louisiana contractor, was awarded the contract on Sept. 9 with a low bid of $30.9 million. Contract specifications call for Boh Brothers to receive a bonus of $75,000 for each day traffic flow is established ahead of the 45-day deadline, with a 15-day cap. Even with the bonus included, the state will realize substantial savings from the estimated project cost of $53 million.

Phase II of the contract includes establishing traffic on the westbound span of the bridge by mid-January. Because the eastbound span was repaired with several undamaged concrete segments from the westbound span, Boh Brothers will use temporary bridge panels to complete the traffic lanes.

Once the westbound span is reopened, interstate traffic will be restored to its pre-Katrina configuration.

DOTD plans to take bids in spring 2006 for a replacement bridge. That structure will be an elevated, six-lane twin span bridge that should take approximately three years to build.

So one span of the bridge had been open for a week when the Senate debated the amendment.

Is it any wonder they voted it down?

Hmmmmmmmmmm. That vote, especially the lopsided result, looks a little different now.

By the way, there was a contract to replace the bridge entirely, but that wasn't let for more than another year (planned for Spring 2006, but not actually done until November).

And, as of October 5 (two weeks before the Senate vote) the state was announcing that the "entire repair project is being financed 100 percent by the Federal Highway Administration"

Good grief!

At least they got the caption on the sale page right, if not the actual inscription:

Shouldn't they at least give it back to the student after the election?

Update: fixed a few hours later. Must have found an English student.