Happy Hour Discurso

Today's opining on the public discourse.

We'll jump straight into it with both feet today, my darlings. Just make sure you're holding your noses:

President Bush says he knew his top national security advisers discussed and approved specific details about how high-value al Qaeda suspects would be interrogated by the Central Intelligence Agency, according to an exclusive interview with ABC News Friday.

"Well, we started to connect the dots in order to protect the American people." Bush told ABC News White House correspondent Martha Raddatz. "And yes, I'm aware our national security team met on this issue. And I approved." [emphasis added]

That's right. We're discovering that the Administration approved torture from the top-down, not the bottom-up. Now Bush is going out of his way to inform us he approved - gleefully shattering the shield "The Principals" raised in an attempt to keep him from getting splattered with shit. Apparently, he likes to splash about in the sewage.

Digby is discovering that even after so many years of fuckwittedness, leading to a numbed state, she's not yet innured to the idiocy:

I thought I was long past the point of being shocked at anything the Bush administration did. They suspended the constitution after 9/11 and set forth a series of legal opinions that said the president can do anything he deems necessary to "protect the country." Once you truly absorb that fact, it's hard to be emotionally affected by anything else you learn.

But I was wrong. This shocks me. The president of the United States casually admits on television that he approved of his national security team personally deciding which specific torture techniques should be used against prisoners...

And what is the media doing about it? Emptywheel at Firedoglake answers: Bugger-all:

The President just admitted that he approved torture.

And thus far at least, no one seems to give a damn. As of 9AM, the NYT published no news of Bush's admission. The WaPo placed a story on A3 stating that they had already reported this, even though they hadn't reported this). ABC, the outlet that got the damn scoop, places the story fourth on its list of stories, behind Obama and Indiana and Hillary telling Bill to "butt out," with the main picture on the front page cycling through such critical stories as a dog who invited himself to his owner's funeral.

Hunter at Daily Kos has a pretty good breakdown of media reaction to such things:

NEWSCASTER BOB: Good evening, and welcome to the news. A disturbing revelation tonight, as reports indicate the abusive treatment of prisoners in United States custody was specifically endorsed at the highest levels of government. Vice President Richard Cheney, then Secretary of State Colin Powell, National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Attorney General John Ashcroft and CIA Director George Tenet specifically signed off on torture techniques like "waterboarding" that could be used on prisoners, including specific numbers of times some techniques could be used.

This contradicts frequent statements by the administration that these torture techniques were not used, and may have legal ramifications as --

PUNDIT 1: Bob, I'm going to have to break in here. We have breaking news that Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama today turned down a cup of coffee, asking for orange juice instead. Could this be the gaffe that brings down the Obama campaign? Let's talk to our panel of interchangeable political experts.

Our media watchdogs are too busy watching pretty shiny things to take notice of the crooks in the building. This is exactly how they act.

And what's going to happen to John Yoo, the man who wrote the torture memo, now a tenured professor? Again, bugger all:

In response to mounting criticisms of its ongoing employment of John Yoo, UC Berkeley School of Law's Dean Christopher Edley issued a Memorandum -- entitled "The Torture Memos and Academic Freedom" -- citing the "near absolute" values of academic freedom and tenure to explain why the law school will not dismiss Yoo nor even initiate an inquiry into whether action ought to be taken against him.

And because of this vaunted academic freedom, a man who tortured the spirit, letter and meaning of the law gets to hang around in comfy digs at one of our nation's most prestigious schools and teach a whole new generation how to break national, international and military law and get off scott-free. Charming.

I have news for Berkeley: there are times when tenure don't mean jack shit.

This is where the line is crossed. This is where academic freedom ends. I don't give two shits about tenure: when it comes out that you authored a memo that enabled this kind of outrageous, illegal, despicable and digusting behavior, you've lost your right to immunity. Berkeley: investigate his ass. Beat his bottom bloody. After all, I'm sure there's a way you can twist the law to make it perfectly legal and reasonable, eh? Just ask John Yoo.

Glenn Greenwald, at least, understands:

I think all of those concerns are valid, though ultimately, what matters most is that some important American institution -- somewhere -- meaningfully demonstrate that perpetrating systematic torture and committing war crimes renders one beyond the pale in the United States. It shouldn't be up to Berkeley to enforce that precept by itself, but if no other institutions are doing so, then (after a full and careful investigation), Berkeley should.

Exactly.

'Nuff said.