When I wrote this post, I was not aware of this speech by Sen Sheldon Whitehouse (h/t Marc Ambinder):

Whitehouse: As We Look Forward We Must Also Look Back

I rise as we celebrate a new President, a new administration, a new mode of governing, and a new future for America. . . . President Obama looks to that future. Given the depth and severity of those predicaments, we need all his energy to look forward to lead us to that brighter day; forward to what Winston Churchill in Britain's dark days called those "broad and sunlit uplands."

[MORE . . .]

Adriel Arocha, a 5 year old boy who attends school in the Needville (TX) Independent School District, wears his hair in two long braids. He and his parents argue that the hairstyle promotes his Native American heritage and religious beliefs. The school district argued that it was "not really open to letting 5-year-olds make their own rules” and told him to comply with the school's dress code which requires boys (but not girls) to keep their hair short and unbraided.

After "Adriel’s parents attempted to convince district officials to grant their son a religious exemption," the school board voted to let Adriel "wear his hair in a tightly woven single braid down his back with the hair behind his ears, out of his eyes and the braid tucked into the collar of his shirt." The school superintendent expressed pride in Needville's "structure and discipline." The school district apparently takes less pride in the Constitution's guarantees of freedom of religion and freedom of expression.

Fortunately, after Adriel was suspended for rejecting the school board's "compromise" and returning to school with twin braids worn outside his shirt, the ACLU stepped in. [more ...]

Via Glenn Greenwald, WaPo must have been shocked that their slanted poll question on torture did not produce a pro-torture result:

Q. Obama has said that under his administration the United States will not use torture as part of the U.S. campaign against terrorism, no matter what the circumstance. Do you support this position not to use torture, or do you think there are cases in which the United States should consider torture against terrorism suspects?

By a wide margin -- 58-40% -- Americans say that torture should never be used, no matter the circumstances. Let's repeat that: "no matter the circumstance."

"Center Right" America has spoken, Newsweek and WaPO -- time to end your Extreme Right Wing campaign to continue the despicable Bush/Cheney torture policies.

Speaking for me only

If it sticks, Huzzah for President Obama:

[T]he [executive] orders . . . will also prohibit the C.I.A. from using coercive interrogation methods, requiring the agency to follow the same rules used by the military in interrogating terrorism suspects, government officials said.

Here is my concern:

The new White House counsel, Gregory B. Craig, briefed lawmakers about some elements of the orders on Wednesday evening. A Congressional official who attended the session said Mr. Craig acknowledged concerns from intelligence officials that new restrictions on C.I.A. methods might be unwise and indicated that the White House might be open to allowing the use of methods other the 19 techniques allowed for the military.

(Emphasis supplied.) If Greg Craig said that, then this is all a charade. If Obama is saying that, then this is a big lie. Which, in some ways, makes it worse. More . . .

Read Glenn Greenwald discussing the affidavit of former Gitmo military commissions prosecutor Darrell J Vandeveld (PDF) in support of the habeas petition of Mohamad Jawad (here is the habeas brief prepared by the ACLU) (PDF), held in Gitmo for more than 6 years, since he was transported from Afghanistan when a teenager. A stain on our Nation.

In our names. President Obama ordered military prosecutors to seek a 120 day suspension of the military commission tribunals to allow for a review by his incoming Administration. His review of what has been done in our names must extend beyond the military commissions.

Speaking for me only

Thousands are marching in Denver and across the nation in honor of Martin Luther King, Jr. today. Whether marching for peace, for justice or for human rights, there's a unifying feeling and spirit of hope that change has come and will continue.

"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny.

Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly."

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Letter From a Birmingham Jail

Let's make this an open thread for your hopes of change in the coming Administration.

Jeffrey Harrell, a junior at Morehouse College, on Martin Luther King Jr. Day:

Today, there are still immigrants and women fighting for rights, there are people who are hungry and others without homes, Harrell said. "Until everyone is able to take part in what's called the American dream, the struggle's not done," he said.

Civil rights are for all of us. Barack Obama on Martin Luther King Jr. Day:

"We resolve that as we walk, we must walk together. And as we go forward in the work of renewing the promise of this nation, let's remember King's lesson -- that our separate dreams are really one."

One conservative blogger is asking President Bush to issue torture pardons:

My powder is still dry on seeking to deny Holder the AG job, but is no longer dry on deeming preemptive pardons acceptable on the narrow issue of those involved in waterboarding.

Bush has two days to left do it. The wording of such a pardon would be extremely interesting. Presumably, the specific people being pardoned would be named. Also presumably, Bush would expressly pardon Cheney, Rumsfeld, Tenet, Hayden, Brennan, Kappes, specific field agents, etc. Finally, the pardons would state the actions for which pardons were issued. On one level, pardons would be good - we would certainly find out more about what was done. Of course, justice may be thwarted. Personally, I am more interested in stopping the abuses now. See also Jeralyn on Cheney's dismissal of the need for preemptive pardons.

Speaking for me only

The NYTimes published an editorial today that explains why the torture issue can not be swept under the rug:

We have heard a lot of talk about how the country needs to look forward and not backward. We certainly would like to forget the horrors of the last eight years. But you cannot fix something before you know exactly how it is broken. The clandestine system Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney have built will not give up its secrets easily.

To ensure that the abuses stop, Mr. Obama and his administration will have to work hard to find out all that has happened. They will have to locate and override all of the policy memos, directives and executive orders that have redefined and condoned torture and other abuses. . . .

The question now is plain - DOES the Obama Administration wish to "ensure that the abuses stop?" Let's hope it does. In any event, we must demand that all necessary steps are taken to "ensure that the abuses stop."

Speaking for me only

In the post I reference below, Glenn Greenwald updates:

While those who argue that the U.S. was right to torture because it's the U.S. that did it are expressing a repugnant form of exceptionalism, at least they're being honest -- far more so than those who argue that Bush officials shouldn't be investigated or prosecuted while paying deceitful lip service to "the rule of law" and the idea that "no one is above the law."

True enough, but the argument, while honest, still undermines the idea of an international treaty to prohibit torture. Consider Cuba, where it is argued that the US embargo and the full throated hostility of the most powerful nation on Earth, justifies its repressive policies:

The other day, the AP reported:

President-elect Barack Obama is preparing to prohibit the use of waterboarding and other harsh interrogation techniques by ordering the CIA to follow military rules for questioning prisoners, according to two U.S. officials familiar with drafts of the plans. Still under debate is whether to allow exceptions in extraordinary cases.

. . . Obama's changes may not be absolute. His advisers are considering adding a classified loophole to the rules that could allow the CIA to use some interrogation methods not specifically authorized by the Pentagon, the officials said. They said the intent is not to use that as an opening for possible use of waterboarding, an interrogation technique that simulates drowning.

As Glenn Greenwald points out, such a "loophole" would constitute a violation of the UN Convention on Torture, codified as a crime under US law:

An 8th grade student in Safford, Arizona, found in possession of two prescription-strength ibuprofen pills, told school officials she got them from another student, Savana Redding.

School officials searched Savana’s belongings, made her strip to her bra and underwear, and ordered her, in the words of an appeals court, “to pull her bra out to the side and shake it” and “pull out her underwear at the crotch and shake it.” No pills were found.

Strip searching a student to recover a relatively benign medication on the strength of an uncorroborated accusation is outrageous, and seems like an obvious constitutional violation. When Savana's parents sued, however, school officials claimed they were immune from suit because students have no constitutional right not to be strip searched when they are accused of violating school policy. The Supreme Court agreed to decide whether the school's position (which the Ninth Circuit rejected [pdf]) is correct. [more ...]