It will be used as double jeopardy just in case the bastard is innocent. We could charge the prisoners at GITMO with a hate crime except there is one problem, they are not white.

I e-mailed the Newseum and brought up the invitation to the defender of torture that occupies the position of Ombudsman at NPR as being more than a bit shady. Especially after her saying America was gathering intelligence while Gambia tortured because they are sadists. They and Ms. Shepard should read the transcripts of the Courts-Martial for the personnel that tortured/murdered Dilawar in Afghanistan. That would clear up just who was the victim of American sadism.

And why don't you challenge the CEO of NPR to debate the use/misuse of words. Ms. Shepard is nothing but an apparatchik.

Keep on keepin on!

http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/

Start writing people.

I don't recall Obama saying anything about needing post-judgment detentions during his campaign. Nor was there any mention during that campaign of the urgent necessity for a state secrets doctrine. And I never would have supposed that the crowd of corrupt DOJ attorneys who prosecuted Don Siegelman would still have their jobs six months after his inauguration. I don't like these Obama surprises. It's past time for some Democrats with principles to call him out. Nadler should take him out to the woodshed for some discipline.

In regard to the geneva convention, extraordinary rendition, detainee abuse, guantanamo bay closure (still waiting on that one), warrantless wiretapping...

And socially in regard to the economy, banking regulations, mortgage help for those in need, gay rights issues.

Change indeed.

The most efficient, one could say pragmatic, course would be to delete, deny and obfuscate all incriminating evidence of our detention policies so we can hold the detainees until the effects of our alternative set of procedures become universally manifest.

It shouldn’t take much longer, after all.

Most of them will then be deemed unfit to stand trial.

“The sad reality is that virtually every detainee—Mohammed Jawad is a salient example—has been subjected to torture and abuse repeatedly. Many of them are mentally ill as a result, some profoundly so.”-Vandeveld http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/pdf/Vandeveld090708.pdf

No trial…no difficult inquiries.

For the recalcitrant, there’s always the possibility of a [conveniently] committed suicide.

Mickum's characterization of the timing of al-Libi's death is apt. It certainly raises serious questions when a potential witness in either U.S. federal courts or military trials is healthy one day and suddenly turns up dead a week later. http://valtinsblog.blogspot.com/2009/05/zubaydah-torture-experiment-connections.html#links

A sneaky coward who does those things behind your back or a grinning psychopath who does those thing right in front of you and laughs at you because they know you won't and can't do anything about it?

Each new president, makes the previous one look not so bad as the current one.

A sneaky coward who does those things behind your back or a grinning psychopath who does those thing right in front of you and laughs at you because they know you won't and can't do anything about it?

Each new president, makes the previous one look not so bad as the current one.

I've been going back and forth on whether Shepard's deficiency is primarily one of intellect or whether she's just a hard-core Cheneyite. I'm now convinced -- after her statements yesterday on that show I did with after her -- that it's both.

Excellent work. Some poster here a while back said that when talking with conservatives he often didn't know whether he was dealing with some one who was stupid, or who was a liar, or just a right bastard. Through your terrier like pursuit of the hapless Shepard we now know she falls into both the stupid and the right bastard categories. It's always worth knowing an individuals true colours and we now all know hers.

About this:

The most noteworthy point was her explicit statement (at 17:50) that "the role of a news organization is to lay out the debate"; rarely is the stenographic model of "journalism" -- "we just repeat what each side says and leave it at that" so expressly advocated

This I believe is not sloppiness. I think its a new institutionalised form of beltway journalism that must be practised in order to get and keep a job there.

Under the guise of being objective it is in fact a way of introducing into the public discourse on an equal footing what was once the unthinkable and unspeakable. As the introduction of creationism undermines Darwinism in schools so does the practice of torture undermine due process and proper evidence in law. Now both creationism and torture are given equal house room in the field of public debate due to the new insidious form of "Objectivism" being practised by the press.

I fear nothing will now stop this meta wave sweeping in. And to mix metaphors you can chronicle each rock, when it fell and by how far but all your fine work will not stop the avalanche. There are too many dull fucks out there who will not notice what's happening and swallow any rocks of pure bollox that their gaping uncomprehending maws will allow.

Beating the government would be small beer and fun doing to. But speaking as one who knew the sixties and bears the scars you can't save the people from themselves.

As to your question of motivation, we'll likely never know what the full impetus behind these moves were. No-one can ever know fully and conclusively what drives another, least of all someone in high office. You're better off asking yourself the same question while looking in a mirror.

Another of these "Obama is so complicated" posts from one of his supporters. Can we put that BS to rest? Barack Obama is NOT a complicated person. I had him figured out well before the election. You want to know why he's doing this awful stuff? Just step outside yourself for a moment and pretend you're utterly self-interested, cynical, dishonest, and have no respect for the intelligence of the average human being. Having done that, pretend you're a first-term Democratic President of the United States, and ask yourself what the one thing is that could most quickly derail your shot at a second term. The answer? A major terrorist attack on American soil, particularly one perpetrated by terrorists who were formerly detained under your watch, then acquitted and released. Naturally you will do anything to prevent that. Being dishonest and cynical, you will not think twice about violating campaign pledges. Being contemptuous of the intelligence of you fellow humans, you will offer lame rationalizations that are incoherent and self-contradicting. Being utterly self-interested, you will not be bothered by something as trivial as Rule of Law.

None of this is hard stuff to figure out. With enough information, it's pretty easy to predict almost anything Obama will do. We've all known somebody like him. The thing about Obama is that the banality of his personality type is obscured by his natural charm. But even his methods of charming people are pretty simple and predictable when you take a hard look at them. People continually project complexity onto the man that is simply not there.