So, what came out of today's hearings on torture?

• Perhaps the main piece of news came when Philip Zelikow, the former top State Department lawyer, revealed that the memo he wrote offering an alternative view on the legality of torture -- which he says the Bush White House tried to destroy -- has been located, and is being reviewed for declassification. The memo figures to be a hot item when released.

Read more »

Here's some fun/horrifying video form the torture hearings this morning of Lindsey Graham browbeating a witness, David Luban of Georgetown Law, who disagrees with him. Graham repeatedly asks questions, then prevents Luban from finishing his answer when the witness starts to say something that Graham objects to.

It looks like Lindsey Graham just cited John Kiriakou's interview with ABC News, in which the former CIA interrogator claimed that the use of enhanced interrogation techniques broke Abu Zubaydah within minutes.

Did Graham miss the fact that ABC News's report has been authoritatively debunked -- and that ABC News has acknowledged as much?

Looks like he did -- or doesn't care.

Philip Zelikow is now being asked about the decision by President Obama to close Guantanamo.

He told the committee:

Guantanamo has become in world public opinion a toxic problem for the United States America. And so we needed to address that in our foreign policy.

Zelikow also said -- contra the fear-mongering by GOPers lately -- we routinely hold in US mainland prisons terror suspects like Ramzi Yousef who are believed to be far more dangerous than many of the detainees in Gitmo.

Ali Soufan is now making the point that torture advocates cite the interrogations of KSM and Jose Padilla as two cases in which torture produced results. But waterboarding wasn't approved until August 1, 2002 -- after the interrogations of those two suspects occurred.

In other words, he seems to be arguing that such techniques weren't used, at least with legal sign-off, to produce that information.

This will undoubtedly need follow up.

This is fascinating...

Sheldon Whitehouse is leading Ali Soufan through questioning. What Soufan is saying is that when he used lawful interrogation techniques agaist Zubaydah, he got actionable intelligence within an hour, including the identification of Khalid Sheik Mohamed as the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks.

However, when a contractor came in and began using harsher techniques, Zubaydah clammed up. It became clear that Zubaydah had received training on how to resist torture.

Ali Soufan, who has participated in interrogations of high-level terror suspects including Abu Zubaydah, is giving a detailed explanation of superior intelligence methods, within the Army field manual, that don't involve torture.

Soufan said that when he used such methods on Zubaydah, they produced actionable intelligence in less than an hour.

As for torture, said Soufan: "This amateurish technique is harmful to our long-term interests. It plays into the enemies playbook."

Soufan made clear: "My interest is not to advocate the prosecution of anyone." Rather, he wants to see us learn from our mistakes.

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, chairing the torture hearings, quotes French revolutionary era diplomat Talleyrand:

The greatest danger in times of crisis comes from the zeal of those who are inexperienced.

Now the next witness, former FBI agent Ali Soufan, is speaking. Soufan has asked that his face not be shown, so most cameras have been removed from the room. The CSPAN camera is showing the other witnesses.

Philip Zelikow just offered a bit of news about the memo he wrote offering an alternative view on the legality of torture, which he said the White House tried to have destroyed.

Zelikow told the Senate committee that the memo, which had not previously been found, "has been located in State Department files and is being reviewed for declassification."

He said that at the time, he thought the effort to have the memo destroyed -- which he described as "informal" -- was "improper" and ignored it.

And it sounds like we may get a look at it soon.

As we prepare for a Senate hearing on the Bush torture program, it's worth taking a look at an interview that one of the key witnesses, Philip Zelikow, gave to Foreign Policy's Laura Rozen yesterday, which provided an advanced look at what he's likely to say.

Zelikow, a top State Department lawyer under Condoleezza Rice, recently revealed that the White House tried to destroy all copies of a memo he wrote that offered an alternative view on the legality of torture. He later said he suspected at the time that Dick Cheney had led that effort.

Read more »

As the calls for his impeachment grow louder, Jay Bybee -- the Bush OLC lawyer who wrote one of the torture memos, and who is now a federal judge -- has been given the chance to share his side of the story.

The unlikely invitation comes from Pat Leahy, the chair of the Senate Judiciary committee. In a letter sent to Bybee today, Leahy invites him to testify before the committee about his role in writing the memos.

Read more »

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) went on MSNBC's Rachel Maddow Show last night, to talk about the fallout from the release last week of the Bush administration's torture memos. And his appearance added to the growing sense that pressure is mounting to hold the memos' authors accountable.

Whitehouse, who sits on the Senate Judiciary committee, did temporarily pour a little bit of cold water on the spate of calls to impeach Jay Bybee, the author of one of the memos, who is now a federal judge. He said that it's "certainly possible" that Bybee should be impeached, but that first, we should wait for the Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility to release its long-held report into the authorship of the memos.

Read more »

GOP senators Arlen Specter and John Cornyn are leaving no doubt where they stand on Senate Judiciary chair Pat Leahy's proposal to create a Truth Commission to look into the Bush administration's war on terror policies.

They oppose it.

In a press release the pair sent out, Specter said:

When this idea of the so-called 'truth commission' first surfaced I said it was unnecessary because you had a change of administration, you could walk in the front door, ask for directions to the relevant filing cabinet, go in and open the drawer and find out anything you wanted to know. Well that's been done. And it's being done to a greater extent. You had some rather startling disclosures with the publicity in recent days about the unusual, to put it mildly, legal opinions which were issued to justify executive action.

Cornyn added:

I oppose the creation of a so-called 'truth commission' because it is a redundant and politically divisive exercise that would distract the Executive, Congress, and the American people at a time when we should be focused on reinvigorating our economy and winning the war on terror. This roving, unaccountable inquisition into each and every grievance with a Bush Administration policy is a backward-looking proposition that is directly at odds with President Obama's stated goals of unity and moving forward. Now is not the time for government to waste more of taxpayers' money by outsourcing a core Congressional responsibility.

It appears these senators can't handle the truth.

The Senate Judiciary committee is currently holding hearings on that proposal from committee chair Pat Leahy to set up a Truth Commission to look into the Bush administration's war on terror.

We'll have more to say on this whole subject soon, but for now it's worth noting that, as you'd expect, Bush allies are fighting hard to stymie Leahy's idea.

Just now, the committee heard from David Rivkin, a lawyer who served in the Justice Department and the White House under Presidents Reagan and George H. W. Bush.

Explaining why he opposed Leahy's proposal, Rivkin declared:

Yes, mistakes were made. Yes, some bad things happened. But compared with the historical baseline of past wars, the conduct of the United States in the past eight years ... has been exemplary.

We're sure that victims of torture under the Bush administration would appreciate Rivkin's willingness to supply that historical context.

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) certainly didn't. He told Rivkin:

I would suggest, Mr. Rivkin, that until you know, and we all know, what was done under the Bush administration, you not be so quick to throw other generations of Americans under the bus, and assume that they did worse.

Late Update: Here's the video:

...as Attorney General by a vote of 75-21.

Said Pat Leahy, the chair of the Senate Judicary committe:

[O]f the last four Attorneys General, Eric Holder has the largest 'aye' vote of any of them. I think it is a good sign for the country. It is a good sign for the Department of Justice.

Finally...

After weeks of delays, the Senate Judiciary committee has voted by 17-2 to send Eric Holder's nomination to the full Senate.

In a statement, committee chair Pat Leahy said:

Mr. Holder has demonstrated that he is committed to restoring the rule of law, and, as President Obama said in his inaugural address 'to reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals,'" said Leahy. "I am more convinced than ever that Eric Holder is a person who will reinvigorate the Department of Justice and serve ably as a key member of the President's national security team. He will pursue the Justice Department's vital missions with skill, integrity, independence and a commitment to the rule of law.

The two "no" votes were from conservative Republicans John Cornyn and Tom Coburn.

Leahy's full statement follows after the jump...

Read more »

It looks like Arlen Specter, the ranking GOPer on the Senate Judiciary committee, has decided to support Eric Holder's nomination to be Attorney General after all, as Elana reports over at TPMDC.

Specter has put up roadblocks to Holder's confirmation from the start, first getting the hearings delayed a week, then getting the committee vote itself delayed another week, until tomorrow.

Here's a statement just put out by committee chairman Pat Leahy, who has led the fight to get Holder confirmed:

I am glad that Senator Specter has resolved his concerns and will support Eric Holder's nomination to be the next Attorney General. He joins the dozens of organizations and individuals across the political spectrum that for more than two months have praised the qualifications, integrity, and independence of this nominee. Tomorrow the Committee will move forward to report this historic nomination to the Senate, and I hope the Senate will debate and vote on Mr. Holder's nomination without further delay.

Not that it's likely, but Brad Schlozman may want to hope that Eric Holder's confirmation somehow gets derailed.

That's because Holder just told the Senate Judiciary committee that he wants to reconsider the Bush Justice Department's curious decision not to bring criminal charges against Schlozman, a former top department official who was found by a DOJ investigation to have politicized hiring decisions, then lied about it to Congress in an effort to cover it up.

Asked about the issue moments ago by Sen. Dianne Feinstein -- one of the lawmakers to whom Schlozman was found to have given an untruthful answer during testimony -- Holder declared: "I want to know why the determination was made not to pursue charges."

Here's his answer in full:

I understand that prosecutors in the US attorney's office in DC -- again, just based on the press reports, actually reviewed the report and then made a prosecutive determination.

If I am fortunate enough to be confirmed as Attorney General, I will indicate to you that I will review that determination. I don't know all the facts of the case, but given the findings in the Inspector General's report that are consistent with what you have said, I want to know why the determination was made not to pursue charges, criminal charges.

Asked by Feinstein about the report's findings more broadly, Holder responded:

I have not had a chance to read the report, Senator, and yet I have read the news accounts of it. What's contained in the report is very disturbing. The notion that the Justice Department would ever take into account a person's political affiliation or political beliefs in making hiring decisions is antithetical to everything the department stands for and everything I'm familiar with.

I served very proudly in the Justice Department, under Republican Attorneys General, Democratic Attorneys General, and it was never a thought given to what your party affiliation was, what your political beliefs were in hiring, in promotion decisions. What we have seen in that report I think is aberrant, but is also I think one of the major tasks the next Attorney General is going to have to do. You have to reverse that.

So we may not have seen the last word on this.

Late Update:
Here's video of the exchange between Feinstein and Holder about Schlozman:

"I want to assure you and the American people that I will be an independent Attorney General. I will be the people's lawyer," Eric Holder told the Senate judiciary committee moments ago, in response to a question form Sen. Herb Kohl.

Holder's answer suggests the extent to which the shadow of Alberto Gonzales hangs over the curent nominee's confirmation, which began this morning. Much of Senate Judiciary chair Pat Leahy's opening statement was an argument that Holder is the man to fix the problems of politicization at DOJ under Gonzales that we've chronicled at TPMmuckraker over the last two years.

Said Leahy, after noting the department's report, released Tuesday, into politicized hiring under Gonzales:

Americans must be able to trust their Justice Department. That trust must not be squandered or taken for granted. We need leaders who are prepared to take the laboring oars of a Justice Department whose dedicated law enforcement professionals have been misused and demoralized. Eric Holder is such a leader.

Just as revealingly, Republicans have centered their opposition to Holder on the claim, without much evidence, that, in fact, he's likely to be a second Gonzo. Earlier this month in a speech on the Senate floor, ranking GOPer Arlen Specter laid out the argument:

Mr. Gonzales left office accused of politicizing the Justice Department, failing to restrain Executive overreaching, and being less than forthcoming with Congress ... I am convinced that many of Attorney General Gonzales' missteps were caused by his eagerness to please the White House. Similarly, when Mr. Holder was serving as DAG to President Clinton, some of his actions raised concerns about his ability to maintain his independence from the president.

As their main exhibits in this case, Specter and other GOPers have cited Holder's 2001 pardon, as a top DOJ official in the Clinton administration, of the fugitive financier Marc Rich, which it appeared was supported by the president. GOPers have also condemned Holder's support for clemency for members of the FALN, a Puerto Rican nationalist group, at a time when Hillary Clinton was seeking a Senate seat in New York, which has a large Puerto Rican population.

Already this morning, Specter has grilled Holder on these issues, declaring, in reference to Rich: "The indicators are that you were very heavily involved and yet you testified that you were only casually involved. So there's a question of candor there."

Holder responded:

I made mistakes ... in the Rich matter. I've accepted the responsibility of making those mistakes...I should have made sure that all the prosecutors in that case were informed of what was going on. I made assumptions that turned out not to be true ... I've learned from that experience. I think that, as perverse as this might sound, I will be a better Attorney General should I be confirmed, having had the Marc Rich experience.

It's great that Holder has learned from his mistakes. But, Specter's grandstanding notwithstanding, the entire attack is pretty bogus to begin with.

There's just not much of a comparison between the level of politicization that DOJ saw under Gonzales -- when US Attorneys were removed for not bringing cases that reflected the White House's political priorities, and officials actively sought to avoid hiring liberals -- and Holder's sins during the last administration. And that excludes the numerous examples, cited by Leahy and other Holder supporters in recent weeks, of Holder acting in ways counter to the president's interest while at DOJ.

But leaving aside the minor political theater over Holder, the prominence of Gonzales' record in these hearings, as a negative marker against which to measure Holder, is perhaps the strongest testament to the unprecedented damage that the former Attorney General, and the president, did to the department.

It sounds like Sen. Pat Leahy isn't too happy about the US Attorney's office's decision not to prosecute Bradley Schlozman for making false statements to Leahy's Judiciary committee.

In a speech on the Senate floor this morning, Leahy left no doubt that he disagrees with the US Attorney's office's decision, and declared: "When somebody deliberately, purposely sets out to subvert the constitution of the United States, and then lies about it, lies about it, Mr. President, I find that a heinous crime."

You can watch the speech here, but here's the entire relevant excerpt:

I really wish that the current U.S. attorney's office appointed by this administration had prosecuted. I think that the only way you stop such blatant criminal violations by people who know better, people who are sworn to uphold the law, (unint.) that they know they'll go to jail for breaking the law. That's what should have been done. And just because they broke the law in the Bush administration and the Bush administration did not, or deemed not to prosecute, I think that raises real questions. Prosecution should be done no matter who breaks the law. I think about one of the people who testified that same investigation and said that, uh, "we swear an oath to President George Bush." I said, "no, you swear an oath to uphold the Constitution. That constitution is the constitution you're sworn to uphold and I'm sworn to uphold and it's the constitution that reflects all Americans."

...

And when somebody deliberately, purposely sets out to subvert the constitution of the United States, and then lies about it, lies about it, Mr. President, I find that a heinous crime. We will see some kid who steals a car, they'll be prosecuted as they probably should. But when you have a key member of the DoJ lie about it under oath, who subverts the consitution of the United States, all the more reason to prosecute that person. Mr. President what Mr. Schlozman did was reprehensible, it was disgusting, it was wrong, goes at the very core of America's principles. The distinguished presiding officer, like me, had the great opportunity to serve as a prosecutor, and I have every reason to believe that he did not show fear of favor when he brought prosecution, as I did, as I did not, I did not show fear of favor, most prosecutors do not. And when you have somebody who is part of the Justice Department lie under oath, and do it in a way to cover up subverting the laws that protect all of us, the civil rights laws protect all of us, white, black, brown, no matter what our race, our creed, it protects all of us. And what has marked this country since the time I was a young lawyer in the sixties, is our adherence to the civil rights laws. You can't go back to a time where they're enforced for some but not for others.

On a conference call this morning, Sen. Pat Leahy was asked about his ongoing spat with ranking GOPer Arlen Specter over the nomination of Eric Holder to be Attorney General -- which Leahy supports and Specter has expressed extreme skepticism about.

In response, Leahy upped the rhetoric, saying of Specter:

It may be coincidence that his positions have been those of Karl Rove. I suspect it is coincidence.

Leahy added:

He was a lead supporter in the US Senate of Alberto Gonzales. I disagreed with him on Alberto Gonzales. If he could support Gonzales, who turned out to be a disaster as Attorney General and was eventually forced out by President Bush, I would think that he would be very happy to support Eric Holder.

Pat Leahy, the chair of the Senate Judiciary committee, just put out the following statement on the DOJ report into politicized hiring:

Today's report confirms some of our worst fears about the Bush administration's political corruption of the Justice Department. Not only did senior Republican appointees violate the law in hiring based on politics in the Civil Rights Division, they also lied about it when called to explain themselves to Congress.

I am particularly disturbed about the findings that a senior Justice Department appointee, Bradley Schlozmann, made false statements under oath when appearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Lying to Congress undermines the very core of our constitutional principles and blunts the American people's right to open and transparent government. Not only did he lie to me and the Committee, but he then refused to cooperate with Justice Department's internal oversight offices' investigation into illegal hiring practices in the Department's Civil Rights Division. The clear determination that he broke the law corrodes our trust in our system of justice and in the nation's top law enforcement agency. His actions in fact undermine the very mission of the Department's Civil Rights Division, which is charged with enforcing federal law prohibiting discrimination.

A strong and independent Civil Rights Division has long been crucial to the enforcement of our precious civil rights laws, and experienced and committed career attorneys have always been the heart and soul of that Division. Contrary to those traditions, however, this report details troubling revelations of political appointees who marginalize and force out career lawyers because of ideology, and, corrupt the hiring process for career positions. It should come as no surprise that the result, and of course the intent, of this political makeover of the Civil Rights Division has been a dismal civil rights enforcement record.

This report is just one of the final chapters in the regrettable legacy of the Bush administration at Main Justice, and it reinforces the need for new leadership. Now more than ever, it is necessary to confirm a new team to lead the Justice Department, starting with Attorney General designee Eric Holder.

The Senate Judiciary committee has released its witness list for the confirmation hearings of Attorney General nominee Eric Holder, to begin Thursday:

The list:

The Honorable John W. Warner, Former United States Senator from Virginia
The Honorable Eleanor Holmes Norton, Congresswoman from the District of Columbia

Panel I:
Eric H. Holder, Jr.

Panel II:
The Honorable Louis J. Freeh, Former Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation
Chuck Canterbury, National President, Fraternal Order of Police
John Payton, President and Director-Counsel, NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc.

Witness to be designated by the Minority
Witness to be designated by the Minority

It'll be interesting to see who Arlen Specter and friends decide to call, since they've signaled a desire to scrutinize Holder's record -- in particular his role in the Marc Rich pardon -- very closely.