As I wrote earlier today, the revelation that top-level officials in the White House actually debated what interrogation techniques to use on high-value targets, including torture, just sickens the stomach.  In this context, it’s clear that torture lawyer John Yoo was writing a document that was already written – a justification for the most heinous of crimes.  That the Administration had to dip all the way down into the mid-level of the Justice Department, bypassing even the Attorney General, shows how difficult it was to find a cad willing to cover up their misdeeds, someone willing to disgrace the office and disgrace himself.  

Yoo was a pawn bit none of this absolves him from blame.  House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers would like a word with him.  Attorneys for Ali al-Marri, a so-called “enemy combatant” at Guantanamo, are using the memo to make the legal argument that his detention was actually illegal, since the memo was eventually withdrawn after al-Marri was captured and detained based on its legal theories.  The “footnote” contained in the memo, that a previous memo waived the Fourth Amendment with respect to “domestic military operations,” is causing Administration officials all sorts of grief on Capitol Hill.  (That worm Mukasey, by the way, wouldn’t say whether or not the Fourth Amendment waiver memo has been withdrawn.)

And now the National Lawyers Guild has called on Yoo to be disbarred and removed from the Boalt Hall School of Law, and for the Congress to repeal that part of the Military Commissions Act which gives him essentially legal immunity for his crimes.

In a memorandum written the same month George W. Bush invaded Iraq, Boalt Hall law professor John Yoo said the Department of Justice would construe US criminal laws not to apply to the President’s detention and interrogation of enemy combatants. According to Yoo, the federal statutes against torture, assault, maiming and stalking do not apply to the military in the conduct of the war.

“John Yoo’s complicity in establishing the policy that led to the torture of prisoners constitutes a war crime under the US War Crimes Act,” said National Lawyers Guild President Marjorie Cohn.

Congress should repeal the provision of the Military Commissions Act that would give Yoo immunity from prosecution for torture committed from September 11, 2001 to December 30, 2005. John Yoo should be disbarred and he should not be retained as a professor of law at one of the country’s premier law schools. John Yoo should be dismissed from Boalt Hall and tried as a war criminal.

For those who want a “variety of views” to be expressed in the academic sphere, I think the National Lawyers Guild has a broader perspective about the First Amendment and freedom of expression.

There are things we can do at home as well.  First, Mark Ridley-Thomas’ resolution on torture must be passed, and used as a means to discover more about how medical professionals served this lawbreaking and who was involved all the way to the top of the chain of command.

As we recently commemorated the non-violent life and legacy of Dr. King, we cannot ignore the immorality of war that, he said, ravages our economy and “mutilates our conscience.”

Nowhere is that “mutilated conscience” more evident than in the alarming issue of health professionals involved in torture in the Iraq War […]

Reports from the International Red Cross, The New England Journal of Medicine, the British Medical Journal, military records, and first-person accounts, provide overwhelming evidence that military physicians and psychologists have directly participated in the development and cover-up of torture and abuse of detainees in U.S. custody.

Medical professionals are reported to have advised interrogators as to whether particular prisoners were fit enough to survive physical maltreatment, informed interrogators about prisoners’ phobias and other psychological vulnerabilities that could be exploited during questioning, failed to report incidents of alleged torture, force-fed prisoners who were on hunger strikes, and altered the death certificates of prisoners who died […]

As professional licensure and codes of ethics are regulated by states, California has the obligation to notify members of laws concerning torture that may result in their prosecution.

This week, I will put to a vote Senate Joint Resolution 19 on the floor of the Senate that states that the U.S. Department of Defense has “failed to oversee the ethical conduct of California-licensed health professionals related to torture.” […]

Torture is much more than a political issue. It is an ethical, moral and spiritual issue that has not only become a shame, but it is an evil in our midst.

Dr. King would not remain silent on an issue of such moral importance. Nor will I. Dr. King repeatedly warned us that, “He who passively accepts evil is as much involved in it as he who helps to perpetrate it.”

And perhaps most important, on April 14 at the Bancroft Hotel, Yoo will make a public appearance in an event with Georgetown Law Professor David Cole and others.  Perhaps citizens who stand against the torture and murder of human beings in service to a failed theory of extreme executive power ought to stop by and let him know how you feel.  

April 14, Bancroft Hotel.  Be there.

UPDATE: The American Freedom Campaign has also called for the dismissal of John Yoo.

Rep. Jackie Speier’s congressional career began with some real fireworks.  Her first speech on the war made the Republicans throw a hissy fit and several of them walked off the floor.  Just a fantastic start.  When we talk about electing more and better Democrats, this is what it looks like.  Chron:

Newly elected Democratic Rep. Jackie Speier of Hillsborough was sworn into Congress this morning and delivered a fiery speech criticizing President Bush’s Iraq policy that led some Republicans to boo and walk out of the House chamber.

Speier, who won a special election Tuesday to fill the seat of the late Rep. Tom Lantos, was always an outspoken lawmaker in her years as a San Mateo County supervisor, state Assemblywoman and state Senator. She served notice Thursday that she plans be just as aggressive as a member of the House.

“The process to bring the troops home must begin immediately,” Speier told fellow lawmakers including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-San Francisco. “The president wants to stay the course and a man who wants to replace him suggests we could be in Iraq for 100 years. But Madam Speaker, history will not judge us kindly if we sacrifice four generations of Americans because of the folly of one.”

While Democrats applauded, Republicans began a chorus of low boos. Some Republicans who had congratulated her just moments before, including Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Vista (San Diego County), walked out of the hall in protest.

Of course Issa was one of the ones to throw a fit and walk off when she started saying something he didn’t agree with.  That is the congressional equivalent of putting his fingers in his ears and sticking out his tongue.

Thank you Rep. Speier.  Just phenomenal work.  Keep it up.

We want more of this!  Maybe you can light a fire under the asses of a few of your new colleagues.

(Let’s keep our eyes on the ball here, people. – promoted by David Dayen)

It’s been another interesting week in Washington, with General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker asking Congress to maintain current troops levels.  Their plea comes despite the lack of security stabilization and political progress by the Iraqi government.

The conditions in Iraq continue to worsen. Newly released figures by the military indicate that the number of attacks against civilians and American and Iraqi security forces in Baghdad have more than doubled in March over the previous month.  There has also been an increase of sectarian violence in other large cities and provinces. The Green Zone has become the target of a wave of increased violence and casualties.  Our troops and our nation continue to make sacrifices for an Iraq that is unable to secure its people and unwilling to reach political reconciliation.        

Meanwhile, the cost of staying the failed course in Iraq continues to take a toll on our troops, their families, the American taxpayers, our national security, and our homeland defense readiness.  The war on Iraq has claimed the lives of nearly 4,017 and close to 30,000 servicemen and women have been injured or permanently disabled.  More than half of those will not be able to lead a normal life because of the severity of their injuries impacting not only them but also their families.  Yet, we continue to burden our troops and their families with the all too common multiple tours of duty and extended 15 month tours. Since the war in Iraq began, we have spent more than $500 billion, unnecessarily risking financial security and reducing needed domestic investments in priorities such as health care and education.  

The American people are frustrated and want a new direction in Iraq and an end to the war.  I agree.  This grave situation requires a policy to secure and stabilize Iraq, one that constructively engages in diplomacy and partners with neighboring countries and the region to create a stable and peaceful nation, and one that supports our service men and women by redeploying them from Iraq – not a strategy to keep more of our men and women in harm’s way. I will continue to work with my colleagues to bring an end to this war and bring our troops home.

Well, I guess it’s down to me to take the contrarian view of this whole list purge business.

The short answer is that activists aren’t owed seats in Denver just because they’re activists.  It’s perfectly legitimate for the Obama campaign to reward supporters who walked precincts, made phone calls, dropped lit, stayed up late at the campaign office, and generally did anything and everything logistically to help the candidate win California (confidentially, I was told by someone high-up on the campaign last night that they did indeed tie on Election Day; it was the absentees that swung the race to Clinton).  Just being a good activist is not enough.  You’re actually not going to the convention to represent the party, you’d be going as an Obama or Clinton delegate, representing the candidate.  Honestly, considering that there were about 1,000 precinct captains in California, if you weren’t one, you shouldn’t be an Obama delegate.  Bottom line.

What I and many of us object to is the haphazard, seemingly random standard applied here, where delegates with little or no ground experience remained on the ballot, while those with a lot didn’t (like the guy in CA-36 who was a paid Richardson staffer who remains on the Obama list).  Because you’re talking about 1,700 delegates, there are lots of arguments you can make for why the campaign chose one candidate or another, but they’re all unprovable and contradicted by the group in the next district over.  The people still in the race range from bundlers to people who never gave a dime, those who worked their hearts out to those who didn’t lift a finger, progressive antiwar activists to those who aren’t as vocal.  When you’re talking about 1,700 for 108 slots, there’s not going to be any one reason, and anyone who says otherwise is being extremely myopic.  In addition, there are the well-established CDP demographic rules and needs, so compiling a list that will fit those needs is probably a great puzzle.  And also, practically everyone on the Obama campaign is in Pennsylvania or North Carolina and Indiana by now, so the vetting process had to be undertaken by a very small number of people.

Over…

I’m not defending the Obama campaign at all, but I have to say that there are those in the grassroots that need to, and this is where the flame war might begin, grow up.  You don’t just automatically get to be a delegate to the DNC because of who you are or what you advocate, even.  You ought to get it because of what you’ve done, real work on a personal level.  If you did and you were culled, that’s wrong.  If you didn’t and you’re still on that list, that’s wrong.  But it’s a huge undertaking and you have one or two staffers making value judgments on 1,700 people based on all sorts of criteria, and there’s bound to be slippage and “my activism is better than your activism” arguments.

What’s more, if you actually think your activism is better than someone else’s activism, you can actually appeal to a higher power!  From an email:

It is actually Brent Messenger in Northern California that vetted the candidates.

brent.messenger-at-gmail-dot-com

What they are asking for is evidence like “you were a precinct captain for Obama”

They are purging all people besides those that worked heavily on the campaign.  

They want FOR SURE Obama delegates.  

I spoke with Laura of LAgrassroots4obama and they are rewarding people that have spent the last year of their lives on planes and in the volunteer office.

If you are in Southern California and truly worked on the Obama Campaign prior to the Feb 5 Primary and were cut from the candidate list contact Laura:

laura-at-LAgrassroots4obama-dot-com

I do think the Obama people are a little paranoid from Clinton’s whole “there’s no such thing as a pledged delegate” shtick, and they let it get inside their heads.  But people who did the time should get the prize.  So if you did the work, don’t mourn, send an email and organize.  If you didn’t work and you’re pissed, all politics is local so go talk to your neighbors instead of deciding you’re entitled to a trip to Denver.

Well, I guess it’s down to me to take the contrarian view of this whole list purge business.

The short answer is that activists aren’t owed seats in Denver just because they’re activists.  It’s perfectly legitimate for the Obama campaign to reward supporters who walked precincts, made phone calls, dropped lit, stayed up late at the campaign office, and generally did anything and everything logistically to help the candidate win California (confidentially, I was told by someone high-up on the campaign last night that they did indeed tie on Election Day; it was the absentees that swung the race to Clinton).  Just being a good activist is not enough.  You’re actually not going to the convention to represent the party, you’d be going as an Obama or Clinton delegate, representing the candidate.  Honestly, considering that there were about 1,000 precinct captains in California, if you weren’t one, you shouldn’t be an Obama delegate.  Bottom line.

What I and many of us object to is the haphazard, seemingly random standard applied here, where delegates with little or no ground experience remained on the ballot, while those with a lot didn’t (like the guy in CA-36 who was a paid Richardson staffer who remains on the Obama list).  Because you’re talking about 1,700 delegates, there are lots of arguments you can make for why the campaign chose one candidate or another, but they’re all unprovable and contradicted by the group in the next district over.  The people still in the race range from bundlers to people who never gave a dime, those who worked their hearts out to those who didn’t lift a finger, progressive antiwar activists to those who aren’t as vocal.  When you’re talking about 1,700 for 108 slots, there’s not going to be any one reason, and anyone who says otherwise is being extremely myopic.  In addition, there are the well-established CDP demographic rules and needs, so compiling a list that will fit those needs is probably a great puzzle.  And also, practically everyone on the Obama campaign is in Pennsylvania or North Carolina and Indiana by now, so the vetting process had to be undertaken by a very small number of people.

Over…

I’m not defending the Obama campaign at all, but I have to say that there are those in the grassroots that need to, and this is where the flame war might begin, grow up.  You don’t just automatically get to be a delegate to the DNC because of who you are or what you advocate, even.  You ought to get it because of what you’ve done, real work on a personal level.  If you did and you were culled, that’s wrong.  If you didn’t and you’re still on that list, that’s wrong.  But it’s a huge undertaking and you have one or two staffers making value judgments on 1,700 people based on all sorts of criteria, and there’s bound to be slippage and “my activism is better than your activism” arguments.

What’s more, if you actually think your activism is better than someone else’s activism, you can actually appeal to a higher power!  From an email:

It is actually Brent Messenger in Northern California that vetted the candidates.

brent.messenger-at-gmail-dot-com

What they are asking for is evidence like “you were a precinct captain for Obama”

They are purging all people besides those that worked heavily on the campaign.  

They want FOR SURE Obama delegates.  

I spoke with Laura of LAgrassroots4obama and they are rewarding people that have spent the last year of their lives on planes and in the volunteer office.

If you are in Southern California and truly worked on the Obama Campaign prior to the Feb 5 Primary and were cut from the candidate list contact Laura:

laura-at-LAgrassroots4obama-dot-com

I do think the Obama people are a little paranoid from Clinton’s whole “there’s no such thing as a pledged delegate” shtick, and they let it get inside their heads.  But people who did the time should get the prize.  So if you did the work, don’t mourn, send an email and organize.  If you didn’t work and you’re pissed, all politics is local so go talk to your neighbors instead of deciding you’re entitled to a trip to Denver.

…I would also say that a part of the problem was having post-primary delegate elections in the first place.  Before the primary it would have been very clear to the candidate who the supporters and activists were and there wouldn’t have been so many mistakes.  Susie Shannon’s delegate selection proposal was far more reasoned and thought-out than what we ended up with.  Her letter from July 10 of last year is prescient.

July 10, 2007

Dear Delegate Selection Committee,

At the Los Angeles Delegate Selection Plan Hearing I testified that my

main concern regarding holding delegate elections post-primary is that it

encourages opportunism over loyalty to a candidate. The plan, as

presented, opens the door for supporters of candidates receiving low votes

in the primary to take over the delegate elections of candidates receiving

high votes.

It is my strong opinion that delegates of presidential candidates to the

Democratic National Convention should be representatives of that candidate

and should, to the best extent possible, be loyal supporters.

How are we to stay unified through the 2008 general election if we create

a process that risks fracturing California Democrats between those who

work hard and are loyal supporters of a particular candidate and those

looking to become delegates any way possible? The delegate selection

plan as presented also raises basic issues of fair play and can be

disheartening for hard working democrats who we hope will maintain a

strong will to work through the 2008 general election.

After the Los Angeles hearing I spoke to Eric Bauman about the possibility

of having elections post-primary but setting the delegate filing deadline

prior to the California primary. I also mentioned this plan to the 42nd

AD delegates at our meeting last month and to various other delegates and

E-Board members of the CDP. I believe that some of them have already

submitted testimony to your committee. This seems to me the only fair and

logical compromise. It would allow candidates more time to locate venues

and arrange for elections post-Iowa Caucus, but also create a more fair

delegate selection process in California.

My proposal is to set the delegate application deadline for January 31,

2008 (pre-California primary) and hold elections the weekend of March 1,

2008 – 30 days from the application deadline.

I hope that this proposal will be given serious consideration by the

Delegate Selection committee.

UPDATE (Thursday night): The Obama campaign ended up doing the right thing, due in no small part to the blowback from the grassroots and netroots. It’s a victory for people-powered politics. Now, let’s see what happens on Sunday… — Eden

I just spent about 40 minutes at a bar in Oakland talking with two absolutely crushed Obama supporters who got cut from the delegate list in CA-9. They couldn’t believe what happened. And they want answers.

The blowback is beginning. And the story is hitting the major media. Here are some clips on the delegate cuts:

Associated Press

Huffington Post

Moral of the story, to borrow a phrase from a friend: Don’t tread on the grass(roots).

Where this goes from here is anyone’s guess…

Disclosure: I’m an Obama supporter. But I’m an even bigger supporter of grassroots, people-powered politics. Needless to say, the Obama campaign’s actions are extremely disappointing and deserve to be criticized, regardless of one’s allegiance.

Record interest in Barack Obama’s soaring presidential bid became too much for the state campaign to handle this week.

In a move some Obama backers called undemocratic but campaign officials said was unavoidable, hundreds of supporters were barred Tuesday from competing in the state’s 53 caucuses this weekend that will determine who represents the candidate at the Democratic National Convention.

Campaign officials said too many people had signed up to become district-level delegates and Sunday’s Iowa-style contests simply can’t accommodate the crowds. Merc News

San Francisco officials spent months preparing for the arrival of the Olympic torch, but their decision Wednesday to cut the route short and drastically alter the torchbearers’ path was an act of desperation just before opening ceremonies kicked off, sources said.

The move to scrap the city’s highly publicized plans for runners to carry the torch from AT&T Park and along the city’s scenic waterfront infuriated many protesters and torch supporters who waited for hours to spread their anti-China message or to catch a glimpse of the Olympic flame.

But Mayor Gavin Newsom said he and Police Chief Heather Fong decided to change the route after realizing that police officers stationed along the designated path – especially near the ballpark and the Ferry Building, the relay’s original start and finish – were overwhelmed by the size of the crowds and by skirmishes between torch supporters and protesters. SFGate

Yes, politics is changing. It has been for a while. Facilitate it, don’t fear it.

Jackie Speier’s election yesterday to the House of Representatives shows the importance of building a pipeline of qualified women working their way up the ladder of elected office. We are excited to extend warm congratulations to newly elected congressional incumbent Jackie Speier.  Jackie won the California Congressional 12th District seat running away with 78% of the vote in the special election held yesterday. Her win shows the overwhelming importance of creating a sustainable pipeline of women candidates moving up the steps of the political hierarchy.

Jackie Speier began her career as an aid to Congressman Jack Ryan followed by her election to the San Mateo Board of Supervisors. She has served nearly two decades in the California legislature, starting as an Assemblymember and then as a State Senator.  Her impressive record includes more than 300 pieces of legislation signed into law by both Democratic and Republican Governors. She has authored groundbreaking legislation in privacy and consumer protection, child welfare, and healthcare. Jackie has been very active in women’s health. Among her many accomplishments was a bill signed into law requiring health plans to cover the cost of contraception and osteoporosis screening while banning maternity surcharges. She also advocated a bill giving women the right to choose her own OB/GYN physician.  Jackie Speier wrote legislation that created a “check-off” box on California State tax forms enabling taxpayers to direct money specifically to Breast Cancer Research.

Even with her success, the number of elected women still remains a faint shadow in comparison to the number of elected men.  With a mere 71 woman elected to Congress out of a total 435 seats, men continue to hold an 83% majority.  In California women legislators have dropped to just 28% of statewide elected state senate and assembly offices over the last 2 election cycles.  Even though California is slightly above the current national 23% average, women electeds here have a long way to go before they reach a level of equality.

CALIFORNIA LIST believes that electing women matters.  Women like Jackie Speier bring a different perspective to our political process as is demonstrated by her legislative achievements.

CALIFORNIA LIST continues to build a pipeline to the future. We remain dedicated to helping women get elected and reverse the decline in the number of elected women.   Please visit our website, and meet our candidates.

Congratulations, Jackie!

Bettina Duval is the founder of the California List, a political fundraising network that helps elect Democratic women to all branches of California state government.