in your name

http://www.wpr.org/hereonearth/archive_100217k.cfm

do not question why

see

http://balkin.blogspot.com/2010/02/justice-department-will-not-punish-yoo.html

and

http://insideoutthebeltway.blogspot.com/2010/02/heads-i-win-tales-you-lose.html

and

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/afghanistan/article7061069.ece

The following seven paragraphs have been redacted

[It was reported that a new series of interviews was conducted by the United States authorities prior to 17 May 2001 as part of a new strategy designed by an expert interviewer.

v) It was reported that at some stage during that further interview process by the United States authorities, BM had been intentionally subjected to continuous sleep deprivation. The effects of the sleep deprivation were carefully observed.

vi) It was reported that combined with the sleep deprivation, threats and inducements were made to him. His fears of being removed from United States custody and “disappearing” were played upon.

vii) It was reported that the stress brought about by these deliberate tactics was increased by him being shackled in his interviews

viii) It was clear not only from the reports of the content of the interviews but also from the report that he was being kept under self-harm observation, that the inter views were having a marked effect upon him and causing him significant mental stress and suffering.

ix) We regret to have to conclude that the reports provide to the SyS made clear to anyone reading them that BM was being subjected to the treatment that we have described and the effect upon him of that intentional treatment.

x) The treatment reported, if had been administered on behalf of the United Kingdom, would clearly have been in breach of the undertakings given by the United Kingdom in 1972. Although it is not necessary for us to categorise the treatment reported, it could readily be contended to be at the very least cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment by the United States authorities]"

http://www.fco.gov.uk/en/news/latest-news/?view=News&id=21722320

from

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article7021603.ece

imagine

your representative was one of the 67% of republicans who almost created a constitutional crisis by voting yes on the "Act for the relief of the parents of Theresa Marie Schiavo" (Conyers voted no, Kucinich, Paul didn't vote)

your representative was one of the 90% of republicans who wanted to restrict your first amendment speech rights by voting yes on the "Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States authorizing the Congress to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States" (Conyers, Kucinich, Paul voted no)

your representative was one of the 92% of republicans who wanted to restrict your fourth amendment privacy rights by voting yes on the "USA PATRIOT and Terrorism Prevention Reauthorization Act" (Conyers, Kucinich, Paul voted no)

your representative was one of the 87% of republicans who wanted to extend the wrongs of NAFTA by voting yes on the "Dominican Republic-Central America-United States Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act" (Conyers, Kucinich, Paul voted no)

your representative was one of the 92% of republicans who wanted to declare a belligerence backed up by other people's sons and daughters by voting yes on the "Declaring that the United States will prevail in the Global War on Terror, the struggle to protect freedom from the terrorist adversary" (Conyers, Kucinich, Paul voted no)

your representative was one of the 94% of republicans who wanted to remove your habeas corpus rights by voting yes on the "Military Commissions Act" (Conyers, Kucinich, Paul voted no)

your representative was one of the 96% of republicans who wanted to fund unlimited wars not bound by any conditions by voting yes on the "Making emergency supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2007" (Conyers, Kucinich, Paul voted no)

your representative was one of the 92% of republicans who wanted to restrict your fourth amendment privacy rights even more by voting yes on the "Protect America Act" (Conyers, Kucinich, voted no, Paul didn't vote)

your representative was one of the 88% of republicans who wanted to extend the wrongs of NAFTA and CAFTA by voting yes on the "United States-Peru Trade Promotion Agreement" (Conyers, Kucinich, voted no, Paul didn't vote)

your representative was one of the 94% of republicans who wanted to restrict your fourth amendment privacy rights even more by voting yes on the "FISA Amendments Act of 2008" (Conyers, Kucinich, voted no, Paul didn't vote)

your representative was one of the 46% of republicans who wanted to have banks that were to big to fail get bigger by voting yes on the "Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008" (Conyers, Kucinich, Paul voted no, the republicans weren't wrong on everything, just most things)

but, your democratic representative voted yes on the same votes and others like them

your representative was one of the people trying to stop real reform to the biggest financial crisis to this this country in 80 years

no one else ran to primary the incumbent

i'd image that you'd create this graphic: