Senator Quisling (R-PA)
Mano Singham digs up a particularly damning fact:
Some of the legislators who voted in favor of the torture bill did so even though they thought it was bad legislation, presumably because they thought that the Supreme Court would rule it unconstitutional and thus no lasting harm would be done.
Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA), who voted for the bill even after his amendment to preserve certain rights for detainees was defeated, called the proposal "patently unconstitutional on its face."
This is not just "craven behavior and buck passing". It is evidence of perjury, which is grounds for impeachment (at least it was 7 years ago). This text might sound vaguely familiar to Specter:
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.
If Specter voted for a bill, knowing that it was "patently unconstitutional on its face", then he clearly did not "support and defend the Constitution" or bear "true faith and allegiance" to it. While not meeting the Constitutional standard for treason, it shows clear contempt for our system of government and the American people. And this is the man Bush supported over his primary challenger, so he also bears a measure of guilt. This same way of (not) thinking brought us McCain-Feingold, which is also "patently unconstitutional" (the Supreme Court be damned).