change (in specifics)

NYT: military commission system (MCS) prepares to charge 6 Guantánamo detainees for crimes related to Sept 11 attacks, one of whom was subjected to waterboarding. Actual charges have not been announced.
[please refer to Kafka's unfortunately relevant depiction]
AP: MCS slowed down by objections to secret evidence
"The law authorizing the war-crimes tribunals allows the use of classified evidence, and prosecutors say they fulfill their obligation to share it with the other side. But some defense attorneys say the government uses too narrow an interpretation of what information is relevant and should be provided to the defense." [again, please see Kafka]
Slate: torture's not legal? ok, waterboarding isn't torture. wait, yes it is. but it's legal now.
"This is not simply the theory of a unitary executive at work; this isn't the notion that the president makes the law, and acts of Congress are legal elevator music. This vision of executive power is that the law not only emanates from the president but also ebbs and flows with his hunches, hopes, and speculations, on a moment-to-moment basis. What we are hearing now from senior Bush administration officials is that if the president thinks someone looks kinda like a terrorist and the information sought from him seems kinda worth getting, it will be legal to torture him. And it's legal no matter who justified it, regardless of the supporting legal doctrine, because, well, the president just had a feeling that the information would prove valuable."

Foreign Affairs: all of the above central to change in 2009.
"To build a better, freer world, we must first behave in ways that reflect the decency and aspirations of the American people. This means ending the practices of shipping away prisoners in the dead of night to be tortured in far-off countries, of detaining thousands without charge or trial, of maintaining a network of secret prisons to jail people beyond the reach of the law."
BG: Q&A with Obama on these issues: see especially Qs 5,7,8,9,10
BG: and Clinton too

NYT: SecDef Gates says Europeans are resisting stepping up NATO commitments because they're angry about Iraq, "confusing" it with the war in Afghanistan
"'Many of them, I think, have a problem with our involvement in Iraq, and project that to Afghanistan, and do not understand the very different — for them — the very different kind of threat.'"
Slate: the alliance wasn't sustainable from the beginning
"In early 2006, NATO made plans to relieve the United States of command over operations in Afghanistan. The mission was seen as vital, above all, to NATO. It was a test of whether, in the post-Cold War era, the alliance had any role to play as a unified expeditionary force. To get all the nations involved, "caveats" were negotiated. Some nations would send troops, but only if they didn't have to fight; others would fight, but not at night; and so forth. Troops under NATO command, in general, could engage in "proactive self-defense," a deliberately vague term that permitted commanders to fire when fired upon and go after insurgents if they were spotted nearby. But they could not initiate offensive operations. (For that reason, the United States would keep 13,000 troops, mainly airmen, under its own command—in addition to the 7,000 it was placing under NATO's—so that somebody could continue to go after Taliban forces on the Pakistan border.)"

NYT: Dick wants his right to shoot friends in the face protected in the District

NYT: Pakistan People's Party disputes Scotland Yard's report on Bhutto's death

NYT: progress made on peace talks in Kenya
"The opposition has agreed to recognize Mr. Kibaki as the president and drop its demand for a new election, the person said, and the president’s negotiators have reciprocated by talking of a 'broad-based government.'"
Slate: background on Kikuyus and resentment towards them

NYT: Venezuelans growing restless with Chávez
"'I cannot find beans, rice, coffee or milk,' said Mirna de Campos, 56, a nurse’s assistant who lives in the gritty district of Los Teques outside Caracas. 'What there is to find is whiskey — lots of it.' The gulf between revolutionary rhetoric and the skewed availability of imported luxury items, many of which are consumed by a new elite aligned with Mr. Chávez’s government, known as the “Bolivarian bourgeoisie,” has led to even wider questioning of the priorities of his political movement."

McSweeney's: Tintin in the 21st century