In 2003, a German businessman was kidnapped near Macedonia (or 'detained without charge and flown to another country for questioning' if you prefer) and taken to a US run prison in Afghanistan, where he was held for four months. It was a case of 'mistaken identity' that caused heated relations between Germany and the European Union on one side, and the US on the other. Condoleezza Rice apologized to Angela Merkel in private in an attempt to defuse the situation, but when Khaled al-Masri sued the United States for his wrongful detention, US courts chose not to hear his case. Why, you may ask? The US government argued that hearing the case would involve disclosure of "state secrets" so the court declined to hear the dispute. read more »

In a poll taken between September 4 and September 8, 2007, forty percent of those who identified themselves as republicans believe that Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the September 11 attacks. Forty percent. In 2007. The republican responses help push the overall total to an average of one in three Americans. One in three.

Before I make a comment about intelligence or ignorance that might be misconstrued (or post a tome showing why this view is just plain wrong), can any republicans explain to me why forty percent of those who identify themselves as republicans think Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the September 11 attacks? Anyone care to explain why one in three sharing this view is a good thing? read more »

Last week, republicans called for a bill to amend FISA, and demanded that the bill be enacted into law before Congress took its summer recess. Republicans claimed that the move was "necessitated" by a still secret FISA court ruling that declared George Bush's electronic surveillance program unconstitutional.

Think about that for a moment: A judge declares the undisclosed practice unconstitutional so instead of abandoning the practice, the response is to change the law to 'authorize' the practice deemed unconstitutional? read more »

In what can only be described as truly good news from Iraq, and against all odds, Iraq clinched the Asian Cup, beating Saudi Arabia 1-0.

As one fan put it, 'our government could not unite us, but hopefully, this team can.'

Dick Cheney George Bush just commuted Scooter Libby's prison sentence. This, at a time when George Bush is facing a constitutional showdown with the Senate over subpoenas. Hmm, does the executive branch think that it is above the law, and above its co-equal branches of government?

On the day that Scooter Libby was sentenced to two and a half years for perjury and obstruction of justice convictions, republican candidates for president held a debate. Among the questions asked was whether the candidates thought it would be appropriate for Bush to pardon Libby.

The question was straightforward:

Do you think it would be appropriate for President Bush to pardon Lewis Scooter Libby, who was sentenced today to 30 months in prison for his role in the CIA leak case? ... I just want to do a quick yes or no, and I’m going to go down the rest of the group and let everybody just tell me yes or no, would you pardon Scooter Libby?

The responses? Anything but straightforward. Read the transcript to do it justice. read more »

Oh, you have got to love this.

The Bush administration's efforts to circumvent the Geneva Conventions are well documented. If you recall, the attempts to circumvent the conventions were based on the argument that those held were "unlawful combatants", not prisoners of war, so therefore, the Geneva Conventions did not apply. By transferring detainees to Guantanamo Bay, the theory was that the United States could create an enclave where neither US domestic law nor international law applied, and the US could do at it wished without interference from pesky things like treaties and rights. The plan hit a snag when the US Supreme Court made it clear, in no uncertain terms, that the detainees did have rights in the US Court system. In the wake of the ruling, Congress, which has the power to regulate the jurisdiction of the inferior courts, then drafted and passed Bush's wet dream, the Military Commissions Act of 2006, which attempts to give the illegal treatment of detainees the appearance of fairness. Its a kangaroo court. read more »

The US has just signed a $1.5 billion dollar deal to supply Iraq, Iraq, with weapons. Just what they need- more weapons. Just what we need, more arms in a volatile region.

How much do you want to bet that in a few short years, the weapons we deliver to Iraq, along with Iraq's close ties to Iran, will be cited as a basis for further US weapons spending?

Maybe you saw this the other day. In a recent survey, four out of ten soldiers in Iraq surveyed said they would engage in torture if it would save the life of a fellow soldier. Two-thirds said they would not report a fellow soldier for mistreating civilians, and ten percent said that they had, in fact, mistreated civilians.

As I started to read the article, Julia Ward Howe's words echoed in my mind.

"Our sons shall not be taken from us to unlearn all that we have been able to teach them of charity, mercy and patience. We women of one country will be too tender of those of another country to allow our sons to be trained to injure theirs"

That is what the military does. read more »

Not long ago, Diego Maradona plied the pitch for club and country. In a memorable goal, Mardonna single-handedly dribbles through an entire team (he "does the village"). Some have called it one of the best goals in the last century.

So, does lightening strike twice?

Leave it to John Stewart to add a little perspective. Last night, John Stewart hosted Ali Allawi, author of the newly published book "The Occupation of Iraq." Stewart noted that this country was trying to come to grips with the senseless deaths of thirty-two Virginia Tech students, and contrasted that with the day in Iraq. In Iraq, over three hundred were killed in a day of bombings; random acts of violence that, like the VT shootings, damage the psyche. Only it is worse in Iraq, where the bombings happen day after day, and where bodies are dumped on the street after a night of killing. read more »

Does believing that "God is on our side" make it easier for us to inflict pain and suffering on those perceived to be our enemies? If we think God sanctions violence, are we more likely to engage in violent acts?

Those questions were posed recently by Social psychologist Brad Bushman of the University of Michigan. You may be surprised by the results.

According to the studies, the resounding answer to both questions is "yes." Researcher Brad Bushman hypothesized that "exposure to a biblical description of violence would increase aggression more than a secular description of the same violence" and that "aggression would be greater when the violence was sanctioned by God than when it was not sanctioned by God." In the study, students read a description of the beating, raping, and murder, of a woman in ancient Israel. One half of the students read a version of the story that included an assertion that God commanded the friends of the woman to take revenge. The other half read a version that did not mention God sanctioning violence. One group was told the account came from the Bible while the other was told it came from an ancient scroll. When those involved in the study were then entitled to inflict punishment upon others, those who believed that God sanctioned the punishment were the most aggressive in inflicting punishment. The results held true in Brigham Young University, where 99% of those tested said they believe in God and the Bible, and in Vrije University in Amsterdam, Holland,, where half said they believed in God and only 27% believed in the Bible. read more »