From WaPo:
"From 2003 to 2006, the Bush administration quietly tried to relax the draft language of a treaty meant to bar and punish "enforced disappearances" so that those overseeing the CIA's secret prison system would not be criminally prosecuted under its provisions, according to former officials and hundreds of pages of documents recently declassified by the State Department.
The aim of the global treaty, long supported by the United States, was to end official kidnappings, detentions and killings like those that plagued Latin America in the 1970s and 1980s, and that allegedly still occur in Russia, China, Iran, Colombia, Sri Lanka and elsewhere. But the documents suggest that initial U.S. support for the negotiations collided head-on with the then-undisclosed goal of seizing suspected terrorists anywhere in the world for questioning by CIA interrogators or indefinite detention by the U.S. military at foreign sites.
Instead of embracing a far-reaching ban on arrests, detentions and abductions of people without disclosing their fate or whereabouts or ensuring "the protection of the law," the United States pressed in 2004 for a more limited prohibition on intentionally placing detainees outside legal protections for "a prolonged period of time." At the time, the CIA was secretly holding about a dozen prisoners."
While the birthers, racists, and glue-sniffers in general are busy screaming Commie and demanding resignations from people who broke no law, they have entirely supported the criminal enterprise known as the Bush Cheney cabal. Wonder why that is?
What is more dangerous, a person who briefly flirted with Marxism in college or a group of people in positions of government who conspired not only to violate Article 6 of the US Constitution, but the treaties we are signatories onto? Is a word (Marxism) more dangerous than an actual crime? It is, for people whose Christianity has nothing to do with the bible; whose compassion has nothing to do with those less fortunate; whose fight for "life" has nothing to do with the already living, breathing and walking whatsoever. No, for these people, it is the map of the country they defend, not the actual country. It is the flag they defend, not the Constitution. It is pointless, costly wars that they defend, but not the soldiers who return from them.
I think it is clear that people who continue to defend and protect those involved in torture, kidnappings, and indefinite detention should be called out for what they are on a regular basis: collaborators. They need to be labeled openly and shamed often.
As for members of the Bush-Cheney cabal who engaged in these crimes, there is no question what needs to be done and if we - the US - won't do it, then another country will - to our everlasting shame. Prosecution is the only option for those who hold the Constitution to be the law of the land - which it is, and for those who love their country enough to not want such a legacy attached to it.
Next time Michelle Malkin cries over the human rights in abuses in Iran, she better be ready for a serious fight - pen to pen. I am sick of these soulless, brainless, paid shills defending the indefensible in their own country while screaming in horror about it when it occurs in another nation.
