Yesterday on Fox News Sunday, Kit Bond appeared with Senator Diane Feinstein, Chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, to discuss the disclosure of a second, secret Iranian uranium enrichment facility:
Bond's demeanor during this interview illustrates the dilemma that faces erst-while moderates in the age of radical fringe Republicanism. On the one hand, he is not a total ideologue so he strives for the appearance of rationality:
... I think that the election riots and the continuing unrest in Iran shows that there's a significant body of Iranian people who don't like the direction that they're going.
And that's why I think that strong economic sanctions, which have to be applied by the world community, not just us - we can make an impact - are the best way to go.
I suppose Senator Dianne Feinstein (D) wishes she had the power as the final arbiter of the peremptory norms (jus cogens) of international law and civilized nations she imagines when it comes to torture:
Jan 10th, 2009 | WASHINGTON -- As President-elect Barack Obama assures intelligence officials that his complaints are with the Bush administration, not them, there are growing hints from Democratic Senate allies that spy agency veterans will not be prosecuted for past harsh interrogation and detainee policies.
Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Dianne Feinstein told The Associated Press in an interview this week that there is a clear distinction between those who made the policies and those who carried them out.
"They (the CIA) carry out orders and the orders come from the (National Security Council) and the White House, so there's not a lot of policy debate that goes on there," she said...
Principle I
Any person who commits an act which constitutes a crime under international law is responsible therefor and liable to punishment.
Principle IV
The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him.
[emphasis added]
Acquiescing to the order just to keep your job doesn't cut it as an excuse.
"After much thought and a careful review of the record, I voted today to confirm the nomination of Representative Porter Goss to be Director of the Central Intelligence Agency (DCI). But I do have some serious concerns - especially about the impact of this nomination on intelligence reform and his record of partisanship in Congress.
I believe the President should have the prerogative to appoint who he wants to be the DCI, or for any other senior position, subject only to the requirement that the person be qualified for the job. As a former CIA officer, a former Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, and a former Army intelligence officer, I think he is certainly qualified. If he is confirmed, I would hope that he demonstrates the necessary independence required of the DCI. But there are still some open questions, which gave me some hesitancy in supporting the nomination...
[emphasis added]:
How's that "qualification" thing working out for you Senator Feinstein?:
Thanks to everyone for all their hard work over the last week in stopping the Telecom Immunity Bill in the Senate. Because you kept up the pressure on McCaskill, she voted "No" on the telecom immunity bill before Congress on Monday. And believe me, all your calls and faxes had an effect. Early on, the staffers answering the phones hardly offered to take down your contact information, and didn't really seem to know why changes to FISA were a big deal. Now, they're polite and much more apt to listen to your concerns about government spying. It's crazy that any effort at all is required to open a government official's eyes and ears, but that makes our effort all the more urgent.
Unfortunately, McCaskill's going to need to hear a little more from us. I have it on good authority that while McCaskill opposed the McConnell version of telecom immunity, she favors the "compromise" Feinstein or Specter version of telecom community.
