Judge Jay Bybee finally “broke his silence” and talked to the New York Times about his legal memos which authorized torture. This past weekend, the Washington Post quoted anonymous friends of Bybee claiming that Bybee was apologetic for authoring the memos. Speaking for himself, Bybee said that’s not the case:

[H]e said: “The central question for lawyers was a narrow one; locate, under the statutory definition, the thin line between harsh treatment of a high-ranking Al Qaeda terrorist that is not torture and harsh treatment that is. I believed at the time, and continue to believe today, that the conclusions were legally correct.”

Other administration lawyers agreed with those conclusions, Judge Bybee said.

“The legal question was and is difficult,” he said. “And the stakes for the country were significant no matter what our opinion. In that context, we gave our best, honest advice, based on our good-faith analysis of the law.”

Bybee, “the man behind waterboarding,” once said that he would like his “headstone to read, ‘He always tried to do the right thing.’” The right thing would be for him to resign. If he does not do so, Congress should impeach him.

This morning, Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter decided to leave the Republican Party — saying it “has moved far to the right” — and join the Democrats. President Obama was informed of Specter’s decision this morning and called to welcome him to the party. White House sources told ABC News that Specter pledged loyalty to Obama’s agenda:

At 10:32am, President Barack Obama reached Specter and told him “you have my full support” and “thrilled to have you.”

Specter told the president, “I’m a loyal Democrat. I support your agenda.”

Just hours later, however, Specter reaffirmed his unfounded opposition to Obama’s pick to head the Office of Legal Counsel, Dawn Johnsen:

Q: How are going to vote on the Dawn Johnsen confirmation?

SPECTER: I’m opposed to the nominee for Assistant Attorney General in the Office of Legal Council, Dawn Johnsen.

Watch it:

Johnsen has been a tireless advocate for limited executive power firmly bounded by law, not to mention a strong torture opponent — concerns Specter purportedly shares. In March, while still a Republican, Specter said that filibustering Johnsen was “under consideration,” though he never explained the basis for his opposition. Indeed, Specter declared his opposition to Johnsen just seconds after explaining that his opposition to warrantless wiretapping and Bush’s interrogation tactics were part of his decision to leave the GOP.

Rumor in Washington has it that Sen. Daniel Inouye (D-HI) may step down from the chairmanship of the Appropriations Committee, giving the seat to Sen. Pat Leahy (D-VT) — and opening the chairmanship of the Judiciary Committee to the new Democrat, Specter. From this post, Specter could indefinitely delay hearings on Johnsen, not to mention completely kill Leahy’s efforts to hold a truth commission to examine Bush’s use of torture and other illegal practices.

Specter also reaffirmed his opposition to the Employee Free Choice Act today. Apparently to Specter, opposing progressive legal nominees and stomping on workers’ rights is all part of proving he is a “loyal Democrat” in support of Obama’s agenda.

During an interview with WGN radio this morning, Rep. Don Manzullo (R-IL) veered slightly to the left of his GOP colleagues on the issue of whether waterboarding is torture and an effective tool of interrogation. After host John Williams recounted the story of Abu Zubaydah (and how all the valuable information he gave occurred before waterboarding took place), Manzullo replied, “Apparently waterboarding doesn’t work.” Williams then established that Manzullo believes that torture is illegal and asked, “Do you think waterboarding is torture?” “I would say its more torture than not,” Manzullo said. Despite his dance with reality, Manzullo firmly came back into the GOP camp, later arguing that no prosecutions should take place because it would be too much of a hassle:

WILLIAMS: Then how do you not prosecute if we think people were doing it?

MANZULLO: Because then you are going to have to go back and you’re going to have to go through every single interrogation and every single memo and the whole purpose of this is to relive again the fact that somebody made the decision to allow this.

During a teleconference today with reporters, Sen. Charles Grassley (R-IA), expressed “caution” about Deputy Secretary of Agriculture Kathleen Merrigan. The Des Moines Register asked Grassley if he had any response to Obama’s recent subcabinet appointments at the Agriculture Department. He responded by saying that he believed that most of the nominees where “well qualified” except for — referring to Merrigan — “the woman from Tufts”:

GRASSLEY: I think everybody’s well qualified to do what they’re doing, and there’s only one that I would raise a question about. And I probably shouldn’t be raising a question except some things that I’ve read about where she’s coming from, and I don’t remember her name, but the woman from Tufts.

QUESTION: Kathleen Merrigan.

GRASSLEY: What’s her name?

QUESTION: Kathleen Merrigan.

GRASSLEY: Yes. Whoever – whatever her name is, I’ve read some things that would make some caution — cause me to be cautious about her, but I need to get acquainted with her because it’s not fair just to read third-party points and know exactly where she’s coming from.

Asked to explain specifically what gave him pause about Merrigan, Grassley responded:

GRASSLEY: I think, with – I don’t know whether I can point to a specific thing, but it tends to me to be having an unrealistic view of American production agriculture.

It’s not entirely clear why Grassley hasn’t had a chance to “get acquainted” with Merrigan. After all, he sits on the Senate Agriculture Committee which held her confirmation hearing on April 1. If the senator missed the hearing, he can “get acquainted” by watching Merrigan’s testimony on the Agriculture committee website.

The “third-party” talking points that the senator is currently basing his opinion on appear to be from the agribusiness community. In response to the White House announcing her nomination in February, Steve Dittmer of the Agribusiness Freedom Foundation attacked Merrigan as unqualified:

Kathleen Merrigan has absolutely no real-world agricultural experience. Her career has been strictly in political (including Leahy and Kennedy), university or government positions. Her interface with agricultural producers has been in developing organic farming standards, hardly a place for even outside exposure to mainstream agricultural needs and problems. Her most recent position was a so-called “agricultural, food and nutrition” program at Tufts University in Boston. … That program is charged with “social change” and generating “models of alternative systems.”

In reality, it is precisely because Merrigan has so much experience in crafting and researching agricultural policy — in “university or government positions” — that her nomination drew “cheers from food-safety advocates.” Indeed, as a staffer on the Senate Agriculture Committee, Merrigan helped develop the Organic Foods Production Act of 1990 which “created national standards for organic foods and a federal program to accredit them.” Under President Clinton, Merrigan worked for the USDA Agricultural Marketing Service where she “worked on many conventional USDA agriculture programs.”

Most recently, Merrigan headed the Agriculture, Food and Environment Program where she researched, among other things, sustainable development and policy implementation. Whatever part of Merrigan’s resume that Grassley finds troubling, he’s a bit late to the game. The Senate confirmed Merrigan on April 2.