For a guy who has gotten everything wrong on Iraq, supporting the Neocon agenda from beginning to end, and who clapped as loud as possible for President Bush's action on most every contentious issue, you have to admire Fred Hiatt's sheer gall. He has the gall to call someone not named Bush or Cheney or Hiatt irresponsible on Iraq:

The decision of Democrats led by Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (Nev.) to deny rather than nourish a bipartisan agreement is, of course, irresponsible.

See, Hiatt's newest friends, the so called GOP Moderates like Warner and Lugar, don't have a chance to make phony deals, as Warner did in the May Iraq Supplemental for "benchmarks." We now know "benchmarks" never meant a darn (well, we knew it then but Fred Hiatt pretended it meant something.)

The good news is Fred Hiatt and his ilk are irrelevant now in terms of framing public opinion. The Beltway Gasbags are ignored by all except themselves. The question now is can Democrats muster the resolve to stop Fred Hiatt's favorite policy disaster, Bush's Iraq Debacle. Harry Reid has gotten it. And I think most Dems are getting it. And Fred Hiatt continues his long track record of ignominy. The man has been a disgrace for some time. Thank God he is now an irrelevant disgrace.

Oh, who to believe? Reuters leads with "Bush puts CIA prisons under Geneva Conventions" while Human Rights Watch calls Bush's latest executive order confirming the power of the CIA to interrogate detainees using harsh methods a violation of international law.

Of course, the procedures Bush is authorizing are classified. It's his opinion they don't constitute torture. Hardly a guarantee you can take to the bank. The New York Times reports:

A new executive order signed by President Bush does not authorize the full set of harsh interrogation methods used by the C.I.A. since the program began in 2002. But government officials said the rules would still allow some techniques more severe than those used in interrogations by military personnel in places like the detention center in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba.

....In a conference call with reporters on Friday, a senior administration official indicated that another technique now forbidden would be exposure to temperature extremes, and the executive order itself states that detainees must be protected “from extremes of heat and cold.” It is unclear whether sleep deprivation, another technique used in past C.I.A. interrogations, is authorized.

And why not let the Red Cross visit the detainees?

More...

In August, 2006, six Marines had been charged charged with assault and murder in connection with the April 26 killing of 52-year-old Hashim Ibrahim Awad.

Trent Thomas initially agreed to plead guilty and accept a 12 year sentence. Then he backed out and decided to proceed with his courts-martial.

He went to trial this week and on Wednesday, was convicted of kidnapping and conspiracy to commit murder (carrying the possibility of a life sentence) but acquitted of aggravated murder which mandated a life sentence.

His military jury deliberated less than an hour and despite the recommendation of the prosecution that he be sentenced to 15 years, has decided no additional jail time was appropriate.( Thomas has spent the last 14 months in the brig while awaiting trial.)

His punishment: a bad-conduct discharge and a reduction in rank to private.

More...

Via Sargent:

I have long been a staunch advocate of Congressional oversight, first at the CIA and now at the Defense Department. I have said on several occasions in recent months that I believe that congressional debate on Iraq has been constructive and appropriate. I had not seen Senator Clinton’s reply to Ambassador Edelman’s letter until today. I am looking into the issues she raised and will respond to them early next week.”

Not exactly a full throated defense of Cheney-ratchik Edelman.

Like most recent converts, I now have a certain zeal. My zeal is now for the use of inherent contempt power by the Congress in the face of the Bush view that a President's assertion of executive privilege in response to a congressional subpoena is beyond the purview of the courts. Before, I was very reticent about inherent contempt, for precisely the same reason I have reacted negatively to this unbound assertion by the Bush Administration that it is the President who decides whether a claim of executive privilege is valid -- it undermines our system of checks and balances. The Founders were primarily concerned with making sure the each branch was checked by the others. Inherent contempt is, in a way, the flip side assertion of unbound power in the Executive. But it becomes necessary here because the Bush Administration has chosen to argue against checks and balances. As Steven Benen writes:

Let’s cut to the chase: the president and his team are arguing that once the White House claims executive privilege, there is no recourse. The president is accountable to literally no one — not the Congress, whose subpoenas can be ignored, or the federal judiciary, which can’t hear a case that cannot be filed. We’re talking about what is, in effect, a rogue presidency.

In the face of this assertion, I believe the Congress has no choice now but to commence inherent contempt proceedings against those witnesses who refuse to testify based on the Bush claim of executive privilege. The claims, according to Bush, can not be tested in court. More.

Our friends at People For the American Way send us this:

Senator Edward Kennedy and a bipartisan group of fourteen of his colleagues have introduced the Fair Pay Restoration Act to vastly reduce the damage done by the Supreme Court's recent ruling in Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire. The sharply divided, 5-4 ruling left many workers who face persistent pay discrimination based on sex, race, religion or nationality with no legal recourse.

“Congress has a rare opportunity to correct a terrible decision by the Supreme Court,” said Ralph G. Neas, President of People For the American Way. “The Roberts Court made it more difficult for Americans to recover wages unfairly denied them and much easier for employers to engage in pay discrimination with impunity. Congress must act now to undo the Court’s unjust assault on the individual rights of American workers and the laws passed by Congress to protect them.” . . .“We must do everything possible to prevent what happened to Lilly Ledbetter from happening again,” said Neas. “Congress has the authority and the obligation to ensure that justice is not denied to those Americans who face discrimination in the workplace.”

Hear, hear! Watch Lily Ledbetter discuss fair pay:

Atrios notes that we have 18 months to go in the national nightmare that has been the Bush Presidency. (And yes it does bring to mind the famous Onion headline.) He then reviews what he was writing about 18 months ago - silly Deborah Howell's awful performance on the Abramoff coverage, Joe Klein, of course, and one of many Iran scares we have been subjected to.

On the flip, I'll remember what I was writing about.

JetBlue has sure engaged in the strangest string of decisions one can imagine.

It all started when JetBlue provided free airline ticket vouchers to the YearlyKos convention. JetBlue was attacked by Bill O'Reilly. Jetblue responded to O'Reilly that it had only given free airline ticket vouchers for YearlyKos. O'Reilly trumpeted as a huge cave-in by JetBlue/Victory for Billo, even though nothing had changed.

Update [2007-7-20 18:4:45 by Big Tent Democrat]: Boy this Barger fellow is stupider than I thought:

. . . I personally have never condoned and abhor anything hateful towards anyone and am fully confident that JetBlue's crewmembers share this view. . . .

You believe Mr. Barger, that the Pope is NOT a primate? Are you as dumb billo?

More.

Via Sargent, the most interesting parts of Hillary's letter to Gates:

Rather than offer to brief the congressional oversight committees on this critical issue, Under Secretary Edelman – writing on your behalf – instead claims that congressional oversight emboldens our enemies. . . .

. . . I request that you describe whether Under Secretary Edelman's letter accurately characterizes your views as Secretary of Defense.

I would appreciate the courtesy of a prompt response directly from you. Thank you for your consideration.

Full letter below.

Bump and Update: This just in by e-mail from Melanie Sloan, attorney for Joe and Valerie Wilson:

Today, on behalf of Joe and Valerie Wilson, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington filed an appeal from yesterday’s district court’s decision dismissing their lawsuit. Having had the opportunity to review Judge Bates’ decision, the Wilsons and their legal team have concluded that there are ample grounds for appeal and have taken the steps necessary to seek review by a higher court. The Wilsons believe that this case presents important issues regarding the abuse of government power for political ends and will continue to aggressively pursue all legal remedies. Hopefully, this case will deter future government officials from endangering our national security to further a partisan agenda.

******

Original Post, 7/19/07
Plame Civil Lawsuit Dismissed

The Judge presiding over the civil lawsuit Valerie Plame Wilson and Joseph Wilson filed against Dick Cheney, Karl Rove, Scooter Libby and Richard Armitage has dismissed the lawsuit.

Via KagroX, WaPo reports:

Bush administration officials unveiled a bold new assertion of executive authority yesterday in the dispute over the firing of nine U.S. attorneys, saying that the Justice Department will never be allowed to pursue contempt charges initiated by Congress against White House officials once the president has invoked executive privilege.

The essence of the Bush position is that the federal statute that calls for US Attorneys to enforce congressional subpoenas through contempt proceedings is an unconstitutional violation of the separation of powers. Rather than testing this proposition in court, it appears that Bush will rely on his bald assertion. In such circumstances, the Congress appears to have two options - file a lawsuit through a special counsel (not a special counsel appointed by Justice) to enforce the subpoena or proceed with inherent contempt, a proceeding solely judged by the House or Senate, as opposed to the more traditional contempt proceedings through judicial process.

With Fred Fielding as White House counsel, this postion from the Bush Administration is less surprising, though still shocking, than one imagines, as he asserted the same position in 1982 in the Gorsuch matter, though he filed suit that time:

On December 2, the Administration withheld 64 documents from the subcommittee. . . . By a vote of 9 to 2, a subcommittee of the House Public Works Committeedecided to cite Gorsuch for contempt. The full committee did likewise, after it rejected a Justice Department proposal to give briefings on the contents of the documents. The House of Representatives voted 259 to 105 to support the contempt citation. . . Pursuant to the statutory procedures for contempt citations, the Speaker certified the facts and referred them to the U.S. Attorney for presentation to a grand jury. The Justice Department, anticipating the House vote, moved quickly: “Immediately after the House vote and prior to the delivery of the contempt citation,” the department chose not to prosecute the case. Instead, it asked a district court to declare the House action an unconstitutional intrusion into the President’s authority to withhold information from Congress.

More. And see Marty Lederman, who links to Reagan era Ted Olson opinion that is the basis for the claim today.

Whatever is going on in the world today, here's a place for you to discuss it. It's a court day for me, I'll be back here tonight.