Concerning Opinions...

"When will actors and singers realize that NOBODY cares what they think."

Don't get me wrong, I agree that there are celebrities and people in general who - at times -end up sounding like arses because of what they think they believe, but my concern is whether or not we will get to a point in our society when we just haphazardly dismiss someone's opinion (researched or otherwise) because it either doesn't matter, or they're not experts.

When will this end up being applied to anyone who is not a credentialed expert or, according to person A, just "doesn't matter"? It comes eerily close to being able to be compared with, in my opinion, the ideas of some of the more notable world leaders who have claimed "Our country first." Which, in some cases led to "Our race first," then, "My chosen people first," and so on so forth. It's a cause for concern.

In a democracy where the right to speak your mind is a foundation, and the free flow of information and ideas is paramount, it is crucial to have everyone's opinion, stupid or lucid - every opinion should count.

It is comments where (and yes, they've the right to speak their mind) the above person apparently does not measure the worth and veracity of the original commentators statements and dismisses it - that causes me to worry.

Should not all opinions, educated or otherwise, matter? It is apparent that there will be those with the intellect to realize that some opinions, through use of critical thinking and so on, are of great value, while others will fade. Those thoughts would then be looked at and possibly expanded on. We're a society that has it's filters, so to speak. In time, such thoughtless ideas will fade.

To me, the thought of people's opinions not mattering is scary. Was it not an opinion that set the original thirteen colonies on its monumental course to it's present state?

So, in conclusion, yes, sometimes people just do not think things through; however, aside from that happening, is there really any precedent that means that their opinion does not matter?

Every opinion should matter, no matter what.

~E

My reaction to the Prop 8 decision

Because it's virtually required of me.

The Supreme Court of California ruled 6–1 almost a week ago that Proposition 8 was a mere amendment and was ratified legally, and that it did not encroach upon the judicial authority and violate the separation of powers. But the Court also ruled unanimously that Proposition 8 did not apply retroactively and all same-sex couples who got married before Proposition 8's ratification must still be recognized by California.

Below, I summarize the disappointing opinion that Proposition 8 is only an amendment. After that, I give my take on the Court's ruling and its legal and moral implications.

The summary

The Court explains the test for finding whether an alteration to the California Constitution is an amendment or a revision:

In resolving the amendment/revision question, a court carefully must assess (1) the meaning and scope of the constitutional change at issue, and (2) the effect — both quantitative and qualitative — that the constitutional change will have on the basic governmental plan or framework embodied in the preexisting provisions of the California Constitution. (p. 6)

The difference between an amendment and a revision does not hinge "on the relative importance of the measure but rather upon the measure's scope" (p. 94). The Court says a change to the constitution is a revision "only if [it] embodies a constitutional change that is so far reaching and extensive that the framers of the 1849 and 1879 Constitutions would have intended that the type of change could be proposed only by a constitutional convention" (p. 94).

According to the majority opinion, "Proposition 8 does not entirely repeal or abrogate the aspect of a same-sex couple's state constitutional right of privacy and due process that was analyzed in the majority opinion in the Marriage Cases... Nor does Proposition 8 fundamentally alter the meaning and substance of state constitutional equal protection principles as articulated in that opinion" (p. 7). Rather, it

carves out a narrow and limited exception to these state constitutional rights, reserving the official designation of the term "marriage" for the union of opposite-sex couples as a matter of state constitutional law, but leaving undisturbed all of the other extremely significant substantive aspects of a same-sex couple's state constitutional right to establish an officially recognized and protected family relationship and the guarantee of equal protection of the laws. (p. 7)

In short, Proposition 8, according to the Court, is narrow in scope and does not significantly alter, let alone repeal entirely, the overall rights to privacy, due process, and equal protection that gay people and same-sex couples have. Its impact is very minor and limited. Thus, it is only an amendment.

The Court answered the charge that the people cannot use their initiative power to diminish anyone's rights, and only the revision process can do it. They said that while other state constitutions specifically restrict the people from amending certain sections or subjects, California's constitution does not. So logically, this means this restriction does not exist. "This court," they say, "would radically depart from the well-established limits of the judicial function were it to engraft such a restriction onto the Constitution in the absence of an explicit constitutional provision limiting the amendment power" (p. 11). Apparently, the fact that an alteration takes away someone's rights does not, in itself, make it a revision. In other words, all subjects are fair game, including minority rights.

The Court also addressed the similar charge in California Attorney General Jerry Brown's brief that the fundamental, "inalienable" rights in California's bill of rights cannot be abrogated by a simple majority vote — or else they're not inalienable. The Court, of course, decided Proposition 8 does not abrogate any rights. They also said the fact that the rights listed in the California Constitution are described as "inalienable" does not "signify that such rights are totally exempt from any limitation or restriction" (p. 123). This further establishes the people's broad power to amend the constitution.

My take

After letting my thoughts brew, my feelings about this case are sharply divided between what the law says and what the law ought to say. Of course, I still strongly believe same-sex couples have the right to marry just as opposite-sex couples do, and the law should recognize it. But it seems that the Court reached a fair conclusion that the law, under California's constitution, does not recognize it. The California Supreme Court's job is not to decide what is right, but rather what is legal, based on the California Constitution and the Court's own precedent. The Court explained this fact on page three of the majority opinion. Any opposition to any court ruling must clearly distinguish between the law and morality, because the two are not the same.

The Court says Proposition 8 did not "abrogate" — or in other words, does not totally repeal — the rights of gay people and same-sex couples, but simply "carved out a narrow exception" to those rights. The measure's only effect is to reserve the term "marriage" for opposite-sex couples, without likewise reserving any of marriage's associated rights for opposite-sex couples. The Court's logic here appears to be that a minority's overall rights must be abrogated for such an alteration to be a revision.

I morally disagree with this legal situation. Whether or not someone's overall rights are repealed in full is too narrow-sighted a consideration. Even a minor exception to a right that's not backed up by a compelling state interest can be too great a violation of the principle of equal protection. Access to the term "marriage" is itself a fundamental right — and a significant right, as the Court admits throughout their opinion, such as on page eight — a right that same-sex couples have under the principle of equal protection. Exempting same-sex couples exempts them from equal protection.

On the other hand, one argument seems fair to me, if only in a strictly legal sense. California's constitution does not explicitly restrict the people's ability to alter rights like other state constitutions do. The Massachusetts Constitution, Article XLVIII, Part II, Section 2, and the Mississippi Constitution, Article 15, Section 273, Subsection 5, to name the two examples the Court named, restrict the people's power to amend the constitution. But since this kind of provision is missing in California's constitution, it must not exist, as the Court reasons. The people's amendment power is very broad.

Here, I think the Court reached a fair legal conclusion, but they have also illuminated a very grave flaw in California's constitution: It does not sufficiently protect people's fundamental rights from the whim of the transient majority. In fact, there's a gaping hole where this protection should exist. The initiative power is too broad. The idea that the people cannot take away fundamental rights through a mere amendment passed by a simple majority is, in California, not legally valid — but it is still morally valid.

I have not yet looked over the entire opinion. But I presume the Court relies on precedent when it argues that "inalienable" rights aren't necessarily exempt from being diminished by a simple majority vote. If the precedent suggests this, then the Court seems to be caught in a corner. Either way, it's appalling that "inalienable" rights under the California Constitution are not in fact inalienable. This further proves that the California Constitution has a gaping hole in its protection of the rights of California's citizens.

Moreno's dissent

Though I conclude that the Court's decision is fair legally, Justice Carlos Moreno's dissent makes me doubt myself. The dissent, which starts on page 151 of the document, makes a very reasonable point that "requiring discrimination against a minority group on the basis of a suspect classification strikes at the core of the promise of equality that underlies our California Constitution" and "places at risk the state constitutional rights of all disfavored minorities" (p. 2). The dissent says that Proposition 8 "weakens the status of our state Constitution as a bulwark of fundamental rights for minorities protected from the will of the majority" (p. 2).

The principle of equal protection, as Justice Moreno says, "is not so much a discrete constitutional right as it is a basic constitutional principle that guides all legislation and compels the will of the majority to be tempered by justice" (p. 4). He concludes that equal protection is, "by its nature, inherently countermajoritarian. As a logical matter, it cannot depend on the will of the majority for its enforcement, for it is the will of the majority against which the equal protection clause is designed to protect" (p. 4).

The fact that people debate whether same-sex couples should be able to marry, even in California where they already have access to many of the same rights that come with marriage, suggests to Justice Moreno that Proposition 8 is not simply a limited exception to the constitutional guarantee of equal protection (p. 5). He then argues that describing it as such

fails to acknowledge the significance of the discrimination it requires. But even a narrow and limited exception to the promise of full equality strikes at the core of, and thus fundamentally alters, the guarantee of equal treatment that has pervaded the California Constitution since 1849. Promising equal treatment to some is fundamentally different from promising equal treatment to all. Promising treatment that is almost equal is fundamentally different from ensuring truly equal treatment. Granting a disfavored minority only some of the rights enjoyed by the majority is fundamentally different from recognizing, as a constitutional imperative, that they must be granted all of those rights. Granting same-sex couples all of the rights enjoyed by opposite-sex couples, except the right to call their " 'officially recognized, and protected family relationship' " [citation] a marriage, still denies them equal treatment. (pp. 6–7)

My ultimate feeling about Justice Moreno's dissent is that the California Constitution does not give his argument sufficient legal backing — but it should. I would like to see a constitutional amendment tailored to ratify the spirit of Justice Moreno's dissent into law.

Retroactivity

The ruling that Proposition 8 is not retroactive creates a strange, apparently contradictory legal situation. Same-sex marriage is illegal, but individual same-sex marriages are still valid.

It's similar to what existed in Iowa until April. There, a state lower court struck down Iowa's statutory ban on same-sex marriage in late August 2007, allowing same-sex couples to apply for a marriage license. But only one same-sex couple obtained their license before the decision was stayed pending an appeal. From August 2007 until April 2009, a single same-sex couple was legally married in Iowa, but no others could marry. Likewise, an estimated 18,000 same-sex couples got married in California and remain married, but no more can get married.

Their very existence makes things sticky. They are legally married and have all the same rights and benefits other married couples do, so presumably they must have the right to divorce. But they will not be able to marry again unless their would-be spouse is of the opposite sex. Also, they stand as living examples. Opponents get to see what a marriage between two men or two women looks like, and they get to see that the sky is not falling. They also represent a key right gay and lesbian people used to have in California but have no longer. Their existence may start to change people's minds and make them decide to reinstate people's right to marry whomever they choose.

— Athelwulf

A Constitution wife is stalking me

In case you, the lovely reader, were not aware, I'm on Twitter. It can be a fun site sometimes. If you have a Twitter account and would like to follow me — or if you like reading my blog posts so much that you want to create a Twitter account just so you can have me in periodic, bite-sized chunks — it's greatly appreciated. While you're at it, be sure to follow Elindelwolf too.

Now, I'm not posting this just to promote myself. Something funny happened on Twitter. First, a bit if a prelude:

You, dear reader, may or may not be aware of the Constitution Party. Superficially, it sounds like a nice party, right? The Constitution? Why, I support the Constitution! Here's a statement taken from their website, quoted in pieces:

The Democrats and Republicans have squandered the Founders' legacy of liberty and justice under the Constitution.

Yes! I'm tired of our moldy duopoly too.

Countless government officials in the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of government ignore their oath to uphold and defend the Constitution.

Don't I know it.

Join the Constitution Party in its work to restore our government to its Constitutional limits. . .

Alright! Sign me up!

. . . and our law to its Biblical foundations.

Wait, what?

That's right. They think the source of our government is the Bible, and they think our laws should more closely resemble what the Bible says. Never mind the idea that this God the Bible talks so much about gives humans a choice to follow him and abide by his laws. No sir, the Constitution Party wants to force the Christian religion on those who don't practice it. In other words, they "love liberty." And they have a conservative interpretation of the Bible too. Why does it seems like only conservatives want to do this? It's funny how people can bemoan tyranny — but in the conservatives' case, only left-wing tyranny, whether real or imagined — while they themselves wish to be tyrants.

Now that you are acquainted with the Constitution Party, here's the punchline: The Arizona Constitution Party chairman's wife is following me on Twitter. The chairman is Mark Hubler, as you can see on this page. His wife is Eileen Hubler.

Nothing on my Twitter profile suggests that I would sympathize with the Constitution Party. My short bio says, "Your favorite rural Oregon liberal." My tweets all betray my political viewpoints. My profile links to this blog, where I have posted at length on such "liberal" topics as the Iraq War, the conviction of war criminals, and LGBT rights.

But if she wants to subject herself to the truth, then I welcome her.

— Athelwulf

Update, May 25, 2:05 AM

A few days ago — I forget exactly when — Hubler stopped following me. I think a few of my tweets (such as this one) scared her off. Oh well.

Rest in peace, Dom DeLuise

LOS ANGELES, California (CNN) -- Dom DeLuise, who spiced up such movies as "Blazing Saddles," "Silent Movie" and "The Cannonball Run" with his manic delivery and roly-poly persona, has died, his son's publicist told CNN.

Publicist Jay Schwartz did not disclose the cause of death, but DeLuise, 75, had been battling cancer for more than a year.

DeLuise was surrounded by family when he died in a Santa Monica, California, hospital Monday night, son Michael DeLuise told CNN affiliate KTLA-TV. (The article.)

Man, was he a funny and talented actor. May he rest in peace forever; I loved him in all the Mel Brooks movies. I mean, come on: "Treaaasure bath!!!" God, thats hilarious!

Rest in peace Mr. DeLuise, they need more actors/comedians like you.

~Elindelwolf

Congratulations, Vermont!

Vermont has now joined Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Iowa in legalizing same-sex marriage. It is the second state whose legislature passed a bill to legalize it (after California in 2005 and 2007), and the first state in which such a bill has become law. Therefore, it is the first state to legalize same-sex marriage without a court order. The vote in the House was 100–49, overriding the veto by only a hair! One less yea vote and the veto override would have failed. Sources inform me that this is only the seventh veto override out of 134 vetoes by a Vermont governor since the 1830s. Most excellent.

Marriage licenses can be obtained by same-sex couples starting September 1. Civil unions will be available until this date. Congratulations, Vermont!

Queer eyes on Vermont (and more)

Please excuse the lame pun.

Unless you live under a rock, you have probably heard that on the 23rd, the Vermont State Senate passed S. 115, a bill that would legalize same-sex marriage in Vermont. Of 30 members, 26 voted yea. That is 86.6% yea to 13.3% nay. Since the party make-up is 23 Democrats to 7 Republicans, at least three Republicans voted yea.

The bill is now in the House, and it's expected to pass there too. With 150 members, the party make-up is 96 Democrats and 5 Progressives (101 together), 47 Republicans, and 2 independents.

But there's some potential trouble. On the 25th, Jim Douglas, Vermont's Republican governor, announced he would veto the bill if it reaches his desk. This means that, if same-sex marriage is to be legal in Vermont, both chambers of the Vermont General Assembly must override the veto with a two-thirds vote. The Senate far surpasses that requirement, but it remains to be seen how the House will vote. The pressure is on that chamber to muster 100 votes in favor of the bill.

California's legislature passed a bill in 2005, and another in 2007, to legalize same-sex marriage, but the Governator vetoed both. If Vermont's legislature can override Governor Douglas's veto, it will become the first US state to legalize same-sex marriage through the legislative process. It will also join Massachusetts and Connecticut as one of the few states where same-sex couples are treated just like opposite-sex couples.

Meanwhile, the story also develops elsewhere in New England, but the story overall isn't very happy. On the 26th, the New Hampshire House passed a similar bill, HB 436. It initially failed 182–183, but a motion to reconsider — that is, disregard the vote and start over — was approved, and the bill passed 186–179 upon a second vote. Even if the Senate passes it, it looks like the New Hampshire General Court cannot muster enough votes to override a possible veto from Democratic Governor John Lynch, who opposes same-sex marriage. In February, the Rhode Island Senate Judiciary Committee heard testimony on S. 147 (PDF), a bill to legalize same-sex marriage in Rhode Island. And in Maine, more than 60 legislators from both parties and both chambers, about a third of the entire legislative body, scrambled to be cosponsors of a similar bill, LD 1020. In fact, the rule in the Maine legislative process that restricts the number of cosponsors a bill can have was suspended to accommodate all the cosponsors. That doesn't happen often!

New England will be very interesting to watch in the coming weeks and months. Here's hoping for the best.

— Athelwulf

Update, March 31, 10:37 PM

The Vermont House Judiciary Committee voted 8–2 in favor of the same-sex marriage bill, and the bill is scheduled for debate on the House floor Thursday and Friday. The vote would have been 9–2 if a particular Republican had not been absent. Yes, you read that right. Awesome stuff.

Update, April 2, 4:42 PM

The Vermont House is debating the bill as I write. The live stream is here, courtesy of Burlington Free Press. I also have confirmation that one Republican, Patti Komline of Dorset, did not attend the Judiciary's hearing on the bill, but would have supported the motion to approve. The vote would have been 9–2, not 8–2.

Update, April 6, 3:30 PM

The Vermont House finally passed the bill on Friday 94–52. The Senate concurred with its amendments today, and the governor "promptly vetoed" the bill, as Vermont Freedom to Marry reports. The override votes will be held in the Senate, then the House, tomorrow morning. Hopefully enough nay votes in the House can be flipped. Two yeasayers from Thursday's vote to have a third reading were absent on Friday's final vote, but one that was absent on Thursday voted yea on Friday. The subtotal is 96–52. The Burlington Free Press reports that two Democrats who voted nay on the bill plan to vote in favor of the override. The reason one gave was that she "believes Gov. Jim Douglas interfered with the legislative process by declaring last week that he would veto the bill before it went through the Legislature". This makes 98–50. House Speaker Shap Smith, who abstained from Friday's vote due to institutional custom, will vote in favor of the veto. This brings it to the tentatively predicted vote of 99–50. It's so close!

Meanwhile, on Friday, a very surprising development in the Midwest: The Iowa Supreme Court struck down the state's statutory ban on same-sex marriage. The ruling was unanimous. The author of the court's opinion is one of two justices appointed by Iowa's last Republican governor. Yes, really.

Walden: Support the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"

This is a letter to Oregon's only Republican congressman, Greg Walden. It might be a lost cause to try to convince him on this issue, but it's still worth it to put pressure on him.

Three of Oregon's five US House members have cosponsored HR 1283. I will also write a similar letter to the fifth.

— Athelwulf

Dear Congressman Walden:

I assume you seek to represent all your constituents. If this is true, then I am sure you will vote yea on H.R. 1283, the Military Readiness Enhancement Act of 2009, when it comes to a vote. This bill repeals "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," the discriminatory law that forces gay, lesbian, and bisexual Americans to serve their country in secrecy.

The United States, considered by many the land of the free, is one of very few countries whose armed forces will give a man a medal for saving another man's life, but then turn around and discharge a man for loving another man. While this policy is not an outright ban, the United States stands out as one of very few liberal democracies whose armed forces discriminate against gay, lesbian, and bisexual people. Countries whose military services do not discriminate include Canada, the United Kingdom, Israel, Japan, and every country in the European Union except Greece, whose military bars openly gay, lesbian, and bisexual people outright. Greece shares this distinction with communist China, communist Cuba, communist North Korea, and Iran.

The practical reason for repealing "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" is so the military will no longer inadvertently filter out skilled individuals. Many times, I have heard of our military discharging Arabic translators under this law. As the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network has reported, more than 12,500 men and women have been discharged under "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." Many of them were critical specialists with uncommon skills. It is as if our greatest enemy is not al-Qaeda, but rather gay, lesbian, and bisexual soldiers.

"Don't Ask, Don't Tell" is not only impractical, but also unfair. I have many good friends and some family members who are gay, lesbian, or bisexual. One man, a very dear friend, served in the army in the early Seventies while closeted. Another friend was undesirably discharged for being gay. Many people like them have bravely served America, only to face a dishonorable discharge just for their desire to spend their lives with another human being whom they love, which is not a crime in this country. And many Americans want to answer the call to service, but they are deterred by their government, which shamelessly tells them to hide who they are while others do not have to adhere to the same terms. I deplore this double standard, and I hope you do too.

The Military Readiness Enhancement Act will end dishonorable discharges for a crime that does not exist, thus retaining and attracting many skilled military professionals. It will also end the double standard of forcing gay, lesbian, and bisexual soldiers — but not straight ones — to remain silent about their sexuality. Congressmen Blumenauer, DeFazio, and Wu, as well as 123 more of your House colleagues, support this bill. I urge you to join them.

Enclosed for your convenience is a copy of 10 U.S.C. § 654, the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" statute. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Respectfully yours,

[valediction withheld]

"Goodbye, Colorado" - Rocky Mountain News

After nearly 150 years in business, the Rocky Mountain News published its final edition Friday, the victim of a bad economy and the Internet generation.
Rocky Mountain News Editor John Temple consoles staff photographer Judy DeHaas on Thursday in the newsroom.

Rocky Mountain News Editor John Temple consoles staff photographer Judy DeHaas on Thursday in the newsroom.

The final front-page headline simply says: "Goodbye, Colorado."

"It is with great sadness that we say goodbye to you today. Our time chronicling the life of Denver and Colorado, the nation and the world, is over."

It's unfortunate, but somewhat inevitable that this happened. I've been reading them (online) for a number of years and always liked their stuff. They offered integrity driven accounts by their credible journalists. I wish all of them who worked there the best, and hope that the Denver Post can pick up the slack.


~Elindelwolf

Holder, America, and Cowards

Disclaimer: What I'm going to say/agree with is arguably provocative; deal with it. If you don't like it, then don't bother reading it. Thanks.

***

Let's face it America, for the most part, we are a nation of cowards.

How many people can you say would stick to their guns/stand up for what they believe in, even when the norm dictates otherwise? How many people parrot other individual's beliefs - failing to actually formulate their own?

A great deal of people do just that; Look at political correctness - while its intentions are noble I'm sure, what does it serve?

Now don't get me wrong. I'm all for being polite and having manners and all that stuff; However, with freedom of speech comes the obligation (and one could argue requirement ) to deal with others - albeit ignorant and inflammatory - statements.

It's the like the frosting on a cake for some people - you want the cake, but don't like the frosting - still, it comes with the cake.

~E

Refreshing Candor

Disclaimer: My remarks may seem biased, but I assure you that I have attempted to be the furthest from it that I can be.

***

I have to say that despite my disgust over Mr. Obama not catching Daschle's and other Cabinet nominees' mistakes in his vetting - to hear an authority figure, not just the President apologize...it almost sends a shiver down my spine. We had a prior administration that rarely if ever apologized for their mistakes, and went down the same tried path.

So, thank you Mr. President - your candor is refreshing, as is your taking responsibility. I hope you truly mean it.

~Elindelwolf

We tortured

It's a matter of public record and not open for interpretation. This, I think, is about as official as official can be: The very federal government official who decides if any given Guantánamo Bay detainee will be tried for what he's charged for, a current senior Bush administration official, says the United States government has tortured.

Susan Crawford is the convening authority of the Guantánamo military commissions, a Robert Gates appointee. She was formerly appointed by Bush 41 to be inspector general for the Department of Defense under Cheney's tenure as its secretary. Before that, she was appointed by Reagan to be general counsel for the Department of the Army. She's not what anyone would consider a lefty dove.

The Washington Post published today Bob Woodward's interview with Crawford. In that interview, she said, "We tortured Qahtani." This Qahtani guy, for those who don't know, is Mohamed al-Kahtani, the so-called "20th hijacker," a terrorist who might have personally participated in 9/11 had he not been denied entry into the US in August 2001 by an INS inspector at Orlando International Airport.

Notice that Crawford didn't say we "enhanced-interrogation-techniqued" Kahtani. She said we tortured him. That is the very word she used, "tortured." She elaborates, "His treatment met the legal definition of torture. And that's why I did not refer the case [for prosecution]." Here's more from The Washington Post (emphasis added):

Crawford, 61, said the combination of the interrogation techniques, their duration and the impact on Qahtani's health led to her conclusion. "The techniques they used were all authorized, but the manner in which they applied them was overly aggressive and too persistent. . . . You think of torture, you think of some horrendous physical act done to an individual. This was not any one particular act; this was just a combination of things that had a medical impact on him, that hurt his health. It was abusive and uncalled for. And coercive. Clearly coercive. It was that medical impact that pushed me over the edge" to call it torture, she said.

Further details about what happened to Kahtani are in The Washington Post's article.

This should end all doubt that might remain that the Bush administration has tortured detainees at Guantánamo. Since this fact is clearly established, we can now correctly state that the Bush administration has committed a war crime, perhaps many instances of this war crime. One is too many, really.

As everyone hopefully knows, evidence obtained through torture is inadmissible in a court of law. This means that even if you have evidence that suggests a person is responsible for a grave, despicable act against innocent Americans, if you obtained that evidence using torture, the judge cannot consider it. Period. The reason is that torture too often gets you unreliable information. And the idea that torture is simply disgustingly wrong, of course, goes without saying.

If officials in the Bush administration are using torture to gather evidence against detainees under the pretense of preventing terrorist attacks against us and prosecuting guilty parties, and evidence obtained in such a way is not legally admissible in a court of law, then it stands to reason that the Bush administration is utterly incapable of doing what it promised it would do. And I'd say that's certainly an understatement. Any claim that the Bush administration did a good job dealing with terrorism, or any variation on that claim, ought to seem obviously flawed to anyone with a modicum of reasoning skills.

The conclusion is that we should convict someone of war crimes. Anyone who authorized or enabled this treatment of Kahtani must be convicted. The interrogators should be convicted. Whoever came up with this whole program, knowingly including torture in the program, should be convicted. I want to see people punished for blundering the job of protecting us against terrorist attacks and committing such grave offenses against other human beings on my behalf in the name of security and the "war on terrorism."

Let this soak in.