Powell makes attempt to re-gain his soul

Former secretary of state Colin L. Powell said yesterday that he decided to publicly oppose the Bush administration's proposed rules for the treatment of terrorism suspects in part because the plan would add to growing doubts about whether the United States adheres to its own moral code.


"If you just look at how we are perceived in the world and the kind of criticism we have taken over Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib and renditions," Powell said in an interview, "whether we believe it or not, people are now starting to question whether we're following our own high standards."

why does a dog lick it's balls?

Paul Krugman's been calling Bush on his lies for longer than anyone with an equivalent position (he's a prominent editorial writer at the New York Times). Courtesy of hilzoy at Obsidian Wings, here's his take on why Bush is so mad keen on the torture alternative interrogation techniques:

"A lot has been written and said about President Bush’s demand that Congress “clarify” the part of the Geneva Conventions that, in effect, outlaws the use of torture under any circumstances.
We know that the world would see this action as a U.S. repudiation of the rules that bind civilized nations. We also know that an extraordinary lineup of former military and intelligence leaders, including Colin Powell, have spoken out against the Bush plan, warning that it would further damage America’s faltering moral standing, and end up endangering U.S. troops.
But I haven’t seen much discussion of the underlying question: why is Mr. Bush so determined to engage in torture?"
...
"So why is the Bush administration so determined to torture people?
To show that it can.
The central drive of the Bush administration — more fundamental than any particular policy — has been the effort to eliminate all limits on the president’s power. Torture, I believe, appeals to the president and the vice president precisely because it’s a violation of both law and tradition. By making an illegal and immoral practice a key element of U.S. policy, they’re asserting their right to do whatever they claim is necessary.
And many of our politicians are willing to go along. The Republican majority in the House of Representatives is poised to vote in favor of the administration’s plan to, in effect, declare torture legal. Most Republican senators are equally willing to go along, although a few, to their credit, have stood with the Democrats in opposing the administration.
Mr. Bush would have us believe that the difference between him and those opposing him on this issue is that he’s willing to do what’s necessary to protect America, and they aren’t. But the record says otherwise.
The fact is that for all his talk of being a “war president,” Mr. Bush has been conspicuously unwilling to ask Americans to make sacrifices on behalf of the cause — even when, in the days after 9/11, the nation longed to be called to a higher purpose. His admirers looked at him and thought they saw Winston Churchill. But instead of offering us blood, toil, tears and sweat, he told us to go shopping and promised tax cuts.
Only now, five years after 9/11, has Mr. Bush finally found some things he wants us to sacrifice. And those things turn out to be our principles and our self-respect."

Anyone who's seen Bush speaking lately would agree with this. On Friday, he had one of the most appallingly petulant press conferences I've ever seen - anyone who opposed his right to do whatever the fuck he wants is just appeasing terrorists. Furthermore, if he doesn't get to torture people, he'll tell the CIA to stop doing any questioning of captured terrorism suspects entirely. (Greg at BD has more on this)

Someone needs to print out a copy of the Federalist Papers, bind them in a hard leather case, then use them to beat 15 kinds of clue into Bush and the rest of these evil fuckers.

Bring on the war crimes trials, I say.