If it's true that the troops in Iraq are about to leave the cities for isolated bases, then protecting the troops is about to become an even more difficult excuse to defend. I think it's pretty obvious that Obama is abusing his powers on this matter in the name of international PR. I really don't get the logic here, because there's two sides to that coin. He may be avoiding some very ugly reflections upon the US (or terrorist recruitment) by keeping torture evidence secret, but in doing so he's also keeping the door open for current and future administrations to engage in secret torture again. If he releases the photos and audio, there is little doubt the American public will demand serious, specific legislation to prevent such things in the future. I would think that torture is such a blatant violation of our most basic rule of law that not even a president should have a method for defending its use or shielding evidence of its use, but that appears to be exactly what is happening.

There are so many unresolved and unprosecuted violations of our fundamental laws in this country now, from torture to spying on Americans' communications at home to the absence of habeas corpus. I cannot imagine Americans of even twenty or thirty years ago putting up with such things. Perhaps Bush hit the nail on the head and the Constitution has just become a meaningless piece of paper instead of a living document. A law on the books is only as authoritative as there are people willing to enforce it. We no longer have a mainstream media working for the people, with an army of journalists who used to investigate such violations tenaciously and hold politicians' feet to the flames. Our media is now absorbed into the establishment, and as such it does not feel the need to inform the public just how badly their rights as a nation are being routinely violated. They do not answer to us, regardless of what quaint little sound-off lines they provide to the public.

Those who nevertheless manage see these violations sit around scratching heads, asking why so few other people seem to care much. I think it is clear that for people to care, they need to be informed. They not only need to be informed, but they need to understand what the information means to their daily life and their freedom's future. It shouldn't be a surprise that being ill-informed results in passivity, especially when the consequences of what is taking place is not immediately felt or witnessed in any way that would cause them alarm. They look around in the moment and they still feel free. Outlets such as this blog and many others are excellent sources to stay well informed, but they are too few and far between and not reaching nearly the number of readers/viewers that the mega-corporate mainstream media now reaches. We simply cannot expect the giants of media to answer to anyone but the public themselves, and then be shocked that they have become the tool for shaping public opinion by CEO's and politicians, who do not place freedom nor democracy above their own personal gain or the gain of a small wealthy elite.

In my personal view, few other issues or complaints should matter when they stand little chance of reaching the eyes and ears of most Americans. If you're a trucker with an unplugged CB radio, and you just witnessed a major accident on the road and want to inform others, it does little good to yell about it out the window. You need to plug the CB back in first, and then you can reach people more effectively.

I know it's probably a poor and layman's sort of analogy, but hopefully the message is clear. I really don't think things are going to change in any significant or meaningful way until the public is no longer dependent on Murdochs and Redstones for their information. It's a key institution for any hope for change. Or is it?

Perhaps I am wrong, but despite claims that newspapers or cable news are on the decline, the fact remains that this media still has the most influence by far, is still in the same hands as before, and is still failing to keep the public informed. That leaves us passive to things like torture. Or worse. After all, Jack Bauer seems to have nearly half the population believing there are times torture is warranted. And that's without a second 9/11.

As much as I disagree with signing statements, and as much as I am coming to be disappointed in the Obama administration, any legislative requirement that Obama take a certain position in a negotiation with foreign governments is prima facie unconstitutional, and furthermore, just a plain stupid idea.

The congress has the power to ratify or veto treaties, not to tell the president that he has to put pressure on the World Bank, or anything of the sort.

If it's true that the troops in Iraq are about to e the cities for isolated bases, then protecting the troops is about to become an even more difficult excuse to defend.

Aye, there's the rub. Starting to sag under the weight of its own contradictions...(if they were holed up in isolated bases, that is).

Just a reminder that the above, Hollywood-popularized phrase, which pertains to actual Prisoners of War, is shorthand for the fact that interrogation of POWs is forbidden under the Geneva Conventions, aside from those spare details. Which is just one significant reason why - as the Executive Branch itself has publicly maintained since 9/11 - none of our "detainee" captives are categorized by our military as POWs. Anyone (such as bernbart, who's had this pointed out to her before) who asserts that we are currently honoring in any way or anywhere the humane treatment protocol (of which no interrogation is just one aspect) required for protected Prisoners of War under the laws of war, is either grossly misinformed or willfully ignorant about our government's longstanding, admitted behavior during the present "use of military force" abroad.

Any news?

On the progress of the Lieberman/Graham "Suppression of Evidence of War Crimes Act"? I understand it passed the Senate by acclamation.

-- Frankly, my dear, ...

Frankly, my dear, ... you understand correctly. As I semi-cryptically outlined [see especially this comment and find from EJ which my subsequent comment built upon: http://letters.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/06/18/spying/permalink/708e856a67f415e90b3dc5f8a3dcd324.html], backroom dealing between Graham, Reid and, apparently, Emanuel (for Obama) resulted in the photo suppression legislation being - for the second time in a month - rapidly ushered ("greased lightning" comes to mind) through the Senate undebated, unexamined by any committee of jurisdiction, without benefit of a voice or rollcall vote, by unanimous consent "acclamation", as you note, this time in a standalone Senate bill (S. 1285) on June 17th.

The time it took Harry Reid to suddenly appear and both call up and pass that bill on June 17th would have amounted to about one minute of floor time. The language of the bill itself, though printed in the Congressional Record, was not read aloud; only its purpose was announced by the Senate Clerk (not its more-familiar official short title) - a purpose that, if read as printed, included the Leahy/Cornyn Section 2 that's unrelated to the photo suppression Section 1. And if, in watching the proceedings live, you happened to miss the Clerk's reading of the bill's purpose (or were unable to quickly decipher its convoluted, and at-cross-purposes references to sections of the Freedom of Information Act), you would have had no way of knowing the meaning of the bill that was the subject of Reid's unanimous consent request, from anything Reid himself said on the floor.

That's the extent of this bill's public Senate "legislative history." Aside, that is, from the self-serving statement by bill co-author Lindsey Graham (whose bluff to filibuster the supplemental Reid wouldn't call), which EJ cited, made earlier the same day, that gave us some clues about the secret pressure that lead to Reid's capitulation - and the introductory statements from co-authors Graham and Lieberman (and maybe McCain) when they introduced the bill language for the first time on May 20th (the new bill language was - with a group of other amendments - added to the Senate's war supplemental, under the direction of Reid & Inouye, the next day, May 21st). Commendably, the House leadership did succeed in blocking that particular amendment to the war supplemental in (secret) conference.

And yet, every single Senator had the opportunity to say "I object" to Reid's proposed Unanimous Consent Agreement to add this FOIA-hostile language to the war supplemental and/or to allow it to pass the Senate on its own, without debate, without committee review or mark-up, and without a rollcall vote. Nevertheless - twice - not one Senator objected. And no Senator has since paid any price for their silent acquiescence, because no reporter has publicly asked them why they secretly agreed to let Harry Reid do Lindsey Graham and Barack Obama's bidding, in a willful transgression of regular order and democratic process, that discarded Legislative Branch prerogative in deference to Executive Branch whim.

That's how secret government - run by top-down, autocratic Party powerbrokers - lets democracy die behind closed doors. The vast majority of local governments in the U.S. probably have more meaningful and effective "Open Meeting Laws" for their government committees and legislatures to conduct the public's business in public than do the United States Senate and House.

Meanwhile, back on the "news" front, F, md's question prompted me to find the House bill I suspected must be lurking out there, and, indeed, I quickly found it - the House companion (H.R. 3015) to the now-passed Senate bill, introduced on June 24th, and (at least nominally) now referred to committee for study, hearings and debate:

PUBLIC BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS --

(House of Representatives - June 24, 2009)

Under clause 2 of rule XII, public bills and resolutions of the following titles were introduced and severally referred, as follows:

By Mr. [Mike] CONAWAY [11th District of Texas]:

H.R. 3015. A bill to provide that certain photographic records relating to the treatment of any individual engaged, captured, or detained after September 11, 2001, by the Armed Forces of the United States in operations outside the United States shall not be subject to disclosure under section 552 of title 5, United States Code (commonly referred to as the Freedom of Information Act), to amend section 552(b)(3) of title 5, United States Code (commonly referred to as the Freedom of Information Act) to provide that statutory exemptions to the disclosure requirements of that Act shall specifically cite to the provision of that Act authorizing such exemptions, to ensure an open and deliberative process in Congress by providing for related legislative proposals to explicitly state such required citations, and for other purposes; [referred] to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, and in addition to the Committee on Armed Services, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?dbname=2009_record&page=H7249&position=all