On torture, war crimes and hypocrisy

So Democrats in Congress are up in arms about revelations that our government tortured inmates as part of the War on Everything Terror. It's not like this was new information. We've known about it for years. Books have been published based on government documents. Those senators and representatives on the various intelligence committees and oversight committees knew all about it.

But now that the Senate Intelligence Committee has released a summary of its findings, we must all show a renewed sense of indignation. I'm sure there are a few poor souls out there who had no idea this kind of thing must be going on and who are relying on Fox News to shape their opinions and give them some talking points to defend illegal behavior.

Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-Cal), among others, has railed at the CIA and the Bush Administration for implementing the program. But, where is that same indignation at the innocent bystanders killed by unmanned US drone attacks in the Middle East? Where is that same indignation when a Hellfire missile tears apart the bodies of women and children out in the fields?

For all of her pontificating about the evils of the torture program (and don't misunderstand my point, those who carried out the program are all guilty of war crimes and should be held to account for their actions), Ms. Feinstein has been a champion of killing innocent men, women and children in illegal missile attacks in foreign countries.

And where has President Obama been through this? He stood in front of a microphone and said we needed to look forward instead of placing blame for past sins. Of course this is the standard line uttered by all presidents when confronted with the illegalities of the prior administration. His pledge to look forward only serves to protect those who have committed illegal acts in his administration - for if he isn't looking to prosecute those who did bad before him, whoever next occupies the White House won't throw the book at members of the Obama administration.

And that's how we undermine the idea that our nation operates under the rule of law.

My religion is more important than your health

When the US Supreme Court released its decision in  Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. yesterday it pointed out yet another flaw in the delivery system for the Affordable Care Act. By yet another 5-4 decision, the Court held that family businesses and for-profit closely held corporations could opt out of providing contraceptive coverage for their employees if it went against the religious beliefs of the owners of the company.

As I have written before, the biggest problem with the ACA is that it left the current medical care delivery system in place. Thus, most folks are beholden to their employers for health care coverage. Rather than creating a program of universal health care, the ACA is nothing but a corporate welfare system for the insurance companies. They are guaranteed their profits while no one else even has a guarantee of coverage.

In Burwell, Hobby Lobby argued that the contraceptive mandate in the ACA violated the religious beliefs of the owners of the company. They argued that since religious non-profits were allowed to opt-out of contraceptive coverage that they should get to opt-out, too. Let's just forget for a second that Hobby Lobby is a for-profit company that employs over 16,000 people.

Let's also forget for a second just how specious the company's argument really is. It is of no concern to the owners of Hobby Lobby what their employees do when they go home at night. The last time I checked, there is no commandment telling folks not to have sex as often as they want - provided they aren't committing adultery. But I do seem to recall a commandment that says we shouldn't go around killing folks.

So, is Hobby Lobby also arguing that shouldn't have to pay that portion of their taxes that go to war-mongering? Are they asking the states to exempt them from that portion of their state taxes that go to pay for executing prisoners?

No, you say? Well that's awfully damn funny, ain't it?

So the fine Christian owners of Hobby Lobby have no problem with spending money to build war planes and guns and bombs and drones. They have no problem spending money to send troops overseas to shoot at people. They have no problem with remote controlled aircraft shooting missiles at groups of people. They haven't the slightest problem with strapping down prisoners and killing them with questionable drugs. But someone wants to put on a condom or take a birth control pill and the whole world's going to stop spinning.

Give me a fucking break.

Religious belief is the straw man in all of this. The real target is paring down the ACA so that companies don't have to provide decent health care coverage for their employees. The more watered-down the coverage offered by a company, the less money it costs them and the more money the top managers and owners can walk away with.

People who work for Hobby Lobby aren't working their because they share the same religious beliefs with the money-hoarding owners of the company. They're working there because they need a paycheck to pay the bills. More and more folks are forced to work for low-wage service companies because the manufacturing jobs are being shipped overseas in the name of higher profits.

What will be the next domino to fall? Which company is going to step up next and argue that they shouldn't have to comply with one provision or another of the ACA because it goes against some principle by which the company stands? And how many more workers are going to see their coverage pared down so that the owners of the company can put more money in their pockets.

As with most everything he has done over the course of his presidency, Barack Obama made a half-assed effort to appease those on the left. The ACA was a very cynical attempt to placate those who demanded a single-payer health care system that guaranteed coverage for all. The ACA will fail not because the wingnuts defunded it, the ACA will fail because the courts sanctioned a death of a thousand cuts.

Hypocrisy and human rights

Once upon a time there was a monarchy. The citizenry were divided into two distinct groups. The folks who belonged to the group the king belonged to were afforded more rights than the folks who were in the other group.

After a while the folks in that second group looked around them and decided that since no one was going to take up their cause that they would have to do it themselves. So they demonstrated and they called for basic human rights.

But the king defied them. He ordered their leaders to be arrested, jailed and tortured. Still the people carried on. They rallied for democracy. They rallied for equal rights.

But the king stood firm and ordered the army to break up the demonstrations.

More folks were arrested, jailed and tortured.

Then they got their day in court. Only the result was pre-determined. The only question was how long they would be behind bars.

Sixteen protesters were branded as terrorists and sentenced to 15 years in prison. Four others were sentenced to 10 years. Thirty others were sentenced to five years. More than a dozen of those convicted were tried in abstentia.

Now how would  a government that pats itself on the back and proclaims itself a champion of human rights deal with this king and his repressive policies? Would its president stand up and announce to the world that this type of behavior is unacceptable? Would he push for some sort of sanctions to punish the kingdom for its blatant violation of human rights? Would he seek to work with the opposition to force reforms?

Or would he sit back and do nothing for fear of pissing off a little tyrant with a whole lotta money?

If you chose the last option, you'd be right. Despite the crackdown on pro-democracy demonstrators in Bahrain, President Obama carries on like nothing ever happened. You see, the US Navy's Fifth Fleet is housed in Bahrain and the last thing President Obama wants to do is raise a stink about how Bahrain treats its own residents.

Human rights mean nothing to our government. It's but a phrase bandied about when someone needs an excuse for carrying out some policy. Oh, and I guess there's that little matter of the oil under the desert, too.

If this story had come out of a country with a leftist-leaning government that refused to sacrifice the well-being of its citizens for the good of global capital, President Obama would whip himself into a frenzy telling the world how awful it is for a government to treat its citizens that way. But that so-called concern for human rights goes away in a flash when the government in question flashes cash or barrels of oil.

The high price of exposing the truth

Yesterday Col. Denise Lind sentenced Bradley Manning to 35 years in prison for exposing the truth. He exposed the lies, deceit and criminal acts perpetrated by our government. He exposed human rights abuses. He exposed war crimes.

Yes, the documents he provided to WikiLeaks embarrassed the US government. Yes, it put government officials in tricky positions after their lies and deceit were exposed to the world.

Bradley Manning never stood a chance at trial. The convictions were a foregone conclusion. The only question was whether Col. Lind would play along and convict Mr. Manning of aiding the enemy. While she made the right call on that charge, she gave the government its bone with the sentence she pronounced.

President Obama told the world - before the trial ever began - that Mr. Manning was guilty. Damn the evidence, full speed ahead, Mr. President. Let's just gloss over the fact that Mr. Manning didn't pass the documents to the "enemy." His actions hurt no one. He wanted to foster debate on the policies of our government. He wanted to let the world know the truth about what has been done in our name.

Among the materials he provided to WikiLeaks was footage of an American helicopter gunship mowing down civilians - including journalists and a father and his children.

Mr. Manning was subjected to torture by his own government while awaiting trial. Of that there is no question. It's the reason that Col. Lind gave Mr. Manning additional credit for the time he served before trial.

So, while Mr. Manning is serving his 35-year sentence for exposing the truth, there are five men who acted with the intent to harm Americans who are serving shorter sentences for their crimes.

David Hicks is an Australian national who fought alongside the Taliban. He was captured, sent to Guantanamo Bay and sentenced to seven years in prison.

John Walker Lindh, the so-called "American Taliban," was captured fighting alongside the Taliban in Afghanistan. Mr. Lindh was sentenced to 20 years in prison.

Noor Uthman Mohammed was convicted of providing material support to terrorists and was sentenced to 14 years in prison.

Ali Saleh Kahlah al-Marri is a Qatari citizen who was living in the United States on a student visa. He admitted to providing material support to terrorists and was sentenced to 15 years in prison.

Kevin William Harpham is a white supremacist in the US who pled guilty to trying to bomb a Martin Luther King Day parade in Seattle in 2011. He was sentenced to 32 years in prison.

So, while Barack Obama campaigned for the White House in 2008 on a platform in which he promised to end the wars in the Middle East, to close down Guantanamo Bay and to promote greater transparency in government, President Obama stood up and declared Bradley Manning to be an enemy of the United States. Bradley Manning followed a higher duty than preventing the US government from being embarrassed. He followed a higher duty than covering up the war crimes committed by US military personnel in the Middle East.

For that he is looking at spending the next 30-plus years behind bars.

Sometimes the price we pay to expose the truth is quite high. Bradley Manning deserves praise and thanks for what he did - not 35 years behind bars.

More platitudes and empty promises

Yesterday President Obama gave a speech at the National Defense University in which he laid out his policy objectives in the War Against Everything Terrorism. He told us how much he really, really wanted to close down the prison in Guantanamo but that those meanies in Congress prevented him from doing so. He assured us his administration requires a very high level of proof before acting as prosecutor, judge, jury and executioner of American citizens abroad. He also said that our own policies weren't responsible for the virulent anti-Americanism we see throughout the world.

He portrayed himself as the good guy - the guy defending the Constitution. He made promise after promise without explaining or laying out a plan on how to get there.

On the targeting of US citizens by drones, the president said:

This week, I authorized the declassification of this action, and the deaths of three other Americans in drone strikes, to facilitate transparency and debate on this issue, and to dismiss some of the more outlandish claims. For the record, I do not believe it would be constitutional for the government to target and kill any U.S. citizen – with a drone, or a shotgun – without due process. Nor should any President deploy armed drones over U.S. soil. 

But when a U.S. citizen goes abroad to wage war against America – and is actively plotting to kill U.S. citizens; and when neither the United States, nor our partners are in a position to capture him before he carries out a plot – his citizenship should no more serve as a shield than a sniper shooting down on an innocent crowd should be protected from a swat team 

That's who Anwar Awlaki was – he was continuously trying to kill people. He helped oversee the 2010 plot to detonate explosive devices on two U.S. bound cargo planes. He was involved in planning to blow up an airliner in 2009. When Farouk Abdulmutallab – the Christmas Day bomber – went to Yemen in 2009, Awlaki hosted him, approved his suicide operation, and helped him tape a martyrdom video to be shown after the attack. His last instructions were to blow up the airplane when it was over American soil.I would have detained and prosecuted Awlaki if we captured him before he carried out a plot. But we couldn't. And as President, I would have been derelict in my duty had I not authorized the strike that took out Awlaki. 

Of course, the targeting of any Americans raises constitutional issues that are not present in other strikes – which is why my Administration submitted information about Awlaki to the Department of Justice months before Awlaki was killed, and briefed the Congress before this strike as well. But the high threshold that we have set for taking lethal action applies to all potential terrorist targets, regardless of whether or not they are American citizens. This threshold respects the inherent dignity of every human life. Alongside the decision to put our men and women in uniform in harm's way, the decision to use force against individuals or groups – even against a sworn enemy of the United States – is the hardest thing I do as President. But these decisions must be made, given my responsibility to protect the American people.

See, we set a high threshold to meet before we decide who lives and who dies. You just need to trust us. We've seen the evidence but we don't think it's a good idea for y'all to see it. There's just so much there, you might not understand what you're looking at.

To date there has never been any evidence released to prove that Anwar al-Awlaki was in a leadership position in al Qaeda. While Mr. Awlaki expressed his support for the actions of the men involved in the attacks - he never planned them. He gave speeches in which he said that the US government was on a mission to kill Muslims. He called for his followers to resist the United States. He was murdered by our government because he dared to exercise his First Amendment rights as a US citizen.

If the evidence existed, the government should have charged Mr. Awlaki with criminal offenses and tried him before a jury of his peers. He was not given the right to cross-examine the witnesses against him. He was not given the right to put on evidence in his behalf. He was not given the right to a jury trial. In short, President Obama's actions deprived a US citizen of his due process rights.

And, lest we forget, Mr. President, Mr. Awlaki, and his son, were  part of "the American people."

The president then singled out Muslims when he spoke about extremism and home-grown terror.

As I said earlier, this threat is not new. But technology and the Internet increase its frequency and lethality. Today, a person can consume hateful propaganda, commit themselves to a violent agenda, and learn how to kill without leaving their home. To address this threat, two years ago my Administration did a comprehensive review, and engaged with law enforcement. The best way to prevent violent extremism is to work with the Muslim American community – which has consistently rejected terrorism – to identify signs of radicalization, and partner with law enforcement when an individual is drifting towards violence. And these partnerships can only work when we recognize that Muslims are a fundamental part of the American family. Indeed, the success of American Muslims, and our determination to guard against any encroachments on their civil liberties, is the ultimate rebuke to those who say we are at war with Islam.

Let's see, Timothy McVeigh wasn't a Muslim. Neither were the member of the KKK and local citizens' councils in the south who tortured and murdered blacks for trying to exercise their rights as citizens of this country. There aren't too many Muslims in the right wing militia groups in the Pacific Northwest or in the skinhead movement. As far as I can tell, not one of the folks involved in any of the school shootings or the shooting at the movie theater in Aurora, Colorado were Muslim. A lot of those folks were Bible-thumping Christians.

Now, according to our president, we have no reason to fear an attack on our privacy rights or the rights of the press.

Indeed, thwarting homegrown plots presents particular challenges in part because of our proud commitment to civil liberties for all who call America home. That's why, in the years to come, we will have to keep working hard to strike the appropriate balance between our need for security and preserving those freedoms that make us who we are. That means reviewing the authorities of law enforcement, so we can intercept new types of communication, and build in privacy protections to prevent abuse. That means that – even after Boston – we do not deport someone or throw someone in prison in the absence of evidence. That means putting careful constraints on the tools the government uses to protect sensitive information, such as the State Secrets doctrine. And that means finally having a strong Privacy and Civil Liberties Board to review those issues where our counter-terrorism efforts and our values may come into tension. 

The Justice Department's investigation of national security leaks offers a recent example of the challenges involved in striking the right balance between our security and our open society. As Commander-in Chief, I believe we must keep information secret that protects our operations and our people in the field. To do so, we must enforce consequences for those who break the law and breach their commitment to protect classified information. But a free press is also essential for our democracy. I am troubled by the possibility that leak investigations may chill the investigative journalism that holds government accountable.

How President Obama was able to make it through this part of his speech with a straight face, I'll never know. Under his administration, the government has stepped up its surveillance of Americans to a degree that the Bush administration only dreamed about. Don't think for a moment that your phone calls, e-mails or internet searches are subject to the collection efforts of the government. Under the rhetoric of protecting our safety, the government has hacked away at our right to privacy.

And as for those leaks, where is the hue and cry when sensitive information favorable to the White House is leaked by members of the administration to friendly reporters? How come it's only when the information is embarrassing to the government or shows how the administration has manipulated the populace that the Justice Department seeks out the source of the leak?

And, finally, we come to Guantanamo. Once again Mr. Obama has promised to shut down the detention center in which over 160 men have been held without charge - some for over a decade. Quite frankly, his comments were laughable.

Today, I once again call on Congress to lift the restrictions on detainee transfers from GTMO. I have asked the Department of Defense to designate a site in the United States where we can hold military commissions. I am appointing a new, senior envoy at the State Department and Defense Department whose sole responsibility will be to achieve the transfer of detainees to third countries. I am lifting the moratorium on detainee transfers to Yemen, so we can review them on a case by case basis. To the greatest extent possible, we will transfer detainees who have been cleared to go to other countries. Where appropriate, we will bring terrorists to justice in our courts and military justice system. And we will insist that judicial review be available for every detainee. 

Even after we take these steps, one issue will remain: how to deal with those GTMO detainees who we know have participated in dangerous plots or attacks, but who cannot be prosecuted – for example because the evidence against them has been compromised or is inadmissible in a court of law. But once we commit to a process of closing GTMO, I am confident that this legacy problem can be resolved, consistent with our commitment to the rule of law.

Okay, okay. You want to release the detainees. Yea! But, if it's so easy to lift the moratorium on transferring detainees to Yemen, then why the hell has it taken you over four years to do it?

As to that legacy problem, the solution is really quite simple. If the evidence would be inadmissible in a court of law because it was obtained by torture - you let them go. It happens in courtrooms across this country every day. I find it hard to conceive of President Obama being a constitutional law professor due to the ways in which he has made a mockery of that document and the Bill of Rights during the course of his administration.

You have fought every habeas petition brought by a detainee tooth and nail. You have violated the human rights of every man in that prison. You have violated the due process rights of every detainee by holding them without charge. It is time that justice is done. Every detainee should be released. Without condition.

Murder, terrorism and hypocrisy

Britain is all atwitter over a supposed terrorist attack in London in which a British soldier was hacked to death by two men - one of whom was a Muslim convert. One of the men allegedly told onlookers that the attack was in retaliation for British soldiers killing Muslims in the Middle East.

Now my understanding of terrorism is that it is an act of violence committed against civilians in furtherance of a political goal. While the death of the soldier is certainly tragic for his family and friends - he is far from an unarmed civilian. He was part of a killing machine that took its marching orders from the British prime minister (and, ultimately, President Obama). The dead man was part of an organization that killed unarmed men, women and children in pursuit of political goals.

Where was the outrage about the thousands of Afghans and Iraqis who died at the hands of soldiers from the United States, Britain and the rest of the allied forces in the Middle East?

In related news, the United States has finally acknowledged it murdered four of its own citizens in drone attacks in the War on Everything Terror. According to a letter from Attorney General (and all-around Obama lackey) Eric Holder, US drones killed Anwar al-Awlaki in a targeted strike. He also admitted that Awlaki's 16-year-old son, Abdul Rahman al Awlaki, and two other Americans, Samir Kahn and Jude Mohammed were killed by drone attacks. Though he said those deaths were unintentional because the individuals were not "targeted."

These four men were murdered by their government without the benefit of due process. They were denied the right to a trial by jury. They were denied the right to confront the witnesses against them. They were denied the right to put on evidence in their behalf.

They are dead because the Obama administration created its own star chamber that acted as judge, jury and executioner.

The government has never presented any evidence to the American people that the allegations that Mr. Awlaki was in a leadership position in al Qaeda. We are being asked to simply accept the word of our government when it comes to the murder of our fellow citizens.

Anwar al-Awlaki was murdered by his government because he exercised his First Amendment right to speak freely. Our government may not have liked what he was saying, but that's far from justification for murdering him. And the order to kill came from a fraudulent winner of the Nobel Peace Prize who has escalated the Bush doctrine that the world is a battlefield.

So, who are the terrorists now?

Plugging leaks

The Obama administration has gone after more whistleblowers and journalists for leaking classified information that all other administrations combined. Quite ironic considering Barack Obama ran as a candidate who would bring more transparency to governance.

Of course the problem isn't that a government employee was leaking information to a journalist or that the journalist wrote a story about it - because the Obama administration leaks classified information to the press all the time.

The distinction is, as usual, whose ox is getting gored.

In the latest fiasco, the FBI subpoenaed home, business and cell phone records from dozens of AP employees in an attempt to find out who the source for an article about how the government thwarted a terrorist attack was. According to the government, the records were subpoenaed so that investigators could map out telephone calls and somehow "triangulate" who was making them.

Maybe. Maybe not.

I suspect the real reason the government issued overly broad subpoenas and did it without consulting with the AP beforehand wasn't so much to find the leaker, but more to create a chilling effect for the next reporter who came across sensitive information. Being subjected to having los federales dig around in your private affairs might just be enough to make some reporters think twice before pushing the send button.

Strangely enough, I don't remember anyone in the White House throwing a fit when the news came out that Anwar al-Awlaki had been added to the President's (illegal and unconstitutional) hit list. I don't recall any heads being made to roll when details of the Osama bin Laden murder became known. The Obama administration made quite liberal use of the government sieve when it served their purpose during the fall.

It's only when neither the president, nor his cronies, are in control of the leaks that problems occur. Bradley Manning leaked materials that proved our government violated international law and conventions regarding torture. He exposed the hypocrisy in Washington and caused much consternation when foreign leaders found out how they'd been played off one another.

In order to show Private Manning who was in charge, the government instituted a smear campaign against him and subjected him to torture. The cables were published on the Wikileaks website so our government turned its focus to Julian Assange who served the role of journalist. But, just as the government tried to silence Daniel Ellsburg when he provided the New York Times with a copy of The Pentagon Papers, the Obama administration went after Mr. Assange and Wilkileaks in any manner they could.

It'a all about control. It's all about the spin. Somewhere George W. Bush is sitting and smiling as he watches President Obama take his ideas for the War Against the Constitution and transform it into something that even W's supporters didn't think possible.

Shutting down dissent anyway possible

By now it is quite obvious to the most oblivious observer that President Obama has failed miserably in his attempt to close down the prison at Guantanamo Bay. You'll remember that he told everyone who would listen back in 2008 that one of the first things he would do as president was close it down.

Like many of his other promises for progressive reform, his promise to close down GITMO has fallen to the wayside. He has been far too interested in killing innocent men, women and children with remote controlled drones to put any effort into closing Guantanamo. He was more concerned about smoothing over the summary execution of three US citizens than in ending the program of torture on Cuba.

If you follow the mainstream media you probably aren't aware that more than 100 of the detainees at Guantanamo are on hunger strike to protest the conditions in the prison. These are men who have been held without charge for, in some cases, over a decade. History will not judge the US kindly over its treatment of the detainees - the constant hysteria for the war on terror has been used to dull the American people's senses when it comes to concepts such as due process and rule of law.

Now the government is fearful that its power to compel the detainees to do what it wants them to is waning. In order to show the detainees who's boss, prison officials have begun force-feeding 30 of the hunger strikers.

This memo obtained by Al-Jazeera spells out the program of forced compliance. You see, it just wouldn't do for a detainee to drop dead from starvation at GITMO. That might just garner a bit of press attention (though just a bit). That might just pique the American public's interest in what is being done in our name. It might re-ignite a debate on the regime of torture started under Bush and accelerated under Obama.

For those detainees who are subject to being force-fed a liquid diet, they are strapped to a chair while a feeding tube is fed through their nose down to their stomach. A mask is placed over the detainee's face and liquid is fed through the tube for up to two hours. Afterward the detainee is placed in a so-called "dry cell" and observed for 45-60 minutes for any signs of induced vomiting. If the detainee vomits he is placed back in the chair and the process is begun anew.

These forced feedings are nothing more than an extension of the torture regime that detainees around the world have been subject to - ever since the Bush administration decided that torture wasn't torture if you called it something else. If there were justice in this world, George W. Bush would sit in a courtroom in The Hague facing charges of human rights violations at the International Criminal Court. Maybe one day Barack Obama could be his cellmate.

The men who are being held illegally at GITMO are adults who are more than capable of making medical decisions for themselves. They have the right to withhold their consent from being force-fed. They have the right to refuse to eat. They have the right to die with dignity, if they so choose. Sadly it is the only form of protest that is garnering any attention to the ways in which the United States is imposing the law of rule.

The Obama administration and other apologists for GITMO claim that the remaining detainees can't be released because there are no assurances they won't immediately take up arms against the United States. Well, to be quite honest, who the fuck could blame them? If they weren't already inclined to take up arms you can bet they sure as hell are now after the way they have been treated and the myriad ways in which the US government has violated their human rights.

It's time to man up, President. Either the men in Guantanamo have committed crimes against the United States or they haven't. If they haven't, it's time to set them free. If they have committed crimes, set their cases for trial.

If President Obama had any humanity he would put an end to the forced feeding of hunger strikers and he would address the problems at Guantanamo. Unfortunately for the detainees, they don't have an effective lobby and they don't have millions of dollars to funnel to Super PACS. All they have are their lives to give in their cause.

Justice in Guatemala

Yesterday in Guatemala we saw an example of just what democracy is all about. In a court of law former Guatemalan strongman Efrain Rios Montt was found guilty of genocide for the slaughter of more than 1700 peasants during the country's dirty war. The judge sentenced Rios Montt to 80 years in prison.

The verdict is a vivid demonstration that in a democracy, no one is above the law - even a former military dictator. Could you imagine if a former president stood accused of human rights violations in this country?

It's a sad commentary when a country that has spent most of its history under repressive regimes gives us a lesson in democracy and the rule of law.

President Obama ordered the murder of an American citizen in Yemen. As a result of his orders, two more Americans were killed in Yemen. He has also been complicit in the torture and illegal detention of prisoners of war in Guantanamo.

President Bush (the Younger) committed countless violations of human rights in the torture program his administration cooked up as part of the American arsenal in the war on everything terror. He also ordered air strikes in Iraq that killed hundreds of innocent civilians as part of his cooked up war against Iraq.

President Clinton sent the war planes into Balkan air space and bombed the hell out of men, women and children who had nothing to do with the civil war in the former Yugoslavia.

President Bush (the Elder) was responsible for the deaths of hundreds of innocent Panamanians when he ordered bombing raids on populated areas during his invasion of Panama.

Under each of these presidents, covert operations were launched in countless nations around the world that resulted in the deaths of innocent men, women and children were nothing more than collateral damage in the eyes of our leaders.

And every time a new president is elected he tells the American people that it's time to look ahead and not argue about the past. No president has ever ordered an investigation into the human rights abuses committed by a former occupant of the White House. It's not because he wants to try to bring the country together in a common mission -- it's because it's tacitly understood that if you ignore what the guy before you did, the guy after you will ignore what you did in kind.

I have no faith that we will hold our leaders accountable for their actions. I have no faith that any former president will have to stand and defend himself against charges that he committed gross human rights violations. And, until it finally happens, there will always be those who are above the law.

What a sorry lesson to teach our children.

Lies, lies, lies

The Big Lie began ten years ago this week.

There were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. The Bush administration knew it was a lie. They were just looking for a justification.

There were no ties between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda. The Bush administration knew it was a lie. They were just looking for a justification.

Yes, there were chemical weapons. But that, too, was just an excuse. Our government looked the other way when Saddam Hussein gassed the Kurds when Iraq was our ally.

The invasion and occupation of Iraq costs tens of thousands of Iraqis their lives and their homes. Missiles and rockets were fired indiscriminately into residential neighborhoods. No one has ever been charged for those war crimes.

The lies led to the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan where tens of thousands more have died needlessly in a war built upon deception. The US mission has ended in a stalemate. President Obama has announced that the troops will be coming home next year. He's hailing it as a successful conclusion to the war. Just like Richard Nixon ordered the evacuation of US troops from Vietnam and called it a victory, too.

Every one of those deaths was unnecessary. There was never any reason for our government to send our young people to die on foreign soil so that American-based transnational corporations could move into the region and rape and pillage in the name of profit.

I was down in Seabrook the other day to run a marathon. Before the race began someone called Brother Something-or-Other took the microphone and asked for a moment of silence for our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. This supposed man of the cloth couldn't have cared less about the slaughter of the innocents that has taken place over the last decade. He only cared about those wearing a uniform with our flag on it.

I was as sickened by his actions as much as I am by all the "Support the Troops" festivities at football and baseball games. I was as sickened as much as I am when college basketball teams accept offers to wear camouflage uniforms and play on aircraft carriers to ramp up support for a war built upon lies.

As much as I would love to put the onus for the needless death and destruction on George W. Bush, I can't. He may have been the one to put things in motion but President Obama has continued the war unabated. Thus the longest war in American history continues with the guarantee that the world won't be any better for it.

And that's no lie.

It's okay because I said it's okay

First forget about all the niceties we've come to appreciate. I'm talking about the Due Process Clause, the right to trial by jury and the Sixth Commandment ("Thou shalt not kill."). Because under President Barack Obama, they aren't worth the paper (or stone tablet) they're printed on. At least not when it comes to killing US citizens abroad.

NBC News got their hands on the white paper issued by the Department of Justice that serves to rationalize the "targeted" killing of US citizens abroad in our ongoing War on Everything Terrorism.

According to the white paper (apologies for NBC feeling the need to plaster its watermark all over the paper rendering parts of it illegible), there are three factors that must be considered when determining whether it's okay for our government to kill one of its citizens abroad. The killing will be considered legal if (1) a government official decides that the targeted individual poses "an imminent threat of violent attack" against the US; (2) a government official decides that it isn't feasible to capture the targeted individual; and (3) the killing follows generally accepted wartime practices.

In other words, the US government can order the killing of a US citizen abroad it the government damn well feels like it. What else could it mean? Government officials get to decide if the target is an imminent threat and if it would be too much work to try to capture him alive.

Anyone else see the problem there?

According to the paper there's no due process implications involved because the nine in robes have proclaimed that ones due process rights are subject to a balancing test. And, as anyone who has ever reviewed balancing tests knows, they are nothing more than a justification for the government to infringe upon the rights of an individual.

One either has due process rights or one doesn't. Ones due process rights either are enforced or they aren't. Either the government is sanctioned for violating them or it isn't. A balancing tests makes black letter law all murky, mushy and grey.

And, lest someone bring up the ban on government-sponsored political assassinations, just forget about it right now. You see, the author(s) of the paper have declared that the targeted killing of a US citizen allegedly working for the enemy isn't the same as an assassination. There's that whole war thing going on.

But, not exactly.

Those pesky little al-Qaeda boys aren't exactly a nation. There has never been a formal declaration of war against al-Qaeda - mainly because there's no nation to declare war against. So, if there is no declared war against al-Qaeda, then the targeted killing of a US citizen working with, or for, al-Qaeda isn't an act of war. It is, instead, the killing of a person for political purposes. Oops. That sounds a lot like an assassination to me.

I suppose one could argue that killing a US citizen who has taken up arms on the side of the Iraqis would be different, as would the same scenario taking place in Afghanistan. But that's not where the US government has targeted its own citizens for killing. Those strikes took place in Yemen - and the last time I checked, Congress never declared war on Yemen.

Of course that argument will never do. So, the paper argues that our government's fight with al-Qaeda is analogous to war. It's not our fault, after all, that they aren't a nation-state, is it? Thus the Obama Administration argues that it is justified in killing US citizens anywhere they may be abroad - even if there is no armed conflict going on in that nation.

Our government gets away with this because we allow it to happen. We have stood by and watched as state and federal governments have whittled away at our once sacrosanct Constitutional rights. They weren't taking away our rights, we told ourselves - they were just taking away the rights of those criminals. Now President Obama has decided that he has the right to suspend the Constitution when it comes to killing US citizens abroad. But we're talking about terrorists, you say.

Maybe, but the rights that protect him are the same rights that protect the rest of us. The Constitution divided the powers of government among three branches. It's not the job of the executive to determine whether a US citizen is guilty of treason - that's the role of the courts. In usurping the powers of the judicial branch to suit his political aims, President Obama has violated his oath of office.

Will anyone tell the emperor he has no clothes?

Spying on the 99 percent

Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech... or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. -- 1st Amendment

But just because the Bill of Rights says you can air your grievances, it doesn't mean the government has to just sit there and take it. With a treasure trove of FBI documents obtained through a Freedom of Information request, the Partnership for Civil Justice Fund, has exposed the extent to which the FBI and law enforcement agencies around the country spied on the Occupy! movement.

The FBI and Department of Homeland Security treated the Occupy protesters as domestic terrorists as they mobilized agents for the benefit of big banks and Wall Street. The FBI was particularly concerned about protests on the West Coast that targeted major ports.

Those concerns manifested themselves in Texas where members of an Austin Police Department task force infiltrated the Occupy Austin group and helped produce the so-called "sleeping dragons" used by protesters at the Port of Houston to prevent trucks from entering the port.

Documents obtained from the Austin Police Department paint a picture of a handful of officers who not only kept on eye on protesters but who became actively involved in the planning and carrying out of actions.

The question arises as to just why the FBI, Department of Homeland Security and local law enforcement agencies were so interested in the Occupy movement. These documents also raise questions as to what role the government should be playing in domestic surveillance operations.

Supposedly the role of of law enforcement is to serve the local community in making the community safe for its residents. These officers, after all, are employees of the local community and answer, in theory, to the members of the community.

In this case the federal government was busy handing out grants for local communities to create what have been referred to as "fusion centers" where members of various law enforcement agencies could get together and share intelligence on protesters.

Keep in mind that these protesters were upset about the growing gap between the very wealthy and the rest of us in this country. These young men and women were standing up and publicizing the fact that the financial crisis was caused by the major banks and Wall Street and that the primary "victims" were ordinary workers and homeowners. The Occupy movement was all about highlighting the fact that our government was busy handing out money hand over fist to the very folks who caused the problem while ignoring the plight of the ordinary folks caught in the middle.

But god only knows we can't have that debate in this country. We can spend all the time in the world arguing about abortion or whether President Obama has a valid birth certificate. But it's off limits to discuss the shortcomings of capitalism or alternative economic systems.

The same President Obama who was happy to let the world know he was a community organizer back in Chicago authorized the surveillance and infiltration of the Occupy movement.

And what does such an operation tell us about our government's priorities? Millions of people are unemployed - some for years - and others have lost their homes, yet we're going to spend our money on a massive domestic spying operation for the benefit of corporate America.

The Occupy protesters gathered to petition the government regarding their grievances. Their government responded by spying on them and sending in agent provocateurs to incite criminal activity that likely would never have happened otherwise.

Fiscal cliff? What fiscal cliff?

If I remember my Constitution correctly, all bills dealing with taxing and spending must originate in the House.   So, it would appear to me that John Boehner has a little work to do - a little work that he seems incapable of doing.

Now first a word on this over-hyped so-called fiscal cliff that we're supposed to be plunging over on New Year's Day. It's all an illusion. There is no such thing. The illusion was created so that no one would question the need to implement austerity measures during a fragile economic recovery. Just go ask the Greeks or the Spanish how well those austerity measures are working in their countries.

So what if there's no deal in place by Tuesday. Wouldn't it make more sense for the incoming Congress to debate the issue rather than the lame ducks still in session? The tax cuts can be extended, or re-introduced, at any time. The broad spending cuts won't take effect until the next fiscal year.

President Obama is once again showing his appalling lack of poker skills in groveling with Congressional leaders to come up with a grand bargain. Mr. Obama doesn't have to do anything. Mr. Boehner couldn't even command enough of his own party members to stage a vote for his bill that would coddle the wealthy and defense contractors while fleecing seniors and the unemployed. Apparently members of his own party didn't think his proposal did enough coddling or fleecing.

The President's only role in the process is either signing or vetoing the bill that comes across his desk. The President doesn't need to propose anything. The President doesn't need to fold his hand if the leader of the other party barks at him. He can just sit back and wait to see what happens.

So, Mr. Obama, why not just sit back and enjoy the show? Put the onus on Mr. Boehner and his colleagues to pass legislation to avoid this mythical cliff. Let the American people see who the House GOP really represents. Let then pass a bill that doesn't raise tax rates on the wealthiest 2% of Americans but imposes benefit cuts for seniors who rely on their monthly social security check for survival. Let's see how that goes over.

Right now Mr. Boehner is laughing because he's not being forced to exercise any leadership or responsibility. President Obama's latest moronic idea of pressing the Speaker to put the Senate bill up for a vote in the House boggles the mind.

Come on, Mr. President, you were man enough to break up thousands of families by deporting parents of American citizens. You were man enough to authorize the murder of thousands of civilians in the Middle East. You were man enough to brag that you were the one who decided who was to be killed by unmanned drones. But you're not man enough to stand your ground and force John Boehner to do his job?

Mr. Obama, and the rest of the cabal in Washington, were only too happy to shower cash down on the very folks who drove the economy into the ground while ignoring the plight of ordinary Americans who lost their jobs, their homes and their families. Now they're only too happy to do it all over again under the fiction of the fiscal cliff.

It's time to shuffle up and deal, Mr. President

Someone please let President Obama know I'm trying to get a poker night together sometime in the next couple of weeks. I'd really love to have Mr. Obama sit at the table and play with us. I think I can clean out his wallet.

You see, I don't think Mr. Obama is much of a poker player. He was just re-elected despite the high unemployment rate because folks thought he'd do a better job managing the economy than his opponent. His party has a bigger majority in the Senate and picked up a few seats in the House. He's not in a weak position facing the so-called fiscal cliff.

President Obama started off calling for a renewal of the Bush-era tax cuts for somewhere around 98% of the taxpaying public. His plan to avoid the cliff was to raise taxes on the wealthiest Americans and to trim some dollars from the budget.

His antagonist, House Speaker John Boehner, said he wouldn't stand for raising taxes on the wealthy and that he wanted to see more cuts to Social Security and Medicare and no cuts in defense spending.

If the parties couldn't agree by December 31, the tax cuts would expire and automatic spending cuts would go into place for next year's budget. President Obama held the high ground. If the House Republicans refused to go along with his plan, everyone's taxes would go up in the new year and their precious defense budget would be cut. The president had the best hand. All he had to do was shove his chips into the center of the table and the pot was his. There was no way Mr. Boehner would call that bet.



So what did Mr. Obama do?

True to fashion he checked the hand and offered more concessions to the GOP. How about we only raise taxes on those folks making more than $400,000 a year, John? And how about we cut more money from Social Security than we do from the Pentagon budget? Would that work for you?

As an aside, in all of this talk about Social Security, the one thing no one likes to mention is that Social Security isn't part of the federal budget. It's a "trust fund." While the government borrows from the surplus in the trust fund in exchange for treasury bonds, Social Security spending is completely unrelated to the federal budget. Now at some point in the future when FICA receipts don't cover the benefits paid out it might be a different story.

But if President Obama thinks that making more (unnecessary) concessions is going to engender bipartisanship in the House of Representatives, he's crazy. By caving in like he did he is only strengthening the GOP's hand. Now what's he going to do when Mr. Boehner shoves a stack of chips in the middle of table?

So come on down to Houston, Mr. President. I've got a chair for you. Checking with a strong hand is dangerous. If you make the bet, you're forcing your opponent to make a tough choice; but when you check your hand and your opponent makes a big bet now the onus is on you. When you've got a big hand, it's much better to lead.

If not now, when?

Aurora, Colorado.

Portland, Oregon.

Newtown, Connecticut.

After each one of these mass shootings, White House spokesman Jay Carney told reporters that now was not the time to discuss gun control. And we know who pulls the strings in Mr. Carney's back.

Okay, President Obama, when is the time for that discussion?

The purpose of a gun is to kill.

You point the weapon. You squeeze the trigger. The target falls down.

For the gun nuts out there who believe that their cache of weapons will protect them against the onslaught of a government gone bad - a gun is no match against a helicopter gunship, a tank, a missile or a nuclear weapon. If the government wants to turn its weapons on you, you won't stand a chance.

The time for the debate on gun control is here. And it's time that President Obama discover his backbone and stand up to the gun lobby. The election's over, Mr. President. Now's the time to create your legacy. How many more mass killings are we going to hear about in movie theaters, shopping malls and schools? We can't sit here and keep telling ourselves that everything's okay.

It's not okay. There are far too many weapons out on the streets. It's time we did something about it.

Yesterday 20 children were murdered. Those families have been torn apart. Those families will never be the same. Now, instead of planning for the holidays, these families will be planning funerals. And they will be planning those funerals because someone was able to purchase a weapon legally.

Now there's nothing wrong with hunting. I don't want to take away the rifles and shotguns hunters pull out of their closets every hunting season. But there is no legitimate use for assault rifles or semi-automatic rifles.

Now is the time for that debate. Now is the time for that discussion.

Anytime proponents of expanding the police state want a new draconian law on the books, they tell us that it's about the children.

Well, Mr. President, now it really is about the children.

There are twenty dead children. Twenty children who would be alive today were it not for a man with a gun.

It's time to put politics aside. It's time to do what's right. It's time to stop the madness.

Let's put an end to the gun violence, Mr. President. Do it for the children.

Peace is in the eye of the beholder

Yesterday, in Oslo, the European Union was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.

And just what did our friends in the EU do to deserve such an award? For one, its members, collectively, account for about one-third of the world's arms trade. Those arms have been used by repressive regimes to quell dissent around the globe. Through NATO, the nations of the EU have provided troops for the murderous wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. And, to top it off, the EU has imposed crippling austerity measures on Greece and Spain.

As a result of the EU's mission to protect international lenders, the people of Greece and Spain have seen spending on education and health care plummet. Greece and Spain are being pressured to privatize industry - handing over control from the populace to unaccountable foreign corporations. The people have responded by taking to the streets.

Of course the bar in Oslo isn't very high. How else can you explain Henry Kissinger in 1973 and Barack Obama in 2009?

Mr. Kissinger was the architect of Nixon's policy of bombing Vietnam back to the Stone Age. He gave the Indonesian dictator Suharto the go-ahead to slaughter the people of East Timor.

President Obama won the award despite his status as one of the world's great warmongers. And, as if to show the prize wasn't a fluke, President Obama has declared himself to be judge, jury and executioner in his use of unmanned drones to murder civilians in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Yemen.

Over the course of his administration, President Obama continued the torture program created under George W. Bush. He sent more troops to Afghanistan. He went after whistle blowers who exposed the human rights abuses committed by the United States.

Once upon a time Alfred Nobel decided to reward the person who did the most to promote peace and understanding in the world. Today the prize that bears his name has become a parody of itself. 

Bashar al-Assad might just find himself on the short list for next year's award if he can bring an end to the unrest by murdering the entire populace.

H/T Democracy Now!

A tale of two men

British Prime Minister David Cameron said the other day that he would support safe passage out of Syria for embattled dictator Bashar al-Assad if it would end the bloodshed in that country.

But Mr. Cameron won't allow Wikileaks founder Julian Assange safe passage to Ecuador following Ecuador's decision to grant asylum to Ms. Assange.

Mr. Assad is a murderer. He has turned his military on the people of Syria in the name of holding on to power until the bitter end. He has ordered planes and helicopters to fly over and bomb urban areas in an attempt to end the rebellion in the country.

Mr. Assange is a journalist who published secret (and not-so-secret) documents as part of a campaign for transparency. Wikileaks was provided information by Bradley Manning that revealed human rights abuses at the hands of the US government and its agents abroad.

Mr. Assad, much like his daddy, is a brutal dictator who cares less about the people of Syria than accumulating wealth and power. In response to the Syrian people who demanded more say in the running of their government, he cracked down on dissent and turned a political movement into a civil war.

Mr. Assange, through Wikileaks, exposed (and embarrassed) the US government by releasing State Department cables detailing the ways in which the US and its proxies operated under cloak of darkness and secrecy. He exposed the US backing of repressive dictatorships around the world and US-backed attempts to limit dissent.

Mr. Assad has committed crimes against humanity. He should be in the dock at the International Criminal Court answering charges for murder, torture and gross human rights abuses. Despite his actions, Mr. Assad is being promised safe passage out of the country in order to facilitate an end to the civil war.

Mr. Assange faces a complaint in Sweden that he sexually assaulted two women. Not charged, mind you. He has offered to answer any questions Swedish authorities have for him - provided that either the interview take place in the Ecuadorean embassy or that Sweden provide assurances that they won't extradite him to the United States to face a possible indictment alleging he committed treason.

Mr. Cameron is very much continuing the legacy of former Prime Minister Tony Blair who willingly allowed himself to be prostituted by the United States. Whatever Washington wanted from him, Mr. Blair was only too happy to do. The Obama administration has decided that it is time for Mr. Assad to step aside (while leaving brutal dictators in charge in both Saudi Arabia and Bahrain).

The US Government has also decided that the documents published by Wikileaks have so hindered the government's ability to pull the strings around the world, that Mr. Assange must be punished. Let us not forget that this has nothing to do with revealing state secrets - the White House has done that routinely over the years when it serves the President's purposes - it has to do with pulling the curtain back and exposing the Wizard.

In the meantime Mr. Cameron is okay with granting safe passage to a dictator, but not to a journalist. What's wrong with this picture?

Were they hiding under rocks?

I saw a little bit of the Presidential "debate" the other night - but I'm still mystified where they found 80 undecided voters just three weeks out from the election. Did they dig them out of the Institute for the Profoundly Clueless? Maybe they found a bunch of folks who had suffered short term memory loss (like the Guy Pearce in Memento) and couldn't remember who they were voting for.

How can anyone still be undecided at this point in the process? President Obama has been in office nearly four years. Mitt Romney has been campaigning since the beginning of last year. If anyone has paid any attention at all they know more or less where the candidates stand on most issues.

At this point you either think President Obama has done the best job possible with the hand that President Bush left him or that he's incompetent. Mitt Romney is either a really smart businessman who can translate those skills into managing the government or he's a shill for whoever's pumping big bucks into his campaign coffers.

Maybe you feel that Obama should be rewarded for working to bring back a sense of community in this country after decades of atomization. Or that Obama has sold the core constituency of the Democratic party down the river in his quest to make the party more like the GOP.

Maybe you think Romney could lead a revival of Ronald Reagan's supply-side economics. Or, perhaps, that Romney has no political convictions and will gladly flip a position if he thinks he can snare a handful of votes in Ohio or Florida.

One thing that should be clear is that neither Obama nor Romney give a rat's ass about the poor. Neither one  talks about the poor out on the campaign trail. They're both aiming for the mythical middle class.

When he took office, President Obama continued the very same policies that George W. Bush had instituted while he presided over the economic meltdown. Obama handed money to the banks hand over fist and did everything he could to protect the automobile industry. But, in all of the so-called stimulus plans President Obama introduced, not once did he allocate money for the purpose of directly hiring the unemployed. He gave it to the banks and the car companies. Instead of using the money to create public works jobs, he left his minions at the Fed to reduce interest rates to zero and pretended that it would solve the problem.

We know that it was the complete and utter deregulation of the financial sector that caused the meltdown. So what does Mr. Romney propose? You got it - even more deregulation. His investments created jobs - in China. His running mate will tell you about Mr. Romney's charitable endeavors to aid the poor - but why should the poor rely on charity? Shouldn't the government do something about it?

President Obama has done more harm to our privacy rights than any other president in the history of the Republic. He has done more to harm the rule of law in international affairs than any other president since the height of the Cold War. He inherited President Bush's program of extraordinary rendition and did his damndest to keep its darkest secrets from coming out.

Not that we should expect anything more from Mr. Romney.

Mr. Obama has proven himself to be a fraud. Mr. Romney has proven himself to be the more insincere candidate for the White House since - well, I can't remember.

Neither one of these men is fit to sit in the Oval Office. Unfortunately, one of them will be for the next four years.

Have you decided how you feel about that?

The myth of foreign oil

I've gotten just a bit tired of hearing politicians like Mitt Romney and his ilk arguing that we need to do more drilling off the Gulf Coast, the Pacific Coast and in the Arctic in the name of reducing our dependence on foreign oil.

Guess what? There is no such thing as "foreign oil."

Oil is a fungible commodity. That means oil from Alaska, oil from Venezuela, oil from West Africa and oil from the Middle East is essentially the same and can be exchanged in much the same way as money or gold. Sure, some oil has a higher sulfur content and some oil is more viscous than other oil. But, at its core, oil is oil.

With a global marketplace, the days of the Texas Railroad Commission setting the price of oil are long since gone. These days the price is set by speculators trying to guess what's going to happen in the near-term and long-term futures.

Oil companies will sell their product wherever they can make the highest rate of profit. Exxon, for instance, couldn't care less whether their oil is sold in the U.S., in Europe or in Asia. The same goes for every other oil company.

So it doesn't matter how much oil is taken out of the ground in this country. It's not staying here. It's going into the global pool of oil to be distributed according to market forces throughout the world. It's the reason why trying to prevent Iranian oil from entering the global pool will fail - how are you going to tell the difference between a barrel of oil from Iran and a barrel of oil from Nigeria?

As an example, the Trans-Canada Keystone XL pipeline being built on stolen land in East Texas isn't going to benefit anyone in this country. The idea behind the pipeline was to get the tarsand oil from Alberta down to the Gulf Coast so it could be exported overseas. So,  all of Mr. Romney's rhetoric about President Obama making us more energy dependent by blocking construction of the pipeline through the middle of the country was wholly and completely irrelevant.

If the United States really wants to become energy independent, the only way to do so is to develop energy from sources for which there is no global market. Since no one has figured out how to commoditize sunlight or wind, those are two sources which can reduce the need for petroleum or carbon products to produce electricity.

But since wind and solar generators don't have millions of dollars in cash lying around from their subsidized profit-making operations, Mr. Romney doesn't have the time, nor desire, to pay then any attention.

What right to know?

In our government's ongoing quest to keep us in the dark about all that it does in our name, government prosecutors have requested that a military judge set to preside over the trials of five Guantanamo detainees prevent those detainees from revealing the extent of the torture regime they were subjected to.

This from the same government that felt no compunction to subject these men to utter brutality in contravention of all international conventions on the treatment of prisoners. Oh, they were so proud to let the public know they were waterboarding detainees back in the day. But, when faced with detainees testifying about what they were forced to endure out come the requests for protective orders and other devices to keep the truth from being known.

So much for that crap about the truth setting you free.

Our government is supposed to be accountable to the citizenry. If we are to be proper guardians of the public trust then there should be no government secrets. We have a right to know exactly what our government does in our name. Of course it is much easier just to sit there like a lemming and pretend that everything's okay.

Prosecutors are arguing that the torture regimes constitute confidential information that should not be released to the public. To quote a legal term, that is absolute bullshit. Can you imagine any other criminal forum in which the court would deny a defendant's right to testify that he had been subjected to torture?

If the judge is anything other than a stooge for the prosecution the request should be denied. It is time the world heard exactly what Presidents Bush and Obama authorized. It is time the world heard exactly how the Bush and Obama administrations conspired to violated international law. It is time the world heard the truth about what our government did.

Presidents Bush and Obama are war criminals and should be brought to justice. There is no excuse for a (nominally) democratic government to subject people to torture. Our government is quick to condemn other governments who do the same - yet it's all right for our government to do it and then try to keep it secret.

I just hope I live to see the day that Bush and Obama are forced to stand inside the dock at the International Criminal Court and answer the charges against them.