Did I miss the story about all political prisoners being released from prisons in dictatorships around the world? Has torture come to an end on the planet?

If not, then how to explain Amnesty International’s new-found preoccupation? Remind me of their priorities next time they send me a fund-raising letter.

[Update on Tuesday morning]

In comments, Derek Lyons writes:

…if any of you had actually paid any attention to AI over the years, you’d know well that the US isn’t a ‘new found obsession’, nor is their sole focus…

…If Rand actually bothered to read the article he linked to, he’d find the report was issued by AI-USA, not AI. I myself find it unsurprising that a ‘local’ group concentrates on ‘local’ issues.

I must have missed the part where I said the US was a “new-found obsession”, Derek. I was referring to racial profiling, not the US. I know that AI has long considered the US to be the major human rights violator on the planet.

The point isn’t about it being a “local issue.” It is about dealing with trivia when there probably are people actually unjustly in prison, even in this nation. Why don’t they do something about the prison rape problem, which would be more in line with their original charter? I see this as mission creep to justify their existence and fund raising.

The “Assault Weapons” Ban is no more, as of a few hours ago.

It did have one salutory effect, though–it helped knock the Democrats out of power in Congress for the first time in four decades. One of the few good things that Bill Clinton actually did for the country.

Would that all of our laws had sunset clauses.

[Update at 10 AM EDT[

It’s official.

That’s what this should be. Unfortunately, there are too many people determined to go down with the Kerry/Rather Swift Boat to allow it to be.

Also reader Mike Puckett points out that the reward for the ability to reproduce these documents with equipment available in that era (let alone likely to be found in a National Guard office and usable by an officer) is now up to over seventeen thousand dollars. Come on, “Hunter“, it’s easy money, right?

At least for me.

It started on Friday as a story about whether or not the memos were forged. That part didn’t last very long, as it quickly became clear to all but the koolaid drinkers that they were. Ignoring the next question of whodunnit, it has now evolved into something much more fascinating–just how far in the tank will some people (particularly some people who are long-time anchors for a major network news organization) go to continue, absurdly, to defend the authenticity of the documents?

Dan, of course, now has two motives to try to defend his story–to continue his original goal of damaging (hopefully fatally) the president’s chances for reelection, but now also to maintain whatever vestiges of respect for him exist among the American public, too many of whom have taken him too seriously for too long. As others have pointed out, the demographic that pays any attention to him is dying off, and younger people are getting their news from cable and the net, so perhaps he feels he has little to lose at this point, and still hopes to convince enough simpletons that there really is substance to his new take on the “Bush AWOL” story.

“Hindrocket” over at Powerline makes an interesting, and dismaying analogy of CBS and other partisan news organizations as suicide bombers. There used to be a time when, regardless of how clearly biased people like Dan Rather were, we could count on some sense of self-preservation on their part to keep them ultimately in line. This episode makes him (and me) wonder if that is no longer the case, with a number of disturbing implications.

Just as our newfound knowledge that some people were willing to kill themselves in order to kill us led us to have to change our tactics in airport and other security, the thought that some news organizations are willing to destroy their credibility in pursuit of their political objectives should cause us to rethink our relationship with them as well.