Salon today has an article about another CIA ghost detainee, Abd al-Hadi al-Iraqi, kept in a secret overseas prisons for months, undisclosed to the Red Cross and finally transferred to Guantanamo.

The C.I.A. (read White House) takes the position that these detainees are unlawful combatents and not entitled to protections of the Geneva conventions.

While the U.S. military recently adopted new rules for interrogation in the wake of the Abu Ghraib torture scandal, legal and human rights experts say the CIA may be continuing to flout the law -- potentially using abusive interrogation tactics at secret prisons known as "black sites" -- at the direction of the Bush White House.

Red Cross officials confirmed to Salon that the CIA did not alert them during the months that al-Hadi was a prisoner with the agency. "We have repeatedly asked U.S. authorities to be notified and have access to all detainees, including those held by the CIA," said Simon Schorno, a spokesman for the Red Cross in Washington. "But we did not have access to Mr. al-Hadi before his transfer [to military custody]. For us, that is problematic."

More...

Joe Klein writes:

This much I can confirm: there is growing pessimism among U.S. officials about the possibility of the long-sought political deal amongst Shi'ites and Sunnis and Kurds. The current feeling is that there's no way to get the Shi'ites to relinquish any significant power.

Hoo boy! What a shocker! The Shias don't want to relinquish the power WE gave them with the drive for Purple Fingers! Um, not so much a shock. And in case people were wondering, this and this are related stories. The first:

The [Iraqi] militias hardly command the loyalty of every policeman. But police commanders warn that sectarianism has seeped thoroughly into the security apparatus, and it threatens to undermine everything McNellis and his colleagues [presumably US Army trainers] have accomplished. The professional police they desire may instead become a sharper instrument of sectarian fury.

The second, Maliki a year ago:

I cannot answer on behalf of the U.S. administration but I can tell you that from our side our forces will be ready by June 2007.

Yes ready to consolidate power and to be prepared to wage the civil war against the Sunni and other groups. You see, the simple truth is, the United States has won the war in Iraq on behalf of Iran and its Shia allies in Iraq:

I had alot of praise for Sen. Jon Tester (D-MT) when he first entered the Senate. It seems I was quite wrong about him. Here Phoenix Woman documents Tester playing the pliant fool for Republicans on Reid-Feingold:

"I am doing everything in my power as a U.S. senator to end the war in Iraq, but I will not cast any vote that I believe compromises the safety and security of our troops on the ground," Tester said, also in a prepared statement. "I have said for two years that the president needs to develop a plan to get us out of Iraq," Tester said. "The Congress and the American people have spoken; the president needs to start listening."

Reid-Feingold sets a date certain 10 months from now to NOT fund the Iraq Debacle. It does not "compromise" the troops. It is the only way Congress can protect the troops from Bush.

The American People have spoken Senator. Time for Senators like you to listen and stiop pretending you can't end the Iraq Debacle, which is the biggest threat our troops face today. Political cowardice and dishonesty is not substitute for leadership. And that is what Tester offered on Reid-Feingold. And for those wondering why I did not beat up on Baucus here, it is because I know that this is what Baucus has always been. Tester is a disappointment.

Yesterday the AP reported:

In grudging concessions to President Bush, Democrats intend to draft an Iraq war-funding bill without a timeline for the withdrawal of U.S. troops and shorn of billions of dollars in spending on domestic programs, officials said Monday.

This story was not believed by the Panglosses of the Netroots. And today, Rep. Obey gives them hope:

“There is no deal,” said Representative David R. Obey, the Wisconsin Democrat who is the chairman of the Appropriations Committee and is one of the lead negotiators over the war money.

Uh huh. Given the history of the Iraq Supplemental bill I think anyone trusting in Obey's words is just being foolish. I'll go through it on the flip.

The New York Times has the story of former Rudy Giuliani insider and head of New York's Office of Emergency Management Jerry Hauer.

In recent days, Mr. Hauer has challenged Mr. Giuliani’s recollection that he had little role as mayor in placing the city’s emergency command center at the ill-fated World Trade Center.

Mr. Hauer has also disputed the claim by the Giuliani campaign that the mayor’s wife, Judith Giuliani, had coordinated a help center for families after the attack.

And then there's Rudy temperment and retaliatory nature:

The two hour season finale of "24" is tonight. I've mentioned before that I only began watching this season, but I got hooked pretty quickly. Media reports are that viewership is down, perhaps because it's been more relationship oriented and less action packed this season. There are also rumors that next season, the show won't feature CTU as it has in the past.

There's also been a lot of attention to the show's right wing creator and executive producer, Joel Surnow.

There's still plenty of violence, some torture, mostly under the ticking time bomb theory, and the villians are Muslim, Russian or Chinese.

I finished watching season five a few weeks ago, and now have season four on my iPod to watch while on the treadmill at the gym, it's perfect for keeping the heart rate up and making 45 minutes go by really quickly.

So, who's watching the finale? Has the show reached a dead end? Is it a wing show that endorses torture or just entertainment?

Update: If you missed it, here's a recap.

I criticized the House Iraq Supplemental funding bill because I knew this day would come:

In grudging concessions to President Bush, Democrats intend to draft an Iraq war-funding bill without a timeline for the withdrawal of U.S. troops and shorn of billions of dollars in spending on domestic programs, officials said Monday. While details remain subject to change, the measure is designed to close the books by Friday on a bruising veto fight between Bush and the Democratic-controlled Congress over the war. It would provide funds for military operations in Iraq through Sept. 30, the end of the fiscal year.

For all the "pragmatists" at Move On, and in the Netroots, you must NOW recognize the total miscalculation you made in March. And you must learn from your mistake. Forget benchmarks, authorizations and timelines.

We must ALL press for an end date certain for the funding of this Debacle. We must insist that NO BILL be passed funding the Iraq Debacle after a date certain. We must insist on the Reid-Feingold framework. The rest is not only a waste of time, but, as the House Supplemental efforts that started this mess, harmful.

This is about the scariest article I have read in a while.

It begins with Jerry Falwell and his Liberty University dream of "training a new generation of lawyers, judges, educators, policymakers and world leaders in law from the perspective of an explicitly Christian worldview."

Then it lists the other law schools in the mold. The number is growing. Check out the quotes from the students.

Matthew Krause, among Liberty's first law graduates, is one of them. "I think we've complained too long about the destruction of our culture without taking any affirmative steps to remedy it," said the lanky, 26-year-old Texan. "We don't want abortion, but what are we doing about it? Let's get into the courts and find a way to combat that. Same-sex marriage we don't feel is right or a good thing for the culture. How are we going to stop that? You have to do that through the legal processes. Then, at the same time, vote in politicians who share those ideas and beliefs."

These schools exist to teach the students how to circumvent the constitution, eliminate the separation of church and state and deprive all of us of constitutional rights.

Another student says:

In urging the Congress to renew a voucher program for DC, Fred Hiatt writes:

If it were up to the children and their parents, there'd be no question that the District's five-year experiment with school vouchers would be renewed for an additional five years or more.

But when it comes to the Iraq Debacle, Fred Hiatt urges the Bush Administration to ignore the wishes of the American People:

It's tempting to say that if it was wrong to go in, it must be wrong to stay in. . . . Walking away is likely to make a bad situation worse. A patient, sustained U.S. commitment, with gradually diminishing military forces, could still help Iraq to move in the right direction.

The overwhelming wishes of the American People do not matter to Fred Hiatt when it comes to Iraq. Hypocrite.

WH Spokesman Tony Fratto said:

As for no-confidence votes, maybe senators need a refresher course on American civics. . . . What I mean is I think you find no-confidence votes in parliamentary systems, not the American system of government.

Very true. Our system of government provides for a different mechanism:

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

Speaking only for me, I agree with the White House that impeachment of Alberto Gonzales is the proper course.

Time critic Richard Schickel wrote:

Let me put this bluntly, in language even a busy blogger can understand: Criticism — and its humble cousin, reviewing — is not a democratic activity. It is, or should be, an elite enterprise, ideally undertaken by individuals who bring something to the party beyond their hasty, instinctive opinions of a book (or any other cultural object). It is work that requires disciplined taste, historical and theoretical knowledge and a fairly deep sense of the author's (or filmmaker's or painter's) entire body of work, among other qualities.

Does this requirement apply to Critcis writing about other subjects, like say, blogging? For Schickel clealry knows nothing about blogging. He writes:

D.J. Waldie, among the finest of our part-time scriveners, in effect said "fine." But remember, he added, blogging is a form of speech, not of writing. I thought it was a wonderful point. The act of writing for print, with its implication of permanence, concentrates the mind most wonderfully. It imposes on writer and reader a sense of responsibility that mere yammering does not. It is the difference between cocktail-party chat and logically reasoned discourse that sits still on a page, inviting serious engagement.

I take it Mr. Schickel has never heard of teh Google? The idea that dead tree versions imply permanence whereas online versions, which truly are accesible for years on end, are not, tells you that Mr. Schickel is lacking in the credentials, knowledge and seriousness about blogging to be a reviewer or critic of it.

Senator Arlen Specter predicts Alberto Gonzales will resign as Attorney General before the "no confidence" vote.

The New York Times in an editorial today explains why the scandal matters.

One question, though. I reported here in February, via the Washington Post, that Tim Griffin, the acting U.S. Attorney for Arkansas, named to replace Bud Griffin, said he would decline the permanent appointment. So why does the Times say:

As a result of the purge, Tim Griffin, a Republican operative and Karl Rove protégé, was installed as the top federal prosecutor in eastern Arkansas. Rachel Paulose, a 33-year-old Republican activist with thin prosecutorial experience, was assigned to Minnesota. If either indicted a prominent Democrat tomorrow, everyone would believe it was a political hit.

Griffin appears to be a lame duck.

As for Paulose, the stated problems with her are her management style, probably caused by her relative youth as opposed to inexperience. To be fair, many U.S. Attorneys don't have prosecutorial experience as the job is a political plum. They aren't appointed because they have crackerjack conviction rates. They are appointed because they've been recommended to their state's senators, usually as a result of political clout or efforts.

The issue is that once installed in the job, they are supposed to be apolitical in the way they mete out justice. So I think the Times' analogy is off in that respect.