Yesterday on Fox News Sunday, Kit Bond appeared with Senator Diane Feinstein, Chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, to discuss the disclosure of a second, secret Iranian uranium enrichment facility:

Bond’s demeanor during this interview illustrates the dilemma that faces erst-while moderates in the age of radical fringe Republicanism. On the one hand,  he is not a total ideologue so he strives for the appearance of rationality:

… I think that the election riots and the continuing unrest in Iran shows that there’s a significant body of Iranian people who don’t like the direction that they’re going.

And that’s why I think that strong economic sanctions, which have to be applied by the world community, not just us – we can make an impact – are the best way to go.

To get an idea about how much Bond is leaning toward the center here, contrast his statement with the rabid diatribe by former counselor to the Bush State Department, Eliot A. Cohen, that appeared in the Wall Street Journal yesterday.  Cohen states unequivocally that:

Pressure, be it gentle or severe, will not erase that nuclear program. The choices are now what they ever were: an American or an Israeli strike, which would probably cause a substantial war, or living in a world with Iranian nuclear weapons, which may also result in war, perhaps nuclear, over a longer period of time.

In comparison to such knee-jerk neocons, Bond seems positively sane.  

On the other hand, however, lest Bond’s more virulent fellow Republicans get the idea that he’s a weak sister, he does have to rattle his rather moribund sabre just a little and make a feint in the direction of the diplomatically inclined Obama administration. On the topic of Iran’s recent short-range missile tests, he declares in his best testy, elder statesman mode:

Today’s action in firing the missiles is really a poke in the eye to those who think that diplomatic efforts and agreements and inspections are going to change the way that Iran is going.

Has anybody ever implied that diplomacy or inspections unaccompanied by some source of leverage constitutes a viable strategy?  Or is Bond implying that sanctions are just a necessary run-up to military action (while somehow managing to agree with Secretary Gates that military action would be futile)?  Perhaps he is a little annoyed that Obama is so skillfully using the fact of Iran’s supposed intransigence to try to wrench cooperation from the Russians and Chinese.

Or, perhaps he’s just dancing around the issue trying to appear tough. Poor Senator Bond!  Trying to be responsible when you live in a nest of two-headed vipers must be stressful in the extreme.  No wonder he plans to retire.

Incidentally, if you you would like to fill in the holes in this interview with an alternative point of view, take a look at what Glenn Glenwald has to say.  He makes a good argument for exercising caution about the media coverage of Iran’s new facility, as well as the breathless alacrity with which our politicians, Democratic as well as Republican, have jumped on the bandwagon for what must seem to all of them a sure-fire political bet.

I suppose Senator Dianne Feinstein (D) wishes she had the power as the final arbiter of the peremptory norms (jus cogens) of international law and civilized nations she imagines when it comes to torture:

Jan 10th, 2009 | WASHINGTON — As President-elect Barack Obama assures intelligence officials that his complaints are with the Bush administration, not them, there are growing hints from Democratic Senate allies that spy agency veterans will not be prosecuted for past harsh interrogation and detainee policies.

Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Dianne Feinstein told The Associated Press in an interview this week that there is a clear distinction between those who made the policies and those who carried them out.

“They (the CIA) carry out orders and the orders come from the (National Security Council) and the White House, so there’s not a lot of policy debate that goes on there,” she said…

[emphasis added]

If the law, or ideals, and history mean anything:

Principles of International Law Recognized in the Charter of the Nüremberg Tribunal and in the Judgment of the Tribunal, 1950.

Principle I

Any person who commits an act which constitutes a crime under international law is responsible therefor and liable to punishment.

Principle IV

The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him.

[emphasis added]

Acquiescing to the order just to keep your job doesn’t cut it as an excuse.

A Small Clique Of Legal Extremists…

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

– in force September 8, 1992

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….

[emphasis added]

The prohibition of torture is a non-derogable human right under international law. That is, no treaty, no law, and no executive order can remove that prohibition nor can anyone be absolved of responsibility by a unilateral fiat.

Dianne Feinstein is an idiot.

That was then:

Statement by Senator Dianne Feinstein On the Nomination of Representative Porter Goss to be Director of the Central Intelligence Agency

September 21, 2004

“After much thought and a careful review of the record, I voted today to confirm the nomination of Representative Porter Goss to be Director of the Central Intelligence Agency (DCI). But I do have some serious concerns – especially about the impact of this nomination on intelligence reform and his record of partisanship in Congress.

I believe the President should have the prerogative to appoint who he wants to be the DCI, or for any other senior position, subject only to the requirement that the person be qualified for the job. As a former CIA officer, a former Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, and a former Army intelligence officer, I think he is certainly qualified. If he is confirmed, I would hope that he demonstrates the necessary independence required of the DCI. But there are still some open questions, which gave me some hesitancy in supporting the nomination…

[emphasis added]:

How’s that “qualification” thing working out for you Senator Feinstein?:

Terrorism & Security

posted May 8, 2006 at 11:09 a.m.

Report: Scandal may have played role in Goss resignation

…The New York Daily News reported Sunday that a “little known White House advisory board” pushed President Bush to dump Mr. Goss as CIA head. The president’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board was reportedly alarmed by the investigation of a spreading corruption scandal that had already looked into the actions of the CIA’s number three official and its executive director, Kyle Dustin (Dusty) Foggo, and may have indirectly touched on Goss himself…

This is now:

Panetta a surprise pick to run the CIA

…Panetta’s selection was met with criticism on Capitol Hill.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), who this week begins her tenure as the first female head of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said she was not consulted on the choice and indicated she might oppose it.

“I was not informed about the selection of Leon Panetta to be the CIA director,” Feinstein said. “My position has consistently been that I believe the agency is best served by having an intelligence professional in charge at this time….”

Yeah, that Congressional oversight and “advice and consent” is kicking into overdrive after lying dormant for eight years.

I wonder if they all think they’ll be held accountable?

Maybe so (Leon Panetta):

…We cannot simply suspend these beliefs in the name of national security. Those who support torture may believe that we can abuse captives in certain select circumstances and still be true to our values. But that is a false compromise. We either believe in the dignity of the individual, the rule of law, and the prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment, or we don’t. There is no middle ground.

We cannot and we must not use torture under any circumstances. We are better than that.

Yes, those responsible and those who enabled this are supposed to be held accountable:

Principles of International Law Recognized in the Charter of the Nüremberg Tribunal and in the Judgment of the Tribunal, 1950.

Principle I

Any person who commits an act which constitutes a crime under international law is responsible therefor and liable to punishment.

Principle IV

The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him.

Principle VII

Complicity in the commission of a crime against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity as set forth in Principle VI is a crime under international law.

[emphasis added]

Somehow I don’t think Leon Panetta is the kind of individual who’ll let certain policies continue.

Thanks to everyone for all their hard work over the last week in stopping the Telecom Immunity Bill in the Senate. Because you kept up the pressure on McCaskill, she voted “No” on the telecom immunity bill before Congress on Monday. And believe me, all your calls and faxes had an effect. Early on, the staffers answering the phones hardly offered to take down your contact information, and didn’t really seem to know why changes to FISA were a big deal. Now, they’re polite and much more apt to listen to your concerns about government spying. It’s crazy that any effort at all is required to open a government official’s eyes and ears, but that makes our effort all the more urgent.

Unfortunately, McCaskill’s going to need to hear a little more from us. I have it on good authority that while McCaskill opposed the McConnell version of telecom immunity, she favors the “compromise” Feinstein or Specter version of telecom community.

More below the flip.

The Courage Campaign has outlined the reasons why Feinstein’s and Specter’s amendments aren’t worth the paper they are printed on.

First, the Feinstein amendment kicks the question of whether or not telecom companies were guilty of cooperating with Bush’s illegal wiretaps to the FISA court. In other words, a secret court with no public scrutiny or accountability will determine the question of immunity, and we may never even know which way the court decided.

Second, the amendment establishes a “good faith” test to determine whether a company was guilty. In other words, a telecom company could be found guilty of illegal behavior, but let off the hook if they can demonstrate that they didn’t know that they were doing wrong. Gee – I’d love to be held to that standard. I could pay half my taxes and plead that I had made a effort in good faith to total them up correctly, but my math isn’t so good.

The Specter amendment, which would substitute the goverment as the defendant instead of the telecom companies should a case be brought, is also a raw deal for Americans. The US government can bring a lot more to bear in its defense, like as invoking state secrets privileges, than a private entity like a corporation. The ACLU opposes both amendments, because they are both really just splitting the baby. Either you support holding Americans accountable for complicity in illegal acts, or you don’t.

I really don’t understand why, when forced to choose between Sprint and the people of Missouri, McCaskill would side with Sprint. I think we outnumber Sprint a great deal in both votes and donations.

Please contact McCaskill right away:

D.C.

Phone:(202) 224-6154

Fax:(202)228-6326

Kansas City

Phone: (816) 421-1639

Fax: (816) 421-2562

Address:

400 East 9th Street, Suite 40 Plaza Level

Kansas City, MO 64106

Cape Girardeau

Phone: (573) 651-0964

Fax:

Address:

339 Broadway, Room 136

Cape Girardeau, MO 63701

St. Louis

Phone: (314) 367-1364

Fax: (314) 361-8649

Address:

5850 A Delmar Blvd.

St. Louis, MO 63103

Columbia

Phone: (573) 442-7130

Fax: (573) 442-7140

Address:

915 E. Ash St.

Columbia, MO 65201

Springfield

Phone: (417) 291-1475

Fax:

Address:

324 Park Central West, Ste. 101

Springfield, MO 65806