An Amazing Few Days

So much has happened in Murika in the last few days, it's seems rather overwhemling to try to make some sense out of it.

Martin Garbus is a partner at the lawfirm of Davis and Gilbert, LLP and at his blog-space at the Huffington Post, he summed up the last few days beautifully.

You can find it here.

Today, for two separate reasons, has been an incredible day in America. First, the United States has legitimized torture and secondly, the President has admitted to an impeachable offense.

First, the media has been totally misled on the alleged Bush-McCain agreement on torture. McCain capitulated. It is not a defeat for Bush. It is a win for Cheney.

Torture is not banned or in any way impeded.

Under the compromise, anyone charged with torture can defend himself if a "reasonable" person could have concluded they were following a lawful order.

That defense "loophole" totally corrodes the ban. It is the CIA, or the torturing agency, who will decide what a "reasonable" person could have concluded. Can you imagine those agencies in the interrogation business torturing on their own in trying to decide what is reasonable or what is not? What is not "reasonable" if the interrogator (wrongfully or rightfully) believes he has a ticking-bomb situation? Will a CIA or military officer issue a narrow order if he knows his interrogator believes, in this case, torture will work?

The Bush-McCain torture compromise legitimizes torture. It is the first time that has happened in this country. Not in the two World Wars, Korea, the Cold War or Vietnam did the government ever seek or get the power this bill gives them.

The worst part of it is that most of the media missed it and got it wrong.

Secondly, the President in authorizing surveillance without seeking a court order has committed a crime. The Federal Communications Act criminalizes surveillance without a warrant. It is an impeachable offense. This was also totally missed by the media.

On the torture part, it's something I hadn't heard. Here's what CBS news had to say about it:

Additional language to the amendment obtained by CBS News chief White House correspondent John Roberts sought to provide a defense to protect U.S. officials authorized to interrogate persons believed to be a threat and thought to be legal. The amendment states: "It shall be a defense that such officer, employee, member of the Armed Forces or other agent did not know that the practices were unlawful and a person of ordinary sense and understanding would not know the practices were unlawful."

And:

Under the deal, CIA interrogators would be given the same legal rights as currently guaranteed members of the military who are accused of breaking interrogation guidelines. Those rules say the accused can defend themselves by arguing it was reasonable for them to believe they were obeying a legal order.

Here's the complete text of the protection language.

Here's the section (as far as I know - I am by no means a lawyer) of the US Code that deals with Electronic Surveillance.

They impeached the last guy because of a blue dress with a stain on it - how much more will it take to impeach this guy? In the opinion of at least one lawyer, HE BROKE THE LAW. HE COMMITTED A CRIMINAL OFFENSE.

He should be impeached.