As President Obama tries to steer something approaching a "middle course" on investigating the criminal actions of the Bush administration, the rhetoric used can be informative. Neither the president nor his spokespeople are using the word "torture" to describe the torture techniques used. Instead, they prefer "harsh interrogation."

The problem is that "harsh interrogation" connotes something perfectly legal, while it seems obvious that the methods used were not, by any legitimate stretch of the imagination, legal. Of course, Bush administration officials tried to rationalize the methods, and Dick Cheney is all over Fox TV saying that they were at least effective and kept America safe (meaning the ends justified the means). But we need a new phrase, one that paints a more accurate picture.

Enter the New York Times.  read more »

Late Friday night, the Senate passed S.1927, giving Bush, et. al. the power to intercept communications with someone "reasonably believed" to be outside the U.S. 16 Democrats joined Joe Lieberman and 43 Republicans in giving away our freedom. Russ Feingold was quoted in the NY Times as saying that it "goes far, far beyond" the NSA spying program.

Last night, again in the middle of the night, over 40 House Democrats also showed themselves to be supporters of tyranny by voting to pass this bill.

Even in the debate it was obvious that those who support this bill are un-American liars. Heather Wilson (R-NM), for example, claimed that the bill would sunset after six months, when it clearly states: "Notwithstanding any other law, the Director of National Intelligence and the Attorney General, may for periods of up to one year authorize the acquisition of foreign intelligence information concerning persons reasonably believed to be outside the United States..." (emphasis mine).  read more »