After tonight’s Democratic presidential debate in Philadelphia, MSNBC analyst and Newsweek editor Howard Fineman, who has previously claimed that American voters find male candidates “reassuring,” observed:

Hillary glaring at these other guys, I thought that was significant.

For a presidential candidate to be frustrated by political attacks is certainly not unusual. But unfortunately, rather than comment on the substantive differences between the Democratic contenders, the mainstream media remains obsessed with superficial appraisals of body language and fashion. 

Talking Points Memo is reporting that Michael Mukasey, President Bush’s nominee for Attorney General, is still refusing to label water boarding illegal, despite indications that the refusal could sink his nomination. From the AP:

President Bush’s nominee for attorney general told the Senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday that he does not know whether waterboarding is illegal. He pledged to study the matter and to reverse any Justice Department finding that endorses a practice that violates the law or the Constitution.

Mukasey should look to history for guidance. According to a 2005 ABC News report, “water boarding was designated as illegal by U.S. generals in Vietnam 40 years ago” and in 1901, during the Spanish-American war.

“The soldier who participated in water torture in January 1968 was court-martialed within one month after the photos appeared in The Washington Post, and he was drummed out of the Army,” recounted Darius Rejali, a political science professor at Reed College.

Earlier in 1901, the United States had taken a similar stand against water boarding during the Spanish-American War when an Army major was sentenced to 10 years of hard labor for water boarding an insurgent in the Philippines.

Similarly, in 1947 “the United States charged a Japanese officer, Yukio Asano, with war crimes for carrying out another form of waterboarding on a U.S. civilian. The subject was strapped on a stretcher that was tilted so that his feet were in the air and head near the floor, and small amounts of water were poured over his face, leaving him gasping for air until he agreed to talk.” Asano was sentenced to 15 years of hard labor.

Despite being historically ignorant, Mukasey’s indecision leaves the United States on the wrong side of international law. Just today, a new U.N. report on human rights expressed concern about “enhanced interrogation techniques reportedly used by the CIA,” saying that under international law, “there are no circumstances in which cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment may be justified.”

According to Manfred Nowak, the UN Special Rapporteur on torture, the administration’s use of “enhanced interrogation techniques” is not without international repercussions.

[Other countries] say why are you criticising us if the US, the most democratic country with the oldest history of human rights, if they are torturing you should first go there. It has a negative effect because the US is a very powerful and important country and many other countries take the US as a model.

Unfortunately, Mukasey’s refusal to outlaw water boarding will continue this trend. As Andrew Sullivan points out: “In seven years, the US has gone from being a beacon of human rights to an enabler and legitimizer of torture in regimes not even Cheney would find savory.”

Today’s New York Times editorial confronts the Bush administration’s “trash talking” of Iran.

Four years after his pointless invasion of Iraq, President Bush still confuses bullying with grand strategy. He refuses to do the hard work of diplomacy — or even acknowledge the disastrous costs of his actions…The world should not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon, but there is no easy fix here, no daring surgical strike. […]

Large numbers of Iranians are fed up with their government’s corruption and repression and with being branded a pariah state. Rain down American bombs, however, and the mullahs and Iran’s Holocaust-denying president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, are more likely to be turned into national heroes than hung from lampposts.

As The Body Politik has previously pointed out, Iranian reformers and International Atomic Energy Agency chairman Mohammed ElBaradei agree with this assessment. Yesterday, on CNN’s Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer, ElBaradei stressed that he has not seen any evidence of an active nuclear program in Iran and encouraged the administration to continue pursuing diplomacy.

I very much have concern about confrontation, building confrontation, Wolf, because that would lead absolutely to a disaster. I see no military solution. The only durable solution is through negotiations and inspections. … My fear if that we continue to escalate from both sides from both sides that we would end up into a precipice, we would end up into an abyss.

ABC News is reporting that former Sen. Fred Thompson (R-TN) is backing off his Nixon era critique of executive power. Back in 1974, when he was “chief GOP council on the Senate Watergate Committee,” Thompson predicted that “in the future the president is not going to be the sole individual to determine what is a matter of national security” and “suggested the possibility of an executive and legislative committee to take on the task.”

But in tonight’s interview with Nightline, Thompson suggests that while President Nixon “used the umbrella of national security to do some things that were not in fact in the interest of national security,” President Bush has not.

“Thompson said he sides with the Bush administration in its struggle with Congress over “issues of surveillance” and believes that the Bush must “stand firm in executive authority.”

In reality, President Bush has also “used the umbrella of national security” to expand the powers of the executive branch and squash political criticism and protest.

- In December 2001, Attorney General John Ashcroft “authorized federal agents to monitor political and religious groups without evidence of criminal activity.”

- In 2003, The New York Times reported that the Bush administration was using the FBI to collect “extensive information on the tactics, training and organization of antiwar demonstrators.”

- In 2005, an ACLU Freedom of Information Act request revealed that the FBI “has collected at least 3,500 pages of internal documents in the last several years on a handful of civil rights and antiwar protest groups.”

- According to “a secret 400-page Defense Department document obtained by NBC News” in December 2005, the Pentagon has monitored nearly 1,500 different protest events in a 10-month period, including nearly four dozen anti-war meetings “that have taken place far from any military installation, post or recruitment center.”

- Documents exposed during litigation in January 2006 revealed that “the National Security Agency has been spying” on a Quaker-linked peace group in Baltimore “going so far as to document the inflating of protesters’ balloons, and intended to deploy units trained to detect weapons of mass destruction.”

- Pentagon documents released by the ACLU in November 2006 “show the Department of Defense monitoring the activities of a wide swath of peace groups, including Veterans for Peace, Iraq Veterans Against the War, Military Families Speak Out, Code Pink, the American Friends Service Committee, the War Resisters League, and United for Peace and Justice.”

Ironically, Thompson’s 1974 approach to limiting executive authority over national security issues may be more necessary now than it was then. Unfortunately, Thompson is too aloof to notice.

Think Progress notes that “in his weekly news conference today, Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE), a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, sharply criticized” the Bush administration’s new sanctions against Iran, warning that they will bring “the United States one step closer to war.”

“Unilateral sanctions rarely, ever work,” Hagel said by phone during his weekly news conference. “I just don’t think the unilateral approach and giving war speeches helps the situation. It will just drive the Iranians closer together.” […]

“It escalates the danger of a military confrontation,” Hagel said.

“I certainly think engagement is critical … direct engagement,” said Hagel. “That’s what great powers do.”

Hagel’s criticism is echoed by reformists in Iran. According to Mohsen Mirdamadi, one of Iran’s top reform politicians, “the threat of an attack helps Ahmadinejad’s political agenda.”

Any U.S. military action against Iran will only boost radicals within Iran … Military action will set back democracy in Iran for a decade or two.

According to Norman Podhoretz, a senior adviser on Rudy Giuliani’s foreign policy team and a strong advocate of military action against Iran, the former mayor from New York City has privately conceded that a military campaign against Iran is the only way to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.

Podhoretz has previously advised President Bush “that anything short of military action to prevent Iran from getting nuclear capabilities would fail, and that American needs to strike to prevent another Holocaust.” After his meeting with Giuliani, Podhoretz observed that “my view has been, and I very much doubt that Giuliani would disagree with what I am about to say, what we are doing is to try and clear the ground that has been covered over at least since WWI.”

Draining the swamps is the beginning of the process of clearing the ground, and planting the seeds from which institutions can grow the foundations of a free society.

Publicly, Giuliani has adopted a more moderate stance on Iran. During Sunday’s GOP Debate in Florida, Giuliani argued that “there’s no question that the idea of going to war with Iran, or even taking military action against Iran would be very dangerous. It would be something you would not want to do. It would be a last resort.”

Today, the Bush administration announced new sanctions against Iran and accused “the entire Revolutionary Guard Corps, a part of Iran’s military, of proliferating weapons of mass destruction.” Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson put it succinctly:

Iran also funnels hundreds of millions of dollars each year through the international financial system to terrorists…It is plain and simple: reputable institutions do not want to be bankers to this dangerous regime.

But ironically, Halliburton, the company headed by Vice President Dick Cheney between 1995 and 2000, along with General Electric and Conoco-Phillips, has acted in such a manner. CBS News reported in 2004 that Halliburton Products and Services exploited a loophole in American law and established offshore subsidiaries to do business with Iran. Since setting up shop in Iran during Cheney’s tenure, the company has sold “about $40 million a year worth of oil field services to the Iranian government,” earning “most of their revenues through their oil industry.”

In 2005, Halliburton “opened an unmarked office on the 10th floor of a Tehran office building” and is expected “to remain in Iran through 2009.”

The AP is reporting that “devastating wildfires in Southern California,” now in their fourth day, “have caused at least $1 billion in damage in San Diego County alone.” President Bush, who signed “a major disaster declaration for California in the wake of wildfires,” expressed concern for the safety of Southern Californians.

I want the people in Southern California to know that Americans all across this land care deeply about them, we’re concerned about their safety, we’re concerned about their property, and we offer our prayers and hopes that all will turn out fine in the end. In the meantime, they can rest assured that the federal government will do everything we can to help put out these fires.

Unfortunately, Bush’s prayers won’t alleviate the equipment and personal shortages that have plagued relief efforts. According to Orange County Fire Chief Chip Prather, firefighters’ lives were threatened because too few crews were on the ground. “Had we had more air resources, we would have been able to control this fire,” Prather said.

Such equipment is probably in Iraq. According to Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA), “right now we are down 50 percent in terms of our National Guard equipment because they’re all in Iraq. The equipment — half of the equipment, so we really will need help.”

Lawmakers have warned the Bush administration of the dangers of an ill equipped National Guard. Earlier this year, “an independent commission created by Congress to study the National Guard called the equipment shortage unacceptable.”

The Commission on the National Guard and Reserves noted the new responsibilities imposed on the Guard since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks and the Iraq war have led to a utilization of National Guard personnel and equipment that “is not sustainable over time.”

In South California, that time is now. The Bush administration is once again unable to meet the needs of a community in need.

During Sunday’s Republican Presidential debate in Florida, former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney tried to distance his Massachusetts Health Care plan from Sen. Hillary Clinton’s (D-NY) most recent health care proposal.

We solved the problem of health care in our state not by having government take it over, the way Hillary Clinton would [but] with private, free-enterprise approaches…Hillary says the federal government’s going to tell you what kind of insurance, and it’s all government insurance.

Romney emphasized that “we’re not going to keep Hillary Clinton out of the White House by acting like Hillary Clinton.” But as Fact Checker points out, the plan Romney signed into law in Massachusetts sure acts like Clinton’s proposal. “Both plans mandate universal health care coverage and subsidize health care for people on low incomes. The main difference is that Clinton’s proposal permits people to switch to a Medicare-type plan and increases taxes at higher income levels.”

Rather than “having government take it over,” Clinton’s proposal incorporates the very same “private, free-enterprise approaches” Romney advocates. Clinton’s plan “offers people a choice. If they are happy with their present health plan, they can keep it. Otherwise, they can switch to the plans offered to members of Congress, or a government-run plan similar to Medicare.”

On Sunday, it seemed like Romney wanted to have it both ways. While egregiously misrepresenting, even lying about Clinton’s proposal to win Republican favor, Romney praised the same MIT economist, Jonathan Gruber, who helped design both his Massachusetts plan and Clinton’s proposal.

We wanted them insured, but we didn’t want government to have to pick up a new bill. And so we spent a lot of time working on it. We didn’t just have a bunch of bureaucrats. We had a professor from MIT, an investment banker, a head of a consulting firm.

Today, the House will vote on a watered-down version of the Employment Non- Discrimination Act (ENDA), a bill that “would make it illegal to fire, refuse to hire, or fail to promote employees simply based on sexual orientation.”

The measure enjoys wide public support. According to a recent poll by Hart Research Associates,”60 percent of voters support a federal law to prevent discrimination in the workplace.” During his third debate with Sen. John Kerry (D-MA), even President Bush acknowledged that homosexuals should be respected.

You know, Bob, I don’t know [if homosexuality is a choice]. I just don’t know. I do know that we have a choice to make in America and that is to treat people with tolerance and respect and dignity. It’s important that we do that. And I also know in a free society people, consenting adults can live the way they want to live. And that’s to be honored.

But apparently, the President now believes that businesses are not part of the America that treats “people with tolerance and respect and dignity.” Yesterday, the White House issued a Statement of Administration Policy “making clear that despite the exemption compromise, “senior advisors” will still recommend that President Bush veto the bill.”

H.R.3685 is inconsistent with the right to the free exercise of religion as codified by Congress in the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA).

Indeed, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) states that “government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability.” Yet the law has this exemption:

Government may substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion only if it demonstrates that application of the burden to the person is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest and is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.

Ending discrimination in the workplace, regardless of one’s religious convictions, has ample legal precedent. As the ACLU points out, during the last fifty years, “Congress has responded when it found that the merit system was not working, and that some Americans were being denied employment for reasons that were arbitrary and unfair, such as discrimination based on race, religion, gender, national origin, and disability.” Laws aimed at restoring the merit system “have been — and continue to be — an essential part of making the Fourteenth Amendment’s promise of equal protection of the law a reality.”

In its basic structure, ENDA parallels Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the law that prohibits employment discrimination based on race, religion, gender, and national origin. It provides the same procedures and remedies that Title VII provides, except that it explicitly excludes any of the affirmative action relief that is sometimes available to address race and gender discrimination.

Moreover, under the President’s reasoning, a business should be able to fire an employee for engaging in an adulterous affair, premarital sex, fathering a child out of wedlock, or any other behavior an employer finds immoral. Pam’s House Blend asks:

What if you worked for a company where the person in charge was athiest and had a deep resentment for people of faith, especially those that expressed that faith, not just by evangelizing on the job, but simply by putting up their favorite prayer or passage in their cubicle. Now imagine that employer firing that person for even the smallest expression of their chosen faith regardless of the fact that the person might be the hardest, and most efficient worker for that company. Wouldn’t that just get your blood boiling?

To protect minorities from becoming targets of workplace discrimination, President Bush must sign ENDA and extend to them the “tolerance and respect and dignity” he promised.