Praise the Lord!  Atlantis is home safe.  Beautiful early morning touch-down, and they are home. 

This is probably an anti-climax now that the Senate and the Prez have reached a compromise on the bill in question, as I've been saying they would for the past week or so.  But, what the heck.  I wrote it about 3AM while I was having a pity party.

Right now I'm feeling very low.  People I've trusted to keep their word and act upon honor have not.  I am thinking of legal options, and it isn't fun.  I've also realized if we spend all of our time, completely involved in the events of the world, taking things personally, we end up miserable and snarky like Ann Coulter in her most recent column.  Her nasty language has caused me to evaluate my stance on things.  Let's face it, I have a blast exposing the inconsistancies of Tancredo.  He's such a great target.  As rough as I am, I seriously try not to let it get 'personal'.  If you take the verbal low-ground, what good does it do for you?  I think there are certain points a person should not cross.  And, let's face it, Coulter crosses that line almost every time she writes a paragraph.  I think this one takes the cake.

"...It turns out, the only reason McCain is demanding that prisoners like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed -- mastermind of the 9/11 attacks, the beheading of journalist Daniel Pearl and other atrocities -- be treated like Martha Stewart facing an insider trading charge is this: "It's all about the United States of America and what is going to happen to Americans who are taken prisoner in future wars."

McCain, along with Sen. Lindsey Graham and Sen. John Warner -- or, as the Times now calls him, the "courtly Virginian" ("fag-hag by proxy to Elizabeth Taylor" being beneath his dignity these days) -- want terrorists treated like Americans accused of crimes, with full access to classified information against them and a list of the undercover agents involved in their capture. Liberals' interest in protecting classified information started and ended with Valerie Plame...."

But, Coulter and any number of good RINO conservatives have ignored a tremendous amount of information...such as this piece from the Financial Times:

"...The Bush administration had to empty its secret prisons and transfer terror suspects to the military-run detention centre at Guantánamo this month in part because CIA interrogators had refused to carry out further interrogations and run the secret facilities, according to former CIA officials and people close to the programme. The former officials said the CIA interrogators’ refusal was a factor in forcing the Bush administration to act earlier than it might have wished. When Mr Bush announced the suspension of the secret prison programme in a speech before the fifth anniversary of the September 11 terror attacks, some analysts thought he was trying to gain political momentum before the November midterm congressional elections. The administration publicly explained its decision in light of the legal uncertainty surrounding permissible interrogation techniques following the June Supreme Court ruling that all terrorist suspects in detention were entitled to protection under Common Article Three of the Geneva Conventions. But the former CIA officials said Mr Bush’s hand was forced because interrogators had refused to continue their work until the legal situation was clarified because they were concerned they could be prosecuted for using illegal techniques. One intelligence source also said the CIA had refused to keep the secret prisons going. Senior officials and Mr Bush himself have come close to admitting this by saying CIA interrogators sought legal clarity. But no official has confirmed on the record how and when the secret programme actually came to an end...."

Isn't there a good-taste line one should not cross?  Is there an intellectual honesty line one should not cross?  Do we turn our backs to what is right and honorable because it doesn't fit in our pre-concieved notions of liberal or conservative?

Have I crossed it with Tancredo?  I am sincerely trying to keep to the facts, and let's face it, there are plenty of facts and there is plenty of ammunition, but I do hope I don't get nasty like this.

I also hope I don't become what she has become.

Now, back to the story at hand.  Emmitt Tyrrell has an interesting column in Townhall about how very nice and gentlemanly the detainees are. He ends his column with the following:

"...If all of the above sounds absurd, well, it is. So is the question of how we have been handling these monstrous enemy combatants. They have no sense of honor or restraint and would use any available instrument to kill us, the greater the toll the better. If aggressive interrogation has prevented further 9/11s, no practice thus far revealed is beyond the pale...."

I go back to a very simplistic comment that was one of my mother's favorites:  "Just because everyone else is doing it, must you?"  In other words, according to Coulter and Tyrrell, and Brandan Minitar in the (absurd) Opinion Journal yesterday.

"...But that was before Sen. McCain, along with Sens. Lindsey Graham and John Warner, turned a debate over rules to govern interrogations and military tribunals into a shouting match over "torturing" detainees. It's notable that, unlike Abu Ghraib, this isn't a controversy over documented abuses. Terrorists in U.S. custody have been aggressively interrogated, but no evidence has surfaced to indicate that they have been tortured. And in its proposed legislation, the White House wants to ratify, not expand, its current terrorist interrogation policies and its planned terrorist tribunals.

One story line the media have pursued involves a letter that was signed by four senior judge advocate generals supporting part of the White House's proposal. These JAG officers had previously opposed the White House's plans, so shortly after the letter was released, some in Washington insinuated that the JAGs had been browbeaten into signing the letter. White House press secretary Tony Snow wasted no time in shooting that down on Thursday, telling reporters, "As Col. Lindsey Graham, himself a JAG, will inform you, you don't coerce JAGs...."

Let's face it, few of us are even qualified to speak on this issue.  I guess Coulter is because she alleges to be an attorney.  I'm not, but I did stay in a Holiday Inn Express last month, if that helps. 

On Wed, I quoted Lindsey.  You need to go back and read his comments.  I think this whole thing has been so mis-represented by the RINOconservative press and pundits, that the whole issue has been blown compltely out of proportion, and there's a  heck of a lot of intellectually dishonesty goin' on here.  Would someone please tell me what is wrong here?  For the life of me I can't see it.  I also see a completely different story here from the sources I've quoted above.

"...There are three branches of government. The president assumed the Geneva Convention did not apply to the war on terror; humane treatment did. I agree with that.The Supreme Court says the Geneva Convention applies. So what I would like to do is give our president the tools that we need to defend ourselves, an effective CIA program, where our agents can`t be prosecuted for war crimes ill-defined; they can`t be sued and lose their houses because they`re doing their job; they can defend themselves in court if they`re ever accused of doing something, by saying, I was following orders.

We would go crazy. Unfortunately, there`s 90 percent agreement on how to do these trials after the Supreme Court ruling, but there`s a provision in the military commission model of the
president`s proposal that would allow the jury to get evidence not seen by the accused, call it classified, and the person go to jail never knowing what the jury convicted him of.

 

...I`m all for protecting classified information from being unfairly disclosed, but you cannot have a trial and call it an American trial, have a Geneva Convention trial where the person goes to jail and never saw what the jury saw. What does confrontation rights mean? It means you can tell your side of the story.

 

Pedophiles and terrorists, everybody we try deserves to know what they`re accused of so they can defend themselves. And if we do it differently now, different than we have done in 200 years, it
will come back to haunt us. Because other people will start doing this, and imagine an American in a foreign land going to the death chamber never seeing the evidence against them. It would be an outrage against our people, and we can`t legitimize that.

 

I`m getting pounded at home by some people: Why can`t you work with the president? The president wants to defend us. The CIA needs to get good information. These guys are barbarians. Why are you standing in the way? I`m not standing in the way. I share the same goals, but I`m a military lawyer, 22 years as a member of the Air Force JAG Corps.

 

When I put that uniform on, I took an obligation as a military officer. Now I have an obligation as a senator. I admire the president. I want to help him. But the biggest risk in the world is not Lindsey Graham losing an election. We can have a good country without Lindsey Graham being in the Senate. We cannot have a great nation when we start redefining who we are under the guise of redefining our law. My biggest fear is that as we try to solve these complicated legal procedures and problems, that we`re seen as taking shortcuts and we don`t redefine the law,
we redefine America in a way so we can`t win this war...."

Have you ever known anyone who was in the CIA?  I have.  I know exactly what he would have said, what side he would be on here - and it wouldn't be on the torture end of things.  This specific person, one of those nameless memorial stars never even carried a gun.  He was under cover.  His exploits were used in Bond movies.  He would not torture.  He would interrogate vigerously, but would never stoop to torture.  And believe me, he was tough enough to do it.

Have you ever known anyone who actually did something extremely untasteful like torture?  I have.  I had a high school teacher, the one who made me into the political animal I am today and encouraged me to become a writer.  He was a great man.  He also rarely drew a sober breath after a day in 1945 after he was with Patton when Dachau was liberated.  They discovered some of the human experimentation that was going on.  Mr. P. said the people involved could no longer be discribed as 'human'.  Patton had no stomach for it, so Mr. P. was the one who took a Colt .45 and ended the horrible suffering of more than a few people.  He told us what they found could no longer be discribed as human.  Patton threw up.  That evening, Mr. P. started drinking and never stopped.

One of the things that isn't discussed is what happens to the soul of those doing the 'interrogating' of detainees.  Unless they are sociopaths, they interrogaters are destroyed. 

The detainee legislation is a done deal.  They reached a decent compromise.  There was really no need for RINO conservatives to get their panties into such a wad! 

The Giuliani blog has a good piece by Bill Sammon on the Next President of the US.

I'm going to leave the latest posting on the Tancredo Watch to the Pondering American.  It's a Pope thing.  He can deal with this one.  Bottom line, TT is now advising the Pope...yep.  Square State has the best quip:  "God and Tancredo Advise Pope.  Pope Mostly Ignores Tancredo"  Okay, it's the best quip of the month, thus far!

Speaking of the PA from LA, he does a nice take on TT's Southern problem - after the football talk.  I know, he can't help it.  We all have our weaknesses.  Mine are shoes.  The PA from LA's is college football Cajun style.

I hate being fair and balanced!  For once MM is doing something of which I approve.  Boycott Citgo.  Okay, give her kudos for it.

From what I gather, there could be a scandal brewing within the Colorado GOP.  I'm not quite sure what it is, but if you are interested, it is called 'Trailhead'.  There are links from Colorado Media Matters and Colorado Confidential.

Due to my determination not to exceed a PG-13 rating here, I will simply suggest you check out The Muslim Question yourself and see why Mohammad may have been a prime target for one of those commercials about how happy Bob now is.  (I think it's Bob - well  you get the drift and I can still be ladylike)  And Perish the Thought allows me to be lazy and says just about what I wanted to say about the UN>

Crosswalk says the Dems won't impeach GWB. Okay, but what about Tancredo?

Thursday is ping day for Thursday the Thirteenth  (I finally remembered) and the Open Trackback Alliance.  When one takes into consideration I've had only 2 hrs sleep, I think I'm doing great!

I have absolutely no idea what my weekend espose is going to be.  I do know I have a political junkie test for everyone tomorrow.