And yet that’s exactly what Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), the ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, did when he sent out a press release boasting of an exchange he had today with FBI Director Robert Mueller during a hearing to examine the intelligence failures leading up to the unsuccessful Christmas Day bombing of Northwest Airlines Flight 253. From Sessions’ release:

FBI DIRECTOR MUELLER: “In this particular case, in fast-moving events, decisions were made—appropriately, I believe, very appropriately—given the situation…”

SEN. SESSIONS: “I don’t think you can say it’s appropriate. We don’t know what that individual knows, learned while he was working with al Qaeda, and we may never know, because he now has got a lawyer who’s telling him to be quiet.”

Let’s recall a point Spencer made on MSNBC last month in response to Pat Buchanan’s laments that the Nigerian suspect, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, was not immediately subjected to “hostile interrogation” — or what most of us would call torture.

We’ve seen we’ve gotten a lot of bad information from torturing people. I don’t really understand the argument that because every single time we have a new emergency, we have to forget about the hard lessons we’ve learned in the past over this. And then secondly, by every standard that we’ve seen so far, every piece of reporting, the guy cooperated. He immediately said he’s a member of al Qaeda. He started talking threateningly about how there were other attacks coming. So I’m not sure where we make this jump to the idea that we’re not getting information from the guy.

Right.

The White House spokesman, Robert Gibbs, has said Mr. Abdulmutallab provided “useable, actionable intelligence,” but declined to specify what it was. A law enforcement official said Mr. Abdulmutallab explained who gave him the bomb, where he received it and where he was trained to use it, among other things.

Eventually, Mr. Abdulmutallab stopped talking and asked for a lawyer, which he received about 30 hours after his arrest. It was not clear when in that timeline that the F.B.I. read him his Miranda rights.

But Sessions continued:

SESSIONS: “It’s not just the ability to prosecute this individual, but whether, if he were properly interrogated over a period of time, we may find out that there are other cells, other plans, other Abdulmutallabs out there boarding planes that are going to blow up American citizens.”

Here we go. What does Sessions mean by “properly interrogated”? What evidence is there, in the wake of news reports that Abdulmutallab immediately started talking upon his arrest, to suggest that he was not properly interrogated?

Make no mistake — when Sessions is talking about “proper interrogation,” this is a euphemism. He’s talking about waterboarding. He’s talking about torture. Elements of the Republican Party have become so completely Cheney-ized that they view due process, which is enshrined in the Bill of Rights, as “inappropriate” and maintain that torture should be the tactic of first resort whenever someone is suspected of being a terrorist.

And as Adam Serwer deftly pointed out this morning, Senator-elect Scott Brown (R-Mass.) represents the GOP’s continued acceptance of torture as standing operating procedure during interrogations. From Brown’s acceptance speech last night:

And let me say this, with respect to those who wish to harm us, I believe that our Constitution and laws exist to protect this nation — they do not grant rights and privileges to enemies in wartime. In dealing with terrorists, our tax dollars should pay for weapons to stop them, not lawyers to defend them.

Raising taxes, taking over our health care, and giving new rights to terrorists is the wrong agenda for our country.

Serwer notes:

This is the new normal for Republicans: You can be denied rights not through due process of law but merely based on the nature of the crime you are suspected of committing. Brown’s rhetorical framing, that jettisoning the legal system we’ve had for 200-plus years represents “tradition” while granting suspected criminals the right to legal counsel represents liberalism gone mad is new, and I suspect we’ll hear it again. “New rights” recalls the term “judicial activism,” which conservatives have redefined to mean “decisions Republicans don’t like” instead of decisions that overturn precedent. “New rights” can be broadly defined as upholding the legal rights of individuals based on the Constitution, rather than arbitrarily according to the whim of politicians. For Brown and the GOP, if you’re accused of terrorism, you’re automatically guilty, so legal representation is frivolous. These guys look at the Constitution like David Vitter and John Ensign look at the Ten Commandments.

Let’s also be clear: Brown, a former military lawyer, isn’t merely talking about denying people their day in court, he’s talking about torturing people who are suspected of being terrorists. Brown says he doesn’t think waterboarding is torture, which is on par with thinking evolution is fake and global warming is a hoax. He thinks not torturing people suspected of a crime or detained by the military is granting them “new rights.” We know where this goes.

Ladies and gentlemen, the new face of the Republican Party.

President Obama will campaign for Massachusetts Senate candidate Martha Coakley on Sunday, POLITICO has learned, a sign that Democrats are deeply worried about her prospects and the party’s 60-seat majority.

U.S. troops ship out to Haiti.

Cheech and Chong want to smoke up with Palin.

National Counterterrorism Center veterans question anti-al-Qaeda efforts.

Conan heads for the exit.

Nate Silver declares MA-Sen special election a tossup.

Axlerod blasts Rove.

Halperin and Heilmann’s book prompts a new term in the journalism attribution lexicon.

D.C. to get a Gitmo trial?

Venezuela deems pickles, codeine and whale sperm “essential items.” Whiskey, bleach and cheese, not so much.

“Texas is on the right path toward improved education, and we would be foolish and irresponsible to place our children’s future in the hands of unelected bureaucrats and special interest groups thousands of miles away in Washington, virtually eliminating parents’ participation in their children’s education,” Gov. Perry said. “If Washington were truly concerned about funding education with solutions that match local challenges, they would make the money available to states with no strings attached.”

Texas’ curriculum standards, which determine what students are taught in Texas classrooms, are set by the elected State Board of Education (SBOE). The SBOE recently adopted one of the nation’s first college- and career-ready curriculum standards in core subjects after receiving widespread input from Texas education and business leaders.

Ah, yes. The Texas State Board of Education. One would certainly not want to impose national standards on such an eccentric body.

In August, ThinkProgress flagged an article from The Houston Chronicle reporting that new history textbook standards being drafted by the state board of education had a strong right-wing bias.

The first draft for proposed standards in United States History Studies Since Reconstruction says students should be expected “to identify significant conservative advocacy organizations and individuals, such as Newt Gingrich, Phyllis Schlafly and the Moral Majority.”

According to The Chronicle, the standards did not include any mention of corresponding significant advocacy organizations and individuals on the left. Republicans on the 15-member board outnumber Democrats by a margin of two-to-one.

The Texas Tribune reported that last year one conservative board member urged his colleagues to include an endorsement of McCarthyism in the state social studies textbook standards.

Bill Ames had neither history or education credentials nor respect for fellow committee members who did. Indeed, the retired IBM executive and conservative gadfly believed they had been planted there in a conspiracy of “liberal groups” and unions who wanted to “hijack” U.S. history — or so he would later write in a three-part, 9,300-word rant, “The Left’s War on History,” that was published by the conservative web site Texas Insider.

When the committee took up McCarthyism, for instance, Ames argued that disgraced Wisconsin Senator Joseph McCarthy was actually an American hero. “The SBOE, noting the predictable leftist condemnation of … McCarthy for his anti-communist activity, requested the inclusion of the Venona papers, which revealed that the U.S. government was in fact infiltrated by communists,” Ames later wrote.

And who could forget the creationism debate that took place in the state last spring? By a one-vote margin, the board rejected language — crafted by Perry’s creationist appointee to head the board, Don McLeroy — that would have required Texas science teachers to cast doubts on the theory of evolution.

One section required teachers to “analyze, review, and critique scientific explanations, including hypotheses and theories, as to their strengths and weaknesses using scientific evidence and information,” and the other required high school students to study the “sufficiency or insufficiency” of key principles of evolution.

Of course, it’s ultimately Perry’s decision whether or not to apply for federal education grants. But it’s worth noting that according to a 2007 factsheet (pdf) prepared by Rice University for a Texas House of Representatives legislative briefing:

As reported by multiple researchers, approximately 67% of all students are graduating statewide, just 60% of African Americans, and 58% of Hispanic students. Graduation rates in our large urban districts hover around 50%.

Perry is currently facing a tough primary challenge from Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas), and he hasn’t missed many opportunities to flash his far-right credentials to GOP voters. But with graduation numbers like those, is it really in his state’s interest for Perry to play politics with potential federal education assistance?

Iowa lawmaker irked oath of office omits God.

Google hires ex-McCain campaign communications chief.

What’s that about the sanctity of marriage? Divorce rates higher in states that ban gay nuptials.

Experts question the merits of profiling all travelers from certain countries as an anti-terror tactic.

Is privacy quaint?

The life of a Russian dissident, from Stalin to Putin.

Political problems in the Reid family don’t stop with Harry.

Fun with face paint.

GOP seeks vengeance for Trent Lott.

Blagojevich says he’s “blacker than Obama.”

British reporter and U.S. Marine killed by roadside bomb in Afghanistan.

Will the Sunday shows ever fact-check their guests?

Lynn Sweet says Rahm isn’t going anywhere.

Steve Schmidt warns that Palin has a truth-telling problem. Cheney reportedly said McCain’s veep choice was “reckless.”

Can Google Earth help find the lost city of El Dorado?

The economy lost more jobs than expected in December while the unemployment rate held steady at 10 percent, as a sluggish economic recovery has yet to revive hiring among the nation’s employers.

The Labor Department said Friday that employers cut 85,000 jobs last month, worse than the 8,000 drop analysts expected.

A sharp drop in the labor force, a sign more of the jobless are giving up on their search for work, kept the unemployment rate at the same rate as in November.

Drudge’s photo choices might be a bit less conspicuous if Napolitano, who is unmarried but says she is heterosexual denies she is gay, had not been the subject of a lengthy and at times vicious whisper campaign about her sexuality in her home state of Arizona, where she was formerly governor. [Update: As a commenter points out, it is more accurate to say that rather than proclaiming her heterosexuality, Napolitano has consistently denied being gay.]