Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was the mastermind behind the terrorist atrocities of Sept. 11, 2001. If U.S. intelligence operatives had spotted him in a remote area of Pakistan and killed him with a Predator missile, most people would have said: "That's justice."
I do not wish to shock you today but I am thinking of becoming a conservative. What else is a contrary fellow to do? Being a liberal was fun back when it wasn't the "in" thing, but in the Obama era more and more people are leaning liberal to the point where it has become socially acceptable. Frankly, the old liberal magic of being universally reviled has faded for me.
Top US officials, not a "few bad apples" of low rank, were behind harsh military interrogation tactics that spread from Guantanamo Bay to Afghanistan to Iraq, a new Senate report said.
The Senate Armed Services Committee's 261-page report, the fruit of its investigation into US treatment of "war on terror" detainees, is likely to stoke the ongoing debate over US techniques widely seen as torture.
No wasting time digging up the past? So much for that.
President Barack Obama said Tuesday that his attorney general would determine whether anyone from the Bush administration broke the law by crafting a legal rationale for drastic, demeaning interrogations of terror suspects. On the surface, it was a pragmatic call: Let the Justice Department lawyers check it out.
President Obama says the government will not prosecute CIA interrogators who used harsh interrogation techniques amounting to torture but left the door open to prosecuting the top Bush administration legal officials who authorized them.
Obama should drop the talk of prosecutions. If bad legal advice were a crime, the prisons would be packed. And the hubris and disdain for the American tradition and international law of those officials is disheartening, but nothing has shown any other motive than a desire to protect their country and incarcerate those who attacked it.
Not many financial companies saw an opportunity in the economic meltdown. But large insurers did, and now they're using it to lobby for a lucrative change they've sought unsuccessfully for years.
Industry estimates suggest a rather obscure change in federal law could be worth billions of dollars annually to insurers. Key lawmakers and Obama administration officials say they're open to it, and industry lobbyists see the drive to overhaul financial rules in the wake of the meltdown as their best chance in a long time to achieve it.
Liberal commentators were recently having a great, big if indignant chuckle at the expense of all those tea party yo-yos who didn't get it that President Obama had a tax cut in mind for them, and that, hey, it was conservatism that brewed the current mess.
There was a lesson in this, namely that at least some if not all pundits of leftist stripe are not infrequently outthought by people of far less pretentiousness, by men and women who understand, for starters, what's headed our way under Obama's agenda.
President Obama has been accused of being too accommodating and too willing to please in foreign affairs. But he was quite direct in announcing over the weekend that the United States, "with regret," would boycott the U.N. conference on racism in Geneva this week.
". . . our participation would have involved putting our imprimatur on something we just don't believe," the president said.
Like the U.N. commission on human rights, the most active players in the conference on racism seem to be the nations whose records least bear scrutiny.
Computer spies have repeatedly breached the Pentagon's costliest weapons program, the $300 billion Joint Strike Fighter project, The Wall Street Journal reported on Tuesday.
The newspaper quoted current and former government officials familiar with the matter as saying the intruders were able to copy and siphon data related to design and electronics systems, making it potentially easier to defend against the plane.
The spies could not access the most sensitive material, which is kept on computers that are not connected to the Internet, the paper added.
The U.S. Treasury's plan to purge toxic assets from banks' balance sheets is vulnerable to fraud and abuse and needs tough rules against conflict of interest, the government's bailout watchdog said on Tuesday.
Neil Barofsky, the special inspector general for the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), said in a report that subsidies for public-private investment partnerships (PPIP) to buy assets could expose taxpayers to higher losses without corresponding increases in the potential for profit.