Right on cue, and on message with the "they were only protecting America" line, here is Mukasey yesterday:

"There is absolutely no evidence that anybody who rendered a legal opinion either with respect to surveillance or with respect to interrogation policy did so for any reason other than to protect the security of the country and in the belief that he or she was doing something lawful," he said.

"In those circumstances, there is no occasion to consider prosecutions, there is no occasion to consider pardons," Mukasey said.

Link: http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N03517147.htm

Granted, Mukasey never was in a position similar to Feinstein and Wyden from which he is now backtracking; he's had this horrid position from the start. His argument here strikes me as:

"Your honor, I was told by my attorney that the speed limit in that school zone was 75 mph, not 15 mph, so those deaths are not my fault."

Going back to the "need for flexibility" regarding the Army Field Manual standards, I was struck recently by a passing mention in Susan Faludi's "The Terror Dream", on page 179, pointing to this observation from Human Rights First. After they first noted the large increase in the number of torture depictions on primetime television, they then make this observation:

It used to be that only villains on television tortured. Today, “good guy” and heroic American characters torture — and this torture is depicted as necessary, effective and even patriotic.

Link: http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/us_law/etn/primetime/index.asp#problem

When did it become heroic to torture detainees? Right after 9/11. From that same link, we see data where the number of torture depictions on primetime had been in the single digits per year in the late 90's, but increased in 2000 to over 100. When I traced the links a bit further, I found from a Christian Science Monitor article in 2002 that the pre-9/11 increase in primetime torture was in programs like CSI, where the torture was carried out by the villian. The two biggest offenders of heroes carrying out torture, Alias and 24, debuted in September (30th) and November, 2001. Isn't it interesting that Hollywood was so well-prepared to pump up the torturer as hero in such a short time?

Sigh, I guess I'll be making calls to the offices of Feinstein and Wyden today, asking why they are changing their tunes.

So forgive me if I'm off base but the main justification that I can come up with for backing off the "Field Manual" language is that the Field manual is not classified and can therefore be trained against. Perhaps I'm being naively optimistic but I happen to beleive that its possible to write a law that will effectively outlaw torture while providing interrogators with the comfort of knowing that their captors aren't sure what they're facing. The problem isn't writing such a law. The problem is actually subjecting CIA agents and soldiers to punishment if they fail to comply. As you have amply documented, such a result is almost unthinkable among Washington insiders.

I am getting a sickening feeling. And beginning to feel we've been fooled again. Wow, I had so much hope in Obama's and the Democrats message of change. If Obama doesn't ban torture in all areas of govt.; CIA, Army , etc. on his first day or week in office I will be very angry.

If it required an external stimulus (I mean, outside their own heads), I wouldn't be surprised if some hawkish security insider just said to them, "Hey, you guys are in charge now, and we are barely keeping America safe from all these attacks, and if you stop us from doing our jobs and something happens, we will make sure America knows it's your fault for getting in the way of our job."

http://lawandsecurity.org/events/aftertorture.cfm

The Center on Law and Security

New York University School of Law

After Torture: Discussing a Plan for Justice in the Post-Bush Era

Event Details

*This event is free and open to the public*

Date: December 4, 2008
Time: 6:00 p.m. - 7:30 p.m.
Location: Lipton Hall, 108 W. 3rd Street

Featured Speakers:

The Honorable Elizabeth Holtzman, co-chair of Herrick Feinstein LLP's government relations practice;

Scott Horton, contributor, Harper's Magazine and Adjunct Professor, Columbia Law School;

Representative Jerrold Nadler (D-NY);

Burt Neuborne, Inez Milholland Professor of Civil Liberties, NYU Law;

Michael Ratner, president, Center for Constitutional Rights;

Major General Antonio Taguba, U.S. Army, Ret.

* * * * *

Another web page says the event is BY INVITATION - - not "open to the public".

https://its.law.nyu.edu/eventcalendar/index.cfm?fuseaction=main.detail&id=15358

"By invitation and R.S.V.P. only"

How can anyone have respect for Congress or the Democratic party when they pull bullshit like this? Torture is just not something to play political games with -- if you have any principles at all.

Feinstein I'm not as surprised by. We've seen her true colors (she has none) in the past but I'm at least a little bit more surprised by Wyden.

Hey Ron: whichever finger-in-the-wind lackey you're listening to on this point, just stop.

I reccomend reading:

The Terror Presidency: Law and Judgment Inside the Bush Administration (Hardcover)

by Jack L. Goldsmith (Author)

http://www.amazon.com/Terror-Presidency-Judgment-Inside-Administration/dp/0393065502

His book is classic CYA over why he couldn't sign off on Yoo's worse excesses but he clearly articulates the view that "The Law" is a weapon that is wielded by the bad guys. It's quite revealing to realize that these people actually regard the will of the electorate as expessed in acts of Congress as something to be fought rather than the whole edifice they're supposed to be defending.

It's just a totally different way of thinking and if you don't understand it as an outsider than very little else that goes on in DC makes any sense whatsoever.

This is sort of silly but, nonetheless, interesting. I'm kind of a fan of old TV westerns. Many of them are still available for viewing on Encore and other channels. I've seen episodes where "heroes" such as the Rifleman, The Lone Ranger, Matt Dillon or even ol' Festus on Gunsmoke threaten bad guys with some variation of torture if they don't tell them something that they want to know. Point being, TV has depicted torture a source of manipulation uses by the 'good guys' if need be to be 'tough on bad guys' for a long time.