Via TPM comes confirmation in the Times that everything we heard from the Village on torture was--and I know you'll find this just as hard to believe as I did--kabuki, and that under the carefully crafted constititional Theory Of We Get To Do Whatever The Fuck We Want (or, in the original German, fuhrerprinzip), Bush is doing whatever the fuck he wants. Scott Shane, David Johnston and James Risen report:

Secret U.S. Endorsement of Severe Interrogations
When the Justice Department publicly declared torture “abhorrent” in a legal opinion in December 2004, the Bush administration appeared to have abandoned its assertion of nearly unlimited presidential authority to order brutal interrogations [Torture].

But soon after Alberto R. Gonzales’s arrival as attorney general in February 2005, the Justice Department issued another opinion [so-called: Only a court can render an opinion], this one in secret.

As Congress moved toward outlawing “cruel, inhuman and degrading” [torture] treatment, the Justice Department issued another secret opinion [sic], one most lawmakers did not know existed, current and former officials said. The Justice Department document declared that none of the C.I.A. interrogation methods violated that standard.

The classified opinions [sic], never previously disclosed, are a hidden legacy of President Bush’s second term and Mr. Gonzales’s tenure at the Justice Department, where he moved quickly to align it with the White House after a 2004 rebellion by staff lawyers that had thrown policies on surveillance and detention into turmoil.

It depends on what the meaning of torture is, doesn't it? Don't you wish for the happy, innocent days of the Clinton administration, when the entire Beltway was convulsed, for years, over a blowjob?

As with everything about the criminal Bush regime, the only question is whether it's (1) awful or (2) vile beyond even our worst imaginings. Looks like the torture policies are behind door #2. So there's really no story here, is there?

Anyhow, I thought it would be helpful to go through and extract the euphemisms for torture in the article, as a prophylactic against the exercise in politics and the English Language that we are about to see. I'd use the phrase "tortured denials," but that wouldn't really be funny, would it?

From the headline:

1. Severe interrogations. Syn. Torture.

From the story:

2. Painful physical and psychological tactics. Syn. Torture.

3. Cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment. Syn. Torture.

4. Harsh tactics. Syn. Torture.

5. Harsh treatment. Syn. Torture.

6. Interrogations. Syn. Torture.

7. Enhanced interrogation techniques**. Syn. Torture.

8. Interrogation practices, approved practices. Syn. Torture.

7. Pressure tactics. Syn. Torture.

9. Tough interrogation tactics. Syn. Torture.

10. Extreme methods. Syn. Torture.

11. "Leaned in pretty hard". Syn. Torture.

A few other random thoughts on Shane, Johnston, and Risen's reporting:

First, we need to keep in mind at all times the difference between the administration's public appearance and its private behavior. At the personal level, Gonzales, despite his vague and bumbling public appearence, was extremely effective behind closed doors in hammering down an internal Justice rebellion against torture (not that any of them had to courage to resign or go public when it would have done any good) and installing his own creature (one Steven G. Bradbury) at Office of Legal Counsel who would give Bush whatever the fuck he wanted.

At the Constitutional level, we can see how the theory of unilateral executive enables public governance--even the vile MCA didn't concede enough power for them--to be completely at odds with private rule by the criminal Bush regime: At the same time that the administration was going through the kabuki of testifying to Congress and dealing with the press and crafting legislation, in private they were issuing rules and regulations that contradicted their testimony and the law, and then issued a signing statement that nullified the law anyhow. The confusion the reporters evince on the meaning of the word "opinion"--the judicial branch can issue an opinion interpreting the law but, greatly though the theorists of the Theory Of We Get To Do Whatever The Fuck We Want would like it, the executive branch cannot--is symptomatic of how the very concept of the separation of powers has rotted in the Village under Republican rule.

Second, such of the legal establishment as remains in the Village now must be corrupt beyond imagining. Everyone with an ounce of integrity has already left for academe. Here I'm thinking primarily of Jack Goldsmith--and before we canonize him, let's remember that he didn't go public when it would have made a difference--but also of John Yoo. Think about it: Behind closed doors, conditions in the administration are so bad that the author of "The Torture Memos" had to leave.

Now, one of the items that has become "corrupt beyond imagining" is the very notion of credentialling. Risen et al. speak of torture-enabler Bradbury as having "stellar credentials." As it turns out, "stellar" means belonging to The Federalist Society and having worked for Ken Starr. After that Conservative Movement's "elves" staged an attempted coup against Clinton, and ruined impeachment as a credible Constitional device into the bargain, you'd think that in a normal universe, such credentials would disqualify, rather than qualify, an individual for a position of public trust. But not in the village.

Next, the age-old question of whether torture "works." If, by "works," you mean "results in useful intelligence," the answer is no, because under torture people confess to anything (Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, for example). However, if by "works," you mean "produce a plausible transcript in time to achieve a political goal", torture works great.

Finally, it's great to see the Beltway Democrats really pushing hard on getting the secret opinions disclosed, holding up Mulcahy's nomination, holding those hearings where all those retired generals testified on why torture is wrong, running those attack ads....

Oh, wait.

Those wussy bottoms haven't done a fucking thing, have they?

Sorry.

UPDATE Kevin raises an excellent point. How far into the Democratic Party did the rot go?

The Times says that "most lawmakers" didn't know about this secret opinion. That means that some of them did. I'd like to know which ones. I'd also like to hear each of the Democratic candidates tell us whether or not they promise to repudiate all secret Bush administration memorandums on torture and detention during their first day in office. Quickly, please.

Harry? Nancy? Perhaps the NSA blackmail theories are too baroque; what the Bush administration has shared on intel with the Congressional leadership would be enough. Hmmm....

UPDATE Conyers is demanding the secret memos. We'll if anything more comes of it that a Sternly Worded Letter. And (via TPM, Bradbury has never been confirmed by the Senate, despite having infested served in the OLC "for years." Maybe some Beltway Dem, like Harry, say, could get off his pasty white ass and schedule some confirmation hearings, with those memos as the main attraction? And maybe we should hold up Mukasey until Bradbury is dealt with?

UPDATE AP's extremely unbiased coverage:

AP White House denies torture assertion

More than an "assertion," I would say, unless all multi-page, three-reporter A1 Times stories are "assertions."

The story quickly became political fodder for Democrats.

"The secret authorization of brutal interrogations is an outrageous betrayal of our core values, and a grave danger to our security," Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said in a statement. "We must do whatever it takes to track down and capture or kill terrorists, but torture is not a part of the answer — it is a fundamental part of the problem with this administration's approach."

So, "political fodder" or "betrayal of core values"? I know what I think, but why does Lara Jakes Jordan sound like she's reading off an RNC blast fax?

UPDATE WaPo, too, immediately sees the implications for the Mukasey nomination, if only we had a functional opposition majority party:

The existence of the 2005 memos could create an unwelcome complication for the Bush administration as it tries to win confirmation of former federal judge Michael B. Mukasey as the next attorney general. He would replace Alberto R. Gonzales, who resigned last month after months of conflict with Congress over his credibility and management abilities.

Yeah, as if he wasn't managing [cough] Justice exactly like his boss wanted him to. The incompetence dog, since it won't hunt any more, should be, well, not taken out and shot, but consigned to a nice home....

UPDATE ** Andrew Sullivan brings the Shrill:

There is no doubt - no doubt at all - that these tactics are torture and subject to prosecution as war crimes. We know this because the law is very clear when you don't have war criminals like AEI's John Yoo rewriting it to give one man unchecked power. We know this because the very same techniques - hypothermia, long-time standing, beating - and even the very same term "enhanced interrogation techniques" - "verschaerfte Vernehmung" in the original German - were once prosecuted by American forces as war crimes. The perpetrators were the Gestapo. The penalty was death. You can verify the history here.