Month: August 2009

Catch 22

by digby

“The bill that’s coming through the House, with or without the public option, isn’t good for America,” Adler said matter-of-factly. “We have Congressional Budget Office projections of a trillion-dollar increase in costs that will have to be borne by taxpayers or insurance purchasers; meaning businesses and households. Either way, that’s a cost we can’t afford.”

This is one of the problems with health care reform, as I’ve mentioned before. If the economy is doing well and deficits are going down, everybody’s working and the fiscal scolds insist that reform will rain on the parade and ruin everything. More people working means more people have health insurance and the calls for reform are muted. If the economy is in trouble, then the fiscal scolds insist that the sky is falling because of rising deficits and reform will make everything even worse. Fewer people working makes the need more critical, but many of them see the deficit as a sign that government is dysfunctional and so they reject reform. No matter what, “the deficit” has a stranglehold on the political discourse in ways that makes reform nearly impossible.

Now, Clinton thought that he could change this cycle by fixing the deficit and selling the Democrats as good fiscal stewards. The deficit hawks didn’t exactly thank him for it. Indeed, once surpluses were in the hands of trusted oil men, the Oracle of Galt himself famously reversed himself and said that surpluses were actually a bad thing because the government might gamble with the people’s money by investing it unwisely. (I know …)

Here’s Krugman:

Greenspan argued on the basis of budget projections — which he must have known are notoriously unreliable — that the federal government would pay off all its debt in a few years. If this happened, the government would be forced to invest future surpluses in the financial markets — which, he argued, would be a bad thing. To avoid this outcome, he claimed, surpluses had to be reduced with tax cuts.

It was a peculiar, tortured argument, full of holes. For example, partial privatization of Social Security — which Greenspan supports — would impose ”transition costs” in the trillions of dollars, easily taking care of the supposed problem of excessive budget surpluses. As many warned at the time, Greenspan was also completely wrong about the budget prospect — projections of huge surpluses quickly gave way to projections of huge deficits.

Above all, Greenspan’s fear-of-surpluses argument was at complete odds with what he had said in the past. All through the Clinton years, Greenspan preached the virtues of fiscal restraint, and he did not change his views when the budget deficits of the 80’s and early 90’s vanished. Just six months before his 2001 testimony, Greenspan saw no problem with large projected budget surpluses. ”The Congress and the administration,” he said in July 2000, ”have wisely avoided steps that would materially reduce these budget surpluses. Continued fiscal discipline will contribute to maintaining robust expansion of the American economy in the future.” But then a Republican entered the White House, brandishing a tax-cut proposal — and Greenspan suddenly developed an elaborate theory of why it was necessary to reduce those surpluses, after all.

Any doubts that Greenspan holds George Bush to different standards than he held Bill Clinton were dispelled in the years that followed. He didn’t call for a reconsideration of the 2001 tax cut when the budget surplus evaporated. He didn’t even offer strong objections to a second major round of tax cuts in 2003, when the budget was already deep in deficit.

As Perlstein says, it’s how they roll.

According to Greenspan’s book, Kent Conrad asked Bob Rubin to call Alan before his 2001 testimony to tell him how important it was that they not let go of the “fiscal responsibility” mantle (which endorsing the idea that the surpluses should be spent on tax cuts for Paris Hilton certainly did.) Greenspan pulled the football right out from under them, as anyone would have predicted. And the Charlie Brown Democrats didn’t exactly fight him on it, for obvious reasons — they have a role to play in this little kabuki too.

Greenspan knew that it didn’t matter what excuse he used, the point of any political discussion about deficits and surpluses is simply for one purpose: to keep as much money in the hands of the wealthy as possible. The behavior of the political class over the last 20 years proved it.

When we heard politicians insisting that we had to spend surpluses on tax cuts for the rich we automatically knew who they were serving. But using the deficit as an excuse not to do something for the people means exactly the same thing. Either way, the nation is deprived of necessary reform over and over again until we find ourselves in a situation where reason is no longer operative and the body politic finally breaks.

Grover Norquist didn’t drown government in the bathtub. He waterboarded it.

.

Insurocorp Thanks You For Defeating Socialism

by dday

It’s always best to entrust programs that serve the public good to unregulated profit-driven mega-corporations.

(via Ezra)

.

Diapers

by digby

Spencer Ackerman and others have been writing about the revelation in the CIA IG report that diapers were used as an “enhanced interrogation technique,” presumably as one of the many humiliation rituals designed by the SERE psychologists/sadists to “break” the prisoners. Spencer is calling it the “11th technique.”

He meticulously puts together the available evidence to show that this resulted in prisoners having to live in their own filth for long periods of time while they were hanging by their arms in agony — among other things.

But there’s another reason they were kept in diapers, at least while in transit, and I suspect at other times as well: forced enemas.

Mr. Kahtani was, for example, forcibly given an enema, officials said, which was used because it was uncomfortable and degrading.

Pentagon spokesmen said the procedure was medically necessary because Mr. Kahtani was dehydrated after an especially difficult interrogation session. Another official, told of the use of the enema, said, however, “I bet they said he was dehydrated,” adding that that was the justification whenever an enema was used as a coercive technique, as it had been on several detainees.

Diapering would likely be part of such a torture technique, I imagine. The American torturers prided themselves on hygiene, after all.

This stuff is actually one of many sick, psychosexual techniques that were used on prisoners under the assumption that “teh ayrabs” were especially a-scared of the dirty dirty. The manly men of the Vice President’s sadism corps knew exactly what to do (and anyway, the torturers probably needed to blow off some steam — it’s a stressful job.) As Greenwald pointed out yesterday, Holder is using the Abu Ghraib model for the investigation, so perhaps this all makes some sort of grotesque sense.

If you have followed the torture revelations over the years, you can’t help but be just a tad disillusioned by the fact that the mainstream media acts over and over again as if they were born yesterday and each time these stories are validated it’s as if it’s the first time they’ve heard it.

We already know they tortured. We know that DOJ bureaucrats illegally approved the torture on Dick Cheney’s request and we know that a bunch of unprofessional, untrained interrogators complied and then went beyond even what was approved. We know that innocent people were tortured and we know that prisoners were killed. We’ve known all this for a long time. The question is not what happened, it’s whether anyone will be held accountable for it.

The Village wants to sweep this under the rug and one of the ways they do that is simultaneously restart the clock with each new revelation while taking official action at a glacial pace. At this point, most people are so inured to information about torture that they barely notice and those who do are expected to be satisfied with another bad apple prosecution.

There is always hope that even a sham investigation will lead the prosecutors down paths they can’t avoid so it’s not over. Keep your fingers crossed. Otherwise, we will be left with a very dangerous precedent and a shameful, disgusting American legacy which will haunt us all.

.

Recipe For America

by tristero

Who knew that “activism” could be so delicious!
Jill Richardson

Jill Richardson, founder of La Vida Locavore, has written a wonderful book entitled Recipe For America: Why Our Food System Is Broken And What We Can Do To Fix It. (A click takes you to her website where you can order an autographed copy). It describes how she became involved in food issues, succinctly lays out what the problems are, and, most importantly, provides a detailed “recipe” for how we can go about fixing it.

In addition to telling us about the horrors of the industrial food system, the book gives us insight into an alternate, far better, food universe. One of the amazing stories Jill tells is about her favorite restaurant in San Diego, Spread, which doesn’t embody as much as transcend the locavore aesthetic. In her description of the extraordinary food they prepare for their customers on a typical day, Jill gives us a sense of the truly awesome potential of local food to provide a deliciously unforgettable experience:

Unless you are looking for it, you probably wouldn’t even notice Spread, as the restaurant’s muted lighting and unremarkable appearance pale in comparison to the flashy theatre located on the same block. Yet Spread attracts a steady stream of business, and does so without advertising-that is how loudly its food appeals to diners, inspiring them to come back over and over again to “spread” the word.

A food delivery truck has never pulled up to the front entrance of Spread. Instead, each morning, owners Andrew and Robin Schiff wake up at 5:30 to begin gathering the ingredients for that evening’s menu. The belief that “the moment you pull [a food] from the vine, that’s the moment it’s supposed to be eaten” drives Andrew to search for ingredients from farms and farmers’ markets as distant as Temecula, about 75 miles away. He and Robin personally select each day’s ingredients, sometimes picking the vegetables themselves. “A lot of times,” Robin told me, “We’re out there fighting off ducks for beets.” By 4:00 in the afternoon, it’s time for Robin and Andrew to head home for a quick shower in order to make it to the restaurant by 5:00, where they will design that evening’s menu from their chosen ingredients, write it out on a large chalkboard (they avoid using disposable products like paper menus), and then open the doors at 6:00 p.m.

On the day I was talking with Andrew about the restaurant, Robin burst in the door carrying a bundle that included kaffir lime leaves. I had a notepad and pencil, ready to ask about the more mundane details of the business, but Robin’s focus was only on the food; she had a little under an hour to turn the ingredients she was carrying into a menu, which that evening would feature a Thai vegetable pizza topped with heirloom vegetables and a black sesame reduction, two salads, rosemary and citron-scented edamame, olive oil and shallot crusted purple potato tacos, a lavender tart, and a kaffir lime and kumquat glazed vegetable mix. As she put it, “it’s so much more interesting to not fall back on fat for flavor.”

While Robin and Andrew view their cooking as a nightly “free form art extravaganza,” in fact, their impact on San Diego reaches beyond merely tantalizing diners’ palates with a new, local menu each night. They’ve formed relationships with local farmers, thus helping to economically enrich the city’s organic agricultural community. In return for Spread’s business, farmers work with Andrew and Robin when planning their planting, growing varieties of their heirloom vegetables specifically for use in the restaurant. Andrew sees this as supporting mom ‘n pop businesses [and] bringing identity back to the American landscape.”

As nutritious as this food surely is, to call cooking at this level “health food” is like describing Jimi Hendrix as an interesting warmup act for The Monkees. This is dining for sheer unadulterated pleasure. I, for one, can’t wait to get to San Diego to try their food (and to see Jill again; we met briefly in Massachusetts during her book tour).

While the movement to reform our food system has produced exceptional restaurants like Spread all over the country, the real focus of the movement, and Jill’s book, is on the effort to make what all Americans eat tastier, more diversified, and (yes) more nutritious than it has ever been. Jill Richardson and others in the movement seek to change – radically – the political and economic factors that have forced more and more of us to eat garbage and nothing but. Yes, “forced,” as Jill makes clear; the economics of our food does indeed provide few, and for many of us, no decent choices about what we eat. But the present production and distribution system not only disgorges more and more disgustingly bleak junk that passes for food; it also sickens those who eat it. Rates of illnesses related to bad diets have skyrocketed while, at the same time, the price of lousy food remains as artificially low as its heavily advertised nutritional content is empty of real worth.

One of our most important founding documents calls the pursuit of happiness a self-evident, inalienable right. Jill Richardson’s book provides us both the ingredients and the techniques to wrest food and eating back from those who have succeeded in denying us that right by turning one of the great sensual experiences of life into a brief, bleak, joyless, and sickening chore.

It’s interesting: the people who have ruined our food are more often than not avid supporters of the folks who preach abstinence, advocate torture, foment unending war, and think the present healtcare system is basically just hunky dory. Unlike other issues, when it comes to food, we have the opportunity to vote three times a day for a far better country. But we also need to do more. And Recipe For America shows us how.

That’s How They Roll

by digby

Noam Schrieber believes in fairy tales:

If Kennedy were to pass away in the next few months, the Senate math on any health care vote would almost certainly get easier, not harder. For one thing, it would single-handedly make the magic number 51 votes, not 60, since it would be suicidal for the GOP to filibuster the culmination of the last Kennedy brother’s lifelong crusade. Beyond that, I suspect the coverage of Kennedy’s death would silence healthcare reform critics and boost proponents in a way that netted at least a couple of wavering moderates–so clearing the 51-vote threshold wouldn’t be a problem. Heck, you might even see Utah Republican (and longtime Kennedy friend) Orrin Hatch back in the reformist camp.

So all the maneuvering around Kennedy’s hypothetical replacement strikes me as unnecessary at best and possibly even counterproductive, since it could only detract from what would otherwise be a powerful (and authentic) emotional outpouring in the event of Kennedy’s passing.

The idea that it’s “politically suicidal” to filibuster Teddy’s Kennedy’s lifelong crusade is just hilarious to me.

Rick Perlstein, who has a slightly better understanding of how conservatives actually do things, writes in an email:

The Republican old bulls will say they’re honoring EMK’s memory by voting against cloture for what they’ll say is a failed bill that he would never have happened had he been alive and kicking. And any bill that comes out of committee they’ll say was a failed bill that never would have happened had he been alive and kicking. That’s how they roll.

Of course it is. They’re already doing it. When are people going to understand how these people operate?

.

Voices From The Wilderness

by dday

Look at this, a media organization bothered to interview some of the people suffering the most under the current health care system!

Such scaremongering has dismayed and infuriated Sharon Lee, the doctor who now treats Manley in Kansas City. “I’m very angry, very angry,” she says. “Many of the people I treat have already been in front of a death panel and have lost – a death panel controlled by insurance companies. I see people dying at least monthly because we have been unable to get them what they needed.”

Lee’s clinic, Family Health Care, is a refuge of last resort. It picks up the pieces of lives left shattered by a health system that has failed them, and tries to glue them back together. It exists largely outside the parameters of formal health provision, raising funds through donations and paying all its 50 staff – Lee included – a flat rate of just $12 an hour […]

Beth Gabaree, who came in to see Lee for the first time this morning, has experiences that sound extreme but are in fact quite typical. She has diabetes and a heart condition. Until two years ago they were controlled through ongoing treatment paid for by her husband’s work-based health insurance. But he was in a motorbike crash that pulverised his right leg and put him out of work.

That Catch 22 again: no work, no insurance, no treatment. Except in this case it was Beth who went without treatment, in order to put her husband’s dire needs first. He receives ongoing specialist care that costs them $500 a go, leaving nothing for her. So she stopped seeing a doctor, and effectively began self-medicating. She cut down from two different insulin drugs to regulate her diabetes to one, and restricted her heart drugs. “I do what I think I need to do to keep four steps out of hospital. I know that’s not the right thing, but I can’t justify seeing the doctor when my family’s already in money trouble.”

The problem is that she hasn’t kept herself four steps out of hospital. Her health deteriorated and earlier this year she became bedridden. Even then, it took her family several days to persuade her to go to the emergency room because she didn’t want to incur the hospital costs. “It was hard enough without that,” she says.

After an initial consultation, Lee has now booked Gabaree for a new round of tests for her diabetes and is arranging for free medication. “It’s wonderful,” Gabaree says. “I’m so blessed. I didn’t know you could get this sort of help.”

That she sees basic healthcare as a blessing, not as a right, speaks volumes about attitudes among the mass of the working poor. Also revealing is the fact that Gabaree has absolutely no idea about the debate raging across America. She hasn’t even heard of Obama’s push for health reform, nor the Republican efforts to prevent it. “I don’t watch much television,” she says.

There are 47 million voiceless people who have no access to the health care debate itself, let alone access to participate in it. They would be the biggest beneficiaries of reform, and yet they lack information about what is being attempted, and they certainly lack the wherewithal to do anything meaningful about it. At least this one news organization has offered a small voice to those suffering through the horrors of the lifestyle of the permanent underclass in America.

One thing though.

This story will never be read in an American newspaper. It comes from The UK Guardian.

Hey, at least the Brits are getting the full range of debate…

.

Bonanza!

by digby

Well, bowl me over with a feather. The mainstream media finally looks at how the health care debate has unfolded and who is benefitting:

Lashed by liberals and threatened with more government regulation, the insurance industry nevertheless rallied its lobbying and grass-roots resources so successfully in the early stages of the healthcare overhaul deliberations that it is poised to reap a financial windfall.

The half-dozen leading overhaul proposals circulating in Congress would require all citizens to have health insurance, which would guarantee insurers tens of millions of new customers — many of whom would get government subsidies to help pay the companies’ premiums.

“It’s a bonanza,” said Robert Laszewski, a health insurance executive for 20 years who now tracks reform legislation as president of the consulting firm Health Policy and Strategy Associates Inc.

Some insurance company leaders continue to profess concern about the unpredictable course of President Obama’s massive healthcare initiative, and they vigorously oppose elements of his agenda. But Laszewski said the industry’s reaction to early negotiations boiled down to a single word: “Hallelujah!”

Hallalujah indeed.

Too bad they buried the lead:

One of the Democratic proposals that most concerns insurers is the creation of a “public option” insurance plan. The industry launched a campaign on Capitol Hill against it, grounded in a study published by the Lewin Group, a health policy consulting firm that is owned by UnitedHealth Group. The lobbyists contended that a government-run plan, which would have favorable tax and regulatory treatment, would undermine private insurers.

Opposition increased this month when boisterous critics mobilized at town hall meetings held by members of Congress home for the August recess.

The attacks, supplemented by conservative critics on talk radio and other forums, drew national attention.

Leading insurers, including UnitedHealth, urged their employees around the country to speak out. Company “advocacy hot line” operations and sample letters and statements were made available to an army of insurance industry employees in nearly every congressional district.

Some insurers supplemented the effort with local advertising, often designed to put pressure on specific members of Congress. Late in the spring, Blue Cross Blue Shield of North Carolina — the home state of several conservative Blue Dog Democrats — prepared ads attacking the public option.

You’d think that would be a big story in itself, but I suppose if people made their way to the end, they’d get the picture.

They conclude:

Leading Democrats have fought back, with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) last month calling the industry “immoral” for its past treatment of customers and suggesting insurers were “the villains” in the healthcare debate.

Still, recent support for the public option has declined, and the stock prices of health insurance firms have been rising.

Yes, funny how that happens.

Eric Boehlert pegged this correctly: it’s the Swift Boat technique and it continues to work like a charm. Someday, maybe the media will find some interest in that as it’s actually happening, but I doubt it. The political establishment certainly doesn’t seem to care about it in the least since they keep reliving it over and over again like it’s some kind of sacred hazing ritual.

.

Sure

by digby

Chris Cilizza said on Hardball today that the White House is upset because the DOJ’s tepid torture investigation is distracting from the health care debate.

Does anything believe that?

I might believe that in other circumstances, but at this point I think the White House is thrilled to have Dick Cheney front and center. And I find it very hard to believe that they couldn’t have put it off for a bit longer. It hardly would have raised an eyebrow. They would like nothing more than some breathing room.

I don’t think anyone should give it to them. The pressure from the left is all there is to keep the whole establishment from throwing in their cards right now and at the very least we need to keep the heat on until the votes in both houses are cast.

Make some calls to their home offices this week, if you have the time. They need to keep hearing from you.

.

Stimulating The Scolds

by digby

Robert Frank had an excellent article in this week-end’s NY Times about the stimulus. It’s a shame that he has to waste his time writing things that should be obvious, but he does:

In a recent column in Forbes magazine, the economist Lee Ohanian of the University of California, Los Angeles, a stimulus opponent, explained why he believes that increased government spending wouldn’t help the situation. The problem, he says, is that “the higher taxes on incomes or expenditures that ultimately accompany higher spending depress economic activity.” Because the short-run stimulus program has been financed with borrowed money, not higher taxes, Mr. Ohanian must have in mind future taxes needed to pay off stimulus-related debt.

His argument, and that of stimulus opponents generally, thus boils down to this striking contention: As the government spends borrowed funds, consumers will start to realize that the resulting debt spells higher taxes in the future, which will lead them to curtail their current spending. Those cuts will offset increased government spending, leaving no net stimulus.

Although there may be people who would actually spend less now to hedge against uncertain future tax bills, it’s unlikely that you know any of them. As behavioral economists have been saying for decades, that’s just not the way most people act. Hardly any consumers even know how big the national debt is, much less how it will affect future taxes.

MORE important, there are good reasons for believing that stimulus spending will make people’s future tax payments lower, not higher. Yes, government borrowing adds to the national debt. But if the stimulus also hastens the downturn’s end, it will accelerate the growth of future incomes and tax revenue. In that case, the net effect would be to reduce future taxes, compared with what they would have been without the stimulus.

And even if we run with the notion that stimulus spending will increase future taxes, it doesn’t follow that consumers will cut back on spending now. After all, we know that most people already fail to save enough for their retirement. Why would they alter their behavior to hedge against uncertain future taxes?

They don’t. “Deficit” is a word that stands for “something terrible I don’t understand.” There is no logic to it. People couldn’t tell you what it means and why they fear it, but they just know they must.

I mentioned this on a panel I was on in Pittsburgh, recounting the townhall in 1992 in which they asked Poppy if he could tell people how the deficit had affected him personally. And it was considered quite the gaffe when he couldn’t do it. But who could? (The truth of the matter is that Poppy is one of the few who are affected by the deficit because like most wealthy Americans he’s heavily invested in bonds, but that’s a different question.)

The Deficit Scolds have successfully manipulated the public into fearing a boogeyman, but it doesn’t make any sense. Progressive politicians would do themselves a big favor if they started to challenge this shibboleth instead of pandering to it. It’s a fundamental cause of the legislative paralysis we see in DC today.

.

Special Prosecutor

by dday

WaPo sez:

Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. has decided to appoint a prosecutor to examine nearly a dozen cases in which CIA interrogators and contractors may have violated anti-torture laws and other statutes when they allegedly threatened terrorism suspects, according to two sources familiar with the move.

Holder is poised to name John Durham, a career Justice Department prosecutor from Connecticut, to lead the inquiry, according to the sources, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the process is not complete.

Durham’s mandate, the sources added, will be relatively narrow: to look at whether there is enough evidence to launch a full-scale criminal investigation of current and former CIA personnel who may have broken the law in their dealings with detainees. Many of the harshest CIA interrogation techniques have not been employed against terrorism suspects for four years or more.

Durham’s been handling the investigation over the destruction of the torture tapes, which hasn’t yielded much information to date. Obama is trying to stay as far away from this as possible; his spokesman’s statement is “The White House supports the attorney general making the decisions on who gets prosecuted and investigated.”

The narrowness of this investigation, focused on only the CIA personnel who colored outside the lines set down by moral lepers John Yoo and Jay Bybee, is reprehensible. If it only extends that far, we’re seeing a replay of the Abu Ghraib investigation which sent Lynndie England to jail but let those who authorized and directed the abuse free with nary a warning. Basically, Holder is following the Office of Professional Responsibility report, which recommended that they reopen about a dozen prisoner-abuse cases, some of which include murders. I hold no brief for the CIA personnel who engaged in this, but confining the mandate to the low men and women on the totem pole will do nothing to chill the potential for such abuse to happen again. If any old lackey in the Office of Legal Counsel can write up an opinion essentially validating torture, and they become de facto legal as long as those using the guidelines follow them generally, we don’t really have a rule of law anymore. And future Presidents will easily discern the loophole in the system.

However, just the possibility of prosecuting individuals who did, after all, break the law, is enough for establishmentarians like Leon Panetta to reportedly threaten resignation. And the Durham investigation, in the end, is up to John Durham. He can be given a mandate, but Eric Holder has said in the past that he cannot circumscribe an investigation so much as to effectively immunize certain individuals. If the small fish flip, Durham, like any prosecutor, can find out who authorized their actions. And that can lead to the Bush White House.

I think Panetta, and the CIA in general, are probably more angered by the Obama Administration taking some of their responsibilities away, like giving the White House oversight through the National Security Council over the “High-Value Detainee Interrogation Group.” (That task force, by the way, unanimously determined that the Army Field Manual shall be the ultimate parameter when questioning suspects.) This is probably more of a turf war than anything.

But maybe, just maybe, CIA – particularly its Bush-era holdovers – know that an investigation, once started, is hard to stop or rein in.

We still have the CIA Inspector General report coming today as well.

…First bit of new news from the IG report (haven’t seen the report online anywhere yet):

A newly declassified CIA report says interrogators threatened to kill the children of a Sept. 11 suspect.

The document, released Monday by the Justice Department, says one interrogator said a colleague had told Khalid Sheikh Mohammed that if any other attacks happened in the United States, “We’re going to kill your children.”

Another interrogator allegedly tried to convince a different terror suspect detainee that his mother would be sexually assaulted in front of him – though the interrogator in question denied making such a threat.

I don’t know if such a threat went “above and beyond” the Yoo-Bybee memos, so I’m glad we’re saving investigations for only the really bad stuff.

…I now have Atty. Gen. Holder’s statement. I think it pretty much speaks for itself. Note that it says nothing about those who authorized detainee abuse, which also possibly means that they are not shielded from review. And realize, of course, that even this hedged, incomplete investigation is likely to launch the shitstorm to end all shitstorms from the Village:

“The Office of Professional Responsibility has now submitted to me its report regarding the Office of Legal Counsel memoranda related to so-called enhanced interrogation techniques. I hope to be able to make as much of that report available as possible after it undergoes a declassification review and other steps. Among other findings, the report recommends that the Department reexamine previous decisions to decline prosecution in several cases related to the interrogation of certain detainees.

“I have reviewed the OPR report in depth. Moreover, I have closely examined the full, still-classified version of the 2004 CIA Inspector General’s report, as well as other relevant information available to the Department. As a result of my analysis of all of this material, I have concluded that the information known to me warrants opening a preliminary review into whether federal laws were violated in connection with the interrogation of specific detainees at overseas locations. The Department regularly uses preliminary reviews to gather information to determine whether there is sufficient predication to warrant a full investigation of a matter. I want to emphasize that neither the opening of a preliminary review nor, if evidence warrants it, the commencement of a full investigation, means that charges will necessarily follow.

“Assistant United States Attorney John Durham was appointed in 2008 by then-Attorney General Michael Mukasey to investigate the destruction of CIA videotapes of detainee interrogations. During the course of that investigation, Mr. Durham has gained great familiarity with much of the information that is relevant to the matter at hand. Accordingly, I have decided to expand his mandate to encompass this related review. Mr. Durham, who is a career prosecutor with the Department of Justice and who has assembled a strong investigative team of experienced professionals, will recommend to me whether there is sufficient predication for a full investigation into whether the law was violated in connection with the interrogation of certain detainees.

“There are those who will use my decision to open a preliminary review as a means of broadly criticizing the work of our nation’s intelligence community. I could not disagree more with that view. The men and women in our intelligence community perform an incredibly important service to our nation, and they often do so under difficult and dangerous circumstances. They deserve our respect and gratitude for the work they do. Further, they need to be protected from legal jeopardy when they act in good faith and within the scope of legal guidance. That is why I have made it clear in the past that the Department of Justice will not prosecute anyone who acted in good faith and within the scope of the legal guidance given by the Office of Legal Counsel regarding the interrogation of detainees. I want to reiterate that point today, and to underscore the fact that this preliminary review will not focus on those individuals.

“I share the President’s conviction that as a nation, we must, to the extent possible, look forward and not backward when it comes to issues such as these. While this Department will follow its obligation to take this preliminary step to examine possible violations of law, we will not allow our important work of keeping the American people safe to be sidetracked.

“I fully realize that my decision to commence this preliminary review will be controversial. As Attorney General, my duty is to examine the facts and to follow the law. In this case, given all of the information currently available, it is clear to me that this review is the only responsible course of action for me to take.”

…Reps. Conyers and Nadler:

“I applaud the Attorney General’s decision to appoint a special US Attorney to review the interrogation abuse cases that were rejected for prosecution by George Bush’s Justice Department,” said Conyers. “The Obama Administration also deserves praise for the release of the 2004 CIA Inspector General report as well as related DOJ memos. These materials are truly disturbing, including the CIA’s basic conclusion that ‘unauthorized, improvised, inhumane, and undocumented detention and interrogation techniques were used’ in its program. Reading about misdeeds such as threats to kill a detainees’ children or the staging of mock executions leaves us appalled.

“Today’s release — even of these still heavily redacted materials — is thus an important step toward restoring the rule of law in this country, and rebuilding our credibility around the world. But much more remains to be done. The gruesome acts described in today’s report did not happen in a vacuum. It would not be fair or just for frontline personnel to be held accountable while the policymakers and lawyers escape scrutiny after creating and approving conditions where such abuses were all but inevitable to occur.

“I have long believed that Department rules require a special counsel to review the entire interrogation program to determine if any crimes were committed. An independent and bipartisan commission should also be convened to evaluate the broader issues raised by the Bush Administration’s brutal torture program.”

“The CIA Inspector General’s report on interrogation practices under the Bush administration is a disturbing record of abuse that details why this must never happen again and why action on the part of the Justice Department is essential,” said Nadler. “Today’s news that the Attorney General has listened to our many requests and is poised to appoint a special counsel is very much welcome. I applaud the Attorney General for this first step. But, we must go further. As I have said for many months, it is vital that this special counsel be given a broad mandate to investigate these abuses, to follow the evidence where it leads, and to prosecute where warranted. This must be a robust mission to gather any and all evidence without predetermination of where it may lead. Seeking out only the low-level actors in a conspiracy to torture detainees will bring neither justice nor restored standing to our nation.”

…Feingold:

“I applaud Attorney General Holder’s decision to appoint a prosecutor to review the shocking violations of law that took place under the Bush administration. We cannot simply sweep these abuses under the rug. This investigation should not be limited to those who carried out interrogations or to whether the abuses they engaged in were officially sanctioned. The abuses that were officially sanctioned amounted to torture and those at the very top who authorized, ordered or sought to provide legal cover for them should be held accountable.”

There’s at least a fraction of the Democratic caucus who finds this investigation wanting.

.