Detainee Who Gave False Iraq Data Dies In Prison in Libya

Detainee Who Gave False Iraq Data Dies In Prison in Libya

A former CIA high-value detainee, who provided bogus information that was cited by the Bush administration in the run-up to the Iraq war, has died in a Libyan prison, an apparent suicide, according to a Libyan newspaper.

A researcher for Human Rights Watch, who met Ibn al-Sheikh al-Libi at the Abu Salim prison in Tripoli late last month, said a contact in Libya had confirmed the death.

Libi was captured fleeing Afghanistan in late 2001, and he vanished into the secret detention system run by the Bush administration. He became the unnamed source, according to Senate investigators, behind Bush administration claims in 2002 and 2003 that Iraq had provided training in chemical and biological weapons to al-Qaeda operatives. The claim was most famously delivered by then-Secretary of State Colin L. Powell in his address to the United Nations in February 2003.

Powell later called the speech a "blot" on his record, saying he was not given all available intelligence and analysis within the government. The Defense Intelligence Agency and some analysts at the CIA had questioned the veracity of Libi's testimony, which was obtained after the prisoner was transferred to Egyptian custody for questioning by the CIA, according to Senate investigators.

Bush The Loser Preisdent

Poll: Bush Getting Even More Unpopular Out Of Office
A new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll found that former President Bush's popularity has dropped since he left office.

When he left office in January, 31 percent of American's viewed him positively. That number has now dropped to 26 percent.

President Barack Obama, meanwhile, is more popular than the past two presidents at this point during their first terms.

According to the poll, 61 percent approve of Obama's job -- that's compared with George W. Bush's 56 percent and Bill Clinton's 52 percent at this same juncture in their presidencies.


Also, 64 percent view Obama favorably versus 23 percent who see him in a negative light -- once again, higher than Bush's and Clinton's scores on this question.

Additionally, 64 percent of Americans also "feel more hopeful about the direction of the country with Obama in office," and a full 59 percent feel he has accomplished a "great deal" or a "fair amount."

House Speaker Pelosi Praises Military Spouses

House Speaker Pelosi (D)Praises Military Spouses
House Speaker Praises Military Spouses: Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi hosted a roundtable discussion at the Capitol yesterday highlighting the successes and challenges of military spouses. Speaker Pelosi invited the National Military Family Association and Blue Star Families to share spouses’ personal stories with Members of Congress and White House staff. Military spouses spoke about their struggles with employment, access to mental health providers, the unique nature of National Guard and Reserve deployments, the importance of continued resources for survivors, the isolation felt by Individual Augmentees, and the need for increased dwell time. Invited panelists also discussed their pride for their country and their willingness to serve along with their service member spouse.

House Armed Services Committee Chairman Ike Skelton (D-4th/MO), Representative Susan Davis (D-53rd/CA), Representative Kay Granger (R-12th/TX), Representative Gwen Moore (D-4th/WI), Representative Chet Edwards (D-17th/TX) and other Members of Congress joined with Speaker Pelosi in acknowledging the sacrifices made by military spouses and children. They pledged to do more to show their appreciation and to expand the Nation’s support.

TNR and the Anonymous Smears Against Sonia Sotomayor

TNR and the Anonymous Smears Against Sonia Sotomayor
Jeffrey Rosen's New Republic smear of Sonia Sotomayor's intellect and character -- based almost exclusively on anonymous, gossiping "sources" -- is such a model of shoddy, irresponsible, and (ironically enough) intellectually shallow "journalism" that it ought to be studied carefully. Standing alone, it reveals quite a bit about anonymity-dependent "reporting" generally, The New Republic specifically, and how much of our political discourse is conducted.

Most of the gaping flaws in Rosen's piece have been fully highlighted by others. While most of those criticisms have focused on Rosen's horrendous use of anonymous sources -- one of the most apt reactions to Rosen's piece comes, appropriately enough, in the form of well-earned derision from Wonkette -- I highly recommend this post from Law Professor Darren Hutchinson. As Professor Hutchinson conclusively documents, one of the only issues raised by Rosen that was anything other than anonymous gossip -- a claim that one of Sotomayor's judicial opinions was harshly criticized in an "unusual" footnote by another Second Circuit judge -- is totally false. In fact, it's so obviously false that, as Hutchinson suggests, it could be the by-product only of Rosen's extreme sloth or (ironically enough again) his lack of intellectual capacity. Just read Hutchinson's post for an idea of how vapid, bereft of worth and downright misleading is Rosen's attack on Sotomayor.

I don't really have an opinion about whether Sotomayor would be a good pick for Obama -- I haven't done anywhere near the work to formulate a meaningful judgment about that -- but, in my prior life as a litigator, I had some personal experiences with her. I had at least two, possibly three, cases in which she was the judge -- including a Second Circuit appeal for which she wrote the opinion (reversing the District Court) on behalf of a unanimous panel. At Oral Argument in that case, she was, by far, the most active questioner.

Based on those experiences, I'm genuinely amazed at how -- overnight -- she's been transformed in conventional wisdom, largely as a result of Rosen's piece, into a stupid, shrill, out-of-her-depth Puerto Rican woman who is being considered for the Supreme Court solely due to anti-merit, affirmative action reasons. The New Republic thus fulfills its principal function in life: to allow the Right to spout any sort of invective and bile and justify it by reciting the "even-the-liberal-New-Republic-agrees" defense.

In the last 24 hours alone, Rosen's article has been used by three different National Review writers -- who, I'd be willing to be lots of money, know virtually nothing about Sotomayor -- to declare her to be "dumb and obnoxious." That's a phrase they've revelled in repeating three times now (and counting), culminating with this: "I'm sure Mark H. is right about Sotomayor's being dumb and obnoxious, just as Derb is right about her being female and Hispanic is all the matters." The amazing speed with which so many people who know absolutely nothing about her are willing, indeed eager, to assume that she's stupid and doesn't deserve her achievements -- based on the fact that she's Puerto Rican and female and Rosen published some trashy, unaccountable gossip feeding that perception -- is really remarkable.

My perception of Sotomayor is almost the exact opposite of the picture painted by Rosen. I had a generally low opinion of the intellect of most judges -- it's one of the things I disliked most about the practice of law -- but I found her to be extremely perceptive, smart, shrewd and intellectually insightful. The image that has been instantaneously created of her as some sort of doltish mediocrity, based on nothing but Rosen's water-cooler chatter, is, at least to me, totally unrecognizable. Of the countless federal judges with whom I had substantive interaction over more than ten years of litigation, I would place her in the top tier when it comes to intellect. My impressions are very much in line with the author of this assessment of Sotomayor, who had much more extensive interaction with her and -- unlike Rosen's chatterers -- has the courage to attach his name to his statements.

It's certainly true that she was very assertive and aggressive -- at times unpleasantly so -- in how she presided over her courtroom. In the first case I had with her, when she was still a District Court judge and I was a second- or third-year lawyer, I committed some sort of substantial procedural mistake (my recollection is hazy of my specific transgression, but I believe papers I submitted violated her rules and necessitated an adjournment of a hearing), and she very harshly excoriated me in a courtroom packed with lawyers from other cases (the scolding lasted roughly five minutes, though it seemed at the time like five hours). I certainly did not enjoy that, and at the time harbored negative sentiments towards her (who wouldn't?) , but that behavior -- for judges -- is the opposite of uncommon.

Justice Souter's Jurisprudence

Justice Souter's Jurisprudence
Equally persuasive, and pleasurable to read, is the series of dissenting views that Justice Souter has filed in so-called "federalism" cases, in which the Rehnquist Court crafted ex nihilo new constraints on Congress's power under both the original constitutional and Reconstruction-era amendments to remedy state-level discrimination. In opinions alive to the travails of discrimination's victims, Souter traces a convincing account of our national commitment against the subordination of others. In an era in which Justices can blandly claim to see no difference between Jim Crow and affirmative action, this lively awareness will be sorely missed.

Rather than cede the ground of "original meaning," Justice Souter has filed persuasive accounts of constitutional origins to rebut the reductionist offerings of Justice Scalia in particular. In the school prayer case of Lee v. Weisman, Souter wrote a compelling rebuttal of Scalia's account of the origins of the Religion Clause that will long merit study.

Modesty means that Justice Souter has not obtained the high public profile of some of his peers. Souter has not leveraged his position at the nation's legal apex as have fellow Justices who moonlight as memorialists. Souter even declined to speak with political scientist Tinsley E. Yarbrough, who wrote a biography of the Justice. His response to the prospect of cameras in the High Court? "The day you see a camera come into our courtroom, it's going to roll over my dead body."

Does CNN's Tucker realize UAW's "straight payback" includes loss of COLA, bonuses, dental?

Does CNN's Tucker realize UAW's "straight payback" includes loss of COLA, bonuses, dental?

CNN's Bill Tucker reported that "some economists" say the Chrysler restructuring deal is a "straight payback" to the UAW from the Obama administration. But Tucker did not note any of the numerous concessions the union has reportedly made as part of a related deal.

Eight days of silence since Hannity volunteered to be waterboarded: Is he chickening out

Eight days of silence since Hannity volunteered to be waterboarded: Is he chickening out
Over a week ago -- on Thurs., April 22 -- Fox News' torture enthusiast Sean Hannity agreed to be waterboarded for charity to prove that it is not torture. Though he dismissed waterboarding as simply taking someone's head and "dunk[ing] it in water," he has remained notably silent on his promise ever since, perhaps regretting that he volunteered to subject himself to the intensely terrifying suffocation experience. MSNBC's Keith Olbermann offered last week to donate $1,000 to military families for every second Hannity is waterboarded. In the face of Hannity's silence, Olbermann repeated the offer this week:

OLBERMANN: Sean, my offer still stands, 1,000 dollars a second. This is not a stunt nor game. Prove to those families you are a man of your word. In fact, prove you are a man.