The Huffington Post published an interview between Kathleen Wells and Ron Paul concerning foreign policy.  You can find the whole thing here.  The comments are full of things already said, but the article has some fun highlights of Dr. No clashing with the traditional Huffpo bias:

Kathleen Wells: What are your thoughts on President Obama’s decision to release the torture memos?

Congressman Ron Paul: I think he is purely political. I think he has backed down on what he said. He was elected for change and it is the same old stuff and he is as much of a neo-con now as Bush was with this issue and other issues. The war has been expanded. He continues with not closing down Guantanamo. There is probably, for as most [sic] as we can tell, there is still secret rendition going on. We just moved some of this process overseas. We are not going to be aware of it in detail.

Kathleen Wells: You feel President Obama is a neo-con like Bush? You don’t see a distinction between the two administrations?

Congressman Ron Paul: The tone is different, but the policies don’t change. We are spreading the war. The war is expanding. We are not prosecuting those that committed torture. Guantanamo is not going to be closed down. So, no, I don’t see [a distinction between Bush and Obama].

He [Obama] increased the DOD [Department of Defense] budget. We surely could spend some of that money at home where people are really hurting. But we increased the DOD budget, I think, by 10-percent. I can’t see any significant change in foreign policy. The pretense in leaving Iraq was a mild pretense and I’m predicting that’s not going to happen. There are going to be troops in Iraq throughout this administration, I’m convinced.

Kathleen Wells: Why are you convinced?

Congressman Ron Paul: Because I don’t think anyone wants to face the difficulties that might ensue. The problems came from us being there and when we leave, the problems will probably accelerate a bit. And then they will blame leaving for [causing] the problems and, yet, the real problem was going in. So, I think the international pressure that we get from various allies will be so great that we won’t leave. And just don’t expect the policies to change.

It just goes along with what I have said for years. Foreign policy does not change with Republicans or Democrats. Overall, there is very little policy that changes. There is a lot of debate and a lot of rhetoric, but things continue as they do.

When Clinton was in, the Republicans condemned his Somalia problem. Bush said he wasn’t going to be a nation builder and a policeman of the world and he gets in and he is worse. Obama says Bush is terrible and gets in and all of a sudden, guess who is cheering Obama on right now? People like [Senator] Lindsay Graham. The real hawks of the Republican Party are sorta enjoying this right now. They figure they are winning these fights.

Kathleen Wells: Elaborate on why you believe there is no difference between the Obama Administration and the Bush Administration?

Congressmen Ron Paul: In style, they are different. The tone is different and I think there is a benefit to that. But his policies don’t change. Ultimately, policies win out. The strong statements against Iran are still there. And, right now, going through our committee (the Congressional International Relations Committee/the Foreign Affairs Committee), stronger sanctions will be put on Iran – just looking for another fight. And we have taken the position we will not allow them to proceed on any nuclear testing, even if it is within the law and even if it is done peacefully. We are not going to permit that. So no, that position hasn’t changed.

Like I said before, the war is not winding down in Iraq. The violence is increasing. And war is expanding into Afghanistan, sending more troops there. And now we are taking on Pakistan. And, actually, the whole Pakistan thing is just a reflection of a very, very flawed foreign policy of ours. Because we chase the Taliban around and some go into Pakistan and we urge the public government there to do this and that, we are just working very hard to have another war in Pakistan.

The NYTimes reports,

President Obama told human rights advocates at the White House on Wednesday that he was mulling the need for a “preventive detention” system that would establish a legal basis for the United States to incarcerate terrorism suspects who are deemed a threat to national security but cannot be tried, two participants in the private session said.

[snip]

Human rights advocates are growing deeply uneasy with Mr. Obama’s stance on these issues, especially his recent move to block the release of photographs showing abuse of detainees, and his announcement that he is willing to try terrorism suspects in military commissions — a concept he criticized bitterly as a presidential candidate.

The two participants, outsiders who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the session was intended to be off the record, said they left the meeting dismayed.

They said Mr. Obama told them he was thinking about “the long game” — how to establish a legal system that would endure for future presidents. He raised the issue of preventive detention himself, but made clear that he had not made a decision on it. Several senior White House officials did not respond to requests for comment on the outsiders’ accounts.

“He was almost ruminating over the need for statutory change to the laws so that we can deal with individuals who we can’t charge and detain,” one participant said. “We’ve known this is on the horizon for many years, but we were able to hold it off with George Bush. The idea that we might find ourselves fighting with the Obama administration over these powers is really stunning.”

“History doesn’t repeat, but it does rhyme” — Mark Twain.

http://townhall.com/…

Civil libertarians, including prominent conservatives like Rep. Ron Paul and former Rep. Bob Barr, have made loud objections to the U.S. government’s efforts to counteract terrorism in the wake of 9-11. In particular, they have protested the detainment and interrogation methods used on suspected terrorists at Gitmo, wiretapping, and other methods of surveillance. They don’t represent the majority of Americans, many who privately say anyone involved with terrorism should be executed. They don’t dare say this publicly since the law has evolved over time to provide those accused of crimes certain privileges, labeling them “rights.” While some of these “rights” make sense in order to prevent the government from falsely imprisoning innocent people, at some point there is a line where these specified additional “rights” for suspected terrorists begin to infringe upon the rights of innocent Americans.

So even though we all know the Guantanamo detainees have been aiding and abetting terrorists whose sole goal in life is to kill U.S. citizens, we pretend that the U.S. Constitution includes all these additional “rights” for terrorists and their aiders and abettors, ultimately enabling them to continue their attacks upon U.S. citizens.

Many of the anti-terrorism methods being attacked by civil libertarians involve new methods and areas of communication never addressed nor contemplated by the Constitution or Congress. Claims that our freedoms are gradually being eroded by the government’s attempts to deal with terrorism are inaccurate since these new areas had never been established as constitutional rights for those accused of terrorist activity.

The Constitution doesn’t establish rights. It is a negative rights document. The Bill of Rights merely explicitly points out particular things Congress can not do. Madison and others thought the original 12 amendments were pointless due to the nature of the Constitution. Negatives rights and enumerated powers.

Congress has passed laws attempting to reconcile changing technologies with the Fourth Amendment’s vague general protection against “unreasonable” searches and seizures – emphasis on unreasonable.

Changes in technology are of little or no matter. “Unreasonable”… without reason. If you want to search and/or seize the 4th Amendment explains how to legally do so. It clearly includes “and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

Probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. If these “terrorists” are found to have done harm or clearly intended harm on another then by all means. However, you can’t go and justify the search or seizure after the fact. And note how she calls these people terrorists outright rather then accused terrorists. I don’t even think accused terrorist is appropriate as there has been no evidence they actually performed any act of terrorism. Likely they are wannabe terrorists at best. Which in and of itself is no crime. Not a real crime but one of thought.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/…

Richard Sanders, a justice on the Washington State Supreme Court, has never been one to shy from controversy or blunt language. And last week, as he sat at a Federalist Society dinner and listened to Attorney General Michael Mukasey, Sanders reached his tipping point.

After listening to Mukasey defend the Bush administration’s counterterrorism policies — its detainment practices at Guantánamo Bay, its interpretation of the Geneva Conventions’ reach — Sanders stood and shouted “Tyrant! You are a tyrant!”

“Frankly, everybody in the room was applauding or sometimes laughing, and I thought, ‘I’ve got to stand up and say something.’ And I did,” Sanders told The Seattle Times Tuesday. “I stood up and said, ‘Tyrant,’ then I sat down again, then I left.”

It wasn’t until the next morning — when he turned on the TV in his hotel room — that Sanders learned what happened after he departed: Mukasey, later in his speech, began slurring his words, slumped at the podium and passed out. He was taken to a hospital, where he was released the next day after getting a clean bill of health.

“I couldn’t believe it,” Sanders said of the news that Mukasey had fainted.

Mukasey’s collapse occurred well after Sanders shouted at him, and the two events appear unrelated.

I’d much prefer this being splattered all over the cable news stations.

www.nytimes.com

Some people look at Coney Island and see a paradise of carefree entertainment. Others see a cesspool of gritty squalor. Few are those who gaze upon its shrieking kids, grizzled wanderers and fast-talking flimflam artists and see an opportunity for engaged political discourse.

But it was just that improbable impulse that drove the artist Steve Powers to open the new “Waterboard Thrill Ride” on West 12th Street, just off Surf Avenue, in the shadow of the Cyclone and a mere corn dog’s throw from Nathan’s.

It looks at first like any other shuttered storefront near the boardwalk: some garish lettering and a cartoonish invitation to a delight or a scam — in this case there’s SpongeBob SquarePants saying, “It don’t Gitmo better!”

If you climb up a few cinderblock steps to the small window, you can look through the bars at a scene meant to invoke a Guantánamo Bay interrogation. A lifesize figure in a dark sweatshirt, the hood drawn low over his face, leans over another figure in an orange jumpsuit, his face covered by a towel and his body strapped down on a tilted surface.

In one of the blogs I read, someone responded to this by typing: “If you don’t like it, don’t pay the $1.”

Easier said than done. The world we live in isn’t a boardwalk attraction that we can casually opt out of. While there’s no threat of violence for passing up Coney Island’s Waterboard Thrill Ride, there’s a gang of armed thugs that will come to my home, pull me away from my family and throw me in jail if I choose not to participate in the current system that helps fund the War in Iraq and the goings on at Guantánamo Bay.

I think Powers created a fantastic reveal of what the tax payer’s dollar gets them. It’s unfortunate that most of the viewers, both visually and vocally upset with the display, missed the message and connection completely. Yes, Power’s crude display is disturbing, barbaric, and tasteless–and so is his inspiration.

Sometimes truth is stranger than fiction.

http://www.nytimes.com/…

The military trainers who came to Guantánamo Bay in December 2002 based an entire interrogation class on a chart showing the effects of “coercive management techniques” for possible use on prisoners, including “sleep deprivation,” “prolonged constraint,” and “exposure.”

What the trainers did not say, and may not have known, was that their chart had been copied verbatim from a 1957 Air Force study of Chinese Communist techniques used during the Korean War to obtain confessions, many of them false, from American prisoners.

The recycled chart is the latest and most vivid evidence of the way Communist interrogation methods that the United States long described as torture became the basis for interrogations both by the military at the base at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, and by the Central Intelligence Agency.

The only change made in the chart presented at Guantánamo was to drop its original title: “Communist Coercive Methods for Eliciting Individual Compliance.”

Reduce, reuse, recycle.