Mobile version

Senate Judiciary Committee

Weekly Torture Action Letter 13 - Judge Sotomayor And The Judiciary Committee by: Something The Dog Said Mon Jun 15, 2009 at 08:58:56 PDT ( - promoted by buhdydharma ) Happy Monday and welcome the Dog's ongoing letter writing campaign. For those of you joining for the first time the idea is every Monday the Dog writes a to decision makers about accountability for the Bush Administration State Sponsored Torture program. This letter can be cut and by any reader or used as the jumping off point for your own letter. The point is to keep the pressure up on the decision makers to make those who apparently committed one of the worst possible crimes accountable for their actions. Today's letter is to Sen. Patrick Leahy and the Democrats on the Judiciary Committee. "Originally posted at Squarestate.net" There's More... :: (7 Comments, 561 words in story)

Uniting American Families Act update by: Casual Wednesday Wed Jun 03, 2009 at 23:09:35 PDT (11 am. - promoted by ek hornbeck) On Monday afternoon, I posted a diary discussing the Uniting American Families Act. It also got Front Paged here (thanks, benign overlord administrators) I also received an excellent e-mail about the issue. I titled the diary "The gay rights bill you don't know about." I should have checked some tags first. Heh. At any rate, the Senate Judiciary Committee held a very informative hearing on the bill Wednesday morning. To recap, UAFA does one simple thing. It would allow American citizens to sponsor same sex partners for immigration just like married couples. The Senate bill is sponsored by Patrick Leahy of Vermont while the House version is sponsored by Jerrold Nadler of New York. Follow me below for a recap of the hearing. There's More... :: (1 Comments, 1631 words in story)

The gay rights law you don't know about by: Casual Wednesday Sun May 31, 2009 at 20:01:24 PDT (11 am. - promoted by ek hornbeck) On Wednesday morning, June 3, at 10 a.m. the Senate Judiciary Committee will hold a hearing on the Uniting American Families Act (UAFA). (If you are in town, the hearing is in Room 226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.) C-Span does not have Wednesday's television schedule up yet, but the Committee website offers a webcast of the hearing. UAFA would amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to allow a citizen to sponsor a same sex partner for citizenship. This might be one of those bills that ultimately goes nowhere or it may fundamentally change the course of both the gay marriage and immigration debates. Follow me below the fold for more on this bill. There's More... :: (11 Comments, 723 words in story)

Considered Forthwith: Senate Judiciary Committee by: Casual Wednesday Sat May 30, 2009 at 23:57:22 PDT (9 am. - promoted by ek hornbeck) Note: this turns Orange and will appear at Congress Matters Sunday at 8 p.m. Welcome to the tenth installment of "Considered Forthwith." This weekly series looks at the various committees in the House and the Senate. Committees are the workshops of our democracy. This is where bills are considered, revised, and occasionally advance for consideration by the House and Senate. Most committees also have the authority to exercise oversight of related executive branch agencies. If you want to read previous dairies in the series, search using the "forthwith" tag or use the link on my blogroll. I welcome criticisms and corrections in the comments. This week I will look at the Senate Committee on the Judiciary. The committee's jurisdiction is very similar to the House Judiciary Committee (the Forthwith diary is posted here). There is one big difference, though. The Senate committee gets to hold hearings on judicial confirmations, so this seems timely. Additionally, the committee is scheduled to hold a hearing on an important gay rights/immigration bill (see Uniting American Families Act below). There's More... :: (3 Comments, 2864 words in story)

On Torture And War Crimes, Part Two, Or, Dr. Addicott And I Find Common Ground by: fake consultant Sat May 30, 2009 at 00:09:12 PDT ( - promoted by buhdydharma ) When last we met, Gentle Reader, it was to work through a series of legal precedents and statute law; the goal of the exercise being to determine if we could or could not define waterboarding as torture. We have the kind assistance of Professor Jeffrey Addicott, who has provided us with his written testimony from his recent appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee and a personal interview, where he walked me through some of his thinking on the matter. Today we're going to take a look at the precedent that he has used to reach the conclusion that waterboarding is not torture. It's also possible that the analysis may result in the discovery of a bit of common ground...but as I noted in Part One, it's common ground that neither one of us might have seen coming. There's More... :: (4 Comments, 2995 words in story)

On Torture And War Crimes, Part One, Or, I Interview Dr. Addicott by: fake consultant Fri May 29, 2009 at 04:23:22 PDT I can't tell you the number of times I began a story with a plan for where it would go, only to discover that the plan isn't going to work. The stories sometimes seem to write themselves...but other times, the research seems to do the writing instead; this being one of those times. When the production of this story began it was with the intention of trying to explain what should be the "controlling authority" in terms of defining torture, a precedent set by the European Court of Human Rights, or Title 18 of the United States Code. Having reviewed both statute law and numerous judgments in law courts worldwide as well as the recent Senate Judiciary Committee testimony of Professor Jeffrey Addicott, and having conducted an interview with Dr. Addicott personally, I've come to two rather surprising conclusions: It may not really matter whether waterboarding is torture...and although neither I nor Dr. Addicott might have seen it coming, it's starting to appear that he and I might agree on one thing: Waterboarding, whether it's torture or not, is a war crime.   There's More... :: (1 Comments, 1649 words in story)

Tell Them Who We Are by: Rusty1776 Thu Mar 05, 2009 at 12:26:16 PST ( - promoted by buhdydharma ) You want the truth, Senator Leahy? Here's some truth for you: Liberty itself has been assaulted, democracy itself has been ravaged, an entire nation has been brutalized by those treacherous BushCo criminals you want to spend some quality truth and reconciliation time with.  But there can be no reconciliation, there can be no forgiveness for what they've done, the damage they've inflicted is incalculable, the lives they've destroyed cannot be given back.  They are obscenities in suits, they are treasonous to the core, they hijacked the government of the greatest democracy on earth and turned it into a wasteland of lawlessness, betrayal, corruption, and deceit.   Tell them what America stands for, Senator Leahy.  Tell them who we are, show them what justice looks like.   There's More... :: (8 Comments, 567 words in story)

Birth of a Whitewash: Who Testified at Leahy Torture Commission Hearings? by: Valtin Wed Mar 04, 2009 at 21:27:21 PST (noon. - promoted by ek hornbeck) There has been plenty of controversy on the issue of conducting a Congressional or independent investigation into the interrogations policy and torture activities of the Bush administration over the last seven or eight years. One of the primary worries by those who oppose a "truth and reconciliation"-style investigation is that it would preempt possible prosecutions, or at worst, be a cover-up of some of the worst crimes involved. Those who favor such an investigation believe that is only with a broad investigation will all the information really be unearthed. The hearing today by the Senate Judiciary Committee -- "Getting to the Truth Through a Nonpartisan Commission of Inquiry" -- chaired by Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT), was called to explore options for investigating past torture and counter-terrorism policy.  The committee called six witnesses, some for, some against such an investigation. But a close look at the backgrounds and affiliations of even most of the pro-investigation witnesses should give us deep pause, and ask what kind of commission are we being set up for? There's More... :: (8 Comments, 2375 words in story)

Live Blog: Senate Hearing re Torture Commission by: On The Bus Wed Mar 04, 2009 at 06:45:00 PST Senate Judiciary Committee: Getting to the Truth Through a Nonpartisan Commission of Inquiry Starting at 10 AM Eastern/ 7 AM Pacific Watch it here: Webcast on Committee Page C-SPAN 3 Witness List: Thomas Pickering Vice Chairman Hills & Company, International Consultants Washington, D.C. Retired Vice Admiral Lee Gunn President The American Security Project Washington, D.C. John Farmer Partner Arsenault, Whipple, Farmer, Fasset and Azzarello, L.L.P. Chatham, NJ Frederick A. O. Schwarz, Jr. Senior Counsel Brennan Center for Justice New York University School of Law New York, NY David B. Rivkin, Jr. Baker & Hostetler, L.L.P. Washington, D.C. Jeremy Rabkin Professor of Law George Mason University School of Law Arlington, VA There is no longer any doubt as to whether the Bush administration has committed war crimes. The only question that remains to be answered is whether those who ordered the use of torture will be held to account. ~Maj. Gen. Antonio M. Taguba Discuss :: (83 Comments)

Request for More Information and Verification: Pelosi, Conyers and Impeachment by: GreyHawk Mon Nov 12, 2007 at 06:57:50 PST OK, folks, I need some help here -- a potentially major item requiring immediate investigation has come to light. From this comment in my recent diary over on DailyKos, dove12348 relates a particularly chilling tidbit: Unfortunately there are things that... ...can't be tracked. http://slate.com/... Pelosi has threatened the removal of Michigan Rep. John Conyers from his chairmanship of the House judiciary committee if an impeachment inquiry were even opened, according to reliable congressional chatter. OK, folks -- who can help pull together some additional detail around this? Please post what you can find here, or -- preferably, to keep it all in one place, post it here and over here on ePluribus Media, where I'll be trying to coordinate more information on this. Here's the question I want to try and answer: The article from Slate is from August 21, so how does the current state of affairs affect any potential investigation by Conyers? Discuss :: (34 Comments)