Chris, I just had a chance to read your excellent response on your ideas of radically new perspectives. I like all of them. Reeducation camps and a Truth Commission are brilliant. We would have to come up with a new name for the camps because anything tied to the communist boogey man won’t fly. Maybe we could call them Rest and Recuperation from Fighting Those Terribly Non-serious Liberals and Libertarians and Disappointing Moma and Discovering the Joy of Confessing Camps. Karen, truth would have to be defined more clearly for the common sense thinking impaired neocons and religious ideologues before they would understand how to testify and prepare their cases.

North or south? I used to live in Jamestown, NY, many years ago... now, those were some winters! Do you remember 1977-78? Yikes!

Southeastern PA is a bit more temperate, in fact, almost tropical lately.

Well, I do think manufacturers (of war-making machinery) should still get their "salary," just not the huge corporate profits. Does that make me a collectivist or something?

Ultimately, it seems to me awfully unAmerican (in the pre-WWII sense) to arrange our foreign policy in order that multinational corporations (that later relocate to Dubai) may accumulate huge pots of money by manufacturing products that will be used to wage wars in which young (and older) men and women will die or suffer grievous injuries. And when some of those who benefit financially from such deals are also part of our government, it becomes obscene.

But, I didn't think of that alternative "non-profit" scenario until I read Larry, the dfh's comment, and wondered if removing the corporate profit motive might be another way of allowing a different sort of market force to work. Ethics unencumbered by Profit.

Fwiw, whenever I take one of those political compass tests, I always end up in the lower left quadrant. I'm not entirely sure that it's the one for collectivists... I'll have to go look.

In the meantime, I have added that idea to the "Voter's Platform" we are crafting at Gordon's blog: Achieving Our Country. If there's something important to you, or anyone else, that you'd like to see the Democratic Party (or even the GOP) address, please drop by and post it in the comments. Gordon will add it to the front page.

http://achievingourcountry.blogspot.com/

...to send an email to Senator Specter, directing him to your comment here. Now for Senator Casey...

Another citizen from the great state of Pennsylvania!

I'm from Western PA myself ...

Executive privilege is intended to protect the legal behavior of the executive branch. It was not intended as a means for the executive branch to hide illegal behavior.

A leader with integrity would leave settled law in place, and if circumstances made certain illegal actions necessary in the leader's judgment, then he would be willing to stand in a court of law to defend his decisions. The American people on the whole are a civil and reasonable people who understand the concept of mitigating circumstances. Quality law does not need to change, what needs to change is the attitude of certain government officials who treat our democratic republic as if it is their personal play thing.

...to send an email to Senator Specter, directing him to your comment here. Now for Senator Casey...

that's why this thread is still rolling along.

What, you didn't like my idea of a non-profit scenario to replace the military-industrial complex?

I liked it just fine, but I do think there should be a little bit of a profit margin given to the contractors. Why, it'd be positively un-American to expect them to do all that work for no profit at all!

What are you, some kind of ... of socialist or collectivist or something?

:-)

Glenn,

What's up with Roger Pilan bringing up In re Sealed 2002 as a counter point to your assertion that FISA is Constitutional? This man leads CATO's Constitutional Law section and you took him to the woodshed..LOL

Was it a test? Did he not know it was dicta?

Keep up the good work!

Mason

Dear Senator Feinstein,

It has come to my attention that Jane Mayer has published a piece in the most recent New Yorker, which I have just read, which asserts that the ICRC has sent the U.S. government communications which assert that the conduct of people at the CIA secret prisons was "tantamount to torture" and discussed whether "grave breaches" of the Geneva Conventions occurred. The rest of the article goes on to describe very systematic and calculated techniques used, the participation of psychologists in design and execution, and frequent calls to Washington for permission to proceed on some tactics. The tactics reduce a person's will to nothing, using techniques like sensory deprivation, long vertical positioning to the extent of causing edemas and renal failure problems, sleep deprivation, privations including nudity in the presence of the opposite sex, threats of death and waterboarding. Some of the assertions amount to months worth of sensory deprivation, a technique that can cause psychotic breaks within hours.

The article mentions that the ICRC document has been seen by certain members of the administration, and select members of the Senate and House, but has been "classified top secret" as have been methods.

As a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee and the Judiciary Committee of rank, and due to what we heard during the FISA debates, it is not too hard to connect the dots and surmise that you would have been one of those select few.

I do understand the necessity of keeping secrets in today's world. There are secrets kept by the government for National Security, and secrets kept by the Press for confidentiality, and secrets kept by corporations for IP reasons. But keeping such a document secret from the American people is a grave violation of the trust we place in our government. If there were grave breaches tantamount to torture of Geneva, in a systematic fashion, then I believe that the public has a right to know whether the Bush administration is guilty of crimes against humanity, as Geneva specifies.

All legitimate governments derive their powers from the consent of the governed. So says the U.N. Charter. Our own country asserts a government of, for, and by the People.

Richard Nixon once famously said, "People want to know whether their president is a crook. Well, I am not a crook." In this case, People have a right to know whether their government has committed grave offenses in their name. I believe that transcends any duties you have to keep top secret documents that attest that secret. You have a duty and an obligation to the people of this country to come forward, and state what you know.

I am also sending a version of this letter to other people in Congress, and a version to the Press, who must transcend their confidentiality of sources for the same reason you must transcend your security clearance. We have a right to know.

Sincerely, your constituent,