Great Britain has decided to pay millions to 16 detainees at Guantanamo (one of whom, Shaker Aamer, is still there) to settle lawsuits alleging British intelligence officers were complicit in their torture, rather than battle them in court.

"The alternative to any payments made would have been protracted and extremely expensive litigation in an uncertain legal environment in which the government could not be certain that it would be able to defend Departments and the Security and Intelligence Agencies without compromising national security.

"This cost was estimated at approximately £30-50m over 3-5 years and in our view there could have been no inquiry until that litigation had been resolved."

The amount is secret but reported by several sources to be in the millions. Here's a list of the detainees, which includes Binyam Mohammed, Moazzam Begg and Omar Deghayes. [More...]

The House Ethics Committee has found that "[Charlie Rangel] used official Congressional resources to raise funds for an educational center in his name; he failed to report taxable income on a rental villa in the Dominican Republic; he filed inaccurate financial disclosure forms; and he used a rent-controlled apartment in Harlem as a campaign office." Cue the whiny Dems asking for Rangel to resign despite these facts, which do not in any way indicate corruption. having been known for more than a year and that Rangel won re-election with over 80% of the vote. But who cares what the voters think?

I'm with Charlie. Speaking for me only.

Open Thread.

Matt Yglesias writes:

I assume the entire progressive blogosphere will agree with me that trying to pursue a more “bipartisan tone” in Washington is a substantively foolish idea for the White House to pursue. But the fact of the matter is that I think the smart thing for any President to say is that he wants to pursue a bipartisan tone, so it’s hard to know what to make of that remark.

(Emphasis supplied.) Is that really true? I think FDR, Reagan and Bill Clinton during the government shutdown (and the 1993 tax fight) would say it is not true. Does anyone outside of the Beltway care about "wanting to pursue a bipartisan tone?" The evidence seems to the contrary to me. High Broderism is important to the Beltway, but results are what matter to the voters. As Yglesias writes in the same post:

Ezra Klein:

It's worth saying, again and again, that the Bush tax cuts cannot pass without Democratic support. They expire before the House changes hands. And even if they didn't, Democrats still control the Senate and the White House. They have a much stronger negotiating position than the Republicans: They can decide what passes, and Republicans have never been willing to end the tax cuts for most Americans simply to preserve the tax cuts for the rich. But though they're the party in charge, Democrats aren't acting like it.

Here's what Ezra Klein won't say - President Obama does not need to bargain with anyone if he wants the Bush tax cuts to expire. He can simply veto any bill that extends them (and he does not need to announce this either.. He can just do it.) From that position, the President can negotiate new tax cuts for the middle class. It really is that simple.

Speaking for me only

I wonder how prevalent this view, expressed by Matt Yglesias, is:

With President Barack Obama seeking to move an ambitious legislative agenda through the molasses-like United States Senate,* it was fairly easy for Mitch McConnell and his colleagues to obstruct a given person’s nomination simply by threatening to drag things out. After all, Harry Reid and the White House had better things to do with their pressure floor time than quibble about district court nominees.

(Emphasis supplied.) Lawyers almost certainly overestimate the importance of the judiciary in our political system, but it seems to me non-lawyers underestimate its importance. Justice AND policy are often decided at the district court level, and of course, a lot of individual justice is served, or not, at that level. It's a lot more important than folks like Yglesias think.

Speaking for me only

I've missed the news today and will catch up soon. But for now, it's the season finale of Weeds which promises to have an astounding final five minutes. And yes, it will be back for Season 7.

No spoilers, please, until after it's aired on all coasts.

This is an open thread, all topics welcome.

In a purely Ivory Tower sense, I thought this was an interesting exchange between Yglesias and Atrios. Yglesias initially posited:

Traditionally raising the Medicare eligibility age more than a teensy bit would be unthinkable, since absent Medicare an elderly person would be totally uninsurable. But under ACA that’s not the case. Of course subsidies will be needed for most retirees, but a workable highly progressive system would be in place to ensure that nobody has to go without access to health coverage.

The "workable highly progressive system" Yglesias is talking about are the vaunted exchanges. Representing those of us who disagree with the idea that the exchanges are a "workable highly progressive system" was Atrios:

Your Monday Krugman:

Mr. Obama still has immense power, if he chooses to use it. At home, he has the veto pen, control of the Senate and the bully pulpit. He still has substantial executive authority to act on things like mortgage relief — there are billions of dollars not yet spent, not to mention the enormous leverage the government has via its ownership of Fannie and Freddie. Abroad, he still leads the world’s greatest economic power — and one area where he surely would get bipartisan support would be taking a tougher stand on China and other international bad actors. But none of this will matter unless the president can find it within himself to use his power, to actually take a stand.

Open thread.

Pro Publica and the Washington Post have a new report on the Mumbai bombings of 2008, focusing on Sajid Mir, aka Sajid Majid, who allegedly was put in charge of the attacks by Lashkar-i-Taiba. A second installment will be published tomorrow. According to the report, Mir trained David Coleman Headley for two years prior to the attack, and both active and retired Pakistani military officials were involved.

Mir and his victims are at the center of a wrenching national security dilemma confronting the Obama administration. The question, simply put, is whether the larger interests of the United States in maintaining good relations with Pakistan will permit Mir and other suspects to get away with one of the most devastating terrorist attacks in recent history.

[More...]

Via Tom Levenson at Balloon Juice, I just proved I am a Very Serious Person by putting the federal budget in surplus by 2015. Here is the NYTimes gizmo.

How I did it - 71% in revenue increases and 29% in spending cuts. What I raised - the estate tax to Clinton era levels (raised $50 billion), added a bank tax (raised $73 billion), added a millionaire's tax (raised $50 billion), let the Bush tax cuts expire (raised $226 billion), raised the FICA ceiling (raised $50 billion). For spending cuts I adopted these proposals - reduced Social Security benefits for high earners (saved $6 billion), enacted medical malpractice reform (saved $8 billion), reduced the number of troops in Iraq and Afghanistan to 30,000 by 2013 (saved $86 billion), made defense spending cuts (saving $57 billion), eliminated farm subsidies (saved $14 billion) and "earmarks" (saved $14 billion.)

I did not even use the "close tax loopholes" option which could have saved $136 billion. The reason I did not is because that more than ever is the phoniest nonsense of all. "Tax loopholes" never go away. Ever. And I still do not get how eliminating "earmarks" saves money. Anyway, so how "serious am I? I put the federal budget into $248 billion surplus by 2015. With bipartisan ideas even. Name me budget czar!

Speaking for me only

In a reprise of the Irrelevant Presidency theme, folks are again trotting out the poor Obama, "if only people had President Obama's back" line. Earlier this week, it was about Obama's powerlessness regarding the Bush tax cuts. Today, Balloon Juice argues the Obama Administration can't try Khalid Sheikh Mohammad in a federal court in New York because Governor-Elect Cuomo won't like it. (I actually do not care if KSM is tried in federal court in New York but that is another issue.)

These "defenses" of Obama are not helpful, to the discourse or to Obama. As I previously wrote:

Disheartening news, to say the least. The Washington Post reports:

• Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and the four other 9/11 detainees are unlikely to get a trial in federal court or by military commission before the end of President Obama's first term. Instead, they will remain in indefinite detention at Guantanamo.
• Guantanamo will not close in the forseeable future.

The explanation:

The administration has concluded that it cannot put Mohammed on trial in federal court because of the opposition of lawmakers in Congress and in New York. There is also little internal support for resurrecting a military prosecution at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The latter option would alienate liberal supporters.

Like indefinite detention won't alienate us? [More...]