War is not something we talk about much here. But we do have our opinions on it and are grateful for those who do write about it. In some cases, the writings help us to form and frame our opinions--in other instances, they cement them.

The blogs we like today are Daily Kos on why we should not go to war with Iraq. "If the US attacks Iraq with no justification, it will become an obnoxious, dangerous, belligerant bully. "

We particularly like the comment added to his post by Eric M., "Actually the Democrats could probably slow down the war simply by replacing the euphemistic "military action" with "invasion."

We will adopt his suggestion. The same way years ago we stopped referring to the "Christian Right" and instead nailed them for who they are, the "Radical Right." The religious label is misleading and provides them with unwarranted legitimacy.

Also today, Eric Alterman posted reader comments to his blog from yesterday on the analogy between the Vietnam War and the proposed current invasion of Iraq. Here are the two that resonated most with us:

"Just remember war is a old man’s game where young men die." and

"My son will not go to fight in this... war. If I have to give up everything to protect him then I will do so."

Us too.

It's great when we can log onto a blogger's page and actually learn something and be moved by it at the same time. That happened to us today.

Eric Alterman reminds us that tomorrow, Aug. 7, is the 38th anniversary of the passage of the ”Gulf of Tonkin Resolution.” The resolution engendered our full-scale entry into the Vietnam War. Yet there is new information from the LBJ library tapes that the incident that sparked the resolution never happened.

Alterman has been writing a book on presidential lying, due out next year, and has extensively researched the resolution and the cost of the Vietnam War to our country in terms of dollars, lives, and societal divisiveness.

Eric's sobering remarks are particularly deserving of reflection now as Congress and the President appear on the brink of causing us to enter another war.

Thanks, Eric.

Three dozen more terrorist suspects were flown yesterday to Guantanamo Bay, filling the permanent cells there to near capacity, the Pentagon has said.

Coming from a variety of countries, the men are being held as "enemy combatants" so they can be interrogated about planned terrorist attacks.

Closer to home, as the New York Times opines today, it's time to end the secret detentions.

While the Government has released the names of those being held who are charged with federal crimes, it has yet to disclose the names of those being held on immigration charges or as material witnesses.

In ruling last week that the Government must disclose the names of detainees, Judge Kessler noted that secret arrests of this type are "odious to a democratic society."

We agree with the Times: "The Justice Department should comply with her order. If it appeals, her decision should be affirmed."

In a report released today, the Inspector General of the Justice Department reveals that the FBI, INS, Other Agencies Report 775 Missing Weapons over the past two years.

Not only that, but 400 computers are missing or have been stolen. According to investigators, "some of the computers could have been used to store sensitive law enforcement information that could have jeopardized investigations if divulged. "

The Inspector General's report chalks it up to lax "management control" problems and calls on the Department of Justice for more oversight.

Sounds to us like a bureaucratic response to a far more systemic problem.

The FBI is investigating leaks of classified information pertaining to September 11. Among those being investigated are members of the House and Senate Intelligence Committees. The FBI has asked many of the lawmakers to take polygraphs. Most have refused.

Their reasons: "Most of the lawmakers have told the FBI they would refuse a polygraph, citing the constitutional separation of powers between the legislative and executive branches of government and the unreliability of the exam."

UPS worker Butch Traylor tells why he's opposed to Operation Snoops in This Delivery Guy Won't Spy.

"I've always felt it is just a little un-American to pay too much attention to what my customers are doing or receiving. I worry about whose definition of "suspicious" is going to be used.

Now I see that the same people who last summer thwarted an F.B.I. field office investigation of Zacarias Moussaoui, the alleged 20th hijacker in the Sept. 11 attack, want to enlist every goober who installs phone lines or delivers pizza to be the next Ace Ventura terrorist detective.

It bothers me that those charged with defending our freedom would so cavalierly foster such an atmosphere of fear and suspicion. It bothers me to think that my postman might be paying more attention to where my mail is coming from than to where it's supposed to go"

'Homeland Secrecy', today's lead editorial in the San Francisco Chronicle rails at the secrecy involved in the proposed Department of Homeland Security. In particular,

"... its dreams may turn out to be our nightmares. The president, for example, wants to exempt the new agency from the Freedom of Information Act and to eliminate all whistle-blower protections for employees. "

"....Any employee who experiences retaliation must first go through an arduous administration process before seeking a trial in one specific Washington court that has, in 74 out of 75 cases, ruled against federal whistle-blowers. In contrast, Congress just gave corporate whistle-blowers a quick route to a speedy jury trial."

We particularly agree with the Chronicle's conclusion:

"We must preserve public accountability and civil liberties. Anything less will make us less free, but not more secure. "

Circling the Legal Wagons in today's Los Angeles Times explains why so many criminal defense lawyers are supporting Lynne Stewart, the 62 year old New York lawyer whose conversations with her client, the blind Sheik Abdel Rahman, serving a 65 year sentence for conspiring to blow up New York landmarks, were recorded by prison officials during their attorney-client visits.

Stewart has been charged with conspiring to aid terrorists, lying and breaking an agreement with the Bureau of Prisons.

She is being represented by legendary lawyer and law school dean Michael Tigar, who recently defended Terry Nichols in the Oklahoma City Bombing trial.

Monitoring attorney-client conversations in jail is one of the unacceptable practices instituted by Ashcroft after September 11. Here's all the reasons why.

Attorney General John Ashcroft is scheduled to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee today, his first such appearance since December.

A number of organizations, including the National Associaton of Criminal Defense Lawyers have issued a joint statement in hopes of encouraging close questioning of Ashcroft regarding the various tactics employed and powers assumed in the war against terrorism.

Kate Martin, co-author of Just the Facts, Mr. Ashcroft , an op-ed piece in today's Washington Post, helped draft the statement.

Among the principles addressed in the Statement are:

"Individuals should not be targeted for investigation or detention because of their race, religion, ethnic background or appearance, including Arab Americans, Muslims, or immigrants in general.

Immigration and other laws should not be selectively enforced based on race, religion, or ethnic background.

Secret arrests and secret detentions are unconstitutional and undemocratic.

Individuals seized in the United States should not be detained unless they are charged with either criminal or immigration violations.

Individuals charged with crimes or immigration violations should not be arbitrarily detained before trial on such charges.

Individuals should not be confined under abusive or unnecessarily restrictive conditions.

All persons have a right to effective assistance of counsel. There should be no interference with the attorney-client privilege.

Secret evidence should not be used to deprive individuals of their liberty or to try them for violations of criminal or immigration laws.

Military commissions should not be used to try civilians arrested in the United States.

The First Amendment protects the rights of peaceful dissent, free exercise of religion, and freedom of association. The government should not use its law enforcement powers to disrupt lawful political or religious activities, nor should it conduct investigations on individuals or groups based on their lawful religious or political speech or associations.

Secret searches and seizures, as well as secret wiretaps without necessary safeguards, are unconstitutional.

Governmental compilation of databases on individuals can pose severe dangers to freedoms of association, religion, and speech and the right to privacy. The government should not compile databases on individuals without procedures to protect against labeling them as suspected terrorists on the basis of their lawful religious or political activities, associations, or race, religion or ethnic background.

Due process protections must apply to any closure or wholesale seizure of the assets of charitable or religious organizations. "

The joint statement concludes with:

"We express our deep concern regarding the assumption of new powers by the executive branch that pose risks to human rights and civil liberties, particularly when such powers have not been authorized by the Congress and there has been no public debate concerning them."

Yesterday we criticized the Administration's opposition to an amendment (called a protocol) to the International Convention Against Torture.

The objective of the protocol is "to establish a system of regular visits undertaken by independent and national bodies to places where people are deprived of their liberty, in order to prevent torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment and punishment."

The protocol to the treaty passed late Wednesday by a vote of 35-8 with 10 abstentions in the U.N. Economic and Social Council. The United States abstained.

Allies of the U.S. such as Denmark and Costa Rica took us to task for seeking to reopen ten years of negotiations and further stall passage of the measure. Some said reopening the negotiations would kill the measure.

Was the protocol really necessary? It's a necessary start, for sure. Here's a stat: "People were tortured or ill-treated by authorities in 111 countries last year, according to an Amnesty International report."

Who else joined in our position? Nigeria and Iran (both accused of torture themselves) Japan, China, Cuba, Cyprus, India, Pakistan and Egypt.

This really has us angry today.

The Bush administration is fighting an amendment to the International Convention Against Torture that would send out inspectors to ensure that countries are not torturing prisoners.

A vote is scheduled today in the UN Economic and Social Council, the UN's governing body for human rights, on a proposal that has been ten years in the making and is supported by dozens of countries. If approved, it moves to the full U.N. General Assembly for a vote in September.

Now, at the last minute, the U.S. is making a counter-proposal, which is likely either to kill the measure or postpone it for several years.

What reason does the Administration give? Prison visits by an international body would be "too instrusive."

Who else is opposed to the treaty amendment? No suprise here... Iran, Cuba, India and China, all of which have been singled out for prisoner abuse.

Excuse us, but what exactly are we hiding down in Guantanamo Bay?

INS says foreigners must report changing their address within ten days or risk fines, jail and deportation.

It's a 50 year old law that has rarely been enforced but applies to all residents here legally who are not citizens--all ten million plus of them over the age of 14.

Considering the INS has routinely been accused of losing paperwork, we wonder who is going to process all these change of address forms.

It's an oppressive requirement likely to tear more families apart, like that of Thar Abdeljabera who we told you about in Fairness Be Damned

Denyse Sabagh, an immigration lawyer in Washington, says it best in an LA Times article today: "To put somebody in deportation proceedings for failing to report a change of address is like using a nuclear bomb to kill a fly."