In case you don't believe me ...

I am against the illegal imprisonment and torture of suspected terrorists. If they are criminals, then they should be tried and convicted. If not, they should be freed. Period. But don't believe me. Here is attorney H. Candace Gorman on this very subject, posting to the Huffington Post:

In fact it is clear that a lot of people don't care. Many think that if we picked people up they must be guilty and heck with the Constitution. Some don't care one way or another if they are guilty or not, just keep 'em locked up. Fortunately that is not our system of justice. For those that need reminders, we in this great country are innocent until proven guilty and we must be told what we are charged with and shown the evidence against us so that we can provide a defense to the accusations. As the Supreme Court has held, twice now, these safeguards extend to the men that we have imprisoned in Guantánamo, despite the fact that our slick government tried to outsmart the constitution by keeping these men off our shores. However, much to the obvious chagrin of the republicans it doesn't work that way, they are imprisoned by us and under our complete control. Just as if they were held in a federal jail here in my home town, the Constitution applies.

Please remember this, because it's incredibly important. "The Constitution applies." Trust me, you want the Constitution to be alive and healthy, because no matter who you are, you don't know who might have a problem with you, and who might want to make your life ... difficult.

You might think I'm raising the alarm on this for no good reason, because "these people being held are terrorists", but I still contend that if they are criminals, it should be easy to try and convict them. And the sooner the better.

The power of being an ex-president

Damn. Clinton did a number on Chris Wallace. He knows this Repuglican BS is just a game to stay in power, and he pulls no punches about it, either.

Many people despise him because he lied about Monica Lewinsky. I think he may have made a serious error in judgment and should have simply come clean and dared anyone to come forward to challenge him on it. He wasn't the first president to fool around while in office. I doubt he'll be the last, either. But that aside, he understands the issues and isn't content to let others push him around.

He doesn't criticize the president, and he's wise not to, but after 6 years, is it really smart to blame him for the current situation? We all knew he tried to raise the Bin Laden issue to the new administration when he left office, and they had no interest. I remember that, at least. And all this is after Bush said that Bin Laden wasn't a priority. Methinks they might want to revisit that position.

I can't understand why we're wasting all this time and money in Iraq when the real problem is elsewhere. My opposition to the war in Iraq doesn't mean I'm soft on terrorism (as if any American could be). It means I think it was a big mistake, and was enjoined on false pretenses. What I want at this point is for those who misled us to be held accountable. Otherwise, we are stuck having to clean up the mess that we caused.

Two things, both related to torture of prisoners

I just read this story on the LATimes web site where they quote several retired admirals and generals in their opposition to the administration's position on torture.

Don't believe me, and don't believe the LATimes, either. You prefer to believe what they tell you in a TV attack ad that trumpets: "Terrorists have no rights!" For the record, I saw/heard that ad the other night right before turning off the TV and going to sleep, and the implications of its position upset me enough to keep me awake for over an hour.

But this is not about me. Let's consider.

I view terrorists as criminals that should be charged, tried, and punished. I am willing, though, to agree that they (once caught) are enemy combatants--prisoners of war. Either way, I believe there are standards and statutes that govern how they should be treated. As accused criminals, they should be charged and tried, and if found guilty, punished according to the law. For me, this excludes holding them indefinitely without recourse. And if we prefer to label them prisoners of war, then there is the Geneva Convention (to which the US has agreed) that should govern our behavior.

Terrorists have no rights, says the ad. Under which totalitarian government would we say this was true? John Wayne Gacy, a serial killer, had rights that our courts were careful to protect. Because in not granting him rights, we risked having to let him go, which we deemed a Bad Thing. But you say: these "terrorists" aren't US citizens, so we are not obligated to handle them under our law. Hmmm. Under whose law should we be obligated to handle them, if not ours? They are foreign nationals, but we have them in our custody. They have broken our laws (assuming they are guilty, which is my next point), so they really should be tried under our laws. Our laws, as I have pointed out, that have protections for even the most heinous criminal.

Terrorists have no rights. Let's talk about that label: terrorist. Under which provisions of our law is it permissible to declare someone guilty without even a trial? What about the presumption of innocence? And if the evidence is overwhelming, then a guilty conviction should be fairly easy to accomplish. Until then, I don't see how we can make the assumption that an individual is a terrorist just because someone else said they were.

On both of these points the attack ad fails. First it asserts these people have no rights (which is false) and then it asserts they are criminals (which has yet to be proven). Oh, I agree there are a large number of evil people who want to kill us, and we must protect ourselves. But at what price? There are those who are telling us that the price is the suspension of our system of law and standards of treatment when it applies to these accused criminals (prisoners of war?), but are they right? I am sure they are not.

What level of torture is acceptable?

This topic has been on my radar for some time. Why? Because my wife's (I have recently gotten married) son has joined the army. He graduates from basic training next week. Who knows? By this time next year he could be headed to ... war.

I don't really know the young man, but I can assure you my wife does. There's no doubt how she feels about the war, and about the possibility of his capture and subsequent mistreatment at the hands of "the enemy". I can't stress more urgently or in more compelling words why we should be taking the moral high road than when it comes to the current debate over what "agressive interrogation techniques" should be allowed, and which should not. Commentator Cenk Uygur may not be an appropriate conservative voice for you, but his words should still mean something.

I am going to quote his post here in its entirety.

The United States Congress is currently debating how we should treat our detainees. The question is what level of "interrogation" is acceptable. What they're really talking about is what level of torture is acceptable. But let's put aside that obvious fact for a second and take them at their word. Let's assume they are just talking about cruel and degrading treatment.

Newsweek has already reported the seven different techniques the CIA has asked permission to use (plus waterboarding, which they have already used but apparently is negotiable). These techniques include slapping detainees around, exposing them to extreme temperatures (clothing optional), throwing water down their nose until they think they're drowning, making them go through extended hours of standing and sleep deprivation. No big deal, right? The terrorists had it coming.

The only problem is that whatever we agree is acceptable interrogation tactics, we obviously have to accept can also be done to our troops when they are captured. It's one thing when we tell other countries to treat our soldiers by the Geneva Conventions when we are following them, it's another to say that when we are not. As Colin Powell tried to explain, we would have lost our moral standing.

This is the point when conservatives start screaming about how terrorists cut people's heads off. Yes, congratulations, you win -- you are slightly better than Al Qaeda. Maybe that should be the slogan of the Republicans supporting the White House position on "tougher interrogations" -- Republicans: Slightly Better than the Terrorists.

Everybody understands that some of the people who capture our soldiers will not listen to any rules. And yes, they do hideous things. I thought we were fighting them to protect our way of life, which involves not doing hideous things. But what is also true is that some of the people who capture our men and women in the future will not be unconstrained. They will do unto us as we have we have done unto others.

If they strip our soldiers naked, put them in a nearly freezing room, slap them around and nearly drown them -- we will now be saying to the world, we are okay with that. We find that to be an acceptable way to interrogate detainees.

The American people must understand what they are signing off on. If Bush and his Republican yes-men in Congress win, we will be giving the green light to anyone who captures our soldiers to humiliate, degrade and physically abuse them. Are we really okay with that?

I don't know about you, but the thought that someone would do that to a US soldier turns my stomach. To say that's acceptable seems reprehensible. Please don't tell me that the party pretending to support the troops is the one selling them out like this. These guys should never talk about the troops again. They are willing to let them suffer inhuman degradations for their political convenience.

And let's get real about what this is about. This isn't about the CIA, this is about CYA. The Bush administration is trying to cover their ass for all the terrible and illegal things they have already done. And if some of our troops have to suffer for it, it appears to be of absolutely no concern to them.

I'm not comfortable with that. And I hope to God you aren't either.

The moral basis for the fight against terrorism

I just read this brief article on the Huffington Post, then went on to read the full article on Yahoo.

I have always respected Colin Powell as an experienced statesman and honorable warrior, and as a moderate and moderating voice when it comes to discussions of war. He would make a good president, too, but he too well knows the pain of having to continually compromise his principles in the name of the Politics of Expediency. He's been there, done that, and came out of it worse for the wear. I was disappointed when he spoke to the UN and was coerced into lying about Iraq, because I felt he was too strong and honest a man to be co-opted, but obviously the powers-that-be are very, very powerful. Scary powerful.

I have said before that we absolutely must take the high road, and by that I do mean the moral high road. If we stay on a level well above our terrorist antagonizers, we ensure the support of all civilized and free people everywhere. But I'm thinking specifically of the EU and India, two friends of ours who would be emboldened and much better supporters of us and our policies if we truly represented the enlightened best interests of the Free and Democratic Peoples of the World. And I don't use these terms as euphemisms for the opposite, either. Sadly, by our actions in this "war" we are in real danger of becoming the functional equivalents to terrorists. And that would be a Bad Thing.

It appalls me that we would so blithely ignore the Geneva Convention and our own laws, claiming that the means are justified by the ends. First of all, I can't quite see what end they must have in mind in even choosing these kinds of means. Surely we want to convince the terrorists and assure the rest of the world that we are the Good Guys, and that it would be wrong (really wrong!) to destroy us. When we invade sovereign countries, kill civilians, torture our prisoners, conduct illegal, secret wiretaps against our own citizens, and in so doing completely ignore our Constitution and laws, we only cement the belief in our patent evilness. If Germany upped and started doing these things, we would smack them down so hard ... and we wouldn't be alone, either. What then gives us the right?

The world was with us when the towers fell. Everyone died a little that day. Today, five years later, we are hard-pressed to find anyone who even wants to talk to us, let alone go to the mat for us. Bush, amazingly, seems fully prepared to go it alone. He feels ordained by god (or something) to do what he's doing, and apparently sees this whole confrontation in biblical terms--as a battle for Civilization As We Know It. As my wife remarked this morning, "maybe he's the anti-christ, then." All I can think to respond is, "god, I hope not."

Because if all that Judeo-Christian mythology turns out to be true, we Americans are all in real trouble. Because we're on the wrong side.

EU concerned over too much Vista security?

I just read this in TechDirt. Curious.

In principle Microsoft should not lock users into buying more software from Microsoft by making Vista unamenable to offerings from third parties. However, if Microsoft wishes to build features into Vista (and thus "give them away" with the OS), they can do whatever they want. That's why today all browsers are free. Microsoft ensured that no company could make money selling a web browser by giving away their own. It's also worth noting that other browsers do still work with the various Microsoft OSes, as well.

I have no sympathy for any third party security company (such as Symantec, CA, or TrendMicro) that might lose revenue because users won't/might not need their products on Vista. That situation is only an impetus for those companies to innovate. If they can't innovate, then they're going to fade away and die. So what.

I also don't worry about software Microsoft might offer (i.e., sell) in addition to the basic Vista OS that competes with third parties, either, as long as Microsoft doesn't make Vista so "secure" as to only permit their product to operate. This type of "security" is simply a hidden cost of the OS, not unlike how every telco locks users into using only their voice mail, etc. You could argue that voice mail is not a necessity and because it's optional the situation is not the same, but I would disagree. You don't have to buy antivirus software. If you never went online or installed software from unknown/unsafe sources, you would not need it.

The EU is barking up the wrong tree. What they're talking about is not security, it's anti-competitive behavior, and they should be careful to label it as such. There's no way Microsoft should release an inherently less secure operating system, no matter what governmental bodies complain about it. Governments should not dictate what is "security", and what is not. The developers at Microsoft are experts whose reputations rest on making the OS as good as it can be. Politicians are only interested in getting their names in the paper. So, in other words, if Microsoft accedes to the EU and the OS is more easily hacked, who are you going to blame? Microsoft. That, and the EU still gets to hammer on them for not making the thing secure enough. It's all pure no-win situation for Microsoft, but I still would rather they closed all the security holes, and let the market decide.

Guess who is getting married?

I am. Tomorrow (Saturday, 9/2). Outdoor "picnic" celebration. Closest friends and family to attend. Carmen, my soon-to-be-spouse, is presently busting butt to get everything ready. I helping, of course, but I just took a few moments to make this post. We have a bunch of food and clothing to pack (we're taking a week and staying in a cabin down in the hills of southeastern Ohio) and we still need to bake the cake for the reception tomorrow. Joy.

We'll see how long we hold out ...