The Times indicts the Bush administration for exposing terrorists captured abroad to "head-slapping, simulated drowning and frigid temperatures." Boo hoo.

I'm wondering how long the process of the government detaining anyone it wants without charge or due process will automatically be accepted by rightwing crackpots as locking up "terrorists" - no questions asked - when someone other than the GOP is doing it. I have no doubt whatsoever that if a Democratic administration initiated the process of detaining innocent people without charge, the rightwing would be calling it a "jack-booted thug" mentality. Since it was the GOP that decided due process was no longer valid in the United States, if Obama decides to continue this anti-American program will such flippant disregard for the law continue to be tolerated?

"And you would be wrong. Extraordinary rendition was instituted by the Clintons" -- shooter242

No, you are wrong. I did't say extraordinary rendition, I'm talking about Guantánamo, where due process and the Geneva Conventions have been thrown out the window, and people are detained in what we call 'concentration camps' when countries like North Korea institute them.

Aside from the lawlessness that the GOP "full-throatedly supports", as an Irish-American, I have to say it's extremely irritating to see so many micks involved in debasing this country's laws and principles (McCain, McCarthy, etc.). Going back to Joe McCarthy through the rightwing nightmare of the Reagan years to present day Mc-Lunacy (and not forgetting rightwing terrorist Timothy McVeigh). I don't normally like to slice people into groups based on their ancestral lineage -- until it's people of my own heritage dragging the USA into the shit.

During the Bush administration the United States was defeated, not by a foreign power, but by a ragtag group with boxcutters.

Since Bush proved to be the weakest, most impotent, president in US history, only someone who would want to continue a policy of allowing America to be attacked without any response should listen to his craven, cowardly idea of what constitutes "appeasement".

Osama Bin Laden is rightly seen as victorious over a nation that was once able to defeat Hitler, Hirohito, and Mussolini. The reason Osama Bin Laden is victorious is due solely to the weakness of George W Bush, Dick Cheney, and the Republican Party. Bombing the shit out of Iraq and slaughtering tens of thousands of innocent people does nothing to change that monumental weakness.

An Obama spokesman was extremely critical of McCain's blatantly opportunistic switch: "anyone reading Mr. McCain's answers to The Globe and the more recent statement would be 'totally confused' about 'what Senator McCain thinks about what the Constitution means and what President Bush did.'"

There is such a markedly stronger campaign being executed by Obama this year than Kerry did in 2004 (or Hillary would have done with her 'deep respect' for McCain). I love how Obama is pushing news items like this forward instead of just defensively responding to the mainstream media’s rightwing-driven diversionary trivialities. This being a perfect illustration - the media has no interest in this story, yet Obama is putting it out there because he understands its importance. The same with the asinine position of Bush/McCain that “we don't talk to our enemies”, even though prior to Bush's failed presidency, using diplomatic means was understood – like not using torture – to be the intelligent means of dealing with difficulties.

I'm not sure I'm as impressed as JKP1000 with his spokesman's statement. -- The Fool

It's not that I'm particularly blown away by his spokesman's statement, as it is that he's discussing relevant issues outside the self-imposed boundaries of what the media wants to discuss. Off-hand I can't think of a single instance of Hillary deviating from the issues that are front-and-center in the national media (other than how they treated her). Just as I can't imagine her laughing at the ludicrous idea that using diplomacy when dealing with our “enemies” is outrageous, as Obama did with McCain. It just bodes well for not letting the rightwing dictate how this campaign is going to go, which Kerry did in 2004.

While conservatism was exposed for all it's ugliness and narcissistic policies serving only the ultra-elite long ago, and that when George W Bush ran for the presidency both in 2000 (before 9/11) and 2004 (after 9/11) NO ONE was allowed to attend Republican campaign events without a verification of loyalty to the party. STILL, despite the extremist fringe appeal of radical conservatism to only a miniscule minority, it in no way affected how the GOP “governed” (if you can call it that) once appointed to office by the right-leaning Supreme Court.

Of course "liberalism" in it's broad terms (equal rights, healthcare issues, environmental issues, fare wages, etc.) appeal overwhelmingly to the American people, and the radical extremist conservatism of the past 3 decades (aggressive wars against defenseless sovereign nations, looting the Treasury surplus for the ultra-rich, refusing federal assistance to Americans during calamities, etc.) appeals to only lunatic nutjobs, but the government doesn't reflect the people - as overturning the 2000 election and the devastation it's wrought since have proven.

Today, the Democratic policies are to the right of most Americans, and the Republican policies are to the right of Mussolini - STILL, the government has not changed to reflect the beliefs and attitudes of the American people. It’s still stuck in the rightwing philosophy of providing everything for the rich, and giving the middle finger to the American people, regardless of how liberal they are.