WHAT IS WRONG WITH US?
The Supreme Court of The United States noted in "Rasul vs. Bush" that:

Petitioners' allegations--that, although they have engaged neither in combat nor in acts of terrorism against the United States, they have been held in Executive detention for more than two years in territory subject to the long-term, exclusive jurisdiction and control of the United States, without access to counsel and without being charged with any wrongdoing--unquestionably describe "custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States. (footnote 15)

Link to the case at: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&navby=case&vol=000&invol=03-334

www.globalsecurity.com reports that there are still at least 500 people being held at Guantanamo, ranging in age from 13 years to 98 years.

What is wrong with us? Where is the outrage? If a single US citizen was being held in this way by a foriegn country, without due process or hope of release, the reason would not matter. We would declare it a human rights violation and do whatever was necessary to effect that person's release. We would go to war if necessary to secure that person's freedom.

The jingoistic, racist way we can ignore wrongs perpetrated on foriegners that would greatly anger us if perpetrated on an American is shaming, and it is wrong. Anyone who can ignore that can never again use the rhetoric of freedom to justify anything.

OGW

CANDOR ALSO IS APPARENTLY ONLY SKIN DEEP

In a recent slate.com story at:

http://www.slate.com/id/2132705/

the slate writer talks about how Bush is trying to appear more candid in his latest speeches and interviews. The article takes pains to point out that Bush's off-the-record comments and views still do not match his public rhetoric. But, using different camera angles, talking points, etc., Bush is at least trying to present himself as more open and forthright. Hoping, I assume, to save the final shred of his credibility from destruction.

There is only one problem with this strategy that I can see. Isn't the phrase "appearance of candor" an oxymoron? I mean, the word candor means "appearing as you really are", so there is no such thing as the appearance of candor. Either one is candid or one is not. In fact, 'trying' to give the appearance of candor automatically disqualifies you from being candid. So all Bush is doing in trying to present the appearance of candor is being less candid than when he was just a liar. After all, if everyone knows he is a liar, then he is candidly a liar. But now he is trying to be a liar who doesn't look like a liar, which is the least candid state possible.

OGW