However that not being the case, we hold the world to a higher moral standard then the one we live by.

March 8, 2006- the State Department releases its Annual Country Reports on Human Rights Practices [about 2005]. It condemns Belarus, Burma, China, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Indonesia, Nepal, North Korea, Philippines, Russia, Sudan, Syria, Uzbekistan, and Zimbabwe for holding individuals in incommunicado detention and for engaging in “disappearances.” [See April 2006-John Negroponte…] [23]

April 2006- John Negroponte, Director of National Intelligence, acknowledged to media sources that the Central Intelligence Agency continues to hold approximately three dozen al-Qaeda suspects in secret overseas prisons. He maintained that the United States is likely to keep them in captivity for as long as the “war on terror continues.” Human Rights Watch says these detainees have been “effectively ‘disappeared’”. [See March 8, 2006][23]

[23] Human Rights Watch, http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2006/05/03/human-rights-watch-supplemental-submission-committee-against-torture

Only the truth will set us free and that won't happen unless we hold everyone accountable for their behavior criminal or other wise and that includes George W. Bush.

It also includes We The People [...or US The People]. That’s an uncomfortable thought.

Go for it!

I haven't read it yet, but agree with Anonymust, and would like to [if you have time] read your take on it. ;-)

Northwestwoods said:

Disturbing development in Siegleman probe

Raw Story: Obama, not Bush, now seeking delay of Rove deposition

http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Obama_not_Bush_now_seeking_delay_0217.html

From the article [emphasis added]:

"The inauguration of a new president has altered the dynamics of this case and created new opportunities for compromise rather than litigation," [Obama’s acting assistant attorney general Michael] Hertz wrote in the brief released late Monday [linked] by McClatchy's Washington, D.C. bureau. "At the same time, there is now an additional interested party — the former president — whose views should be considered."

I don’t even KNOW what to say! But I guess what matters is what John Conyers will say…not that it will matter to the Executive Branch.

From the article [emphasis added]:

"The president is very sympathetic to those who want to find out what happened," Craig told The Washington Post. "But he is also mindful as president of the United States not to do anything that would undermine or weaken the institution of the presidency. So, for that reason, he is urging both sides of this to settle."

"Sympathy???" Please spare me! This is sure a change from what he said during the election, as the article points out.

But back to Conyers; his committee staff wrote a report, released on January 13, 2009, called “Reining in the Imperial Presidency, Lessons and Recommendations Relating to the Presidency of George W. Bush

http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/printers/110th/IPres090113.pdf

It’s more than 300 pages long, and quite inclusive. From the Forward:

In 1973, historian Arthur Schlesinger coined the term “Imperial Presidency” to describe a presidency that had assumed more power than the Constitution allows, and had circumvented the traditional checks and balances of our constitutional system. Until recently, the Nixon Administration seemed to represent the singular embodiment of that idea. But today, as the Bush Administration comes to a close, there can be little doubt concerning the persistence of Mr. Schlesinger’s notion. More than three decades later, Mr. Schlesinger himself characterized the Bush Administration as “the Imperial Presidency redux,” although he more optimistically predicted that “democracy’s singular virtue – its capacity for self-correction – will one day swing into action.” Today, in hindsight I can attest to the prescience of Mr. Schlesinger’s warnings of unchecked power, even as we vigorously pursue the much-needed democratic self-correction he anticipated.

Maybe the Obama Administration just hasn’t had time to read it yet.

Point taken. I guess there's not much to be optimistic about.

I was thinking of that report in relation to Glenn's topic here, because according to this Newsweek article:

http://www.newsweek.com/id/184801/output/print

A former Bush administration lawyer says: "OPR is not competent to judge [the opinions by OLC Justice attorneys]. They're not constitutional scholars."

Early January 2009- H. Marshall Jarrett, chief of the Justice Department Office of Professional Responsibility issues a draft report of their investigation into senior Bush administration OLC lawyers who approved waterboarding and other harsh interrogation tactics. The investigation began in late 2003. [See December 2003] “But then-Attorney General Michael Mukasey and his deputy, Mark Filip, strongly objected to the draft, according to the [two knowledgeable] sources. […] OPR is now [February 2009] seeking to include the responses before a final version is presented to Attorney General Eric Holder. “The matter is under review," said [Obama Administration] Justice spokesman Matthew Miller.” A former Bush administration lawyer says: "OPR is not competent to judge [the opinions by Justice attorneys]. They're not constitutional scholars." [76]

http://www.webdsi.com/jebbie/tlpage45.html

Casual _observer said:

“[…] and wishfully hoping that hey, some other country might serve the rule of law better than we do.”

This IS actually similar...[but in a sinister way] to something CIA Director George Tentet said in the Fall of 2001, when he was asked at a classified briefing whether Washington was going to get governments known for their brutality to turn over Qaeda suspects to the United States. [ed. note: How naive we were!] Congressional sources told NEWSWEEK that Tenet suggested it might be better sometimes for such suspects to remain in the hands of foreign authorities, who might be able to use more aggressive interrogation methods.

Too true. Now, if you'll excuse me, I need new Manohlo's and must go shopping. Ta-ta.