I almost hesitate to elaborate, as pow wow's post says all that really needs to be said, but perhaps it is worth noting, under the rubric of "name, rank and serial number", that in times of (real) war, one not only worries about further attacks, but expects them. One might go so far as to suggest that it's really not a war without attacks from both sides. It's the nature of the beast, after all. And yet, a prohibition against interrogation...

Umm. Interrogation is not forbidden by the Geneva Conventions. Prisoners are not required to give more than name, rank, and serial number, and coercion is forbidden.

You are making precisely the same point I have making off and on. The real battle is here in America NOT overseas. We know that over 200,000 national security letters went out complete with gag orders. How and when are we going to know the impact of that, its connection with warrantless surveillance and the broad liberties granted the intelligence services in the FISA Act? Everything seems to point at more and more secrecy, less and less transparency.

What exactly is being covered up? If it's all legal why the secrecy? My guess is that there is a gradual erosion of laws concerning civil liberties and wholesale discrimination (there wasn't a single discrimination case brought from within the DOJ in the 8 yr. Bush Administration). Once those laws have been eroded they become the general practice, as if they never existed. In a failing economy, corporations are king, and they've never been known for their humane practices unless it was a PR show.

I believe in the rule of justice, too. But what I see is a veering toward vigilante justice in our propaganda and in the news with the recent right-wing extremist shootings. What is troubling is the fact that in their publication on Terrorism which I found on the FBI website, it is liberals which are cited as being enablers of terrorist activity, and as Glenn pointed out recently, journalists are very careful not to call these shooters terrorists. So, unless the FBI has edited that publication of theirs, liberals continue to be scapegoated for terrorist activities even while right wing fanatics are the usual suspects.

I don't know when and how we are going to see justice in our politics in the U.S. The courts are still capable of making just and honest opinions, and I hold on to that.

How about ever since he reversed himself on FISA? Don't get me wrong, Amen! Praise Jesus! I'm glad Glenn & people around here are finally starting to see through all this transparency, but there were many, many people who saw through the double-talk and looked at the actual, you know, actions, like his vote for FISA , when it actually mattered, and predicted this. But like crying Cassandras, we were destined to tell the truth & not be believed (and in fact we were attacked & demeaned for merely raising the questions, to boot).

I wasn't fooled. YOU own him.

George W. Bush was a dimwitted bigot one year ago, five years ago, ten years ago.

But Obama one year ago was running against the very policies he is now implementing. Five or more years ago, he was an unalloyed advocate of things like a right to marry for gays, among several other 'liberal' or 'progressive' policies.

Now all that is gone. He is as conservative or more so than a largely discredited, largely fallen Bill Clinton -- but a Clinton with the benefit of hindsight.

So what do we make of a man who has shown every sign of knowing what justice demands? Bush may have been an awful war criminal, but does he have some defense in his actually believing the vile crap he spewed?

If so, what do we make of Obama, who spews much the same crap and with no such defense?

Unreal that isn't it? Why on earth would he use a signing statement to ignore the sensible provisions in the bill such as those? He's become more neocon than a neocon. And perhaps with that last he is hoping to cover up more financial jiggery pokery regarding the World Bank & IMF than is already being kept secret with the government, Fed and Goldman Sachs stitch ups.

Bamage:GG, I'm pretty sure the only "response" you're going to get to this...

...

GG:"Ever since Obama reversed himself on the question of whether to suppress the torture photos, I've been searching for an Obama supporter who (a) defends his decision to suppress those photos but also (b) criticized him when, two weeks earlier, he announced that he would release those photos. I haven't found such a person yet, but I'm still looking."

Bamage: will be something along the lines of

"You're such a dick!"

Your point if such may be one is incomprehensible. Its quite clear what Glenn is looking for. He wants to find some one who approved of suppressing the photos BEFORE Obama decided to and then only showed consistency by praising Obama AFTER he had decided to do so.

And the point of this subtle exercise is to find whether there ever existed such a independently minded figure. And that the people now expressing approval are not just Obamabots not weighing the issue on its merits alone but are just now chanting "Five legs Good, Three legs Bad" simply because standing orders tell them its the chant of the day.

And the reason Glenn, (and myself actually)would like to know whether it was the merits of the case or simply supporting Obama that determined their position is because it is plain to see that if they have not decided on the merits but only say what is in line with their leader they might soon be chanting, "13.5 legs Bad, 51.999rec. Legs Good," if their leader so chooses them to do so and wishes to have a good laugh at the mindless supporta proles as he does so.

can do no wrong. You can point out his failings and deficiences ad infinitum, but it doesn't matter. The Great One is beyond reproach.