Tuesday, September 26, 2006


Apparently torture and wiretapping aren't enough to quench Republican thirst:
...in recent days the Bush administration and its House allies successfully pressed for a less restrictive description of how the government could designate civilians as "unlawful enemy combatants," the sources said yesterday. [...]

The government has maintained since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks that, based on its reading of the laws of war, anyone it labels an unlawful enemy combatant can be held indefinitely at military or CIA prisons. But Congress has not yet expressed its view on who is an unlawful combatant, and the Supreme Court has not ruled directly on the matter.

As a result, human rights experts expressed concern yesterday that the language in the new provision would be a precedent-setting congressional endorsement for the indefinite detention of anyone who, as the bill states, "has engaged in hostilities or who has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States" or its military allies.

The definition applies to foreigners living inside or outside the United States and does not rule out the possibility of designating a U.S. citizen as an unlawful combatant.
"Supported hostilities" cuts a wide and extraordinarily vague swath. So, basically, any kid wearing a "BUSH TERRORIST" t-shirt will be entitled to a taxpayer-funded one-way ticket to Gitmo.

My God, do these idiots have thin skin. Even if they had any real credibility or success in capturing and trying terrorists such proposals would ordinarily receive thorough debate and certain defeat.

Even Daddy's lawyer doesn't like it: "Kenneth W. Starr, a solicitor general under President George H.W. Bush, said in a letter to Specter that he concerned the legislation 'may go too far in limiting habeas corpus relief.'" Yes, that Kenneth Starr.

It's not as if national security or existing laws were remotely relevant. It's CYA time at the White House and there's work to be done.

The real threats they ignore, the fake threats they embroider, and nonexistent threats get full funding. And dissent — embodied in the Cindy Sheehans and Hugo Chavezes who are the real target of the new language in this bill — is the one thing they cannot tolerate because it exposes them as the frauds they are.

No comments: