The Daily Muck

Defense lawyers of detainees at Guantanamo Bay assert that the government’s efforts to introduce evidence obtained through abusive interrogation “heralds a very dark chapter in American history.” The lawyers for Salim Ahmed Hamdan have asked a military judge to acknowledge that Hamdan was beaten and sexually humiliated. (New York Times)

The Senate Armed Services Committee has been “quietly but aggressively scrutinizing” the role of top administration officials in the abuse of detainees under Depart of Defense custody. In February, the committee informed the Pentagon that it wanted to speak with former Pentagon legal counsel William Haynes, the official who requested that Justice Department lawyer John Yoo draft the recently released March 2003 torture memo. Haynes has agreed to speak without being subpoenaed. (Newsweek)

Federal legislation from 2006 that makes it possible for civilian contractors in Iraq to be tried under the military justice system will be tested for the first time. The case, which centers on a knife fight between two Arabic-speaking interpreters, is considered to be “significant” “because it’s an untested power” and could have a massive impact on all independent contractors working overseas. (U.S. News and World Report)

Since the Pentagon revealed last month that it mistakenly sent electrical missile fuses to Taiwan in 2006, an Air Force Audit Agency report from 2007 has surfaced that highlighted problems with Hill Air Force Base’s computer inventories of ballistic missile parts. It did not reveal the shipping error, but it found that “management did not adequately reconcile assets to maintain reasonable internal controls.” (AP)

Government investigators are looking into Veterans Affairs staffers because the VA has picked up the tab for $8,471 of purchases at Sharper Image and $1,999.56 at a store that sells leather totes and planners. There are also hundreds of thousands of dollars of government credit-card bills from casinos, luxury hotels, and movie theaters. (AP)

Despite new Congressional ethics rules passed last year that require lawmakers to disclose their pet projects, lawmakers can evade disclosure of their earmarks if their requests for funding are vague enough. This technique has given rise to the the terms “soft earmarks” and “hard earmarks.” A “soft earmark” “urges,” recommends,” or “endorses” certain action but also comes “with an implicit threat: If you don’t take our suggestions, we will give you a hard earmark next.” (New York Times)

The Society of Professional Journalists asserts that the Department of Justice’s criticism of a federal shield law to protect journalists (Free Flow of Information Act) “smacks of propaganda and spin-doctoring” because a government agency is “using its taxpayer-funded Web site to promote its cause.” (The Hill’s Congress Blog)