Mmm, Cookies...Hey Wait A Minute

The AP reports today that the NSA has been placing cookies on people's computers who visit the NSA website that do not expire until 2035 and can track users web activity, a violation of federal law. The practice is prohibited unless a senior official signs off on national security grounds. So, either there is a mistake and it 'just started happening' or the Bush team decided to authorize it. In light of the Bush authorization of warrantless NSA wiretapping of U.S citizens, the latter seems more likely. The Bush Administration really is fixated on creating secrecy and privacy for themselves and keeping everyone else in "One Nation, Under surveillance"

UPDATE: I was doing research a couple of weeks ago for my blog that involved me visiting the NSA website. When I checked the list of cookies stored in Firefox, I found two from NSA, both expiring in 2035. I save screenshots of them which are available here and here.

Abramoff Expose

The Washington Post has an article on Jack Abramoff that provides interesting details on the super-lobbyist's rise to the center of the Congressional bribery scandals. Abramoff worked with Oliver North organizing "grass-roots" lobbying efforts to end the Congressional ban on funding to the Nicaraguan Contras. In addition, he worked for the Angolan rebel leader, the South African aparteid government and the Pakistani military. He also worked unofficially (laundering the money through a phony think-tank) for the government of Malaysia and oil companies wanting to operate in Sudan, where they were officially banned by the U.S. government on human rights grounds.
While Republican members of Congress are now saying they hope Abramoff goes to jail, and in the words of Sen. Conrad Burns (R-MT), that he wishes Abramoff "had never been born". However, these proclamations seem shallow with the extent to which they were involved with Abramoff. Once Abramoff flips and agrees to cooperate, the Republicans in Congress are going to have one more problem on their hands: lawmakers resigning to go to jail.

Quaking in their boots

You know the Republicans are scared when Robert Novak is speculating that if Trent Lott retires after this year, the Republicans will lose the Senate seat in Mississippi (and possibly the whole Senate) to the Democrats. While it is probably just an attempt by the Republicans, through their shill Novak, to pressure Lott away from retirement, it demonstrates a genuine (and justified) fear that the Republicans have had their time and they are going to lose. A few quotes from the article that are revealing (both of Republican fears and Novak's complete lack of shame):

"For the longer range, Lott's retirement and replacement could signal that Southern political realignment has peaked and now is receding."
[... Prominent Mississippi Republicans] believe Lott will probably retire. If so, they expect the new senator will be a Democrat, former State Attorney General Mike Moore.
[...]A Bush entreaty now to Lott is ironic. Lott was driven out of the Senate majority leader's chair after the 2002 elections when the president refused to defend him from calumnies that a harmless jocular remark on the late Strom Thurmond's 100th birthday was racist in nature. Lott's recently published memoir ("Herding Cats") reveals he was deeply hurt by Bush's non-support.

The last quote is to illustrate the complicity and total lack of shame of Novak. Saying that if Strom Thurmond had been elected as a Dixiecrat president, we wouldn't "have the same problems we have today". Given that the Dixiecrats campaigned almost solely on a racist platform, it is a racist statement and a sentiment that underlies the Republican strategy in the South since the Civil Rights Era (despite their professed apologies).

Greater War in the Middle East

"Kurdish leaders have inserted more than 10,000 of their militia members into Iraqi army divisions in northern Iraq to lay the groundwork to swarm south, seize the oil-rich city of Kirkuk and possibly half of Mosul, Iraq's third-largest city, and secure the borders of an independent Kurdistan.
[...]
The soldiers said that while they wore Iraqi army uniforms they still considered themselves members of the Peshmerga -- the Kurdish militia -- and were awaiting orders from Kurdish leaders to break ranks. Many said they wouldn't hesitate to kill their Iraqi army comrades, especially Arabs, if a fight for an independent Kurdistan erupted." --Knight Ridder, December 28, 2005

Knight Ridder reports today that there are 10,000 Kurdish Peshmerga forces within the Iraqi Army awaiting orders to invade Kirkuk and create an independent state. This would be the opening battle in a war that would spread throughout the region. If the Kurds set up an independent state, the Kurds in Turkey and Iran would also likely rebel and try to join Iraqi Kurdistan. In response, Turkey (and possibly Iran) along with the Iraqi government army would invade Northern Iraq, the Shiites in the South of the country would likely ally themselves with the Iranians and the already-in-progress civil war between Sunnis and Shiites would escalate.

Closer to Enron Justice

Richard Causey, the cheif accountant of Enron plead guilty to securities fraud in exchange for a reduced sentence (likely 7 years) and agreed to testify against chief executives Jeffrey Skilling and Kenneth "Kenny Boy" Lay. This is a welcome development and suggests that he may have information that can help in the prosecution of Lay and Skilling, who thus far have not been punnished. While it will not help with the suffering caused to Enron's employees and stockholders, it will provide a semblence of justice. It should also serve as a lesson and deter such behavior in the future. If Lay and Skilling are sent to prison, it will demonstrate that not even those with lots of money and political connections (Bush flew on Lay's jet during the 2000 presidential campaign) are above the law.

300th Post: Patriot Act Reconsidered

The U.S. Senate today agreed with my assertion that the Patriot Act should be revised (sort of, not really). The Act that make permanent 14 of the 16 provisions and attach a 4-year sunset on the two most controversial provisions was defeated. However, Bush was defied in the final vote that extended the Patriot Act by 6-months in order for the Senate to possibly alter the two controversial provisions to assuage fears that they trample (not to mention spit upon) civil liberties. While I think 6-months is too long, there is no telling how long the Senate may take and it probably helps the cause of my rights for it to have a few extra months. I don't like my liberties violated (the violation is now a fetish of the Bush Administration, some kind of legislative rape fantasy) and maybe, with the help of the few sane Republican Sentators they will remain for me to enjoy well into 2006.

Note: I am off on my Christmas vacation trip home (i.e., around the country), and therefore I may not post much for a week or so.

Police Protesters

An article in the NY Times raises troubling instances of police instigating violence at political protests, in the guise of protecting national security. The activities have primarily affected anti-war rallies, protests of the Republican National Committee meetings and Critical Mass. The police have, in the past, been subjected to stringent regulations under which there investigations of this kind are conducted:

"It was to remedy what was a very egregious violation of people's First Amendment rights to free speech and assemble," said Jeremy Travis, the deputy police commissioner for legal affairs from 1990 to 1994.

In the past, the investigations have been triggered by injury to the public. In this case there are some probably incidents in which there has been provocation by undecover police agents that have created disturbances that may not have occurred, or were hastened by undercover agents:

eyond collecting information, some of the undercover officers or their associates are seen on the tape having influence on events. At a demonstration last year during the Republican National Convention, the sham arrest of a man secretly working with the police led to a bruising confrontation between officers in riot gear and bystanders.

This raises serious doubts about whether, despite prior judicial restraint, the police are respecting Americans' right to freely assemble, a right given in the Bill of Rights. While the particulars are confined to New York City, have other cities undertaken similar operations. Here in Portland, Oregon, where there have been violent confrontations between Bush protesters and police (culminating in the partially inadvertant pepper-spraying of an infant), it is in the public's interest whether the police were involved in inciting the protesters while posing as protesters themselves.

ANWR rebuffed

The Senate today blocked the vote for cloture 56-44 with 40 Democrats, the Independent in the Senate (Jim Jeffords) and three Republicans. The move to insert ANWR drilling in the defense bill was a parliamentary maneuver that depended on Democrats fear of blocking the Defense appropriation bill which contained increases in pay for troops. The bill will be easily passed once the ANWR provision is removed.

The bill authorizing spending cuts for programs for the poor passed only with Cheney casting the deciding vote. In addition, 52 Senators signed a letter to Bill Frist asking for a 3-month extension to the Patriot Act while the two most controversial parts are debated to assuage fears of intrusion into civil liberties.

Disingenuous Debate

The Republicans provide a disingenuous argument for why they refuse to support a temporary 3-month extension for the USA Patriot Act while the controversial measures within the Act are debated further. This is especially important in light of the revalations of Bush's executive order authorizing NSA syping without a warrant, as well as the Pentagon's spying on anti-war activists and the FBI's spying on PETA, Greenpeace and anti-poverty groups. Bill Frist argues:

"Those on the Senate floor who are filibustering the Patriot Act are killing the Patriot Act"

This isn't true. The Republicans who, like Frist refuse to vote for a 3-month extension. They are refusing to compromise on changes that protect civil liberties. They are killing the necessary parts of the Patriot Act in order to assert their control over the government. Again, absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Hearings on the President's Authorization of the NSA Wiretapping

Several members of the Senate have called for a joint Judiciary-Intelligence Committee hearings into the recently revealed NSA program of spying on Americans. The Senators requesting the hearings are Chuck Hagel (R-NE), Olympia Snowe (R-ME), Carl Levin (D-MI), Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and Ron Wyden (D-OR). The five senators are all members of the Select Committee on Intelligence (Sen. Feinstein is also on the Judiciary Committee). The statement, released on Sen. Feinstein's website reads:

Dear Senators,

We write to express our profound concern about recent revelations that the United States Government may have engaged in domestic electronic surveillance without appropriate legal authority. These allegations, which the President, at least in part, confirmed this weekend require immediate inquiry and action by the Senate.

We respectfully request that the Select Committee on Intelligence and the Committee on the Judiciary, which share jurisdiction and oversight of this issue, jointly undertake an inquiry into the facts and law surrounding these allegations. The overlapping jurisdiction of these two Committees is particularly critical where civil liberties and the rule of law hang in the balance.

On Saturday the President stated that he “authorized the National Security Agency, consistent with U.S. law and the Constitution, to intercept the international communications of people with known links to al Qaeda and related terrorist organizations.” It is critical that Congress determine, as quickly as possible, exactly what collection activities were authorized, what were actually undertaken, how many names and numbers were involved over what period, and what was the asserted legal authority for such activities. In sum, we must determine the facts.

Both the Judiciary and the Intelligence Committee have had numerous hearings and briefings on the authorities provided to the nation’s law enforcement and intelligence agencies in their effort to defend against terrorism. We have extensively debated these issues. At no time, to our knowledge, did any Administration representative ask the Congress to consider amending existing law to permit electronic surveillance of suspected terrorists without a warrant such as outlined in the New York Times article.

We strongly believe that the Judiciary and Intelligence Committees should immediately seek to answer the factual and legal questions which surround these revelations, and recommend appropriate action to the Senate.

Sincerely,
Dianne Feinstein Carl Levin
Chuck Hagel
Ron Wyden Olympia Snowe

Below are the members of the Intelligence and Judiciary Committees. If they are your Senators write them a letter asking either for their support of the hearings or to thank them for supporting hearings.

Select Committee on Intelligence
Pat Roberts (R-KS), Chair
Orrin Hatch (R-UT)
Mike DeWine (R-OH)
Christopher Bond (R-MO)
Trent Lott (R-MS)
Olympia Snowe (R-ME)
Chuck Hagel (R-NE)
Saxby Chambliss (R-GA)
John Rockefeller, IV (D-WV), Ranking Democratic Member
Carl Levin (D-MI)
Dianne Feinstein (D-CA)
Ron Wyden (D-OR)
Evan Bayh (D-IN)
Barbara Mikulski (D-MD)
Jon Corzine (D-NJ)

Committee on the Judiciary
Arlen Specter (R-PA), Chairman
Orrin Hatch (R-UT)
Charles Grassley (R-IA)
Jon Kyl (R-AZ)
Mike DeWine (R-OH)
Jeff Sessions (R-AL)
Lindsey Graham (R-SC)
John Cornyn (R-TX)
Sam Brownback (R-KS)
Tom Coburn (R-OK)
Patrick Leahy (D-VT), Ranking Democratic Member
Ted Kennedy (D-MA)
Joe Biden, Jr. (D-DE)
Herbert Kohl (D-WI)
Dianne Feinstein (D-CA)
Russ Feingold (D-WI)
Chuck Schumer (D-NY)
Dick Durbin (D-IL)

Intelligent Design is Religion

A Federal judge today ruled that Intelligent Design constitutes religion and therefore, by the establishment clause of the 1st Amendment cannot be taught in public schools. The controversy over the teaching of Intelligent Design (ID) as a science class is unlikely to end here, but there is now another court ruling that Intelligent Design, like other attempts to discredit Darwin, are not science but religion. The Dover School Board had passed the following directive:

Students will be made aware of gaps/problems in Darwin’s theory and of other theories of evolution including, but not limited to, intelligent design. Note: Origins of Life is not taught.

The judge used a test for establishment sanctioned by the Supreme Court:

School sponsorship of a religious message is impermissible because it sends the ancillary message to members of the audience who are nonadherents ‘that they are outsiders, not full members of the political community, and an accompanying message to adherents that they are insiders, favored members of the political community.’

Under this test, the teaching of ID is a violation of the Establishment clause of the 1st Amendment because:

An Objective Observer Would Know that ID and Teaching About “Gaps” and “Problems” in Evolutionary Theory are Creationist, Religious Strategies that Evolved from Earlier Forms of Creationism

Essentially, ID is religion because it cannot be separated from the movement to teach creationism in schools, which has been deemed religion.

The full text of the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District ruling is available here (pdf).

Dems find a backbone

As the NY Times is reporting, the Democrats are lining up enough votes to filibuster the defense appropriations act based on the inclusion of a provision that would open the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve (ANWR) to oil drilling. Even Joe Lieberman, who more and more resembles a Republican, has promised to take part in the filibuster. While it would pose the risk of a backlash because the appropriations bill provides pay increases for the military, the filibuster is an effort to take a stand on procedural grounds. The Democrats rightly oppose the use of a defense appropriations bill to pass the ANWR drilling, which could not be passed on its own merits. It is an energy issue and therefore should not be tacked onto a defense bill. The reason for its inclusion in the defense appropriations bill, besides its own political failure, is a gamble by the Republicans that Democrats would support the bill in order not to be seen as compromising military funding based on opposition to ANWR. However, the game of appropriations "chicken" may continue as long as the Democrats can garner enough support for their filibuster (they need 41 votes in the Senate to block attempts at cloture).

New Spying: J. Edgar Hoover Lives Again

An article in today's Washington Post reveals that the FBI has been investigating reputable organizations in supposed "terrorist" probes. The focus of the article is on People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA). While I personally think they are a little off the mark, they are not terrorists, nor should they be investigated for terrorist sympathy. Also targeted are Greenpeace and the Arab-American Anti-Discrimination Committee. The spying on domestic non-profits and community organizations is wrong. It brings us back to when the FBI spyed on Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Paranoia inspired extra-Constitutional measures that stretched and broke the rule of law, at least in terms of government activity. There are far more important subjects to investigate in preventing terrorism. These organizations are as related to terrorism as the exposed breast of Lady Liberty that John Ashcroft had covered up.

Iraqi Democracy

The NY Times reports today that religious parties are the main winners in the elections held last week. While the reports are only preliminary (however, 90 percent of the ballots have been counted, pending challenges about election fraud), they show how strong the resistance to the neo-conservative really is. The main winner in the elections will be the Shiite religious coalition. Shiites represent about 60 percent of the Iraqi population. The main challenger to the United Iraqi Alliance, the Iraqi List, headed by Ayad Allawi, had a significanly lower count than even was expected by the American government. Mr. Allawi's coalition campained as a secular alternative to the UIA. In the Sunni areas, the party with the most votes has been the Iraqi Consensus Front. The NY Times describes:

The front-runner among Sunni Arab voters was a religious coalition whose leaders have advocated resistance to the American military and have demanded that President Bush set a timetable for withdrawing the American military from Iraq.

Neither party is what Bush has promised implicitly for the future of Iraq. The UIA is a religious party which will most likely align itself with Iran, while the ICF seems to represent the Sunni religious nationalists keen on seeing a quick U.S. exit from Iraq. Either way, there is little popular support for a continued U.S. occupation of Iraq, as registered by their votes and by polls before the election. The most sensible option is Rep. Murtha's: withdraw from Iraq to bases near Iraq (in Jordan, Qatar and Kuwait), appeal for U.N. support to stem the tide towards civil war and remain within striking distance if terrorist training camps appear in the now destabilized Iraq.

Stifling Dissent and the Free Flow of Information

As Jonathan Alter reports in Newsweek, Bush summoned the publisher (Arthur Sulzberger Jr.) and editor (Bill Keller) to the Oval Office to disuss the imminent publishing of the NY Times report on the NSA's warrantless spying activity. The NY Times had already, at the Administration's request, sat on the story for a year (possibly back to before the 2004 presidential election. Whether or not the story was ready for publication in time for the election, the Times should have reported the story. As they did during the Vietnam War by publishing the Pentagon Papers, the Times should have put the public's right to know about what the Administration was doing in the name of security rather than bow to Executive Branch supression. While Bush's entreaty at the 11th hour didn't halt the publication of the story, it had before yielded to the Administration's request. The Times' story demonstrated a profound change in the relationship between the Executive branch with the other branches of government, arguably, the largest change since Watergate. Bush and his Administration wanted to re-establish a doctrine of Executive supremacy in decision-making, where the President's perogative defines legality. It is wrong and illegal and I look forward to a Congressional investigation.

Boxer asks about impeachment

Barbara Boxer (D-CA) has joined John Lewis (D-GA) in using the I-word. She has asked four presidential scholars to evaluate John Dean's claim that Bush has admitted to an impeachable offense. John Lewis, a House member, was the first to question whether the NSA spying case presents a case for impeachment. The text of her letter follow:

On December 16, along with the rest of America, I learned that President Bush authorized the National Security Agency to spy on Americans without getting a warrant from a judge. President Bush underscored his support for this action in his press conference today.

On Sunday, December 18, former White House Counsel John Dean and I participated in a public discussion that covered many issues, including this surveillance. Mr. Dean, who was President Nixon’s counsel at the time of Watergate, said that President Bush is “the first President to admit to an impeachable offense.” Today, Mr. Dean confirmed his statement.

This startling assertion by Mr. Dean is especially poignant because he experienced first hand the executive abuse of power and a presidential scandal arising from the surveillance of American citizens.

Given your constitutional expertise, particularly in the area of presidential impeachment, I am writing to ask for your comments and thoughts on Mr. Dean’s statement.

Unchecked surveillance of American citizens is troubling to both me and many of my constituents. I would appreciate your thoughts on this matter as soon as possible.

Sincerely,

Barbara Boxer

United States Senator

Condoleeza Rice Defends Torture and Wiretapping

There isn't a transcript yet, but Secretary of State Rice is on Hardball with Andrea Mitchell defending the NSA wiretapping of Americans. She is also claiming that realistically, what should we have done with people we captured except detain them. This response was to a question about the allegations that 8 prisoners in Guantanamo Bay were tortured in Afghanistan, allegations that have been verified by a human rights organization. More when I see the transcript.

Playing Chicken with National Security

With the debate continuing on the reauthorization of the Patriot Act, President Bush has been quite unhelpful by accusing those who want to fully debate the extension of the Patriot Act, and hope to change it so that it is effective without jeopardizing civil liberties, of damaging national security. However, as Reuters reports, Bush and Congressional Republicans have opposed extending the Patriot Act in its current form for three months, while the reauthorization is debated. The only exception is Sen. Kyl (R-AZ), who has proposed a 1-year extension, which is more time than necessary to debate the reauthorization. The response from the most credible opponent of parts of the Patriot Act, Russ Feingold is that "it's the president who wants to play chicken here[...]It's clear that the president is the one who is playing politics". If the Republicans are satisfied that the Patriot Act is defensible, why are they afraid of continuing debate?

Reaction to Gonzales

This is taken directly from Eschaton, but provides a good measure of the agreement that the authorization of the use of force in Afghanistan did not include authorizing wiretapping. All I have added is emphasis.

Feingold:

Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wis) responded to Gonzales' comments in an NBC interview this morning. "This is just an outrageous power grab," he said. "Nobody, nobody, thought when we passed a resolution to invade Afghanistan and to fight the war on terror, including myself who voted for it, thought that this was an authorization to allow a wiretapping against the law of the United States. "There's two ways you can do this kind of wiretapping under our law. One is through the criminal code, Title III; the other is through the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. That's it. That's the only way you can do it. You can't make up a law and deriving it from the Afghanistan resolution. "The president has, I think, made up a law that we never passed," said Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.)

Graham:

My interpretation of the law would be yes, that he did not have the legal authority to do this under the Afghanistan war resolution or under the general powers as commander-in-chief. The Congress in 1978 — and there’s been no effort to modify it in any significant way since that time — understood that circumstances might change, but it did not provide for any circumstance in which the president alone, without consulting any other legal authority, judicial authority, could waive the rights of U.S. citizens to be free from having their phones wiretapped.

Gonzales' fuzzy concept of the law

Today Alberto Gonzales was the principal spokesman in the White House's press briefing. He demonstrated no clue on the limits of U.S. law, the U.S. Consitution or the doctrine of separation of powers when he defended Bush's authorization to spy on international communications by Americans. He believes that, like torture and illegal detentions of U.S. citizens as enemy combatants (he specifically mentions the Hamdi case), the authorization is implicit within the Congress' declaration to "authorize the President to use all necessary and appropriate force." He continued throughout the breifing to essentially argue that the NSA had been authorized to spy without FISA warrants, because the White House didn't like the FISA process. Below is a rather long passage from the press briefing that sums up Gonzales' arrogant stance:

Q You have stretched this resolution for war into giving you carte blanche to do anything you want to do.

ATTORNEY GENERAL GONZALES: Well, one might make that same argument in connection with detention of American citizens, which is far more intrusive than listening into a conversation. There may be some members of Congress who might say, we never --

Q That's your interpretation. That isn't Congress' interpretation.

ATTORNEY GENERAL GONZALES: Well, I'm just giving you the analysis --

Q You're never supposed to spy on Americans.

ATTORNEY GENERAL GONZALES: I'm just giving the analysis used by Justice O'Connor -- and she said clearly and unmistakenly the Congress authorized the President of the United States to detain an American citizen, even though the authorization to use force never mentions the word "detention" --

Q -- into wiretapping everybody and listening in on --

ATTORNEY GENERAL GONZALES: This is not about wiretapping everyone. This is a very concentrated, very limited program focused at gaining information about our enemy.

Q Now that the cat is out of the bag, so to speak, do you expect your legal analysis to be tested in the courts?

ATTORNEY GENERAL GONZALES: I'm not going to, you know, try to guess as to what's going to happen about that. We're going to continue to try to educate the American people and the American Congress about what we're doing and the basis -- why we believe that the President has the authority to engage in this kind of conduct.

Q Because there are some very smart legal minds who clearly think a law has been broken here.

ATTORNEY GENERAL GONZALES: Well, I think that they may be making or offering up those opinions or assumptions based on very limited information. They don't have all the information about the program. I think they probably don't have the information about our legal analysis.

Q Judge Gonzales, will you release then, for the reasons you're saying now, the declassified versions of the legal rationale for this from OLC? And if not, why not? To assure the American public that this was done with the legal authority that you state.

ATTORNEY GENERAL GONZALES: We're engaged now in a process of educating the American people, again, and educating the Congress. We'll make the appropriate evaluation at the appropriate time as to whether or not additional information needs to be provided to the Congress or the American people.

Q You declassified OLC opinions before, after the torture -- why not do that here to show, yes, we went through a process?

ATTORNEY GENERAL GONZALES: I'm not confirming the existence of opinions or the non-existence of opinions. I've offered up today our legal analysis of the authorities of this President.

Q Sir, can you explain, please, the specific inadequacies in FISA that have prevented you from sort of going through the normal channels?

GENERAL HAYDEN: One, the whole key here is agility.

Corporate Handouts

In the NY Times article about the military budget that was passed by the House this morning that includes drilling in ANWR, there is also another corporate handout that Senator Frist has been pushing for months. It would provide a sheild for vaccine makers from lawsuits, specifically targeting those vaccines that protect against avian flu. As a post on Slingshot.org notes, this will protect the investments of Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense, who has significant holdings in Gilead Sciences, the company that manufactures Tamiflu in the U.S. As the NY Times reports:

"The government would pay medical expenses and benefits to those injured or killed by vaccines. Mr. Frist contends that the provision is necessary to encourage drug companies to make vaccines. But it is likely to draw criticism, with some arguing that it would be a windfall for those companies."

It certainly would be a windfall for those companies, with the bill being passed onto the taxpayers, providing a situation in which there is a moral hazard problem. Because the drug manufacturers will not be liable for lawsuits, except where they exhibit "willful misconduct", there will be less money spent on trials to make sure the vaccines are safe, as well as less monitoring of the manufacturing process. There will not be enough evidence of "willful misconduct", but more people will be injured or killed by the vaccines than they would if the incentive to safety were provided by allowing lawsuits against the vaccine makers.

Bush's Hate Speech

"But much of the intelligence turned out to be wrong. As your President, I am responsible for the decision to go into Iraq. Yet it was right to remove Saddam Hussein from power." - Bush in his December 18, 2005 speech

This is another instance in which the President has admitted the mistakes of others, the intelligence agencies, but denied that he is responsible for anything. His Administration, despite his denials, manipulated and cherry-picked intelligence. Congress did not have the same intelligence as he did, as the Congressional Research Service confirmed (pdf). He led the country to war on claims of WMD and Saddam-9/11 links. Later in his speech, he spoke about opponents of the war:

We will continue to listen to honest criticism, and make every change that will help us complete the mission. Yet there is a difference between honest critics who recognize what is wrong, and defeatists who refuse to see that anything is right.
Defeatism may have its partisan uses, but it is not justified by the facts.

This is an unhelpful strategy that does nothing to encourage any honest debate about the future of American presence in Iraq. It is a an ideology of "I'm right, you're wrong and anything you say helps our enemies". Bush is in the corner, about to be knocked out by one after another scandals caused by his and his party's obsession with power.

Bush's circumventing of the 1st Amendment

"As President, I took an oath to defend the Constitution, and I have no greater responsibility than to protect our people, our freedom, and our way of life. On September the 11th, 2001, our freedom and way of life came under attack by brutal enemies who killed nearly 3,000 innocent Americans. We're fighting these enemies across the world. Yet in this first war of the 21st century, one of the most critical battlefronts is the home front. And since September the 11th, we've been on the offensive against the terrorists plotting within our borders."-Bush in his December 17, 2005 radio address

Apparently, President Bush has a strange definition off what protecting "our freedom [and] our way of life". The USA Patriot Act was passed on October 25, 2001 with a vote in the Senate on the conference bill (HR 3162) of 98-1 (with Mary Landrieu (D-LA) abstaining and Russ Feingold (D-WI) voting against). The USA Patriot Act revised two facets of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). It extended the length of the wiretaps and the liability of those who comply with the wiretaps. The Patriot Act maintains the restriction "That no United States person may be considered a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power solely upon the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States". Bush states that:

"In the weeks following the terrorist attacks on our nation, I authorized the National Security Agency, consistent with U.S. law and the Constitution, to intercept the international communications of people with known links to al Qaeda and related terrorist organizations. Before we intercept these communications, the government must have information that establishes a clear link to these terrorist networks."

However, the NSA could have undertaken the same surveillance activities with a warrant (the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) finds that only four requests were denied since FISA was enacted, and even those four were just modified). The warrants can be obtained within hours, but as noted above, cannot be obtained for U.S. persons "solely upon the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States"
According to the NSA website, U.S. persons are legally defined as:

* a citizen of the United States
* an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence
* an unincorporated association with a substantial number of members who are citizens of the U.S. or are aliens lawfully admitted for permanent residence
* a corporation that is incorporated in the U.S.

Bush later goes on to note that:

"As the 9/11 Commission pointed out, it was clear that terrorists inside the United States were communicating with terrorists abroad before the September the 11th attacks, and the commission criticized our nation's inability to uncover links between terrorists here at home and terrorists abroad. Two of the terrorist hijackers who flew a jet into the Pentagon, Nawaf al Hamzi and Khalid al Mihdhar, communicated while they were in the United States to other members of al Qaeda who were overseas. But we didn't know they were here, until it was too late."

However, as the 9/11 Commission report notes, the two hijackers Bush mentioned were "instructed Hazmi and Mihdhar to pose as newly arrived Saudi students". They would not be covered under the U.S. persons exemption to the FISA Act, and so this example rings hollow unless information on them was based on first amendment-protected activities of a U.S. person. In essence, Bush told the NSA to spy on Americans outside of the FISA act because, in addition to violating the 4th amendment, he wanted to avoid the protections FISA provides for the 1st amendment. His assurance that he would "do everything in [his] power under our laws and Constitution" rings quite hollow.

Expansion of Presidential Authority

There is an interesting article in the Washington Post on the Bush administration's expansion of presidential power, totally bypassing the legislative and judicial branches. It reads like a progression towards totalitarianism. That is how leaders have traditionally turned democratic governments into authoritarian ones, by weakening the legislature (including filling it with politicians whose policy is driven by deference to the executive branch) and the judiciary. If we continue in this direction without interruption, our democracy will face its worst crisis since Watergate, and the crisis may become worse than Watergate (as John Dean, former counsel to Richard Nixon, has consistently and intelligently argued).

Update: I just realized a situation in American history with more in common to the warrantless wiretaps is Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus during the Civil War, an episode in which a president suspended one of Americans' fundamental rights under guise of a war. In fact, a conservative anti-ACLU blogger has justified Bush's actions:

"Without life, there can be no liberty. Too many are putting trivial things like being patted down at a football game ahead of America’s security. People need to wake up! We are at war.

However, the best way to counter this is to think back to Ben Franklin's advise that

They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security

The civil liberties thrust aside by Bush and Lincoln are important in the struggle to preserve our system of government and there is no threat large enough for these rights to be suspended. If they are, we may remain alive, but we will have lost the character of the nation. In addition, there are other, better, ways to protect the nation and protect civil liberties.

Patriot Act

With the success so far of the filibuster against the extension of the USA Patriot Act without changes needed to protect civil liberties, the next move should be a vote to extend the Patriot Act for three months while debate continues. This would continue the necessary provisions, while providing time for a real debate on the contentious measures. It would also give the Republicans opposed to civil liberties protections, as well as the White House, the option of either caving in to the democrativ process or voting against the Patriot Act, which they claim is so important. In the latter case, they would show themselves as they are, favoring political gain over national security and civil liberties. It would also demonstrate the Democrats' committment to protecting civil liberties, while acknowledging the role of parts of the Patriot Act as necessary. It would also help to stem the effect of charges that Democrats "don't care about national security" that the Republicans love to make, despite contrary evidence.

"He is a president, not a king" -- Russ Feingold (D-WI)

Sen. Feingold's statement in response to Bush admission (and bragging) about his violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978. Thank you Senator Feingold!

An example of government policy

Apparently ordering an inter-library loan of Mao's Little Red Book will give you a visit from the Department of Homeland Security. It did for on UMass Dartmouth senior.

Bush Admits to Impeachable Offense

Bush has admitted to violating American law and the 4th Amendment to the Constitution barring illegal search and seizure. While he claims:

it was "critical to saving American lives" and "consistent with U.S. law and the Constitution."

this clearly is not the case. Hilzoy, guest blogging on Kevin Drum's Washington Monthly, suggests not only the 4th Amendment, it also violates Article II, sec. 3 of the Constitution:

that the President "shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed."

because it violates the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which requires that warrants be granted by secret FIS courts. These warrants are not difficult to get, are infrequently refused, and remain secret. The necessary portions of the FISA:

making it a criminal offense to "engage in electronic surveillance under color of law except as authorized by statute."
And,
"In the absence of a judicial order approving such electronic surveillance, the surveillance shall terminate when the information sought is obtained, when the application for the order is denied, or after the expiration of 72 hours from the time of authorization by the Attorney General, whichever is earliest. In the event that such application for approval is denied, or in any other case where the electronic surveillance is terminated and no order is issued approving the surveillance, no information obtained or evidence derived from such surveillance shall be received in evidence or otherwise disclosed in any trial, hearing, or other proceeding in or before any court, grand jury, department, office, agency, regulatory body, legislative committee, or other authority of the United States, a State, or political subdivision thereof".

By admitting to authorizing electronic surveillance of U.S. citizens by the NSA, as well as promising to continue the policy, Bush has admitted guilt in what (especially when compared to the reason for Clinton's impeachment) should be considered an impeachable offense. And there is evidence that the Senate may at least make a tentative investigation into it. Arlen Specter (R-PA) the head of the Judiciary Committee in the Senate, had promised investigations even before Bush's admission. With a Republican senator involved, the investigation would have subpoena power unless the leadership of the Republicans pressures Specter out of the investigation. And there is outrage coming not just from Democrats and moderate Republicans. Bob Barr, one of the leaders of the Clinton impeachment, and he appeared on CNN with the following comments (quoted by Shakespeare's Sister on Washington Monthly):

"The fact of the matter is that, if you have any government official who deliberately orders that federal law be violated despite the best of motives, that certainly ought to be of concern to us…...Well, gee, I guess then the president should be able to ignore whatever provision in the Constitution as long as there’s something after the fact that justifies it…...The fact of the matter is the law prohibits ...— specifically prohibits ...— what apparently was done in this case, and for a member of Congress to say, oh, that doesn't matter, I'm proud that the president violated the law is absolutely astounding"…

On this issue, Bush has clearly crossed the line and any support for his position delineates one as anti-Constitution, anti-rule of law and anti-democracy.

Ongoing McClellan BS

Before, it was "ongoing investigation". Today, his stonewalling on the NSA spying activity:

Q Is it your position that legal authority is required --

MR. McCLELLAN: Terry should turn off his phone.

Q -- for any surveillance of U.S. citizens by the NSA?

MR. McCLELLAN: A couple of things. One, I'm aware of the reports that were in the papers this morning.

Q I hope so.

MR. McCLELLAN: This relates to intelligence activities and ongoing intelligence operations that are aimed at saving lives. And there's a reason why we don't get into discussing ongoing intelligence activities, because it could compromise our efforts to prevent attacks from happening. We are doing all we can to disrupt plots and prevent attacks from happening. And it could telegraph to the enemy what we are doing. The enemy wants to know exactly what we are doing to go after them and prevent attacks from happening. And we don't want to do anything to compromise sources and methods.

As I count it, he uses the phrase 'ongoing' six times in a 24 minute press conference.

Novak, Rove Libby and White House dynamics

There is an interesting article in the National Journal about how Rove and Novak came to talk to one another shortly before the outing of Valerie Wilson in Novak's column. The discussion was about the appointment of Frances Townsend as deputy national security advisor for terrorism. Novak had been researching her appointment and was talking to Rove to get the White House line supporting her nomination. Later in their conversation was when Valerie Wilson's identity was brought up. The main focus, however, was the conflict between Rove and Libby that represented the internal tension between the White House and the Office of the Vice President. In this case, the OVP opposed Townsend because she had worked for President Clinton and the OVP didn't like her opposition to its harsher tactics in the war on terrorism. The article is a new dimension on the tension between OVP and the WH.

Trent Lott wants more power

Trent Lott is going to try to regain his former post as majority leader in the Senate. He was forced to step down after making racist comments at Strom Thurmond's 100th birthday party. If he is elected back to the position, it would be a clear delineation of the Republican Party's true colors. They are, on the whole, unconcerned about ending racism. Lott's re-ascendency would signal the end of the party's public declarations of apology for the "Southern strategy", which rang hollow nonetheless. There is a reason that they receive less than 10 percent of the African American vote.

NSA Intercepts and Bolton

Larry Johnson, a former CIA agent, notes today on TPMCafe that the revelation of warrantless wiretaps by the NSA may tie into the Bolton nomination as UN ambassador. He notes that:

In light of the latest revelation, we have another possible explanation why the Bush Administration fought so strenuously to keep those intercepts secret and out of the hearing. Snooping without judicial review is wrong and must be punished.

What Mr. Johnson is making reference to are the NSA intercepts that Bolton requested. At issue may be the means by which they were collected. If the NSA warrantless intercepts are found to be illegal and unconstitutional (as they should), it would have revealed illegal activities by the government if the Bush Admininstration had turned them over to Congress. Whether or not this adds to the list of impeachable offenses by Bush, it should force a review of Bolton's recess appointment to the UN as soon as Congress is back in session (instead of when a new Congress is in session after the 2006 elections).

Letter to the Times' Public Editor

I was reading this article with concern about the Administration's lack of respect for Americans' civil liberties when I came to the following passage:
"After meeting with senior administration officials to hear their concerns, the newspaper delayed publication for a year to conduct additional reporting. Some information that administration officials argued could be useful to terrorists has been omitted."
Will the Times provide any further information on exactly when the article had been scheduled for publication, and more specific reasons why "senior administration officials" wanted the publication delayed. While there may be legitimate security concerns, your opacity leaves open the possibility of political manipulation of the Times to further the Administration's electoral goals. I would suggest the Times conduct an internal investigation with a final public report to assuage any doubts about the Times' motives.

Playing Politics with the Public's Right to Know

The White House asked The New York Times not to publish this article, arguing that it could jeopardize continuing investigations and alert would-be terrorists that they might be under scrutiny. After meeting with senior administration officials to hear their concerns, the newspaper delayed publication for a year to conduct additional reporting. Some information that administration officials argued could be useful to terrorists has been omitted.

--The New York Times, December 16, 2005

What exactly is a year? It surely isn't the strict definition, 365 days. It is good to see the NY Times being more open as to how it is influenced by the White House. However, the "year" mentioned probably has a buffer of a few months. This leaves open the possibility that the article was ready for publication before the election, but upon pressure from the White House, it wasn't published. This would be evidence of a grave threat to the 1st Amendment and the public's right to know. It would compound doubts about whether the White House cares about the constitution and civil liberties, preferring to stifle them in order to hold on to power. One would hope that the Times launches an internal investigation into the timing of the original publication date and how the Times acted in regards to the White House demands.

Protecting Civil Liberties

With the defeat of the measure to end debate on the Patriot Act, Americans' civil liberties will live to see another day. Because the Republicans failed to compromise enough on protection of civil liberties, as the disclosures on illegal spying by the NSA and the Pentagon have shown, the bill shouldn't (and didn't) have a chance. While I oppose the Patriot Act overall, there are some measures that are less controversial, and therefore, it is vexing why the Republicans are opposed to extending the current version of the Patriot Act by three months. The only reason I can think of is that they are so used to getting their way and steamrolling any dissent, that they still believe they can strong-arm the bill through. I hope they are not right, but they have been successful at forcing a lock-step adherence to the party line in the past, even if they have to use barely legal (and illegal) means to accomplish it.

McCain-Feingold Anew

"It's obvious why [the McCain-Feingold lobbying bill is] needed," McCain told reporters at the Capitol yesterday. "One word: Abramoff."

The bill would require lobbyists to file quarterly electronic reports on their activities, specifically on where they get money and where it goes. It would also lengthen the waiting period between when lawmakers leave and when they are allowed to lobby their former colleagues. This bill has always been necessary, but as McCain noted, the revelations about Abramoff and Scanlon's lobbying activity that may bring down several GOP members of Congress (1st Ney, then DeLay) in an election year it may now be politically feasible.

White House Backs Down

Sources have indicated that the White House will back down on its request for an exemption allowing the CIA to torture and removing any ability to prosecute those who are found to torture. This is good, but it is still curious as to why the White House was so adamant until now on these provisions. Furthermore, I think the change represents the weakness of the Vice President since Scooter Libby was indicted and was forced to resign. It also might be a signal of the reputed rift between Bush and Cheney over Iraq.

Ford Relents (pdf)

Well, the American Family Association loses its challenge of the "pro-gay stance" of Ford. Ford has announced it will not remove its advertising for Jaguar and Land Rovers from gay and lesbian magazines. In fact, it will advertise all of its vehicles.

"You asked us directly for us to have Jaguar and Land Rover reverse its plans and advertise in gay and lesbian targeted publications in 2006. As we said, Jaguar and Land Rover made a business decision about their media plans and it would be inconsistent with the way we manage our business to direct them to do otherwise. However, it is clear there is a misperception about our intent. As a result, we have decided to run corporate ads in these targeted publications that will include not only Jaguar/Land Rover but all eight of Ford's vehicle brands." (italics added)

Where are the 'black sites' now? Morocco?

Reports suggest that those held by the CIA in Eastern European 'black sites' were moved to North Africa once the Washington Post reported on the existence of the detention facilities. There has been speculation that most of the detainees were moved to Morocco. This seems logical as Washington maintains good ties with Morocco, there is a U.S.-Morocco free trade agreement and the government has cooperated with the U.S. war on terrorism. More troubling are reports that the government of Morocco has been accused of torture. In a State Department report, there are several criticisms of the human rights record of the Moroccan government:

The law prohibits torture, and the Government denied the use of torture; however, some members of the security forces tortured or otherwise abused detainees. The penal code in force during the year stipulates sentences up to life imprisonment for public servants who use or oblige the use of violence against others in the exercise of their official duties. By law, pretrial investigating judges must, if asked to do so or if they themselves notice physical marks that so warrant, refer the detained person to an expert in forensic medicine. However, according to human rights groups, judges often ignored this requirement in practice, which called into question the Government's commitment to resolving the problem.

Human Rights Watch (HRW)provides a stronger condemnation of the Moroccan government:

Moroccan human rights activists, lawyers representing detainees, family members of detainees, and several journalists all told Human Rights Watch of detainees whom they said had been tortured in police custody following the May 16 bombings. Local and international human rights organizations have also raised concerns. Human Rights Watch did not have direct access to prisoners currently in prison. Their allegations were conveyed to us by their lawyers and family members who visited them after their transfer to pre-trial detention.
In November 2003, the U.N. Committee against Torture expressed its concern regarding "the increase, according to some information, in the number of arrests for political reasons", the increase in the number of detainees and prisoners in general, including political prisoners, and the increase in the number of allegations of torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, allegations implicating the National Surveillance Directorate (DST)

This occurs despite the country's ratification of the U.N. Convention Against Torture in 1986. Furthermore, HRW accuses the government of holding detainees in secret prisons (which the State Department mentions in its 2004 report):

In at least four of the cases presented in this report, the detainee indicated the place of interrogation as Temara, a compound just south of Rabat on the road to Casablanca [which has been characterized as] a secret, unacknowledged detention facility run by the DST, which has its national headquarters in Temara.
[...]
Moroccan authorities have denied the existence of a detention facility run by the DST. [...] Then-Human Rights Minister Mohamed Aujjar told Human Rights Watch on February 5, 2004, "There are no detentions outside the law. There is no DST detention center in Temara. In Temara, there is a brigade of the judicial police and there is a DST facility, but the DST facility is not for detaining people."

On top of allegations of secret detention facilities and torture by the Moroccan government, there is a technicality on which the Moroccan government can deny that there are CIA 'black sites' located on their territory and deny participation. If the CIA worked directly with the DST (as they allegedly did with security services in Eastern Europe), the government could be kept in the dark. In addition, they could locate the detention facilities within terroritory controlled by Morocco that is not part of the country. There has been a long-running dispute over whether the region to the south of Morocco, Western Sahara is part of Morocco. The territory's independence as the Saharan Arab Democratic Republic has been recognized by some countries and a U.N. mission was created in 1991 to hold a referendum on independence that still has not occurred. Currently, the country is controlled by Morocco. This provides a large area in which secret detention facilities could be operated by the CIA. This is speculation, but there has been some confirmation. For example, Wayne Madsen, a former member of the U.S. Navy and NSA, reports:

According to informed intelligence sources, the country that is hosting most of the U.S. terrorist suspects [...] is Morocco. Many of the prisoners are being held at remote prisons established by former King Hassan II to torture political prisoners. Many of these prisons are in located high in the Atlas Mountains and are so remote, they can only be easily reached by helicopter. [...]Western Sahara is illegally occupied by Morocco but the Bush administration supports the continued Moroccan occupation of the oil and mineral rich territory. In return, Morocco has supported the holding of "Al Qaeda" suspects, interrogations by its security services, and close liaison with Israeli intelligence and military personnel.

Don Bushovich Evans

Rumors and speculation are flying that former U.S. Secretary of Commerce under Bush, Don Evans will become the chairman of Rosneft, the Russian state-owned oil company. In addition to enhancing the ties between Bush and the oil industry, Rosneft was the company that bought Yuganskneftegaz after the Russian government forcibly split it off from Yukos. These rumors come shortly after former German Prime Minister Gerhard Schroeder joined Gazprom, the state-owned gas company, as a consultant on the pipeline to Germany that he had pushed as Prime Minister. Besides the normal conflicts of interest that seem to arise when political figures immediately move from government into business, there are other things that seem troubling about these moves. They are moving from politics into the state-owned companies of another government. Furthermore, the government they are becoming allied with has not had a very firm commitment to democracy, witness the breakup of Yukos. Then again no Bush official has really ever had a commitment to avoiding conflicts of interest or a real commitment to democracy when it got in the way of them making money.

Moral relativism and the religious right

The religious right is one of the worst offenders in sacrificing values for political gain and viewing the world with a moral relativism based on politics. And finally, this news has reached the Washington Post, who have an article today about this. It centers around protests over cuts in anti-poverty programs like Medicare and food stamps to pay for further tax cuts. Evangelicals and religious leaders on the left of the political spetrum have organized a sit-in in the House of Representatives to protest these budget cuts. However, there are no right-wing evangelicals participating. They think that fighting womens right to choose and gays rights against discrimination are more important domestically. Internationally, they have supported some important work like fighting sex trafficing and genocide in Darfur (however, they use it to force their anti-condom, anti-abortion agenda onto U.S. foreign policy). Domestically, they would rather go along with (and actively support) tax cuts in exchange for legislative support of extremist judges and legislation limiting the rights of women and homosexuals. They sacrifice principle domestically in exchange for legislative favors and ignore the poor. I'm not religious, but didn't their supposed savior Jesus fight on behalf of the poor and excluded? I don't think he involved himself in supporting tax cuts (something about rendering to Caesar what is Caesar and something about the rich, an elephant, a pin head and heaven). They are hypocrites who are have no moral legitimacy and are actually destroying freedom of religion.

Rendition: Update

Well, the Guardian (UK) has a few new details about the CIA policy of rendition. The investigator, Dick Marty, in his report said, as the Guardian summarizes:

CIA prisoners in Europe were apparently abducted and moved between countries illegally, possibly with the aid of national secret services who did not tell their governments

So the government denials throughout Europe of involvement in "extraordinary rendition" could have been genuine and still be consistent. It also poses a fresh new list of questions for governments as to why they allowed their security services to lie to them about cooperation with the CIA. There is also a warning that countries must investigate these allocations or face being in violation of the U.N. Convention on torture:

The senator acted as British MPs and peers were told by an international lawyer that their government would break the law if it did not investigate allegations that the CIA transferred terrorist suspects via Britain to secret camps where they may have been tortured. "Credible information suggesting that foreign nationals are being transported by officials of another state, via the United Kingdom, to detention facilities for interrogation under torture, would imply a breach of the [UN torture ] convention and must be investigated," James Crawford, professor of international law at Cambridge University, told the all-party parliamentary group on extraordinary rendition.

Condi Bashes Europe

Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice today accused unnamed countries (read: Europe) of shirking responsibility for and "boycotting" Saddam Hussein's trial. The reason European countries are not helping is because the trial is not viewed as fair because it was set up by an occupying power (not the usual under the rules of war) and there exists the possibility of the death penalty if (when) Hussein is found guilty. European countries have all outlawed capital punishment, and therefore would face a credibility gap if they supported what is seen as a show trial leading to execution. Reuters reports:

- International human rights groups have questioned whether the court can provide a fair trial and doubt its legitimacy because it was established during the U.S. occupation of Iraq.

- "Being opposed to the death penalty and helping Iraqis to find out the truth and hold those accountable for war crimes are not mutually exclusive," said the State Department official, who asked not to be named.

Clarification on CIA 'black sites'

A lengthy quote follows below from an AP story that lends further credibility to the Washington Post story and to the existence of CIA 'black sites'. Also, a BBC News story from today has a good graphic on where the CIA flights from Washington, DC were headed. Included are Romania, Sweden, Ireland, FYR Macedonia, Morocco, Spain, Libya, Algeria and Egypt. This likely includes both 'black sites' as well as countries involved at some stage in "extraordinary rendition".

A European investigator said Tuesday he has found mounting indications the United States illegally held detainees in Europe but then hurriedly shipped out the last ones to North Africa a month ago when word leaked out.

Dick Marty, a Swiss senator looking into claims the CIA operated secret prisons in Europe, said an ongoing, monthlong investigation unearthed "clues" that Poland and Romania were implicated — perhaps unwittingly.

Both countries have denied any involvement and Marty said he believes no prisoners are now being held by the U.S. in Europe.

"To my knowledge, those detainees were moved about a month ago, maybe a little more," he told reporters after briefing the legal committee of the Council of Europe, a human rights watchdog, on his findings. "They were moved to North Africa."

Asked by The Associated Press on the sidelines of the meeting to which North African country detainees might have been moved, he said: "I would imagine that it would be Morocco — up to you to confirm it."

Moroccan government spokesman Nabil Benabdellah denied any connection to such prisons when reports of the transfers surfaced last week. "We have nothing to do with and we have no knowledge about this subject," he told the AP.

Swift Boating Liberals

According to a right-wing group's ad, "liberal extremists" hate cops, want to sue them for "doing their job" and support the rights of drug dealers to hide drugs on children. As is noted on Slingshot.org, the ads were done by the same ad agency responsible for the Swift Boat ads in the 2004 election. A note on the charges and the reality:
-

That "liberal extremists" want to sue cops for "doing their job" - The reference is to Alito's advice that "I think the shooting [of an unarmed teenager fleeing the police officer by climbing a fence] can be justified as reasonable...[Because the officer could not know for sure why a suspect was fleeing] I do not think the Constitution provides an answer to the officer's dilemma,"

-

That "liberal extremists" support drug dealers hiding drugs on children - The reference is to Alito's dissent on the strip-search of a 10-year old girl in a drug raid. Another judge on the three-judge panel that voted 2-1 against the constitutionality of the strip-search of the girl and her mother, neither suspects in the raid, Michael Chertoff, the current head of DHS, argued that "under any reasonable reading, the warrant in this case did not authorize the search of the mother and daughter." Is he a "liberal extremist"?

These people are desperate and completely shameless. They have to distort the truth because when they argue on the merits, they are sure to lose. The complaints liberals rightly bring up about Alito are his position on the use of deadly force by police and the ability of the police to strip-search anyone they like, regardless of whether they are relevant to the crime and covered by the warrant (otherwise, their right against unlawful search and seizure would be protected by the Bill of Rights). Yet again the wing-nuts on the right contribute nothing but intolerance and hate to the political dialogue.

Gay Bashing

Reuters describes the struggle between Ford and gay rights organizations and right-wing extremist Christians. The article notes:

Ford said last week its Jaguar and Land Rover luxury brands will pull all advertising from gay publications after facing a boycott threat from the American Family Association, which has criticized the automaker for being gay-friendly.

In this, Reuters is bending to the right-wing pressure not to point out more facts about what criticism for being "gay-friendly" means. On their website under the heading "Does the AFA hate homosexuals?", the response is:

Absolutely Not! The same Holy Bible that calls us to reject sin, calls us to love our neighbor. It is that love that motivates us to expose the misrepresentation of the radical homosexual agenda and stop its spread though our culture. AFA has sponsored several events reaching out to homosexuals and letting them know there is love and healing at the Cross of Christ.

While they are trying to hide behind cozy assurances, the subtext of their answer suggest that they believe that homosexuality is a choice, that it is a sin and that homosexuals can be "cured" by religion, whatever that means. Really, what they are spreading is increased hatred, bigotry and insensitivity. Ford had advertisements in gay magazines. How does that hurt the religious wackoes? It doesn't, but it gives them a good recruiting tool and allows them to incite violence against gays by claiming that there is a gay agenda to turn their children gay, but still have cover of an 'issue' on which they acted. It is really quite sickening that they are not described as fully as even they describe themselves.

Secret CIA Jails

Reuters reports today that Swiss Senator Dick Marty, the Council of Europe's investigator into Washington Post reports that the CIA held some terrorist suspects in secret CIA prisons across the world. He is investigating whether these were located in any European country, as well as if terrorist suspects being rendered or sent to the 'black sites' were on planes that landed in airports or used airspace of European countries. The report notes:

"I find it hard to believe these actions could have taken place without a degree of collaboration or passivity by governments or services operating under them. I am thinking of the secret services," Marty said.

It was possible, he added, that the secret services had not informed their governments of any cooperation with the CIA.

Supreme Court to hear redistricting challenge

"The court will hear challenges from Democrats and minority groups who say that the mid-decade redistricting unlawfully diluted the strength of minority voters, injected undue partisanship into the congressional map and violated the concept of one person, one vote by drawing district lines with outdated census data." - Washington Post

Well, the Supreme Court agrees that there might be evidence of a pattern of discrimination and a violation of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 in Texas' redistricting plan. The redistricting created districts that elected 6 Republicans where Democrats had been elected. It did this by creating election districts that had fewer minorities (who tend to vote Democrat) than the original election map. This and the use of 3-year old census data are the points on which the Supreme Court will hear the case. It seems likely that they will overturn the redistricting plan, which Justice Department lawyers had ruled discriminatory (that was over-ruled within the department).

Death by State

From the Washington Post article:

One of his supporters watching the execution raised a fist in the air. Another, on the way out, said "the state of California has executed an innocent man." A relative of one of his victims cried, according to a witness.

Just before the governor announced his decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit denied Williams's request for a reprieve. The court said that there was no "clear and convincing evidence of actual innocence." Late Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court also refused to block the execution.

Among the evidence against Williams was a shotgun shell discovered at the crime scene that was linked to a gun he had bought five years earlier. That weapon was found under the bed of two associates accused of killing their business partner. The murder charges against them were dropped after they testified that Williams had confessed to them.

The death penalty is a morally troubling idea. As an agnostic, even I believe that no one but God can decide pure right and wrong. It is a logical inconsistent position to advocate a "pro-life" position and believe in the death penalty. It shames this country that the death penalty is used. From the quotations of the Washington Post above, there is significant doubt as to whether Stanley Williams comitted the crimes he was executed for. Until these doubts are assuaged, however, he should have been serving life in prison without parole. That is a defendable position. Death is not. If he is proven innocent tomorrow, nothing can be done. He is dead, executed by lethal injection.

On another note, Rita Cosby, the MSNBC anchor, was a media witness to his execution. She is guilty as an accessory to horrible crime (maybe not murder, if he was actually guilty), maybe manslaughter or at least the state subjecting a citizen to "cruel and unusual punishment". In the developed world, capital punishment is unusual. Most countries have outlawed it; in fact, a ban on capital punishment is a precondition of EU accession. Why won't the U.S. join in, with all the possibilities of wrongful execution, which is state-sanctioned murder?

Frist, Byrd and the Filibuster

While Bill Frist has threatened the 'nuclear option' that would ban judicial filibusters if the Democrats filibuster Alito's confirmation vote, Senator Byrd (D-WV) has promised to shut the Senate down if Frist carries through on his threat. This is what should happen. The Senate's role on judicial nominees is to 'advise and consult' and that includes the possibility of a filibuster my a minority (60 votes are needed to end debate). The filibuster is a parliamentary technique used by both parties in fights over judicial nominees. To abolish it would be to corrode democracy by removing a check for the minority party in judicial appointments. And hopefully, other Democrats will join Byrd if the Republicans try to abolish the right to minority dissent within the Senate.

Another Execution

There is an interesting post on Huffington Post today about the execution of Stanley "Tookie" Williams in California, the co-founder of the Crips. Arnold should grant clemency and commute Williams' sentance to life without parole. Sadly it probably won't happen.

UPDATE: Reuters reports that there may be a political motive for not granting clemency to Williams.

"The governor, weakened by a loss on all his initiatives in a special election he called last month, would have risked alienating his Republican party if he granted clemency."

Bush In The Bubble

There are two interesting articles, one from Newsweek and one in Time on Bush's isolation from reality. These two articles mimic what most people already figured about Bush: he is sheltered from reality and criticism by his staff and operates in a word surrounded by the "adults" in the White House, his staff. Other reports have suggested that Bush is also becoming increasingly frustrated and irritable. This is not a good situation when the man with his finger on the button has no grasp on reality. It also appears that, perhaps after being irked by GOP criticism of his handling of the war in Iraq, Bush has decided to stay his own (disasterous) course in Iraq, even ignoring the GOP needs in the midterm election. While this would be a political gold mine for the Democrats, it would be disasterous for the country; the longer Bush keeps U.S. troops in Iraq, the more unstable the country will be, the more U.S. troops and Iraqis will die and the more likely it will become that the U.S. occupation will fuel terrorist attacks against the U.S. or our allies. In fact, this has already begun to happen, as the Iraqi suicide bombers in Jordan demonstrate. If Republicans value their seats in the Congress, not to mention the U.S. military, they will ditch Bush and force the withdrawal of troops from Iraq by joining Democrats in cutting off war funding with a veto-proof majority. Anything else will further hurt the country.

More Lies on Iraq

Bloomberg News has an interesting story on Bush's latest attempt to convince Americans that the war in Iraq is going well and that it should have been included in the war on terrorism. First, Bush tried to explain away the difficulties facing Iraq:

`No nation in history has made the transition to a free society without facing challenges, setbacks and false starts,'' Bush said today, comparing the establishment of a free Iraq to the founding of the U.S.

Comparing the Iraqi experience to that of the U.S.? Is he kidding or has he been drinking again. According to what I learned about the American independence, we beat the British and then wrote the Articles of Confederation, which were then replaced by the Constitution and Bill of Rights. No where in my schooling do I remember an insurgency, a post-independence occupation or a civil war (at least not for another 85 years). The history of U.S. independence is quite different than the current "occupied independent" Iraq. Comparisons are more or less meaningless.

``By helping Iraqis to build a democracy we will gain an ally in the war on terror,'' the president said.

Somehow, Bush has had his head in the sand for the past three years about the relationship between the war in Iraq and the war on terrorism. Before we invaded, Iraq was not on the list of countries harboring terrorists, but now, the country is full of both terrorists and a violent insurgency posing a threat of starting a civil war. While Saddam was a horrible dictator, we haven't invaded many other countries with equally horrible dictators (e.g., Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, North Korea). I don't believe that is the way to deal with dictators. By invading all we did was replace one source of popular discontent with another, our troops. From here, Bush just falls off the deep end by yet again trying too establish a link between 9/11 and Iraq and Saddam Hussein, a link with no basis in fact, even by Bush's own admission.

Asked why he and other members of his administration continue linking the conflict in Iraq to the Sept. 11 terrorist strikes on the U.S., Bush said the attacks in 2001 ``changed my look on foreign policy.''

Most of the world agreed ``that Saddam Hussein was a threat,'' Bush said. ``The 9-11 attacks accentuated that threat, as far as I'm concerned.''

Saddam was contained and his country inspected by the U.N. weapons inspectors. As we know now, the U.N. mission was successful: there were no weapons of mass destruction or programs to produce them. Any suggestion to the contrary or subtle links between Saddam and 9/11 is disingenuous.

What's The Matter with Kansas

There is a fascinating article in the Lawrence (KS) Journal-World about the rise of extreme fundamentalist "social" conservatives. For those who have not read the book "What's the Matter with Kansas?" (a great read), this article provides a glimpse into the strange world of Republicans in Kansas. For example:

“The social conservatives don’t see themselves as the old definition of conservatism,” said Bob Beatty, political science professor at Washburn University.

“They are movement conservatives, revolutionaries, and they are willing to use the state to accomplish their goals,” Beatty said.

Traditionally, conservatives have been associated with fiscal prudence, turning a cautious eye to new trends.

But new conservatives have tossed that aside, Beatty said, if it furthers their agenda on social issues.

How often are the words "conservatives" and "revolutionaries" used in the the same sentance to describe one group. It is quite true that the "social conservatives" aren't conservatives at all. They are fundamentalist revolutionaries who want to turn back time to before the civil rights movement, before women were given rights, to before the new deal. They are trying to undo all of the progressive agenda in the twentieth century, not to mention all of the science. It is a wonder how they attract women to their movement as, like the Mormons, they have adopted a policy of white male supremacy (although they are not as vocal about this part of their agenda) in the family, the workplace and government. They interpret the Bible literally and probably would support some kind of Christian Sharia law based on the Bible. They are frightening and dangerous to democracy. Just look at Iran and Saudi Arabia (and soon, to Iraq).

Frist continues to deceive on HCA sales

As the AP reports, while Bill Frist continues to stonewall on exactly what he knew about his holdings in HCA, his family's health corporation, documents about the matter show a different picture. Frist is being probed by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) for a large stock sale of HCA on July 1, shortly before the value fell steeply. While the stock was in a blind trust, there are documents available that show Frist's knowledge of how much HCA stock he held. In addition, the executives of HCA (his brother being one of them) sold significant quantities around the same time as Frist's sale. These two facts together suggest a distinct possibility that Frist received a tip to sell his HCA stock from his brother (or another executive), knew he held a lot in his 'blind' trust and ordered that it be sold, only later coming up with the lame reason that he wanted to avoid the appearance of conflict of interest. Had his reason been true, he would have sold the stock upon being elected to the Senate and before he could vote on several bills that provided direct benefit to HCA. Conflict of interest? Only in so far as his interest is in making as much money as possible.

Bolton's Respect For Human Rights

Well, Bolton is living up to the fears of those who opposed him. He feels that American violation of human rights isn't "serious". In addition the UN high commissioner for human rights has no right to criticize the conduct of the U.S. relating to human rights. His words tell the story:

"Today is Human Rights Day. It would be appropriate, I think, for the U.N.'s high commissioner for human rights to talk about the serious human rights problems that exist in the world today," Bolton told reporters. "It is disappointing that she has chosen to talk about press commentary about alleged American conduct. I think the secretary of state has fully and completely addressed the substance of the allegations, so I won't go back into that again other than to reaffirm that the United States does not engage in torture."

Clinton bashing

This is ridiculous. No further comment is needed from me. The NY Magazine reports:

Bush-administration officials privately threatened organizers of the U.N. Climate Change Conference, telling them that any chance there might’ve been for the United States to sign on to the Kyoto global-warming protocol would be scuttled if they allowed Bill Clinton to speak at the gathering today in Montreal, according to a source involved with the negotiations who spoke to New York Magazine on condition of anonymity.

Torture and War

Today an additional facet of the reason we went to war in Iraq came out. Apparently, we did have a source saying that Iraq and Al Qaeda were linked. However, that was a suspect, Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, who was rendered to Egypt and talked about the Iraq-Al Qaeda link after being tortured. While it doesn't mark the first time torture produced wrong intelligence, it does pose a few questions. First, did al-Libi come up with the Iraq-Al Qaeda link, or were his interregators tasked to ask him about it? Second, why are we still using rendition and torture after the intelligence provided under duress turned out to be totally wrong and led (or helped the President lead) to a costly, illegal war? Beyond the rationale for the war in Iraq, torture will be a counter-effective strategy in preventing terrorist attacks. If a suspect is caught and tortured to tell where the 'ticking bomb' is (as the hypothetical is often phrased), it is likely that he will provide false information, anything really, to get the torture to stop. This poses a very real threat that, even if we get the right person and can use any techniques we want, the information will be faulty and we'll spend considerable resources based on a falsehood and remain vulnerable to a real threat.

Irresponsible Tax Cuts

An editorial today in the NY Times makes a convincing point about why further cutting the dividends and capital gains taxes. The Times writes:

The extension is both unaffordable and gratuitous. Most of the benefits would flow to taxpayers who make more than $1 million a year. That's morally reprehensible at a time when the House and the Senate are moving toward an agreement to cut as much as $45 billion over five years from domestic programs like Medicaid, food stamps, student loans and child-support enforcement. And it comes at a time when the government is already borrowing extensively for all manner of undertakings, like the war in Iraq and the new prescription drug benefit for Medicare.

The editorial also endorses tax cuts that shield middle class families from being subject to the Alternative Minimum Tax, a tax intended to make sure the super-wealthy paid taxes, but for which income limits were not indexed to inflation. However, while it is necessary to trim the AMT so it does not tax an ever-larger portion of the population, there should have been more work done to do more than a one-year fix. However, this would not have been politically palatable because it could have led discussion on to how AMT relief should be paid for, which could have led to discussions on trimming Bush's tax cuts. This was unacceptable for the Republicans, so they instead just patched the AMT for another year.

Linguistic Nationalism

The Washington Post reports that a student in the backward state of Kansas has been suspended for speaking Spanish. It is the opening shot in a war that I have long feared. I support immigration. It is a key to American power. We have been a welcoming country for our entire existence (despite some unfortunate policies), and it has been an economic boon. It's another form of backwards-thinking states' assertiing their xenophobia. I hate xenophobes.
With the riots in the "sous-bois" in France, a new era of nationalistic xenophobia has emerged. The xenophobes have always existed (witness Pat Buchanan), but they are becoming resurgent. While I oppose several conditions in Bush's immigration bill (and I despise Bush as well), it is a step forward that may end up causing a step back. In an increasingly globalized world, where national borders to trade are being reduced, the backlash against labor migration is increasingly ascerbic. The new form of the xenophobe is organized. With the Minutemen patrolling the border to "guard" against immigrants who want to come into the U.S., the sickness is exposed to America. I am proud of my heritage, as an American, and as a descendent of European immigrants a few generations (or more, some of my ancestors came over on the Mayflower) and I hate to see it being exploited to keep others out. I grew up in the town of Minutemen, not the xenophobes, but the idealists. In Concord, Massachusetts, my hometown, the battle began for American independence. I can honestly say that those who call themselves 'Minutemen' today would have been tarred and feathered in Concord.
We should welcome immigrants. The main problem today is not that immigrants are flocking to our shores. It is that their countries of origin may be losing valuable talent. But that is a different argument. What the United States has always prided itself on is being a melting pot, and being welcoming (at least to their labor).
The point of my rant has been to convey my belief that diversity (racial and of national origin) is beneficial to the U.S. and that those who oppose immigrants, the speaking of non-English languages and non-Christian religions (which they assert was the religion of the founders; no they were intelligent deists who valued a secular government and understood the allegorical complexity of the Bible). It is no more valid to outlaw the speaking of Spanish in schools as it is to ban the intermarriages of blacks and whites. People are people no matter where fate may have taken them.

Taxes and the Economy

There has been renewed attention recently to whether business tax cuts lead to increased economics activity. The Bush Administration and Congressional Republicans believe it does, and they have extended their tax cuts to investors. Ezra Klien points to problems within the Conservative's agenda that lead to a supply-side hiatus. The math doesn't add up. As Paul Krugman notes, 1+1 does not equal 4 (as the Bushies claim). The tax cuts to businesses and investors lead to increased corporate profits and higher incomes for Paris Hilton (and those who live on dividend/cap gain income, but it fails to translate into wage growth. This is partly a result of the decline of union participation. When unions are a party in wage negotiations, average wages and benefits rise, even if the unions don't cover an entire industry. However, in situations that exist currently, where unions represent less than 10 percent of the private sector workforce, wages and benefits suffer. The data have agreed. Wages over the past 5 years, have been lower than the rate of inflation, and while worker productivity has soared. Labor costs over the past year fell by 1 percent. This has created an economy in which productivity is rising and wages are falling (in real terms). While I would hate to sound Marxist (in the prediction of the 'immiseration of the working classes'), most people are losing out from Bush's policies. In economic theory, the driving force in raising living standards (in both developed and developing economies) is increases in productivity. That is not happening. They may only be temporarily de-linked and, while the effect of tax cuts on this is unknown, passing legislation that provides no incentive for higher wages will not help workers and may well end up harming them. In general, those who have dividend and capital gains income are higher up in the income spectrum (I certainly don't). As much as Republicans hate to admit it, Keynes was right in postulating a decreasing marginal propensity to consume. Based on such an assumption, increasing the income of those who have lower incomes will, on a per dollar analysis, have a larger effect in consumption (and general economic benefit) than giving to those who are richer. It may not be a perfect subsitute for raising employment, but it will provide stimulus for increasing employment.

The War on Terrorism

Reuters has a report today that sheds some light on the dangers of implicitly targeting Muslims. A group of 'rebels' attacked a city in Southern Russia, Nalchik, in the province of Kabardino-Balkario, in a province close to Chechnya. The Reuters article points out how the hostility towards the Russian government developed despite the government's frequent assertions that it was conducting a war on terrorists, not a war on Islam. Despite the public pronouncements, many Mulims saw actions that belied these statements. Reuters writes:

Officials have repeatedly emphasized that the Chechen war, which has ground on for 11 years with tens of thousands of casualties, and operations in neighboring regions like Kabardino-Balkaria are not aimed at Muslims, but at terrorists.

But analysts said oppression and harassment of Muslims, and the closure of mosques -- Nalchik has only one official mosque after the others were shut -- had sparked the revolt.

The U.S. repeatedly tries to claim that it is conducting the War on Terror(ism) against the "terrorists and evildoers". However, invading two Muslim countries, torturing Muslim detainees and in essence, painting a stereotypical terrorist as a young Muslim man provides a powerful spark in igniting a vision of a war on Islam. Combined with George W. Bush's evangelical Christianity and a few inopportune comments on the war on Terrorism as a 'crusade and many Muslims could easily get the idea that the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan were part of a Global War on Islam. I'm not saying anything like Nalchik will happen in the U.S., but not matching words with deeds is a recipe for trouble. It is particularly worrying in a region like the Middle East, where conspiracy theories are extremely common.

Tsk, Tsk Merck

"The evidence has raised questions about the integrity of the data on adverse cardiovascular events in the article and about some of the article's conclusions," the Journal said in a statement on its Web site.

Today the New England Journal of Medicine reported that Merck deleted some of the test results that suggested cardiac risks from taking Vioxx found during the study that compared the health risk of the drug to other available drugs. If it is true (and I think that is likely; the Journal wouldn't risk its reputation on rumors), it should have an effect both on the pending litigation against Merck, as well as prompt a review within the FDA of how to monitor companies so that the results of unfavorable studies are not dropped. However, the FDA at this point is very responsive to its "constituents'" needs (that would be the pharmaceutical companies) that changes that would protect consumers but slow the approval process by allowing firms to discard unfavorable lab test results are sure to be blocked.

Patriot Act Extension

Everything about the extension of the Patriot Act is worrying, even the title of the Washington Post article ("House, Senate Republicans Reach Deal on Patriot Act"). Despite concerns over the privacy implications of continuing two of the more contentious sections allowing roving wiretaps and making it easier for the government to get private records, the Reupublicans have pushed it through. Although there are time limits on the provisions (four in the compromise bill as compared with seven in the House version), the provisions will likely be extended in four years, unless the Democrats take back either the House or the Senate (or both). Sen. Feingold (D-WI) has promised to fillibuster it and a group of Democrats and Republicans have said they are 'gravely disappointed' and that they will oppose it, the triangular wing of the Democratic party will gladly sacrifice American civil liberties in the name of political expediency and in order to avoid being attacked by the Republicans. But, I could be surprised and the bill fails and a less intrusive version will be passed.

War in East Africa

There is a renewed possibility of war in East Africa after Eritrea expelled U.N. peacekeepers who have been enforcing the border decisions from the 2000 agreement. The main contention is about the border town of Badme, which was ruled to be part of Erirtrea, but from which Ethiopian troops have yet to withdraw. The BBC reports:

There has been no explanation for Eritrea's decision to expel the peacekeepers or why personnel from the United States, Canada and Europe including Russia were singled out.
But diplomats in Eritrea assume it is an expression of Eritrea's frustration that the international community has done so little to finalise the demarcation of the Ethiopian-Eritrean border

There could be more international actions on situations like this, the genocide in Darfur, finding Osama bin Laden, the denuclearization of the Korean penninsula and many other areas if the international community was not overwhelmed dealing with the U.S.'s illegal war on Iraq and its policies on torture.

Condi's European Adventure

Sydney Blumenthal has an interesting piece in Salon on Condoleeza Rice's trip to Europe, largely focused on the outcry over CIA 'black sites' and the policy of rendition. In essence, she has been sent to Europe to shut them up about torture. What the European governments want is an explanation of the U.S. policy on torture and 'cruel, inhuman or degrading' treatment of prisoners. The Bush Administration has sent mixed signals on the issue of the treatment of prisoners, asserting "we do not torture", while sending Dick Cheney to Capitol Hill to get the CIA an exemption from the McCain Amendment. All the while, media reports (most of them from Dana Priest at the Washington Post) suggest that the U.S. has a policy whereby they take terrorism suspects and either send them to CIA 'black sites' for interrogation or render them to countries with less of a problem with torture and similar interrogation techniques. The reports on the 'black sites' mentioned that some of them were in former Warsaw Pact countries in Central and Eastern Europe. In response, many European countries have launched investigations into whether their country hosted CIA 'black sites' or had CIA planes rendering suspects stopping in their territory. The EU has promised to suspend the voting rights of any EU country found to violate human rights laws regarding the treatment of prisoners. Condi today somewhat changed the public U.S. position that we do not torture and adding that we do not render suspects to countries that torture. This is probably either a lie or a legalistic parsing. The Europeans should be investigating the CIA's operations within Europe. As Blumenthal notes:

"In her attempt to impose silence, she spread guilt. Everybody is unclean in the dirty war and nobody has any right to complain. "What I would hope that our allies would acknowledge," she said, "is that we are all in this together.""

There is no situation in which the use of torture (either done in house, in 'black sites' or outsourced through the process of rendition. It erodes the moral authority of countries which practice it and fuel hatred and encourage extremism. But maybe that's the point.