BRITISH GOVERNMENT TRIES TO HIDE EVIDENCE OF TORTURE IN GUANTANAMO

When governments, even democratically elected ones, face embarrassment or potential ridicule, they all do the same thing: clam up.

We see that with the British government. The British courts have ruled that information about torture of a British citizen previously held in Guantanamo must be released and made public. In response, the Foreign Office claims, all without any basis or reason, that the torture disclosures will harm British intelligence and national security.

Richard Norton-Taylor reports in The Guardian yesterday:

"A top Foreign Office official has accused high court judges of damaging Britain's national security by insisting that CIA evidence of British involvement in torture must be revealed. . . .

"In an unprecedented assault on the judiciary, he claims that demands by two judges that the CIA material should be disclosed have already harmed Britain's intelligence and diplomatic relations with the US. In a statement, Manley says the judges have "served to undermine confidence within the US in the UK's ability to protect the confidentiality of diplomatic exchanges and will inevitably have a negative impact on the candour of their exchanges with UK officials"."

So the British government is claiming that because the United States government wants to keep all these dark doings a secret, that it too has a right to conceal what the Americans did to one of its citizens. There is of course no basis in the law for allowing a government to cloak its evil doings in secret. Just because the information, if released, has the potential to diminish the reputation of Tony Blair or Gordon Brown is of no legal consequence. Those leaders who approved, endorsed and implemented methods of torture cannot escape the glare of publicity by claiming "national security" as a reason to continue refusing to disclose.

Writes Norton-Taylor:

"The judges rejected the foreign secretary's claims that disclosing evidence of unlawful treatment would harm national security and threaten the UK's vital intelligence-sharing arrangements with the US. "The suppression of reports of wrongdoing by officials in circumstances which cannot in any way affect national security is inimical to the rule of law," they ruled. "In our view, as a court in the United Kingdom, a vital public interest requires … that a summary of the most important evidence relating to the involvement of the British security services in wrongdoing be placed in the public domain … Championing the rule of law, not subordinating it, is the cornerstone of democracy.""

That's exactly what American leaders and now British leaders are trying to do: hide wrongdoings in the cloak of national intelligence and national security. Why? Because they know that the whole world would condemn them and their actions of torture once the veil is lifted.

"The judges made it clear they were exasperated by the attitude of the foreign secretary and British officials. There was no "rational basis" for claims made by Miliband and Hillary Clinton, the US secretary of state, that disclosure of the CIA material would put British lives at risk."

We always say, no one is above the law. But government leaders are always trying to prove the statement wrong if their honesty, reputation or wrongdoings are apt to be disclosed.

TORTURE OF ABU ZABAIDA OBTAINED NO USEFUL INFORMATION YET CHENEY/BUSH CONTINUE TO INSIST WATERBOARDING WORKED

Dick Cheney likes to say that locking up Al Qaeda suspects in Guantanamo without any rights to trial or to legal counsel, as well as waterboarding and other methods of torture on these detainees, made the U.S. safer. Witness no attacks sine 9/11.

Cheney's assertions of course come with no evidence or support. Cheney claims that he has seen intelligence reports saying that "harsh interrogation methods" work and have resulted in information which has foiled serious attacks in their incipient phase. But Cheney says the reports are classified, so we will just have to accept his word for it.

Today, however, Joby Warrick and Peter Finn write in The Washington Post that contrary to the assertions of George W. Bush and Cheney, the waterboarding and other torture applied to Abu Zabaida yielded no useful information, but wasted millions of dollars of investigation time by the CIA and FBI on unsubstantiated phony leads.

Write Finn and Warrick:

"When CIA officials subjected their first high-value captive, Abu Zubaida, to waterboarding and other harsh interrogation methods, they were convinced that they had in their custody an al-Qaeda leader who knew details of operations yet to be unleashed, and they were facing increasing pressure from the White House to get those secrets out of him.

"The methods succeeded in breaking him, and the stories he told of al-Qaeda terrorism plots sent CIA officers around the globe chasing leads.

"In the end, though, not a single significant plot was foiled as a result of Abu Zubaida's tortured confessions, according to former senior government officials who closely followed the interrogations. Nearly all of the leads attained through the harsh measures quickly evaporated, while most of the useful information from Abu Zubaida -- chiefly names of al-Qaeda members and associates -- was obtained before waterboarding was introduced, they said."

So much for Bush & Cheney's baseless claims that waterboarding and other torture succeeded in foiling terrorist plots aimed at the U.S. Yet these guys, especially Cheney, continue to make the unfounded claims that because of their direction for tougher interrogation (aka torture), the United States was made safer from terrorist attacks.

Write Warrick and Finn:

"Despite the poor results, Bush White House officials and CIA leaders continued to insist that the harsh measures applied against Abu Zubaida and others produced useful intelligence that disrupted terrorist plots and saved American lives.

"Two weeks ago, Bush's vice president, Richard B. Cheney, renewed that assertion in an interview with CNN, saying that "the enhanced interrogation program" stopped "a great many" terrorist attacks on the level of Sept. 11.

""I've seen a report that was written, based upon the intelligence that we collected then, that itemizes the specific attacks that were stopped by virtue of what we learned through those programs," Cheney asserted, adding that the report is "still classified," and, "I can't give you the details of it without violating classification."

"Since 2006, Senate intelligence committee members have pressed the CIA, in classified briefings, to provide examples of specific leads that were obtained from Abu Zubaida through the use of waterboarding and other methods, according to officials familiar with the requests."

Note Cheney's statement appearing to vouch for the bad intelligence that "itemizes the specific attacks that were stopped by virtue of what we learned through those programs . . ." He says, "I've seen a report that was written . . . that itemizes . . ." So Cheney has seen a report. Does he believe the contents of the report? Does he say that the contents were true? Someone wrote a report that Cheney now uses to imply that "specific attacks" were stopped. Who wrote the report? Was it someone on Cheney's staff, such as David Addington?

Cheney's statement is crafty insofar as Cheney says he has seen a report but cannot make it public because it is classified. But that does not mean that the content of the report was true, or that the information was solid, or that the author wrote the report for any other than biased political argumentation.

OBAMA: STOP FOLLOWING IN BUSH'S STEPS

So far I am not happy with Barack Obama's policies on certain aspects of George W. Bush's "war on terror." My objections have relied on ideas posted by Steven D. Schwinn writing on Constitutional Law Prof Blog here.

First. I object to the whole concept of "state secrets." This is just a convenient euphemism for keeping secrets reports which would cause government and government officials public scorn and ridicule. Courts should not allow a sovereign to escape inspection by the public of government's actions.

Second. I want Obama to order the release of the 17 Uighurs still in custody at Guantanamo. They have never received any fair trial, charges of aiding terrorists have never been proved against them, they have been held illegally against their will for seven years. Obama, release the Uighurs.

Third. I condemn Obama and the U.S. government for continuing to attack villages in western Pakistan by firing missiles from drones into people's homes and villages. Obama seems to have accepted Bush's strategy that killing people by military means will succeed in making the U.S. more safe from terrorism. This is pure bull. All the killing does is to incite anti-American hatred and an unquenchable need for revenge.

Fourth. Stop the U.S. military build-up in Afghanistan. There has never been a successful invasion and occupation of that country since the time of Alexander the Great. History will not change for the Americans. Military force will only succeed in killing both Afghanis and Americans in larger and larger numbers.

CHENEY INSISTS TORTURE WAS JUSTIFIED

Dick Cheney is still at it, threatening the country with destruction unless Obama retains harsh interrogation methods (i.e., torture), the hated Patriot Act, as well as unconstitutional eavesdropping of Americans' telephone calls without warrants.

Politico interviewed Cheney today, and among other things, Politico reporters John F. Harris, Mike Allen & Jim Vanderhei quote Cheney as follows:

"Protecting the country’s security is “a tough, mean, dirty, nasty business,” he said. “These are evil people. And we’re not going to win this fight by turning the other cheek.”"

Here Cheney admits that he engaged in activities which he himself describes as "mean, dirty, nasty ..."

Harris, Allen and Vanderhei quote Cheney on national security:

"“When we get people who are more concerned about reading the rights to an Al Qaeda terrorist than they are with protecting the United States against people who are absolutely committed to do anything they can to kill Americans, then I worry,” Cheney said."

In other words, Cheney is proud and stands by his implementation of torture on the captured Al Qaeda suspects held at Guantanamo and elsewhere.

But what if the "Al Qaeda terrorist" is only a farm boy or a rustic Afghan villager picked up in Afghanistan and sold to the Americans for U.S. dollars? What if Cheney's "terrorist" turns out to be unconnected with any jihad or has never even heard of Osama bin Laden? Can the U.S. torture this person without any accountability? And what does it say to the rest of the world when everyone finds out that the hard-core" prisoners in U.S. detention camps are totally innocent?

I have a good suggestion what to do with Cheney. Let's subject him to "harsh interrogation methods" and see if he confesses. If waterboarding is no big deal to him, let's try it out on him. To stop the ordeal, we must insist that Cheney confess to be bin Laden's undercover counsellor. I predict Cheney will confess within 30 seconds.

Remind you of anything historical? Oh yes! The Inquisition in Spain and Portugal and the rest of Europe used this very technique of water torture on all those accused of being in consort with Satan. Almost everyone confessed.

HAS OBAMA DECIDED TO RETAIN SECRET RENDITIONS?

There are reports today that Barack Obama has decided to allow the CIA to continue with its rendition program, meaning that the CIA can kidnap someone off the street, without any involvement of a court, and transport and deliver that person to torturers in some foreign country.

Greg Miller reports in today's The Los Angeles Times:

"Under executive orders issued by Obama recently, the CIA still has authority to carry out what are known as renditions, secret abductions and transfers of prisoners to countries that cooperate with the United States.

"Current and former U.S. intelligence officials said that the rendition program might be poised to play an expanded role going forward because it was the main remaining mechanism -- aside from Predator missile strikes -- for taking suspected terrorists off the street."

How can this be? We elected Obama because he promised to close Guantanamo and stop the war in Iraq. Part of the whole appeal of Obama was that he would bring a shameful legacy of George Bush to an end. It is hard to believe that Obama could back slide and keep the hated rendition practice.

Reports Miller:

"The rendition program became a source of embarrassment for the CIA, and a target of international scorn, as details emerged in recent years of botched captures, mistaken identities and allegations that prisoners were turned over to countries where they were tortured.

"The European Parliament condemned renditions as "an illegal instrument used by the United States." Prisoners swept up in the program have sued the CIA as well as a Boeing Co. subsidiary accused of working with the agency on dozens of rendition flights.

"But the Obama administration appears to have determined that the rendition program was one component of the Bush administration's war on terrorism that it could not afford to discard."

BUSH FLAUNTS DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS

Today marks the 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. On December 10th, 1948, the United Nations General Assembly adopted the text. Here is the text.

There are 30 Articles to the document. Here is Article 5:

No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

Perhaps Bush and Cheney have not heard of this prohibition on cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. I am sorry to say that it appears that neither has the CIA nor the U.S. Army. We can deduce this from the CIA's secret detention sites and the Army's establishment of Abu Ghraib.

Consider Article 10:

Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.

Bush and Cheney have made fair and public hearings a joke. For example, some prisoners in Guantanamo have been there since 2002 without any trial or public hearing. Even here in the U.S., Bush made Padilla, a U.S. citizen, an enemy combatant not entitled to a trial, until the U.S. Supreme Court threatened to take up his case.

Bush and Cheney and their gang have no excuses. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights has been in existence long enough for anyone to claim that they were unaware of its provisions.

A federal judge this afternoon has ordered the release of 17 Uighurs from the notorious U.S. prison at Guantanamo.

Del Quentin Wilber reports on The Washington Post website:

"U.S. District Judge Ricardo M. Urbina issued the landmark ruling in the case of a small band of captives, known as Uighurs, who have been held at Guantanamo for nearly seven years and are no longer considered enemy combatants by the U.S. government.

"At a hearing packed with Uighurs who live in the Washington area, Urbina rejected government arguments that he had no authority to order the men's release. He said he had such authority because the men were being held indefinitely and it was the only remedy available. He cited a June decision by an appellate court that found evidence against the Uighurs to be unreliable."

The Bush administration protested the ruling that orders the Uighurs to appear in Judge Urbina's court this Friday.

Reports the BBC web site:

"Justice department attorney John C O'Quinn's request to delay the detainees' release pending a possible appeal was denied by the judge.

"White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said the ruling "could be used as precedent for other detainees held at Guantanamo Bay, including sworn enemies of the United States suspected of planning the attacks of 9/11, who may also seek release into our country". "

I will have more to say on this wonderful and correct decision in future posts.

SECOND POST ON SARAH PALIN TODAY - WE DON'T KNOW HER OPINIONS ON MAJOR ISSUES

I posted today about Sarah Palin's lack of qualifications to be vice president. Some may think my criticisms unfair and sexist, but I had the same qualms about George W. and look what happened. The electorate chose someone "likeable" (Bush that bully!) over competent and knowledgeable Al Gore. I guess it is possible that the electorate will find Palin acceptable and deserving to be elected, but I certainly do not, not at this time. And I fear the same disaster in foreign and domestic policy, the same melt down, the same disregard for Constitutional protections if Palin gets in as what happened when Americans elected Bush and Cheney.

The electorate needs to know Palin's opinions. Does anyone know how she feels about Iran? Or about Russia? (No it is not enough to say that Palin is governor of Alaska which is the state nearest to Russia). How would she get American troops out of Iraq? What is her attitude towards Palestinians? Towards Israel and its new settlements?

And on the domestic front, what are her plans for Social Security? Does she want to privatize it the way that McCain and Bush propose? And what about domestic eavesdropping without FISA court approval? And what does she think about immigration and ICE's treatment of immigrants caught up in those dreadful raids?

Does she believe in waterboarding or other "enhanced interrogation methods?" How does she feel about depriving Guantanamo prisoners of Constitutional rights such as habeas corpus or the right to counsel? Does she believe in the use of force as the main tool for American diplomacy? Does she agree with Bush and Cheney that military force makes right? Does she approve of the Bush doctrine on pre-emptive war?

These are some of the things no one knows yet about Sarah Palin.

I don't think that people whether male or female are going to vote for her without knowing where she stands. So far, she seems not to have expressed many opinions other than drill for more oil.

I still think this selection of Palin shows how desperate McCain must be about winning the forthcoming election.

CHENEY A WORLD TROUBLEMAKER FEATURED IN TODAY'S NY TIMES

We don't need Vice President Cheney travelling to Georgia on Tuesday stirring up trouble there against the Russians.

Cheney's idea of American power is exclusively one of military power. He would like to attack Iran and also maybe North Korea. He was the architect of using methods of torture to interrogate Islamic prisoners of war held at Bagram and Guantanamo. He approved every use of waterboarding.

And what is the result? The world loathes Americans and their pretentious portrayal of themselves as defending liberty and justice for all. Cheney has made the world so much more dangerous, so much more liable to acts of terrorism, with so much more hate and racial and ethnic distrust.

Yet Sheryl Gay Stolberg writes in today's The New York Times a story on Cheney that attempts to make him less of a monster, more mellow, more introspective.

Writes Stolberg:

"Mr. Cheney declined to be interviewed. But those close to him say he approaches retirement with neither reticence nor eagerness, but rather with a Zen-like confidence that even his most controversial moves, like his stance in favor of domestic wiretapping, have been necessary to keep the country safe.

"“It’s not suffering defeats, it’s not nostalgia, it’s not urgency to get stuff done, it’s not, ‘I can’t wait to get out of here,’ ” said Mary Matalin, a longtime adviser, describing Mr. Cheney’s state of mind. “I hate to use yoga terms, but he’s really in the moment.”"

Hasn't Stolberg read Jane Mayer's The Dark Side? How can we talk about Cheney without talking about torture, waterboarding, rendition, secret prisons, disregard for human rights, desire to attack Iran, predilection for military confrontations, the shredding of the U.S. Constitution in favor of executive power?

BUSH - HEAD TRASHER OF U.S. CONSTITUTION - CRITICIZES CHINESE FOR LIMITING RIGHTS

I would like to see George W. Bush just shut up, to quote Keith Olbermann, when it comes to his telling and lecturing other countries and regimes how to manage their own internal affairs.

Last night, TV reports showed Bush lecturing the Chinese on their society, wishing that the Chinese would respect such things as freedom of speech and religion. This would be well and good if Bush had clean hands. But he does not. He is after all the person responsible for creating Guantanamo, military tribunals, use of harsh interrogation methods (a euphemism for waterboarding and torture), Abu Ghraib, rendition of suspects to other totalitarian regimes for extreme punishments, flouting of valid laws passed by Congress, and an overall trashing of individual constitutional rights.

Here is the report of Bush's speech in The Washington Post as reported by Debbi Wilgoren and Michael Abramowitz.

DAVID ADDINGTON & JOHN YOO TESTIFY (?) AT CONGRESSIONAL HEARING, SAY NOTHING

Did anyone see the House hearing with David Addington and John Yoo the other dayon C-SPAN?

Addington is Cheney's right hand man. He is not a nice guy. No wonder that many believe that he is responsible for the implementation of waterboarding and other methods of torture at Guantanamo and other despicable things in those dark CIA prisons. You could see his dripping contempt for members of Congress and his supreme displeasure at having to testify.

John Yoo came off as a nicer guy, but he was no more helpful than Addington. Yoo refused to answer most questions on the 2002 Memo that he helped craft justifying techniques short of causing organ failure or death, claiming that the Department of Justice, his former employer, had told him not to testify.

When you consider that these are the guys who are running the country, you can more easily understand how the "home of the free and the land of the brave" has become tarnished with works of torturers and war mongers.

THOSE WHO ORDERED TORTURE MUST BE HELD TO ACCOUNT

How did it come about with over 10,000 lawyers in the Department of Defense that the DOD authorized "harsh" interrogation techniques (read "torture") of those captured in Afghanistan and elsewhere?

The only explanation is that the decision to use waterboarding, sexual humiliation and stress positions came from the top - from Bush himself and from Cheney and from Rice and from Rumsfeld.

The argument that they did these things because they wanted to protect the nation will not stand up. To engage in techniques used in the Inquisition to root out heretics is to group oneself with all those vile and mean people throughout history who think that torture produces the "truth." Just like the churchmen in Spain who thought they were doing God's work by condemning suspects to the rack or inflicting the "water test."

Furthermore, most of the inmates at Guantanamo turn out to be sheepherders or subsistence farmers, yet these were subject to the cruelest of interrogations.

The people who did this must be held to legal account. The smell of torture will not pass quickly. The United States must not allow the malefactors to leave office unscathed and uncharged.

SCALIA DOESN'T CARE HOW MANY IN GUANTANAMO ARE INNOCENT - NO HABEAS HEARINGS SHOULD BE ALLOWED

Justice Scalia in his dissent in Boumedienne v. Bush granting habeas corpus relief to the 270 inmates at Guantanamo claims that:

"[t]he Nation will live to regret what the Court has done today."

I would like to ask, how does affording inmates at Guantanamo cause regret to the United States? Does Justice Scalia think that a hearing in front of a judge at the district federal court will cause mayhem and chaos? Or is it that Scalia thinks all 270 inmates are the most dangerous and already convicted in front of an impartial tribunal?

It is like what you would expect some pope of churchman to say during the darkest days of the Inquisition. "We know she is a witch, so burn her at the stake." Scalia gives the impression he like the priest of old already knows each and every one of the 270 is a terrorist.

But what if that were not so? What if there were one innocent person caught up in the rush to give the Americans what they wanted in Afghanistan, people with swarthy complexions and beards who were Islamists? What if of the 270 there were 10 innocents or 100 or 200? Scalia seems to care not a whit for the non-terrorist arrested in the massive dragnet after 2001. And he is not ready to grant them a habeas hearing to find out.

Writes Scalia:

"[This opinion] will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed. "

What is Scalia trying to say here? That Boumedienne v. Bush will cause more Americans to be killed? Or that the opinion probably will cause more Americans to be killed? Or that it is not certain that more Americans will be killed? Note the sieve through which those words "almost certainly" flow. Surprising imprecise words from a jurist noted for stressing words' plain meaning.

GREAT DAY FOR CIVIL RIGHTS - INMATES AT GUANTANAMO CAN SEEK HABEAS CORPUS FROM FEDERAL COURTS

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled today that inmates held at Guantanamo have constitutional rights to seek redress from federal courts. So much for the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld machiavellian scheme to hold such prisoners outside the confines of the 50 states and thus keep them from bringing their cases and grievances into federal court. But the Court ruled that Guantanamo is subject to full sovereignty of the U.S. government, and therefore prisoners held there are not deprived of the protections of the Great Writ of Habeas Corpus.

U.S. FINALLY RELEASES JOURNALIST SAMI AL HAJJ, LOCKED UP AT GUANTANAMO FOR OVER SIX YEARS, NO EVIDENCE AGAINST HIM

Finally, after six years, Sami al Hajj has been freed from his unjust detention and imprisonment at Guantanamo.

William Glaberson reports in today's The New York Times:

"A former cameraman for Al Jazeera who was believed to be the only journalist held at Guantánamo Bay was released on Thursday, after more than six years of detention that made him one of the best known Guantánamo detainees in the Arab world, his lawyers said.


"The detainee, Sami al-Hajj, became a cause in recent years for the Jazeera network, which often displayed his photograph and carried reports on his case.


"He was also one of Guantánamo’s long-term hunger strikers, and his lawyers at the British legal group Reprieve drew wide attention to what they said was his declining physical and mental health. "

I have previously posted on Sami al Hajj, noting how unfair it was that U.S. officials should keep him locked up without the slightest shred of evidence for his detention. See my post here on May 6, 2007, and here on July 29, 2007, and here on February 14, 2008.

Reports Glaberson:

"“It is yet another case where the U.S. has held someone for years and years and years on the flimsiest of evidence” without filing charges, one of the lawyers, Zachary Katznelson, said Thursday."

BUSH THINKS HE IS MORALLY RIGHTEOUS EVEN AFTER APPROVING UNJUST INVASION, GUANTANAMO AND EVEN TORTURE

Dan Froomkin today has a good post about Bush's attempt to position himself as one taking the high road on ethics and morality during his formal greeting of Pope Benedict XVI in Washington yesterday.

Bush claims that his fight is against terrorists who invoke God's name in order to kill innocent people and deprive them of their God-given rights. Yet this definition of a "terrorist" applies to Bush himself. He is the one who started the unjust and immoral invasion of Iraq that probably has killed over 600,000 Iraqis not to mention the U.S. soldiers killed or maimed for life. Bush is the one who deprives suspects of their liberty and freedom by locking them up without recourse in Guantanamo. Bush is the one who approved the extraordinary harsh interrogation methods that are torture by any other name.

Bush tries to position himself as God-fearing and ethical, yet he is the one, as Froomkin points out, who constantly says that 9/11 changed everything, and his main job is to protect the American people, as if the horrible event of September 11th or his mandate to thwart any more attacks could justify the most evil of methods and procedures.

RELEASE AL JAZEERA CAMERAMAN FROM GUANTANAMO WITHOUT DELAY

Nicholas Kristof has an op-ed in today's The New York Times on the Al Jazeera cameraman, Sami al Hajj, who has been held these last six years in Guantanamo. I have previously written about al Hajj on July 29, 2007.

There have been no charges made against al Hajj. According to Kristof, al Hajj is currently on a hunger strike to protest the unfairness of his imprisonment.

People can only guess why the U.S. military continues to hold al Hajj. Is it because Bush and Cheney hate Al Jazeera for airing the Arab side to the U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan? Or is it because the U.S. military wants to punish al Hajj for taking photos of insurgents fighting the U.S. forces in Iraq?

Kristof quotes a Pentagon spokesman claiming that there is evidence against al Hajj:

"“There is a significant amount of information, both unclassified and classified, which supports continued detention of Sami al-Hajj by U.S. forces,” said Cmdr. Jeffrey Gordon, a Pentagon spokesman, adding that the detainees are humanely treated and “receive exceptional medical care.” "

Yet the U.S. refuses to release any such evidence. For all the public knows, al Hajj might be completely innocent. Therefore, the U.S. military must give al Hajj a chance to clear his name. If there is no credible evidence and if the U.S. refuses to bring charges, then al Hajj must be set free without delay.

No wonder the whole world hates the U.S. for its cruelty and unfairness towards prisoners at Guantanamo.

REPUBLICANS AT CONSERVATIVE CAUCUS SHOUT OUT APPROVAL FOR TORTURE & WAR IN IRAQ

The New York Times today carries a story by Sheryl Lee Stolberg and Steven Lee Myers on the likely approach to be taken by the Republicans in supporting John McCain for president. The focus will be that the Democrats are weak and ineffective in combating terrorism.

The note was sounded by Mitt Romney in his exit speech when he said he was pulling out to prevent the Democrats from winning and surrendering to terrorism.

Bush and Cheney also made appearances this week at the Conservative Political Action Conference where they received wild cheers and ovations for, among other things, starting the war in Iraq, torturing prisoners at Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib and who knows where else, gutting the protections of the Fourth Amendment, seizing more and more executive power, running roughshod over the Congress, and so on.

What truly amazed was the reaction from the attendees at the Conservative Political Action Conference. They cheered and clapped when Cheney said that he would order the harsh interrogation methods(read torture) again if needed, showing that the Bush/Cheney supporters have a deficiency when it comes to Constitutional and human rights. It is one thing for Bush and Cheney to be pro-torture, but it is an even worse indictment of their Republican supporters who shamelessly yell out their affirmations for what should be a reprehensible act in the light of fundamental ethics and morals.

DAN FROOMKIN ASKS HOW COME CLINTON, OBAMA & EDWARDS SAY LITTLE CRITICAL OF GEORGE W. BUSH'S POLICIES?

I see where Dan Froomkin in Nieman Watchdog suggests that the Democratic candidates do something more than fill their speeches with "hope" and "change." Specifically, Froomkin wonders why Obama, Edwards and Clinton are not confronting the disastrous polices of George W. Bush.

Where do we see their arguments against the War in Iraq? Where is Obama on the violations of the Fourth Amendment in Bush's illegal wiretapping? How come we don't hear from Hillary on the disgrace of Guantanamo and the removal of the the protection of the Great Writ of Habeas Corpus? And how come we have heard little to nothing from Edwards on Bush's policy of torturing suspects to obtain " valuable information"?

Instead of just mouthing platitudes, the Democratic candidates must confront the pressing problems created by Bush. They must go on record as against them. They must also explain why the polices constitute an American disaster, and how Democratic policies would remedy these problems.

CHEERS TO OBAMA AND EVEN TO HUCKABEE FOR VICTORIES IN IOWA

Cheers for everyone in Iowa who voted for Barach Obama. And cheers also to Mike Huckabee for defeating that phony Mitt Romney. Now it's on to New Hampshire.

Now about Romney. Mitt just oozes with political opportunism. That guy changes his colors depending on what position he thinks can get him elected. Mitt is against "sanctuary cities," yet he fails himself to turn in his undocumented gardeners. Mitt would double Guantanamo's cells - after all, those guys who have been kept incommunicado and without a lawyer for the last five years can't vote, can they? Mitt also does not know whether waterboarding is torture. I guess that means that Mitt would be in favor of it but only if it secures him votes.

So congrats to Huckabee. And above all, the country has someone in Obama who can overturn Bush's regime of trampling on civil rights. How many more days till Bush is gone?