Think Progress‘ The Wonk Roomspotlights more jackassery on the part of State Senator Jim Lembke (R-1) and a few of the impressionable, tea party cub scouts (Sen. Rob Schaaf (R-28), and Sen. Brian Nieves (R-98) have been mentioned) who made it into the legislature while the state’s adults weren’t paying attention:
In Missouri – where the unemployment rate is currently 9.5 percent – Republican state senators are filibustering legislation that needs to pass today in order to prevent unemployed workers from losing their benefits
With the aid of several conservative freshman senators, [Senator Jim] Lembke (R) managed to successfully hold up the debate on the bill, which funds unemployment benefits for those Missourian unemployed for between 79 and 99 weeks. The extension bill has already passed through the House and is expected to easily pass the Senate when it is called up for a vote.
“Ninety-nine weeks is too much,” Lembke said. “It’s too long. Enough is enough.”
The extended support actually affects folks who have been out of work for 79 weeks, but who’s counting, right? I hope a few of the more rational and informed types representing the unfortunate citizens of Missouri can manage to explain to Lembke that 79 weeks, 99 weeks, or 109 weeks would only be too much if he and his cohorts had done anything to address the lack of jobs that makes the unemployment compensation so crucial. It’s hard for Lembke to understand, perhaps, but non-existent jobs don’t provide paychecks for anyone. Maybe if he could get over his red light camera spleen fit (and, incidentally, face up to the fact that 70% of Missourians think they’re a great idea), he’d have a little more time to spare for crucial economic issues that face the state.
On second thought, I forgot – he has so much time for tantrums because the GOP in Missouri doesn’t have to do much about economic issues – all they need to do is put their brains on cruise control and follow instructions from the Missouri Chamber of Commerce. Not that that particular anti-worker agenda is going to do much for those unemployed citizens Lembke believes have no need to eat or pay rent after ninety-nine weeks of fruitless job hunting have passed.
But it’s worth it, isn’t it, to let Jimmy Lembke and his playmates hold their breath, stamp their feet and send a message to mean old daddy …. I mean the federal government. Who wants to act like a grownup. Let them send all that taxpayer money to California instead of Missouri; just wait and see if Jimmy cares.
By now most Missourians have probably read about Rep. Brian Nieves (R-Washington), Republican candidate for the the 26th District Senate Seat, who allegedly assaulted Shawn Bell, a campaign aide for his primary rival, Republican Richard Stratman. According to Bell, Nieves held him at gunpoint, forcing him to undress and humiliate himself while Nieves raved about his putative misdeeds during the primary.
Now Nieves has gone off again – this time blasting the state GOP at a “prayer vigil” held by supporters Monday night. He used the opportunity to blame his legal troubles on the “kingmakers and the powerbrokers in the state of Missouri” who want to keep him out of government because he “”won’t be a lap dog. … There is no way they will ever control Brian Nieves.”
As in his earlier emails to supporters concerning the Bell affair, he employed grandiose, self-inflating rhetoric to make the case that he is being persecuted by vague, corrupt powers – unnamed state GOP powerbrokers who want to halt his “ascension” to the Senate seat, although Nieves knows that he will prevail because no less than “God has his hand all over this situation.” Compare this to the over-the-top tone of one of the emails he has been sending out:
We all know that the ‘Old Guard’ is very much threatened by all of us who will NOT bow down to The Machine and they are willing to literally destroy a man’s life to make sure nobody else gets the bright idea of standing up to them!
The Machine! Really! Is he saying that the Machine manufactured the Shawn Bell ruckus? And as long as we’re talking about troubling behavior, both FiredUp! and the St. Louis Activist Hubhave noted that Nieves rhetoric has shown disturbing tendencies in the past. There is also, if we want to stroll down memory lane in search of portents of trouble ahead, the incident between Nieves and Trent Skaggs (D-North Kansas City) on the House floor, which escalated into a physical tussle in which they had to be separated by other House members.
Doesn’t all this hair-trigger rage, paranoia and overblown bombast strike you as an almost incomprehensible overreaction – on the part of the winner yet – a primary winner with big margins who will probably dance all over the Democratic opponent, “Boots” Webber – if he doesn’t blow it with his extreme behavior? Nieves is a politician after all; how can he continue to function if he is so easily aggravated by the “politics ain’t beanbag” facts of a tiny, little state political campaign? It’s difficult not to conclude that somebody ought to be looking out for this guy.
And it is clear that that somebody won’t be the Missouri Republican party which seems to have drawn a rather oblique lesson from the Bell affair. Instead of expressing concern about Nieves, they are instead calling for new intra-Party, primary only campaign rules that will proscribe the dirty tricks that seems to characterize their particular brand of go-for-the jugular campaigning. Which would, of course, be laudatory in a more neutral situation, but in this instance it does seem to be a case of blaming the victim – no matter how sleazy the victim may be.
As for the Tea Party? Certainly we know that there is no real concern for Nieves health in the rantings of Tea Party publicity hound Dana Loesch. Loesch’s only contribution so far is to declare that Shawn Bell, a well-established Republican political figure, is a “dishonest Democratic operative,” coupled with a little of the usual entertaining dreck that she is so good at manufacturing. However it’s difficult not to worry be disturbed by Nieves’ rank-and-file Tea Party supporters who respond to his ravings with applause, and have no hesitation in cheering his over-the-top assertions, and even in naming the names he hesitates to mention:
Nieves declined to identify who the state “kingmakers” were, but asserted, “I know who they are, and they probably know I’m about to ‘out’ them.”
The emcee of the event, Cindy McGee — chairwoman of Show-Me Patriots, a conservative group aligned with the Tea Party movement — was not so reticent.
“James Harris and Jeff Roe are going down!” shouted McGee, referring to two top Republican consultants who had worked for Stratman… .
These are the people that the GOP is trying to keep worked up so that they will turn out and sweep them back into power – people who seem ready to haul out the torches and pitchforks on cue – anybody’s cue*. One has to ask, how is that responsible politics?
One can only feel sympathy for Nieves when we learn that the main reaction on the part of the above-mentioned James Harris was to remark that he and Nieves share the same goal – to keep the seat in Republican hands. Apparently, Harris and the other malevolent “kingmakers” don’t care just how shaky those hands are as long as they carry the same partisan banner.
* Edited to clarify meaning in the next to last paragraph; two typos elsewhere were corrected.
Brian Nieves, running to replace termed out state senator John Griesheimer in Franklin County, an exurb of St. Louis, won a hotly contested Republican primary. But now he has gotten himself in the kind of legal trouble that could conceivably get him tossed off the ballot. Shawn Bell, an aide for one of his Republican opponents, described this scene in a complaint to the police:
In the statement to police that The Associated Press obtained Monday, the 24-year-old Bell said he stopped by Nieves’ campaign after the primary to offer congratulations to an aide there, but Nieves threw him up against a wall. Then, Nieves pulled a black gun out of his pocket and set it on a table and said he was going to kill Bell, according to the statement. Nieves later calmed down and said he wouldn’t kill him or put him in the hospital.
Nieves did not immediately return calls seeking comment left at his home and campaign office.
The statement goes on to say that Nieves checked Bell for a recording wire before head-butting him and slapping him several times. Then he dragged Bell into a kitchen area and ordered him to remove his shirt and get on his knees and beg for forgiveness.
Nieves told Bell everyone needs a “threaurapeutic” fight in which they get beat up, but instead of fighting him, ordered him to walk into an office. Nieves then started reading text messages on Bell’s cell phone and began writing down what some said. Nieves also told Bell to call his [Nieves’] wife and apologize because she was hurt by some of the rumors circulating during the campaign, according to the report.
Presumably the hurtful rumors Nieves referred to were those Sarah Jo mentioned here on Saturday:
[Nieves] won the state senate district 26 seat last Tuesday after a nasty local campaign. A letter mailed to selected voters from someone named John Franke listed Nieves’ alleged affairs of the heart (or whatever part of the anatomy was involved.)
I wouldn’t be surprised if the Democrat in that race, George “Boots” Weber, is rooting for Nieves’ legal troubles to topple him.
Wingularity, the – the point at which the insanity from the far right and those controlling the Republican Party [continues] to grow exponentially until it reaches an unsustainable weight and collapses upon itself. This is also known as the Purity Spiral, wherein the density of wingnut increases compared to mainstream conservatives to the point of pure wingnut. As the ratio rises, this creates a phenomenon wherein no logic or sanity can penetrate or escape. When rightwing argument has become completely inaccessible to the uninitiated, it has reached the Wingularity…
Our U.S. Constitution is small on purpose because the function of the federal government is supposed to be small.
[It’s time to stand up]
Federal government, Barack Hussein Obama, and your liberal ilk, leave us alone.
[Brian Nieves
Energy, Passion, Experience
Paid for by Nieves for Senate, Dave Bailey Treasurer]
Steve Martin is informing electoral strategery in Missouri?:
….I mentioned that, earlier in the show, a drug joke – and I hate to do that, because it creates a mess, and I’m not into drugs any more. I quit completely, and I hate people who are still into it. Well.. I do take one drug now – for fun – and, maybe you’ve heard of it, it’s a new thing, I don’t know if you have or not. It’s a new thing, it makes you small. [ indicates size with fingers ] About this big. And, you know, I’ll be home, sitting with my friends, and, uh.. we’ll be sitting around, and somebody will say, “Heeeyyy.. let’s get small!” So, you know, we get small, and uh.. the only bad thing is if some tall people come over. You’re walking around going, “Ah hahaha..!” Now, I know I shouldn’t get small when I’m driving.. but I was driving around the other day, and I said, “What the heck?” You know? So I’m driving like.. [ extends arms high in the air like he’s reaching up to a giant steering wheel ] And, uh.. a cop pulls me over. And he makes me get out, he looks at me and he says, “Heyyy.. are you small”? I said, “No-o-o! I’m not!” He said, “Well, I’m gonna have to measure you.” They have this little test they give you – they give you a balloon.. and if you can get inside of it, they know you’re small. Now, I’ve already talked it over with the cast – they’ve been working all week, it’s a tough thing to do, come out here live. Immediately after the show, we’re all gonna go out.. and get really small!….
The Summer of 2009. I can picture the conversations taking place in republican back rooms across the state of Missouri: “Hey, I’ve got a great idea, let’s do everything we can to appropriate teabagger ranting and turn it into bills for the next session of the General Assembly.”
“…The Tea Party movement is mostly made up of people who consider themselves Republicans,” said Peter A. Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute. “They are less educated but more interested in politics than the average Joe and Jane Six-Pack and are not in a traditional sense swing voters…”
Question. Where were all these teabaggers from January 2001 to January 2009?
The House third read and passed HJR 88 today:
HJR 88 Proposes a constitutional amendment asserting the state’s sovereignty and the sovereignty of its citizens under the Tenth Amendment of the United States Constitution
Sponsor: Nieves, Brian D. (98) Proposed Effective Date: Referendum
CoSponsor: Jones, Timothy W. (89) ……….etal. LR Number: 4464L.01P
Last Action: 04/08/2010 – Third Read and Passed (H)
HJR88
Next Hearing: Hearing not scheduled
House Calendar HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTIONS FOR THIRD READING
You’ve got to especially love the understanding of Missouri’s Constitution this little portion of teabagger rhetoric belies:
…(g) Any federal action regarding the establishment clause based upon a “wall of separation” between church and state. As Supreme Court Justice William Rehnquist wrote in Wallace v. Jafree, 472 U.S. 38, 99: “It is impossible to build sound constitutional doctrine upon a mistaken understanding of Constitutional history. . . . The establishment clause has been expressly freighted with Jefferson’s misleading metaphor for nearly forty years. . . . There is simply no historical foundation for the proposition that the framers intended to build a wall of separation [between church and state]. . . . The recent court decisions are in no way based on either the language or intent of the framers.”….
Did any of the sponsors or those who voted for it bother to read this section of the Missouri Constitution?:
Prohibition of public aid for religious purposes and institutions.
Section 8. Neither the general assembly, nor any county, city, town, township, school district or other municipal corporation, shall ever make an appropriation or pay from any public fund whatever, anything in aid of any religious creed, church or sectarian purpose, or to help to support or sustain any private or public school, academy, seminary, college, university, or other institution of learning controlled by any religious creed, church or sectarian denomination whatever; nor shall any grant or donation of personal property or real estate ever be made by the state, or any county, city, town, or other municipal corporation, for any religious creed, church, or sectarian purpose whatever.
Oopsie. Do you think the intent of our merry band of tenthers and teabagger enablers is a backdoor attempt to remove the establishment clause from the Missouri Constitution?
Submitting to the qualified voters of Missouri, an amendment to article I of the Constitution of Missouri, and adopting one new section relating to state sovereignty.
Be it resolved by the House of Representatives, the Senate concurring therein:
That at the next general election to be held in the state of Missouri, on Tuesday next following the first Monday in November, 2010, or at a special election to be called by the governor for that purpose, there is hereby submitted to the qualified voters of this state, for adoption or rejection, the following amendment to article I of the Constitution of the state of Missouri:
Section A. Article I, Constitution of Missouri, is amended by adding one new section, to be known as section 35, to read as follows:
Section 35. 1. The state of Missouri hereby enforces its constitutional sovereignty and the sovereignty of its citizens under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America over all powers not enumerated and delegated to the federal government by the Constitution of the United States of America, nor prohibited by it to the states.
2. The state of Missouri shall:
(1) Uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States of America by hereby prohibiting the Missouri legislative, executive, and judicial branches of government from recognizing, enforcing, or acting in furtherance of any federal law, executive order, judicial ruling, administrative ruling, collection of revenue, dispersal of revenue, or other action by the legislative, executive, or judicial branches of the federal government that exceeds the limited powers enumerated and delegated to the federal government;
(2) Not recognize, enforce, or act in furtherance of the following:
(a) Federal actions restricting the right of private citizens to bear arms;
(b) Federal actions legalizing or funding abortions, or the destruction of any embryo containing human DNA from the zygote stage onward through all stages of development;
(c) Any federal action requiring the sale or trade of carbon credits or imposing a tax, fee, fine, or penalty on the release of carbon emissions;
(d) Federal actions involving a public option for health care, mandating end of life counseling, rationing health care, dictating or limiting the type of treatment a doctor may provide to his or her patient, authorizing or mandating the collection of a patient’s medical record into a database, covering illegal aliens under health insurance or prohibiting enforcement of laws regarding coverage for illegal aliens, mandating the benefits health insurance must cover, requiring insurance providers to cover abortion services, restricting the ability of patients to purchase health insurance in another state, or assessing fees, fines, or penalties on employers who do not provide health insurance to their employees;
(e) Any federal action mandating the recognition of same sex marriage, civil unions, or any relationship other than the marriage of one man and one woman;
(f) Any federal action increasing the punishment for a crime based on the thoughts of the perpetrator or the designation of the crime as a “hate crime”;
(g) Any federal action regarding the establishment clause based upon a “wall of separation” between church and state. As Supreme Court Justice William Rehnquist wrote in Wallace v. Jafree, 472 U.S. 38, 99: “It is impossible to build sound constitutional doctrine upon a mistaken understanding of Constitutional history. . . . The establishment clause has been expressly freighted with Jefferson’s misleading metaphor for nearly forty years. . . . There is simply no historical foundation for the proposition that the framers intended to build a wall of separation [between church and state]. . . . The recent court decisions are in no way based on either the language or intent of the framers.”;
(h) Any federal action restricting the right of parents or guardians to home school, enroll their children in a private or parochial school, or placing restrictions on curriculum;
(3) Interpret the Constitution of the United States of America based on its language and the intent of the signers of the Constitution at the time of its passage. The several amendments shall be interpreted by their language and the intent of the congressional sponsor and co-sponsors of the amendment. Any interpretation of the Constitution based on an emerging awareness, penumbras or shadows of the Constitution, a theory of the Constitution being a “living, breathing document”, or any interpretation that expands federal authority beyond the limited powers enumerated and delegated to the federal government, without an amendment to the Constitution, shall be deemed to exceed the limited powers enumerated and delegated to the federal government;
(4) Missouri citizens shall have standing to bring a cause of action to enforce the provisions of this section. Enforcement of this section shall apply to federal actions taking effect after approval of this section by Missouri voters, federal actions enumerated herein, and any federal action, regardless of its effective date, the general assembly or Missouri supreme court shall hereafter determine, in accordance with subparagraph (3) of this subsection, to exceed the powers enumerated and delegated to the federal government by the Constitution of the United States of America;
(5) As used in this section, the following terms mean:
(a) “Federal action”, any federal law, executive order, judicial ruling, administrative ruling, collection of revenue, dispersal of revenue, or other action by the legislative, executive, or judicial branches of the federal government that exceeds the limited powers enumerated and delegated to the federal government by the Constitution;
(b) “Public option”, any health insurance plan passed after January 1, 2009, operated by the federal government or its agent that competes directly or indirectly with private health insurance providers;
(c) “Constitution”, the Constitution of the United States of America;
(6) The provisions of this section are self-executing. All of the provisions of this section are severable. If any of the provisions of this section is found by a court of competent jurisdiction, in compliance with subparagraph (3) of this subsection, to be unconstitutional or unconstitutionally enacted, the remaining provisions of this section shall be and remain valid. Any ruling by a court of competent jurisdiction in violation of subparagraph (3) of this subsection shall be invalid and not recognized, enforced, or otherwise furthered in the state of Missouri.
Let’s see. Guns! Check. Abortion and stem cells! Check. Cap and trade! Check. Health care reform! Check. Gay marriage or civil unions! Check. Hate crimes? Check. Religion! Check. Home schooling and parochial schools! Check.
What? Nothing about supporting public education? Oh, right.
Only 13 percent of American voters say they are part of the Tea Party movement, a group that has more women than men; is mainly white and Republican and voted for John McCain, and strongly supports Sarah Palin…
And apparently the republican majority in the Missouri House would be in that 13%. Yesterday’s perfection vote in the House [pdf]:
On motion of Representative Nieves, HJR 88 was ordered perfected and printed by the following vote:
AYES: 090
Allen Ayres Bivins Brandom Brown 30 Brown 149 Bruns Burlison Cooper Cox Cunningham Davis Day Deeken Denison Dethrow Dieckhaus Diehl Dixon Dugger Dusenberg Emery Ervin Faith Fisher 125 Flanigan Flook Franz Funderburk Gatschenberger Grisamore Guernsey Guest Harris Hobbs Hoskins 121 Icet Jones 89 Jones 117 Keeney Kingery Koenig Kraus Lair Largent Leara Lipke Loehner McGhee McNary Molendorp Munzlinger Nance Nieves Nolte Parkinson Parson Pollock Pratt Riddle Ruestman Ruzicka Sander Sater Schaaf Schad Scharnhorst Schlottach Schoeller Self Shively Silvey Smith 14 Smith 150 Stevenson Stream Sutherland Swinger Thomson Tilley Tracy Viebrock Wallace Wasson Wells Weter Wilson 119 Wilson 130 Wright Zerr
“Rep. Sue Allen was on Rod Jetton’s clients list. But Rep. Allen says she just had Jetton send out invitations to the inaugural ball for her. / “I don’t know how my name got on the list. He wasn’t consulting with my campaign,” Rep. Sue Allen tells me.”
Of course the client list is exaggerated, J&A was trying to get more money. And the story is on Talking Points Memo.
Update 3: And Rod Jetton will be closing down his political consulting business in order “to deal with false allegations and spend time with his family” (his lawyers words). Not a stunner.
Update 2: Rod Jetton’s mug shot suggests that there were no combs in the Cole County Sheriff’s office last night. And that Rod didn’t pay Tom DeLay for consulting on how to look for a mugshot.
Update 1: RodJetton.org has gone offline, and a link to the Google cache of that page has been posted to replace that link in this post.
It’s for the purposes of posterity and public knowledge that the Representatives who have paid Jetton & Associates in the year 2009 (and what they paid for) are displayed for you, the reader, and their constituents to know.
Steven Tilley: $46806.67, lots of stuff (23 entries, so far)
Will the guy who could be the next Speaker of the Missouri House continue his hand-in-hand relationship with Jetton & Associates in the year 2010? You don’t need a political consultant to figure out the answer to that question.
It’ll be around a month from now before we figure out the 4th quarter spending from candidates to J&A. Will Floor Leader Tilley (R-da plane da plane) top $50K in payments to Jetton in 2009? Can’t wait to see.
“This is barely two hours old. I’m not going to be making any hasty decisions, These are serious allegations that have been made. And obviously, if it’s true, we’ll part paths.”
Representative Nieves: How are you doing, gentleman?
Representative Hoskins: Great. How are you doing, gentlemen?
Representative Nieves: This is your first year around here, isn’t it?
Representative Hoskins: It is.
Representative Nieves: You probably figure out that over time there’s people that you learn to really respect and trust and maybe other people that you don’t. And the gentleman from Boone [County] is somebody that I do have a lot of respect for. And so he’s brought up, I think, some pretty valid comments. You know he talked about how he has a legitimate fear that there might be some things that would happen in these private prisons that would be of concern to him. And so it just made me wonder, you know, I, I don’t know exactly how these things operate. And I know, I think you have one in your district. Is that right? [crosstalk]
Representative Hoskins: Yes, gentleman.
Representative Nieves: Okay. So, there, is there any regulation about, say for example a, something happens in the prison, something bad happens in the prison, and they need to interview or interrogate some of these prisoners? I mean is there regulations about what they can do? And, I guess more specifically, what I’d be asking you is, would, would they ever be able to waterboard somebody in, in one of these private prisons? I mean, can they? “Hey, hey, stop. I tell you anything you want to know.” I, I, can, can [laugh], can they waterboard people in these private prisons?
Representative Hoskins: I do not…[crosstalk]
Representative Nieves: Here’s the thing. I mean, there’s some people yesterday that were all concerned about waterboarding terrorists, as if that’s a bad thing to do. Now these are American citizens that are typically held in these, right? And they don’t get waterboarded. [crosstalk]
Representative Hoskins: Yes, gentleman.
Representative Nieves: Okay. [crosstalk]
Representative Hoskins: American citizens.
Representative Nieves: I want to make sure that American citizens don’t get waterboarded. I want to make sure you know, gentleman, that I am [emphasis] okay with waterboarding terrorists. I mean, I just want to make sure that you know that. Some blog tried to have some comment about me yesterday. Maybe they weren’t clear about my stand on waterboarding. I say that waterboarding is [emphasis] okay for terrorists. But I want to make sure that does not happen in these private prisons. [crosstalk]
Representative Hoskins: That does not happen.
Representative Nieves: Would you speak on that? [crosstalk]
Representative Hoskins: I’m with you on that.
Representative Nieves: ‘Cause I don’t want to see any waterboarding of American citizens, even if they are in a private prison.
Representative Hoskins: Correct.
Speaker: Gentleman from Jackson. For what purpose do you rise?
Speaker: Kander.
Representative Jason Kander: Point of order Mr. Speaker.
Speaker: Proceed.
Representative Jason Kander: The gentleman’s references to his rather offensive comments from yesterday, while interesting, have absolutely nothing to do with this.
Speaker: Gentleman, please avoid all personal comments on the floor. Further discussion. Actually, proceed the inquiry, gentleman. Franklin [County]. [crosstalk]
Representative Nieves: So, so, gentleman, I just want to, because we are specifically talkin’ about what happens in private prisons, okay? [crosstalk]
Representative Nieves: And so I probably shouldn’t drift off, it’s very difficult, you know, when we’re talking about things to make sure that we stay on an absolute narrow path, but I just want to make sure. We had a little confusion. People jumped up and started waving things. So I just want to make sure you understood my question. And that you understand that I am not [emphasis], because you’re guy that has one of these in your district, you’re the one that’s handling this legislation. You’re kind of like the private prison expert within this body. I want to make sure that you know that I don’t think any of us in this body, myself included, would be in favor of waterboarding American citizens that are in a private prison. Are you with me on that?
Representative Hoskins: I’m with you on that, gentleman. [crosstalk]
Representative Nieves: And are you gonna, will you commit to me, just as you did the gentleman from Boone [County], I seem to have a little water on my face, I think somebody was trying to waterboard me a minute ago. Are you willing to commit to me, just as you did the gentleman from Boone [County], that if we need next year to talk about this, I mean, if somebody ever says that we should waterboard U.S. citizens in private prisons, are you committing to me that you’ll try to make sure that we don’t ever do that to American citizens?
Representative Hoskins: Yes. I would be against waterboarding [crosstalk] American citizens.
Representative Nieves: Because I just want to be very clear that I am okay with waterboarding terrorists, okay? I think it’s a good idea to waterboard terrorists, but not American citizens, okay? Can we work together on that?
Representative Hoskins: Yes, gentleman.
Representative Nieves Thank you gentleman. Thank you Mister Speaker.
The United States prosecuted individuals at the Tokyo War Crimes Trials for waterboarding prisoners of war and civilian detainees.
Changi Prison, October 1943
… The Japanese were trying to establish that there was a spy organization in Changi Prison which received and transmitted by radio telephony, which had established contacts in the town for the purpose of sabotage and [12937] stirring up of anti-Japanese feeling, and which collected money from outside for this purpose. In fact, there was no organization, no radio transmission and no attempt to promote anti-Japanese activities outside the Camp…[12939]
…Usually interrogations started quietly and would continue as long as the inquisitors got the expected answers. If, for any reason, such answers were not forthcoming, physical violence was immediately…
…[12940] employed. The methods used were:
(1) Water Torture. There were two forms of water torture. In the first, the victim was tied or held down on his back and a cloth placed over his nose and mouth. Water was then poured on the cloth…
International Military Tribunal for the Far East – Pr
oceedings, p. 12,936.
[emphasis added]
The peremptory norms of international law and our treaty obligations:
the United Nations General Assembly (December 10, 1948)
Article 2
Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.
Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.
Article 3
Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.
Article 4
No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.
Article 5
No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
Article 6
Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.
[emphasis added]
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights was presented after World War II. Its provisions made their way into the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and as such, were ratified as norms of international law by the majority of civilized states in the world.
Article 4. 1 . In time of public emergency which threatens the life of the nation and the existence of which is officially proclaimed, the States Parties to the present Covenant may take measures derogating from their obligations under the present Covenant to the extent strictly required by the exigencies of the situation, provided that such measures are not inconsistent with their other obligations under international law and do not involve discrimination solely on the ground of race, colour, sex, language, religion or social origin.
2. No derogation from articles 6, 7, 8 (paragraphs I and 2), 11, 15, 16 and 18 may be made under this provision. 3. Any State Party to the present Covenant availing itself of the right of derogation shall immediately inform the other States Parties to the present Covenant, through the intermediary of the Secretary-General of the United Nations, of the provisions from which it has derogated and of the reasons by which it was actuated. A further communication shall be made, through the same intermediary, on the date on which it terminates such derogation.
Article 7. No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. In particular, no one shall be subjected without his free consent to medical or scientific experimentation.
Article 16. Everyone shall have the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.
[emphasis added]
The individuals who’s voices you hear in the recording of the debate have varied backgrounds.
Rep. Jason Kander, a Democrat, represents part of Jackson County (District 44) in the Missouri House of Representatives.
In addition to his legislative duties, Rep. Kander is an attorney with The Barnes Law Firm and also serves as a military intelligence officer in the Army National Guard. Previously, he was employed as a Political Science Instructor at the University of Missouri-Kansas City and as an associate with Spencer Fane Britt and Browne. Rep. Kander also has advised members of Congress on foreign policy issues and provided political commentary on local and national radio.
Rep. Kander enlisted in the Army National Guard with an infantry unit in 2002. He became an officer in the Army Reserve in 2005. Rep. Kander volunteered for deployment and served in Afghanistan from 2006 to 2007. Currently he serves as a platoon trainer with the Missouri Army National Guard’s 140th Regional Training Institute’s Officer Candidate School.
Rep. Kander is a member of the following organizations: Veterans of Foreign Wars; Committee for County Progress; Votevets.org – Senior Advisor; Kansas City Metropolitan Bar Association; Missouri Bar Association; Missouri Association of Trial Attorneys; Greater Kansas City Women’s Political Caucus; Coro Kansas City – Board of Directors. Rep. Kander attends New Reform Temple in Kansas City.
A 1999 graduate of Bishop Miege High School, Rep. Kander received a B.A. in Political Science from American University in 2002 and a J.D. from Georgetown Law School in 2005.
Majority Whip. Born June 19, 1965. A 1983 graduate of Pacific HIgh School in Franklin County. He joined the U.S. Navy in 1984, and served 10 years as a Corpsman alongside Marines…A small business owner Rep. Nieves operates, Nieves Enterprises and Hwy 66 Auto Sales. He also serves as a substitute high school teacher and Zone Pastor of Living Bread Church. He is a business speaker, concentrating in the areas of professional development and team building. Elected to the House: 2002-2006. Republican.
Rep. Denny Hoskins, a Republican, represents part of Johnson County (District 121) including the towns of Centerview, Holden, Knob Noster and Warrensburg in the Missouri House of Representatives.
In addition to his legislative duties, Rep. Hoskins is a Certified Public Accountant who specializes in financial planning and governmental audits. Rep. Hoskins also served in the Missouri Army National Guard.
Rep. Hoskins is a member of the Warrensburg Rotary and the Missouri Society of Certified Public Accountants. He also is a graduate of the Johnson County CLIMB and Leadership Missouri programs.
A graduate of Fatima High School in Westphalia, Missouri, Rep. Hoskins received a bachelor’s degree in accounting from the University of Central Missouri in 1998….
“…I seem to have a little water on my face, I think somebody was trying to waterboard me a minute ago….”
“…the lesson that this long course in human wickedness had taught us-the lesson of the fearsome, word-and-thought-defying banality of evil…”
Hannah Arendt, Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil
Think Progress‘ The Wonk Room spotlights more jackassery on the part of State Senator Jim Lembke (R-1) and a few of the impressionable, tea party cub scouts (Sen. Rob Schaaf (R-28), and Sen. Brian Nieves (R-98) have been mentioned) who made it into the legislature while the state’s adults weren’t paying attention:
By now most Missourians have probably read about Rep. Brian Nieves (R-Washington), Republican candidate for the the 26th District Senate Seat, who allegedly assaulted Shawn Bell, a campaign aide for his primary rival, Republican Richard Stratman. 
Brian Nieves, running to replace termed out state senator John Griesheimer in Franklin County, an exurb of St. Louis, won a hotly contested Republican primary. But now he has gotten himself in the kind of legal trouble that could conceivably get him tossed off the ballot. Shawn Bell, an aide for one of his Republican opponents, described this scene in a complaint to the police: