Mario Cuomo died today. It's not surprising that a man of 82 dies, but it's a sad loss anyway, because of the eloquence of his voice for the progressive values of the Democratic Party.

His Tale of Two Cities speech at the 1984 Democratic National Convention lays out the differences between Ronald Reagan's Republican Party and the Democratic Party that we here at GMD are working for. 

Truly, the only difference between the Republicans of Reagan's day and of today is that they've gotten even worse.

Listen to the whole speech.

The most bizarre reaction to come out of Tuesday's release of the Senate Intelligence Committee's torture report has to be the calls, mostly from liberals, for Obama to pardon everyone involved.

Yes, I'm not kidding. I suppose we must take it on faith that the people making these claims are not just doing it because they support the use of torture, but it's hard to see any other sensible rationale for this position.

Here's a sampler:

In the Times, ACLU national president Anthony Romero says: The spectacle of the president’s granting pardons to torturers still makes my stomach turn. But doing so may be the only way to ensure that the American government never tortures again.

In Slate Jamelle Bouie makes the same point: Besides, if we’re trying to keep this from happening again, we don’t want punishment as much as we want to restore the consensus against torture. With explicit pardons, you can send the message that torture was illegal (and as Romero notes, signal to those “considering torture in the future that they could be prosecuted”) without taking legal action against the architects. And, as Bernstein argues, you can give generous pardons and lessen the officials’ “reputations as bad guys.”

And also in Slate, Eric Posner says: But Obama’s best argument for letting matters rest is the principle against criminalizing politics. This is the idea that you don’t try to gain political advantage by prosecuting political opponents—as governments around the world do when authoritarian leaders seek to subvert democratic institutions. Of course, if a Republican senator takes bribes or murders his valet, the government should prosecute him. But those cases involve criminal activity that is unrelated to the public interest. When the president takes actions that he sincerely believes advance national security, and officials throughout the government participate for the same reason, then an effort to punish the behavior—unavoidably, a massive effort that could result in trials of hundreds of people—poses a real risk to democratic governance.

Before we consider these arguments, let's just review what the CIA and the Bush administration did in their torture campaign:

They subjected five detainees to forcible anal rape in the guise of nutrition and hydration, resulting in lasting physical injuries.

They killed a man by stripping him, chaining him to a concrete floor in freezing conditions, and leaving him there until he died of hypothermia.

Beginning the evening of March 18, 2003, KSM began a period of sleep deprivation, most of it in the standing position, which would last for seven and a half days, or approximately 180 hours.

They repeatedly lied about what they were doing and its effectiveness to Congress and the American public.

While it's to be expected that Republicans will rush to support the most vile crimes committed at Bush's behest, and they have, it is beyond inconceivable that Democrats or civil libertarians should take the same position.

Cross posted from Rational Resistance. 

I had hoped to post this yesterday, the ninth anniversary of Rational Resistance, but some kind of attack temporarily knocked both Rational Resistance and Green Mountain Daily off the air last night. Nevertheless, the release of yesterday's torture report by the Senate Intelligence Committee is way too important to overlook.

The shortest summary I can provide goes like this: everything we said about torture by the Bush administration was true, and everything they said about torture was a lie.

They did it all the time, without regard to need.

It didn't work.

Other, non-torture approaches to interrogation did work.

We've been talking about torture by the Bush administration for almost the entire nine years we've been here, so it's almost hard to believe there is anything new to say about it, but that's just not true. Mother Jones and other sources have reported on new outrages that none of us would have anticipated.

For example:

 The CIA used previously unreported tactics, including “rectal feeding” of detainees (p. 100, footnote 584):

The administration spokespeople, including now federal judge Jay Bybee, lied to Congress about the nature and effectiveness of the torture program.

At least one detainee died of hypothermia after being held in cold temperatures shackled to a concrete floor. And George Tenet directly lied about it when he was asked on 60 Minutes.

As I say, you should read as much as you can about this, and I guarantee that you will be shocked.

The fact remains: we were right, and everyone working for Bush lied about everything they said.

If you want to look you'll find no shortage of disparagement of the Burlington Free Press around here, so I think it's fair to give them credit when they deserve it.

Today's paper featured a rare serious piece by Chris Bohjalian about the coverup of the Armenian genocide by the White House.

The facts are clear, and we've written about this before, but just to refresh your recollection, the Turks slaughtered a million and a half Armenians around the time of World War I in what is considered the first act of genocide of the Twentieth Century. 

I've been critical, both here and at Rational Resistance, the reticence chickenshit attitude of the U.S. government toward the legitimate grievances of Armenians and Armenian-Americans in this area. 

When he was running for president Obama was very strong on the issue, even referring to it as genocide, but came out much weaker once he was in office.

Bohjalian's piece incorporates his family history in a story of his visit to see a famous rug woven by survivors of the genocide.

 And so as I stood before the rug the other day at the Visitor Center, I was at once moved and enraged. I’m a descendant of survivors of the Armenian Genocide, and the rug’s existence is a reminder of that cataclysmic period in my people’s history when we were nearly erased from the globe. The rug in this regard will always hold totemic power for me. But I was frustrated by the censorship — at the way the rug was made a pawn in power politics. I was saddened that the accomplishments of Near East Relief were not celebrated.

I'm outraged, too. It's not that long ago that Nobel Prize winning author Orhan Pamuk was prosecuted for “criticizing Turkishness” because he had the temerity to discuss and write about the genocide.

Here in the United States we're way more civilized: we just ignore you.

You should read Bohjalian's piece in its entirety. 

Following up on the demise of the Burlington Free Press as an important local newspaper. Seven Days has announced that it has hired Nancy Remsen and Terri Hallenbeck to cover local government, politics, health care, and medicine.

As Seven Days reports online today:  

“Our readers want to know what's happening in Montpelier,” says publisher and coeditor Paula Routly. “They want to know how decisions are made, who's making them and why.”

Congratulations to our friends at Seven Days and to Terri and Nancy for this wise decision! 

Well, I have to hand it to you. You rode that Benghazi horse as far as it would carry you, and, to be fair, you got a lot of mileage out of it.

Sadly for you, the horse has run out of steam and is headed for the glue factory. And yes, it's your own guys that are sending it here.

Yes, the Republicans in Congress were absolutely determined that the Obama administration was covering up the truth about Benghazi that they decided that they had to have their own investigation and their own report. Well, be careful what you wish for.

Here's what Lindsay Graham was saying about the investigation as recently as this past Monday, before the report was released:

I’ve been calling for this for two years. Trey Gowdy and Elijah Cummings have done a good job. What I would envision is a select committee being formed in the Senate of members from the appropriate committees instead of a stovepipe approach. We would create a select committee in the Senate to marry up with the select committee in the House, become a joint select committee, bootstrap on the work already done by the House, and take this to its logical conclusion.

Funnily enough, when the investigation came to its logical conclusion, here's what Graham is saying now: “I think the report is full of crap,” Graham said on CNN's “State of the Union.”

I don't really expect you to read the whole thing, but here are some of the highlights:

Republican claim: HusseinHillaryObamaClinton wouldn't let anyone go to rescue the Americans!

Report: The Committee first concludes that the CIA ensured sufficient security for CIA facilities in Benghazi, and, without a requirement to do so, ably and bravely assisted the State Department on the night of the attacks. Their actions saved lives. Appropriate U.S. personnel made reasonable tactical decisions that night, and the Committee found no evidence that there was either a stand down order or a denial of available air support.“

Republican claim: This was caused by an intelligence failure.

Report: “[T]he Committee finds that there was no intelligence failure prior to the attacks.”

Republican claim: The Administration lied about a movie protest to cover up the facts.

Report: “The Committee found intelligence to support CIA's initial assessment that the attacks had evolved out of a protest in Benghazi; but it also found contrary intelligence, which ultimately proved to be the correct intelligence.”

Republican claim: The administration threatened, intimidated, or fired people for telling the truth.

Report: [T]he Committee found no evidence that any officer was intimidated, wrongly forced to sign a nondisclosure agreement or otherwise kept from speaking to Congress, or polygraphed because of their presence in Benghazi.

There's more in the report, but these are the key findings: what the Republicans have claimed for two years has been unfounded, if not outright lies. All we need to do now is wait for them, starting with Lindsay Graham and John McCain, to come out an publicly admit that they were wrong and President Obama and his administration were right.

But you Republicans who read this don't have to wait, you can go ahead and admit it right now.

Vermont Republicans seem to be elated by the surprisingly strong showing of their gubernatorial candidate, Scott Milne, but in the light of an unseasonably warm day, they must be thinking of what might have been.

A year ago, maybe more–I know that it was before the whole world knew that Chris Christie was the kind of guy who would cause massive traffic jams just to get even with his enemies–a friend and I were talking about a bold move that had the potential to pay off big for both Phil Scott and Chris Christie.

Here's the way the plan would work: Phil Scott sits down with Chris Christie, the head of the Republican Governors' Association, and gets Christie to funnel megabucks into a Scott run for governor. The up side for both of them is clear: Scott, universally recognized as a nice guy, capitalizes on Shumlin's vulnerabilities and wins before it's his turn. Christie's a kingmaker, if on a small stage, and shows Republican primary voters across the country that he can deliver, and that a conservative, socially moderate governor can win a tough election. As I say, a big win for both Scott and Christie.

Of course, it didn't happen. Scott is temperamentally averse to bold moves, and he coasted to an easy win in his reelection bid. Christie was not much of a player in Vermont, and election results across the country showed that every Republican who won a governor's race was the most vicious and extreme of right-wingers.

Meanwhile, the actual Republican nominee was the only guy who didn't have the presence of mind to take two steps back when they asked for volunteers, and he did better than anyone expected.

But if Scott had been the nominee he would have won.

There will be election news tonight, but first the latest on the Gannett rag formerly known as the Burlington Free Press.

According to Seven Days, and confirmed by the Facebook feeds of the two reporters involved, the Burlington Free Press has decided it’s no longer interested in being a real newspaper.  

Nancy Remsen and Terri Hallenbeck, who make up the Burlington Free Press two-person Statehouse bureau, are leaving the paper, according to sources close to the situation. The circumstances surrounding the departures are not entirely clear, nor is their timing. Both reporters filed stories in Tuesday’s Free Press and would normally helm the paper’s election night coverage.

Nancy Remsen posts:

Tomorrow will end 40 years of reporting for daily newspapers in Maine and Vermont. It has been a great run that is ending a little earlier than I wanted — but so be it. Ready for a new chapter. Any suggestions?

And from Terri Hallenbeck:

Today, I am covering my last election for the Burlington Free Press.

Later this week, for the first time since 1986, I will no longer be employed at a daily newspaper. I can assure you there is nothing easy about this for me.

This was not just a job for me, but a lifestyle. Being a journalist is as much a part of me as my red hair and freckles. It is where I met my husband. It is a profession I have been unable to shake despite the bad hours, relatively low pay and obvious signs in recent years of the industry’s decline.

This chapter of it, at least, is over though. I have opted against staying at the Burlington Free Press.Some of you may have heard that the Free Press and all Gannett newspapers rewrote all newsroom job descriptions and required employees to apply for the new jobs, which focus on pursuing the most popular stories as measured by website clicks.

That no longer seems to include many of the stories I’ve had the pleasure of covering the last 10 years as a Statehouse/political reporter at the Free Press.  

It breaks my journalistic heart, but I can no longer pretend it’s not happening.

It has been a great privilege for me to have a front-row seat to Vermont’s unfolding history. I’m thankful for all the readers who let my words share their breakfast table. I’m grateful to all the people who trusted me with their stories. I know there were times I disappointed you. There were times I disappointed me too, but I never took this special job for granted.

There is significant irony in the fact that my departure comes during election week. You might think stories about elections, candidates and issues are important, but those stories typically attract far fewer web hits than stories about the latest crime, caper or car crash.  Newspapers are now armed with data that make this crystal clear.

As some of you know, my departure from the Free Press is not the only one this week or this year. This newspaper, like many, has bid premature goodbyes to all too many good people. The Internet has not only turned news stories into click bait, it has led people to believe they can obtain their news free of charge. If we believe that, we will get the world we are asking for; one that is less well-informed, less open to hearing new ideas from new angles.

My soon-to-be-former colleagues, including my husband, will continue to try to do good work as they strive to make sense of their new world order. I wish them nothing but the best.

I leave the Free Press without knowing my next step. That is unsettling, even scary.

It’s time to take the next step, though.  It’s time to see life from another angle.

It now appears that this was foreordained by last month’s announcement that the Free Press was going to throw everybody overboard and let them all try to swim for the lifeboats.

Especially when you read Hallenbeck’s comments about giving up serious journalism for clickbait it’s going to be pretty hard to take the local Gannett franchise seriously.

Or, for that matter, to keep subscribing.

UPDATE: Thanks to ACLU-VT director Allen Gilbert for this piece of information:

Remember last legislative session when advocates were lobbying for a new law regulating Tasers? Here's a crucial provision of the law that the Burlington Police apparently overlooked: 

Any ideas on how they're going to weasel out of this one? 

You've probably heard the stories and seen the video of the arrest over the weekend in Burlington, where the police violently took down a young idiot who had allegedly assaulted someone else and tried to climb a telephone pole, right?

 The way the story goes, at least the way the police are telling it, they were using reasonable force to apprehend Shane Langevin. People who are sharing and commenting a video on Youtube claim the video shows police brutality.

We've learned that the first version we get of events like this is often wrong. It's entirely possible, once more videos from different perspectives are available, that the use of force will have been justified. I'm not prepared to state an opinion on that question right now.

I do think, though, that there are two important questions to ask.

First, what was the justification for the use of the taser? According to the Free Press, here's what the police say about that:

 “Langevin was able to escape my grasp and began to run away,” Czyzewski wrote in the affidavit. “Officer Rabideau deployed his Taser, striking Langevin in the lower back and upper buttocks; this caused Langevin to fall to the ground.”

 My first question is why they couldn't have apprehended him by, you know, running after him. Related to that is why they used potentially deadly force to apprehend a potentially intoxicated misdemeanor suspect who was apparently not attempting to harm or assault either the officers involved or anyone else on the scene.

My second question comes directly from the video. If you watch the video, at about 13-14 seconds you will hear a male voice shouting twice “Turn it off!” It's not clear at this point whose voice it is or what he's talking about, but my initial impression was that the officer is yelling at the bystanders to turn off the video camera.

If this is borne out by investigation it raises serious questions about police misconduct. Citizen videos have grown important for  recording and exposing questionable police conduct, and there is no question that in Vermont the people have a right to record a police officer in public. Police officers have no business interfering with lawful recording, or ordering the citizens to stop.

I'll be interested in watching how the investigation comes out. 

Here's a pre-election quiz for you.

 Which of the following is trying to reduce the Democratic majority in the Senate?

a. Republican Party chair David Sunderland.

b. Republican Lieutenant Governor Phil Scott.

c. Democratic Senator Dick Mazza.

Okay, it was a trick question. The answer is (d), all of the above.

Yes, Dick Mazza, We've had diaries about him here before, because this is far from the first time that he's taken the other side in important elections. For instance four years ago, when Peter Shumlin was in his first run for governor, Mazza gave his support and real estate to Brian Dubie. This year, Mazza is one of a trio of conservative Senate Democrats supporting Phil Scott in his reelection effort for Lite Gov.

And now there's this. The election is the day after tomorrow and Mazza has kindly provided a quote in Pat McDonald's Times Argus ad for her Washington County Senate campaign, a campaign in which she is challenging the two Democratic incumbents, Ann Cummings and Anthony Pollina. (No, I'm not linking to the other side's political ads.) The Washington County Senate race is getting a lot of attention because some observers see it as one of the Republicans' best chances to pick up a Senate seat and chip away at the Democratic majority. It remains to be seen whether McDonald can get enough support outside of her base in the “B” towns (Barre City, Barre Town, and Berlin) to win the election, but who wants to take that chance?

 It's no secret where my loyalties lie. I'm the chair of the Washington County Democrats and I spend my time working to elect Democratic candidates and trying to get other Washington County Democrats to get out and support our candidates as well. When we have an office holder from Colchester, who is getting support from the state and local parties in his reelection campaign, reaching out to Washington County, supporting Republicans, and attacking the Democratic majority, that's just wrong.