“TORTURE IS AS TORTURE DOES”

Or, a Fervent Lament About What Yoo Should Repent

Morally impaired professor John Yoo. Now there is a man this country should sue.
May his days writing White House memos and briefs bring him to trial and eternal grief.

This is the lawyer who “Torture” he said,“is hard to define and all in your head.
Besides with all the time bombs a ticking, mustn’t we give those suspects a kicking?”

True, dogs, sticks and stones might break a few captive bones,
But, near drowning it seems, shouldn’t even be counted as mean.

So what if it risks all our soldiers and troops. And, makes us liars and hypocrites to boot.
Jack Bauer did it and look at his result. To not follow his lead would be a big insult.

Jailing forever without charge, counsel or trial? As to any Amendments, John Yoo’s in denial.
“The Constitution is quaint and really quite dead.” Or, so he proclaimed and deliberately mislead.

May his words of malevolent and ignorant intent result someday soon in his prompt disbarment.
A thank you from Bush was his apparent sole goal. For that he sold out his profession and soul.

Convict Bush as well for his unlawful bend since he swore a solemn oath the Constitution he would defend.
But, try Yoo first cause he should’ve known better. Aren’t attorneys supposed to follow the law to the letter?

Nazi lawyers and judges caught Nuremberg ire. That too was for fulfilling their boss’s desire.
Unless for this there’s some stiff punishment, others will assume rules are meant to be bent.

FISA WEATHER FRIENDS

Attention Democrat Party Congressional Leaders and other Fair Weather Friends of the Constitution:

Just what the %&*@#% do you think you are doing? FISA, a law only dictators could love, violates a whole bunch of unambiguous prohibitions in the Constitution designed for the express purpose of preventing dictatorships. Why then are you cowards giving Bush and his Neocon henchmen, dictator wannabes one and all, exactly what they want? The so-called “improvements” you are helping pass not only violate 200 year old liberties, they wipe out what was clear grounds for impeachment and will let some egregious criminals in the Administration go free to continue their harm without penalty.

You could have defeated the entire concept merely by doing nothing and letting the odious law expire. Doing nothing is something you have proven so good at over the last several years. Why didn’t you continue doing nothing for just once in your increasingly fruitless careers instead of becoming co-conspirators in the dismantlement of everything this country once stood for?

“THERE WE GO AGAIN”

Or, Challenging the Assumption We Cannot Get Out of Iraq

Even many Bush supporters now admit the war was fought on false premises and hugely damaged us. Their sole remaining argument in favor of staying seems to be essentially an assertion that "We broke it. So, we bought it." They repeat over and over, almost as a mantra, that while it is unquestionably, horrifyingly expensive to stay there, we must do so for probably decades because somehow it would be more expensive to get out.

What is missing entirely from the discussion is how they come to such an assumption. We desperately need to have some genuine research and intelligent debate regarding that conclusion. Let’s do what educated, thoughtful adults are supposed to do - a methodical cost/benefit analysis, one based on the best attainable figures and data.

In other words, let's finally stop relying on ASSUMPTIONS because assumptions are precisely what got us into this ego driven misadventure in the first place.

"TRULY TREACHEROUS TRAITORS"

Or, Why Perhaps Some of the Democrats in Power are Traitors Too

It’s an ugly word, not one to be bandied about lightly. But, if “traitor” is defined as those who violate their oath of office to defend the Constitution (which is sworn to by every elected member of Congress and every senior appointed member of the Executive Branch), then (except for maybe Ron Paul) most of those in the White House, Senate and House wearing a scarlet “R” engraved on their solid gold cufflinks are traitors. Certainly so if we go to war with Iran without a formal declaration of war as required by the Constitution, if they vote to dismantle the Constitutional protections against warrantless searches, if they have authorized unspeakable atrocities on interrogation victims such simulated drowning or if they enact any of the inanities our Generalisimo in the flight suit seems to come up with almost daily. If those actions are not High Crimes or at least misdemeanors deserving of impeachment, then what are?

The problem is that far too large a number of those sporting a blue “D” painted on their silver platted belt buckles who took the very same oath are committing the very same High Crimes.

The Republican office holders in charge since 2000 might be excused to a certain extent given their rather obvious insanity or at least mental defectiveness. They might even qualify as disabled under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Suffering as they apparently do from minimal intelligence, uncurious ignorance, sociopathic arrogance, perceived entitlement and ingrained, untamable aggression, they seem incapable of learning or obeying the law or even acting morally. We can pity them their disfunctionalities while simultaneously still fearing the unimaginable disasters they will no doubt perpetrate if left unguarded and unchecked. In some ways, they are not so different from fanged predators in the wild. Interesting to study, but dangerous when allowed to roam loose in a civilized society.

Not so the Democrats currently calling themselves leaders. They should know better. Consequently, they are not only traitors to their oath of office when they vote for tortures on suspicion, spying on everyone even without suspicion, and wars without declaration, they are the worst kind of traitor. Those who, fully knowing better, do it anyway out of timidity, laziness, personal gain or comfort deserve the universal condemnation of history.

It is not enough to assert as they do that the public allegedly “wants” supposed “security” over the basic freedoms the Constitution insists are necessary to a moral democracy whether the public values it or not. What shred of verifiable proof is there that such incremental surrenders of civil rights actually insure the alleged security? For instance, if the right to torture and spy is so purportedly effective, the proof should be available. I am not talking about the unsupported assertions of those who have been known to lie and stand to benefit from the dictatorial powers being usurped. I am talking about hard, quantifiable, court level proof that it actually works, especially since there is solid empirical evidence to the contrary. How do the Democrats allowing it explain that away. How do they explain away the history of our forefathers who managed to have both freedom and collective security (albeit hard fought) against far, far, far more numerous and worrisome foes? Where is the cost/benefit analysis showing that the short term gains (if any) from such insidious activities are greater than the inevitable long term cost in lives, treasury, good will, trust, and tyranny, not to mention the moral high ground which used to provide so much for us? The Democrats who are letting this happen to us should be required to explain how it is more worth while to do such things when our track record strong suggests the very countries we are now demonizing will likely be favored nation trading partners pampered with state visits and praise in the future as the Republicans have now flip flopped on Vietnam and China and until lately Russia?

Besides, if the Democrats allow the dissipation of the protections granted by the Constitution in order to curry a few votes to remain in office, what makes them think they will remain in office? Either the voters will someday come to their senses or the dictatorial power the Democrats are giving away will someday bite them in the rear. Ask the Roman Senators in the first century. Ask the members of the Russian Duma and the German Reichstag early in the last century. Strongmen with strong tactics are not the way to national security. They are the way to ultimately eliminate both freedom and personal security.