That’s not what Porter Goss said about the briefings.

‘After three days of screaming headlines about the CIA destroying
videotapes in 2005 of the “harsh” interrogation of two terrorists, it
now comes to light that in 2002 key members of Congress were fully
briefed by the CIA about those interrogation techniques, including
waterboarding. One member of that Congressional delegation was the
future House Speaker, Nancy Pelosi.

The Washington Post on Sunday reported these series of briefings.
While it is not our habit to promote the competition, readers should
visit the Post’s Web site and absorb this astonishing detail for
themselves as reported by Joby Warrick and Dan Eggen in “Hill Briefed
on Waterboarding in 2002: In meetings, spy panels’ chiefs did not
protest, officials say.”

Porter Goss, the former chair of the House Intelligence Committee
who later served as CIA director from 2004 to 2006 is explicit about
what happened in these meetings: “Among those being briefed, there was
a pretty full understanding of what the CIA was doing. And the reaction
in the room was not just approval, but encouragement.”

In all, the CIA provided Congress with some 30 briefings on waterboarding before it became a public issue.

Why would the CIA want to tell the most senior members of Congress
about anything so sensitive? No doubt in part because senior officials
at the CIA, not to mention the interrogators themselves, assuredly did
not want to begin any such policy absent closing the political and
legal loop on it’

Of course, there will now be a new truth out there for the struggling mainstream press and the leftosphere to promote:  Liberal Democrats could not possibly have known!  Why the very idea is unthinkable!  Their sanctimonious posturing is more than a little bit tiresome.

‘The first is that the Obama administration’s faux pas resulted from
a lack of understanding the intricacies of the free market and
conflating venture capital with Wall Street, banks and hedge funds. If
job-creating venture capital is elusive to our current political
leaders surely we are in deep trouble. How then can we trust their
judgment on an ambitious restructuring of the national economy, which
next targets 15% of U.S. gross domestic product in health care?

A second possibility is that venture capital needs to be
constrained, lest its free-market reliance to pick winners and losers
highlights the deficiencies of central planning and socialized sectors
of the economy.

As the administration attempts to regulate decision-making in every
industry in which it gets involved, price distortions and misallocation
of resources will become glaring.

[...]

The third and most plausible answer is the administration’s distrust of
venture capitalists is simply an extension of its antipathy toward the
free market. It suspects that venture capital seeks economic returns
over political ends and will not direct enough funding to politically
favored sectors — particularly after recent disappointments with
clean-tech investments in fuel cells and ethanol. Regulating VCs is an
indirect but very real means of forcing alignment with the political
objectives of the administration.

Speak Up

In any case, U.S. recovery and progress is surely jeopardized if
venture capitalists and entrepreneurs are diverted from economic to
political calculation.

There is plenty of blame to go around for our current economic mess,
with moral ambiguity and weak leadership from big business being
increasingly acquiescent to the encroachment of the federal government.

Now is the time for entrepreneurs everywhere and those specifically
in venture capital and Silicon Valley who delivered a
disproportionately large Obama vote to speak up and demand some candor
and accountability about all this.’

Option three is the winner.  Obama is all about political objectives, and foremost is keeping a firm grip on power.  And won’t there be great opportunity for the exercise of power when federal approval is necessary for the normal conduct of all business.  Future campaign contribution harvests will be massive. 

But don’t hold your breath waiting for any Obama voters to admit they got it wrong. 

‘…Assault weapons — just like armor-piercing bullets, machine guns, and plastic firearms — are a new topic. The weapons’ menacing looks, coupled with the public’s confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons — anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun — can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons. In addition, few people can envision a practical use for these weapons….

So when gun rights supporters worry that “assault weapons” bans are (1) attempts to grease the slope to restrictions on handguns and other guns, and (2) attempts to capitalize on public confusion about what assault weapons really are, they are really only saying what the Violence Policy Center has itself already said.’

We have yet another example of liberal wisdom, in which we Americans must be deceived into supporting the policies that are best for us. 

This is leadership?  I have this vision of Obama providing “inspirational affirmations” like, “Right on, bro!” 

Kissinger closes:

Right!  Now all we need is a plan!  Can you even make this stuff up?

To understand why we need new rules governing unionization, look no
further than yesterday’s New York Times, where Steven Greenhouse told
the story of a Louisville, Ky., hospital whose nurses tried to form a
union but failed after they were reportedly threatened with losing
their benefits among other things.’

The sanctimonious Mr. Frank puts up a transparent pretense of concern for workers.  He says Card Check “would allow worker to organize.”  Actually it would allow unions to organize workers.  For the workers there is a downside to “merely signing cards.”  Names are on cards.  Union thugs would know precisely who does and who doesn’t need to be “persuaded.”  

As any student of democracy knows, without the secret ballot democracy would not exist.  Mr. Frank is oblivious to the concept, and he says anybody who brings it up is like the Soviets.

‘Before I go on, I should acknowledge that this whole thing might be a
clever bit of jiu-jitsu by the unions. After all, the mere threat of
EFCA has turned business almost Soviet in its feigned concern for the
proletariat. The Chamber of Commerce is now exhorting the public to
“stand up for workers’ rights,” running a “workforce freedom airlift,”
and, along with other trade associations, supporting groups with names
like “Coalition for a Democratic Workplace” and “Workforce Fairness
Institute.”‘

A virtual caricature of the good leftist, Mr. Frank believes workers need to be forced into union membership for their own good.  People are really quite ignorant, you know.

‘Why does labor always get it in the neck?

First, there are those Democrats who don’t care much for labor to
begin with. Then there is the wide spectrum of Democratic donors and
supporters who simply don’t understand the problems of blue-collar
life. They might dislike the religious right, but they didn’t give
money to Democratic political campaigns to increase union membership.’

Ah, but then light dawns on Marblehead.  It’s about the money, says he.  Of course it’s about the money.  Spouting off about freedom and fairness while working to eliminate of the secret ballot, Frank isn’t going through these mental gymnastics for the sake of intellectual exercise. The beauty of unions is not that they help American workers.  Their value is in the big campaign contributions to Democrats.  Time and again Mr. Frank shows us he is one of those liberal intellects who really understands.  American workers have to be fooled into voting for what is obviously in their own best interests.  Mr. Frank is doing his part.

I have always wondered how waterboarding could be considered torture when U.S. military personnel are subjected to it as part of their training.  Based on that, I’ve taken the position that it is not torture, and objections to Bush administration use of it seem to me to be nothing more than moral preening.  It turns out that threatening to kill a prisoner constitutes torture.

18 U.S.C. sec. 2340 provides the definitions of what constitutes torture (emphasis mine):

As used in this chapter–

(1) “torture” means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control;

(2) “severe mental pain or suffering” means the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from —

(A) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering;

(B) the administration or application, or threatened administration or
application, of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated
to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality;

(C) the threat of imminent death; or

(D) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death,
severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application
of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt
profoundly the senses or personality; and

(3) “United States”
means the several States of the United States, the District of
Columbia, and the commonwealths, territories, and possessions of the
United States.

I’ve wondered how threatening to kill someone who has vowed to kill himself can be considered torture.  In any case it would appear that we’re talking about legal technicalities, and clearly, not everyone subscribes to the current definition.  When George Tenet went on 60 Minutes he said that those interrogation techniques did not constitute torture, and more importantly, that they prevented other planned terrorist attacks.

At QandO, Dale Franks first comes out against torture then offers mitigating circumstances. 

…QandO has been pretty much opposed to the use of torture, and
we’ve taken some heat for it every time the subject has come up.

[...]

[...]

‘I’ve noted before that, when I was on active duty, if I’d ever been
faced with getting caught behind enemy lines in a Soviet attack in
Europe, I would like to have the option of capturing a Russian officer,
and finding out how to get back to our lines.  And, if I had to hook up
a field telephone, and make a collect call to his genitals, I’d do it
without blinking, if that’s what it took to get my guys back home alive.

I wouldn’t brag about it, or mention it to anyone in responsible
authority later, but if I got found out, I’d expect to take the
Court-Martial.  And, as long as I’d gotten my guys out, I’d have been
happy to do it.

Necessity, it’s often said, knows no law.  But the law shouldn’t
explicitly bow to necessity. I would rather have it understood that any
torture inflicted is done without sanction, and the official
authorizing the torture may be in danger of serious sanctions if he
uses it.

Probably not.  We will always have just what we have now.  One politically motivated administration second guessing the one before it and criminalizing its actions in time of war.

On the other side of the QandO debate is Michael Wade.

‘Torture, however defined, is not a pretty thing. I make no bones
about having zero regard for my enemies (i.e. those who want to destroy
my country a la 9/11). If subjecting them to extreme
psychological and/or physical discomfort, or the threat of such, will
prevent further attacks, then I confess that I am happy to reward those
monsters with the penalty they richly deserve. I accept that I may be
wrong in such thinking, but I don’t find that case has been
successfully made as of yet. Indeed, I defy you to take this test and declare that “torture” can never be acceptable.

The ultimate point is, torture is a horrible thing and should be
avoided if at all humanly possible. But, unfortunately, we live in a
world where the “humanly possible” has limits. In those cases, why is
it that torture should be off limits? Is there a rational reason? I’m
willing to be convinced, but I have my doubts.’

It’s interesting that both sides of the QandO argument end up favoring the actual practice, but Franks says it should be illegal anyway, and while Wade says he could be convinced otherwise, he believes it should be permissable.  Admittedly this is not the full spectrum of the torture discussion. 

At any rate, let me pose two situations and two questions:

1.  Someone in the CIA leaks evidence proving beyond anyone’s doubt that torture of a Guantanamo prisoner yielded information that prevented a terrorist bomb from being set off in Fenway Park during a 2004 World Series game.  Is George Bush a criminal for sanctioning torture to get that information?

2.  A huge bomb explodes in a Boston shopping mall on the day after Thanksgiving, the busiest shopping day of the year.  Thousands of shoppers are killed.  A short time later a former Guantanamo prisoner brags that he knew everything about the plan to bomb the mall while he was still in custody.  Is Barack Obama to be admired for his steadfast support of this prisoner’s rights by his refusal to subject him to enhanced interrogation?

Feel free to comment. 

Via Hot Air

‘Steve Schmidt, a California political strategist, has long held more
moderate views on social issues than do many top GOP officials.
Yesterday, he used a speech in front of the gay rights group Log Cabin
Republicans to urge the party to shift its views on same-sex marriage.
Otherwise, he said, it will continue losing voters who are younger than
35 or who live outside the South.

“For the party to be seen as anti-gay, that is injurious to its
candidates in places like California and Washington,” Schmidt said.

He added: “Republicans should reexamine the extent to which we are
defined by positions on issues that I don’t believe are among our
values and that put us at odds with what I expect will [be] over time,
if not a consensus view, then the view of a substantial majority of
voters.”‘

I am inclined to agree, although I can’t argue with the fact that there is a substantial Republican constituency among religious conservatives who may never reconcile themselves to the legal recognition of gay marriage.

‘Many Republicans oppose both civil unions and gay marriage, and several
key party leaders, including Republican National Committee Chairman
Michael S. Steele and former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, a
potential 2012 candidate, condemned the Iowa decision. Responding to
Schmidt’s comments, Trevor Francis, Steele’s spokesman, noted that
opposition to gay marriage is in the party’s platform but said, “We
have a big, broad and diverse party.”

Schmidt pointed out that Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr. (R), who leads
one of the most conservative states, has recently come out for civil
unions. California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R), who opposed the
initiative that passed in his state in November, has backed efforts to
overturn it.

“I know mine is a minority view among Republicans, and I don’t
honestly expect our party will reverse in the very near term its
opposition to same-sex marriage,” Schmidt said. “Nor do I see support
from it from a strong majority of the general public.”‘

Schmidt may be right about the slim chances for a quick shift in party stance on the issue, but support for gay marriage in the general public may be stronger than he thinks.  A Newsweek poll from last December revealed substantial support for civil unions, though somewhat less for gay marriage. 

But notice how much support has grown in a matter of only four years.  More and more Americans are concluding that the difference between marriage and civil union is little more than semantics.  So, let’s get over it people.  The fabric of American society will not be harmed because two people of the same gender get married.  

It’s been my position that the future of the Republican party lies with the libertarians.  There are practical advantages to maximizing personal liberty, and often severe disadvantages that arise when we attempt to curtail it.  One great example from history is progressive support for prohibition.

‘Prohibition exhibited many of the characteristics of most progressive reforms. That is, it was concerned with the moral fabric of society; it was supported primarily by the middle classes; and it was aimed at controlling the “interests” (liquor distillers) and their connections with venal and corrupt politicians in city, state, and national governments. Still, it was not until U.S. entry into the Great War that prohibitionists were able to secure enactment of national legislation. In 1918, Congress passed the 18th Amendment to the Constitition, prohibiting the manufacture, transportation, and sale of alcoholic beverages. States ratified the Amendment the next year.

Herbert Hoover called prohibition a “noble experiment,” but the effort to regulate people’s behavior soon ran into trouble. Enforcement of prohibition became very difficult. Soon, such terms as “bootlegger,” “bath tub gin,” and “speakeasy” became
household words. Gangs of hoodlums became more powerful as they trafficked in alcohol. By the 1930s, a majority of Americans had tired of the noble experiment, and the 18th
Amendment was repealed.’

That particular attempt to regulate behavior gave rise to organized crime in America.  Not the outcome progressives had in mind.  Just as progressives of the early 20th century misjudged the effects of prohibition, today’s conservatives misjudge the impact of legalizing gay marriage.  The nation will barely notice it.  The gay movement will breath a collective sigh of relief, and its members will be free to direct their attention to other pressing issues. 

Log Cabin Republicans are natural allies with the libertarians.  Both value personal freedom.  It is not a stretch for more gays to gravitate towards the libertarianism once they are comfortable with the idea that they need not rely on the protection of Democrats, who really don’t place a high value on personal freedom anyway. 

Democrats place a high value on political power, and when liberty threatens their grip on it, liberty becomes a target.  Think Fairness Doctrine.  Think campaign finance reform.

‘The issue bandied about on Tuesday asked whether banning the
broadcast of “Hillary: The Movie,” 30 days before last year’s
Democratic primary, violated McCain-Feingold (a lower court said yes),
and whether that application of McCain-Feingold violated the
constitution.

Much of the intrigue arrived courtesy of Malcolm Stewart, the lawyer
for the government. According to the NYT’s take, Stewart largely argued
that Congress has the sweeping power to ban political books, signs and
videos, so long as they’re paid for by corporations and disseminated
not long before an election.

Stewart argued there was no difference in principle between the
90-minute documentary and a 30-second television advertisement, a
position which Justice Kennedy seemed to find hard to stomach.

“If we think that the application of this to a 90-minute film is
unconstitutional,” Justice Kennedy said, “then the whole statute should
fall under your view because there’s no distinction between the two?”

It didn’t sit well with other justices, either. According to the
NYT’s Adam Liptak: “by the end of an exceptionally lively argument at
the Supreme Court on Tuesday, it seemed at least possible that five
justices were prepared to overturn or significantly limit parts of the
court’s 2003 decision upholding the McCain-Feingold campaign finance
law . . . .”

Part of the problem facing the law seems to lie within the current
makeup of the court. Justice Alito replaced Justice Sandra Day
O’Connor, an author of the 5-to-4 decision upholding the
McCain-Feingold law in 2003. Justice Alito appears to be more skeptical
of campaign finance regulation than Justice O’Connor was.

The Court could take a somewhat narrow approach to the case. But,
according to Liptak, Stewart’s answers on Tuesday seemed to invite the
court toward a broader ruling.

Justice Scalia admitted to feeling a little “disoriented.” “We are
dealing with a constitutional provision, are we not, the one that I
remember which said Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of
the press?” he asked.’

Freedom of speech, freedom of the press, both are subject to interpretation when Democratic political fortunes are at stake.  Democrats seem all to willing to place limits on liberty when their political advantage is threatened.

The natural counter for this is a Republican party embrace of the libertarian model.  That means unequivocal support for freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, the right to keep and bear arms, and the right for people to live as they see fit.  It includes supporting gay marriage.  Let’s wake up, people.

‘EPA Proposes Regulating Greenhouse Gas Emissions

By Juliet Eilperin

Washington Post Staff Write

Friday, April 17, 2009; 12:41 PM

The Environmental Protection Agency issued a proposal today finding greenhouse gas emissions pose a danger to the public’s health and welfare, a determination that could trigger a series of sweeping regulations affecting everything from vehicles to coal-fired power plants.

In a statement issued at noon, EPA administrator Lisa P. Jackson said, “This finding confirms that greenhouse gas pollution is a serious problem now and for future generations.”

She added, “This pollution problem has a solution — one that will create millions of green jobs and end our country’s dependence on foreign oil.”

The finding identifies six gases — carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons and sulfur hexafluorid — as contributing to global warming.’

Keep in mind that these gases add up to less than 1% of the atmosphere.  CO2 is measured at around 300 parts per million.  If you do the arithmetic you find that it amounts to .03%.  That is, three one hundredths of one percent.  And how will that .03% affect the economy and life in America?

‘In a teleconference with reporters this week David Doniger, policy director for the Natural Resources Defense Council’s climate center, said he did not think the agency would target small emitters of greenhouse gases if it began regulating emissions under the nearly 40-year old Clean Air Act.

“That is just not true,” said Doniger. “EPA is able to focus on the big stuff, the big sources of global warming pollution.”

Even before the formal announcement, experts predicted the decision would transform the federal government’s role in regulating commercial operations across the country. Roger Martella, who served as EPA’s general counsel under Bush and is now a partner at the firm Sidley Austin in Washington, issued a statement saying, “The proposed endangerment finding marks the official beginning of an era of controlling carbon in the United States.”

“This means that EPA’s mission of environmental protection will burst outside those bounds and place it on the stage as one of the most influential regulators of both energy use and the greater economy in the upcoming year,” Martella added. “The proposal, once finalized, will give EPA far more responsibility than addressing climate change. It effectively will assign EPA broad authority over the use and control of energy, in turn authorizing it to regulate virtually every sector of the economy.”‘

If you think for a moment that EPA authority over the private sector will be uninfuenced by the size of a company’s campaign contributions, you ought to think again.  This power grab through environmental regulation is positively totalitarian in scope.