We are watching the Democratic Party waking up, rubbing its eyes, and looking around to see that all the monarchistic trappings of the Bush Administration's malevolence are still in place. As this sinks in, some in the Democratic Party are suggesting that if this power is in their grasp, why voluntarily relinquish any of it? Hence, Reyes now suggests maybe torture ain't all that bad; last week, GG did a piece about Democratic suggestions that maybe the First Amendment rights of White House staffers should be throttled. Next?

How is this "change we can believe in"? These are underlings, remember, making these suggestions. Obama himself has not weighed in. It seems to me that we just elected Constitutional Law Professor Barack Obama to be the President of the United States. And these are questions that ultimately should and do fall upon the shoulders of the President of the United States. It is the President's job, his only Constitutionally-defined job, his most important job, to "protect and defend the Constitution of the United States from all enemies, foreign and domestic." Obama has the right and the obligation to tell those short-sighted, power mad revisionists in the Democratic Party that the Democratic Party is going to pay some attention to what the Constitution allows, not what the Bush Administration got away with.

The chilling observation in this thread comes from resident apologist NOB, who observes that "Obama is a smart man. If he adopts Bush's policies, it means Bush was right." That sentiment ought to wake up every Democratic "thinker" who is contemplating support for continuation of plainly unconstitutional, unethical and disgusting attributes of Bush's reign for no better reason than "we could get away with it, too."

There is a place in this world for integrity. President/President Elect Obama has not yet publicly weighed in on these suggestions of continuing plainly unconstitutional and illegal policies. I hope he has the integrity to honor his oath of office.

How 'bout posting e-mail and snail mail addresses that could assist concerned Americans in forwarding .pdf or printed copies of this formal U.S. Senate Report (or copies of this important post) to the appropriate personnel tasked with prosecuting war crimes under international law at The Hague and elsewhere?

Not all Americans believe that vile, evil and rampant lawlessness is justifiable just because we are Americans, and not all Americans accept any suggestion by those currently in power here that would ignore such atrocities.

This time it's just too amazing to read what Shooter is willing to write just to exercise his fingers. Of all the things that could be said of the Senate Armed Services Committee's report, this has to be the most banal:

"There's no news here."

Did Shooter mean to suggest we all know that these thugs are brazen criminals, but that doesn't rise to the level of wanting to do anything about it.... or is there... something more: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rSjK2Oqrgic

In a land where the United States Constitution was respected by those who took an oath to protect and defend it, impeachment proceedings would have been commenced this morning.

This is a quote from Shooter's last post:

"Put very simply, I supported Bush because he did what he thought necessary to protect the country. That's my truth."

Wow.

Shooter, the President's Oath of Office obligates the President to "protect and defend the Constitution of the United States".

Your "truth", unfortunately, elevates and substitutes the subjective and unmoored whims of the President above this primary obligation. That, Shooter, is precisely the point at which the Rule of Law recedes and the Rule of Men takes its place. That, Shooter, is both sad, unconstitutional and, in fact, treasonous. And what you commend the President for is, in fact, why this President should have been impeached long ago and is entitled to neither support nor respect now.

Thank you for so pristinely stating the essence of your blind allegiance to the evil that has been the record and the wreckage of Bush and his administration.

Gee, I have been quoted back at myself by Shooter! And called self-righteous, sanctimonious and pusillanimous, which I never would have thought might be considered to be consistent terminology.

At least Shooter didn't tell me my reference to that quaint terminology used in the Constitution, as if it might be afforded meaning as some sort of guiding or even required principle, reflected a "pre-9/11 mindset" -- that might have really stung.

G'night, Shooter. Be well.