Via TPM:

President Bush's nominee for attorney general told the Senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday that he does not know whether waterboarding is illegal. He pledged to study the matter and to reverse any Justice Department finding that endorses a practice that violates the law or the Constitution. "If, after such a review, I determine that any technique is unlawful, I will not hesitate to so advise the president and will rescind or correct any legal opinion of the Department of Justice that supports the use of the technique," Michael Mukasey wrote to the committee's 10 Democrats.

Incredible. Shameless. Outrageous. Disqualifying.

Last year, TalkLeft called attention to the serious questions surrounding the convictions of three teenagers -- dubbed the "West Memphis 3" by the media -- for the gruesome murders and mutilations of three 8-year-old boys. In a court filing yesterday, defense attorneys raised those questions.

[A]ccording to long-awaited new evidence filed by the defense in federal court on Monday, there was no DNA from the three defendants found at the scene, the mutilation was actually the work of animals and at least one person other than the defendants may have been present at the crime scene.

An HBO documentary, Paradise Lost, and a follow-up documentary highlighted the problems with the case against the defendants. Court documents and considerably more information about the case can be found at this website.

Say it isn't so! Crooks and Liars has the details. Apparently, a Clear Channel memo went out .

Shorter version: Old Springsteen tunes are fine but not the new ones. Some speculate his age is behind the decision. Also missing from Clear Channel:

There is no sign at major radio stations of new albums by John Fogerty or Annie Lennox, either. The same stations that should be playing Santana’s new singles with Chad Kroeger or Tina Turner are avoiding them, too.

Like Springsteen, these "older" artists have been relegated to something called Triple A format stations — i.e. either college radio or small artsy stations such as WFUV in the Bronx, N.Y., which are immune from the Clear Channel virus of pre-programming and where the number of plays per song is a fraction of what it is on commercial radio.

Are they going to play the new Eagles' album? Are Tom Petty or the Rolling Stones too old? The age excuse is hard for me to believe -- it sounds like speculation to me.

Howie Klein, who should know if anyone does, doesn't buy the age excuse either. In an update, he points out the story isn't totally right as some independent-minded Clear Channel stations, like Boulder's great KBCO, are playing it.

Hillary Clinton released this statement today, opposing the nomination of Michael Mukasey for Attorney General.

We need an Attorney General who has the strength to challenge this Administration when it is wrong, who is committed to reestablishing the independence of the Department of Justice and to restoring respect for the Constitution and the rule of law. I am deeply troubled by Judge Mukasey’s continued unwillingness to clearly state his views on torture and unchecked Executive power.

The Attorney General is the chief defender of the rule of law in our country. After Alberto Gonzales's troubled tenure, we cannot send a signal that the next Attorney General in any way condones torture or believes that the President is unconstrained by law. When we leave any doubt about our nation’s policy on torture, we send a terrible message to the rest of the world.

More....

Breathe a sigh of relief. The House today passed a bill banning state taxes on internet access until before 2014. Since the Senate has already approved the measure, it goes to Bush for his signature.

Taxing consumers to access the internet is a horrible idea. And it wasn't just the tax:

Under the “streamlined” plan, a “national collection center” would be established and would monitor and store your personal information and Internet shopping habits.

The Problem With Obama is the discussion of the day. I especially liked Stoller's and Bowers' discussion. Stoller quoted an earlier piece:

Obama is scared. He hasn't had to make choices for a long time . . . We haven't yet seen what a Barack Obama would fight for in a public debate, and it's something I'd like to see. . . .

Fighting. Obama is not a fighter. That is the problem. In July 2006, I wrote:

How did FDR do it and can Democrats defend FDR liberalism today? Maybe not by calling it FDR liberalism but they surely can and do when they have the courage of their convictions. The most prominent of these instances was the fight to save Social Security Faced with Media hostility, Republican demagogy and flat out lies, Democrats rallied to the FDR liberalism banner and crushed the Republican attempts to roll back the clock. FDR would have been proud of Democrats in that fight. No triangulation. Good old fashioned political populism won the day. And that is FDR's lesson for Obama. Politics is not a battle for the middle. It is a battle for defining the terms of the political debate. It is a battle to be able to say what is the middle.

Obama refuses to fight for Democratic and progressive values. He holds them of course. But he does not fight for them. He believes in finding "common ground" and, in the process, simply does not fight. He does not work to persuade the persuadable. As a politician fighting for issues, he fails (while perhaps succeeding in burnishing his own image.) If you are committed to Obama, you can be pleased with his political style. If you are committed to Democratic and progressive values, I think you can not be satisfied. More.

The Supreme Court heard oral argument today in U.S. v. Williams, a case challenging the constitutionality of the pandering provision of the PROTECT Act.

The American Constitution Society has a good explanation of the issues in the case.

At issue is the “pandering” provision in the 2003 Prosecutorial Remedies and Other Tools to End the Exploitation of Children Today Act (“PROTECT Act”). The provision makes it illegal to solicit, distribute, present or offer “actual child pornography” — a sexually explicit visual representation of a real minor — or any visual representation of a minor engaging in obscene behavior.

More....

Today, as it has for many many years, The New York Times today slams the sweet deal given to the American sugar industry:

[S]ugar supports cost American consumers — who pay double the average world price — more than $1.5 billion a year. The system also bars farmers in some of the poorest countries of the world from selling their sugar here.

The North American Free Trade Agreement is about to topple this cozy arrangement. Next year, Mexican sugar will be allowed to enter the United States free of any quotas or duties, threatening a flood of imports. Rather than taking the opportunity to untangle the sugar program in this year’s farm bill, Congress has decided to bolster the old system.

Big Sugar is not the only beneficiary of this corporate welfare. The farm bill is larded with subsidies and other rewards for agricultural producers. The eagerness of members of Congress to please their sugar daddies is not surprising. Campaign donations from the sugar industry have topped $3 million in each of the last four political cycles. American consumers and taxpayers, as well as poor farmers overseas, shouldn’t have to pay the price.

This is of course all true, but the sugar industry is not the only egregious manipulator of our political system. But I want to concentrate on a different point, of personal interest to me. It is the fact that this system does not protect industries and jobs - it protects fat wallets. The small Florida town I grew up in lost hundreds of jobs - the excuse?

I think I've stumbled on to Sully's problem with Hillary:

I think I've stumbled onto something that might explain why [Hillary] doesn't have more support from [some] Democrats, and it is actually somewhat disturbing. I work with a mid 20something [man] who is definitely on the way left of most issues, and he is not [Hillary] supporter . . . . Much of h[is] lack of support for [Hillary] seems to boil down to one major point: [H]e doesn't believe this country is ready to elect a [woman.]

This exercise is merely to demonstrate how easy it is to ignore the criticisms made against Obama OR Hillary and accuse critics of racism or sexism.

Coming from Mr. Bell Curve himself, the irony drips. He is incapable of addressing the arguments made, attacks on those who disagree with him is all he knows. I do not mind the attacks so much, I can dish it myself, but it would be nice if an answer to the actual criticisms made were also offered. But it would be foolish to expect that from Mr. Fifth Column (I got a million of em for Sully.)

I've been waiting to write about Colorado Congressman Tom Tancredo's retirement announcement until my post went up at 5280. It's there now, as is Jason Bane's about who may succeed him.

My take (and yes, it's a pretty gracious one for me, considering how off-the-wall I think he is on immigration):

It sounds like he’s tired and needs to regroup and refocus. It’s understandable. He’s been running on a shoe-string budget. He doesn’t fly on chartered jets and he doesn’t stay in luxury hotels like his competitor, Rudy Giuliani.

I may not agree with his politics but it’s hard not to credit the passion and stamina he’s shown to date. All in all, I think he’s made a wise decision for him and for Colorado.

I'm actually kind of sad we won't have him to kick around any more.

As long as we're criticizing Barack Obama today, check out the Daily Howler which takes him to task for his "new" strategy of being more aggressive in his campaign against Hillary.

First off, he's attacking her character, not just her position on issues. Bad move.

Worse, he's pretending she has not taken a stand on social security. That's false. She has taken her stand and her stand is, as it should be, There Is No Crisis.

It’s astounding to see a Major Dem pimping Social Security as a big, troubling issue. It’s astounding to see one Dem attacking another because she won’t go along with that plutocrat claim—especially when he’s been reciting the old chestnut about college kids. This claim has been the tool of plutocrats over the course of the past twenty-five years. Now, we see a Major Dem pimping this line—and criticizing Clinton’s troubling “character” because she won’t go there with him.

By the way, tell us again: Which of these two is the “liberal?”

Update: Obama and Hillary are now in an ad war over social security. Here's Hillary latest salvo, to run in Iowa and New Hampshire, detailing what she has done on behalf of seniors.

More....

Dodd says:

Mr. Mukasey's position that the President does not have to heed the law disqualifies him from being the chief attorney for the United States. We have seen for too long, and at great expense to our national security, an Administration that has systematically attacked the rule of law and turned our Justice Department into a political wing of the White House. I'm afraid that Mr. Mukasey as Attorney General would be more of the same.